How about for monitors on stands? Between the stand & floor or between stand & speaker?
To couple, or not to couple, that is the question
There seems to be a fundamental difference of opinion between those who would couple their speakers to the floor (e.g., with spikes), and those who would decouple them (e.g., with springs). I’ve gone both ways, but have found that I prefer the latter; I’ve currently got Sorbothane feet attached to my tower speakers, so that they wobble or "float"—much like the Townshend Platforms videos show for that similar, but more expensive, approach. My ears are the final arbiters of my listening experience, so they rule my choices. But my mind likes to have a theoretical explanation to account for my subjective preferences.
That’s where the question comes in. A very knowledgable audiophile friend insists that what I prefer is precisely the opposite of what is best: that ideally, the speaker enclosure should be as rigid and immovable as possible so that the moving cones of the drivers can both most efficiently and most accurately create a sound front free of the inevitable colorations that would come from fighting against a moving cabinet. He says that transients will be muddied by the motion of the cabinet set up by the motion of the speaker cones. And this makes perfect sense to me in terms of my physical intuitions. It’s perhaps analogous to the desirability of having a rigid frame in a high-performance vehicle, which allows the engineers to design the suspension without having to worry too much about the complex interactions with a flexing chassis.
Am I just deluded, then, in preferring a non-rigid interface between speaker and floor? Or does it depend on the kind of floor? (I get that most advice seems to favor decoupling from a suspended wood floor, and coupling to a slab; my floor is hardwood, but not exactly "suspended" as the underflooring structure is very rigid.) Or are there trade offs here, as there usually are in such options: do I gain something (but what, and how?) even as I lose something else (i.e., clean transients, especially in bass tones)?
The ears will win this contest, but I like to have my mind on board if possible. So thanks for any input you may have on this question.
- ...
- 70 posts total
Millercarbon! So good to have you back! This is sufficient "theory" to satisfy my curious mind. That is, it's a clear and reasonable explanation of how and why decoupling may work the acoustic wonders it does work, as far as my ears tell me. In fact, it's because of your advocacy for Townshend podiums a year ago or so that I was led to try decoupling, albeit cheaply with Sorbothane. But I'm willing to believe I could improve things even more by at least going to Nobsound springs. Someday, perhaps. Again, welcome back. We've missed your wit and wisdom on this forum. |
@aewarren I tried both on basement concrete and springs sound better there too.
|
In my engineering degree we studied the effects of vibration and movement on adjacent objects and machines, it is clear that one moving and / or vibrating object creates energy that has effects on adjacent objects and machines. This is particularly the case if objects are close, creating the same energy and coupled. As hifi electronics and speakers are extremely sensitive machines there is certainly resonant effect in both directions. The most obvious way is to de couple the objects, this is most often performed by separation (distance), interference (place something between them), or isolation ( de couple one or better still both, from the energy pathway). In a small room and with the need to have speakers relative close together to get proper imaging then de coupling is likely to be the preferred solution. |
- 70 posts total