The shocking SOUND DIFFERENCE Between Speaker Stands 🤯
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 окт 2024
- IN DEPTH MIX TUTORIALS, Music Business advice, Live Q&A, Awesome Merch
Join my Patreon here! / coltcapperrune
Instagram / coltcapperrune
My Photography / coltcapperrunephotos
Vero vero.co/coltcap...
Website coltcapperrune.com
My Tech RUclips Channel / @coltcapperrunetech
Purchase All Music Gear HERE: imp.i114863.net...
Gear In This Video
ISOAcoustics Pucks imp.i114863.ne...
Sound Anchor Stands imp.i114863.ne...
Gator Stands imp.i114863.ne...
Focal Trio11 Be imp.i114863.ne...
My Studio Build • EPIC Home Studio Build...
Music I’ve Worked On / from-the-studio-of-col...
Focal Trio6 Be imp.i114863.ne...
Focal Trio11 Be imp.i114863.ne...
Favorite Plugins
EQ Plugin imp.i114863.ne...
Mastering Limiter imp.i114863.ne...
Compressor Plugin imp.i114863.ne...
Best Vocal Mic Under $100 imp.i114863.ne...
Best Budget Interface imp.i114863.ne...
Best Budget Studio Monitors imp.i114863.ne...
My Gear:
Studio Desk dangerfox.com/...
$100 off Dangerfox Desks Discount Code: coltcapp
Ultra Wide Monitor amzn.to/3DaYR2G
Monitor Arm amzn.to/3cV7mo8
Microphones
Neumann TLM 67 imp.i114863.ne...
Neumann KM184 imp.i114863.ne...
Manley Reference Cardioid imp.i114863.ne...
Shure SM7B imp.i114863.net...
Royer R-121 imp.i114863.ne...
Beyerdynamic m201 imp.i114863.ne...
Warm Audio WA_CX12 imp.i114863.ne...
Pearlman TM-47 pearlmanmicrop...
Lewitt LCT 1040 imp.i114863.ne...
Rack Gear
Audioscape V-Comp www.audio-scap...
Audioscape Spring Verb www.audio-scap...
UA 1176 imp.i114863.ne...
SPL BiG imp.i114863.ne...
Interface imp.i114863.ne...
Drum Bus / Vocal Comp imp.i114863.net...
Radial EXTC imp.i114863.ne...
Mix Buss Comp imp.i114863.ne...
CAPI Mic Pre www.capi-gear....
Coil Audio Mic Pre coilaudio.com
Power Conditioner imp.i114863.ne...
Interface imp.i114863.ne...
Monitor Controller imp.i114863.ne...
Patch Bay imp.i114863.ne...
Monitors / Headphones
Favorite Monitors imp.i114863.ne...
Second Monitors imp.i114863.ne...
Make any Speaker SOUND BETTER imp.i114863.ne...
Favorite Speaker Stands imp.i114863.ne...
Budget Speaker Stands imp.i114863.ne...
Best Mixing Headphones imp.i114863.ne...
Tracking Headphones 1 imp.i114863.ne...
Tracking Headphones 2 imp.i114863.ne...
Bose Bluetooth imp.i114863.ne...
Plug-ins
Noire Piano imp.i114863.ne...
Komplete 14 imp.i114863.ne...
KIT (Neve) Channel imp.i114863.ne...
Melodyne imp.i114863.ne...
Waves Tune imp.i114863.ne...
Slate Trigger imp.i114863.ne...
Waves Element Synth imp.i114863.ne...
Instruments / Amps
Favorite Synth imp.i114863.ne...
Acoustic Guitar imp.i114863.ne...
Resonator Guitar imp.i114863.ne...
Maschine imp.i114863.ne...
Keyboard imp.i114863.ne...
GTR Amp imp.i114863.ne...
Iconic Guitars iconicguitars....
Lauren Audio www.lauren.audio/
Camera Gear
Main Camera bhpho.to/3P0Iyt1
Vlogging Lens bhpho.to/3ykQG1F
B Roll Lens 1 bhpho.to/3l61Qj3
B Roll Lens 2 bhpho.to/3sj70Mh
On Camera Mic bhpho.to/3MZLwvN
Camera Mic 2 bhpho.to/3wu6qgj
Camera 2 bhpho.to/3M57U6U
Lens 1 bhpho.to/3KSLAvS
Lens 2 bhpho.to/3KWc53I
Video Mic 1 imp.i114863.ne...
Video Mic 2 imp.i114863.ne...
Main Light bhpho.to/3MVHncl
Softbox bhpho.to/3OWKRgJ
Light 2 bhpho.to/3FlK8RO
Color Grading Monitor bhpho.to/388EwOs
Favorite Studio Tools / Accessories
Mic Stand imp.i114863.ne...
Pop Filter imp.i114863.ne...
Patch Bay Cables imp.i114863.ne...
Clip On Tuner imp.i114863.ne...
Hard Drives imp.i114863.ne...
Ultra Wide Monitor amzn.to/3DaYR2G
![FendiDa Rappa - Clock Dat ft. Shamar Marco [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3NBU8KHdxYY/mqdefault.jpg)
As a certified machinist, I'd consider looking into a local metal fab shop to build a set of those sound anchors and fill them with sand or spray foam. $1200 just seems high for what is essentially a few of lengths of square tubing. Interesting video though! Congrats on 100,000!
50$ for material and 50$ for someone to make them and you are good to go
I would be skeptical that any shop would really be able to get it done for much cheaper. But it’s certainly not a complicated design! Thanks for watching!
@@LAskeHosting to your point, cheaper to build but you’re looking at $500 all in.
Interesting. I enjoyed it.
The shipping is a big variable. They’re 70-80 lbs each. I’m guessing the cost to ship is $200 each way best case.
Gotta say though the placement of you guys standing will affect room acoustics and could render a slight difference in testing probably as much as the stands make especially the triangle base stands, you were standing right behind the left monitor and you will act as absorbtion, much thicker than a bit of foam matting
Thank you!
I thought so, too 🤔
Everything in the room will influence his measurement. Moving the concrete blocks as a whole or as parts to a different position will make a difference. They should have taken the not used stands and themselves out of the room during measuring. Also this test doesn't show the difference in sound because of reflections created by the stand or sound difference created by the supportlevel of the speaker. But it is great entertainment.
I came to say this. 👍🏻
Yup yup...
Also, the difference in the resonance at 10-50Hz could just be noise floor because frequency response is rated for somewhere in 30ish range. Second the low frequency resolution is heavily affect by the FFT size (Gabor limit) so that can color how you see the response in the water fall. It would also be interesting to see what the standard deviation in the responses. Also, taking a high resolution fit you could use a student's t-test to see if the responses where statically different. I really loved the video it is nice to see people incorporate measurements into their decision. Finally in building acoustics we use things called tapping machines that drop calibrated weight to tap a floor to see how resistant they are to impact noise (foot steps). The tapping was the right thing to do and maybe gator should be tapping to products. I was expecting the concrete to more damped than it was.
Great details thanks. I was also expecting the bricks to produce a superior sound. Biggest take away for me is that those pucks make far too little difference to be worth the effort.
During the first test, you were standing behind the left front speaker. During the second and third tests, you were standing to the back right of the right speaker. Do you think this played a factor in the results?
@JohnOBryan That’s something I noticed too. For the analysis of the measurements to be good, the parameters must be the same. A person's placement affects diffusion and absorption
You're actually supposed to leave the room when running sweeps. For exactly this reason too. ✌️
100% it did.
I feel you should be in the room in your listing position, because that real use. YMMV @@amb3cog
These tests are invalid if they were randomly standing in high velocity (low pressure) zones of room modes of this studio.
Don't be around the speaker when measurement is progressing. You guys seems like so big useful basstraps behind speakers affecting between 40-150Hz🙂
The dips at about 180Hz and 270Hz are likely room issues. These frequencies would correspond to distances of about 6 feet and 4 feet. I imagine you'll find that raising or lowering either the speakers of the microphone will change those dips considerably. I don't know what kind of flooring you have, but I suspect that coupling to the floor is a problem with all your speaker stands. Have you tried suspending the speakers from the ceiling at the same spots? The screwdriver was a great idea, BTW. Many decades ago, Wharfedale used to build double-walled baffles in their speakers that were filled with sand. They were about as dead as can be when whacked with something.
The room response was pretty bad in general.
@@dingdong2103 well, the acoustic treatment of the room seems to be non-existent. Better to check this first and then see how things can be improved, that's the logical way.
I'm sure if you put sand in the Gators, like most users tend to do, you'll find that you'll get similar results as the Anchors, if not better. I changed mine for three legged ones and added crushed glass instead of sand and there's absolutely no ringing when I tap the legs with a metal object. I can also vouch for those ISO Acoustic Pucks. I use them too.
Except those speakers in the vid are stupidly massive. I mean, WTF? Why even bother trying such a stand?
This is just what I needed dude. Thanks man.
Glad it helped!!
Most non-audiophiles will place their speakers where they can. The room is a compromise and the furniture is a compromise. However, its a good thing to learn something. I have always ignored the Waterfall Chart, because I did not completely understand it, and well, I didnt want to make the effort to learn it. I learned it today with your comparison explanations. Thanks for that. Enjoy your audio sir.
Before upgrading to Barefoot 01s, I opted for cinder blocks over sound anchors (to save some money). However, I didnt leave mine naked. I wrapped them with a sheet of thick black vinyl, got isopucks, and also filled the hollow parts with rock wool. Not sure how much of a differenve this made (as I didnt do A/B testing with them wrapped) but all I can say is that Im super happy. Along with all the other acoustic treatment Im using (panels, bass traps, MLV, diffusion) my room measures almost flat down to 32Hz using REW. Cinder blocks are more than sufficient in my room and I have no interest in upgrading to sound anchors...at least not yet. Great video!
Honestly, my favourite part was tapping the stands! A simple technique that doesn't need much. I'm going to Rockwool fill my stands to take out the 'ping'. Thanks for the idea!
fill inside and isostrip outside, or something alike. Coz, U know, they emit those vibrations outwards.
Tapping the stands may bring joy in your heart but when you have +-10db peaks in your room response stands don't mean jack shit. You need better monitors and room acoustics...
Speaking as someone who used to design and install Pro audio and video for home theater systems, these things carry some significance but offer variables that cancel some of the science. It is interesting to see differences but here is the thing, "you" are not a stable object. You move your head. If there were an apparatus, that you locked your head into that made it stable and kept it in the exact same spot every time this would be valid. There is also the fact that Bobby hears music different than Johnny does. None of us have the same exact hearing in both ears. There are also differences caused by hearing damage which happens to everyone over time. There are so many variables that point of position (although somewhat important) doesn't really matter. Acoustic treatment then becomes the most important thing. Canceling frequencies that build in a studio ultimately, are more important than the position relativity to your ears and your speakers. Headphones on the other hand are always relative to your head and don't have any room frequency build-up. The best way to mix would then be to use both. The monitors to hear what the music sounds like in a room environment and how the low and high frequencies build in a room situation (which will be different for everyone and anyone since we don't have the same room) and the headphones to hear it without those frequency builds. The flat response of the monitors is only important as a reference from one song to another and not "shaping" the music to "your" ear. Only the people that have the exact monitors as you do, the same dimensional room, the same acoustic treatment and the same hearing will hear the music as you do. That being said, you have a very nice setup going there!!! I enjoy your content and wish you the best of luck in future endeavors!
Most of what you say is true, but Floyd Toole and his colleagues at Canada National Research Council and later Harman-Kardon Research showed pretty convincingly that listeners prefer a flat frequency response, linear phase response, and "tight" waterfall charts. Even older listeners with degraded hearing. It is true that narrow dips don't matter very much, and that millimetre differences in head/mic/speaker position affect those. Broad valleys in frequency response are much more objectionable. Toole recommends listening to classical symphonies when evaluating sound systems.
Completely agree about the importance of room treatments. Hard surfaces produce terrible sound.
I bet if you first painted or soaked the cinder blocks in a penetrating poly sealer and then filled them with sand, you would have markedly better results. It comes down to mechanical vibration in the end. Slap some cork sheets and/or dense rubber inbetween each block on top of that and your DIY setup will compete against the expensive stands. The "tone" or resonance of the stand is 100% negatively affecting the results. Remove as much of that resonance as possible and you are off to the races in a much better position. Why do we put tapes and towels on drums? Congrats on the milestone. Great content!
A few years ago I made some speaker stands using the solid version of cinder blocks, using one laying horizontally and two back to back stood vertically on the first to achieve the height I needed. I painted them with latex paint (2 or 3 coats) and 'glued' the blocks together using construction adhesive. I did this in the garage, then when it came to moving them to the listening room I 'noticed' the weight ... something like 75 pounds per stand. To my ears they contributed to a very good solid sound (despite me painting them to match the room color, wifey dictated their removal not too long after I installed them). I'd recommend avoiding the hollow blocks and sealing or painting them. I don't know if your room has a solid (slab) floor or not, but mine is a slab so coupling to the floor isn't too much of an issue.
No. Weight will let freqs travel and ring. You want decoupling. And as sturdy as possible. Loose blocks won't help. The weight distribution on the $1200 is off balance. That is why the pole under center of gravity is the best. Wall studio speakers rest on 4 poles per speaker. Even better weight distribution.
As people seem to be picking up on, the time domain (viz resonance decay) is going to be influenced by the absorption characteristics of the material/structures of the stands.
For the concrete blocks, they (from your tap test) are quite resonant, but have minimal absorption. To increase the absorption, isolate the blocks from each other with a rubber like absorbant material (say the sound deadening material for car panels) and fill with a non resonant lossy material, ie sand etc.
That should help by reducing the energy that can go into the concrete to make it ring, and then by absorbing the energy that makes it into the concrete after the stimulus is removed. So less energy should be absorbed and should also decay much faster.
Nice test, although it would be nice to have a scientist or an epistemmology guy in the room to check for methodological mistakes that will certainly affect the results. For example, were you guys standing at the same place during measurements? I’m assuming not, behind the speaker is one of the worst spots possible. Where was the camera guy? The audio test must be done remotely with the room completely empty. When you guys took the concrete stands out to test the others, did you left them in the room messing with the acoustics or you took them out? Nevertheless great video!
Excellent video 👍. Looks like concrete blocks are the new egg cartons! 😀
Where this test went wrong was the minute someone said that the video was sponsored by a retailer. At that point there was no chance that a product they did not sell would have any validity in the test. Common sense folks, there's no way you can get anyone to spend $1200 on a speaker stand if it doesn't win the test over some concrete blocks.
exacto
This felt like an episode of myth busters, so cool! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Hahaha the highest compliment possible 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
If the concrete blocks cost thousands then hifi nob eds will say they sound better yes!
Tapping test. Please consider:
a. Removing the 85-pound speaker before tapping.
b. Place a glass of water on the stand, Tap, check the ripple.
i) Taller the wave, poorer the performance
ii) Longer duration of ripple, poorer the performance
This is awesome! Thanks so much for making this video! Now we can send people this video when we're shouting from the rooftops about the importance of good speaker stands. 😂
It makes a significant difference! Thanks for watching!
The recording of the sound anchors with the pucks sounded like it was playing natively through my speakers. That is really amazing. You could use that setup for film production.
Sound Anchors fills each stand with different types of sand/epoxy mixtures to deaden the sand. You can do something similar with the cement blocks and probably get the same results (meaning the "thud" when you hit them).
If I was going to use cement blocks, I would spray expanding foam into them.
but at 16:50 you hit the stand with the speaker ON it, which is completely different to holding a brick in a hand, or hitting the other stand with the hand pressed on it... the weight on the different materials is non-comparable. Why did you do it this way when you could've made the conditions actually similar for every stand? is this an elaborate paid ad?
I think what you are seeing is in the difference of the rigidity of the different materials and construction. For the concrete blocks to behave like you thought they would, you would need to fill the gaps with sand and use mortar to make one solid structure. The combination of mass and removing the ability for the blocks to vibrate against each other would make them more rigid and contribute less to the sound of the speakers. When the concrete blocks are loose like that, they all can still vibrate. That said, the results from your sound testing did reveal some standing waves in your room. Parallel surfaces that are about 14.15 feet apart can account for that 80 hz standing wave (speed of sound divided by hertz). That can be fixed by making the surfaces different by as little as 5 degrees, or introducing diffusion blocks on even one side. The low end reverberation can be addressed with some bass traps.
Well said. I was a bit surprised to see the graph of his room. Not that mine will be any better but it is smaller so I don’t think I’ll have the low end resonances that he has.
The concrete blocks have huge air volumes inside and will resonate because of them. Like you, I built stands out of concrete blocks and measured them. They were terrible. However, I didn't use any flat blocks like you did, only the standard masonry units with the two large voids. I stuffed these with cut squares of recycled denim insulation until there were no more voids filled with air. They calmed down quite a bit and sounded passable afterward. I oriented the blocks so that the open sides of the voids were facing vertically, toward the bottom of the speaker. They essentially eat up any energy leaving the speaker cabinet directly downward.
I'm willing to bet most of the LF waterfall energy was the fact that the concrete blocks effectively extended the baffle all the way to the floor.
Great test--very informative. I'm curious to see how solid concrete would do. Those hollow blocks have resonance chambers like the body of a guitar.
In my experience stands that are stiff, well dampened and low mass are better. Stands that ring are resonant. Stands with high mass do a couple of things. They resonate at lower frequencies and they store more energy longer. Stands couple the speaker to the floor so the floor gets driven and sends sound back into the room. The undulating floor makes the stands wave the speakers around. Decoupling the speaker from the stand cleans up the sound. The iso acoustics pucks on the stand improves the sound by limiting transmission of vibration into the stands and the floor. If you put isolation pucks between the stand and the floor you will get an even better outcome. If you measure the mass of the speaker and its stand and get isolation pucks that are designed to work in that mass range, you will get a very direct sound minus stand resonance and floor resonance. The imaging and resolution will both improve.
I ONLY wish you had showed the audio comparison as well. Other than that I love these kinds of videos. Comparison videos FTW!!
Unfortunately, there’s no good way to show you what it sounds like. First of all I would get a copyright strike for listening to music. Secondly, a mono camera microphone is in no way even a decent representation of what’s happening in the room. I wish there was a better way to do it, but I have tried several, and the results are all very underwhelming. Once they go through a camera and get posted on RUclips.
For the rest of us who don't have 82 lb monitors... the stand I recommend is the K&M Konig & Meyer 26720 monitor stand that is height adjustable. Mine are holding up my heavy A77Xs with little effort. The rated load capacity is 35 kg / 77 lb. K&M also has a new model 26722 that is exactly the same specs, but now has a larger top plate.
keep in mind. Confirmation bias is a thing.
Just so you know, the peaks and dips are due to super slight placement differences. The difference is not the stand lmaooooooo
The screwdriver tap test comprehensively shows the differences. The expensive stands were by far the best.
well done, very professionally executed
I read a post on RUclips where the author claimed to use toilet rolls as speaker stands. I suspected he was joking, but I tried it (new rolls, with the paper). AND IT WORKS. They eliminate any muddyness and boomy, intrusive bass frequencies. 😮
gracias, muchas gracias.
Really interesting! I hadn't realised how much of a difference: (a) the speaker stand makes; and (b) the acoustic pucks make. Yet MORE kit I'm going to have to try to convince my wife to let me buy...
I wanted sound anchors until now. Very disappointed. The pucks doing the heavy lifting. Gator impressive compared to sound anchors.
Would have liked to have seen a smoothing as well and to see that “ear” difference AND then hear what you have to say about that ear difference, if what it would show corresponds to what you hear.
I wonder in general if the sub is causing the wider null around 270hz in relation to the desk. And if you widened the focal, or put them horizontal, if new placement overall would help?
Curious how you decided how far back from the front wall and how wide cone to cone was the best measurement? Cheers! Loved seeing this insight!
So the sub was turned off for all of these tests. The pucks are definitely the most impressive part of all of this. And with smoothing turned on it was definitely a better curve with the sound makers plus pucks over anything else. Thanks for watching!
@@ColtCapperrune The sub doesn't need to be on to affect the results. The mere presence of the sub's cone and cavity would colour the sound. It drives me nuts listening to "speaker tests" with other speakers in the same room, resonating merrily at random frequencies.
Having got that off my chest, your Focals are very nice!
Colt! I need a cable management video! Your studio is so organized! How do you get all your compressors, EQ’s, preamps etc in cunjuction with the xlrs/cables organized!
Fantastic comparison Colt and a big thanks for putting the effort in to do it properly and showing all of the measurements without smoothing.
Just a few comments: The 80hz peak on the blocks might not be a resonance. Notice how it doesn't decay (it's flat), that's the kind of thing you get in measurements when you have some background noise hum. or it's really really long, did you fill them with anything?
it is still better though, you can see the smaller sloped peaks get shorter and the slope of the lowest mode is steeper.
The measurements for the Gator stands might look a little better because you're providing some bass trapping with your body as you stand behind ready to catch them!
Also, did you re-adjust the height when you put the pucks under the sound anchors? It looks like the comb filtering in the high end has shifted up in frequency which is what you'd expect if you changed a path length somewhere.
All excellent observations! We took multiple measurements of each set up, and the results were the same. The HVAC was turned off for each test. And my room is very quiet when nothing is happening we did not adjust the height of the sound anchors when we added the pucks. Mostly because I actually wanted the speakers to be a couple inches taller for the final position anyway. Thanks for the comment and for watching!
as a former air frame mechanic i can tell you not all metals are created equal. (yes, i'm an all-around metal head)! In fact the exact opposite. possibly the most wide-ranging human-made material on earth. softer metals are less brittle. this makes them stronger in ways, but also 'deader' acoustically. compare airframe skin aluminum to car intake manifold aluminum. they are notably different structurally, thermally, and yes, acoustically. So it's not the powder coat. (though a good one will help slightly). it's the exact alloy of metal they're made from. possibly why they're so expensive. oh, i should mention, softer, denser metals tend to be more expensive too.
Honestly, i'm surprised how much the iso pucks are doing. I always considered them overrated. Very helpful video!
I love tests like this. Acoustics is always sooooooo important for mixing and honestly I never thought to think about the sound of different speaker stands, but just if I had stands or not.
Legit releasing on a morning with -1 degree weather. 👏 👏 Really informative. Thanks Colt! And congrats on 100K subs!
Thanks so much!!
-1??? congrats on the warm weather, it's -20 with 35 mph wind here in Wisconsin!!!
I'd be interested to see this test done with solid wood stands? Awesome vid thank you!
Thanks for watching!
Interesting comparison. But why didn't you remove the speakers while tapping test? The speakers are so heavy, that they will impact the comparison. And yet there are differences in measurement, I doubt that this will guarantee a better mixing result. Moving the head at the mixing desk while also change the listening experience. But nevertheless, thanks for all the effort!!
The reason your measurements were surprising is because you didn't measure what you think you measured. I promise you that all of the sonic differences you measured are due to very small changes in speaker placement. I understand that you used a laser device to get the speakers as close to the same location each time, but they must have been slightly different. Even 1/4 inch is enough to make a real difference in both the response and waterfall graphs you showed. The ringing you heard tapping the concrete blocks is at midrange frequencies, so that won't affect the bass range. And it probably wouldn't be loud enough to show on the graph anyway. A sine wave sweep excites that resonance much less than whacking it with a screwdriver. This stuff is very tricky to do correctly! When I measured speaker isolation, and proved it has no effect on competent speakers like yours, I kept the speaker placement differences to less than 1/4 inch. And even then there were small differences due to room acoustics, unrelated to the isolation devices being compared.
@ColtCapperrune001 Thanks Colt, I truly appreciate your mature and reasoned response to my clear explanation of the physics.
I think the differences fall off with distance. From the distance his speakers were to the measurements I would think minor angles would be trivial.
17.03 '....maybe the powder coat?' . For real ? somebody give that boy a slap 🤣
But a fascinating comparison and a wonderful in depth test. Thank you guys
Considering 20 Hz to 20 kHz human hearing range:
Can we really "HEAR" the difference in reduction of resonance below 20hz?
Thank you so much for this video. Much appreciated!!!
I'm literally converting my garage into a home studio right now (video series on my channel) and I have a pair of the Gators (UK/EU versions).
Luckily I have PLENTY of acoustic rockwool left over from the soundproofing of my walls and ceiling that I'm using to build about 20 acoustic panels with for the room when the building work is finished.
I will be setting aside some of that rockwool to stuff into the Gator's tubes to deaden them as much as possible.
I will also be DIY'ing some isolating 'pucks' from the leftover techsound SY100 rubber soundproofing layer and 5mm soundmat underfloor isolation layer under my flooring.
So glad I found this video regarding how decent the Gators are for their price point.
thanks!
Interesting tests. Been through all known permutations and I ended up with ATCs on Sound Anchors tuned with Trinnov System. I need to add the pucks now to see any differences. Appreciate your diligence.
You are running a great set up already!
I run PMC IB1’s with Sound Anchord and a Trinnov. I also added Iso pucks, the largest ones that allow 40lbs per puck.
You’re definitely going to feel and hear a difference, one in the lows, and two with your transients. It’s worth the cost.
Am I the only one who paused and rewatched the pipe cutting slow mo sparks eye candy and figured I was going to believe anything Colt said after that? ;-)
The bricks are effectively extending the baffle of the speaker down to the floor, changing the low end response/baffle step designed in the crossover. Hence the 2db upper bass boost with bricks.
This. I was looking for a baffle step comment.
*'Audiophiles roll eyes'*
😂
The part that is shocking is that you didn’t test the difference with the speakers raised so that the waveform leaving the speakers doesn’t encounter turbulence from reflections off of your console. Assuming a vertical dispersion of 90 degrees you have 30% of that field bouncing off the console and back to the woofer.
The reason that wasn’t a concern is because we were simultaneously testing for the real world. Speakers and stands don’t live in a vacuum. So they had to be in the correct placement for my mix position in order for the data to mean anything to me personally hope that helps!
@@ColtCapperrune alternatively you could run them horizontally and raise them to keep your mid and tweeters at the same level. Or you can just ignore the destructive resonances in the low end. At least test it, maybe I’m wrong.
THIS. Console/Desk always contributes to nulls/dips. I see it most for me at 120hz using smaller monitors (Kali IN-5, etc). Solved by moving them up and to the side of my console. Its a bit weird, but it fixed the giant null I was getting at 110-120ish...
What about your bodies guys? You stand at different spots every time so it’s a huuuuge difference🤷♂️
I've been very happy with my Monoprice Monolith stands, mass loaded with sand. I can't imagine the sound quality changing much with more expensive stands, but I could be wrong. Running Adam A7X on them.
I've just bought some lovely wooden stands 69cm high. Slightly lean back. Fit my speakers to the 16th of an inch or mm .
Just one bar from floor to stand thin facing forward for upright . I had tables before .
I've noticed the sound it much more open , the sound stage has risen vastly, very noticeable indeed plus more airly .
Between, they cost £107 around the same in dollars, custom made .
It's amazing what you can find online . So happy with my purchase.
I made steel speaker stands 2 years ago, stands weigh 43kg [95 lbs] each.
Four legs on each stand filled with fine sand, 40cm / 16 inches high.
A little overkill but I'm happy --- the speakers sound fantastic !!!
Colt be showing all that extracurricular strength gains by easily lifting those 80lb FOCALS 💪
The brick might perform better if you use a hollow brick or construct it differently. I'm guessing what caused the problem was the brick surface area. Its.huge compared to the stands. So it will certainly reflect more frequencies and might store more. Try reducing surface reflection area from the brick, that will be an interesting comparison.
Very cool study. Thank you.
Those high-dollar stands must have some kind of insulation inside them? That's pretty wild that they don't resonate nearly at all when tapped. Of course, you could just pour a solid concrete slab of a stand and call it a day. 😂
They must have something inside them, they weigh a ton, but we couldn’t get the end caps off without damaging them to check
The uprights are filled and damped from the factory, but anytime I’ve asked I’ve not gotten a direct answer as to what the material is. 😂
Love the Sound Anchors though!
Thanks for making this, I've been in analysis paralysis for a year looking for some information along this line. Good stuff, and not much like it is available.
Sound Anchors make a kevlar puck for the bottom of their stands that decouples the stands from the floor even further than the built in spikes. They made a huge difference in my room. So much so that I bought a second set of pucks for the subwoofer in my home theater. It would be interesting if you ran the test again with those.
I have a set on the way!
ooooh. i likey.
@@ColtCapperrune I would recommend the Gaia I or II under the stands ( screwed in).
Congrats on 100k. Been a fan since 49k and its been a pleasure!
Thank you so much for this video! I'm wondering, did you take these kinds of measurements when you were doing the ultimate monitor shootout vid? If not, do you think this kind of measurement process would affect your selection process?
Great question! We did not take measurements of the different monitors because it wouldn’t have really told us much. Just the difference in frequency response between the monitors. Choosing monitors is deeply personal, and much less technical. We need to to get as technical as possible to find these results for this video. Thanks for watching!
Hi Colt, nice test. Certainly, the pucks are shock absorbers doing their job. I think that the concrete block are vibrating with the music. I mean, they are very loosely coupled between themselves. The concrete blocks are not perfect as parallelepipeds, they are basically deformed, having no truly flat sides, hence they will be touching each other at three points and leaving the fourth point in the air, where it could move. Makes sense?
Have you tried wood stands? Made from plywood, like Baltic birch?
Great vid Colt. Doesn't look like you are using the spikes and coasters. I've been using Sound Anchors since 1999. To me ultimate performance would be Sound Anchors on spikes and cone coaster with Isopucks. Also the stands have less resonance due to the filling and the actual mass of the stands. The powder coat does little as far a I know. K.
I agree! Unfortunately, they are out of stock, but I will be getting some as soon as they are available
I am the Operations Manager at Sound Anchors. We absolutely have conecoasters in stock!
LOVE the video. Seeing the comparison was very cool, and you did a great job explaining everything.
@@ColtCapperrune You won't be dissappointed Colt. You might want to try the original spikes with the cones. You have 2 be carefule during install but they're easier to adjust for level. Originally those were the only spikes avaiable. Coasters now come w a smaller wider surface point designed for the cones. They r much shorter, harder to level but fit tighter on the cones.
Solid objects near the speaker cause resonance. My stands were $47 each. Square plant stands, a kit, 4 legs 28" tall, top and bottom shelf, hardwood, glued and screwed by myself. Cut foam shelf liner to fit and taped to bottom of 18 pound Elac dbr62 speakers. Toe in cross stream for home theater and music use. They sound awesome. Would not try this wtih very heavy speakers...
You should try to fill the cheap gator stands with sand and measure to see how much of a difference it makes.
I would have loved to do that, and fill the concrete blocks with sand
What I was thinking too. I used to do that with hi-fi stands back in the day.
Sorry Colt, this is so much BS. The main problem is you are doing a video about something you think you understand but you do not. Understanding fft curves and differences works differently. What those curves proved that there were no difference between the stands. And without measuring I can tell you there will never be, unless you use something completely silly thing as a stand.
I am not sure if you were paid to draw these conclusions...
Also, use your ears. Put the speakers beside each other, swap one of the stands, you will hear no change except the differences between any speaker and slight position change.
So sad when a channel tries to make money by misleading viewers. :(
One thing to remember, the anchor stands cantilever the speakers off of the front of the stand posts while the $100 stand support the speakers under the center of gravity of the speaker. That makes them inherently balanced. That puts puts less bending stress into the posts themselves. The anchor stands with the excentric loading makes the post into a spring. The posts are probably filled with a sound deadening material (spray foam?). That makes them a well damped spring, but still a spring. But even though the posts don't resonate, the fact that they are in a bending mode, means that they may be allowing micro movements. And the speakers are also on a cantilevered arm. That would allow for more micro movement as the drivers move back and forth. Those micro movements may be what you are seeing in the waterfall plot and why it is not much better than the $100 stands.
I never thought about test like this before. Well to know!
First of all, congrats on hitting 100k subs! That's awesome!
I was thinking you could cut down on some of the resonance in the Gator stands by filling them with cotton balls or sand or something similar along with the pucks. Obviously with a smaller profile speaker. Might be worth a try?
Thanks so much! I think that’s absolutely worth a try, and the pucks on the gator stands with smaller lighter speakers is probably a wonderful budget option! I would’ve loved to have a bit more time to experiment with filling the concrete blocks, and the gator stands with sand to see what would have happened
The design of these stands is just meh. They look very nice from a distance, they are thick and impressive. But the entire speaker platform holds together with just a single bolt!? And the vertical contact surface is something like one inch and a half, while it is 4 or 5 inches horizontally?
I’m sorry but as a welder I would never design speaker stands with such a terrible design, especially if they are supposed to host heavy speakers. I would either make a triangle, or at least make the mounting plate taller than wide and fix it with two bolts so that the force is distributed evenly on the vertical stand.
With yours, all the force is applied on the one bolt and it can break at any time.
All this test looks suspicious, first not filling (or even mentioning the possibility to) the blocks with sand, second, tapping on the stands you should have removed the big heavy speakers from the higher priced ones, that for sure helps mitigate some of the resonance, or maybe not, but since you didn't do an equal test we'll never know. I understand that you'll earn no commission from home Depot but this just seems misleading.
To me the conclusion about concrete blocks is flawed. It looks as though the main issues here are not the speaker stands, and much more the room, placement of the speakers in the room, acoustic treatment, reflections off the desk etc. especially in the waterfalls because clearly there isn't enough low frequency absorption in the room. So I'd stick with the concrete blocks, and try and sort the
I liked the scientific approach here, making sure the speakers were in the exact same positions each time.
The log sweep test generally has a high SNR, so should be very accurate.
I just really wish you had the chance to try swapping the Isoacoustics pucks for halves of tennis balls, or some hard foam blocks. lol
It's not that I'm not convinced that the Iso pucks can have a positive impact, but it would have been interesting just to try the tennis ball thing, to see if it's mainly down to the isolation vs any engineering Isoacoustics put into the pucks.
The pucks really aren't that expensive, though. They are obviously flatter to support the speaker more securely etc.
(a pair of standard Iso-Puck's is only around $52. I thought they would be a lot more.)
This is not a bot not advert, btw. lol
I bet you could improve the concrete blocks by filling them with cheap bean bag filler from Michael's.
If you absolutely MUST use concrete blocks, (because of an extremely limited budget, etc), then it helps if you do it one of two ways;
1. ONLY use criss-crossed overlapping SOLID concrete blocks of at least the 16 x 8 x 4" thick size, (i.e. NOT just the 2" thick ones), and then also place rubber matting between each brick layer, and on top between the brick stack and the speakers, to further dampen ANY potential resonances... OR,
2. IF you DO use the hollow core 16 x 8 x 8" size blocks, then still overlap them in a criss-crossed pattern, but once you get them to within 4" of your desired height, top them off with the SOLID 16 x 8 x 4" minimum thickness bricks... But the key here is to ALSO fill the hollow blocks below with wet cement and then put the solid blocks on top and let the entire resulting solid (as a rock!) "stand" fully cure outside in the warmer summer weather for however long that takes, then you can also use some form of foam rubber mat or iso-acoustic pads, etc on top of the solid top bricks in between them and the bottom of your speakers.
Either of those above methods make for a MUCH more effective and sonically useful concrete block speaker stand, especially in comparison to just using stacked hollow blocks, because the filled or totally solid stack of thicker blocks have almost ZERO resonances!
I have tried both methods above over the decades in various houses I've lived in and gotten great sounding results, while still being VERY budget friendly...
The worst drawbacks of using concrete blocks are that they are rather ugly, (paint them black or even better, cover them with a matching color cloth to your speakers to improve their appearance), and of course, (especially in the case of the concrete filled hollow block stack), they are extremely heavy and difficult to ever move or adjust if necessary!
Their main advantage is overall cost, which is a small fraction of expensive pre-fab speaker stands!
those stands are each more expensive than my weightlifting power rack is.. and thats rated for 1000+lbs
those waterfall charts were super interesting btw
Option 1 : those blocks add more baffle area to the speaker, changing the sound
Option 2 : no way I'm putting $10k speakers on those terrible tringle base stands - too unstable
Option 3 : looks a bit industrial but could work for some people
Personally I'd probably get something custom or more aesthetically pleasing:)
I'm a studio designer/builder and of course have faced the same issues...I didn't hear you mention floor construction but it appears that your studio is above ground. Of course your floor has a resonant frequency too, and will be set into motion by low frequency sound. The comments which suggested a sand-fill are on target, and concrete blocks loosely stacked will have the resonant frequency of individual blocks unless cemented together, and ideally sand filled. At that point you would see a difference, cast as one solid concrete block would most probably be the best, though it's hard not to be driving the floor when your room is not at ground level. Perhaps you should start by measuring your floor's performance, and by the way, striking the individual parts is not at all a bad test. I've done that and measured the results to identify a component's resonant frequency. Great vid though!
How does the gater stand sound if you tap with the speaker on top? I have my
Focal shape twin on then for years and it’s not bad 😅
what we learned here: 1) frequency response graph differences are negligible (no chance you'd hear the difference of these spikes). 2) decay time shows basically that good isolation is the key - you should invest in high quality isolators like Isoacoustics Gaia. It outperforms pucks by a mile. You try it you won't be able to send it back. 3) steel stand is a steel stand regardless the price. You can fill it up with sand or other heavy material to dump resonances. 4) bricks wich are empty inside is a bad idea, and I would argue this is not a surprise. Empty spaces will resonate and your measurements are clearly showing this. To sum up, forget the expensive stands, just focus on proper isolation. Other topic wich is a rabbit hole and we didn't touch it here, all your measurements are primarily measurements of your listening room rother than the stands or speakers. Room is typically the primary source of issues, especially below 200 Hz, and practially very, very difficult to fix.
Well, maybe it's not the stand themselves, but on the contact surface of each with the floor. The concrete is full surface, the cheap stand may has 3 rubber feet?, and the expensive one 4? Maybe remeasure all while standing on identical spikes, such as high end turntables have, to minimize vibration transmission. Btw, the tubes of the expensive stand are probably filled with expanding foam. I did that once on a drum rack, it made a huge difference in resonance transmission between toms.
Quick and dirty solution for the waterfall bass time falloff, is to hang a subwoofer from roof with rubber rings/strong fishing line. Will give the woofer cone's weight an absorption effect to dissipate faster than when they are stationary on solid solid object. Also a lighter enclosure will aid in dissipation. Will obviously lose a bit of output power, but hey, Subs usually much louder anyway. Great vid♥
dude, watching you put the massive speaker on that stand with the stand not in the center of the speaker was so stressful...
Interesting video! I've got the cheap gator stands, so maybe I should add some pucks for my small focals! Think it was the size of your focals rather than the weight that made it wobbly!
The pucks definitely make a difference! Thanks for watching!
Don't use pucks on top of cheap stands like that.. your speakers will end up on the floor
Very interesting tests- and you went to a lot of scientific ends to measure, distance, height, angle, frequency, time...
Where is your control?
i.e. how much of what you attribute to the stand is coming from the speaker- or a speaker/stand interaction?
Do you see the same frequency resonances with different speakers, with different designs (acoustic suspension, ported, etc?)
How much is the room? Since you're not in an anechoic chamber, reflections and resonances in the room are a huge part of what you're measuring.
You changed just one, of a dozen very important variables and attributed all the differences / and problems to the stands.
The thinner and cutout structure of those concrete blocks will allow for resonances. If it was a solid column of concrete it would be pretty inert. Wrap it up in a thick but soft rubberized closed cell foam or even open cell foam and it will be even more inert..
Reflections? The cinder blocks have hard, flat surfaces that will reflect sound, particularly that which reflects off of your front walls and the front parts of your side walls. The tests may not be valid comparisons unless you control for this potential issue.
In my studio I have found measurable differences between tests with and without the use of sound absorption around certain flat surfaces, especially the top and sides of my single sub.
Question, why not buy a DSP and fix the EQ as you like instead of buying an expensive stand?
My dad taught me this - Put oven burned clean sand into the speaker stand. And all your problems go away. Also put heavy base on that stand. We've used to made our speakers stands ourselves. 5-6cm diameter pipe. Base made out of 8mm thick solid steel plate, and top out of rigid 5mm plate. Weld all together, sand it, coat it with any paint you like, then put sand in the pipe. Plug it. Put speaker on the stand. And if you're not overly attached to the speaker being pristine - glue the speaker to the stand. We've used quite hard silicone-like glue.
Do the instructions for the gator mention filling them with sand?
I have the same ones (different brand name) and the manufactures recommendation was to fill them with sand for better performance.
Now I’m not using focal trios, and I agree with you that I wouldn’t use them for that big of a speaker. But they work quite well for my Yorkville speakers for the price point. And side note I have not filled them with sand yet. Aha. It I imagine that would help the screw driver test 🤣
Super glad you made this video! And congrats on the RUclips award
Just found/subscribed to the channel; love the unvarnished, 1st-hand data-based approach.
Done or know of any existing comparisons between pucks & simple silicone blocks? I wonder if the outer shell on a lot of silicone isolation products is engineering that makes an actual audio difference or if it's just a nice way to add some finish to a good-looking product (better substrate for logo-printing too, come to think of it).
My Equator D5s are currently sitting on soft Hudson Isoblocks. Tempted to replace them with IsoPucks if they're killer by comparison, but I imagine I may already be getting 90-100% of the benefits with the Isoblocks anyway.
Might be worth picking up some Pucks regardless just because I have objective measurement data in-hand now; I can always stick my blocks under some other, less-critical leisure-listening speakers.
Here's a great solution if ur a poor guy like me.
I cut two squares of a carpet padding with air pockets that I had laying around. I put one under each monitor and the diff was night & day. It works great for cutting down vibration transfer. I can't imagine pucks working any better. Cheers!
for a sec i thought you were on Andrew Masters' studio. looks very similar. dope
That was interesting! I've been using the Gator stands for years with Behringer B2031A's on them and love them for the most part. Perfect for my little in home studio. I would like to upgrade the speakers to something better w/o breaking the bank, but not sure what to go with. Awesome video!
What if you filled the gator stands with sand or use 2 gator stands per speaker for more stability?
The problem with the brick construction si thatt it's a big cube, so you're creating a new corner where the bricks meet the floor, below the speaker, which reflects sound back up and causes comb filtering.
A speaker stand that's made up of a metal pipe does not produce this "wall" that goes down to the floor, and therefore does not create a corner where you get a reflection.
In short, be careful about monitor stands that are "cube" shaped.
May I ask what laser was used to measure the speakers, the distance, and the angle of the speakers?
The question must be, do YOU hear a difference, cause it is you mixes the music, not the measurement software
I discuss this towards the end of the video, there is absolutely a audible difference. I should have switched from concrete blocks a long time ago.