Surprising results with SoundFoundations Roller blocks

[Fiftyfifty]

Hi Sachin,

Thank you for starting his very interesting thread. I too use a combination of isolators placed asymmetrically under the equipment. But I wonder how logical this is from a physics point of view. In my limited understanding, the weight of the equipment would be evenly distributed across all the isolators, irrespective of their placement. The position of the isolators would certainly affect the balance of the equipment, but not the evenness of equipment weight. If some component in the equipment is causing the chassis to vibrate directly below it, then the isolator placed at that point may provide some damping there, but otherwise I wonder why position should matter. Having said that, I have myself experienced differences in sq arising from changes in placement and materials. Therefore, I am posting this to understand, not to challenge, the concept.

Cheers!

 

[Vivek Batra]

Vivek, rightly observed. Firstly, I don’t believe any of the manufacturers have really given a thought on where to place the stock feet. In all cases they are uniformly close to the four corners of the base. My experimentation suggests that one needs to support the heavier portions of the internals directly to get better sound. Secondly, if I keep even one block under a stock foot, then I’d be compelled to keep the others also below the other feet to avoid imbalance in height. In any case, the roller blocks seem to me better designed to provide isolation than the feet, so there’s no reason to use the stock feet in combination with the blocks. Also, if I place the block under the feet, the block ultimately has to bear the weight. Then what’s the use of the feet?

Given all these reasons, I rather explored free style with placing the blocks to arrive at the optimum for each equipment.



Sandip, effect on sound quality? Yes. I have outlined in detail in the first post. I would rather not want the sound signature to change, and it does not.

So the stock feet don't touch the surface any more?

 

[Deleted member 15865]

So the stock feet don't touch the surface any more?

Absolutely not. If they did, I’d imagine that’d defeat the purpose of isolation. The roller blocks are taller than all my equipments’ stock feet.

 

[prem]

If the base plate of the amp or dac or CD player is heavy and made of steel or similar metal, feet at the 4 corners work best. But majority of the stuff we use have very flimsy bases. In such cases, as Sachin mentioned, you need to play around and see what combination and position works best.

 

[Deleted member 15865]

Hi Sachin,

Thank you for starting his very interesting thread. I too use a combination of isolators placed asymmetrically under the equipment. But I wonder how logical this is from a physics point of view. In my limited understanding, the weight of the equipment would be evenly distributed across all the isolators, irrespective of their placement. The position of the isolators would certainly affect the balance of the equipment, but not the evenness of equipment weight. If some component in the equipment is causing the chassis to vibrate directly below it, then the isolator placed at that point may provide some damping there, but otherwise I wonder why position should matter. Having said that, I have myself experienced differences in sq arising from changes in placement and materials. Therefore, I am posting this to understand, not to challenge, the concept.

Cheers!

@Fiftyfifty, nice way to further a discussion - in an inquisitive than overtly challenging manner. Something I can learn from.

I don’t have a scientific answer to that. But I’d refer to another analogy (that may or may not apply). I’ve seen that when it comes to designing handheld devices (mobiles or tablets), it’s not just the weigh t, but even weight distribution that matters. Some actually heavier devices ‘don’t feel heavy’ in the hand if their weight is distributed in a way that matches the holding hand. This principle, if inversed, might give a clue. Let’s say we were not devising the device, but instead devising a hand (imagine ) for a given device. Won’t we devise the hand in such a way that the major touch points with the device align with the portions which weigh more on the hand?

If we agree on this, we see this as perhaps a ‘stress relief’ design (may not be still get explained by physics, or does it?). I’d imagine similarly it couid work out as a stress relief for the chassis, and hence the equipment as a whole, if the isolators align under the heavier portions of the equipment? Just wondering!

If the base plate of the amp or dac or CD player is heavy and made of steel or similar metal, feet at the 4 corners work best. But majority of the stuff we use have very flimsy bases. In such cases, as Sachin mentioned, you need to play around and see what combination and position works best.

Prem’s insight helps too. As I wrote in the first post, FMs I discussed with seem to agree that isolators help budget equipment more than high end ones. May be because the stock feet are designed better in the latter, or that critical components inside have better internal isolation provided. Here Prem helps us see that the positioning of isolators may also matter more in budget equipment than high end (or better made) equipment where the base plates are thick enough to uniformly distribute the weight.

If I juxtapose this with the above analogy of handheld devices, there’s always a case for thinner (and lighter) body frame in handheld devices, so the weight distribution would matter more (just like in budget equipment with thinner base plate).

 

[Gerry_the_Merry]

I think if the internal weight is unevenly distributed and the base plate is not strong enough or thick enough, then relying on the stock feet would perhaps result in a flex of the base plate - it should sag from the middle if this reasoning is true - and putting a similar height after market footer directly under the heaviest part of the component should even the plate out and prevent any flex. So any flex related distortion should largely go with this.

The other aspect is vibration. I find it a bit tough to understand how aftermarket feet will better solve the vibration issue compared to the stock feet. Having said that, when I put Jenga Blocks under my amp everything sounded better - so they did a better job than the stock feet. But I am not such a subtle listener anyway.

 

[Deleted member 15865]

I think if the internal weight is unevenly distributed and the base plate is not strong enough or thick enough, then relying on the stock feet would perhaps result in a flex of the base plate - it should sag from the middle if this reasoning is true - and putting a similar height after market footer directly under the heaviest part of the component should even the plate out and prevent any flex. So any flex related distortion should largely go with this.

Thanks. Makes sense

The other aspect is vibration. I find it a bit tough to understand how aftermarket feet will better solve the vibration issue compared to the stock feet. Having said that, when I put Jenga Blocks under my amp everything sounded better - so they did a better job than the stock feet. But I am not such a subtle listener anyway.

Perhaps the designers/manufacturers like @magma can better answer this. But as far as I understand, the isolation (and hence vibration control) is achieved by the ceramic ball between the pair of roller blocks. One, this reduces the contact area substantially (something spikes would also achieve), but secondly and more importantly, being a ball, it has a ‘give’, it can rotate ever so slightly (along x and y axes) acting as suspension and hence controlling the vibration being passed on from (both) the equipment to the platform and the platform to the equipment. This is one reason why I say be careful with the number of roller block pairs you use. If they are insufficient, I’ve seen each pair of the blocks bears more weight than desired, and the freedom for the ball to roll becomes lower than optimum (can easily be checked by shaking the equipment and seeing how much the blocks in a pair move relative to each other). Since writing the above post and earlier elaborate comment on positioning, I have in fact added a fifth block pair under both my pre and amp (which are both heavy) with resultant improvement in sound. However, when I tried adding a fifth to the CD player, which is lighter as compared to the two above, I didn’t find any (further) improvement.

 

[arj]

I have 'Mostly" found the best benefit of Isolation on components other than speakers with 3 isolators where one of them is directly below Power supply transformer and the other 2 such that load distribution is even. with CD transports one directly underneath the spindle was useful, But as Prem mentioned when the chassis is of heavy steel it is different and I could not really generalise much !

have not experimented much on 3 vs 4..somehow always kept 3 unless it was not possible .

 

[Fiftyfifty]

Hi
From what I'm reading in posts by @SachinChavan , @prem , @arj and others, I'm thinking that, in general, isolators placed at the 4 extreme corners would be best, unless the base plate is really 'bendy' or some component is passing on vibrations to the base directly below the component. Otherwise, placing isolaters too much on the inside may cause the equipment to tend to tilt in the direction of any heavier component outside the trapezium or triangle, as the case may be. All this is just theoretical though, the theory completely defeated when the lights are low in the wee small hours of the morning

 

[jls001]

Firstly, I don’t believe any of the manufacturers have really given a thought on where to place the stock feet.

Check out Nordost Sort Kone placement instructions. They advise roughly what you've discovered, namely, placing their (various types of) cones under high mass components like transformers.

A ball bearing-based footer like the roller block has the freedom to move laterally and dissipates the lateral vibrations, whereas a conical footer can only act as a (hopefully better) conduit for vibrations. Watching a demo and listening to the effects of Sort Kones is ear opening.

 

[Fiftyfifty]

Check out Nordost Sort Kone placement instructions. They advise roughly what you've discovered, namely, placing their (various types of) cones under high mass components like transformers.

A ball bearing-based footer like the roller block has the freedom to move laterally and dissipates the lateral vibrations, whereas a conical footer can only act as a (hopefully better) conduit for vibrations. Watching a demo and listening to the effects of Sort Kones is ear opening.

Unless the base plate is really solid and heavy, I guess components like transformers and motors will transfer vibrations to the portion of the base plate directly below. Therefore an isolator that can dissipate or prevent these vibrations would help?

 

[ONEMANARMY]

Nice review
In my experience, a well thought out and executed isolation product most certainly has a beneficial impact. Sometimes quite a huge one
Will check these out once I kickoff my next stereo setup

 

[jls001]

Unless the base plate is really solid and heavy, I guess components like transformers and motors will transfer vibrations to the portion of the base plate directly below. Therefore an isolator that can dissipate or prevent these vibrations would help?

Footers are generally either dampeners or hard couplings. Many audio gear use some sort of rubber dampener footers. A dampener dissipates the vibration energy as heat. Hard couplings like roller blocks or cones act as better conduit than the stock footers. Many audio enthusiasts favour a hefty and substantial equipment rack that will absorb the vibration transmitted through hard couplings. But this isn't the only accepted method - there are those who believe in thin and rigid racks that they claim drains energy fastest.

 

[Fiftyfifty]

@Fiftyfifty, nice way to further a discussion - in an inquisitive than overtly challenging manner. Something I can learn from.

I don’t have a scientific answer to that. But I’d refer to another analogy (that may or may not apply). I’ve seen that when it comes to designing handheld devices (mobiles or tablets), it’s not just the weigh t, but even weight distribution that matters. Some actually heavier devices ‘don’t feel heavy’ in the hand if their weight is distributed in a way that matches the holding hand. This principle, if inversed, might give a clue. Let’s say we were not devising the device, but instead devising a hand (imagine ) for a given device. Won’t we devise the hand in such a way that the major touch points with the device align with the portions which weigh more on the hand?

If we agree on this, we see this as perhaps a ‘stress relief’ design (may not be still get explained by physics, or does it?). I’d imagine similarly it couid work out as a stress relief for the chassis, and hence the equipment as a whole, if the isolators align under the heavier portions of the equipment? Just wondering!




Prem’s insight helps too. As I wrote in the first post, FMs I discussed with seem to agree that isolators help budget equipment more than high end ones. May be because the stock feet are designed better in the latter, or that critical components inside have better internal isolation provided. Here Prem helps us see that the positioning of isolators may also matter more in budget equipment than high end (or better made) equipment where the base plates are thick enough to uniformly distribute the weight.

If I juxtapose this with the above analogy of handheld devices, there’s always a case for thinner (and lighter) body frame in handheld devices, so the weight distribution would matter more (just like in budget equipment with thinner base plate).

Nice analogy The hand that doesn't rock the equipment rules the world (of sound)

 

[Nikhil]

From what I'm reading in posts by @SachinChavan , @prem , @arj and others, I'm thinking that, in general, isolators placed at the 4 extreme corners would be best, unless the base plate is really 'bendy' or some component is passing on vibrations to the base directly below the component.

Just my opinion but use 3 isolators for anything - they define a plane perfectly.
Two in the front and one at the back is usually enough to support the gear.

Adding the fourth creates a "wobble" due to height variations.

Regards


.

 

[Fiftyfifty]

Just my opinion but use 3 isolators for anything - they define a plane perfectly.
Two in the front and one at the back is usually enough to support the gear.

Adding the fourth creates a "wobble" due to height variations.

Regards


.

Yes Nikhil, fully agree. I use 3 all the time. Mentioned 4 just for simplicity sake.

 

[Deleted member 15865]

Just my opinion but use 3 isolators for anything - they define a plane perfectly.
Two in the front and one at the back is usually enough to support the gear.

Adding the fourth creates a "wobble" due to height variations.

Regards


.

@Nikhil, that was my starting logic too - the typical tripod stability. But I soon realised that the roller blocks (and similarly any other isolators) have a certain load carrying capacity. The vibration control is achieved by the rotating ball which needs to move freely enough. If the blocks are overloaded, that doesn’t happen as freely(one can check by shaking the equipmnet). In that case, adding another helps. The optimum number will depend on the particular isolator model and the equipment weight. I agree that the surface of the platform needs to be reasonably uniform - which was in my case. A certain amount of unevenness (I’d say in tenths of mm) would be ok as it gets evened out by the felt sticker on both (upper and lower) side of this roller block Some high end isolators also have height adjustment.

 

[Fiftyfifty]

I haven't been able to figure out the determinant to help me decide on spikes vs roller blocks. On some units spikes are superior and on others it's roller blocks, and on some nothing is better than something.

 

[Nikhil]

that was my starting logic too - the typical tripod stability. But I soon realised that the roller blocks (and similarly any other isolators) have a certain load carrying capacity. The vibration control is achieved by the rotating ball which needs to move freely enough. If the blocks are overloaded, that doesn’t happen as freely(one can check by shaking the equipmnet). In that case, adding another helps.

Just go with a larger diameter ball. These are very easy to get.



.

 

[Deleted member 15865]

Just go with a larger diameter ball. These are very easy to get.
.

I‘d imagine a roller block is designed for a certain diameter ball. A larger ball will have a different curvature than the cups in which it sits. And that can impede its movement.