Coupling/Decoupling Electronics


All the posts I’m making are due to my recent purchase of KEF LS50s and my attempts to optimize them. I’m now the first to admit that little changes make a big difference. At 12” from the wall behind then, the bass gets a little muddy. At 13”, I get nice reinforcement without any muddiness. A couple of weeks ago, if you had told me that an inch would make a difference, you’d get a very skeptical look. 

Inevitably, I wandered into the coupling/decoupling, spikes/pads battle. After much reading and a lot of lessons in physics-lite, I have determined that there are too many variables at work—speakers, stands, carpets, floors—for any kind of blanket statement to be made. 

There seems to be less controversy about electronics. The word is: Isolate! Those same speakers that are producing so much vibration are a deleterious force. We must do our best to keep those vibrations away from our finely tuned electronics. 

So here is my question: Don’t electronics produce their own vibration? CDs spin, amplifiers amp. Lots of energy being produced. Like speakers, is isolating them from the world around the right thing to do? Shouldn’t that energy inside the boxes be passed off, as speaker energy is passed off by spikes?


I suspect that, like the speaker question, there’s too many variables at play for a simple answer but I thought I’d ask.


Here’s another, more mystifying question. I just traded up from KEF Q150s. Black ones can be had for $300 from Amazon. White ones—the identical speaker—are out of stock everywhere and cost $5-$600 if you can track down a pair. This seems not to be an example of an efficient market, as Adam Smith might define it. (I’m not complaining. I had white ones.) (And I think that Adam Smith’s ideas are long out of date, having been surpassed by managerial capitalism, advanced capitalism, and whatever is en vogue at this University of Chicago these days.)
paul6001
I agree with the above posters about draining vibrations and all, but always keep in mind that ultimately you may prefer the sound of the component sitting on it's own feet.  In some cases, putting footers or platforms under the component may harden or soften the sound in a way that is not pleasing to your ear.  So IMO, it's a good idea to try these things, but always put your musical preference above the intellectually-appealing concept of draining the vibrations out of a component.  
Speaker energy is not passed off by spikes.  Spikes minimize the contact area to the floor, making transmission harder vs. full surface contact. Richard Vandersteen wrote an excellent article on the subject on his blog.
I use with great success springs sets finely adjusted on top of a sandwiches of coupling/decoupling varied materials: bamboo,granite,cork,sorbothane....

I use 2 sets of 4 springs boxes dyssemetrically compressed by some heavy load damping the speakers and the 2 sets of 4 springs boxes for each speakers one set under the load and another set under the speakers+the load.... Natural timbre of instrument and minimal interference between speakers sitting on my desk.... Cost: peanuts...
I wouldn't worry about it with LS50 speakers and digital playback. Turntables are affected by vibrations. I can't see anyone sitting around listening to streaming music through a bookshelf speaker chiming in telling you the vibrations are really messing up the amplifier and streamer. 

@mahgister

Yes, springs despite possible accidental impact instability issues may well be the best way to go.

As you say the cost is negligible.


Richard Vandersteen on the other hand doesn't seem to like any introduction of compliance between speakers and resting surface.

I can see where his argument is coming from in regard to the loss of treble information introduced by additional compliance.  

On the other hand I would that think movement of the treble dome, which can be measured in microns, is far too small in size and mass to be affected by any form of compliance placed underneath the loudspeaker.

--------

Ask Richard

Richard, I've seen a lot of discussion about coupling vs decoupling, a lot of people suggest decoupling speakers especially on wood suspended floors like I have (also carpeted with cement board). 

Would it be advisable to use a flexible puck or something under or instead of cones with my 5 A's in that instance? 

In Richards ears I trust.


(2-15-20) 

THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF MISINFORMATION ON FOOTERS FOR SPEAKERS. A SPEAKERS JOB IS TO MOVE AIR SO THAT WE CAN HEAR SOUNDS. THIS PRESSURE WAVE IS CAUSED BY POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE MOVEMENTS OF THE CONES AND DOMES MOUNTED INTO A SPEAKER ENCLOSURE. 

WE CAN SEE THE LARGE MOVEMENTS A WOOFER MAKES BUT THE TWEETER IS ALSO MOVING MICRONS DOING ITS WORK. FOR THIS TO MOVE AIR THE ENCLOSURE OF THE SPEAKER MUST BE HELD RIGIDLY IN SPACE OR SOME OF THIS WORK WILL BE LOST. KINETIC ENERGY CAUSED MOSTLY BY THE MOVING MASS OF THE WOOFER WILL TRY TO MOVE THE SPEAKER ENCLOSURE ANTI PHASE WHICH CANCELS SOME OF THE SIGNAL. 

ONE PAYS A LOT OF MONEY ON THE OTHER COMPONENTS OF THE SYSTEM JUST TO BE THROWING SOME OF IT AWAY AT THE SPEAKER. THE RESULT IS CANCELED DYNAMICS AND TIME SMEAR. 

SO WHY ARE MANY HAPPY WITH THE SOUND WHEN USING COMPLIANT FOOTERS? MANY SPEAKERS ARE DESIGNED DELIBERATELY BRIGHT SO THEY WILL MAKE AN IMPRESSION DURING THE DEMO BUT ONCE THEY ARE INSTALLED IN THE SYSTEM THE EXCESSIVE HIGH FREQUENCIES BECOME BOTHERSOME. 

PUTTING A COMPLIANT FOOTER UNDER SUCH A SPEAKER AND THROWING AWAY SOME OF THE EXCESSIVE HIGH FREQUIENCY ENERGY MAY BE MORE MUSICAL AND PREFERRED BY MOST LISTENERS. 

WE INSTALL 3 POINTS UNDER OUR SPEAKERS BECAUSE 3 POINTS (POINTS DRAMATICLLY INCREASE THE EFECTIVE MASS OF THE SPEAKER) DEFINE A PLANE AND ASSURES EQUALL LOADING ON ALL OF THE FEET.  


THE RESULT IS LESS TIME SMEAR, LOWER DISTORTION, INCREASED DYNAMICS AND HIGHER RESOLUTION BECAUSE THERE IS LESS FORE AND AFT MOVEMENT. (RV)

https://www.vandersteen.com/support/ask-richard