Quote:
Working on a related project, wondering what, if anything, people have on top of their speakers?

Air, although I once had steel rods jammed between the top of a pair of Maggies and the ceiling above to stabilize them. Worked a treat too. My Soundlab ULPX's are rigid enough not to require that kind of treatment but I use their 'Sallie' absorption devices behind each panel. to great effect.
I'm surprised you have those absorption panels at the side of your Klipsh's Buddha . Surely with the narrow midrange and treble side output from those horns such treatment isn't necessary? Does it help ?

lit candles in saucers..

Ultra Tweeters from Golden Sound. Quantum mechanical little guys with operating frequency above 1 GHz, i.e., no output below 1 GHz. I have other things on top of the speakers, too, but they're a little too, uh, controversial to go into right now.

JSMR...JSMR...let's see, where have I seen that name before? Oh, yeah, on the Intelligent Chip!

>>> "Also, are those sonic or decorative?" <<<

If it were not serious, Buddha, it would be quite amusing. I don't think you realise what effect you could be having re your credibility (and reputation) by publishing that photograph.

In answer to your question, Buddha, they are sonic, decorative AND controversial !!

Regards,
May Belt.

>>> "I have other things on top of the speakers, too, but they're a little too, uh, controversial to go into right now." <<<

Geoff, I don't think that Buddha realises just HOW controversial what he has on HIS speakers is !!!!!

Regards,
May Belt.

Currently just dust but I have read where others have experienced sonic improvement with a little mass loading on top. I am using Mobile Fidelity OML 1's and I have thought about a pair of Totem's Beaks for the top of the speakers.

Though you won't ever see this post, Buddha, unless you cheat on the "ignore" feature like ol' so and so does, you should try your LaScala's tightly angled in from the corners. First reflection point will move about twenty feet further into the room (assuming your room is twenty feet deep).

There's a Penguin on the speaker. Oh never mind. I just want a license for my fish. More spam.

For those who need to spice up their lives. Not mentioning any names here. Just food for thought.

Spice is Nice

cmon, what spice is that, and why? I wont say anything to argue, I am just genuinely curious.

Quote:
For those who need to spice up their lives. Not mentioning any names here. Just food for thought.

Spice is Nice

As it turns out, spam is one of our most versatile foods. Just the right consistency for even the most recalcitrant applications. Puts the meat back in Meat Puppets.

It's in the Meat!

Quote:

Quote:
>>> "I have other things on top of the speakers, too, but they're a little too, uh, controversial to go into right now." <<<

Geoff, I don't think that Buddha realises just HOW controversial what he has on HIS speakers is !!!!!

Regards,
May Belt.

Yes, controversial. In certain parts of the world the right speaker would get me killed, in other parts, the left speaker would get me killed, and in still other parts, the whole thing would get me killed.

...in some audiophile circles, just those LaScala's would get you killed!

Quote:
..............................................Next topic will be what's in your air.

The air here in rural Tasmania is the cleanest on the planet when they aren't doing the annual autumn forest burn offs. On festive occasions at my place there's also a % of delta6 cannabidiolic acid in the air which is probably the most effective and proven tweak anyone can make to their enjoyment of music.

My stats have no room to put anything on top. I feel so deprived. Some of that air pollution you mentioned would lessen the pain.

Is that what you see as an after effect from breathing Tasmanian air pollution?

Quote:
Is that what you see as an after effect from breathing Tasmanian air pollution?

Possibly. Our occurrence was independent of such influences.

Kal

Quote:

Quote:
Is that what you see as an after effect from breathing Tasmanian air pollution?

Possibly. Our occurrence was independent of such influences.

Kal

Our?

Actually, the "we" refers to my wife and me. Also, that was the left speaker. Here's the right one.

Quote:

Quote:
Working on a related project, wondering what, if anything, people have on top of their speakers?

Air, although I once had steel rods jammed between the top of a pair of Maggies and the ceiling above to stabilize them. Worked a treat too. My Soundlab ULPX's are rigid enough not to require that kind of treatment but I use their 'Sallie' absorption devices behind each panel. to great effect.
I'm surprised you have those absorption panels at the side of your Klipsh's Buddha . Surely with the narrow midrange and treble side output from those horns such treatment isn't necessary? Does it help ?

Guy wires across the tops, bolted to the floor. Like a thin tall antenna needs to be stabilized. Works wonderfully.

what is in my speakers for the most part is a pile of 'take apart tools' (screw drivers, hex wrenches, flashlights) as I'm working on the gear, modding and testing on the fly. There's always some piece of gear on the rack that is taken apart at the same time it's running.

No kids here to get electrocuted, obviously ...and no cat to try and sleep on it.

The top of my Vandersteen 3A's is a very convenient place to lay the empty LP jacket and sleeve...so....

The tops of my main speakers are not flat so she can't put stuff on top of them--and advantage I had not thought of when we got them.

One of the speakers in the family room has a videocassette rewinder sitting on top of it. The other one could have something on top of it besides dust.

Quote:
The top of my Vandersteen 3A's is a very convenient place to lay the empty LP jacket and sleeve...so....

Handy - but I keep things off the top of my Vandys, in case it affects a bit of the tweeter dispersion, coming up through that top grill cloth. Probably wouldn't, to any notable degree, but I have another flat surface nearby, so...

I have bags of polished rocks on my speakers. Anywhere from one bag to three. Pier 1 sells them for next to nothing.

Ahem...just wondering if the polishing is critical?

RG

When the wife walks through Pier One and spies a bag of polished rocks she's thinking clear crystal vase.

When an audiophile does the same he thinks...Bada Bing! Speaker ornament!

Maybe JVS sees it both ways?

RG

"To the point that I expect someone along soon who will point out that you need to know the right type of bag and the right polish formula to get the best sound. And that info will cost extra."

Right. A LOT extra.

1" Tall Mikro

Quote:
I have bags of polished rocks on my speakers. Anywhere from one bag to three. Pier 1 sells them for next to nothing.

Which is about what they're worth, in audiophile terms. I got my polished rocks from the dollar store for less than next to nothing. Years ago, "inspired" by Geoff's Bouillante Pebbles (or whatever they're called), I was curious to see what effect, if any, jars of polished rocks on your speakers had on the sound. As I recall, any perceived positive aspect was so negligible, it wasn't worth the dollar or effort. The negative influence made the effort less worthwhile. Not that I had much in the way of positive expectations, because as I did and still do suspect, Geoff's rocks are not comparable to off the shelf polished rocks of any sort. I presume they are selected for their resonant frequencies. But I have not ever tested his rocks to compare.

I favor not putting anything on top of my speakers. In my experience, -anything- you put on top of your speakers, I don't care if its a beanie baby to a postage stamp, is going to change the sound, one way or another (regardless of whether you are successful in consciously perceiving it or not). I wrote on my site years ago about how I could change the sound moving a dime on top of my loudpseaker, in increments of a millimetre. Even dust will probably affect the sound, and I know the Pledge furniture polish you use to remove it will! So in my opinion its very very easy to change the sound by putting stuff on top of the loudspeakers (e.g. The bottled herb or Spam Geoff has tried on his!). But almost impossible to change the sound without degrading it in some way, by doing that. Good musical sound is hard to achieve* and even harder to maintain. So I know when to leave well enough alone.

*(Unless you're a pro-audio guy/pseudo-objectivist/DBT-maniac/anti-audiophile meterhead. In which case, "good" sound is extremely easy to achieve, just check the plots, and a piece of cake to maintain. If it ever goes out of whack, just twiddle around with your EQ knobs).

"...because as I did and still do suspect, Geoff's rocks are not comparable to off the shelf polished rocks of any sort."

They are not comparable to off the shelf polished rocks. Mr. Pebbles were introduced at HI FI show in London 6 years ago in the Meitner/Audiopax/Ecosse room. 4 Large size (3" tall) were used - one on top of each speaker (big Audiopax), one in each of 2 room corners.

I got this note from the exhibit coordinator: "Now, if I say that dozens of people said we had the best sound at show, many other said we had the best sound they had ever heard, many dealers, competitors and reviewers came round to check out the room..."

"I presume they are selected for their resonant frequencies."

The photo I posted is the smallest size, Mikro. It is 1" tall. The stones (crystals) in the Mikro are 1/8 to 1/4 inch in diameter. Hmmm, wonder what their resonant frequencies would work out to?

"...e.g. The bottled herb or Spam Geoff has tried on his!"

Not I. T'was a reveiwer somewhere along the line. I glebed his photos. Was that wrong?

Get a cheap set of at least 4 long woodworking clamps.

Clamp the speaker to the stand.

I'm not sure if the polishing is critical. However, I am sure that Pier 1 didn't sell unpolished bags of rocks.

It's an easy and inexpensive way of adjusting the weight and the coupling of the speaker. My wife asked me if my speakers had a headache.

Quote:
I favor not putting anything on top of my speakers.

Precisely, it tends to rattle, even with high quality, dense, stiff speaker boxes.

Quote:
Get a cheap set of at least 4 long woodworking clamps.

Clamp the speaker to the stand.

Pipe clamps? The pipes are going ring at some frequency, rather annoyingly.

"Precisely, it tends to rattle, even with high quality, dense, stiff speaker boxes."

All depends. As you say, some things tend to rattle. Depends on whether the "rattling" is audible and whether the "rattling" improves the sound. I'd eliminate from consideration all things that rattle too loudly and those things that do not improve the sound. Fair enough?

Quote:

Quote:
I favor not putting anything on top of my speakers.

Precisely, it tends to rattle, even with high quality, dense, stiff speaker boxes.

Well obviously, yes. It doesn't matter how the speaker boxes are constructed, any speaker will resonate, and anything loosely placed on top of it, will resonate along with it. My concern about putting things on or atop my speakers isn't limited to how they can influence the sound by rattling in sympathy with what is playing. Whatever you do to a speaker can change the sound, regardless of whether the speakers are playing or not. More so if they are.

"My concern about putting things on or atop my speakers isn't limited to how they can influence the sound by rattling in sympathy with what is playing..."

Well, before we get too lost in the strawman arguments regarding things that rattle "in sympathy with the speakers," let me ask, has anyone experimented with such things on speakers that don't rattle as Tekna Sonic dampers, Totem Beaks, the enigmatic Mpingo discs, Super DH Cones, Supersonic Dampers from Herbies Audio or HSH Damping Plates? No? Perhaps lead bars?

Then we can move on to the next question: has anyone experimented with things that DO tend to "rattle" on top of speakers? Or on top of anything else for that matter? I mean other than an object d'art.

The biggest problem here is that those who attempt to deal with issues about and on cabinets, aural considerations, q, Hz, harmonics, etc..rarely know much about the subject.

I do not discount that they DO (the given audiophile) know how to hear these things and they DO know how to affect a change of some sort that may lead to a sound that is more pleasing to them..or a sonic balance that may easier for them to deal with.

If you want a small primer on the issues -that could possibly lead to more confusion than answers, then go the June issue area and read the bit I wrote in there (on the Klipsch review) about loudspeaker drivers.

JJ, for example, may know considerably more than I do about the research into the human hearing function on the scientific level. It is extremely doubtful that he knows as much as I do about getting these issues cleared up in the mechanical and electrical, etc considerations of what encompasses an audio system.

So, when we (in the general sense) fire arrows at each other, we completely miss the targets as we are aiming at completely different things from a completely different direction. Not that any of us have a incorrect package of knowledge, that's not the point at all. Being exactly on the same page has always been the issue.

For example JJ may not answer a seemingly innocent question as that particular area of research is where he works and makes his money -and I will do the same. I will not answer or explain as that area is where I feel I may expose too much of my knowledge and other manufacturers may take advantage of that -commercially-...and I cannot afford that.

Some of the attacks on JJ that I see for him not answering a given question may stem from such things, IMO. I know this from great personal experience on other forums.

I will POINT TO THE ISSUE and say, in my own way 'that answer is wrong', or, 'that particular tack is wrong, move differently'..but that is about all I will say. That is all i can afford to say and 99% or more of the manufacturers/experts that you will run into would say NOTHING, ever. They will leave you in your ignorance, as that is just good, sensible business. These rules also apply in the world of science, due to it's relative connection to business. I even explain exactly what I am saying right now..but usually such a sensible answer as I state now, will be rejected.

In essence, properly applied clamps are a benefit, not a detraction. This has been known for quite some time. Decades, minimum.

"The biggest problem here is that those who attempt to deal with issues about and on cabinets, aural considerations, q, Hz, harmonics, etc..rarely know much about the subject."

How about just trying things that are already out there, built to purpose, waiting for some brave so-and-so to try them? Tekna Sonics speaker dampers, to name just one, will blow your mind and they've been around for almost 20 years. I don't understand all the resistence and angst. I really don't.

"I do not discount that they DO (the given audiophile) know how to hear these things and they DO know how to affect a change of some sort that may lead to a sound that is more pleasing to them..or a sonic balance that may easier for them to deal with."

Guess you never had one of those Holy Crap! experiences, judging from all the trivializing. Oh, well.....

"If you want a small primer on the issues -that could possibly lead to more confusion than answers, then go the June issue area and read the bit I wrote in there (on the Klipsch review) about loudspeaker drivers.
JJ, for example, may know considerably more than I do about the research into the human hearing function on the scientific level. It is extremely doubtful that he knows as much as I do about getting these issues cleared up in the mechanical and electrical, etc considerations of what encompasses an audio system."

Primer, Ish? Maybe later. How about just what sounds better? And dispense with all the scientic rigamarole? What is this, easy chair week at the ol' hacienda?

Quote:
JJ, for example, may know considerably more than I do about the research into the human hearing function on the scientific level. It is extremely doubtful that he knows as much as I do about getting these issues cleared up in the mechanical and electrical, etc considerations of what encompasses an audio system.

Well, I've done everything from roadie, through mixing and sound design, to recording, precision loudspeaker and microphone design, and on to basic research. So you could be wrong.

My original background, after all, is analog hardware design. And, you have to admit, there is nothing much on this planet that is more concerned with real-world problems.

Quote:
My original background, after all, is analog hardware design. And, you have to admit, there is nothing much on this planet that is more concerned with real-world problems.

Yea, international relations and medical research are probably running 2nd and 3rd.

I was trying to make nice and bring together. To highlight the possibilities of where the differences might be. But it's almost always 'penis measuring and comparison time' on this forum.

Oh well. trash talk rules, I guess - and I get so tired of it. As do the rest of you, I'm sure.

Just remember, the answer has always been: To not answer in kind.

Quote:

Quote:
JJ, for example, may know considerably more than I do about the research into the human hearing function on the scientific level. It is extremely doubtful that he knows as much as I do about getting these issues cleared up in the mechanical and electrical, etc considerations of what encompasses an audio system.

Well, I've done everything from roadie, through mixing and sound design, to recording, precision loudspeaker and microphone design, and on to basic research. So you could be wrong.

My original background, after all, is analog hardware design. And, you have to admit, there is nothing much on this planet that is more concerned with real-world problems.

This only makes it all the more puzzling, then, that you would not understand that science itself, as a concept and proper execution..is based on observation..and that the most foolish thing a man can do, is to dismiss the observation.

I seem to recall noting that you tend to do this in many areas of what people propose as things they have observed. You seemingly do that relatively constantly in this forum. As if you constantly accuse them of the equivalent of seeing/hearing swamp gas, the moon, or Venus. Instead of investigating-which is what real science does. Dismissing tends to look like and actually be dogmatism -at large. The origins of such a psychological condition can be manifold. From the viewpoint of the individual concerning the bias inherent in ego function (the ego never rests, it is our rose coloured glasses that we cannot escape, that be near permanently attached to our internal process. Like Indian poker it be; We cannot see our own card but we can see all others.

What say you?

Quote:
This only makes it all the more puzzling, then, that you would not understand that science itself, as a concept and proper execution..is based on observation..and that the most foolish thing a man can do, is to dismiss the observation.

That's because I know rather well just how very, very confused human perception can be, in other words, my dismissal of things like non-blind testing is based on OBSERVATIONS of how humans perform in such settings.

Don't confuse the issue here, and don't confuse an objective OBSERVATION with a PERCEPTION.

That is, unless you wish to argue for solipcism, and I don't think you intended that.