Herzan Active Platform on Critical Mass or Harmonic Resolution Shelf and Rack

Thanks so much Joe.


Hopefully we can all adhere to your ground rules as I believe we all have something to learn

Here's the issue from my view. I wanted to run certified vibration tests on a Black Platinum filter sitting on a PXK frame, so I took it to a certified testing facility. For reference, I brought the test results and test set up parameters another highly reputable manufacturer published on their website. I handed the printed materials to the technician and told him that I wanted to duplicate the experiment. As he read he began shaking his head. He said he didn’t have any devices that were that low powered. He said he couldn’t do it.

The product ended up on the surface of a large square metal plate that sat level with the floor. The plate was separated from the floor by a 2” gap all around its perimeter. The plate sat on top of a huge hydraulic piston that was hooked to a 200,000-watt diesel engine. We ran several tests over a period of 3 hours, mostly in low frequencies. When the table started it moved upward several inches and then fell an equal distance below the floor. This was much more intense than the minimal shaking described in the reference material I brought. As the frequency progressed upward, the plate moved up and down faster but the distance of the movement decreased. I hope you get the picture because it is a fascinating thing to watch. When the tests were completed, we had flattened the spike tips.

So, here’s what bothered me. Of course, the results of a “self-administered” test could be shaped by the strength of the input signal, but let’s put this aside. In this case, the shaker table was essentially delivering a single, time-controlled, “fundamental tone” to the filter directly from the floor. No harmonics. Music is scored to deliver (I’m thinking about classical music) many fundamental tones with broad harmonic contrasts at varied dynamic levels by instruments of wide ranging timbre, bandwidth and tone, the time lapse of each note often highly varied and precisely specified. Even more complicated, these “vibrations” aren’t just delivered from the floor, they are also delivered through the air by loudspeakers positioned vertically in space in close proximity to electrical circuits that produced them. To my mind, the filter system had to handle all of this at the same time.

The problem became much more complex. It begged the question, “What am I trying to measure and how/where do I measure it?” One could put an accelerometer on the floor to establish a baseline, but where to attach another for comparison. The top of the filter didn’t seem right because this supposes that the filter surface is more important than the component producing the signal. One could attach the accelerometer to the bottom of the component or to the top, but the signal is produced elsewhere. More important, it’s not the signal in the component that is most important, it’s the sound that comes out of the loudspeaker. So how, at the location of the transducer, to measure the difference between a signal produced by a component that it is and is not subjected to vibration. The first condition requires the component to be turned on whereas the latter requires it to be turned off and this isn’t practical for obvious reasons.

bonzo75 said:

We won't know which is superior, we just know which successfully countered the ill effects of large woofers on the turntable.

Click to expand...

Ked, I would clarify this statement a bit. The way you write this implies that the other isolation alternatives did not successfully counter "the ill effects of large woofers on the turntable." We know less than that. All we really know is that in Mike L's system, his Herzan active isolation platform "successfully countered the ill effects of large woofers on the turntable." I am not aware that other alternatives were tried.

spiritofmusic said:

Please
I know the Stacore passive pneumatic spring, and Herzan active, platform guys have all chipped in w repeated info and arguments pro their approaches
I still feel there is a gap for someone to compare maxxed out versions of multiple Herzans v multiple Minus Ks v multiple Stacores v multiple tiered CMS, and reflect the pros and cons of each

Click to expand...

Spirit, we are waiting for your in situ experiment. When do you plan to borrow these active and passive platforms to do your tests? I understand that you will not be testing a full CMS rack. That would also be interesting.

At the Munch show last year, we had a Soulution/Magico/CMS system in our deep room. A friend unwrapped a new vinyl Reference Recording of “Fanfare for the Common Man” and handed it to me. It turns out that the analog input was LOUD. A shockwave from the kettle drums started at the back of the sound stage, rolled forward along the side walls and spilled forward into the seating area. I was standing behind the chairs and the wave jostled my pant leg backwards at shin level. The wave hit the wall behind me and moved my pants in the opposite direction as it rolled back toward loudspeakers and the components sitting in the rack. Out loud, I said what I had just felt and someone sitting down in the seats said they felt exactly the same thing…….I didn’t imagine it.

In this example, there had to be at least 2 shock waves in the room. The wave in the floor had to come up through the rack into the filters in the traditional manner, but the 2nd wave in the air was like being at a 4th of July event when an aerial sets off a car alarm. The 2nd wave arrived back at the rack out of time with the 1st and hit the rack and the filter and the components broadside.

Speaking only for myself, the traditional term "isolation" used in the context of an audio system seems inadequate to describe the thermodynamic forces present. Loudspeakers are designed to create (in most cases) longitudinal mechanical waves that turn a listening room into a highly charged vibrating energy field. Over the years, during the design process, I have felt most comfortable assuming that it is as impossible to isolate a component from vibration in a listening room as it is to isolate a car from water in a car wash. As a result, our designs evolved to allow vibration to move upward and downward into the filter system where the vibration of the component, the rack and the filter system undergo a thermodynamic conversion. This is why, CMS makes "open" (filtering) systems rather than "closed" (downward-looking) isolation systems.

More to come……

Sorry for the big build up w no payoff
I've had to put things on hold as I've sent Straingauge cart system back to Soundsmith for updates
Critically, I found it just wasn't feasible to run the trial on the flr as I had planned, so I need to get a rack first to put these platforms on
And finally the additional weighted ballast plate I was planning to use w the Minus K BM-8 was just not practical for the trial
I'm aiming to try it all again in late Summer/early Autumn
CMS or HRS not on the list, I just cannot afford a whole new SOTA rack
These active and passive isolating platforms have the inherent advantage over all in one SOTA passive rack systems in being affordable and upgradeable one component at a time as funds permit

Why my reply here disappeared? Have I broken any rule?

EDIT: Me stupid with replying. See my reply below. Sorry for the trouble

Jarek, rest assured yr Stacore Adv on my list to compare v the Minus K and Herzan-like Kuraka

Thank you Marc! I was trying to reply to Joe pointing, as a friendly help, that apart from exciters
one can use various size impulse hammers. We have been to the same problem with our measurements:
A lack of a reasonable power exciter. We tested with low weight impulse hammers. The drawback
is that the readings are not in the usual format.

spiritofmusic said:

Jarek, rest assured yr Stacore Adv on my list to compare v the Minus K and Herzan-like Kuraka

Click to expand...

It is a good shootout of three technologies: active, pneumatic and mechanical.

These three technologies are mainly deal with floor vibrations up to 200 Hz. They are silent on any high frequencies. Indeed, most of the graphs stop at 200Hz or lower.

My question is that whether these technologies deal with internal vibrations from the equipments or airborne vibrations hitting the equipments. Is it also better to place something like Symposium platforms on top to drain away internal vibrations?

Anthony, pneumatics alone would not deal even with 50Hz well due to the skin modes.
We use more than pneumatics to achieve the wide bandwith control.

Adyc, in the grand tradition of continuing upgrades, I would certainly look at using a Symposium Acoustics Quantum Signature platform btwn the device being isolated (in my case, tt) and these active or passive platform, once the active or passive platform is established
This would fulfil the combination of "isolating tt from flr- and air-borne vibrations" via the active or passive platform" and "dealing w component-borne vibrations" via the Symposium
I'm already using a Symposium Isis rack w RollerBlock Modules at each tier, so fully aware of the positives w this brand
Someone on these forums also uses Accurion active platforms w Symposium Quantum platforms under his dac and pre to similar effect

Stacore said:

Thank you Marc! I was trying to reply to Joe pointing, as a friendly help, that apart from exciters
one can use various size impulse hammers. We have been to the same problem with our measurements:
A lack of a reasonable power exciter. We tested with low weight impulse hammers. The drawback
is that the readings are not in the usual format.

Click to expand...

Hi Jarek,

Sorry for the late reply. Thank you for your suggestion. Very much appreciated. To better clarify my previous post, we didn't see the wattage as a problem.......

All the Best,

Joe

adyc said:

It is a good shootout of three technologies: active, pneumatic and mechanical.

These three technologies are mainly deal with floor vibrations up to 200 Hz. They are silent on any high frequencies. Indeed, most of the graphs stop at 200Hz or lower.

My question is that whether these technologies deal with internal vibrations from the equipments or airborne vibrations hitting the equipments. Is it also better to place something like Symposium platforms on top to drain away internal vibrations?

Click to expand...

You raise a very important question; the ability of a high performance rack system to resolve high frequencies and drain away internal component vibration. Critical Mass Systems has significantly improved the resolution of high frequencies and resolution across the entire audible spectrum with its MK3 upgrades. Here is a link to a very recent review that evaluates the performance of our entry level and mid-cost MK3 filter systems.

There are also a few recent posts on this thread that address internal vibration; our systems are designed to address this as well.....our patented systems are exclusively designed and built for high end audio.

As you read the review, we hope it becomes evident that it is not necessary to place any other device upon our MK3 filter systems to make up for performance deficiencies, but if you have any questions, please let us know.

http://positive-feedback.com/audio-...iii-rack-system-and-black-diamond-amp-stands/