Short speaker stands

[Kalle Heinänen]

I'm designing a simple speaker stand. My question is: if the speaker will
sit on a kind of spring or rather if the whole stand is a slightly
springy-like, will this somehow affect the sound coming from the speaker
compared to if the speaker was on a heavy and solid object? This stand is
not necessarily for high-end use, but certainly hifi, or at least I hope so.
So should a speaker stand be very solid to prevent vibration of the stand.
The speaker's weight is about 6-8kg.

ps. If you know any nice looking short, about 40cm high speaker stands, I'd
be delighted to check it out.

"Kalle Heinänen" > wrote in message
...
> I'm designing a simple speaker stand. My question is: if the speaker will
> sit on a kind of spring or rather if the whole stand is a slightly
> springy-like, will this somehow affect the sound coming from the speaker
> compared to if the speaker was on a heavy and solid object? This stand is
> not necessarily for high-end use, but certainly hifi, or at least I hope
> so. So should a speaker stand be very solid to prevent vibration of the
> stand. The speaker's weight is about 6-8kg.
>
> ps. If you know any nice looking short, about 40cm high speaker stands,
> I'd be delighted to check it out.
>
Why would you want the stands to be springy at all? Assuming the
springiness si not enough to make teh speaker unstable, itshouldn't be a
problem.

Speaker stands do only one thing, they raise the speaker so the tweeter is
at ear level, thereby allowing one to hear the direct sound from them. They
do not have to be massive, sand filled or lead filled, they do not add
vibration and they do not have any other effect on the speakers.

[Robert Morein]

"Kalle Heinänen" > wrote in message
...
> I'm designing a simple speaker stand. My question is: if the speaker will
> sit on a kind of spring or rather if the whole stand is a slightly
> springy-like, will this somehow affect the sound coming from the speaker
> compared to if the speaker was on a heavy and solid object? This stand is
> not necessarily for high-end use, but certainly hifi, or at least I hope
> so. So should a speaker stand be very solid to prevent vibration of the
> stand. The speaker's weight is about 6-8kg.
>
> ps. If you know any nice looking short, about 40cm high speaker stands,
> I'd be delighted to check it out.
Do not put the speakers on springs. Speaker cabinets are not inert. They
vibrate. In the case of a strong resonance, the level of sound emitted by
the cabinet approaches that emitted by the driver. A good support system is
not springy.

Physics tells us that the speaker stand should not be perfectly rigid
either; it should be mildly deformable, with very high "loss", ie, it should
convert vibration into heat quickly. However, I am unaware of any commercial
speaker stands that attempt anything more than complete rigidity.

But certainly do not go for springs! Don't try to bounce that idea around :)

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
. net...
>
> "Kalle Heinänen" > wrote in message

Please ignore "nyob". He is rao's village idiot, a complete incompetent.

Regards,
Bob Morein

[George M. Middius]

Robert Morein said:

> Please ignore "nyob". He is rao's village idiot, a complete incompetent.

Unless you have a bug problem, in which case calling in Mickey is an act of
charity.

[Kalle Heinänen]

> Physics tells us that the speaker stand should not be perfectly rigid
> either; it should be mildly deformable, with very high "loss", ie, it
> should convert vibration into heat quickly.

Ok! Thanks for your answer. I'm actually thinking about just having this
maybe 0.6-0.9cm thick metal strip, folded at top and bottom, forming
something like letter E without the middle line. So it's not a spring, but
perhaps more springy than average stands. Any comments about this idea?
Naturally I have to make sure that it doesn't break or twist (or at least
try to make sure)..

[Robert Morein]

"Kalle Heinänen" > wrote in message
...
>> Physics tells us that the speaker stand should not be perfectly rigid
>> either; it should be mildly deformable, with very high "loss", ie, it
>> should convert vibration into heat quickly.
>
> Ok! Thanks for your answer. I'm actually thinking about just having this
> maybe 0.6-0.9cm thick metal strip, folded at top and bottom, forming
> something like letter E without the middle line. So it's not a spring, but
> perhaps more springy than average stands. Any comments about this idea?
> Naturally I have to make sure that it doesn't break or twist (or at least
> try to make sure)..
Bad idea. An ideal stand would be made of a non bouncy material. To wit: a
superball is made of a very low loss rubber, so the ball bounces for a long
time. Silly putty, or clay, when thrown at a surface, barely rebounds. IOW,
the kinetic energy of the moving blob of putty is converted quickly into
heat.

There is a material sold for attaching speakers to stands in a temporary
fashion. The trade name is "blue tack", which appears to be a form of butyl
rubber, possibly combined with a clay filler. This material is plastic, but
not bouncy.

There are a number of nutty beliefs among high enders regarding the proper
way to support/suspend components, centered around the use of pointy cones.
But what is actually needed is much less romantic. The desired support
system acts as an absorptive damper for transfer of mechanical energy from
the speaker cabinet.

Ironically, a perfectly rigid stand won't work at this either, because a
perfectly rigid stand is incapable of receiving energy.

[Robert Morein]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Robert Morein said:
>
>> Please ignore "nyob". He is rao's village idiot, a complete incompetent.
>
> Unless you have a bug problem, in which case calling in Mickey is an act
> of
> charity.
>
Can Mikey fix buggy computers?

[George M. Middius]

Robert Morein said:

> >> Please ignore "nyob". He is rao's village idiot, a complete incompetent.

> > Unless you have a bug problem, in which case calling in Mickey is an act
> > of charity.

> Can Mikey fix buggy computers?

Mikey has a baseball bat. That's his only tool. Whether it works in his
clumsy paws is a subjective matter. :-)

"Kalle Heinänen" > wrote in message
...
>> Physics tells us that the speaker stand should not be perfectly rigid
>> either; it should be mildly deformable, with very high "loss", ie, it
>> should convert vibration into heat quickly.
>
Physics tells us nothing of the kind. Speaker stands do not convert
vibration into heat at all. This is nonsense. Naturally, you want a stand
that can support the speaker weight and that isn't likely to tip over.
Beyond elevating the speaker to ear level there is nothing else significant
about speaker stands. I would suggest you ask the same question over on
rec.audio.tech and mention the alleged vibratin to heat problem and see what
kind of response you get.



> Ok! Thanks for your answer. I'm actually thinking about just having this
> maybe 0.6-0.9cm thick metal strip, folded at top and bottom, forming
> something like letter E without the middle line. So it's not a spring, but
> perhaps more springy than average stands. Any comments about this idea?
> Naturally I have to make sure that it doesn't break or twist (or at least
> try to make sure)..
>
Make the stand with a base that is just slightly smaller than the bottom of
the speaker. You can use wood or I've seen some DIY stands made form
plastic pipe filled with sand for stability.

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
. net...
>
> "Kalle Heinänen" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> Physics tells us that the speaker stand should not be perfectly rigid
>>> either; it should be mildly deformable, with very high "loss", ie, it
>>> should convert vibration into heat quickly.
>>
> Physics tells us nothing of the kind. Speaker stands do not convert
> vibration into heat at all. This is nonsense.

Kalle,
I was a Ph.D candidate in theoretical physics. Mikey is a tradesman who
is into the physics of beer. I suggest you ignore him.

Regards,
Bob Morein

[Kalle Heinänen]

> Ironically, a perfectly rigid stand won't work at this either,
> because a perfectly rigid stand is incapable of receiving energy.

Do you have an educated guess - if my twisted metal stand will affect the
sound somehow, then how does it affect? Maybe slightly dampen some of the
lower frequencies? Maybe the twisted piece of metal can even act as a comb
filter? Could it even possibly reduce transient playback?

Any ideas what kind of music or test signals I should listen to if I build
this stand and then test it out?

[Robert Morein]

"Kalle Heinänen" > wrote in message
...
>> Ironically, a perfectly rigid stand won't work at this either,
>> because a perfectly rigid stand is incapable of receiving energy.
>
> Do you have an educated guess - if my twisted metal stand will affect the
> sound somehow, then how does it affect? Maybe slightly dampen some of the
> lower frequencies?

It won't dampen anything. It will simply allow the cabinet to ring like a
bell. Do you want your speaker to be a carillion? :)

Maybe the twisted piece of metal can even act as a comb
> filter? Could it even possibly reduce transient playback?
>
> Any ideas what kind of music or test signals I should listen to if I build
> this stand and then test it out?
Steel is not a good absorber. Commercial steel stands are frequently
designed to be packed with sand, because the sand takes it from the steel.

There are two areas that audiophiles sometimes notice. In the midrange, the
speaker cabinet can radiate as much sound as the midrange, at a particularly
strong resonance. You may be able to hear this as an extra unwanted tone. It
is sometimes also felt that the bass is compromised. The listener may feel
that the bass is too strong, or "one note", due to the radiation from the
cabinet.

Do you perhaps have an opportunity to make the top of the stand a pan that
could hold:

1. concrete?
2. clay and gravel?

You can lay on top of the composite another sheet of steel, with slight
spacing, so it would not detract too much.

There are many sophisticated materials specifically for damping vibrations.
Typically, these are layered: sandwiches of wood and lead, gypsum sheet,
etc. But the simple solution is to use steel in boxes and tubes, because
this is inherently rigid, and attach the speakers to the stands using a
material such as Blue-Tack.

[paul packer]

On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 13:10:18 -0500, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:

> Speaker cabinets are not inert. They
>vibrate. In the case of a strong resonance, the level of sound emitted by
>the cabinet approaches that emitted by the driver.

Wow! Now that's resonant!

At last, a speaker system to give us that true concert hall sound. :-)

[Lionel]

Kalle Heinänen a écrit :
>>Ironically, a perfectly rigid stand won't work at this either,
>>because a perfectly rigid stand is incapable of receiving energy.
>
>
> Do you have an educated guess - if my twisted metal stand will affect the
> sound somehow, then how does it affect? Maybe slightly dampen some of the
> lower frequencies? Maybe the twisted piece of metal can even act as a comb
> filter? Could it even possibly reduce transient playback?
>
> Any ideas what kind of music or test signals I should listen to if I build
> this stand and then test it out?

Pipes full of sand are OK.
You can link 2 MDF baseplates with one (why not 2 or 3 of different
diameter ?)

Material ? PVC, copper, PE...

Wish you some fun.

[Robert Morein]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Kalle Heinänen a écrit :
>>>Ironically, a perfectly rigid stand won't work at this either,
>>>because a perfectly rigid stand is incapable of receiving energy.
>>
>>
>> Do you have an educated guess - if my twisted metal stand will affect the
>> sound somehow, then how does it affect? Maybe slightly dampen some of the
>> lower frequencies? Maybe the twisted piece of metal can even act as a
>> comb filter? Could it even possibly reduce transient playback?
>>
>> Any ideas what kind of music or test signals I should listen to if I
>> build this stand and then test it out?
>
> Pipes full of sand are OK.
> You can link 2 MDF baseplates with one (why not 2 or 3 of different
> diameter ?)
>
He wants aethetics.
Lionel, you are French, surely you must understand :)

[Robert Morein]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 13:10:18 -0500, "Robert Morein"
> > wrote:
>
>> Speaker cabinets are not inert. They
>>vibrate. In the case of a strong resonance, the level of sound emitted by
>>the cabinet approaches that emitted by the driver.
>
> Wow! Now that's resonant!
>
> At last, a speaker system to give us that true concert hall sound. :-)

There are several speaker manufacturers who actually claim that, but
mainstream thought appears to be that woody sounds should come from the
instruments, not the speakers.

[Kalle Heinänen]

Ok I was experimenting with my speaker on a rigid stand, speaker in air and
speaker on a pillow. The speaker was a Genelec 1030. Observations:

1. In this room, the vibration felt with the whole body changes
dramatically. It's not obvious whether vibration felt with body would be
good or bad, but in a way the vibration does a bit emphasize the transients
(from bass to mid) and in that way it is nice - but not necessary by any
means.

2. The position of the speaker, position of head and angle of head greatly
changes the sound.

3. The sound did not change between rigid stand, speaker in air and speaker
on a pillow. At least not nearly as much as the effect of points 1 and 2.

The metal design may have its own quirks though.

[Robert Morein]

"Kalle Heinänen" > wrote in message
...
> Ok I was experimenting with my speaker on a rigid stand, speaker in air
> and speaker on a pillow. The speaker was a Genelec 1030. Observations:
>
> 1. In this room, the vibration felt with the whole body changes
> dramatically. It's not obvious whether vibration felt with body would be
> good or bad, but in a way the vibration does a bit emphasize the
> transients (from bass to mid) and in that way it is nice - but not
> necessary by any means.
>
> 2. The position of the speaker, position of head and angle of head greatly
> changes the sound.
>
> 3. The sound did not change between rigid stand, speaker in air and
> speaker on a pillow. At least not nearly as much as the effect of points 1
> and 2.
>
> The metal design may have its own quirks though.
I think your observations are reasonable. But there is a interesting
characteristic of perception: the longer you listen, the deeper you dig. So
it may become apparent to you at some point that there is an audible cabinet
resonance. Cabinets do have the ability to damp by themselves -- ie.,
dissipate vibrations into heat. Some are better than others. Although it's
best to help them out by coupling them to dissipative surfaces, you may do
just fine.

"Kalle Heinänen" > wrote in message
...
> Ok I was experimenting with my speaker on a rigid stand, speaker in air
> and speaker on a pillow. The speaker was a Genelec 1030. Observations:
>
> 1. In this room, the vibration felt with the whole body changes
> dramatically. It's not obvious whether vibration felt with body would be
> good or bad, but in a way the vibration does a bit emphasize the
> transients (from bass to mid) and in that way it is nice - but not
> necessary by any means.
>
> 2. The position of the speaker, position of head and angle of head greatly
> changes the sound.
>
As is the case for speakers that have pinpoint imaging. Myown speakers are
the same way, I can always hear if my wife has moved on or both, because the
sondstage completely collapses.

> 3. The sound did not change between rigid stand, speaker in air and
> speaker on a pillow. At least not nearly as much as the effect of points 1
> and 2.
>
As I stated earlier,speaker stands do not contribute any audible vibration
and the material of the stands need only be whatever you consider
sufficiednt to do the job and be in line with your personal sense of
aesthetics.

> The metal design may have its own quirks though.
>

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 13:10:18 -0500, "Robert Morein"
> > wrote:
>
>> Speaker cabinets are not inert. They
>>vibrate. In the case of a strong resonance, the level of sound emitted by
>>the cabinet approaches that emitted by the driver.
>
> Wow! Now that's resonant!
>
> At last, a speaker system to give us that true concert hall sound. :-)

He's right they do vibrate but if they do it audibly they are crap speakers,
unless as is the case in some rather odd speaker designs, the vibration is
undamped purposely so as to contribute to the sound.

I doubt very much if there is a speaker that is of any decent quality and
normal design, that has a cabinet that emanates sound loud enough to come
close to the sound from the drivers.

[Goofball_star_dot_etal]

On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 17:43:36 -0500, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:

>
> wrote in message
. net...
>>
>> "Kalle Heinänen" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>> Physics tells us that the speaker stand should not be perfectly rigid
>>>> either; it should be mildly deformable, with very high "loss", ie, it
>>>> should convert vibration into heat quickly.
>>>
>> Physics tells us nothing of the kind. Speaker stands do not convert
>> vibration into heat at all. This is nonsense.
>
>Kalle,
> I was a Ph.D candidate in theoretical physics.

How did it go?



Mikey is a tradesman who
>is into the physics of beer. I suggest you ignore him.
>
>Regards,
>Bob Morein
>

[ScottW]

Robert Morein wrote:
> > wrote in message
> . net...
> >
> > "Kalle Heinänen" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>> Physics tells us that the speaker stand should not be perfectly rigid
> >>> either; it should be mildly deformable, with very high "loss", ie, it
> >>> should convert vibration into heat quickly.
> >>
> > Physics tells us nothing of the kind. Speaker stands do not convert
> > vibration into heat at all. This is nonsense.
>
> Kalle,
> I was a Ph.D candidate

Candidate.... or reject? Why don't you tell him what the courts
decided.

Bob Morein, Ph.D Reject.... with the court papers to prove it.

ScottW

[Powell]

> wrote

> Physics tells us nothing of the kind. Speaker stands do not convert
> vibration into heat at all. This is nonsense.
>
What???

When resonant is dissipated where do
you think it goes?


> Naturally, you want a stand that can support the speaker weight and that
> isn't likely to tip over.
Agreed.

> Beyond elevating the speaker to ear level there is nothing else
> significant about speaker stands.
Hehehe... oh-right!


> I would suggest you ask the same question
> over on rec.audio.tech and mention the alleged vibratin to heat problem
> and see what kind of response you get.
>
So your basis of knowledge on the subject
is what others tell you? How about doing
the work yourself, mr. Arm-chair
Commander?

[Powell]

"Robert Morein" wrote

>> Any ideas what kind of music or test signals I should listen to if I
>> build this stand and then test it out?
>>
> Steel is not a good absorber.
Well, yes and no. Light steel (speaker stands)
are compliant with many frequencies (good
thing) but poor in capasity to attenuating energy
without help.


> Commercial steel stands are frequently designed to be packed with sand,
> because the sand takes it from the steel.
>
Sand and lead/steel shot are even better
for this. Sand, rubber and shot will produce
even different results. Much depends on the
resonating frequencies of the speaker
cabinet and therefore the choosing the best
conglomerate/mixture to use.


> There are two areas that audiophiles sometimes notice. In the midrange,
> the speaker cabinet can radiate as much sound as the midrange, at a
> particularly strong resonance.
Bass performance to can be improved by
reducing the tubbiness.


> There are many sophisticated materials specifically for damping
> vibrations. Typically, these are layered: sandwiches of wood and lead,
> gypsum sheet, etc. But the simple solution is to use steel in boxes and
> tubes, because this is inherently rigid, and attach the speakers to the
> stands using a material such as Blue-Tack.
>
Agreed, Bostik Blu-tack is very good. It
should be noted that where the blu-tack is
placed on the speaker is important, too.
Certain areas of the speaker's bottom/base
plate are more active (resonate activite)
than others. Also, a thin layer of blu-tack
is much more effective in transmitting
resonance than a blob.

Speaker points can also be effective on
the speaker’s base plate. Points or
Blu-tack, will each have different frequency
compliancy.

[Powell]

"Kalle Heinänen" wrote

> Do you have an educated guess - if my twisted metal stand will affect the
> sound somehow, then how does it affect?
Depending on what frequencies the speaker
and speaker stands are compliant in, the
loudness will drop/attenuate.


> Maybe slightly dampen some of the lower frequencies?
You will see multiple frequencies being
effected, if effective. Mid to upper bass
and midrange are the easiest to control.


> Maybe the twisted piece of metal can even act as a comb filter? Could it
> even possibly reduce transient playback?
>
Please define what you mean by "transient
playback?"


> Any ideas what kind of music or test signals I should listen to if I build
> this stand and then test it out?
IME, because multiple frequencies are
involved testing should be done using single
or wobble frequency test bands, as opposed
to Pink or White noise. Stereophile has one
for $10 or you can use a computer to burn a
CD with them on it.

By recording and then comparing the sound
pressure differences of the speakers on or
off the stand you should see an
accumulative/significant overall dB output
drop from the speakers. Comparing two
speakers one on the stand an one off you
should notice a sound balance/loudness
difference.

[Margaret von B.]

"Kalle Heinänen" > wrote in message
...
> I'm designing a simple speaker stand. My question is: if the speaker will
> sit on a kind of spring or rather if the whole stand is a slightly
> springy-like, will this somehow affect the sound coming from the speaker
> compared to if the speaker was on a heavy and solid object? This stand is
> not necessarily for high-end use, but certainly hifi, or at least I hope
> so. So should a speaker stand be very solid to prevent vibration of the
> stand. The speaker's weight is about 6-8kg.
>
> ps. If you know any nice looking short, about 40cm high speaker stands,
> I'd be delighted to check it out.
>

Check out:
http://www.ikea.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10103&storeId=12&langId=-1&productId=11140

Your speakers are likely to sound better on this than anything you can build
even near the prize. Just out of curiosity, what kind of speakers will be
"hifi" at 6-8 kilos a piece? My experience tells me that at that weight the
box will typically compromise the sound to a significant degree. But then
again, I haven't heard them all.

Cheers,

Margaret

[Powell]

> wrote

> He's right they do vibrate but if they do it audibly
> they are crap speakers, unless as is the case in
> some rather odd speaker designs, the vibration is
> undamped purposely so as to contribute to the
> sound.
>
Please site one manufacture who designs
for this "undamped purposely so as to
contribute to the sound?"

Quack, quack, quack...

[Robert Morein]

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 17:43:36 -0500, "Robert Morein"
> > wrote:
>
>>
> wrote in message
. net...
>>>
>>> "Kalle Heinänen" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>> Physics tells us that the speaker stand should not be perfectly rigid
>>>>> either; it should be mildly deformable, with very high "loss", ie, it
>>>>> should convert vibration into heat quickly.
>>>>
>>> Physics tells us nothing of the kind. Speaker stands do not convert
>>> vibration into heat at all. This is nonsense.
>>
>>Kalle,
>> I was a Ph.D candidate in theoretical physics.
>
> How did it go?
>
I learned things I have treasured my entire life.
You have tasted as well?

[Robert Morein]

"Powell" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote
>
>> Physics tells us nothing of the kind. Speaker stands do not convert
>> vibration into heat at all. This is nonsense.
>>
> What???
>
> When resonant is dissipated where do
> you think it goes?
>
>
>> Naturally, you want a stand that can support the speaker weight and that
>> isn't likely to tip over.
> Agreed.
>
>> Beyond elevating the speaker to ear level there is nothing else
>> significant about speaker stands.
> Hehehe... oh-right!
>
>
>> I would suggest you ask the same question
>> over on rec.audio.tech and mention the alleged vibratin to heat problem
>> and see what kind of response you get.
>>
> So your basis of knowledge on the subject
> is what others tell you? How about doing
> the work yourself, mr. Arm-chair
> Commander?
>
You have my permission to degrade this idiot.
IMHO, Mikey holds down last place in IQ, and first place in disinformation.

[Robert Morein]

"Margaret von B." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kalle Heinänen" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I'm designing a simple speaker stand. My question is: if the speaker will
>> sit on a kind of spring or rather if the whole stand is a slightly
>> springy-like, will this somehow affect the sound coming from the speaker
>> compared to if the speaker was on a heavy and solid object? This stand is
>> not necessarily for high-end use, but certainly hifi, or at least I hope
>> so. So should a speaker stand be very solid to prevent vibration of the
>> stand. The speaker's weight is about 6-8kg.
>>
>> ps. If you know any nice looking short, about 40cm high speaker stands,
>> I'd be delighted to check it out.
>>
>
> Check out:
> http://www.ikea.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10103&storeId=12&langId=-1&productId=11140
>
But they take up a lot more space than the speakers.

How about pieces of a large timber, cut short, and plasticized. Possibly
funky & functional?

[Sylvan Morein]

In article om, "ScottW"
> wrote:

> Candidate.... or reject? Why don't you tell him what the courts
> decided.
>
> Bob Morein, Ph.D Reject.... with the court papers to prove it.


Sad but so true, Scott.

Think about it. . . My one and only son has lived in the same room, in the
same house, in MY house, since the early 1950's. He's never had a job.
NEVER. He always impressed everyone as a "smart guy", although I know now
he's just a bull**** artist. SURE he's "smart" - he went to college for
almost 20 years on my dime!

His last attempt at a "career", filmmaker, has turned into another pathetic
failure. He purchased cameras, sound equipment, lights, and other
bric-a-brac and waltzed around with a loupe around his neck. Result? The
equipment's now collecting dust in the basement.

FAILURE.

Then he had a brainstorm about solar energy? Spent weeks pounding on
expensive metals in the basement? Result?

FAILURE!

He also claimed to be working on a high-power industrial pump. Result?

FAILURE!

$100,000 to the first person that can get this 53 year old into a job, any
job, and out of my house.

Sylvan Morein, DDS



PROVEN PUBLISHED FACTS about my Son, Robert Morein
--

Robert Morein History
--
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/ledgerenquirer/news/4853918.htm

> Doctoral student takes intellectual property case to Supreme Court
> By L. STUART DITZEN
> Philadelphia Inquirer
>
> PHILADELPHIA -Even the professors who dismissed him from a doctoral program
> at Drexel University agreed that Robert Morein was uncommonly smart.
>
> They apparently didn't realize that he was uncommonly stubborn too - so much
> so that he would mount a court fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court
> to challenge his dismissal.

The Supremes have already rejected this appeal, btw.
>
> "It's a personality trait I have - I'm a tenacious guy," said Morein, a
> pleasantly eccentric man regarded by friends as an inventive genius. "And we
> do come to a larger issue here."

An "inventive genius" that has never invented anything. And hardly
"pleasantly" eccentric.

> A five-year legal battle between this unusual ex-student and one of
> Philadelphia's premier educational institutions has gone largely unnoticed
> by the media and the public.

Because no one gives a **** about a 50 year old loser.
>
> But it has been the subject of much attention in academia.
>
> Drexel says it dismissed Morein in 1995 because he failed, after eight
> years, to complete a thesis required for a doctorate in electrical and
> computer engineering.

Not to mention the 12 years it took him to get thru high school!
BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

> Morein, 50, of Dresher, Pa., contends that he was dismissed only after his
> thesis adviser "appropriated" an innovative idea Morein had developed in a
> rarefied area of thought called "estimation theory" and arranged to have it
> patented.

A contention rejected by three courts. From a 50 YEAR OLD that has
done NOTHING PRODUCTIVE with his life.

> In February 2000, Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Esther R. Sylvester
> ruled that Morein's adviser indeed had taken his idea.

An idea that was worth nothing, because it didn't work. Just like
Robert Morein, who has never worked a day in his life.

> Sylvester held that Morein had been unjustly dismissed and she ordered
> Drexel to reinstate him or refund his tuition.

Funnily enough, Drexel AGREED to reinstate Morein, who rejected the
offer because he knew he was and IS a failed loser. Spending daddy's
money to cover up his lack of productivity.
>
> That brought roars of protest from the lions of academia. There is a long
> tradition in America of noninterference by the courts in academic decisions.
>
> Backed by every major university in Pennsylvania and organizations
> representing thousands of others around the country, Drexel appealed to the
> state Superior Court.
>
> The appellate court, by a 2-1 vote, reversed Sylvester in June 2001 and
> restored the status quo. Morein was, once again, out at Drexel. And the
> time-honored axiom that courts ought to keep their noses out of academic
> affairs was reasserted.
>
> The state Supreme Court declined to review the case and, in an ordinary
> litigation, that would have been the end of it.
>
> But Morein, in a quixotic gesture that goes steeply against the odds, has
> asked the highest court in the land to give him a hearing.

Daddy throws more money down the crapper.

> His attorney, Faye Riva Cohen, said the Supreme Court appeal is important
> even if it fails because it raises the issue of whether a university has a
> right to lay claim to a student's ideas - or intellectual property - without
> compensation.
>
> "Any time you are in a Ph.D. program, you are a serf, you are a slave," said
> Cohen. Morein "is concerned not only for himself. He feels that what
> happened to him is pretty common."

It's called HIGHER EDUCATION, honey. The students aren't in charge,
the UNIVERSITY and PROFESSORS are.

> Drexel's attorney, Neil J. Hamburg, called Morein's appeal - and his claim
> that his idea was stolen - "preposterous."
>
> "I will eat my shoe if the Supreme Court hears this case," declared Hamburg.
> "We're not even going to file a response. He is a brilliant guy, but his
> intelligence should be used for the advancement of society rather than
> pursuing self-destructive litigation."

No **** sherlock.

> The litigation began in 1997, when Morein sued Drexel claiming that a
> committee of professors had dumped him after he accused his faculty adviser,
> Paul Kalata, of appropriating his idea.
>
> His concept was considered to have potential value for businesses in
> minutely measuring the internal functions of machines, industrial processes
> and electronic systems.
>
> The field of "estimation theory" is one in which scientists attempt to
> calculate what they cannot plainly observe, such as the inside workings of a
> nuclear plant or a computer.

My estimation theory? There is NO brain at work inside the head of
Robert Morein, only sawdust.

>
> Prior to Morein's dismissal, Drexel looked into his complaint against Kalata
> and concluded that the associate professor had done nothing wrong. Kalata,
> through a university lawyer, declined to comment.
>
> At a nonjury trial before Sylvester in 1999, Morein testified that Kalata in
> 1990 had posed a technical problem for him to study for his thesis. It
> related to estimation theory.
>
> Kalata, who did not appear at the trial, said in a 1998 deposition that a
> Cherry Hill company for which he was a paid consultant, K-Tron
> International, had asked him to develop an alternate estimation method for
> it. The company manufactures bulk material feeders and conveyors used in
> industrial processes.
>
> Morein testified that, after much study, he experienced "a flash of
> inspiration" and came up with a novel mathematical concept to address the
> problem Kalata had presented.
>
> Without his knowledge, Morein said, Kalata shared the idea with K-Tron.
>
> K-Tron then applied for a patent, listing Kalata and Morein as co-inventors.
>
> Morein said he agreed "under duress" to the arrangement, but felt "locked
> into a highly disadvantageous situation." As a result, he testified, he
> became alienated from Kalata.
>
> As events unfolded, Kalata signed over his interest in the patent to K-Tron.
> The company never capitalized on the technology and eventually allowed the
> patent to lapse. No one made any money from it.

Because it was bogus. Even Kalata was mortified that he was a victim
of this SCAMSTER, Robert Morein.

> In 1991, Morein went to the head of Drexel's electrical engineering
> department, accused Kalata of appropriating his intellectual property, and
> asked for a new faculty adviser.

The staff at Drexel laughed wildly at the ignorance of Robert Morein.

> He didn't get one. Instead, a committee of four professors, including
> Kalata, was formed to oversee Morein's thesis work.
>
> Four years later, the committee dismissed him, saying he had failed to
> complete his thesis.

So Morein ****s up his first couple years, gets new faculty advisers
(a TEAM), and then ****s up again! Brilliant!

> Morein claimed that the committee intentionally had undermined him.

Morein makes LOTS of claims that are nonsense. One look thru the
usenet proves it.

> Judge Sylvester agreed. In her ruling, Sylvester wrote: "It is this court's
> opinion that the defendants were motivated by bad faith and ill will."

So much for political machine judges.

> The U.S. Supreme Court receives 7,000 appeals a year and agrees to hear only
> about 100 of them.
>
> Hamburg, Drexel's attorney, is betting the high court will reject Morein's
> appeal out of hand because its focal point - concerning a student's right to
> intellectual property - was not central to the litigation in the
> Pennsylvania courts.

> Morein said he understands it's a long shot, but he feels he must pursue it.

Failure. Look it up in Websters. You'll see a picture of Robert
Morein. The poster boy for SCAMMING LOSERS.

> "I had to seek closure," he said.
>
> Without a doctorate, he said, he has been unable to pursue a career he had
> hoped would lead him into research on artificial intelligence.

Who better to tell us about "artificial intelligence".
BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

>
> As it is, Morein lives at home with his father and makes a modest income
> from stock investments. He has written a film script that he is trying to
> make into a movie. And in the basement of his father's home he is working on
> an invention, an industrial pump so powerful it could cut steel with a
> bulletlike stream of water.


FAILED STUDENT
FAILED MOVIE MAKER
FAILED SCREENWRITER
FAILED INVESTOR
FAILED DRIVER
FAILED SON
FAILED PARENTS
FAILED INVENTOR
FAILED PLAINTIFF
FAILED HOMOSEXUAL
FAILED HUMAN
FAILED
FAILED

[Lionel]

In >, Robert Morein wrote :

>
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Kalle Heinänen a écrit :
>>>>Ironically, a perfectly rigid stand won't work at this either,
>>>>because a perfectly rigid stand is incapable of receiving energy.
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you have an educated guess - if my twisted metal stand will affect
>>> the sound somehow, then how does it affect? Maybe slightly dampen some
>>> of the lower frequencies? Maybe the twisted piece of metal can even act
>>> as a comb filter? Could it even possibly reduce transient playback?
>>>
>>> Any ideas what kind of music or test signals I should listen to if I
>>> build this stand and then test it out?
>>
>> Pipes full of sand are OK.
>> You can link 2 MDF baseplates with one (why not 2 or 3 of different
>> diameter ?)
>>
> He wants aethetics.
> Lionel, you are French, surely you must understand :)

Basic material available.
Skill and imagination requested.

BTW a lot of people have major problems (pratic and metaphysic) with the
speaker stands and they often forget that it is very easy to hang some
bookshelf speakers.


--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[Powell]

"Robert Morein" wrote

>>> I would suggest you ask the same question
>>> over on rec.audio.tech and mention the alleged vibratin to heat problem
>>> and see what kind of response you get.
>>>
>> So your basis of knowledge on the subject
>> is what others tell you? How about doing
>> the work yourself, mr. Arm-chair
>> Commander?
>>
> You have my permission to degrade this idiot.
> IMHO, Mikey holds down last place in IQ, and first place in
> disinformation.
>
Perhaps I can put this in metaphor you might
understand, you pick, Robert :)

A. Pot calls kettle black.

B. As the French philosopher Jean-Paul
Sartre said (English) "hell is other people"
or literally (French) "hell is the others."

C. The little head drives the big head.

D. You hate because it’s easy for you to
do so... it’s an illusion of ego.

[Robert Morein]

"Powell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert Morein" wrote
>
>>>> I would suggest you ask the same question
>>>> over on rec.audio.tech and mention the alleged vibratin to heat problem
>>>> and see what kind of response you get.
>>>>
>>> So your basis of knowledge on the subject
>>> is what others tell you? How about doing
>>> the work yourself, mr. Arm-chair
>>> Commander?
>>>
>> You have my permission to degrade this idiot.
>> IMHO, Mikey holds down last place in IQ, and first place in
>> disinformation.
>>
> Perhaps I can put this in metaphor you might
> understand, you pick, Robert :)
>
> A. Pot calls kettle black.
>
> B. As the French philosopher Jean-Paul
> Sartre said (English) "hell is other people"
> or literally (French) "hell is the others."
>
> C. The little head drives the big head.
>
> D. You hate because it's easy for you to
> do so... it's an illusion of ego.
>
Use any technique you desire.

"Powell" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote
>
>> Physics tells us nothing of the kind. Speaker stands do not convert
>> vibration into heat at all. This is nonsense.
>>
> What???
>
> When resonant is dissipated where do
> you think it goes?
>
Resonance from where? From the speakers? Any vibration from the speaker
cabinets is going to be so small as to be unworthy of mentioning. Any
vibrations would most certainly be absorbed by the room much more than the
stands.

>
>> Naturally, you want a stand that can support the speaker weight and that
>> isn't likely to tip over.
> Agreed.
>
>> Beyond elevating the speaker to ear level there is nothing else
>> significant about speaker stands.
> Hehehe... oh-right!
>
Name the other things they do that are significant.
>
>> I would suggest you ask the same question
>> over on rec.audio.tech and mention the alleged vibratin to heat problem
>> and see what kind of response you get.
>>
> So your basis of knowledge on the subject
> is what others tell you? How about doing
> the work yourself, mr. Arm-chair
> Commander?
>
>
>

[Powell]

> wrote

>>> Physics tells us nothing of the kind. Speaker
>>> stands do not convert vibration into heat at all.
>>> This is nonsense.
>>>
>> What???
>>
>> When resonant is dissipated where do
>> you think it goes?
>>
> Resonance from where? From the speakers?
> Any vibration from the speaker cabinets is going
> to be so small as to be unworthy of mentioning.
>
You’re contradicting yourself. You have
already theorized that manufactures
design for this "undamped purposely so as
to contribute to the sound" Now you claim
speaker cabinets resonance "is so small
as to be unworthy of mentioning" Which
is it?


> Any vibrations would most certainly be
> absorbed by the room much more than
> the stands.
>
"most certainly"... based on your
understanding of wave propagation, I'm
sure you think so. :)


>>> Beyond elevating the speaker to ear
>>> level there is nothing else
>>> significant about speaker stands.
>>>
>> Hehehe... oh-right!
>>
> Name the other things they do that are
> significant.
>
So that I won’t talk over your head, please
describe what, if any, actual experiences
you have using, measuring or auditioning
speaker stands? OTOH, It's ok if you
want to run away again, I understand :)

[Powell]

"Robert Morein" wrote

> >> You have my permission to degrade this idiot.
> >> IMHO, Mikey holds down last place in IQ, and
> >> first place in disinformation.
> >>
> > Perhaps I can put this in metaphor you might
> > understand, you pick, Robert :)
> >
> > A. Pot calls kettle black.
> >
> > B. As the French philosopher Jean-Paul
> > Sartre said (English) "hell is other people"
> > or literally (French) "hell is the others."
> >
> > C. The little head drives the big head.
> >
> > D. You hate because it's easy for you to
> > do so... it's an illusion of ego.
> >
> Use any technique you desire.
>
Now that's just sad. For your edification a
metaphor is not a “technique.”

met-a-phor (met'uh fôr , -fuhr) n.
1. the application of a word or phrase to an
object or concept it does not literally
denote, suggesting comparison to that
object or concept, as in " A mighty
fortress is our God. ".

[Bill Riel]

In article >, says...
>
> > wrote
>
> > He's right they do vibrate but if they do it audibly
> > they are crap speakers, unless as is the case in
> > some rather odd speaker designs, the vibration is
> > undamped purposely so as to contribute to the
> > sound.
> >
> Please site one manufacture who designs
> for this "undamped purposely so as to
> contribute to the sound?"

Well, this might be the kind of thing he's talking about.
http://www.audionote.co.uk/ describing the AN-K:

"The AN-K cabinet is made from materials that compliment the workings of
the chosen drive units, where we, instead of trying to damp the
resonances in the cabinet, place them in frequency bands where they aid
and enhance the drive unit's work."

You're welcome.

--
Bill

"Powell" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote
>
>>>> Physics tells us nothing of the kind. Speaker
>>>> stands do not convert vibration into heat at all.
>>>> This is nonsense.
>>>>
>>> What???
>>>
>>> When resonant is dissipated where do
>>> you think it goes?
>>>
>> Resonance from where? From the speakers?
>> Any vibration from the speaker cabinets is going
>> to be so small as to be unworthy of mentioning.
>>
> You're contradicting yourself. You have
> already theorized that manufactures
> design for this "undamped purposely so as
> to contribute to the sound"

Reread what I said. I said a few oddball designs had used that sort of
effect.

Now you claim
> speaker cabinets resonance "is so small
> as to be unworthy of mentioning" Which
> is it?
>

It would depend on the design, most people have the good sense not to use
the cabinet to contribute sound of it's own.
>
>> Any vibrations would most certainly be
>> absorbed by the room much more than
>> the stands.
>>
> "most certainly"... based on your
> understanding of wave propagation, I'm
> sure you think so. :)
>
>
>>>> Beyond elevating the speaker to ear
>>>> level there is nothing else
>>>> significant about speaker stands.
>>>>
>>> Hehehe... oh-right!
>>>
>> Name the other things they do that are
>> significant.
>>
> So that I won't talk over your head, please
> describe what, if any, actual experiences
> you have using, measuring or auditioning
> speaker stands? OTOH, It's ok if you
> want to run away again, I understand :)
>
>
I have none since I have no knowledge that such is ever required.
If you hav such knowledge and measurements please allow me to benefit from
you experience.

"Bill Riel" > wrote in message
t...
> In article >, says...
>>
>> > wrote
>>
>> > He's right they do vibrate but if they do it audibly
>> > they are crap speakers, unless as is the case in
>> > some rather odd speaker designs, the vibration is
>> > undamped purposely so as to contribute to the
>> > sound.
>> >
>> Please site one manufacture who designs
>> for this "undamped purposely so as to
>> contribute to the sound?"
>
> Well, this might be the kind of thing he's talking about.
> http://www.audionote.co.uk/ describing the AN-K:
>
> "The AN-K cabinet is made from materials that compliment the workings of
> the chosen drive units, where we, instead of trying to damp the
> resonances in the cabinet, place them in frequency bands where they aid
> and enhance the drive unit's work."
>
Thank you.

I knew it had been done but names were apparently buried deep in memory, as
it is not a popular practice.

[Clyde Slick]

"Powell" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote
>
>>>> Physics tells us nothing of the kind. Speaker
>>>> stands do not convert vibration into heat at all.
>>>> This is nonsense.
>>>>
>>> What???
>>>
>>> When resonant is dissipated where do
>>> you think it goes?
>>>
>> Resonance from where? From the speakers?
>> Any vibration from the speaker cabinets is going
>> to be so small as to be unworthy of mentioning.
>>
> You're contradicting yourself. You have
> already theorized that manufactures
> design for this "undamped purposely so as
> to contribute to the sound" Now you claim
> speaker cabinets resonance "is so small
> as to be unworthy of mentioning" Which
> is it?
>

The one that scores more debating
trade points at any particular time.

[Bill Riel]

In article >,
> wrote:

> "Bill Riel" > wrote in message
> t...
> > In article >, says...
> >>
> >> > wrote
> >>
> >> > He's right they do vibrate but if they do it audibly
> >> > they are crap speakers, unless as is the case in
> >> > some rather odd speaker designs, the vibration is
> >> > undamped purposely so as to contribute to the
> >> > sound.
> >> >
> >> Please site one manufacture who designs
> >> for this "undamped purposely so as to
> >> contribute to the sound?"
> >
> > Well, this might be the kind of thing he's talking about.
> > http://www.audionote.co.uk/ describing the AN-K:
> >
> > "The AN-K cabinet is made from materials that compliment the workings of
> > the chosen drive units, where we, instead of trying to damp the
> > resonances in the cabinet, place them in frequency bands where they aid
> > and enhance the drive unit's work."
> >
> Thank you.
>
> I knew it had been done but names were apparently buried deep in memory, as
> it is not a popular practice.

It sounds like a dubious practice to me, but then what do I know? I had
a vague recollection that Sonus Faber claimed something similar but my
memory may be faulty on that account.

--
Bill

[Kalle Heinänen]

> http://www.ikea.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10103&storeId=12&langId=-1&productId=11140

Thanks for the idea. Four legged DIY (to get the right size) is also
possible, but probably not the kind of design I'm after in this case..

> Just out of curiosity, what kind of speakers will be "hifi" at
> 6-8 kilos a piece?

In this case I'll be having Genelec speakers. IMHO they are hifi.

[Powell]

> wrote

>>> Name the other things they do that are
>>> significant.
>>>
>> So that I won't talk over your head, please
>> describe what, if any, actual experiences
>> you have using, measuring or auditioning
>> speaker stands? OTOH, It's ok if you
>> want to run away again, I understand :)
>>
>>
> I have none since I have no knowledge that
> such is ever required.
>
So as I understand it, if you unknowingly give
bad advice you are not culpable, right?
How is that different from talking-out-your
ass? :)


> If you hav such knowledge and measurements
> please allow me to benefit from you experience.
>
Several years ago I participated in a product
development project which examined this very
issue. My role was to provide a subjective audio
opinion for proprietary speaker stands and points.
My subjective input was added to the design
engineering for the next stand built. Over perhaps
an 18 month period 24 stands were delivered and
the process repeated.

For my own records I weighed each stand
(wasn’t privy to internal workings) and took spot
sound pressure readings at 10 different
frequencies using Stereophile’s Test CD 2, 1/3
octave warble tones. I used this as informational
data in the subjective opinion.

By the 12th design, I think, the engineering was
understood. The last six or so appeared to be
economy driven and generally weighted less. In
the process I also tried a number of proprietary
spikes/points, including a diamonded tipped set,
and other commercial available designs.

Here’s an example of stand #12's output.
(see; alt.binaries.test /Speaker Stand
Test/attachment test#12.jpg)

Compare this to the same speaker spiked to
the floor. Measurements were referenced with
an Apogee speaker with manufacturer’s
supplied spikes (86 dB @ 1,000 Hz).
As you can see the speaker on the stand
has an accumulative broad band frequency
reduction of 49 dB. The wave form varied
from stand to stand depending on how
sympathetic that particular stand was the
speaker.

[Powell]

> wrote

>>> > He's right they do vibrate but if they do it audibly
>>> > they are crap speakers, unless as is the case in
>>> > some rather odd speaker designs, the vibration is
>>> > undamped purposely so as to contribute to the
>>> > sound.
>>> >
>>> Please site one manufacture who designs
>>> for this "undamped purposely so as to
>>> contribute to the sound?"
>>
>> Well, this might be the kind of thing he's talking about.
>> http://www.audionote.co.uk/ describing the AN-K:
>>
>> "The AN-K cabinet is made from materials that compliment the workings of
>> the chosen drive units, where we, instead of trying to damp the
>> resonances in the cabinet, place them in frequency bands where they aid
>> and enhance the drive unit's work."
>>
> Thank you.
>
> I knew it had been done but names were apparently
> buried deep in memory, as it is not a popular practice.
>
"not a popular practice"... every speaker ever
built produces unwanted distortion through
cabinet walls. Distortion does not ("contribute
to the sound") enhance fidelity.

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."

[Powell]

"Clyde Slick" wrote

>>> Resonance from where? From the speakers?
>>> Any vibration from the speaker cabinets is going
>>> to be so small as to be unworthy of mentioning.
>>>
>> You're contradicting yourself. You have
>> already theorized that manufactures
>> design for this "undamped purposely so as
>> to contribute to the sound" Now you claim
>> speaker cabinets resonance "is so small
>> as to be unworthy of mentioning" Which
>> is it?
>>
>
> The one that scores more debating
> trade points at any particular time.

Ego tripping :)

[Kalle Heinänen]

> Here’s an example of stand #12's output.
> (see; alt.binaries.test /Speaker Stand
> Test/attachment test#12.jpg)

That might be quite interesting - unfortunately I can't view that (I do have
minimal access to that group, but can't find your message). Could you please
put the picture on http://www.glowfoto.com/ for example?

Since you have experience comparing stands/cabinets, could you tell your
opinion on how that one piece twisted metal stand might work in terms of
sound?

[Powell]

"Kalle Heinänen" wrote

>> Here’s an example of stand #12's output.
>> (see; alt.binaries.test /Speaker Stand
>> Test/attachment test#12.jpg)
>
> That might be quite interesting - unfortunately
> I can't view that (I do have minimal access to
> that group, but can't find your message). Could
> you please put the picture on
> http://www.glowfoto.com/ for example?
>
Sorry, don’t have the time to figure out how
that site works. Being unable to post binaries
in high 8 news groups has always been an
impediment to meaningful technical discussions.

> Since you have experience comparing stands/cabinets,
> could you tell your opinion on how that one
> piece twisted metal stand might work in
> terms of sound?
>
If your design allows the speaker to easily
oscillate it will be detrimental to the sound/fidelity.
OTOH, if the design is rigid enough to pass
vibration and yet flexible to be sympathetic to
the cabinet resonation to allow vibrations to
pass through the stand into the floor there maybe
some small enhancement. Much will depend
on the design’s ability to pass vibrations from the
cabinet into the floor. On carpeted floors this is
extremely difficult to accomplish even with spikes.

[Kalle Heinänen]

> Much will depend on the design’s ability to pass
> vibrations from the cabinet into the floor. On
> carpeted floors this is extremely difficult to
> accomplish even with spikes.

I would like to ask why is it less detrimental to the sound if the
vibrations are passed into the floor? And what is the purpose of spikes - to
increase or decrease the vibrations passing into the floor (or is there some
other purpose)?

PS. Using that www.glowfoto.com to publish your picture: press Browse,
choose your image, press Click To Upload, copy the url from the first box
below the picture that will appear in a few seconds.

"Powell" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote
>
>>>> Name the other things they do that are
>>>> significant.
>>>>
>>> So that I won't talk over your head, please
>>> describe what, if any, actual experiences
>>> you have using, measuring or auditioning
>>> speaker stands? OTOH, It's ok if you
>>> want to run away again, I understand :)
>>>
>>>
>> I have none since I have no knowledge that
>> such is ever required.
>>
> So as I understand it, if you unknowingly give
> bad advice you are not culpable, right?
> How is that different from talking-out-your
> ass? :)
>
>
>> If you hav such knowledge and measurements
>> please allow me to benefit from you experience.
>>
> Several years ago I participated in a product
> development project which examined this very
> issue. My role was to provide a subjective audio
> opinion for proprietary speaker stands and points.
> My subjective input was added to the design
> engineering for the next stand built. Over perhaps
> an 18 month period 24 stands were delivered and
> the process repeated.
>
> For my own records I weighed each stand
> (wasn't privy to internal workings) and took spot
> sound pressure readings at 10 different
> frequencies using Stereophile's Test CD 2, 1/3
> octave warble tones. I used this as informational
> data in the subjective opinion.
>
> By the 12th design, I think, the engineering was
> understood. The last six or so appeared to be
> economy driven and generally weighted less. In
> the process I also tried a number of proprietary
> spikes/points, including a diamonded tipped set,
> and other commercial available designs.
>
> Here's an example of stand #12's output.
> (see; alt.binaries.test /Speaker Stand
> Test/attachment test#12.jpg)
>
> Compare this to the same speaker spiked to
> the floor. Measurements were referenced with
> an Apogee speaker with manufacturer's
> supplied spikes (86 dB @ 1,000 Hz).
> As you can see the speaker on the stand
> has an accumulative broad band frequency
> reduction of 49 dB. The wave form varied
> from stand to stand depending on how
> sympathetic that particular stand was the
> speaker.
>
>
Haven't we been all over this before? You still seem to be saying that the
stand is supposed to correct for problems of cabinet resonance that should
have been taken care of inside the cabinet. Spikes aren't likely to do that
in any way. Nor are stands.

[John Atkinson]

wrote:
> "Powell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Here's an example of stand #12's output.
> > (see; alt.binaries.test /Speaker Stand
> > Test/attachment test#12.jpg)
> >
> > Compare this to the same speaker spiked to
> > the floor. Measurements were referenced with
> > an Apogee speaker with manufacturer's
> > supplied spikes (86 dB @ 1,000 Hz).
> > As you can see the speaker on the stand
> > has an accumulative broad band frequency
> > reduction of 49 dB. The wave form varied
> > from stand to stand depending on how
> > sympathetic that particular stand was the
> > speaker.
>
> Haven't we been all over this before? You still seem to be saying
> that the stand is supposed to correct for problems of cabinet resonance
> that should have been taken care of inside the cabinet. Spikes aren't
> likely to do that in any way. Nor are stands.

It coninues to amaze me, Mr. McKelvy, how strong your opinions
are despite you not having any experience. I explored this matter in
some detail in the early 1990s; you can find the results at
http://www.stereophile.com/features/806/ . The stand and the
interface between it and the speaker certainly can have a major effect
on the speaker cabinet's vibrational behavior. And no less an authority
than Stan Lip****z showed in the late 1980s that uncontrolled resonant
vibrations of a speaker's cabinet can degrade sound quality.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Powell]

> wrote

<snip quacking>

Zzzzzz...

[Powell]

"Kalle Heinänen" wrote

>> Much will depend on the design’s ability to pass
>> vibrations from the cabinet into the floor. On
>> carpeted floors this is extremely difficult to
>> accomplish even with spikes.
>
> I would like to ask why is it less detrimental
> to the sound if the vibrations are passed into
> the floor?
>
Ideally, any energy which can be passed out of the
system (audio environment) is a good thing. The
glass windows in your listening room, for example,
allow some bass energy to pass through to the
outside of your home. OTOH, bass energy will
readily be captured/reverberate when it reflects
off hard wall surfaces traveling back-and-forth
across the room (slow decay of enegry).


> And what is the purpose of spikes - to increase
> or decrease the vibrations passing into the floor
> (or is there some other purpose)?
>
Ideally, in term of coupling, spikes for example,
one is looking for the most mechanically efficient
way to join the speaker mass with the larger
room mass. This coupling effect creates the
easiest path for mechanical energy to pass out
of one system to another.

Another way to look at it. If a speaker could
be suspended in space, unhindered by gravity,
we see the speaker moving in all three plains
(X,Y,Z) at different rates. The resulting pattern
of movement is the acoustic cabinet signature.
When we successfully couple a stand to a
speaker cabinet we change the pattern of
movement (sonic signature) because we’ve
added mass and changed the shape of the
traducer (speaker cabinet) when it resonates.

And yet another metaphor. Speaker stands
when fill with a sympathetic composite material
acts as a filter converting some of the
mechanical energy to heat due to the friction,
but it is not a linear effect across the wave
form/frequency. The remaining energy will
either reflect backup into the speaker cabinet
adding chaotic wave forms or pass out of the
system into the floor. The unique shape of a
spike add directionality/mechanical
efficiency/directional filter.

And finally see Stereophile Vol. 15 No. 9, page
162-170 for yet another viewpoint.


> PS. Using that www.glowfoto.com to publish
> your picture: press Browse, choose your image,
> press Click To Upload, copy the url from the first box
> below the picture that will appear in a few seconds.
>
http://www.glowfoto.com/viewimage.php?img=12-105449L&y=2005&m=12&t=jpg&rand=2301&srv=img2

Please note for simplicity sake I choose a
graph which shows zero or positive results.
This is not always the case for each frequency
tested. Different speakers result in different
sonic signatures. In essence, every speaker
has a unique sonic signature for a given
speaker stand (system which makes up
the stand).

[Goofball_star_dot_etal]

On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 16:33:59 -0500, "Powell" >
wrote:

>
>"Kalle Heinänen" wrote
>
>>> Much will depend on the design’s ability to pass
>>> vibrations from the cabinet into the floor. On
>>> carpeted floors this is extremely difficult to
>>> accomplish even with spikes.
>>
>> I would like to ask why is it less detrimental
>> to the sound if the vibrations are passed into
>> the floor?
>>
>Ideally, any energy which can be passed out of the
>system (audio environment) is a good thing. The
>glass windows in your listening room, for example,
>allow some bass energy to pass through to the
>outside of your home. OTOH, bass energy will
>readily be captured/reverberate when it reflects
>off hard wall surfaces traveling back-and-forth
>across the room (slow decay of enegry).
>
>
>> And what is the purpose of spikes - to increase
>> or decrease the vibrations passing into the floor
>> (or is there some other purpose)?
>>
>Ideally, in term of coupling, spikes for example,
>one is looking for the most mechanically efficient
>way to join the speaker mass with the larger
>room mass. This coupling effect creates the
>easiest path for mechanical energy to pass out
>of one system to another.
>
>Another way to look at it. If a speaker could
>be suspended in space, unhindered by gravity,
>we see the speaker moving in all three plains
>(X,Y,Z) at different rates. The resulting pattern
>of movement is the acoustic cabinet signature.
>When we successfully couple a stand to a
>speaker cabinet we change the pattern of
>movement (sonic signature) because we’ve
>added mass and changed the shape of the
>traducer (speaker cabinet) when it resonates.
>
>And yet another metaphor. Speaker stands
>when fill with a sympathetic composite material
>acts as a filter converting some of the
>mechanical energy to heat due to the friction,
>but it is not a linear effect across the wave
>form/frequency. The remaining energy will
>either reflect backup into the speaker cabinet
>adding chaotic wave forms or pass out of the
>system into the floor. The unique shape of a
>spike add directionality/mechanical
>efficiency/directional filter.
>
>And finally see Stereophile Vol. 15 No. 9, page
>162-170 for yet another viewpoint.
>
>
>> PS. Using that www.glowfoto.com to publish
>> your picture: press Browse, choose your image,
>> press Click To Upload, copy the url from the first box
>> below the picture that will appear in a few seconds.
>>
>http://www.glowfoto.com/viewimage.php?img=12-105449L&y=2005&m=12&t=jpg&rand=2301&srv=img2
>
>Please note for simplicity sake I choose a
>graph which shows zero or positive results.
>This is not always the case for each frequency
>tested. Different speakers result in different
>sonic signatures. In essence, every speaker
>has a unique sonic signature for a given
>speaker stand (system which makes up
>the stand).
>
18dB at 63Hz, 5dB at 4000Hz? Hardly LoT's!

[Kalle Heinänen]

> http://www.stereophile.com/features/806/ .

Interesting. Although I didn't read it through 100%.

What do you think, let's say we have a Genelec speaker (or maybe some other
ok speaker). Which is better to have right below the speaker: spikes or a
piece of rubber and why? (For your information Genelec delivers "isopod", a
piece of rubber with it's 8000-series speakers.)

Or is it so that you just have to listen to all the possibilities and there
are no general rules?

[Kalle Heinänen]

Thanks for the answer. Some more questions..

> Ideally, any energy which can be passed out of the
> system (audio environment) is a good thing.

Why is it a good thing? Sounds like in that case the ideal listening
environment would be an echoless room (which is something most would
disagree, wouldn't they).

> Ideally, in term of coupling, spikes for example,
> one is looking for the most mechanically efficient
> way to join the speaker mass with the larger
> room mass.

So, let me recap. The purpose of the spikes is to pass the vibrations to the
floor either as efficiently as possible or maybe in some cases efficiently,
but also in a controlled way so that some frequencies/direction of movement
are filtered more than others.

And, the good thing about vibrations passing to the floor is that it allows
minimal resonances (causing uneven frequency response to the listener) for
the stand? In other words, spikes help reducing stand resonances by passing
them to the floor? The spikes also affect the decay of sound. Please correct
any mistakes.

> And finally see Stereophile Vol. 15 No. 9, page
> 162-170 for yet another viewpoint.

This I couldn't find at their webpage.

> http://www.glowfoto.com/viewimage.php?img=12-105449L&y=2005&m=12&t=jpg&rand=2301&srv=img2

Thanks a lot for the image.

[John Atkinson]

Kalle Heinänen wrote:
>John Atkinson fruitlessly recommended Mike McKelvy read:
> > http://www.stereophile.com/features/806/ .
>
> Interesting. Although I didn't read it through 100%.

No problem.

> What do you think, let's say we have a Genelec speaker (or maybe some other
> ok speaker). Which is better to have right below the speaker: spikes or a
> piece of rubber and why? (For your information Genelec delivers "isopod",a
> piece of rubber with it's 8000-series speakers.)

The problem is that the audibility of any cabinet resonant mode, as
well as
depending on the radiating area affected, also depends on Q and
frequency.
If it is of high-Q and of a freuqency that "falls between the gaps"
with
modern-tuned music, it might be less audible when allowed to develop
fully
by using upturned spikes than by damping it with rubber. This will
lower
the Q but might make the resonant mode more audible by now allowing
music with energy away from the center frequency to more fully excite
it.

> Or is it so that you just have to listen to all the possibilities and there
> are no general rules?

Unfortunately, that's about it. Each speaker is an individual and what
works
best with one might not be the best solution for another. About the
only
general rule is that the higher the frequency of a resonance, the less
likely
it will degrade sound quality, both due to it not lasting as long and
not as
likely to be fully excited.

In my speaker reviews, I place the speaker on upturned cones to allow
what resonances exist to develop fully. "Know your enemy." :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Powell]

"Kalle Heinänen" wrote

> Thanks for the answer. Some more questions..
>
>> Ideally, any energy which can be passed out of the
>> system (audio environment) is a good thing.
>
> Why is it a good thing? Sounds like in that case
> the ideal listening environment would be an
> echoless room (which is something most would
> disagree, wouldn't they).
>
Echoless rooms/chambers are often used to
determine the ultimate/theoretical fidelity of a
particular speaker. OTOH, manufactures must
live within the confines of the listening rooms
being used by their customer. In many cases
manufactures make adjustments in the
speaker's frequency response to accommodate
for this. As a result it is possible, for example,
to purchase a speaker system which is to
large for a room/acoustic signature.

Most rooms are constructed with sheetrock
walls in some type of rectangular configurations
with parallel surfaces. Generally speaking,
rooms that aren’t specifically treated with acoustic
materials generate excessive sound wave
energizes. The problem is compounded as
loudness levels/sound pressures rise.


>> Ideally, in term of coupling, spikes for example,
>> one is looking for the most mechanically efficient
>> way to join the speaker mass with the larger
>> room mass.
>
> So, let me recap. The purpose of the spikes
> is to pass the vibrations to the floor either as
> efficiently as possible or maybe in some cases
> efficiently, but also in a controlled way so that
> some frequencies/direction of movement are
> filtered more than others.
>
Yes, you have the thrust of it.

> And, the good thing about vibrations passing
> to the floor is that it allows minimal resonances
> (causing uneven frequency response to the
> listener) for the stand? In other words, spikes
> help reducing stand resonances by passing
> them to the floor? The spikes also affect the
> decay of sound. Please correct any mistakes.
>
Well, yes and no. The purpose of good stands
is to establish the correct height for listening
(sound stage) and in the process increase the
fidelity of the sound emanating from the speaker
enclosure. And I’ve said this is accomplished by
increasing the effective mass, changing the
effective resonating shape and its efficiency to
dumps unwanted energy into another system.
The stand is a machine and as such has limits.
They can easily be overwhelmed as speaker
volumes approach high levels of output/loudness.

Or another metaphor. If we compare two
identical speakers, one on effective stands and
the other on conventional wood stands, for
example, we would notice that effective
speaker would be noticeably quieter (lower
total dBs) than the other. The difference is the
direct result of eliminating some of the
sound which used to be generated by the
speaker cabinet (transducer effect).


>> And finally see Stereophile Vol. 15 No. 9, page
>> 162-170 for yet another viewpoint.
>
> This I couldn't find at their webpage.
>
>> http://www.glowfoto.com/viewimage.php?img=12-105449L&y=2005&m=12&t=jpg&rand=2301&srv=img2
>
> Thanks a lot for the image.
>
Yup :)

[Powell]

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote

>>http://www.glowfoto.com/viewimage.php?img=12-105449L&y=2005&m=12&t=jpg&rand=2301&srv=img2
>>
>>Please note for simplicity sake I choose a
>>graph which shows zero or positive results.
>>This is not always the case for each frequency
>>tested. Different speakers result in different
>>sonic signatures. In essence, every speaker
>>has a unique sonic signature for a given
>>speaker stand (system which makes up
>>the stand).
>>
> 18dB at 63Hz, 5dB at 4000Hz? Hardly LoT's!
>
You're not interpreting the data correctly,
its 49 dB effective.

[Goofball_star_dot_etal]

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 16:20:14 -0500, "Powell" >
wrote:

>
>"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote
>
>>>http://www.glowfoto.com/viewimage.php?img=12-105449L&y=2005&m=12&t=jpg&rand=2301&srv=img2
>>>
>>>Please note for simplicity sake I choose a
>>>graph which shows zero or positive results.
>>>This is not always the case for each frequency
>>>tested. Different speakers result in different
>>>sonic signatures. In essence, every speaker
>>>has a unique sonic signature for a given
>>>speaker stand (system which makes up
>>>the stand).
>>>
>> 18dB at 63Hz, 5dB at 4000Hz? Hardly LoT's!
>>
>You're not interpreting the data correctly,
>its 49 dB effective.
>
>
Right... You do know your dBs.. don't you..

[ScottW]

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 16:20:14 -0500, "Powell" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote
> >
> >>>http://www.glowfoto.com/viewimage.php?img=12-105449L&y=2005&m=12&t=jpg&rand=2301&srv=img2
> >>>
> >>>Please note for simplicity sake I choose a
> >>>graph which shows zero or positive results.
> >>>This is not always the case for each frequency
> >>>tested. Different speakers result in different
> >>>sonic signatures. In essence, every speaker
> >>>has a unique sonic signature for a given
> >>>speaker stand (system which makes up
> >>>the stand).
> >>>
> >> 18dB at 63Hz, 5dB at 4000Hz? Hardly LoT's!
> >>
> >You're not interpreting the data correctly,
> >its 49 dB effective.
> >
> >
> Right... You do know your dBs.. don't you..

What is meant by "accumulative reduction"?

ScottW

[Goofball_star_dot_etal]

On 15 Dec 2005 13:52:46 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:

>
>Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 16:20:14 -0500, "Powell" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote
>> >
>> >>>http://www.glowfoto.com/viewimage.php?img=12-105449L&y=2005&m=12&t=jpg&rand=2301&srv=img2
>> >>>
>> >>>Please note for simplicity sake I choose a
>> >>>graph which shows zero or positive results.
>> >>>This is not always the case for each frequency
>> >>>tested. Different speakers result in different
>> >>>sonic signatures. In essence, every speaker
>> >>>has a unique sonic signature for a given
>> >>>speaker stand (system which makes up
>> >>>the stand).
>> >>>
>> >> 18dB at 63Hz, 5dB at 4000Hz? Hardly LoT's!
>> >>
>> >You're not interpreting the data correctly,
>> >its 49 dB effective.
>> >
>> >
>> Right... You do know your dBs.. don't you..
>
> What is meant by "accumulative reduction"?
>

Don't ask me. Isn't adding dBs a weeny bit like multipling. Seems a
big number, so it must be very good.

[ScottW]

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
> On 15 Dec 2005 13:52:46 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >
> >Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
> >> On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 16:20:14 -0500, "Powell" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote
> >> >
> >> >>>http://www.glowfoto.com/viewimage.php?img=12-105449L&y=2005&m=12&t=jpg&rand=2301&srv=img2
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Please note for simplicity sake I choose a
> >> >>>graph which shows zero or positive results.
> >> >>>This is not always the case for each frequency
> >> >>>tested. Different speakers result in different
> >> >>>sonic signatures. In essence, every speaker
> >> >>>has a unique sonic signature for a given
> >> >>>speaker stand (system which makes up
> >> >>>the stand).
> >> >>>
> >> >> 18dB at 63Hz, 5dB at 4000Hz? Hardly LoT's!
> >> >>
> >> >You're not interpreting the data correctly,
> >> >its 49 dB effective.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Right... You do know your dBs.. don't you..
> >
> > What is meant by "accumulative reduction"?
> >
>
> Don't ask me. Isn't adding dBs a weeny bit like multipling. Seems a
> big number, so it must be very good.

I guess... looks to me like somewhere around 100 Hz and below his
stand is bit too good.

ScottW

[Goofball_star_dot_etal]

On 15 Dec 2005 14:12:58 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:

>
>Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
>> On 15 Dec 2005 13:52:46 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 16:20:14 -0500, "Powell" >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote
>> >> >
>> >> >>>http://www.glowfoto.com/viewimage.php?img=12-105449L&y=2005&m=12&t=jpg&rand=2301&srv=img2
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>Please note for simplicity sake I choose a
>> >> >>>graph which shows zero or positive results.
>> >> >>>This is not always the case for each frequency
>> >> >>>tested. Different speakers result in different
>> >> >>>sonic signatures. In essence, every speaker
>> >> >>>has a unique sonic signature for a given
>> >> >>>speaker stand (system which makes up
>> >> >>>the stand).
>> >> >>>
>> >> >> 18dB at 63Hz, 5dB at 4000Hz? Hardly LoT's!
>> >> >>
>> >> >You're not interpreting the data correctly,
>> >> >its 49 dB effective.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> Right... You do know your dBs.. don't you..
>> >
>> > What is meant by "accumulative reduction"?
>> >
>>
>> Don't ask me. Isn't adding dBs a weeny bit like multipling. Seems a
>> big number, so it must be very good.
>
> I guess... looks to me like somewhere around 100 Hz and below his
>stand is bit too good.
>
I'm not too keen on the bit between 100 and 16kHz either.

[Goofball_star_dot_etal]

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 16:20:14 -0500, "Powell" >
wrote:

>
>"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote
>
>>>http://www.glowfoto.com/viewimage.php?img=12-105449L&y=2005&m=12&t=jpg&rand=2301&srv=img2
>>>
>>>Please note for simplicity sake I choose a
>>>graph which shows zero or positive results.
>>>This is not always the case for each frequency
>>>tested. Different speakers result in different
>>>sonic signatures. In essence, every speaker
>>>has a unique sonic signature for a given
>>>speaker stand (system which makes up
>>>the stand).
>>>
>> 18dB at 63Hz, 5dB at 4000Hz? Hardly LoT's!
>>
>You're not interpreting the data correctly,
>its 49 dB effective.
>
>
50dB is a power ratio of 1:100,000 (unless I brain farted). You cannot
be saying that one curve shows ~100,000 times the power of the other.
What ARE you claiming?

[Sander deWaal]

Goofball_star_dot_etal > said:

>>> 18dB at 63Hz, 5dB at 4000Hz? Hardly LoT's!

>>You're not interpreting the data correctly,
>>its 49 dB effective.


>50dB is a power ratio of 1:100,000 (unless I brain farted). You cannot
>be saying that one curve shows ~100,000 times the power of the other.
>What ARE you claiming?


You just don't get it, do you?

Those are PMPO dBs.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

[Goofball_star_dot_etal]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 17:29:40 +0100, Sander deWaal >
wrote:

>Goofball_star_dot_etal > said:
>
>>>> 18dB at 63Hz, 5dB at 4000Hz? Hardly LoT's!
>
>>>You're not interpreting the data correctly,
>>>its 49 dB effective.
>
>
>>50dB is a power ratio of 1:100,000 (unless I brain farted). You cannot
>>be saying that one curve shows ~100,000 times the power of the other.
>>What ARE you claiming?
>
>
>You just don't get it, do you?
>
>Those are PMPO dBs.

Yes of course! I have a friend who has not heard the term. Perhaps you
could explain it better for him than I could.

[Sander deWaal]

Goofball_star_dot_etal > said:

>>Those are PMPO dBs.

>Yes of course! I have a friend who has not heard the term. Perhaps you
>could explain it better for him than I could.


One of my very rare talents is to thoroughly obscure otherwise
crystal-clear matters to a degree that, after my interference, no one
knows anymore what was discussed in the first place.

So, I'll have to pass on this one, note.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

[Goofball_star_dot_etal]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 20:34:23 +0100, Sander deWaal >
wrote:

>Goofball_star_dot_etal > said:
>
>>>Those are PMPO dBs.
>
>>Yes of course! I have a friend who has not heard the term. Perhaps you
>>could explain it better for him than I could.
>
>
>One of my very rare talents is to thoroughly obscure otherwise
>crystal-clear matters to a degree that, after my interference, no one
>knows anymore what was discussed in the first place.
>
>So, I'll have to pass on this one, note.

Thanks a lot, PAL.
Handbrakes with separate pads on front, inboard discs are cool, note.

[Sander deWaal]

Goofball_star_dot_etal > said:

>Handbrakes with separate pads on front, inboard discs are cool, note.


Thank's mr. Goffball or whatever name your , using this week for
admitting you don't know the, differnece between a DS and a CX
, LOL! :-(

(well, you got the separate handbrake pads part correct, note)

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

[Goofball_star_dot_etal]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 23:48:39 +0100, Sander deWaal >
wrote:

>Goofball_star_dot_etal > said:
>
>>Handbrakes with separate pads on front, inboard discs are cool, note.
>
>
>Thank's mr. Goffball or whatever name your , using this week for
>admitting you don't know the, differnece between a DS and a CX
>, LOL! :-(
>
>(well, you got the separate handbrake pads part correct, note)

I had a GS and I know every bit, pal.

[Sander deWaal]

Goofball_star_dot_etal > said:

>>>Handbrakes with separate pads on front, inboard discs are cool, note.


>>Thank's mr. Goffball or whatever name your , using this week for
>>admitting you don't know the, differnece between a DS and a CX
>>, LOL! :-(

>>(well, you got the separate handbrake pads part correct, note)


To add more confusion: the CX has its discs in the wheels, almost like
a normal car.


>I had a GS and I know every bit, pal.


One needs to, when one lives remote, you will note.

Especially when they are Slough-built ;-)

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

[Kalle Heinänen]

Ok. I think I've learned something within this thread.

So, a speaker stand (and it's placement) can basically do two essential
things to the sound:

- change the frequency response
- change the decay of each frequency

If I have proper equipment to measure those two things, I'm basically set to
make proper comparisons of speaker stands. Of course the use of one's own
ear is relevant as well.