|
A Brief Survey of Isolation Devices
Page
One of Three
It’s unquestioned that vibration and resonance alter the
sound of our playback systems. How to deal with the problem
though, is a topic of unusual complexity. A myriad of
variables combine and interact to make the equation
particularly convoluted. Influences include: source of
vibration (structure-borne or air-borne), equipment support
(nature of rack or stand), and sensitivity of the components
to the vibrations present and the ability of the listener to
perceive the effects of these variables. Include the most
important and subjective, ones own personal preference, and
we have an equation with no universal solution.
With such disparity among systems,
environments and listening preferences, how can a
comprehensive, tell-all review be written? It can’t. That’s
why this treatise is labeled a survey, rather than a review.
The information offered here is but a general overview and
should be considered a starting point, rather than an
endpoint.
Most of you have experimented
with isolation; be it cones, spikes, bearings, isolation
platforms and bases or one of the many viscoelastic feet. They all change the sound. Which one is best, depends on the
variables we’ve previously noted, as well as (and
certainly the most important constituent) our own personal
preferences. An example: device “A” offers a slightly warmer
flavor while device “B” results in a faster or brighter
sound. Which is right will depend on your inclination and
how your system is tuned. Now, I’m not saying that all
isolation devices affect tonality, but the same analogy
would apply to other characteristics of the device
employed (detail, leading edge transients, ambience
retrieval, etc.).
System variables not withstanding,
I’ve found that most all devices have a general thumbprint,
a basic character apparent in nearly all systems. Many fine
points will vary, of course, but I’ve had enough experience
with the offerings (both in my systems and feedback from
countless clients) to feel comfortable generalizing.
Lastly, I’m neither disputing nor
endorsing the concepts or theories behind any of the
products. I have no training as a mechanical engineer or
physicist; I’m simply a careful listener. I do know there
are as many questions as answers in this arena, with each
manufacturer asserting the validity of their particular
designs. So, like with any other product in audio, let your
ears be the judge. I’ll offer another caveat. While I have
evaluated all the products listed here, I cannot say that I
am familiar with every offering in every line. Further,
there may have been changes or additions since my last
experience. Again, use this not as an absolute reference,
but as an overview to familiarize yourself with available
offerings. Always consult a knowledgeable dealer for
specific recommendations that suit your system and
preferences.
Data is provided in tabular form for
easy cross referencing. To keep the survey brief, I’ll offer
a basic thumbnail sketch of each product (though I could
write pages on each describing intricacies I’ve experienced,
most of that knowledge is specific to my system). Next, I’ll
"grade" each product on
several scales. I’m trying to stay very objective with
these, using mainly feedback that I’ve received from the
field.
In the performance field note than
some products are tagged with a plus or minus symbol. The
“+” indicates a product works well in most systems, “-“
means the item is system dependant, either because of
strongly variable performance or mechanical considerations
(e.g. too tall to fit in most racks).
Products have been divided into
five categories, describing their approach: Viscoelastic
(soft resilient feet), Rigid (usually cones of
various materials), Roller Ball (devices utilizing
ball bearings in some way), Bases
(platforms of any sort) and Other (either using
multiple technologies or not fitting into any category
listed above). Products are assessed using a scale of 1 –
10, ten being best.
All items are listed in alphabetical
order and not in any sort of preferential ranking.
Page Two - Comparison
Chart
Page Three -
Descriptions and Photos |