[[email protected]]

Any recommendations on a pair of monitor stands that's better than the
regular musician's friend etc stuff? It's for a pair of dynaudio
BM-15a's.

I can spend up to $500 if absolutely necessary but would rather spend
less...

Thanks!

[Joseph Ashwood]

wrote in message
ups.com...
Any recommendations on a pair of monitor stands that's better than the
regular musician's friend etc stuff? It's for a pair of dynaudio
BM-15a's.


Define better. For a monitor stand, if it is effective it doesn't matter
much if it made out of used toilet tissue. So "better" in that sense is very
difficult to quantify. By better do you mean will hold the monitors in place
more firmly? will position them at height X more properly? Will look like
you spent money on your studio? Or some other option?
Joe

[hank alrich]

wrote:

Any recommendations on a pair of monitor stands that's better than the
regular musician's friend etc stuff? It's for a pair of dynaudio
BM-15a's.

I can spend up to $500 if absolutely necessary but would rather spend
less...

Thanks!

www.soundanchors.com

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 20:33:49 -0700, wrote:

Any recommendations on a pair of monitor stands that's better than the
regular musician's friend etc stuff? It's for a pair of dynaudio
BM-15a's.

I can spend up to $500 if absolutely necessary but would rather spend
less...

The best you can get for cheap is a stack of concrete blocks.
Use a rubber sheet between the top block and the (slippery)
speaker bottom.

Then, if you're serious, put another rubber sheet and half-
block on top. Call it art; your work is done.


But, if you're determined to spend the whole 500, cut a few holes
in your floor and pour a concrete pillar down to God's Own Dirt,
for each speaker.

Never seen it done (for speakers), but can easily imagine it
being a strong visual in an increasingly visually competitive
commercial world.



And semi-seriously: speakers need a big dead mass to react against.
Their moving parts are necessarily (in the usual case) really heavy
compared to the air that they work to move. Brute reactive mass is
our friend here.

There's really no practical limit to how big and dead this mass
would ideally be. Numbers of 80 to 100 dB are pretty big numbers,
but can make a milligram's (moving mass) reaction from a kilogram
(reactive mass) significant, with the frequency modulation. All
movements of the platform frequency modulate all other sounds. Like
that.

Fortunately, mass is cheap here on Earth. Hifi is gonna be expensive
in the Lagrange Zone. Arf.



All good fortune,

Chris Hornbeck
"The air is always curved if you choose to see it."
-Steve McMullen reviewing the first Curved Air album

[Laurence Payne]

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 20:33:49 -0700, wrote:

Any recommendations on a pair of monitor stands that's better than the
regular musician's friend etc stuff? It's for a pair of dynaudio
BM-15a's.

I can spend up to $500 if absolutely necessary but would rather spend
less...

Can't you arrange a way to firmly support your monitors in an
appropriate position without paying boutique prices? What do you feel
"better" would involve?

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
Any recommendations on a pair of monitor stands that's better than the
regular musician's friend etc stuff? It's for a pair of dynaudio
BM-15a's.

I can spend up to $500 if absolutely necessary but would rather spend
less...

To stand on a desk, or a floor? To mount to the top of a rack and point
down? To suspend from the ceiling?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On Jul 7, 1:53 am, Chris Hornbeck
wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 20:33:49 -0700, wrote:
Any recommendations on a pair of monitor stands that's better than the
regular musician's friend etc stuff? It's for a pair of dynaudio
BM-15a's.

I can spend up to $500 if absolutely necessary but would rather spend
less...

The best you can get for cheap is a stack of concrete blocks.
Use a rubber sheet between the top block and the (slippery)
speaker bottom.

Then, if you're serious, put another rubber sheet and half-
block on top. Call it art; your work is done.

But, if you're determined to spend the whole 500, cut a few holes
in your floor and pour a concrete pillar down to God's Own Dirt,
for each speaker.

Never seen it done (for speakers), but can easily imagine it
being a strong visual in an increasingly visually competitive
commercial world.

And semi-seriously: speakers need a big dead mass to react against.
Their moving parts are necessarily (in the usual case) really heavy
compared to the air that they work to move. Brute reactive mass is
our friend here.

There's really no practical limit to how big and dead this mass
would ideally be. Numbers of 80 to 100 dB are pretty big numbers,
but can make a milligram's (moving mass) reaction from a kilogram
(reactive mass) significant, with the frequency modulation. All
movements of the platform frequency modulate all other sounds. Like
that.

Fortunately, mass is cheap here on Earth. Hifi is gonna be expensive
in the Lagrange Zone. Arf.

All good fortune,

Chris Hornbeck
"The air is always curved if you choose to see it."
-Steve McMullen reviewing the first Curved Air album

thanks much

[[email protected]]

On Jul 7, 12:10 am, "Joseph Ashwood" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...

Any recommendations on a pair of monitor stands that's better than the
regular musician's friend etc stuff? It's for a pair of dynaudio
BM-15a's.

Define better. For a monitor stand, if it is effective it doesn't matter
much if it made out of used toilet tissue. So "better" in that sense is very
difficult to quantify. By better do you mean will hold the monitors in place
more firmly? will position them at height X more properly? Will look like
you spent money on your studio? Or some other option?
Joe

better means one that will not transfer too much into the floor, and
won't go all wobbly if you move it a few times

[[email protected]]

On Jul 7, 8:44 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
wrote:
Any recommendations on a pair of monitor stands that's better than the
regular musician's friend etc stuff? It's for a pair of dynaudio
BM-15a's.

I can spend up to $500 if absolutely necessary but would rather spend
less...

To stand on a desk, or a floor? To mount to the top of a rack and point
down? To suspend from the ceiling?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

I think they only use stands that hang from the ceiling in
australia...

[Six String Stu[_2_]]

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jul 7, 8:44 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
wrote:
Any recommendations on a pair of monitor stands that's better than the
regular musician's friend etc stuff? It's for a pair of dynaudio
BM-15a's.

I can spend up to $500 if absolutely necessary but would rather spend
less...

To stand on a desk, or a floor? To mount to the top of a rack and point
down? To suspend from the ceiling?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

I think they only use stands that hang from the ceiling in
australia...


roflmao
I live in the US of A but I got a crazy image of you typing that while
standing on yer head. ;-)

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
On Jul 7, 8:44 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
wrote:
Any recommendations on a pair of monitor stands that's better than the
regular musician's friend etc stuff? It's for a pair of dynaudio
BM-15a's.

To stand on a desk, or a floor? To mount to the top of a rack and point
down? To suspend from the ceiling?

I think they only use stands that hang from the ceiling in
australia...

Ceiling suspension was a really big thing for a while. You don't see it
too often any more except in broadcast facilities, in part because it's
hard to get good solid low frequency coupling with suspension. But I still
see it around.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Carey Carlan]

(Scott Dorsey) wrote in
:

Ceiling suspension was a really big thing for a while. You don't see
it too often any more except in broadcast facilities, in part because
it's hard to get good solid low frequency coupling with suspension.
But I still see it around.

Isn't the whole purpose of hanging by wires to isolate and prevent
coupling?

[Laurence Payne]

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 15:22:48 GMT, Carey Carlan
wrote:

Ceiling suspension was a really big thing for a while. You don't see
it too often any more except in broadcast facilities, in part because
it's hard to get good solid low frequency coupling with suspension.
But I still see it around.

Isn't the whole purpose of hanging by wires to isolate and prevent
coupling?

I thought it was to get the speakers conveniently in the right
position. Surely appropriate positioning in a good-sounding room is
far more important than any coupling effects?

[Scott Dorsey]

Carey Carlan wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) wrote in
:

Ceiling suspension was a really big thing for a while. You don't see
it too often any more except in broadcast facilities, in part because
it's hard to get good solid low frequency coupling with suspension.
But I still see it around.

Isn't the whole purpose of hanging by wires to isolate and prevent
coupling?

Right. Unfortunately now you have speakers physically vibrating in the
air because they aren't held down with a large mass, even though they
don't effectively conduct vibration into the structure any more. You want
the speaker cabinets steady because you want no radiation of sound from
the cabinet, only from the drivers.

I think the real reason that people do this, though, is because radio
studios tend to be very crowded and it allows you to put the speakers in
reasonably optimal positions (ie. with the tweeter at ear level) without
using up any floor or desk space.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

wrote:
On Jul 7, 8:44 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
wrote:
Any recommendations on a pair of monitor stands that's
better than the regular musician's friend etc stuff?
It's for a pair of dynaudio BM-15a's.

To stand on a desk, or a floor? To mount to the top of
a rack and point down? To suspend from the ceiling?

I think they only use stands that hang from the ceiling
in australia...

Ceiling suspension was a really big thing for a while.
You don't see it too often any more except in broadcast
facilities, in part because it's hard to get good solid
low frequency coupling with suspension. But I still see
it around.

Well, you've got the right evidence, but the interpretation??

The fact that suspending speakers by means of say fishing line has little
effect on their sound would seem to make the point that mechanically
coupling the speaker to its support makes very little sonic difference.

F=MA seems to apply to speakers. The M is usually very large compared to F,
so the A is quite small.

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger wrote:

The fact that suspending speakers by means of say fishing line has little
effect on their sound would seem to make the point that mechanically
coupling the speaker to its support makes very little sonic difference.

But it does, it has a noticeable effect on the sound at low frequencies,
and you can see the effect on a waterfall plot.

What's worse is that many folks don't use fishing line, but something like
heavy chain which often makes interesting parasitic sounds when shaken.

F=MA seems to apply to speakers. The M is usually very large compared to F,
so the A is quite small.

The M isn't anywhere near large enough. That's why we fill speaker stands
with lead shot. If you can physically see the speakers moving around when
the volume is turned up, there's a problem.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Carey Carlan]

(Scott Dorsey) wrote in
:

Carey Carlan wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) wrote in
:

Ceiling suspension was a really big thing for a while. You don't
see it too often any more except in broadcast facilities, in part
because it's hard to get good solid low frequency coupling with
suspension. But I still see it around.

Isn't the whole purpose of hanging by wires to isolate and prevent
coupling?

Right. Unfortunately now you have speakers physically vibrating in
the air because they aren't held down with a large mass, even though
they don't effectively conduct vibration into the structure any more.
You want the speaker cabinets steady because you want no radiation of
sound from the cabinet, only from the drivers.

I think the real reason that people do this, though, is because radio
studios tend to be very crowded and it allows you to put the speakers
in reasonably optimal positions (ie. with the tweeter at ear level)
without using up any floor or desk space.

So the coupling you were talking about above is coupling the driver to
air, not coupling reflections off a boundary. Action-and-reaction work
freely in a suspended speaker.

Can I assume that a mounted speaker fixed firmly in place (ignoring
reflections off the stand) would theoretically have cleaner bass than a
suspended speaker at the same location?

[Tim Padrick]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:

The fact that suspending speakers by means of say fishing line has little
effect on their sound would seem to make the point that mechanically
coupling the speaker to its support makes very little sonic difference.

But it does, it has a noticeable effect on the sound at low frequencies,
and you can see the effect on a waterfall plot.

What's worse is that many folks don't use fishing line, but something like
heavy chain which often makes interesting parasitic sounds when shaken.

F=MA seems to apply to speakers. The M is usually very large compared to
F,
so the A is quite small.

The M isn't anywhere near large enough. That's why we fill speaker stands
with lead shot. If you can physically see the speakers moving around when
the volume is turned up, there's a problem.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Rigid stands, spiked to the floor, are quite beneficial. One manufacturer
took laser measurements of the cabinet movement of their 5" 2-way. Playing
recorded music at normal listening levels, with the stands not spiked to the
floor but just setting on very thin office carpet, they found that the
speaker cabinet movement was about 10 times as large as the tweeter's
maximum possible excursion. What kind of distortion do you suppose that is
causing?

[Lars Farm]

Tim Padrick wrote:

Rigid stands, spiked to the floor, are quite beneficial. One manufacturer
took laser measurements of the cabinet movement of their 5" 2-way. Playing
recorded music at normal listening levels, with the stands not spiked to the
floor but just setting on very thin office carpet, they found that the
speaker cabinet movement was about 10 times as large as the tweeter's
maximum possible excursion. What kind of distortion do you suppose that is
causing?

Spikes... a thing I never really understood. So, the idea of spikes is
to create a firm, rigid connection between the cabinet and the large
rigid mass of the floor? Where there is a carpet, set the cabinet on the
floor rather than floating on the carpet. If there's no carpet would
spikes still be beneficial? and do you have to drive them down into the
wood like nails to get any effect? what if the floor is of stone?

L


--
lars farm // http://www.farm.se
lars is also a mail-account on the server farm.se

[Mike Rivers]

On Jul 10, 2:21 am, "Tim Padrick" wrote:

Rigid stands, spiked to the floor, are quite beneficial.

Is "spiked" in your native language a term meaning "solidly attached"
like the base is nailed or screwed to the floor? Or are you talking
abou those little brass cones designed to couple the speakers to the
floor or shelf that audiophiles buy?

And if the latter, was the study conducted by a company that sells
those speaker spikes?

[Laurence Payne]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 01:21:09 -0500, "Tim Padrick"
wrote:

Rigid stands, spiked to the floor, are quite beneficial. One manufacturer
took laser measurements of the cabinet movement of their 5" 2-way. Playing
recorded music at normal listening levels, with the stands not spiked to the
floor but just setting on very thin office carpet, they found that the
speaker cabinet movement was about 10 times as large as the tweeter's
maximum possible excursion. What kind of distortion do you suppose that is
causing?

I don't know? What sort? What frequency is the cabinet movement?

Also consider the tweeter is propagating into an air mass already
oscillating at the frequencies pumped out by the other units.

[Laurence Payne]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 03:48:41 -0700, Mike Rivers
wrote:

Rigid stands, spiked to the floor, are quite beneficial.

Is "spiked" in your native language a term meaning "solidly attached"
like the base is nailed or screwed to the floor? Or are you talking
abou those little brass cones designed to couple the speakers to the
floor or shelf that audiophiles buy?

And if the latter, was the study conducted by a company that sells
those speaker spikes?

No, some stands do come with, literally, spikes. Into carpet I can't
see they do anything at all. They'd make a mess of a wooden floor.

[Scott Dorsey]

Lars Farm wrote:
Tim Padrick wrote:

Rigid stands, spiked to the floor, are quite beneficial. One manufacturer
took laser measurements of the cabinet movement of their 5" 2-way. Playing
recorded music at normal listening levels, with the stands not spiked to the
floor but just setting on very thin office carpet, they found that the
speaker cabinet movement was about 10 times as large as the tweeter's
maximum possible excursion. What kind of distortion do you suppose that is
causing?

Spikes... a thing I never really understood. So, the idea of spikes is
to create a firm, rigid connection between the cabinet and the large
rigid mass of the floor? Where there is a carpet, set the cabinet on the
floor rather than floating on the carpet. If there's no carpet would
spikes still be beneficial? and do you have to drive them down into the
wood like nails to get any effect? what if the floor is of stone?

Yes, the point is that the spikes penetrate the carpet and give you nice
solid coupling. It's certainly not the only way to achieve that, of course,
and the audiophiles tend to go overboard with them, but they work.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Powell]

"Lars Farm" wrote

Spikes... a thing I never really understood. So, the idea
of spikes is to create a firm, rigid connection between the
cabinet and the large rigid mass of the floor?

Good speaker points firmly attached to the speaker's
bottom and completely coupled to the underfloor will
reduce audible cabinet residence at medium to high
SPLs.

FYI...

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."


Where there is a carpet, set the cabinet on the
floor rather than floating on the carpet.

For maximum effectiveness spikes should not
be run through any type of carpet interface
(carpet/foam).

If you have high quality carpet, spikes just won't
penetrate the carpet/pad substrate. The tightly
woven jute backing and under pad are the problem.
The conical shape of spikes simply will not couple
to the sub-floor... and I mean tightly. While it might
appear (feel) to you that your spikes are firmly in
they are still supported by the carper/pad. Sound
pressure measurements and auditioning indicate
only a poor improvement.


If there's no carpet would spikes still be beneficial?

Ideal application.


and do you have to drive them down into the wood
like nails to get any effect?

No. If the speaker is of sufficient mass (weight)
spikes or high quality casters work well.


what if the floor is of stone?

If you mean concrete... very good effectiveness.
There are many variables to consider because
each material you spike to is sympathetic at
some frequencies.

[Powell]

"Laurence Payne" wrote

They'd make a mess of a wooden floor.

Has done very little damage to my oak floor.

[Powell]

"Mike Rivers" wrote

And if the latter, was the study conducted by a company
that sells those speaker spikes?

Perhaps you might consider getting off your penguin butt
and doing your own homework.

[Laurence Payne]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 10:38:32 -0400, "Powell"
wrote:


"Mike Rivers" wrote

And if the latter, was the study conducted by a company
that sells those speaker spikes?

Perhaps you might consider getting off your penguin butt
and doing your own homework.


I suppose there might be the odd audiophool thing that makes a
difference. But the track record's so bad, I'm disinclined to waste
time testing.

[Powell]

"Laurence Payne" wrote

I suppose there might be the odd audiophool thing
that makes a difference. But the track record's so
bad, I'm disinclined to waste time testing.

I suspect the fidelity of your monitoring system
reflects that too. Most of what is claimed to be
*audio engineered* these days is just product
pushed out the door.

[Mike Rivers]

On Jul 10, 10:38 am, "Powell" wrote:

Perhaps you might consider getting off your penguin butt
and doing your own homework.

Did you have some reason for saying this? Is the kettle feeling a
little black today?

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:

The fact that suspending speakers by means of say fishing line has little
effect on their sound would seem to make the point that mechanically
coupling the speaker to its support makes very little sonic difference.

But it does, it has a noticeable effect on the sound at low frequencies,
and you can see the effect on a waterfall plot.

Evidence?

F=MA seems to apply to speakers. The M is usually very large compared to
F,
so the A is quite small.

The M isn't anywhere near large enough.

Evidence?


A subwoofer driver might have 200 grams of moving mass. It would be put
into an enclosure along with itself, giving a total mass on the order of 20
kilograms or more. That is a 100:1 ratio.

If you will allow that for every action there is an equal and opposite
reaction, then the motion of the enclosure is 1% or less of that of the
moving mass of the driver. That's like 0.1 dB - measurble but hardly
audible.

That's why we fill speaker stands with lead shot.

Well, some audiophiles do.

If you can physically see the speakers moving around when
the volume is turned up, there's a problem.

You mean "physically see the speaker enclosures moving around when the
volume is turned up", right?

Never saw it happen to a significant degree. In the example above, the
enclosure if freely suspended and with the cone moving say 25 mm, would have
the enclosure moving 0.25 mm - no doubt palpable vibration but not
significant motion.

[combssl]

Tim Padrick wrote:

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:

The fact that suspending speakers by means of say fishing line has little
effect on their sound would seem to make the point that mechanically
coupling the speaker to its support makes very little sonic difference.

But it does, it has a noticeable effect on the sound at low frequencies,
and you can see the effect on a waterfall plot.

What's worse is that many folks don't use fishing line, but something like
heavy chain which often makes interesting parasitic sounds when shaken.

F=MA seems to apply to speakers. The M is usually very large compared to
F,
so the A is quite small.

The M isn't anywhere near large enough. That's why we fill speaker stands
with lead shot. If you can physically see the speakers moving around when
the volume is turned up, there's a problem.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Rigid stands, spiked to the floor, are quite beneficial. One manufacturer
took laser measurements of the cabinet movement of their 5" 2-way. Playing
recorded music at normal listening levels, with the stands not spiked to the
floor but just setting on very thin office carpet, they found that the
speaker cabinet movement was about 10 times as large as the tweeter's
maximum possible excursion. What kind of distortion do you suppose that is
causing?

I'm using these,
http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showd...number=240-744 you can
pay more but probably won't get more