Darren
So gentle when he tries to understand.
Horses for courses. I can't abide speakers, stands at all and the solid steel tripod oil rig things are the worst of a very bad bunch (visually) IMO.
Wood speaker stands; anyone compared them to metal?
- Thread starter Tony L
- Start date
Darren
So gentle when he tries to understand.
I'm absolutely certain that all three of those speaker manufacturers would claim their cabinets were highly damped. I know that Wilson developed their proprietary cabinet materials with stiffness and damping high on their list of priorities so I'm not following you here Tony. Are those loudspeaker cabinets not well damped in your view? Forgive me if I'm being dumb, I'm not looking for an argument, just seeking to learn.
Fatmarley
"It appears my intelligence circuits have melted"
Quote "I suspect everything is not as it seems in the video. [I can't hear the sound on my computer ATM]
The first piece of wood he hits has a resonance frequency of about 250 Hz, and a damping factor of 0.032, typical for low damping wood. The two bits of wood separated by the rubbery stuff has a resonance frequency of 225 Hz and a damping factor of 0.11. The two bits of wood with 'Densodamp' in between has a resonance frequency of about 300 Hz and a damping factor of 0.46.
If one is adding thickness, and everything else remains the same, then the resonance frequency will go up, not down. So the one with the rubber looks as though it is acting as it has extensional damping, The one with 'Densodamp' has only a tiny amount more damping than the first lump of stuff without anything added.
These figures suggest that having 'Densodamp' between two pieces of low damping factor wood provides only a very slight increase in damping. The one with rubber provides a little damping, but way below what is required, and can be bettered by several materials, some of them natural woods."
CLD works incredibly well, and if you listen to the explanation in the video, it all makes perfect sense as to why it works so well.
Subjectively, I've made things with CLD, and it makes a huge difference, that quite audible. When you knock it, it really does sound dead.
The first piece of wood he hits has a resonance frequency of about 250 Hz, and a damping factor of 0.032, typical for low damping wood. The two bits of wood separated by the rubbery stuff has a resonance frequency of 225 Hz and a damping factor of 0.11. The two bits of wood with 'Densodamp' in between has a resonance frequency of about 300 Hz and a damping factor of 0.46.
If one is adding thickness, and everything else remains the same, then the resonance frequency will go up, not down. So the one with the rubber looks as though it is acting as it has extensional damping, The one with 'Densodamp' has only a tiny amount more damping than the first lump of stuff without anything added.
These figures suggest that having 'Densodamp' between two pieces of low damping factor wood provides only a very slight increase in damping. The one with rubber provides a little damping, but way below what is required, and can be bettered by several materials, some of them natural woods."
CLD works incredibly well, and if you listen to the explanation in the video, it all makes perfect sense as to why it works so well.
Subjectively, I've made things with CLD, and it makes a huge difference, that quite audible. When you knock it, it really does sound dead.
Helen Bach
if it ain't Baroque ...
I'm not saying cld doesn't work, just that in the video the Densodamp one doesn't appear to be cld, and even the rubbery one is suspect. But it really isn't possible to garner solid conclusion from a knuckle test, due to radiation efficiency. One only hears what is radiated, which is extremely non-linear with respect to frequency.
And the term cld is very often misused. Several layers of materials glued together is not cld, it is a glulam (glued laminate).
And the term cld is very often misused. Several layers of materials glued together is not cld, it is a glulam (glued laminate).
Fatmarley
"It appears my intelligence circuits have melted"
Tell me what you think would beat CLD with the equivalent thickness material, but it would also have to be at least as stiff.
notevenclose
pfm Member
Ah well, the science is over my head (a phrase I've been deploying since my Physics O-Level) but it does seem there's more than one way to skin a cat (Schrodinger's or otherwise). My current speakers — Boenicke W5s — are perched atop their proprietary very lightweight (non-spiked) stands, which, while metal, do tend to swing about in the breeze a bit.
I seem to recall a conversation with the original importer, who confessed to being a little sceptical at first, but who after experimenting with 'better' and considerably more expensive alternatives, came to the conclusion that young Sven knew exactly what he was doing with the wibbly-wobbly approach.
Tony L
Administrator
I’m sure they would, and likely with some justification. I struggle to articulate what I mean as ‘damping’, ‘mass’ etc seem to mean different things to different people. This certainly represent a design school that I do not seem to enjoy listening to. I am far more at home with a panel speaker or BBC type low-mass box. I hear similarities in turntables too, though one does need a sufficient rotational mass for pitch stability there. I’m not saying I’m right/wrong, that my findings are universal and applicable to all people etc, but I’m pretty sure there is something that goes a bit wrong to my priorities with lots of mass in the picture.
Tony L
Administrator
My old MEG RL904s did too. That was a very clever stand IMO, no spikes, and seemed to be designed to sway. They put nothing into the floor energy wise. Really the stands were too tall for a domestic environment being designed to get them up above a mixer, but buying second hand one gets what one gets!
Darren L
Egalitarian
To the best of my knowledge Sonus Faber during the Franco Serblin era have never produced a 'high mass' loudspeaker (certainly they have built inert cabinets) and have never used high mass as a marketing or selling point but did use real wood in both their speaker cabinets and stands. The later post Serblin speakers use cabinets that are quite lightweight but still inert due to their shape and construction method.
The Diapason wooden stands I mentioned at the start of the thread are of a very low mass rigid design.
In fact I've never heard any speaker company claim to build high mass speaker cabinets.
Wilson have developed materials claiming to have great damping properties.
Lots of speaker companies do however build large heavy speakers including Sonus Faber, Wilson, Tannoy & Klipsch.
As for high mass turntables, I've only ever tried a couple from Nottingham Analogue designed by Tom Fletcher which use mass for the platter damped with large o-rings but the chassis is relatively lightweight and uses a relatively 'lossy' method in construction, eg, one screw holds the armboard in place in a slot and compliant rubber feet.
notevenclose
pfm Member
I believe the appropriate technical term is '(over) damped to buggery and beyond.' IME, high mass invariably means stone dead. I remember a friend demonstrating his spanking new B&W 802s were pretty much totally inert when subjected to a knuckle rap test. As it turned out, to my ears that was about the most interesting noise they ever made.
Tony L
Administrator
I’d certainly not describe Tannoy or Klipsch as high mass. Classic Tannoys are big for sure, but closer to BBC thin-wall construction with screwed baffles and back doors. Klipsch are also fairly thin ply and that was an issue with the La Scala to my ears as the cabs did resonate (especially the walls of the bass-horn). I suspect they’d have been rather better had they been screwed together rather than glued. Despite being amongst the largest speakers I’ve ever seen I’d describe my Lockwood cabs as being a fairly low-mass thin-wall design. They are surprisingly inert due to the ply/formica laminate, but the walls are I think only half-inch ply (plus the Formica), may even be thinner, the construction is screwed/bolted together, so it behaves like a broken bell rather than a drum-shell. In most respects they are like a gigantic LS3/6 or BC1, but with Formica as a damping layer on the outside rather than whatever the BBC used inside. Very similar screwed-on baffles and back doors.
Yank
Bulbous Also Tapered
https://resonantwoods.com/audio-products/speaker-stands/
I have the "Linear 2" ones under SHL5+ speakers, in matching cherry.
I have the "Linear 2" ones under SHL5+ speakers, in matching cherry.
Helen Bach
if it ain't Baroque ...
In designing loudspeakers (or supports, shelves, LS stands, etc) there are three parameters which are very important. These are mass, stiffness and damping. Of the three, damping is the most important, then stiffness. Mass is a consequence of the other two. So the most important thing to get right when choosing a material or materials is damping. The damping factors of materials are straightforward to measure (damping is an intrinsic property and must be measured); stiffness, or flexural rigidity can be calculated, and depends on the material's Young's modulus, thickness and Poisson ratio.
By 'beating' I infer you mean have better damping? If we look at the three materials made and tested in the video, the highest damping factor was 0.11 (no dimensions). This is pretty poor, and even some common materials are way better than that. If we are talking wood, that can be separated into natural wood and engineered wood. In the former group, ipe and Jarrah show good damping, and iron woods and iron barks (Eucalyptus) also show good damping. Of the engineered woods, the standout products are Panzerholz and Permali, (resinated plywoods), also chipboard and resinated bamboo are good. Poor woods include mdf (very poor), Russian ply, even Torlyte is poor! So lots of more suitable alternatives, all giving better damping. Stiffness can be changed by adjusting the thickness. This will change the mass, as well.
Fatmarley
"It appears my intelligence circuits have melted"
You quite obviously need to hear the video. Chipboard does not have better damping than CLD (when CLD is done properly).
Tony L
Administrator
They look really good and nicely made. Did you compare them to anything metal?
Uncle Trevor
New Member
This is some test results I found for the audio chic stands on a buchardt A500 thread.....
So after a long session last night ("old" mastertuning 2.5 forward midrange) I compared the ISO155 and the new stands (with new room correction) with/without plinths (to avoid bias also included annoyed girlfriend) and we came to the conclution that there is a noticable differnce from good (without ISO155) to better (with ISO155) to great/amazing (with new stands) to WOW (stands with plinths). The sound stage is much wider (check for HORN by Raycito) and all "clearer" and "more data" in the ear. It also may be due to the additional height that brings the tweeter better to ear level? Always subjective impressions of course but I am super happy with the new stands and for me worth the extra money.
So after a long session last night ("old" mastertuning 2.5 forward midrange) I compared the ISO155 and the new stands (with new room correction) with/without plinths (to avoid bias also included annoyed girlfriend) and we came to the conclution that there is a noticable differnce from good (without ISO155) to better (with ISO155) to great/amazing (with new stands) to WOW (stands with plinths). The sound stage is much wider (check for HORN by Raycito) and all "clearer" and "more data" in the ear. It also may be due to the additional height that brings the tweeter better to ear level? Always subjective impressions of course but I am super happy with the new stands and for me worth the extra money.
To me the most 'interesting' stand design of recent times, if there is such a thing, was QAcoustics tripod metal and tensioned cable one made for the company's more upmarket standmounts.
No idea about its effectiveness but I dig the look and the lack of reflective surfaces must be a bonus.
No idea about its effectiveness but I dig the look and the lack of reflective surfaces must be a bonus.
Fatmarley
"It appears my intelligence circuits have melted"
Just noticed this post.
He doesn't glue "several layers", just two, and where he used Densodamp in-between the two layers is CLD, because it's a very thin layer of viscoelastic glue.
Tony L
Administrator
They're the ones