|
|
Romy the Cat
Boston, MA
Posts 10,156
Joined on 05-28-2004
|
Post #:
|
3
|
|
Post ID:
|
21181
|
|
Reply to:
|
21180
|
|
|
|
Questioning unquestionable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d  zztop7 wrote: | | People forget that their floor, subfloor, & other associated structural pieces connected to & part of the listening room will have to EQUAL the standards of the Verdier. Do NOT count on your contractor no matter what he promises you. Sound waves like to move wall & other parts; all connected to the floor = vibrating the Verdier.zz. |
|
You are unquestionably right. There is nothing in the Verdier that handles the floor, sub floor and other structural vibrations, not that it could not added BTW. However, I would question, just for sake of argument, your unquestionable correctness: how bid deal that is? Are you able to definitively point out in Playback Sound the adverse contribution of vibration floors under turntable? If you do then please, educate me.
I know the argument. We decuple a bad suspending floor from out precious turntables with some kind pneumatic later: would it the scientific Vibraplane or would be a bicycles inner tube under a steady platform (or fresh sand… the list might be endless). Any good solution works and a “long”, mass-loaded let say pneumatic suspension does lower external vibrations to very low frequency, almost to a single hertz. Here we are! The Vibraplane “works” we figure, the vibrating floor were defeated, right? Well, not necessarily. From intellectually-theoretical perspective, spiced with some audiophile wishful thinking, it might be the case but if to look in the issues slightly deeper and more empirical point of view then a few questions you would ask youreslf:
1) Why Vibraplane positively contributes to sound even if it used under stable floor? Take the very same turntable, put it atop of a huge granite rock leaded to “center earth”, the location where no man-made vibration maters anymore and you still will recognize the Vibraplane’s positive contribution. So, is it possible that pneumatic decupling in fact does not strike the vibration but rather helps with something else?
2) Why do we feel that ultra low frequencies of ground vibration are more harmful then relatively high frequency of air-transmuted vibration? We do not a lot of TT that build mass load sarcophaguses around TT, do we?
3) Why pneumatic decupling not always work with all type of TT in identical way? Yes, different turntables have sometimes employ own dealing with floor vibration but most of them not and if you look at a few TT that have no anti-floor vibration measures in design then pneumatic decupling will help them but in different way. Why? If all that we are talking is getting rid of floor vibration then a common denominator of let say pneumatic measures improvement would be namely the floor vibration’s negative contribution. I do not think that anybody would be able to identify it because the improvement we would get in those methodologically controlled experiments would be pretty much unsystematic and random.
Rgs,
Romy the Cat
"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
|
|