There are many factors to consdier here, also the speaker wieghting itself as most are front heavy being driver orinitated in that area.
Location material, what amount and type of vibrational control you are look to achieve, energy conversion / dissapation or absorbtion.
Its about assessing each speaker location and how best to address the vibration control in those circumstanices Jason, you may find that you could end up using a couple of different stratagies to achive your desrided results.
Testing is abolsute key here, something I know which you will undertake dilligently
Been re-reading the thread and mulling Tony’s comments here and got to thinking that maybe we could look at a hybrid solution of maybe one type of device at the front of the speaker where we have the weight in most designs and a different device at the rear. This is quite possibly a daft suggestion but just thought what can be lost trying it😁.
There are many factors to consdier here, also the speaker wieghting itself as most are front heavy being driver orinitated in that area.
Location material, what amount and type of vibrational control you are look to achieve, energy conversion / dissapation or absorbtion.
Its about assessing each speaker location and how best to address the vibration control in those circumstanices Jason, you may find that you could end up using a couple of different stratagies to achive your desrided results.
Testing is abolsute key here, something I know which you will undertake dilligently
Been re-reading the thread and mulling Tony’s comments here and got to thinking that maybe we could look at a hybrid solution of maybe one type of device at the front of the speaker where we have the weight in most designs and a different device at the rear. This is quite possibly a daft suggestion but just thought what can be lost trying it😁.
I certainly agree that the isolation solution has to be tailored to the speakers/system and floor/room. However, I'd been concerned about pairing two different technologies. I am looking fwd to your thoughts on your system/floor too.
Been re-reading the thread and mulling Tony’s comments here and got to thinking that maybe we could look at a hybrid solution of maybe one type of device at the front of the speaker where we have the weight in most designs and a different device at the rear. This is quite possibly a daft suggestion but just thought what can be lost trying it😁.
I certainly agree that the isolation solution has to be tailored to the speakers/system and floor/room. However, I'd been concerned about pairing two different technologies. I am looking fwd to your thoughts on your system/floor too.
I certainly agree that the isolation solution has to be tailored to the speakers/system and floor/room. However, I'd been concerned about pairing two different technologies. I am looking fwd to your thoughts on your system/floor too.
Yep. Most likely it would be terrible but…..🤣
Pretty sure any manufacturer would advise strongly against it. The systems may be 'fighting' each other. I could understand using different weight ratings front and rear of the same product.
Interesting stuff, but I have some questions which I'm going to ask purely because I believe it's sensible to be sceptical up to the point where I'm convinced.
Regarding eliminating vibration, which seems to be the purpose - obviously it isn't possible to eliminate vibration but it is possible to confine it to a frequency range where it is not possible for it to impact the sound - meaning confining/ transferring it to either a very high frequency or very low. Seems to me to do this would require some sort of spring suspension, the exact composition to be defined by the weight of the supported speaker?
I don't see any other method as doing anything other than shifting the problem around.
Regarding the testing, could it not be the case that the differences were due to the various supports putting the drivers at a different height relative to the listeners? With multiple listeners in the same room at the same time not everyone is on the same horizontal axis, so changing vertical axis will sound different to each participant. You reported some participants were more reticent in their opinion of how much change happened, this would be consistent with them being in a different spot in the room.
Did you do a frequency sweep with each different support to see if frequency response changed? I would expect it to. I find it odd that none of the vendors of these supports produce any measurement analysis at all. No before and after test for vibration with accelerometer, no before and after FR plots.
Surely they would need to perform such tests when developing the products? The lack of this data rings alarm bells since it's consistent with other suspect audio products. Obviously a speaker is like a turntable and anything you do to it has a chance of changing the sound, but that doesn't automatically equal an improvement.
I've also noted that a change can seem like an improvement, until I live with it for a while, listening to a wide variety of programme, and then I start to feel it sounds wrong / un-natural, and eventually I reverse it. Could this be the case here?
Finally a ten minute gap between comparisons is just too long. No-one can accurately recall subtle changes in sound for more than a few seconds. Ideally you need comparative switching which I appreciate is beyond scope. What about making an in-room recording of the same music, same volume, for each support (and with no support)?
''I think a lot of digital people are just bored because there's little to tweak.
Suddenly boutique network cables, switches and usb cables are a thing you're into because, well what else is there except listening to music?''
I have Auva 70 and 100 here along with my own Gaia’s. I’ve owned Townshend bars before, and heard Oli’s under my Ekta’s When I get a moment I’ll write my own thoughts on the day at Jason’s along with how they all work in my own system. All I will say is that the Stack Audio products are game changers and of sufficient difference to everything I’ve tried before that I don’t need measurements or a few seconds gap between comparisons.
I have Auva 70 and 100 here along with my own Gaia’s. I’ve owned Townshend bars before, and heard Oli’s under my Ekta’s When I get a moment I’ll write my own thoughts on the day at Jason’s along with how they all work in my own system. All I will say is that the Stack Audio products are game changers and of sufficient difference to everything I’ve tried before that I don’t need measurements or a few seconds gap between comparisons.
That's fine, but I require more than other people's general subjective opinions before spending over a grand on something like the Auras. Not disputing they have an effect on the sound but a change is not automatically an improvement and what you perceive as better I may perceive as worse.
Stack Audio site has pages of waffle but absolutely no hard data to back up their claims, some of which are...unlikely.
They claim vibration is eliminated. Fine, show me some evidence of that and I am a prospective purchaser. Otherwise how do I know the change is not just due to raising the height of the speaker an inch or two? I can do that for nothing.
''I think a lot of digital people are just bored because there's little to tweak.
Suddenly boutique network cables, switches and usb cables are a thing you're into because, well what else is there except listening to music?''
I think you are right to be sceptical, especially when the devices that we listened to are costing over £1k a set. The issue with height was something i was aware of and flagged as a potential issue prior to the listening tests being undertaken. I also agree that before the events unfolded, my thinking led to a conclusion where using a spring based isolation device would be the only real way to combat vibrational energy in getting to the floor. However, there is more than one way to skin a cat.
I am reminded of a demo i attended a few years back where the tested equipment was a rather ridiculously priced isolation shelf. It consisted of two layers of compact laminate that had multiple matching concaves machined out and ball bearings placed between the two. The idea being that you instead convert the vibration into kinetic energy that is dissipated via the shelves which can move laterally due to the ball bearings. It was quite an interesting listen, and it was fairly conclusive to me that these shelves were particularly effective under valve equipment rather than SS, where I felt the effects would be negligible Vs silicone feet for instance. Silicone feet were £10 for 4, the shelves were nearly £700 each.....Silicone it was.
The Spring theory for speakers is well documented. Townshend (IIRC) have a white paper somewhere about how their devices work and why. This isn't detrimental to the giving away trade secrets as it's already covered in physics, but they don't say HOW they make their springs or what frequency they are set for. That would give the game away!
Regarding the Stack Audio Feet, i believe they have "particles" inside. That's certainly my impression from giving one of them a shake. In terms of how it might work, it reminded me of a method to reduce sound impact for machinery used in the factories I used to work in. Some machinery were placed on a "sand bed" which massively reduced the vibrational energy from the machine. It reduced noise impact and also prolonged the life of the machinery. These were fairly common in big industry. There is a scientific paper on it here: iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/2094/4/042073/pdf#:~:text=To%20increase%20conversion%20of%20vibration,at%20least%201500%20kg%2Fm3.
IF, and this is a presumptuous IF, this is the idea of how the feet work, the vibration is turned to kinetic energy which is then dissipated via the particles in the feet. It does also kind of explain why the 70's were great, but the 100's were miles better. The higher mass of particles you have, the better they should work in theory. Think of stamping on loose sand at the beach...its hard to make any sound at all vs stamping on a wooden suspended floor for instance.
I think what the guys at Stack have done is very successfully harness this idea into a really effective package. Ok, yes, i agree that keeping the speaker at the same height *should* have been done, but it will be done when i test the feet on my highly problematic wooden floor.
In the listening at Jasons i am unsure how anyone couldn't be blown away by the effectiveness of the Stack Audio Auva 100's and 70's. Even if they were the only device we tried vs no feet, the sound quality with them in Jasons system was magnificent. I'd buy them on that performance alone.
When i get a loaner set, i will drop you a message and maybe you could pop down for a listen. Happy to run the comparison in line with your testing parameters too.
I don't get excited to try much HiFi these days, but the AUVAs are exciting me. I just hope they work as well on my floor
Interesting stuff, but I have some questions which I'm going to ask purely because I believe it's sensible to be sceptical up to the point where I'm convinced.
Regarding eliminating vibration, which seems to be the purpose - obviously it isn't possible to eliminate vibration but it is possible to confine it to a frequency range where it is not possible for it to impact the sound - meaning confining/ transferring it to either a very high frequency or very low. Seems to me to do this would require some sort of spring suspension, the exact composition to be defined by the weight of the supported speaker?
I don't see any other method as doing anything other than shifting the problem around.
Regarding the testing, could it not be the case that the differences were due to the various supports putting the drivers at a different height relative to the listeners? With multiple listeners in the same room at the same time not everyone is on the same horizontal axis, so changing vertical axis will sound different to each participant. You reported some participants were more reticent in their opinion of how much change happened, this would be consistent with them being in a different spot in the room.
Did you do a frequency sweep with each different support to see if frequency response changed? I would expect it to. I find it odd that none of the vendors of these supports produce any measurement analysis at all. No before and after test for vibration with accelerometer, no before and after FR plots.
Surely they would need to perform such tests when developing the products? The lack of this data rings alarm bells since it's consistent with other suspect audio products. Obviously a speaker is like a turntable and anything you do to it has a chance of changing the sound, but that doesn't automatically equal an improvement.
I've also noted that a change can seem like an improvement, until I live with it for a while, listening to a wide variety of programme, and then I start to feel it sounds wrong / un-natural, and eventually I reverse it. Could this be the case here?
Finally a ten minute gap between comparisons is just too long. No-one can accurately recall subtle changes in sound for more than a few seconds. Ideally you need comparative switching which I appreciate is beyond scope. What about making an in-room recording of the same music, same volume, for each support (and with no support)?
Hi Martin,
Thanks for your comments.
I could put the technical points on Particle Impact Damping (and AUVA tech) and effectiveness to Stack. I am not qualified to answer that.
Regarding methods. Thanks for your suggestions and thoughts - really appreciate all ideas.
Tests are ongoing as it is impossible to cover everything in a very limited time. Last Tues was just the beginning. I will be measuring and testing in much more depth through the autumn. For me, listening has been over weeks. Various people will be testing devices for extended periods in their own systems.
I think you are right to be sceptical, especially when the devices that we listened to are costing over £1k a set. The issue with height was something i was aware of and flagged as a potential issue prior to the listening tests being undertaken. I also agree that before the events unfolded, my thinking led to a conclusion where using a spring based isolation device would be the only real way to combat vibrational energy in getting to the floor. However, there is more than one way to skin a cat.
I am reminded of a demo i attended a few years back where the tested equipment was a rather ridiculously priced isolation shelf. It consisted of two layers of compact laminate that had multiple matching concaves machined out and ball bearings placed between the two. The idea being that you instead convert the vibration into kinetic energy that is dissipated via the shelves which can move laterally due to the ball bearings. It was quite an interesting listen, and it was fairly conclusive to me that these shelves were particularly effective under valve equipment rather than SS, where I felt the effects would be negligible Vs silicone feet for instance. Silicone feet were £10 for 4, the shelves were nearly £700 each.....Silicone it was.
The Spring theory for speakers is well documented. Townshend (IIRC) have a white paper somewhere about how their devices work and why. This isn't detrimental to the giving away trade secrets as it's already covered in physics, but they don't say HOW they make their springs or what frequency they are set for. That would give the game away!
Regarding the Stack Audio Feet, i believe they have "particles" inside. That's certainly my impression from giving one of them a shake. In terms of how it might work, it reminded me of a method to reduce sound impact for machinery used in the factories I used to work in. Some machinery were placed on a "sand bed" which massively reduced the vibrational energy from the machine. It reduced noise impact and also prolonged the life of the machinery. These were fairly common in big industry. There is a scientific paper on it here: iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/2094/4/042073/pdf#:~:text=To%20increase%20conversion%20of%20vibration,at%20least%201500%20kg%2Fm3.
IF, and this is a presumptuous IF, this is the idea of how the feet work, the vibration is turned to kinetic energy which is then dissipated via the particles in the feet. It does also kind of explain why the 70's were great, but the 100's were miles better. The higher mass of particles you have, the better they should work in theory. Think of stamping on loose sand at the beach...its hard to make any sound at all vs stamping on a wooden suspended floor for instance.
I think what the guys at Stack have done is very successfully harness this idea into a really effective package. Ok, yes, i agree that keeping the speaker at the same height *should* have been done, but it will be done when i test the feet on my highly problematic wooden floor.
In the listening at Jasons i am unsure how anyone couldn't be blown away by the effectiveness of the Stack Audio Auva 100's and 70's. Even if they were the only device we tried vs no feet, the sound quality with them in Jasons system was magnificent. I'd buy them on that performance alone.
When i get a loaner set, i will drop you a message and maybe you could pop down for a listen. Happy to run the comparison in line with your testing parameters too.
I don't get excited to try much HiFi these days, but the AUVAs are exciting me. I just hope they work as well on my floor
Agree that in principle both Townsend and Stack offer solutions that could offer some SQ improvement. Not debating that.
The lack of objective data is really the issue that I have. There's a few reasons for that:
1) people report all sorts of wonderful improvements with products that are clearly nonsense. I don't think they are lying but cognitive bias can be a bitch. Likewise just 'trying them for myself' doesn't exclude my own bias coming into play.
2) A real change may happen which someone else may like but which I don't. That is, it's just different, not objectively better.
3) Other's rooms and speakers are different to mine, what works well in their system might make mine worse.
I cannot fathom why Stack do not show some before and after measurements on a test system. It still doesn't preclude the problem that my system is not their test system, but if we assume that eliminating vibration is always a positive thing for SQ - not an unreasonable assumption - then it's still useful information.
There's plenty of people like me who like to see that before considering buying, and providing that data will not put off the ' just trust your ears' people, so it is only a positive outcome for them.
So why no data? Why just the usual flowery blurb that's used to sell everything suspect, from power conditioners to magic pebbles?
Anyway, I leave it there. Give me a shout when you get them and I'll come over.
macca I don't know if there is a way of measuring these results, but never the less there was a difference, and I can understand Jason, Oli and Steve being blown away by the differences. For Mark and myself the differences were heard, but we both felt the dynamics and clarity improved but some natural flow disappeared which I will come back to later.
We brought a set of 100's home and now have them fitted underneath the Vaders. Bamboo outriggers are being used, kindly lent to us by Jason, at Jason's day steel was used, whether this makes a difference I don't know. The outcome of fitting the 100's here in our home system are not quite as obvious but the negative of the musicality has disappeared (sorry Jason we both think your amp has quite a different presentation to the amp we have here.) The 100's have been in situ for 3 full days giving the particles time to settle and will continue listening for a few days more before sending them on to optical . I will come back to this thread when the Townshend bars are replaced to give our final thoughts.
I have Auva 70 and 100 here along with my own Gaia’s. I’ve owned Townshend bars before, and heard Oli’s under my Ekta’s When I get a moment I’ll write my own thoughts on the day at Jason’s along with how they all work in my own system. All I will say is that the Stack Audio products are game changers and of sufficient difference to everything I’ve tried before that I don’t need measurements or a few seconds gap between comparisons.
That's fine, but I require more than other people's general subjective opinions before spending over a grand on something like the Auras. Not disputing they have an effect on the sound but a change is not automatically an improvement and what you perceive as better I may perceive as worse.
Stack Audio site has pages of waffle but absolutely no hard data to back up their claims, some of which are...unlikely.
They claim vibration is eliminated. Fine, show me some evidence of that and I am a prospective purchaser. Otherwise how do I know the change is not just due to raising the height of the speaker an inch or two? I can do that for nothing.
I agree completely Martin. I would never spend a grand without trying for weeks in my system and comparing options. That is exactly what I'm doing. In fact, that's what various people on here are doing over the next few months. I am more skeptical than most about reviews - that's why it is great that many people are testing in different systems over months.
Most isolation manufacturers allow to try for 30days without obligation. I was just curious. I'm very glad I tried and wouldn't go back. I'm sure isolation (in one form or another) will not be for some people too.
I agree vs height change and did compare various options at set heights over the last few weeks. Options and time were limited on Tues. Like I said testing is ongoing and more info will be added to the review thread in due course.
I think you are right to be sceptical, especially when the devices that we listened to are costing over £1k a set. The issue with height was something i was aware of and flagged as a potential issue prior to the listening tests being undertaken. I also agree that before the events unfolded, my thinking led to a conclusion where using a spring based isolation device would be the only real way to combat vibrational energy in getting to the floor. However, there is more than one way to skin a cat.
I am reminded of a demo i attended a few years back where the tested equipment was a rather ridiculously priced isolation shelf. It consisted of two layers of compact laminate that had multiple matching concaves machined out and ball bearings placed between the two. The idea being that you instead convert the vibration into kinetic energy that is dissipated via the shelves which can move laterally due to the ball bearings. It was quite an interesting listen, and it was fairly conclusive to me that these shelves were particularly effective under valve equipment rather than SS, where I felt the effects would be negligible Vs silicone feet for instance. Silicone feet were £10 for 4, the shelves were nearly £700 each.....Silicone it was.
The Spring theory for speakers is well documented. Townshend (IIRC) have a white paper somewhere about how their devices work and why. This isn't detrimental to the giving away trade secrets as it's already covered in physics, but they don't say HOW they make their springs or what frequency they are set for. That would give the game away!
Regarding the Stack Audio Feet, i believe they have "particles" inside. That's certainly my impression from giving one of them a shake. In terms of how it might work, it reminded me of a method to reduce sound impact for machinery used in the factories I used to work in. Some machinery were placed on a "sand bed" which massively reduced the vibrational energy from the machine. It reduced noise impact and also prolonged the life of the machinery. These were fairly common in big industry. There is a scientific paper on it here: iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/2094/4/042073/pdf#:~:text=To%20increase%20conversion%20of%20vibration,at%20least%201500%20kg%2Fm3.
IF, and this is a presumptuous IF, this is the idea of how the feet work, the vibration is turned to kinetic energy which is then dissipated via the particles in the feet. It does also kind of explain why the 70's were great, but the 100's were miles better. The higher mass of particles you have, the better they should work in theory. Think of stamping on loose sand at the beach...its hard to make any sound at all vs stamping on a wooden suspended floor for instance.
I think what the guys at Stack have done is very successfully harness this idea into a really effective package. Ok, yes, i agree that keeping the speaker at the same height *should* have been done, but it will be done when i test the feet on my highly problematic wooden floor.
In the listening at Jasons i am unsure how anyone couldn't be blown away by the effectiveness of the Stack Audio Auva 100's and 70's. Even if they were the only device we tried vs no feet, the sound quality with them in Jasons system was magnificent. I'd buy them on that performance alone.
When i get a loaner set, i will drop you a message and maybe you could pop down for a listen. Happy to run the comparison in line with your testing parameters too.
I don't get excited to try much HiFi these days, but the AUVAs are exciting me. I just hope they work as well on my floor
Agree that in principle both Townsend and Stack offer solutions that could offer some SQ improvement. Not debating that.
The lack of objective data is really the issue that I have. There's a few reasons for that:
1) people report all sorts of wonderful improvements with products that are clearly nonsense. I don't think they are lying but cognitive bias can be a bitch. Likewise just 'trying them for myself' doesn't exclude my own bias coming into play.
2) A real change may happen which someone else may like but which I don't. That is, it's just different, not objectively better.
3) Other's rooms and speakers are different to mine, what works well in their system might make mine worse.
I cannot fathom why Stack do not show some before and after measurements on a test system. It still doesn't preclude the problem that my system is not their test system, but if we assume that eliminating vibration is always a positive thing for SQ - not an unreasonable assumption - then it's still useful information.
There's plenty of people like me who like to see that before considering buying, and providing that data will not put off the ' just trust your ears' people, so it is only a positive outcome for them.
So why no data? Why just the usual flowery blurb that's used to sell everything suspect, from power conditioners to magic pebbles?
Anyway, I leave it there. Give me a shout when you get them and I'll come over.
I shall feedback regarding providing data. This may be possible in due course.
Interesting comments from Bigman80 comparing the Stack to isolation of huge machinery in factories using sand and other materials.
As we are a group of experimenters, many favouring a DIY approach, this could be an opportunity to try some 'home made' damping using sand and other sorts of particles in a container. It should be much easier than some of the DIY efforts we have all seen using springs or inner tubes etc. Like others I am just curious as the Stack approach is very different and interesting. I'm sure they would have tried many different materials for particles in their products before coming up with what they have chosen to use now.
macca I don't know if there is a way of measuring these results, but never the less there was a difference, and I can understand Jason, Oli and Steve being blown away by the differences. For Mark and myself the differences were heard, but we both felt the dynamics and clarity improved but some natural flow disappeared which I will come back to later.
We brought a set of 100's home and now have them fitted underneath the Vaders. Bamboo outriggers are being used, kindly lent to us by Jason, at Jason's day steel was used, whether this makes a difference I don't know. The outcome of fitting the 100's here in our home system are not quite as obvious but the negative of the musicality has disappeared (sorry Jason we both think your amp has quite a different presentation to the amp we have here.) The 100's have been in situ for 3 full days giving the particles time to settle and will continue listening for a few days more before sending them on to optical . I will come back to this thread when the Townshend bars are replaced to give our final thoughts.
It was really interesting to me when Mark was offing his view on how music should be presented. It again highlights how we all probably have a very personal take on how things should sound, or how we want things to be presented. I must say, i really enjoyed the day. It was great to discuss and share opinions.
I don't think you need to apologise regarding the amplification lol the Purifi is 1.6% of the cost of the Boudler! lol
The Purifi has a few more levels of upgrade to go yet
Interesting comments from Bigman80 comparing the Stack to isolation of huge machinery in factories using sand and other materials.
As we are a group of experimenters, many favouring a DIY approach, this could be an opportunity to try some 'home made' damping using sand and other sorts of particles in a container. It should be much easier than some of the DIY efforts we have all seen using springs or inner tubes etc. Like others I am just curious as the Stack approach is very different and interesting. I'm sure they would have tried many different materials for particles in their products before coming up with what they have chosen to use now.
I think it has been done and tried elsewhere. IIRC the speakers gradually worked into the sand base and kept requiring resetting. A similar thread exists of people using half inflated inner tubes under a birch ply board. They did this on TT's too. I think where Stack have made a good step forward is in ensuring the cabinet of the speaker is held firmly in position due to the spikes and being able to bolt directly to the speaker. It creates a solid foundation, something the Townshends don't due to their design.
This has actually given me an idea.....one for after my holiday.
macca I don't know if there is a way of measuring these results, but never the less there was a difference, and I can understand Jason, Oli and Steve being blown away by the differences. For Mark and myself the differences were heard, but we both felt the dynamics and clarity improved but some natural flow disappeared which I will come back to later.
We brought a set of 100's home and now have them fitted underneath the Vaders. Bamboo outriggers are being used, kindly lent to us by Jason, at Jason's day steel was used, whether this makes a difference I don't know. The outcome of fitting the 100's here in our home system are not quite as obvious but the negative of the musicality has disappeared (sorry Jason we both think your amp has quite a different presentation to the amp we have here.) The 100's have been in situ for 3 full days giving the particles time to settle and will continue listening for a few days more before sending them on to optical . I will come back to this thread when the Townshend bars are replaced to give our final thoughts.
Thanks so much for the feedback Dave. I got the impression you and Mark preferred the Townshends on Tuesday... That is the beauty of group testing - we all have different preferences and views. I am not expecting everyone to prefer the same solutions. It is great to get a decent sample of views.
Interesting comments from Bigman80 comparing the Stack to isolation of huge machinery in factories using sand and other materials.
As we are a group of experimenters, many favouring a DIY approach, this could be an opportunity to try some 'home made' damping using sand and other sorts of particles in a container. It should be much easier than some of the DIY efforts we have all seen using springs or inner tubes etc. Like others I am just curious as the Stack approach is very different and interesting. I'm sure they would have tried many different materials for particles in their products before coming up with what they have chosen to use now.
I think it has been done and tried elsewhere. IIRC the speakers gradually worked into the sand base and kept requiring resetting. A similar thread exists of people using half inflated inner tubes under a birch ply board. They did this on TT's too. I think where Stack have made a good step forward is in ensuring the cabinet of the speaker is held firmly in position due to the spikes and being able to bolt directly to the speaker. It creates a solid foundation, something the Townshends don't due to their design.
This has actually given me an idea.....one for after my holiday.
that is a something to look forward to hearing about!
macca I don't know if there is a way of measuring these results, but never the less there was a difference, and I can understand Jason, Oli and Steve being blown away by the differences. For Mark and myself the differences were heard, but we both felt the dynamics and clarity improved but some natural flow disappeared which I will come back to later.
We brought a set of 100's home and now have them fitted underneath the Vaders. Bamboo outriggers are being used, kindly lent to us by Jason, at Jason's day steel was used, whether this makes a difference I don't know. The outcome of fitting the 100's here in our home system are not quite as obvious but the negative of the musicality has disappeared (sorry Jason we both think your amp has quite a different presentation to the amp we have here.) The 100's have been in situ for 3 full days giving the particles time to settle and will continue listening for a few days more before sending them on to optical . I will come back to this thread when the Townshend bars are replaced to give our final thoughts.
Thanks so much for the feedback Dave. I got the impression you and Mark preferred the Townshends on Tuesday... That is the beauty of group testing - we all have different preferences and views. I am not expecting everyone to prefer the same solutions. It is great to get a decent sample of views.
I think it took a few tracks to adjust to your system Jason, Mark and myself preferred the Auva's over the Townshend's, just that it wasn't night and day different with the system becoming 'broken' if the Auva's were not in use. Just think how 'terrible' it would sound using spikes, I'm amazed that you could ever listen before when only using your outriggers.
Thanks so much for the feedback Dave. I got the impression you and Mark preferred the Townshends on Tuesday... That is the beauty of group testing - we all have different preferences and views. I am not expecting everyone to prefer the same solutions. It is great to get a decent sample of views.
I think it took a few tracks to adjust to your system Jason, Mark and myself preferred the Auva's over the Townshend's, just that it wasn't night and day different with the system becoming 'broken' if the Auva's were not in use. Just think how 'terrible' it would sound using spikes, I'm amazed that you could ever listen before when only using your outriggers.
Sorry Dave, I misunderstood your previous post. I appreciate your system is very different to mine and another level - it would understandably take you a while to adjust. Yes, saying 'broken' was an exaggeration. I tried spikes also on Tues, it was a step down, but not terrible. 😂
Nice write up Jason and as you mention a strange result that I am sure will resolve itself over time . A question the Stack items are graded for weight I think the 100 being able to cope with much heavier speakers . Given the construction and weight of your speakers this would be useful . Do they also offer an alternative for lightweight speakers ?
Nice write up Jason and as you mention a strange result that I am sure will resolve itself over time . A question the Stack items are graded for weight I think the 100 being able to cope with much heavier speakers . Given the construction and weight of your speakers this would be useful . Do they also offer an alternative for lightweight speakers ?
Hi Andrew I was trying to find the spec sheets for the Auva’s without much success. However I think all of the speaker isolation is rated for the same weight. The difference between to 50,70 and 100’s is the number of cells within which governs the degree of vibration absorption not the weight it can hold. I’ll keep searching for the pdf to clarify and make sure though.
Nice write up Jason and as you mention a strange result that I am sure will resolve itself over time . A question the Stack items are graded for weight I think the 100 being able to cope with much heavier speakers . Given the construction and weight of your speakers this would be useful . Do they also offer an alternative for lightweight speakers ?
Thanks Andrew. All are rated to 275kg. Going from 50s to 70s to 100s increases performance and vibration dissipation.
What do you mean by strange? Did I say strange? Perhaps a surprise that Stacks were so far ahead. They are now being tested in 5 different systems by different people and all have reported rather surprising (very good results in favour of the Stacks). It'll be interesting when there are further tests against Townshends in the next few weeks. Another test against GAIAs has been conclusive in favour of Stacks.
Did not write strange but auto spell came up with that meant that you had a strong result and that would probably be better with time .
Ah, that pesky autocorrect. Remind me what speakers you have? You can try some if curious.
I believe in one of Andrew's systems Quad 57's are used, Big John on another forum has had great result using the same speakers with Auva 70's placed underneath Rupert stands. He is going to try the 100's.
Ah, that pesky autocorrect. Remind me what speakers you have? You can try some if curious.
I believe in one of Andrew's systems Quad 57's are used, Big John on another forum has had great result using the same speakers with Auva 70's placed underneath Rupert stands. He is going to try the 100's.
One review was with Quad 57s too. I saw Big John's post.
Dave is correct Quad ESL 57 but I do not have the ability to screw in to then would need to talk to me and see if they can produce one without a bolt in and let my wooden spikes sit in the open hole .