Townshend Springs under Speakers
For the time being I am weighing my options. One of them being sell it all go off grid live the RV life a while. Seriously. Given it serious thought. Or move, TN top of the list, and build custom. Probably will do something in between. Seems extreme considering all the hard work, effort and resources invested into your present system and room. However, I understand how life can present situations and opportunities that are catalysts for change. Best of luck to you, whatever you decide. |
Three easy payments.. The link you posted shows 2 pictures the one we know is the Miller dungeon. The room on the left is very attractive but will suffer from sonic issues caused by the double set of 90 degree angles on the ceiling. Those angles can be reduced with a resulting increase in performance..Tom |
point taken @theaudiotweak . It was just a random compare/contrast. There are numerous examples of highly attractive showroom with good acoustic treatment. "Boutique audio salon" was the phrase I was reflecting on and the customers one is hoping to attract. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d8/aa/51/d8aa5192d86dc8bd9eb5e6da8602caaf.jpg |
The floor in my listening room is ceramic tile on a a 6” concrete base. It’s basically bomb proof. I placed the Townsends under my Avantgarde UNO’s and was rewarded with a huge improvement in sound. Having had the experience I have, I would say that the type of floor has nothing to do with the sound improvement from the Townsends. BTW I was so impressed with the performance of the Townsends under my speakers, I went out and bought for my amps and equipment rack. Some improvement but nowhere near what I heard by putting them under the speakers. |
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. |
Yes holmz, sad to say it happens all the time. If I told you how it works you would not believe me. Suffice to say it is biased and counterproductive. Look around you will notice the same small group constantly posting off topic blather. Many of them have been here so long now they think they own the site. In effect they do, because they have bullied and deterred many from posting. Check out the recent Tekton discussion, where they mocked and attacked the OP for having the temerity to post a positive review. https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/my-experience-with-tekton It is fine in their book to insult another member calling his room a "dungeon" like theaudiotweak did just above. That is just fine, and no one will ever be able to get that one removed. But watch how fast they remove this one for having nothing the least bit insulting, controversial, or even off topic. You did after all ask. This is the answer. But they can’t stand the truth, and so when you see it removed that will prove everything I just said is true. |
Man...this thing is still being discussed....wow...if you needed springs, I would think the speaker manufacturer would have provided them or somehow implemented them into the design. Still ain't putting slinkies under mine. My tannoys sound great as is....I thought the same about my ATC's. It's unfortunate that this thread has become about personalities rather than the topic under discussion - because the Podiums actually work as described. |
Ok, "My Turn"... Anyone here with an abundance of experience in this realm of study, "And there are quite a few of them about". They all know at least one thing about this subject for sure. And that is, that there is simply not any single, "One thing". Whether, "device, method or practice". That will truly (solve) this issue with ANY combination of, "floor, flooring, room, speaker and etc.". There are simply too many variables. But understanding a few concepts. Along with a bit of experience implementing the several basic ways we approach problems of this nature. This helps us to narrow down "Hopefully" towards what is that "best formula" to utilize in improving a systems properties. A bit more quickly. Sometimes this is easy. Sometimes not. And sometimes, "We just get lucky"! Or at least I have felt like that at times over the years. One thing I have also learned is that there is simply "No substitute for mass". Speakers with little mass. "Regardless" of cost, space-age technology and the designer/engineer's reputation? Those "Low mass" speakers will always sound like they are in fact, "Low mass speakers". At times the best of them may, "At low energy output values" sound pretty good. But once at what most, (99%+) would call a reasonable output in an avg. environment? They begin to ring, vibrate, resonate and dance to their own (now) distorted voices. Which is all the same thing. Just differing verbiage. In the effort to make speakers smaller, lighter and with with as few materials and mass as possible? Many modern speaker, "Designers" have fallen prey to their marketing divisions wants. If you simply calculate the energy your transducers as a whole are going to output at your reference listening level. It is not hard to then take the overall weight of a given speaker as one value. And then translate the energy output of the transducers, "Minus the energy lost in heat exchange, voice coil friction, Air friction across various interior surfaces and etc. etc.". And then, Each speakers weight must then be translated into a form and then value, which after calculation must be in excess of the energy in inertia against which it is being forced". (The dead weight of the speaker). (Which is sometimes, but not always, "An applied force In a single direction") or "vector of force". So that you may in turn find that your, (Tiny, plastic and nearly weightless "Bose" speakers) may be at best, "problematic". I'm just throwing that out there. Doing my part. Trying to help. |
Robert - Sound Engineer for SST
Ok, Just to be clear, I had skipped ahead and over the above referenced gentleman's posting. But I did just read it. "In it's entirety", and, "Twice"! Wow! And I could not agree more. "With all of it". And I also admit that I "Wish" I had his "Abundance" of experience which is truly of considerable nature. Anyone here simply discounting his words above? Or arguing the points of fact which he made? I believe you do so at your own peril of remaining in you own "Bliss of Ignorance". He took what "I" have found in my own exp. to not just the, "Next level". But "Several levels" upwards. So, A big, "Thank You" > To, Sir "Robert" - "Sound Engineer for SST". |
@jollygreenaudiophile2, you're a bit late to the party. As posted earlier by @nonoise this guy would probably be able to explain better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW2LvQUcwqc |
I placed Townshend Pods under my integrated amp and dac yesterday. ( Mojo Audio Evo dac & Circle Labs A200 int amp) Really enjoying the sonic improvement over IsoAcoustics products. Putting the tech arguments to the side for a moment, these Townshend products just work and help my system sound so beautiful and engaging. I have used many other footers and consider these a step above based on my joy of listening to the results. At least in my system and to my ears. They do in fact deliver the sonic goods even as we argue over marketing videos, technical approaches and wade through a sea of off topic posts. I also use Townshend under my speakers. |
@grannyring I placed Townshend Pods under my integrated amp and dac yesterday. Bill, I’m interested to know the distance from the shelf (or platform, or floor...) to the bottom of the DAC, and the integrated amp with Townshend Pods installed. Have you ever used a Symposium Acoustics system (shelf + Rollerblocks), or HRS system (platform + Nimbus Couplers) under these components? |
@tvad I have not tried those. I have long been interested in the HRS couplers. I have 5 B Pods under my Circle Labs A200 Int Amp. They are 2 inches in height. Amp weights 44 pounds. I have 4 B Pods under my Mojo Audio Evo dac. They are almost 2.5 inches high. Dac weights 32 pounds. Townshend recommends at least 30% compression and I have that on my amp, not sure on my dac. I may try 3 under my dac and hear what happens. I adjusted the Pods up on the heavy side of the dac to level. I have heavy Lundahl chokes on that side. It took some time to level the units which are weight loaded to one side/end with transformers. This is why I have 5 Pods under my A200. Kind of a hassle compared to other footers to be frank, but I got it done. All on a 225 pound Sound Anchors 4 foot stand. |
Update. I placed three B Pods under the dac. Two under the heavy side with the trannys and chokes and one on the lighter side. Now the Pods are just under 2 inches high meeting the 30% compression rule. The unit now moves more freely when touched. I will work with John and perhaps try 4 A Pods instead. The 1.75-2.0 inch compressed height is ideal. The Pods measure 2.87 inches in height when uncompressed. 30% compression puts it just right at 2 inches high. They can be adjusted up close to a 1/2 inch for leveling and still keep the 30% compression rule. I would not recommend adjusting them up 1/2 inch as the adjusting bolt is almost completely out at this point and the top cap is a bit wobbly to the touch when not in place. I would think a 1/4 inch max upward adjustment is more reasonable. |
@facten I will respond to you more fully once I listen more. If you do not have the five upgraded and very heavy Lundahl chokes, then the 4 A Pods are best. My early impressions are the Pods sound more balanced top to bottom, have a better sense of ease and natural tone, and are more open sounding. The IsoAcoustics sound a tad bit lite up in the highs in comparison. Brighter if you will. |
Decoupling speakers that actually vibrate, and which can vibrate a floor, from the floor, I get. The effects are actually measurable. Spring footers under a dac seem about as necessary as wings on a pig. Unless you are perhaps on a ship in a storm, it doesn't make any sense to me. Under any normal circumstances, there is no reason whatsoever to expect it to change the sound. No more than it would help my computer run it's software better. But...I'll leave it at that. |
Sure. You don’t understand nor have any direct experience with Townshend under electronics, so in the end your comments fit that “pigs wings” statement more accurately. This gets so tiresome. This should be a place to share actual experiences, not a place to deposit a turd in the punch bowl. You don’t possess all knowledge on this topic, nobody does, and have no direct experience with this. Why the turd? I don’t often speak out against your sort of post, but it is getting so tiresome and ruining this site. Your comment is in no way helpful. |
You don’t understand Well if you or anyone else does, I’m all ears. What’s wrong with saying I've seen no reason how it could work, and asking how it could work?
Why is wondering how something does, or could work, tiresome? Is this a place only for the most incurious consumers? I hope not. Why shouldn’t I be able to voice my own view that spring decouplingunder speakers makes some sense, is measurable, and I’ve heard the sonic differences? Where putting it under certain other equipment, e.g. CD players, DACs and often enough amps seems to make no sense and nobody is explaining how it could actually work? I’ve tried the pods under my amps and pre-amp just for the heck of it.No sonic difference at all. Is this allowed, or should this be one monolithic "no questions asked" website? |
Spring footers under a dac seem about as necessary as wings on a pig. Unless you are perhaps on a ship in a storm, it doesn't make any sense to me. Under any normal circumstances, there is no reason whatsoever to expect it to change the sound. No more than it would help my computer run it's software better. Promises, promises. But, you didn't leave it at that, did you? Why "seem"? If you actually tried it would be "know" not "seem". Why, "wings on a pig"? If you really thought it was this nonsensical why would you even try? "Under normal circumstances"? Why the qualifier? If you actually tried you would know the circumstances, wouldn't you? I’ve tried the pods under my amps and pre-ampOh, so now you tell us? After promising to "leave it at that"? But, did you really? Pods are sized according to load. Your amp weighs exactly as much as your pre-amp? And in the beginning you said dac. Your story is as full of holes as they come. Zero credibility. I could say a lot more but will leave it at that. |
Well Einstein, he tried it under his gear and told you there was no improvement, yet you still beat the guy up. If he told you there was no chance of the pods working on his gear and he hadn't tried them you would have said he had no opinion. Who has lack of credibility now? Rent free buddy rent free... |
Yes, I tried my Townshend C isolation pods under my heavy Premier 12 monoblocks. And under my pre-amp. This was before I used them under my Turntable base. I was trying tons of different isolation materials and footers. (As well as Isoacoustic and other footers...no sonic change). I also tried the Nobsound-type spring footers under both as well. But in the audiophile world, the only subjective experience that counts is someone who claims positive results. Negative results never count against a claim ;-) "Oh, you must have crappy gear or cloth ears...that's why you hear no difference. Because it couldn't be that I'm imagining anything." ;-) Anyway, I'll be trying my Townshend isolation bars under my speakers soon to decouple from my springy wood floors, where it's actually plausible it could make a difference. |
09-15-2021 7:00amYou don’t understand I always heard it as being, “like spats on a pig”. I concur with @prof points, and they are something I concur with. It is tiresome to ask how something works and be told, “well just buy the $6000 and see for yourself”.Or with power cords, “buy them an see.” There seems to be a majority that have little intellectual curiosity in know the “How” and “why” part. On my deleted post the day, I used the term “Connoisseurs of ignorance”. It is certainly OK not to know why something works, but that ignorance is not something that one should be taking a great deal of pride and celebration in. Somethings are we may never fully know, but we should be able to appreciate that some people are working towards trying to understand those things, even if it is a quixotic endeavour. |
