"When put on springs?
I find that odd, one would expect a less tight bass and less well defined stereo image.
Could be the type of floor plays a role, still...odd."
Frank, the Bostons are on my triangle shaped PC workstation table, each side of the PC monitor, and amplifier, vcr and tv are on shelves mounted above the PC monitor.
Without springs under the monitor, the table top buzzes like crazy at full level, and this vibration is also transferred to the amplifier.
With the speakers on springs, the table top is MUCH less vibrated, and the amplifier mounted on springs is motionless.
To my ear, the speakers are fuller, friendlier, and the system goes louder, and not the hardness in bass that is evident with other mountings.
In my workshop, the Cantons are mounted on springs on top a long shelf, at shoulder height.
All other mounting methods have resulted in rather high vibration of the shelf, and vibration of the electronics.
With spring mounting, the Cantons go way louder, stronger and cleaner, and ditto, no hardness in bass, and great imaging. (They are now vibrating the soles of my shoes when standing in my 140m2 shop).
I know that all of this goes counter to established standard doctrine, but since trying this, I find it hard to live with bass hardness evident with cones/spikes etc.
The key I think is that the box is allowed to 'float', and be its own system, without influence of delayed reflections from external mounting boundaries (floor, shelf etc).
The box is still sensitive to number and placing of the mounting points, and still requires placement tuning, but the criticalness is reduced, and I find I can tune up a better resultantant than I could using other mounting means.
"Could be the type of floor plays a role, still...odd."
Floors are always a strong influence in my experience.
The less coupling of box mechanical energy to the floor the better I reckon, because that leaves more energy to be emitted by the driver/enclosure system.
There is still more experimentation to be done, but so far I am more than satisfied with the results.
Eric.
I find that odd, one would expect a less tight bass and less well defined stereo image.
Could be the type of floor plays a role, still...odd."
Frank, the Bostons are on my triangle shaped PC workstation table, each side of the PC monitor, and amplifier, vcr and tv are on shelves mounted above the PC monitor.
Without springs under the monitor, the table top buzzes like crazy at full level, and this vibration is also transferred to the amplifier.
With the speakers on springs, the table top is MUCH less vibrated, and the amplifier mounted on springs is motionless.
To my ear, the speakers are fuller, friendlier, and the system goes louder, and not the hardness in bass that is evident with other mountings.
In my workshop, the Cantons are mounted on springs on top a long shelf, at shoulder height.
All other mounting methods have resulted in rather high vibration of the shelf, and vibration of the electronics.
With spring mounting, the Cantons go way louder, stronger and cleaner, and ditto, no hardness in bass, and great imaging. (They are now vibrating the soles of my shoes when standing in my 140m2 shop).
I know that all of this goes counter to established standard doctrine, but since trying this, I find it hard to live with bass hardness evident with cones/spikes etc.
The key I think is that the box is allowed to 'float', and be its own system, without influence of delayed reflections from external mounting boundaries (floor, shelf etc).
The box is still sensitive to number and placing of the mounting points, and still requires placement tuning, but the criticalness is reduced, and I find I can tune up a better resultantant than I could using other mounting means.
"Could be the type of floor plays a role, still...odd."
Floors are always a strong influence in my experience.
The less coupling of box mechanical energy to the floor the better I reckon, because that leaves more energy to be emitted by the driver/enclosure system.
There is still more experimentation to be done, but so far I am more than satisfied with the results.
Eric.
sound of different materials
hi,
here is link to a very good article about the influence of different materials (mostly wood) on sound
http://www.vansevers.com/Tuning_Tweaks/System_Tweaking/system_tweaking.html
also; some interesting things about connectors and their influence on sound can be found in allen wright's "supercables cookbook"
hi,
here is link to a very good article about the influence of different materials (mostly wood) on sound
http://www.vansevers.com/Tuning_Tweaks/System_Tweaking/system_tweaking.html
also; some interesting things about connectors and their influence on sound can be found in allen wright's "supercables cookbook"
So, I'm Not Nuts After All Then.......
Frank, thanks, good link, sorry if I missed it first time.
I have been and had a good read, and agree on most of what I read there, even if I do find some explanations a bit funny.
I have been down a similar track 10 years ago, and found similar things regarding wire/conductor direction, AC power feeds, and resonances, mechanical and electrical.
I found some similar soloutions, some different.
Seems you and I are not alone in noticing these effects.
Eric, The Vindicated.
Brett - Remember when you gave me a hard time when I dared mention the phrase "wire directionality" a long time ago ?.
He who laughs last laughs best.
Frank, thanks, good link, sorry if I missed it first time.
I have been and had a good read, and agree on most of what I read there, even if I do find some explanations a bit funny.
I have been down a similar track 10 years ago, and found similar things regarding wire/conductor direction, AC power feeds, and resonances, mechanical and electrical.
I found some similar soloutions, some different.
Seems you and I are not alone in noticing these effects.
Eric, The Vindicated.
Brett - Remember when you gave me a hard time when I dared mention the phrase "wire directionality" a long time ago ?.
He who laughs last laughs best.
Re: So, I'm Not Nuts After All Then.......
Cheers
I don't recall that. I was probably taking the ****. I make all my own cables (and have for years), and always bring it off the spool, cut and align each conductor/length for direction. I don't think it's a huge effect (actually quite minor), but as they say God is in the details. Circuit topology is at least an order of magnitude more important.mrfeedback said:Brett - Remember when you gave me a hard time when I dared mention the phrase "wire directionality" a long time ago ?.
He who laughs last laughs best.
Cheers
PITA Tuning Factor....
I don't recall that. I was probably taking the ****.
Yeah, you're always taking the ****, and good thing too.
Point to point wiring, nuclear physicist etc - remember.
I make all my own cables (and have for years), and always bring it off the spool, cut and align each conductor/length for direction.
What are you making and what results.
I don't think it's a huge effect (actually quite minor), but as they say God is in the details.
Yes, I agree that it ought to be a minor detail, but on many systems it can be a reasonably big deal, I have found (PITA Factor).
Mssr mike VanSevers has some good things to say but some of the sensitivities that he and his customers report ought not to be nearly so great if better circuit techniques and component choices, and mechanical techniques were incorporated.
I understand that rock solid and non reactive/dependent systems with good circuit topologies lessens the effect bigtime, but this is usually expensive, and therefore relatively unusual.
I also understand and agree that most systems are strongly reactive, and therefore require tuning.
The trick is in setting up the most appropriate or enjoyable tuning, and this is what makes or breaks an otherwise nice system.
I differ, or more so understand levels further than what he describes, but good on him for saying and doing what he does.
Circuit topology is at least an order of magnitude more important.
Cheers
Sure, see above, but circuit techniques are not the last word.
Cheers from me too.
Eric.
I don't recall that. I was probably taking the ****.
Yeah, you're always taking the ****, and good thing too.
Point to point wiring, nuclear physicist etc - remember.
I make all my own cables (and have for years), and always bring it off the spool, cut and align each conductor/length for direction.
What are you making and what results.
I don't think it's a huge effect (actually quite minor), but as they say God is in the details.
Yes, I agree that it ought to be a minor detail, but on many systems it can be a reasonably big deal, I have found (PITA Factor).
Mssr mike VanSevers has some good things to say but some of the sensitivities that he and his customers report ought not to be nearly so great if better circuit techniques and component choices, and mechanical techniques were incorporated.
I understand that rock solid and non reactive/dependent systems with good circuit topologies lessens the effect bigtime, but this is usually expensive, and therefore relatively unusual.
I also understand and agree that most systems are strongly reactive, and therefore require tuning.
The trick is in setting up the most appropriate or enjoyable tuning, and this is what makes or breaks an otherwise nice system.
I differ, or more so understand levels further than what he describes, but good on him for saying and doing what he does.
Circuit topology is at least an order of magnitude more important.
Cheers
Sure, see above, but circuit techniques are not the last word.
Cheers from me too.
Eric.
TUNING THE CAR.
Hi,
IME,the higher the resoltion of the system the more it is worthwile to pay attention to detail.
Eric,
Have you tried mass loading the top of the speakers?
Do the speakers stay put on the same spot when spring mounted?
Yep.
All,
Has cable directivity been discussed in depth on the forum?
And I do mean anything other than my own droppings on the subject.
Brett,
I agree with you that a given circuit has to work at its' best.
After that you look to optimize its' symbyosis within the system.
All too often I run in so called "high end" systems that just can't work together.
Sad but true.
Cheers,
Hi,
IME,the higher the resoltion of the system the more it is worthwile to pay attention to detail.
Eric,
Have you tried mass loading the top of the speakers?
Do the speakers stay put on the same spot when spring mounted?
Yep.
All,
Has cable directivity been discussed in depth on the forum?
And I do mean anything other than my own droppings on the subject.
Brett,
I agree with you that a given circuit has to work at its' best.
After that you look to optimize its' symbyosis within the system.
All too often I run in so called "high end" systems that just can't work together.
Sad but true.
Cheers,
Hi Frank,
"Have you tried mass loading the top of the speakers?
Do the speakers stay put on the same spot when spring mounted?
The speakers stay exactly put (no rocking or shaking or walking off the springs), and I have not put any significant mass on top, because long previous experimentation then showed change of sonic character when damping the top panel of the cabinet (along the lines of placing a cab on carpet damps the bottom panel).
So far I like the results bigtime on all the systems that I have tried this on.
"Has cable directivity been discussed in depth on the forum? "
Yeah, long time ago, but of course there were a whole heap of 'experts' who vigourously maintained that a piece of wire is a piece of wire and therefore it cannot have the property of directional characteristic.
Feel free to add some more of your experience.
Eric.
"Have you tried mass loading the top of the speakers?
Do the speakers stay put on the same spot when spring mounted?
The speakers stay exactly put (no rocking or shaking or walking off the springs), and I have not put any significant mass on top, because long previous experimentation then showed change of sonic character when damping the top panel of the cabinet (along the lines of placing a cab on carpet damps the bottom panel).
So far I like the results bigtime on all the systems that I have tried this on.
"Has cable directivity been discussed in depth on the forum? "
Yeah, long time ago, but of course there were a whole heap of 'experts'
who vigourously maintained that a piece of wire is a piece of wire and therefore it cannot have the property of directional characteristic.Feel free to add some more of your experience.
Eric.
NO KIDDING?
Hi,
Well..as we're off topic as it is.
First point: yes mass loading the top of a speaker will change the sound.
Physics tell me though that everything that moves loses energy so naturally I look for a solid reference for the cone to move not the cabinet along with it.
I need to try your set-up and untill then I bow to your experience.
Second point:
Cable directivity:
What if we debunked that myth once and for all?
It deserves a thread all of its' own where one could present facts along with listening experiences.
Before we start anything let me check what I said already about directivity,cryo treatment and how a wire sees life at the factory.
There is also the topic of running in wires (components) and matters like quantum physics that come into play.
Could be fun,
Hi,
Well..as we're off topic as it is.
First point: yes mass loading the top of a speaker will change the sound.
Physics tell me though that everything that moves loses energy so naturally I look for a solid reference for the cone to move not the cabinet along with it.
I need to try your set-up and untill then I bow to your experience.
Second point:
Cable directivity:
What if we debunked that myth once and for all?
It deserves a thread all of its' own where one could present facts along with listening experiences.
Before we start anything let me check what I said already about directivity,cryo treatment and how a wire sees life at the factory.
There is also the topic of running in wires (components) and matters like quantum physics that come into play.
Could be fun,
Bouncing Things Around.....
Hi,
"Physics tell me though that everything that moves loses energy so naturally I look for a solid reference for the cone to move not the cabinet along with it."
Sure, everything that moves against a braking force will lose energy.
As I see it, the driver and box form a discrete system, and all the input energy (neglecting electrical resistive losses) can be made to exit to the air by the moving cone and the excited cabinet.
Cones in my view are a solid coupling, so will transfer energy from the cabinet to the supporting floor or shelf, and in so doing cause the floor or shelf to be an additional radiator, and also alter the resonances within the cabinet structure itself.
By spring mounting, the driver/cabinet system is allowed to be itself, and very little energy is lost to the supporting surface.
Effectively allowing the cabinet to 'float' allows it to resonate at its natural modes and of course this may be, or may not be pleasing, according to the cabinet characteristics.
I find that the driver to box stiffness/mass is well sufficient, and effectively adding extra stiffness by mounting on cones is actually deleterious to both overall efficiency and musicality.
I tried springs under my Infinities and CD-94 at my GF's place on the weekend, and the result was the same as previous experiments.
Overall the sound was bigger, liver, better depth and rather more musical and entertaining.
I caught myself tapping my heels unconciously, and when I looked my GF was doing the same.
Previously on very good systems I have unconciously tapped my toes, but not my heels.
Of course, good company, good food and a few whiskies helped the percieved musicality, but outdoor backyard sound checks revealed a very pleasing sound going over the fences.
So far I reckon springs are a winner.
Probably next sunday, I will get the chance to place springs under a mates bass rig and some pa cabs at a pub beergarden live show (rock/blues) and see what results we get.
"What if we debunked that myth once and for all?"
Not sure what you mean there - wire has direction, or not direction ?.
Eric.
Hi,
"Physics tell me though that everything that moves loses energy so naturally I look for a solid reference for the cone to move not the cabinet along with it."
Sure, everything that moves against a braking force will lose energy.
As I see it, the driver and box form a discrete system, and all the input energy (neglecting electrical resistive losses) can be made to exit to the air by the moving cone and the excited cabinet.
Cones in my view are a solid coupling, so will transfer energy from the cabinet to the supporting floor or shelf, and in so doing cause the floor or shelf to be an additional radiator, and also alter the resonances within the cabinet structure itself.
By spring mounting, the driver/cabinet system is allowed to be itself, and very little energy is lost to the supporting surface.
Effectively allowing the cabinet to 'float' allows it to resonate at its natural modes and of course this may be, or may not be pleasing, according to the cabinet characteristics.
I find that the driver to box stiffness/mass is well sufficient, and effectively adding extra stiffness by mounting on cones is actually deleterious to both overall efficiency and musicality.
I tried springs under my Infinities and CD-94 at my GF's place on the weekend, and the result was the same as previous experiments.
Overall the sound was bigger, liver, better depth and rather more musical and entertaining.
I caught myself tapping my heels unconciously, and when I looked my GF was doing the same.
Previously on very good systems I have unconciously tapped my toes, but not my heels.
Of course, good company, good food and a few whiskies helped the percieved musicality
, but outdoor backyard sound checks revealed a very pleasing sound going over the fences.So far I reckon springs are a winner.
Probably next sunday, I will get the chance to place springs under a mates bass rig and some pa cabs at a pub beergarden live show (rock/blues) and see what results we get.
"What if we debunked that myth once and for all?"
Not sure what you mean there - wire has direction, or not direction ?.
Eric.
Re: Re: Re: Ex. Hovland Tech.?
I left Hovland because a much better and closer job came up at Groovetubes.
I got to know the Hovland sound very well and a set of high gm triode-pentodes can beat the pants off of any 12ax7 based preamp. The el34 power amp they market is good but current hungry 6as7 srpp para-feed will resolve crotch scratches in the cello section. Now as for the blue glow---Well,, my rats nest designs will not go over too well at Stereophile.
Robert Morin
Brett said:
I left Hovland because a much better and closer job came up at Groovetubes.
I got to know the Hovland sound very well and a set of high gm triode-pentodes can beat the pants off of any 12ax7 based preamp. The el34 power amp they market is good but current hungry 6as7 srpp para-feed will resolve crotch scratches in the cello section. Now as for the blue glow---Well,, my rats nest designs will not go over too well at Stereophile.
Robert Morin
Attachments
A chassis is more than just an RFI shield for manufactured components. It is also a place to connect things like interconnects, speaker cables, and power cords. If this is DIY, why not just let let these extend straight into the component and eliminate a costly interface. Admittedly this might affect versitility, but then, I for one don't move my stuff around very much.
Joe
Joe
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.