Sistrum or Neuance or...?

Twl said: I think you are reading more into what I wrote than what I intended. I never said that the shape doesn't matter, I only said that it does not act as a mechanical diode.

Sean: If such is the case, energy is transferred equally in both directions up or down a cone. Okay, we'll have to keep that in mind.

Twl: As far as the materials and geometry are concerned, they affect the ability of the Audiopoint to be more effective than a simple foot.

Sean: "More effective" in what way? If they transfer energy equally in both directions, what is taking place here other than some form of "coupling"?

Twl: The material and geometry are designed to reduce Coulomb's Friction(with regard to the resonance characteristics) in the Audiopoints, which allows the Audiopoint to rapidly transfer the resonant energy toward ground without damping. / When using a simple set of Audiopoints ( by themselves ), the point is downward because there is a maximum contact of the top of the audiopoint to the component, and a focal point for energy transfer under the point.

Sean: If the cone is not a mechanical diode, offers no damping and conducts energy equally in both directions in a linear fashion, how is it conducting energy to ground more efficiently than it is from ground to the component? In effect, there is nothing to stop the energy that has accumulated at what you refer to as "ground" from flowing back up into the component? If what you said above is true, mechanical energy would be travelling in both directions in a highly efficient manner.

Twl: When using a simple set of Audiopoints, the point is downward because there is a maximum contact of the top of the audiopoint to the component, and a focal point for energy transfer under the point.

Sean: In effect, you are saying that cones are "polarized" i.e. have specific sides and orientations. From this statment, we can also gather that the flow and conductivity of mechanical energy is manipulated as it traverses through the cone due to the specific shape that has been utilized. If this were not true, there would be no need for a specific orientation.

Since you stated that one side is designed to "collect the energy" due to increased surface area at the point of contact and that the other side is designed to act as a "focal point", that would lead one to believe that there is a difference in conductivity from one direction to the other and vice-versa. Hence, the cone IS acting as a "mechanical diode" based on your own description and suggestion that they need to be oriented in a specific manner. Either that or there is so much "double-speak" going on here that i'm completely confused.

Twl: When using a Sistrum Platform, there are 2 points being used in opposing vertical configuration with a platform sandwiched in-between. The upper points in the upside down cofiguration serve to maximize the contact to the platform, while the lower points serve to drain the resonant energy.

Sean: As we all know, a rack, shelf or "platform" is susceptable to both air-borne and floor-borne vibrations. This point is NOT debatable, at least if someone has one iota of common sense.

Following your description, you have the side of the cone with the most surface area coupled to the platform pointing up. Since the side of the cone that is contacting the support structure is the side that offers the most surface area, wouldn't the energy that is coupled to the larger surface area want to travel from the support structure back into the component? This would especially be true due to having the component resting directly on the point of the cone. If we look back into the text, this is where you stated energy naturally tends to "focus". One would tend to think that focusing the energy INTO the component would be the opposite of what was trying to be achieved after reading all of the Sistrum sales "hoopla".

If the above is NOT true, what "magical" properties have been instilled in the Sistrum platform to keep it from being sensitive to both air-borne and floor-borne vibrations and self oscillation once it is excited?

On the other hand, we have to keep in mind that we've been told that these cones aren't "mechanical diodes" and supposedly transfer energy linearly in both directions. As such, what purpose do these cones serve in this design other than cosmetic purposes?

Twl: Since we have pioneered this concept, designed, tested, and used these products in the field, and we are in the best position to determine what works most effectively with these items.

Sean: From what i can remember, i think that Steve McCormack aka "The Mod Squad" was the first to introduce "cones" to the audio industry. I could be wrong though. On top of that, this claim wreaks of pompousity. It is as if one is saying that nobody can improve upon or refine a design that someone else initially devised. I personally don't buy that as i make my living by proving that idea to be false i.e. improving / revamping what are already existing designs. I will admit that your later statements pertaining to "breakthroughs and improvements to be made in the future" somewhat softens the previous statements though.

I won't go into the rest of Tom's post. Most of it has to do with advertising hype / policy for the company that he represents and is employed by. I'm not interested in any of that, so i won't go there.

To keep things in context, i have NO problems with Tom personally and am not attacking / insulting him. I am simply "arguing a point" and trying to better understand a product that makes phenomenal claims. As i have shown, many of these claims are self-contradictory and / or speaking out of both sides of one mouth as the situation best suits their marketing goals. You can't make a specific claim for a product and then refute it within the same product and not have questions asked. This is not to say that the product doesn't work as claimed, only that if it does, the manufacturer and those selling / representing / using them are not even clear as to how or why it works as it does. From an educated consumer's point of view, this is not very encouraging. Sean
>

I am watching...

I would like to see the data on the linearity of energy transfer in this device. The only way I'm aware of to attempt to selectively choose between the tendency of floorborne vibrational energy to flow into the rack vs. the tendency of component vibrational energy to flow out is to choose materials with selective resonant frequency response. As everyone knows, this produces the colorations commonly associated with cones.

Sean, in the case of the upside down Audiopoint on the Sistrum Platforms, it was decided by the engineers that this was the better orientation for performance. It has been explained to me that the better physical coupling of the upper Audiopoint to the platform was more critical to the performance of the product than having it the other way around.

If you would like to discuss this with the engineering staff, please call Brent Riehl at 1-402-464-4777. He is the inventer of the Audiopoint, graduated near the top of his engineering class a Lehigh University prior to embarking on his lengthy career in audio, and can satisfy any questions you may have regarding the engineering and performance of this product. He is the one that should be discussing this with you for the clearest result.

Flex: you are right on the money. Since one can't "channel" or "couple" ALL of the energy at every frequency universally equally, there will always be "residual energy" at various frequencies left behind. What does the Sistrum do with the "residue"?

This is not to mention that ANY hardened metal in itself is quite resonant and tends to ring once excited, contributing its' own "sonic signature" to the situation. While mass loading the metal by stacking components on top of it will alter the amplitude, center frequency and bandwidth of resonance for the rack / support structure itself, that resonance and mechanical energy is still there and has to be dealt with. This in itself contributes more "residue" to be dealt with.

Given that the component is rigidly coupled to the support structure along with all of the residual energy that it wasn't able to "channel" away to "ground", guess what gets to "absorb" or "deal with" that energy? If you guessed that it was your components, you would be right. In my book, this is where "selective damping" comes into play. If properly applied, coupling and isolation compliment each other, not work against each other. Neither solution ( coupling or isolation on their own ) is an absolute, so you have to combine the best features of each while minimizing their drawbacks if you want to achieve optimum or near optimum performance.

The Sistrum approach seems to forget about all of these factors while bad-mouthing any attempt that doesn't follow their line of "rigid coupling" double-speak. It is one thing to lack consistency in a point of view and not be able to fully explain why you have that specific point of view, but it is another to try to use your own inconsistencies and lack of understanding to your advantage as a weapon against your competitors. If some of you can't tell what is going on, that is just what is happening with this manufacturer.

Once again, please bare in mind that i'm NOT doing this in order to throw my "support" behind Neuance so much as i am trying to point out flaws / hypocrisy in the design and marketing approach taken by Sistrum. I have NO affiliation with Neuance, have never given Ken a penny of my money and never received any "complimentary" or "demo" products from him. To be completely up-front, i do own a Neaunce shelf, but it is still sitting in the same box that it arrived in when i purchased it used several months ago. Given that bit of info, i hope that you can see that this "debate" is more about ideologies and principles than it is actual recommendations or specific products. Sean
>