Point proved, I think!

One person thinks spikes couple. Another thinks they decouple.
Someone else wants to consider the box containing the drivers (the
"speaker") separately from the room it's heard in.

Some would put a record deck on an absorbent mat. Some on wooden
cones then on a glass shelf then on more cones, or maybe spikes. But
I think they'd all leave the deck's suspended sub-chassis alone?

Audiophle logic.

"Richard Lamont" wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:

"Richard Lamont" wrote


The sound is supposed to come in a straight line from the speaker,
through the air, to your lugholes. It is not supposed to go via some
random scenic route involving whatever your loudspeaker is parked on.

Therefore your speakers should not be mechanically coupled to anything.
They should be mechanically isolated. Spikes are audiophool nonsense.

What you need is a nice thick sheet of neoprene rubber instead. Then the
sound will come from your speakers and not from whichever bits of your
building happen to radiate the coupled vibration. If you have carpet and
underlay then the neoprene probably isn't necessary.

I think you are missing the point entirely - the purpose of the spikes
on speakers it to enable them to be pushed through a carpet or any other
squidgy floorcovering (like you are recommending) to enable the speaker
to be coupled directly to the floor underneath and remove/reduce the
ability of the speaker to move in reaction (recoil) to the cone
movements which some claim 'blurs/renders less accurate' the created
sound.

As the mass of the cone is so much less than the mass of the speaker
cabinet as a whole, this is surely idiotic. Besides, any such reaction
will also occur during manufacturer's testing and will therefore be
taken into account at the design stage.


You snipped the best bit:

"The usual comment is 'tighten up the bass' (treble not affected) and I
wouldn't argue with it, but I think the speaker's mass has a lot to do with
it irrespective of the floorcovering and is why I posted my comment about WW
Greener's formula...."

Note the 'I wouldn't argue with it' bit!

Try it yourself is all I can say - and post the results here.

FWIW, I have 6 pairs of speakers on the go here and only one of them is
spiked - and that pair is on stands which are filled with lead shot and
which have spikes through to the concrete floor (three of them each -
triangular). Here's a quick snap:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/Triangular.jpg

(I have still not yet got round to sticking the speakers down with Blu Tack
after some six months!! :-)

Laurence Payne wrote:
Point proved, I think!

One person thinks spikes couple. Another thinks they decouple.
Someone else wants to consider the box containing the drivers (the
"speaker") separately from the room it's heard in.

Some would put a record deck on an absorbent mat. Some on wooden
cones then on a glass shelf then on more cones, or maybe spikes. But
I think they'd all leave the deck's suspended sub-chassis alone?

Audiophle logic.

In the context of the thread, in which the speaker was the thing being
put on spikes or a neoprene mat, clearly "speaker" referred to the box.

Clearly room acoustics and interaction between the room and the speaker
are important, but that doesn't justify conflating the terminology so
that "speaker" is defined as including the room.


--
Richard Lamont http://www.lamont.me.uk/

OpenPGP Key ID: 0xBD89BE41
Fingerprint: CE78 C285 1F97 0BDA 886D BA78 26D8 6C34 BD89 BE41

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 13:05:13 +0100, Adrian C
wrote:

I think the reason for four was health and safety actually, harder to wobble
them over.

By audiophile reasoning, would just ONE spike, perfectly balanced, be
the ideal? :-)

O yes, it has to be gold plated, have directionality marks for gravity,
cosmic and magnetic influence, machined to 1 thou of nothing, made in a
total vacuum - and have an impressive price. Probably needs degaussing
regulary ...

So this drawing pin won't do?

Keith G wrote:

You snipped the best bit:

"The usual comment is 'tighten up the bass' (treble not affected) and I
wouldn't argue with it, but I think the speaker's mass has a lot to do with
it irrespective of the floorcovering and is why I posted my comment
about WW
Greener's formula...."

Note the 'I wouldn't argue with it' bit!

Try it yourself is all I can say - and post the results here.

Right. I'll add it to my 'to try' list:

1. Astrology
2. Magic healing crystals
3. Green CD marker
4. Homeopathy
5. Speaker spikes

(It might be a while.)

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/Triangular.jpg

Is that grey amp a Gerry Wells special?


--
Richard Lamont http://www.lamont.me.uk/

OpenPGP Key ID: 0xBD89BE41
Fingerprint: CE78 C285 1F97 0BDA 886D BA78 26D8 6C34 BD89 BE41

In article , Laurence Payne wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 01:34:32 -0700 (PDT), James Harris
wrote:

My speakers have four spikes beneath them which makes it a pain to
move the speakers even slightly as the length of at least one spike
has to be adjusted to make all four rest on/in the floor. (The floor
is solid - maybe concrete - and not wood.)


Anyone heard of a kit to convert four spikes to three? It would have
to fit beneath the existing arrangement as I don't want to modify the
speakers (which are Dynaudio Audience 62 floorstanders).

I don't understand spikes. Audiophiles talk about coupling and
arrange heavy lumps of stone to couple to. But then they minimise
that coupling by restricting it to three or four points!

I first heard of spikes and it had solid reasoning as used on rugs on wood floors.
For cement, you need another medium to convert, like using a piece
of soft pine under each spike on top of the cement. The spike will auto level,
and provide a better impedance match of the mechanical system
That would not work either for some speakers at loud volume, and the speaker
will start to walk. Some rubber would healp that scenereo.


greg



Perhaps the spikes are merely so you CAN adjust the speaker to stand
level on a concrete floor?

My practical experience of large speakers - some much larger than
anything found in a domestic setup - is that they generally sound MUCH
better mounted at least a small distance away from any flat surface,
wall or floor.

In article ,
Laurence Payne wrote:
Some would put a record deck on an absorbent mat. Some on wooden
cones then on a glass shelf then on more cones, or maybe spikes. But
I think they'd all leave the deck's suspended sub-chassis alone?

Garrard 301, etc, had no suspension and some mounted them in concrete. ;-)

--
*Arkansas State Motto: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Laugh.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Richard Lamont" wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:

You snipped the best bit:

"The usual comment is 'tighten up the bass' (treble not affected) and I
wouldn't argue with it, but I think the speaker's mass has a lot to do
with
it irrespective of the floorcovering and is why I posted my comment
about WW
Greener's formula...."

Note the 'I wouldn't argue with it' bit!

Try it yourself is all I can say - and post the results here.

Right. I'll add it to my 'to try' list:



Good fellow - too many *theorists* here....



1. Astrology
2. Magic healing crystals
3. Green CD marker
4. Homeopathy
5. Speaker spikes

(It might be a while.)


So move it up the list.....



http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/Triangular.jpg

Is that grey amp a Gerry Wells special?


No, it's a 'Keith Garratt probably not too special' - but I like it!!

;-)

Better pic he

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...Fandothers.JPG

(Different pix taken of different kit at different times - when I wuz
*trying stuff out* for myself!! ;-)

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:57:11 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

By audiophile reasoning, would just ONE spike, perfectly balanced, be
the ideal? :-)

What do you mean by 'audiophile'...???

The sort of reasoning that puts spikes on speakers but doesn't really
know why. Some say it's to "couple". Others to "decouple". What do
you think they're for?

You can do either... you can couple the speaker to a huge mass, or you can
decouple it from all (possibly resonant) masses. Either method works, and
you can measure whether it's working or not (or you can just put your hand
on the floor and feel if it's vibrating).
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Keith G" wrote


Better pic he

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...Fandothers.JPG

(Different pix taken of different kit at different times - when I wuz
*trying stuff out* for myself!! ;-)


Actually that pic has much to tell:

Note the record deck sits (without suspension) in a massive plinth made from
kitchen worktop offcuts and sits on a two inch thick 'grano' paving slab
(painted black) on firm, rubber 'doorstop' feet. The 'hifi stand' with the
extra weight in it (valve amp and large SS power amp) is pretty firmly stuck
to the ground (concrete floor under weedy/cheapskate bedroom carpet) and I
can quite definitely say the sound from that deck has *by far* the best bass
and pin sharp clarity I have ever heard from any turntable!

(That said, the other tt I use atm is a simple Technics deck with 'squidgy
suspension' built-in and I like that one just as much!)

Note also the weight on top of the speaker cabinets - have a friend who
stacks books on top of his speakers to eradicate cabinet resonances and will
try to find a pic (I know I've got one somewhere), but whether or not that
really wotks isn't important: my reason for heaping things on top of
speakers is simply lack of space and the speaker tops are* somewhere handy
to put stuff!!


*were - I've thinned down a lot now!