[John Casler]

I am not one to start "trouble", but there are a few things, I don't get in audio.

That is, I see posts about "very specific" subjects that the poster is paying "extreme" attention to, that supposedly make a "HUGE" difference and then in reading about or viewing the system/set up I see glaring faults in the system that are "infinitly" more important and easier/cheaper to do.

Here are a couple:

Spikes used on wooden floors but with pennies or brass cups under them????  What is this all about?  I know what spikes are for, (mechanically coupling to the floor) but adding the coins or the smooth brass cups "defeats" that whole mechanism.  What surface is most likely to allow a spike to "uncouple" and slide than a slick, hard metal surface?

Another is:

Reviewers that have "no" acoustic treatment, unless they are extremely esoteric like Ming Ping and Shakti type devices.  

Just recently, I wrote to one of, if not the most notable "online" reviewers about his lack of "ANY" acoustic treatment whatsoever.  Now I know there may be value in not using too much since the average person may want to know what something sounds like in a "real home" environment.  

But, if one is to truly be listening to the "minutia and signifcant" differences between components, they cannot be fully determined with "NO" treament.  Its like reviewing front projection TV in the daylight with all the lights on

This particular reviewer "stunned me" by stating that "reflected sound" was not a problem in his room, which in my estimation was a sonic nightmare.

Another:

Why do "audiophiles" concern themselves with "high dispersion" characteristics of their speakers?  Now granted we all want out systems to sound "good" even if we are in another room, but isn't it most important to create the best sonic theater for when we are seriously listening?

Doesn't higher dispersion mean more "mid fi", in the sweet seat?  If higher dispersion means more room reflection, reduced imaging, and sonic hash to listen through, why would we care that a few cymbal or triangle sounds aren't as bright when we have our Wheaties at the breakfast table?

Another:

Using terms that don't make sense: like saying that spikes on equipment "drain" vibration or resonances????  What is that all about?

Unless I am seriously underinformed, there is no such thing as "draining" vibration like water in a sink.

Can someone explain how the energy/action of a vibrating or resonating body caused by a force setting a body in motion is "drained"???

Obviously we can "track" that the mechanical coupling can add mass and stability to the spiked component and "reduce" its succeptability to the force causing the vibration, but to state that the metallurgy, or shape (beyond general specifics) is better at "draining" makes me say...Hmmm

I could go on, but I assume others might have similar questions.  

And this post is not to start big flame wars, but to maybe explore some of the more quirky (and I know I do some quirky things ) directions and seemingly strange paths we take to further our listening enjoyment.

It is also meant to allow explaination and clarification to some of the "psuedo-science" (or downright incorrect science) we are subjected to everyday in audio, be it by marketer's of products, (snake oil spiels) or uninformed or partially informed hobbyists.

And while this may border on the subjectivist/objectivist arena, I am not interested in the, "if it can't be measured it can't be heard argument".

And it is not to spark argument about philosophies, but more to provide an exchange of ideas about prefernces and system philosophies.

I am interested in simply looking at some of the questions we all have about some of the strange, yet accepted practices and maybe shining a flashlight on them to be able to more easily understand:

1) What they "really are"
2) If they really work
3) If something else in the system wouldn't produce a much better result for the money and effort.
4) Might they be something for our systems or are they questionable mumbo-jumbo?

OK, Have at it

[JoshK]

agree with a lot of what you say and the high dispersion arguement is absolutely positively true, even measureably so.  The idea for obtaining better focus and imaging lies with reducing the defraction.   You really can't have them both.

[meilankev]

John,

Like Josh, I also agree with most of what you state.  However, I disagree on the guaranteed "mind-blowing benefits" of Room Treatments (that many on this site espouse).

While I fully admit that Room Treatments will almost certainly have a profound effect on the sound of a system (as compared to an untreated room), it is wrong to assume that every audio enthusiast will consider this "effect" to be beneficial.

Depending on his/her personal preferences (their priorities, if you will), they may not find Room Treatments to be the cure-all it is hailed as.  I know I didn't (for my room, with my system, with my "goals").

Room Treatments:
Big difference?  Absolutely.
Magic elixir? Possibly, but no guarantee.

Kevin

[cjr888]

Agree with you on most -- especially the points and coins.

As for treatment, I understand your point, but you're also coming from having never seen the room, or heard anything in the room.  Also I may be incorrect in this assumption, but whether a room is treated or untreated, if its not measured, thought out, and _understood_, does haphazard treatment necessarily provide one with a better reviewing stance?  Some things may sound better, some things may be affected, but if its not understood exactly what the outcome is, does that make you that much better off two compare two things?  In my mind, that would just be differently subjective, though in many ways, it would indeed probably sound better.  Regarding reviews, the things that drive me nuts are reviews with zero comparisons, speaker reviews with poor amplifier matching, and amplifier reviews with poor speaker matching.

Dispersion -- This I disagree on.  Speakers have different designs for different reasons, and people have different preferences.  So it depends on your end goals.  For me,  I personally do not have someone strap me into medical apparatus akin to the movie watching scene in Clockwork Orange to keep my head and eyes in perfect positioning, with proper posture, and measure my exact ear height when I want 'critical listening.'  To me its not serious listening, its ridiculous listening.  It sounds uncomfortable, and as a human, I occasionally like to move my head.  Sometimes I'll even do crazy stuff...like stand up.  Being relaxed and comfortable has more effect of drawing me into the music than swapping cables.  This sort of practice reminds me more of people that review books rather than read books for pleasure.  I'm not an archivist or an editor, I'm a music lover.  Sometimes I might even, <gasp>, listen on the left sofa cushion instead of the right.  Occasionally, other people listen to the system as well.  Some people are after that perfection found in a 3 inch by 3 inch square, and for them, there are plenty of products that meet their needs.  Not for me though.

Vibration and Energy - I'll leave these to the people that understand it.  See my comments on tweaky things.  Plenty of science here, but rarely ever a one size fits all scenario, and quite a number of products want to sell it as such.

Regarding Tweaky Things -- There is a lot of mumbo jumbo and there is a lot of good, but tweaky things often mean understanding what you're trying to tweak...which we often don't.  So part a sellers irresponsibility in stating that it will improve anything and everything (part faulted by the fact that they do not understand what they are selling themselves), and part us chasing after improvement at any corner.  This combined with the fact that a lot of little finishing touches are chased after while core issues haven't been solved or taken to their rational end.  When they have, often looking into the tweaky things provides enormous change rather than no change.

[PhilNYC]

Using terms that don't make sense: like saying that spikes on equipment "drain" vibration or resonances???? What is that all about? ...

I am not sure I buy the explanation, but here is Symposium's discussion regarding "drainage" and cones:

http://www.symposiumusa.com/tech1.html

[ctviggen]

I used spikes and put copper washers under them to protect my wood floors (and now my tile).  Honestly, I couldn't tell any difference from when the speakers had no spikes and when they had spikes and copper washers.  The spikes and copper washers, however, allowed me to get rid of the wobble when the speaker was put on a warped surface (as my wood floors were and my tile is).

I think that room treatments are much better than no room treatments.  Having said that, I still have an untreated room (although I've tested room treatments in this room, and the treatments had a tremendously positive effect).  But good treatments are over a grand, so it's on my list but it'll be a while before I get them.

[PhilNYC]

I know what spikes are for, (mechanically coupling to the floor) ...

Btw - this has always confused me a little bit.  Depending on who you talk to (including speaker manufacturers, dealers, audiophiles), some say that spikes "couple" your speaker to the floor, while others say that spikes "decouple" your speakers to the floor.  In my mind, the idea of "decoupling" makes more sense to me that "coupling"...that without spikes, the contact between the speaker and the floor will make the floor resonate.  Can you explain why spikes "couple" instead of "decouple"?  Symposium touches on it a little bit...

For whatever the explanation is, I've consistently found that spikes on speakers make improvements to the sound...

As far as "high dispersion" goes, I don't think it has much to do with sound quality in another room.  But it does affect placement, particularly in the distance between speakers.  Audio Physic is known as a "high dispersion" speaker, and if you place them far appart, you can still maintain a credible and integrated sound with good imaging (even outside of the sweetspot).  You run into issues with room interaction and such if placed too close to the walls, but if you don't have those issues, you can really get fantastic soundstage/imaging in your listening room.  On the other hand, Amphion speakers are specifically designed with a shaped dispersion pattern to avoid room interaction...they are much more restrictive in how far appart you can place them, yet they are not as restrictive regarding how near they are to your walls.  So (at least in my experience) dispersion patterns are very important in placement and room interaction...and whether you want "high" or "narrow" is completely dependent on those factors.

[audioengr]

Why do "audiophiles" concern themselves with "high dispersion" characteristics of their speakers? Now granted we all want out systems to sound "good" even if we are in another room, but isn't it most important to create the best sonic theater for when we are seriously listening?

Doesn't higher dispersion mean more "mid fi", in the sweet seat? If higher dispersion means more room reflection, reduced imaging, and sonic hash to listen through, why would we care that a few cymbal or triangle sounds aren't as bright when we have our Wheaties at the breakfast table?

For myself, dispersion has to do with sweet-spot and is mostly a function of the speakers themselves.  High-dispersion speakers, such as ribbons are great for parties, where everyone gets a taste of good cymbols etc..  The problem is that these speakers are difficult to place and do the right acoustic treatments for this very reason.  Speakers with small sweet-spot are generally easier to place in the room and require less acoustic treatments.  My 2cents.

[Double Ugly]

Spikes used on wooden floors but with pennies or brass cups under them????  What is this all about?  I know what spikes are for, (mechanically coupling to the floor) but adding the coins or the smooth brass cups "defeats" that whole mechanism.  What surface is most likely to allow a spike to "uncouple" and slide than a slick, hard metal surface?

I can't speak to what other manufacturers "cups" do or don't do, but I can state without hesitation or reservation that the coupling discs from Star Sound Technologies absolutely do make a difference, and for the better.  I've seen it demonstrated, and I've heard the difference in my home with my system.  If you'd like to learn more, here's a short blurb from their website about the APCD2 coupling discs:  http://www.audiopoints.com/apcd2.html

Using terms that don't make sense: like saying that spikes on equipment "drain" vibration or resonances????  What is that all about?

Unless I am seriously underinformed, there is no such thing as "draining" vibration like water in a sink.

Can someone explain how the energy/action of a vibrating or resonating body caused by a force setting a body in motion is "drained"???

If you're sincerely interested in discovering the truth, I suggest calling Robert Maicks at Star Sound - (877) 668-4332.  He's out of the office today, but he will probably be back Monday morning.  In the meantime, I have a white paper that may address some of your concerns/questions.  I will send it to you if you like...just let me know.  Conversely, if you're just having fun with a rant (which your use of multiple question marks and choice of verbiage might suggest), that's fine too.

I've compared Audio Points to various other points, blocks and gooey rubbery things, and Audio Points simply perform better than anything else I've tried.  That's why I use them, and why I became a representative of the products.  Others here have come to believe in the products too, including Horsehead, reefrus, SP Pres, Karsten, Lou Hinkley of Daedalus Audio and JAM'n Joe Jurzec to name a few.  Bill Baker of Response Audio was so impressed that Audio Points are now standard fare in some of his higher-end modifications.

If someone doesn't want to believe it, they won't.  No phone call or white paper or personal demonstration will change that.  But if anyone is genuinely interested in determining whether it's science or snake oil, it's easy enough to do.

-Jim

[lonewolfny42]

[/list:u]

DU,[/list:u]
As from the above photo, I see points on the stand bottom, do you use the points under the speaker as well ? Or is the speaker just "sitting" on the stand (top) ? Thanks. [/list:u]

[John Casler]

John,

Like Josh, I also agree with most of what you state.  However, I disagree on the guaranteed "mind-blowing benefits" of Room Treatments (that many on this site espouse).

While I fully admit that Room Treatments will almost certainly have a profound effect on the sound of a system (as compared to an untreated room), it is wrong to assume that every audio enthusiast will consider this "effect" to be beneficial.

Depending on his/her personal preferences (their priorities, if you will), they may n ...

Hi Kevin,

I certainly agree with you that "to treat or not to treat" is based on "preference".

My bias/prefence leans toward not using any room sound to change what was recorded.

My rant, however was more to the fact that a very high level reviewer has a room that is not treated in any way, to discern differences between components.

This is comparable to testing a Ferrari on a Formula One Course and a City Street.  The true abilities would be clearer on the race course, even if they couldn't be used (65MPH speed limits) in the real world.  I guess one could argue, that most don't/won't have a treated room, but that is begining to change.

I might have mentioned in an earlier thread that the "noise" that many put up with in an untreated room far outweighs any of the distortion or S/N ratios of all their components combined.

And again this was relative to "sonically" testing and reviewing components to "hear" the most subtle of differences.

But in actual use, some untreated rooms sound "incredible" and I enjoy them very much.

[John Casler]

Regarding Tweaky Things -- There is a lot of mumbo jumbo and there is a lot of good, but tweaky things often mean understanding what you're trying to tweak...which we often don't. So part a sellers irresponsibility in stating that it will improve anything and everything (part faulted by the fact that they do not understand what they are selling themselves), and part us chasing after improvement at any corner. This combined with the fact that a lot of little finishing touches are chased after while core issues haven't been solved or taken to their rational end. When they have, often looking into the tweaky things provides enormous change rather than no change.  .

Being a "Crazy Tweak'ophile" I am with you on that one.

[John Casler]

Using terms that don't make sense: like saying that spikes on equipment "drain" vibration or resonances???? What is that all about? ...

I am not sure I buy the explanation, but here is Symposium's discussion regarding "drainage" and cones:

http://www.symposiumusa.com/tech1.html

Hi Phil,

Thanks for the Link,

I find it interesting that there is a picture of Einstein there sticking his tongue out, since I would bet that is exactly what he would do to that explanation.

I read the page and I don't think anyone with even High School Physics would concur with most of it.

I especially like the "vibrations are like electrical waves" direction.

While the world is filled with a spectrum of vibration for Zero to Light, this point while semi-valid is certainly obfuscating

From what I can see, spikes, cones and the like are "mechanical coupling devices" that effectively increase the mass of the connected objects and increased mass resists vibration.  It does not "drain" from one to the other.  It combines their masses.

If some one really wants to reduce vibration which would work better:

1) setting the component on 3 "cones"?

 or

2) welding or even screwing the component to to 100# of steel (or the resonant specific material of your choosing)?

While number 2 would certainly offer the best coupling and reduction of vibration, number one is easier and works OK.

But neither "drain".  At best they offer a "coupling".

Again, thanks for the link.

[John Casler]

Btw - this has always confused me a little bit.  Depending on who you talk to (including speaker manufacturers, dealers, audiophiles), some say that spikes "couple" your speaker to the floor, while others say that spikes "decouple" your speakers to the floor.  In my mind, the idea of "decoupling" makes more sense to me that "coupling"...that without spikes, the contact between the speaker and the floor will make the floor resonate.  Can you explain why spikes "couple" instead of "decouple"?  Symposium touch ...

Hi again Phil,

Good question.

On the surface and in most situations, "I" would look to "mechanically couple" a speaker to the floor.

This is again simply to the laws of basic physics.  A speaker generally causes its drivers to move forwards and backwards pushing on air.

This action has much the same reaction on the speaker cabinet itself as you get if in a swimming pool and push the water in front of you with your hands.  While you push the water forward, (action) it also propels you backwards (reaction).

A similar action/reaction is seen when you move your hands back in position to do it again.

This too is what happens to the speaker pushing on the air.  The affect of coupling the speaker to the floor reduces small reactive movements of the cabinet.

What does this accomplish?  It means that when a bass note is being played, that the leading edge of that wave (actually each Hz) is more crisp and accurate.  If the cabinet moves forward and backward a little bit, the edges of each Hz or cycle are "softened".

If you "decouple" it is like shooting a shotgun in a canoe, and that would really wreak havoc with your transient responses and all that makes for tight clean sound, since the cabinet would "react" all over the place if the woofer is moving any air at all.  And I might mention that the reactive problem is not just from pushing on the air, but also the momentum/inertia of starting and stoping the woofer mass itself.

And as far as the vibration traveling through the floor, that is seldom a problem.

Now that doesn't mean that the vibration won't travel through the floor cause it will.  It just means that unless you have flimsy wood floor that the airborne low frequency waves will "push on" and affect a larger area of the floor, than horizontally transmitted vibrations.

And if the floor is concrete or more rigid, it is a moot point.

At least that is my understanding of the physics involved.

Coupling and adding mass to speakers which move any air at all is alwaus a good idea (especially subs)

[doug s.]

i have a few comments.  re: sound treatment, as others have said, i think it makes more of a difference depending on what type of room you have.  w/a larger room, & your speakers far away from walls, ceiling, etc., then little or perhaps no special treatment may be needed.  no more than, say, a rug on a hard floor between your listening spot & the speakers.

i have similar comments about speakers w/a wide vs narrow dispersion pattern.  i have heard excellent examples of both types.  that said, speakers w/wide dispersion characteristics *do* need a large space and/or serious absorption treatment at 1st reflection points.  some of the best soundstaging i've ever heard have come from the older ohm walsh drivers.    these drivers radiate the sound in a 360 degree pattern on the horizontal plane.  but, they need to be out in a room to sound their best.

re: spikes for speakers/stands, i think spikes directly into a wood floor would be better than placing discs under them, but i still think spikes w/discs is still *way* better than no spikes.  cuz yure still increasing by a large degree the psi being created when you place a speaker on spikes w/discs.  for example, say your 80 lb speaker is 8"x16", & is setting flat on the floor.  that's 0.625 lbs/sq-in.  if you set it on three spikes w/ three 1" discs under 'em, yure now looking at 26.667 lbs/sq-in.  that's a *huge* increase, & will offer a huge improvement, imo....

re: an equipment reviewer having an acoustically untreated room, i would again refer to my above comments - it depends on the room.  and, while a smaller room w/o sound treatment may work relatively better for speakers w/narrow dispersion, as a reviewer, i'd want to have a set-up that would be best for the widest possible wariety of gear.  of course, this isn't always possible.  to really do justice as a reviewer, i'd think at least two rooms would be needed, as some gear (speakers especially) works so much better in either large or small rooms, depending on the gear/speaker...

doug s.

[John Casler]

I can't speak to what other manufacturers "cups" do or don't do, but I can state without hesitation or reservation that the coupling discs from Star Sound Technologies absolutely do make a difference, and for the better. I've seen it demonstrated, and I've heard the difference in my home with my system. If you'd like to learn more, here's a short blurb from their website about the APCD2 coupling discs: http://www.audiopoints.com/apcd2.html
...

Hi Jim,

Yeah, I am just having fun and hope all take my "questions" (and answers) as "food for thought".

If, in fact, the cups you use from Star are Mechanical "coupling" devices they are doing the right thing (IMHO)

The surface of a "coin" or a round smooth cup will generally not do this.

From what I can see, the cups have a small "indent" that fits the point of the spike so they offer a secure coupling.

I have read their "white papers" and while most of these companies speak of vibration in some strange ways, I suppose that most of it is their way of explaining it.  At least I didn't see the term "draining"

But they did say:

The APCD2'S geometrical design draws energy away from the tip of the Audio Point™ and transfers it to the surface the disc resides on.

This is slightly "Hmmmm" since the cup doesn't "draw" energy away, it simply couples the two masses, which dampens and resists all vibration experienced by either.

I've compared Audio Points to various other points, blocks and gooey rubbery things, and Audio Points simply perform better than anything else I've tried. That's why I use them, and why I became a representative of the products. Others here have come to believe in the products too, including Horsehead, reefrus, SP Pres, Karsten, Lou Hinkley of Daedalus Audio and JAM'n Joe Jurzec to name a few. Bill Baker of Response Audio was so impressed that Audio Points are now standard fare in some of his higher-end modifications.

While I haven't used them, they appear to be well made, and obviously arent the "smoothie cups" or coins, I was refering to.

And to make sure, my questions are understood, I am a "strong" beleiver in "mechanical coupling" for "specific" applications.

[PhilNYC]

Hi again Phil,

Good question.

On the surface and in most situations, "I" would look to "mechanically couple" a speaker to the floor.

This is again simply to the laws of basic physics.  A speaker generally causes its drivers to move forwards and backwards pushing on air....

John,

I guess my question is a little different.  Whether there is a preference for coupling or decoupling is not what I am asking.  I am asking whether spikes on speakers couple or do they decouple?  Because if you look up 3rd party spike manufacturers on the web, and sometimes even speaker manufacturers, there is a gross inconsistency as to what they call spikes...some call them "decoupling spikes", while others call them "coupling spikes".  From what I can tell, none of the spikes I have seen are physically any different from others...so I would imagine that either all of the "couple" or all of them "decouple".  

[John Casler]

John,

I guess my question is a little different.  Whether there is a preference for coupling or decoupling is not what I am asking.  I am asking whether spikes on speakers couple or do they decouple?  Because if you look up 3rd party spike manufacturers on the web, and sometimes even speaker manufacturers, there is a gross inconsistency as to what they call spikes...some call them "decoupling spikes", while others call them "coupling spikes".  From what I can tell, none of the spikes I have seen are phys ...

Hi Phil,

I guess my first post to this thread was also questioning those smooth little cups that would actually make spikes more "decoupling" since they would appear to let the spikes "slip and slide".

Other than that, I haven't seen any "decoupling" spikes.

Unless they are on springs or made of a elastic/springy material, it seems unlikely they would "decouple"???

Do you have any websites?

[PhilNYC]

Do you have any websites?

Do a Yahoo search with the following two phrases and see what comes up:

"audio speaker spikes decouple"

"audio speaker spikes couple"

[PhilNYC]

Btw - I found an explanation on AudioAsylum from Brian Cheney which says spikes do both, depending on the frequency...

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/speakers/messages/40070.html