Anybody Used Alternative Stands On Harbeth SHL5 Other Than The Stock Stands

STC wrote:Could it be some confusion here? Heavier speaker stand does have better bass control than a light weighted metal frame. I also believe the speaker stand must be a better medium than the speaker's cabinet to drain the vibration from the speakers to the ground or to damp it in the stand itself with the help of sand or lead or even a very thick metal.

Jo Ki, are you saying the density must match the speakers or the weight? My speaker stand ( from Tropical Audio) is damped with several bags of sand, and it really helps to control the bass. Could be the weight or the damping making it the distinction in the sound?

Dear STC, I am not saying that the density between speaker and stand must be the same. Please refer to my reply to others. It is stated clearer in my later replies.

Your argument if heavy stands provide greater bass is correct provided the bass assumes similar in its structure, transparency, and mantain a homogeneous in its overall bandwidth. It is very hard to judge this by ears.

To be critical about it, the entire audio system work as a "system" and there is always compromises and compensation happened in its entire chain that no one could really pinpoint the faults. What is critical is the continuity of the sound is observed.

Jo Ki

Ryder:

Pure aluminium isn't good for much things except as thin sheets lining the oven tray for the roast meat, or as Heat barriers on the inner roof of houses.

Most aluminium (Al) area actually Al-alloys. Some of the industry favourites would 6061 and 7076 "aircraft grade Al-alloy".

Al actually has a very good "internal damping" property, hence there are woofers & tweeters that are actually made of Al. I can't think of any steel or iron woofer or tweeter out in the market today, as the moving portions would be too heavy (massive inertia) and would have too much of its own resonant signature and this would colour and distort and timbre/sound-wave it was intending to reproduce based on the electrical signal fed to it.


Steel actually is much more resonant than Al-alloys. Hence why people make bells out of steel but not Al-alloys. Of course, the KING of resonant metals would probably be Brass (an alloy of Copper, Tin, & some other secret family ingredients).... anyone ever heard of this famous brand called "Zildjian" ?

But speaker stand mfgs use steel because steel is a much cheaper material. And yes, mass does play an important role in stand construction but it is not a be-all, end-all criteria. Lets have a quick thought experiment: Which "type" of stand would bee more rigid?
a) a 20kg stand made wood timber, or
b) a 20kg stand made out of compacted cotton, wool stuffings and recycled old newspaper.
Both would weigh in at 20kg. But which one would you feel more secure placing your speakers on?

And this is only half the story so far. The structural design would also affect how the how darn thing resonates or drains away speaker cabinet resonances/vibrations and channels it down to "mother-earth".
So besides the mass alone, other design factors like load points, stress areas, placement of the footers and support columns and angled or arched designs will all play a role in how a speaker stand would performed. I'll leave it to the resident architect here to elaborate on this.

Hence...
In such cases, wave theory & material sciences come into place. Much like the impedance mismatch & signal losses in electrical cables (coaxials, RF waveguides and other EE what nots), the interface between the speaker to the stand, and stand to the ground are also having very similar principles.

Just imagine the interface between the speaker cabinet to the stand as a "boundary" condition (aka impedance mismatch), where some of the kinetic energy (the mechanical vibrations) from the speaker cabinet is somewhat transmitted to the speaker stand. The portion not transmitted to the stand is reflected back into the speaker cabinet itself.

Then, the stand itself will vibrate and transmit to ground. This would be another boundary condition. And some kinetic energy within the stand would not be fully sent to the ground as well, some will inevitably become heat due to the mechanical flexes or the vibration & friction of its sand-fillings. This is similar to "signal losses" in Electrical Engineering. Then whatever goes to ground, is drained to ground.


Then, reverse the whole process again when the stands themselves catch the airborne vibrations of the sound waves:
- Some of this kinetic energy will be set to the speaker enclosure, some will be drained to ground, and some will be absorbed within the stands itself and dissipated as heat.

Confused already ?
Good !

mugenfoo wrote:Ryder:

....

Then, reverse the whole process again when the stands themselves catch the airborne vibrations of the sound waves:
- Some of this kinetic energy will be set to the speaker enclosure, some will be drained to ground, and some will be absorbed within the stands itself and dissipated as heat.

Confused already ?
Good !

Bro,

@1.30am in the morning... surenufff !!! Good one Mugen

Which "type" of stand would bee more rigid?
a) a 20kg stand made wood timber, or
b) a 20kg stand made out of compacted cotton, wool stuffings and recycled old newspaper.
Both would weigh in at 20kg.

Hold your horses!

Can you make dimensionally identical stands with two different material and expect them to weigh the same?

Can 1 x 1 x 2 ft block of wood, steel and paper weigh the same?

Weight is taken to mean the same as mass?

Which is more rigid, 1 ft wooden ruler or 1ft steel ruler?

Which of this resist to bending?

Isn't rigid means resistance to bending?

musicmusic wrote:

Which "type" of stand would bee more rigid?
a) a 20kg stand made wood timber, or
b) a 20kg stand made out of compacted cotton, wool stuffings and recycled old newspaper.
Both would weigh in at 20kg.

Hold your horses!

Can you make dimensionally identical stands with two different material and expect them to weigh the same?

Can 1 x 1 x 2 ft block of wood, steel and paper weigh the same?

Weight is taken to mean the same as mass?

OK, for the sake of clarity, lets stick to the more accurate term of "mass" here although in lay-terms weight is used inter-changeably.

To answer your question:

Why not? .... if the steel stands are hollow stands, while the wood or some other composite material stands are solid , then both can be made to have the same mass and same dimensions: Exterior dimensions that is.

We're not talking about raw blocks of material whether its wood/steel/paper, etc. but a MANUFACTURED Product here. Don't get mixed up between mass & dimensions versus material density here.

But rest assured, even if the stands of the same mass and same exterior dimensions, but if they are made from totally different material.... will definitely "sound" very different. ie. different sonic signature. Unless of course, you are using a RM35/pair of Edifier speakers lah...

Adding on, even if 2 differing stands are made from the same "material density" (kg/m^3), but are of differing materials (ie different molecular structure), and built to exacting dimensions and design & fabrication methods, they would STILL have different sonic signatures because each would have its own resonance characteristics and vibration absorption properties due to the different materials used.

..even if 2 differing stands are made from the same "material density" (kg/m^3), but are of differing materials (ie different molecular structure),

Name me one natural non synthetic atom that has the same or identical weight.

Only then I can understand what you are saying.

Hi Jo, may I ask what material is in the Foundation Designer II stands that you own? Is the material a combination of fine and coarse sand? Lead shot is a pretty toxic material that isn't quite recommended for household applications. Any idea how much are the columns filled ie. to half the height or three quarter the height. Is there any norm as to how much the stands should be filled?

Your inputs would be much appreciated.

mugenfoo wrote:Ryder:

Pure aluminium isn't good for much things except as thin sheets lining the oven tray for the roast meat, or as Heat barriers on the inner roof of houses.

... (sniped)...

Just imagine the interface between the speaker cabinet to the stand as a "boundary" condition (aka impedance mismatch), where some of the kinetic energy (the mechanical vibrations) from the speaker cabinet is somewhat transmitted to the speaker stand. The portion not transmitted to the stand is reflected back into the speaker cabinet itself.

...(sniped)...

Yes, you are right, extruded aluminium hollow section is not a good material to be used as speaker stands. Apart from it is prompt to resonant inducement, it has a lot to do with its soft nature as a metal.

When a material is soft, the transmission of resonance is more susceptible to loading, the compression would limit it more as compare to a harder material unless you are talking about solid alum., which is very costly.

You brought up a very pertinent issue, the 'boundary condition' of speaker and top plate of speaker; irrespective of how precise is the surfaces to bottom of speaker and top plate of stand, there is planer irregularities. This planer irregularities, under vibration and resonant waves, would chatter. Chattering between two surfaces produces resonant sound that is 'foreign' (not present in recording).

Ryder did raised a good question on type of top plate for stand, I would still opted for a full metal plate rather than tubular ones like the Sound Anchor. The reason is the top plate provides wider bracing angles to the vertical members of stand; these wider bracing is providing wider channel of load transfer paths. Also tubular member so near to speaker cabinet tends to resonates more. However, tubular member is a lot stronger than plate.

One of the key magic in BBC line of speakers lies in its cabinet design. We would notice that all BBC lineage have a common 'thin wall' speaker cabinet, this is because its cabinet is tuned to work as a complete composite whole forming a speaker system. Any attempts trying to disturb its cabinet is limiting its performance. Lifting the entire speaker by use of interface helps in observing the intrinsic design concept IMHO.

Jo Ki

musicmusic wrote:

..even if 2 differing stands are made from the same "material density" (kg/m^3), but are of differing materials (ie different molecular structure),

Name me one natural non synthetic atom that has the same or identical weight.

Only then I can understand what you are saying.

none on the periodic table. But alloys and other manufactured products.... plenty.
But no one builds many items with pure materials, let alone speaker stands ?

C'mon... lets stay relevant here. Shall we ?

Jo, thanks for your invaluable input. It appears that you are going against the norm in opting for a full top plate as opposed to an open top from the likes of the Sound Anchors (for Harbeth speakers) since it was a "belief" or preconception that Harbeth sounds better without a top plate. Personally I have not tried a full-sized top plate on the SHL5s, hence I do not know what to expect. There were reports of boomy bass for the lack of better term, or too much bass when Harbeths were placed on Skylan stands. Reports were inconsistent with different owners as some reported excellent results. TAOC discs or other similar products were used to decouple the speakers from the stands and results were said to be positive.

The LS3/5as may not show similar characteristics to Harbeth speakers, and I have some concerns if the Harbeths will exhibit bass anomalies when placed on a full top plate. I would appreciate your opinion on this matter.

ryder wrote:Hi Jo, may I ask what material is in the Foundation Designer II stands that you own? Is the material a combination of fine and coarse sand? Lead shot is a pretty toxic material that isn't quite recommended for household applications. Any idea how much are the columns filled ie. to half the height or three quarter the height. Is there any norm as to how much the stands should be filled?

Your inputs would be much appreciated.

Hi Ryder, FD II is made of mild steel hollow section and I do not know the guage used because they sealed the threaded opening caps which are used to fill the pillars.

From the kocking that I can more or less guess it is *about* half filled by the so-called, "Formula Filled" materials. The other interesting bits in the bottom plate is reinforced by flanging diagonally; its perimieter is reinforced by down-turn to all 4 sides to a 20mm skirt of the same guage as the bottom plate. The flange gauge is thinner.

Because mild steel in Malaysia is made very close to B.S., you can more or less copy the design less the filling materials.

Jo Ki

Maybe I'll make a trip to Singapore sometime to have a listen to both Skylans and Sound Anchors.

musicmusic wrote:

..even if 2 differing stands are made from the same "material density" (kg/m^3), but are of differing materials (ie different molecular structure),

Name me one natural non synthetic atom that has the same or identical weight.

Only then I can understand what you are saying.

Dear musicmusic, in the line of discussion of the subject matter, if you read the entire passage by Mugenfoo, you would understand what he is trying to imply. Different mass and density of materials used on speaker stand has implication on sound. Unless you are disagreeing to this statement, then I would like to hear your thoughts and learn from you.

Thank you in advance.
Jo Ki

c'mon... lets stay relevant here. Shall we ?

Can the different sonic signatures be measured?

Any manufacturer ever produced comparative chart with different but well made same height stands to show how their stand is more superior than others?

Why no one ever did that?

Food for thought.

Musicmusic, from the first few posts in this thread I presume you don't believe that stands will make a difference when used in conjunction with bookshelf and monitors. Your arguments are just for the sake of arguing while those from Mugenfoo and Jo are from experience and facts.

Yet again you have posed an interesting question -can different sonic signature be measured. The same debate that we've had on the Harbeth forum on the topic of amplifiers -all of them sound the same. Your question is akin to asking whether different taste can be measured when comparing between a chocolate cake and cheese cake, or when tasting between different wines. Sometimes measurements aren't everything.

ps. if someone tells you a chocolate cake tastes different from a cheese cake, do you think it is sensible to ask him to do some measurements to prove his statement? And what sort of "units" are we talking about?

Dear Jo Ki,

You are very knowledgeable but I no understand your ideal weight and stand should not be too heavy.

You can learn form yourself as your theory and understanding the resonance subject is very deep.

Maybe, you can start to apply the same theory to how airborne vibration and vibration from drivers affect the cabinet and other drivers.

Stands do make a difference.

They must be made solidly so they won't dance or sing along with the speaker.
To Ryder,

Who said amplifiers are all the same? Must be words of a non amplifier designer.

And if the person who said amplifier are all the same my guess he would add thousands exception to it like saying providedA is set at and blah blah blah.

Can boom be measured? Or boom is just a taste?

Yes its true that aluminium is a soft material, but it hardens well with heat. Steel is the opposite, because it starts of hard and deteriorates.

Aluminium tubes can be liquid filled, while steel cant.

This is more experimental than anything else. If the sound doesnt improve, so be it.

dheensay wrote:Yes its true that aluminium is a soft material, but it hardens well with heat. Steel is the opposite, because it starts of hard and deteriorates.

Aluminium tubes can be liquid filled, while steel cant.

This is more experimental than anything else. If the sound doesnt improve, so be it.

i think u mean "heat-treated" al-alloy. There is also a process that NASA uses to improve the mechanical strengths of materials via cryogenic treatments. Stuff like Golf clubs, engine parts and other metal objects that are subject to stress, strain and frictional wear would have their lifespan improved via cryogenic-treatments.

Yes, Al (and also Stainless Steel like SUS304, etc etc) is more resistant to corrosion in a home environment compared to steel. But thats why most steel speaker stands are either painted or powder coated for longevity.

But as with any metals ... whether pure or in alloy composition, all will eventually melt with enough heat !

How about wood .... how come wood doesn't melt ? Anyone ...?

musicmusic wrote:Dear Jo Ki,

You are very knowledgeable but I no understand your ideal weight and stand should not be too heavy.

You can learn form yourself as your theory and understanding the resonance subject is very deep.

What are you insinuating here ?

musicmusic wrote:
Maybe, you can start to apply the same theory to how airborne vibration and vibration from drivers affect the cabinet and other drivers.

Anyone with a formal training in mechanical engineering and/or architectural background would know this for a fact already. Doubtful in your case though.

musicmusic wrote:
Stands do make a difference.

They must be made solidly so they won't dance or sing along with the speaker.

So are you agreeing, or disagreeing on that statement?

musicmusic wrote:
To Ryder,

Who said amplifiers are all the same? Must be words of a non amplifier designer.

And if the person who said amplifier are all the same my guess he would add thousands exception to it like saying providedA is set at and blah blah blah.

Ryder was referring to certain idiots in the Harbeth forum who posted that statement that "all amps sound the same". But was using it as a similarity to your skeptism on the subject of speaker stands here.

musicmusic wrote:
Can boom be measured? Or boom is just a taste?

Of course it can be measured... if only you knew what it truly means, and how to go about measuring it.
Here's a hint: You'll need this extremely rare, exotic and superduper hard-to-find device called a "SPL meter".

Doubtful in your case though.

Thank you, Mr Spokesman.

Questions for you were still not answered. See above or you need time to search for anwers. Try Polk Audio forum.

Don't forget to teach how to measure PF from your main supply.See the Electricity supply topic.

It was foolish of me to expect civility from you looking at your language to fellow forumers

mugenfoo wrote:

dheensay wrote:Yes its true that aluminium is a soft material, but it hardens well with heat. Steel is the opposite, because it starts of hard and deteriorates.

Aluminium tubes can be liquid filled, while steel cant.

This is more experimental than anything else. If the sound doesnt improve, so be it.

i think u mean "heat-treated" al-alloy. There is also a process that NASA uses to improve the mechanical strengths of materials via cryogenic treatments. Stuff like Golf clubs, engine parts and other metal objects that are subject to stress, strain and frictional wear would have their lifespan improved via cryogenic-treatments.

Yes, Al (and also Stainless Steel like SUS304, etc etc) is more resistant to corrosion in a home environment compared to steel. But thats why most steel speaker stands are either painted or powder coated for longevity.

But as with any metals ... whether pure or in alloy composition, all will eventually melt with enough heat !

How about wood .... how come wood doesn't melt ? Anyone ...?

Mugen,
Heat treated, hardened with heat, oven baked etc are all terms that apply since they denote the same thing.

Anyhow, im not sure how "cyrogenic" treatments would be used for hardening aluminium since it would be in reverse of heat.

Powder coating steel using hybrid epoxy will do nothing for the steel when it touches moisture. PE powder coating may work, im not sure. The stands i would like to build will be liquid filled, hence aluminium. Stainless steel is too expensive.

Hi Dheensay,

I would be interested in your concept. Is it possible to order my preferred height for the stands. I have some idea for coupling the speaker to the stand.

Please PM or email me.

Thank you.
Chelvam

musicmusic wrote:

Thank you, Mr Spokesman.

You're most welcome.

musicmusic wrote:
Questions for you were still not answered. See above or you need time to search for anwers. Try Polk Audio forum.

Sorry, which one of your questions weren't answered already? Oh and BTW, forums are great for opinions or otherwise. But if you rely on them alone for cold hard facts, good luck.

musicmusic wrote:
Don't forget to teach how to measure PF from your main supply.See the Electricity supply topic.

It's ok, i don't feel the need to be discussing colours to someone who might very well be colour-blind. Not referring to anyone in particular of course.

musicmusic wrote:
It was foolish of me to expect civility from you looking at your language to fellow forumers

Civility is reserved only for the courteously deserving. It is neither to be expected or demanded for or from, let alone the ignoramus who in its lack of knowledge, experience or exposure would be so quick to write-off things as snake-oil or cacing-oil. If anything, it is you who broke civility 1st. Now you can't handle the heat and trying to take the moral high-ground? Nope, doesn't work this way. And in case you haven't noticed here since the first thread, NONE so far has disagreed with my points except for your royal highness.



This would be my last posting to musicmusic specifically. He hasn't answered to any of the questions poised to him so far. Whether he is doing so deliberately, or incapable to respond in any technical, factual or scientific way is really a moot point already. As to borrow a quote from the character Spock: "It would be impossible to discuss the subject without a common frame of reference".

Again, at the risk of sounding like a broken record: Its pointless to be discussing colours with the colour-blind.

dheensay wrote:
Mugen,
Heat treated, hardened with heat, oven baked etc are all terms that apply since they denote the same thing.

Anyhow, im not sure how "cyrogenic" treatments would be used for hardening aluminium since it would be in reverse of heat.

Powder coating steel using hybrid epoxy will do nothing for the steel when it touches moisture. PE powder coating may work, im not sure. The stands i would like to build will be liquid filled, hence aluminium. Stainless steel is too expensive.

Cool , thanks for the clarification. So powder coat won't do jack as a corrosion barrier.

Notwithstanding costs, i would tend to agree that Al would be a better material to make Stands instead of Stainless Steel. Purely because mechanical-wise, Al is a much more "inert" metal compared to Stainless Steel. Only issue here is that Its relatively easy to weld Stainless Steel with a TIG welder, where-as Al is much more tricky as Al oxidises more readily under the extreme heat of those MIG and TIG welders. Which is why Lotus chooses to "glue" (chemically bond) the Al parts together in making its Al car chassis for the Esprit/Exige, etc. Correct me if I'm wrong here.

In regards to cryo treatments , what they basically do is to bring the temperature down in a treatment room and all the stuff in it from room temp (say 25 Celsius which is also 298 Kelvin), and slowly freeze it down to approx negative 200 Celsius. Then, the controlled environment would slowly bring the temp back up to room temp gradually.
How fast is the thermal change, or how many cycles to they do it, i can't say specifically... but this is the gist of cryo treatment applied on metals.

There was a facility in Bangi that offered such services commercially a few years back. Not sure if they are still around or not. Had a friend who threw in a bunch of "stuff" for cryo treatment like his Golf clubs, some car parts (flywheel, brake rotors, gearbox gears, etc etc. ). He could have sworn that the "sweet spot" on his Calloway Big Bertha drivers improved tremendously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryogenic_treatment

mugenfoo wrote:nice fluke meter...

But u forgot another very important aspect.... whats the PF (power factor) of your wall supply ? If your current waveform is 90degrees off from your your voltage waveform ... you're pretty much paddling up sh!t-creek ... with no paddle!

https://www.hifi4sale.net/equipment-discussions-f6/electricity-effects-on-hifi-t9492-50.htm#31701

Can you measure PF of your wall supply? Or is it bull sh!t! snake-oil or cacing oil?

Forumer here believe what you say so can you measure PF of your wall supply? Which book you referred to? Or slip of the tongue?

mugenfoo wrote:

musicmusic wrote:
Don't forget to teach how to measure PF from your main supply.See the Electricity supply topic.

It's ok, i don't feel the need to be discussing colours to someone who might very well be colour-blind. Not referring to anyone in particular of course.
…..

This would be my last posting to musicmusic specifically.

Last posting? Still has not answered my questions, yet.

Remember, He who asserts must prove.

The vibration within the cabinet is too much to expect four 1”diameter spikes surface to transfer them to stands and mother earth effectively.

Stand height, stability and being non-resonant are of utmost importance.

A shorter stand may enhance the bass due to being closer to the floor.

The stand design also affects the bass because the total surface area of the stand interacts with sound waves.

Sometimes, your system sounds great but never when friends come for demo. Each person, object, different surface area affects the sound.

The is no such thing as a stand shouldn’t be too heavy. Heavy stand may have affected the sound but that is likely to its size.

It is no point claiming to go to hifi shop since 14 years old or to claim to be a sifu or moron-basher if cannot answer simple questions.

Again:-
Can the different sonic signatures be measured?

Any manufacturer ever produced comparative chart with different but well made same height stands to show how their stand is more superior than others?

Why no one ever did that?

AND how do you measure PF of the wall supply?

jokiarch wrote:
You brought up a very pertinent issue, the 'boundary condition' of speaker and top plate of speaker; irrespective of how precise is the surfaces to bottom of speaker and top plate of stand, there is planer irregularities. This planer irregularities, under vibration and resonant waves, would chatter. Chattering between two surfaces produces resonant sound that is 'foreign' (not present in recording).

In EE terms and for those familiar with Impedance matching... the given formula would be T = (Z2 - Z1) / (Z2 + Z1),
where T would be the reflection coefficient. It is a dimensionless unit.
Z2 is the characteristic impedance of one medium, and Z1 is the characteristic impedance of the other medium.

Anytime when there are impedance mis-matches (Z2 not equal to Z1) then there would be neergy reflections at the boundary conditions between Z2 & Z1.
Conditions can be both positive or negative, ie, the vibrations can be positively reflected , or negatively reflected.

For the below examples, Z1 is the char. imp of the co-ax cable, and Z2 would be the "other medium" at the end of the cable.

In the case of some signal travelling down a typical 75 Ohm coax cable until reaching an open-ended stub, the signal would be positively reflected.
(Z1 = 75, Z2 = some ridiculously large number which is the intrinsic impedance of air for example... , T would be superlatively close to "1").

If the end of the stub was shorted with a piece of wire, then the incident signal would be reflected negatively. The interferences of both the incident signal and the reflected signal would give rise to Standing waves within the cable.
(Z1 = 75, Z2 = 0 , T would be "-1").


If the coax was "properly terminated with a purely resistive 75Ohm resistor), then any signal that is sent down the cable would be fully sent to the resistor and no signal would be reflected back into the cable itself.
(Z2 = 75, Z1 = 75, T = 0 ).

Taking an example of the common Co-ax for Digital links between CD transports and DACs, the best connectors would be BNC as opposed to RCA phono jacks. This is because BNC maintains as close as possible a 75-Ohm impedance across the transmissing wire (which ideally should be 75-Ohm impedance as well). This is why most Video cables are also well suited to transmit SPDIF over copper in consumer hi-fi equipments.

Same goes for the Interface between the speaker cabinets and the stands. Although unless one has a MLSSA analyser, we can only "guess" and "experiment-by-ear" and hear the sonic differences on how Speaker cabinet would interface with the Speaker stand.

If the speaker would be so well isolated from the stand's top plate, then T would be pretty close to 1, where all mechanical cabinet vibrations would not be dissipated nor deflected by the stand.

If the speaker is extremely well coupled to the stand's top plate, then Intrinsic Resonances would come into play... remember that the audioband is somewhat wide, and therefore different frequencies would interact differently between the boundary conditions of the speaker/stand interface.

Then the mass and design structure of the stand & much more unknown variables would have its own influence on this boundary condition.

And as with all matter, there is no one truly inert condition. Everything has its own natural resonances. Its only to know if the stands or any other material's natural resonances would fall within the audio band or not & have a profound influence on the speaker's sonic presentation.

jokiarch wrote:
Ryder did raised a good question on type of top plate for stand, I would still opted for a full metal plate rather than tubular ones like the Sound Anchor. The reason is the top plate provides wider bracing angles to the vertical members of stand; these wider bracing is providing wider channel of load transfer paths. Also tubular member so near to speaker cabinet tends to resonates more. However, tubular member is a lot stronger than plate.

One of the key magic in BBC line of speakers lies in its cabinet design. We would notice that all BBC lineage have a common 'thin wall' speaker cabinet, this is because its cabinet is tuned to work as a complete composite whole forming a speaker system. Any attempts trying to disturb its cabinet is limiting its performance. Lifting the entire speaker by use of interface helps in observing the intrinsic design concept IMHO.

Jo Ki

The thin-wall design is definitely one of the crowning signatures of the BBC monitors. From a acoustic-mechanical perspective, its is the "controlling & tuning" of such resonances which gives these speakers their appeal of mid-range lushness and vocal emphasis.
But as with all things, it is a double edge sword. This means that such speakers would never strive (nor should it even attempt to) to reproduce the slam and dynamics and low thumping bass reproduction of the loudest crescendos in a given musical piece.

Now back to the burning question.... how best to select the appropriate stands in order for Ryder's Harbeths to perform their best?
My take would be a healthy dose of experimentation to boot. But of course, first things first , a good rigid stand with equally solid foundations to the floor would be a good place to start. Everything else would be "tuning" and "dialling" in to get the best compromise between clarity & holography, midrange sweetness and bottom-end delivery.

To borrow a metaphor , if one starts tuning on a RB26DETT or a 2JZ-GTE engine, the end-reward can be very satisfying and may even exceed one's expectations. But if one starts tuning with a Kancil or Kelisa base engine, please do not expect the sun/moon/stars from it.

Back to the matter at hand , a good pair of stands is crucial to start off with. The rest is up to the tuner's own time and effort to make the whole system sing.

how do you measure PF of the wall supply

I keep seeing the Power factor thingy being asked. Not sure what is your motive of asking multiple times in this forum. Are you trying to test Mugenfoo electrical knowledge ?

Instead of asking how is it to measure (which you can use a power meter that can even measure the harmonics, sags, swells, etc. you need to take voltage and current to give you power factor), what is your concern on power factors and what can you tell us that power factor can do to our music listening ?

Spoiler:

Don't bother about it Chua55, some clowns are best ignored...

mugenfoo wrote:

dheensay wrote:
Mugen,
Heat treated, hardened with heat, oven baked etc are all terms that apply since they denote the same thing.

Anyhow, im not sure how "cyrogenic" treatments would be used for hardening aluminium since it would be in reverse of heat.

Powder coating steel using hybrid epoxy will do nothing for the steel when it touches moisture. PE powder coating may work, im not sure. The stands i would like to build will be liquid filled, hence aluminium. Stainless steel is too expensive.

Cool , thanks for the clarification. So powder coat won't do jack as a corrosion barrier.

Notwithstanding costs, i would tend to agree that Al would be a better material to make Stands instead of Stainless Steel. Purely because mechanical-wise, Al is a much more "inert" metal compared to Stainless Steel. Only issue here is that Its relatively easy to weld Stainless Steel with a TIG welder, where-as Al is much more tricky as Al oxidises more readily under the extreme heat of those MIG and TIG welders. Which is why Lotus chooses to "glue" (chemically bond) the Al parts together in making its Al car chassis for the Esprit/Exige, etc. Correct me if I'm wrong here.

In regards to cryo treatments , what they basically do is to bring the temperature down in a treatment room and all the stuff in it from room temp (say 25 Celsius which is also 298 Kelvin), and slowly freeze it down to approx negative 200 Celsius. Then, the controlled environment would slowly bring the temp back up to room temp gradually.
How fast is the thermal change, or how many cycles to they do it, i can't say specifically... but this is the gist of cryo treatment applied on metals.

There was a facility in Bangi that offered such services commercially a few years back. Not sure if they are still around or not. Had a friend who threw in a bunch of "stuff" for cryo treatment like his Golf clubs, some car parts (flywheel, brake rotors, gearbox gears, etc etc. ). He could have sworn that the "sweet spot" on his Calloway Big Bertha drivers improved tremendously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryogenic_treatment

Hi mate,
Well actually powder coating does do a fair bit for steel based products. However, the actual compositon of the steel is the key factor in durability and hardness. Eg. more carbon compound + heat treatment = very very hard steel. Another import factor is the preperation before baking/epoxy coating. Zinc cleansing adds to the durability of the material. Also the kind of powder coat lends a hand. Hybrids are usually for indoors. PE or UV poly for outdoors. These are well documented in helping reduce corrosion. I cannot quote anything, only to explain in laymans terms what i have learnt from trial and error working with these materials.

Aluminium as mentioned by Ryder is a soft material. It is absolutely amazing to work with in this sense. It allows you to bend angles that would otherwise be impossible to do with steel. The hardening process is usually conducted post forming (ie. after beding it). Another great point, it is rust free for life. TIG welding with argon is similar for both alum. and stainless steel. It is more expensive, and requires some skill and control of the gas. The next question after the build = WHAT SORT OF LIQUID TO USE TO FILL THE STANDS.

Heat treatment disrupts the molecules in the compound material and then when it cools down, the molucules are re-aligned more closely together. From what i have experienced, the higher the composition of carbon, the harder it can go. Im not sure how the cyro treatment achieves this since it is in reverse.

Im starting to sound like an alchemist. nyuk nyuk.

from the wikipedia article ... looks like Cryo treatment does exactly the same thing also. As you mentioned above, its actually the cooling process that re-aligns the molecules is the key factor. So imagine taking it further down closer to absolute zero. So u get even more of the same effect.

From the articles, its not so much reheating the items back to room temperature that makes is stronger but the cooling down direction that gives materials the added strengths.

One thing about extremely high carbon content in steels or cast-iron. Yes it gets harder, but its also more brittle. For example, some degree of "softness" is sometimes desired especially in the case of car disc brake rotors. Too high a carbon content and the disc brakes would be prone to cracking under adverse conditions.

As for its use in the construction of stands, i would garner that while a superbly hard high-carbon steel might be really good in load bearing roles, it might also be overly hard and this might end up being a super resonant construction, sort of like a bell. But yes, different materials and its composition would present itself with differing sonic characters.

As for liquids ... perhaps gallons and gallons of silicone damping fluid might just do the trick! .. It's vibration dampening, and it wont corrode or rust any metals !

But to buy silicone damping oil in quantity ..... that might be super expensive.

I keep seeing the Power factor thingy being asked. Not sure what is your motive of asking multiple times in this forum. Are you trying to test Mugenfoo electrical knowledge ?

Yes.See https://www.hifi4sale.net/equipment-discussions-f6/electricity-effects-on-hifi-t9492-50.htm#31701

When cannot answer throw fancy writeup on reflection coefficient.

After long irrellevant formulae. Conclusion is learn by ears.

Divert attention to show off. A.K.A.smart alec.

Alot of theory but still cannot give formula.

Plain empty talk. Obviously.

Nothing said was helpful to know which stand to buy.

Shooting in blind.

Peddling snake oil.

Again, how to measure PF of the wall supply.

The topic is about stands. I hope my rambling on about materials doesnt offend anyone. I must also state that i do not, repeat : do not own harbeth speakers. However, I am keen on manufacturing these stands and will base them on the footprint provided by Ryder.

The stands will be my own design, with input that has been graciously offered in this topic. The end product will go to ryder, for testing. I am not very good at judging changes, so leave it to those with better knowledge.

Cheers

Judging by the various 'boundary condition', isnt it better to reduce it into one like the case of floorstander.

in analogy to floorstander, the stand should be lock to the bookshelf speaker as if they are one and all the energy is transmitted to the floor by the spikes.

dheensay wrote:The topic is about stands. I hope my rambling on about materials doesnt offend anyone. I must also state that i do not, repeat : do not own harbeth speakers. However, I am keen on manufacturing these stands and will base them on the footprint provided by Ryder.

The stands will be my own design, with input that has been graciously offered in this topic. The end product will go to ryder, for testing. I am not very good at judging changes, so leave it to those with better knowledge.

Cheers

On the contrary, all positive contributions with regards to materials and stand designs are most welcome. Safe to say that we've learned something about metals and corrosion protection methods as well, from dheensay.

chua55 wrote:Judging by the various 'boundary condition', isnt it better to reduce it into one like the case of floor-stander.

in analogy to floor-stander, the stand should be lock to the bookshelf speaker as if they are one and all the energy is transmitted to the floor by the spikes.

Boundary conditions will always exist. Its whether it will range from 1, to 0 or to -1. And bear in mind that if its lets say ... 0.5 for X frequency, it could very well be -0.33 for Y frequency. So unless someone has a MLSSA rig handy, its all about empirical experimentation and hearing the effects. As usual, some compromise with respect to dynamics and tonality would always be the case here.

This would be an area where someone like Jo Ki has spent countless hours on such experiments and it would be great for him to share the relevant findings.


In the case of floorstanders, the usually supplied footers should be taken into consideration as the interface. So as long as the footers are securely fastened and levelled , meaning that the floorstanders speakers don't end up rocking about (because no floor is really perfectly level especially local wooden floors or tiles on the upstairs of typical local homes) then this should suffice. The more exotic footers like the Harmonix and other 3rd party items would tend to offer such boundary conditions some degree of "tunability". Yes they would definitely change the sound. But whether for better or for worse, it would be very specific to each unique scenario.


As for bookshelves locking to and coupled tightly to the stands, yes... its works wonders for alot of speakers. But in the case of BBC-style monitors, they should be left free to "breathe" (or actually vibrate) in their own state as these speaker cabinet vibrations form part of their sonic signature.
So what works for a pair of Mission or Kefs might not necessarily work for Harbeths and vice versa, as an example of course.

anyone try marble speaker stand. I just attach the marble speaker stand and marble rack for reference.

Oh boy, great subliminal stuff Chua... are those stands custom made? How about those huge floorstanders.. are they individually stacked / separate enclosures? (can't get a close-up view). Now how are the effect of the 'boundary condition' for these babies...

that is the audio-gd speakers and gears in the showroom.

on closer look, this looks a copy of dyn temptation. can see an array of Eton and scanspeaks.

In china, it is so easy to get this kind of stand. May be they can use other exotic rock.