Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site

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

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site