Recorded sweeps (what you heard as resonances), flac/wavWhat do you mean sharing the sweeps?
Recorded sweeps (what you heard as resonances), flac/wavWhat do you mean sharing the sweeps?
They work in that they prevent the surface the speaker is sat on from vibrating, I don't make any further claims for them.They may work for speakers, ideally for speakers of similar mass as the washing machine.
Sure, I get that. My point was that pads should ideally be designed for a low Rf wiith a given mass load, e.g. below 5 Hz.They work in that they prevent the surface the speaker is sat on from vibrating, I don't make any further claims for them.
You're absolutely right and I would have been disappointed if no-one had pointed that outSure, I get that. My point was that pads should ideally be designed for a low Rf wiith a given mass load, e.g. below 5 Hz.
Yes, often the stands resonate audibly during a sweep and against such some damping on the interface can be helpful.I cannot prove this with the measurements but during performing the measurement sweep I could totally hear resonance coming from the speakers at certain frequencies. With the pucks it is not there at all - the sweep becomes clear; I have tried this many times to make sure I am not hallucinating
I assume that audible resonance is caused by the stand - the pucks must isolate them better so they are not vibrating that much
-Your speaker cabinet needs to be vibrating a significant amount, which it can, but shouldn't be
-Your floor needs to be resonating due to the speaker cabinet's vibrations and re-radiating that audibly into the room
So this morning I had some time to perform the measurements
tldr version: no real difference (at least in my opinion) on any of the curves
Measurement was done in the MLP (approx. 250cm from the speakers)
Speakers used were these heavily modified Adam Audio T5Vs (that reminds me that I will need to update that thread too with the latest changes/measurements)
Speakers are on a tripod shaped stand (actually an IKEA standing lamp....)
View attachment 413557
View attachment 413558
View attachment 413559
On all curves: blue is without the Iso-Puck and orange is with the Iso-Puck
Frequency response:
View attachment 413560
Distortion:
View attachment 413561
Phase:
View attachment 413562
GD: on this one there are some differences but I would have a hard time telling which one is better
View attachment 413563
IR:
View attachment 413564
Waterfall and Wavelet also look the same
You can scrutinize the measurement file in the attachment
The pucks are staying nevertheless and here is the reason why:
I cannot prove this with the measurements but during performing the measurement sweep I could totally hear resonance coming from the speakers at certain frequencies. With the pucks it is not there at all - the sweep becomes clear; I have tried this many times to make sure I am not hallucinating
I assume that audible resonance is caused by the stand - the pucks must isolate them better so they are not vibrating that much
And how does it 'sound'?
To be honest I am sure I would fail a proper blind test but I *think* I hear more air and vocals sound clearer too (this is all subjective and I cannot prove it and I guess it is just the honeymoon effect)
So as said above, I will keep them since they are doing a good job at least in my case with reducing the vibration of my speaker stands but if one has a 'proper' speaker stand that does not vibrate that much in the first place then I doubt you would need these pucks
I hope this helps, in case of any questions please shoot
Have a nice weekend everybody![]()
Here you areRecorded sweeps (what you heard as resonances), flac/wav
Yes, just this week in fact.I was checking with a couple of audiophiles who have personally used IsoAcoustics IsoPuck/Orea products as well as other products in the marketplace earlier today and some of them recommend Stack Audio Vibration Feet which happen to use different technology (patent pending).
Technology - StackAudio
stackaudio.co.uk
AUVA is speaker feet which uses particle impact damping (looks like it contains some kind of particle inside solid aluminium cylinder shape feet which convert vibration into heat to dissipate) with spikes under.
CSA is Audio component Feet which contains particles inside with special type of silicon absorber.
Some audiophiles swear that this is much better than IsoAcoustics but also more expensive than IsoAcoustics and made in UK.
Above linked page briefly explains technology behind and it sounds impressive to someone like myself who is not savvy on material science.
Is Particle Impact Daming something new in vibration isolation solution? Has anyone tried this product before?
I have this stuff under my TT and my external HD, it dampens vibrations and sound from the HD quite well, so it should (at least in theory) do the same for the TT, whether it has any audible effect, for the audio, who knows.I've presented a bunch of these devices on the Snake Oil threads. They all fall into the category of "HiFi jewelry" in my opinion. The idea that mechanical vibrations can affect the operation of solid state electronics is preposterous. However, this does not occur to the shills who review these devices as they rely not on science or logic but their ears. Amazingly, sighted testing of these useless add-ons always produces some new level of audio nirvana, even in equipment that that costs more than your house! This is something that always amuses me, audiophools spend ridiculous amounts of money on components which, based on price, should be the premiere performance grade product but this peak equipment can be improved somehow with the addition of doo-dad's that defy logic in their operation! Still, there's lots to choose from.
This guy "listens" to them all
View attachment 413433
materials matter, the weight of your components matter with what specific material to be used.if you want to test some materials i can send you something to test. i work in vibration management in different industries now. i have compound solutions that work way better than feet with foamy bottoms. if i was to get into detail about cool solutions ive worked with some people on this forum might not like it. i can tell you one thing. materials matter, the weight of your components matter with what specific material to be used. this means expensive heavy record players can actually become more coupled to a table with vibration if the wrong density feet are used or aftermarket feet with the jelly foam on the bottom.
the solution is duplex decoupling effect. two different materials makes the world of difference. not here to sell, but i have rolls of all kinds of specialty materials used even in analytical hardware and semiconductor vibration isolation. i swear by these materials and ive seen major benefits. you dont need expensive feet. you can use regular feet that come with your turn table. ideally its whats under it and how decoupled the item is from its environment.
im probably going to be attacked over this. but pads arent expensive like feet but they work better persay. ive seen all kinds of hoorah products on the market, ive had analytical gas spectrometers and hplc devices on tables and carts with vacuum pumps and electronically controlled switch bays and gear pumps cause havoc in detection hardware. when the surfaces were treated, and specific pads installed properly with was like 1000s in fold reduction. to the point where vibration sensors wouldn't even trigger during calibration modes. since then ive been cutting my own pads with circle molds and i use them under all my gear. i did a duplex appplication under my vpi where i cut a whole mat to cover the area, and then placed pads where the feet were. you can tap a wooden pole against the table stand and the turn table dowsnt make a peep.
Why did Ethan employ close-mic measurements in his test? ("I put the microphone one meter (39 inches) away from the speaker, standard for loudspeaker testing, pointed at the woofer since we're concerned mainly with frequencies below the speaker's 3 KHz crossover".) Did he expect the output of THE SPEAKER to change? I certainly wouldn’t, at least not appreciably. The objective of speaker isolation is to reduce bass bleed INTO THE ROOM and the resulting sympathetic vibrations, and I suspect that close micing is ineffective at revealing those differences. I believe measuring the sympathetic vibrations of the room’s floor and other surfaces would have been more informative.
Of course there's the problem that you have to try to recall what it sounded like before,
i like your way of thinking. i actually machine scissor jacks for fluid pumpsWhen I was testing various footers and different isolation materials between my speakers and the wooden floor, I had a system where I had scissor jacks underneath my speakers, so that I could very quickly raise the speaker just enough to slip in a different material or footer and back down again. Depending on the material or footer, I’d say the swap could occur within a minute (or two or three).
It is my understanding that the purpose of measuring a speaker's response at 1M is to minimize the room effects and achieve a quasi-anechoic measurement. Is that not so?Since there is no reference for us to look to (as far as I know?), data on the sympathetic vibrations would be useless in determining audibility.
Using a microphone at the listening position is really the only fair way to measure, I think. Being closer to the speaker like Ethan were might bias slightly toward not showing the effects of mechanical coupling (if vibrations spread through a medium where 1/(r^2) would not apply), but is the difference really so big we should not be able to discern it at 1 meter? I don't think so.
So this morning I had some time to perform the measurements
tldr version: no real difference (at least in my opinion) on any of the curves
Measurement was done in the MLP (approx. 250cm from the speakers)
Speakers used were these heavily modified Adam Audio T5Vs (that reminds me that I will need to update that thread too with the latest changes/measurements)
Speakers are on a tripod shaped stand (actually an IKEA standing lamp....)
View attachment 413557
View attachment 413558
View attachment 413559
On all curves: blue is without the Iso-Puck and orange is with the Iso-Puck
Frequency response:
View attachment 413560
Distortion:
View attachment 413561
Phase:
View attachment 413562
GD: on this one there are some differences but I would have a hard time telling which one is better
View attachment 413563
IR:
View attachment 413564
Waterfall and Wavelet also look the same
You can scrutinize the measurement file in the attachment
The pucks are staying nevertheless and here is the reason why:
I cannot prove this with the measurements but during performing the measurement sweep I could totally hear resonance coming from the speakers at certain frequencies. With the pucks it is not there at all - the sweep becomes clear; I have tried this many times to make sure I am not hallucinating
I assume that audible resonance is caused by the stand - the pucks must isolate them better so they are not vibrating that much
And how does it 'sound'?
To be honest I am sure I would fail a proper blind test but I *think* I hear more air and vocals sound clearer too (this is all subjective and I cannot prove it and I guess it is just the honeymoon effect)
So as said above, I will keep them since they are doing a good job at least in my case with reducing the vibration of my speaker stands but if one has a 'proper' speaker stand that does not vibrate that much in the first place then I doubt you would need these pucks
I hope this helps, in case of any questions please shoot
Have a nice weekend everybody![]()