Townshend Springs under Speakers

Hear Yee, EVP Bargain Hunters, Hear Yee:

IF you assume/believe the idea is absolutely correct (or just want to find out), it seems to me:

The ’exact’ density/vibration dissipation, for your ’exact’ speaker’s weight/bottom surface, (perhaps uneven weight distribution on each individual pad), is rocket science. The results choosing from a chart with weight ranges indicating ’average’ will either be ’good enough’ or it won’t, certainly not exact.

My heavy speakers, 3 EVP’s each: Six 4x4 x 1" thick, HD Felt = $1,134. add tax, ship, say $1,200.

https://avroomservice.com/store-evp/

the ’weight’ chart says 3 4x4 HD Felt are good for 36 to 228 lbs. That ain’t rocket science.

https://avroomservice.com/evp-2/#evp-select

Perhaps I will try these 3-1/4" square washing machine feet, 2 x 4 = 8 for $36. add tax, pick up, say $40.,

https://www.homedepot.com/p/Everbilt-Anti-Vibration-Pads-4-Pack-69001HD/301857647?MERCH=REC-_-searchViewed-_-NA-_-301857647-_-N

or, something else that seems worth a try

See if they are ’good enough’. Certainly enough to explore the concept without parting with $1,200.

presumably rubber would stay in place

I could glue some felt on the bottom of the rubber to adjust toe-in as needed for 1 or 2 listeners as I now do using hard plastic dual wheel furniture casters with tight axels (no axel wobble). I also adjust toe-in infrequently to narrow a too-wide stereo image. Front inside corner remains on the mark; front outside corner moves in/out around 3" for 2 listeners (enclosure front is 20" wide)
......................

grannyring I agree and it's a point I've made many times on other sites.

For instance I'm an active member on the Audio Science Review forum, and it's funny that here I get the reputation of being some hard nosed "objectivist" while over there I'm often seen as a subjectivist who has infiltrated their ranks ;-)

On that forum the general approach is pursuing technical accuracy through a measurements oriented approach.   This does NOT mean they are, like the strawman often raised,  a bunch of audio Spocks who don't care about sound.    Rather they tend to want audible effects verified and correlated to measurements.  A laudable goal! 


The result though, especially with the owner of the forum, is a heavy bias towards measurements and a dismissal of the use of subjective descriptions and subjective audio reviews.

Whereas I have constantly made the case for the worth of subjective audio reviews and audiophiles sharing their subjective reports of equipment.

As much as I absolutely admire and support the project on that site, it does not fully satisfy me as I find trading subjective impressions and descriptions of sound an important, rewarding and often useful aspect of the audiophile hobby.   By our very nature sound produces subjective effects, that's the whole point of a sound system for music, and I want to hear about "what X sounded like" and I want to tell others "what X sounded like."

So while I do work in pro sound, I am a life long audiophile who cares about and listens for all the same things other audiophiles care about.I want more "air" in my system, more realistic clarity and subtle detail, more convincing imaging and soundstaging, as much timbral harmonic nuance as I can possibly get, and on and on.


Notice I described hearing much the same sonic effects others (and reviewers) have heard when I placed spring-based footers under my speakers.


I'm obsessive about comparing real instruments and voices to reproduced (and have done direct comparisons with sound systems - recording instruments we play at our house and family voices, and comparing those played back through sound systems directly with the real thing).

Even my audio reviewer pal thinks I'm obsessive in the level of detail I care about :-)

Right now I'm comparing two sets of amplifiers: my original Conrad Johnson Premier 12 tube monoblocks with a pair of Premier 12s that have been upgraded with Teflon caps and different tubes.  I'm listening for, and hearing,  all the things we talk about around here: changes in imaging, soundstagind, lack of grain, changes in frequency response, changes in bass depth/tightness, changes in the highs, changes in timbre, tonal subteties etc. 


But back to the point:  I find that those on the ASR site, to the extent they disparage subjective reviews, just don't seem to be listening the way I listen, and listening for what I listen for.  So the things I care about often aren't addressed in the extremely brief subjective snippets given for reviews there.  People there generally seem to have an allergy to getting too detailed about describing sound, lest they start sounding like an audio reviewer they tend to decry, and for me this ends up being a deficit.   Which is why I still come to the subjective forums to exchange views.

Great, great post, @prof!

The list of hi-fi engineers who operate(d) via the design with measurements/verify with listening methodology is a long one, including a couple of my favorites: Roger Modjeski (Music Reference, electronics) and Danny Richie (GR Research, loudspeakers).

The father of subjective reviewing---J. Gordon Holt---came from the engineering side of hi-fi, but considered listening "the proof in the pudding". When Harry Pearson appeared out of nowhere ten years after the first Stereophile was published and started The Absolute Sound---HP completely technically-ignorant (said in a non-pejorative spirit ;-)---measuring and technical analysis were conspicuously absent. No attempt was made to correlate design with sound quality, and in fact TAS sort of encouraged an attitude of the two being opposing forces. An unfortunate and counter-productive development.

Thank God for John Atkinson!

@elliottbnewcombjr 
if you are trying to save money, then DIY footers similar to EVPs using Owens Corning 703 or 705 Acoustic Insulation with sheet stainless steel then rubber or felt on either end

"Great, great post, @prof"
Agree! @prof's commentary is consistently well thought out and interesting.
Charles