Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: serious vibration isolation regtas43

Expand Messages
  • regtas43
    I am not familiar with this particular product. But in general it is very difficult for thin film absorbers to soak up lower frequency vibrations. The squash
    Message 1 of 8 , Nov 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      I am not familiar with this particular product.
      But in general it is very difficult for thin film absorbers to soak up
      lower frequency vibrations.
      The squash balls will go down to below 5 Hz, exact figure depedning on
      weight of object and ball softness. Getting this with a thin film is
      not very likely in my opinion.
      (The memory foam ("Temperpedic" and so on brand name) because it is
      THICK among other things).

      REG

      PS Please note that what you want under speakers is different from
      what you want under electronics. For speakers you want to absorb
      higher frequency vibrations so there is no rattle. But for electronics
      you want to get rid of LOW frequencies--much of the ground borne
      vibrational energy is low frequency.

      REG--- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "kana4813" <devert@a...>
      wrote:
      >
      > Here's an alternative to the squash balls:
      >
      > http://www.kleintechsys.com/default.asp
      >
    • george day
      So, what would be ideal for speakers already on stands -- ie, verus Blu Tack?
      Message 2 of 8 , Nov 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        So, what would be ideal for speakers already on stands -- ie, verus Blu
        Tack?


        On 11/1/05 7:49 AM, "regtas43" <regonaudio@...> wrote:

        > I am not familiar with this particular product.
        > But in general it is very difficult for thin film absorbers to soak up
        > lower frequency vibrations.
        > The squash balls will go down to below 5 Hz, exact figure depedning on
        > weight of object and ball softness. Getting this with a thin film is
        > not very likely in my opinion.
        > (The memory foam ("Temperpedic" and so on brand name) because it is
        > THICK among other things).
        >
        > REG
        >
        > PS Please note that what you want under speakers is different from
        > what you want under electronics. For speakers you want to absorb
        > higher frequency vibrations so there is no rattle. But for electronics
        > you want to get rid of LOW frequencies--much of the ground borne
        > vibrational energy is low frequency.
        >
        > REG--- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "kana4813" <devert@a...>
        > wrote:
        >>
        >> Here's an alternative to the squash balls:
        >>
        >> http://www.kleintechsys.com/default.asp
        >>
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • regtas43
        The main point is to be sure they do not rattle in any sesne at all. I put my M40s on a thick rug. REG ... verus Blu ... soak up ... depedning on ... film is
        Message 3 of 8 , Nov 1, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          The main point is to be sure they do not rattle in any sesne at all.
          I put my M40s on a thick rug.

          REG

          --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, george day <george@h...>
          wrote:
          >
          > So, what would be ideal for speakers already on stands -- ie,
          verus Blu
          > Tack?
          >
          >
          > On 11/1/05 7:49 AM, "regtas43" <regonaudio@a...> wrote:
          >
          > > I am not familiar with this particular product.
          > > But in general it is very difficult for thin film absorbers to
          soak up
          > > lower frequency vibrations.
          > > The squash balls will go down to below 5 Hz, exact figure
          depedning on
          > > weight of object and ball softness. Getting this with a thin
          film is
          > > not very likely in my opinion.
          > > (The memory foam ("Temperpedic" and so on brand name) because it
          is
          > > THICK among other things).
          > >
          > > REG
          > >
          > > PS Please note that what you want under speakers is different
          from
          > > what you want under electronics. For speakers you want to absorb
          > > higher frequency vibrations so there is no rattle. But for
          electronics
          > > you want to get rid of LOW frequencies--much of the ground borne
          > > vibrational energy is low frequency.
          > >
          > > REG--- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "kana4813"
          <devert@a...>
          > > wrote:
          > >>
          > >> Here's an alternative to the squash balls:
          > >>
          > >> http://www.kleintechsys.com/default.asp
          > >>
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > Yahoo! Groups Links
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          >
        • Tom Mallin
          I think that getting rid of the high frequency rattle from the speaker against the stand may be only part of the goal, Robert. Yes, this will kill the high
          Message 4 of 8 , Nov 2, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            I think that getting rid of the high frequency rattle from the speaker against the stand may be only part of the goal, Robert.  Yes, this will kill the high frequency edge or glare.  But it won't stabilize the speaker, provide the best bass, or shield the rest of your equipment from low frequency structure-borne vibration.  These other effects seem audible to me, but I admittedly have not done any blind testing of these.
             
            Squash balls and other supports with a very low resonant frequency placed under sources and electronics shield those items from structure-borne low frequency vibration.  Putting squash balls or other low-frequency vibration isolators under the speakers will interrupt the transmission of low frequency vibration to the sources and electronics from one primary problem source, the speakers, thus providing added vibrational shielding.  Of course, whether this really makes an audible difference is subject to debate and blind testing.
             
            Mounting the speakers in such a way that the back and forth resonant frequency of the speaker is below the audio range prevents woofer cone excursions from vibrating the speaker back and forth, thus stabilizing the mid and upper frequency drivers, perhaps increasing the stability and precision of imaging and staging.  Again, blind testing could be done to see if this is audible.
             
            Further, by interrupting the transmission of bass frequencies from the speaker, through the stand, into the floor, and then to the listener, you cut down on the amount of bass energy which reaches the listener more quickly through the solid floor than through the air.  (The speed of sound is greater through the solid floor than through the air.)  While some listeners may prefer the bass punch or snap added to bass transients by this "fast" bass arrival, on sustained bass, the floor sound will either just add blur to the bass tone or will tend to thin out the bass through cancellation effects.  While many listeners like the "tighter bass" effect of rigid mounting, it seems to me that it must be a distortion.  I don't think this effect needs blind testing.  The difference in bass between spiked stands and unspiked stands, for example, is quite obvious to most listeners with most speakers.  


            >>> regonaudio@... 11/01/05 09:49AM >>>
            I am not familiar with this particular product.
            But in general it is very difficult for thin film absorbers to soak up
            lower frequency vibrations.
            The squash balls will go down to below 5 Hz, exact figure depedning on
            weight of object and ball softness. Getting this with a thin film is
            not very likely in my opinion.
            (The memory foam ("Temperpedic" and so on brand name) because it is
            THICK among other things).

            REG

            PS Please note that what you want under speakers is different from
            what you want under electronics. For speakers you want to absorb
            higher frequency vibrations so there is no rattle. But for electronics
            you want to get rid of LOW frequencies--much of the  ground borne
            vibrational energy  is low frequency.

            REG--- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "kana4813" <devert@a...>
            wrote:
            >
            > Here's an alternative to the squash balls:
            >
            >
            href="http://www.kleintechsys.com/default.asp">http://www.kleintechsys.com/default.asp
            >




          • Neal Van Berg
            Seems to me that vibrating speaker cabinets is a bad thing no matter how you think about it. What spikes do or cones do is to multiply the mass of the speaker
            Message 5 of 8 , Nov 2, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Seems to me that vibrating speaker cabinets is a bad thing no matter how you think about it.
               
              What spikes do or cones do is to multiply the mass of the speaker coupling.  If you have a speaker box that weighs in at 100 lbs and it's foot print is say 1 sq ft., that means you have 100 lbs per sq ft of coupling to the floor or less than one lb per sq inch.  Now you take that same speaker and put 3 cones, under it and couple that 100lbs to 1/8 sq inch or less and you get at least 800 lbs/ sq inch of coupling and the cabinet is no longer able to rock back and forth.
               
              Out here West ot the Mississippi, this has always provided better sounding bass which opens up the midrange and makes it smoother etc. 
              I believe you guys that the Harbeth needs soft mounting but I don't think it is true for most speakers.
               
              Neal

              Tom Mallin <tmallin@...> wrote:
              I think that getting rid of the high frequency rattle from the speaker against the stand may be only part of the goal, Robert.  Yes, this will kill the high frequency edge or glare.  But it won't stabilize the speaker, provide the best bass, or shield the rest of your equipment from low frequency structure-borne vibration.  These other effects seem audible to me, but I admittedly have not done any blind testing of these.
               
              Squash balls and other supports with a very low resonant frequency placed under sources and electronics shield those items from structure-borne low frequency vibration.  Putting squash balls or other low-frequency vibration isolators under the speakers will interrupt the transmission of low frequency vibration to the sources and electronics from one primary problem source, the speakers, thus providing added vibrational shielding.  Of course, whether this really makes an audible difference is subject to debate and blind testing.
               
              Mounting the speakers in such a way that the back and forth resonant frequency of the speaker is below the audio range prevents woofer cone excursions from vibrating the speaker back and forth, thus stabilizing the mid and upper frequency drivers, perhaps increasing the stability and precision of imaging and staging.  Again, blind testing could be done to see if this is audible.
               
              Further, by interrupting the transmission of bass frequencies from the speaker, through the stand, into the floor, and then to the listener, you cut down on the amount of bass energy which reaches the listener more quickly through the solid floor than through the air.  (The speed of sound is greater through the solid floor than through the air.)  While some listeners may prefer the bass punch or snap added to bass transients by this "fast" bass arrival, on sustained bass, the floor sound will either just add blur to the bass tone or will tend to thin out the bass through cancellation effects.  While many listeners like the "tighter bass" effect of rigid mounting, it seems to me that it must be a distortion.  I don't think this effect needs blind testing.  The difference in bass between spiked stands and unspiked stands, for example, is quite obvious to most listeners with most speakers.  


              >>> regonaudio@... 11/01/05 09:49AM >>>
              I am not familiar with this particular product.
              But in general it is very difficult for thin film absorbers to soak up
              lower frequency vibrations.
              The squash balls will go down to below 5 Hz, exact figure depedning on
              weight of object and ball softness. Getting this with a thin film is
              not very likely in my opinion.
              (The memory foam ("Temperpedic" and so on brand name) because it is
              THICK among other things).

              REG

              PS Please note that what you want under speakers is different from
              what you want under electronics. For speakers you want to absorb
              higher frequency vibrations so there is no rattle. But for electronics
              you want to get rid of LOW frequencies--much of the  ground borne
              vibrational energy  is low frequency.

              REG--- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "kana4813" <devert@a...>
              wrote:
              >
              > Here's an alternative to the squash balls:
              >
              > http://www.kleintechsys.com/default.asp
              >






              Regards,

              Neal Van Berg

              Fax 303 660 6554


              Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

            • Tom Mallin
              As you say, spiking more rigidly couples the speaker to the floor. The fallacy comes in believing that this rigid coupling either prevents the speaker cabinet
              Message 6 of 8 , Nov 2, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                As you say, spiking more rigidly couples the speaker to the floor.  The fallacy comes in believing that this rigid coupling either prevents the speaker cabinet from vibrating back and forth or prevents transmission of bass into the floor due to small surface area contact.
                 
                Rigid coupling merely raises the resonant frequency of the stand/speaker combination, allowing the whole thing to be excitable at midrange and high frequencies, adding back the edge soft interfaces eliminate.
                 
                And if the spikes really prevented bass energy from going into the floor and earth, it would have to go somewhere.  That somewhere would be a reflection back into the speaker/stand combination.  This may well happen with concrete floors on mother earth, as in my room.  The speaker may just be "beating its head against the wall."  Most of the vibration gets passed back to the speaker, rather than being absorbed in the concrete/earth sink.
                 
                With suspended wood floors, I think it is more likely that  spikes provide a better coupling of bass energy to the floor, increasing the amount of bass energy transmitted to the floor, and thus escaping the room through diaphragmatic flexure of the floor and/or being transmitted in room to the listener through the floor.
                 
                I certainly hear the effects of spiking, as you do.  I just think the effect is wrong, not right.  Many audiophiles like "tight" or "punchy" bass and believe that full, warm bass covers or obscures details further up the spectrum.  I have three responses:  first, live bass from musical instruments in a good hall is almost never that way.  It is full and warm.  Second, if you get the bass flat by EQing it, there is no obscuring of detail in the upper ranges.  Third, much of the "detail" you hear with spiking is just added high frequency edge not present in live music.  Many audiophiles are seduced by such false detail and pursue it relentlessly, with the result that their systems do sound relentless. 

                >>> nealvb@... 11/02/05 10:13AM >>>
                Seems to me that vibrating speaker cabinets is a bad thing no matter how you think about it.
                 
                What spikes do or cones do is to multiply the mass of the speaker coupling.  If you have a speaker box that weighs in at 100 lbs and it's foot print is say 1 sq ft., that means you have 100 lbs per sq ft of coupling to the floor or less than one lb per sq inch.  Now you take that same speaker and put 3 cones, under it and couple that 100lbs to 1/8 sq inch or less and you get at least 800 lbs/ sq inch of coupling and the cabinet is no longer able to rock back and forth.
                 
                Out here West ot the Mississippi, this has always provided better sounding bass which opens up the midrange and makes it smoother etc. 
                I believe you guys that the Harbeth needs soft mounting but I don't think it is true for most speakers.
                 
                Neal

                Tom Mallin <tmallin@...> wrote:
                I think that getting rid of the high frequency rattle from the speaker against the stand may be only part of the goal, Robert.  Yes, this will kill the high frequency edge or glare.  But it won't stabilize the speaker, provide the best bass, or shield the rest of your equipment from low frequency structure-borne vibration.  These other effects seem audible to me, but I admittedly have not done any blind testing of these.
                 
                Squash balls and other supports with a very low resonant frequency placed under sources and electronics shield those items from structure-borne low frequency vibration.  Putting squash balls or other low-frequency vibration isolators under the speakers will interrupt the transmission of low frequency vibration to the sources and electronics from one primary problem source, the speakers, thus providing added vibrational shielding.  Of course, whether this really makes an audible difference is subject to debate and blind testing.
                 
                Mounting the speakers in such a way that the back and forth resonant frequency of the speaker is below the audio range prevents woofer cone excursions from vibrating the speaker back and forth, thus stabilizing the mid and upper frequency drivers, perhaps increasing the stability and precision of imaging and staging.  Again, blind testing could be done to see if this is audible.
                 
                Further, by interrupting the transmission of bass frequencies from the speaker, through the stand, into the floor, and then to the listener, you cut down on the amount of bass energy which reaches the listener more quickly through the solid floor than through the air.  (The speed of sound is greater through the solid floor than through the air.)  While some listeners may prefer the bass punch or snap added to bass transients by this "fast" bass arrival, on sustained bass, the floor sound will either just add blur to the bass tone or will tend to thin out the bass through cancellation effects.  While many listeners like the "tighter bass" effect of rigid mounting, it seems to me that it must be a distortion.  I don't think this effect needs blind testing.  The difference in bass between spiked stands and unspiked stands, for example, is quite obvious to most listeners with most speakers.  


                >>> regonaudio@... 11/01/05 09:49AM >>>
                I am not familiar with this particular product.
                But in general it is very difficult for thin film absorbers to soak up
                lower frequency vibrations.
                The squash balls will go down to below 5 Hz, exact figure depedning on
                weight of object and ball softness. Getting this with a thin film is
                not very likely in my opinion.
                (The memory foam ("Temperpedic" and so on brand name) because it is
                THICK among other things).

                REG

                PS Please note that what you want under speakers is different from
                what you want under electronics. For speakers you want to absorb
                higher frequency vibrations so there is no rattle. But for electronics
                you want to get rid of LOW frequencies--much of the  ground borne
                vibrational energy  is low frequency.

                REG--- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "kana4813" <devert@a...>
                wrote:
                >
                > Here's an alternative to the squash balls:
                >
                > http://www.kleintechsys.com/default.asp
                >






                Regards,

                Neal Van Berg

                Fax 303 660 6554


                Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

              • rzangpo2
                Tom, Exactly. As Alan Shaw says, vibration has to go *somewhere*. You can t just make it disappear. Make the speaker cabinets more rigid, and you simply push
                Message 7 of 8 , Nov 2, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  Tom,

                  Exactly. As Alan Shaw says, vibration has to go *somewhere*. You can't
                  just make it disappear. Make the speaker cabinets more rigid, and you
                  simply push resonances into the midrange where our ears are most
                  sensitive to them. This is why Harbeth (and other manufacturers of BBC
                  monitors) use the famous "lossy joint" construction. By making the
                  cabinet "soggy", so to speak, you push the resonant frequency way down
                  where it causes much less trouble.

                  It seems to me that the same logic must apply to the
                  speaker/stand/floor interface.

                  Ron Stiskin
                  New York

                  P.S. You can search the HUG to find the posts where Alan discusses
                  these issues.

                  --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Mallin" <tmallin@p...> wrote:
                  >
                  > As you say, spiking more rigidly couples the speaker to the floor. The
                  > fallacy comes in believing that this rigid coupling either prevents the
                  > speaker cabinet from vibrating back and forth or prevents transmission
                  > of bass into the floor due to small surface area contact.
                  >
                  > Rigid coupling merely raises the resonant frequency of the
                  > stand/speaker combination, allowing the whole thing to be excitable at
                  > midrange and high frequencies, adding back the edge soft interfaces
                  > eliminate.
                  >
                  > And if the spikes really prevented bass energy from going into the
                  > floor and earth, it would have to go somewhere. That somewhere would be
                  > a reflection back into the speaker/stand combination. This may well
                  > happen with concrete floors on mother earth, as in my room. The speaker
                  > may just be "beating its head against the wall." Most of the vibration
                  > gets passed back to the speaker, rather than being absorbed in the
                  > concrete/earth sink.
                  >
                  > With suspended wood floors, I think it is more likely that spikes
                  > provide a better coupling of bass energy to the floor, increasing the
                  > amount of bass energy transmitted to the floor, and thus escaping the
                  > room through diaphragmatic flexure of the floor and/or being transmitted
                  > in room to the listener through the floor.
                  >
                  > I certainly hear the effects of spiking, as you do. I just think the
                  > effect is wrong, not right. Many audiophiles like "tight" or "punchy"
                  > bass and believe that full, warm bass covers or obscures details further
                  > up the spectrum. I have three responses: first, live bass from musical
                  > instruments in a good hall is almost never that way. It is full and
                  > warm. Second, if you get the bass flat by EQing it, there is no
                  > obscuring of detail in the upper ranges. Third, much of the "detail"
                  > you hear with spiking is just added high frequency edge not present in
                  > live music. Many audiophiles are seduced by such false detail and
                  > pursue it relentlessly, with the result that their systems do sound
                  > relentless.
                  >
                  > >>> nealvb@y... 11/02/05 10:13AM >>>
                  >
                  > Seems to me that vibrating speaker cabinets is a bad thing no matter
                  > how you think about it.
                  >
                  > What spikes do or cones do is to multiply the mass of the speaker
                  > coupling. If you have a speaker box that weighs in at 100 lbs and it's
                  > foot print is say 1 sq ft., that means you have 100 lbs per sq ft of
                  > coupling to the floor or less than one lb per sq inch. Now you take
                  > that same speaker and put 3 cones, under it and couple that 100lbs to
                  > 1/8 sq inch or less and you get at least 800 lbs/ sq inch of coupling
                  > and the cabinet is no longer able to rock back and forth.
                  >
                  > Out here West ot the Mississippi, this has always provided better
                  > sounding bass which opens up the midrange and makes it smoother etc.
                  > I believe you guys that the Harbeth needs soft mounting but I don't
                  > think it is true for most speakers.
                  >
                  > Neal
                  >
                  > Tom Mallin <tmallin@p...> wrote:
                  > I think that getting rid of the high frequency rattle from the speaker
                  > against the stand may be only part of the goal, Robert. Yes, this will
                  > kill the high frequency edge or glare. But it won't stabilize the
                  > speaker, provide the best bass, or shield the rest of your equipment
                  > from low frequency structure-borne vibration. These other effects seem
                  > audible to me, but I admittedly have not done any blind testing of
                  > these.
                  >
                  > Squash balls and other supports with a very low resonant frequency
                  > placed under sources and electronics shield those items from
                  > structure-borne low frequency vibration. Putting squash balls or other
                  > low-frequency vibration isolators under the speakers will interrupt the
                  > transmission of low frequency vibration to the sources and electronics
                  > from one primary problem source, the speakers, thus providing added
                  > vibrational shielding. Of course, whether this really makes an audible
                  > difference is subject to debate and blind testing.
                  >
                  > Mounting the speakers in such a way that the back and forth resonant
                  > frequency of the speaker is below the audio range prevents woofer cone
                  > excursions from vibrating the speaker back and forth, thus stabilizing
                  > the mid and upper frequency drivers, perhaps increasing the stability
                  > and precision of imaging and staging. Again, blind testing could be
                  > done to see if this is audible.
                  >
                  > Further, by interrupting the transmission of bass frequencies from the
                  > speaker, through the stand, into the floor, and then to the listener,
                  > you cut down on the amount of bass energy which reaches the listener
                  > more quickly through the solid floor than through the air. (The speed
                  > of sound is greater through the solid floor than through the air.)
                  > While some listeners may prefer the bass punch or snap added to bass
                  > transients by this "fast" bass arrival, on sustained bass, the floor
                  > sound will either just add blur to the bass tone or will tend to thin
                  > out the bass through cancellation effects. While many listeners like
                  > the "tighter bass" effect of rigid mounting, it seems to me that it must
                  > be a distortion. I don't think this effect needs blind testing. The
                  > difference in bass between spiked stands and unspiked stands, for
                  > example, is quite obvious to most listeners with most speakers.
                  >
                  >
                  > >>> regonaudio@a... 11/01/05 09:49AM >>>
                  > I am not familiar with this particular product.
                  > But in general it is very difficult for thin film absorbers to soak up
                  >
                  > lower frequency vibrations.
                  > The squash balls will go down to below 5 Hz, exact figure depedning on
                  >
                  > weight of object and ball softness. Getting this with a thin film is
                  > not very likely in my opinion.
                  > (The memory foam ("Temperpedic" and so on brand name) because it is
                  > THICK among other things).
                  >
                  > REG
                  >
                  > PS Please note that what you want under speakers is different from
                  > what you want under electronics. For speakers you want to absorb
                  > higher frequency vibrations so there is no rattle. But for electronics
                  >
                  > you want to get rid of LOW frequencies--much of the ground borne
                  > vibrational energy is low frequency.
                  >
                  > REG--- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "kana4813" <devert@a...>
                  > wrote:
                  > >
                  > > Here's an alternative to the squash balls:
                  > >
                  > > http://www.kleintechsys.com/default.asp
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Regards,
                  >
                  > Neal Van Berg
                  >
                  > Fax 303 660 6554
                  > Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
                  >
                  > SPONSORED LINKS
                  > Electronics Hobby and craft supply Craft hobby Hobbies and crafts
                  > Electronics hobby Hobby electronics
                  > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                  >
                  > Visit your group "regsaudioforum" on the web.
                  > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  > regsaudioforum-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                  >
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.