Low mass vs high mass speaker stands

[John Duncan]

I agree with Overdose.

Any speaker that sounds better on a lightweight stand rather than pinned to a heavy immovable one, is either poorly designed or designed for a specific stand (imo).

I'd also love to hear any rational explanation why that should not be the case and would be willing to alter my view accordingly. The link provided earlier was laughable... Using "molten lead" the mids and highs became more clear...yep. A solid, immovable lump...

Few points:

1) practically every loudspeaker as we know them is 'badly designed'. The theoretical ideal of infinite rigidity and zero mass (or even non-existence) of a cabinet is not physically possible.

2) given the above, the physical behaviour of any given loudspeaker is going to *change* depending on what stand you put it on.

3) whilst I agree that a heavy, immovable stand feels like the ideal, the different behaviours of - necessarily imperfect - speakers can mean that this is not always the case, and it's therefore *possible* for a speaker to sound better on a stand that waves in the wind. Whilst this might feel wrong from a physics point of biew, see 1) above. Presumably this is why Spendor's dedicated SA1 stands remind me of those long sticks you use to throw tennis balls for dogs in the park.

4) define 'better'

 

[John Duncan]

All of the above said, my requirements for a stand are simple - don't fall over and don't be too ugly.

 

[BenLaw]

All of the above said, my requirements for a stand are simple - don't fall over and don't be too ugly.

That's usually my requirement for a woman in a bar.

 

[Frank Harvey]

I believe that this has already been established, although I have not seen many flexible stands, do any exist?

'Flexible' as in they're not fully solid - many stands may look solid but there will be some movement.

 

[Frank Harvey]

There is no difference whatsoever between a low mass rigid stand coupled to a concrete floor and a high mass stand on a concrete floor, as the concrete provides the mass for damping. It is very basic stuff as far as phiysics is concerned.

Well, the room I heard the difference had a concrete floor.

 

[CJSF]

I'd also love to hear any rational explanation why that should not be the case and would be willing to alter my view accordingly. The link provided earlier was laughable... Using "molten lead" the mids and highs became more clear...yep. A solid, immovable lump...

OK, I will put my two peneth in . . . without prejudice

[EDITED BY MODS - house rules]

Or maybe you would like to argue with KEF, who in the 70's did a whole load of work on 'solid' stand and issued a paper to the affect 'solid stands dont work', perhaps Chebby might be able to find reference to that work or paper?

Hifi is a world of anomalies, where logic and calculations often 'do not apply'. Follow the calculations and formulae to the letter, perfect measurements but you often end up with mediocre sound at best? . . . why, I’m not sure, but out world is littered with things that create echo, harmonics, blocks, our ears are not linier in their response to sound, in fact produce the perfect environment; anechoic chamber, I found it could be a very uncomfortable experience.

. . . I will not explain why Foundation stands work (most of the time?) because, if I did, I would be giving away 20 years of hard gained experience and understanding. Suffice to say, a properly designed speaker stand should be un moving before any mass is applied, meaning it will work reasonably well in its 'light form', there is a point there? Having to applying mass to stop back and forth structural motion created by the transit of the drive units means the stand is not designed well in the first place.

Therefore mass (does not have to be mass) material and speaker/stand link, becomes an energy modification or drain, too much, too little or the wrong kind will affect the speaker. As you have picked up, a solid lead fill absorbs almost all the bass energy generated by the speaker, that’s cabinet and driver, or does it show up the inadequacies of the bass end of a speaker, especially small speakers with small bass drivers? Indicating that the cabinet its self is requiring to boost bass energy? A technique used to do this deliberately was the 'passive' driver . . . hands up those who remember passive bass drivers . . . I recall they featured a lot in Kef speakers in those days. I wonder if there is an association with that paper by Kef I referred to earlier?

CJSF

 

[floyd droid]

[EDITED BY MODS - agreed, dealt with]

 

[MUSICRAFT]

[EDITED BY MODS - unbecoming]

 

[Overdose]

There is no difference whatsoever between a low mass rigid stand coupled to a concrete floor and a high mass stand on a concrete floor, as the concrete provides the mass for damping. It is very basic stuff as far as phiysics is concerned.

Well, the room I heard the difference had a concrete floor.

So you heard a difference in sound from the same speakers, in the same room and on the same system, but on different stands?

Given the relatively large change in perceived sound when moving a speaker position, I suspect that if you heard anything at all, it was down to a difference in speaker height, toe in, distance apart and from yourself. Besides all that, the time needed to accurately swap stands, with all the relative positions reestablished, including heights, you would not have an accurate and clear memory of the sound. I'm sorry, but you are not being very convincing yet.

Regarding speaker design and rigidity, there are no absolutes of course, but they can be considered rigid enough and when these speakers are generally placed on stands, fixed by a blob of Blu-Tac, there will be enough space between speaker and stand for any infinitessimal flexing of the side walls to go unhindered. In this case, we can consider all speakers to behave similarly on all stands, with the exeption being if the speakers are bolted to the stands.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Not only was it an A/B demonstration (which several of us came to the same conclusion), but it was also over a long period of time using speakers in a familiar room and on a familiar system. The positioning isn't a factor here.

Im not trying to be 'convincing', just passing on my experience. What I heard, I heard, and no matter what you throw at it, I'll stick by what I heard. I care not whether the conditions meet your personal requirements, or anyone elses.

Oh no. Scratch that. I just remembered - I wasn't blindfolded. I could see which stands we're being used, so everything I said doesn't count...

 

[Overdose]

I'd also love to hear any rational explanation why that should not be the case and would be willing to alter my view accordingly. The link provided earlier was laughable... Using "molten lead" the mids and highs became more clear...yep. A solid, immovable lump...

OK, I will put my two peneth in . . . without prejudice

[EDITED BY MODS - house rules]

Or maybe you would like to argue with KEF, who in the 70's did a whole load of work on 'solid' stand and issued a paper to the affect 'solid stands dont work', perhaps Chebby might be able to find reference to that work or paper?

Hifi is a world of anomalies, where logic and calculations often 'do not apply'. Follow the calculations and formulae to the letter, perfect measurements but you often end up with mediocre sound at best? . . . why, I’m not sure, but out world is littered with things that create echo, harmonics, blocks, our ears are not linier in their response to sound, in fact produce the perfect environment; anechoic chamber, I found it could be a very uncomfortable experience.

. . . I will not explain why Foundation stands work (most of the time?) because, if I did, I would be giving away 20 years of hard gained experience and understanding. Suffice to say, a properly designed speaker stand should be un moving before any mass is applied, meaning it will work reasonably well in its 'light form', there is a point there? Having to applying mass to stop back and forth structural motion created by the transit of the drive units means the stand is not designed well in the first place.

Therefore mass (does not have to be mass) material and speaker/stand link, becomes an energy modification or drain, too much, too little or the wrong kind will affect the speaker. As you have picked up, a solid lead fill absorbs almost all the bass energy generated by the speaker, that’s cabinet and driver, or does it show up the inadequacies of the bass end of a speaker, especially small speakers with small bass drivers? Indicating that the cabinet its self is requiring to boost bass energy? A technique used to do this deliberately was the 'passive' driver . . . hands up those who remember passive bass drivers . . . I recall they featured a lot in Kef speakers in those days. I wonder if there is an association with that paper by Kef I referred to earlier?

CJSF

Hmm, there's so much wrong here that I can no longer be bothered to try to explain, but if you want to ignore the laws of science in deference to pseudoscience, go right ahead.

To summarise, effective speaker stands need to be stable, rigid, secure and if they are to be placed on suspended floors, they should ideally be high mass. There really is nothing more other than aesthetics.

 

[Overdose]

Not only was it an A/B demonstration (which several of us came to the same conclusion), but it was also over a long period of time using speakers in a familiar room and on a familiar system. The positioning isn't a factor here.

Speaker positioning is not a factor in how they sound?

Really? :rofl:

(Sorry, I don't usually use the ROFL smily, but that comment deserved one)

 

[Frank Harvey]

Not only was it an A/B demonstration (which several of us came to the same conclusion), but it was also over a long period of time using speakers in a familiar room and on a familiar system. The positioning isn't a factor here.

Speaker positioning is not a factor in how they sound?

Really? :rofl:

(Sorry, I don't usually use the ROFL smily, but that comment deserved one)

The positioning wasn't a factor in THIS case as the stands were placed in the same position for listening purposes. Do stop trying to nit pick.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Hmm, there's so much wrong here that I can no longer be bothered to try to explain, but if you want to ignore the laws of science in deference to pseudoscience, go right ahead.

Do let us know what is factually incorrect, and please do tell us how it really is. From what I can tell, what CJSF has written bears out what I've experienced.

 

[CJSF]

Hmm, there's so much wrong here that I can no longer be bothered to try to explain, but if you want to ignore the laws of science in deference to pseudoscience, go right ahead.

Do let us know what is factually incorrect, and please do tell us how it really is. From what I can tell, what CJSF has written bears out what I've experienced.

Strikes me Dave, that certain contributors consider themselves 'the only ones in step'? . . . I cant be bothered any more mate, we all get along OK, discussing and agreeing, even agreeing to disagree on occasions like adults . . . There are always one or two that spoil party????

I have thought a few times recently to give it all a miss for a while . . . that was my last effort, pearls and swine come to mind:?

CJSF

 

[Frank Harvey]

I sort of see why you don't want to bother now!

I'll inquire with KEF about that study, as it should make interesting reading.

 

[chebby]

I think it is obvious by now that - broadly speaking - there are two camps in the hif-fi forum...

1) Likes to experiment with different gear, likes to upgrade when possible, likes seperates, likes to try out different cables and other accessories like stands.

2) All digital sources and DACs sound the same (so long as they work properly), all amps are the same (so long as they have enough power), there is no audible difference between any choice of competently made cable (digital or analogue), no audible differences between cheap and expensive stands, active speakers better than passive speakers.

Group 1) likes to listen for changes and will even read reviews for information and guidance/suggestions.

Group 2) likes to measure and cite engineering studies/scientific papers/'objective' reports to prove no differences can possibly exist. Finds hi-fi magazines laughable.

Group 1) will buy their gear from hi-fi shops after 'in store' or 'at home' demos.

Group 2) Will buy from pro-shops and AVI.

There will never be any 'meeting of minds' between 1) and 2). Every claim for better sound (from an upgrade or cable change or 'better' speaker stand) will be met with derision and incredulity backed up with claims that such subjectivity is un-scientific or hocum or pixie dust.

I don't take any side in this. I am already 'beyond the pale' as far as group 2 is concerned. (I once owned a Naim system and that is never forgiven.)

My old speaker stands cost me £50 (Partington Trophies) instead of the usual RRP £130 as part of a deal when I bought some ex-dem speakers once a few years ago. They worked fine and they looked ok in gloss black and they were cheap.

(Although I did use them with Naim nSATs which makes them a 'foo' purchase whatever they cost.)

There is dogma on both sides of this.

Don't bother with the KEF study David. Whaever it's conclusions, they will be wrong.

 

[CJSF]

I sort of see why you don't want to bother now!

I'll inquire with KEF about that study, as it should make interesting reading.

Hi Dave, I never saw the paper, I was told that they had pulished a paper on the subject and the resultes were negative? So if you get any links, it would be interesting, retrospective reading . . .

I did something less sophisticated, it was one of my earliest experiments, filling a pair of stands with moulten lead, melting that much lead in one go was a majour job in its self, they took a week to cool down! I used Proac Tablets in those days. The early results were as I have indicated, poor bass, great mid and top, image was good too, within the limitations of the music presented.

A lot of sidways thinking was done from there on in. I had a lot of listening input from the local hifi shop at the time, draging the latest creation into their listening facility, usualy on a Friday night, very usefull it was too. I was still developing my listening ability (understanding).

CJSF

 

[John Duncan]

Regarding speaker design and rigidity, there are no absolutes of course, but they can be considered rigid enough and when these speakers are generally placed on stands, fixed by a blob of Blu-Tac, there will be enough space between speaker and stand for any infinitessimal flexing of the side walls to go unhindered. In this case, we can consider all speakers to behave similarly on all stands, with the exeption being if the speakers are bolted to the stands.

So basically all competently-implemented speaker cabinets sound the same?

 

[CJSF]

Don't bother with the KEF study David. Whaever it's conclusions, they will be wrong.

I think you have summed it all up in that one scentance Chebby . . . 'blinded by science' comes to mind 8)

CJSF

 

[Overdose]

Regarding speaker design and rigidity, there are no absolutes of course, but they can be considered rigid enough and when these speakers are generally placed on stands, fixed by a blob of Blu-Tac, there will be enough space between speaker and stand for any infinitessimal flexing of the side walls to go unhindered. In this case, we can consider all speakers to behave similarly on all stands, with the exeption being if the speakers are bolted to the stands.

So basically all competently-implemented speaker cabinets sound the same?

That's not what I said. The statement is, that any speaker cabinet, if mounted as most do with blobs of Blu-Tac in the corners, will be able to resonate exactly the same (not the same as other speakers), regardless of the stand they are on. The resonant qualities will only change if any of the enclosure surfaces are somehow rigidised further by physical full surface contact of one or more of its sides. Obviously differences exist between cabinets, but the design is always for minimal resonance of the cabinet. If the cabinets/enclosures are bolted to the stand with full surface contact, then that will affect the resonant qualities, but that is also true whichever speaker or stands are used.

Chebby, to categorise forum members viewpoints as polarised between your examples 1 & 2 seems rather naive. Granted the extremes exist, but the some of the viewpoints that you have stated are not mutually exclusive. :shame:

 

[Overdose]

Don't bother with the KEF study David. Whaever it's conclusions, they will be wrong.

I think you have summed it all up in that one scentance Chebby . . . 'blinded by science' comes to mind 8)

CJSF

As opposed to 'blind to science' ?

 

[CnoEvil]

Obviously differences exist between cabinets, but the design is always for minimal resonance of the cabinet.

This isn't strictly true.

Audio Note (AN-K) - "instead of trying to damp the resonances in the cabinet, we place them in the frequency bands where they aid and enhance the drive unit's work".....AN weren't the first to take this approach, as they are based on old Snell designs.

The material that the stands are made out of makes a difference ie. Steel tube has a resonant frequency in the audio frequency (it rings), which is why sand is a good idea.

 

[John Duncan]

Regarding speaker design and rigidity, there are no absolutes of course, but they can be considered rigid enough and when these speakers are generally placed on stands, fixed by a blob of Blu-Tac, there will be enough space between speaker and stand for any infinitessimal flexing of the side walls to go unhindered. In this case, we can consider all speakers to behave similarly on all stands, with the exeption being if the speakers are bolted to the stands.

So basically all competently-implemented speaker cabinets sound the same?

That's not what I said. The statement is, that any speaker cabinet, if mounted as most do with blobs of Blu-Tac in the corners, will be able to resonate exactly the same (not the same as other speakers), regardless of the stand they are on. The resonant qualities will only change if any of the enclosure surfaces are somehow rigidised further by physical full surface contact of one or more of its sides. Obviously differences exist between cabinets, but the design is always for minimal resonance of the cabinet. If the cabinets/enclosures are bolted to the stand with full surface contact, then that will affect the resonant qualities, but that is also true whichever speaker or stands are used.

OK, that's clearer now, thanks.

You got me thinking though (which is unfortunate since the Germany-Portugal game is on), so I put on some music loud and grabbed hold of my speakers stands, which are clearly resonating with the music. Bearing in mind my earlier statements about it being impossible to construct something completely rigid, and that there's about a square metre of sheet metal in them radiating in time, can this not have an effect? I.e. it's not the speakers' performance affected by speakers stands (though I'm ambivalent about that for the moment), but that speaker stands 'perform' themselves (albeit to a very small degree)?

 

[John Duncan]

The material that the stands are made out of makes a difference ie. Steel tube has a resonant frequency in the audio frequency (it rings), which is why sand is a good idea.

Aha, exactly my point above.