Latest gear you've acquired.....

[trodden]

A pair of these for my Oktava MK-012's as well as Sennheiser 416 shotgun mics. Really good shock mounts, especially for the price!.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ULH5HSW?ps ... ct_details

and some of these, for mounting shotgun mics on various places instead of using ugly ass gaff tape.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CGZPKN28?re ... tails&th=1

[digitaldrummer]

I got a set of IsoAcoustic's Iso-Puck Minis for them from the Amazons. They came in a day and were absolutely simple to get going. For $99 I got better imaging and clearer lows with my set up.

Are the Iso-puck-minis anything more than silicone gel pads? I bought some of the Auralex ProPod Lites (they were $58 vs. $99) but was surprised to find out that they are nothing more than silicone blobs (the description that Sweetwater has is wrong). Anyway, I feel like I could get the same thing (with some weirdo knock-off brand name) a lot cheaper on Amazon. But when I put them under my monitors (Fluid FX80's) where I had some of the foam "mopad" kind of things (which were some weirdo Amazon knock-off) they worked 100x better. I have 2 side racks and on top of those are a couple 4u felt-covered wooden racks sitting on top. My monitors sit on those (I used to have a stack of patio bricks there but wanted that space for the 4U racks after I got some additional hardware)). Anyway, with the foam or no foam, I could feel the vibrations transmitting into the whole side-rack. With the ProPod Lite's in there - literally nothing. I cranked up some music and it seemed pretty clear and tight. I didn't do any scientific measurements but I felt like it sounded better than the foam thingies did (and I kind of knew that - and really not even sure why I had them on there- I think maybe just to lift it up 2" higher).

so I was wondering if the Iso-acoustics are anything different - they look like they have a harder plastic cover? Then again I thought these did too when I was first looking at them. Trying to decide if I try these, or another set of the Auralex, or something else for my main set of monitors.

btw, the insides of these look exactly like the Auralex ProPod lite... crazy.
https://www.amazon.com/Addicted-s-Pods- ... B0BPSC354L

[roscoenyc]

I got a set of IsoAcoustic's Iso-Puck Minis for them from the Amazons. They came in a day and were absolutely simple to get going. For $99 I got better imaging and clearer lows with my set up.

Are the Iso-puck-minis anything more than silicone gel pads? I bought some of the Auralex ProPod Lites (they were $58 vs. $99) but was surprised to find out that they are nothing more than silicone blobs (the description that Sweetwater has is wrong). Anyway, I feel like I could get the same thing (with some weirdo knock-off brand name) a lot cheaper on Amazon. But when I put them under my monitors (Fluid FX80's) where I had some of the foam "mopad" kind of things (which were some weirdo Amazon knock-off) they worked 100x better. I have 2 side racks and on top of those are a couple 4u felt-covered wooden racks sitting on top. My monitors sit on those (I used to have a stack of patio bricks there but wanted that space for the 4U racks after I got some additional hardware)). Anyway, with the foam or no foam, I could feel the vibrations transmitting into the whole side-rack. With the ProPod Lite's in there - literally nothing. I cranked up some music and it seemed pretty clear and tight. I didn't do any scientific measurements but I felt like it sounded better than the foam thingies did (and I kind of knew that - and really not even sure why I had them on there- I think maybe just to lift it up 2" higher).

so I was wondering if the Iso-acoustics are anything different - they look like they have a harder plastic cover? Then again I thought these did too when I was first looking at them. Trying to decide if I try these, or another set of the Auralex, or something else for my main set of monitors.

btw, the insides of these look exactly like the Auralex ProPod lite... crazy.
https://www.amazon.com/Addicted-s-Pods- ... B0BPSC354L

I didn't try to take the ISO-Puck Minis apart. Height was a consideration when I looked at some of the products. The ISO-Puck Minis were the lowest profile of the products that I looked at.

[digitaldrummer]

I didn't try to take the ISO-Puck Minis apart. Height was a consideration when I looked at some of the products. The ISO-Puck Minis were the lowest profile of the products that I looked at.

yeah, I wouldn't expect you to. I was more just curious what the material was - are they metal or a hard plastic outer shell? The Auralex can't really be taken apart - they are just single piece or blob of what appears to be silicone (although they call it "damped polymer" or something fancy like that). I was just wondering if I was missing anything by using the Auralex "lite" version. I think the bigger, more expensive Pro Pods have the metal shell on them but I'm not really sure what that buys you, except maybe better stability for the silicone core (to keep it from deforming under heavier weights?)

[losthighway]

Beesneez B67-269 (v2)

[Scodiddly]

I didn't try to take the ISO-Puck Minis apart. Height was a consideration when I looked at some of the products. The ISO-Puck Minis were the lowest profile of the products that I looked at.

So the eternal question here is whether you want your monitor rigidly attached to the Core of the Planet, or floating freely in space. Some people put their speakers on heavy stands with sharp spikes into the floor, while these products seem to promise to disconnect it as much as possible.

The Mo-Pad thing kind of strikes a compromise, it adds mass to the speaker while separating it from anything else. So maybe it's somewhat about not having your other stuff shaking along with the bass notes? I suppose you don't want the sound radiating from anywhere else, because that loses a lot of control over the frequency response. So maybe a couple of carpet samples with paving bricks on top, and put the speaker on top of that?

[digitaldrummer]

So the eternal question here is whether you want your monitor rigidly attached to the Core of the Planet, or floating freely in space. Some people put their speakers on heavy stands with sharp spikes into the floor, while these products seem to promise to disconnect it as much as possible.

The Mo-Pad thing kind of strikes a compromise, it adds mass to the speaker while separating it from anything else. So maybe it's somewhat about not having your other stuff shaking along with the bass notes? I suppose you don't want the sound radiating from anywhere else, because that loses a lot of control over the frequency response. So maybe a couple of carpet samples with paving bricks on top, and put the speaker on top of that?

I used to have several patio bricks (spray painted black so they didn't look ridiculous) on top of my side racks, then I used a layer (or layers) of the Rubbermaid waffle shelf liner on top and underneath. That worked pretty well, but I removed all of those bricks so I could fit some 4U racks on top of the side racks (which are sorta level with the desk). Those racks are just not as solid or rigid as the bricks. The Auralex ProPod Lites actually made a significant difference for one pair of monitors. So I was going to order another pair but they were out of stock. Sweetwater recommended RAB Audio ProJax 40 monitor isolators. These appear to have multiple pieces that can be stacked to put the monitors at a slightly higher or lower height - or even tilt them (since each isolator can be 1, 2, or 3 pieces). Again less $ than the Iso-Acoustics. Anyway, these are on the way so I'll report back when I get them.

[T-rex]

Well dammit, all this 1073 talk got me. I found a really good deal on a mint used AML ez1073. Gonna be doing a bunch of testing against my Burl to see how it compares.

First impressions are sounding good.

[digitaldrummer]

you'll enjoy it. I got my 2nd AML 5003D in the rack and I'm glad to have it (but sad that I probably have to kick out something else - haven't completely decided which one yet)

[T-rex]

Always the struggle!

So far it’s got the Burls awesome heft but with an extended top end. Now I get where that whole red silk thing from my RND 542s comes from. Then you add the EQ and it’s really incredible for the price.

The Burl distorts maybe a bit better when really pushed, but I don’t have a good attenuator for the AML. So not apples to apples yet.

[roscoenyc]

I didn't try to take the ISO-Puck Minis apart. Height was a consideration when I looked at some of the products. The ISO-Puck Minis were the lowest profile of the products that I looked at.

So the eternal question here is whether you want your monitor rigidly attached to the Core of the Planet, or floating freely in space. Some people put their speakers on heavy stands with sharp spikes into the floor, while these products seem to promise to disconnect it as much as possible.

The Mo-Pad thing kind of strikes a compromise, it adds mass to the speaker while separating it from anything else. So maybe it's somewhat about not having your other stuff shaking along with the bass notes? I suppose you don't want the sound radiating from anywhere else, because that loses a lot of control over the frequency response. So maybe a couple of carpet samples with paving bricks on top, and put the speaker on top of that?

Well, the ISO-Puck Minis were relatively cheap, easy to instal and made my rig sound better so they get the thumbs up from me.

Of the pad type monitor things we've had the occasion to try a couple of them.

When we were in Williamsburg with Brad's Calrec console we couldn't use our stands so we bought a set of the Primacoustic Recoil Stabilizers. They worked. The have foam and steel. They are quite heavy. They worked really well.

When we were upstairs at Hugh's over the last couple years we bought some inexpensive foam pads from Gator. We bought them to get the right angle out of the speakers as there were some boxes on the top of his meter bridge. They didn't help the sound the way the Recoil Stabilizers did but they were a big help getting the speakers firing in the right direction.

Now we are back in our place and have our ADAMs on our Sound Anchors stands.

[trodden]

Well dammit, all this 1073 talk got me. I found a really good deal on a mint used AML ez1073. Gonna be doing a bunch of testing against my Burl to see how it compares.

First impressions are sounding good.

Looking forward to your thoughts.

[trodden]

Always the struggle!

So far it’s got the Burls awesome heft but with an extended top end. Now I get where that whole red silk thing from my RND 542s comes from. Then you add the EQ and it’s really incredible for the price.

The Burl distorts maybe a bit better when really pushed, but I don’t have a good attenuator for the AML. So not apples to apples yet.

Awesome. Did you get the AML EZ that's just the pre or the one with the additional EQ?

[T-rex]

Always the struggle!

So far it’s got the Burls awesome heft but with an extended top end. Now I get where that whole red silk thing from my RND 542s comes from. Then you add the EQ and it’s really incredible for the price.

The Burl distorts maybe a bit better when really pushed, but I don’t have a good attenuator for the AML. So not apples to apples yet.

Awesome. Did you get the AML EZ that's just the pre or the one with the additional EQ?

I got the 2 rack space one with both pre and eq. So it’s like when you add the eq into the equation, it’s such a no brainer. I love my Burl but I can tell I’m probably gonna want a pair of these and they are about the same price used.

I ran a bunch of stuff through all three, Burl, AML and the UAD. I duplicated tracks, put one in each track, matched levels as well as I could and did some blind switching back and forth with my faderport. I preferred the AML in almost every instance. The Burl is purposely a little dark and the AML has the bottom but also a really nice top end sheen to it. So I’m not sure a straight comparison is really fair. But other than a piano track where the Burl was hands down the winner, I personally liked the 1073 way better.

When I compared it to the UAD, with no eq, I picked the AML every time. It wasn’t a landslide but it definitely sounded bigger and there was more space around the instruments. It’s a battle of inches. On one track I don’t think anyone would ever notice but even blind switching I could always pick the bigger nicer sounding AML. Pretty much every comparison was AML > Burl > UAD.

I will say the Burl distorts a little nicer than the AML but I was turning levels down in software on the AML so I need to throw an actual attenuator behind it. But you have Burl right, so you know how they sound driven. The AMS on drums maxed out sounds insane, but the Burl sounds as insane but a little smoother. Probably due to the top end roll off.

Finally there is no way to really compare the UAD eq to the AML accurately but I did a few comparisons where I tried to match them. Then I just maxed the eq settings on both and compared. Like 12k all the way up on both and went back and forth. Same thing, AML was a bit bigger, a bit smoother, whereas the UAD, which normally sounds awesome to me, just sounded a bit flat when compared side by side.

I see myself probably selling the Burl, getting a second AML and then building probably two Lola’s down the road and being set for a while.

[Scodiddly]

When we were in Williamsburg with Brad's Calrec console we couldn't use our stands so we bought a set of the Primacoustic Recoil Stabilizers. They worked. The have foam and steel. They are quite heavy. They worked really well.

I *knew* I was getting something wrong. The Recoil Stabilizer does have a heavy steel plate right under the speaker, and the thicker piece of foam under that. So it a) adds mass to the speaker and b) isolates it from the furniture.