[Antman27]

Hello all,My Speakers are on a solid wood pice of funiture that is 67 " long and 20" high .The speakers now sit right on the wood shelf with a 50" TV in the middle of them.
Will speaker spikes help inprove my speakers if I get them up off the wood shelf OR should I look to put rubber adsorbor feet under the speakers ?
I do not want to raise them much more than one inch or the tweeters will be to high than ,will spikes destroy the funiture that they are on now.
Can anyone point me in the right direction.
WILL RAISING THEM OF OF THE FUNITURE INPROVE OVERALL SOUND ?
Thanks ~

[PhilNYC]

I'm of the opinion that raising the speakers off of the furniture will improve the sound.  I've never tried rubber feet. but as with anything in audio, it never hurts for you to give it a try, especially if it doesn't cost that much.

[Antman27]

something like this ?

http://www.audioadvisor.com/store/productdetail.asp?sku=BSISONODES

OR
http://www.audioadvisor.com/store/productdetail.asp?sku=VIBRA4

any other suggestions ?

[Bill Baker]

With the furniture aside, this now comes to the debate of coupling vs decoupling. My personal preference is coupling using good quality brass cones.

 For example, take a look at www.audiopoints.com
 You can get these in a 1" height as well as the disc to go under the brass cones to protect the surface underneath. These will allow you to transfer the energy out of the speaker (laymans terms).

 Every audio product resonates to a certain degree. It is how you hande this reonance that maters.

[John Casler]

I think your first line of business is to determine if spiking, which is mechanically coupling, will make the cabinet or shelving they are on "resonate".

If it does, then spiking would of course be a bad idea.

Or if "de-coupling" might make them sound "cleaner", by not allowing them to transfer resonance to the wood shelving.

Spikes, blue tac, suspension devices, etc, would then be the things to look at.

Even a simple section of "foam" under the speaker might be enough to de-couple,and or damp resonance to the cabinet for a simple trial.

But in any event, you need to determine which method will yeild the best result, because if you spike and the whole cabinet then emits sound, you probably won't like it.

If you isolate and the bass is softened, wooly and muddy, you also have a problem.

Good luck.

[JLM]

Vibrapods makes both isolators and cones at very reasonable prices that keep a low profile and offer both isolation and coupling options to try:

http://www.vibrapod.com/

[Tweaker]

I would also recommend spikes from Audiopoints or Mapleshade. As long as your shelves are reasonably rigid, as John Casler mentioned, a good set of spikes will significantly improve the sound. As far as Vibropods or other like decoupling products I have never liked what they do to the sound no matter what I've tried them under. As a result I have a pile of them in a drawer and if interested I would sell them to you very cheap, if you do want to try them, but I honestly don't think you would like the results.
Mapleshade has a 30 day full refund thing if you want to try their Conepoints and I beleive that is also true with Audiopoints. Audiopoints also sells a brass disc that will protect the furniture from the point. Also, what kind of speakers are they, how large? If they are smallish two-ways you can always turn them upside down on the shelf to compensate for the tweater being too high, if that ends up being the case. Sound quality won't suffer as a result.

[PhilNYC]

something like this ?

http://www.audioadvisor.com/store/productdetail.asp?sku=BSISONODES

OR
http://www.audioadvisor.com/store/productdetail.asp?sku=VIBRA4

any other suggestions ?

Of these two, I would go with the first one...they appear to get the speaker up a little higher up, and they also appear to have less surface area contact.

Brass cones are what I've used in the past, and i have found them to be very effective.  The Audiopoints that Bill refers to are known to be good, but if you don't want to spend that much, brass cones can definitely be had for much less (although I don't know a specific place right off the top of my head).

[Folsom]

You know for being hunks of brass those are insanely expensive.

[_scotty_]

I have to vote for roller ball type feet under speakers used in rooms with
suspended wood floors. Similar gains should be possible by using Darumas
under speakers  sitting on a flexible and or resonant shelf.
Scotty

[Rocket]

Hi Guys,

Timely Thread!  I'm starting my speaker building project in the next month and i'm after some inexpensive speaker spikes and internal wiring.  Any ideas?

Regards

Rod

[James Romeyn]

There are almost too many variables to list here, but the bottom line is what you prefer.  

Sound travels faster via a solid medium (floor), slower through air.  So sound waves originating from your speakers traveling via the floor to the listener will arrive immediately before the waves through the air medium.  The time difference is so short that the ear can not differeniate them, & percieves the air arrival as distortion or a ghost image.

The better the coupling between the speaker & floor (via spikes etc) the stronger the ghost image.  So all things being equal, it's better if the speaker does not rely on the floor's sympathetic vibration for bass reinforcement, & to use something like Dynamat to insulate the speaker from it's contact surface.  (VMPS used to do this & still may on their most expensive models.)  Dynamat can leave a residue on the floor, so you might want to prevent that by laying down a protective surface (plastic, linoleum, etc.)

VMPS may not be the first manufacturer to promote the speaker-bottom insulating idea, but they are the first I know of (started early-mid '90's).  Since then at least one other high-end company made the same suggestion for the same reason.  (It is well accepted that solids transmit faster than air.  The "beauty" of the above suggestion is up to the beholder.)
 
My 2c.

[_scotty_]

Antman27,you might also look into sorbothane footers available from Gary at   http://www.pandathumbaudio.com/  .  If you tell Gary how much your speakers weigh he could tell you which if his products would be most effective under your speakers.  
Scotty

[JLM]

IMO none of this matters much if you keep the sound pressure levels (spl)within a reasonable range.  There are three sources of vibrations:

1. Self induced (speakers being the obvious example).  It's been said that in poorly braced speakers more sound energy can come from the cabinet than the drivers.  Some designers advertise that they account and even use this fact in their design.  Personally I don't want all my music colored by the cabinet, so I'm a believer of inert, massive speaker cabinets.  The heavier the cabinet the greater energy will be required to create a resonance at a lower frequency.  The same applies to transports and any component that "hums".  Cabinets should be well braced and stiff.  Every component within your piece of equipment (resistors, caps, chips, etc.) are mounted so as to be thought of structurally as cantilevers, the worst possible scenaro.  Thus the interest in tube dampers, adding potting clay to chips, sheets of sound deadening materials for equipment walls, and adding weights.

2. Air borne.  Unless you're talking about extreme spls or your components are shaped like an airplane wing there isn't much here to talk about.  Tone arms are the exception, but hopefully you have a dust cover that will resolve the issue.

3. From the support itself.  Soft wooden floors are the usual culprit.  The worst ones are those without drywall or similar attached to the underside as this adds stiffness and the blocks resonate vibrations from below.  Some have reported 20 dB peaks at certain frequencies caused by wooden floors over crawl spaces.  Raised platforms are perhaps the worst example.

Resonance is another key and has three factors of it's own: mass, material, and shape.  By shape I include span, thickness, and bracing.  Obviously metal rings like a bell.  Adding a different material to create a composite is one option discussed below.  And mass should be easy to understand as what we're discussing here is transfer of mechanical energy.  

Another point to be made here to think in terms of resonance frequencies.  The theoretical model is a series of  attached springs.  Some are big and stiff, others small.  The massive, inert ones would only vibrate at very low frequencies and under heavy loading.  Even the Earth is a spring (and has a resonate frequency of 1 - 2 Hz).  This is how composites work as one material can filter out at least some of the energy at a given frequency from reaching the other material that has a different resonate frequency.  

Back to your speakers.  

A perfect coupling (100% energy transfer at all frequencies) between speakers and table would create a composite object with greater mass (a good thing on two counts), but the table is designed like a wing (a minor bad thing), and probably isn't as inert as the speaker itself (another bad thing).  Bolting the speaker directly to the table could create this perfect coupling.  Note that nearly any product available relies on gravity for the coupling (a relatively weak force).  

At the other end of the spectrum would be to float the component (an AC vendor offers such a device that uses magnets).  This eliminates the support induced vibration source, but leaves the component on it's own for self-induced or air borne vibrations.  Of course putting it inside an air tight cover and having remote control would take care of the air borne vibrations, which might work well for DACs, pre-amps, and power amps.

I don't care for roller supports as they do almost nothing in the horizontal plane (and they're a PITA).  These devices, and spikes, create a composite with the component and the support so the material used does affect how vibrations are filtered (honestly though I can't understand how the resonant frequency of different metals in these shapes would make an appreciable difference).  And I can't imagine how the shape of a spike or roller cup would make a difference either.  Note that a spike disc or roller cup adds another coupling interface that most fail to consider.

The soft coupling devices work in three dimensions and don't rely on ringing metal.  Not sure if Gary still sells Panda Feet.  I like his stuff and his site helps to explain some of this (they're inexpensive sorbothane feet designed for given load ranges).  They're the only such device I ever bought.  But we both agree that the Panda Feet seem to have little benefit for digital equipment (DACs and amps).  The Vibrapods/Vibracones avoid the expensive snake-oil route and now offer a variety of options.

OTOH I've never heard a difference with any isolation product, so much of this seems to be only theory to me, although I try to be open to possibilities beyond what generally accepted science can explain.  (For instance I can't figure out how a brass spike is sized to different loads.)

[James Romeyn]

At least two TT manufacturer's used to tout this theory.  

Which vibrates more, the source component or the surface to which it will couple (floor, platform, etc.)?  (I don't know how the above test might be performed except to play bass heavy program material & move your fingertips over the item being tested for vibration.)

Better, more solid coupling of the source to the surface (spikes) will better transmit the vibration between the two.  Isolating the source from the surface (sorbethane, etc.) will resist transmission of the vibration between the two.

If the source vibrates more than the surface, the goal is to increase the coupling between the two, to increase the source's greater vibration to the more inert surface.  If the surface vibrates more than the source, the goal is the isolate the two, to resist the surface's greater vibration to the more inert source.

[Antman27]

WOW thats a bit of info ,
I am not sure what will sound better Cuppled or not But I would think the speakers are cuppled now just sitting wood to wood ?
The Funiture vibrates when I play music !

[JLM]

Of course the speakers are coupled to the table (else they would fall down, eh?).  But how effectively and at what frequencies is the question.

If the table vibrates, I'd definitely use soft coupling devices like sorbothane or Vibrapods.

Most supports are far less inert than the speakers that are on them.  they're light, unstable, and made of hollow metal.  Again, the keys to resonance control are mass, material, and shape.  Some guys around here have been using inexpensive concrete garden pedestals.  Now that's the answer for standmounted speakers.

IMO the best answer is a stable, heavy, and inert floorstander.

[Antman27]

UPDATE
I just installed audio  points on my paradigm studio 40 & this is my first impression

The soundstage improved (just in 2 CH it sounded like surround )  the mids were cleaner and the lows were tighter NOT big thumpin lows but tighter cleaner lows.
I will also give vibropads a try when I get them BUT I think I am sold on the audio points althow they are not cheep !
I am spending to much time in the  AV forums

Next I will address my center speaker -Denon 3805-and paradigm PDR8 sub.
The sub has like 3" plastic feet on it now , the floor is a cement floor with a thick carpet & carpet pad .what do you suggest for the sub ?
When I do the 3805 do I take the stock feet off ?

Thanks again Ant Cant wait till I can crank  it up But the baby & wife are sleeepin now ~

[Bill Baker]

Next I will address my center speaker -Denon 3805-and paradigm PDR8 sub.
The sub has like 3" plastic feet on it now , the floor is a cement floor with a thick carpet & carpet pad .what do you suggest for the sub ?
When I do the 3805 do I take the stock feet off ?

 If you like what the Audio Points did for your speakers, I think you will truly appreciate their capabilities under your sub. Especially with a cement floor. You will need the longer pieces to go through the carpet and firmly seat into the floor.

 Yes, take the feet off and set the Audio Point up in a 3 point configuration if it will balance properly (I don't see why it wouldn't)