To couple, or not to couple, that is the question


There seems to be a fundamental difference of opinion between those who would couple their speakers to the floor (e.g., with spikes), and those who would decouple them (e.g., with springs). I’ve gone both ways, but have found that I prefer the latter; I’ve currently got Sorbothane feet attached to my tower speakers, so that they wobble or "float"—much like the Townshend Platforms videos show for that similar, but more expensive, approach. My ears are the final arbiters of my listening experience, so they rule my choices. But my mind likes to have a theoretical explanation to account for my subjective preferences.

That’s where the question comes in. A very knowledgable audiophile friend insists that what I prefer is precisely the opposite of what is best: that ideally, the speaker enclosure should be as rigid and immovable as possible so that the moving cones of the drivers can both most efficiently and most accurately create a sound front free of the inevitable colorations that would come from fighting against a moving cabinet. He says that transients will be muddied by the motion of the cabinet set up by the motion of the speaker cones. And this makes perfect sense to me in terms of my physical intuitions. It’s perhaps analogous to the desirability of having a rigid frame in a high-performance vehicle, which allows the engineers to design the suspension without having to worry too much about the complex interactions with a flexing chassis.

Am I just deluded, then, in preferring a non-rigid interface between speaker and floor? Or does it depend on the kind of floor? (I get that most advice seems to favor decoupling from a suspended wood floor, and coupling to a slab; my floor is hardwood, but not exactly "suspended" as the underflooring structure is very rigid.) Or are there trade offs here, as there usually are in such options: do I gain something (but what, and how?) even as I lose something else (i.e., clean transients, especially in bass tones)?

The ears will win this contest, but I like to have my mind on board if possible. So thanks for any input you may have on this question.

128x128snilf

Showing 4 responses by ieales

It's complicated.

ALL components on Sorbothane. IMO, and especially for bottle rockets, all components should be isolated. In an earlier life in previous concrete slab home, components were in one room and speakers on spikes in another. Many good studios have the mains rigidly mounted while other have them compliantly mounted. Gear maybe in a separate room or in a control room alcove trading cable length for vibration control. There's no free lunch.

Current media room floor is 2nd over garage:

Spica TC-50 on shot filled spiked stands and 4 Sorbothane pucks to stands.

LFT8b on sand filled Sound Anchor stands on spikes with damped spike protectors.

Like almost everything HiFi, it's local. Change the program and the perceived improvement may vanish.

"Spica TC-50 on shot filled spiked stands and 4 Sorbothane pucks to stands."

See above.

 

RE: IsoAcoustics Frequency Response Testing at the National Research Council of  Canada

The graphs show the vibration in the stands. They don't show the delta between the driver motion and the cabinet. If the driver motion is different, then the graphs are a red herring. 

It is isolation that alleviates this. 

Yeah, I keep my speakers in the media room and listen in the garage.

Unless speakers are suspended via a silent air column, they are not 'isolated'

QED

???

Didn't see any 'proof'...