Footers under my speakers double the perceived value of my speakers!
My first experience with putting footers under my speakers was with Tannoy Westminster Royals. With some difficulty, I put Mapleshade heavy footers under them. I was amazed. These $20k speakers, all of a sudden, became $30+ speakers! These days, I am into Stillpoints. Same thing-even more. My $30k speakers now sound like $60k speakers. I mean the imaging, the definition, the bass and everything just sounds fantastically Improved. I just put on the Stillpoints yesterday. This morning I jumped out of bed early just to be able to turn on the stereo and be floored. BTW- my speakers are 200 lbs and the Stillpoints Minis are strong enough. Pretty cheap for such an improvement!
Whenever I tried different footers under my stand mount monitors I always adjusted my listening position to eliminate the effects of height differences since it was so easy to do. Sitting more upright or slumping down is kids stuff.
The differences I heard were solely from the different footers used as the results were the same regardless of ear listening height. I can't believe what I read. Is "insipid" the word of the day?
I am using Townshend seismic podiums. I have used the following: 1) nothing 2) spikes through carpet to sub floor 3) spikes on top of 1 1/2 inch flagstone 3) herbies gliders. By far the best has been the Townshend podiums. If you have smaller speakers the seismic bars would also work since the leveling is done underneath the spring assembly where the podium is adjusted from the top.
I experience MAJOR sonic differences with footers, of all types, under speakers, and, the equipment. I also experience benefits with break in times, generally, the longer the better. I do not need a reviewer, or anyone, to tell me what I hear, or why I am hearing it. I trust my own ears....always have. Enjoy !
Correct use of the word which expresses my displeasure with such methods failing my Law of Efficacy. If I wished to express that I thought there was no benefit to stands I would have chosen a word such as ineffectual. My point is not that such devices do nothing, but that they do nothing much that could be accomplished more economically, and do not much compared to working within the power and signal paths.
It makes sense to couple speakers to a solid slab, and isolate them from a resonate floor. Every situation is a bit different.
Spikes through the carpet to a concrete floor made a pretty notable improvement with several different speakers in my old room. Now that I have a carpeted plywood floor with joists under it, I’m hearing more floor resonance, and need to experiment with isolation or even shoring up the joists underneath.
All vibration management devices and claims of functionality are based on theorems. There are no known science backing audio’s vibration management systems. There is no Third-Party Independent Testing that quantifies or validates any products function, so I understand how your opinions on this topic are crafted.
Regards to power and signal paths; they both deteriorate in operational inefficiency due to resonance buildup formed by vibrations. The loss of efficiency begins at the AC panel and propagates throughout all mechanical, electromechanical and acoustic pathways of the system’s entirety.
You prefer to build audio systems where our direction involves building the foundations that support the system and mechanically grounded structural listening environments along with a few successes in the world of musical instruments.
This might be an opportunity for us to learn, make a few comparisons and help each other through the process of experimentation and listening. We use a new technology where the focus is transferring resonance out and away from the equipment (at high-speed) improving the product's operational efficiency.
The evidence that our theorem of resonance transfer is functional beyond the hearing phase is the evident reduction in operating temperatures within electronic components.
We can send you a couple platforms to prove that your equipment has far more musical qualities then what you are currently hearing. To us, being a bit biased, the platform's level of importance is equal to or greater than choosing the next speaker or component or cable.
The stand you choose to own plays heavily into everything you purchase in the future. After all, only a few will ever audition or compare the performance of racking and/or speaker stands. The differences in material science, functional design and sonic results are reasonably stunning and, in our case, quite unexpected.
Give me a call should you wish to expand our horizons.
If you have a suspended floor with standard joists, OSB, underlayment and carpet, and then put an offcut of granite on top of that, should be speaker be "spiked" to the granite, with just the points touching? Isoacoustics Gaias? Or?
If you have a suspended floor with standard joists, and you use an efficient isolation system there is something I’d like to share that I became aware of. The suspended mass will cause some compression on the floor joists, and when there is energy against the isolation system, it will also cause the flexible floor to accept a portion of the energy. (foot falls, and speakers being major culprits)
The floor, and the isolation device of choice will share the energy between them, proportional to their spring rate or Young’s modulus. The best results I have found is by using as close to a zero stiffness (in my case wire springs) device on a very rigid substrate, where the substrate doesn’t easily deform and the energy is mostly controlled by the isolator.
What is zero stiffness? This is the easier concept to digest that I could find, "a zero stiffness structure maintains a constant potential energy, which is continuously redistributed as the structure deforms, thus eliminating any preferred position under the applied load or self-stress."
Spring steel with an engineered geometry (a manufactured spring) is one of the most efficient means of achieving this. It is the most popular device used in platforms used under electron microscopes and imaging devices used in science and medicine today. 4Hz isolation devices using passive technology use varying types of spring structures.
The goal is to hold the load, but also have the ability to accept and change shape from vibration at the minutest amount and smooth out a broad range of both frequencies and amplitudes of those frequencies - just like springs used under vehicles of every type.
Mass loading under a sprung system on floor joists may help compress by loading the floor and reduce it’s percentage of the vibration sharing, pushing a higher percentage of the energy into the isolators (preferably springs), thus performing more of the work.
The smallest amount of energy that is possibly isolated with the broadest range of frequencies and amplitude is going to work best on as rigid a base structure and a rigid object that is being isolated.
The isolated object should move easily on the device it’s isolated upon, if not easily moved, like a bobble head toy, then you know it’s not flexible and also not as isolated as it could be.
Douglas, It is Robert's (Starsound) products that I was specifically referring to as I use them, and I will be very surprised if you try them and don't hear a dramatic (yes, I did say dramatic) difference for the better. I look forward to the test.
roxy54, thank you for the polite comment. I attempt to remain open to additional testing/comparing over the years, and this has turned into an opportunity to demonstrate it. Technology, products, etc. change over time, so a conclusion held perhaps 5 years ago may be influenced by a new tech or product. I found Robert’s message here compelling, a beautiful invitation to put my current conclusions to the test. I left a phone message for him today, so we have not made any formal arrangements yet, but does seem to be moving in that direction, however.
I should state for the record here that if I do a review of Star Sound products, I likely will "go dark" here on the topic. I do not discuss publicly to any appreciable degree reviews that are underway. Often no one knows of them until they are published. Recently I mentioned the Pass Labs XA200.8 review prior to publication, but that’s rare. I would not wish to influence the review with side conversations; I would think this to be appropriate and understandable. So, if I were to drop participation here, it would be for that reason.
There have been other surprises before in this hobby, and I’m sure there will be in the future. In fact, one current shocker is the DAC I am now reviewing. It’s using ESS chips, but I have never built a digital-sourced system as erudite coming from a DAC with ESS chips. So, things, and perspectives, change - again, with the march of technological advancement. It is one advantage of my reviewing style, wherein I build many systems for assessment. It gives me more broad exposure to systems and situations of synergy between components, cables and speakers. The resolution of the system in this state is exquisite. In addition, the room has an ambient noise level of about 14-16dB (I remember one dB meter showing that is in the range of a ticking watch, higher than a leaf falling at 10dB) - well below the average quiet room in a house. So, if there is any change to be heard in a system, I will hear it. :)
On my floated floor, I use Vibrapod under my 80 pound speakers, with great succes, I got more body and full frequencies,and music placement. Never go back to Spike !
I live in earthquake country. Putting ultra-minis under 200 lb speakers does not seem wise for my speakers. My 185 lb speakers rest on four widely spaces metal cones into a 12" thick 3000 lb PSI steel reinforced slab. Vibration is not a concern from below the speakers. I intend to purchase speakers weighing 600 lbs each. No way am I going to mess with the speaker designers footers. The thought of putting something like tiny footers in unfathomable in earthquake country. My other 135 lb speakers also have metal cones but on a 4" thick maple block on a carpeted rug on a standard slab. It has a downward firing woofer (among 3 total) which does not like hard surfaces (metal, granite, etc). that I tried. Maple sounded better than carpet by a tad.
Sure, I put footers under some flat bottomed older two way speakers for my video system that weigh under 40 lbs each and raised them off the floor (which is standard 3 1/2" concrete slab) and that tightened up the soundstage/imaging/bass.
I use several types of Stillpoints most of my equipment. My new DAC does not sound good (hard or unfocused) with Stillpoints, cones or vibrapod type footers. It was designed with vibration in mind. My amps, 2 pre-amps/phono preamp, analog speed controller and digital transport were not as well (or at all) vibration designed and need Stillpoints. The shelving is 1 1/4" HDF on solid rubber isolation pods on steel ball bearing/sand filled welded steel stands (made for audio) on spikes into the above 12" concrete. I experimented with at least 10 different companies footers and more types of products and stuck with Stillpoints. The Townsend sink is 100% necessary for my VPI TNT VI which has bad isolation/vibration lack of control.
What thickness steel plate are you using? Do you place the Samlley between the plate and the speaker or between plate and floor? Which model Smalley springs are you using? For your floor standers? And for your other equipment? Thanks for sharing. I'm very intrigued buy that solution. I think it can fit my budget nicely.
Nice post as it describes spring function, zero stiffness and how they relate to isolation theorems and functionality.
We have experimented with springs and isolation techniques for several years.
Our take on the use of a steel plate foundation is the material and mass has natural damping factors that relate well to the mechanical grounding element of the steel springs taking more energy from the springs to floor-ground and at a faster rate of speed. This establishes a resonance conductive mechanical pathway that allows for a greater level of energy dissipation. In our experiments we used steel, brass and copper alloys at a 5/16” thickness. There was a noticeable improvement in sound going from steel to brass.
When we moved to copper, being the harder material with lesser damping factors we had to use a different spring geometry to improve performance over the steel and brass. I would enjoy hearing your findings should you ever decide to test these materials on your model.
The springs worked but due to springs having weight restraints the company decided to discontinue the research. We also noticed within our models that timing artifacts (shortened decays, depth of field and imaging issues) possibly created by speaker chassis movement limited the sonic in comparison to lesser movement by resting the speaker on a rigid direct coupled structure. Please keep in mind that our products are designed to vibrate so there is an infinitesimal movement within these systems as well.
Our focus is on resonance reduction in components, on electronic parts and loudspeaker surfaces providing resonance and noise a conductive pathway to rapidly exit the chassis per the laws of Coulomb friction and damping. The isolation techniques we are familiar with retain most of the resonance inside the chassis and are more focused on outside disruptions.
The sonic results between the two philosophies are quite different as they should because the theorems, applications of technology and product designs are opposites.
The best example of proof relating to electromechanical noise and signal blockage due to resonance build up is taking any version of active iso-tables regardless of price that are used in supporting electron microscopes and placing any of our platforms beneath them. The sonic results from any audio component residing on the isolation device will audibly improve hence providing some supporting evidence where electricity powering the iso-table becomes the noise generator affecting the signal.
Disclaimer: Our participation here is not to challenge, disprove or say this sounds better than that, as public opinion and Industry reviewers steer those ships. Once we realized that resonance formed by vibrations is the primary culprit involving signal clarity, the choice made was to work on taking the source of the noise (resonance) out and away from the instrument (Resonance Energy Transfer) in comparison to focusing on the worldly inaudible and sometimes audible disruptions getting into the instrument (Isolation). Both technical approaches have merit.
IsoAcoustics provides a "calculator" to determine the best footer for your particular component. If nothing else, they have impressed me by providing such a fantastic tool to the consumer. For my Devore O/93's the "calculator" kicked out Orea Indigo's. So I purchased eight of them ($480) and they arrived yesterday. For those not familiar, the Gaias are higher profile in height and are meant for loudspeakers that have screw-in spikes installed by the manufacturer such as my Spendor D7.2s (for which I purchased a set of Gaia's but have not yet had a chance to try). The Oreas are lower profile and resemble pucks with rubber on both the bottom and top surface. I listened to one of my favorite records before placing the Orea's under my Devores (which took less than a minute) and then listened to the same side again. My speaker positions are carefully marked with masking tape on my very heavy solid walnut flooring installed over floor joists (sprung floor listening room with a basement underneath). The sound was immensely different and immediately noticeable. I then listened to three other records I know very well. For the record, they were in order Dos Monos "Dos City" (buy this record if you like hip hop even marginally-there are great riffs/samples from Monk, Zappa, and Captain Beefheart among others!), Shakey Graves' "Can't Wake Up", Paul Simon's "Rhymin Simon", and Frank Zappa's "Apostrophe". My issue is that for the life of me I can not tell you yet if I believe the sound is better or just radically different. My initial impressions after one evening is that with the Devore O/93's, the best adjectives is that the sound is "disassociated" and "less grounded". The soundstage widened and became moderately higher. The sound became more "hi-fi" which is to me is not good. There was more detail and precision particularly in the treble and midrange but the bass became less deep. "Ethereal" and "less corporal" come to mind. I obtained the qualities that I had previously found lacking in the Devores but also lost most of what I most admire and love about the O/93's-their solidity in the bass region and their natural tone and timbre combined with a solid wall of sound that just makes you smile with it's "of a whole cloth" character. In effect, my O/93's came to resemble-to a degree- my Spendor D7.2's though they still offered a greater wall of sound than the Spendors. The balance is definitely tipped up with less bass (though the bass that is there is better articulated), much more midrange and much more treble. The treble was not harsh at all, but still much more noticeable. But I can not emphasize enough-the treble, midrange, and bass no longer transitioned from one to the other smoothly and instead all frequency ranges seemed disassociated with one another. For that matter, all of the music seemed disassociated and just free-floating in space. The more I think about it, a new term came to mind; artificial. I will give it two or three more nights of trial and then will likely return them to my retailer which offers a generous 30 day trial period. Now please understand that I am very likely biased by the fact that John Devore advised me not to use after-market footers when I specifically brought up this product. After the continued buzz, I just had to try them for myself. But then again, I was really hoping that the Oreas would give me better imaging without taking away any of the good apects of the Devore O/93's. I believe right now that John is right. They do more harm than good with his speakers.
Myself i have only my ears to trust and added one materials components at a time when i think about the mechanical controls embeddings problem... After few weeks it begins to be a "sandwich" of diverse materials, with different charateristic densities , and different damping characteristics, and i discover that they compensate for one another, coupling and decoupling, tuning the internal resonances, and relatively isolate from external vibrations...
My speakers are heavy loaded with concrete and on my desk near the dac and amplifier...
This sandwich is a beginning but a success...
I will add someday springs and quartz sand bed under these sandwiches to isolate more from external vibrations (springs) and more attenuation of the resonance (quartz sand)....
i look for homemade low cost solutions only.... :)
Boats float. You need to learn some simple grammar. Turds float too. That should be close to home for you. And then there is the famous Monty Python skit from Holy Grail. But if you are referring to my reference to "free-floating in space" descriptor, I don't regret my choice of words. Read in context, which is likely beyond your skill set, I think my choice of words is appropriate to convey what I heard.
@audiopoint - I don't want to leak information from my former employer that isn't already well known or certainly available from other vendors quite well known and represented here in the forum, or available on his website.
In response to your use of
"brass and copper alloys at a 5/16” thickness".
Copper for example has a Young's Modulus that simply is superb for baffle material on the tweeter drivers them self. If I were in a position to manufacture high end audio, I would certainly be using copper baskets to attenuate ringing of the speaker basket. Brass is one of I think about 400 copper alloys? I would certainly search for an alloy of copper if you were to continue or rather resume research.
So I might as well name drop so we know where I am getting my information from. I used to work for Mike Lenehan in Australia, so the devices he uses are specific to his loudspeakers. Essentially his loudspeaker designs use spring steel plates laminated to the top, side walls and baffle of all of his later designed speakers, these were connected electrically like a ground plane, not unlike a Faraday Cage, whilst simultaneously creating a more rigid enclosure.
Cross bracing he uses I cannot divulge too much, however as he has it listed on his website and other places, I can tell you that he does use silicone filled rigid copper tube as well as cast iron rod as cross braces. Interesting that you also researched similar materials **I think if you want to know more regarding this, you might want to contact Mike Lenehan of Lenehan Audio directly** Mike does get a significant tax break for the research he does, and has to report to the Australian Government each tax year.
Making a more rigid enclosure doesn't entirely remove resonant frequencies of the cabinet, it simply moves them to different frequencies, as I suspect you well and truly understand from your comments. Mike used the sacrificial method of leaving the back and bottom of his loudspeakers without the extra rigidity of the sprung steel plates. This is to release the energy in a manner that least affects the sound field being voiced by the speakers. However in moving the resonant frequencies towards either less important bandwidths or preferably outside audible spectrum of frequencies, you are simply modifying the energy, channeling it where it can do least harm.
With the acknowledgement that the cabinets are specifically designed to integrate well in an isolation system that attenuates energy from under the loudspeaker; you understand that in Lenehan Audio's design it is no accident that it works exceedingly well. However in not so inert cabinets, the effects of isolation may have even a greater effect on improving the sound.
Since then, I have tested spring isolation on other loudspeakers, even one in a hifi store in El Paso, where I placed springs under the amplifier, and source electronics. I then placed it under the best floor standers he had in the store. After listening he excused himself and introduced two of his techs to hear what $20 worth of Smalley's wave springs from Ebay just did to the sound. That's when the questions really started coming - after you hear it, and there's no mistaking the improvement.
USE SPRINGS WITH CAUTION When you truly float your speakers on isolation, you should be able to move them (regardless of weight) with your pinky finger. If they are rigidly mounted they are NOT nearly as isolated as they aught to be for maximum isolation, and sonic improvement.
Speakers, especially floor standers will become compliant to forces in all three axis, which means the center of gravity can be easily moved across and over the base. Townshend Audio use outriggers, to broaden the base to account for this. I highly recommend anyone placing springs under their speakers to broaden the base of the speakers!!!
Whatever approach you use, or product, if your speakers are not compliant with a tiny amount of gentle force - they are not zero stiffness. For better results than I am putting forth with tuned spring isolation, please research quasi zero stiffness.
If any of you are interested? on my system page, the easiest way to see speakers on wave springs, the copper colored pair are sitting on Smalley wave springs. You will see the gap and shadow under them above the heavy stands.
The first image you can see a shadowline under my sub, it is on compression springs, as is my amplifier and source.
@fsonicsmith the Gaias I suspect are more rigid than springs in a zero stiffness tuned loaded spring rate for >10Hz isolation?
I for example would NEVER place 4 correctly loaded springs under your Devore O/93 where the spikes would be placed.
WHY NOT? Because broad frequency isolation requires compliance in the device suspending your speakers. The center of gravity with little force could easily move towards the limits of your base on those speakers, making them liable to topple over if you bumped them.
The very fact that the IsoAcoustics can safely hold your speaker up without compromising the safety of them is an indication they are not compliant enough to fully isolate them.
Both the frequency and amplitude of the frequency needs to be accounted for in isolation.
I don’t know what vehicle you drive, however I’d bet you can grab a wheel arch and without too much effort lift it a quarter inch by one arm?? Consider how much your vehicle weighs and how compliant the suspension is, even with that immense load.
It is the compliance to even small energies in higher frequency, and larger amplitude at low frequency and up that make for good speaker isolation.
I would broaden the base upon which the springs are set to move the edge away from the center of gravity - just like Townshend Audio does.
@fsonicsmith What finish did you go with on your
Devore O/93's? I did go look them up and they have a classic look and I was particularly taken by a couple of the book matched wooden baffles in a few photos.
@rixthetrick; the Gaia's and the Oreas are two different concepts as I explained in my first post in this thread. No, neither provide the "zero stiffness spring" that you repeatedly endorse. The OP praised his Stillpoints. I have those under my Garrard 301 so I can confidently tell you that those are not your vaunted "zero stiffness springs" either. The only other person on this Board who goes on an on about springs is Geoff Kait. Are you and he acquainted? The Oreas and the Gaias are both coupling devices and not isolation devices though they both offer an element of isolation, the Oreas moreso than the Gaias. As to the finish, mine are Fiddleback mahogany as are 90% of the ones John Devore sells though some people choose the more boring but admittedly elegant maple. I listened for a few more hours last night. This time I moved the Devores slightly closer to the back wall to help boost the depleted bass. Things sounded a bit more integrated but I am still inclined to go back to the integral wooden nubs that John Devore implements-his own footers of a rather unusual type. The Oreas do some really nice things for the Devores, but I still miss the original tone and timbre along with solid bass. The power is gone. I drive a '17 VW GTI Sport (tartan plaid seats, locking differential) with mods including an APR downpipe, catback, and Stage 2 tune with Neuspeed sway bars. The Oreas with the Devores is like taking the turbocharger out of my GTI. The oomph is gone.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
