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

I would like to know if there is anybody who has tried another speaker stand on the SHL5s other than the stock stands provided by the local Harbeth dealer here. I find the bass performance on the SHL5s to be compromised with the stock stands when compared to a mass-loaded 4 pillar stand in areas of bass weight, punch, definition and texture.

Any inputs would be appreciated.

Agreed. The stand resonates at higher volume. I just added some bags full of sand to damp the hollow frames. Ugly to the eyes but sweet to the ears.

Thanks for the response STC. It appears that your experience coincides with mine. I didn't care about the stands since they came with the speakers, and moreover there isn't any alternatives we can explore locally due to the shape and size of the speakers. I used a spare 18" 4-pillar sand loaded Target stands on the SHL5s lately, not an ideal stand since the top plate is considerably smaller than the footprint of the speaker, and after reverting back to the stock lightweight open frame stands I noticed they are not only lacking in bass weight and punch but definition and texture. With the mass loaded stands the bass lines go deeper and have more texture, and the sound of guitars have more body and bite and sound less lean. Basically there is more meat on the bones as music gained more weight especially in the bass and midrange, and as a result the sound is more palpable with an added 3-dimensionality.

Further checks with Harbeth owners in Singapore who have gone from the stock stands to either the Skylans and Sound Anchors revealed a significant improvement not only in the bass but from top to bottom. However, there are a few who prefer the lightweight open frame stands.

Personally I feel the stock stands of the Harbeth, as good as they can be are compromised mainly in the bass department. Nonetheless, for the price there isn't much we can complain. Unfortunately there isn't any alternatives that are available in the Malaysian market. The Singaporean dealer has stopped importing the Sound Anchors due to the high price and has started importing the Skylans instead due to the lower cost.

Hi ryder,
Surely you don't mean putting another set of speaker stands on speakers already on stands do you? Hehe just kiddin'.
I've never tried manufacturer's own (pricey)stands but there are plenty of cheaper aftermarket stuff that can do the job well. With Harbeths and Spendors avoid those that store energy, that include heavy or sand filled designs. Rigid but lightweight ones sound better with thin walled BBC heritage designs, and they prefer open frame designs to allow lots of air movement below.
Cheers

ryder,
i hv discovered that the harbeths on the open frame stands sound very transparent but slightly bass light.
with heavy stands, they sound bassier but the transparency is lost.
a good compromise is to place them on the heavy stands but use footers to isolate the speaker from the top-plate and allow the bottom panel of the speaker's thin-walled box to breathe. u can use brass ones or felt ones.

and they prefer open frame designs to allow lots of air movement below

I am new to high end so could you please explain what air movement is there under the speaker? To the best of my knowledge Harbeth did not manufacture or recommend any stands except that they insist to use a non resonant and rigid stands. As I said I may be too naive to believe what the manufacturer recommended.

Hi Wan Azami and Sflam,
Thanks for the thoughts. I haven't had the opportunity to try a proper heavy and mass-loaded stands on the Harbeth but my brief experience with a pair of these stands albeit one with a much smaller top plate improved on the bass performance of the speakers, and the difference is rather significant and not subtle. I do not sense a loss in transparency, probably because the top plate of the stands does not cover the whole area of the speaker.

It is true that speaker stands by dedicated manufacturers such as Sound Anchors and Skylans are costly, and that is the main reason I believe, local dealers do not bring them in. The Sound Anchors in particular are very costly to ship from the States and that has prompted the Singaporean dealer to stop importing them. He brings in the Skylans now.

Yes sflam, the bass with the open frame stands is feather light. If I am not mistaken, your experience with Harbeth is on a pair of P3ESRs that you reviewed not too long ago. If you can sense the speakers on the open frame stands to be bass light, the difference will be more significant if they were the SHL5s. Have you listened to the SHL5s on a pair of heavy and rigid stands? If yes, may I ask what are those stands and where did you get them from?

The Sound Anchor stands do not come with a top plate and have an open top but are very solid and heavy due to the large columns that are mass-filled. About brass footers, some folks are using TAOC discs or other similar products to isolate the speakers from the top plate of the stands.

ryder

sorry, but i hv not heard the shl5 on heavy stands.

the trick is to have a good rock solid foundation as stands (which can be the open-frame type, or the thick massive column variety, as long as its rigid and inert) to start-off with. Hence, this is deemed a "sonically neutral" stand.

Otherwise, whether the harbeth or BBC-type speakers are to be coupled or decoupled to the stand is another matter.


1st things 1st, stands should NOT resonate and impart its own sonic signature on the speakers. Hence... "rigid" stands. They can be open frame construction, or a big chuck of cast concrete ... whichever one fancies.

But if the stands are wobbly, or rings by nature (like those coming from the local harbeth dealer), then be prepared that those stands will inevitably add alot of colouration to the sound. Now whether the colouration is desirable or not ... then this is a matter of personal listening taste. The common local stands that accompany many a Harbeth in town are very similar to some iron window grille and rings like the Liberty Bell. So therefore these stands in fact actually ABSORB energy from the speaker cabinets and do so best at the stand's own natural resonant freqs. Its simple physics: The sympathetic resonances of the stand would be draining away the vibration energy from the speaker assembly. Suddenly the BBC-type thin-wall speaker would "see" a very conducive frequency zone in which to dissipate the mechanical vibrations into the stands.

One could think of such stands as a "drain sink" that is super effective (in absorbing energy) at those resonant frequencies.

Another inverse effect would be that the stand would catch airborne vibrations and resonate , which in turn then retransmit such energies back to the speaker cabinets. This would be totally undesirable and any external vibrations that are being injected back to the speaker cabinet would detract the speaker assembly from operating closer to universal ideal conditions. Again, hence the need for RIGID stands to begin with. And to clarify further, "rigid" does not necessarily equate to "heavy" stands. There are plenty of new space-age materials today that give super rigidity without the traditional mass of yesteryear's construction materials. Furthermore, stand-rigidity is not the sole responsibility of the stand alone as it also needs to be firmly footed on the ground as well. A stand is only as rigid & inert as its foundation to the ground.

I would think Jo Ki who has the appropriate background and years & years of experimenting with isolation stuff and materials can explain further on this effect.


Then the next point would be , whether to gum the speakers directly on the stands with blu-tack, or to have some tip-toe spikes to effectively "decouple" the speaker from the rigid stands again. This would be a matter of personal preference. If in the case of BBC thin-wall designs, perhaps some fancy TAOC spikes or ceramic-ball footers or even Harmonix footers or other XYZ-brand cones/spikes can be used between the speakers and the stands. My guess that for Harbeths where the cabinets are designed to vibrate due to its thin-wall methods, then it might be good to have these speakers to be spiked between the stands and the speaker cabinet. But this is just IMO.

Mugenfoo, thanks for the enlightening information, as usual.

Does anybody know if there is a custom-made stand that shares similar resemblance to either the Skylans or Sound Anchors made specifically for the SHL5(or 40.1) available locally? In other words, clones of both versions.

STC wrote:
I am new to high end so could you please explain what air movement is there under the speaker?

harbeth designs their speakers with thin walls which vibrate at the lower frequencies. the vibrating walls augment the bass frequency and make the sound warmer. even the bottom of the speaker box vibrates.

ryder,
do you know the phone no or email address of the sg dealer that sells the skylan stands? i dont like the stand provided by Sam. Its too lightweight and rings badly.

Lamkochai wrote:ryder,
do you know the phone no or email address of the sg dealer that sells the skylan stands? i dont like the stand provided by Sam. Its too lightweight and rings badly.

SG Harbeth dealer:

Jimmy Goh
CD Acoustic Equipment Pte Ltd
1 Coleman Street
#03-14 The Adelphi
Singapore 179803
1 p.m. to 7 p.m.
Mondays to Saturdays
TEL: +65 63 362467
FAX: +65 63 362467
Email: g101623@singnet.com.sg

Lamkochai, as written by tycham. Jimmy brought in the Skylans since March this year. If I am not mistaken the price was S$980/pair for the SHL5s. The Canadian dealer's price is CAN$477/pair. The Skylans are made from MDF and composite material which is an advantage in terms lower shipping cost when compared to the Sound Anchors due to the light weight.

Alternatively you can try an 18" or 20" 4-pillar mass loaded stands on the SHL5s and see the results for yourself. You may or may not like it. One thing that is for certain is the stock stands provided by our local Harbeth dealer are compromised in the bass department. Personally I like the results of the speakers on the mass loaded stands but the stands are too high, not to mention the awkward view of a big box on tiny legs.

Alan of Harbeth stressed many time Harbeth do not need exotic stand. But you still got your own right to spend your $

http://www.harbeth.co.uk/usergroup/showthread.php?663-Coupling-Harbeth-to-the-Stand&p=11072#post11072

Concentrate on music. There is always a compromise. You get tighter bass you compromise liquid mid and high. But if you can not detect the difference and enjoying it..Then that's it. Listen and enjoy.

Cheers~~

by sflam Today at 5:46 am
harbeth designs their speakers with thin walls which vibrate at the lower frequencies. the vibrating walls augment the bass frequency and make the sound warmer. even the bottom of the speaker box vibrates.

Please allow me to disagree. But if we want the Harbeth to reproduce the exact frequency response (which is impossible, anyway) as measured by Harbeth using their long pole in the woods, then we all should place it on a flat surface just like the designer did.

Tests conducted using an accelerometer proved that spikes pointing downwards causes the speaker stand to vibrate many folds then placing them flat. Whether this changes the sound or not is another matter. The height of the speakers even as little as 1cm makes a lot of difference. An ordinary spike is about 1 inch.

Our distributor's metal frame speaker stand resonates like a bell. In a very quiet room go near the speaker stand and clap hard, and you can hear them ringing. Any metal frames do that if they are not rigid and damped. It wasn't a problem until I start blasting the speakers otherwise at a moderate level it may actually adds a little colouring to the sound which can be good depending on your taste and requirement.

Mahler 9 wrote:
Alan of Harbeth stressed many time Harbeth do not need exotic stand. But you still got your own right to spend your $

http://www.harbeth.co.uk/usergroup/showthread.php?663-Coupling-Harbeth-to-the-Stand&p=11072#post11072

Concentrate on music. There is always a compromise. You get tighter bass you compromise liquid mid and high. But if you can not detect the difference and enjoying it..Then that's it. Listen and enjoy.

Cheers~~

Well, yes to a certain degree, but at the great risk of having complacency set in and here's why:

The comment is also from the same great Alan who thinks that any "adequate" amplification would suffice for any Harbeths. So there you have it.
Now lets put an example to the statement: A vintage Audiolab 8000A and a Harbeth 40.1. The Audiolab's power rating is definitely within the 40.1's recommended "Amp. Suggestion". A RM2K Amp partnered to a RM20K Speaker. What a Superb Idea !

If the "Listen and enjoy" maxim is paramount, then needless to say, a pair of Edifier speakers, if one finds enjoyable also, should be perfectly adequate already. Even Harbeths would be considered too "high end" if compared against Edifier-type speakers.



But thankfully for the human race, there are some who continuously STRIVE to challenge the accepted norms, and push the frontiers of progress: be it in the sciences, literature, what more the boundaries of hi-fi excellence. Only when one is sufficiently satisfied (or finally tires) of pushing the frontiers, then sit back, relax and enjoy the new-found glory of the music.

STC wrote:

by sflam Today at 5:46 am
harbeth designs their speakers with thin walls which vibrate at the lower frequencies. the vibrating walls augment the bass frequency and make the sound warmer. even the bottom of the speaker box vibrates.

Please allow me to disagree. But if we want the Harbeth to reproduce the exact frequency response (which is impossible, anyway) as measured by Harbeth using their long pole in the woods, then we all should place it on a flat surface just like the designer did.

Tests conducted using an accelerometer proved that spikes pointing downwards causes the speaker stand to vibrate many folds then placing them flat. Whether this changes the sound or not is another matter. The height of the speakers even as little as 1cm makes a lot of difference. An ordinary spike is about 1 inch.

... and not forgetting also that the different types of "flat surfaces" would also impart different sonic signatures on the re-produced sound.

Mahler 9 wrote:
Alan of Harbeth stressed many time Harbeth do not need exotic stand. But you still got your own right to spend your $

http://www.harbeth.co.uk/usergroup/showthread.php?663-Coupling-Harbeth-to-the-Stand&p=11072#post11072

Concentrate on music. There is always a compromise. You get tighter bass you compromise liquid mid and high. But if you can not detect the difference and enjoying it..Then that's it. Listen and enjoy.

Cheers~~

Mahler 9, Alan stressed many times that all amplifiers sound the same too. Also, the unimportance of speaker stands was repeated on numerous times as he advocated the use of Ikea wooden stool or a pile of telephone directories on his speakers. I guess that idea came when Jeff Day promoted a pair of stands on his forum that cost higher than the 40.1 speakers alone. We all know Alan's intention is all well but we have our own opinions too.

The exotic stands he is referring to may be the one Jeff Day is promoting. The Skylans are not exotic stands, in fact he recommended them for the Harbeth as Noel of Skylan is a close friend of Alan.

ryder,

I would recommend you to get a local vendor to fabricate a rigit open frame stands, with an option for sand-fill if needed later on. Decoupling is critical in my limited experience with Spendor BC1. Try to use spike shoe (copper) between stands and speakers.

Regards.

If anyone has a sample of the stands they require built, let me know. I am in the metal works trade. Ie. Manufacturing.

Just for discussion sake. This picture shows the Sound Anchors. They come pre-filled. It appears that the columns are welded onto the base and the top as a single piece. Any idea if the "I-shaped" base is filled, and if yes how is that done?

The Skylans are more conventional with a full top plate.

The good old Skylan on the SHL5 that was once owned by Jeff Day.

Actually bro, the top is not a single piece at all. Its just a flat face weld. Then they grind it before applying PE epoxy coat. The weld line is visible meaning they did not do a good job at all.

The bottom - Here is the interesting part. It is very likely that they are using a "FORMED" plate for the bottom. Meaning it is from a sheet of metal that has been punched and bent OVER hollow pipes. It is NOT DIE CAST, because you can clearly see there is welding at the pillar joint section.

From my guesstimate :
1. Top - 18mm x 25mm rectangular hollow 1.0mm wall thickness
2. Pillars - 25mm x 32mm rectangular hollow 1.0mm wall thickness
3. Base - 6mm plate & 18mm pipes underneath. Or even another plate underneath.

The base is probably quite heavy, so no sand required???

Thanks for the insight dheensay. What I meant by a "single piece" is the stand comes as a whole piece welded together and cannot be dismantled unlike some self-assembled 4 pillar stands that require individual columns to be bolted onto the top and base plate.

There are some visible lines between the top plate and the columns which shows the area of butt welding which was grinded off for a smooth finish. The bottom edge are fillet weld.

If the bottom plate is fabricated by a single formed piece of metal sheet then most likely they are not filled. It is difficult to ensure a uniform fill across the whole "I" section anyway.

Wow you are really good to be able to provide a rough estimate on the sizes and even the thickness. Guess that is the advantage when you are in this line of job. Do you manufacture speaker stands?

Cheers.

I must agree that the local fabricated stands is thin and rings like a bell. They use the cheapest grade. Anybody tried on wooden stands before like ATS?

"If the bottom plate is fabricated by a single formed piece of metalsheet then most likely they are not filled. It is difficult to ensure auniform fill across the whole "I" section anyway." - ryder

Yes sir, You are right. If its fabricated from sheet metal ALONE, then the weight will be dependant on plate thickness, and definitely cant be sand filled..

Whats interesting is what lies beneath the "I"....If they are using hollows to support the formed "I", then there is always a chance to add further weight. The skylan is nice. Does anyone have this stand?

PS no i dont manufacture stands LOL. I manufacture banquet, conference, educational and outdoor furniture http://www.dheensay.com

So now's a golden opportunity to mfg some purpose built Stands for fellow Harbeth owners here.

I'd say dheensay, you just might have a decent niche market ready for you!

Let me gather more feedback on the Sound Anchors and Skylans on which is a "better"(subjective) design and whether it is viable to carry out this clone experiment. Without any real samples it would be difficult to proceed. It would be useful if the originals are available so as the copies will turn out in almost exact dimensions.

The original Skylans are made of MDF and composite material, so fabricating them using steel will produce a different sound. I believe the Skylans are easier and more straightfoward to manufacture compared to the Sound Anchors.

ryder wrote:Let me gather more feedback on the Sound Anchors and Skylans on which is a "better"(subjective) design and whether it is viable to carry out this clone experiment. Without any real samples it would be difficult to proceed. It would be useful if the originals are available so as the copies will turn out in almost exact dimensions.

The original Skylans are made of MDF and composite material, so fabricating them using steel will produce a different sound. I believe the Skylans are easier and more straightfoward to manufacture compared to the Sound Anchors.

Anyone you know in S'pore using the Skylans? Would be easy for him to measure and send you a sketch with dimensions.

Mugen, well I dont own harbeths. But working with metal is a real kick for me.

Ryder, Can you give me the footprint for the SLH5 please? I have it my mind to make my own design stand. You can then give em a go, and provide me with your feedback.

dheensay wrote:Mugen, well I dont own harbeths. But working with metal is a real kick for me.

Ryder, Can you give me the footprint for the SLH5 please? I have it my mind to make my own design stand. You can then give em a go, and provide me with your feedback.

yeah, if ryder can just take measurement of the harbeth's bottom footprint, then a "custom matching" stand can be built and chances are they will look like a perfect match as well.


I have a few ideas on speaker stands as well, detracting from the usual vertical columns but instead using some angled columns and brace points to make it a "tunable" stand as well. Food for thought.

Mugen,
If you used angled colums, wont it cause more vibrations? Ie. the speaker stands end up absorbing some of the noise since its not being channeled directly to the floor? It was my understanding that its best to get noise and vibrations to the base and ground the quickest way possible to avoid resonance. Can someone elaborate further?

How much of an improvement a stand will make, I really cant say since i am not a pro at tweeking.

I appreciate the enthusiasm but am having some reservations on this DIY project since it may take considerable time, effort and cost to come up with a design that sounds good. Some trial and errors may be necessary, and question is who will bear the cost.

I am still soliciting some feedback on this matter. The question is whether to have a top plate like the Skylans, or an open top like the Sound Anchors. Personally I prefer the design of the Sound Anchors being an open top that may be more suitable for the Harbeth design. Then again, first hand experience is most valuable, and only by listening we can make further judgments or conclusions. Theory is one thing, practical is another.

Dheensay, in your earlier post you mention RHS of sizes 18x25x1thk and 25x32x1thk. I presume they are not Grade 43 steel. I don't know what is the norm practiced in the manufacture of solid speaker stands, whether pressed steel or Grade 43 steel is used. I wonder if the original Sound Anchor stands are built using Grade 43 SHS with a minimum thickness of 2mm. The difference in grade of steel and sizes will affect the sound to a certain degree.

All these uncertainties contribute to the complexity as to what guidelines we need to follow in coming up with the stand design. Then again, some will argue -it's only a pair of metal stands!~

The Harbeth website indicates 322x300mm(w x d) for the SHL5s. I will check on actual dimensions later tonight. I don't know if it is feasible to carry on with this project. Let me gather more feedback and think more about this.

Reading through the comments here, all of you have good understanding of the requirement of speaker stands. Both Mugenfoo and dhensay are correct, almost anything that handle vibration/resonance well would form part of the requirements of the stand.

There are 4 functions any speaker stands need to perform, all to varying degree and there is no absolute "perfect" ratio and proportion between them.

1. Rigid Anchoring
Stand that provide rigid achor to speaker is utterly essential. This is based on the understand that sound generation is the excursion of drivers, any micro-movement of its housing would compromise accuracy of driver's excursions due to moment of inertia between speaker cone housing as interface between cone and cabinet. Failing which, the effect is comparable to a dart game standing on greasy wooden floor with rubber sole shoe aiming for a bull's eye; if motion of trajectory is compensated, it will miss the target. Here, dhensay & Mugenfoo both said well.

2. Sympathetic Resonance Between Mediums
Resonance is waveform presented in materials, flowing of waveform from one medium to another requires close enough in density for it to work seamlessly. Acute differences would restrict the flow of the energy waveform thereby causing it to have "feedback syndrome". The feedback vibration is deterimental to proper excursion of the drivers of speakers.

This call for a stand that cannot and should not be very heavy as compare to the weight of the speakers but it must remains rigid. In my understanding, some form of interface is needed that I always refer to as "sympathetic mass" as bridging interface between two mediums.

3. Anchoring to Mother Earth.
All mass has weight and their load eventually goes to the mother Earth. The gravitational pull is a natural phenonminon which define many things that work as a result.

Any load, there is load path, material trasnfer their loading and find its channels, you have to understand this well before you know how to design a good stands. I have my blueprint of an ideal stand which I was thinking of releasing as a commerical product. But I could never find time to get this project going (Please don't ask me for the blueprint as I hate to turn down your request and feel bad). And to Mugenfoo, my stand is a tunable one too.

4. Gradual Resonance
Resonance are Kinetic Energy, and Newton's Laws of Physics applies to great extend eventhough some of the laws may need some modifications, but it is still the greatest natural laws explained.

Though energy never lost but it changes its Form continuously, in such argument, Kinetic Energy loses its energy as it changes to heat and sound, so this would dictates the design of stands. So here I answered why Mugenfoo's argument does make sense and hence correct based on my understanding.

Concluding my reply, there are myriads of unknown issues in stands and resonance control in audio application. My times spent on this dated back more than 10 years and I think I have only scratched the surface of it.

I cannot agree with what Harbeth said about the stands not important; for a speaker manufacturer which recognises materials have a "sound" to it and constantly rundown to 'nasal' sounding character of LS3/5A due to its material used, the statement contradict each other goes against it.

Sorry for the long post.

Jo Ki

Thanks for sharing your knowledge openly Jo.

If I read you correctly, you're saying the speaker must be held absolutely still by the stands for maximum effect of the cone movement for sound output, and any vibrational energy from the speaker is to be channeled to the stands into the ground via good coupling between speaker-stand and stand-ground, and finally all remaining energy not drained to be converted to heat and dissipated (via sand)?

Foo

Thanks to the long and comprehensive but useful post by Jo Ki. His contribution coupled by new information in that the Singaporean Harbeth dealer had tried copying the Sound Anchors through various makers only to meet with failure in the end suggested that it is not a good idea to attempt making a pair of stands without having the appropriate expertise and knowledge. I was informed that the Sound Anchors are built like a tank and the quality of workmanship is first rate, and that may be the reason most who attempted to copy the stands failed in the process.

[quote]This call for a stand that cannot and should not be very heavy as compare to the weight of the speakers but it must remains rigid. In my understanding, some form of interface is needed that I always refer to as "sympathetic mass" as bridging interface between two mediums.[quote]

Another snake oil? more like cacing oil. How can the stand must be an ideal weight for the speaker stands proportionate to the speakers weight?

So what is the correct weight of your stand for your Harbeth? Must be one of the undiscovered law of physics.

Maybe next year someone can add bricks to the stand and demo in next AV show the changes in sound.

Hi musicmusic,

I think the same weight point is in context of energy transfer.

Imagine the pendulum balls case where you pull one ball up and as it comes down, it hits the other ball which causes it to go up, then come back down and do the same.

Now imagine if the first ball has the diameter of a 5sen coin and the other of a 50sen coin. As the small ball comes in and hit the big ball, the big ball will likely stay still and its the small ball that gets bounced back. Imagine the small ball is your speaker.

musicmusic wrote:

jokiarch wrote:This call for a stand that cannot and should not be very heavy as compare to the weight of the speakers but it must remains rigid. In my understanding, some form of interface is needed that I always refer to as "sympathetic mass" as bridging interface between two mediums.

Another snake oil? more like cacing oil. How can the stand must be an ideal weight for the speaker stands proportionate to the speakers weight?

So what is the correct weight of your stand for your Harbeth? Must be one of the undiscovered law of physics.

Maybe next year someone can add bricks to the stand and demo in next AV show the changes in sound.

musicmusic, before you call anything snake oil or cacing oil .... what are your references to your statements above? Care to share your in-depth understanding of physics or material sciences to shed more light on this matter? Also perhaps care to share your credentials long the way as well ?

Is it safe to say that you don't know of Jo Ki's background nor have interacted with him in person before? Try Google; You might be pleasantly surprised.

And yes, do try adding some bricks to the stand or even the speaker cabinet... lets see if you hear any change in sound or not. If you don't, then all the above *might* just qualify as snake-oil , but for you only.

Mugenfoo, so if you are using two identical stands, 1st one 30kg and the other one 20kg. It is going to change the sound?

Sorry, didn't know you guys engineers.

musicmusic wrote:Mugenfoo, so if you are using two identical stands, 1st one 30kg and the other one 20kg. It is going to change the sound?

Sorry, didn't know you guys engineers.

in my books , definitely the sound would change. Of course, to qualify this statement, it had better be speakers of decent performance and quality.


If you were to use "Edifier type" speakers bought from Low Yat Plaza, then ok, most likely not to hear any diff in sound, but not discounting it totally either.


But if you can show the physics on why the sound "should NOT" change from different mass stands regardless, please do enlighten us and explain for the benefit of everyone here.

Well no need to get heated over stands...especially if they are not one night stands huh

From my perspective :

Why heavy stands - because you dont want the sound from the speakers, or the vibration from the sound created to "BOUCE" around before it reaches the ground. Put another way - there is more resonance from a stand which does not conduct the energy from the speakers in a correct way.

This isnt rocket science, just my deduction.

Joki, thanks for the input. Always a good read.
Ryder, i will build the stands at my own cost and leisure. I have been itching to use aluminium with numerous pillars for awhile now. So let me build, then you can test it.

Cheers

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?

i believe the 10kg difference would change the sound. it maybe a negligible difference to some. But that subtle difference could be a considerable difference to others, if you get my drift (meaning some people are more sensitive to "slight" changes than others la). it probably won't make or break the music but the change in sound can still be detected.

during casual listening when the critical mind and ear is "off" i probably wouldn't notice if someone had quietly swapped out similar spec different brand speakers, let alone stands.

during critical listening the musiclover/audiophile becomes an animal with sharper than usual senses.

dheensay wrote:
i will build the stands at my own cost and leisure. I have been itching to use aluminium with numerous pillars for awhile now. So let me build, then you can test it.
Cheers

Hi Dheensay, thanks for your kindness. However, doesn't aluminium ring like a bell? Aluminium is a lightweight and low density material that usually exhibits poor resonance resistance. I have not heard of speaker stands being made from aluminium before. Don't get me wrong, I just thought the basics shall be addressed properly before proceeding with something. Or the aluminium material you have is something special that doesn't resonate too much?

In my mind I still think steel is the best material for speaker stands construction. I do not have experience with wood stands from the likes of Skylans(which are made from MDF and composite material) but guess they must be pretty good judging from responses by owners worldwide.

f8. wrote:Thanks for sharing your knowledge openly Jo.

If I read you correctly, you're saying the speaker must be held absolutely still by the stands for maximum effect of the cone movement for sound output, and any vibrational energy from the speaker is to be channeled to the stands into the ground via good coupling between speaker-stand and stand-ground, and finally all remaining energy not drained to be converted to heat and dissipated (via sand)?

Foo

Dear Foo, you understood what I was trying to say in such simple English, and short passages which you have helped making it so easy to understand.

What a speaker stands needs to do while provide rigid support by holding the speaker firmly, it cannot be overly heavy thereby stifle or impede conducting its vibration/resonance away from its cabinet.

The problems are not limited to just the above, it needs to continuously allow channelling the vibration away from its source (speakers predominantly) and eventually descipated to ground.

As the resonating waveform travel, it loses its energy, the oscilation thus changes its pitch. Sand inside the pillar of stands is a good approach to change the density gradually from top to bottom section of stands, sort of synchronise it, and helps in controlling vibration absorption effectively.

Sand is not effective as heat descipator medium under the circumstance as it hardly would vibrates when they are packed closely together, so the good effects of it is more to do with the density theory IMHO.

If you uses sand, I would suggest you work out a proportion of fine and coarse sand, munk and lead shots, shack them well to form a compound would be better.

Jo Ki

interesting read. reminds me of transmission wave on a 75ohm digital coaxial.

whereas a digital coaxial is trying to minimize the jitter that causes random error, can I know how to determine the approach to be taken to get good sound.

The speaker, stand and ground cotinuous interaction generates travelling wav that imparts 'certain' force on the excursion that gives a difference in sound.

I tried before a Harmonix and it does change the sound a lot, for the better but. at a costs.

Is there a guide or some form of measurement/observation/test to determine a combination of good speaker stand/ground. e.g. tapping on the speakers, stand or checking its frond back / up down movement.

f8. wrote:Hi musicmusic,

I think the same weight point is in context of energy transfer.

Imagine the pendulum balls case where you pull one ball up and as it comes down, it hits the other ball which causes it to go up, then come back down and do the same.

Now imagine if the first ball has the diameter of a 5sen coin and the other of a 50sen coin. As the small ball comes in and hit the big ball, the big ball will likely stay still and its the small ball that gets bounced back. Imagine the small ball is your speaker.

Well said. You really do understand what I was saying. I am very happy.

Relying on this theory, we ought to remember that we cannot achieve equal density between stand and speakers like the pendulum example that you so aptly provided. As an effective stand, which provided "anchoring" effects to speaker, it cannot be of equal massing or otherwise it can never hold the speaker firmly.

So, the stands must always be heavier than the speaker.

Jo Ki

mugenfoo wrote:

musicmusic wrote:

jokiarch wrote:This call for a stand that cannot and should not be very heavy as compare to the weight of the speakers but it must remains rigid. In my understanding, some form of interface is needed that I always refer to as "sympathetic mass" as bridging interface between two mediums.

Another snake oil? more like cacing oil. How can the stand must be an ideal weight for the speaker stands proportionate to the speakers weight?

So what is the correct weight of your stand for your Harbeth? Must be one of the undiscovered law of physics.

Maybe next year someone can add bricks to the stand and demo in next AV show the changes in sound.

musicmusic, before you call anything snake oil or cacing oil .... what are your references to your statements above? Care to share your in-depth understanding of physics or material sciences to shed more light on this matter? Also perhaps care to share your credentials long the way as well ?

Is it safe to say that you don't know of Jo Ki's background nor have interacted with him in person before? Try Google; You might be pleasantly surprised.

And yes, do try adding some bricks to the stand or even the speaker cabinet... lets see if you hear any change in sound or not. If you don't, then all the above *might* just qualify as snake-oil , but for you only.

Dear Mugenfoo, thank you for your stance which I appreciate and honoured to receive.

There is no speaker stand manufacturer making claim on density relationship, so I am not surprised to know that the statement we made can be hard to accept.

I am using Foundation Designer II made in Canada; it is recognised worldwide as one of the best sounding stands for LS3/5A as it has "great bass extension" which is the effect of congestion in mid-bass due to it being too heavy.

Jo Ki