Evolution Acoustics MMMicroOne

Not to beat a dead horse, especially since this thread is a little old, but I am sort of astonished by the arguments here.

The speaker, unlike anything else in the chain of a stereo, is the electro-MECHANICAL piece that actually produces the sound.
Being the last piece in the chain, it uniquely takes on the character of every other piece before it.
As such, why is it so unreasonable to mate an extremely good speaker, regardless of cost, with extremely good electronics, regardless of their cost?

The argument of "it's not a real world representation" is very much off the mark.
Mating something like the YG Anat with anything other than a brute force Krell (or something like it) is more akin to deviating from the real world. Here, cost has nothing to do with it.
Because the YG is such a ridiculously demanding load, even pairing it with the equally expensive Lamm ML3 would make is sound like dog crap. The YG REQUIRES a brute force amp.
This is what real pairing is all about when considering speakers/electronics.
The EA/Dartzeel combo is nothing of the sort described above.

If I had a budget of, say, up to $4,000 for a speaker, I would want to know which speaker sounded the best on the best equipment. This is patently logical to me.
A speaker that sounds state of the art on the best equipment is not going to sound like crap on modest equipment. At least not any more crappy than the electronics themselves. And definitely not any worse than a speaker that still sounds like crap when paired with the best electronics.
It's simple math here.
Crap+crap=lots of crap.
Excellence+crap= less crap overall.
PLUS, knowing that I had invested in a truly great speaker leaves me with the possibility of focusing on better electronics in the future while not worrying if my speakers are going to keep up.

How is this not logical?

I don't quite understand how the Equarack Footers relates to making the SS stands a no brainer.
The Equarack footers are an "isolation" device. The SS is a "coupling" device. Two very different approaches. Not necessarily good idea to mix the two.
Are you saying the Equarack was not an improvement?
Thanks!

So you're going to put a $2K stand under a $2k speaker.
I'm not ridiculing that, mind you. I just think it's funny the way we do things in the high end. lol

Glory, I'm well aware of how important it is to have good, solid and well built stands under a speaker.
I'm just not of the opinion that they need to be "correct".
A well built stand is nothing special. It's not rocket science. And I personally don't think it takes $1500 to do it. YMMV. And whatever floats your boat.

Krell_man. My point was that I don't think it takes too much to build a very good stand for a small speaker. The stands from Sound Anchors are about as overbuilt as I've ever seen. Incredibly heavy, sturdy, and inert. All the things you want from a speaker stand. They make a single post stand that would work great with the MMMicro One. And even filled and tuned, it's less than $350.
A friend of mine has a pair of their four post stands and I'm convinced you could park a semi truck on top of those things. And absolutely dead silent.

So, yes, a good quality stand is absolutely important. But when something like Sound Anchor exists, I just don't see the point in a $1500 brass stand. No matter how "super" they call it. I don't quite understand how it would be any better. Well, it might look prettier. I'll grant that. But performance, not sure how that would work. (Or why it would matter.)

Thats all I'm saying. Not trying to say that a good stand isn't important.

Hi Agear,
What do you mean by mechanical grounding? By this, do you mean coupling to the floor and speaker? (versus isolation) That's no more complicated than using a heavy enough stand and spikes that will lock into the floor and a hard connection with the speaker, such as a spike interface between the speaker and stand. Neither of these are very expensive to implement.
Or is there something more complicated to it that I'm missing?
Thanks!

Tbg,
Thanks for sharing your experiences. I am familiar with the LSA stands. I assembled a pair for a friend of mine. They are nice looking. And the fact that they come with the filler is kinda cool. But I would hardly consider them a "Solid" stand. At least the ones that I put together. They were a combination of wood and extruded aluminum, held together by short metal screws. Hardly what I would consider sturdy. So I'm not surprised by your experience. I know flimsy stands are not something you'd expect a lot of performance from. But my example is far from that.

Beyond that, adding a device like the still points is a whole other ball game anyway. Besides the fact that they are an isolation device, they are items beyond the scope of the stand.

So my curiosity still stands. How is it that the stand itself, IF built solidly (like Sound Anchors), makes that much difference and how does $1500 for threaded brass increase performance over solid welded steel? (~$350) We could argue the effectiveness of isolation versus coupling. But as far as I'm understanding so far that is outside the scope of the stand itself.

Anyway, I just want to reiterate that I'm not trying to be combative. I'm just looking for reasons as to why one stand will be all that different from another. (Assuming it is solid and well built!) Always looking to learn something!

Well, I didn't want to hi-jack this thread. But perhaps this stand discussion will be useful to EA owners.

Anyway, my "experience" isn't really all that significant. Many years ago I used a stand from a company whose name I can't even remember. But it was simply a 4inch square column that was welded to flat plates both top and bottom. Everything was made from 5 gauge steel. By itself, it rang like a bell. Filled with wet sand, absolutely dead silent.
Like I mentioned already, I did assemble an LSA stand for a friend, while he was admiring his new LSA speakers. Cool looking but not really designed with performance in mind. And I also have a friend who owns a pair of Sound Anchor stands. Those beasts are probably 100lbs and also dead silent. If I ever used a stand mounted speaker again, for sure those are the ones I would get. Hands down. So, that's it. I don't even use stands anymore. When I did I actually went to the effort of literally bolting my speakers to the stand. And that had a tremendous effect on performance. But at that point, my speakers and stand were essentially one piece. Seemed like a good enough idea at the time. And the results proved true.

So my perspective is not one of lots of audiophile experience. But I do work in physics. So I'm just trying to apply basic physical laws. Ie. The first priority is for the stand to be sturdy. Any extraneous movement or flexure will be detrimental to the sound. This should be self evident. I would probably give mass as the second most important factor. Again, because of simple physics. The ratio of the mass of the moving diaphragms versus what they are pushing against should probably be as disparate as possible. This is pretty much proven in practice. Just look at the mass of speakers like Wilson, Rockport, Magico, Focal, etc. etc.
Anyway, the last factor would be ringing within the stand itself. In the same way that it's not desirable to have your speaker cabinet resonate, it's not good to have your stands resonate. I know there are a tiny few speaker designers who think it's a good thing to have the cabinet resonate freely. But, with all due respect, I think it's safe to say that they are fringe. Certainly the vast majority of designers and listeners recognize the benefits of an inert speaker cabinet. I would assume the same for the stands.

So as far as resonating goes. Yes, everything has a resonate frequency. But that's not the whole story. That frequency also has a Q. Steel has a high Q. So with the stands I used years ago, if you yelled at the right pitch you could get the stands to audibly ring without even touching them. But you fill them with wet sand and they become like a rock. Literally. Not only does the resonant frequency drop through the floor. But their Q drops even more so. They don't "ring" at all. It was like having my speakers bolted to stone.

So thats my perspective on the stand itself. It bears no opinion on accessories added to the stand, such as Wave Kinetics or Still points. I'm simply talking about the stand itself. And I think it's safe to say that, as an extreme, you don't want a flimsy and lightweight stand that rings like a bell. You want the opposite of that. Building something that achieves those ends is not complicated. Granted, there may not be a lot of companies doing it. But that's why I keep mentioning Sound Anchors. They are ridged as hell. That are heavy as hell. And they have extremely low resonant Q. They don't ring at all. AND, they are not at all expensive.

Now, I am well aware of our audiophile penchant for spending lots of money on gear. But I don't think it's always necessary. This is why I inquire and ask questions in this regard. If welded steel is more ridged and heavier than threaded brass. (and it is.) And if brass has a higher Q than steel. (it does.) How do these things add up to better performance? Especially at 4-5 times the price.
I'm not saying it won't. I'm just asking for someone to explain to me how it does.
Thanks!

You are right that steel stores much of the energy of its resonance but wrong in saying that a steel stand is like a "rock" when filled with sand, etc. Many rocks, such as granite ring also.

Actually, I am right. At least as far as the stands I used goes. Granite does ring, as does other solid stones of that nature. But loose sand is not granite and behaves very differently from granite depending on the type of sand, it's density, and any sort of filler mixed in with it.
My particular stands behaved like a very non resonant stone.
And, yes, this is very possible. If you look up Stereophile's review of the Rockport Antare and look at it's cumulative spectral decay plot you can see that it is possible to for something to be so inert that it is quiet to beyond the ability to measure it. This is how my particular stands were. Granted, I have working knowledge of physics and knew how to make them this way using cheap materials. (Ie. the right type of sand, filler, and density) But they were absolutely non resonant. At least to the same level as the Rockports.

I think you are assuming that we understand all that is going on in a proper speaker stand.

There are many things yet to learn in how we hear and a stereo's performance. But I would argue that stands are not one of them. The function is really not all that complicated. It serves a simple function. And we know enough about material science to accurately predict outcomes in performance.

Yesterday I stopped by my local stereo store and took a look at all of the speaker stands they had on hand. There were quite a bit, actually. And a very wide range in prices. From $200 to $2,000. Stands from Focal, Dynaudio, Sanus, Audio Physic, LSA, pARTicular, and more. And, just by looking at them I can tell you that I would not personally purchase any of them. They all had an obvious (at least to my eye) flaw. One may have been non resonant(ish) but be flimsy. Another was rigid, but rang like a bell. I left with a much clearer understanding of why people find such clear differences in performance of stands! I was actually astounded at how even the $2,000 stand had simple flaws that I would think any mechanical engineer or physicist would immediately identify. So, again, no wonder there is such a difference in people's experiences.

So I understand where people are coming from better. But I stand (no pun intended) by my assertion that 1) Speaker stands are not THAT complicated. And 2) they don't have to be all that expensive in order to be extremely high in performance.

Maybe I should just go into the speaker stand business. heh heh

This discussion is starting to go a little circular.
So let me just correct a couple things from my perspective and then just leave it be. We don't need to end up arguing.

So, first, I never said that stands don't sound different. Of course they do. Otherwise I wouldn't be making the point that it's important for them to be 1) sturdy, 2) heavy (Ie. high mass), and 3) not contribute their own sound (Ie. ringing like a bell. Or a tuning fork, if you will)

The quote concerning "...stands are not one of them (stereo performance)." was grossly taken out of context. That statement applied to my assertion that there is not a lot of complicated things going on with a stand, from an engineering perspective. In other words, they are not remotely mysterious to a qualified engineer. There ARE many things in stereo performance that can seem a little inexplicable, such as why so many people find analog to sound better than digital. I do not find this to be the case with speaker stands. I simply assert that the right engineers already know everything they need to know in both mechanical engineering and materials science to make something that adequately lifts a speaker to the proper height and yet does not negatively impact on the overall performance.

This is my perspective and experience. If someone would like to contribute meaningful and concrete reasons as to what else could be contributing to the performance, as I've said already, I'm open to learning something new.

Today I stumbled upon an interesting article penned by Gary Koh, chief dude at Genesis.
I'm posting it here for the benefit of all those curious about the stand discussion above.
Gary does a very good job of explaining, in layman's terms, what is going on with all the various coupling/de-coupling devices, materials, etc. etc. And he makes some fairly good recommendations on how to go about optimizing your gear.

It supports my assertion that this is not mystical or voodoo stuff going on. Point of fact, an educated person CAN make some very good assumptions, based on his equipment, and not have to go through an endless cycles of experimenting with devices.
It's my contention that we assume far too much "voodoo" or "unknown/inexplicable" stuff going on in audio. I think this is largely due to pervasive marketing that poses as solid scientific truth.
Fortunately, there are a handful of people, such as Gary, who take the time to explain things truthfully. Sure, his perspective is one of "We're doing it the right way". But he does a good job of explaining the gamut of ideas in an unbiased way.

Anyway, it's good reading for anyone experimenting with stands and coupling/de-coupling devices for their speakers and equipment.

http://www.genesisloudspeakers.com/whitepaper/Genesis_Loudspeaker_Coupling_Decoupling.pdf