Mister Pig
Pigamus Maximus
DSP is a powerful tool.
Confusion on speaker stands versus floor standing
- Thread starter Karn
- Start date
DSP is a powerful tool.
Sgt Shultz
Addicted Member
These:
15" x 16" footprint. Dual 10" woofers, triple 10" passive radiators (on the rear) run by an on-board 500 watt amp. That would be less floor space, than two of those subwoofers and two stand-mounted cabinets, combined (if it's not stereo bass, it need not apply, IMHO). Unless you built some custom stands to go on top of the subs- which would unfortunately defeat the isolation in the factory stands...
But, all in a COMMON cabinet- radiating from the same space. Not separate cabinets.
Flat to 16Hz, usable output to 12Hz.
The VSA VR55 and Ultra 55 would also apply.
The Tannoy Saturn S10 would come very close too. The specs say 28Hz, but I measured an f3 of 22Hz in room on a pair of those (with one bass port in each speaker blocked by the factory plug, and the other port open), in a friend's house. Sold for $2K back in the late 90s.
Regards,
Gordon.
Only one sub is needed and those "will" dominate the room so thank you for helping to illustrate my point.
Here are some others.
Last edited:
Sgt Shultz
Addicted Member
The Modulus prove it only takes good R&D and yes a cost no object approach.
But Infinity had some experience in this already.
Last edited:
In the ancient days ...
Stands originated to smooth the mid bass bump that results from big ( 8-12" ) drivers of bookshelf speakers that were on. or too close to the floor ..
!2 to 18 inches off the floor usually did it .. The bass response was much smoother ... and building in a tilt (10 degrees or so) aimed the on-axis response of the upper frequencies at the ear of a seated listener ..
Floor-standers were designed and voiced with the driver near the floor ..
Once the sub-satellite phenomenon, with their small drivers in small boxes, began and became the norm ... largely due to a much higher WAF I think .. the taller stands and the tweeter at ear height phenom began .. the little boxes were mostly designed for on-axis listening .. unlike many older, too big bookshelf boxes many of which were explicitly designed for off-axis response .. and putting a small driver box anywhere near the floor is going to result in an unlistenable upper/mid-bass boom ..
I think maybe the two very different room coupling/decoupling methods that @rothwellaudio mentions is the result of two very different listening environments.
Studio listening is near field, on-axis, and close up ... Most of us are listening out in a room and further away, so the room has a bigger effect.
Most of the small driver two-ways were influenced by a near field on-axis studio monitor somewhere in their design parameters ..
FWIW ..
And we're all in trouble once they're on taller stands anyway, because the WAF factor plummets .. They look much better in corners behind plants ..
Might as well get a floor-stander .. ( with spikes )
Stands originated to smooth the mid bass bump that results from big ( 8-12" ) drivers of bookshelf speakers that were on. or too close to the floor ..
!2 to 18 inches off the floor usually did it .. The bass response was much smoother ... and building in a tilt (10 degrees or so) aimed the on-axis response of the upper frequencies at the ear of a seated listener ..
Floor-standers were designed and voiced with the driver near the floor ..
Once the sub-satellite phenomenon, with their small drivers in small boxes, began and became the norm ... largely due to a much higher WAF I think .. the taller stands and the tweeter at ear height phenom began .. the little boxes were mostly designed for on-axis listening .. unlike many older, too big bookshelf boxes many of which were explicitly designed for off-axis response .. and putting a small driver box anywhere near the floor is going to result in an unlistenable upper/mid-bass boom ..
I think maybe the two very different room coupling/decoupling methods that @rothwellaudio mentions is the result of two very different listening environments.
Studio listening is near field, on-axis, and close up ... Most of us are listening out in a room and further away, so the room has a bigger effect.
Most of the small driver two-ways were influenced by a near field on-axis studio monitor somewhere in their design parameters ..
FWIW ..
And we're all in trouble once they're on taller stands anyway, because the WAF factor plummets .. They look much better in corners behind plants ..
Might as well get a floor-stander .. ( with spikes )
Last edited:
Two methods for two very different listening environments ..
Studio listening is very near field and completely on-axis ..
Kinda makes sense that a mixing engineer would stick a pad under his monitors so that the shelf that they're sitting on couldn't influence what he's hearing ..
He's too close to the speakers to hear much of what the room might be contributing ..
For us it's the exact opposite ... out in the room trying to control room resonances ..
Mass loading on spikes is an effective means of controlling resonant frequencies ..
Last edited:
Mart Mccall
Well-Known Member
That's interesting and I suppose answers my question about the ratio of cab weight to driver size - assuming a low friction floor.
I've had every type of floor over the years, except tiles.
Mister Pig
Pigamus Maximus
You have been here long enough to know that everything Schultzy has is the best choice another can make, and life would be simpler if others would just do as him.
What are they?
@rothwellaudio asked an honest question which unfortunately was misinterpreted as a dig.
Sgt Shultz
Addicted Member
It really depends on the floor, newer floors in upscale homes will have 16" or 24" tiles where it was more the norm for 8" or 12" or even smaller back in the day.
So if your speakers actually sit on multiple tiles this could mean only a very small percentage of the flat bottom is actually in contact with the floor.
I never actually saw the speaker move but kept finding they had moved slightly backwards, at first I thought it was the cleaning lady but at times she hadn't been there.
Rubber feet might have worked but the tile floor might have still seen one foot off the floor leading to the speaker rocking, so spiking was really the only alternative.
Well, studios range from small and cheap to big and expensive, but certainly the ones at the big/expensive end of the spectrum usually have main monitors arranged not-unlike a domestic setup in the far field, plus one or more pairs of near-field monitors.
A pair of "horrible" speakers are often used for monitoring too, just to get some idea what things will sound like played back on poor gear.
Of course, in the studio world fashions come and go just like in every other walk of life.
Anyway, I certainly wouldn't say studio monitors are exclusively near-field.
Sgt Shultz
Addicted Member
Once spiked they were adjustable so could be leveled. Tile floors are common in FL, I had a house with Mexican tile, the more animal tracks and ef'd up the more expensive.
3 spikes is just simpler and firmer .. on a micro vibration level you're never going to get 4 spikes exactly equal .. especially on an uneven surface.
And you could definitely create a buzz on tile ..
Made me think about it ..
Why use spikes on tile ??
For wood, yes .. they penetrate and couple .. channel a lower resonant frequency into the floor and out of the speaker .. and fix the speaker more firmly horizontally.
For carpet yes, they penetrate through the fiber and inhibit micro-rocking on the fibers ..
For tile .. your firm rubber foot seems about as good as it gets .. too easy to create a buzz somewhere ..
Tile is laid fixed on concrete .. the floor isn't going to resonate audibly unless the speaker is on a loose tile. ..
Either a rubber foot or a spike would serve the leveling purpose ... and keep the speaker box from buzzing on the floor..
Anybody ever heard of listening tests comparing rubber to spikes on Tile ??
Seems like a toss-up to me except that rubber may change some cabinet resonances for the better .. or the worse .. not so sure about that .
And that rubber better be firm or the baffle will be rocking in response to the drivers ..
Why use spikes on tile ??
For wood, yes .. they penetrate and couple .. channel a lower resonant frequency into the floor and out of the speaker .. and fix the speaker more firmly horizontally.
For carpet yes, they penetrate through the fiber and inhibit micro-rocking on the fibers ..
For tile .. your firm rubber foot seems about as good as it gets .. too easy to create a buzz somewhere ..
Tile is laid fixed on concrete .. the floor isn't going to resonate audibly unless the speaker is on a loose tile. ..
Either a rubber foot or a spike would serve the leveling purpose ... and keep the speaker box from buzzing on the floor..
Anybody ever heard of listening tests comparing rubber to spikes on Tile ??
Seems like a toss-up to me except that rubber may change some cabinet resonances for the better .. or the worse .. not so sure about that .
And that rubber better be firm or the baffle will be rocking in response to the drivers ..
Last edited:
Not as crazy as me - I put my books on speaker stands!Call me crazy, but I tend to actually put bookshelf speakers on bookshelves.
Greetings from Munich!
Manfred / lini
Ever sat on a wobbly 3-legged bar stool? How about a 4-legged one?
There was a discussion about this with TT feet a while ago. Of course, being AK, everyone climbed their hill and started defending.
Last edited:
DeadRock
Ideas Guy
It's the same on other sites...the irony (especially from those whom espouse "objectivity") is hysterical...
Sgt Shultz
Addicted Member
The spikes on wood flooring require little pucks to protect the floor, on tile it's about the same as on carpet over concrete.