Speaker Spike Philosophy


This is a learning exercise for me.

I am a mechanics practitioner by training and by occupation, so I understand Newton’s Laws and structural mechanics and have a fairly effective BS-detector.

THE FOLLOWING THINGS PUZZLE ME, and I would be glad to hear from those who believe they understand so long as the responses are based on your actual experience or on sound mechanical arguments (or are labeled as conjecture). These are independent questions/musings, so feel free to weigh in on whichever ones you want, but please list the number(s) to which you are responding:

  1. Everything I have read recently ("Ask Richard" (Vandersteen) from 15 Feb, 2020, for instance) seems to indicate that the reason for speaker spikes is to hold the speaker fixed against movement induced by the drivers. I have seen in the past other explanations, most employing some use of the term "isolation" implying that they decouple the speaker (from what?) Evidently the "what?" is a floor that is fixed and not moving (let’s assume concrete slab foundation). So to decouple the speaker from the floor, which is fixed, is to . . . allow it to move (or not) as it wishes, (presumably in response to its drivers). These two objectives, "fixity" and "isolation" appear to me to be diametrically opposed to one another. Is the supposed function of spikes to couple the speaker to "fixed ground" so they don’t move, or is it to provide mechanical isolation so that they can move (which I do not think spikes actually do)? Or, is it to somehow provide some sort of "acoustic isolation" having to do with having some free space under the speaker? Regarding the mechanical isolation idea, I saw a treatment of this here: https://ledgernote.com/blog/q-and-a/speaker-spikes/ that seemed plausible until I got to the sentence, "The tip of a sphere or cone is so tiny that no vibration with a long waveform and high amplitude can pass through it." If you have a spike that is dug into a floor, I believe it will be capable of passing exactly this type of waveform. I also was skeptical of the author’s distinction between *speaker stand* spikes (meant to couple) and *speaker* spikes (meant to isolate/decouple, flying in the face of Richard Vandersteen’s explanation). Perhaps I am missing something, but my BS-detector was starting to resonate.
  2. Spikes on the bottoms of stands that support bookshelf speakers. The spikes may keep the the base of the stand quite still, but the primary mode of motion of such speakers in the plane of driver motion will be to rock forward and backward, pivoting about the base of the stand, and the spikes will do nothing about this that is not already done by the stand base without spikes. I have a hard time seeing these spikes as providing any value other than, if used on carpet, to get down to the floor beneath and add real stability to an otherwise unstable arrangement. (This is not a sound quality issue, but a serviceability and safety issue, especially if little ones are about.)
  3. I have a hard time believing that massive floor standers made of thick MDF/HDF/etc. and heavy magnets can be pushed around a meaningful amount by any speaker driver, spikes or no. (Only Rigid-body modes are in view here--I am not talking about cabinet flexing modes, which spikes will do nothing about) "It’s a simple question of weight (mass) ratios." (a la Holy Grail) "An 8-ounce speaker cone cannot push around a 100/200-lb speaker" (by a meaningful amount, and yes, I know that the air pressure loading on the cone comes into play as well; I stand by my skepticism). And I am skeptical that the amount of pushing around that does occur will be affected meaningfully by spikes or lack thereof. Furthermore, for tower speakers, there are overturning modes of motion (rocking) created by the driver forces that are not at all affected by the presence of spikes (similar to Item 1 above).
  4. Let’s assume I am wrong (happens all the time), and the speaker does need to be held in place. The use of feet that protect hardwood floors from spikes (Linn Skeets, etc.) seems counterproductive toward this end. If the point of spikes is to anchor the speaker laterally (they certainly do not do so vertically), then putting something under the spikes that keep the spikes from digging in (i.e., doing their supposed job) appears to defeat the whole value proposition of spikes in the first place. I have been told how much easier it is to position speakers on hardwood floors with the Skeets in place, because the speakers can be moved much more easily. I was thinking to myself, "yes, this is self-evident, and you have just taken away any benefit of the spikes unless you remove the Skeets once the speakers are located."
  5. I am making new, thick, hard-rock maple bases for my AV 5140s (lovely speakers in every sense), and I will probably bolt them to the bottom of the speakers using the female threaded inserts already provided on the bottoms of the speakers, and I will probably put threaded inserts into the bottom of my bases so they can be used with the Linn-provided spikes, and I have already ordered Skeets (they were a not even a blip on the radar compared to the Akurate Exaktbox-i and Akurate Hub that were part of the same order), and I will end up doing whatever sounds best to me. Still, I am curious about the mechanics of it all...Interested to hear informed, reasoned, and reasonable responses.
linnvolk

Showing 9 responses by mitch2

Assuming you bolt your speakers to your new maple bases, you can then have some fun trying several different supporting footers and listening for changes and preferences. Choices could include spikes, and also decoupling products such as one of the Herbie’s products like threaded stud gliders, giant fat dots, puckies, or giant fat grounding bases; or springs as MC suggested. A good source for springs, that has a multi-input search tool is Century Spring.
@mgolpoor - the  PRIMACOUSTIC product sounds similar to the A/V Roomservice EVPs that have won a bunch of Absolute Sound awards.  The AVPs could probably be closely imitated through DIY using Owens Corning 705 fiberglass board sandwiched between sheet aluminum or your choice of hard material.  At the end of the day, all of these decoupling products are some form of damped spring.
Discs under spikes are probably as close to decoupling as to coupling.  The KEF discs are 18mm in diameter or about 250 mm squared in area, which is probably about 100 times the area of the tip of a spike.
sokogear - assuming the steel disc is rigid and doesn't deflect, the stress will be spread uniformly over the area of the disc.  That is how structures work, like a column load being supported by a square footing, and is why they use discs in the first place - to spread the load out so the spike doesn't poke or dent the floor.  If the disc is not exactly rigid (although I believe they are), then the load will be somewhat higher under the concentrated point.  You are correct though that it is a lot of load over a small area.  If I were to support my 180-pound speaker/stand assembly on four 18mm diameter discs, the resulting pressure under the discs would be over 100 psi or over 16K psf, so maybe that couples the speaker....I don't know.
It is really quite astounding just how good ordinary springs can be when resonance is minimized by tuning the spring to the component load.
Exactly what I have found.  Use the correct spring constant and appropriate maximum spring load compared to the actual load, apply damping, such as loosely applied thin heat shrink with a hole in it (what I use), or maybe foam inside of the spring, and you should be able to reduce the natural frequency of the damped system to below the audible band.  It was a little more than $35 though because it took me a few tries to get the correct combination of springs.  Other "design" considerations include what spring diameter and compressed height you want, as well as what number of spring coils might work best for the height of spring you are using.  There are lots of choices.  With speakers it is good to know the front (under the baffle) is heavier than the rear due to the weight of the drivers so two different spring constants may be necessary.  Another thing helpful to me is that my main speakers and my two subs all use Sound Anchor stands, which provide a rigid base for the springs to act against.

Employing isolation techniques, one merely protects one component from interfering with another that it is in direct contact with. Isolation increases the effects of Coulomb friction by building resistance between the mating surfaces. With regards to airborne resonance, isolation principles serve much like the dielectric material in a capacitance device, essentially turning the component into a giant Resonance Capacitor. This is not the opinion of our company, Star Sound Technologies, LLC but rather that of the average graduate - level physics textbook. Minimizing the resistance (as caused by Coulomb friction) via a mechanical grounding process is the only logical way to compensate for the effects of Mechanical, Electrical and Airborne resonance within any given system.
This stuff wears me out.  How many illogical analogies can be made in one paper....how many times can you say "Coulomb Friction"....why not just say, "only our product will fix the problem you didn't realize you had....."  Props for persistence though...
@ausaudio - I may have misunderstood your response but I am not the salad guy, just the guy tapping out after seeing enough pseudo-scientific rhetoric used to try and sell audio stuff. 

BTW, Coulomb was an 18th century engineer who is best known for Coulomb's law, which addresses the proportionality of electrostatic forces of attraction and repulsion.  The scrapyard guys who lift old cars using an electromagnet are probably thankful for Coulomb.  His name also defines the SI unit of electric charge.  He did do work in friction, and Coulomb friction is a model used to predict the direction and magnitude of the friction force, and acceleration, between two bodies with dry surfaces in contact, taking into account the relationship between static and kinetic friction, and how those may act with respect to a system where there could be a variety of contact surfaces and loading situations.   I am skeptical as to the applicability of the model to spiked audio equipment platforms, at least in the manner portrayed.  Of course, my impressions of their marketing scheme has nothing to do with the success and value of the products they produce with respect to spikes, platforms, and more.
@sokogear - If you want a taste of the Townshend isolation products without the cost, take a look at my system page, which shows pictures of individual springs that are damped using very thin-wall heat shrink (somewhat loosely applied) with one or two small holes to allow air to escape.  Other benefits of the heat shrink damping is that it creates a better bond with the bottom of your speakers or speaker stands and it protects the bottoms from being scratched by the bare springs. 
One source I liked using is Century Springs, which have an easy to use spring finder feature where you input the spring parameters you are looking for and are provided with a list of springs meeting your parameters.  I have teed up the search feature for you in the provided link.  Expect to pay about $6-$20 per spring.
Otherwise, try Nobsound.
@sokogear - I forgot reading about how much you like the Townshend platform under your turntable, so you are indeed familiar with the benefits of their products and the principle.  Since it seemed from your posts that cost may be an issue (relative to the price of your speakers/system) I shared what works for me at a fraction of the cost. 

Some of this audio stuff seems like a Zeno's paradox where each step is half the distance to the wall.  At what point are you at the wall, even though you never will be, and what is each subsequent half step worth?