Speaker Spikes - do the shake test

I must again inquire why one places a generic performance value on spikes when there are so many different types and shapes of conical structures manufactured from as many diverse materials available for purchase in this marketplace.

How does one determine the opinion where spikes never work? In defense of spikes we have found that the choice in material coupled by the geometrical shape of the cone is extremely important to performance. Spikes should not be placed into a single category of understanding. I have never found the two-dollar spike that provides the same level of accomplishment as a fifty-dollar spike.

Most speaker manufacturers provide very inexpensive steel spikes with their products to raise the speaker off the floor in order to avoid an acoustic coupling of the speaker enclosure with the flooring mass. Compact monitors arrive with either nothing at all or everything from hardened rubber dots, soft squishy discs or whatever materials fit into the final retail price for the speaker system. Wishing to avoid arguments over costing issues we have yet to find any low cost device such as steel spikes, tacky stuff purchased at a hardware store and such that affords a robust increase in musical performance.

The recording business is built on providing the best sound quality for our clients so we elected to test various coupling and de-coupling devices in order to make a more informed decision and investment into the overall sonic of the facility.

In order to challenge the ‘myths’ of spike functionalities, testing in the studio was instrumented using real time analyzers (RTA) and sound pressure level metering (SPL) employing two stationary microphone positions. We implemented a pair of compact monitors employing steel stands (filled) and two floor born speaker systems. The electronics testing package provided much the same outcome as our ears in presenting the clear cut winners.

We chose brass as the material of choice and these smallest sized products were not cheap by any means but the end result was very audible enhancing the overall musical presentation from top to bottom.

In our humble opinion, spikes should not be placed into such a vast category nor judged upon in the same fashion. There is a proven success history of companies selling thousands of ‘spikes’ and in business for many years proving there is a viable positive result from the mechanical grounding of speaker systems and electronics.

It has become obvious to us through this testing procedure that a few companies know how to attain great sound from direct coupling methods.

We have also found that these products do cost more than most so search out the brand names with long time reputations for success and spend some of that hard earned money as we did. The proven winners all have financial return guarantees and it will not take much time before you know which ones provide the benefits! After all, this is High-End Audio – yes?

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, multiple grounding principles and years of working in recording studio settings.

Wolf, I must ask:

While working for years as a professional musician one wonders why you have such a negative opinion for the equipment and people who assist in manufacturing your paycheck. Are you still working because in my opinion the professional sound industry has definitely evolved since the 70’s?

Unfortunately I disagree with you on many fronts from resonance research and development in professional audio equipment, recording people who participate as hobbyists in consumer high-end audio (they do exist), and those clueless engineers? I thought the cluelessness title was still held by producers.

Most “hi-fi heads” I know recognize the difference in recorded materials and sound. They can learn much for the pros, especially sitting in a great sounding room without “spitty & boomy” loudspeakers.

Resonance affects sound quality from the mixing desk, recording mechanism, processors, microphones and stands, guitar amplifiers on down to the musical instrument. Resonance also affects CD transports and DAC’s, pre and power amps, carts mounted on turntables and loudspeakers therefore forming a common bond to the negatives caused from vibrations in audio equipment.

Hello Ketchup,

We sold all rights and data from our tests to a manufacturer. There appears to be a tremendous gap in the consumer audio industry for ‘affordable’ third party research.

It was once pointed out to us that high-end audio is filled with graphs and charts almost always originating from the company selling you their products. Anyone can make a beautiful graphic representation showing off their own prowess which proves nothing other than a printed means to increasing their sales pitch. Third party research is incredibly expensive unless you find a way to make it affordable. In this case we got lucky and turned our time and documentation into a small profit.

By the way, nice racking approach in your system.

Wolf,
I prefer to work on both professional and consumer sides of the audio fence. Madness limits ones abilities for discovery.

Every industry has its share of madness but it is the people who avoid this lack of common sense that raise the level of recording music and the appreciation thereof.

Vive le France

Wolf-baby,

The ‘useless test information’ listed above was posted in reply to a member’s request.

It was not meant to offend or disparage you in any way and definitely not intended to bring out more of your unmistakable talent for journalism.

Can’t wait to hear the encore!

Yours truly,

Arnold & the Terminators

Hello Ketchup,

Per your request for information, we spoke with the owners of our footer experiment and were granted the right to publish some of the criterion in order to further understanding in audio. Please keep in mind that this test was an original concept to further the knowledge of the staff and to increase the quality of sound in our facility. At the time of the test the company had no intentions for the commercial sale or use from the assessment.

Test Criterion:

Day s: 10, average one hour per day electronics metering with each footer system, approximately two hours per day listening session per each footer system. The results from electronic testing were combined with listening sessions where each individual took notes on performance. The totals of participating products were reduced to a top three finalists in each category. The final three days of testing varied on listening time where the top three products were switched in and out and without regard for time requirements to insure mechanical break in period.

Electronic Test Data: RTA and SPL

Sets of Human Ears: 3

Footer Requirements: Floor born speaker systems Pair #1 ¼”-20 threading, Pair #2 6M-1.0 threading, compact monitors were tested with non threaded products placed between speaker cabinet and steel stand top only (floor spikes on monitor stands never changed).

Price Range: $25.00 to $100.00 per single cone or device, products were chosen by staff with bias placed on manufacture 30-60 day return guarantees. Products were also selected based on positive Audiogon forum feedback and reviews, longevity in service and reputation of the manufacturer. Products were purchased without the manufacturer’s knowledge of impending experiment and seven companies were represented.

Control Room:

Mixer - Microphone channel input s were calibrated and never changed, channel output faders were set for optimum house mix (varied slightly), all EQ and Processing throughout the chain were bypassed (never changed).

Amplifiers: Three stereo same make and model of amplifiers were dedicated as one amplifier per paired speaker system, amplifier outputs were run at full open. Amplifiers were rack mounted in ATA flight cases and rested on the flooring; speaker wire length varied slightly between pairs. Amplifiers remained ‘turned on’ and signal was passed without interruption throughout testing period.

Prerecorded Instruments Chosen: Channel 1 – Piano, Channel 2 – French horn, Channel 3 – Cello, Channel 4 – Acoustic Guitar, Channel 5– Electric Guitar, Channel 6 – Bass Guitar, Channel 7 – Kick Drum, Channel 8 – Snare, Channel 9 – Hi-Hat, Channel 10 – Over Head Ride Cymbal, Channel 11 – Synthesizer, Channel 12 – Male Vocal, Channel 13 – Female Vocal, Channel 14 – Female Vocal

Instrument Room:

Loudspeaker Placement: Away from all wall surfaces centrally located left and right from center, speaker placement did not change over test period

Microphone and Stand Placement: Mic 1 near field three feet off flooring (never moved), mic 2 distanced at a six foot height (never moved).

Speakers: For fairness, each speaker was allotted a 24 hour period ‘post part installation’ with constant feed of current passed through providing an equal time period electronic and mechanical break in for each product.

Human Listening Test Protocol: Testing was conducted involving individual instruments, combinations thereof with a focus on routine progression for each product. Eliminations were based on feel, emotion and overall audible presentation with crossover analogies from electronic documentation. Listening tests were first procured in studio control room. The top three finalists testing included both the control center and reviews in the instrument suite where the loudspeakers and amplifiers were located.

We will respond to any questions provided we do not breech our Agreement from the sale of this result. Product name branding is strictly prohibited.

There were no First, Second or Third Place product awards given here. The results provided us a higher level of understanding sonic differences between isolation (decoupling) and energy movement (direct coupling) processes. We state that the direct coupling method and products were chosen for our studio applications.