They claim it reduces resonant coupling between the speaker and the mount. Whether or not that has been tested and validated is one thing, but there's at least a hypothesis there to work from!
And my incredulity of "someone big" tries its best to be universal.
Does the bright sound translate into a more constant energy spectrum? When I last looked at popular music for energy distribution it peaked around 100 Hz to 200 Hz falling off on both sides. Hip hop lower frequency and classical more uniform across the band.
I have heard that the trend for brighter sound reflects the hearing damage among the creators and the consumers. Ambient noise had been getting louder and restaurants are as loud as some industrial work places. I measured an average of almost 90 dB SPL at a restaurant recently. Not good for conversation. Probably not good for the hearing of the staff either.
Invest in hearing aid companies.
Yes, it has a more constant energy spectrum. Flat, essentially.
Normally, music does fall off as you describe. That's basically how an acoustic performance would sound.
The bright sound thing is to make it sound louder (because at first, at least, louder always sounds better), to get people's attention on the radio, to make other music sound dull in comparison, and to imply that the music is new and different, and tailored especially for a young, hip culture.
Mark, I'm just going straight off their website's words. I should have said "stand" rather than "mount" though. In all cases, there are falsifiable claims AND known physical phenomena that point towards these mounting interfaces having a real effect. In many ways, it's similar to engine mounts, which are well studied. Magnitude/audibility/etc unknown, of course. But they pass the smell test for sure.
BPQ's have a much harder time passing plausibility. Not to say they don't do something like what's described, but solid, repeatable evidence has been limited.
BPQ's have a much harder time passing plausibility. Not to say they don't do something like what's described, but solid, repeatable evidence has been limited.
anti vibration mounts basically, plenty of info around regarding them, similar in operation to this stuff I hase used on a few projects to cut vibrational based noise.
Acousteel: Sound Deadened Steel, non acoustic steel, sound dead steel
Unlike secret components supposedly designed for the US Navy Sonar as the original marketing for the BQPs claimed....
Acousteel: Sound Deadened Steel, non acoustic steel, sound dead steel
Unlike secret components supposedly designed for the US Navy Sonar as the original marketing for the BQPs claimed....
> Constant distortion with frequency implies constant feedback with frequency which is usually caused by deliberately high open loop bandwidth.
> High open loop bandwidth, all else being equal, usually gives lower PIM distortion. So there! '-)
Attached is an example circuit with no global feedback. -3dB bandwidth is at 600kHz.
If we believe in Spice, then distortion at 10kHz is almost 10x that at 1kHz.
For the sake of learning with an example, what can one do to achieve constant THD vs Freq. ?
Patrick
.
> High open loop bandwidth, all else being equal, usually gives lower PIM distortion. So there! '-)
Attached is an example circuit with no global feedback. -3dB bandwidth is at 600kHz.
If we believe in Spice, then distortion at 10kHz is almost 10x that at 1kHz.
For the sake of learning with an example, what can one do to achieve constant THD vs Freq. ?
Patrick
.
Okay, based on the information provided, would you feel confident buying a pair? I sure didn't. It sounded to me much like a lot miscellaneous audio claims you see around. The only thing that convinced me to try something I was rather skeptical about was the endorsement of so many successful, well known mix engineers.
In addition, they don't just claim that the pads help flatten frequency response. They make claims about imaging and more. How does the information they provided about how the pads work support that claim? I don't think it does. But, the thing is is that they do improve imaging and so forth, that is, they do all the things the manufacturer claims. Does all that follow from some explanation about removing frequency response bumps?
Thanks Mark.
A few notes :
R5 is not equal to R6 because of need to trim DC offset at R3 (IV resistor).
R11 is not equal to R12 because M1 and M2 have different Vgs at bias.
And R21 is included in order to match transconductances between top and bottom half of the source follower.
One can of course omit R21 and readjust the value of R11, if so wish.
Patrick
A few notes :
R5 is not equal to R6 because of need to trim DC offset at R3 (IV resistor).
R11 is not equal to R12 because M1 and M2 have different Vgs at bias.
And R21 is included in order to match transconductances between top and bottom half of the source follower.
One can of course omit R21 and readjust the value of R11, if so wish.
Patrick
No, I wouldn't buy a pair, but that has little to do with their information, and recommendations are really falling on deaf ears, as I don't know these people from the men on the moon.
We all have our trusted sources, and this isn't my circle (for better and worse, I'm sure). Resonances and frequency response had better explain any real audible differences, or the mount interfaces are placebo! And I use mousepads with a thin layer of santoprene underneath my speakers for similar mechanical intent (and protecting the veneer at the bottom of the speakers!). Whether it does anything, I don't really know, nor did I test. Then again, I'm not claiming anything beyond their existence in my system. I want to emphasize these mounts pass the "smell test" of "might this actually do something meaningful?" without invoking even higher and higher levels of explanation. Quantifying "imaging", etc. is a fuzzier topic, sure. Frequency lumps and resonances are a little cleaner. In the end, these mounts have to change something about the air molecules hitting your ear drum, no? (unless you want to get into it affecting the DSP in your brain, but I'm wont not to go there).
Merriam Webster's recent word of the day was Occam's Razor, which seems pretty appropriate to this discussion. That's all.
I'm ducking out here, though, as I fear we're talking past one another.
The only reason I didn't say who and what car company is because he would get in trouble. They were to seal the cylinder pressure better than any gasket and never blow out. The more the cylinder heat and pressure produced, the tighter they sealed the head to block -- as the gas inside the ring expanded.
On JC and others comments regarding constant feedback vs freq. You can count me in that group since day one. I have said this many times in past and finally some start to Get It.
It is the reason I went to passive RIAA in my published phono design back in the 70's (?). Discrete ckt running on +/- 24vdc.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Maybe not so much in the kind of limited way we have been thinking about it so far.
What may be happening is that when the speakers are more coupled to the stands, the stands then become sound sources of undefined directivity and frequency response. So, imaging may seem to wander around a bit, or to be smeared out in space, as the effective sound source varies. That would be my guess, but they didn't say that. In fact, they may not know exactly how the pads work. And even though frequency response may be one variable of a dynamically changing system, dynamically changing directivity might be thought of as another variable.
I guess what's bothering me here is that we humans tend to think in terms of certain paradigms. If thinking about bumps in frequency response, then we tend to try to understand things in those terms. That is not unlike thinking that harmonic distortion acting on frequencies above 10kHz can't be audible, but not thinking about IMD also present. Or people may sometimes look at opamps with THD specs like .00002% or something and say, no one could possibly hear that. But they don't think about the effects of the circuit the opamp is in. All these things are examples of the well-known cognitive bias Daniel Kahneman called WYSIATI (What You See Is All There Is). WYSIATI is extremely common in human thinking, so it's just something to be aware of and be on the lookout for.
Constant feedback vs frequency requires constant OL gain vs frequency. This would mean that the distortion reduction factor is constant vs frequrency.
It only guarantees constant distortion vs frequency if it has constant OL distortion vs frequency. Normally this is not the case.
Jan
- Status
- Not open for further replies.