Shocked removed spikes, used blue tack, what other non spike footer


My floor standing speakers, monitor stands always came with spikes so I used them always, it's the way they were designed at least I thought. I know everyone can't do this because of there floor type, mine is hardwood over concrete slab. Bass, more natural tone( I'm a tone junkie)  gives the music a nice rhythm, may just be flavor of month but I'm really enjoying it. Highs maybe little rolled off, I just did it yesterday, maybe not as hifi, but no lose of information. Have other people experienced this.Can someone with my floor type suggest a nice reasonable priced non spiked footer, these are floorstander filled with shot so pretty heavy,maybe 70- 80 lb. thanks

paulcreed
Uh, but LIGO didn’t fail. You don’t pay attention very well, do you? God gave you two ears and one mouth for a reason. Snap out of it!
Post removed 

Getting back to sound reproduction if any are still interested:

As I’ve oft described, performance of cones is also a function of Hardness. Brass for example is a relatively soft metal, and carbon fiber is a relatively soft material, whereas tempered steel and NASA grade ceramics rank very high on the Mohs Hardness scale - and are audibly superior to softer materials like brass.

We disagree with this claim.

First, NASA does NOT grade, advertise, recommend nor receive any compensation for sponsorships of any material - whatsoever. NASA Grade Ceramics is a wishful analogy or marketing line of some kind that only exists in the mind of a person who once was employed there.

Does this work for anyone? - Saxophones, trumpets, tubas, bones and all musical instruments made or contain brass alloys in their manufacture should use NASA grade brasses.

The ‘harder the better’ distraction that is repeated all too often is one  “opinion” and has been disproven multiple times over. In some cases, hard materials reproduce the sonic effects associated with hard or edgy, brittle sonic and that is not a desirable result for most listeners.

Disclaimer: We’ve never heard or prototyped an audio cone made of diamond, gold, silver, platinum,glass, minerals or tin so cannot comment on those materials.

We have built using aluminums, all types of steels, titanium, various species of woods along with a few varieties of metal alloys used in the manufacture of modern day defensive armors (extremely hard/dense materials). The results in each case were not good for listening however to be fair, we applied known successful versions of our geometry to cut and test the prototypes so there is a slight possibility the shapes lessened the performance or did not match well with the materials damping factors.


Information for the DIY and Audio Designers:

All metal and ceramic alloys have different damping factors that affect the attack, sustain and decay characteristics of sound. These factors are a part of material science therefore it is very important to analyze, document, reference and learn how materials react to resonance formed from vibrations when designing anything related to audio reproduction.


Another Crucial Element Related to ‘any’ Vibration Device:

The overall function of cones (Not including $0.45 cent spikes), spheres, pucks or springs heavily relies on the mass and chemistry makeup of the two surface materials coming in contact with both the top and the base area of the device. These outlying surfaces, their chemistry makeup and mass greatly influence the functionality and sonic performance of any device.

Spring rates should be selected based on load.

Our primary issue with springs was weight limitations where you require a spring for this weight and another for that and every time you get heavier or lighter gear one has to match up the sonic result to or with a mass to spring ratio.

I can only speak for Star products where they are sensitive enough to function with an ounce of weight or up to one ton of mass so there is no concern over what type of equipment you place onto them. Not having to deal with equipment weight is a huge benefit when adapting a technology that serves multiple applications.


Since we are the company in audio with the most years of experience modeling, prototyping and manufacturing conical devices and are developing a newfound vibration technology, we remain extremely confident and have proven that our choice of brass and its chemical makeup delivers the function and sonic results essential for industry and product expansion.

We sampled, tested and listened to many materials including many brasses along with twenty-five different varieties of steels; applied multiple geometries to a host of prototypes that failed or had shortcomings related to limiting frequency response. The cost over time was extensive and most did not make the grade for our research and development projects, especially when it came down to the ‘all’ important musical and sonic relationships we require.

Moh’s has nothing to do with musical performance unless you include Larry and Curly in the band.  ⌣

Robert

Star Sound




audiopoint

Getting back to sound reproduction if any are still interested:

Geoffkait wrote,

As I’ve oft described, performance of cones is also a function of Hardness. Brass for example is a relatively soft metal, and carbon fiber is a relatively soft material, whereas tempered steel and NASA grade ceramics rank very high on the Mohs Hardness scale - and are audibly superior to softer materials like brass.

We disagree with this claim.

First, NASA does NOT grade, advertise, recommend nor receive any compensation for sponsorships of any material - whatsoever. NASA Grade Ceramics is a wishful analogy or marketing line of some kind that only exists in the mind of a person who once was employed there.

>>>>I never said NASA did any of those things. I use the term NASA grade ceramics to show that the particular ceramic material used in those DH (diamond hardness) Cones is the next HARDEST material next to diamond on the Mohs scale of Hardness.

Does this work for anyone? - Saxophones, trumpets, tubas, bones and all musical instruments made or contain brass alloys in their manufacture should use NASA grade brasses.

>>>>I never said ceramics should be used for musical instruments. Do you have attention deficit disorder?

The ‘harder the better’ distraction that is repeated all too often is one “opinion” and has been disproven multiple times over. In some cases, hard materials reproduce the sonic effects associated with hard or edgy, brittle sonic and that is not a desirable result for most listeners.

>>>>Again, you’re distorting my words. I said that hard materials should be used under components and under isolation stands for best results in evacuating residual energy from the system. Since you have no experience with the entire range of materials of various Hardness - as I do - you have no real basis for your opinion.

Disclaimer: We’ve never heard or prototyped an audio cone made of diamond, gold, silver, platinum,glass, minerals or tin so cannot comment on those materials.

>>>>Exactly! By contrast, I have had experience with those materials and many others.

Information for the DIY and Audio Designers:

All metal and ceramic alloys have different damping factors that affect the attack, sustain and decay characteristics of sound. These factors are a part of material science therefore it is very important to analyze, document, reference and learn how materials react to resonance formed from vibrations when designing anything related to audio reproduction.

>>>>Again, I only referring to Hardness related to cones.

Another Crucial Element Related to ‘any’ Vibration Device:

The overall function of cones (Not including $0.45 cent spikes), spheres, pucks or springs heavily relies on the mass and chemistry makeup of the two surface materials coming in contact with both the top and the base area of the device. These outlying surfaces, their chemistry makeup and mass greatly influence the functionality and sonic performance of any device.

Spring rates should be selected based on load.

Our primary issue with springs was weight limitations where you require a spring for this weight and another for that and every time you get heavier or lighter gear one has to match up the sonic result to or with a mass to spring ratio.

>>>>Once again you demonstrate your ignorance on the subject of vibration isolation in general and springs in particular. A spring with low spring rate cannot support a load over its weight range and that a spring that’s too stiff, high spring rate, cannot achieve a sufficiently low Fr. Sonic results of isolation are related to Fr of the isolating system. Obviously one spring can’t be used for all loads. Geez, Robert, have you considered spending some time in the library? Perhaps you can have your seismologist give you and your team a short non technical tutorial on vibration isolation.

Since we are the company in audio with the most years of experience modeling, prototyping and manufacturing conical devices and are developing a newfound vibration technology, we remain extremely confident and have proven that our choice of brass and its chemical makeup delivers the function and sonic results essential for industry and product expansion.

>>>>>marketing blather.

We sampled, tested and listened to many materials including many brasses along with twenty-five different varieties of steels; applied multiple geometries to a host of prototypes that failed or had shortcomings related to limiting frequency response. The cost over time was extensive and most did not make the grade for our research and development projects, especially when it came down to the ‘all’ important musical and sonic relationships we require.

>>>>The one thing you didn’t experiment with that would be pertinent to this discussion is vibration isolation.

Moh’s has nothing to do with musical performance unless you include Larry and Curly in the band. ⌣

>>>>Yuk, yuk. This illustrates once again you failed to comprehend what I actually said, that Energy dissipation effectiveness is related to the Hardness of the cones.

More stuff on LIGO

Announced by the LIGO collaboration in February 2016, the discovery of ripples in spacetime known as gravitational waves was momentous enough to merit the 2017 Nobel Prize in Physics. Now, another Nobel laureate says LIGO has unknowingly made another spectacular discovery: gravitational waves from merging black holes that have been amplified by the gravity of intervening galaxies.

Called gravitational lensing, this phenomenon is routinely used to study light from objects in the very distant cosmos. But the new assertion, if proved correct, would make it the first such sighting for gravitational waves. The controversial claim, which has been dismissed by members of the LIGO team, comes via physics Nobelist George Smoot of the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, and his colleagues. “We are wagering our reputations on this,” he says.

LIGO (for the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory), comprising two detectors in the U.S., and Virgo, a detector outside Pisa, Italy, have together so far announced observations of gravitational waves from the merging of 10 pairs of black holes as well as a pair of neutron stars.