How do you deal with vibration?


Greetings all,

Many of us work very hard to keep vibration out of our equipment. I was hoping we could share our experiences with each other. I was wondering what other DIY methods people are using?

I personally have had good luck with shipping open cell foam under plywood. I find that about 60-70 percent compression works best. I place the foam underneath some plywood (Using spruce 3/4 inch). Then I place the component on the plywood. However, I think this more isolates the component from outside vibration. I don't think it does much to drain internal vibrations, especially in a CD transport.

Also I can not find open cell foam in town any more. I am ashamed to say that I actually went to Wal-mart to buy some. Now they don't carry it any more. So I was wondering where else I can get some?

I am currently thinking about building a Sandbox for my CD player and amp. Then putting the sand box on top of some sort of isolation material (open cell foam or cork rubber etc.) My thoughts are the foam or cork or etc should help keep the vibrations from getting into the equipment and the box should drain the internal vibrations.

Also, what are peoples experience with different woods. I live in BC so I can get most wood fairly cheap. I imagine every wood has it's own sonic signature due to it's resonant frequency. What works best? Solid maple, birch ply, MDF, walnut, mahogany etc...?\

Anyways, feel free to through ideas and experience (both good and bad) out there. It would be good to know what works and what doesn't.

Happy tweaking,
Nick
nickway
>>there is no need to debase someone else's beliefs.<<

>>There are a lot of things out there that a lot of folks feel good about
believing that can't be explained or even proven to exist. Start with God. With
your mentality I could visualize you going to church<<

This is not a church dedicated to one set of beliefs where good manners
means non-believers must sit reverently for fear of insulting someone's
"religion."

This is a site where audiophiles of every stripe are free to join in, offer
opinions, reservations, beliefs, skeptcism, and recomendations based on
many different approaches.

This way, the people who come here get to listen to many different
approaches and everyone gets to make up their own mind.
>>I paused the player and placed it on brass cones (seating position was
lower than rack so he couldn't see under the player and I blocked his view).
Sat down and pushed "play". He immediately was puzzled and
asked me :WHAT DID YOU DO? THE SOUND IS RADICALLY IMPROVED!!!<<

There are several problems with this "conversion experience."

First, by pausing the music and doing something, then starting the music
again, you raised the expectation that you did something to improve the
sonics.

Second, if you are the audio expert here and your buddy is the "
untrained" listener, your buddy faced peer group pressure to hear an
improvement in order to measure up.

Third, your experiment was not done double-blind. In other words, YOU
knew you had made a change and whether you know it or not, your body
language may have been giving your buddy the tip that you wanted him to
notice, were testing him, had some expectation, or that YOU thought the
sonics had improved, which would make your buddy want to please you by
complimenting the change you -- the expert -- had made by pausing the
music, getting up to make a change -- you needed to place the cones -- and
then resuming the music.

This is WHY listening tests must be done double-blind to carry any weight.

If you did this test double-blind and your buddy with his untrained ears was
eable to reliably tell when the cones were in place and when they weren't --
that would be convincing.

Now, since you claimed the chage was so dramatic that your buddy had to
exclaim that the sound was RADICALLY IMPROVED, we should expect that it
would be easy for him to tell the difference in a double-blind test.
Jadem6,

Thank your for taking the time for your in depth message. Much appreciated.

Upon reading your post, I think we are both on the same page, and you have reinforced my initial thought.

I agree that the stand should be isolated from the floor and be very rigid. I like how you are using the sandstone slabs to do this.

I also agree that keeping a stand isolation from the floor is only half the battle. The other part is individually dealing with each component as to meet each items isolation needs. I do like the Nuance platforms that you have.

I am hoping to make some DIY platforms this weekend for myself. I am currently thinking about a Sandbox to drain internal vibrations from the component, and then the sandbox will sit upon another isolation device to keep any vibration that I have in my stand out of the isolation device for the component. For this I am thinking about some more open cell foam or maybe a bike tube? What do you think would work better here? Foam, Bike tube, cork, bubble-wrap, other??

So to summarize I will have my component sitting on a sandbox which then sits on a softer isolation device (TBD per above) which will then sit on a shelf of my rack, Then my rack is spiked to my floor. I will probably look at getting some Sandstone or another rock to put between it and my floor as you have.

For my CD player I am also planing on using some DIY rollerbock in conjunction with a sandbox, etc...

Thanks again for you help,
Cheers,
>>Nevertheless, at some level it is real and an explanation for why vibration
control can influence what we hear.<<

We have no *proof* that it is real.

Whether this sounds insulting or not. there are always at least two
explanations for "hearing" anything.

1) There is something "real" to hear.

2) It is caused by the imagination.

John Dunlavy used to do an experiment where he would invite audiophiles
and audio critics to his lab and position technicians behind a set of speakers.
The technicians would employ Zip Cord and the audience would be
unimpressed. Then the technicians would swap out the Zip Cord for exotic
looking speaker cables and the audience would exclaim enthusiastically
about the radical improvements they heard.

Only problem:

The cables were never really changed -- it was still Zip Cord.

Why did the audience "hear" large improvements when there was
absolutely no difference?

The mind is powerful and can supply us with sensory experiences that have
nothing to do with "reality."

So, it is always necessary -- for some of us -- to question whether any
testimonial is based on something real or something imagined.
Is it real or is it imagination? This is a reoccurring concern throughout Audiogon and Audio Asylum. Two additional factors seem always to also weigh into this dispute, namely is there a theory and can it be measured. Above and beyond this are two additional considerations-is there a cheap alternative to more expensive technologies and products and must benefits be proven to others to use them yourself.

The two paths of logic are as follows. First, without a theory to account for an observation, especially if the product is expensive, and if there are no measurable differences, it is imagination. Second, if there is an observed benefit, if you can afford it, buy it as it is real. The words, "scientific" and "sham" are words introduced into the first logic. The proponents of the second logic, if pushed, suggest that often science advances based on observations that defy old science theory, such as the impact of the X-ray discovery, etc. Man's scientific theories have often proven incorrect and often capture only a portion of what happens around us. They also suggest that they do not need protection by others from scams.

It is quite clear that neither of these logics can prove the other wrong. Much space has already been devoted to this useless enterprise, but I guess since we continue to participate, we must enjoy these crusades.

The original post here concerned how do people deal with vibration, not whether it is meaningful to do so. Perhaps we should answer that question.

For the last 20 years, I have devoted much time and money to controlling vibration. I started with marble shelves suspended on innertubes and racket or tennis balls with slits. Later I bought the first TipToes and ultimately got Valid Points, which in my experience are the best of this idea, although the Goldmund points are also quite good. I tried many stands and shelves and still have many Mana stands, which are basically spikes pointed up and down. Until the Acapella shelves, I consistently found the Neuance shelves the best, at least in my system.

About five or six years ago I got the first Aurios. I found them a real pain as the shelf had to be quite level to get the real benefit. Also heavy powercords and interconnects made their use a nightmare. I also tried the RollerBlocks and their Grade 3 balls. These and later Aurios, I always found, could not perform at the level of the original 1.0 Aurios, especially when used with tungsten carbide balls on top. On the Neuance stands, I never found feet to add anything to the quality of the sound.

Then I discovered Shun Mook pucks on top. These give a very subtle benefits in realism that cannot be otherwise achieved. I have tried ebony pucks as well as other pieces of wood.

I should also say that all along Goldmund has been advocating two soft feet and one grounding hard foot. Under their cd transport this clearly worked, especially with their quite heavy stand. Even with my Acapella shelves on Mana stands and using the Acapella feet, I do not get the purity of sound that I once got with the Goldmund transport.

I suspect that ultimately everyone will agree with me that this is a quest that is never achieved. I have been up many deadends but generally have advanced, often at substantial expense. All I can suggest is to try new devices but be prepared to conclude now or later that they are no benefit.