I'm certainly not going to replace the Gaias with the original feet just to do a REW measurement. It was patently clear that the detail and clarity of the bass was improved when I switched to the Gaias. These are things that can't be measured - I listen with my ears, not a microphone. Bass is often a low frequency noise where the source of the sound ( vibrating strings or brass, etc) is difficult to precisely identify. The change to Gaia feet made the bass far more detailed. I'm not interested in what you describe as mechanism - I'm interested in hearing music as near as I can to a live performance. What more can be expected of good hi-fi?Deeper and more detailed bass, which mechanism would be at play here?
If the bass were deeper ( I can’t see possibly how ) one could use REW to measure it.
I sincerely suspect the only change was inside your head, I wouldn’t advise anyone to buy these expensive baubles.
Keith
Spikes are for carpet. They’ll harm wood.
4 spikes per speaker is such a pet peeve of mine. Just why? Why not just 3? I have 2 pair of speaker stands, one of the with 3 spikes and they are much more stable.My JBL HDI-3600 came with rubber sorbothane type feet, that's the way they stayed.
I don't understand why manufacturer insist on 4 feet when 3 would provide a more stable platform?
True for not only speakers but electronics too.
Audiophools may not agree... as long as it's expensive!The fundamental issue I was wondering about is that you have two seemingly opposite approaches for tower speakers on a suspended hardwood floor -
Almost always shown to be false in blind listening tests. There are things that are difficult to measure, but not what we're talking about here.These are things that can't be measured -
We're awfully good at measuring stuff.These are things that can't be measured
This is my recommendation: 39mm Solid Aluminum Audio AMP Speaker Isolation Feet Pad Stand Damper Leg Black. Very well made. $20/ set
39mm Solid Aluminum Audio AMP Speaker Isolation Feet Pad Stand Damper Leg Black | eBay
BRAND NEW SOLID ALUMINUM AMPLIFIER FEET Material: Solid Aluminum Alloy CNC Machined Color: Black anodized, High light Diameter: 39mm Height: 17mm Mounting screw Hole Diameter: 4mm (SCREWS FREE PROVIDED) With Non-Slip Mat The Price is for 4PCS/lot.www.ebay.com
This raises a few interesting questions to my mind. I would appreciate any education on this.Testing frequency response in this kind of tests are quite useless since if anything happens, it is distortion that may be audible.
One percent added to a frequency response graph would scarcely be the width of the graph line.This raises a few interesting questions to my mind. I would appreciate any education on this.
1. The idea that coupling might result in distortion sounds plausible, and is certainly measurable. I wonder has anyone has published any measurements that address this?
2. If I understand correctly, harmonic distortion at, say, 80Hz would manifest as additional energy at 160, 240, etc. Would one expect to be able to see this in a typical frequency response graph? I imagine one would have to look at the distortion graph to correctly identify the cause of the bump, but there would still be a difference in the isolated vs non-isolated frequency response graphs, right?
3. This all made me think of a related question about directionality, I guess. The linked Ethan Winer article demonstrated that energizing a speaker didn't activate known resonances in the table, but if vibrational energy was present in the table, could/would this affect the speaker output? And if so, could isolation products possibly mitigate it? Or does that lack of transfer of energy to the table directly imply that the speaker is equally immune to influence from external energy?
Thanks.
The linked Ethan Winer article demonstrated that energizing a speaker didn't activate known resonances in the table, but if vibrational energy was present in the table, could/would this affect the speaker output? And if so, could isolation products possibly mitigate it? Or does that lack of transfer of energy to the table directly imply that the speaker is equally immune to influence from external energy?
I have a 99 year old floor that bounces, so super soft. After carefully calibrating by weight to get the right pucks, sorbothane showed marginal improvements in some problem spots 300hz and above, but did nothing for lower frequencies. I did hear a bit cleaner sound.Thank you for posting this link. I have a very soft (95-year old, suspended) floor and installed sorbothane bumpers under my mains from the start (so no before/after observations). Apparently this was a waste of money, but luckily it was only $20.
Did you read my links in the post above?This raises a few interesting questions to my mind. I would appreciate any education on this.
1. The idea that coupling might result in distortion sounds plausible, and is certainly measurable. I wonder has anyone has published any measurements that address this?
2. If I understand correctly, harmonic distortion at, say, 80Hz would manifest as additional energy at 160, 240, etc. Would one expect to be able to see this in a typical frequency response graph? I imagine one would have to look at the distortion graph to correctly identify the cause of the bump, but there would still be a difference in the isolated vs non-isolated frequency response graphs, right?
3. This all made me think of a related question about directionality, I guess. The linked Ethan Winer article demonstrated that energizing a speaker didn't activate known resonances in the table, but if vibrational energy was present in the table, could/would this affect the speaker output? And if so, could isolation products possibly mitigate it? Or does that lack of transfer of energy to the table directly imply that the speaker is equally immune to influence from external energy?
Thanks.
Lots of people suggest washing machine anti-vibration pads. A very old school device, and not expensive at all. Easy to source.
Doesn't get cheaper than these. 24 pcs for 22 USD at my local wholesaler.Lots of people suggest washing machine anti-vibration pads. A very old school device, and not expensive at all. Easy to source.
Never tried and certainly never measured them myself. So grain of salt and all.
That's OK, this guy did.I'm certainly not going to replace the Gaias with the original feet just to do a REW measurement. It was patently clear that the detail and clarity of the bass was improved when I switched to the Gaias.
You got this 100% backwards, bass is hard to hear and easy to measure with microphone. Try figuring out your room modes with your ears, it's nearly impossible with your ears and trivial with a microphone. As bad as our hearing is in midrange frequencies, it is next to useless for quantifying bass.These are things that can't be measured - I listen with my ears, not a microphone. Bass is often a low frequency noise where the source of the sound ( vibrating strings or brass, etc) is difficult to precisely identify.
"Far more detailed bass", if real, is measurable.The change to Gaia feet made the bass far more detailed. I'm not interested in what you describe as mechanism - I'm interested in hearing music as near as I can to a live performance. What more can be expected of good hi-fi?
With respect, this is a response from someone who puts far more belief in what his microphone and PC says than in his own ears - how sad! Do you take your PC and microphone to concerts to judge how good they sound? I certainly don't, but me ears let me know whether the performance is a memorable one or one soon forgotten.That's OK, this guy did.
If you had done the same, you too would have found out various feet do next to nothing.
"the measured changes are too small to account for the "obvious" improvements so many people claim to hear after floating their speakers on isolation pads"
You got this 100% backwards, bass is hard to hear and easy to measure with microphone. Try figuring out your room modes with your ears, it's nearly impossible with your ears and trivial with a microphone. As bad as our hearing is in midrange frequencies, it is next to useless for quantifying bass.
"Far more detailed bass", if real, is measurable.