Best Isolation Systems for Amps

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
Previously my Amps were on zoethecus stands with Stillpoint 5's and then Stillpoint 6's before I finally switched to CMS with Black Diamond shelves. I won't switch again. There is some good science behind these and IIRC Joe has two separate patents in the technology. In fact Joe doesn't call these shelves but rather instruments. There is a break in period with these. I have my TT and phonostage on CMS Black Diamond and am waiting for delivery of a totally new CMS rack that will house my entire front end gear.

I had the Zoethecus stands with the thick Z Slab's under my VTL 750's. I remember that it sounded much better than a MDF platform on large Audioquest Sorbonne pods. BTW, my listening room floor is hard wood glued on a thick concrete slab over gravel.
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal

stehno

Well-Known Member
Jul 5, 2014
1,585
456
405
Salem, OR
I am investigating isolation platforms for monoblocks. i am leaning towards SRA, but this is solely on research and other peoples comments as they need to custom size for your equipment. Can people comment on what they use, have used and specifically if they have experience with SRA's Ohio Class Isolation product - thanks

Green RTS .jpg


When it comes to high-end audio or any other industry where a sensitive instrument's accuracy and precision are paramount, I never use the term "isolation" - at least never in a positive context. I use my own custom RTS (resonance transmission system) racking system.

Also, it's a misnomer to distinguish a platform for one component type only (i.e. amplifiers) verses another component type when mechanical energy (vibrations) and their distortions are universal and hence universally and adversely affect all components similarly, including speakers and turntables.
 

the sound of Tao

Well-Known Member
Jul 18, 2014
3,620
4,838
940
I made the mistake back in the late 80's of assuming that granite would make good shelving for gear. Just bad. The sound was just as David described with a hardness and a sense of the shelf having a sibilant ring. Greater thickness seem to offset this a bit by going from half inch to inch thick but still not good. The granite with larger crystal size like the black or green granite with big showy mica and Quartz seems worse in this regard.

Carrara marble on the other hand is great. If you strike it you hear a lovely dense thud with no ring. Once again it seems to be optimum when thicker. I use 2 inch thick slabs under all my gear then using Stillpoints ultra 5's in between the components and the slabs. I understand the difficulty some have found with the ultra 5s as they absolutely need tuning with additional mass loading to be optimum and I've usually found that just used indiscriminately can lead impressive outcomes in context of frequency extension and perceived resolution but can have down sides in terms of the whole of the presentation creating a loss of wholeness and potentially less than ideal musical outcomes. They also don't suit the balance of all gear. Used with the appropriate components and set up right they can prove extraordinary in both the sonic performance and also the experience of music.

Under some Manley 300b mono amps I preferred the SRA stands that were tuned for them over using stillpoints for example but on a whole range of electronics BHK amps, CHprecision, Soulution, ARC Ref150 and Shindo (please don't get upset Shindo fans) when properly set with appropriate system tuning the ultra5s can be absolutely great.

I felt that Harbeth 40.2's and Devore 0/96 both were better just on their traditional stands rather than with Stillpoints. With both Magnepan 20.7s and even 3.7s the use of Ultra 5s moves them into a very different league in terms of coherence, resolution and most importantly musicality.

I have also auditioned quite a few different footers and various stands and used a broad range of natural and synthetic materials for shelving and mass loading and the only thing that is guaranteed to me seems to be that there is no 1 universally good solution. Results will vary from component to component, system to system based upon the cocktail of differences between systems and resonant interaction and also to what the listener's perspective is and what we are actually tuning for... be it just purely in terms of chasing better sonics or then going into how the sonics come together to recreate the experience of music.
 

stehno

Well-Known Member
Jul 5, 2014
1,585
456
405
Salem, OR
I made the mistake back in the late 80's of assuming that granite would make good shelving for gear. Just bad. The sound was just as David described with a hardness and a sense of the shelf having a sibilant ring. Greater thickness seem to offset this a bit by going from half inch to inch thick but still not good. The granite with larger crystal size like the black or green granite with big showy mica and Quartz seems worse in this regard.

Carrara marble on the other hand is great. If you strike it you hear a lovely dense thud with no ring. Once again it seems to be optimum when thicker. I use 2 inch thick slabs under all my gear then using Stillpoints ultra 5's in between the components and the slabs. I understand the difficulty some have found with the ultra 5s as they absolutely need tuning with additional mass loading to be optimum and I've usually found that just used indiscriminately can lead impressive outcomes in context of frequency extension and perceived resolution but can have down sides in terms of the whole of the presentation creating a loss of wholeness and potentially less than ideal musical outcomes. They also don't suit the balance of all gear. Used with the appropriate components and set up right they can prove extraordinary in both the sonic performance and also the experience of music.

Under some Manley 300b mono amps I preferred the SRA stands that were tuned for them over using stillpoints for example but on a whole range of electronics BHK amps, CHprecision, Soulution, ARC Ref150 and Shindo (please don't get upset Shindo fans) when properly set with appropriate system tuning the ultra5s can be absolutely great.

I felt that Harbeth 40.2's and Devore 0/96 both were better just on their traditional stands rather than with Stillpoints. With both Magnepan 20.7s and even 3.7s the use of Ultra 5s moves them into a very different league in terms of coherence, resolution and most importantly musicality.

I have also auditioned quite a few different footers and various stands and used a broad range of natural and synthetic materials for shelving and mass loading and the only thing that is guaranteed to me seems to be that there is no 1 universally good solution. Results will vary from component to component, system to system based upon the cocktail of differences between systems and resonant interaction and also to what the listener's perspective is and what we are actually tuning for... be it just purely in terms of chasing better sonics or then going into how the sonics come together to recreate the experience of music.

What frequency ranges would you guess the granite ringing become audible / intrusive and is the ringing present at most volume levels?

Why do you guarantee yourself "there is no 1 universally good solution"? Regarding anything. Isn't that rather odd or dare I say closed-minded? Surely you're not professing the "I've tried them all" or "I've heard it all before" mentality? Are you?
 

the sound of Tao

Well-Known Member
Jul 18, 2014
3,620
4,838
940
Stehno,
Easy enough, try it and see, I'm certainly not the only one to feel granite has an issue sonically.

As for universal solutions I genuinely don't believe there are any but also open to be proven wrong by some other experience of that.

This is just not life and death stuff nor worth going into lengthy speculative debate over either. If anyone has a universally ideal solution when it comes to resonance control then great... it's certainly in our interest to hear about it, get it out there and have it evaluated by a range of people in a range of systems. But if it's all just speculative theorising without any real validation it's just not something I'd want to get caught up in. Life's too short I figure.

Best wishes
Graham
 

stehno

Well-Known Member
Jul 5, 2014
1,585
456
405
Salem, OR
Stehno,
Easy enough, try it and see, I'm certainly not the only one to feel granite has an issue sonically.

As for universal solutions I genuinely don't believe there are any but also open to be proven wrong by some other experience of that.

This is just not life and death stuff nor worth going into lengthy speculative debate over either. If anyone has a universally ideal solution when it comes to resonance control then great... it's certainly in our interest to hear about it, get it out there and have it evaluated by a range of people in a range of systems. But if it's all just speculative theorising without any real validation it's just not something I'd want to get caught up in. Life's too short I figure.

Best wishes
Graham

Graham, I've no doubt smaller granite slabs are an issue, as are perhaps all other smaller slabs and regardless of material. Whether thin or thick and whether or not somebody's even able to eek out a little performance gains from such slabs. Slabs are just another variation of isolation. A bit better than the hardcore isolationists, but still very much in the same category.

As for the rest, I was simply pointing out that your words made you sound like you've already seen and heard it all, or perhaps anything to be invented has already been invented. I've certainly encountered my share of those with such mindsets and frankly it dumbfounds me.

If per chance you were implying any such thing, I just wanted to say I'm all ears.
:)
 

the sound of Tao

Well-Known Member
Jul 18, 2014
3,620
4,838
940
I think sometimes we discover some things that work brilliantly in the context of our own systems and assume that they are therefore the panacea to everyone's problems. With humility I suggest we all need to get out more. This is such a marvellously complex pursuit and so system and listener dependent.

I love when people find some thing that works for them but it is hubris to think that this automatically translates to the exact answer for all. Experience says different. Not mine but everything I've read on these fantastic forums says we tend to all have a range of strategies and these are system and listener dependent. Stehno if you have discovered the universally good resonance control strategy then bravo... bring it to the market and let us all share. I'm not pretending to be an expert here but 30 years of trying a lot of different approaches has only served to teach me more about the limits of our understanding rather than any mastery of it.

Looking forward to the universally good resonance strategy coming to light but it needs to be validated, real and assessable. I'm suggesting there may be no perfect solution but if you have one I'd love to hear about it.

Cheers
G
 

PeterA

Well-Known Member
Dec 6, 2011
12,522
10,688
3,515
USA
stehno, are there any examples of your resonance transmission system rack in use in the Boston area? Could you share more information about this rack system to help us understand what it is and how it works? Is it equally effective under all components or only certain categories of components?
 

stehno

Well-Known Member
Jul 5, 2014
1,585
456
405
Salem, OR
stehno, are there any examples of your resonance transmission system rack in use in the Boston area? Could you share more information about this rack system to help us understand what it is and how it works? Is it equally effective under all components or only certain categories of components?

Peter, my only examples are in Hong Kong and I'm no longer in business. As for sharing more information, you may recall I've done so in time past at the expense of much energy. But the RTS is built on the premise that isolation of any type (for sensitive instruments) is just a crude and grossly inferior execution of the one true vibration controlling methodology, resonant energy transfer. Which works every time and is quite predictable for every sensitive instrument and speaker. At least when the methodology is taken to the extremes.

Yes, theoretically if all components and speakers were built relatively the same way with similar structural integrity, materials, and weight then yes, my products' effects or benefits would be roughly equivalent for all components and speakers.

For example, assume for the sake of argument that mechanical energy (including perhaps all energy) loves to travel but when its travel is restricted will release within. If a speaker cabinet's structural integrity was based mainly on MDF (medium density fiberboard), this is a horrible conductor for mechanical energy and sonic benefits remain quite minor but should still easily outperform others' more compromising solutions. But if that same speaker was constructed of say T-6061 aluminum, the benefits would be multiple times that of the MDF cabinet version. Simply because aluminum makes for a far superior conduit for mechanical energy.

In other words, if the vast majority of mechanical energy (i.e. air-borne and internally-generated vibrations) normally trapped within a component or speaker is never able to reach my products then my products are unable to perform at their intended potential. Components attract unwanted mechanical energy much like a lightning rod attracts unwanted electrical energy. If the energy captured at the lightning rod is not tightly coupled to a grounding wire, that energy cannot transfer out and that's where catastrophic results occur. Likewise, an inferior grounding wire, or a single compromised connection is enough to severely restrict the unwanted energy's ability to travel and will induce results similar to no grounding wire at all.

Again, for sake of argument when energy cannot travel, the object containing the unwanted energy must absorb the full brunt of that energy as it releases within and in particular at the most easily excited objects within. But if that lightning rod is tightly coupled to a grounding wire and grounding spike, then that unwanted energy is expediently transferred out of harm's way before it can induce its catastrophic harm. The same is true for your components and speakers and the unwanted mechanical energy they attract. Hence, I consider my product to be the most extreme grounding wire I was able to conceive at that time.

This goes against the grain of many (99.999%?) but at least some realize that electricity is just another variation of mechanical or vibrational energy and hence the concepts and principles and solutions remain much the same too.

I understand it's all highly controversial because everybody and their mother is convinced isolation is a valid methodology and solution. Yet in reality we give the distortions induced by mechanical vibrations so little credit that nobody balks or cringes when they see a picture of a speaker with its 12-inch side-firing woofers facing directly at the tube amps just 2 feet away. Nor does anybody balk when they see a picture of a center speaker placed on a rack with components (sensitive instruments). Yet, everybody is up in arms thinking of all the potential (and fictitious) harm of vibrations coming up out of the flooring system trying to infect their components and even speakers.

I postulate that nobody balks because if one were to set a center channel speaker directly on top of a component or aim a subwoofer firing directly at a component, those who've done so did not hear any degradation in sound whatsoever. For one very simple reason. Because our sensitive instruments are already so saturated with so much unwanted and trapped energy, they cannot sound any worse. In fact, I consider unwanted mechanical energy to be the single performance-limiting governor that makes every last reasonable quality-oriented playback system sound more alike than different and none of which can even remotely approach the absolute sound. But that's me.

 

PeterA

Well-Known Member
Dec 6, 2011
12,522
10,688
3,515
USA


I understand it's all highly controversial because everybody and their mother is convinced isolation is a valid methodology and solution. Yet in reality we give the distortions induced by mechanical vibrations so little credit that nobody balks or cringes when they see a picture of a speaker with its 12-inch side-firing woofers facing directly at the tube amps just 2 feet away. Nor does anybody balk when they see a picture of a center speaker placed on a rack with components (sensitive instruments). Yet, everybody is up in arms thinking of all the potential (and fictitious) harm of vibrations coming up out of the flooring system trying to infect their components and even speakers.

I postulate that nobody balks because if one were to set a center channel speaker directly on top of a component or aim a subwoofer firing directly at a component, those who've done so did not hear any degradation in sound whatsoever. For one very simple reason. Because our sensitive instruments are already so saturated with so much unwanted and trapped energy, they cannot sound any worse. In fact, I consider unwanted mechanical energy to be the single performance-limiting governor that makes every last reasonable quality-oriented playback system sound more alike than different and none of which can even remotely approach the absolute sound. But that's me.


Thank you for your response, stehno. I balk at that. It's not just you. Within the limits of my existing room, I try to keep my turntable away from my speakers. It is designed to have mechanical energy drained away from the platter through it's suspension towers via steel ball bearing feet into a massive steel support. That support, in turn, provides isolation from the ground and the floor movement that may occur because of the speakers and the naturally occurring vibrations from the earth. I would never put sensitive tube electronics right next to large cone drivers, nor would most people on this forum, I suspect. Nor do I see photographs of center channel speakers sitting directly on top of components in these pages, but I may have missed them.

I agree that mechanical energy robs components of their potential performance. I'm sorry that you no longer produce these racks so that we could learn more from your approach to solving the issues involved.
 

FrantzM

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
6,455
29
405
Peter, my only examples are in Hong Kong and I'm no longer in business. As for sharing more information, you may recall I've done so in time past at the expense of much energy. But the RTS is built on the premise that isolation of any type (for sensitive instruments) is just a crude and grossly inferior execution of the one true vibration controlling methodology, resonant energy transfer. Which works every time and is quite predictable for every sensitive instrument and speaker. At least when the methodology is taken to the extremes.

Yes, theoretically if all components and speakers were built relatively the same way with similar structural integrity, materials, and weight then yes, my products' effects or benefits would be roughly equivalent for all components and speakers.

For example, assume for the sake of argument that mechanical energy (including perhaps all energy) loves to travel but when its travel is restricted will release within. If a speaker cabinet's structural integrity was based mainly on MDF (medium density fiberboard), this is a horrible conductor for mechanical energy and sonic benefits remain quite minor but should still easily outperform others' more compromising solutions. But if that same speaker was constructed of say T-6061 aluminum, the benefits would be multiple times that of the MDF cabinet version. Simply because aluminum makes for a far superior conduit for mechanical energy.

In other words, if the vast majority of mechanical energy (i.e. air-borne and internally-generated vibrations) normally trapped within a component or speaker is never able to reach my products then my products are unable to perform at their intended potential. Components attract unwanted mechanical energy much like a lightning rod attracts unwanted electrical energy. If the energy captured at the lightning rod is not tightly coupled to a grounding wire, that energy cannot transfer out and that's where catastrophic results occur. Likewise, an inferior grounding wire, or a single compromised connection is enough to severely restrict the unwanted energy's ability to travel and will induce results similar to no grounding wire at all.

Again, for sake of argument when energy cannot travel, the object containing the unwanted energy must absorb the full brunt of that energy as it releases within and in particular at the most easily excited objects within. But if that lightning rod is tightly coupled to a grounding wire and grounding spike, then that unwanted energy is expediently transferred out of harm's way before it can induce its catastrophic harm. The same is true for your components and speakers and the unwanted mechanical energy they attract. Hence, I consider my product to be the most extreme grounding wire I was able to conceive at that time.

This goes against the grain of many (99.999%?) but at least some realize that electricity is just another variation of mechanical or vibrational energy and hence the concepts and principles and solutions remain much the same too.

I understand it's all highly controversial because everybody and their mother is convinced isolation is a valid methodology and solution. Yet in reality we give the distortions induced by mechanical vibrations so little credit that nobody balks or cringes when they see a picture of a speaker with its 12-inch side-firing woofers facing directly at the tube amps just 2 feet away. Nor does anybody balk when they see a picture of a center speaker placed on a rack with components (sensitive instruments). Yet, everybody is up in arms thinking of all the potential (and fictitious) harm of vibrations coming up out of the flooring system trying to infect their components and even speakers.

I postulate that nobody balks because if one were to set a center channel speaker directly on top of a component or aim a subwoofer firing directly at a component, those who've done so did not hear any degradation in sound whatsoever. For one very simple reason. Because our sensitive instruments are already so saturated with so much unwanted and trapped energy, they cannot sound any worse. In fact, I consider unwanted mechanical energy to be the single performance-limiting governor that makes every last reasonable quality-oriented playback system sound more alike than different and none of which can even remotely approach the absolute sound. But that's me.



I tend to agree with that, same happens when the aforementioned woofers are firing at the TT which rely on getting the modulation from the grooves via purely mechanical means. There seems to be a collective blindness on this issue. Glad that someone else brought it up.
 

fas42

Addicted To Best
Jan 8, 2011
3,973
3
0
NSW Australia
Part of my techniques for optimising system playback is effective damping of vibration, or transferring that energy to higher mass objects - from my earliest days, decades ago, I have made sure that the carcase of the speakers, even the tiny ones I've played with recently, are locked on tightly to something of significantly far greater mass. This immediately gives me far better resolution of the low frequency information, a convincing portrayal of the bass area in the music becomes possible - rendition of detail is always so much improved.
 

ddk

Well-Known Member
May 18, 2013
6,261
4,040
995
Utah
Part of my techniques for optimising system playback is effective damping of vibration, or transferring that energy to higher mass objects - from my earliest days, decades ago, I have made sure that the carcase of the speakers, even the tiny ones I've played with recently, are locked on tightly to something of significantly far greater mass. This immediately gives me far better resolution of the low frequency information, a convincing portrayal of the bass area in the music becomes possible - rendition of detail is always so much improved.

I also like proper mass loading to other types of stands and racks. The trick is making sure that the shelf design and/or materials don't randomly push and/or suck out certain frequencies.

david
 

fas42

Addicted To Best
Jan 8, 2011
3,973
3
0
NSW Australia
I also like proper mass loading to other types of stands and racks. The trick is making sure that the shelf design and/or materials don't randomly push and/or suck out certain frequencies. david
I've never been aware of that type of behaviour, David. Are you talking of low bass notes, and also higher up, related to vinyl replay equipment reacting to vibrations?
 
Last edited:

ddk

Well-Known Member
May 18, 2013
6,261
4,040
995
Utah
I've never been aware that type of behaviour, David. Are you talking of low bass notes, and also higher up, related to vinyl replay equipment reacting to vibrations?

There are expensive composite shelves out there that suck out upper mid bass mids or roll over the highs along with some that muddy everything into one big blob and some that compress the extremes and harden the mid section. Most of these companies tend to sell them in light structures which doesn't help things either. I'm not talking about Silent Running or Critical Mass Systems who make fantastic products. Air suspension is another where it can have a negative effect on the sound, many of them out there and some are plain horrible.

david
 

fas42

Addicted To Best
Jan 8, 2011
3,973
3
0
NSW Australia
Okay, my way of looking at that situation would be different - to me, it's saying that the components sitting on those shelves are not sufficiently resistant to vibrational interference, and changing the shelving system is altering the type of vibration that the components experience - which modulates the sound of the system. Vary the vibration experienced, and that varies the sound. The ideal would be components which are not affected by this, but if this is not possible then, yes, determine which shelving system does the "least damage", which best attenuates the vibrations which are the worst offenders, for the set of components one has.
 

stehno

Well-Known Member
Jul 5, 2014
1,585
456
405
Salem, OR
I also like proper mass loading to other types of stands and racks. The trick is making sure that the shelf design and/or materials don't randomly push and/or suck out certain frequencies.

david

David, you said, "I like proper mass loading to other types of stands and racks." I don't understand because it shouldn't be an either-or, but rather it should be both-and. In other words, for a methodology to even stand a chance at functioning at its optimal, the methodology must be carried thru to its fullest extent from A to Z or start to finish.

For example, a few pages back I included a picture of an empty rack I use which adheres to the resonant energy transfer methodology. But that picture doesn't quite tell the whole story. For example, my mono-block amps are under roughly 1000 pounds of compressive force into its shelf (I by-pass standard footers) to ensure my methodology is taken to the utmost extreme when attempting to create a superior conduit for mechanical energy to travel between normally disparate objects.

As for your trick to making sure that the shelf / materials don't randomly push / suck out certain frequencies? In my experience, this potentially becomes an issue only when inferior materials, designs, and/or methods are employed.
 

stehno

Well-Known Member
Jul 5, 2014
1,585
456
405
Salem, OR
Part of my techniques for optimising system playback is effective damping of vibration, or transferring that energy to higher mass objects - from my earliest days, decades ago, I have made sure that the carcase of the speakers, even the tiny ones I've played with recently, are locked on tightly to something of significantly far greater mass. This immediately gives me far better resolution of the low frequency information, a convincing portrayal of the bass area in the music becomes possible - rendition of detail is always so much improved.

Agreed.
 

stehno

Well-Known Member
Jul 5, 2014
1,585
456
405
Salem, OR
Okay, my way of looking at that situation would be different - to me, it's saying that the components sitting on those shelves are not sufficiently resistant to vibrational interference, and changing the shelving system is altering the type of vibration that the components experience - which modulates the sound of the system. Vary the vibration experienced, and that varies the sound. The ideal would be components which are not affected by this, but if this is not possible then, yes, determine which shelving system does the "least damage", which best attenuates the vibrations which are the worst offenders, for the set of components one has.

Actually, it's saying that the conduit between the component and its shelf is inferior and/or the shelf itself is a bit of a dud. It's not which shelving system does the least damage. Rather, it's which shelving system allows for the greatest volume of mechanical energy to travel expediently away from the component and drain into the flooring system and on its way to ground BEFORE it starts to release its energy and induce its irreparable harm.

If just for the sake of argument, think of the vibrations captured starting (not ending) at the components. Forget for the moment any concern for floor-borne vibrations and instead think only of air-borne vibrations and internally-generated vibrations (e.g. power supplies, motors, and every electrical part carrying current which will also vibrate). Remember that energy loves to travel when allowed. The vibrations are captured at and in the components and there ain't a bloomin' thing any of us can do to prevent that. It's the ability to allow resonant energy to expediently travel away from the components before they induce their sonic harm that could be completely within everyone's scope.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tmiddle2

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing