Stillpoints and reference-level speakers

Agear, I think vanity and being cheap greatly undercuts your expectation of makers of expensive gear going with the best. I remember what the manufacturer of Tidals and BMC Arcadia' said about my trying other footers under their speakers.

OK, I KNOW I didn't post that 4 times! Mods, feel free to zap the extras.

Some things are worth repeating. Tom

Agear, I kind of lost interest when Bo1972 hijacked the thread with his usual nonsense. I tried the Ultra 5's under my TAD Reference Ones with questionable benefit. Some increase in resolution, at the expense of tonality. I couldn't justify the price of six Ultra 5's.

Psag, can you tell us more. While I got some improvement with the Ultra 5s under my BMC Arcadias, I always knew that I had been unable to use them right, namely the speakers were just sitting on the Ultra 5s. I was unable to thread bolts into the threaded holes as the weight of the speakers merely pressed the inserts further into the speakers. I also know from another case that the Ultra 5s sitting on thick carpet don't work properly.

07-19-14: Psag
Agear, I kind of lost interest when Bo1972 hijacked the thread with his usual nonsense. I tried the Ultra 5's under my TAD Reference Ones with questionable benefit. Some increase in resolution, at the expense of tonality. I couldn't justify the price of six Ultra 5's.

Hi Psag. I have others who feel the same way about the latest iteration from Stillpoints. In fact, one speaker manufacturer preferred the older generation of Stillpoints versus the new. The Ultra provided an excess of micro-detail with altered tonality. That being said, the speaker was designed around the original still points. There is something to be said for "voicing" equipment during the development phase. Adding whizbang grounding technology after the fact is not always a panacea. It can reveal or accentuate deficiencies. I have noticed the same thing with electronics.

Thanks for the update and provide us with a little more detail.....

Well I got tired of looking at and worrying about the spikes and their bases on my wood floors. I had a set of four Stillpoints ultra 5's under my turntable. So I removed and placed them under one of my magico q5's. Besides the fact that they look great and the speakers finally look finished there is NO diminishment of sound quality. They still have a strong solid bottom end, clear and complete mid and high ranges. In short, still sound fantastic! Contrary to magico warnings. But now, look fantastic as well, finished! No more concerns over floor damage. Easy to move for any adjustment or cleaning. Looking to replace on the other speaker and back under tt. Enough said.

Agear, it is just my opinion but I couldn't stand the original StillPoints. They used a less developed version of the ceramic ball technology and were not of stainless steel.

I don't know what you guys mean by altered tonality or whether there can be an "excess" of micro-detail. Can please explain what you are talking about here?

In other words, there was an apparent increase in clarity, at the expense of warmth and fullness. More analytical, less musical. This could be an advantage for some speakers, but not for the TADs in my system. I do have thick carpet with a heavy liner underneath, and I also wonder what the results would be like on an uncovered floor. Maybe better, maybe worse.

TBG, I forgot to mention that the Stillpoints can work for you if you have the threaded inserts shortened so that the body of the footer is flush with the base of the speaker. I had this done by the seller, in this case The Cable Company. I'm told it wasn't easy, as they are aircraft-grade stainless steel.

Psag, I've had a problem with the concept of "musicality." My interest is in accurately reproducing music not musicality. I know there are many who say that we will never be able to get close to realism. The StillPoints, Star Sound Apprentices, High Fidelity Cables and power cords have these thoughts are wrong. We are getting much closer to realism than I have ever thought possible, but ones electronics has to be up to snuff. As friend of mine with the same opinions, calls this luster.

One thing that I've concluded is that even the best tubes smear the sound and lack the detail in recordings. This is after many years of mainly tube electronics.

With regards to thick carpeting, I would suspect that the Star Sound Apprentices would be your salvation. A thick piece of granite on the carpet and then the Ultras might help also.

StillPoints strongly discourages having the Ultras tightly screwed against the speakers. With my BMC Arcadias, I tried to thread the screws in just enough to have an 1/8 inch separation, but when we raised the speakers into position, there was no separation. Later I found that the thread inserts in the speakers could be forced deeper into the speakers when the weight of the speakers was applied. This is probably why I found the Star Sound Apprentices better.

07-20-14: Psag
In other words, there was an apparent increase in clarity, at the expense of warmth and fullness. More analytical, less musical. This could be an advantage for some speakers, but not for the TADs in my system.

ditto. One sonic element or offshoot of this is a cohesive fluidity.

Tbg,
Once again it just goes to show that all these audio choices we make are purely personal. My experience is the polar direction of yours(it doesn't make me right, just different). SS hasn't come close to what good SET amplifiers have revealed to my ears(your experience is different, I understand). Audio and listening to music has always been much fun for me, now it's better than ever and I appreciate that. I buy and keep what sounds right to me and that's all that matters.You pursue what you call accuracy and my goal and pursuit is what I call natural. Whatever works for each of us.
Charles,

Charles1dad, I would never disagree with what you say here. I should note that I had SETs using 45s, single plate 6A3s, 300Bs, and 845s. I even had Western 91Bs using we300bs from the 1950s. I still remember always fighting for more wattage and the search for good efficient speakers.

Charles,
Well stated. I am as guilty as anyone else at times of agonizing about the validity of differences I perceive when I make a change in the system, but I have felt that way less and less in the last couple of years. I usually trust my own ears and don't worry about what other listeners or measurements say. JohnK was speaking of this today in another thread, and he was concerned about the phenomenon of falsely perceived poitive differences after system changes are made, but I don't think there is a need to be too worried about it. I think if everyone just hears what sounds good to them, that is all that matters.

Roxy54,
Your last sentence sums up what time and experience have done to form my position. Enjoying music is a very necessary aspect of my life, both live and also reproduced in my home. If you have a audio system that allows involvement and emotional connection you have contentment and happiness. Under these circumstances there is no angst or neurosis. These are nonexistent when you can honestly say you're engaged and connected to the music/musicians you choose to listen to. To be blunt, just own what sounds best to you and promotes long listening sessions. What others think of your choices is completely irrelevant. Affirmation is unnecessary.
Charles,

Charles,
I think it is one of the positive aspects of growing older and maturing. You come to know what you need and love from inside, and you stop seeking the affirmation as you said, from others. I still have desires for further refinements to my system, but again, they are based on my own positive experiences, not outside pressure (more apprentice platforms for example).
I would also like to take this opportunity to mention that I am finally changing out my beloved and somewhat modified McIntosh 2105 (still keeping it though!) for an 8 watt Audio Note Kits Kit 1 Tenth Anniversary. My speakers are 102db efficiency, and I have been considering this move for a long time. It was certainly influenced by you though, since I know and love your speakers, and over many threads I have seen that we share similar preferences. It is being professionally built by Audio Note Kits sanctioned builder, Pete Fulton, and yes, I did order a matched quad of Jupiter copper foil caps to replace the stock Mundorfs.
It will probably be another 3 weeks until I have it, but I have already waited for 8 weeks, so it's no big thing.
Thanks for generously sharing your experiences.

Hi Roxy54,
Congratulations on the Audio Note Kit amplifiers, they have a reputation for providing exceptional sound quality. It should be a really fine match for your high sensitivity/efficiency speakers. Of coursr with my bias I believe that you are moving in the direction of increased joy and musical naturalness LOL. What speakers are you using? I'm interested to know your impressions regarding a major amplifier change such as this. Please keep us posted. I think there's a good chance you're going to be thrilled with these changes to your system.
Charles,

Roxy54,
By the way choosing the upgraded Jupiter copper foil capacitors was a wise decision IMO. They've already achieved a great reputation and seem very well priced. Spending a bit more money for them could result in superb long term satisfaction and eliminate the dreaded 2nd guessing syndrome.
Charles,

You guys should look into Urushi caps.

Now 96 hours in with the Audio Points, and I am a total convert to this audio religion.

I'm not sure how they do it, but the affect is that the system has become both more precise AND more musical. The bass is tighter yet with significantly more prominence and slam - a superior foundation has been built. Microdynamics are better, treble is more detailed but even less fatiguing at concert levels, and imaging is both taller and deeper while being more precise, i.e. I can hear players in the soundstage RIGHT THERE.

And yeah, the apparent volume has increased too as Granny noted. The Salon 2s are not exactly an exemplar of efficiency so I've gone with high-current amplification solutions to make them hit hard when I want them to. It's nice to not have to draw so much juice out of the wall as I was before.

P59teitel, that's outstanding. Enjoy.

Down goes Stillpoints Down goes Stillpoints Down goes Stillpoints

Charles,
The amp comes standard with Mundorf silvers I think, and I was underwhelmed when I used them some years ago to upgrade the crossovers in a pair Spendor 9/1 speakers. I have since realized through reading a lot of user feedback that they aren't all that great.
Brian Smith of Audio Note Kits thought that V caps were a good alternative, but again, I had heard that they swayed a bit toward the super high def side, and I prefer a more organic feel, even if a bit of detail is lost.
I was able to have Duelund VSF specially fitted into my AN DAC 2.1, but there was no way to fit them into this amp, and I couldn't afford cast caps that I would have wanted anyway. The advice from Grannyring and others came at just the right time, and they are small enough to fit.
I am pretty sure that I will be happy.
Thanks

Roxy,
I had V caps(teflon tin foil) in my previous preamp and PP amplifier, they're very good. I've now used Duelund products and like their character even more. Very high resolution and detail yet utterly organic and better tone/body IMO. The Jupiter is said to be as good in this way or perhaps better. I think yo'll be very pleased.
Charles,

The idea of comparing Stillpoints to audio points I find ludicrous. One is a standard point. No new revolutionary design. No unique machining. The other is a new patented design which alters the way you look at footers. One just attempts to solve a problem in the most simplistic fashion with no new ideas. The other solves a multiple of problems in an ingenious fashion with a great design and amazing fit an finish. A comparison would be like comparing a Chevy volt to a tesla. Both get you from point A to point B. One just uses others ideas. The other revolutionizes them. Alters the entire product from manufacturing to design to selling. Sets a new bar for the auto industry. Stillpoints does this as well. Others have tried but Stillpoints sets the bar. Expensive yes. But when compared to the competition, worth the extra cost. I'll stick with the revolutionary. "Up with Stillpoints, up with Stillpoints"!

Glory, yes it makes a difference. Generally, the closer the technology to the component, the biggest improvement.

The idea of comparing Stillpoints to audio points I find ludicrous.

The primary comparison is with the SS stands . There is no shortage of engineering prowess that goes into the SS product, and thus your rant, which reads a little like ad copy, is not altogether accurate.

Pkoegz,
Actually, Audio Points are designed in different sizes with a specific brass alloy and profile, all of which were carefully considered by very qualified engineers. Even so, by themselves, they aren't considered by most to be competitive with Still Points by themselves.
However, when they are coupled with Star Sound platforms, like the Apprentice, they have been found to be fully competitive, although different.

Roxy54, well put. I use both.

PK,

Have you ever tried the points?? Empty words/thoughts you have. If you have tried both then your words carry weight.

Roxy54, Pkoegz has yet to say the Stillpoints actually did anything to the sound of his system, or that they have a more beneficial effect upon sound than Star Sound's products do. His appreciation of them seems to lie more in what most of us would view as rather ancillary considerations such as "revolutionary design" and "unique machining."

So I'm not sure there's really anything there to respond to, in terms of audio anyway.

Glory, Speaking of empty words and thoughts. I, of course, deliberately misrepresented your worthless post.

I have nothing to say against the Stillpoints, as I have never used them, but it is true that it is easy to be dazzled by claims of unique and/or revolutionary design. I think that there are times that in audio, and other fields, these claims are true; but I have found that it doesn't always translate into better performance.

Not long ago a friend was in town and we were listening to music. He noticed many isolation devices sitting on my bench and asked how many isolation devices have you tried. We started getting them out. If I recall correctly, we had 24 on the floor or that I recalled and later sold.

I also remember first putting the StillPoints Ultra SSs under my Tidal speakers. My first thought was that they made everything else obsolete. Later I had to confess that they weren't the best when I replaced them with the Ultra Fives. The realism of the soundstage they gave was just outstanding.

Later yet the Star Sound Apprentices under my BMC Arcadias were clearly more dynamic and had a sweeter top end than had the SP Ultra Fives under the same speakers. But I knew that I had been unable to use the SP Ultra Fives properly under the Arcadia, given the method they provided for attaching feet.

Of course I have not tried every isolation device, but I think these are at least among the best. And I think each has its strengths. The Stillpoints give one the perspective of being in the audience and the Star Sound Apprentices give one the perspective of where the microphones are placed. In short it depends on ones tastes. One thing is certain, the Star Sound Apprentices are cheaper than the StillPoints Ultra Fives. The SP Ultra Minis, are much closer in price.

One of the refreshing aspects of this thread is the input from those who have use used both Still Points and the Star Sound Apprentice platforms.I wouldn't underestimate the Audio Points cones, they are very effective and quite affordable.
Charles,

why not attempt to use the ultra 5s on the star sound apprentice and listen for the out come?

Audiolabyrinth, since I have 1.5" Audio Points, I can and did just put the Ultra 5 between the platform and the amps. This was not any good.

Tbg,
I wouldn't have expected any other result. These two products follow very different principles of vibration/resonance management and the engineering reflects that.
Charles,

"This was not any good."

OK, but how did it LOOK? :)

that is a suprise that they did not work together, it was worth a shot in the dark anyway, thanks TBG.

07-25-14: Tbg
Glory, Speaking of empty words and thoughts. I, of course, deliberately misrepresented your worthless post.

It was meant to be a hee haw TBg. Just like your post on polishing the Stillpoints.

I mean really when we all grow up someday and go back and reread our posts from years past most will be ashamed of our over the top zeal of our ex gear.

Audiolabyrinth, I agree with Charles1dad, the SPs focus is on stopping vertical vibration either from below or above their technology while SS focus on getting the vibrations to the Earth and out of components. The materials in the SPs are ceramic balls, which might well be slow. I really did not know what to expect but I was not surprised.

What did surprise me, however, is that the perspective that one has of the recording is quite different. SPs give you a sense of the recording venue with depth and precise location. SSs give you instant sense of the leading edge and the decay of notes. Instruments sound quite real and quick. Which would we hear had we been there is the question or would we hear both? I have been at jazz band performances and can say the SSs are what I heard when I was at the location of the microphones, and SPs are what I heard when I was in the audience. I guess that I want both or would want one focus sometimes and the other at other times. I naively thought that perhaps combining both would give me both; not so.

Tbg,
I get your point in your description. I've attended about 18 to 20 live jazz performances so far this year and many in un microphoned smaller environments. What ever are the intrinsic qualities that allow the ears to immediately recognize "live sound" the Star sound products definitely move in that direction. I'm very grateful for their successful engineering and implantation. They have increased the "natura/ realisml" character in my system unquestionably. That's the highest compliment I can ascribe to an audio product.
Charles,

Meant to type implementation not implantation.

Gary

I don't think Norm was kidding about the polishing effects whether brass or stainless. Much of the information travels on the skin of the material so keeping them shiny bright is a benefit. Tom

Glory I have had many different footers on many high end speaker systems. The magico q5's come with extremely well made and no doubt expensive spikes. If you think brass is the answer by all means enjoy. I have had spikes on tt's, on all types of stands, etc., don't like them. Don't believe in their "science". Here's an article that makes my point. Think as you wish, I prefer real science, engineering and independent thought.

Speaker Spikes and Cones – What’s the point?
Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on google_plusone_share Share on reddit More Sharing Services
3
by Jim Lesurf — September 18, 2007

Diagram 1

In recent years it has become common for items of audio equipment to be mounted using “spikes” or “cones”. These come in all sorts of shapes, sizes, and materials, at all kinds of prices. The Hi-Fi magazines sometimes ‘review’ these accessories, and recommend their use. However, are they worth buying and using? On this page I’ll consider their use with loudspeakers, and discuss some alternatives.

Diagram 1 shows a typical arrangement. In this case there are a set of cones between the actual loudspeaker and its stand. (In some cases these cones are placed ‘point upwards’ rather than as shown here.) The base of the stand also has spikes fitted – i.e. long thin cones. These can penetrate the carpet, and if you have a wooden floor, they may then stick into the floorboards through the carpet.

In some cases, people use such spikes with some form of washer or coin so that the points sit on a small ‘puck’ rather than dig into the floor. Also, sometimes the spikes do not penetrate the carpet or flooring. To start with, I'll ignore these possibilities, and return to them later on.

In general, Hi-Fi magazines claim that using cones and spikes like this will improve the sound. They also sometimes tend to describe the action of the cones or spikes as providing “vibration isolation”. Indeed, cones are sometimes also recommended for use under CD players, amplifiers, etc, and it is sometimes claimed that this can improve the sound by “isolating” the units from vibrations. This leads to two questions:

Do these cones or spikes actually do anything worthwhile?
If so, what do they do, and how do they work?
At first appearance, it seems plausible that cones under a loudspeaker should reduce the amount of sound energy transmitted between speaker and stand because they reduce the area of contact between the speaker and the stand. In the same way, we might expect spikes at the base of the stand to provide isolation. The basis of this idea seems to be that if the contact area was zero (i.e. no contact at all!) then no solid vibrations could pass. Hence if we make the contact area tiny, this approaches zero, so should only allow a small amount of vibration through. Unfortunately, although plausible, this idea may simply be incorrect.

We can understand how the above idea might be wrong by considering another example of the use of “spikes” – a running shoe. Here the purpose is to increase the grip between two objects (shoe and ground) and hence transmit forces more efficiently. This example instantly shows that a cone or spike might not reduce the amount of actual force transmission, but actually help ensure effective transmission. Hence spikes and cones – far from “isolating” – might sometimes give a more effective link for vibrations to pass though.

In some recent issues of the audio magazine, ‘Hi Fi News’ [ref 1], Keith Howard used an accelerometer to measure the levels of vibration in various objects. When he tried measuring the vibrations produced in a loudspeaker stand by playing the speaker he found a result that surprised him. With the speaker unit sitting on cones the level of vibration of the stand was over one hundred times greater than if the cones were replaced with small rubbery feet. This indicates that cones are of doubtful use if the intention is to stop vibrations passing from the speaker to the stand, or to any other solid objects against which the speaker may sit.

In fact, this result is also consistent with the predictions you can get by looking into the theory of vibrations in solid structures and objects. [ref 2] (Although such predictions sometimes need to be treated with care as the results depend upon the assumptions made when doing an analysis!) The theory and actual measurements seem to agree that hard cones and spikes are not necessarily a sensible choice if vibration isolation is what you require. An air gap or soft rubbery feet would probably be much better.

So do cones and spikes do anything useful, and are they worthwhile?

Spikes into the Floor
Despite the above, there may be cases where the use of cones or spikes do have an effect – although probably not for the reasons often given in audio magazines. In some cases the effects may be unwanted, though, so beware. To illustrate this we can use two examples.

The first example is shown in diagram 2. This shows a side-view of a speaker on a stand without cones or spikes. The stand rests on the carpet. When we play music the speaker cones vibrate backwards and forwards. This produces the sound we want. However by Newton’s Laws of motion it also shakes the speaker and the stand. The result, especially at low frequencies is a tendency for the speaker and stand to ‘rock’ back and forth. Compared with solid materials like metal or wood, the carpet is quite soft and spongy. Thus it can act like a spring and allow the base of the stand (or the legs) to move, and the whole system wobble.

This behaviour may have various effects. One is that vibrational energy now finds it more difficult to ‘escape’ from the speaker and stand into the floor. In this case, it is the carpet that is providing some “vibration isolation”. Another possible result is that, by allowing the speaker to ‘recoil’, we may be influencing how easily the speaker can produce low-frequency sounds. Hence we may find this alters the bass response. It may also be worth noting that when the floor does vibrate at low frequencies we may sense or hear these vibrations. Hence isolating the speaker from the floor might mean some other changes in the sound due to reducing the floor vibrations.

By having spikes on the base of the stand (as illustrated in diagram 1) we allow the speaker stand to ‘grip’ the floor under the carpet. As a result, we can expect the spikes to reduce how much the speaker and stand wobble around, particularly at low frequencies. Unwanted vibrations or shaking of the speaker box and stand at low frequencies could then be reduced. By holding the speaker more firmly we may alter or assist its ability to radiate low frequencies. In addition, the floor may now act as a secondary radiator or medium to convey sound vibrations to the listener. Hence spikes under a stand may well have an effect we can sense, not because they “isolate” vibrations, but for precisely the opposite reason! To do so, however, they need to effectively penetrate through the carpet so the stand can grip the floor underneath.

What the above can’t tell us, of course, is whether any changes produced by such spikes will be judged to make the resulting sound “better” or “worse” – or even if the changes will be noticeable. That will be a matter of individual circumstances and the personal preferences of the listener. There are various reasons for this. One example is that, in some cases, the movement on the springy carpet might help damp out higher-frequency resonances in the stand more effectively than being gripped by the floor. Matter of circumstances which might be judged ‘best’ for changing the performance in the way the individual user might prefer.

Cones Between Speaker and Stand
From the explanations given above it seems reasonable to expect spikes on a speaker stand to be capable of having an effect. So what about cones between a speaker and its supporting stand? For our second example, let’s look at diagram 3.

Engineers are often asked to produce flat surfaces. Alas, ‘flat’ is a nice theoretical ideal, but can sometimes be awkward to obtain in practice, especially when objects are being subjected to various forces which have the effect of bending or distorting their shapes. Diagram 3 illustrates this by considering what happens when the bottom of a loudspeaker unit isn’t actually flat, but bulges downwards in the middle.

Ideally, if both the bottom of the speaker and the top of the stand are flat, they will make firm contact over a large area. The system would then be fairly stable, and would efficiently link forces and vibrations between the two. However if the bottom of the loudspeaker is curved then it might not remain stable on the stand. The curvature shown on the diagram is exaggerated for the sake of clarity, but should indicate what would then happen. With a curved base, any sideways forces would cause the speaker to wobble back and forth on top of the stand. However if we place some cones in between the speaker they act as ‘legs’ to support the speaker in a few locations. This means we can now remove the effect of the underside of the speaker not being flat, and the result may be stable again. Hence cones may improve the stability of the speaker-stand combination by removing any problems due to the surfaces not being flat.

As with the spikes on the base of the stand the cones would, in principle, act here by giving a firmer and better-defined mechanical link, so do not “isolate” the speaker when behaving as described. In practice, however they may not always be required when used with decent loudspeakers and stands. The reason for this is that – although not perfectly flat – the surfaces of the speaker and stand may be flat enough that when they press together their elasticity allows them to deform and come into contact over most of the surfaces. Hence in practice, the surfaces may often be flat enough for any imperfections not to matter.

In principle, when vibrating hard objects are resting upon each other, the surfaces may vibrate enough to keep ‘bouncing’ in and out of contact. The result then might be some unwanted distortion due to the non-linearity of the contact forces. (i.e. the surfaces might ‘rattle’ together.) If this occurs, then compliant feet of some kind (or a layer of soft material in between the two objects) may be desirable to help ensure a more enduring contact. However having said this I’ve have not encountered any measurements or observations which show this is a real problem in most practical cases with domestic audio speakers. I therefore have no reason at present to think that this problem does occur in practice, so no ‘solution’ may be required.

Not Making Holes in the Carpet!
An obvious problem with using spikes as considered above is that we end up with holes in the carpet and floorboards! The good news is that with narrow spikes, the holes in carpet tend to close up and become invisible when the stand is moved. However, wooden floors are less forgiving, and there is an obvious risk of damage that might sometimes be unacceptable. Hence we may allow the spikes to press onto the carpet but avoid pushing them hard enough so they drive through onto or into the floor. When the weight of the speaker and stand is high people can choose to place the spikes on coins, or washers that act as a supporting ‘puck’ and prevent damage to carpet or floor.

By placing the spike on a small puck we make it impossible for the spike to contact the carpet or floor. This means we can't expect the combination to dig in as effectively as the spike would do by itself. The combined spike and puck then will tend to act as a narrow hard foot. For much the same theoretical reasons [ref 2] as before, the result is unlikely to effectively isolate or damp any vibrations, although the stand may be held less firmly than if the spikes can grip the floor. Having said the above, using narrow feet might be useful in some cases. The weight and vibrational forces of the speaker will then be pressed onto a much smaller area of carpet (assuming the pucks are above the carpet) than if no feet or spikes are used. This may alter the effective stiffness of the carpet, and alter the ease with which the speaker may wobble, or lose vibrational energy. The resulting changes may be less when using a puck than when the spike is allowed to ‘dig in’, but may be useful in some cases.

When sitting on a concrete or stone floor it is unclear if a puck should be expected to do much in terms of vibrations. It may just prevent the spikes from blunting themselves digging small holes in the floor. However, either way, this arrangement will lack the grip we might get with spikes driven into a wooden floor. In general, therefore, we should perhaps view pucks or washers with caution as their benefits may be cosmetic rather than acoustic. Indeed, they may tend to defeat the purpose of fitting spikes at all. As usual, though, the results may depend upon the detailed circumstances!

The effect of using spikes which do not penetrate the carpet even without a puck can, again, be expected to be much like using narrow feet. It seems doubtful that they will isolate the stand from the floor. The results will depend upon how well (if at all) the spikes can grip the carpet without making holes. They may, however, act like the cones under a speaker and provide a more stable seating when the surfaces are not flat.

Softly softly...
For what it is worth, my own experience is that spiking the loudspeaker/stand through the carpet to ‘grip’ a wooden floor seems to have a noticeable effect when I have tried it, and I think I prefer it in the main audio system I use. However there is no guarantee this impression would be the same in every case, or that you would agree with my preference, or indeed that I am not imagining the change it made! I can't say that I have ever had the feeling that spikes which do not drive through the carpet had any audible effect. Where genuine vibration isolation or vibration absorption are required my experience (plus the analysis and measurements I have mentioned) make me doubt that cones/spikes of hard material are a good bet. My own experience is that something like soft rubber feet (bumper buttons), or felt feet are more effective for isolation purposes.

Some people have experimented with cutting squash-balls in half, then using the resulting hemispheres of soft rubbery material as ‘feet’ under loudspeakers or other units. I don’t know of any measurements upon the effects of their use, however it seems quite possible that this arrangement would be better at isolating vibrations that hard cones or spikes. An alternative that was once popular was using a layer – or blobs – of ‘Blu-tack’. This is quite soft and squidgy when you apply a steady pressure. However it is more elastic and springy when vibrated. A potential problem with Blu-tack is that it contains a solvent which may discolour or mark other materials if held in contact with them for a long time. The material may also ‘creep’ or dry out, and its behaviour change with time. Hence it may not be suitable for long term use.

Another alternative I have not seen suggested or recommended anywhere is the use of cut-up pieces of carpet tile. This tends to be a composite of a layer of a soft rubbery material with a fibrous layer. An advantage of these tiles is that they are cheap to buy, and easy to cut up into shapes. You can also stack them into piles of a few layers if you wish. Hence they are very convenient to experiment with if you wish explore any effects they may have. Another advantage is that they are available in a variety of thicknesses, colours, and patterns.

I don’t know of any reliable measurements of the possible effects of Blu-tack or bits of carpet tiles used as ‘feet’. Hence if you try them you may decide that do nothing much, or you may find you dislike them. However if you are interested in damping or isolating, they seem worth considering as an alternative to the now-conventional hard spikes and cones.

The real difficulty with trying to deal with vibration and acoustics to ‘improve’ a domestic audio system is that the circumstances vary a great deal from one system and room to another, and the preferences of the user also varies. My own experience is that the choice of loudspeakers, their location, and the listening position generally have a larger effect upon the sound quality than the use of spikes, etc. In some cases cones or spikes may be desired to give a better ‘grip’. In other cases some damping or isolation may be desired, so soft inelastic materials may be preferred. Hence when it comes to loudspeakers and stands, any specific recommendation may be fine in some cases, and poor in others. The best bet is therefore simply to experiment. I hope the above gives some food for thought if you are interested in doing so!

[1] Articles on vibration by Keith Howard in the July and August 2002 issues of Hi Fi News

[2] Textbook: Structure-borne sound, by Cremer, Heckl, and Ungar, published by Springer-Verlag.

Many thanks to Jim Lesurf for contributing this article. For more articles like this, visit: http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Confused about what AV Gear to buy or how to set it up? Join our Exclusive Audioholics E-Book Membership Program!



See also:
How to Evaluate Loudspeakers for Sound and Accuracy
Vertical vs Horizontal Center Speaker Designs
By Jim Lesurf — September 18, 2007
Recent Forum Posts:
Read the Complete Thread
cpp posts on May 07, 2012 08:36
Tried it with spikes on, spikes off. Couldn't hear any difference AT ALL.
sasami posts on May 06, 2012 20:43
Isolation feet is very confusing. Isolation means remove connection between 2 object.
However most isolation feet works 2 ways coupling and decoupling 2 objects.
Means it either reduce the connection of 2 objects (rubber feet).
Or it harden connection between 2 objects (cone/cup, ball/cup feet).
These 2 method works on 2 compelte different theory.
By decoupling it allows free movement of 2 object i.e. reduce motion from 1 object transfer to the other.
When most think of antivibration they think this way so vibration from surrounding don't pass onto the gear.
Howeve by Newton's second law F=ma while Force (vibration) is the same the larger the mass less the accleration or motion.
So by coupling your gear to your rack then to your house using cones.
Means the same force that vibrate you gear now needs to vibrate your house, so it just end up moving nothing.
So rubber feet stop vibration pass to your gear when harden cones stop gear movingby increase total mass.
Since in most case the vibrating end is your gear rather then your house.
Unless you have a vibrating floor let hope you don't, a harded feet is better for stopping vibration.
As for the sound that really depends on personal opinion.
digicidal posts on December 22, 2010 14:28
I've always used a pair of stands I have with spikes as I always had carpet... but I've also always had cats and allergies and something had to change. (The obvious solution was not acceptable - since I didn't want to be single again and my wife really loves having cats).

So I tore up all of my carpet and laid down wood in the bedrooms and tile in the front rooms. First I tried using the little brass pucks that had come with the stands and was very disappointed in their performance - not only because it didn't seem to do much of anything except make moving them around during the placement phase a huge PITA but because I could actually hear the spikes vibrating in the dimple in the brass pucks. My first solution was to simply fill the dimples with silicone - which helped a great deal, but still seemed less than satisfactory since it seemed to make the speaker stand itself less stable.

Final solution - ordered some FLOR tiles... which were like a dream come true... the knap of the carpet was very dense, and they were backed by a rubber backing which was smooth (as opposed to grippy). This allowed me a couple of nice advantages... the first was the spikes would now bite into the carpet and the stands were stable, the rubber backing helped dissipate the vibrations instead of them just bouncing off the tile and back into the stand, and finally... I could drag the carpet + stand around on the tile fairly easily (although still requiring enough effort to be assured that the speakers would not move once placed).

With that done I could find the right placement for the speakers, then marked on the tile with tape where the corners should be - and now I can move the speakers out of the way if we have a party or something where I need to maximize floorspace and have them back into position within minutes when the guests leave.

Although I never had any proof... I always questioned the reasoning behind spiking component racks... simply based on the observation that if they actually served the 'audiophile purposes' of hard-coupling the speakers to the floor plane... then that same logic would dictate that the last thing I would ever want on my component rack was the same thing - since I'd then only be assisting any vibrations in the floor climb up the rack and into my components... When I bought my rack it came spiked... first thing I did was take the spiked feet off and put rubber stoppers on them (the kind you buy at HD/Lowes for leveling refridgerators/ovens/washing machines).
3db posts on December 21, 2010 20:43
Gustavo;775708
And what about that 5th foot under those Yamaha Aventage Receivers? What is it supposed to do?

Its clearly a "male" receiver.
Gustavo posts on December 21, 2010 18:08
And what about that 5th foot under those Yamaha Aventage Receivers? What is it supposed to do?
Post Reply

Theaudiotweak, right you are. I this hint from Miguel Alvarez of Tripoint. It works, but I was warned not to try this on Audio Points.

The post rambled here and there with many questions and no real answers, and then seemed to stop without a conclusion. I found it confusing , but not enlightening.

What Roxy54 said. Lots of suppositions and oddball comparisons. For example, I don't think stereo owners who use spikes under their stationary gear do so for remotely the same reasons Usain Bolt uses them to sprint down a track lane.