Harmonic Resolution Systems VXR Stand
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
Great detective work, LL21!
The extreme adjustability of the stand is great, and the components all together are very heavy, but I wonder how much rigidity is being sacrificed to achieve that adjustability.
The extreme adjustability of the stand is great, and the components all together are very heavy, but I wonder how much rigidity is being sacrificed to achieve that adjustability.
Having spoken many years ago with Mike Latvis about designing something for the system, I can say my sense is that, like Andy Payor of Rockport, this is a man who does not compromise. He is all-out for the ultimate in performance, recognizing the importance of the application of science to the art of great audio.
If you speak with him...i have no doubt you will find his commitment to the best of the best in isolation to be admirable...and i imagine he will be able to answer any questions you may have in your quest for your system. I would probably be most curious to hear about his views on the active solutions vs the passive.
I have never tried their stands but did try a number of their isolation footers in comparison with Stillpoints. Much preferred the latter as the HRS gave a dark sound lacking in life.
Interesting...I like the M3X shelves and know Frank750 swears by them. In fact, given that Andy Payor uses them in his systems at Rockport, coupled with so many positives, I admit I am surprised to read them here. Candidly while I do like Stillpoints Ultra 5s...with HRS nimbus couplers, I find I read more negatives about U5s than HRS. Purely a personal observation and since I like and use both, not meant to be a favoritism thing.
MadFloyd...what happened when you used the M3s on your CAT amps?
MadFloyd...what happened when you used the M3s on your CAT amps?
in the $30k ballpark for a 4 shelf rack, one enters Herzan TS-150 for each piece 'territory'. unassailable performance.
I know what I would do.
not to say the HRS is not elegant.
this is the passive approach I would take......1/3rd the price.....not as pretty.....but likely superior sounding.....just eliminate the whole shelf issue and get true de-coupling.
I know what I would do.
not to say the HRS is not elegant.
this is the passive approach I would take......1/3rd the price.....not as pretty.....but likely superior sounding.....just eliminate the whole shelf issue and get true de-coupling.
Last edited:
I do think one must be very careful, as you have noted. If you ever get a chance to try HRS nimbus couplers ON TOP of your U5s, do let me know what you think. I respect your comments and observation so would be interested to get your comments.
I like this one and far from 30 k even with more layers .
4 layers 1230 mm wide 11,500 euro
http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/finitelemente/3.html
2010-07-FE-Pagode-edition-OK by andromeda61, on Flickr
4 layers 1230 mm wide 11,500 euro
http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/finitelemente/3.html
2010-07-FE-Pagode-edition-OK by andromeda61, on Flickr
Last edited:
Lloyd, I am sure Mike is passionate about his products. Joe of Critical Mass Systems is also passionate about his products.
From the little I can deduce the scientific concepts underlying their designs are similar (although they may not agree with that!).
It would be great if you could borrow or purchase a CMS Maxxum and an HRS VXR and perform a careful, side-by-side comparison with your Zanden equipment and report the results!
From the little I can deduce the scientific concepts underlying their designs are similar (although they may not agree with that!).
It would be great if you could borrow or purchase a CMS Maxxum and an HRS VXR and perform a careful, side-by-side comparison with your Zanden equipment and report the results!
MikeL makes an excellent observation. For the price of a Maxxum or a VXR one could buy inexpensive racks and a Herzan for every component. I have thought of that too.
Looking at the prices of these high performance and high price top racks I can not avoid asking a rational question - how would they compare with half a dozen of Hertzan or similar active isolation tables placed in standard solid racks?
(Apologies Ron and Mike, I wrote it and posted it only half an hour later!)
(Apologies Ron and Mike, I wrote it and posted it only half an hour later!)
Having read the comments here, I'm not sure you guys are looking at this in the clearest way possible. For several reasons:
1. As you may know, there are 3 primary methodologies to addressing vibrations. Isolation (de-coupling), mechanical energy transfer (coupling), and hybrids of the two. For example, de-coupling and coupling are diametrically opposed to one another. Yet, in each of the racks pictured herein I can see a combination of both so I would consider each of these pictured racks as hybrids favoring one primary method or the other. And if they are hybrids of any sort, why would the designer intermix the 2 methods and was there a conscious decision to make certain portions lean toward de-coupling and others lean toward coupling? Or was it mere happenstance?
2. I suspect you are not viewing things from a holistic or final perspective. For example, let's say one has purchased the absolute best performing rack in the world - bar none. Obviously, that rack is adhering to one of the three methods. Yet, what is inserted or sandwiched between the components' baseplates and the shelve's surfaces could just as easily turn that rack into the world's worst performing racking system. Hence, the chosen footers design methodology and subsequent performance is perhaps equally important as the chosen racking system.
3. Chosen materials. If a racking system's design truly follows the manufacturer's stated vibration controlling method, do the rack's materials and joinery follow suit? In other words, if a rack manufacturer is committed to one vibration controlling methodology do the rack's materials and joinery substantiate the chosen method or do they seem contradictory and defeating? Materials matter because obviously some material makes for better mechanical energy conduit than others. The hard and more rigid the material, the greater the opportunity for mechanical energy to travel. The softer and less rigid the material, the greater the opportunity to disconnect or severe the conduit and thus keep the energy from traveling.
4. As you may also know, there are 3 primary sources of mechanical vibration; floor-borne, air-borne, and internally-generated (e.g. motors, power supplies, electrical current, etc). The question that deserves a correct answer is, which of these vibration sources are you convinced are the most harmful? This is critical because if you're convinced that one source is more deleterious than the others, you cannot satisfactorily address both. For example. If you've determined that floor-borne vibrations are the most destructive vibrations and address matters accordingly, then you've instantly trapped all air-borne and internally-generated vibrations inside the component and thereby will release its full energy within. On the other hand, if you've determined that air-borne and/or internally-generated vibrations are the most destructive and act accordingly, then the potential exists for floor-borne vibrations to travel upward to the component as air-borne and/internally-generated vibrations are traveling downward.
5. IMO, one of the most important questions worth asking is, does mechanical energy (or for that matter any energy) by nature travel or remain stationary? The significance of this question/answer determines everything, i.e. chosen vibration-controlling method, design, execution, materials, types of joinery, suggested footers, etc.
6. Though active vibration control is mentioned, I suspect the technology hasn't matured all that much otherwise we'd be hearing far more about it and many more of us would be using it. Besides, since the problem is mechanical in nature, it seems to me that a proper mechanical solution should suffice.
Among the 3 racks pictured, I'm not overly impressed with any of them since they all seem to clearly be hybrids of the de-coupling and coupling methodologies. And as such I suspect all 3 racking systems have significant built-in performance compromises. If you've ever heard of a mug-whomp, that is what I see with these 3 racks from these pictures alone. A mug-whomp is where somebody's mug is on one side of the fence and their whomp is on the other side of the fence. IOW, indecisive.
That said, and assuming we're not all in agreement with the points mentioned above, from my perspective I'd lean toward the HRS as potentially edging out a bit better performance with Mike Lavigne's pictured rack being the worst performer of the 3. From an aesthetics-only perspective, to me the infinite element rack is superior as it has the appearance of a sophisticated/thoughtful piece of furniture with a nice contract of man-made and natural materials.
1. As you may know, there are 3 primary methodologies to addressing vibrations. Isolation (de-coupling), mechanical energy transfer (coupling), and hybrids of the two. For example, de-coupling and coupling are diametrically opposed to one another. Yet, in each of the racks pictured herein I can see a combination of both so I would consider each of these pictured racks as hybrids favoring one primary method or the other. And if they are hybrids of any sort, why would the designer intermix the 2 methods and was there a conscious decision to make certain portions lean toward de-coupling and others lean toward coupling? Or was it mere happenstance?
2. I suspect you are not viewing things from a holistic or final perspective. For example, let's say one has purchased the absolute best performing rack in the world - bar none. Obviously, that rack is adhering to one of the three methods. Yet, what is inserted or sandwiched between the components' baseplates and the shelve's surfaces could just as easily turn that rack into the world's worst performing racking system. Hence, the chosen footers design methodology and subsequent performance is perhaps equally important as the chosen racking system.
3. Chosen materials. If a racking system's design truly follows the manufacturer's stated vibration controlling method, do the rack's materials and joinery follow suit? In other words, if a rack manufacturer is committed to one vibration controlling methodology do the rack's materials and joinery substantiate the chosen method or do they seem contradictory and defeating? Materials matter because obviously some material makes for better mechanical energy conduit than others. The hard and more rigid the material, the greater the opportunity for mechanical energy to travel. The softer and less rigid the material, the greater the opportunity to disconnect or severe the conduit and thus keep the energy from traveling.
4. As you may also know, there are 3 primary sources of mechanical vibration; floor-borne, air-borne, and internally-generated (e.g. motors, power supplies, electrical current, etc). The question that deserves a correct answer is, which of these vibration sources are you convinced are the most harmful? This is critical because if you're convinced that one source is more deleterious than the others, you cannot satisfactorily address both. For example. If you've determined that floor-borne vibrations are the most destructive vibrations and address matters accordingly, then you've instantly trapped all air-borne and internally-generated vibrations inside the component and thereby will release its full energy within. On the other hand, if you've determined that air-borne and/or internally-generated vibrations are the most destructive and act accordingly, then the potential exists for floor-borne vibrations to travel upward to the component as air-borne and/internally-generated vibrations are traveling downward.
5. IMO, one of the most important questions worth asking is, does mechanical energy (or for that matter any energy) by nature travel or remain stationary? The significance of this question/answer determines everything, i.e. chosen vibration-controlling method, design, execution, materials, types of joinery, suggested footers, etc.
6. Though active vibration control is mentioned, I suspect the technology hasn't matured all that much otherwise we'd be hearing far more about it and many more of us would be using it. Besides, since the problem is mechanical in nature, it seems to me that a proper mechanical solution should suffice.
Among the 3 racks pictured, I'm not overly impressed with any of them since they all seem to clearly be hybrids of the de-coupling and coupling methodologies. And as such I suspect all 3 racking systems have significant built-in performance compromises. If you've ever heard of a mug-whomp, that is what I see with these 3 racks from these pictures alone. A mug-whomp is where somebody's mug is on one side of the fence and their whomp is on the other side of the fence. IOW, indecisive.
That said, and assuming we're not all in agreement with the points mentioned above, from my perspective I'd lean toward the HRS as potentially edging out a bit better performance with Mike Lavigne's pictured rack being the worst performer of the 3. From an aesthetics-only perspective, to me the infinite element rack is superior as it has the appearance of a sophisticated/thoughtful piece of furniture with a nice contract of man-made and natural materials.
Forget about what a rack looks like. Rather talk about how it performs.
To my eyes the new HRS resembles the CMS MAXXUM Rack
To my eyes the new HRS resembles the CMS MAXXUM Rack
Stehno , Finite element is about a lot more then furniture , its designed also in cooperation with an applied science university in germany .
pagode_binnenzijde by andromeda61, on Flickr
pagode onder by andromeda61, on Flickr
pagode_binnenzijde by andromeda61, on Flickr
pagode onder by andromeda61, on Flickr
interesting. so somehow you assume that industry and laboratory/medical science is behind high end audio on decoupling/isolation technology? I'd say you have that 100% backwards. high end audio follows the coat tails of what science is doing. all these rack designers are claiming roots in materials science to one degree or the other.
if active isolation is state of the art for lab science, then it's state of the art. period. "technology hasn't matured" is way off base.
you could be right that the Artesania is the worst performing of the three racks; I've not heard one. OTOH it has by far the greatest degree of decoupling. and it's not caught up in trying to be furniture.
I think the opposite result is more likely.
Similar threads
Members online
- Carlosoptico
- Avidlistener
- matthias
- rpk
- Foxbat
- mr.gregdee
- crosswind
- Jpowell
- Król_Artur
- 3776Meters
- Atlerovik
- dctom
- Mike Lavigne
- Zeotrope
- Salectric
- luthcol
- cpvniii
- Kyle1
- Elliot G.
- Lucas Domansky LDMS
- morricab
- andrzejwga
- hopkins
- igrek
- Pichler
- Argonaut
- Famester
- Giotrude2
- ashandger
- sandervdp
- gleeds
- bally_le1
- Juiced
- meniman
- ecwl
- granit36
- Scott W
- simorag
- The Prof
- Azh123
- akosinskiy
- Three quid
- DW101
- oldmustang
- tsaett
- rsorren1
- benito
- Imperial
- Face53
- Cantus
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |