An interesting (to me, at least) "Polkstand" experience

TennMan

I was asking a relevant question because I thought you knew what you were talking about. Obviously I was wrong in thinking that. You're not the only person who has built a set of speaker stands. If building speaker stands gives you such an attitude you need to consider staying away from speaker stands.

Jstas

[QUOTE=TennMan;1588446 I was asking a relevant question because I thought you knew what you were talking about. Obviously I was wrong in thinking that. You're not the only person who has built a set of speaker stands. If building speaker stands gives you such an attitude you need to consider staying away from speaker stands.[/QUOTE]

Nice.

See, problem is that I know what time alignment does, why it works and how to achieve it. But your post comes off as confrontational and I really don't need to get in to an Internet fight over such an advanced topic. People think I write too much already.



Don't ask me for any help and I will certainly not address any concerns you have over time alignment, now or anything else for that matter.

Have a nice day.

TennMan

Jstas wrote: »

Nice.

See, problem is that I know what time alignment does, why it works and how to achieve it. But your post comes off as confrontational and I really don't need to get in to an Internet fight over such an advanced topic. People think I write too much already.



Don't ask me for any help and I will certainly not address any concerns you have over time alignment, now or anything else for that matter.

Have a nice day.

There was nothing confrontational about what I was asking. I'm new here and wanting to learn what I can about things like this but not at the expense of being talked down to by someone who thinks he knows it all. You may know a lot about time alignment but it's apparent that you know nothing about how to show respect for others. The End.

dorokusai

Jstas wrote: »

It's 4 to 6 degrees. Height matters as well because a taller stand needs less pitch because the cross axis of the vertical and horizontal planes are nearer to the listening position. The tilt gives two benefits, better directional response because the speaker is aimed at your face instead of the walls behind you on either side of your head and a type of "poor man's" time alignment for the voice coils in the driver array.

The stands were the same height, whether it was for a MON10, MON7 or MON5. Now that depends on the model of stand at that time but the dimensions were the same for all the models being sold at that time. The do vary in height and degree over those years, without a doubt. Not everything shown in the owners manuals, sales literature and press brochures were actual representations of what was sold as a "Polkstand" at the hi-fi retailer.

Jstas

TennMan wrote: »

There was nothing confrontational about what I was asking. I'm new here and wanting to learn what I can about things like this but not at the expense of being talked down to by someone who thinks he knows it all. You may know a lot about time alignment but it's apparent that you know nothing about how to show respect for others. The End.

No, genius, I just don't respect you. I don't know you from spit and have no experience dealing with you whatsoever. So when you come in here and challenge my statements the way you did, I get the feeling that you're a loser from another forum coming here to stir up trouble like what has happened in the past.

Respect is not given, it's earned. You are demanding it from me yet you have given me none and now you think I'm an "a$$%ole" because I responded in a way the offended your sensibilities. TFB, buddy. If you wanted to know what I thought, you should have asked instead of saying "IF the intent is to direct the sound at your ears, wouldn't the distance from the speakers to your ears need to be taken into consideration? I don't see anything mentioned about that in your reasoning for tilting the speakers."

Asking a question is one thing. Asking a question and then following it up with a barb that makes it seem as if you know what's missing and trying to trap the responder in to an argument is trolling. It's goading someone else in to a fight.

I don't regret anything I posted. I don't care that you're offended and if you're thinking you'll get an apology, that and a buck twenty five will get you a cup of coffee. If all that means some dude on the Intarwebs thinks I'm an "a$$%ole", so be it. No sweat off my back. You've proven your value to me and I'll kindly interact with you accordingly.

Go ahead, I'll let you have the last word now, champ.

Have a nice day.

Jstas

dorokusai wrote: »

The stands were the same height, whether it was for a MON10, MON7 or MON5. Now that depends on the model of stand at that time but the dimensions were the same for all the models being sold at that time. The do vary in height and degree over those years, without a doubt.

Well then the degree of tilt probably changed between years. When I had a few other members measure their stands, I got numbers from a Monitor 10, 7 and 5 and an RTA model. I think it was an 11? I'm not sure off hand. Maybe I had differing years between models. But there were 4 and 6 degree pitches.

I'm pretty sure the stands I sent out were 4 degree but I have a 6 degree and a 4 degree "prototype" here. The 6 degree works very well with a shorter speaker at the same stand height as a taller speaker with a 4 degree pitch.

I thought one of the Polk engineers actually responded in a thread somewhere about this?

dorokusai

That's what I mean John.

There was a stand for the Monitor 12...or RTA12. I agree with you on those measurements and I'm unsure of the engineer's quote.

Calm down guys, we're just talking about some wooden stands, which in stock form were cheaply manufactured but are rare to find. You'd be best to build your own or have them made right. These prototypes, mine, are made from steel...shot loaded.

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65614&highlight=myesound+monitor

Jstas

Here, the threads about the stands I had made:

Original discussion:
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77847&highlight=monitor+stands

Review:
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=82665&highlight=monitor+stands

Your original threads:
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24335
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24260

I can't find the thread with the Polk person who was posting about it. Unless it's buried in the archive forum down the bottom there. I haven't checked there.

mrbigbluelight

Jstas, you mentioned time alignment back there a little bit which fired a couple of neurons way back in the mental stack.

Had to think real hard (I think I might have hurt myself) of who was pushing "Time Alignment" on their speaker line in the mid 70's. Had some help on Audiokarma and remembered it was Technics. They called their line, "Linear Phase", but in their brochures/ads they talked of their "time-aligned drivers". Never heard them, but they were suposed to have been more-than-decent speakers.
The big houhah was that the drivers were stacked in a configuration that eliminated any time misalignment at the listeners ears.

Thought their top of the line was this model, SB-7000 (that was the model that you'd see all the time in mag ads):

I didn't know these models even existed, but it appears the top(s) of the line of this series were the SB-9500

and the SB-10000

That's some horns there, Mister !


So ...... dang. This thread started on speaker stands and ..... well, you did say the word "alignment", so I didn't derail the thread. Too much.

mhardy6647

Time alignment was all the rage in the second half of the 1970s... but it was nothing new. Altec, for example, was doing it in the mid-1940s -- although AFAIK they never did get the crossover phase quite right. My current daily drivers are pretty successfully time aligned, thanks to Doug Sax and his Mastering Labs crossovers for the Altec Duplexes :-) (see the third photo in the first post in this thread).


http://www.lansingheritage.org/images/altec/catalogs/1945-duplex/page04.jpg

mrbigbluelight

mhardy6647 wrote: »

My current daily drivers are pretty successfully time aligned, thanks to Doug Sax and his Mastering Labs crossovers for the Altec Duplexes :-) (see the third photo in the first post in this thread).

That's them hiding behind the RS Optimus speakers right ?
(that are mounted on the nice stands ? trying to get the thread back on track :redface: )

mhardy6647

mrbigbluelight wrote: »

That's them hiding behind the RS Optimus speakers right ?
(that are mounted on the nice stands ? trying to get the thread back on track :redface: )

Yeah :-P Eventually they will be spiked - when they are installed in their final resting place. Since they're on a hardwood floor now, I didn't want to use spikes; I thought about putting them up on hockey pucks - but I figured the pucks'd leave black marks on the floor.

On topic - I think that the Altecs in 9ft^3 Baltic birch enclosures would be a tad precarious sitting on the Polkstands :-)

FWIW, here's the scoop on the design of the cabinets. Bill uses 604-8G Duplexes; mine are loaded with 604E Duplexes (early 1960s vintage with AlNiCo magnets) and they sound just extra-dandy (IMO, of course)...

http://www.wardsweb.org/Billfort/

treitz3

mhardy6647 wrote: »

Since they're on a hardwood floor now, I didn't want to use spikes; I thought about putting them up on hockey pucks - but I figured the pucks'd leave black marks on the floor.

Without trying to derail the thread even more than we already have, you can temporarily use some quarters beneath the spikes. I'm sure you can figure out what that will cost you. Food for thought, now [hopefully] back to the topic at hand.

mhardy6647

that'd be a whole dollar per speaker; I picked up a box full of hockey pucks gratis on the "Yankee Swap" table at our town dump :-)

Philosophical question - is it in fact possible for the original poster to derail his/her own thread?

I do like the old Polkstands (just in case the answer to my rhetorical question is yes)!