are speaker stands important?

[bt]

I have recently purchased a pair of PSB B25 bookshelf speakers, for use
as the main speakers in a stereo set-up (powered by an NAD receiver).
Currently, the speakers sit atop pieces of furniture. I know that
dedicated speaker stands are often recommended, but I'm not sure
why--what benefits would I receive by buying stands? I'm in a small,
crowded apartment, so it would probably mean getting rid of an existing
table, and would take some effort to accomodate them--is the audible
difference worth it?

And if you persuade me to go for stands, should I buy the PSB stands?

Thanks in advance.

[MINe 109]

In article <bt-33CD84.13172724042005@localhost>,
bt > wrote:

> I have recently purchased a pair of PSB B25 bookshelf speakers, for use
> as the main speakers in a stereo set-up (powered by an NAD receiver).
> Currently, the speakers sit atop pieces of furniture. I know that
> dedicated speaker stands are often recommended, but I'm not sure
> why--what benefits would I receive by buying stands? I'm in a small,
> crowded apartment, so it would probably mean getting rid of an existing
> table, and would take some effort to accomodate them--is the audible
> difference worth it?
>
> And if you persuade me to go for stands, should I buy the PSB stands?

Stands are good for getting your speakers to the right height and
keeping them. The B25 are front-ported, so maybe they're okay near the
front wall, in which case you may not gain that much from stands.

Stephen

[Schizoid Man]

"bt" > wrote in message

>I have recently purchased a pair of PSB B25 bookshelf speakers, for use
> as the main speakers in a stereo set-up (powered by an NAD receiver).
> Currently, the speakers sit atop pieces of furniture. I know that
> dedicated speaker stands are often recommended, but I'm not sure
> why--what benefits would I receive by buying stands? I'm in a small,
> crowded apartment, so it would probably mean getting rid of an existing
> table, and would take some effort to accomodate them--is the audible
> difference worth it?
>
> And if you persuade me to go for stands, should I buy the PSB stands?

I would recommend stands over furniture for a number of reasons - the height
would be optimized for seating listening, placement becomes easier since
there's no furniture to move and the rear of the speaker does not have to be
close to a solid surface.

However, in my own experience, I haven't noticed any difference in the
quality of sound if the stands are hollow or if they've been filled with
sand.

[Mike McKelvy]

bt asked:

have recently purchased a pair of PSB B25 bookshelf speakers, for use
as the main speakers in a stereo set-up (powered by an NAD receiver).

Currently, the speakers sit atop pieces of furniture. I know that
dedicated speaker stands are often recommended, but I'm not sure
why--what benefits would I receive by buying stands? I'm in a small,
crowded apartment, so it would probably mean getting rid of an existing

table, and would take some effort to accomodate them--is the audible
difference worth it?


And if you persuade me to go for stands, should I buy the PSB stands?


Thanks in advance.


The manufacturer of the stands is of zero importance, so long as they
are strong enough to hold the speakers.

The reason for stands is to get the tweeter up to ear level and since
they only have a small platform to place them on they don't and any
other surface to interfere with sound coming from the drivers.

Unless the furniture is the same height and the speakers are resting on
the very top, then there is a definite plus for stands.

An alternative would be to hang them from the cieling, thereby solving
the problem of what to do with the furniture. Just make sure they are
attached to a beam or stud.

Properly placed speakers are the single most important factor in audio
setup. Do it right and the rewards are well worth the effort.

[Alex Rodriguez]

In article <bt-33CD84.13172724042005@localhost>, says...

>I have recently purchased a pair of PSB B25 bookshelf speakers, for use
>as the main speakers in a stereo set-up (powered by an NAD receiver).
>Currently, the speakers sit atop pieces of furniture. I know that
>dedicated speaker stands are often recommended, but I'm not sure
>why--what benefits would I receive by buying stands?

Speaker placement in the room greatly affect their sound. Rarely is a
bookshelf going to give you optimal sound from your speakers. So using
speaker stands that can be moved to get the best sound from your speakers
is important.

>I'm in a small,
>crowded apartment, so it would probably mean getting rid of an existing
>table, and would take some effort to accomodate them--is the audible
>difference worth it?

Only you can make that call. Improvise and see if moving the speakers around
makes a big difference in the sound. You can then decide if the sound
improvement is enough to warrant rearranging your apartment.
--------------
Alex

[Powell]

"Schizoid Man" wrote

> However, in my own experience, I haven't noticed any
> difference in the quality of sound if the stands are hollow
> or if they've been filled with sand.
>
That's interesting. What was your setup that convinced
you of this outcome/null?

[Powell]

"Mike McKelvy" wrote

> An alternative would be to hang them from the cieling,
> thereby solving the problem of what to do with the
> furniture.
>
This would be the choice of last resort. Allowing the
speaker/traducer to resonate in such a free manner
would optimize cabinet residences (audible) at
significantly lower loudness levels.

A better solution would be to incorporate a
wall-stand support system thereby transferring
more of the cabinet energy to the wall framing.

[Schizoid Man]

"Powell" > wrote in message

> "Schizoid Man" wrote
>
>> However, in my own experience, I haven't noticed any
>> difference in the quality of sound if the stands are hollow
>> or if they've been filled with sand.
>>
> That's interesting. What was your setup that convinced
> you of this outcome/null?

Cambridge Audio source, NAD amplification, Tara cabling, Vampire
interconnects, JMLab Electra Be bookshelfs. I'm not sure of the speaker
stand manufacturer.

[Mike McKelvy]

Powell wrote:
"Mike McKelvy" wrote



> An alternative would be to hang them from the cieling,
> thereby solving the problem of what to do with the
> furniture.


>This would be the choice of last resort. Allowing the
>speaker/traducer to resonate in such a free manner
>would optimize cabinet residences (audible) at
>significantly lower loudness levels.

>A better solution would be to incorporate a
>wall-stand support system thereby transferring
>more of the cabinet energy to the wall framing.

If it's a decently built speraker there will be no energy to transfer
from the cabinets.
Whatever energy left would likely be well below the threshold of
audibility, assuming a decently constructed speaker.

[Powell]

"Schizoid Man" wrote

> >> However, in my own experience, I haven't noticed any
> >> difference in the quality of sound if the stands are hollow
> >> or if they've been filled with sand.
> >>
> > That's interesting. What was your setup that convinced
> > you of this outcome/null?
>
> Cambridge Audio source, NAD amplification, Tara cabling,
> Vampire interconnects, JMLab Electra Be bookshelfs. I'm
> not sure of the speaker stand manufacturer.
>
You wrote "stands"... now you are implying a single
unknown manufacture? Why not JM's stands... is
there someting wrong with the way they are built?

Beyond proper height adjustment, speaker stands can
also be used to reduce cabinet energy output. Even
floor standing speakers can benefit from spikes and
stands in combination. Using floor standing Appogee
speakers, for example, on custom stands, I once
measured an accumulative frequency output reduction
of 49 dB. The results were startling to the ear. One
must slide/shift their seating position laterally toward
the speaker in this configuration (on the stand) if the
other speaker merely sits on the floor in its normal
position (non-enhanced).

Also, speaker cabinets tend to have unique
resonating frequencies. Knowing/measuring this
will help in the selection of the fill material used in
the stand. Sand and lead shot (ammunition variety)
make a good all-around sound absorption mix.

And finally, the interface between the *speaker and
stand* and the *stand and floor* is critical to the
effectiveness of the overall noise reduction. IME
it’s a good idea to use Blu-Tak or other tacky
material to couple the speakers to the stand.

For maximum effectiveness speaker stands
should incorporate spikes to couple the stands
securely to the floor and should not be run through
any type of carpet interface (carpet/foam).

[Powell]

"Mike McKelvy" wrote

> > An alternative would be to hang them from the cieling,
> > thereby solving the problem of what to do with the
> > furniture.
>
> >This would be the choice of last resort. Allowing the
> >speaker/traducer to resonate in such a free manner
> >would optimize cabinet residences (audible) at
> >significantly lower loudness levels.
>
> >A better solution would be to incorporate a
> >wall-stand support system thereby transferring
> >more of the cabinet energy to the wall framing.
>
> If it's a decently built speraker there will be no energy
> to transfer from the cabinets.
>
Please define "decently built?"


> Whatever energy left would likely be well below the
> threshold of audibility, assuming a decently
> constructed speaker.
>
For your edification:

Oct, 2000 , TAS - What's Wrong With Speakers
by R.E. Greene

"But as soon as a speaker gets an input signal,
it starts doing things it shouldn't and starts
making noise, not just the music it should be
making. Cones and surrounds flexing,
mechanical structures vibrating, cabinets
flexing in unpredicted and unpredictable ways,
air flowing turbulently, electrostatic diaphragms
vibrating chaotically on the scale of small areas
even if they are moving regularly on a large
scale, such sources of noise are everywhere.

How much noise are we talking about here? A
lot, a whole lot by the standards of noise levels
in electronics and recording systems. Speaker
noise appears only 20 to 30 dB down from
signal in some cases, and even the cleanest
speakers I know do not get the noise down
much more than 55 dB or so."

[Schizoid Man]

"Powell" > wrote in message
>
> "Schizoid Man" wrote
>
>> >> However, in my own experience, I haven't noticed any
>> >> difference in the quality of sound if the stands are hollow
>> >> or if they've been filled with sand.
>> >>
>> > That's interesting. What was your setup that convinced
>> > you of this outcome/null?
>>
>> Cambridge Audio source, NAD amplification, Tara cabling,
>> Vampire interconnects, JMLab Electra Be bookshelfs. I'm
>> not sure of the speaker stand manufacturer.
>>
> You wrote "stands"... now you are implying a single
> unknown manufacture? Why not JM's stands... is
> there someting wrong with the way they are built?

Perhaps you misunderstood what I implied, which was this - I did not notice
an audible difference in my setup when my own pair of speaker stands were
hollow or filled with sand. But that's just me. Filling them up will no
doubt result in greater stability.

[Mike McKelvy]

Powell said:
Powell Apr 28, 6:48 am show options

Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
From: "Powell" > - Find messages by this author
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 09:48:06 -0400
Local: Thurs,Apr 28 2005 6:48 am
Subject: Re: are speaker stands important?
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse


"Mike McKelvy" wrote




- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

> > An alternative would be to hang them from the cieling,
> > thereby solving the problem of what to do with the
> > furniture.

> >This would be the choice of last resort. Allowing the
> >speaker/traducer to resonate in such a free manner
> >would optimize cabinet residences (audible) at
> >significantly lower loudness levels.


> >A better solution would be to incorporate a
> >wall-stand support system thereby transferring
> >more of the cabinet energy to the wall framing.


> If it's a decently built speraker there will be no energy
> to transfer from the cabinets.



Please define "decently built?"


> Whatever energy left would likely be well below the
> threshold of audibility, assuming a decently
> constructed speaker.


For your edification:

Oct, 2000 , TAS - What's Wrong With Speakers
by R.E. Greene


"But as soon as a speaker gets an input signal,
it starts doing things it shouldn't and starts
making noise, not just the music it should be
making. Cones and surrounds flexing,
mechanical structures vibrating, cabinets
flexing in unpredicted and unpredictable ways,
air flowing turbulently, electrostatic diaphragms
vibrating chaotically on the scale of small areas
even if they are moving regularly on a large
scale, such sources of noise are everywhere.


How much noise are we talking about here? A
lot, a whole lot by the standards of noise levels
in electronics and recording systems. Speaker
noise appears only 20 to 30 dB down from
signal in some cases, and even the cleanest
speakers I know do not get the noise down
much more than 55 dB or so."






Dick Pierce commented on this and said:

In article > (John
R Dudeck -- SIM International -- InternationalSystems) writes:



>It seems to me that in this discussion of box movement, and whether or
not
>there is anything to it, we shouldn't just look at cone momentum.
There are
>other forces to be considered.


But coupling the speaker via a stand, or isolating it, as the case may
be, deals with one specific class of forces: those that cause a net
force
acting on the speaker's center of mass. All other forces that may (and
do) happen are those which essentially result in no net forces on that
center of mass. For example, the cabinet walls vibrate (and sometimees
noticeably and annoyingly so) due to internal acoustic pressures. The
net
resultant force, if it exists at all, is vanishly small.


>How about the effect of acoustic waves in the
>room on the sides of the box, which are after all not infinitesimally
>small...?


At wavelengths where they might be long enough to have any effect, they

are indeed infinitesimal (look at the surface area of one panel at an
unbalance sound pressure of, say 80 dB at 50 Hz. While it is not
infinitesimal, it is also not unblanaced, because of the wavelength at
that frequency is very much largeer than the entire speaker (some 20
feet). Thus, there will never be the instance of such unbalanced
forces.
At higher frequencies, where the wavelengths are smaller, the forces
are
also much smaller as well. Smaller than infinitesimal, that is.

Look at the excursions found in microphone diaphragms, for example.
Here
is a case where we have direct experience, where the acoustical levels
that are of similar or far greater magnitude produces excursions that
are
measured in thousands or millionths of an inch on an object that weighs

probably some one millionth that of a speaker but has a surface area
that
might be one thousandth. By extrapolation, you could using this simple
example show that you would expect excursions on loudspeaker enclosures

on the order of a thousandth that of a microphone diaphragm, i.e.
millionths or billionths of an inch. This, I think is safe to say,
constitutes "infinitesimal" in an almost definitive way.



>It is obvious that if the box moves, and if the box is coupled to the
floor,
>then the box is going to try to move the floor. But what's the big
deal?
>This is to be expected, isn't it? But I really don't believe this is
the
>effect most people are hearing when they change the position of their
speakers.


But it is not obvious that the box DOES move. In fact both be
application
of theory and by direct measurement, the box DOES NOT move in any way
that is of significance


>In my understanding (which is limited by not too much experience), I
always
>felt the main reason for speaker stands is to put them at the height
where
>the axis is in line with your ears. The part about coupling to the
floor is
>related to the use of the floor as a sort of partial horn coupling
i.e.
>extension of the baffle, MUCH more than it is related to the floor
vibrating
>and causing spurious resonances, etc.


Well, close. There is a way in which stands can make a difference
that's
demonstrable. Changing the relative position of the oow frequency
driver
in relation to a major room boundary (the floor) can and does have
quite
measurable and audible effects because of the way the source and the
boundary interact. For example, considering the most simplistic effects

(which is not entirely accurate, but it serves to illustrate
nonetheless)
where you have a woofer located 2 feet off the floor. This can result
in a
1/2 cancellation at the point where the distance corresponds to a 1/4
wave, or a wavelength of 8 feet. Thus, you might well measure a suckout
at
about 125 Hz. Change that distance (with a stand) to 3 feet, and you've

moved that frequency down to 83 Hz or so. The result may end up moving
the
suckuut into a room resonance and, thus, improve the way the speaker
works
in that room. These sorts of difference can be quite drammatic.

--
|


Dick Pierce |
| Loudspeaker and Software Consulting |
| 17 Sartelle Street Pepperell, MA 01463 |
| (508) 433-9183 (Voice and FAX

[Powell]

"Schizoid Man" wrote

> >> >> However, in my own experience, I haven't noticed any
> >> >> difference in the quality of sound if the stands are hollow
> >> >> or if they've been filled with sand.
> >> >>
> >> > That's interesting. What was your setup that convinced
> >> > you of this outcome/null?
> >>
> >> Cambridge Audio source, NAD amplification, Tara cabling,
> >> Vampire interconnects, JMLab Electra Be bookshelfs. I'm
> >> not sure of the speaker stand manufacturer.
> >>
> > You wrote "stands"... now you are implying a single
> > unknown manufacture? Why not JM's stands... is
> > there someting wrong with the way they are built?
>
> Perhaps you misunderstood what I implied, which was
> this - I did not notice an audible difference in my setup
> when my own pair of speaker stands were hollow or
> filled with sand. But that's just me. Filling them up will
> no doubt result in greater stability.
>
It appears that you have little to no experience regarding
the subject of stands, beyond simple ownership.

Quack, quack, quack...

[Powell]

"Mike McKelvy" wrote

> "Mike McKelvy" wrote
>
> > > An alternative would be to hang them from the cieling,
> > > thereby solving the problem of what to do with the
> > > furniture.
>
> > >This would be the choice of last resort. Allowing the
> > >speaker/traducer to resonate in such a free manner
> > >would optimize cabinet residences (audible) at
> > >significantly lower loudness levels.
>
> > >A better solution would be to incorporate a
> > >wall-stand support system thereby transferring
> > >more of the cabinet energy to the wall framing.
>
> > If it's a decently built speraker there will be no energy
> > to transfer from the cabinets.
>
> Please define "decently built?"
>
Lack of response, noted.


>
> > Whatever energy left would likely be well below the
> > threshold of audibility, assuming a decently
> > constructed speaker.
>
>
> For your edification:
>
> Oct, 2000 , TAS - What's Wrong With Speakers
> by R.E. Greene
>
> Dick Pierce commented on this and said:
>
<snip quacking>

Lack of empirical knowledge, noted, McKelvy.

[Mike McKelvy]

Powell quacked:

Powell Apr 29, 8:53 am show options


"Mike McKelvy"




- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

wrote
> "Mike McKelvy" wrote

> > > An alternative would be to hang them from the cieling,
> > > thereby solving the problem of what to do with the
> > > furniture.


> > >This would be the choice of last resort. Allowing the
> > >speaker/traducer to resonate in such a free manner
> > >would optimize cabinet residences (audible) at
> > >significantly lower loudness levels.


> > >A better solution would be to incorporate a
> > >wall-stand support system thereby transferring
> > >more of the cabinet energy to the wall framing.


> > If it's a decently built speraker there will be no energy
> > to transfer from the cabinets.


> Please define "decently built?"



Lack of response, noted.


> > Whatever energy left would likely be well below the
> > threshold of audibility, assuming a decently
> > constructed speaker.


> For your edification:


> Oct, 2000 , TAS - What's Wrong With Speakers
> by R.E. Greene


> Dick Pierce commented on this and said:



<snip quacking>

Lack of empirical knowledge, noted, McKelvy.
__________________________________________________ _______________

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to confuse you with facts.

[Schizoid Man]

"Powell" > wrote in message

>> Perhaps you misunderstood what I implied, which was
>> this - I did not notice an audible difference in my setup
>> when my own pair of speaker stands were hollow or
>> filled with sand. But that's just me. Filling them up will
>> no doubt result in greater stability.
>>
> It appears that you have little to no experience regarding
> the subject of stands, beyond simple ownership.
>
> Quack, quack, quack...

What part of 'but that's just me' did you not understand?

It appears that you have little or no education, at least regarding the
English language. Perhaps it would be advisable to take some comprehension
lessons before you post here.

[Powell]

"Mike McKelvy" wrote

> > Dick Pierce commented on this and said:
>
> <snip quacking>
>
> Lack of empirical knowledge, noted, McKelvy.
> __________________________________________________ _______________
>
> I'm sorry, I didn't mean to confuse you with facts.
>
Perhaps you should have Pierce write your posts.
He already seems to be doing your thinking for you :).

[Powell]

"Schizoid Man" wrote

> > It appears that you have little to no experience regarding
> > the subject of stands, beyond simple ownership.
> >
> > Quack, quack, quack...
>
> What part of 'but that's just me' did you not understand?
>
Thank you. In the future when I read “my own
experience” I’ll notch it down to really mean “I don’t
know.”


> It appears that you have little or no education, at least
> regarding the English language. Perhaps it would be
> advisable to take some comprehension lessons before
> you post here.
>
Fortunately, this isn’t school and you're not teacher :).

[Mike McKelvy]

Powell shows he's more concerned with clinging to a lie than he is with
the TAS version of "truth."

Powell Apr 29, 12:42 pm Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print
| Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse


"Mike McKelvy" wrote



> > Dick Pierce commented on this and said:

> <snip quacking>


> Lack of empirical knowledge, noted, McKelvy.
> ______________________________=AD_________________ _____________=AD_____



> I'm sorry, I didn't mean to confuse you with facts.



>Perhaps you should have Pierce write your posts.
>He already seems to be doing your thinking for you :).

Nice quip, but I notice you don't refute what he says.
Relying on actual experts is not letting them do your thinking, anymore
than using a dictionary is letting someone do your spelling.

[Schizoid Man]

"Mike McKelvy" > wrote in message

Powell shows he's more concerned with clinging to a lie than he is with
the TAS version of "truth."

---

Powell was fondled by his mother when he was younger.

[George M. Middius]

Schizoid Man said:

> Powell was fondled by his mother when he was younger.

That would explain certain things, but so would the theory that his face
was polished on a washboard.

[Mike McKelvy]

Schizoid Man said:

Mike McKelvy" > wrote in message
Powell shows he's more concerned with clinging to a lie than he is with

the TAS version of "truth."
---
Powell


> was fondled by his mother when he was younger.


You make that sound like a bad thing.

[Powell]

"Mike McKelvy" wrote

> Powell shows he's more concerned with clinging to a lie
> than he is with the TAS version of "truth."
>
"Clinging to a lie," "TAS"... what on Earth are you talking
about, McKelvy?


> >Perhaps you should have Pierce write your posts.
> >He already seems to be doing your thinking for you :).
> >
> Nice quip, but I notice you don't refute what he says.
>
Pierce was theorizing. He hasn't done any actual
measurements. Nearly all high-end speaker
manufactures have employed spikes, for the same
reason, since the late 70's.


> Relying on actual experts is not letting them do your
> thinking, anymore than using a dictionary is letting
> someone do your spelling.
>
"Actual experts"... hehehe, HAHAHA, right!

There was a time when audiophiles did there own
homework. It's not rocket science but it does require
you, Schizoid and Pierce to get off your backsides.

[Mike McKelvy]

Mike McKelvy" > wrote in message


Powell shows he's more concerned with clinging to a lie than he is with


the TAS version of "truth."
---
Powell


Hmmm, that should have read that Powell is more concerned with clinging
to a lie from TAS than he is with the truth.

[Mike McKelvy]

Powell said:

There was a time when audiophiles did there own
homework. It's not rocket science but it does require
you, Schizoid and Pierce to get off your backsides.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We await your data on the audibility of vibrations coming from speaker
cabinets and speaker stands.