Amazing Tweak

[Maceo23]

Brown Electronic Labs makes some rubber feet that do make an audible difference. I have always been in the camp that most of this stuff is snake oil, but the proof is in the pudding. I did hear an honest to god difference. The great thing is that the only cost $15 for a set of 4.

[audioqueso]

Yes I know it works and I am not delusional. I am very happy to read about your report. If I knew how to upload pictures I sure would show you my ceramic blocks. My systems sounds so much better with them. I'm looking to get a Marantz reference sacd player, cant wait to try it with the blocks.

Don't misunderstand. I didn't doubt what you heard. But you said it was a big difference. That is the part that will differ between people. So I just wanted to see for myself how much of a difference it would make. Like the example I said about the rubber feet. I couldn't really tell if the rubber feet made any difference.

But then again, that's what I think makes most higher end CD players better. You take the Marantz. Look at their flagship models, and it's a big box with minor internal components. But it has suspension and separation parts like no other. It looks like they went the distance to make the CD player as isolated to the ground as possible. But let us know what you find out if you buy the Marantz.

[TimL]

Brown Electronic Labs makes some rubber feet that do make an audible difference. I have always been in the camp that most of this stuff is snake oil, but the proof is in the pudding. I did hear an honest to god difference. The great thing is that the only cost $15 for a set of 4.

I also thought it was snake oil but fun thing to try. I did it the cheapest way I could think of --4 2X2 black rubber end caps for black plastic pipe. Available at and Home Depot, Lowes etc totals cost $12.89- and you get to keep the 4 nice 2”clamps. I used them under an Oppo BDP-83 and with two other people (not HT types) the consequences was that it opened the sound stage and smoothed the balance between the mids and highs --I couldn't believe it so we tried them under my Denon 3910 downstairs in my great room with the same results, except not as noticeable of a change in the sound stage. One week later in a friends dedicated HT and because of a space issue we use 1X2 versions under a Panny BD 60 and had good results again –it doesn’t make sense but it is very clear to me that it works! They also look pretty good under the units. Did not seem to help the Video however just the audio.

[rantzmar]

I also thought it was snake oil but fun thing to try. I did it the cheapest way I could think of --4 2X2 black rubber end caps for black plastic pipe. Available at and Home Depot, Lowes etc totals cost $12.89- and you get to keep the 4 nice 2”clamps. I used them under an Oppo BDP-83 and with two other people (not HT types) the consequences was that it opened the sound stage and smoothed the balance between the mids and highs --I couldn't believe it so we tried them under my Denon 3910 downstairs in my great room with the same results, except not as noticeable of a change in the sound stage. One week later in a friends dedicated HT and because of a space issue we use 1X2 versions under a Panny BD 60 and had good results again –it doesn’t make sense but it is very clear to me that it works! They also look pretty good under the units. Did not seem to help the Video however just the audio.

Glad to hear your report. I know it just does not make sense to me as to the why it works, but it does work as can be seen by the latest two reports. I put the ceramic blocks under a Rotel CDP and Marantz SACP and it improved the sound greatly. Better sound stage, greater seperation, better mids and treble. I just hope you are enjoyig yours as much as I am enjoying mine.

[howburger]

For the last few months I have had my Oppo DV970HD player sandwiched between an unplugged Rotel Amplifier on the bottom and my Rotel RSP1068 processor on top. Over time I realized that CD's that I had known to be very well recorded just sounded smeared and had no sense of timing and also sounded grainy. I use the analog bypass on the processor and the Oppo DAC. I hooked up my old 1998 Yamaha CDC665 CD Player to see if the problem was the Oppo, I was suspecting this to be the case. The Yamaha brought all that was missing back! So I just continued listening to the Yamaha for a couple of months with eventual plans of upgrading to a decent dedicated CD player. Last week I decided to lift the Rotel processor up off of the Oppo player about 4 inches and hooked the Oppo back up. Voila! There's nothing wrong with the Oppo after all, it sounds better than the Yamaha did. Apparently there was a lot of EMI/RFI going on between the two. By the way, for a fun read, here is a link to some entertaining tweaks if you haven't seen them already. http://www.audiotweaks.com/collection_ascend.htm

Harold

[JonJeffman]

Okay, I guess this thread has intrigued me enough to throw my 2 cents in. For a bit of background, I haven't tried this out (but I probably will) and in general I avoid things that can't be explained but 'magically' make a difference, i.e. snake-oil.

But this being said, I think there's some points that need to be made on both sides of the argument.

As to the comments about this breaking the laws of physics and quantum gravity, etc, I think it's extremely important to point out that all of our physics are a mathematical model that we came up with to explain the world around us. And I do agree that we probably have developed these models to the extent that we should be able to explain this. But EVERY model comes with it's own set of assumptions. So when something doesn't seem logical, it's probably not the basic fundamentals that we've developed over many many years, it's probably that some of those inherent assumptions do not apply to the current situation. For example, I can use classical beam theory to determine how much a beam will deflect in a skyscraper. If I apply that to a fishing rod, it's not even close to accurate. Does this mean that fishing rods are magical devices, or that we screwed up and all the skyscrapers are going to topple over? No, it means the assumptions inherent with the classical beam theory (small deflections) don't apply to the fishing rod.

So with this in mind I completely disagree with Victor's statement that there can not be any effect, even if the CDP was shaken violently. To say that electrons aren't affected by mechanical forces is over-simplifying what's going on inside the CDP. We're not dealing with individual atoms and p-orbitals and what not, we're dealing with a voltage generating device. And there is a whole class of materials that create varying voltages in response to mechanical forces (piezoelectric materials) - probably the most common being quartz. And many (I would guess most) CDP utilize quartz in the clock - it's precisely the piezoelectric properties that allow it to be used as a clock. So, if the player contains a component that can change the 'timing' and voltages dependent on forces, then vibrations could clearly provide those forces.

Secondly, a CD player isn't 'reading' 1's and 0's from the disc. It's detecting changes in reflected light due to the hills and valleys on the disc. So any relative motion between the laser, sensor, and disc could also cause differences to what the CD player 'sees'.

So, are these effects great enough to be audible (and these are only 2 that immediately came to mind)? I don't know and don't care to comment. Obviously some feel they are, some feel they aren't. But are there possible explanations that don't defy the laws of physics? Absolutely.

Now for the other side of the argument: I would have also guessed that more vibrations hit the CD player through the air than up through the ground. Has anyone ever tried covering their CDP with a soft foam to absorb these vibrations? I wonder what type of effect this would have.

I also can't figure out why these feet are typically made of hard materials (steel, ceramic, wood, etc). When looking at the vibrations traveling up through the floor this is a standard mass, spring, damper system. I would think that the softer the foot the better at isolating from vibrations it would be. Unless they can't get a foot soft-enough to get the resonance frequency below the audible range? But to call these feet "isolation" feet seems misleading to me. A hard material like that will definitely transmit vibrations. If you put one against your tooth and put a vibrating tuning fork on the end I'm sure you'd feel it right away (Note: I'm not actually suggesting anyone do that) - coincidently enough dentin in your teeth is also piezoelectric, so I'm sure some of the pain you'd feel would be electrically induced. So I don't see how the hard foot adjusts the mass, spring, or damping of the system.

Another way to experiment with this is to adjust the mass - that would lower the natural frequency as well. So if anyone's inclined, try putting your CDP on soft feet, and if you don't think it'll damage your CDP, put a board across the top and load some weights on it.

The final comment in my rant is that I've seen many references saying that these isolation feet are like carpet spikes on speakers. But I don't think they're anything alike (other than looks). The speaker spikes aren't trying to isolate it from vibrations (it's making the vibrations), they're trying to give it more solid footing so that the speaker cabinet doesn't move as much when the driver is trying to push the air. If the spikes go down to the subfloor then it doesn't matter that the carpet is soft and compressible.

Anyway, just my opinion(s).

[Johnloudb]

JonJeffman, That's a very interesting and thoughtful analysis on this topic. And most of what you say makes perfect sense to me, though I'm hardly an expert on mechanical vibration. Vibrations in the CD player mechanism shouldn't degrade sound quality unless the vibration causes data errors or vibrates the clock possibly causing timing errors like you mention. My Oppo that I use as a transport connected to a DAC vibrates like crazy occasionally, and I can't say that I notice any loss in sound quality.

Just to throw more fuel on the fire, there is Dr. Jastreboff's model for hearing. A model that works very well for treating Hyperacusis (increased sound senstivity), Phonopobia (fear of sound), and Tinnitus (ringing ears). I have had all of the above. In short, the ears work on feedback and past experience and beliefs beliefs play a very important role in how we hear sounds. People learn sounds. And some sounds are unnatural and many people find unpleasant. In addition, ears thrive on sound - extended silence is not particularly good for the ears.

There's more info on the Jastreboff model and Tinnitus Retraining Therapy here: http://www.tinnitus.org

People can make want of it. I just think people are particularly adept at learning and extended listing tests tell more about component quality than short blind tests. And people make can mistakes. How we respond to sound is a function of a whole lot of things, and memory plays a key role.

[TimL]

I really wish I had the "Scientific" explanation to this effect as I also do not believe it is magic. Jonjeffman’s analysis does make a lot of sense to me but I believe it is a combination of factors that causes the effect. I would be willing to bet that it is a simple combination of things some of which we have not yet applied here or even yet considered. I hope Jonjeffman does try it and reports back on his results. The greatest impact that I have seen is in the system at the highest altitude and my first test was done blind without telling the non Ht types what I was doing. I also chose the 2inch pipe caps because they are semi soft and the players feet are suspended on the softest part!
The bottom line for me I do want to listen to my system with them —I can hear the difference! Good luck to all!

[rantzmar]

The bottom line for me I do want to listen to my system with them —I can hear the difference! Good luck to all!

I agree...Ill never be without this tweak.

[Victor]

I tried to stay away from this topic because I thought I already said all I could say, but since JonJeffman referenced my earlier post, I guess I need to comment further. Well, - here it goes….

As to the comments about this breaking the laws of physics and quantum gravity, etc, I think it's extremely important to point out that all of our physics are a mathematical model that we came up with to explain the world around us. And I do agree that we probably have developed these models to the extent that we should be able to explain this. But EVERY model comes with it's own set of assumptions. So when something doesn't seem logical, it's probably not the basic fundamentals that we've developed over many many years, it's probably that some of those inherent assumptions do not apply to the current situation.

Models and assumptions…well, - yes and no...physics of audio went through this process approximately 100 years ago. Indeed in the beginning we made assumptions and then we had to stage experiments and develop math to support the results of the experiments etc. Today we have no more assumptions, - we KNOW.

With this in mind, your approach might be correct in general, but it is not correct as far as audio is concerned. The only thing that science is still debating today is the bio-mechanism by which we interpret sound. Hence we have a number of perceptual coding systems in the market, - all with different sounds.

You will not find any serious debate anywhere, at any university, where engineers are debating the methodology of sound reproduction, i.e. what effects sound reproduction. We know 100% what we need to know in this area. Perhaps this is why there is next to nothing in scientific papers on this subject. You will find no experiments, such as what we are discussing in this thread, being conducted anywhere, - no university or electronics company would engage in it. Interesting, - right?

For example, I can use classical beam theory to determine how much a beam will deflect in a skyscraper. If I apply that to a fishing rod, it's not even close to accurate. Does this mean that fishing rods are magical devices, or that we screwed up and all the skyscrapers are going to topple over? No, it means the assumptions inherent with the classical beam theory (small deflections) don't apply to the fishing rod.

No, Jeff, it does not mean what you say. Classical beam theory, as you put it, would in fact apply to a fishing rod in the same way as it applies to a skyscraper, just with a different set of constraints. That is to say that you would need to use a different frequency. Still, what does it have to do with what we are talking about? This is not a relevant example or an analogy that we might use.

So with this in mind I completely disagree with Victor's statement that there can not be any effect, even if the CDP was shaken violently. To say that electrons aren't affected by mechanical forces is over-simplifying what's going on inside the CDP.

I must say ‘Hmmm’ here. Perhaps I should say ‘Hmmm’ again.

Let me tell you this, -you can take an MP3 player and place it inside the centrifuge. Then hook it up to a Harmonic Distortion analyser. Then spin the centrifuge to the point where human being would most likely die, right around 12g, and measure the THD. You will not detect any deviation from the norm, as if to say that the results would look like as if the centrifuge is not spinning at all. Spinning it faster would not make much sense as none of us will be around to debate the results.

Now, - clearly the electrons must be effected by mechanical forces. After all, Einstein really believed that to be the case. The unfortunate part is that we, as of now, have not been able to reconcile general relativity with quantum mechanics. So, - he died, wishing for what you are saying, but no experimental data or math would support your position right now. Perhaps one day…

With this in mind, I am not ‘over-simplifying’ at all. The only way the electron might be affected by mechanical forces such as gravity is if such electron finds itself in a close proximity to a black hole, somewhere near its horizon, and even this is somewhat debatable.

We're not dealing with individual atoms and p-orbitals and what not, we're dealing with a voltage generating device. And there is a whole class of materials that create varying voltages in response to mechanical forces (piezoelectric materials) - probably the most common being quartz. And many (I would guess most) CDP utilize quartz in the clock - it's precisely the piezoelectric properties that allow it to be used as a clock. So, if the player contains a component that can change the 'timing' and voltages dependent on forces, then vibrations could clearly provide those forces.

Indeed, the clock circuit containing quartz element is a subject to mechanical disturbances. However, have you ever looked at the specs of the quartz crystals? How about the acceleration around 100g is what being used to detect any variations at all? Can you imaging such disturbance in practice? And how is the elevation if the CD player exactly plays the part in this argument?

Secondly, a CD player isn't 'reading' 1's and 0's from the disc. It's detecting changes in reflected light due to the hills and valleys on the disc. So any relative motion between the laser, sensor, and disc could also cause differences to what the CD player 'sees'.

I must say ‘Hmmm’ here once again. If it is not ‘1’ or ‘0’, then what is it?

At present stage of digital electronics development we still use binary logic and to suggest that other states might be used is erroneous to say the least.

Digital comparators are used to determine the signal state when the signal might be noisy, so there is absolutely no ambiguity here. Furthermore, error-correction algorithm is used to interpolate between samples if there is a question as to which state the signal is in. The ‘pits’ on the CD are so well defined, that it is extremely rare that the error-correction is being used. This mechanism is really reserved for dirty disks.

So, are these effects great enough to be audible (and these are only 2 that immediately came to mind)? I don't know and don't care to comment. Obviously some feel they are, some feel they aren't. But are there possible explanations that don't defy the laws of physics? Absolutely.

I agree with you here.

I never, EVER, implied that anybody is fantasizing while stating that the elevation of a CD player on feet or bricks or whatever, brings about better sound. I agree when people say that they hear improvement or detriment of the sound due to repositioning of the player.

I will never argue the personal interpretation of what the person thinks he/she hears. Our interpretation is subjective and hence it is not a function of logic or scientific pursuit.

I only object when there is an attempt to support what one hears, as in this case, with scientific tools, theories or experiments. When one ventures into science in order to support one view, you must be prepared to argue your position objectively.

In the case of elevating the player or shaking the player, you cannot do that. No theory known, or scientifically valid experiment you can stage, will support your views.

[powerbench]

Ears to subjectivity

Tweaks may work but the best tweak a medical hearing exam and wax cleaning...

[rantzmar]

delete

[rantzmar]

[bigburner]

Victor, it's always a pleasure reading your posts. However you forget that A/V is a belief system, not a science!

Speaking of belief systems, can I interest you in buying some of my new product?

http://www.htguide.com/forum/showthread.php4?t=34853

Nigel.

[Victor]

Victor, it's always a pleasure reading your posts. However you forget that A/V is a belief system, not a science!

Speaking of belief systems, can I interest you in buying some of my new product?

http://www.htguide.com/forum/showthread.php4?t=34853

Nigel.

Hey Nigel,
Indeed, as you say, our beloved hobby is based on a believe system. This is why I try never to argue personal ‘likes’ and ‘dislikes’ which are based on believe and frankly nothing else.

I have been through too many A/B tests; some were ‘sound’ and some were not, that I have convinced myself that as long as I use my own sensors, i.e. my ears, my results would vary day to day or test to test with no consistency or discernable pattern. In fact even my mood or music preference on that day came into play. This is the problem we encounter when we try to rationalise what we hear.

Anyway, scientific approach can really help here. The prescription is simple, - remove the bias.

The problem is that we do not like to face the results of zero-bias approach, and so we fall into a predictable pattern of convincing ourselves that what we hear is actually real. Oh, well, - true, it might be real today, but will it be real tomorrow? I know it will not be.

I did read your post a few days ago, - it is funny and also very much to the point.

Vic

[Mike_Schmidt]

Boy that Rotel is a real beauty to look at. Nice picture
HI FI Choice had a rave review for the new Rotel set up.