sistrum vs neuance

If there is a point of concensus on this issue, it must rest in the following question: why do component manufacturers design their products so that they are audibly impacted by such devices?

In other words: how hard is it to design a good chassis?

The only answer I can think of is that the majority of their market does not hear the difference proper chassis vibration management offers the component, or is unwilling to pay for it in the standard product. Therefore, we (who can hear the difference) are left to stumble through these ad-hoc solutions, which can be quite frustrating.

As you no doubt have gathered, '84' there are passionate camps on both sides, brought on - no doubt - by the radically different approaches these "systems" take. They really are apples and oranges.

And everone knows oranges are better than apples....

Sorry, couldn't resist :-)

Best,

The best way to know is to try both and compare the results.

Return the one you don't want.

Apples and oranges?

Last month I had a good laugh when I was in Puerto Vallarta and the breakfast menu listed Apples and bananas as exotic fruits while mangos, papayas and guava were just the regular fare.

Nothing regular about the local women there. Wow!

Tom the results are only as good as the understanding of the setup and the devices involved....the other Tom

Theaudiotweak, the primary obstacle I see in the Sistrum method is the necessity to use the system in it's entirety. At least this is my understanding. If I'm mistaken, please feel free to correct me. If my observation is true, then the issues are the overall investment required to obtain the highest performance level, and the restrictive nature of the Sistrum's ability to co-habitate with one's existing rack or cabinet. The lack of these requirements make the Neuance shelves a more cost effective approach for some people. This, of course, has no relation to the argument over which product "sounds best", but it's a valid concern, in my opinion.