Speaker Performance - Spikes, platform, etc.??

Ethan Winer · « **Reply #100 on:** 13 Jul 2005, 04:54 pm »

John,

> I "mass load" them ... All loudspeakers are subject to the reactive forces of their larger drivers. <

I accept that loudspeakers can vibrate as you describe. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, what specifically do you believe is improved from "mass loading" or any other such thing?

> Number one means that as a wave is formed not all of its "energy" is translated into the movement of air. Some efficiency is lost. <

Okay, that's a reduction in volume. Have you been able to measure that with a dB meter?

> the rise time of the tone <

Rise time directly relates to high frequency response. Have you measured a loss of high frequency response?

All of the things you describe have parallels in known audio parameters. Nothing you have said so far can be ascribed to a phenomena that can be heard but not measured.

--Ethan

Ethan Winer · « **Reply #101 on:** 13 Jul 2005, 05:44 pm »

Steve,

> Hope you don't take this exchange personally. Life is more than audio. Love to buy you a beer if we ever meet. <

Not at all, I agree, and you're on, in that order.

--Ethan

Steve · « **Reply #102 on:** 13 Jul 2005, 05:55 pm »

Ethan, are you going to the CES/The Show this coming January?

Steve

John Casler · « **Reply #103 on:** 13 Jul 2005, 06:17 pm »

Quote from: Ethan Winer

John,

> I "mass load" them ... All loudspeakers are subject to the reactive forces of their larger drivers. <

I accept that loudspeakers can vibrate as you describe. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, what specifically do you believe is improved from "mass loading" or any other such thing?

> Number one means that as a wave is formed not all of its "energy" is translated into the movement of air. Some efficiency is lost. <

Okay, that's a reduction in volume. Have you been able to measure that with a dB meter?

> the rise time of the tone <

Rise time directly relates to high frequency response. Have you measured a loss of high frequency response?

All of the things you describe have parallels in known audio parameters. Nothing you have said so far can be ...

Ethan,

Sometimes I think either I am not writing well or your getting confused with issues.

In my last post I outlined what might be reason to mass load or spike a speaker. I also mentioned what I felt I heard.

I "did not" say that those were not measurable or not. Frankly I don't care if they are. If you wish to measure them to your satisfaction I would suggest you do it.

I would gues that you could measure cabinet "talk", and I would guess that you could measure reasonances from a wood floor.

It seems you are confusing the arguments.

Argument #1: I think mass loading can improve the sound of "some" speakers and subs, under certain conditions. These improvemnts may or may not be measurable.

Argument #2: Entirely seperate from #1, is that you stated "everything we hear can be measured, and I gave example of things that we hear that might not be measurarable, or at least deciphered when measured.

That is about as clear as I can make it.

ScottMayo · « **Reply #104 on:** 13 Jul 2005, 07:28 pm »

Anything that can be heard, can be measured. Arrays of microphones and sampling gear exists, that is far more sensitive than human hearing.

But not everything that can be measured can be understood. Play a piece of music in a well controlled environment, and record the playback with extremely accurate gear. Then do it again, with different speaker cables. You'll get a difference in the captured data. Is that evidence of speaker cable differences? No. You'd get a difference even if you left the speaker cables alone, because no speaker is capable of exactly reproducing what it did last time, to the accuracy possible with modern measurement gear (we're not talking ratshack db meters here). No two events ever happen the same way; measure accurately enough and you'll always find a difference.

Do the differences matter? Would they have been audible to a human? Debate rages.

To the best of my knowledge, we can measure pretty much anything in the audio realm, we just don't know how significant it all is to the human experience.

My take is, measure as accurately as you can, and use the data to get your system set up, initially. Then fiddle it to perfection, and hope the measurements and the fiddling had something to do with the end result.

So if people want to put spikes under their speakers - or their amps - then let'm. I'm sure it all makes some difference to some electron somewhere, at the quantum level. And if people think they can hear that, then great. I've got some Magic Unobtanium Quantum Foam Time Decoupled Flux Enhancers for them.

Tweaker · « **Reply #105 on:** 13 Jul 2005, 08:41 pm »

Quote

I've got some Magic Unobtanium Quantum Foam Time Decoupled Flux Enhancers for them.

I tried them. Didn't like the fact they kept disappearing and reappearing in different places in my room. Other than that they do tighten up the bass considerably.

John Casler · « **Reply #106 on:** 13 Jul 2005, 09:00 pm »

Quote from: Bingenito

Quote
I "personally" don't use spikes or cones under my speakers, I "mass load" them, so you have several different things at play.

John can you please provide more detail on the mass loading. Are you slapping some 45 lb plates on the speakers?

Seriously what kind of weight are you using and can you recommend where they can be purchased because I would like to give it a try.

Thank you

Bryan

Yes, I use "rubber covered" Olympic Barbell plates, or sometimes the rubber coated (not plastic) dumbbells.

I purchase mine from Kamway

http://www.kamway.com/catalog_c114364_1.html

http://www.kamway.com/catalog_c115440.html

I think your a dealer, so call them and ask if you can get dealer prices.

PS they smell like rubber/tires for a couple weeks so you might want to put them on the patio for 14 days or so.

maxwalrath · « **Reply #107 on:** 13 Jul 2005, 10:21 pm »

Wouldn't it just be easier to put some weight on speakers and try it, or put something under a player/amp and try that rather than debate this for 11 pages?

Adz523 · « **Reply #108 on:** 13 Jul 2005, 11:43 pm »

Quote from: maxwalrath

Wouldn't it just be easier to put some weight on speakers and try it, or put something under a player/amp and try that rather than debate this for 11 pages?

Agree. And as the thread starter can I at least conclude that there should be no downside (sonically) from using spikes in my particular setup (carpeted basement); meaning, its either: 1. neutral - no sonic improvement, or if there is a sonic improvement: 2. it may be audible or 3. may not be audible to everyone and possibly noone?

Ethan Winer · « **Reply #109 on:** 14 Jul 2005, 03:35 pm »

Steve,

> are you going to the CES/The Show this coming January? <

No, but I'll be at AES (with a booth) in New York this October. Any chance you'll be there?

--Ethan

Ethan Winer · « **Reply #110 on:** 14 Jul 2005, 03:38 pm »

John,

> I would gues that you could measure cabinet "talk", and I would guess that you could measure reasonances from a wood floor <

I agree with that, and we're really not so far apart. All of the stuff you've mentioned seems plausible to me. Where we differ is the extent of the change, and whether it can be measured.

--Ethan

Ethan Winer · « **Reply #111 on:** 14 Jul 2005, 03:44 pm »

Max,

> Wouldn't it just be easier to put some weight on speakers and try it ... rather than debate this for 11 pages? <

Yeah, you'd think so!

The main problem (as I see it) is people often believe they heard a change even when none could possibly exist. I believe this is at the root of these kinds of debates, kept going by the fact that human hearing and auditory memory are very frail.

--Ethan

John Casler · « **Reply #112 on:** 14 Jul 2005, 04:57 pm »

Quote from: Ethan Winer

John,

> I would gues that you could measure cabinet "talk", and I would guess that you could measure reasonances from a wood floor <

I agree with that, and we're really not so far apart. All of the stuff you've mentioned seems plausible to me. Where we differ is the extent of the change, and whether it can be measured.

--Ethan

Yes that is true, but it seems to me a leap in logic.

What I mean is, that there are "no doubt" things that can be measured that can "NOT" be heard. Of that there is no argument.

But because that is so, it doesn't mean that "everything that can be heard" can be measured and deciphered to a greater degree.

While we can measure decibal increments much smaller that we could perceive, no one can look at a graph of a group of instruments playing and even tell you what instrument was playing where.

So we have to agree that not "all things" can be measured in a deciperable way.

Of course that day my soon come, but it is not hear yet.

And I do 100% agree that much of the time, the "incredible" differences, that people report are either way over estimated, or non-existant. (Mine included)

That said, the more experience you have with "specific" reference material, the better prepared you are to have an improved ability to more accurate perceptions.

Somewhere between sonic accuracy, and personal prefernces, lies the audiophiles sweet spot. It is as "fragile" and "individual" as a snowflake, yet some would have you beleive it is as solid as the Rock of Gibraltar.

amitm · « **Reply #113 on:** 15 Jul 2005, 03:30 am »

Some relevant measurements and information can be found here:

http://www.stereophile.com/reference/806/index.html

--amit

maxwalrath · « **Reply #114 on:** 15 Jul 2005, 03:42 am »

Where have you been all this time?

Seriously, thanks amitm, that's some really interesting stuff.