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!
@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.
@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.
@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.
@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.
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.
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.... :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 !
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. :)
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 !
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.
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?
You can’t reach upper level sound by tuning and tweaking average gear
What in the world means "average" gear?
You can turn any relatively good low cost system in the 7 th marvel of the world by knowing how to embed it....If this average cost gear is relatively good for sure....
This is my experience...
What relatively good means?
Amplifier design is mature for the last 50 years....
I own a Sansui Au-7700.... An another Sansui of the alpha series.... They are certainly "averagely" good....They are among the best design Sansui ever created...
My dac cost few hundred new and is certainly good if we read all reviews of customers.... Average then but very good....(Starting Point System dac NOS)...The secret is the use of a good electronic known chip TDA 1543 philips but mainly his minimalistic design with low noise (internal battery powered)...
My speakers are average, paid 50 bucks used, but they are the best of British Mission speakers ever designed....Mission Cyrus 781....Average but certainly very good...( The bass is so good i never use the Kreisel sub i bought)
Controlling and tweaking the 3 embeddings dimensions where this audio system is immerged transform it like" night and day"....
YES, I reach upper level sound with average good gear....At worst slightly under it..... But a night and day transformation is more than an upgrade of dac or amplifier, or speakers in the same price rung of the scale except by paying for another totally different level of gear....
My gear total is under 500 dollars 2 pieces vintage and bought used....To crush it really will cost me 16,000 dollars with a really improved electronical design and better speakers...i know already what to buy to replace it...But 500 bucks versus 16,000 is staggering difference....
Thanks to the controls of their 3 embeddings, i am not in the frustrated urge for upgrade..... :)
I already own holographic, natural timbre, details and clear imaging audio system in nearfield position or in regular distance.... What more can i ask for ?
I dont listen no more to my 6 headphones, because they are not on par with my speakers now...." years ago with the same gear it was the opposite....Night and day ....
The truth and explanation is simple, most reviewers in all magazine, pay more attention to electronical new design than to the precise ways to embed an audio system....
Guess what is more important? The last new variation of classical known electronic design or the 3 embeddings?
The right answer will give to you Hi-Fi for peanuts....The wrong answer will push you to upgrade without end at high cost to finance private electronical design reasearch....
«Truth is simple, myths are complex....»-Groucho Marx
« Science is complexity made simple or is it technology brother? »- Harpo Marx
Jim’s book is ok, but underrates importance of quality of gear. Setup can’t fix mediocre gear. You can’t reach upper level sound by tuning and tweaking average gear. Anyone disagree? I’m not too bothered by that. :)
Wow, this just gave me a Eureka! moment. I am going to contact Jim, his editor, and his publisher and suggest a new "Chapter One". It will be the shortest chapter in the book and will read along the following lines; "Before you read the rest of this book full of tedious tips that won’t really do you much good, take my advice and take out a second or third mortgage, sell your kidney(s), cash out your child’s college fund, and just buy a better system for crying out loud!!! Why are you being such a tightwad and why do you want to be like Sisyphus rolling the same rock uphill over and over when you ought to be just up-spending for an adequate system unlike the pieces of crap you have at present. Trust me, whatever you have, it is crap. I know. All the rest of my suggestions regarding speaker placement, listening position, room treatment and the rest are a needless waste of time if you just spend enough money on the type of gear that Doug Shroeder and I prefer. Thank you. This is a public service announcement. No need to read further unless you insist on being the tightwad I suspect you are and don’t heed my above well-reasoned advice. //s// Jim Smith"
I dont know why simple thing like resonant mechanical embedding of an audio system is not simply experienced and understood by some....it is simple college physics.... Even a litterary mind like me knows....
I will not add the necessary controls of the electrical grid embedding to this one...This one is completely underestimated by most...
The acoustical embedding treatment is way more partially understood tough in the passive way to remedy the room, but forgot the active ways that are almost unsuspected by almost all people....
These 3 embeddings treatment and controls exceed in S.Q. change any normal upgrade not of one component, but in "some" cases the upgrade of all components, so powerful they are....
Think about any manufacturer in the obligation to reveal these inconvenient truths (for the sale pitch) to you before you bought his 10,000 dollars amplifier or dac? Will you be pleased to learn that day that his perfect engineering gear is not enough by themself to create Hi-Fi experience?
Asking the question is answering it.... :)
I succeed to afford Hi-Fi experience at peanuts costs thanks to simple listening experiments with homemade common sense and only very low cost materials....
Someone must say that to help the people who throw their money out of the window before knowing it or thinking about it, because they dont know no other way, and because they like me dream of Hi-Fi experience...
Perhaps i dont know the last dac technological marvel, my dac was paid peanuts by a bid on Ebay, but for sure i know now a few things about the way to embed an audio system at low cost and trust me the best dac in the world cannot replace that 3 embeddings controls by himself....
Dac dont eliminate vibrations, dont decrease the noise floor of the house and dont adress the acoustic field....Amplifier or speakers no more....
My system look like trash (because of all my modifications) but sound like many many thousand dollars systems and better than most...
The word "upgrading" is a market key word, a conditioned false ingrained urgency most of the times.... Think about what you already owns and the way to improve it.... After that, few years passing, you will know how to buy a real upgrade....
Is your gear, never mind his price, giving to you his real hi-Fi max. potential S.Q. ? That is the only important question, and most of the times the answer is no....
This is the basic audiophile problem and this is not related to any so called "upgrade".....
Revolution going on in digital, and a new DAC under assessment, and I'm going to spend time on a stand? I'll let someone else do that.
Can anybody understand Doug's entire posts? I can't. I am reminded of Geoff but Geoff's weird statements are on purpose. Take this one. Is he saying that there is currently a revolution going on with digital? What revolution is that? I had not heard. Maybe like a revolution in Bolivia? Has someone magically broken the code as to how to eliminate all problems associated with digital filtering, digital algorithms, interpolation associated errors, power supply spuriae, clocking drift, and all the other things that make digital less than perfect sound forever? If so, I guess I am the last to know and Doug is all over it. And since when is "stand" and "footer" interchangeable? He keeps talking about stands and for the life of me I don't know why a floorstander would be on a "stand". Can someone take out their secret decoder ring and explain to my simple mind what the hell he is trying to say? Thanks in advance.
hg, yours are a perfect example of a floor stander that could accept Townshend Audio seismic pods, however with the bolt on top like the seismic corners have, then you can bolt them directly under your outriggers.
Zero Stiffness is the goal.
There's a reason springs are used under cars, buses and trucks and not Gaia. However the springs are so pliable that for example outriggers are generally required. The Gaia are not as compliant. It is the effect of compliance that will allow the greatest of isolation to take place.
I spent years working on lower cost methods, passive devices with floor stander and stand mount speakers. IMO insipid in comparison with building systems. Elevating systems makes the other activities a poor return for my time.
Jim's book is ok, but underrates importance of quality of gear. Setup can't fix mediocre gear. You can't reach upper level sound by tuning and tweaking average gear. Anyone disagree? I'm not too bothered by that. :)
Suppose a speaker comes in. Do I spend time on spikes vs. Stand or build another system. Maybe you spend time on stand, but i build another system. I am a system Builder, not a tweaker. Disagree? Great, go at it your way.
Revolution going on in digital, and a new DAC under assessment, and I'm going to spend time on a stand? I'll let someone else do that.
Anyway, I think I'm done with this discussion. Blessings to all and happy listening.
Doug (Shroeder); I respect your opinion and agree with much of what you have said in this thread with the exception of the height theory, and on that, I was the first to disagree. Have you read or even just casually perused Jim Smith’s "Get Better Sound"? He advocates building a small platform for your listening seat because most speaker manufacturers have their dispersion pattern too high and most of us sit in chairs that are too low. In the absence of doing such an extremely cumbersome and non-WAF measure, he advocates tipping your loudspeaker slightly downward. Read his book on the subject for yourself. Do you dispute his knowledge and experience? I suggest you not. Next I am puzzled by this; you have twice referenced your intent to place isolation under electronics but that is not the topic here. Why not, as an opinionated well-recognized reviewer, buy or borrow some Gaias for your loudspeakers and tell us what you think? Then, if you report being non-plussed, it would mean something. This other guy who keeps chiming in with how many positives a product got on a website-oh my gosh-wtf? Do you not understand that the small number of "reviews" or "ratings" a product receives are not fake are heavily influenced by buyer’s bias? Incredible that you keep chiming in with that rubbish. And then finally, back to my original point. A loudspeaker, unlike any other component, has pistonic movement associated with it laterally. Speaker drivers with motors are pushing back and forth. The loudspeaker must resist that horizontal movement to keep the waveforms intact and semi-accurate ("semi" because no other competently designed component introduces distortion the way a loudspeaker does, and by a wide margin!). As others have pointed out, the physically sensible thing to do would be to add extensive weight to the top of the cabinet-if there were an easy and non-damaging way to do so. I don’t doubt that some (SOME) loudspeakers benefit from Gaia footers in some rooms. That would be due to the deficits inherent in the loudspeaker and other fortuitous conditions. I may buy a set just to say I tried them. Maybe mitchagain will buy them from me if I am not impressed? After all, there are none to be had on the secondary market so they must be good.
HI All i was looking at a set of footers Iso Acoustics Gaia 2 or 3 was informed that my speakers KEF R900 at 65lb each are at the high limit for theses but would work well and should i get stands for them too has anyone had experience with this product and would you use the stands with them. Thanks
squeak, Bless you! I could not have said it better! Mr. Schroeder still mistakenly sets these support devices very low on the scale of importance to the final sound of a well tuned system. Where have you been Douglas? 1 or 2 percent? No, far more than that! A Sistrum platform changed the sound of my speakers, and it wasn't because of the height. Your measured results comment was nonsense Douglas. Perception is one thing and not all perceptions can be verified by measurement; and if they could, you'd be out of a job!
BTW, I attempt to remain open to the results and change my opinion if merited. For a long time I had concluded that bi-wiring of speakers was universally superior. Recently, I had a case, the first and only to date, where the high quality jumpers with single wiring was superior. So, I had to backtrack on that.
I am willing to revise, say a "mea culpa" if necessary. But, if it happens, it will be due to comparison between the two states I mentioned, not audiophile social pressure. :)
roxy54, as said previously, I am not debating my observations.
Addendum to previous post: In addition to the above future comparison I will conduct, I will also have one amp warmed up vs. the other cold, and one amp will have cables that are "settled", vs. the other which will have them disturbed by removing them and placing them back on again prior to comparison.
All of these have been claimed by some to be powerful causes of change in systems. What would it mean if they were grouped, supposedly inducing a high degree of change, and there was no distinction between the two setups? I like approaching such topics with a means to make a clear determination of whether an activity/method is worth investing time and money.
As I have already demonstrated in my former article that paying attention to burn in for SS electronics is not productive, this article will focus on support and isolation, and will retest the burn in results as well. The following will be compared:
Plywood plank on floor vs. amp stand Isolation devices underneath vs. none "Settled" cables vs. cables removed and reattached Cable risers for speaker cables vs. none Burned in amp vs. new Weight atop amp vs. none Warmed up amp vs. cold start
Surely, since these are all accepted as inducements to change in audio systems, the difference between the two setups should theoretically be profound! Comparison will tell. What might some of the implications be if all these inducements to change were found to be insipid? Might it influence a persons' perspective in regard to their use? OTOH, if there was a significant/easily audible change, what cause it and why? Further comparisons in isolation would be warranted.
I take the time to do such comparisons, as it cuts through a lot of fog in terms of what is efficacious in system building. My apologies for sounding pompous. Surely we are not all so gullible as to think that a speaker system will attain even a 1-2% holistic improvement in performance by elevating it on a puck or spike. Would anyone care to measure said speaker with/without stands and see if there is ANY measurable difference in performance?
There is a tremendous amount of murky, nebulous, unsubstantiated fact in audiophilia. Stands and isolation devices are treated similarly to platter material, tone arm material, etc. It's all anecdotal. Big changes, huge difference, monumental... How about some comparisons side by side? Not gonna happen in most cases. Well, I do comparisons, so I have a pretty strong opinion. :)
BR3098, indeed price is not a sole governor of sound quality. I have £10k speakers which will outperform much much more expensive speakers. I have mains cables at £100 that are the equal of cables costing x20 or more. I have a USB cable that costs £700 and outperforms £3k USB cables.
Btw these ideas of seismic isolation that I recommend can also be applied to your audio furniture with great benefits. Again a lot of the designs on the market can be bettered by incorporating the same devices I recommend for speakers. Best to design and make/have made your own designs, like we do.
mglik, I'm just curious exactly how $20K, $30K and $60K speakers sound different? Does the price the manufacturer charges for the speaker somehow change or improve the sound? Just asking...
I only have experience with the Townsend Podiums. The bars incorporate the same isolators it seems. You could use them combined with a suitable platform material. Every material will have its own sonic signature, some will work better than others in your particular system. Same can be said of isolation of the components. Max’s Pods could also be used effectively with a bit of care and attention to detail/insight. We use Townshend Podiums when using Cube speakers.
Sven Boenicke’s approach is different. He hangs his speakers on cables at the back combined with a cup and roller incorporated at the front bottom of the speaker.
Two different approaches but both very free floating when set up correctly.
I’ve been advocating seismic isolation for speakers for some time, so I’m glad to hear of positive results from others. In my opinion some of the options mentioned above can be bettered. I’m not an advocate for either spikes or elastomer isolation. Springs and/or cup and rollers would give better results imo. All credit to Max Townshend and Sven Boenicke for advocating seismic isolation of speakers. I have experience of both and they make a great improvement to the sonic quality of the system. Actually I demonstrate with and without to customers.
There are effective ways of making your own set up which would be better than some of the more expensive proprietary products on the market. It would be worth taking a look at Ingress Engineering and using their solution with a platform of maple or slate. Geoff Kaits springs could also be used in an effective set up. For a ready made solution the Max Townshend Podiums are the way to go.
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.
