[James Harris]

My speakers have four spikes beneath them which makes it a pain to
move the speakers even slightly as the length of at least one spike
has to be adjusted to make all four rest on/in the floor. (The floor
is solid - maybe concrete - and not wood.)

Anyone heard of a kit to convert four spikes to three? It would have
to fit beneath the existing arrangement as I don't want to modify the
speakers (which are Dynaudio Audience 62 floorstanders).

I'm thinking of something like a heavy duty plate with four solid
fittings above and three below. I suppose an alteration to the sound
is inevitable but would avoid scrap the idea if it has too much
effect.

An alternative is to put paving slabs on top of the carpet beneath the
speakers. They should be heavy enough to not move and also present a
more uniform surface for the speakers though even that would not be
perfect. The slight problem here is the slabs sold by the local stores
are fairly lightweight.

Any ideas?

James

[James Harris]

On 21 Aug, 11:32, James Harris wrote:

My speakers have four spikes beneath them which makes it a pain to
move the speakers even slightly as the length of at least one spike
has to be adjusted to make all four rest on/in the floor. (The floor
is solid - maybe concrete - and not wood.)


Anyone heard of a kit to convert four spikes to three? It would have
to fit beneath the existing arrangement as I don't want to modify the
speakers (which are Dynaudio Audience 62 floorstanders).


I'm thinking of something like a heavy duty plate with four solid
fittings above and three below. I suppose an alteration to the sound
is inevitable but would avoid scrap the idea if it has too much
effect.


An alternative is to put paving slabs on top of the carpet beneath the
speakers. They should be heavy enough to not move and also present a
more uniform surface for the speakers though even that would not be
perfect. The slight problem here is the slabs sold by the local stores
are fairly lightweight.


Any ideas?

Widening the net a little....

James

[Jim Lesurf[_3_]]

In article
,
James
Harris wrote:
On 21 Aug, 11:32, James Harris wrote:

My speakers have four spikes beneath them which makes it a pain to
move the speakers even slightly as the length of at least one spike
has to be adjusted to make all four rest on/in the floor. (The floor
is solid - maybe concrete - and not wood.)

I'd agree that three spikes are rather more practical than four. But afraid
I don't know of any kits for the below.

I'm thinking of something like a heavy duty plate with four solid
fittings above and three below. I suppose an alteration to the sound
is inevitable but would avoid scrap the idea if it has too much effect.


An alternative is to put paving slabs on top of the carpet beneath the
speakers. They should be heavy enough to not move and also present a
more uniform surface for the speakers though even that would not be
perfect. The slight problem here is the slabs sold by the local stores
are fairly lightweight.

TBH I have my doubts about such 'slabs' under 'spikes' being of much use.
Have a look at http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/cones/speak.html to see why I
have doubts about that. You might be better with a layer of something
squidgy like 'Blu Tak' between speaker and a heavy slab. Or just don't
bother. I've missed the previous parts of the thread is this is the first
posting on this thread I've seen, so I wonder why you think the 'spikes'
are desirable at all...


Any ideas?

Widening the net a little....

Open the window wider and.... :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 01:34:32 -0700 (PDT), James Harris
wrote:

My speakers have four spikes beneath them which makes it a pain to
move the speakers even slightly as the length of at least one spike
has to be adjusted to make all four rest on/in the floor. (The floor
is solid - maybe concrete - and not wood.)


Anyone heard of a kit to convert four spikes to three? It would have
to fit beneath the existing arrangement as I don't want to modify the
speakers (which are Dynaudio Audience 62 floorstanders).

I don't understand spikes. Audiophiles talk about coupling and
arrange heavy lumps of stone to couple to. But then they minimise
that coupling by restricting it to three or four points!

Perhaps the spikes are merely so you CAN adjust the speaker to stand
level on a concrete floor?

My practical experience of large speakers - some much larger than
anything found in a domestic setup - is that they generally sound MUCH
better mounted at least a small distance away from any flat surface,
wall or floor.

[GeoSynch]

James Harris wrote:

My speakers have four spikes beneath them which makes it a pain to
move the speakers even slightly as the length of at least one spike
has to be adjusted to make all four rest on/in the floor. (The floor
is solid - maybe concrete - and not wood.)

Why do you want to move them around so much? Take the spikes off, experiment
with positioning the speakers for a week or two. When you're satisfied they're
optimally placed, put the spikes back on and leave them on and be done with it.

[Brian Gaff]

I think the reason for four was health and safety actually, harder to wobble
them over.


Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"James Harris" wrote in message
...
On 21 Aug, 11:32, James Harris wrote:

My speakers have four spikes beneath them which makes it a pain to
move the speakers even slightly as the length of at least one spike
has to be adjusted to make all four rest on/in the floor. (The floor
is solid - maybe concrete - and not wood.)


Anyone heard of a kit to convert four spikes to three? It would have
to fit beneath the existing arrangement as I don't want to modify the
speakers (which are Dynaudio Audience 62 floorstanders).


I'm thinking of something like a heavy duty plate with four solid
fittings above and three below. I suppose an alteration to the sound
is inevitable but would avoid scrap the idea if it has too much
effect.


An alternative is to put paving slabs on top of the carpet beneath the
speakers. They should be heavy enough to not move and also present a
more uniform surface for the speakers though even that would not be
perfect. The slight problem here is the slabs sold by the local stores
are fairly lightweight.


Any ideas?

Widening the net a little....

James

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:15:21 GMT, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

I think the reason for four was health and safety actually, harder to wobble
them over.

By audiophile reasoning, would just ONE spike, perfectly balanced, be
the ideal? :-)

[Keith G[_2_]]

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
om...
I think the reason for four was health and safety actually, harder to
wobble them over.


Wobbling over has nothing to do with the number of points of support but is
to do with the geometric relationship between the various points of support
and the speaker's centre of mass/gravity/momentum - pick whichever takes yer
fancy....

[Keith G[_2_]]

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:15:21 GMT, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

I think the reason for four was health and safety actually, harder to
wobble
them over.

By audiophile reasoning, would just ONE spike, perfectly balanced, be
the ideal? :-)



What do you mean by 'audiophile'...???

[Keith G[_2_]]

"James Harris" wrote in message
...
On 21 Aug, 11:32, James Harris wrote:

My speakers have four spikes beneath them which makes it a pain to
move the speakers even slightly as the length of at least one spike
has to be adjusted to make all four rest on/in the floor. (The floor
is solid - maybe concrete - and not wood.)


Anyone heard of a kit to convert four spikes to three? It would have
to fit beneath the existing arrangement as I don't want to modify the
speakers (which are Dynaudio Audience 62 floorstanders).


I'm thinking of something like a heavy duty plate with four solid
fittings above and three below. I suppose an alteration to the sound
is inevitable but would avoid scrap the idea if it has too much
effect.


An alternative is to put paving slabs on top of the carpet beneath the
speakers. They should be heavy enough to not move and also present a
more uniform surface for the speakers though even that would not be
perfect. The slight problem here is the slabs sold by the local stores
are fairly lightweight.


Any ideas?

Widening the net a little....

James



IIRC, WW Greener's formula was that the projectile to be fired from a rifle
should not exceed that of 1/96th of the rifle's total weight (mass?) -
whether a speaker would need coupling to a firm foundation would depend upon
its overall weight (mass?) I suspect....

[Adrian C]

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:15:21 GMT, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

I think the reason for four was health and safety actually, harder to wobble
them over.

By audiophile reasoning, would just ONE spike, perfectly balanced, be
the ideal? :-)

O yes, it has to be gold plated, have directionality marks for gravity,
cosmic and magnetic influence, machined to 1 thou of nothing, made in a
total vacuum - and have an impressive price. Probably needs degaussing
regulary ...

--
Adrian C

[Richard Lamont]

James Harris wrote:
On 21 Aug, 11:32, James Harris wrote:

My speakers have four spikes beneath them which makes it a pain to
move the speakers even slightly as the length of at least one spike
has to be adjusted to make all four rest on/in the floor. (The floor
is solid - maybe concrete - and not wood.)

Anyone heard of a kit to convert four spikes to three? It would have
to fit beneath the existing arrangement as I don't want to modify the
speakers (which are Dynaudio Audience 62 floorstanders).

The sound is supposed to come in a straight line from the speaker,
through the air, to your lugholes. It is not supposed to go via some
random scenic route involving whatever your loudspeaker is parked on.

Therefore your speakers should not be mechanically coupled to anything.
They should be mechanically isolated. Spikes are audiophool nonsense.

What you need is a nice thick sheet of neoprene rubber instead. Then the
sound will come from your speakers and not from whichever bits of your
building happen to radiate the coupled vibration. If you have carpet and
underlay then the neoprene probably isn't necessary.


--
Richard Lamont http://www.lamont.me.uk/

OpenPGP Key ID: 0xBD89BE41
Fingerprint: CE78 C285 1F97 0BDA 886D BA78 26D8 6C34 BD89 BE41

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Brian Gaff wrote:
I think the reason for four was health and safety actually, harder to
wobble them over.

Wouldn't they be banned totally, then, since they're more likely to make a
floor speaker topple than without? ;-)

--
*Don't worry; it only seems kinky the first time.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:57:11 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

By audiophile reasoning, would just ONE spike, perfectly balanced, be
the ideal? :-)



What do you mean by 'audiophile'...???

The sort of reasoning that puts spikes on speakers but doesn't really
know why. Some say it's to "couple". Others to "decouple". What do
you think they're for?

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 13:39:28 +0100, Richard Lamont
wrote:

What you need is a nice thick sheet of neoprene rubber instead. Then the
sound will come from your speakers and not from whichever bits of your
building happen to radiate the coupled vibration. If you have carpet and
underlay then the neoprene probably isn't necessary.

What's the "speaker"? The drive unit? That plus the box it's in?
That plus the room it's in?

[Keith G[_2_]]

"Richard Lamont" wrote


The sound is supposed to come in a straight line from the speaker,
through the air, to your lugholes. It is not supposed to go via some
random scenic route involving whatever your loudspeaker is parked on.

Therefore your speakers should not be mechanically coupled to anything.
They should be mechanically isolated. Spikes are audiophool nonsense.

What you need is a nice thick sheet of neoprene rubber instead. Then the
sound will come from your speakers and not from whichever bits of your
building happen to radiate the coupled vibration. If you have carpet and
underlay then the neoprene probably isn't necessary.


I think you are missing the point entirely - the purpose of the spikes on
speakers it to enable them to be pushed through a carpet or any other
squidgy floorcovering (like you are recommending) to enable the speaker to
be coupled directly to the floor underneath and remove/reduce the ability of
the speaker to move in reaction (recoil) to the cone movements which some
claim 'blurs/renders less accurate' the created sound.

The usual comment is 'tighten up the bass' (treble not affected) and I
wouldn't argue with it, but I think the speaker's mass has a lot to do with
it irrespective of the floorcovering and is why I posted my comment about WW
Greener's formula....

[Paul P[_3_]]

Richard Lamont wrote:

The sound is supposed to come in a straight line from the speaker,
through the air, to your lugholes. It is not supposed to go via some
random scenic route involving whatever your loudspeaker is parked on.

Agreed.

Therefore your speakers should not be mechanically coupled to anything.
They should be mechanically isolated. Spikes are audiophool nonsense.

As I understand things, mechanical isolation is exactly what spikes
do. Maybe they can transmit some high frequencies but I don't see
them able to transmit low frequencies since the point of the cone
would have to vibrate at those frequencies. If the point is on
something rigid, like a slab of something, it's not going to move
much.

What you need is a nice thick sheet of neoprene rubber instead. Then the
sound will come from your speakers and not from whichever bits of your
building happen to radiate the coupled vibration. If you have carpet and
underlay then the neoprene probably isn't necessary.

I can see low frequencies moving quite easily through neoprene and
carpet.

Paul P

[Keith G[_2_]]

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:57:11 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

By audiophile reasoning, would just ONE spike, perfectly balanced, be
the ideal? :-)



What do you mean by 'audiophile'...???

The sort of reasoning that puts spikes on speakers but doesn't really
know why.


OK, not what I understand the word to mean....


Some say it's to "couple". Others to "decouple". What do
you think they're for?


Couple, of course - what would be the point of 'decoupling' unless you were
talking about a record deck and one lived directly over the Underground...??

[Richard Lamont]

Keith G wrote:

"Richard Lamont" wrote


The sound is supposed to come in a straight line from the speaker,
through the air, to your lugholes. It is not supposed to go via some
random scenic route involving whatever your loudspeaker is parked on.

Therefore your speakers should not be mechanically coupled to anything.
They should be mechanically isolated. Spikes are audiophool nonsense.

What you need is a nice thick sheet of neoprene rubber instead. Then the
sound will come from your speakers and not from whichever bits of your
building happen to radiate the coupled vibration. If you have carpet and
underlay then the neoprene probably isn't necessary.

I think you are missing the point entirely - the purpose of the spikes
on speakers it to enable them to be pushed through a carpet or any other
squidgy floorcovering (like you are recommending) to enable the speaker
to be coupled directly to the floor underneath and remove/reduce the
ability of the speaker to move in reaction (recoil) to the cone
movements which some claim 'blurs/renders less accurate' the created sound.

As the mass of the cone is so much less than the mass of the speaker
cabinet as a whole, this is surely idiotic. Besides, any such reaction
will also occur during manufacturer's testing and will therefore be
taken into account at the design stage.


--
Richard Lamont http://www.lamont.me.uk/

OpenPGP Key ID: 0xBD89BE41
Fingerprint: CE78 C285 1F97 0BDA 886D BA78 26D8 6C34 BD89 BE41

[Richard Lamont]

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 13:39:28 +0100, Richard Lamont
wrote:

What you need is a nice thick sheet of neoprene rubber instead. Then the
sound will come from your speakers and not from whichever bits of your
building happen to radiate the coupled vibration. If you have carpet and
underlay then the neoprene probably isn't necessary.

What's the "speaker"? The drive unit? That plus the box it's in?
That plus the room it's in?

The box, obviously.

--
Richard Lamont http://www.lamont.me.uk/

OpenPGP Key ID: 0xBD89BE41
Fingerprint: CE78 C285 1F97 0BDA 886D BA78 26D8 6C34 BD89 BE41

[Richard Lamont]

Paul P wrote:

As I understand things, mechanical isolation is exactly what spikes
do. Maybe they can transmit some high frequencies but I don't see
them able to transmit low frequencies since the point of the cone
would have to vibrate at those frequencies. If the point is on
something rigid, like a slab of something, it's not going to move
much.

Rigid materials provide mechanical coupling. I don't understand how
being pointy would make any difference. Squidgy materials have 'give'
that attenuates the coupling.

It's a basic matter of mechanical engineering, not unique to audio.
Every anti-vibration device I've seen involved things like rubber and
maybe springs, but never spikes.

What you need is a nice thick sheet of neoprene rubber instead. Then the
sound will come from your speakers and not from whichever bits of your
building happen to radiate the coupled vibration. If you have carpet and
underlay then the neoprene probably isn't necessary.

I can see low frequencies moving quite easily through neoprene and
carpet.

But not as easily as through a rigid object, whatever its shape.


--
Richard Lamont http://www.lamont.me.uk/

OpenPGP Key ID: 0xBD89BE41
Fingerprint: CE78 C285 1F97 0BDA 886D BA78 26D8 6C34 BD89 BE41

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

Point proved, I think!

One person thinks spikes couple. Another thinks they decouple.
Someone else wants to consider the box containing the drivers (the
"speaker") separately from the room it's heard in.

Some would put a record deck on an absorbent mat. Some on wooden
cones then on a glass shelf then on more cones, or maybe spikes. But
I think they'd all leave the deck's suspended sub-chassis alone?

Audiophle logic.

[Keith G[_2_]]

"Richard Lamont" wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:

"Richard Lamont" wrote


The sound is supposed to come in a straight line from the speaker,
through the air, to your lugholes. It is not supposed to go via some
random scenic route involving whatever your loudspeaker is parked on.

Therefore your speakers should not be mechanically coupled to anything.
They should be mechanically isolated. Spikes are audiophool nonsense.

What you need is a nice thick sheet of neoprene rubber instead. Then the
sound will come from your speakers and not from whichever bits of your
building happen to radiate the coupled vibration. If you have carpet and
underlay then the neoprene probably isn't necessary.

I think you are missing the point entirely - the purpose of the spikes
on speakers it to enable them to be pushed through a carpet or any other
squidgy floorcovering (like you are recommending) to enable the speaker
to be coupled directly to the floor underneath and remove/reduce the
ability of the speaker to move in reaction (recoil) to the cone
movements which some claim 'blurs/renders less accurate' the created
sound.

As the mass of the cone is so much less than the mass of the speaker
cabinet as a whole, this is surely idiotic. Besides, any such reaction
will also occur during manufacturer's testing and will therefore be
taken into account at the design stage.


You snipped the best bit:

"The usual comment is 'tighten up the bass' (treble not affected) and I
wouldn't argue with it, but I think the speaker's mass has a lot to do with
it irrespective of the floorcovering and is why I posted my comment about WW
Greener's formula...."

Note the 'I wouldn't argue with it' bit!

Try it yourself is all I can say - and post the results here.

FWIW, I have 6 pairs of speakers on the go here and only one of them is
spiked - and that pair is on stands which are filled with lead shot and
which have spikes through to the concrete floor (three of them each -
triangular). Here's a quick snap:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/Triangular.jpg

(I have still not yet got round to sticking the speakers down with Blu Tack
after some six months!! :-)

[Richard Lamont]

Laurence Payne wrote:
Point proved, I think!

One person thinks spikes couple. Another thinks they decouple.
Someone else wants to consider the box containing the drivers (the
"speaker") separately from the room it's heard in.

Some would put a record deck on an absorbent mat. Some on wooden
cones then on a glass shelf then on more cones, or maybe spikes. But
I think they'd all leave the deck's suspended sub-chassis alone?

Audiophle logic.

In the context of the thread, in which the speaker was the thing being
put on spikes or a neoprene mat, clearly "speaker" referred to the box.

Clearly room acoustics and interaction between the room and the speaker
are important, but that doesn't justify conflating the terminology so
that "speaker" is defined as including the room.


--
Richard Lamont http://www.lamont.me.uk/

OpenPGP Key ID: 0xBD89BE41
Fingerprint: CE78 C285 1F97 0BDA 886D BA78 26D8 6C34 BD89 BE41

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 13:05:13 +0100, Adrian C
wrote:

I think the reason for four was health and safety actually, harder to wobble
them over.

By audiophile reasoning, would just ONE spike, perfectly balanced, be
the ideal? :-)

O yes, it has to be gold plated, have directionality marks for gravity,
cosmic and magnetic influence, machined to 1 thou of nothing, made in a
total vacuum - and have an impressive price. Probably needs degaussing
regulary ...

So this drawing pin won't do?

[Richard Lamont]

Keith G wrote:

You snipped the best bit:

"The usual comment is 'tighten up the bass' (treble not affected) and I
wouldn't argue with it, but I think the speaker's mass has a lot to do with
it irrespective of the floorcovering and is why I posted my comment
about WW
Greener's formula...."

Note the 'I wouldn't argue with it' bit!

Try it yourself is all I can say - and post the results here.

Right. I'll add it to my 'to try' list:

1. Astrology
2. Magic healing crystals
3. Green CD marker
4. Homeopathy
5. Speaker spikes

(It might be a while.)

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/Triangular.jpg

Is that grey amp a Gerry Wells special?


--
Richard Lamont http://www.lamont.me.uk/

OpenPGP Key ID: 0xBD89BE41
Fingerprint: CE78 C285 1F97 0BDA 886D BA78 26D8 6C34 BD89 BE41

[GregS[_3_]]

In article , Laurence Payne wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 01:34:32 -0700 (PDT), James Harris
wrote:

My speakers have four spikes beneath them which makes it a pain to
move the speakers even slightly as the length of at least one spike
has to be adjusted to make all four rest on/in the floor. (The floor
is solid - maybe concrete - and not wood.)


Anyone heard of a kit to convert four spikes to three? It would have
to fit beneath the existing arrangement as I don't want to modify the
speakers (which are Dynaudio Audience 62 floorstanders).

I don't understand spikes. Audiophiles talk about coupling and
arrange heavy lumps of stone to couple to. But then they minimise
that coupling by restricting it to three or four points!

I first heard of spikes and it had solid reasoning as used on rugs on wood floors.
For cement, you need another medium to convert, like using a piece
of soft pine under each spike on top of the cement. The spike will auto level,
and provide a better impedance match of the mechanical system
That would not work either for some speakers at loud volume, and the speaker
will start to walk. Some rubber would healp that scenereo.


greg



Perhaps the spikes are merely so you CAN adjust the speaker to stand
level on a concrete floor?

My practical experience of large speakers - some much larger than
anything found in a domestic setup - is that they generally sound MUCH
better mounted at least a small distance away from any flat surface,
wall or floor.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Laurence Payne wrote:
Some would put a record deck on an absorbent mat. Some on wooden
cones then on a glass shelf then on more cones, or maybe spikes. But
I think they'd all leave the deck's suspended sub-chassis alone?

Garrard 301, etc, had no suspension and some mounted them in concrete. ;-)

--
*Arkansas State Motto: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Laugh.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Keith G[_2_]]

"Richard Lamont" wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:

You snipped the best bit:

"The usual comment is 'tighten up the bass' (treble not affected) and I
wouldn't argue with it, but I think the speaker's mass has a lot to do
with
it irrespective of the floorcovering and is why I posted my comment
about WW
Greener's formula...."

Note the 'I wouldn't argue with it' bit!

Try it yourself is all I can say - and post the results here.

Right. I'll add it to my 'to try' list:



Good fellow - too many *theorists* here....



1. Astrology
2. Magic healing crystals
3. Green CD marker
4. Homeopathy
5. Speaker spikes

(It might be a while.)


So move it up the list.....



http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/Triangular.jpg

Is that grey amp a Gerry Wells special?


No, it's a 'Keith Garratt probably not too special' - but I like it!!

;-)

Better pic he

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...Fandothers.JPG

(Different pix taken of different kit at different times - when I wuz
*trying stuff out* for myself!! ;-)

[Scott Dorsey]

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:57:11 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

By audiophile reasoning, would just ONE spike, perfectly balanced, be
the ideal? :-)

What do you mean by 'audiophile'...???

The sort of reasoning that puts spikes on speakers but doesn't really
know why. Some say it's to "couple". Others to "decouple". What do
you think they're for?

You can do either... you can couple the speaker to a huge mass, or you can
decouple it from all (possibly resonant) masses. Either method works, and
you can measure whether it's working or not (or you can just put your hand
on the floor and feel if it's vibrating).
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Keith G[_2_]]

"Keith G" wrote


Better pic he

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...Fandothers.JPG

(Different pix taken of different kit at different times - when I wuz
*trying stuff out* for myself!! ;-)


Actually that pic has much to tell:

Note the record deck sits (without suspension) in a massive plinth made from
kitchen worktop offcuts and sits on a two inch thick 'grano' paving slab
(painted black) on firm, rubber 'doorstop' feet. The 'hifi stand' with the
extra weight in it (valve amp and large SS power amp) is pretty firmly stuck
to the ground (concrete floor under weedy/cheapskate bedroom carpet) and I
can quite definitely say the sound from that deck has *by far* the best bass
and pin sharp clarity I have ever heard from any turntable!

(That said, the other tt I use atm is a simple Technics deck with 'squidgy
suspension' built-in and I like that one just as much!)

Note also the weight on top of the speaker cabinets - have a friend who
stacks books on top of his speakers to eradicate cabinet resonances and will
try to find a pic (I know I've got one somewhere), but whether or not that
really wotks isn't important: my reason for heaping things on top of
speakers is simply lack of space and the speaker tops are* somewhere handy
to put stuff!!


*were - I've thinned down a lot now!

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On 24 Aug 2009 10:52:05 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

The sort of reasoning that puts spikes on speakers but doesn't really
know why. Some say it's to "couple". Others to "decouple". What do
you think they're for?

You can do either... you can couple the speaker to a huge mass, or you can
decouple it from all (possibly resonant) masses. Either method works, and
you can measure whether it's working or not (or you can just put your hand
on the floor and feel if it's vibrating).


Reading at face value, that reply states that spikes either couple or
decouple the speaker from what it's standing on. Depending on which
you WANTED them to do.

This can't be right. What DID you mean?

[GregS[_3_]]

In article , Laurence Payne wrote:
On 24 Aug 2009 10:52:05 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

The sort of reasoning that puts spikes on speakers but doesn't really
know why. Some say it's to "couple". Others to "decouple". What do
you think they're for?

You can do either... you can couple the speaker to a huge mass, or you can
decouple it from all (possibly resonant) masses. Either method works, and
you can measure whether it's working or not (or you can just put your hand
on the floor and feel if it's vibrating).


Reading at face value, that reply states that spikes either couple or
decouple the speaker from what it's standing on. Depending on which
you WANTED them to do.

This can't be right. What DID you mean?

Another thing, if the floor is vibrating from the air vibrations, and
the speaker is still, the floor will make the speaker shake.

greg

[Keith G[_2_]]

"Keith G" wrote


Note also the weight on top of the speaker cabinets - have a friend who
stacks books on top of his speakers to eradicate cabinet resonances and
will try to find a pic (I know I've got one somewhere),


OK, that wasn't actually too hard:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/0002.JPG

Incidentally, those speakers are a pair of Cyburg's Needles I built and sent
to him over in Brussels. He loves them, but they ain't ever gonna sound any
good out in the room like in the pic - contrary to what someone said here
recently, they need to be flat back against a wall or other large, flat
surface for bass reinforcement....

.....when they will sound incredibly good with a crystal clear yet rich 'full
sound' which totally belies the little 2 inch, cheapo 'car speaker' Viston
drive units!!

(I got a pair here in constant use on this computer and the radio and they
are superb - people look for the subwoofer!! :-)

But enough of that - that's history now...

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Note also the weight on top of the speaker cabinets - have a friend who
stacks books on top of his speakers to eradicate cabinet resonances and
will try to find a pic (I know I've got one somewhere), but whether or
not that really wotks isn't important: my reason for heaping things on
top of speakers is simply lack of space and the speaker tops are*
somewhere handy to put stuff!!

Since it's impossible to make a totally rigid speaker cabinet some makers
take into account any 'output' from the cabinet itself. Think the first to
do this was the Spendor BC1. Which was designed to be mounted on an open
stand about 9" high. Adding mass to the cabinet - like putting books on
top - would negate the design theory.

--
*If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:59:17 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

Note the record deck sits (without suspension) in a massive plinth made from
kitchen worktop offcuts and sits on a two inch thick 'grano' paving slab
(painted black) on firm, rubber 'doorstop' feet. The 'hifi stand' with the
extra weight in it (valve amp and large SS power amp) is pretty firmly stuck
to the ground (concrete floor under weedy/cheapskate bedroom carpet) and I
can quite definitely say the sound from that deck has *by far* the best bass
and pin sharp clarity I have ever heard from any turntable!

(That said, the other tt I use atm is a simple Technics deck with 'squidgy
suspension' built-in and I like that one just as much!)

So what characteristics does the Technics have to compensate for its
*by far* inferior bass and clarity?

One deck is close to a speaker, another is actually on top of one! Of
course THOSE decks never feed THAT speaker?

Are the speakers you actually listen to cramped against walls and
other equipment in that way? Do they sound different/better given a
bit more space to work in?

[GregS[_3_]]

In article , (GregS) wrote:
In article , Laurence Payne
wrote:
On 24 Aug 2009 10:52:05 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

The sort of reasoning that puts spikes on speakers but doesn't really
know why. Some say it's to "couple". Others to "decouple". What do
you think they're for?

You can do either... you can couple the speaker to a huge mass, or you can
decouple it from all (possibly resonant) masses. Either method works, and
you can measure whether it's working or not (or you can just put your hand
on the floor and feel if it's vibrating).


Reading at face value, that reply states that spikes either couple or
decouple the speaker from what it's standing on. Depending on which
you WANTED them to do.

This can't be right. What DID you mean?

Another thing, if the floor is vibrating from the air vibrations, and
the speaker is still, the floor will make the speaker shake.


Another thought, when the floor is vibrating, its likely not
to be in phase with the speaker output, and it will be frequency dependant.
At least this tend to stabilize the frequency slewing.

What am I talking about?? !!


greg

[David Looser]

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...

My practical experience of large speakers - some much larger than
anything found in a domestic setup - is that they generally sound MUCH
better mounted at least a small distance away from any flat surface,
wall or floor.

At one time there was a fad for mounting speakers as far into room corners
as possible. My granddad, who was something of a "HiFi" enthusiast in the
1950s built a speaker cabinet which used the walls and floor as part of the
cabinet. I seem to remember that a barrow-load of sand was part of it as
well.

David.

[Keith G[_2_]]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Note also the weight on top of the speaker cabinets - have a friend who
stacks books on top of his speakers to eradicate cabinet resonances and
will try to find a pic (I know I've got one somewhere), but whether or
not that really wotks isn't important: my reason for heaping things on
top of speakers is simply lack of space and the speaker tops are*
somewhere handy to put stuff!!

Since it's impossible to make a totally rigid speaker cabinet some makers
take into account any 'output' from the cabinet itself. Think the first to
do this was the Spendor BC1. Which was designed to be mounted on an open
stand about 9" high. Adding mass to the cabinet - like putting books on
top - would negate the design theory.


The Rogers 'BBC Studio Monitors' I had here a while back were
'thinwall/resonating' types and sounded very good indeed, apart from the
rasping bass unit I couldn't cure - without spending a lot of money and
maybe changing the speakers characteristics too much, in any case....

[Keith G[_2_]]

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:59:17 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

Note the record deck sits (without suspension) in a massive plinth made
from
kitchen worktop offcuts and sits on a two inch thick 'grano' paving slab
(painted black) on firm, rubber 'doorstop' feet. The 'hifi stand' with the
extra weight in it (valve amp and large SS power amp) is pretty firmly
stuck
to the ground (concrete floor under weedy/cheapskate bedroom carpet) and I
can quite definitely say the sound from that deck has *by far* the best
bass
and pin sharp clarity I have ever heard from any turntable!

(That said, the other tt I use atm is a simple Technics deck with 'squidgy
suspension' built-in and I like that one just as much!)

So what characteristics does the Technics have to compensate for its
*by far* inferior bass and clarity?


Here's a little 'furry' pic of it (I'm into handheld/low-light MF atm):

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/Technics.JPG

Anyway, no idea - the AT moving coil cart probably helps...??



One deck is close to a speaker, another is actually on top of one! Of
course THOSE decks never feed THAT speaker?


Calm down, dear!

I have used decks parked on speakers before now but the deck in that pic was
just parked up. Trust me, I do like (very much) the sound I get from my
kit - or it'd be a damn sight different to wot it is, but I think you need
to free your mind off from a load of 'audiophile/anti-audiophile' prejudice
and misconceptions...



Are the speakers you actually listen to cramped against walls and
other equipment in that way? Do they sound different/better given a
bit more space to work in?


So many questions! I bet you drove your parents mad when you were a kid!

I've lost track, if the speakers you refer to are the ones with the IMF in,
they're history - the speakers I've got and use atm are crammed in but not
against the wall and sound absolutely fine to me; whether you or anyone else
would agree is another thing, but that's not really germane....

Tell me summat, have you ever been in a secondhand record shop and asked the
owner to 'put a record on' to try it? They invariably have utterly mediocre
kit - 'mid-fi' Technics decks and amps; speakers with no name on - and the
sound is usually quite *exquisite*!! Similarly, the more junk and clutter in
my room, the better the sound, I find!!

(I remember once I got someone to listen with his eyes shut while I slowly
rotated one speaker until it was facing the wall - he had no idea what was
going on and said the sound was unaffected throughout!! ;-)