Login / Register
 
monitor stands
New Reply
Subscribe
ppingpoong
Thread Starter
#1
27th November 2011
Old 27th November 2011
  #1
Gear nut
 
ppingpoong's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 133

Thread Starter
ppingpoong is offline
monitor stands

As I have been getting tired of not having enough space on my desk, I have decided to finally get some monitor stands! However I do not know anything about the matter... any tips?
#2
27th November 2011
Old 27th November 2011
  #2
Lives for gear
 
ryanojohn's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: New York, New York

Send a message via AIM to ryanojohn
ryanojohn is online now
The heavier the better, and always decouple monitors from the stands themselves with something like the auralex mopads, or the primacoustics pads. The better stands have chambers for you to fill with sand or shot, to add soft weight.
#3
27th November 2011
Old 27th November 2011
  #3
Gear addict
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 432

CWsounds is offline
http://www.music123.com/Accessories/...459520.product

check these out... just got them.. more than happy with them, took my yamaha hs80's off my desk and they sound sooo much better. and were easy to assemble. DO NOT get the cheap On Stage stands though. they suck.
#4
27th November 2011
Old 27th November 2011
  #4
Lives for gear
 
GZsound's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,609

GZsound is offline
I built my own monitor stands out of 3" ABS pipe. I used toilet flanges on each end, plugged the bottoms, put plywood squares top and bottom and filled them with sand. Painted them flat black and done.

I used mouse pads under the monitors.

Cost me about twenty bucks and work great.
__________________
Mark G.
#5
30th November 2011
Old 30th November 2011
  #5
Gear interested
 
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 19

vedra is offline
+1 for DIY cinderblock stands. Done well, they look cool, and they def sound better than desktop stands. Heavy, sturdy, and durable. Cheap too. The most expensive part of mine was the spray paint. I also splurged on some fancy round disks for the bottoms, and some hardware to "spike" them using a tripod of carraige bolts.
#6
30th November 2011
Old 30th November 2011
  #6
Gear interested
 
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 29

Sri Vishnu is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by CWsounds View Post
http://www.music123.com/Accessories/...459520.product

check these out... just got them.. more than happy with them, took my yamaha hs80's off my desk and they sound sooo much better. and were easy to assemble. DO NOT get the cheap On Stage stands though. they suck.
I've been looking at these, or spending a few more bucks for the Argosy stands for use with HS80Ms. I've never had stands, and I'm concerned about stability, especially since my room is carpeted. The platforms on these are smaller than the base of the HS80Ms, while the Argosy is much wider, at 12x12". I will probably be grabbing some angled RX7 Primacoustic stabilizer pads sometime too, which are 10.5 wide by 13" long to go on the stands.

How well are these holding up?
#7
30th November 2011
Old 30th November 2011
  #7
Lives for gear
 
Stevil's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 2,757
My Recordings/Credits

Stevil is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by CWsounds View Post
DO NOT get the cheap On Stage stands though. they suck.
they're certainly not the greatest, but i've had mine for a few years now & they work for me.
__________________
.
#8
30th November 2011
Old 30th November 2011
  #8
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Sep 2006
Location: Maple Ridge, BC, Canada (by Vancouver)
Posts: 4,060

Send a message via MSN to dkelley
dkelley is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryanojohn View Post
The heavier the better, and always decouple monitors from the stands themselves with something like the auralex mopads, or the primacoustics pads. The better stands have chambers for you to fill with sand or shot, to add soft weight.
or, on the other hand, you can follow the laws of physics and do the opposite of the second part of what he said:

- the heavier the better
- always COUPLE monitors to the stands as rigidly as possible so the mass of the stands helps the monitors themselves to NOT vibrate freely, thereby lowering distortion.

My way saves you wasting money on products that theoretically could only increase distortion in monitors.
#9
30th November 2011
Old 30th November 2011
  #9
Gear interested
 
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 19

vedra is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkelley View Post
or, on the other hand, you can follow the laws of physics and do the opposite of the second part of what he said:

- the heavier the better
- always COUPLE monitors to the stands as rigidly as possible so the mass of the stands helps the monitors themselves to NOT vibrate freely, thereby lowering distortion.

My way saves you wasting money on products that theoretically could only increase distortion in monitors.
Do this. It effectively adds mass to your monitors, keeping them from resonating as much at lower freqs.
I had to spike my cinderblock stands to decouple them from my floor, but decoupling speakers from solid stands seems like it would negate much of the sonic benefits of having massive stands.
In my experience, mopads just suck, and primacoustics are only useful if your mons need to be decoupled from a bridge or desk.
#10
1st December 2011
Old 1st December 2011
  #10
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jan 2010
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 883

Xander is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by vedra View Post
Do this. It effectively adds mass to your monitors, keeping them from resonating as much at lower freqs.
I had to spike my cinderblock stands to decouple them from my floor, but decoupling speakers from solid stands seems like it would negate much of the sonic benefits of having massive stands.
In my experience, mopads just suck, and primacoustics are only useful if your mons need to be decoupled from a bridge or desk.
Confused by this statement...as far as I know spiking is coupling, not decoupling. At least that is what my mechanical engineering degree says...
#11
1st December 2011
Old 1st December 2011
  #11
Gear interested
 
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 19

vedra is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xander View Post
Confused by this statement...as far as I know spiking is coupling, not decoupling. At least that is what my mechanical engineering degree says...
Kind of act as a one way coupling, yes. The spikes do transfer energy to the floor, just not as much from the resonating floor back to the stands. Also, I'd guess that the significant decrease in surface area between the floor and the stand helps restrict the amount of energy transfer as well. I'm by no means an acoustic engineer, and can't tout my reasoning as flawless. I refined my acoustic setup over the years mostly by lurking in the acoustics forum, so you never really know what to expect from all the ideas floating around. Main thing is, it works extremely well, looks nice, and was cheaper than one cheapo monitor stand.
#12
1st December 2011
Old 1st December 2011
  #12
Lives for gear
 
ryanojohn's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: New York, New York

Send a message via AIM to ryanojohn
ryanojohn is online now
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkelley View Post
or, on the other hand, you can follow the laws of physics and do the opposite of the second part of what he said:

- the heavier the better
- always COUPLE monitors to the stands as rigidly as possible so the mass of the stands helps the monitors themselves to NOT vibrate freely, thereby lowering distortion.

My way saves you wasting money on products that theoretically could only increase distortion in monitors.
Does that not change the response of your speaker then, based on the mass of whatever you're coupling it to?
#13
1st December 2011
Old 1st December 2011
  #13
Lives for gear
 
ryanojohn's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: New York, New York

Send a message via AIM to ryanojohn
ryanojohn is online now
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryanojohn View Post
Does that not change the response of your speaker then, based on the mass of whatever you're coupling it to?
Rather, not the speaker specifically, but the monitor as a whole, as if the mass is increased in a coupled sense the resonant frequency of the box changes/decreases, and thus the output of the box changes.

and why would you want to do that?


Decoupling monitors from stands makes sense to me, and coupling the stand with the floor also makes sense to me. I'd honestly like to hear why that doesn't make sense.
#14
1st December 2011
Old 1st December 2011
  #14
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Sep 2006
Location: Maple Ridge, BC, Canada (by Vancouver)
Posts: 4,060

Send a message via MSN to dkelley
dkelley is offline
The mass of the speaker? what?

edit: ok hold on. obviously there is something about speaker design that you misunderstand. this may help:

- low end frequency response of the cabinet is not a byproduct of the mass of the cabinet, it's a byproduct of the volume of air in teh cabinet if it's a sealed box, or the volume of air and how it interacts with it's port if ported (that math gets complex...), and how much pressure all of that air presents to the back of the woofer (The woofer cone on the inside of the cabinet), combined of course with the capabilities and specs of the woofer driver itself.

- The mass of the cabinet makes no difference to sound quality. the stiffness of the cabinet's walls makes a difference since, similar to how putting your speaker on something flexible (misguidedly called "decoupling" by marketing machines), if a cabinet is allowed to vibrate it will distort the sound of the speaker in some way.

- the mass of the entire speaker doesnt' alter it's soudn at all. please keep that in mind here.

- the mass of the moving parts of the speaker, those parts that are intended to move, do make a difference. the only moving parts in a speakers are the moving parts of the drivers (woofers/mids/tweets/sympathetic but non-motorized drivers or ports would also be included, although with ports it is the air itself that has mass).

- the walls of the cabinet are not supposed to move at all. the are there to ideally be completely rigid so the only things that move are the drivers and the air within and without the cabinet.

- sound is generated by surfaces that move vibrate at speeds within 20Hz and 20,000Hz and are touching air. If that air is inside the speaker then it will alter the response of the speaker by eventually coming up against the solid - stiff - rigid - non moving walls of the speaker cabinet. If that air is however outside and being moved by something on the outside of the speaker, then it makes sound which is audible to us. therefore the only parts of the speaker that should ever vibrate on the outside are the drivers themselves, NOT the cabinet walls.

- the only way a speaker's overall mass alters it's sound is in that a heavy speaker typically has thicker or more solid walls (which is, as noted, a good thing), has more framing done inside the cabinet with extra wood to (yes) make the cabinet walls more rigid, and also a generally heavier cabinet will typically not move around on the surface it's placed upon, which (yes again) is a good thing for all the reasons I outline in the lower half of this post.

ok, now back to my original post.

the mass of the speaker (the entire speaker's cabinet) would only be a problem if you WANTED the speaker's cabinet to vibrate as part of the speaker's sound. you definitely do NOT want the speaker's cabinet to vibrate. not at all. period. there is no question here. no speaker design engineer in history wants the cabinet to be able to vibrate at all.

The higher the mass of the cabinet, the less it will be able to move at audible frequencies. This is a GOOD thing.

why on earth would anybody WANT the cabinet of a loudspeaker to be able to vibrate? if it moves, it is only moving in sympathetic response to the moving drivers (almost entirely the woofer for reasons that should be obvious).

Yes! increase the mass as you call it! or, simply prevent the speaker cabinet from being able to be pushed around inversely to the motion of the woofer - an action that should very clearly and obviously be a bad thing.

If anyone has ever told you that a speaker cabinet should be anything other than completely rigidly locked stationary to the ground, then they are 100% entirely incorrect.

The only people I've ever read of saying such things in product marketing are those who market irrational products such as those speaker foamy things that are being discussed in this (And a couple of other) threads.

The fundamental problem is that if your woofer moves one way and the cabinet isn't rigidly mounted to the floor or wall and therefore is allowed to be pushed the OTHER way by the force of the woofer's motion, then the cabinet is (a) becoming a transducer (a woofer in this case) of it's own, the front baffle makes it's own sound which will be out of phase with the woofer and therefore causing all kinds of subtle distortions. Also by the cabinet moving it will effectively prevent the woofer from actually moving as far in real space against the air, and so another source of distortion exists.

As per all documentation from famous loudspeaker manufacturers through the ages, and as per known simple physics and the common sense I outlined above, please never put your monitors on anything but firm solid ground or a very solid and heavy table. if you must protect the finish of one or the other, do so with very thin cloth that will not allow any lateral movement but will instead just prevent obvious scratches.

cheers
:-)
#15
1st December 2011
Old 1st December 2011
  #15
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Sep 2006
Location: Maple Ridge, BC, Canada (by Vancouver)
Posts: 4,060

Send a message via MSN to dkelley
dkelley is offline
for what it's worth, just to underline the point of how your mass affecting sound question is wrong, you could take any light monitor and encase it in concrete and it wouldn't alter it's sound at all.

The only way increasing mass of hte cabinet will alter the sound is by decreasing any possibility of the cabinet moving, which means the speaker actually only generates sound from it's driver faces, not from undesired cabinet movement or vibrations, and therefore you get cleaner, lower distortion, more accurate sound with fewer phase issues and better stereo imaging.

I think that sums it up pretty well.

I think auralex and companies of their type which do make some useful products (I use some auralex in a few spots) should be sued for misrepresenting these speaker decoupling solutions.

the only thing that can happen from allowing a speaker cabinet to have any free movement of it's own is an increase in distortion.

sometimes people PREFER the sound of increased distortion. but it certainly isn't what we want in studio monitors, and it most importantly is the exact opposite of what they claim in their bullcrap marketing paraphernalia.

so not only could home recording engineers do well to study audio physics a bit (although honestly that isn't what it's all about for many of you, so fair enough), but far more importantly, companies need to stop selling products with false advertising to unsuspecting low budget home recording enthusiasts who just wasted money on something that actually makes the sound less accurate rather than buying something truly useful like a $75 full frequency fiberglass acoustic trap.

wow - I did this without any caffeine yet! haha

cheers
Don
#16
1st December 2011
Old 1st December 2011
  #16
Lives for gear
 
ryanojohn's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: New York, New York

Send a message via AIM to ryanojohn
ryanojohn is online now
My assumption was that a speaker designer has built the cabinet to ideally function with the speakers in it. And knowing it's fallacies built it in such a way that the cabinet worked best with the speakers enclosed in it. At which point the idea of changing the mass of the cabinet (by coupling it) seemed unnecessary. I realize this is an idealistic assumption, and that all manufacturers cut corners for cost at the expense of quality.

I understand that in ideal speaker design the cabinet should have absolutely immovable walls, but from what I've seen in real life that is in fact not what actually happens... Unless i'm mistaken.

Place a good monitor on solid concrete and you can still feel it's cabinet vibrate, is that not sympathetic vibration?

The question in that case then is:

Is it better to prevent those sympathetic vibrations from continuing through the monitor stand

or

Is it better to increase the solidarity of the monitor's position by securing it as well as possible by coupling it to the solidly placed monitor stand, and thus preventing the monitor itself from moving.

or

is the sympathetic vibration through the stand a much less important factor than say diffraction off the stand itself, the desk in front of you, and the various other aspects of your room that may lay untreated, and honestly in the end, it doesn't really matter?

I would guess the answer is somewhere between those. no?


By the way, please stop assuming that I'm trying to prove you wrong, these are questions, that you might have insight on...
#17
1st December 2011
Old 1st December 2011
  #17
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Sep 2006
Location: Maple Ridge, BC, Canada (by Vancouver)
Posts: 4,060

Send a message via MSN to dkelley
dkelley is offline
I'm not assuming you're trying to prove me wrong, however you ARE trying to prove me wrong because you believe that increasing the mass of a loudspeaker's cabinet will adversely affect it's sound, and oddly you believe that allowing a loudspeaker's vibrations to exist at all in the cabinet is not a negative thing.

adding mass, as I explained already (however you can research yourself to learn the details), is in no way a negative thing for a speaker enclosure. if you make a speaker out of rigid plastic and re-enforce the interior walls with cross beams sufficiently, the entire mass of the loudspeaker could be very very small. however, in theory it would sound identical if the enclosure were made from 2" thick particle board and re-enforced with solid concrete.

I thought I had made that point already - therefore some of your questions are moot.

Your insinuation that what I'm saying means that loudspeaker designers don't put work into cabinet design is completely false.

There is a ton of work to be put into cabinet design. however as I explained clearly in my previous long post, it is the mass of air inside the cabinet that alters the sound of the woofer's response, not the mass of the walls of hte cabinet. their mass isn't important at all, effectively. what really matters is their stiffness (stiffer is better) and inability to vibrate (less ability to vibrate is better).

the SHAPE of the cabinet matters in some ways, again not for the internal volume of air relative to how it interacts with the woofer, but the shape should be such that it should spread out internal reflections as evenly as possible over the woofer's frequency range. also certain cabinet shapes are inherently more rigid than others and this is taken into account as well during design.

Also the front baffle shape can alter mid and high frequency response, mostly off axis but a little bit on axis as well, although this doesn't alter anything to do with low frequency response.

the size of the enclosure and how to make one that IS very stiff and free of resonances, vibrations etc is what matters to the woofer's response. And since (aside from front baffle refractions) the speaker cabinet only EXISTS because the woofer requires it and because SOMETHING has to hold up the drivers in their correct locations, the only possible part of the speaker's response that could be altered by your mass-altering reasoning is the woofer's response.

And as noted, mass doens't affect the woofer's response.

now as for is it better to have the loudspeaker's vibrations transmitted down into a stand or kept within the speaker itself, now you can talk mass and you will see how increasing mass is a good thing:
- a speaker stand has some mass
- adding that mass RIGIDLY to the speaker enclosure will effectively increase the loudspeaker cabinet's mass (but will not alter in any way the mass of the sound-generating components WITHIN the cabinet).
- increasing mass will lower the ability of the cabinet to vibrate.
- lowering the cabinet's ability to vibrate will reduce coloration from cabinet vibrations
- lowering coloration from cabinet vibrations reduced unwanted distortion.

edit: not only that, but attaching something that vibrates to something that is firmly attached to solid ground will quite obviously restrict it's ability to move - even if you don't want to get into mass versus weight versus rigidity. just using common sense here (although it IS mass related of course, speaker versus planet earth), this is a good thing to do.

The only way that it is a bad thing to place a speaker directly and firmly on your mixing desk etc is if your mixing desk etc rattles or buzzes when the speaker vibrates it. If so then yes, obviously buzzes and rattles are far worse than small increases in coloration and distortion to the human ear, so put your monitors on something soft to try and reduce those buzzing sounds. Better yet, find the source of the buzzing noise (whatever is loose in your desk) and fix it.

Now of course, putting your monitors on something that has a lot of mass is a good thing as I already explained. The one valid concept behind one of the monitor pad products I've read about (but haven't analyzed for validity of the actual product's manufacture) seems to be putting it on a pad that is very solid rather than obviously flexible/soft and contains a very heavy metal plate or similar. That, in theory, might be a good thing, but only if the metal plate is attached rigidly to the speaker's enclosure.

The known best way to mount speakers to a floor or carpet is with pointy solid metal feet. the large flat-topped end of each mount screws on or is otherwise rigidly attached to the speaker bottom. the floor or carpet end is hard and pointy to dig down into the ground and create a single point rigid connection. This also effectively reduces, ideally removes, any ability for the floor standing loudspeaker cabinet to move, and distortion and coloration are reduced.

With non-floor standing speakers it is much tougher to create a perfect speaker to earth rigid mount. However we should, ideally, try to do as much.

Anything that prevents the speaker's cabinet vibrations from traveling into whatever the speaker is sitting upon will remove whatever it is sitting upon from the mass and from the equation, therefore the only thing that is preventing the loudspeaker cabinet from vibrating and causing distortion is it's own weight/mass. This is (typo!) NOT how speaker manufacturers intend their products to be used, not how they are tested scientifically for their performance, and clearly and unarguably is inferior for distortion compared with rigidly attaching your speaker to anything that has some notable mass or is rigid and solidly attached to somethign else that is rigid, like a concrete wall or a concrete floor.

Even a wood floor with carpet and a pair of hard metal speaker stands with your monitors just sitting on top of them is superior in theory to putting your speakers on anything that lets the speaker move on it's own more freely.
#18
1st December 2011
Old 1st December 2011
  #18
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Sep 2006
Location: Maple Ridge, BC, Canada (by Vancouver)
Posts: 4,060

Send a message via MSN to dkelley
dkelley is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryanojohn View Post
Is it better to increase the solidarity of the monitor's position by securing it as well as possible by coupling it to the solidly placed monitor stand, and thus preventing the monitor itself from moving.
this! :-D +1

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryanojohn View Post
I would guess the answer is somewhere between those. no?
no.... the only thing that is best is what reduces cabinet vibration as much as possible. anything else is a compromise.

by the way, regarding my post above this one - I HAVE had my coffee now so pardon my long worded rant :-)

I really want to ensure that people understand the phsyics involved here.

cheers :-)
#19
1st December 2011
Old 1st December 2011
  #19
Gear interested
 
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 19

vedra is offline
Thanks dkelley! I was trying to get the point across without getting too technical about it. Perhaps that was misguided. I almost threw in speaker vibration, but didn't want to add another paragraph :p tried to "dumb" it down a bit. Bad idea.

Anyhow, I have tried various forms of decoupling speakers from stands, from foam to multiple thicknesses of sorbothane, and I settled on a very thin rubber mat simply to reduce vibration noise from the monitor>stand junction. This setup in no way alters the native response of my speakers, but it does allow their low range to come through clearer and less distorted. Can't say it is perfect, but it does work very well.
Cheers!
#20
1st December 2011
Old 1st December 2011
  #20
has all the gear he needs
 
Unclenny's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 8,103

Unclenny is online now
Quote:
Originally Posted by vedra View Post
+1 for DIY......
Quote:
Originally Posted by vedra View Post
........without getting too technical about it.


Quote
1
#21
1st December 2011
Old 1st December 2011
  #21
Lives for gear
 
ryanojohn's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: New York, New York

Send a message via AIM to ryanojohn
ryanojohn is online now
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkelley View Post
you ARE trying to prove me wrong because you believe...
A belief is not me trying by any means to prove you wrong.

Quote:
oddly you believe that allowing a loudspeaker's vibrations to exist at all in the cabinet is not a negative thing.
Never said anything remotely of the sort. I said that they do exist.

Quote:
however, in theory it would sound identical if the enclosure were made from 2" thick particle board and re-enforced with solid concrete.
theoretically the drivers would produce the same output, whereas the entire cabinet would resonate sympathetically differently no?

Quote:
Your insinuation that what I'm saying means that loudspeaker designers don't put work into cabinet design is completely false.
Absolutely not my insinuation at all, my point was that my assumption was that the speakers are designed to be optimally functional as is, if that's not the truth then I happily admit I am wrong.

Quote:
And as noted, mass doens't affect the woofer's response.
And I never said it did, I said it affects the enclosure.

Quote:
now as for is it better to have the loudspeaker's vibrations transmitted down into a stand or kept within the speaker itself, now you can talk mass and you will see how increasing mass is a good thing:
- a speaker stand has some mass
- adding that mass RIGIDLY to the speaker enclosure will effectively increase the loudspeaker cabinet's mass (but will not alter in any way the mass of the sound-generating components WITHIN the cabinet).
- increasing mass will lower the ability of the cabinet to vibrate.
- lowering the cabinet's ability to vibrate will reduce coloration from cabinet vibrations
- lowering coloration from cabinet vibrations reduced unwanted distortion.
All makes perfect sense and well explained. Especially the lowering a cabinet's ability to vibrate reduces coloration from cabinet vibrations.

My question then is: as these vibrations are dissipated through whatever it is attached to, what is the relationship between the increased surface area that will vibrate (cabinet plus stand plus floor) and the decrease in total vibration. Is it relative in terms of actual potential dB spl that the vibration may create.

Does that question make sense?

Quote:
This is (typo!) NOT how speaker manufacturers intend their products to be used, not how they are tested scientifically for their performance, and clearly and unarguably is inferior for distortion compared with rigidly attaching your speaker to anything that has some notable mass or is rigid and solidly attached to somethign else that is rigid, like a concrete wall or a concrete floor.
While I'm sure this is true, how is the consumer to know this, especially as in testing a speaker for response and the charts they provide from those tests to the public, the setup is never explained.
It wouldn't be obscene to assume that the speaker on it's own with no coupling to anything in addition to what comes with it has exactly the response as charted. Which makes it reasonable to assume that isolating those speakers from anything else may be the best idea.

READ as: that's not the best way for the consumers to be seeing it, when it then is in fact incorrect assumptions that lead to that belief.

Not by any means saying you're wrong, just saying how it's sold to the public.
#22
1st December 2011
Old 1st December 2011
  #22
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Sep 2006
Location: Maple Ridge, BC, Canada (by Vancouver)
Posts: 4,060

Send a message via MSN to dkelley
dkelley is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryanojohn View Post
A belief is not me trying by any means to prove you wrong.


Never said anything remotely of the sort. I said that they do exist.

ok, it's a matter of semantics I suppose. from my point of view, you are trying to prove me wrong imho since I keep pointing out one factual item that you keep disregarding during your side of the discussion. and there is nothing wrong with trying to prove me wrong of course, this is a good discussion :-). I too am attempting to prove you wrong, and I believe I have done so repeatedly, although you keep pointing out your concepts like this one:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryanojohn View Post
theoretically the drivers would produce the same output, whereas the entire cabinet would resonate sympathetically differently no?
and certainly the answer IS no. as I have repeatedly pointed out, the cabinet should not resonate in any way shape or form. Any cabinet vibration is unintentional by loudspeaker manufacturers and they do their best to avoid it... however cost, marketing and design criteria dictate above and beyond having the lowest distortion figures. it's very costly to design and build a speaker enclosure that doesn't vibrate at all and won't vibrate sympathetically (which, as I pointed out, is a bad thing). Remember, with regard to the point you just made that was a response to my heavy mass versus light mass enclosure theory, I was trying to point out that in both cases the enclosures in my theoretical example would have no ability to vibrate themselves. they woudl only present a solid perfect wall to the air inside the speaker. they would have different mass and weigh different amoutns, but not actually have any ability to resonate themselves. in my examples, remember. maybe not in real life, but I was pointing out how mass isn't directly relevant and how cabinets are not intended to resonate of themselves. :-)



Quote:
Originally Posted by ryanojohn View Post
Absolutely not my insinuation at all, my point was that my assumption was that the speakers are designed to be optimally functional as is, if that's not the truth then I happily admit I am wrong.
no, you're correct, but within a price point. it really did read (and does again now...) like you're being sarcastic. I'm sorry if I read something into the post that you didn't intend :-).

Anyhow, from my experience and research I have found that the most expensive larger speakers most often will not suffer from any of these issues by the way. my vintage infinities are so big/heavy and incredibly solidly/rigidly designed that I have never worried about how they're mounted. they don't shake whatever they're put upon due to their own weight and solidity, and therefore these points are moot. but with my smaller monitors I've had to concern myself with the side effects of lighter speakers and less than ideal cabinet builds.

let me get back to the rest of your points... (only so many quote responses that I can wrap my ehad around :-)
#23
1st December 2011
Old 1st December 2011
  #23
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Sep 2006
Location: Maple Ridge, BC, Canada (by Vancouver)
Posts: 4,060

Send a message via MSN to dkelley
dkelley is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryanojohn View Post
All makes perfect sense and well explained. Especially the lowering a cabinet's ability to vibrate reduces coloration from cabinet vibrations.

My question then is: as these vibrations are dissipated through whatever it is attached to, what is the relationship between the increased surface area that will vibrate (cabinet plus stand plus floor) and the decrease in total vibration. Is it relative in terms of actual potential dB spl that the vibration may create.

Does that question make sense?
ah, now you've got me thinking... :-)

hang on while I mull this over....

ok, this is all I can come up with LoL :

well I can tell you that from my experience I have never put monitors onto something that wasn't already heavier than they were themselves. adn certainly I've never encountered a situation where the vibrations of the cabinet were transmitted to the lower surface in any way I could feel. Cheapo speaker stands could be a problem though. I suppose it depends on the material, weight, rigidity, how well that material is anchored to solid ground itself, elasticity, and so on.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ryanojohn View Post
While I'm sure this is true, how is the consumer to know this, especially as in testing a speaker for response and the charts they provide from those tests to the public, the setup is never explained.
It wouldn't be obscene to assume that the speaker on it's own with no coupling to anything in addition to what comes with it has exactly the response as charted. Which makes it reasonable to assume that isolating those speakers from anything else may be the best idea.

READ as: that's not the best way for the consumers to be seeing it, when it then is in fact incorrect assumptions that lead to that belief.

Not by any means saying you're wrong, just saying how it's sold to the public.
exactly! isn't it annoying? I mean, how can anyone know for sure based on that information, or lack there of?

And the thing is, so many monitors are sitting on crappy noisy surfaces that will vibrate, so yea putting them on something soft will reduce that vibration by effectively decoupling them.

anyway, after all of my strong defense, I can also say that this is honestly only an important consideration with smaller monitors. I figure this is important since most of us in low end theory are using smaller monitors rather than big hulking 50 pound and up jobbies.

but smaller ones are where the cabinet is light enough to vibrate.

it's all theoretical from my part, but it does follow at least in some ways in real practice as I've seen test results showing front panel vibration that was a side effect of letting the speaker sit on something very flexible and elastic.
Sim
#24
2nd December 2011
Old 2nd December 2011
  #24
Sim
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jun 2010
Location: London

Sim is offline
dkelley great info hear finally made some sense out of a lot of the miss informed opinions.

So this is why studios mains are always set on breeze blocks or concreate and have a thick cabinet or have i got the wrong of the stick?

I know with cheap subwoofers you hear where they are in the room because the cabinets vibrate because of their poor construction. I read on a forum can't remember if it was gs or not but you can use like a sticky back thick bitumen sheet and stick to the inside of of speaker cabs to dampen the cabinet vibrations. Personally I've never seen it done so is this total snake oil to?

I think in the same place I read you can stick monitors in a deep tray of sand instead of stands and the foam things. What would that even do?
#25
2nd December 2011
Old 2nd December 2011
  #25
Lives for gear
 
ryanojohn's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: New York, New York

Send a message via AIM to ryanojohn
ryanojohn is online now
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkelley View Post
and certainly the answer IS no. as I have repeatedly pointed out, the cabinet should not resonate in any way shape or form. Any cabinet vibration is unintentional by loudspeaker manufacturers and they do their best to avoid it... however cost, marketing and design criteria dictate above and beyond having the lowest distortion figures. it's very costly to design and build a speaker enclosure that doesn't vibrate at all and won't vibrate sympathetically (which, as I pointed out, is a bad thing). Remember, with regard to the point you just made that was a response to my heavy mass versus light mass enclosure theory, I was trying to point out that in both cases the enclosures in my theoretical example would have no ability to vibrate themselves. they woudl only present a solid perfect wall to the air inside the speaker. they would have different mass and weigh different amoutns, but not actually have any ability to resonate themselves. in my examples, remember. maybe not in real life, but I was pointing out how mass isn't directly relevant and how cabinets are not intended to resonate of themselves. :-)
See this is the one where theoretically to me makes perfect sense, but I find that in realistic practice isn't necessarily the case. It would absolutely be ideal to have the cabinet of any speaker not resonate. But I can't think of a single monitor I've put my hand on and haven't felt the vibrations of the audio that's being produced.

It does make perfect sense though that by coupling it to a stand you've reduced the monitor's ability to vibrate freely.

That said, I currently have a pair of Focal Twin6be monitors on heavy wood stands that are full of lead shot, with a hand on the monitor I can feel it vibrate, with a hand at the top of the stand I can feel the stand vibrate, with a hand at the bottom of the stand I can feel it vibrate albeit less. This is with the monitor sitting squarely on the tiny rubber pad at the top of the stand.

At this point it seems like the entire monitor/stand combo is a sound source?

At some point tomorrow I can grab a set of mo pads and primacoustics and see if it's any different.
#26
2nd December 2011
Old 2nd December 2011
  #26
Lives for gear
 
ryanojohn's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: New York, New York

Send a message via AIM to ryanojohn
ryanojohn is online now
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sim View Post
I read you can stick monitors in a deep tray of sand instead of stands and the foam things. What would that even do?
I've been in studios in which the monitor stands were actually standing in a sand tray. Dissipates vibrations coming down the stand I do believe?
#27
2nd December 2011
Old 2nd December 2011
  #27
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Sep 2006
Location: Maple Ridge, BC, Canada (by Vancouver)
Posts: 4,060

Send a message via MSN to dkelley
dkelley is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sim View Post
dkelley great info hear finally made some sense out of a lot of the miss informed opinions.

So this is why studios mains are always set on breeze blocks or concreate and have a thick cabinet or have i got the wrong of the stick?

I know with cheap subwoofers you hear where they are in the room because the cabinets vibrate because of their poor construction. I read on a forum can't remember if it was gs or not but you can use like a sticky back thick bitumen sheet and stick to the inside of of speaker cabs to dampen the cabinet vibrations. Personally I've never seen it done so is this total snake oil to?

I think in the same place I read you can stick monitors in a deep tray of sand instead of stands and the foam things. What would that even do?
it depends, what's bitumen? it would have to be pretty solid/heavy/rigid/sticky to help at all I would think, but I've seen things like that done before. it seems a bit like snake oil honestly. teh best thing to do and many great speakers have this in their design is to put wood (or metal!) bars between adjacent sides of the enclosure ... cross braces etc.

and for sand, well, I do'nt know. if the sand is dense then yes - but man that sounds dangerous eh? who wants sand sitting in their control rooms!

LoL

:-D

but I think we are all on the same plane here - once you come to grips with the speaker enclosure vibrations being a bad thing (I think we all agree on this), it's just a matter of how to reduce those vibrations. transmitting them to something else is a danger as the other poster was asking, but it has been my personal experience that most things that are stationary will tend to dampen external cabinet vibration of the speaker (good) more than taking on teh vibrations themselves in the furniture (bad).

but can you imaging sand getting vibrated? play too many loud bass drums and you'll be sweeping every hour!
#28
2nd December 2011
Old 2nd December 2011
  #28
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Sep 2006
Location: Maple Ridge, BC, Canada (by Vancouver)
Posts: 4,060

Send a message via MSN to dkelley
dkelley is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryanojohn View Post
See this is the one where theoretically to me makes perfect sense, but I find that in realistic practice isn't necessarily the case. It would absolutely be ideal to have the cabinet of any speaker not resonate. But I can't think of a single monitor I've put my hand on and haven't felt the vibrations of the audio that's being produced.

It does make perfect sense though that by coupling it to a stand you've reduced the monitor's ability to vibrate freely.

That said, I currently have a pair of Focal Twin6be monitors on heavy wood stands that are full of lead shot, with a hand on the monitor I can feel it vibrate, with a hand at the top of the stand I can feel the stand vibrate, with a hand at the bottom of the stand I can feel it vibrate albeit less. This is with the monitor sitting squarely on the tiny rubber pad at the top of the stand.

At this point it seems like the entire monitor/stand combo is a sound source?

At some point tomorrow I can grab a set of mo pads and primacoustics and see if it's any different.
damn. stop poking holes in my theory by providing valid examples to the contrary!

I hate it when this happens. LoL

but seriously folks - I don't doubt that you found that. however I also don't doubt that the stand itself has reduced vibrations of the speaker cabinet also. AND, the combined mass would in theory have lowered the frequencies at which the cabinet and stand combination could vibrate at all, thereby lowering the frequency at which distortion can occur.

how's about THEM apples!? haha :-)

I wish I had put more thought into my original argument now... the fact is that I know I'm correct but it's a question of what specifications are required of the monitor stand for it to not take on the vibrations of the speaker and to also therefore only serve to damped the speaker's own vibrations.

and that, off hand, I don't know. I'm sitting in front of a computer writing web code.... but I have worked out some of the math in the past and certainly it CAN be worked out. I am also aware that there ARE monitors stands taht actually do behave how I described.

I'm disappointed by your findings though darn it.

huh - back to the drawing board :-D
#29
2nd December 2011
Old 2nd December 2011
  #29
Geariophile
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Location: london
Posts: 14,232

Karloff70 is online now
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unclenny View Post



Oooohh, tweeters inwards! Pervert.
#30
2nd December 2011
Old 2nd December 2011
  #30
Geariophile
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Location: london
Posts: 14,232

Karloff70 is online now
So who's going to cast the first pair of Focals in concrete?
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.