Evolution Acoustics MMMicroOne


Hey guys,

Has anyone heard the new Evolution Acoustics MMMicroOne? Just saw this pic from CES 2011.

http://cybwiz.blogspot.com/2011/01/evolution-acoustics-mmmicroone.html

Any thoughts on this one?
rhohense
Prdprez, what isolation products have you tried with your speakers?

Mike, I know the Wave Kinetics is supposed to be a good product (a derivative of Stanford engineering). I would be curious to see what they would offer in terms of stand design or modifications beyond the use of footers. Starsound technologies is also an engineer-driven company and has a fine product. The seminal white paper and foundation for their particular brand of isolation is also derived from the Stanford engineering department.

I have screwed around with Stillpoints with my current speakers (which their stands were designed around), Sistrum stands for electronics and now room/wall grounding, and the Equarack footers also under electronics. As expected with audio evolution, these products all outperformed my older generation stands that Prdprez is presumably referring to. By extension, these same principles are or can be applied to the speaker cabinet itself. Gone are the days of MDF, black hole, and steel rod bracing....
Prdprez, everything has a resonant frequency, so all stands sound different. Filling a stand with lead shot greatly lowers the resonant frequency. Isolation and coupling are the same thing, just different frequencies.
Well, I didn't want to hi-jack this thread. But perhaps this stand discussion will be useful to EA owners.

Anyway, my "experience" isn't really all that significant. Many years ago I used a stand from a company whose name I can't even remember. But it was simply a 4inch square column that was welded to flat plates both top and bottom. Everything was made from 5 gauge steel. By itself, it rang like a bell. Filled with wet sand, absolutely dead silent.
Like I mentioned already, I did assemble an LSA stand for a friend, while he was admiring his new LSA speakers. Cool looking but not really designed with performance in mind. And I also have a friend who owns a pair of Sound Anchor stands. Those beasts are probably 100lbs and also dead silent. If I ever used a stand mounted speaker again, for sure those are the ones I would get. Hands down. So, that's it. I don't even use stands anymore. When I did I actually went to the effort of literally bolting my speakers to the stand. And that had a tremendous effect on performance. But at that point, my speakers and stand were essentially one piece. Seemed like a good enough idea at the time. And the results proved true.

So my perspective is not one of lots of audiophile experience. But I do work in physics. So I'm just trying to apply basic physical laws. Ie. The first priority is for the stand to be sturdy. Any extraneous movement or flexure will be detrimental to the sound. This should be self evident. I would probably give mass as the second most important factor. Again, because of simple physics. The ratio of the mass of the moving diaphragms versus what they are pushing against should probably be as disparate as possible. This is pretty much proven in practice. Just look at the mass of speakers like Wilson, Rockport, Magico, Focal, etc. etc.
Anyway, the last factor would be ringing within the stand itself. In the same way that it's not desirable to have your speaker cabinet resonate, it's not good to have your stands resonate. I know there are a tiny few speaker designers who think it's a good thing to have the cabinet resonate freely. But, with all due respect, I think it's safe to say that they are fringe. Certainly the vast majority of designers and listeners recognize the benefits of an inert speaker cabinet. I would assume the same for the stands.

So as far as resonating goes. Yes, everything has a resonate frequency. But that's not the whole story. That frequency also has a Q. Steel has a high Q. So with the stands I used years ago, if you yelled at the right pitch you could get the stands to audibly ring without even touching them. But you fill them with wet sand and they become like a rock. Literally. Not only does the resonant frequency drop through the floor. But their Q drops even more so. They don't "ring" at all. It was like having my speakers bolted to stone.

So thats my perspective on the stand itself. It bears no opinion on accessories added to the stand, such as Wave Kinetics or Still points. I'm simply talking about the stand itself. And I think it's safe to say that, as an extreme, you don't want a flimsy and lightweight stand that rings like a bell. You want the opposite of that. Building something that achieves those ends is not complicated. Granted, there may not be a lot of companies doing it. But that's why I keep mentioning Sound Anchors. They are ridged as hell. That are heavy as hell. And they have extremely low resonant Q. They don't ring at all. AND, they are not at all expensive.

Now, I am well aware of our audiophile penchant for spending lots of money on gear. But I don't think it's always necessary. This is why I inquire and ask questions in this regard. If welded steel is more ridged and heavier than threaded brass. (and it is.) And if brass has a higher Q than steel. (it does.) How do these things add up to better performance? Especially at 4-5 times the price.
I'm not saying it won't. I'm just asking for someone to explain to me how it does.
Thanks!
I believe I have read that the best engineering practice is to couple an audio component to something that is more stable and decouple it from something less stable. Since I have a cement floor under my carpet I couple my MMMicroOnes to the floor using Star Sound Sistrum Stands that use brass cones. Conversely, I decouple my turntable from my equipment stand since it is less stable. I have spent a lot of time trying different vibration control schemes and my results confirm this rule of thumb.
What if the resonant frequency range of a vibrating speaker stand is above or below that of the human ear? Would that leave a cleaner or more open space in the environment for our ears to hear more sound from the loudspeaker?

Once a stand is integrated with any compact monitor or floor standing loudspeaker the sound characteristics of the speaker automatically change based on the speaker relationships from the added mass of the stand, combined frequencies between the stand and speaker and the speed transformation of energy related to the acoustic and mechanical grounding applications.

Having auditioned multiple types of monitors and stands in recording studio suites we have found that that the supporting framework is extremely critical to any loudspeaker presentation. Speakers will sound good, better or just different based on the medium that they are placed on.

Add to that, if you have never experienced a speaker stand that truly and measurably increases performance then you may never know or understand what differences exist.

Since the speaker support provides such a defining influence to the end result, would anyone ever think that the importance of the stand design rivals that of the speaker?

Our choice of products now in place consist of a single technical approach to coupling and employ materials that when vibrating is beyond the audible range of the human ear so in essence we are not hearing the stand but are getting much more quality in sound out of the speaker.

Compact monitor enthusiasts should experiment and evaluate various stands for the results attained could easily redefine listening pleasure.

Disclaimer: My father works with a commercial company that employs various forms of vibration management so I am biased, have had greater access to knowledge from experience and have applied various techniques and multiple grounding principles in recording studio settings.