PREMIERE

⌈ ROGOZ AUDIO is a company specializing in anti-vibration components. It is one of those Polish companies that are well-known not only in Poland but also abroad. It sends its products almost all over the world - the recent delivery was sent to Israel. We test its latest product, the top FINALE / BBS anti-vibration platform. ⌋

OGOZ AUDIO doesn't introduce new products too often. What's more, most of those that were presented in 2007, when the company was founded, and in the following years, are still offered to customers. The company started with anti-vibration platforms and later added anti-vibration racks, cable stands as well as anti-vibration feet.

Following the development of this brands over the years, I could appreciate further improvements, corrections, minor changes thanks to which its "company" sound has evolved and refined. As far as I remember, these were never big changes, but rather a slow evolution, it was about slow but constant improvement. Interestingly, the company's proprietary solution hasn't really changed – it is still the patented BALANCING BOARD SYSTEM (BBS ). That is why names of some of its product series are two parts – first comes the proper name, for example 'Finale', and than the abbreviation BBS: 'Finale / BBS'.

Also the materials their products are made of are classic ones - today they use almost exclusively different varieties of MDF and HDF. There are no super-hi-tech materials, no overly complex decoupling systems in them. It was a conscious decision of Mr. Janusz Rogoż, the owner and chief designer, who wanted to utilize what these materials had to offer - and, as he says, they offer a lot.

The company's products are distinguished by simple, i.e. non-fancy forms and solid workmanship. The Finale / BBS is a 600 x 460 x 50 mm three-level anti-vibration platform. The basic level consists of three feet - two at the front and one at the back - with threaded (and thus adjustable) spikes made of high-carbon steel alloy. The intermediate (or middle) element is made of carbon polymer. A spike with the cap rests on a large diameter "metal" bowl fitted into the milled hole in the shelf above. Because subsequent layers are just two shelves of the same size, one placed above the other, separated by another BBS system.

The shelves and feet of the Finale / BBS platform are sandwich designs that combine three different versions of MDF and HDF boards, differing in density and thickness. The idea was for these layers to differ in density, and thus vibration damping characteristics. The company usually uses boards with a density of 500, 700 and 900 kg / m3. The thickness and density are calculated individually for each project. These layers are glued together under pressure, i.e. pressed, thanks to which the heterogeneity of mass distribution in space and high attenuation of the standing waves in the shelves are achieved. Individual elements – feet and shelves - are made of the same kind of boards, but used in different proportions.

The shelf we received for the test was finished with high gloss white varnish, but other types of finishes are also available. The sides are rounded in almost the same way as chassis of Ayon Audio devices are. This reminded me the style of Art Deco furniture, and furniture from the 1950s.

JANUSZ ROGOŻ,
Owner, chief designer

WOJCIECH PACUŁA: What is the symbol of the new platform?
JANUESZ ROGOŻ: The platform doesn't have a symbol, but rather a name – the Finale / BBS. BBS is the acronym for our proprietary anti-vibration system. It started with a series of racks called Trio / BBS, Quartet / BBS, and so on.

So from now on all platforms will have names instead of symbols?
For sure, product lines that already have names - such as the latest racks - will be continued. The names of the last series of racks referred to the number of musicians in a band. In the case of platforms, their names will be referring to a part of a music piece – in this case it is Finale. I don't know yet how we will call the next models.

It might be difficult to trump Finale…
(Laughing) Yes, it is not going to be easy, but I will come up with something :) It does not mean that we will never have an even better platform, but for now it is our top model.

How does Finale differ from previous Rogoz Audio models?
It differs primarily in the fact that the BBS system is doubled. It consists of independent elements - each feet is also independent. The middle board is placed on those feet and it is already movable. In turn, this board is the basis for another BBS system - it is a work top. So there are two levels of lateral movement. The thing was that the previous top platform featured only one level, as in the racks. And while in racks one doesn't need more, it is quite sufficient, because the top shelves are high above the vibrating ground (floor), in the case of a platform the top shelf might be sitting quite close to the ground/floor.

It's not really that two BBSs are better than one. But the specifics of the platform's operation required smoothing its resonance characteristics. As I say, this is not an issue for racks, because the tops are placed far away from the source of vibration (floor), but the platform does not have this first “stroke” buffer from the surface on which it is set. When we measured the racks and compared them with a platform in an extreme situation, i.e. when the platform was placed on the floor, close to full-range speaker capable of producing dynamics at the level of 100-110 dB for low frequencies of 16-20 Hz, it turned out that the rack tops were a bit less energy-laden with vibrations generated by the speakers than platforms.

The use of the second BBS system does result in twice as small load distribution, but it is more important that the phase characteristics of the resonance response changes. Both tops move horizontally, but depending on which one receives the vibrations - i.e. stroke – first it will move in a different phase than the second one. The phases of these vibrations will not match, thanks to which we get even greater smoothness of the resonance rise edge. And this is, in fact, the only difference between a single BBS and a dual one.

What do you measure in anti-vibration platforms?
We measure each rack and platform during standard tests using accelerometer - it is about measuring the acceleration of vibrations. Each material has its own resonance response characteristics. In the measurements we can see it as a main resonance, for example in the range of 500-800 Hz, which looks similar to the measurement of the impedance of loudspeakers as a function of frequency - there is one peak and a slight peak and then fall. Wherever there is a flat characteristic, within 5 dB range, there is the most effective damping and vibration dissipation by the platform. Where the material's own resonance is activated, we can see a reduction in its effectiveness.

Individual materials differ from each other in the resonance response spectrum. The shape of the resonance build-up curve changes, which can be presented on a frequency graph as a function of volume level. The higher the curve and the sharper its shape, the more narrow the band and the more annoying it gets for a listener. However, if the vibration amplitude is relatively low, more widely distributed in the band and with a gentle slope inclination, then the vibrations interfere less in the musical signal and interfere less in the physiological sensitivity of the listener - they simply get less tiring.

The point is that the build-up of the resonance should be as smooth as possible, i.e. the characteristic should not be full of by peaks and "holes". This is related to the vibration phasing, i.e. how they are distributed in the structure of the material and in the whole structure of the product. These are many variables that need to be combined in a project.

Are you more of a technician or a music lover?
When I work I become a scientist - methodology is the most important for me, both in terms of measurements and in relation to listening tests. I am a fan of a methodology that is called 'well-established methodology'. It was invented in the 1960s by Anselm L. Strauss, and in Poland it was Krzysztof T. Konecki who introduced it to the humanities.

It is an induction methodology. The point is that we don't develop a project and only then wonder why it sounds one way or the other and using deduction we find out what contributed to it, and then we go back and change the parameters to improve the final result. In grounded methodology, we come to the effect by induction. In small steps, slowly. At each stage there are auditions and measurements, as well as falsification of projects and this way we reach the final product. We build a "house" not from prefabricated elements, but from foundations, layer by layer.

This is what grounding is all about - if you put a foundation, it needs time to fix, then you build a brick wall, which again needs weeks and months to dry, etc. Falsification is carried out on many levels. I am the author of the project and I can say that it is a process of long and arduous listening and testing. The deduction method is easier and faster, but it doesn't give you confidence, you can't use it to build over a longer distance. The effect is obtained quickly, but is individual.

So, to answer your question: I like to think of myself as a scientist, but I surely am a music lover.

So first comes idea, then measurement and finally listening sessions?
The measurement stage is only for checking the results of our work. Only a few basic parameters can be measured, and there are many times more variables that we do not know. These are things that don't get measured. Of course, you need to make measurements at each stage to see if you stick to the assumed parameter, but then there is time to work on it - this is just grounding the theory.

Due to the fact that we have been operating this way from the beginning, projects that were created several years ago are still good, we can still be proud of them. I have withdrawn three or four early projects, but that's it. Sometimes we introduce some changes and the product get upgraded to the "MkII" version, but these are cosmetic changes. Since our working method is time consuming, we introduce new products very rarely. ▪

| HOW WE LISTENED TO IT

The Finale / BBS platform was compared to the platform the Ayon Audio CD-35 HF Edition SACD player (№ 1/50) is usually placed on, that is the Acoustic Revive RAF-48H. It is a pneumatic wooden platform with a low profile. The comparison consisted of moving the player from one platform to another, so it was an A / B / A comparison with the A and B known. I devoted a separate session to comparing the player's sound on the Rogoz Audio platform and when it was placed directly on the top shelf of the Finite Elemente Pagode Edition rack. Both platforms during the test were placed on the tops of this rack. I also took advantage of the fact, that Janusz Rogoz personally brought the platform for testing and we listened to several CDs with and without Finale / BBS together.

Recordings used for the test (a selec- tion)

• Aquavoice, Silence, Zoharum ZOHAR 168-2, Master CD-R (2018); recenzja
• Frank Sinatra, Nice’n’Easy, Capitol Records/Mobile Fidelity UDCD 790, „24kt Gold Collectors Edition”, Gold-CD (1960/2002)
• John Coltrane, Coltrane’s Sound, Atlantic/Rhino R2 75588, „Atlantic Jazz Gallery”, CD (1964/1999)
• Pat Metheny, What’s It All About, Nonesuch Records/Warner Music Japan WPCR-14176, CD (2011);
• Polish Jazz Quartet, Polish Jazz Quartet, Polskie Nagrania „Muza”/Warner Music Poland, „Polish Jazz | vol. 3”, Master CD-R (1965/2016);
• Ariel Ramirez, Misa Criolla, José Carreras, Philips/Lasting Impression Music LIM K2HD 040, K2HD Mastering, „24 Gold Direct-from-Master Edition UDM”, CD-R (1964/2009)

| Finale/BBS and JANUSZ ROGOŻ

The changes that took place after placing the player on my platform were exactly the changes that were to occur. You have to start with the fact that you can describe changes in the system that has some disadvantages, or in an ideal situation, when we have control over all variables and the sound is of a reference level. I like tuning this system very much.

The situation here is perfect for me – there is a base exactly on the line connecting loudspeakers and phase building reaching very far in and very close in the front, in approximately the same proportions. So if something withdraws in the negative phase behind the base of the speakers, then at the same time the sound can appear directly in front of me, and even behind me. So there is an effect of a spheric sound, and this is important, because in nature we deal with point source sound, which should propagate in the form of a sphere. This effect is preserved here.

For such a close listening field, as in this system, the acoustics are very well balanced. I can hear here a slight emphasize of the 110-120 Hz to 250 Hz range, but the overall sound balance is so good that it is a difference – I think - of 1.5 dB in relation to the rest of the band. And the rest of the band is perfectly linear for my ear. So the reference sound as such is a very good base for comparison.

What you have here is an exceptionally full-range sound, the bass can be heard evenly here (i.e. without weakening the energy) down to 30 Hz, and probably lower. Any such system is usually "anchored", i.e. there is a coupling between the speakers and the equipment that induces the energy generated by the speakers. This is a so-called positive acoustic coupling - a phenomenon where the end signal of the music system (sound produced by the speakers) appears again at the input of the system (in the source, amplifiers, cables, etc.). The vibrations generated by the loudspeakers are transmitted through the floor and ceiling to the electronics, and then added to the original signal thus changing it.

This is based on the principles of microphonics and the conversion of mechanical vibrations into electrical vibrations through capacitive and induction processing at all stages of electrical signals processing, wherever we deal with the movement of charged particles, regardless of whether they are electrons in cables and transformers, or ions in inertial elements (capacitors, coils).

In this system, this feedback is virtually inaudible. Despite this, some “sound sticking” to the speakers occurs here because it occurs everywhere. This cannot be eliminated by any anti-vibration system. The only reference point is a quick comparison with headphones, because there is no such feedback. My platform did such a thing to a minimal extent, I have the impression that the sound sources were a little more detached from the speakers while maintaining exactly the same or very similar tonal balance.

At first, it seemed to me that nothing changed in the extension of the sound, its tonal balance, harmonic density, etc. On the other hand, some of the effects related to space were more surprising - the platform caused something that made me feel a bit like I was listening to the music using electrostatic headphones, because the sound, perhaps, was slightly less associated with the speakers. It seems to me that the level of resonance of the system has not changed at all, which is a really good sign for the original track - this is a beautiful system and I am very happy with how my platform fitted in it.

| Finale/BBS and me

The influence of the Rogoz Audio platform on sound is quite easy for me to describe, because I know this system in and out and for me every change seems of an almost cosmic proportion. It is a platform that modifies the sound towards its completion, richness and smoothness. It is probably only the second time after the Stacore Advanced pneumatic platform – that something happened in my system me that doesn't happen often – I realize it's a product that is better than the one I use every day, i.e. the Acoustic Revive RAF-48H pneumatic platform. Not in every respect, not always unambiguously, but overall the tested platform pushed my system in the right direction.

Its sound (I am talking about modifications it introduces, but for simplicity I will talk about "its" sound) is saturated and has a low center of gravity. After switching from Acoustic Revive, the presentation became more fluid, more creamy. The upper parts, like the cymbals on the Coltrane’s Sound, were presented a bit more further behind, which does not mean that they were quieter. I believe that they fit in better with the whole soundscape, they were no longer dominated in the right channel - this was a classic recording for those years: left-center-right - and they also allowed the piano's full decay, which was placed there by Tom Dowd, who was responsible for this recording.

The microdynamics also improved, although this feature may not be so obvious, not immediately. Because the improvement I am talking about was manifested in a better drum hit, better double bass clarity and better saxophone phrasing. Each of these things would seem to come from a different "space" of sound, and yet they were treated together, made more important through the better microdynamics.

And the latter results directly, I think, from better resolution. Maybe I should have started and finished this test with it, because it means that the platform fulfills its role and there is no reason to beat the bush around it. And yet ... The resolution is only one of the elements, maybe the basic one, but related through a network of connections with the entire cosmos of changes that are taking place in this case.

Because the better resolution translates into better phrasing, fluidity and silkiness - it is an incredibly smooth sound - but it also leads to a slight weakening of "avidness" of the presentation. This is a trait defining the attack, a kind of temper of the sound but under control. In this respect, the Japanese reference platform is better, although maybe a bit more "raw". With more powerful music material, for example with rock, pop placing the player on Janusz Rogoz's platform will be on the one hand a step towards a slight withdrawal of the attack, smoothing its edge, which in such music is not always a good thing, but also - and it has to be said - a step towards a more “cultural” sound.

Because it is a “cultural” and orderly sound. The detachment of sound from the speakers that my interlocutor mentioned earlier is obvious. It results, as I see it, from the very good separation of stage layers, great differentiation. And yet, at first glance, it may seem that these elements are not as good here, because everything is calmer and smoother. However, those who had a chance to listen to some high-end components will appreciate this change, it will be something that will make this presentation sound more like natural sound.

The platform also showed large, stable phantom images on the axis, whether it was a John Coltrane's saxophone or Frank Sinatra's vocal, or - finally - the Pat Mehtheny's guitar, the favorite musician of the designer of the reviewed platform. His baritone guitar from the What's It All About sounded deeper, cleaner, but also more natural, softer with the platform. The reverbs that placed the instrument in a large, spacious room were presented in a fantastic way, but without blurring it. I noticed it already on the first album, but this feature was even more evident with the Sinatra's voice, which had more space behind it, was better separated from the orchestra, and was bigger, stronger.

My impressions were exactly the same when I listened to Metheny. His instrument sounded deeper and was more resonant. This is a feature that results from stronger sound saturation in the whole band - from top to bottom. Because also the low, electronic sounds from the Aquavoice's Nocturn, prepared by Tadek Łuczejko, were stronger, smoother and simply clearer with the platform. Which is a paradox, because it is a smoother presentation, with a slightly withdrawn treble.

| SUMMARY

Looking at the latest Rogoz Audio platform, it would be difficult to say what is special about it. Yes, it is pretty, yes, it is very well made and – a third yes – it is based on a well-documented patent. Still, it just looks "normal". In its normality, however, there is something more, something beyond it, knowledge and experience that cause the classic materials and simple solutions result in a different performance league in this particular case.

The Finale / BBS platform improves resolution and differentiation, “darkening” and smoothing the sound. This is a high-end feature of the best high-end components and systems. The higher the resolution, the less clear are the details, and at the same time the more information we can hear – it's a paradox but a good one. That's what the Finale / BBS has to offer and that's why it deserves recognition and appreciation as well as our RED Fingerprint. ■

Technical specifications (according to manufacturer):

Overall height: 194 mm
Overall width: 600 mm
Overall depth: 460 mm
Leg profile: sandwich MDF+MDF+HDF 70 mm thick
Top shelf: sandwich MDF+MDF+HDF 600 x 460 x 50 mm
Bottom shelf: sandwich MDF+MDF+HDF 600 x 460 x 50 mm
Maximum load: up to 150 kg