Confirmed : PC Damping

[Tore]

It is many vibrometer apps, i`m using this one :

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.maxcom.vibrometer&hl=en

It is less vibration with the Sonic Design but it is difficult to tell what it is doing with the sq.

But i have a super sq here and i think all small things is helping

Tore

[juanpmar]

Thanks Tore,  I'll check that vibrometer with and without the boards and footers

Juan

[juanpmar]

This afternoon I have been testing the feet. First I used only one, three in total. The sound was great. The next thing I did was placing a piece of rubber conglomerate in between two bamboo feet, this rubber is the kind of the ones that are used under washing machines to prevent vibration, the sound this time was also great. After that I tested the rubber feet alone, not bad but worse then with the other ones. In the end I used again the two feet of bamboo as before, one above the other, I placed them well away towards the extreme ends of the rear legs and well advanced in the center. This time the sound was fantastic, I could easily hear the difference.
So, for now I leave it this way. I wouldn´t like to change it but... The truth is that the way it is now makes me repeat: DO NOT TOUCH IT!

Juan

[AlainGr]

Hi Juan,

Thanks for the reports about the tests you did. This is really interesting (thanks to Peter also, but all that participate in this hobby for the best possible sound)

I will follow this thread very attentively, as I have thought about isolating each component, but as I understand it, some need "absorption", while others will sound better with the reverse effect ?

Alain

[michaeljeger]

Just thinking out of the box.

Has anybody ever tried the opposite?

Basically apply active vibriation to the equipment?

Something like little speakers with no sound.

[juanpmar]

Alain and Michael, as far as I know there is no magic bullet (except perhaps the mysterious feet made by Peter ). I think it is rather to try to find the most suitable system for each solution. As I mentioned in other posts before, I used diferent racks (e.g. Artesanía Audio), home forniture or Ikea boards, not only the bamboo ones. As feet I used different metal spikes, Vibrapods, balls of iron, balls of rubber, pieces of conglomerate rubber, blu-tack, gel bags, etc. What I can say is that the sound that I have now is the best I've ever had, even with my current speakers, that in theory are worse than other ones I had before. To be fair and do not seem exaggerated I´d say that the sound now is at least as in the best of times, maybe even better (I can not resist saying it  ).
But...I have to say that all those test were made with other dacs and with the NOS1 and now I have the NOS1a-Blaxius. It is true that I tried the NOS1a-Blaxius with and without the bamboo boards and in my opinion the sound is better with the bamboo boards, the way I have it now, including the feet. As you know, Peter is not satisfied with these boards, proving once again that the solution depends largely on each system and even on personal tastes.

Juan

[michaeljeger]

Well

Reading all of this here, it will come down to personal taste.

For some, a specific rack or damping hardware will be an improvement, for some it will be not.

But I doupt if anybody can say it is really improved.

Probably similar discussion as with the USB cables or cables in general.

Michael

[PeterSt]

Reading all of this here, it will come down to personal taste.

No way - in my view.
So on these matters I still have to run into the first person who doesn't judge exactly the same as I do and the other way around. We may think that all is subjective, but it really is not. But, be in the same room when discussing it.

That my footers/damping etc. WILL work out completely different than at "your" place, seems a fact too ...
But now there is so much related that this is actually very obvious.

Peter

[juanpmar]

Well

But I doupt if anybody can say it is really improved.

Michael

Michael, related to sound the words "improved", "better" or the "best ever" are always relative terms used in a personal context. Speaking in absolute terms what is better for me "can´t be" better for you because we have different systems and different tastes.
I´m not trying to direct this question to the philosophical or semantic fields   Of course one cable or one board or even one dac could be "better" or "the best" for many people with different tastes in many different systems. That validates the use of that words imho.
On the other hand would be boring if we can not give an opinion because the absolute truth does not exist, is it not?

Kind regards,
Juan

[christoffe]

Hi,

here is a different possibility  to us the “Aptitlig” board, described in the German HighEnd paper  “Fidelity”, Issue 16, page 136.

The author used the board upside down (the grooved surface downwards) with 3 pcs ceramic balls/bullets for the groove and “RDC buttons” to protect the surface of the rack/cabinet with good results.

The component on top of the “Aptitlig” board should be tested with or without footers.

Joachim

Edit:
 
There are SQ differences with bullets made of alumina/silicon nitride and  beads (insider info) and with various diameters too.
 
(Possible applications for glass beads are:
in ball bearings, as mixing beads for insulin, ball valves in dosing pumps and dispensers, crystal balls in the food industry)
www.schaeferglas.com/produkte/glaskugeln/

[PeterSt]

related to sound the words "improved", "better" or the "best ever" are always relative terms used in a personal context. Speaking in absolute terms what is better for me "can´t be" better for you because we have different systems and different tastes.

Hey Juan - this is a far better response or explanation etc. than my poor attempt.

So yes, I think we are allowed to express a "more nasty" or "less sibilant" or even a "more stiff bass" up to a "better bass" - and regarding the latter, once we know the person very well who says it.
But a "better" in general is not an appropriate term because it "works" over all the aspects together and while I might say "better" because of less nastyness but more poor bass at the same time, it won't tell about either. And so I would say : less nasytyness but also not the solution because my bass has gone.

And regarding the bamboo ... well, there I said I was annoyed for 4 days because I just was.
I think another just as well is allowed to say to be in extasy during 4 days.
But tells nothing much though because it's almost explicit taking distance from the real merit, which will be different for everybody. Well, for these things like damping and such.

Now I am waiting for Juan's verdict about his footers. I mean, the real one. Something like more or less accurate.
haha

Regards,
Peter

[juanpmar]

Hey Juan - this is a far better response or explanation etc. than my poor attempt.

 

So yes, I think we are allowed to express a "more nasty" or "less sibilant" or even a "more stiff bass" up to a "better bass" - and regarding the latter, once we know the person very well who says it.
But a "better" in general is not an appropriate term because it "works" over all the aspects together and while I might say "better" because of less nastyness but more poor bass at the same time, it won't tell about either. And so I would say : less nasytyness but also not the solution because my bass has gone.

That's a good clarification

And regarding the bamboo ... well, there I said I was annoyed for 4 days because I just was.
I think another just as well is allowed to say to be in extasy during 4 days.
But tells nothing much though because it's almost explicit taking distance from the real merit, which will be different for everybody. Well, for these things like damping and such.

Now I am waiting for Juan's verdict about his footers. I mean, the real one. Something like more or less accurate.
haha

Regards,
Peter

Peter, "more or less accurate" is an oxymoron. Anyway, I don´t have the way to be accurate, I don´t have the tools and neither I´m a kind of accurate guy myself. So, I´ll try to take the "more or less" side, 

I always use the same music to test one component and, contrary to other ways to test, I do it quite fast. This is because I trust more the very first impression then if I spend days listening. That way usually works for me. Could be, and usually is, that after some days I find something in the sound that I don´t like, but usually I do not return to the settings that I dismissed at first. So far, I'm only on the third day, I´m using the boards and feet as in the picture I posted before.

Is the sound more accurate? well, in my subjective appreciation yes, it is more accurate in the sense that the sound seems to be more like the real thing. I use a record from a Spanish singer I know very well, the singer and the record, I saw this guy in concert several times and listened the recording hundreds of times. The sound I´m hearing now seems the closest thing to what I can remember in a live performance of this person. I said before that that voice seems to be almost intimidating, I can´t think of better word to define the presence, so real, of that voice in my room.

What about the other parts of the recording? The instruments sound very very real e.g. the acoustic guitar on which I always pay attention. If you play an acoustic guitar and let each string vibrate the sound lasts almost forever, well, it sounds here like that but it also has that "presence" again the word that come to my mind all the time. The bass also has different tones that are clearly perceived and for the 12 inches woofer of my speakers the bass has now a deepness that it is really surprising.

Analyzed as a whole, I think the instruments are well integrated with each other and also with the voice.

Two points though. The first one is that I began to feel some sense of sharpness or edginess, something like if the sound is too clear. It might be me with my morbid anxiety about the perfect sound. This time, though, the sound seems to me so good that I´ll try to not touch anything for as long as possible and after I listen many different kinds of music.

The second thing I want to say is that I firmly believe that most of the merit of the sound I hear now, is mainly due to the NOS1a-Blaxius and not to the boards or feet. Although I have got the NOS1a-Blaxius since some time ago I have not had the opportunity to listen it for too long, so I'm still impressed by its sound. However, as I also said before, I tested different feet in the NOS1a-Blaxius and I like the sound with the bamboo feet the way I have it now.

Was it an accurate analysis? I´m afraid that only "more or less"

Regards,
Juan

[juanpmar]

Someway this morning when I turned on the pc I found that the charm in my sound was gone, so I've been forced to try some other position for the feet.

I was lucky and placing the pieces in vertical, the back a little obliquely, I've got again the sound I like, now even a bit more balanced, equally clear but not at all brilliant. This time I used only three pieces.

Juan

[PeterSt]

Two points though. The first one is that I began to feel some sense of sharpness or edginess, something like if the sound is too clear. It might be me with my morbid anxiety about the perfect sound. This time, though, the sound seems to me so good that I´ll try to not touch anything for as long as possible and after I listen many different kinds of music.

Was it an accurate analysis? I´m afraid that only "more or less"

It sure was Juan !
And btw, about the accuracy I should have said : more, or less. I think you will get the difference in the nuance ...

But as it looks it didn't last all that long at your side. Well, good. As long as it is detected. But now about my "accuracy" (and just saying, this is not at all related to your last post, as you will see) :

What those footers will do (with the holes in them) is spread the sound. I didn't even read back on your post about them, but in my opinion they create a huge sound stage, and a more evenly spread SPL in the whole room. So, the originally more "point sourced" sound is now spread more. This, for me, has to be an indication about accuracy already. But, only stupid theory and for me only made up after I found how it changes the sound. And, this is just "less accurate". Ok ...

This is about how very pinpointed sounds at first (without those footers) now are not that any more. So, after I heard that, the reasoning of such a sharp boundaried sound (could be a small bell etc. etc.) now becomes larger. Because, easy, that tiny sound too has spread.

I don't recall that this explicitly exhibited a smeared or more grey sound, but the literal accuracy disappeared. And this, of course, is what the NOS1(a) should bring us. And it stopped doing that, for me.
Otherwise you'll envision yourself to be in a church easily, where otherwise (other footers) this does not happen, relatively spoken. For me the real downside was (and probably still is) that I got a sort of mad of it. Completely drunk while I actually did not drink (too much ). An uncomfortable feeling which in the end I could not stand.

This latter can be personal and which was the reason to take them out (after maybe 4 days but I forgot), and when I did that, I noticed how much of the accuracy I had lost.

Best regards,
Peter

[juanpmar]

Peter, certainly the soundstage is huge, at first I thought it was just wider, like other people said about the NOS1a, but lately I noticed it was also bigger in the other dimensions. I have not yet tested the feet without holes but I will do it to see if it loses accuracy. Here, I think the sounds are well in place and are clearly defined, but of course, depending on how they compare. As I say I will test the feet without holes in exactly the same position that they are now.

Juan