Mopads? (Speaker coupling)

[nickbatz]

Frank's post about soffit mounting raises a question:

(relevant excerpt:)

"- lock the speaker cabinets in space so that they can't move, even in the slightest,
in reaction to cone excursions. It's amazing how this little feat can improve the
sound. Heavy cabinet construction helps, but even sand-dampened enclosures can't
compete with a properly rigid soffit."


So. I have my small sat speakers (Bly Sky System One) on a very solid shelf - 1-1/2" solid oak on a very solid custom composer's desk - but they're on Auralex Mopads. Mopads are very dense foam.

The reason I'm using them is just to raise them up a few inches, not to decouple them.

They sound very good where I have them, so this is somewhat moot, but is using Mopads an audio infraction?

Opinions?

[jason]

On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 17:30:48 -0600 "Frank Stearns"
> wrote in article <x-
tion>
>
> nickbatz > writes:
>
> >Frank's post about soffit mounting raises a question:
>
> >(relevant excerpt:)
>
> >"- lock the speaker cabinets in space so that they can't move, even in the slightest,
> >in reaction to cone excursions. It's amazing how this little feat can improve the
> >sound. Heavy cabinet construction helps, but even sand-dampened enclosures can't
> >compete with a properly rigid soffit."
>
>
> >So. I have my small sat speakers (Bly Sky System One) on a very solid shelf -
> >1-1/2" solid oak on a very solid custom composer's desk - but they're on Auralex
> >Mopads. Mopads are very dense foam.
>
> >The reason I'm using them is just to raise them up a few inches, not to decouple
> > them.
>
> But decoupling is a *very* good thing to do if you're simply setting the monitors on
> a surface. Even within a rigid soffit mount, there are measures taken to decouple
> the monitors. It's not cabinet-direct-to-framing. The monitors are in a wrap-around
> "vice" made of 1/2" homesote (or whatever that stuff is called) lining framing
> material.
>
> >They sound very good where I have them, so this is somewhat moot, but is using
> >Mopads an audio infraction?
>
> I wouldn't think so -- the mopads seem to do an important job within a reasonable
> operational range. Keep in mind the 6.5s are damn heavy for what they are (1" MDF,
> maybe even HDF, IIRC), and that there isn't a lot of energy below 100 hz or so (they
> do need subs, in my experience). Therefore, the original problem I noted (cabinet
> vibration in opposition to LF excursion) is probably way less than it would be with
> bigger LF drivers, going lower, in lighter (cheaper) cabinets.
>
> Frank
> Mobile Audio

I use them with my Adam 7 monitors. For the desk I use, they made a
significant difference. I could feel the furniture vibrating before I
began to use them - now I don't, and I can hear the difference.

[nickbatz]

Okay, thanks.

Yeah, the sats aren't intended to be used without the sub. They cross over at 80Hz - which is why they're able to get away without having a port. If you remove the backplate to get at the electronics, you'll see that the actual speaker cabinet part is sealed a few inches in, i.e. the box is very small.

(And I'm down with decoupling being a good thing. But if I just wanted to do that, I'd use that blue mounting putty stuff I've used in the past...and that I've also used to deal with power supplies' acoustic hum.)

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

nickbatz wrote:

> Frank's post about soffit mounting raises a question:

> (relevant excerpt:)

> "- lock the speaker cabinets in space so that they can't move, even
> in the slightest,
> in reaction to cone excursions. It's amazing how this little feat can
> improve the
> sound. Heavy cabinet construction helps, but even sand-dampened
> enclosures can't
> compete with a properly rigid soffit."

Compare the weight of the membrane and the weight of the cabinet and the
scale of the issue is instantly obvious, it is at most marginally relevant
and not likely to be measurable on a frequency response. What is not just
marginally relevant is stuff in the midrange getting conducted via the
loudspeaker cabinet to the supporting structure and re-radiated because it
will blur the perspective.

> So. I have my small sat speakers (Bly Sky System One) on a very solid
> shelf - 1-1/2" solid oak on a very solid custom composer's desk - but
> they're on Auralex Mopads. Mopads are very dense foam.

> The reason I'm using them is just to raise them up a few inches, not
> to decouple them.

> They sound very good where I have them, so this is somewhat moot, but
> is using Mopads an audio infraction?

It is one of the ways of exhibiting audio wisdom. Another is the mirror
test, locate where a mirror will reflect a light source shining from the
listening position to the loudspeaker front and put reflection obfuscation,
dispersion or attenuation there.

> Opinions?

Normal household items like bookshelves, preferably with audio magazines,
Wireless World are excellent due to the dismal quality of the paper it is
printed on, or perhaps with lp's in boxes or canvas covered with decorative
oil painting and hanging non-parallel to the wall so that anything that does
get reflected doesn't reach the listener.

It doesn't have to look like a LEDE room to be an acceptable functional
version of one but a wee bit of rockfon wisely placed doesn't harm ...
mentioning it since it is the original product and some name-spoof has been
referred to recently.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Shaun]

"nickbatz" wrote in message
...

Frank's post about soffit mounting raises a question:

(relevant excerpt:)

"- lock the speaker cabinets in space so that they can't move, even in the
slightest,
in reaction to cone excursions. It's amazing how this little feat can
improve the
sound. Heavy cabinet construction helps, but even sand-dampened enclosures
can't
compete with a properly rigid soffit."


So. I have my small sat speakers (Bly Sky System One) on a very solid
shelf - 1-1/2" solid oak on a very solid custom composer's desk - but
they're on Auralex Mopads. Mopads are very dense foam.

The reason I'm using them is just to raise them up a few inches, not to
decouple them.

They sound very good where I have them, so this is somewhat moot, but is
using Mopads an audio infraction?

Opinions?

I just bought some MoPADs for my bookshelf speakers and a SubDUDE II for the
Subwoofer and sound doesn't travel through the house as much as it used to.
I'm not sure yet if it makes a difference in sound quality; I just bought
them two days ago.

Shaun

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 2/23/2014 6:41 PM, Shaun wrote:
> So. I have my small sat speakers (Bly Sky System One) on a very solid
> shelf - 1-1/2" solid oak on a very solid custom composer's desk - but
> they're on Auralex Mopads. Mopads are very dense foam.
>
> The reason I'm using them is just to raise them up a few inches, not to
> decouple them.

I have my "desktop" monitors raised up a few inches on cast concrete
"bricks", cross stacked. I think I have about $2.50 in them. Much
cheaper than MoPads.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Blueberry Buddha]

I use Primacoustic Recoile Stabilizers. This resulted in increased and tighter bass response and greater imaging. And no, I do not work for Primacoustic, have anything to gain, or am dating one of their daughters.

Personally, I think that Mike Rivers' idea of using bricks cross-stacked would probably work better sonically than MoPads. But having never tried this, I can tell you that the stabilizers are not snake oil. They're not a cheap solution either, but they're not snake oil.

Ken / www.blueberrybuddha.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 2/26/2014 10:53 PM, Blueberry Buddha wrote:
> I use Primacoustic Recoile Stabilizers. This resulted in increased
> and tighter bass response and greater imaging. And no, I do not work
> for Primacoustic, have anything to gain, or am dating one of their
> daughters.

Did you see the demo that Primacoustic had set up at the NAMM show this
year?

They were demonstrating the superiority of Recoil Stabillizers over the
Iso-Acoustics isolators. Two sets of identical speakers were set up, one
set on each of the two platforms, and were showing how much more bass
the ones on the Recoil Stabilizers had. The difference between them was
dramatic. I wanted to turn down the volume of the ones on the isolators
to make them match better but the guy demonstrating them said that was
wrong. What I was hearing was not enough bass in the soft-floating ones
and hearing all the treble was making it sound too loud to me.

I actually think that what was happening was that the most solid Recoil
Stabilizers were coupling the speakers to the empty open metal cabinet
they were sitting on, and that was exaggerating the bass.

It's pretty certain that either support would be better than putting the
speakers on top of a flimsy table or the "doghouse" on top of a console,
but I'm not sure there wasn't some snake oil formerly stored in that
cabinet. When I told him how I built my speaker stands, he said 'Oh.
well, you're all set then. You don't have the problem that these solve."


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[nickbatz]

> It is one of the ways of exhibiting audio wisdom. Another is the mirror
>
> test, locate where a mirror will reflect a light source shining from the
>
> listening position to the loudspeaker front and put reflection obfuscation,
>
> dispersion or attenuation there.


But the mirror test is audio stupidity. That was just proven in a long thread. Paul finally had to step in and invoke Godwin's Law, but everyone ended up agreeing with me and admitting that they've been wrong all their lives.

[Frank Stearns]

nickbatz > writes:


>> It is one of the ways of exhibiting audio wisdom. Another is the mirror
>>
>> test, locate where a mirror will reflect a light source shining from the
>>
>> listening position to the loudspeaker front and put reflection obfuscation,
>>
>> dispersion or attenuation there.


>But the mirror test is audio stupidity. That was just proven in a long thread. Paul
>finally had to step in and invoke Godwin's Law, but everyone ended up agreeing with
>me and admitting that they've been wrong all their lives.

I'll take that as tongue-in-cheek. It's a very useful test, depending on the room
geometry and other factors.

But if you are serious, you're out o' f'in' mind and delusional to boot. <w>

Frank
Mobile Audio


--

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 3/1/2014 11:50 AM, Jeff Henig wrote:
> Frank Stearns > wrote:
>> nickbatz > writes:
>>
>>
>>>> It is one of the ways of exhibiting audio wisdom. Another is the mirror
>>>>
>>>> test, locate where a mirror will reflect a light source shining from the
>>>>
>>>> listening position to the loudspeaker front and put reflection obfuscation,
>>>>
>>>> dispersion or attenuation there.
>>
>>
>>> But the mirror test is audio stupidity. That was just proven in a long thread. Paul
>>> finally had to step in and invoke Godwin's Law, but everyone ended up agreeing with
>>> me and admitting that they've been wrong all their lives.
>>
>> I'll take that as tongue-in-cheek. It's a very useful test, depending on the room
>> geometry and other factors.
>>
>> But if you are serious, you're out o' f'in' mind and delusional to boot. <w>
>>
>> Frank
>> Mobile Audio
>>
>
> Hitler.
>
I call improper usage. I see no indication of reductio ad
Hitlerum in the above passage(s).
IMHO, this thread segment seems to be tending more
towards argumentum ad non sequiturium with some
aspects of argumentum ad nauseam and argumentum
ad ignorantiam.

[vestri mileage variari secundum proportionem]
==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 3/1/2014 1:02 PM, Jeff Henig wrote:
> Ron C > wrote:
>> On 3/1/2014 11:50 AM, Jeff Henig wrote:
>>> Frank Stearns > wrote:
>>>> nickbatz > writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> It is one of the ways of exhibiting audio wisdom. Another is the mirror
>>>>>>
>>>>>> test, locate where a mirror will reflect a light source shining from the
>>>>>>
>>>>>> listening position to the loudspeaker front and put reflection obfuscation,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> dispersion or attenuation there.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> But the mirror test is audio stupidity. That was just proven in a long thread. Paul
>>>>> finally had to step in and invoke Godwin's Law, but everyone ended up agreeing with
>>>>> me and admitting that they've been wrong all their lives.
>>>>
>>>> I'll take that as tongue-in-cheek. It's a very useful test, depending on the room
>>>> geometry and other factors.
>>>>
>>>> But if you are serious, you're out o' f'in' mind and delusional to boot. <w>
>>>>
>>>> Frank
>>>> Mobile Audio
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hitler.
>>>
>> I call improper usage. I see no indication of reductio ad
>> Hitlerum in the above passage(s).
>> IMHO, this thread segment seems to be tending more
>> towards argumentum ad non sequiturium with some
>> aspects of argumentum ad nauseam and argumentum
>> ad ignorantiam.
>>
>> [vestri mileage variari secundum proportionem]
>> ==
>> Later...
>> Ron Capik
>> --
>
> Cuttinum toum theum chaseum.
>
You are in a maze of twisty little passages
with no escape.
==
Later...
Ron Capik
--