Townshend Springs under Speakers

To the people who follow vibration management solutions in audio, this may be of interest to you and contains no “word salad”.

Millercarbon, this speaker ringing thing has me perplexed and word has it that you appear to be or are about to become a dealer or their new US representative for the English spring-based company, so I have a couple of questions for you.

Without springs the cabinet causes the floor to vibrate. This vibration manifests as ringing that can be seen on a seismograph. It also manifests as a blurring of image focus and harmonic coloring that can be heard.

Are we to believe speakers ring in the sub-hertz regions and this noise actually transcends into audible noise that the human ear easily detects?

I have always led the understanding that Sound Pressure Levels were the culprit that vibrates flooring and not speaker systems. This can easily be proven by taking a pair of subwoofers, putting some volume behind them, and standing in front, sides, or rear of the cabinet and you will experience some floor vibration. Now place any quality product of ours or yours under them and put your toes anywhere on the floor or directly under the speakers and like magic, the floor no longer is active other than a sense of limited energy formed by residual, variable, and constant Sound Pressure Levels.

Supporting Documentation: http://starsoundtechnologies.com/reviewsDetail.php?37 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAoJ_-Bl2Ig

When Sound Pressure Levels are present and speakers build resonance on all smooth surfaces to the point at which the drivers no longer fire the way they were designed (360° dispersion patterns being the majority) and without a mechanical exit to reduce resonance build-up, how do springs compensate for this problem?

Not too sure what is meant by image blurring either. If the image begins to distort, is that not a problem related to resonance build-up on the speaker drivers? We know that resonance is attracted to metals making speaker frameworks an ideal collection point so how do springs compensate for this problem?

Our theorem is very different in comparison to spring isolation.

We strongly believe there is far more noise generated by ELECTRICITY in comparison to the inaudible sub-harmonic vibrations you claim to be the primary issue affecting racks, electronics, and speakers.

Noise from the power source is very audible. We have all heard electrical panels hum, transformers buzzing, and felt the heat generated by tubes and power supplies. 

Until listeners deal with the noise and resonance in their components and chassis, no one can convince us that the major problems and operational inefficiencies are caused by vibrations coming from the inaudible frequencies located in flooring. Seismographs are required to prove it exists but my ears still have to be convinced. If there is noise in the original signal, there is a continuous source of noise throughout the system.  

If your primary electronics equipment racking cannot manage resonance efficiently, what you hear from your speakers may be problems related back to the equipment rack - itself.

That said, our Company has been working on solutions for resonance build-up on loudspeakers. We are currently listening to Rosso Fiorentino Siena Series 2 loudspeakers and have used PBN, Eggleston Works Custom Ivy Signature, Caravelle, Revel Studio, Wilson Max, Magico Q3, vintage B&W Matrix3, Dunlavy, YG Acoustics Sonja, and a pair of Dual 18” Custom Subwoofers by McCauley Sound.

I have never experienced ringing or heard image blurring or harmonic coloring resulting from floor noise on any of these systems. What speakers are you using where these highly descriptive problems appear? I will get a set in so we can also hear this phenomenon for ourselves.

I am not here for an argument, just more knowledge. Springs do function as we have used and tested them in the past. We found their primary issues are weight capacity, fatigue life, minimal surface contact area, and multiple-use limitations.

This new Resonance Energy Transfer model delivers on weight capacity and parts longevity, is a scalable technology with far more applications in both audio and other industries.

On a negative note: Sound tests that require jumping up and down in a sonic environment are new to us.

Comparing a premium isolation device costing "thousands of dollars" to another part costing just “two dollars” is meaningless and questions one’s level of intelligence. Your videos do prove how vulnerable humans are to the age-old idiom that “seeing is believing”.

I am not a marketing specialist but from a sound engineer’s point of view, the fix is in before the video even begins.

We wish you well in your new audio career, but when challenged to the point when your eyes have to tell your ears what they hear via marketing nonsense, we will respond accordingly. Any answers to the questions are greatly appreciated.

Any questions will be answered based on our experience as well.

Best regards,

Robert, SST

Hello, grannyring,

You are one of a few here on this forum who experienced listening in our Energy Room, so your opinions are always appreciated.

I remember, some five years back when you sold the platforms and moved from the great north to the southern side of the country, I thought we might have lost another good one to life’s changes as it was tough enough when we lost The Audiophile’s Wife. Glad to see you never really left.

Since your system went through many changes and you are now listening in a different environment, would you be willing to take a second listen now that your new system is in place?

However due to the virus coupled with the raw material markets going ‘nuts’, we are experiencing backorders on some model numbers. Foundries are working round the clock to fill their orders, but the demand is outweighing everyone’s capability to deliver timely. We would be willing to offer up some inventory for a listen as we are beginning to close in on a full recovery.

You can EM me and we will make those arrangements.

Sincerely,

Robert

Was not meant in a negative way and apologize in advance for any misconceptions with regard to his personal goals and/or personal ethics in life.

Rumors exist in every business model and from a manufacturer’s perspective, the Audio Industry is an extremely small world where scuttlebutt travels like wildfire and the unimaginable does exist and takes place all the time. No big deal - OK?

I have personally been insulted by the man many times and could have a few of his posts removed but what does that make me? I take good with bad and take no offense to other’s opinions. Been on this forum since 2000, so there is not a lot I have not seen or names been called. As long as someone benefits and learns more about their system and music - that is the importance that drives discovery.

If Miller has the opportunity to work in the Audio Industry, he has obviously earned it through personal effort and passion and we would cheerfully welcome him aboard in any capacity.

Best regards,

Robert

Prof, thank you for the links to various testing information and scenarios.

Credo Audio test and personal review:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ihzvD3urc4&t

Everything is similar to the Townshend speaker isolation test model. However, Credo has figured a way to make the performance of the poor little $2.00 spikes even worse.

Questionable testing of applied physics, no images of the test facility or listening rooms, no microphone model numbers, or test equipment being used or being demonstrated, displaying images as quantified results where they could have come from outer space, and the list goes on.

The last time I saw a speaker sitting on a block of wood or the floor was back in the early seventies. The sonic did not fare well at all particularly if the floor had carpet with rubber backing or foam insulation. Carpet deadens the sonic of the sound environment. The addition of spikes was included with each speaker in order to get the speaker systems off the flooring and put air space between the speaker and the carpet. Spikes were the cheapest solution for that period of time. Springs would have been more of a liability for tipping over on carpeted surfaces plus springs cost more money so spikes became the norm among every speaker manufacturer.

Nothing has changed since the early days but now listeners, audiophiles, and manufacturers use crappy spikes as a source or topic for sonic comparisons. That is extremely unfortunate on all counts and begs the question why? The industry has evolved - all but the $2.00 (back in the day $0.18-cents) spike.

Once again, this test proves to be nothing more than a sales pitch wrapped around a theorem, but the rub comes by comparing a heavily financially resourced isolation product up against a $2.00 part, really?

Here is a list of the test’s shortcomings:

Floor BULL****, the actual floor structure is located below the piece of plywood or whatever species of wood is placed on top of the Real Floor. This insertion lessens direct contact with the greater mass of the Real Flooring Ground Plane and blows up the entire physics behind the isolation test before it begins.  

The floating board does not equate to the mass of the Real Floor creating more man-made vibration and artifacts, and resonance in order to generate higher levels of self-induced noise.

This board defeats the speed at which energy seeks earth’s ground.

The board vibrating is establishing another set of frequencies establishing audible tones and interfering energy. Since there is no audible sound associated with this test, you will not hear the sound generated by the wood plinth on its own, so as the test stipulates, “take my word for it” - the wood tones are there.  

The addition of the “surfboard” makes the foundation much worse for testing anything. The variables cannot be defined without a comparison between the surfboard and the Real Floor.

Speaker Plinth BULL****, the aluminum speaker plinth extends the cheap spikes outward and further away from the speaker itself, allowing for less speed of resonance transfer from the speaker to the already dysfunctional spike design. This contraption eventually leads to the false ground of the surfboard as you increase even more manmade noise into the test.

Aluminum is the worst sounding metal in audio although It is the cheapest material on the planet. Aluminum’s natural damping factors are minimalist and lack mass in comparison to other alloys using steels, brasses, and coppers.

I can see and easily understand why rubber, a primary absorbent, becomes the ‘control’ factor in both design’s functions. Rubber does eat energy. Unfortunately, rubber also deadens all harmonics and dynamics. Aluminum needs more mass or primary absorbents (rubber) in order to hide or alter the sonic signature of the metal.

Example: If any of your components have rubber feet, remove them and substitute three metal springs, or three stacks of brass washers, or for a real awakening a set of three Audio Points (bests a $2.00 spike performance) and you will begin to remove the rubber content throughout your system.

 Another difference is where the Credo device is bolted or directly coupled to the speaker chassis where the Townshend pods do not. Credo does not compare both isolation devices, direct coupled to floating so who knows which version is more or less effective?

BULL**** Sensors, why was the rear of the speaker chosen for the sensor positioning? Generally, the front baffle would be the choice since there is far more energy and vibrations located there. The rear of the speaker is more inert hence less movement. What brand is the sensor and its capabilities? Why was the rear baffle chosen for this test? More information, please.

BULL**** Spikes, the spikes used are made of some type of metal, hoping they are not stainless steel or worse yet aluminum as those materials will make performance worse.

The shape of these generic spikes definitely chokes off the speed and resonance flow away from the speaker chassis allowing for more cabinet noise adding to what is, an already poor performance.

Lacking speed of resonance energy transfer, the drivers will also overload from resonance build-up on the metal driver assemblies which then propagates across the driver’s surface affecting imaging.

The spikes are the wrong shape. The sonic performance of a cheap spike is not worth listening to or testing usage for that matter. This is 2021 and not 1971.

Comparing a $2.00 part to a much higher costing isolation product proves again that the “fix” is in before the video begins. I will argue these facts with engineers, physicists, and/or both company ownerships.

In my opinion, an ignorant precedent has been established. Vibration Management Testing needs more information including a “control” factor, qualification, and quantification to demonstrate any experiments prior to publishing results. Enough with this ‘put-in a picture’, create a storyboard, and procure meaningless testing with ‘hometeam’ winning results.

You can put anything whatsoever… a wood box full of chicken bones under a speaker and change the sonic and resonant point of any component or speaker system. Hopefully, they change your sound for the better. Actually, a wood box full of cheap spikes would sound much better than the chicken bones so, at the very least, we discovered a place in High-End Audio to dispose of those cheap spikes.  

It is easy for us to see how the Townshend and Credo model functions but to judge them against a $2.00 poorly designed part is pointless. The word spike covers thousands of different parts manufactured over fifty years of time and should be removed from the high-end world of sound.  

The old “sales pitch” gambit is clearly in play:

Make up a problem then “show” people the problem exists using ‘hometeam’ testing, storyboarding, and cheap parts then miraculously solve the problem right in front of the public’s eyes, even if they cannot “hear” it for themselves prior to realizing the high price for the cure of a highly questionable problem.  

Do your speakers have image smearing and floor noise problems? Every speaker system I have designed or built or auditioned does not.

We are waiting for the manufacturers of these tests and products to name one brand of speaker that delivers on image smearing and distortions or increases floor noise. Just give us one brand in order to shut me up - please.

Here is a hint: spikes, image smearing, or self-induced floor noise have nothing to do with the Townshend or Credo product’s functionality. There is a far more credible answer as to how and why their designs function. They need to figure that one out and it does not require comparisons using $2.00 spikes. In fact, it adds a higher level of credibility to their theorem but who am I to tell anyone that?  

Robert - Sound Engineer for SST

Disclaimer: I have spent thirty years innovating and working in vibration management for professional and consumer audio companies. My experience involves developing newfound applications, material science, an understanding of physics, and acoustics with an additional dozen years involving hands-on mixing of live sound and studio engineering.