Hello folks,
I have been living with the MMMicro ones for a while now and can confidently say that it is a superb sounding speaker and excellent value.
It has anazing timing, coherence, resolution, and dynamics. The tweeter on the unit is a tour de force. That said the mids/bass are good to. The speaker does have good bass within its range.
The speaker defintely improves with break-in. Bass more clearly defined and deeper and the tweeter, while very hot initially is mellowing with time.
This speaker can defintely play with the big boys and improvements in quality to the front end will not be wasted.
Highly recommended.
Andrew |
Seadogs1, the Playback Design integrate amp/DAC was debuted at T.H.E. Vegas. I just happened to see and hear it before I left for the airport. You can email Jonathan Tinn at Chambers Audio for information or check the Playback design web site. It is killer sounding. I had listened to the MicroMM1's with the Dartzeel the first day and then this integrated amp/DAC and it sounded equally as good. The fact you get such a great sounding DAC plus the amp for $13k is excellent value in high end terms. I know this will catch much attention and accolades from the reviewers; it is that good. |
While I tried switching the speakers right to left and again back. Clearly it was the same speaker. I think the problem is with the tweeter (put my ears too without the grill). No sound from one tweeter, I even wheeled my old speakers in which were fine.
Have been speaking with Jonathan who says changing the tweeter is easy and does not need soldering. So, I have been waiting for the tweeter the last two weeks as Jonathan was busy with the CES. Hopefully that will fix it. I was really beginning to enjoy their sound though I had played them for only 10hr or so. |
Hifimaniac, not to take away from the thread as I too think the Micro's are fantastic, but you mentioned a integrated amp/DAC by Playback Designs. Do you happen to know the model number? |
I would say that a sub when added to the mix in my system has made these speakers a true reference sounding speaker. I look forward to someday upgrading to the next level when $$$ allows. |
Congrats to everyone enjoying their Micro's! Had them now for a few months and they never cease to amaze. Folks that come over to listen are amazed that they are so effortless yet detailed along with having some kick arse bass. |
I listened to this amazing speaker again last week at T.H.E. Las Vegas and it didn't disappoint. The amazing sound value this speaker offers is ground breaking. While there Jonathan Tinn shared a story of installing two pairs of these in a customer's home theater and while unpacking one pair he asked the customer if he would humor him by putting this out of the box pair in the customer's top of the line Dartzeel system with the top pre amp and the top of the line Dartzeel mono block amps that by the way, were driving the Magico Q7's. The story goes on that they hooked them up, went out for dinner for a couple hours and came back to give the MicroMM1's a listen compared to the Q7's. Well, long story short, I believe the Q7's are for sale on this site and the customer ordered the new MM7's. If that isn't a confirmation of the sound of this speaker, I don't know what is. The second day I returned to the room in Vegas to say "good-bye" and Jonathan sat me down to listen to the new Playback design integrated amp/DAC that had just arrived. This piece from Playback Designs is killer. The size is great for small quarters but the sound is anything but. The DAC has the same killer sound as the Playback design SACD and all this is for $13k. This one will have reviewers drooling. You must put this on your short list if you are looking for something compact but highest quality; a true bargain at the price mentioned. It sounded fantastic and I am not sure if it was even fully broken in. |
These had the best sound at show at RMAF in my opinion. Congrats. |
I just heard them again at CES. I'm still struck by how loud they play and small they are. |
I just received my long-awaited center channel....happiness! I now have a matched set L/R/C. It replaces a very fine Vienna Accoustics center i've user for several years. The change in sound was noticeable out of the box, even to my wife who never focuses on audio like I do. I would say the blend across the sound stage is now noticeably uniform; when watching the playoffs, the sense of "surround sound" was better. Dialog seems to be a little easier to understand. It comes with a cradle since it lays on its side which is convex. Nothing to attach or assemble. The "tweeter" is rotated 90 degrees. We'll see how things change as it breaks in. Thanks JT. |
Personally, I would not consider replacing drivers.....work with Jonathan. Did you swap the 2 speakers to see if the reduced sound moved with the speaker? If it didn't, it's not the speaker. Do you use an AVR? If so, could you have set it up to raise/lower dbs in the left or right channel. Did you remove the grill and listen closely to each of the 3 speakers to see if it was a problem with all 3 or just one? |
Hi, Iknev: If it were me I would just repackage the speaker since it is not that massive and send it back to be fixed under warranty. No doubt it will be painful not listening to your new speakers, but the last thing you want to do is compound the problem if you are not entirely sure how to replace drivers and crossover components, especially if you were to take out an amp channel or such. I have a pair of these speakers and have been lucky so far with no problems. Good luck with Jonathan--I am sure he will take care of you. |
|
So I got the speakers just after X-mas. They are stunning to look at and so petite!!. The stand took a little bit of work.
Even in the first 10hrs of my listening I was impressed. The music seemed so natural and engaging. It was very resolved and yet very far from being bright.. I was very excited as it was sounding better than my old speakers even at 5-10hrs and not by a small margin....I was thinking that this might be best purchase I have done...That was the good part.
After 10hrs, the output from one speaker seemed to be less..After changing things around and making sure of connections and such I realized that one of the tweeters ( I think) was not working. I have emailed Jonathan about a week back and he was going to the CES and said he will help after coming back. Any thoughts? is this a driver issue or cross-over issue. Should I ask for a single speaker to be replaced
I have never replaced drivers myself? are these easy to do.
Waiting to hear from Jonathan.
|
Just had Scott, the local distributor for Evolution Audio, come over to set up the speakers, since I don't have much experience with that part. He was simply great, brought his gear with him in order to do it properly and I simply LOVED the result. Now I have a very spacious and holographic sound stage with wonderful imaging. I do not only have a deep sound stage, but also have depth to the singers and instruments ("meat on the bones" as Scott would put it).
Now we'll just let me get used to the sound to see if minor adjustments will have to made before we put these babies on spikes.
Thanks a lot Scott (if you read this). Fantastic customer service. |
thanks folks ! paid for pair , should arrive soon...all the feedback was useful in making the decision. will let you know my thoughts soon. |
My burn in is over and impressions are on par with what I'm hearing here. I love them and find them amazing regardless of price point. Key points for me my room is not that big 15x16 and they fill it nicely. Using both ARC REF250s and REF75 for amps and both are stunning. I suppose I could go spend much more but why? Great Job EA !!!! |
Glory,
"it is very musically convincing"
That says quite a lot.This seems like a long term satisfying system you have.
Regards, |
Glory,
Thanks, this sounds like a very nice long term system,enjoy.
Regards, |
Iknev: The Micro Ones will be PERFECT in your room. You will have plenty of room to position them ideally. Play with side/front wall distances. Small changes in wall proximity will pay off for you. The bass output is prodigious, no need for a subwoofer. |
Iknev,
I listened to the Gallos while looking for my new system (the Strada+Sub). Actually, it was only a few days before a listened to the MMM1s. I wanted to get to know the Gallo house sound. I liked it very, very much... that is, until I listened to the MMM1s. The Gallos are very, very fast, but so are the MMM1s. I did feel a little uncomfortable with the Gallo's slight metallic tone in the higher mids. We played around with different ICs, but when using a more "musical" cable (Silent Source) I lost that wonderful transparent timbre the Gallo's had and didn't really get rid of the emphasis. Going back to AQ Sky make everything clear again, but the higher mid got worse. Getting the right cables for the Gallos seems paramount. I believe that the Gallo's will give you better deep LF.
Having said that, I honestly don't believe that the Gallo's are in the same league as the MMM1s. I'm not badmouthing the Gallo's. I loved them until I listened to the MMM1s. Maybe it's best to compare them to my former speakers, the KEF Reference 201.2s, which are wonderful in many ways and are (or were) more than twice the MMM1 price. Surprisingly the latter bettered the former in almost everything and some things by not a small margin.
I'm starting to think that break-in is far enough for me to get serious with speaker placement, since I haven't played with placement since setting them up and without even trying to get a golden triangle for starters.
I definitely wouldn't go with low-powered amps. These speakers need high currents and it doesn't hurt to have high-powered quality amps either. The rest of my setup should show that I take these speakers very seriously. |
iknev,
you would be pleasantly surprised how well these speakers do in the bass region as well at the lower volumes.
do they did as deep (20hz down) as my main system, no, but these gems just get it right. the bass is well defined & solid. i highly recommend them.
i had 2 of my friends over for a listen & they both sold their main speakers to purchase the micro one's. I'm talking about speakers that were in the 20K + range.
good luck, you will no be disappointed! |
You don't need a sub then. I like to hear kick drums in my body LOL. You will love them but make sure to stick some Sistrum 004 under them.
The MM 1 to me is a more refined speaker with greater clarity. Less of the cabinet sound for sure. The amp has less than 100 hours on it but to me it does some things better than the ASR but it is not as quiet. It is very musically convincing. There are tubes in the Pre section so I like that. |
Glory,
How does the presentation of this system differ from your primary system(Zu and ASR)?
Regards, |
Thanks for the response Glory.
I have been in touch with JTin and am almost ready to clinch the deal.. The kind of music I listen too there is not much sub 40hz tones I guess... A honest 37 hz without strain should be fine for me...I dont want to buy a sub right now..The gallo reference 3.5 is another option for me...but I must say that the mmmicrone have me excited.
If I dont have a sub will the mmmicrone not do well?/I listen at moderate to slightly loud volumes in a 18 by 14 by room.
Sounding good at low volume is very important for me.
If anybody else wants to chime in I would appreciate the help. |
110 watts will do but the 300B is pushing it.
The MM1 needs subs !! Installing the Gen. S/4 subs was a huge change for the better.
Running the LSA Statement amp with John Tucker's latest mods and upgrades. |
Hi
I am getting interested in these MMMicrone speakers.. Any more details... can somebody who have had these past the burn in chime in ...How much power do they need.. I have 21 watt 300b monblocks and 110 watt hybrid integrateds... will these work
thanks |
Rgs92:
I wouldn't say the Harbeth's sound like the MMOnes. With my equipment, the Harbeth's had great midrange, OK bass (decent extension, but definitely rounded off - resolution of what was happening in the bass was a bit blunted), and decent, but occasionally sharp treble. The MMOnes have better extension, mass and way better resolution in the bass; the mids are clearer and maybe a smidge leaner than the Harbeth's (although further break-in may ameliorate this); and the highs on the MMOnes are way better - cleaner, more pristine and since I've toed them in more, none of the occasional sharpness I experienced with the Harbeth's.
In my system and for my tastes, the MMOne has definitely eclipsed the Harbeth's.
-Mike |
I'm also on the burn-in bandwagon. I've been slowly starting to toe them in a bit, but was cautious as the treble was a little hot (in my admittedly lively room) and I was concerned about making that issue worse. I sent Jonathan a pic after toeing them in a bit and he came back advising me to toe them in some more - he advised aiming the speakers at my shoulders. Definitely good advice. I'm not sure if they're more lively off axis or the extra toe in is preventing early reflections - either way, a very positive change. They're really starting to sing now. |
Groovybassist, are you saying the MMOnes sound like Harbeth 7s? I don't particularly like Harbeth 7s (or SHL5s, which I owned for a while).
In what ways do the MM Ones sound different than the Harbeths?
(More resolution and less of the occasional tweeter ringing I hope.)
Thank you sir. |
Here at home burn-in is doing it's thing. Have used a 20Hz senoide wave for almost two days since it makes almost no noise and makes the woofers work very hard. It's incredible to listen to the difference it made. Soundstage (3D), micro-dynamics and speed are fantastic. Tonal balance is very good, but will probably improve with more burn-in. Speakers get a little "shouty" when driven to louder volumes, but I guess that it has to do with the ribbons needing quite a while to really loosen up. With lower volumes I don't get that kind of response. Because of that macro-dynamics suffer a little, but I haven't even reached the 100-hour mark yet.
BTW, the Diablo simply gives me UNBELIEVABlY fast, deep and "correct" bass without shifting the tonal balance. I absolutely love it. The Cantata is very neutral without losing musicality. It simply gives me all the detail I could crave for without messing with the musical experience. I think that burn-in for it is almost over.
Will continue to post impressions. |
One comparative end-user review of Sound Anchor vs Sistrum: http://www.starsoundtechnologies.com/r23.html
More data on this subject: http://wavekinetics.com/about-vibration.html
Measurable data points associated with a product: http://wavekinetics.com/a10-u8.html
It would be interesting to look at timing errors in digital
and isolation products.
Enough of this. Congrats to EA. Good sound is hard to find... |
Craig,
Thank you! That was a very interesting article about stands.
Chuck |
Today I stumbled upon an interesting article penned by Gary Koh, chief dude at Genesis. I'm posting it here for the benefit of all those curious about the stand discussion above. Gary does a very good job of explaining, in layman's terms, what is going on with all the various coupling/de-coupling devices, materials, etc. etc. And he makes some fairly good recommendations on how to go about optimizing your gear. It supports my assertion that this is not mystical or voodoo stuff going on. Point of fact, an educated person CAN make some very good assumptions, based on his equipment, and not have to go through an endless cycles of experimenting with devices. It's my contention that we assume far too much "voodoo" or "unknown/inexplicable" stuff going on in audio. I think this is largely due to pervasive marketing that poses as solid scientific truth. Fortunately, there are a handful of people, such as Gary, who take the time to explain things truthfully. Sure, his perspective is one of "We're doing it the right way". But he does a good job of explaining the gamut of ideas in an unbiased way. Anyway, it's good reading for anyone experimenting with stands and coupling/de-coupling devices for their speakers and equipment. http://www.genesisloudspeakers.com/whitepaper/Genesis_Loudspeaker_Coupling_Decoupling.pdf |
There are no bottoms to work with on the MM1 to try different stands. |
Prdprez, I knew you had minimal experimental knowledge of this topic. Try putting your floor standers on a set of stillpoints or sistrum stands and let us know what you HEAR. Physics is not simply theoretical in nature. There is the experimental arm as well....
Physics and Engineering is a useful platform to try and understand the various facets of this hobby, but there are enormous gaps in understanding in both fields. Case in point, engineers told us for a long time that wire did not matter. Lamp cord was equivalent to exotic wire. Now we know, based on actual measurements, that wire can effect timing errors (jitter). I have been told that mechanical grounding a crossover has effects on its actual performance. Since you have a physics background, is there an explanation for that? Any explanations for stabilization effecting electronic circuits? Surely its more witchcraft..... |
Prdprez, I think you are right about the discussion getting circular and off the topic. I find that speaker stands sound quite different and that I like some. If you insist that they are done by "right" engineers and I think that our knowledge is insufficient to totally explain what we hear, I am will to just say yes, you are right and go on think I am right. I have manmade ebony stands (newspaper and plastic). They don't ring, are heavy, with StillPoints OEMs under the speakers, spikes under the stands, and sound great. I would love to hear the MMMicro one on them. |
This discussion is starting to go a little circular.
So let me just correct a couple things from my perspective and then just leave it be. We don't need to end up arguing.
So, first, I never said that stands don't sound different. Of course they do. Otherwise I wouldn't be making the point that it's important for them to be 1) sturdy, 2) heavy (Ie. high mass), and 3) not contribute their own sound (Ie. ringing like a bell. Or a tuning fork, if you will)
The quote concerning "...stands are not one of them (stereo performance)." was grossly taken out of context. That statement applied to my assertion that there is not a lot of complicated things going on with a stand, from an engineering perspective. In other words, they are not remotely mysterious to a qualified engineer. There ARE many things in stereo performance that can seem a little inexplicable, such as why so many people find analog to sound better than digital. I do not find this to be the case with speaker stands. I simply assert that the right engineers already know everything they need to know in both mechanical engineering and materials science to make something that adequately lifts a speaker to the proper height and yet does not negatively impact on the overall performance.
This is my perspective and experience. If someone would like to contribute meaningful and concrete reasons as to what else could be contributing to the performance, as I've said already, I'm open to learning something new. |
Please help me understand some terminology here. Spending the majority of my audio experience in the recording sciences and gaining more knowledge about sound from the world of high end audio; could someone please explain or define the term ringing?
My initial impression was that ringing is a generated from continuous frequency reflecting off a non or less absorptive or very hardened vibrating surface material and that the rate of recurrence associated with ringing would be located in the upper midrange or higher more irritating frequency range of human hearing affecting the quality of what most determine to be good sound. If ringing occurs in the lower range would we be tempted to call this humming? :)
I am always reading on forums where the equipment stands, shelving materials and their associated parts are usually associated with the term ringing so why doesnt a smaller electronic component chassis made of thinner hardened chassis material and shaped like a hollow rectangular horn ring like a bell?
Prdprez: I can understand how you would determine short flaws in design and argue why speaker stands are not all that complicated and how one could easily predict outcomes in performance based on observations. As a physicist you are heavily involved with mathematical criterion; however you should also take consideration in the influence of materials science and engineering related to sound, equipment stands and musical presentation.
There are a few companies in high end audio heavily involved with their perspective research programs and vibration control methodologies that would be very eager to provide you very audible proof that the difference between good sound and really good sound can easily be attributed to the geometric designed equipment platform. Inventing one that really works well with all speaker enclosures may not be as easy as you currently perceive.
Our studio has spent much time in this arena. Granted, for years we thought equipment stands were mostly cosmetic pillars and furniture but the benefits discovered directly led to an increase in our business based on the end result and that is really great sound quality.
Taking a look at the EA-MMM1 build quality and responses to this thread unequivocally places them into a category of great value. Based on our experiences a more functional stand will provide a higher level of sound quality but would also add to the overall consumer price point and possibly the factory did not want to head in that direction with this initial roll out.
In our case the stands we chose cost more money than the loudspeakers and when we purchase more expensive monitors one very important characteristic remains a constant and that is the musical reference point in the studio remains coherent based on the stands performance.
In audio there is always room for greater understanding, discovery and improvement.
Disclaimer: My father works with a commercial company that employs various forms of vibration management so I am biased, have had greater access to knowledge from experience and have applied various techniques and multiple grounding principles in recording studio settings. |
Prdprez, I'm sorry but stands do sound different. On one hand you say that "...stands are not one of them (stereo performance)." Then you say many have "simple flaws." I agree that some don't use proper materials or to dampen the ringing or to isolate the speaker from the floor or drain the energy from the speaker or coming to it from the floor or air.
It has only been the last several years that I have cared about speaker stands as I have the LSA1 Statements in a small room. However, floorstanding speakers have the same problems. There is an interface between the speakers and the floor. John Dunlavy always said the his speakers needed no feet under them. He was wrong. Others have soft cushions, some have points of different materials, usually steel or stainless steel; and some have multiple material feet with multiple resonances. Which is better? Obviously, there is little agreement as science provides no answer.
My advice is don't go into the speaker stand or isolation devices. Some will say that they sound great and others that the suck. |
You are right that steel stores much of the energy of its resonance but wrong in saying that a steel stand is like a "rock" when filled with sand, etc. Many rocks, such as granite ring also. Actually, I am right. At least as far as the stands I used goes. Granite does ring, as does other solid stones of that nature. But loose sand is not granite and behaves very differently from granite depending on the type of sand, it's density, and any sort of filler mixed in with it. My particular stands behaved like a very non resonant stone. And, yes, this is very possible. If you look up Stereophile's review of the Rockport Antare and look at it's cumulative spectral decay plot you can see that it is possible to for something to be so inert that it is quiet to beyond the ability to measure it. This is how my particular stands were. Granted, I have working knowledge of physics and knew how to make them this way using cheap materials. (Ie. the right type of sand, filler, and density) But they were absolutely non resonant. At least to the same level as the Rockports. I think you are assuming that we understand all that is going on in a proper speaker stand. There are many things yet to learn in how we hear and a stereo's performance. But I would argue that stands are not one of them. The function is really not all that complicated. It serves a simple function. And we know enough about material science to accurately predict outcomes in performance. Yesterday I stopped by my local stereo store and took a look at all of the speaker stands they had on hand. There were quite a bit, actually. And a very wide range in prices. From $200 to $2,000. Stands from Focal, Dynaudio, Sanus, Audio Physic, LSA, pARTicular, and more. And, just by looking at them I can tell you that I would not personally purchase any of them. They all had an obvious (at least to my eye) flaw. One may have been non resonant(ish) but be flimsy. Another was rigid, but rang like a bell. I left with a much clearer understanding of why people find such clear differences in performance of stands! I was actually astounded at how even the $2,000 stand had simple flaws that I would think any mechanical engineer or physicist would immediately identify. So, again, no wonder there is such a difference in people's experiences. So I understand where people are coming from better. But I stand (no pun intended) by my assertion that 1) Speaker stands are not THAT complicated. And 2) they don't have to be all that expensive in order to be extremely high in performance. Maybe I should just go into the speaker stand business. heh heh |
Prdprez, what if you listened to two isolation cones, one of steel and one of brass and the brass ones sounded better? You are right that steel stores much of the energy of its resonance but wrong in saying that a steel stand is like a "rock" when filled with sand, etc. Many rocks, such as granite ring also. I think you are assuming that we understand all that is going on in a proper speaker stand.
The best isolation devices I have ever heard are made of stainless steel and ceramic balls. Ceramics can ring as can stainless steel. The StillPoints Ultra Fives will not ring.
But alas, this is not the concern of this thread. |
new system is in the break-in period, but I'm absolutely floored. don't know where this is going to end, but I'm absolutely floored. must be around 30 hours now and the system still is kind of 'shouty' with higher volumes, but I know that break-in is critical. had a tough time with my late KEF Reference 201.2 regarding break-in time, which was only complete around 500 hours so will be patient.
Will update around the 100 hour mark, where at the least the Resolution Audio Cantata will probably be fully broken in.
Best regards
André |
What if the resonant frequency range of a vibrating speaker stand is above or below that of the human ear? Would that leave a cleaner or more open space in the environment for our ears to hear more sound from the loudspeaker?
Once a stand is integrated with any compact monitor or floor standing loudspeaker the sound characteristics of the speaker automatically change based on the speaker relationships from the added mass of the stand, combined frequencies between the stand and speaker and the speed transformation of energy related to the acoustic and mechanical grounding applications.
Having auditioned multiple types of monitors and stands in recording studio suites we have found that that the supporting framework is extremely critical to any loudspeaker presentation. Speakers will sound good, better or just different based on the medium that they are placed on.
Add to that, if you have never experienced a speaker stand that truly and measurably increases performance then you may never know or understand what differences exist.
Since the speaker support provides such a defining influence to the end result, would anyone ever think that the importance of the stand design rivals that of the speaker?
Our choice of products now in place consist of a single technical approach to coupling and employ materials that when vibrating is beyond the audible range of the human ear so in essence we are not hearing the stand but are getting much more quality in sound out of the speaker.
Compact monitor enthusiasts should experiment and evaluate various stands for the results attained could easily redefine listening pleasure.
Disclaimer: My father works with a commercial company that employs various forms of vibration management so I am biased, have had greater access to knowledge from experience and have applied various techniques and multiple grounding principles in recording studio settings. |
I believe I have read that the best engineering practice is to couple an audio component to something that is more stable and decouple it from something less stable. Since I have a cement floor under my carpet I couple my MMMicroOnes to the floor using Star Sound Sistrum Stands that use brass cones. Conversely, I decouple my turntable from my equipment stand since it is less stable. I have spent a lot of time trying different vibration control schemes and my results confirm this rule of thumb. |
Well, I didn't want to hi-jack this thread. But perhaps this stand discussion will be useful to EA owners.
Anyway, my "experience" isn't really all that significant. Many years ago I used a stand from a company whose name I can't even remember. But it was simply a 4inch square column that was welded to flat plates both top and bottom. Everything was made from 5 gauge steel. By itself, it rang like a bell. Filled with wet sand, absolutely dead silent.
Like I mentioned already, I did assemble an LSA stand for a friend, while he was admiring his new LSA speakers. Cool looking but not really designed with performance in mind. And I also have a friend who owns a pair of Sound Anchor stands. Those beasts are probably 100lbs and also dead silent. If I ever used a stand mounted speaker again, for sure those are the ones I would get. Hands down. So, that's it. I don't even use stands anymore. When I did I actually went to the effort of literally bolting my speakers to the stand. And that had a tremendous effect on performance. But at that point, my speakers and stand were essentially one piece. Seemed like a good enough idea at the time. And the results proved true.
So my perspective is not one of lots of audiophile experience. But I do work in physics. So I'm just trying to apply basic physical laws. Ie. The first priority is for the stand to be sturdy. Any extraneous movement or flexure will be detrimental to the sound. This should be self evident. I would probably give mass as the second most important factor. Again, because of simple physics. The ratio of the mass of the moving diaphragms versus what they are pushing against should probably be as disparate as possible. This is pretty much proven in practice. Just look at the mass of speakers like Wilson, Rockport, Magico, Focal, etc. etc.
Anyway, the last factor would be ringing within the stand itself. In the same way that it's not desirable to have your speaker cabinet resonate, it's not good to have your stands resonate. I know there are a tiny few speaker designers who think it's a good thing to have the cabinet resonate freely. But, with all due respect, I think it's safe to say that they are fringe. Certainly the vast majority of designers and listeners recognize the benefits of an inert speaker cabinet. I would assume the same for the stands.
So as far as resonating goes. Yes, everything has a resonate frequency. But that's not the whole story. That frequency also has a Q. Steel has a high Q. So with the stands I used years ago, if you yelled at the right pitch you could get the stands to audibly ring without even touching them. But you fill them with wet sand and they become like a rock. Literally. Not only does the resonant frequency drop through the floor. But their Q drops even more so. They don't "ring" at all. It was like having my speakers bolted to stone.
So thats my perspective on the stand itself. It bears no opinion on accessories added to the stand, such as Wave Kinetics or Still points. I'm simply talking about the stand itself. And I think it's safe to say that, as an extreme, you don't want a flimsy and lightweight stand that rings like a bell. You want the opposite of that. Building something that achieves those ends is not complicated. Granted, there may not be a lot of companies doing it. But that's why I keep mentioning Sound Anchors. They are ridged as hell. That are heavy as hell. And they have extremely low resonant Q. They don't ring at all. AND, they are not at all expensive.
Now, I am well aware of our audiophile penchant for spending lots of money on gear. But I don't think it's always necessary. This is why I inquire and ask questions in this regard. If welded steel is more ridged and heavier than threaded brass. (and it is.) And if brass has a higher Q than steel. (it does.) How do these things add up to better performance? Especially at 4-5 times the price.
I'm not saying it won't. I'm just asking for someone to explain to me how it does.
Thanks! |
Prdprez, what isolation products have you tried with your speakers?
Mike, I know the Wave Kinetics is supposed to be a good product (a derivative of Stanford engineering). I would be curious to see what they would offer in terms of stand design or modifications beyond the use of footers. Starsound technologies is also an engineer-driven company and has a fine product. The seminal white paper and foundation for their particular brand of isolation is also derived from the Stanford engineering department.
I have screwed around with Stillpoints with my current speakers (which their stands were designed around), Sistrum stands for electronics and now room/wall grounding, and the Equarack footers also under electronics. As expected with audio evolution, these products all outperformed my older generation stands that Prdprez is presumably referring to. By extension, these same principles are or can be applied to the speaker cabinet itself. Gone are the days of MDF, black hole, and steel rod bracing.... |
Prdprez, everything has a resonant frequency, so all stands sound different. Filling a stand with lead shot greatly lowers the resonant frequency. Isolation and coupling are the same thing, just different frequencies. |
Prdprez, do you speak from experience? What stands are you using now? In the past? That will help frame this discussion. |
Tbg,
Thanks for sharing your experiences. I am familiar with the LSA stands. I assembled a pair for a friend of mine. They are nice looking. And the fact that they come with the filler is kinda cool. But I would hardly consider them a "Solid" stand. At least the ones that I put together. They were a combination of wood and extruded aluminum, held together by short metal screws. Hardly what I would consider sturdy. So I'm not surprised by your experience. I know flimsy stands are not something you'd expect a lot of performance from. But my example is far from that.
Beyond that, adding a device like the still points is a whole other ball game anyway. Besides the fact that they are an isolation device, they are items beyond the scope of the stand.
So my curiosity still stands. How is it that the stand itself, IF built solidly (like Sound Anchors), makes that much difference and how does $1500 for threaded brass increase performance over solid welded steel? (~$350) We could argue the effectiveness of isolation versus coupling. But as far as I'm understanding so far that is outside the scope of the stand itself.
Anyway, I just want to reiterate that I'm not trying to be combative. I'm just looking for reasons as to why one stand will be all that different from another. (Assuming it is solid and well built!) Always looking to learn something! |
