looking for best isolation platform for CD player

Machina Dynamica Nimbus.

I have heard the Nimbus against the Neuance. Forget the Nimbus!

I don't want to upset ANYONE, but I can tell all of you out there who are reasonably handy with tools how to build an excellent device for isolation. Its theory runs contrary to Tom's sincere advice, but, in my experience it works well. It works at the root level, on the principal that the sum of the mass of the device, is greater than the amount of energy that one can transfer into it. The energy, within, say a preamp, converts from Kinetic to Potential energy. There is no device that I am aware of which can transfer 100% as someone pointed out, but this will improve the sound of preamps, cd players, and amps on several levels. The lead within it acts to shield RFI, which helps too. It contains lead shot, (not good healthwise) and a sorbothane like material, which when melted gives off noxious fumes, so making it is a bit of an issue, but overall simple. Also, hardwood, a couple of pieces of plywood, and finally teflon feet If you would like to know how to: just email me I am glad to share. It does really work. It is also about 80 to 100#'s, and very unweildy. This is meant to be helpful, and not in any way disparaging of anyone else's thoughts or ideas.
Thanks and good listening.
Larry R. Staples

Sean or anyone, what do you think about magnetic levitation feet? So the the component is suspended with no contact at all?
Rollerblocks seem to be good at both isolation and vibration transmission.

What i find interesting is that Tom and Warren seem adamant in their support for their beliefs. Nothing wrong with that and i agree that products and companies that are well designed and have been a pleasure to work with deserve support and recognition. I do think that there is a problem in that both of these folks ( Tom moreso than Warren ) tend to disregard other approaches, even if they know nothing about them. They do this even though some of those other approaches ARE taking measurements and have verifiable proof that their design works AND works quite efficiently.

As a side note, a device that reduces measured vibration does so on a whole, not just on the initial point of excitation. This means that both initial excitation and ringing are reduced on a well designed product. As such, a device that suffers from "stored energy" may reduce the initial amplitude of resonance but it does so by spreading the energy out over a wider period of time / phase. This is not an improvement so much as it is a lateral or even possibly backwards move. The end result would be dulled transients ( lack of dynamic impact ) and a reduction in overall clarity and definition (due to un-natural decay characteristics as a result of massive ringing ). This is exactly what i experienced with the MGD Deluxe Just-A-Rack.

With the above in mind, i think that most "damping" or "isolation" devices on the market fall into the category that Tom and Warren are "complaining" about. Not only are most of them under-designed on the whole, they are not optimized for any specific component or situation. Given that Joe's approach seems to be relatively well thought out AND optimized for each component that it is used with, it seems only natural to achieve better results with it than with mass produced "generic" devices trying to achieve similar results. I don't think that anyone here doubts that a "one size fits all" type of device will typically be "slaughtered" by a custom built piece that is quite specific to the situation at hand.

Other than that, i have to admit that i have not personally used these devices and have no first hand experience with them. I am basing my thoughts on science being applied to the art of resonance control. Sean
>

PS... I just picked up an accelerometer today and hope to do some testing in the near future.