Evolution Acoustics MMMicroOne

Prdprez, what if you listened to two isolation cones, one of steel and one of brass and the brass ones sounded better? 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. I think you are assuming that we understand all that is going on in a proper speaker stand.

The best isolation devices I have ever heard are made of stainless steel and ceramic balls. Ceramics can ring as can stainless steel. The StillPoints Ultra Fives will not ring.

But alas, this is not the concern of this thread.

new system is in the break-in period, but I'm absolutely floored. don't know where this is going to end, but I'm absolutely floored. must be around 30 hours now and the system still is kind of 'shouty' with higher volumes, but I know that break-in is critical. had a tough time with my late KEF Reference 201.2 regarding break-in time, which was only complete around 500 hours so will be patient.
Will update around the 100 hour mark, where at the least the Resolution Audio Cantata will probably be fully broken in.
Best regards
André

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

Prdprez, I'm sorry but stands do sound different. On one hand you say that "...stands are not one of them (stereo performance)." Then you say many have "simple flaws." I agree that some don't use proper materials or to dampen the ringing or to isolate the speaker from the floor or drain the energy from the speaker or coming to it from the floor or air.

It has only been the last several years that I have cared about speaker stands as I have the LSA1 Statements in a small room. However, floorstanding speakers have the same problems. There is an interface between the speakers and the floor. John Dunlavy always said the his speakers needed no feet under them. He was wrong. Others have soft cushions, some have points of different materials, usually steel or stainless steel; and some have multiple material feet with multiple resonances. Which is better? Obviously, there is little agreement as science provides no answer.

My advice is don't go into the speaker stand or isolation devices. Some will say that they sound great and others that the suck.

Please help me understand some terminology here. Spending the majority of my audio experience in the recording sciences and gaining more knowledge about sound from the world of high end audio; could someone please explain or define the term “ringing”?

My initial impression was that “ringing” is a generated from continuous frequency reflecting off a non or less absorptive or very hardened vibrating surface material and that the rate of recurrence associated with ringing would be located in the upper midrange or higher more irritating frequency range of human hearing affecting the quality of what most determine to be good sound. If ringing occurs in the lower range would we be tempted to call this “humming?” :)

I am always reading on forums where the equipment stands, shelving materials and their associated parts are usually associated with the term ringing so why doesn’t a smaller electronic component chassis made of thinner hardened chassis material and shaped like a hollow rectangular horn ‘ring like a bell’?

Prdprez: I can understand how you would determine short flaws in design and argue why speaker stands are not all that complicated and how one could easily predict outcomes in performance based on observations. As a physicist you are heavily involved with mathematical criterion; however you should also take consideration in the influence of materials science and engineering related to sound, equipment stands and musical presentation.

There are a few companies in high end audio heavily involved with their perspective research programs and vibration control methodologies that would be very eager to provide you very audible proof that the difference between good sound and “really good sound” can easily be attributed to the geometric designed equipment platform. Inventing one that really works well with all speaker enclosures may not be as easy as you currently perceive.

Our studio has spent much time in this arena. Granted, for years we thought equipment stands were mostly cosmetic pillars and furniture but the benefits discovered directly led to an increase in our business based on the end result and that is “really great sound quality”.

Taking a look at the EA-MMM1 build quality and responses to this thread unequivocally places them into a category of great value. Based on our experiences a more functional stand will provide a higher level of sound quality but would also add to the overall consumer price point and possibly the factory did not want to head in that direction with this initial roll out.

In our case the stands we chose cost more money than the loudspeakers and when we purchase more expensive monitors one very important characteristic remains a constant and that is the musical reference point in the studio remains coherent based on the stands performance.

In audio there is always room for greater understanding, discovery and improvement.

Disclaimer: My father works with a commercial company that employs various forms of vibration management so I am biased, have had greater access to knowledge from experience and have applied various techniques and multiple grounding principles in recording studio settings.