Light Lossy vs. Hard Massive interface/supports for Speakers??

Speaker Asylum

General speaker questions for audio and home theater.

155.69.74.38

I would appreciate some advice on choosing an interface between my speakers and my stands. However, please bear with the rather detailed background which I am about to provide.
I have always believed in filled massive metal stands. But after some recent experimentation, I've chosen a radically different approach. From the massive filled steel Sound Anchor clones which I've always been using for the last 20 years, I'm moving over to wooden speaker stands.
I'm having a pair of three pillar 2" x 2" hardwood open frame stands fabricated for my Harbeth Monitor 40s. These feature rigid glued tendon joints and are braced in the middle. For the material, I've chosen ultra stiff Blackwood from China, which is more rigid than Oak or Maple and rather costly.
While steel stands tend to sound alive, ambient and resonant, I find they get to be fatiguing as that metal resonance colours all instrumental timbres. Not that you actually hear a metallic ringing, rather, the metal subtly but surely flavours the music like an underlying seasoning.
You might not realise this until you try a pair of very stiff wooden stands under your box speaker. Although some may feel that with wood, some ambience, punch and energy is lost, it could be debated that these are imparted by the intrinsic resonant signature of metal, and its tendency to reflect vibrations internally (ring) for a lengthy time.
However, I find that floppy wooden stands WILL impart equally irritating woody colourations. Teak has a tendency to add a muddy resonant signature, so I avoided it. The wood has to be as rigid as possible, or it will "twang" along with the cabinet vibrations.
I don't know if this experiment is valid, but if one gently taps the side of a speaker plant on the most massive of steel stands, the speaker will shudder to and fro for a lengthy period. On a rigid wooden stand, it sways for a few oscillations and stops dead. I wonder if the ambience and space we enjoy with metal stands could be due to their propensity to shudder for protracted periods.
Even if the superior mass of filled metal stands has benefits, I find the colouration metal imparts presents an evil greater than the good it offers.
Apart from the tendency of metal to ring, there is also the issue of high mass. There have been interesting discussions about high mass stands and how they store vibrations only to re-release them gradually after the onset of the original stimulus. Compare when a gigantic bronze bell is struck to a tiny aluminium Xmas decoration bell. The bronze bell could ring for nearly a minute as the energy reflects within its massive volume, while only a tiny clink is produced by the tiny bell.
Perhaps because of this, stiff wooden stands seem to sound cleaner, less ambient and drier as they do not reflect the energy back over time. ALthough one might hear just a dull thud when one taps on a steel stand which has been fully filled with sand or lead shot, I wonder if the way such a stand transmits energy back to the speaker cabinet is more insidiuous than we can perceive with our sense of hearing and touch.
This is just my hypothesis anyway, and I would appreciate any comments from those with sound technical knowledge about these issues. Subjectively, for now, I find lighter wood stands a better choice than heavy metal ones. Perhaps in the future, metal could be engineered differently?
Anyway, I'm thinking of how to interface the speaker with the stand.
I wish to avoid cones as they will mar the finish on the expensive blackwood stands, so I'm looking for block-type footers. However, I hope these will not compromise rigidity, as cones will create a more rigid structure than such block footers.
I am still a believer in rigity so vibrapods are out. I thought of Aurios, but they compromise rigidity. Also, Aurios are metallic and, despite their benefits in isolation, have been found by inmates to impart such a signature. This would lead back to the metal trap.
I've tried the ultra hard BDR pits, which sound very airy and transparent. I'm also considering wooden Unicones and DH squares which are carbon based, but softer and lossier than BDRs so that energy can be dissipated and not bounced back. Unfortunately, I cannot try these before purchase, so I'm going to ask for advice.
I was thinking that, since the Harbeth cabinets are made to be very thin-walled and lossy (as opposed to the ultra rigid braced walls of Wilson speakers) it seems good to extend the lossy approach to the interface as well, and go for the DH carbon graphite squares.
The Unicones, on the other hand, are short wooden cylinders with dome-shaped bottoms filled with lead (a benevolent metal?). I wonder if continuity in material (wood cabinet, interface, stand) could have its own benefit?
Thanks for any advice, corrections or comments you could offer!

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Amplified Parts

Topic - Light Lossy vs. Hard Massive interface/supports for Speakers?? - DkB 20:54:40 05/22/03 (2)

Re: Light Lossy vs. Hard Massive interface/supports for Speakers?? - greg7 21:06:41 05/24/03 (0)

Re: Light Lossy vs. Hard Massive interface/supports for Speakers?? - billwjr 18:10:46 05/23/03 (0)

You can not post to an archived thread.