Budget Spikes. Spike your SDAs for under $3!
Options
Comments
-
Thanks for dropping in Larry - thoughts inline with your post. Your spikes are amazing! Would love any experience you have about acoustic changes resulting from lower or higher spike mass. These <$3 spikes are still doing great over here, yet to add the nut & washer which I plan to this weekend. Thanks all for the great commentary.
my 3.1TLs
I will fix your shifted magnets for free.
-
yeah, I was just thinking earlier - good info in this discussion re: spikes in general.I disabled signatures.
-
I should also add, for hardwood, tile and other hard surfaces there are pads for the spikes. The pads have a milled depression, usually conical for ease of manufacture. The bottom of these pads is often felt or sponge rubber.
The main purpose of these is to save your wood floor from damage, or in the case of a stone floor keep the speaker from bouncing around on spikes adding unwanted noise. You could use a regular pad with a stud in most cases, but the separation of the two in combination with the point allows the pad to pivot so it has even contact with the surface. The small point, as before, increases the pressure at the contact area for improved energy transmission and minimizes the chances of unwanted vibrations adding unwanted sounds. IMO once it has a pad on the bottom a regular furniture pad with a stud will be very similar sonically. I prefer thin felt bottoms vs rubber for consistency. There are more variables with rubber pads, but in some cases I think the right rubber works better. -
Thanks PQ, that falls in line with what I was thinking that a harder rubber would be better if it were to be used. Ill be using 60A polyurethane when I make the bases for the harwood floors.Don't take experimental gene therapies from known eugenicists.
-
I think the felt is better unless its between the speaker and stand. In that case rubber adds some grip. Thin felt compresses and comes close to disappearing. Something similar to pool table felt. For either felt or rubber the thickness is only 1/32" or less. For rubber it is often a softer closed cell (I think) foam that more or less compresses to flat under load.
-
4ea at 1" diameter interface of the floor, the 60A Poly will not compress much at all but grip solidly. End the end, I think spikes are for people without 3 year olds.Don't take experimental gene therapies from known eugenicists.
-
Putting a pad under the spike removes the effectiveness of the spike. Might as well just use the regular feet the speaker came with.
-
Putting a pad under the spike removes the effectiveness of the spike. Might as well just use the regular feet the speaker came with.
It depends on what effectiveness you are trying to achieve, but ya pretty much true. The possibility of better leveling may be the only gain. -
If I recall the main uses for spikes was for tall bookshelf speaker stands. People removed the speakers from the solid "bookshelf" to tall stands and they sounded "airy" and lacked bass. A stand with a heavy base helped keep it stable, but was difficult to move and often provided too much dampening. The stands with spikes gave the speakers a more solid base, especially on carpet. If the stand was designed right, bass frequencies were transmitted to the floor to aid in the bass response from a small speaker.
They would sound "airy" and lack bass when removed from a bookshelf because they no longer have the corner loading effect.
The idea with speaker stands is to couple the stand to the floor, but decouple the speaker from the stand. Properly implemented, the stand will not transmit any sound to the floor.
Political Correctness'.........defined
"A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t-u-r-d by the clean end."
President of Club Polk -
Would love any experience you have about acoustic changes resulting from lower or higher spike mass.
Here's one example. My DSWPro 660wi came with thin steel spikes not unlike your homemade ones. The bass was boomy/muddy no matter what electronic adjustments I made. I added a set of Adona multi-element cones and just like that, the boom and mud were gone.Political Correctness'.........defined
"A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t-u-r-d by the clean end."
President of Club Polk -
Great comments guys - lots of ways to skin the cat. And absolutely if you want something gold or shiny and think it's worth the money, go for it! But these don't snag on the carpet at all and I may add a lock nut or a washer / nut for purposes of spreading out the load on the base of the speaker away from the thread inserts. As to why the cone would be better acoustically, "science" says it's hogwash, I don't buy it in the slightest!
Many audio related "Tweaks" are not based on anything factual or science based, but merely tales and subjective comments repeated on audio forums.
That most likely is why no one is providing you with all kinds of proof or links explaining the how or why of the merits of different shapes, or even of spikes in general.
Kinda like those $20.00 things you put into a car engine to get 15 horsepower. Some will swear by them, that they work, and I am sure they really believe they do, but anything definitive or factual is gonna be hard to find.
-
Political Correctness'.........defined
"A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t-u-r-d by the clean end."
President of Club Polk -
Why are some writing about the non-cone shaped spikes possibly pushing in the threaded inserts because of the weight? Using a pointed spike over a factory slider over a cone doesn't put more or less stress on the shaft and insert. The weight of each corner of the speakers is the same regardless of the shape.
The only way this could be true is if the base of the cone was sitting directly on the bottom of the speaker. This only happens if your floor is dead level and so are the cones. If you have to extend any of them, the weight is back on the shaft.Driver carries only 20 dollars in ammunition
Pedestrians have the right of way, unless they are in the way -
They would sound "airy" and lack bass when removed from a bookshelf because they no longer have the corner loading effect.
The idea with speaker stands is to couple the stand to the floor, but decouple the speaker from the stand. Properly implemented, the stand will not transmit any sound to the floor.
Agreed. Corner loading will have an effect. Some stands are designed to give the impression of the speaker floating in air. There can be some negative effects when the speaker is coupled to the floor. I believe in most of the cases when isolation is desired, the speaker is supported on the stand by spikes either in the speaker or facing upwards on the stand. There are also stands that are meant to aid the bass response.
Spike setups can be implemented to isolate the speaker from the floor, or to help couple it. Your floor type can have an effect on the results. There are even stands with a ball bearing in a cup placed in a triangle shape to isolate the speaker from its surroundings giving its suspended in air feeling.
I don't want to run this thread too off track, googling "speaker spikes" gives many links to many articles, reviews, and opinions. Its been said and debated before. My main point was a little history and the primary science behind the cone shape.
-
What's the advantage of the stand being hard mounted in the middle of the cabinet? I like this design....
http://sportsbil.com/stereo/ads_l_810/adsl810b.jpgDon't take experimental gene therapies from known eugenicists. -
Have at it K_M, you sound like the expert in all things audio. Let's see the proof none of it works. If there is so much about it being talked about on audio forums, surely there must be scientific facts debunking it since according to you it's been a long standing charlatan process to part fools and their $$$.
Let's see it, put up or shut up, in essence.
Swoop in and save the day.................
H9"Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgment. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway? The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not".--Nelson Pass Pass Labs XA25 | EE Avant Pre | EE Mini Max Supreme DAC | MIT Shotgun S1 | Pangea AC14SE MKII | Legend L600 | BlueSound Node 3 - Tubes add soul! -
-
Great comments guys - lots of ways to skin the cat. And absolutely if you want something gold or shiny and think it's worth the money, go for it! But these don't snag on the carpet at all and I may add a lock nut or a washer / nut for purposes of spreading out the load on the base of the speaker away from the thread inserts. As to why the cone would be better acoustically, "science" says it's hogwash, I don't buy it in the slightest!
Many audio related "Tweaks" are not based on anything factual or science based, but merely tales and subjective comments repeated on audio forums.
That most likely is why no one is providing you with all kinds of proof or links explaining the how or why of the merits of different shapes, or even of spikes in general.
Kinda like those $20.00 things you put into a car engine to get 15 horsepower. Some will swear by them, that they work, and I am sure they really believe they do, but anything definitive or factual is gonna be hard to find.
Oh, now you've done it. You can't point out things like this. They have to believe so they can justify spending big bucks for little to no return. Oh, and then get in your face like they know it all and how dare you question anything.
Remember, you have to prove a negative to them and they don't have to prove a positive. It must be true or so many wouldn't be using/doing....Driver carries only 20 dollars in ammunition
Pedestrians have the right of way, unless they are in the way -
"Remember, you have to prove a negative to them and they don't have to prove a positive. It must be true or so many wouldn't be using/doing...."
Are you referring to the spikes or the crystal meth?Don't take experimental gene therapies from known eugenicists. -
Don't start nothin', there won't be nothin'. Simple right? If you're gonna broadcast that someone elses opinion is just crazy; be prepared for backlash.Source: Bluesound Node 2i - Preamp/DAC: Benchmark DAC2 DX - Amp: Parasound Halo A21 - Speakers: MartinLogan Motion 60XTi - Shop Rig: Yamaha A-S501 Integrated - Shop Spkrs: Elac Debut 2.0 B5.2
-
Have at it K_M, you sound like the expert in all things audio. Let's see the proof none of it works. If there is so much about it being talked about on audio forums, surely there must be scientific facts debunking it since according to you it's been a long standing charlatan process to part fools and their $$$.
Let's see it, put up or shut up, in essence.
Swoop in and save the day.................
H9
One does not prove a negative.
When one makes a claim, (ususual, not commonly agreed upon, or going against common knowledge) it is up to them to prove the claim.
The burden of proof lies with those making a claim.
I.E.
"My Prius can go 160MPH"
The burden is on me to prove or demonstrate it can,
.....Not on you to try to prove it can not.
Until that standard is agreed upon, no rational discussion of anything can ensue.
Has nothing to do with being an expert or saving the day.
Has to do with rational discussion and discourse. -
Wrong again.Political Correctness'.........defined
"A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t-u-r-d by the clean end."
President of Club Polk -
One does not prove a negative.
When one makes a claim, (ususual, not commonly agreed upon, or going against common knowledge) it is up to them to prove the claim.
The burden of proof lies with those making a claim.
I.E.
"My Prius can go 160MPH"
The burden is on me to prove or demonstrate it can,
.....Not on you to try to prove it can not.
Until that standard is agreed upon, no rational discussion of anything can ensue.
Has nothing to do with being an expert or saving the day.
Has to do with rational discussion and discourse.
Hate to break the news to you, Cupcake, but "burden of proof" swings both ways.
Burden of proof can define the duty placed upon a party to prove or disprove a disputed fact, or it can define which party bears this burden.
Burden of proof can also define the burden of persuasion, or the quantum of proof by which the party with the burden of proof must establish or refute a disputed factual issue.
In this case, the pre-existing statement was that spikes do indeed make a difference.
But then you inserted your belief into the discussion that spikes do not make a difference.
Thus, the burden of proof, in this particular case, lies with you.
Had you been having a discussion elsewhere about spikes not making a difference, and someone had gone into that thread and made a claim that spikes did make a difference, then the burden of proof would lie with them.
"Some people find it easier to be conceited rather than correct."
"Unwad those panties and have a good time man. We're all here to help each other, no matter how it might appear." DSkip -
^^^^^^ Outstanding work, sir!!
-
Wrong again.
-
Ouch
Looks like I'll have to add this to the list of taboo subjects to avoid here on club Polk...
Don't take experimental gene therapies from known eugenicists. -
One does not prove a negative.
When one makes a claim, (ususual, not commonly agreed upon, or going against common knowledge) it is up to them to prove the claim.
The burden of proof lies with those making a claim.
I.E.
"My Prius can go 160MPH"
The burden is on me to prove or demonstrate it can,
.....Not on you to try to prove it can not.
Until that standard is agreed upon, no rational discussion of anything can ensue.
Has nothing to do with being an expert or saving the day.
Has to do with rational discussion and discourse.
Hate to break the news to you, Cupcake, but "burden of proof" swings both ways.
Burden of proof can define the duty placed upon a party to prove or disprove a disputed fact, or it can define which party bears this burden.
Burden of proof can also define the burden of persuasion, or the quantum of proof by which the party with the burden of proof must establish or refute a disputed factual issue.
In this case, the pre-existing statement was that spikes do indeed make a difference.
But then you inserted your belief into the discussion that spikes do not make a difference.
Thus, the burden of proof, in this particular case, lies with you.
Had you been having a discussion elsewhere about spikes not making a difference, and someone had gone into that thread and made a claim that spikes did make a difference, then the burden of proof would lie with them.
Completely wrong.
We were talking about shapes of spikes and materials they are made from.
If the discussion is about what type of cheese the moon is made out of, it is Not on me to prove it is not made of cheese.
It is still on those claiming it is made of cheese to prove it is made of cheese.
Burden of proof lies solely on the one making a claim that is unsubstantiated.
Nothing more nothing less.
This is why most discussions on this forum devolve into condescension, rudeness, namecalling and silly pictures.
No one making a claim wants to have it questioned.
No one is willing to back up a claim with more than insults and rude comments.
-
Wrong again.
Are you going to claim to be a lawyer now? Because if you pull out your standard legal definition dictionary, you will see that instead, you are unequivocally wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof
Definition[edit]
The term "burden of proof" is used to mean two kinds of burdens: The burden of production (or the burden of "going forward with the evidence") and the burden of persuasion.[2]
A "burden of persuasion" or "risk of nonpersuasion"[3] is an obligation that remains on a single party for the duration of the court proceeding.[4] Once the burden has been entirely discharged to the satisfaction of the trier of fact, the party carrying the burden will succeed in its claim. For example, the presumption of innocence in a criminal case places a legal burden upon the prosecution to prove all elements of the offense (generally beyond a reasonable doubt), and to disprove all the defenses except for affirmative defenses in which the proof of non-existence of all affirmative defense(s) is not constitutionally required of the prosecution.[5]
The burden of persuasion should not be confused with the evidential burden, or burden of production, or duty of producing (or going forward with) evidence[6] which is an obligation that may shift between parties over the course of the hearing or trial. The evidential burden is the burden to adduce sufficient evidence to properly raise an issue at court.
Please...before you come to a battle of wits, make sure that you aren't in fact unarmed."Some people find it easier to be conceited rather than correct."
"Unwad those panties and have a good time man. We're all here to help each other, no matter how it might appear." DSkip -
One does not prove a negative.
When one makes a claim, (ususual, not commonly agreed upon, or going against common knowledge) it is up to them to prove the claim.
The burden of proof lies with those making a claim.
I.E.
"My Prius can go 160MPH"
The burden is on me to prove or demonstrate it can,
.....Not on you to try to prove it can not.
Until that standard is agreed upon, no rational discussion of anything can ensue.
Has nothing to do with being an expert or saving the day.
Has to do with rational discussion and discourse.
Hate to break the news to you, Cupcake, but "burden of proof" swings both ways.
Burden of proof can define the duty placed upon a party to prove or disprove a disputed fact, or it can define which party bears this burden.
Burden of proof can also define the burden of persuasion, or the quantum of proof by which the party with the burden of proof must establish or refute a disputed factual issue.
In this case, the pre-existing statement was that spikes do indeed make a difference.
But then you inserted your belief into the discussion that spikes do not make a difference.
Thus, the burden of proof, in this particular case, lies with you.
Had you been having a discussion elsewhere about spikes not making a difference, and someone had gone into that thread and made a claim that spikes did make a difference, then the burden of proof would lie with them.
Completely wrong.
We were talking about shapes of spikes and materials they are made from.
If the discussion is about what type of cheese the moon is made out of, it is Not on me to prove it is not made of cheese.
It is still on those claiming it is made of cheese to prove it is made of cheese.
Burden of proof lies solely on the one making a claim that is unsubstantiated.
Nothing more nothing less.
This is why most discussions on this forum devolve into condescension, rudeness, namecalling and silly pictures.
No one making a claim wants to have it questioned.
No one is willing to back up a claim with more than insults and rude comments.
You are wrong once again, just go away.Pio Elete Pro 520
Panamax 5400-EX
Sunfire TGP 5
Micro Seiki DD-40 - Lyra-Dorian and Denon DL-160
PS Audio GCPH phono pre
Sunfire CG 200 X 5
Sunfire CG Sig 405 X 5
OPPO BDP-83 SE
SDA SRS 1.2TL Sonicaps and Mills
Ctr CS1000p
Sur - FX1000 x 4
SUB - SVS PB2-Plus
Workkout room:
Sony Bravia XBR- 32-Inch 1080p
Onkyo TX-DS898
GFA 555
Yamaha DVD-S1800BL/SACD
Ft - SDA 1C
Not being used:
RTi 38's -4
RT55i's - 2
RT25i's -2, using other 2 in shop
LSI 15's
CSi40
PSW 404 -
Wrong yet again cupcake. I backed up my position with my personal experience. You.....a big bag of nothing.Political Correctness'.........defined
"A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t-u-r-d by the clean end."
President of Club Polk
This discussion has been closed.