I've tried many floor standing speakers that I have owned, using both soft isolation footers and hard spikes to the floor. I have found that ,for me, large floor standers benefit from spikes, while stand mounted book shelf speakers, sound better with sorbothane or blu tak coupling to the stand.
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.
- ...
- 70 posts total
Every speaker is different the floor you're setting them on etc. I liked speakers without spikes due to more body, inter detail, and natural highs. A few with them on. One show setup specialist wants no spikes on any speaker and much due to what I've mentioned. I spoke with a speaker designer once and he told me they have to use spikes because its become expected, without having spikes it would hurt sales, an ingrained myth you could call it. But in the end it what you like, your room impacts the sound we hear more than a spike, footer of any design, all they all do is change what is more present from the speaker, be it the lows, midrange to the highs and that what you may enjoy than the speaker el-natural. |
i personally believe speakers should ideally be well grounded, so that the driver movements occur against a stiff, inert backdrop question is when you spike speakers in your room, are they spiking into a medium/environment that indeed provides excellent, solid grounding - wood floors bounce, and so on...you get my drift... if very good grounding can’t be done, one might profitably look into letting the speakers ’float’ via softer mount points, simply give up the idea of proper grounding entirely as it is impractical in said room... that is where isopucks springs and so on could well be the lesser of the evils the idea that a speaker should float as an ideal is to me, simply misguided |
@johnread57 +2. Very informative vid. |
Hello Laps and Peterf6, Regards to the video provided by johnread57: Another home team test wins! This test is one-sided and similar to the other spring-loaded companies' versions. This one has more computer-generated visual enhancements and appears more professional, but the content remains the same. A few indicators stick out in plain sight and play a role in the outcome of the testing methodologies. Notice the block of marble, stone, or tile separating the actual ground plane of the floor. The stone or tile is a false ground and contains less mass than the floor. The added material reflects and vibrates at higher frequencies than the floor mass. The experiment provides a hidden agenda that affects sonic, compression wave velocity, and reflections. The tester refers to speakers standing “directly on the floor” too often. The speakers are standing on plinths and not on the floor. Here we go again with a marketing class in vibration management. A one-dollar spike made from aluminum, one of the worst materials used for mechanically grounding anything, proves nothing except delivering a convincing visual statement for the home team’s product. The cost-to-investment ratio for the products tested is hundreds of dollars to one dollar. Their dubbed isolation products cost how much more than the $1.00 spikes? They add a second plinth layer made from aluminum and attach it to the speaker base, enhancing the ringing qualities of the generic spikes.
Do you believe this as being a fair test? Did you learn anything from this video about sound in real context? Here is what could happen if they played on an equal playing field. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9XLSFxmsMA I understand the speaker A/B comparison is coming soon. We can then hear a loudspeaker on an expensive damped spring product and a damped spike innovation costing closer to the same investment dollars. Not all spikes function or sound the same. Robert Sound Engineer & Vibration Management Consultant
|
- 70 posts total