Speaker stands, frame or pillar?

M

mallen

Joined
Aug 5, 2005
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Hi,

Quick question,
In general, which is a better type of stand
for bookshelf speakers, open frame or pillar style?

The pillar variety seem to be the most popular although
some mfcrs such as Linn always went with open frame option.
And then further questions regarding spikes or blu-tak for
underneath the speaker?
Just curious what most people here are using.

Matthew
 
It varies depending on the specific speaker. Some smaller speakers definately sound firmer, more extended and more solid in the base if they are on a very heavy stand; pillar style stands can easily be mass loaded. Some other designs can sound a bit slow in the bass on a heavy stand and so prefer open frame. To further complicate matters some speakers prefer the stand not to have a top plate.

Which speakers are you thinking of?
 
I use a pare of Ruark Sceptes.

Last yaer iwas using a pair of ta*get stands; breifly, I listen tot he speakers ona rather heavier built brand , atacama I think (Pete?) ans was absoluetey astonished at the difference.

After that I spent some time and money a my local metal fabricators amking up different stands.

I am now using a pair made up of 4mmx 4inch box section , using 8 mil for the top and bottom plate. They are 1 foot high (i thtink!)....but are placed on granite/concrete slabs +absorbant material which raises them up a bit.

Ideally I would have liked to have made up a set using FOUR of the 4 inch box sections but the cost comes up steeply of you do that.

Asafar as I am concerned though, the heavier the build the better; take a looka t the "dreadnought " design.

Don't for get you can use blutak to dampen vibs.....
 
Just a guess, but I suspect your not 'big' on interior design.
 
YNMOAN said:
Just a guess, but I suspect your not 'big' on interior design.
Click to expand...


I guess I asked for that.

I have a job that leaves me exhausted on my time off. 12 hour night shifts do that, to me at least.

I woiuld like things to be different but they're not , just now.


edit I think the pic is going


;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry, if sounded harsh, was only a (rather cruel) joke; I've seen a lot worse on Hi-Fi forums.
 
I bought some Target HR60 stands recently... very good indeed. They are heavy but don't have a very wide front to them (3" pillar one behind the other) so acousticaly they reflect less from the speaker.

I'd either buy Target or Partington (place is down the road from me).

masterHR.jpg

Pretty good for about £160
 
Yes, Partington was the name I was trying to think of re their "dreadnoughts".

Did you fill yours with sand ,Simon, or other?
 
Yes, I filled with with kiln dried sand. The pillars ring a little bit otherwise and I could feel them vibrating a bit.

I don't understand why manufactures don't use a tri-pod base design so you don't have to worry so much about a slightly un-even floor. It drives me crazy trying to adjust the spikes to get them dead sturdy.
 
1190063684.JPG


The stands I use are a tripod construction and use outrigger arms rather than a solid top plate. They were made many years ago ny Origin Live (I think) and were quite expensive then. The vertical (well angled) tubes are very thick wall and are filled with lead shot (I did this bit). Sorry the pics don't show the stands all that well, they were taken for another reason.
 
mallen said:
Hi,

Quick question,
In general, which is a better type of stand
for bookshelf speakers, open frame or pillar style?

The pillar variety seem to be the most popular although
some mfcrs such as Linn always went with open frame option.
And then further questions regarding spikes or blu-tak for
underneath the speaker?
Just curious what most people here are using.

Matthew
Click to expand...


Matthew,

I would add (i'm certain others will groan at this...) that IME there are large gains (putting it mildly) in getting speakers set up accurately.

The subject of feedback AND internal vibrations is a highly complex one (for me at least) but from pesonal experience it is well worth having a sleuth n the net to see what you can find out about it.

For me the sonic gains were great.....





:banana:




David
 
DavidF said:
Matthew,

I would add (i'm certain others will groan at this...) that IME there are large gains (putting it mildly) in getting speakers set up accurately.
Click to expand...

I would endorse this view. I notice you have also asked this question on another forum and have received some rather general answers. In the days when I had access to a lot of stands and speakers I found:

Speaker positioning - particularly boundary distance is very, very important.

Speaker angle relative to the listener can (but not always) also make a really big difference.

How the room is organised and furnishings etc. also make a profound difference.

The height of the stand is important as is the construction - fully welded is better than bolt together.

BluTak is not appropriate for bonding all speakers to the top of stands and many speakers sound 'tighter' when top spikes are used. However, it should not remove the veneer as one 'expert' has implied (on PFM); at least, it never did in all the years I used it. Heavy stands with BluTak coupling, on some speakers, can give a perception of added bass weight but can also a rather 'one note' quality.

I also believe that it is important to make the stand as rigid as possible, no wobble at all. However, this is not always very easy to do - it depends on your floor and the stand design.
 
"I also believe that it is important to make the stand as rigid as possible, no wobble at all. However, this is not always very easy to do - it depends on your floor and the stand design."


Yes.


:)


Hence I my preference for a heavy build design.

My reference to blutac was only with regard to damping the stands; I have applied lumps of blutac in strategic positions away from the line of site.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top