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

Over the years, I have tried multiple types of spikes (including Audiopoints) into the concrete floor beneath my 175 lb main speakers (inc. stands), and also under my two 160 lb subs (inc. stands).  About a year or two ago, I removed the spikes and tried using damped springs beneath the speakers and subs, and I found the springs to be an improvement.  Most recently, I have switched to using Herbie's Giant Fat Gliders both for convenience and stability, and I have not perceived any sonic detriment compared to using the springs.   

After looking at this thread, I put the springs back under my speakers just for fun and found that I actually like the sound of the Herbie's Giant Fat Gliders better, I know...blasphemy, right?   What would Max Townshend say?  Springs, sorbothane, silicone, or Herbie's dBNeutralizer  all provide some type of elastic damping and isolation.  To me, the Herbie's products resulted in slightly fuller sounding body and better bass/dynamics, while the spring supported speakers sounded slightly thinner.  The difference was noticeable but not substantial, and not as apparent as changing from spikes to springs.  Maybe the differences I heard were the result of vibrational feedback or some slight distortion, but to me it doesn't really matter because it sounded better.  FWIW, both the springs and the Herbie's products sat directly on commercial grade carpet over a dense commercial grade foam pad, over a concrete slab on grade.  With either solution, over time the carpet and mat became quite compressed at the contact points.  YMMV

The theory of more stuff.

Vibration isolation in audio is a subject surrounded in mystery half truths and any number of wild theories. As an engineering exercise, the explanation is quite straight foreword and may be explained by the “Theory of more stuff”.

Take a surface, be it the floor or a table, on which your hi fi component is placed and it is desired to reduce the vibration from the support to the equipment. The way this is done is to put “some stuff” between the equipment and the supporting surface. There are three possible outcomes.

1 The vibration in the equipment is more than the vibration in the support.
This is not possible as if it were; the energy crisis would be solved! More
out than what is put in. Free power forever! Unfortunately, this scenario
contradicts the first and second laws of thermodynamics, so is not
possible.

2 The vibration in the supported equipment will be the same as in the case of no stuff. The chances of this are one in a million because something has been changed… it may be the same, but that is extremely unlikely, therefore, the only possibility is,

3 The vibration will be attenuated, to a greater or lesser degree, and this is the case.

There are many products out there that do in fact attenuate vibration. Be it spikes on glass, wood and slate, aluminium spikes in cups, ball bearings in cups, solid plates separated by compliant sheets, lead, Bluetack, sand, marble, concrete, the list is endless. It is also known that multiple combinations of the above produce better results because there is more stuff. E.g. multiple platforms stacked really high.

The engineering approach is to get the best result in the simplest manner by optimizing the “stuff” and way back about two centuries ago the Victorian engineers came up with the solution…. the spring! The spring may be anything “springy”, from elastic, rubber, coiled steel, straight steel, air-bladders to flexible wooden strips. As long as it has sufficient spring or compliance, when optimised with an appropriate mass, a mechanical low pass filter is realised.

 

The ideal is to have the resonant frequency as low as is possible, ideally around 2Hz in both the horizontal and vertical planes and with a damping ratio of about 0.16. This will give an attenuation of about 25dB at 10 Hz increasing at 20dB per decade above. This will ensure excellent isolation for the deleterious audio system vibrations which are from 5Hz to 500Hz.

He’s back......... so glad to see millercarbon back!

So as not to totally derail thread, I do not understand the physics, but like the OP my experience is decoupling is preferred.