Somebody sent me a link to the Myles Astor’s “review” of the Silent Running Audio rack, which they call Craz IsoRack™, whatever it means…

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue21/sra_rack.htm

Before even clicking at the link I knew that it should be some kind of typical BS. It is not necessarily I had something against the Myles Astor or Silent Running Audio but I know that in the environment of contemporary audio reviewing ceremony it is imposable to writhe a sensible or objective review about audio racks. So, I clinked the link with an interest what kind idiocy the reviewer would dump to the head of the reader THIS time. Do you think I was too pessimistic? Nope, I was wrong, the review did not appear foolish after I read it. It was foolish BEFORE I begun to read it!. So, now I’m writing a nasty article about the review that I DID NOT READ! Sue me!!!

I do not know what Myles have written in there but what I would like to ask: why the hell Mr. Astor even decided to review the Silent Running Audio rack? It is commonly know that practically all resonance problems with any equipment could be resolved, compensated or tuned by the relatively small supporting platforms of COMPARATIVE SIZE AND MASS to the size and mass of the component itself.  Many companies do them, using the different techniques, more or less successful; including the SRA. The only problems that could not be resoled via the platforms are the LF vibrations and resonanses. For instance the same SRA platforms are totally useless at LF and to do something with it would be necessary to deal with larger masses and sizes. Here is where the racks comes to the play….

So far so good, but why a person suddenly decided to review a low frequency demanding product if the person uses the Martin-Logan Prodigy? The Martin-Logan Prodigy has as much relation to a proper (or even reasonable) bass reproduction as the eruption of the mountain Krakatoa has to do with legalization of abortions in US.  The Martin-Logan Prodigy bass IS THE ultimate bass nightmare. Even this largest Martin-Logan Statement system with all thier 16 low-frequency modules, even properly installed and driven produce bass, that good for the condoled demolitions in Harlem but it no ways could be used for music. So, how the “big reviewer” Myles Astor decided to assess the effectiveness of the Silent Running efforts at LF if he has no speakers to do so? It would be similar to ask a blind person to callable the color saturation of a TV display!

I do not know… perhaps I am too hard on those reviewers… They are the nice people who wish purely altruistically the best for us… the product followers. Looking at the pictures of Myles’ playback system it looks like his turntable was sitting before the SRA atop of Myles’ ….TV set. I hope that Myles’ was mentioned somewhere in his review that with SRA rack did changed something …

Anyhow, I am glad the Myles got himself a new rack. Dose he “composes a review” each time he extorts a new peace of equipment form a manufacturer and his reviewing doodles are juts Mr. Astor’s reimbursement? This would be a reasonable explanation why he reviewed the SRA’s rack using the Martin-Logans as in this case Sound (or result) would be completely irrelevant and the review came as a barter. If my guess was wrong and Myles do not keep the rack and the Mr. Astor intention were not sinister, then, in this case, (cortcy to the Martin-Logan Prodigy) the Mr. Astor juts a dense audiofool who is clueless what he “reviews” and his thoughts worth as much as the mass of the air between the adjustable shelves of the Silent Running Audio’s Craz IsoRack.

Well, I always said that the amount of brain in the head of an audiophile is back-proportionally to the amount of the “accessories” s/he list with his playback system. After I read the Miles list I did not read any further….

It is always fascinating to see the primitivism with which audio Moronity manifests itself. For instance in response to article above where I expressed my point that Myles Astor should not be bragging about the SRA’ IsoRack I received an angry email for the site reader who said:

“I already own one of these things and know through first-hand experience that it's the best built, best sounding rack on the face of the earth.”

Well, sound like a strong statement, isn’t it? Unfortunately it sound juts like a statement, juts a combination of the works, and not anything else. The same reader has been complaining me for years that his playback is horrible and that he very mach hates what his audio does with sound. Furthermore he multiple times told me that he prefers do not listen his installations at all – that how bad it is. Juts a day before he said me that he knows first-hand about the SRA is the “best sounding rack on the face of the earth” he sent the email where he one more time bitch on the sound he was able to make:

“I listened to the Gogol Suite tonight track 6 to be exact.  I hadn't listened to it since I lived in CT.  I was astonished at how it sounded out here in CA on my Utopias. The harpsichord... well it was difficult to even recognize as a harpsichord. It was all squashed and muffled… And the shockingly dynamic drum beats?  Muffled and totally UN-dynamic. …  In fact, this was the worst reproduction of that CD I've ever heard.  On this system, one is barely aware that it's even a well-recorded, super dynamic CD. Awful.”

So, my question would be how the person who bitch about his bass who suggest that his installations is “muffled and totally UN-dynamic” has any justifications to asses that his SRA’s IsoRack is the “best sounding rack on the face of the earth”. Was it because he was told so or because he had the “first-hand experience?”

Rgs,
Romy the Cat

clarkjohnsen wrote:

Well, OK... I can go for "compensated or tuned", but NOT for "resolved".

And I also do not think that it possible to "resolved". What is possible is to "compensate” it or “tune or off" but not to eliminate it. At least when we do “something” and then report that it become “better” I feel that we only "compensate or tune" whatever we "compensated or tuned" as the objective controls indicates that the LF vibrations still completely go through whatever methods we use.

clarkjohnsen wrote:

The primary fault of this entire logic is shared by many others along with Romy: The worst vibrations, resonant or otherwise, are neither self-induced nor acoustically induced, rather they are seismic in nature and come from that bitch Mutha Earth. Protecting against those is the main purpose of platforms, and also the reason most stands fail: They link us to the source, rather than isolating us.

Decoupling? Yes, the decoupling is good but only as an intellectual thing, as it has nothing to do with Sound. Quite contrary I have seen again and again that, for instance, air or magnetic decoupling kills the lowest bass but as soon you return the hard metal coupling then bass goes back. Still, even with the “intellectual decoupling” there are more important moments then juts decoupling: the RATIOS OF THE MASSES between the element of the TT, the ratio of the masses between the movable and stationary TT’s parts, the ratio of the masses between the decoupled sections and the type of the decoupling viscosity, the speed of waves prorogation within the volume of the materials… and many many others….. The complexity and dynamics of all of that is quite difficult product. So, I would not blame the Earth of a specific topology but rather the misleading efforts that brought bad Sound as the result. Considering that I would not take serious any reviewers who said that one or another isolation platform or the one or another stand resolved some kind of “solution” for them. It is even possible that some problems were “resoled” but it hardly has to do with any given specific audio-rack but rather with the change of total mass balances within the given playback.

clarkjohnsen wrote:

The best stands provide a solid framework for isolation devices to do their job.

It is unquestionably correct and therefore to write the articles suggesting that one stand sounded better then another stand is foolishness. Where would be the “advantages” of the new stand vs. the “disadvantages ” of the old stands?

Anyhow, I feel, it would be reasonable if a person in his “review” would admire the craft or the “engineering” of the design but, God, do not make the statement that a given stand better sounding then another. If a person does made such a statement then the only thing that he admits is the fact the his former stand was a bulky piece of crap that compromised of your playback for years and his was so clueless the he did not know about it…

Rgs,
Romy the Cat