It seems to me that the purpose of isolation feet is to damp or absorb or turn to heat, inevitable mechanical vibrations before they can interfere with what they're isolating, like the suspension of the LP12. No?
If by isolation feet you mean some sort of damping, then the surface upon which the component would sit wouldn't be stable. It would be wobbly. So the component would not be held steady, but would be allowed to move about. So when the sound waves hit the component (Radikal), it would move (vibrate). The component moving is what is to be avoided for good sound (less loss of musical information). So the component should be held steady (anchored) at a fixed point in space, but the stand holding it should also vibrate with as little energy as possible. It's the mass of the component that isolates from the vibrations imparted by the stand by damping.
I needs to be rigid, per Linn, for best sound. I'm having trouble imagining a surface that isn't rigid but still provides stability. I'm finding that moving towards more rigid, more stable, and lighter weight results in less loss of musical information.
I needs to be rigid, per Linn, for best sound. I'm having trouble imagining a surface that isn't rigid but still provides stability. I'm finding that moving towards more rigid, more stable, and lighter weight results in less loss of musical information.
I can imagine a situation where a heavy piece of furniture with sides and back made of veritable sound boards, and maybe even with a center channel speaker sharing the same is used. In this circumstance, it might be advantageous to isolate the component from all that vibration via some sort of non-rigid device. But I would see this as a big compromise. But domestic considerations can't be bypassed sometimes.
Yes. The component should move as little as possible. There's no practical way to measure this movement nor a way to perceive it. It's microscopic. So one must simply know what moves things towards more rigid, more stable, and lighter. Ideally, all this is accomplished by the rack. But as I said earlier, sometimes domestic considerations prevail, and compromises must be made. If isolation under the component is needed, I would try Blu-tack. It seems to isolate well, and not allow the component to move much at all. It's very cheap as a packet cost me about $6.
I fully agree with you.
Indeed, the standard feet fitted to the Klimax case by Linn have rubber pads attached, which presumably already do this job to some extent. So Linn have avoided total rigidity.
Indeed, the standard feet fitted to the Klimax case by Linn have rubber pads attached, which presumably already do this job to some extent. So Linn have avoided total rigidity.
Your analogy is good. All we are doing with Isoacoustic feet is fitting better tyres. However, nothing changes in principle. We are not undermining Linn's fundamental design as Akamatsu fears, but rather enhancing it.
On the subject of putting things on top of other things
In my system, the Radikal 2 makes beautiful music. I also have a Urika II, so double duty for mine. I'm finding the main benefit of the Klimax case to be acoustic isolation (I upgraded from ARad to KRad). As a mechanical engineer, I have much interest in the mechanical engineering design that happens at Linn. I've taken their design concept and given it the best chance of success by minimizing vibrations at the circuits. This has been done by addressing the two pathways for vibrations to reach the circuits, these being airborne, and via the stand upon which the Radikal sits. Each step towards minimizing the vibration at the circuits has resulted in a rather profound decrease in loss of musical information. The potential for vibration reduction benefits is huge. Hold the Radikal as rock steady and movement free as possible. The efforts of the Linn mechanical engineers will come through in a big way.
