isolation platforms
Posted by: scottyhammer on 02 March 2004
hi naimers,
do they actually work
how much are they
anyone got any photos of some
what do you use ?????????
thinking about one for my cdx
just thinking
regards, scotty
do they actually work
how much are they
anyone got any photos of some
what do you use ?????????
thinking about one for my cdx
just thinking
regards, scotty
Posted on: 02 March 2004 by NB
Scotty,
Get yourself a decent Fraim and then you won't need an isolation platform.
Interestingly there was an article in this months Hi-fi + where Paul Messenger tried all sorts of devices with his Naim gear. It made interesting reading.
Regards
nb
Get yourself a decent Fraim and then you won't need an isolation platform.
Interestingly there was an article in this months Hi-fi + where Paul Messenger tried all sorts of devices with his Naim gear. It made interesting reading.
Regards
nb
Posted on: 02 March 2004 by cens
Hi Scottyhammer.
I've just entered Naimland -- my 250.2, 282, hicap, and interconnects/NACA5 are still breaking in. I have some Symposium gear -- roller blocks, an ultra platform, and some fat padz -- that I'll be fiddling with once I get the stuff fully done in.
Fairly curious myself whether the ultra platform will have the same positive impact it did under my old Herron VTSP tube linestage. I'll almost certainly continue to keep the roller blocks under my Cary 306/200 cd player, where they do any amazing job of isolating the transport, but may try them with the NAIM gear for a bit just for fun.
Regards,
Chris
I've just entered Naimland -- my 250.2, 282, hicap, and interconnects/NACA5 are still breaking in. I have some Symposium gear -- roller blocks, an ultra platform, and some fat padz -- that I'll be fiddling with once I get the stuff fully done in.
Fairly curious myself whether the ultra platform will have the same positive impact it did under my old Herron VTSP tube linestage. I'll almost certainly continue to keep the roller blocks under my Cary 306/200 cd player, where they do any amazing job of isolating the transport, but may try them with the NAIM gear for a bit just for fun.
Regards,
Chris
Posted on: 02 March 2004 by Stevea
They can do wonders but I don’t know if this is always the case. Here's my experience, sorry if it gets too long.
I got interested in this subject when I decided to build my own equipment rack (challenge/need for more space/OTT price of Fraim). I spent a month or more scouring through the Internet and came across a lot of useful information although some of it was conflicting. This included research into isolating products and into the characteristics of different materials and combinations of/boundaries between different materials.
During this research I discovered bearing isolators and got interested in the idea. I decided I might like to incorporate this technology in my rack and had designed some of my own when I came across a second hand pair of Ganymede V.C.S. on the Internet. While waiting for these to arrive I decided to do a little experiment to see if this vibration isolation idea had any merit at all (still somewhat skeptical at this stage). I built a rectangular frame with 4 corner posts and I then strung two lengths of bungy cord between same-side pairs of posts and suspended my CDP on it.
Now it must be said that my CDP is a 1989 vintage Sansui CD-x711 (and will remain so until later this year), not rated highly round here and not rated particularly highly by me at the time. Also, I have a wooden floor and suspected this was causing problems in the base department.
The effect of the suspension on this CDP was nothing short of phenomenal and I spent the next few hours mumbling 'I don't believe this' to myself. The biggest difference was in the midrange where female vocals just started to shine but also the base tightened significantly.
When the Ganymedes arrived I put the CDP back on its normal shelf (old Tripod rack) with the Ganymedes underneath. This improved things further toward the top but was not as good at the bottom. The bungy had made improvements in clarity but sucked out a bit of life and the Ganymedes on the old shelf had re-inserted the life but allowed back some of the base issues.
On a hunch (have so far proved very valuable) the next step was to build a new shelf out of some spare 9mm MDF I had lying around. The shelf was made of 5 layers and the middle three were hollow with the spaced packed with coral sand. This replaced the shelf that the CDP and Ganymedes were on and I then had the best of both worlds – life, detail and control – and was a very happy chappy indeed.
I was so enthused by this that I got a 2nd set of Ganymedes for the pre-amp. These made no noticeable difference when I put them in but a few days later when I removed them I could tell something was missing. The best I can describe it as was that the air and space, or atmosphere of the music had decreased and I was less aware of the recording venue and the minute details like the singer breathing.
So, armed with all this knowledge and enthusiasm I set about designing my rack and have included bearing isolators under all components except TT (not sure about this yet) and under the rack itself. For these I went back to my own design for quantity and price reasons and had some sets made up by a local engineering company. The sand filled shelf is now in action under the TT and a new multi layer shelf incorporating constrained layer dampening is used for the CDP. The rack went into action last weekend and seems to be performing extremely well (still needs cosmetic finishing).
I few weeks ago I invited James down for an audition when the rack was finished just to ensure I am not deluding myself. When I get my CDX2 I will have no hesitation putting it on the bearing isolators but will also be conducting some more experiments with shelf materials and will probably also audition a Fraim, which could be a bit of an ego deflating exercise – we shall see (and report no doubt).
I you had a really good quality rack and a solid floor I would be a bit hesitant about putting bearing isolators under the internally sprung gear without some careful experimentation. If you were suffering from a lot of lateral movement (high rack/suspended floor) they could well be of benefit here also as they give extremely high levels of lateral isolation but virtually no vertical isolation.
The reason I have gone largely my own way and not tried out a lot of the commercial devices is simply availability. I.e. me budget does lot allow for international travel for a demo.
Part way through this exercise I decided to test out what others had reported about putting bike inner tubes under equipment. This was going to ultimately lead to another new shelf design but 5 minutes with a tube under my CDP convinced me not to waste my time along this line – it sucked the life right out of the music. However, I have read good things about the Townshend products so my conclusions about air suspension may be premature.
Isolation devices are not able to add anything, they can only remove things you don't want. If such a device improves the sound of your equipment when you were not using it to address an identified problem it only indicates that it has addressed an unidentified problem.
Sorry about the long ramble. Hope it provided some food for thought/discussion.
Steve
[This message was edited by Stevea on WEDNESDAY 03 March 2004 at 03:11.]
[This message was edited by Stevea on WEDNESDAY 03 March 2004 at 03:11.]
I got interested in this subject when I decided to build my own equipment rack (challenge/need for more space/OTT price of Fraim). I spent a month or more scouring through the Internet and came across a lot of useful information although some of it was conflicting. This included research into isolating products and into the characteristics of different materials and combinations of/boundaries between different materials.
During this research I discovered bearing isolators and got interested in the idea. I decided I might like to incorporate this technology in my rack and had designed some of my own when I came across a second hand pair of Ganymede V.C.S. on the Internet. While waiting for these to arrive I decided to do a little experiment to see if this vibration isolation idea had any merit at all (still somewhat skeptical at this stage). I built a rectangular frame with 4 corner posts and I then strung two lengths of bungy cord between same-side pairs of posts and suspended my CDP on it.
Now it must be said that my CDP is a 1989 vintage Sansui CD-x711 (and will remain so until later this year), not rated highly round here and not rated particularly highly by me at the time. Also, I have a wooden floor and suspected this was causing problems in the base department.
The effect of the suspension on this CDP was nothing short of phenomenal and I spent the next few hours mumbling 'I don't believe this' to myself. The biggest difference was in the midrange where female vocals just started to shine but also the base tightened significantly.
When the Ganymedes arrived I put the CDP back on its normal shelf (old Tripod rack) with the Ganymedes underneath. This improved things further toward the top but was not as good at the bottom. The bungy had made improvements in clarity but sucked out a bit of life and the Ganymedes on the old shelf had re-inserted the life but allowed back some of the base issues.
On a hunch (have so far proved very valuable) the next step was to build a new shelf out of some spare 9mm MDF I had lying around. The shelf was made of 5 layers and the middle three were hollow with the spaced packed with coral sand. This replaced the shelf that the CDP and Ganymedes were on and I then had the best of both worlds – life, detail and control – and was a very happy chappy indeed.
I was so enthused by this that I got a 2nd set of Ganymedes for the pre-amp. These made no noticeable difference when I put them in but a few days later when I removed them I could tell something was missing. The best I can describe it as was that the air and space, or atmosphere of the music had decreased and I was less aware of the recording venue and the minute details like the singer breathing.
So, armed with all this knowledge and enthusiasm I set about designing my rack and have included bearing isolators under all components except TT (not sure about this yet) and under the rack itself. For these I went back to my own design for quantity and price reasons and had some sets made up by a local engineering company. The sand filled shelf is now in action under the TT and a new multi layer shelf incorporating constrained layer dampening is used for the CDP. The rack went into action last weekend and seems to be performing extremely well (still needs cosmetic finishing).
I few weeks ago I invited James down for an audition when the rack was finished just to ensure I am not deluding myself. When I get my CDX2 I will have no hesitation putting it on the bearing isolators but will also be conducting some more experiments with shelf materials and will probably also audition a Fraim, which could be a bit of an ego deflating exercise – we shall see (and report no doubt).
I you had a really good quality rack and a solid floor I would be a bit hesitant about putting bearing isolators under the internally sprung gear without some careful experimentation. If you were suffering from a lot of lateral movement (high rack/suspended floor) they could well be of benefit here also as they give extremely high levels of lateral isolation but virtually no vertical isolation.
The reason I have gone largely my own way and not tried out a lot of the commercial devices is simply availability. I.e. me budget does lot allow for international travel for a demo.
Part way through this exercise I decided to test out what others had reported about putting bike inner tubes under equipment. This was going to ultimately lead to another new shelf design but 5 minutes with a tube under my CDP convinced me not to waste my time along this line – it sucked the life right out of the music. However, I have read good things about the Townshend products so my conclusions about air suspension may be premature.
Isolation devices are not able to add anything, they can only remove things you don't want. If such a device improves the sound of your equipment when you were not using it to address an identified problem it only indicates that it has addressed an unidentified problem.
Sorry about the long ramble. Hope it provided some food for thought/discussion.
Steve
[This message was edited by Stevea on WEDNESDAY 03 March 2004 at 03:11.]
[This message was edited by Stevea on WEDNESDAY 03 March 2004 at 03:11.]
Posted on: 14 March 2004 by Stevea
Following on from the missing bits which may or may not be remembered......
If you are an inveterate tweaker then read on, this may interest you, otherwise skip this post.
I have recently had some interesting experience with respect to the trickiness of designing effective isolation devices. First a bit of background though.
As I mentioned earlier I have designed my own bearing isolators for my rack. These were a simple affair comprising two identical pucks with one flat and one concave face and a bearing between the concave faces. Unfortunately the manufacturing process did not go entirely as I had hoped (apprentice on the job I believe – how unusual) so I had to send some of the pucks back for reworking. The main problem was that the concave face had a small dimple right in the center.
The good ones were put into action and were as good as the Ganymede’s at dealing with my base/wood floor issues, but when I tested them in a local audio store demo room (concrete floor) they seemed to produce not quite the base depth. The real downside of my initial design, however, was that they were pricks to install and I had to employ a sort of 2 pronged cardboard fork to get them to sit straight until I put a unit on top of them and then they would fall apart when the unit was lifted.
I therefore designed a Mk2 version with much higher mass and which would be very easy to install and good at excluding dust. I have a stainless-steel set of these and will soon have a hardened steel and a blued tool-steel set to test. Down at the demo room (where they still are) it is now a ‘can I or can’t I hear it’ situation and, if there is a performance difference, it is elusive and trivial when considering that the Mk2 isolators cost about ¼ as much as and are easier to set up than the Ganymede’s plus have a much higher resistance to cable drag. As an offshoot from this testing the shop are talking about selling them.
When the reworked Mk1 pucks returned, with a nice smooth concave surface, I installed one set under the CDP and they were not right. Relative to the other Mk1 pucks and the Mk2 set I had tested it sounded a bit like someone trying to sing while being throttled.
I found that to remove the dimple they had re-cut the entire concave face at a smaller radius than previously. The design of both versions has a concave surface radius of 32mm and both use a 8.7mm bearing but the reworked pucks look to have something like a 26-28mm radius. The difference does not seem huge but it is obviously significant. Clearly there is a fine cutoff between resistance to cable drag and performance degradation.
Interestingly the difference between the original Mk1 and the Mk2 pucks seems to be entirely in the base depth area whereas the performance differences between the two cup radii of the Mk1 pucks was most obvious in the midrange and above.
So, the lessons for anyone contemplating building their own bearing isolators are:
1. Don’t assume your first design will be your last (– i.e. build prototypes) or you may end up with lot of spare metal bits.
2. Keep the mass reasonably high.
3. Don’t let the ratio of cup to bearing radii get below 7.3:1
4. Make them east to set up
Happy tweaking.
Steve
If you are an inveterate tweaker then read on, this may interest you, otherwise skip this post.
I have recently had some interesting experience with respect to the trickiness of designing effective isolation devices. First a bit of background though.
As I mentioned earlier I have designed my own bearing isolators for my rack. These were a simple affair comprising two identical pucks with one flat and one concave face and a bearing between the concave faces. Unfortunately the manufacturing process did not go entirely as I had hoped (apprentice on the job I believe – how unusual) so I had to send some of the pucks back for reworking. The main problem was that the concave face had a small dimple right in the center.
The good ones were put into action and were as good as the Ganymede’s at dealing with my base/wood floor issues, but when I tested them in a local audio store demo room (concrete floor) they seemed to produce not quite the base depth. The real downside of my initial design, however, was that they were pricks to install and I had to employ a sort of 2 pronged cardboard fork to get them to sit straight until I put a unit on top of them and then they would fall apart when the unit was lifted.
I therefore designed a Mk2 version with much higher mass and which would be very easy to install and good at excluding dust. I have a stainless-steel set of these and will soon have a hardened steel and a blued tool-steel set to test. Down at the demo room (where they still are) it is now a ‘can I or can’t I hear it’ situation and, if there is a performance difference, it is elusive and trivial when considering that the Mk2 isolators cost about ¼ as much as and are easier to set up than the Ganymede’s plus have a much higher resistance to cable drag. As an offshoot from this testing the shop are talking about selling them.
When the reworked Mk1 pucks returned, with a nice smooth concave surface, I installed one set under the CDP and they were not right. Relative to the other Mk1 pucks and the Mk2 set I had tested it sounded a bit like someone trying to sing while being throttled.
I found that to remove the dimple they had re-cut the entire concave face at a smaller radius than previously. The design of both versions has a concave surface radius of 32mm and both use a 8.7mm bearing but the reworked pucks look to have something like a 26-28mm radius. The difference does not seem huge but it is obviously significant. Clearly there is a fine cutoff between resistance to cable drag and performance degradation.
Interestingly the difference between the original Mk1 and the Mk2 pucks seems to be entirely in the base depth area whereas the performance differences between the two cup radii of the Mk1 pucks was most obvious in the midrange and above.
So, the lessons for anyone contemplating building their own bearing isolators are:
1. Don’t assume your first design will be your last (– i.e. build prototypes) or you may end up with lot of spare metal bits.
2. Keep the mass reasonably high.
3. Don’t let the ratio of cup to bearing radii get below 7.3:1
4. Make them east to set up
Happy tweaking.
Steve
Posted on: 14 March 2004 by Stevea
As requested by Scotty in a now missing post...
The target before I started was to build something getting closeish to the performance to a Mana or a Fraim but at a cost I could afford without chopping into my, at that stage nebulous, box upgrade plans.
As time went on and my experements with the old Tipod rack progressed and it kept getting better and better my goals changed to "as long as the new rack is as good as this is now I will be very happy ". Possibly not so ambitious but a lot easier to measure and verify.
I was, however, not prepared for the new rack and within 15 minutes of kickoff I knew that the whole was greater than the sum of the parts. I have since concluded that the difference may be due to the one part I did not experiment with, the leg construction, where I just went ahead on a hunch.
Well, unless I run out of space again, I cannot see myself ever needing to get another rack, and even than I think I would just build another one of these.
Steve
PS: Still not sure about the colour - but that is easily changed - have spray will play....
[This message was edited by Stevea on Sun 14 March 2004 at 21:04.]
[This message was edited by Stevea on Sun 14 March 2004 at 21:06.]
The target before I started was to build something getting closeish to the performance to a Mana or a Fraim but at a cost I could afford without chopping into my, at that stage nebulous, box upgrade plans.
As time went on and my experements with the old Tipod rack progressed and it kept getting better and better my goals changed to "as long as the new rack is as good as this is now I will be very happy ". Possibly not so ambitious but a lot easier to measure and verify.
I was, however, not prepared for the new rack and within 15 minutes of kickoff I knew that the whole was greater than the sum of the parts. I have since concluded that the difference may be due to the one part I did not experiment with, the leg construction, where I just went ahead on a hunch.
Well, unless I run out of space again, I cannot see myself ever needing to get another rack, and even than I think I would just build another one of these.
Steve
PS: Still not sure about the colour - but that is easily changed - have spray will play....
[This message was edited by Stevea on Sun 14 March 2004 at 21:04.]
[This message was edited by Stevea on Sun 14 March 2004 at 21:06.]
Posted on: 06 April 2004 by cens
I mentioned earlier in this thread that I would eventually be testing some of my on-hand Symposium products with Naim gear.
I now feel like my Naim stuff is broken in (for them ost part) and did one test over the weekend. I put the Symposium Fat Padz and "coupling blocks" under the 282. The earth didn't stop rotating when I put them in, but they did make a nice improvement -- a bigger, more harmonically rich sound -- with no identified draw backs.
For the record, I have the 282 (and now the fat padz/couplers) on a banged up Zoethecus stand with Z-slab shelves I picked up used a few years ago. I'm in the process of picking up some new Zoethecus stands (with the cheap shelves) to hold all my gear, which is currently scattered about. Once I get that in place, I'll be in a better position to test the Ultra shelf that I have with the 250.2 and supercap. The ultra is currently on the floor holding up the 250.2. The new rack will allow me to see if it is actually doing anything positive.
Regards,
Chris
I now feel like my Naim stuff is broken in (for them ost part) and did one test over the weekend. I put the Symposium Fat Padz and "coupling blocks" under the 282. The earth didn't stop rotating when I put them in, but they did make a nice improvement -- a bigger, more harmonically rich sound -- with no identified draw backs.
For the record, I have the 282 (and now the fat padz/couplers) on a banged up Zoethecus stand with Z-slab shelves I picked up used a few years ago. I'm in the process of picking up some new Zoethecus stands (with the cheap shelves) to hold all my gear, which is currently scattered about. Once I get that in place, I'll be in a better position to test the Ultra shelf that I have with the 250.2 and supercap. The ultra is currently on the floor holding up the 250.2. The new rack will allow me to see if it is actually doing anything positive.
Regards,
Chris
Posted on: 06 April 2004 by hicapman
Hi Scottyhammer a lot of people recommend the Fraim,I have no experience of this rack as it is way out of my budget.I use Audiophile Base platforms.They are currently £99 each and can be had for £50-60 on ebay.These are the only platforms Ihave tried that actually work for me.The bass improves no end and generally makes everything more musical.They are also quite inobtrusive unlike some of the other platforms available.Here's a picture:
Posted on: 06 April 2004 by Stevea
quote:
Originally posted by James:
Hi-Fi boxes like to be isolated from external vibrations (Townsend Seismic Sink approach), but also like to be anchored to a rigid, high mass substrate to which they can drain internal vibrations (Mana/Fraim approach).
Clearly the ideal would be a stand that combines both of these principles. Anyone know how to levitate a six-inch slab of marble cheaply?
James
Yes, just have a few technical details to iron out. Will report back in 2008
. In the mean time, I will toss an idea at you over the weekend.Steve
Posted on: 07 April 2004 by Mick P
Chaps
I have two CD players, a CDS3 and a CD3.5.
I have the CD3.5 mounted on a Townshend sink and the performance is considerable enhanced because of it. The sound is much smoother and the top end much clearer. This system is mounted on a Soundorg rack in the dining room.
I have the CDS3 sited on a Hutter rack in the lounge and the Townshend makes the sound slightly worse. So it is horses for courses.
I think you need to dem before buying.
Regards
Mick
I have two CD players, a CDS3 and a CD3.5.
I have the CD3.5 mounted on a Townshend sink and the performance is considerable enhanced because of it. The sound is much smoother and the top end much clearer. This system is mounted on a Soundorg rack in the dining room.
I have the CDS3 sited on a Hutter rack in the lounge and the Townshend makes the sound slightly worse. So it is horses for courses.
I think you need to dem before buying.
Regards
Mick