Speaker Stand modification. Which looks better?

Inspector 24

verb wrote: »

I vote for the larger diameter pipe. Aesthetically more balanced, and you can mass load em with more fill.

This.

/thread

Gardenstater

@verb @Inspector 24 That would be an interesting but somewhat major redesign. Can't fill a posterboard facade/cover with sand and shot like I did the existing pipe, but I could envision a redesign where a 4" ABS pipe or aluminum tube (bedded into the concrete with epoxy) could replace the 1/8" wall thickness, 1-3/4" dia. black iron pipe I used, with pipe flanges at both ends. A threaded rod with a threaded insert epoxied into the concrete base could be the means of holding it all together. If a pipe of that size were filled with sand and shot it would be pretty massive and maybe excessively so for these speakers, which are not that heavy. The key to this system is that the pipe and flange and concrete block are plenty rigid and they couple to the top concrete block mass and then from there on down to the floor the transmission of vibration is prevented by the air spring that is theoretically tuned to a resonant frequency in the single digits Hz. I have to still optimize this but I now have two bicycle tubes, both very minimally inflated, one on top of the other and it sounds even better and it should because now the effective spring constant has been cut in half. In the future I plan to add a hose with an o*r*i*f*i*c*e (can u believe vanilla tried to censor this?) leading to an air reservoir with a pressure gauge and a schrader valve that should make adjustments a piece of cake and should get the resonant frequency down around 1 Hz or so.