You haven't read all the threads about filling metal speaker stands with sand etc? General reason is stability and to deaden vibration in an iron tube which otherwise would resonate. Having said that there's a debate between lighter lossy stands and heavy-as-possible stands. Just as there's a debate between lossy cabinets like BBC LS5a and heavily damped cabinets.
I've never used proper stands before so I can't comment on "how it sounds".
Material choice depends on purpose.
If you have a thin sheet-metal stand and needs a low centre of gravity when combined with a heavy speaker, you need something with high density.
Other than lead, copper, tungsten, gold & platinium come to mind.
If you are not worry about CG but wants maximum vibrational damping, then you want something fine grain to create as much friction as possible.
Or a combination of the two -- metal pearls on the bottom half, then fill up with sand.
Patrick
If you have a thin sheet-metal stand and needs a low centre of gravity when combined with a heavy speaker, you need something with high density.
Other than lead, copper, tungsten, gold & platinium come to mind.
If you are not worry about CG but wants maximum vibrational damping, then you want something fine grain to create as much friction as possible.
Or a combination of the two -- metal pearls on the bottom half, then fill up with sand.
Patrick
Last edited by a moderator:
What speakers do you have?
How lossy or damped would you describe them as?
Once you've settled on a filling for your stands, you can decide whether you wish to couple them or isolate them from the floor.
Foundation stands were seen as good examples of filled stands, but their designer is not giving any secrets away. He posted on this forum as CJSF - https://forums.whathifi.com/threads/rubbish-in-rubbish-out.106432/#post-1122630 - hope you find it useful.
How lossy or damped would you describe them as?
Once you've settled on a filling for your stands, you can decide whether you wish to couple them or isolate them from the floor.
Foundation stands were seen as good examples of filled stands, but their designer is not giving any secrets away. He posted on this forum as CJSF - https://forums.whathifi.com/threads/rubbish-in-rubbish-out.106432/#post-1122630 - hope you find it useful.
Thanks for the link. I have a variety of speaker projects. At present Wharfedale early Diamond bookshelves, but I'm going to experiment with aluminium cabinets.
No.
The stability makes sense and can be addressed by anything heavy and inert.
Everything resonates to some degree but one would normally only do something about it if it was audible and detrimental. Given the small radiating area and the low level of driving forces compared to the cabinet I am guessing there is no evidence indicating there is an issue?
Sand would likely add some damping but not much in comparison with following what would be done with a cabinet by tightly bonding a damping material to the surface. If the sound radiation from the stand is inaudible sand would seem a reasonable way to go. If not I would suggest revising the overall design of the stand first before considering how to damp it.
Not sure there is much debate among the informed. The BBC approach made engineering sense 50 years ago given their objectives (lowish cost, light enough to be lugged around, manufacturable by speaker companies of the time and just about sufficient to do the job) but not today as reflected in the monitors they and similar broadcasting companies now use. Even at the time their publications indicated they were aware of technically superior approaches but considered them too impractical/expensive to pursue at the time.
What makes a stand proper?
Real explanation: Well intentioned uninformed with too much money looking for some magic improvement. In all likelihood, the more they spend, the less conventional, the better it will sound to them, even though it actually makes no difference in the real world. There is a term for this, a persons name, but I forgot it a long time ago. Something like the "Brown Effect" Not correct though. I wish I could give credit to the author but I forget. Not to be confused by those with a anal-cranium inversion syndrome.
There are no secrets and no magic. There is only physics and econonmy, also ecological economy. Read: good sense, in the end.
I both have experience with lead shot and with sand to fill metal tubular stands of different shapes and types.
I used fine-grained lead shot in an early prototype supportive structure made of stainless steel hollow profiles. This approach has not resulted in a vibrational completely damped/silent result. Moreover, lead shot is environmental toxic (yes, it is, for all mammals, at least, and there still might be mammals even after your demise - So what will you do with this stuff once you don't want your stand anymore?). Furthermore, lead shot is dirty while handling it, because of it's abrasion.
Sand instead is the obvious material to go, and it worked the best for me until now. Fine, dry sand, even inside of a metallic, highly resonant tube, makes the tube sonically completely inert. But the sand must be really fine and dry: Therefore, you will have to prepare the sand before using it inside a stand. Dry it completely (!) in an oven, and then sieve it in order to get rid of the more grainy stonies inside. The smaller the structure to be filled, the finer the sand should be. Wear a mask when doing this, because of the dust emanating from the process of sieving, and for the same reason, sieve the sand in an outside space. By doing so, you will have less cleaning work after you finished your stands ...
I wouldn't use an organic substance such as rice or so. If you are unlucky, then you might end up with a stinky little breed of worms inside.
I both have experience with lead shot and with sand to fill metal tubular stands of different shapes and types.
I used fine-grained lead shot in an early prototype supportive structure made of stainless steel hollow profiles. This approach has not resulted in a vibrational completely damped/silent result. Moreover, lead shot is environmental toxic (yes, it is, for all mammals, at least, and there still might be mammals even after your demise - So what will you do with this stuff once you don't want your stand anymore?). Furthermore, lead shot is dirty while handling it, because of it's abrasion.
Sand instead is the obvious material to go, and it worked the best for me until now. Fine, dry sand, even inside of a metallic, highly resonant tube, makes the tube sonically completely inert. But the sand must be really fine and dry: Therefore, you will have to prepare the sand before using it inside a stand. Dry it completely (!) in an oven, and then sieve it in order to get rid of the more grainy stonies inside. The smaller the structure to be filled, the finer the sand should be. Wear a mask when doing this, because of the dust emanating from the process of sieving, and for the same reason, sieve the sand in an outside space. By doing so, you will have less cleaning work after you finished your stands ...
I wouldn't use an organic substance such as rice or so. If you are unlucky, then you might end up with a stinky little breed of worms inside.
You're not thinking of the Hawthorne Effect, which is something else...?
https://www.simplypsychology.org/hawthorne-effect.html
What you're describing is more like Confirmation Bias
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Osmium, iridium and platinum top the list at over 20g/cm^3 but all are sort of hard to get not to mention expensive. Plutonium is not too far behind at 19.5 g/cm^3 but it's awkward filling your speaker base with those remote grappling gizmos and you need to be real careful to stay well under 10 kg or things will get real hot, messy and glowing. The densest metal that is available, not radioactive and very stable over time is gold and it's just a bit under plutonium at 19.3 g/cm^3. Not as expensive as any of those above at a bit under $32 million per cubic foot. Mercury is further down the list at 13.5 g/cm^3 but it's well under $0.01 per gram compared to gold at $57 per gram and, as long as you seal things up real carefully you can just pour it in! Winner!
Close. The above requires external input, where this effect can be to one's self with no external input.
It went something like, "the more effort one out into a speaker design, the better it sounds to you." I am sure there are clinical terms for it and it applies to all endeavors.
Heavier, so they don’t move, are more stable, lower centre of gravity, and damping so they don’t ring (which the bar stock will).
dave
Thanx for that bit Andy. Puts things into persepective makes a solid point.
The technique still has its uses. (waxx’s midTweeter satelittes fro instance).
dave
The midTweeter (that ¾” dome in the middle) is very good at the top and better than some very pricey tweeters. And no XO to get in the way which gives them a big advantage.
This a glow in the dark set of FF85wKeN
dave
Last edited:
Lead pellets are often used.
https://www.carolina.com/specialty-chemicals-d-l/lead-shot-laboratory-grade-500-g/871930.pr
You get metal shot for shot peening, it is mostly iron, will rust.
Lead will not rust.
If you are in USA, find a shooting range, get spent lead shot from there...respect local legislation.
Lead will not rust.
If you are in USA, find a shooting range, get spent lead shot from there...respect local legislation.
Dave, it's always been your opinion that highs from midtweeter are better than highs from pricey tweeter.The midTweeter (that ¾” dome in the middle) is very good at the top and better than some very pricey tweeters. And no XO to get in the way which gives them a big advantage.
This a glow in the dark set of FF85wKeN
dave
But listening tests and measurements clearly dispute that.