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.
