Re: Re: Theory And Practical.
Hi Steve,
Yes I know that.
More I meant have you tried this ?.
Eric.
Steve Eddy said:
Hi Steve,
Yes I know that.
More I meant have you tried this ?.
Eric.
Re: Re: Re: Theory And Practical.
What's "this"? Valve springs you mean? No, I haven't tried valve springs specifically, but I have experimented with various other kinds of springs in the past.
Why? What relevance has my trying it have to do with anything?
Oh, and by the way, I have removed/replaced more than a few valve springs in my life so I am familiar with them.
se
mrfeedback said:
What's "this"? Valve springs you mean? No, I haven't tried valve springs specifically, but I have experimented with various other kinds of springs in the past.
Why? What relevance has my trying it have to do with anything?
Oh, and by the way, I have removed/replaced more than a few valve springs in my life so I am familiar with them.
se
jam said:
Hi Jam,
Yes I find that anything works better on a non vibrating surface.
I also find that non vibrating surfaces are hard if not impossible to find at the levels that I play at sometimes.
I find the springs to be a cheap and elegant soloution.
I have mentioned springs several times during the past few months but so far as is usual, only all sorts of arguements to say that springs cannot work, and as is usual nobody has actually tried them. 🙄
Has anybody dared to try these valve springs ?.
Eric.
Aeroplanes Will Never Fly, Trains Must Not Travel At Over 25 Mph, ......
Hi Steve,
Best you go and have a good think about that one !.
Eric.
Hi Steve,
Best you go and have a good think about that one !.
Eric.
mrfeedback said:
If you're including me in that, please quote me where I said that springs cannot work.
se
Re: Aeroplanes Will Never Fly, Trains Must Not Travel At Over 25 Mph, ......
I've given it a considerable amount of thought.
So how 'bout you stop being so evasive and simply answer the question?
Again, what relevance has my trying it have to do with anything I've said?
se
mrfeedback said:
I've given it a considerable amount of thought.
So how 'bout you stop being so evasive and simply answer the question?
Again, what relevance has my trying it have to do with anything I've said?
se
Aeroplanes Will Never Fly, Trains Must Not Travel At Over 25 Mph, ......
Hi Steve,
Ummm, it has everything to do with it - audio system sonics are not always explained by standard physics explanations.
As the old saying goes "The proof is in the eating" - try it and find out, and then report your real world findings, yeah ?.
By now you could have been down to the local wreckers and back, and trying the experiments for yourself. 🙄
Eric.
Steve Eddy said:
Hi Steve,
Ummm, it has everything to do with it - audio system sonics are not always explained by standard physics explanations.
As the old saying goes "The proof is in the eating" - try it and find out, and then report your real world findings, yeah ?.
By now you could have been down to the local wreckers and back, and trying the experiments for yourself. 🙄
Eric.
Re: Aeroplanes Will Never Fly, Trains Must Not Travel At Over 25 Mph, ......
Of course not. Because sonics involves subjective evaluation. At best all you can come up with is a popularity contest. Which is why I haven't attempted to explain any subjective sonic results by way of physics.
Whose posts are you reading, Eric? Certainly not any of mine.
Depends what you're trying to "prove." There's no need to prove one's subjective perceptions and preferences unless you're asserting your subjective perceptions as objective fact, in which case the burden of proof is on the one making the claims.
The underlying physics of spring/mass systems, which is all I've been discussing, have already been proved.
And by now you could have taken the time to actually read what I wrote rather than what your imagination has dreamed up and perhaps stop claiming I've said or implied things which I have neither said nor implied.
se
mrfeedback said:
Of course not. Because sonics involves subjective evaluation. At best all you can come up with is a popularity contest. Which is why I haven't attempted to explain any subjective sonic results by way of physics.
Whose posts are you reading, Eric? Certainly not any of mine.
Depends what you're trying to "prove." There's no need to prove one's subjective perceptions and preferences unless you're asserting your subjective perceptions as objective fact, in which case the burden of proof is on the one making the claims.
The underlying physics of spring/mass systems, which is all I've been discussing, have already been proved.
And by now you could have taken the time to actually read what I wrote rather than what your imagination has dreamed up and perhaps stop claiming I've said or implied things which I have neither said nor implied.
se
Steve Eddy said:
I don't think this is what I'm doing. My amp rests on spikes on a piece of acrylic, on a concrete floor. I would rather imagine that the spikes help to transfer any vibrational energy from amp's chassis to the supporting material and prevent transfer of energy the other way (some compare spikes to diodes).
I tried to put more mass on the amp today (about 20lb of iron) and I didn't like it. I think that it's not always about damping everything and keeping it dead quiet. Ever heard anechoic recordings? All the sounds are caused by vibration and I tend to believe that proper tunning of the equipment is more important than making it totally inert. But, I might be wrong.😉
Re: Steve made me do it!
That one is pretty boring....
These even have their own web site
dave
jam said:
That one is pretty boring....
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
These even have their own web site
dave
Peter Daniel said:
The whole "spikes as diodes" is well, nonsense. The same amount of force is transferred whether that force is acting on the broad end of the spike or the narrow end of the spike.
As for transfering energy, that's only half the equation. What matters is what happens to the energy after it's been transferred.
The acrylic and the concrete floor are both very rigid. Which means that they have a high spring force (and by the way, virtually all objects that have mass are some form of spring/mass system, including molecules and atoms). Therefore, more energy will be returned to the source compared to less rigid materials.
Take a ball bearing and drop it on a concrete floor. Does it bounce? You betcha. Why? Because the energy that the dropping ball bearing transferred to the concrete floor is returned to the ball bearing.
Take the same ball bearing and drop it on a sheet of something like Sorbothane. Does it bounce? Perhaps a little. But nothing like it did on the concrete floor. Why? Because far more of the energy the dropping ball bearing transferred to the Sorbothane was dissipated, converted into thermal energy rather than being returned to the ball bearing.
So if you have a component coupled through rigid cones to a rigid surface coupled to some other rigid surface, rather than dissipating vibrational energy and converting it into heat, you get a lot of energy storage, with the stored energy being transferred back and forth between the component, the acrylic block and the floor for fairly long periods of time.
Except that adding mass, contrary to popular belief, is NOT damping. Adding mass simply adds mass and all else being equal, simply works to lower the resonant frequency of the system.
Damping is loss. The conversion of mechanical energy into thermal energy. Basically, friction.
It might be helpful to know that mechanical springs, masses and frictions have their electrical equivalents in inductance, capacitance and resistance respectively.
I see what you're trying to say. And sure, if you want to add a bit of "ambience" to a recording, by all means, do it however you want.
Again, all I'm doing is trying to explain some of the underlying physics of the various methods used to control vibration. I'm not saying any particular approach is the best approach. I'm just trying to help others understand just what their particular approach is actually doing to perhaps help them decide which approach/approaches to take in the future.
se
from a theoretical standpoint, putting a large block of wood, coated in dynamat (or other sound deadening material), would accomplish more than 10 plates of granite or concrete... it absorbs and DEADENS vibration, rather than transfer it back.
Steve,Steve Eddy said:
I think the assumption that the acrylic is a "rigid" material is not altogether true. Ituitively, not having done an analysis, I would expect that the acrylic will have signifcant damping qualities in the treble range, as long as you can transfer the energy to the material. Furthermore, if I were to try and devise a method of tranfering that energy from the component to the acrylic, it would probably end up being an arangement similar to the spikes that Peter is using.
Rodd Yamashita
cowanrg said:
Yup. Wood is much less lossy than solids such as granite and concrete.
My current amplifier chassis are actually made of wood (save for the heatsinks of course). A combination of cherry and birdseye maple, additionally damped internally by 1/16" thick natural cork sheeting (which also provides some thermal insulation between the heatsink and the wood).
The main chassis is attached to a solid block of 1-3/4" thick big leaf maple burl which has three 3/8" thick natural cork feet.
Works for me. 🙂
se
i have the advantage of getting dynamat at 70% off retail. it is truly amazing stuff. it makes even a tin can completely dead when you rap on it, with just a tiny 1" square.
Member
Joined 2002
- Status
- Not open for further replies.