How important is the rack you use for your components

In most cases, not terribly, unless the components on it are VERY poorly designed.  For a turntable, on the other hand, pretty darned important.

If you are going to worry about the effect of small vibrations on electronics, and i wouldn't, you should be even more worried about where you place whatever rack you use. Is it directly impacted by speakers' bass? Your dishwasher?  The dog wrestling with your son? By the way, who bit who?

I digress.

Many people have a "wall-o-audio" with speakers on the sides and a stack of stuff between them.  I don't. I do have my amp(s) between them, on solid stone slabs (bunch of reasons, few having to do with sound).  On the other hand, my TT, CD transport, DAC, preamp and tuner - all of which one could argue are affected by vibrations, are way on the other end of the room, with long interconnect cables. if i'm not testing stuff (which is rare) they are balanced.  This has a very large effect on vibrations - regardless of whether you decide that effect is audible.  You might also place them on a solid (brick, stone) floor rather than a suspended wooden one. I don;t have that option.

In the end I'd put money into a better pair of speakers, DAC, or TT/tonearm/cart/amp/ preamp before I'd put it into cabinetry - unless you are doing it for aesthetic or convenience reasons.  The results will simply be more compelling, unless you have that elusive "perfect" system. In that case, please invite me over.

I'll bring good wine, promise. 

G

I know you will point to plenty of satisfied customers, and that the efficacy of these tweaks can be experienced by anyone, and that many will testify to the effects.

Unfortunately, exactly the same level of anecdotal “evidence” is promulgated by every perveyer of dubious phenomena, from people selling crystals, magnets and homeopathy medical treatments to miracle producing swamis in India, to bufonted faith healers chanting in tongues and waving their jackets to have supernatural effect on an audience. They all share a common trait: far out claims unsubstantiated by any reliable science, and a reliance on subjective affirmation (and all....ALL...of them will point to converted skeptics “I was a skeptic and never would have believed it, until I experienced it myself!”).

The acoustic system resonators come off as the audio equivalent of selling ground rino horns for impotence: wild claims, add copy clearly playing on audiophile gullibility, with no scientifically established basis for the claims. (And I followed the controversy on those things). (Also if we want to exchange anecdotal experience, a local dealer became enamoured of the ASR products, demoed them a couple times for me and I never heard a bit of difference with them in or out of the systems. Though I don’t necessarily grant my experience any more credence in disproving their effects than I grant your experience in ratifying the claims of that company).

The thing is when someone thinks up a hypothesis that sounds even vaguely plausible (at least to themselves and to some others), and then this phenomenon is tests for via subjective methods that have no good controls for weeding out error and human bias, then virtually any wild idea can pass this form of test. So long as people believe it happens. This is why the world is utterly suffused by a head spinning array of alternate reality claims for any number of contradictory phenomena. (It’s why things like Mesmerism managed to sweep through Europe, among countless other examples).

I understand why we want to rely upon our personal experience. It’s our main way of navigating the world. Unfortunately the long, hard-won lessons of science has told us how good we are at fooling ourselves and just how rigorous we will want to be in vetting claims if we want to escape the flourishing of monsters arising from our powers of imagination.

I love, love, love high end audio and have for much of my 54 years. But I share some of J. Gordon Holt’s dispair about the hobby from this interview:

https://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/index.html

Money quote:

• As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal. [This refusal] is a source of endless derisive amusement among rational people and of perpetual embarrassment for me,
  

I personally use blind testing here and there to determine audible differences especially if what I’m hearing is inconsistent with any robust technical explanation. For instance, I could have sworn to anyone the sound of my system changed when I simply switched my streaming server from iTunes to a raspberry pi server. But as this made little technical sense (yes, I have read much of the tweakery on computer audiophile sites), I did a blind shoot out and it turned out I could tell no reliable difference once I didn’t know which was playing.
That allowed my mind to settle on the issue and whaddya know? I no longer perceive any such change in my system.
Same thing happened when I blind tested very highly lauded AC cables (even though in sighted tests I thought I heard a difference), same with things like Black Diamond racing cones (they appeared to alter the sound of my CD player sighted, but when a pal helped me blind test I could identify no difference when the cones were used or not). These are the things I learned when I really actually relied on what I could hear.

Dave,

If an audio rack in fact produced audibly different effects from, say, a CD player or pre-amp, server etc, especially of the nature so often described by my fellow audiophiles “deeper tighter bass, greater dynamics, smoother highs” etc, those should be measurable differences at the output end of the system.

But we virtually never get any such repeatable measurements in support of these claims - only anecdote piled upon anecdote derived from just the listening conditions, like you described, guaranteed to allow for bias effects.

And when there aren’t measurments to back up the claims, instead we’ll get more claims about the imcompleteness of science and “these things we are hearing can’t be measured yet...”

And it should be a red flag that these replies are exactly the same reply every other crackpot at the local Psychic Fair, Alternative Medicine, New Age guru etc gives when their claims don’t go beyond anecdotes.

So, I hope some of my fellow audiophile here will forgive me if I bring with me some well earned skepticism and a desire for our hobby to raise its standards of verification and research.

Prof there have been many companies who had done accelerometer testing of the components on and off of their racks over the years which have demonstrated that these devices do work.

In the case of the resonators, there was a Germany company I think FAST was the distributor who paid for an indepth study of the resonators and their testing showed beyond a shadow of a doubt that the resonators affected a change in the energy spectra of the room.

Science is a wonderful thing, please explain the differences to a gas chromatograph of a bottle of 1954 Chateau Lefeat Roscheld. at $10,000.00 a bottle and a bottle of your favorites whinos $1.99 bottle of ripple.

You and I can easily taste the difference the machines would report water, organic materials, but the difference in the two traces would be probably 99.9 percent identical.

How do you measure a difference in tightness and dynamics, when the apparent differences might not show up in a frequency response curve or an spl meter.

It is the feeling you get when a the product hits you in the right way.

Sceptisim is a good thing, but there are times that you need to let your ears by your guide.

By the scientific explanation a 3 foot power cord that is connected to a house full of Romex shouldn't make a difference but it does.

Dave and Troy\
Audio Doctor NJ

@prof 

Thank you. There are so few of us ...

By way of returning the favour, consider shelving made of Panzerholz ('tankwood' in German; a composite of beech veneer and elastomer), or some acetal copolymers, which are notably lossy transmitters of energy. Although I haven't tried it yet, I plan to test plates made of these two materials, bonded to induce constrained layer damping. They are said to have a very different speed of sound (although I keep meaning to test Panzerholz, I haven't done so yet).

I suggest that you DIY the thing and spend the bucks on something with a mechanism known to physics. A mechanism, as a few here will notice.

Speaking of mechanisms, it all depends on the stability of your listening room floor. Mine is on concrete, over rock, many miles from the nearest railway or freeway or heavy industry. So the issue becomes one of stability, which depends on the moment arm; and walls have really big moment arms.

For the makers of shelves, this is a freebee.

The recent question appears to be; why scientific proof of function is rare or non-existent in the vibration management and equipment racking divisions of the Audio Industry?

The opinions below are based on the studies of vibration management and manufacturing products for the past twenty-plus years involving the High End Audio marketplace. We apologize for the lengthy read as there are many variables involved with no simple answer to this question.

1 High End Audio is a smaller niche industry where the majority of successes and results are based on sonic subjectivity as duly noted on this thread by previous posters.

2 Developing scientific third party testing protocols require substantial amounts of time and financial investments.

3 Strategic business strategies for the majority of parts manufacturers, equipment racking or vibration management companies involved in audio are more focused on marketing and sales in comparison to providing scientific proof of product and/or technology function. Profits generated from sales are generally invested into marketing, advertising expansions or developing additional supportive products.

4 Without unbiased “Third Party Testing”, anyone or any company can create “in house” methods of testing that achieve positive results in favor of their products. This approach is in full representation and used by a host of companies throughout industry.

Example: Devices, testing, storyboarding and results are always controlled by the company who owns or represents the product. Anyone can design a fancy chart, position it on the web, write about it and set up visual experiments that (again) always provide extremely beneficial results for their own innovations and why not?... People appear to substantially believe them. However the reality is these support measures are only elaborate opinions created to sell merchandise, reinforce a methodology and/or increase believability in product function.

5 In audio there are a multitude of companies competing for your business. There are furniture builders, loudspeaker and electronic manufacturers and now even a few cable companies are making footers, imitation parts and/or racks in hopes of attaining a percentage of the pie along with a handful of companies dedicated solely to vibration management.

There are literally hundreds upon hundreds of products to choose from all claiming to be the absolute best in vibration control. Add to that, there are just as many vibration management methodologies as there are parts and products, all of which appear to provide little if any scientific proof of performance and function.

6 Any material of mass or shape placed on top, beneath or inside audio components and loudspeakers will alter the sound of the product so it is very easy to manufacturer a few basic parts and get into the vibration business. This could be one of the many reasons there are so many subjective claims supporting products.  

The majority of equipment rack designs attempt to match the frequency, sound and/or function of the shelf in combination with the component to produce a desired sonic via isolation, absorption, constrained layer damping or a resonance transfer mechanism. Some attempt to use two or three different methodologies in combination where one technical theorem begins to counteract the other and so on. When applications work against each other, a host of even greater variables will result. In essence function becomes more difficult to prove where believability begins to depend more on marketing strengths.  

Another problem arises when components make shelf contact. All components have different footers made of various materials and shapes including aftermarket designs that perform in many different ways (noting differences in sonic characteristics such as attack, sustain and decay). Mixing and matching footers throughout the system can also disrupt the function (mechanism) of the rack design. In our opinion shelf and component matching relative to varying footers is like trying to “hit an impossible moving target”.  

It appears the overall consensus has produced an audio cliché. Combining all those technical approaches, variations of footers, different methodologies including various types of structural flooring has created a term heavily used in today’s market titled “system-dependent” performance. With no scientific proof of product function available, it is our guess that this concept is the best and easiest way for companies to bypass the expense of defining and proving function via science.

Example: If we stated there is a known Platform available that is Not system, room nor floor born dependent for function and vibrates by design, what would be the majority of responses? My guess is - “impossible” or “prove it”!

Without a physical audition in your home, what other proof is available? Add to that, this type of statement on a forum will lead to further disputes and arguments that will eventually end up at “subjectivity” hence wasting everyone's precious listening time.

7 The public is provided information based on manufacturer’s opinions, theorems and marketing as to how vibration affects sonic performance. Everyone takes their best shot at explaining how their products relate to function. Sooner than later subjectivity steps in and plays the largest role in order to generate interest and sales.

Some listeners rely on researching other sciences that do not relate to audio applications or seek more knowledge from audio forums (Pandora's Box) where most end up forming their own understandings, opinions, analogies and beliefs. Misinformation spreads across forums, picks up momentum and so goes the chain of self education.

Multiple Examples: Reviewers are not interested in the topic or do not wish to take the time to learn more about how resonance relates to audio limiting their abilities for what they do best and that is help educate the public.

We see boundless and detailed information on things like digital jitter, total harmonic distortion, AC fluctuations, styli alignment, signal strength along with the obvious components and loudspeakers yet everything involved in the signal pathway is affected by resonance caused from vibration.

How many people attempt to kill every vibration? That feat is impossible due to the fact that electrical current forms vibration. Vibration forms resonance and migrates across all electronic parts, surfaces and conduits (cables) affecting signal path throughout the system entirety.

How many people attempt to stop their component chassis from vibrating thinking that will make for better sound quality?

How many people use the knock or stomp test (wrapping a knuckle on equipment surfaces or stomping on the floor)? Those types of self induced noise and vibrations never occur during normal listening and audio reproduction so why use this method of testing?

Seismic vibrations from the earth coming up through the flooring then up through the rack moving across the shelf and up into the components limiting your electronics and loudspeakers from good sound appears to be an overwhelming concern for many on this forum yet seismic activity and motion generated from the earth is around us every minute of every day and is inaudible. Unless you have the local train passing by or rush hour traffic during your listening schedule we believe there are more important issues that one might consider investing time, experimentation and money on.

There is little written, understood and what appears to be a lack of concern for airborne resonance generated from loudspeakers that affects everything from the sound and function of the room down to the circuit board itself. Turn up the volume and increase resonance along with interfering energy.

8 Vibration management in audio is extremely young in age. We represent the oldest vibration related product of twenty-seven years that still remains very popular in the marketplace today. Amplifiers and speakers have a fifty years+ jump on vibration control. Evolution is moving forward but everyone could definitely use greater input based on science from all manufacturers.

The greatest unknown and detriment to achieving a higher level of sound reproduction goes unchecked by science and that is resonance formed from vibration.

In our case we developed a single vibration management technology that is scalable. It is proven successful inside electronic and loudspeaker chassis, builds into structural listening environments and recording studios, uses Industry award winning equipment footers and multiple racking designs and successfully adapts to musical instruments.

From the smallest of electronic parts (transistors - resistors, etc.) to structural walls floors and ceilings, this technology can be adapted to other industries outside of audio. Because of these capabilities, we elected to invest in third party testing and chose a respected UL Best Test Center® laboratory. The methods and tests are also corroborated by highly experienced people holding doctoral degrees and various Patents in engineering. The data and results from said tests are based on science (eliminating all subjectivity).

Example: One series of tests will display a significant reduction in operating temperature when our technology is applied to electric motors, transformers and audio amplifiers (both valve and solid state designs) demonstrating how Live-Vibe Technology™ reduces heat via high-speed Resonance Energy Transfer processes. Heat is energy (resonance caused from vibration) that builds up on “all surfaces” establishing inefficiencies in performance and function (per the laws of Coulomb). Applying Live-Vibe Technology results in increasing component operational efficiency extending life expectancy for parts and more importantly, positions our goals which are focused on proving via science this technology conserves energy.

The cool thing about heat reduction is you can personally test ours and other products in your own listening environment using a digital thermometer (not so subjective).

There are a lot more requirements involving third party testing such as; first define all the test scenarios in writing, establish the definition of Control, establish and define the Mechanism, define all the Variables such as room temperature and humidity levels, list all the equipment used in test, document the last date test equipment was calibrated, environmental structure (type of flooring, type of shelving, etc) and the list goes on.

The results from tests such as these are nearly bullet proof and difficult to argue or prove otherwise. On the lighter side, third party testing limits the needs to dispute successes when participating in audio forums  ⌣  hopefully earning greater public acceptance and avoiding the dreaded x-factor known as subjectivity.

In closing: Our goals from investing in third party testing are for the purpose of technology development and expansion...

But we are compelled to ask listeners...

If we provide third party scientific documentation that Live-Vibe Technology is a newfound science in vibration management, would that fact motivate you to pursue an audition of our products (knowing full well we have financial return guarantees on everything we sell in place since 1999)?

or

Would you rely more on published reviews and consumer testaments?

or

Would slick advertisements become more the trigger?

or

Are you less focused on sonic performance and lean more towards cosmetic appearances matching your home environment?

or

Are you going to take your best shot at guessing what to purchase because public comparisons between equipment racks are extremely rare. They take a lot of time and labor unless you are comparing single shelf amplifier or speaker Platforms? Add to that do any carry financial return guarantees?

It is far easier to compare an IC or Power Cable but the chain of command regarding audio system performance demonstrates that equipment support foundations are the second source in line “totally governing” your overall system’s performance and musical sound quality with the structural room environment being the primary. Like it or not, agree or disagree, vibration management via equipment racking is as critical as choosing a new amplifier or speaker system.

or

Possibly your rack despite manufacturer claims is not capable of providing an over the top sonic improvement despite your emotional feelings, listening experience or dedication to your purchase. If you have ever experienced what a superior platform performance delivers... would you know what an over the top sonic produced from a platform sounds like? (Wow, subjective statements are definitely hard to avoid:)

As you can see, despite the costly expense of Third Party Testing there are a few more reasons to consider why vibration management in audio lacks science and proof of function.  

We thank you for your time and hopefully this information assists your understanding.

Robert

Star Sound

Manage vibration by allowing vibration… a new approach to science and the art of sound reproduction. After all music and sound is vibration!