The Tube Anti-Vibration/isolation Discussion

There's also piezoelectric(microphonic) effect:
http://e2e.ti.com/blogs_/b/precisio...sts-microphonics-in-ceramic-capacitors-part-1
http://e2e.ti.com/blogs_/b/precisio...sts-microphonics-in-ceramic-capacitors-part-2

I don't think it is necessary to go into ABX/DBT/Hydrogenaudio type debates. No amount of links posted will change anyone's opinion on this subject.

For me, I'm gonna trust my ears on this and make due claim that vibration isolation makes my mid-fi* system sound better. It's your choice to try it or not.

*Yeah, I am better than GUTB to admit my system is mid-fi.

 

thank you very much for these 2 articles .....My experience is exactly that.... The internal and external vibrations induced by the room and the electronical topology inside the enclosure induce a wave of negative resonance interacting with the sound of the membrane or with the sound of tweeter and woofer, hence the sounding total sum results is polluted at all frequencies... My experience and my point is for low cost, sorbothane duro 70, 1/4 inches or 1/ 8 inches, compressed with the right load for obtaining optimal results is not a light upgrade... My experience is that all piece of engeneering audio enclosure (speakers, transformer, dac,even battery charger headphone etc) induces negative resonance caused by the sums of the vibrations inside and outside the gear .... Thanks very much for the information ...

 

The bracing reduces panel vibrations by stiffening (raising Q).

I worked on electron microscopes for over ten years. The sensitive ones are always in the basement on solid concrete foundation. If you're running particularly sensitive tests, you can only run them at night when there's no traffic/construction outside. The entire machine rests on a heavy concrete pad that is floated on a beefy steel frame that has some kind of rubbery feet, and the legs themselves are spring/hydraulic mounted. The actual machine rests on it's own springy legs and some kind of pads as well (some were rubber, one I was working on were literal air cushions). The specimen chamber further floats, isolated from the machine bass; I couldn't see it but it almost felt like a liquid type suspension. The vacuum pump is connected carefully through a series of hoses, with many clamps on the hose to kill vibrations since the pumps are noisy shaky things. The super fancy ones have something built in but it's all proprietary and you don't get to see it.

The room is covered in acoustic foam, because the machines are so sensitive any sound will ruin your scan. I'm not allowed to hum in the next room over because my voice is deep and the vibrations will show up on screen. But funny enough if I walk lightly it won't show up.

 

Wow. Amazing. In the unlikely event that I ever do get a turntable spinning again, and it one of those fancy ones, I'll be calling you for help!



By the way, did I read, when I was surfing for that thing, that the Cornell microscope can resolve individual atoms? Surely I must have dreamt that!

 

Wait. HF science is bad. HF hype is bad. Ain't that everything? Can't have subjective or objective if it's from HF?

As for the "on the desk comment". Duh.
The article is talking about the the vibrations that come from the sound from the loud speakers. That is not an issue with headphone.

This whole discussion started with me trying to isolate my crack amp from typing and walking vibrations that I can clearly hear even when nothing is playing.

Seems like vibration control should be easily testable and not something to rely on subjective assessment. Also seems like it should be measurable.

VR for tubes is obvious. VR for SS beyond the basics is the realm of audio voodoo, especially with the rediculous stuff being sold for hundreds, if not thousands of dollars.

 

Dude, not only can they resolve atoms, but they can even move them around...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Boy_and_His_Atom
http://phys.org/news/2013-05-ibm-world-smallest-movie-atoms.html

 

Stunning.

Real science is better than sex. Well, ok, better than drugs at least!

 

I've personally never worked on stuff that high end. The most I've done is about 20000x on a scanning electron microscope, maybe 70k on a good day but I was never able to break the 100k barrier. There was a fancier machine in the next lab over that could do 200+, but I never got a chance to play with it.

With an optical lens, I've topped out at 2000x which is literally as high as you can go because photons are too big (well, their wavelengths are... but I'm being pedantic).

 

Thanks for introducing me to some new stuff that I had no idea about, and setting me on a trail watching some really interesting videos about it.

 

@richard51

This book will be of great interest to you:
https://books.google.com/books?id=r...20&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://sutlib2.sut.ac.th/sut_contents/H110589.pdf