Question for DIY people: Butcher block shelving??

Gregm,
When I tried a similar project I discussed the results with Ken at Neuance, Arnie (Audiogon founder) and a couple A’gon members privately. It appears that the inner tube does fine at isolation, but the problem with this type of isolation, including air blotters, is the upper shelf is still able to “roll” on the air suspension. If you recall when you tried this project, the shelf was quite easy to move in a sideways motion. This motion, no matter how small will create smear of the leading edge of the note. Its effect in tempo is this smear. A second possibility is the thickness of the rubber has potential to dampen in a place we do not want dampening. We are trying to drain or isolate vibration at this point; using a dampening product may be effecting tempo too and being counterproductive.
My bubble wrap does not have this effect, and I’ve theorized it’s because each bubble is in tension, and the motion of one bubble is in opposition to the bubble next to it. Thus the 100 or so bubbles are canceling each other to the degree that it is not possible for any movement. Now add to this the sidewall thickness if each bubble is so thin that the “dampening” effect described above is essentially eliminated. It turns out to be an ultra light weight, absolutely neutral suspension (at least in my opinion). If you try a bubble wrap sandwich and weight it by pushing down on it, try moving it sideways, it’s virtually impossible. Now try it on a blotter or inner tube type product, it moves all around.
So you might be wondering, why do Aurios or similar bearing products work so successfully when they move sideways too. Well again it’s my opinion and a theory that Arnie came up with one night when we were “chatting” over the phone. We were discussing the fact that I had placed Aurios under my speakers, and that I was amazed that the entire speaker was totally vibration less. This was on six foot tall speakers that had quite a large amount of vibration prior to the Aurios. Arnie theorized that the lack of vibration was due to the design of these bearing type products. The bearings are in a trough or cupped shape base. This means that for any vibration to create sideways movement, it must be of significant force to push the bearing “uphill” well the speaker is 200 lbs, so even the enormous force created through the bass drivers, a force strong enough to allow the listener to “feel” the vibration in the air, is still not adequate to push up hill or “lift” my speakers. Without this lift there is no sideways motion. We then theorized the bearing must vibrate at an ultra high speed as it tries to move, thus releasing the energy as heat????
Now then, take this same theory to a CD player or a turntable. These components might weight as little as 25 pounds or so, but the source of vibration within the component is far less severe, again the vibration is not of a great enough proportion to move the component uphill. That makes sense, but I have a second theory that effects the result, the bass waves within the room do have enough force to move 25 pounds on a bearing uphill, if only so slight. I believe that is why my SCD-1 player that weights 58 pounds sounds better with the 15 pound plate on top of it. I think the bass waves are significant enough to move even 58 pounds. The improvement is slight with the weight, and it appears in clarity, thus smear. My amps also benefit from these bearing products; they are 80 pounds each and are not helped with weight. In actuality the pace and tempo is slowed and the definition is muddied with weight. This may explain one of the points of contention between the light rigid and the mass loaded camps.
I’m kind of thinking out loud now in that I’ve never really thought about all of this to this degree, but this all might explain why my pre-amps have never benefited from bearing products. The pre-amp has always been a relatively light component. The Aesthetix Calypso is.39 pounds. If the “magic” weight is something around 70 pounds, as per my SCD-1 experience, then I would need to add some forty more pounds of mass to the units top. This would be a massive storage unit for vibration and would no doubt product a slow, muddy and fat sound. Without the weight the pre-amp would be allowed to move on the bearing product, creating a smear that would result in a lack of focus and a sense of tempo change.
On my system I guess these are the results of my findings. Again I’m only theorizing with no science, but it makes sense to me. In my design; I have isolated the racks from the floor vibration with the bearings under sandstone slabs. These slams are hundreds of pounds and with equipment are even greater. Thus the actual movement of the floor is still not enough to lift the slabs on the bearings, so the bearings are isolating the racks successfully. The bearings used between the shelf sandwiches and components over 70 pounds are able to be isolated from further vibration that is picked up from airborne vibration through the rack it’s self.. The pre-amp does not benefit in the same way, which explains why my old Placette always sounded best on it’s factory feet. Today my Aesthetix is on a string suspension product, but after this discussion, I think I need further testing of other footer choices. The string product makes little sense given what I’ve talked about above.
Hummm…..
Well back to the laboratory.

That's a good observation that Jadem made about the horizontal displacement of energy in an air bladder type device.

As to bearing type devices, i think that they act as kind of a vertical coupler with a horizontal damping valve built in. That is, due to the mass forced down on the bearing, it pretty much will act as if the device is coupled to the support underneath it, at least in the vertical plane. If there is enough energy involved to displace the bearing, this energy would cause horizontal motion rather than vertical motion due to the mass loading effect.

In effect, the horizontal displacement would only come into play during severe situations, acting as kind of a "pressure relief valve". Obviously, i'm just babbling here as i've never studied this type of device or the principles that they are based on, so i could be completely off in left field on this one.

As to the comments about bubble wrap, i remember reading your first posts about this. I also remember Ric from EVS discussing using bubble wrap underneath his Millennium DAC's several years ago, so there has to be some validity to Jadem's results.

As to Greg's original question, see my response discussing combining mass loading / coupling / absorption in a random fashion in the other thread that discusses rack building, etc... For optimum results, you really need to do the math and look at the system as a whole. Without the math and everything taken into account, you're back into the "chaos theory" of system tweaks with anything being possible. Sean
>

Thanks JD & Sean. Actually put things into perspective -- much obliged!

As you suggest JD, there was horizontal motion that I tried to limit using cones etc inbetween the shelves -- but no cigar. But by sort of stabilising the horizontal motion I was defeating most of the purpose of the vertical isolation... and anyway, admittedly whatever I did, as you note, DID allow horizontal movement at some frequency(ies).

My cdp is cumbersome (large & heavy, a bit like yours ~50 pounds). Suspended and sitting on its Neuance, I expect it resonates at a relatively low frequency (but have never measured it). If this premise holds, I should try adding mass to it, as you've tried, to gauge differences.

I'll try this WE and get back to you.

Speaking of extremely strange and VERY audible effects, let me relate the following:
I used to have a very large and front heavy pre (~60pounds the front plate was heavy). Inside behind the front plate in the middle, were "main" caps; on either side of these were more caps, one board for each channel. The motorised volume and relay-coupled selector were linked (as usual) to the back, and the actual circuit was suspended at the back, the plate holding the usual inputs outputs, and the power chord from the outboard PS.
The effect: when I placed a cone in the front, in between the component's two feet, the sound became LOUDER (and slghtly different).
Strange, no?:)

Gregm,
I notice the same thing when I use Audiopoints(which are a type of brass cone).
I noticed about 1.5db more headroom on my system when I went to these points.
We are not the only ones who have noticed this.
Since I am in the sales dept at Starsound, I regularly talk to customers who use Audiopoints, and they also report this phenomenon.
The systems play a little bit louder on the same volume setting when the points are in place.

My take on it is that efficiency in the component is increased(less losses), because the vibration problems are decreased.

In some of our early testing, our engineers installed Audiopoints under a customer's industrial refrigeration compressors in his cold storage warehouse, and did an electrical usage comparison. His electrical use was reduced in his cold storage warehouse when Audiopoints were used under his compressors for a month. There is something about this reduction of vibrational effects which helps the operating efficiency of the device in some cases, especially ones with high vibration like motors and transformers.

It is an interesting effect, and one that I personally was very happy about, since I only have a 2 watt amplifier, and the added 1.5db was very welcome in my system.

I wonder if Sean has a scientific reason that he has found from his tests. I have the same, maybe even greater from the Orchard bay titanium cones. The titanium is far (louder) more efficient than the O.B. brass cones.