2. misc-audio
  3. 180576-142670

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
snilf's avatar
snilf OP
193 posts
 

Thanks folks. But my question was more theoretical than practical: as far as practice goes, I’m sure my system sounds better with the speakers decoupled on Sorbothane feet. But the theoretical question remains: WHY? It would seem, as my "expert" friend argues, that a rigid structure for the drivers would be better. It makes intuitive sense that the motion of the speaker cones will necessarily move the entire speaker enclosure on that "floating" platform, even if in only very tiny amounts. This—again, it would seem—should "smear" transients, especially at lower frequencies, which should result in a subjective experience of reduced clarity, locational specificity, and so forth.

Only Eric has addressed this, and he only very briefly. That having woofers closer to the floor would be better is consistent with my intuition here: the moment of inertia on a tall tower (49"), if the woofer(s) are mounted high, will be greater, and thus the movement imparted to the enclosure will be greater. As it happens, my speakers employ the "D’Appolito" array: two 6.5" woofers, one above and one below a dome tweeter, all three of them at the top of the tower. And yet, the speakers DO NOT sound smeared or compromised when standing on rubber. Why not?

mitch2
3,691 posts
 

If you search back, you will find about 101 posts on this topic and many answers to wade through that both support and refute the benefits of decoupling. Folks around here have been decoupling speakers with things like hockey pucks well before the more recent craze of decoupling products became available. To your question about a "theoretical explanation" I have linked videos from manufacturers Townshend and Credo, as well as an article on IsoAcoustics Frequency Response Testing at the National Research Council of Canada, and a thread posted about springs on the dreaded Audio Science Review. I hope this helps - draw your own conclusions, and good luck convincing your "very knowledgable audiophile friend"!

designsfx
787 posts
 

Sniff-

Did you surmise your speaker cabinets were moving or did you see them moving?
I would guess the Sorbothane is providing some absorption (reducing the transmitted energy) as well as lowering the frequency seen between the cabinet enclosure and the floor. I can’t comment on how that equates to a difference in perceived sound when compared to spikes as I’ve never used them.

My speakers are roughly 4.5’ tall- I use the rubber feet that came with them and the floor is Saltillo tile on concrete slab. I’ve never noticed a speaker cabinet moving regardless of the listening level.

tsushima1
1,165 posts
 

Que Mr Townshend product placement pimp  in 3 - 2 - 1 …

dynamiclinearity
238 posts
 

From the latest I've heard and been told the biggest problem is microphonics in our systems. It's amazing how the sound of electronics are literally changed by vibrations. And the largest source of vibrations is our speakers and coupling seems to be the best way to send vibrations from our speakers back into our systems. You can isolate each piece of gear but that seems to be putting the cart before the horse. So at this point after years of coupling(I did the first Stereophile review of speaker cones) I believe I have switched camps.

More to discover