weights on components and speakers.

mhmacw · February 2010

i recently came across 4 or 5 coffee cans of lead shot poured for a 50 cal. also 50 or so 5lb? bars of lead and another 3-5 gallon buckets of wheel weights. a melting pot and the tools. i saw a site that was claiming improved sound and vib dampenng by placing weights on speakers and components. it wasnt pure lead though. is this a good idea?

concealer404 · February 2010

I'd say no... You can dynomat your driver baskets for some improvements, and get some isolation treatments for your components. But simply putting weight on your components isn't going to do much. At least, i think. I could very well be wrong, but this seems like a lot of work and not as proven as "normal" isolation treatments.

Hawkeye · February 2010

I know several people who have mass loaded speakers and subs and they have stated it was an improvement. I was at a guys house and his sub was dancing around the room sounding very loose and fat. We placed 25 lbs of weight on the sub and the sound improved tremendously.

The stuff you got was free? Try it and see what happens. Just put some type of padding down to prevent scratches on any gear.

Gordon

mhmacw · February 2010

i saw the ideaon a website that makes points and other isolation treatments. but they had a proprietary mix in a leather pouch that included lead and sand i think and another heavy metal i dont remember right off. i cant for the life of me find that friggin website!:mad:

mhmacw · February 2010

BlueFox wrote: »

Only by trying something can you determine whether it works or not. Sound is the result of the air vibrating. If something else is also vibrating then that adds distortion into the sound. Speakers make sound by vibrating. If the speaker structure is also vibrating then that adds to the vibration of the actual speakers, and produces distortion.

yes indeed. i wonder mostly if the added weight would make a dfference if its just weight and not a blend of vib absorbing material.

Hawkeye · February 2010

I'm all for any tweak. A secret blend of components does raise my hackles just a bit:D Any heavy, dense material should serve the purpose. I have my audio rack filled with lead shot. Some suggested sand but it was not heavy or dense enough for me. Besides, I was concerned the sand would want to leak out through an incomplete weld.

As Bluefox mentioned, sound is vibration. The more you can control it, the clearer the sound. Can't go overboard, but applying the control in stages can be very revealing.

Gordon

mhmacw · February 2010

i bet there is 500 lbs in total. the bars are shiny ingots and the balls are freshly poured with the nipple still attached clearly i wont be dumping a stack of wheel weights on my components but i think a few bars on a mouse pad or two would lend enough info to decide of i want to make something more permanent. mapleshade makes a small artical on it but the ones i saw came in a really cool tanned deerskin pouch with a drawstring top. kind of looked like the momopoly moneybag. (probably cost as much too lol)

treitz3 · February 2010

I know for a fact that setting a heavy mass object [40 lbs or more] on a speaker improves and tightens the sound, especially in the mid-bass, bass dept.. I haven't done that in a while but it definitely improved things.

This may not be true on some speakers though. IIRC, the speakers I did this with only weighed probably 50-60 lbs a pop. The speakers I have now are heavier than any speaker I have ever had and logically thinking? Eh, I wouldn't think it would make any change but nothing will ever be set on top of these speakers to find out.

TNTsTunes · February 2010

Sell it for scrap and upgrade your crossovers. Scrap price is pretty good right now I believe.

Reloaders would pay good money for all of it.

mhmacw · February 2010

TNTsTunes wrote: »

Sell it for scrap and upgrade your crossovers. Scrap price is pretty good right now I believe.

Reloaders would pay good money for all of it.

thanks i appreciate the advise. my crossovers are in pretty good shape already though. i was wondering about the on top thing. im not a fan of crap on my speakers. i was thinking in the bottom of the cabinet. i know itll change the volume but 40 lbs of lead isnt really that much displacement. it would still accomplish the more weight to the ground thing though. thats what has me intrigued about the vibration absorbtion versus more weight. more weight wont keep the cabinet from flexing but an anti vibe material would.

dfledezma · February 2010

As an engineer in the field of mechanical vibrations, I can say that effectively adding mass is one of the common ways to reduce vibration transmission form a source to a receiver, i.e. vibration isolation. This of course combined with the use of mechanical springs and damping (isolation mats).

So if the idea is to reduce the transmitted vibration from the speakers to the floor, in theory should work :rolleyes:

mhmacw · February 2010

dfledezma wrote: »

As an engineer in the field of mechanical vibrations, I can say that effectively adding mass is one of the common ways to reduce vibration transmission form a source to a receiver, i.e. vibration isolation. This of course combined with the use of mechanical springs and damping (isolation mats).

So if the idea is to reduce the transmitted vibration from the speakers to the floor, in theory should work :rolleyes:

I'm not clear how effectively adding mass is furthered by the example vibration isolation. You could isolate from vibration without adding mass. Take the seismic structural codes lent to sky rise buildings. The expected cycles of an earthquake are in direct correlation to the size of the bearings and the concavity of the cup the bearings ride in. Leaving the mechanical aspect aside for a moment and given the extra mass will of course hold the cabinet more securely to the floor. Will the added mass, if placed on top, also add rigidity to the cabinet? i.e. Peload the walls to a point the movement of air mass has less or no effect on the cabinet structure.

wayne3burk · February 2010

See your local Alchemist -- you'll be one rich guy if he can convert 500 lbs of lead

mhmacw · February 2010

wayne3burk wrote: »

See your local Alchemist -- you'll be one rich guy if he can convert 500 lbs of lead

no kidding ...one extra atom and it would be all good eh haha

dfledezma · February 2010

mhmacw wrote: »

I'm not clear how effectively adding mass is furthered by the example vibration isolation. You could isolate from vibration without adding mass. Take the seismic structural codes lent to sky rise buildings. The expected cycles of an earthquake are in direct correlation to the size of the bearings and the concavity of the cup the bearings ride in. Leaving the mechanical aspect aside for a moment and given the extra mass will of course hold the cabinet more securely to the floor. Will the added mass, if placed on top, also add rigidity to the cabinet? i.e. Peload the walls to a point the movement of air mass has less or no effect on the cabinet structure.

Yes, you're right, adding mass is not the only way to isolate vibrations, but is one of the basic principles.

A loudspeaker+cabinet is essentially a mass-spring-damper system. A basic mathematical equation gives the natural frequency of the system which is only controlled by the amount of mass and stiffness in the system

mhmacw · February 2010

dfledezma wrote: »

Yes, you're right, adding mass is not the only way to isolate vibrations, but is one of the basic principles.

A loudspeaker+cabinet is essentially a mass-spring-damper system. A basic mathematical equation gives the natural frequency of the system which is only controlled by the amount of mass and stiffness in the system

how nice to have found your correspondence. so in short is it your position that the difference in effect from top loading the extra mass versus bottom loading the extra would be negligible?

dfledezma · February 2010

mhmacw wrote: »

how nice to have found your correspondence. so in short is it your position that the difference in effect from top loading the extra mass versus bottom loading the extra would be negligible?

As far as there is a direct contact between the mass added and the speaker, there would be no difference if you load from the top of from the bottom.

However, there is a difference if you for example add a isolation mat on bottom of the cabinet, and then a firmly attached mass in the bottom. i.e. speaker>dynamat>block of mass. That solution also can improve things, you may want give a try

mhmacw · February 2010

yes ...ok . my thoughts were headed towards a dynamatt in the bottom with a 2 inch layer of lead ingot. of course this treatment would be done to all five (2rta11t-2sda 1c-1 cs350 center). new black chrome spikes all around. im glad to hear you bolster my thoughts. i wasnt going to set anything on top as personally i think it looks like hell haha. thanks a bunch for your info its very appreciated.

steveinaz · February 2010

I experimented with Mapleshades' top hats and brass footers with definite results on a cd player.

mhmacw · February 2010

on the cd player... that so intrigues me. the effect brass has on components. i read they tried different materials and even though lead is more dense the brass worked better. do you still employ these top hats?

steveinaz · February 2010

I ended up karma'ing them here on CP. I don't think it's so much the brass, as it is the mass loading of the CD chassis with weight, then spiking the bottom. It definitely tightened up bass response, and brought the midrange out more.

mhmacw · February 2010

yes. ive done some research on the mass loading of components and have foune d the brass to be desireable by most that have tried it. not so much the followers but the ones that truely experiment with thte different materials and mixes of materials. im sure youve read but heres the jist any way.

the early '90s, Pierre used to put lead weights--both discs and blocks--on top of all of his studio electronics and stereo equipment to kill enclosure vibrations. Using em with CD players, amplifiers, etc., gave music more punch. But that initial satisfaction was blown to bits when he tried brass. Brass weights carry even more punch than leadand theres more sparkle in the details with much better dynamics. We've tried the other common materials too (sand, stone, iron, VPI bricks, Shaktis). Theyre better than nothing, but they dont compare with brass.

im going to try the lead ingots in the bottoms of my speakers. mostly due to thats what i have available but also as i think the softer the material the more "built in" damping factor i believe it has. the hot poured balls are a different story. i think they would be good in some sort of pouch though i havent decided how or what as of yet. either way im sure it will be better than nothing. the spikes however will be an excellent addition as well. do you by chance know if the 1c is drilled for a spike? i do know my 11t are not. is it recommended to use 3 or 4 spikes and should i remove the pedastal(its rather cheap actually) and install from there?

Hawkeye · February 2010

I can understand not wanting to load the top of a speaker. What might concern me is adding to the interior. I'm not a speaker designer by any stretch, but by filling the interior are you going to change the volume of the cabinet? I was under the impression that the volume of the cabinet is one of the factors considered in the design of a speaker.

Gordon

mhmacw · February 2010

the volume most certainly is a factor. however, ill only be displaceing 1/8th of a cubic footi cant see it being that critical. mabe a hertz or two at most and im fairly certain it will be absorbed by the pr's. if the change is negative i can always remove them.

Toolfan66 · February 2010

I am all for tweeks , but I will never set weights on top of my equipment.

weights on components and speakers.

Comments