Skip to main content

Topic: [TOS #8] Why are always 4 spikes used instead of 3? (Bass-coupling) (Read 1506 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • Tux
  • [*]
[TOS #8] Why are always 4 spikes used instead of 3? (Bass-coupling)
Hi everyone,

I have recently renovated my media and computer room. After that, I noticed that my speakers produced very much bass suddenly, which I attributed to their new placement. I couldn't figure out what exactly caused this, but I also didn't want to reposition all furniture and put them in their old positions, so I decided to look for cheap and easy ways to reduce bass.

I found many threads on coupling-decoupling techniques and decided to try that. First, I bought small pads of 5cm thick hard foam to place beneath the speakers, the rest of the material I taped to the wall right behind the bass-reflex openings of the speakers. Then I also bought four heavy natural stone tiles and eight small metal spikes with drive-in nuts for a few bucks from the hardware store (since my speakers did not come with spikes).

I drilled the nuts into the corners on the bottom of the speaker cases, screwed in the spikes, put the speakers on the stone tiles and that whole package onto the foam pads. What can I say? The difference is unbelievable (for a sub-20€ mod, that is) - much cleaner bass response and less rumbling.

However, I was trying to figure out how to position the speakers with the spikes correctly and just could not get it to work. I used four spikes in the beginning, since expensive speakers usually come with four and you can only buy sets of four, but since the bottom of the speakers and the tiles are not 100% flat, even by slightly releasing one of the spikes, I could not make them absolutely stable. Worse, when one or two of the spikes were slightly loose to balance the weight and the speaker moved only by a nanometer, the spikes would begin to rattle, because one of them would not be on the ground.

Then, I got the idea to remove both spikes in the back and instead place one at the center of the back edge. That way, the spikes underneath form a triangle and all of them are still solid on the ground if it's slightly uneven. No more problems, all spikes can be screwed in tightly, the speakers are still perfectly stable and there's direct coupling to the stone tiles.

I wonder why even more expensive speakers have four spikes instead of three, because even if your base is "perfectly flat", there are irregularities that you can't see and if you accidentally move your speaker just a little, the balance might be completely off. Using one less spike and saving the money seems to solve the issue completely without sacrificing much stability either. (Except if the speakers have a very odd form factor or the spikes are too close together.)

Just wanted to share this with others who are interested in trying the same thing. Save yourself two spikes and nuts, if necessary.
  • Last Edit: 22 August, 2017, 08:13:32 AM by Tux

  • DVDdoug
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Why are always 4 spikes used instead of 3? (Bass-coupling)
Reply #1
Quote
Why are always 4 spikes used instead of 3?
I dunno... Why does a chair have 4-legs?    Probably for stability...  It's easier to tip-over with 3-feet/legs.

...I'd always assumed those spikes were for carpet...

Quote
What can I say? The difference is unbelievable (for a sub-20€ mod, that is) - much cleaner bass response and less rumbling.
Please re-read TOS #8 and be careful about making such claims here.     I don't doubt that moving your speakers made a difference, but I'm skeptical about what problem was solved with the spikes.   But, what I think  doesn't matter...   The moderators are very strict about the rules and it greatly reduces the nonsense you get on "audiophile" sites.   You can talk about spikes, or moving your speakers, etc., but if you are going to make claims about sound quality you have to do the blind listening tests.

Re: Why are always 4 spikes used instead of 3? (Bass-coupling)
Reply #2

I have recently renovated my media and computer room. After that, I noticed that my speakers produced very much bass suddenly, which I attributed to their new placement.

Good call. The performance of a speaker is highly dependent on the room it is used in, and its location within that room can be as much or more important.

Quote
I couldn't figure out what exactly caused this

The sound quality of a speaker, especially at low frequencies is strongly influenced by the size of the room, its dimensions, how the surfaces are covered with reflective or absorptive materials, and the distance from the speaker to the various walls and corners.

Quote
I also didn't want to reposition all furniture and put them in their old positions, so I decided to look for cheap and easy ways to reduce bass.

The cheapest and easiest way to control bass is equalization. But, there are natural limitations to this because bass is influenced by the effects I just mentioned which are in 3 dimensions, but an equalizer can only control 1 dimension. So, you might get the bass right in one part of a room, but move around and thebass you hear might get worse.

Quote
I found many threads on coupling-decoupling techniques and decided to try that

Bad call.  Speakers are almost entirely coupled to the room by the sound coming out of the speakers (usually cones) and ports.

Things like pads and spikes are at best 10% solutions and are generally even less influential than that.

Bass is one of those things that is fairly easy to measure, and if you strengthen it or weaken it or make it deeper or shallower, the measurements change.  Ever see an article that shows how bass measurements change with things like spikes and pads?  I never have, and one reason is that there is not a lot of change to report.  Instead most such reports are based on colorful prose and poetry.  

There are strong effects on the human mind some call expectation effects, and others call placebo effects. The alleged benefits are almost always discerned and reported by means that are well quantified, even though changes in bass response are relatively easy to measure.


How about them apples? ;-)


  • Tux
  • [*]
Re: Why are always 4 spikes used instead of 3? (Bass-coupling)
Reply #3
Hi both of you,

Quote
Why are always 4 spikes used instead of 3?
I dunno... Why does a chair have 4-legs?    Probably for stability...  It's easier to tip-over with 3-feet/legs.

I would guess so, but you also don't sit on a speaker cabinet ...usually. And a chair doesn't begin to rattle if one of its legs is slightly in the air, usually at least. ;)


Please re-read TOS #8 and be careful about making such claims here. [...] The moderators are very strict about the rules and it greatly reduces the nonsense you get on "audiophile" sites.

I didn't assume my claims on the sound difference were the center point here, but while I do appreciate that sentiment, I must say that was a little intimidating to read regarding my initial post.

I have not produced any listening tests and this happened a few weeks back already, so I did not have the objective of conducting anything like that. However, I don't really see much sense in doing that. Any individual person could simply alter the sound files to prove their point. What I wrote about was definitely subjective experiece and I am not a spike-salesperson, so there's no reason for me to trick anybody into saving a little money and energy when trying to test this setup themselves. However, the placebo-effect may definitely be a viable explanation.

Anyhow, maybe I haven't described the problem and the outcome detailed enough:

So, I was moving the furniture in this room, including my computer and the speakers. After everything was located at its new destination and I listened to music, I started to notice a stronger bass than I was used to. I have had this setup and the same speakers for a couple of years now, so that is definitely something that you can pick up right away. Nothing else had changed, not the height of the speakers, the distance from the back wall, the angle towards myself, just the location within the same room. (Before: in a corner, now: in the middle of a flat wall.) I wasn't aware that the placement in a room could have such a huge impact on the sound, so I started looking for solutions in different directions.


The cheapest and easiest way to control bass is equalization.

That's kind of true, however I have not used any software equalizer before and I don't have a hardware equalizer anywhere in my chain (and haven't felt the need for one previously), so it wasn't either going to be cheap or easy for me to find, install and test global software EQs or buy a hardware EQ + cables.

Additionally, the annoying bass sound was not present in all frequencies across the board. They were rather multiple specific bass frequencies that would produce that irritating rumbling sound, figuratively swallowing other frequencies that I haven't experienced before like that.

This is of course a very subjective impression, but after those modifications, these frequencies do not stick out of the spectrum any more. I can't really quantify the effect, but a 10% solution sounds a bit too insignificant. Maybe that small effect has been enough, but all I can tell is that I previously heard an annoying rumble at certain bass frequencies and now that irritating sound is gone, that is not something that I can self-critically attribute to a placebo-effect.

I also have the impression that the overall soundscape is much clearer and more balanced than before, but I admit that this is a very subtle feeling and may be caused by the missing annoyance of the bass, rather than actual differences in the overall sound. Here, we're possibly talking about placebo-effect more than anything else.


Ever see an article that shows how bass measurements change with things like spikes and pads?  I never have, and one reason is that there is not a lot of change to report.  Instead most such reports are based on colorful prose and poetry.

I haven't even been looking for one yet. (Which I maybe should have, considering my readiness to trust some random forum posts.) I would find it suspicious though, if an article would claim that such a modification had no impact on the sound, in the sense of: "Maybe they placed their measuring instruments right in front of the speakers, where the sound won't change much, no matter what you do to the surrounding." I don't mean to call you out on that, but do you have anything at hand that you would call a trustworthy souce with such an article? I kind of have my "personal" answer in this situation, but still curious, what the effect is from a more general perspective.

I would love to reliably test this and maybe I'm going to do that in the future at some point, but it's a huge workload to do this in a scientific manner that can not be refuted.

There is however a simpler way and my point: Anyone could just grab those items from a hardware store, do a dry test-run with their setup and return everything, if the effect is inaudible.
  • Last Edit: 22 August, 2017, 06:54:10 PM by Tux

  • saratoga
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Why are always 4 spikes used instead of 3? (Bass-coupling)
Reply #4
The cheapest and easiest way to control bass is equalization.

That's kind of true, however I have not used any software equalizer before and I don't have a hardware equalizer anywhere in my chain (and haven't felt the need for one previously), so it wasn't either going to be cheap or easy for me to find, install and test global software EQs or buy a hardware EQ + cables.

No way.  Installing a software EQ is both cheap and super easy.  There may also be one built into your software already.  You should definitely try this first.  If you don't have any in your software, check this out:

https://sourceforge.net/projects/equalizerapo/

  • Tux
  • [*]
Re: Why are always 4 spikes used instead of 3? (Bass-coupling)
Reply #5
No way.  Installing a software EQ is both cheap and super easy.  There may also be one built into your software already.  You should definitely try this first.  If you don't have any in your software, check this out:

https://sourceforge.net/projects/equalizerapo/

Quote
Requirements:
- Windows Vista or later (currently only Windows 7, 8, 8.1 and 10 have been tested)

Ubuntu-user running through JACK here, more luck next time. ;)

But that's not even the question, I don't want a software EQ! :D
  • Last Edit: 22 August, 2017, 07:05:45 PM by Tux

  • saratoga
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Why are always 4 spikes used instead of 3? (Bass-coupling)
Reply #6
No way.  Installing a software EQ is both cheap and super easy.  There may also be one built into your software already.  You should definitely try this first.  If you don't have any in your software, check this out:

https://sourceforge.net/projects/equalizerapo/

Quote
Requirements:
- Windows Vista or later (currently only Windows 7, 8, 8.1 and 10 have been tested)

Ubuntu-user running through JACK here, more luck next time. ;)

EQs are not a windows-only thing.  You can use them on linux too.

But that's not even the question, I don't want a software EQ! :D

Why?  They're a great option here, and worth checking out. 

Re: Why are always 4 spikes used instead of 3? (Bass-coupling)
Reply #7
I didn't assume my claims on the sound difference were the center point here, but while I do appreciate that sentiment, I must say that was a little intimidating to read regarding my initial post.

I have not produced any listening tests and this happened a few weeks back already, so I did not have the objective of conducting anything like that. However, I don't really see much sense in doing that.

You seem to have vastly underestimated how much myth and legend backs up spikes and isolation pads. I've investigated them  in detail and for the most part they are expensive placeboes at any price.

Quote
Any individual person could simply alter the sound files to prove their point.

The technology behind the ability of equalization to address problems like these is so solid and widely accepeted that the point is pre-approved today.

OTOH I can't see how one could gather much relevant evidence without out comparing a system with spikes and pads to one that lacked them or used a different configuration of them.

Quote
What I wrote about was definitely subjective experience and I am not a spike-salesperson, so there's no reason for me to trick anybody into saving a little money and energy when trying to test this setup themselves. However, the placebo-effect may definitely be a viable explanation.

I'm not worried about you tricking me or my friends. I'm worried about you tricking yourself which seems to be already accomplished.

Quote
Anyhow, maybe I haven't described the problem and the outcome detailed enough:

So, I was moving the furniture in this room, including my computer and the speakers. After everything was located at its new destination and I listened to music, I started to notice a stronger bass than I was used to. I have had this setup and the same speakers for a couple of years now, so that is definitely something that you can pick up right away. Nothing else had changed, not the height of the speakers, the distance from the back wall, the angle towards myself, just the location within the same room. (Before: in a corner, now: in the middle of a flat wall.) I wasn't aware that the placement in a room could have such a huge impact on the sound, so I started looking for solutions in different directions.

As the saying goes: Been There, Done That, many times, have the T-shirt, named my first son after it...  ;-)

What you have described is how audio works, and frankly I'm surprised that you're surprized.

Quote
The cheapest and easiest way to control bass is equalization.

That's kind of true,

Wrong. It is absolutely true in almost every case. Again, I'm surprised that you're surprised.

Quote
however I have not used any software equalizer before

It is very clear that you are very unfamiliar with the concepts of equalization and frequency response. Frequency response is a very strong influence, detectable in what may seem like vanishing amounts, and often overbearing before the numbers describing it become impressive.

Quote
and I don't have a hardware equalizer anywhere in my chain

Read my lips: You don't need a hardware equalizer in almost every case because software equalization is already so pervasive. If you are following this forum you must have noticed that there have been multiple posts describing how equalization is simply a standard part of most popular computer operating systems.   There have been specific mentions of Linux, Android and Windows, and that covers billions of computers - most of the computers that exist and are running today.

Quote
(and haven't felt the need for one previously), so it wasn't either going to be cheap or easy for me to find, install and test global software EQs or buy a hardware EQ + cables.

The points of resistance are most mental and typically based on fear. Download a file. Install the software. Run the software. Less than a minute and a handful of keystrokes. You are now the owner and operator of an equalizer.

Quote
Additionally, the annoying bass sound was not present in all frequencies across the board. They were rather multiple specific bass frequencies that would produce that irritating rumbling sound, figuratively swallowing other frequencies that I haven't experienced before like that.

Read my lips: Removing or reducing musical sounds at just the frequencies they have become annoying is what equalizers do.



  • ev13wt
  • [*]
Re: Why are always 4 spikes used instead of 3? (Bass-coupling)
Reply #8
Welcome to room sound. You have two choices: Either believe what reviews and marketing and "general forums" say about EQ, or you can educate yourself to point where you will completely dismiss all that "fake news" (sorry)

Then you save 100 bucks and buy a measurement microphone. You have a computer obviously. http://mathaudio.com/room-eq.htm

You moved your speakers, now you have new "standing waves". The "bettering of bass" you experience after fiddling with decoupling is only your brain adjusting to the new sound. Keep going and one day it will simply feel "right". Its not of course. This burn-in of your brain to the new sound ... (get where I am going with this?)


For starters, you should read up / Google about "room modes" and "standing waves". If you want to go a bit further, read Floyd Tooles book:   Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms (Audio Engineering Society Presents) 

I do like your 3 spikes idea - won't help with your problems of course, but the "self leveling" is a cool idea. Makes for tippy speakers if someone bumps into them.


When you're done reading, you measure your room with and without the spikes. Mark the speaker locations! Report back! It will be interesting to see the data.
  • Last Edit: 23 August, 2017, 06:20:32 AM by ev13wt

  • Tux
  • [*]
Re: Why are always 4 spikes used instead of 3? (Bass-coupling)
Reply #9
You seem to have vastly underestimated how much myth and legend backs up spikes and isolation pads.

I obviously have. It was never my intention to make huge claims to the effectiveness of coupling-decoupling techniques, that's why I did not even mention it in particular initially, though I realise that this topic is sitting on that base now.


The technology behind the ability of equalization to address problems like these is so solid and widely accepeted that the point is pre-approved today. [...] OTOH I can't see how one could gather much relevant evidence without out comparing a system with spikes and pads to one that lacked them or used a different configuration of them.

I wasn't writing about equalization in particular, in fact, I was reffering to supplying tests that could have been based on altered sound files in general. The only way in which I could prove my experience would be to involve multiple neutral people documenting what I do and conduct various tests with sound files beyond my control, else it would be a waste of time, since nobody would be convinced that the results are real and reproducible. I simply don't have the time or resources to do that at this point. And frankly not a very good reason to, either.


I'm not worried about you tricking me or my friends. I'm worried about you tricking yourself which seems to be already accomplished.
The "bettering of bass" you experience after fiddling with decoupling is only your brain adjusting to the new sound. Keep going and one day it will simply feel "right". Its not of course. This burn-in of your brain to the new sound ... (get where I am going with this?) [...] I do like your 3 spikes idea - won't help with your problems of course, [...]

I must say that it's quite funny that you're trying to explain the sense-adjustment functionalities of my brain to me, one of the many areas of neurology which is still widely unexplored, without any evidence whatsoever, while demanding me to prove my claims vigorously.

So, you won't believe that some random guy on the internet was able to achieve these differences in sound with the modifications he made to his setup. That's fine. I understand that. But since you seem to be unable to display reliable evidence on how you got to your solid pespective on this, maybe, just as a constructive advice, consider to broaden your research a little bit.


Quote
however I have not used any software equalizer before

It is very clear that you are very unfamiliar with the concepts of equalization and frequency response.

Let me rephrase that as well: I *have* used software and hardware equalizers before, both multiple band and parametric equalizers (which I actually also currently do when mixing my own music tracks as a hobby), just not on this particular machine with this setup for the general output, since I haven't felt the need to before.

The reason why I hadn't thought of using an EQ before to solve the bass issues also was not because I considered it to be "difficult" or had fear towards trying out software, as you had assumed. I simply hadn't considered it. I guess, because I haven't used one this way in years and it would have felt like trying to battle a physical issue with a software solution, which surely would have worked as well eventually, but did not occur to me. I was aware that some people used isolation pads against bass, so that's what I looked into first.

Also, I am now going to disagree with you a bit and state that setting up an EQ so that each parameter will perfectly match the exact bass frequencies that were sticking out can be an extensive process of identifying all problematic frequencies and adjusting them correctly. It's not particularly hard, but it's also not a 5-minute process overall.


Welcome to room sound. You have two choices: Either believe what reviews and marketing and "general forums" say about EQ, or you can educate yourself to point where you will completely dismiss all that "fake news" (sorry) Then you save 100 bucks and buy a measurement microphone.

Hey ev13wt,

I *saved* 100 bucks with what I did. I was never going to buy expensive gold cones anointed with Rick Rubin's ear wax. Had I bought a measurement microphone, I would've at least paid three to four times the price I did to begin with.

I'm not saying that this is a bad idea though - in fact, the article you linked seems interesting and I'm going to have a closer read later on. This is definitely a more "correct" way to do this, but as I mentioned, I have no need for further adjustments currently, since the modifications did the trick in my case.


For starters, you should read up / Google about "room modes" and "standing waves". If you want to go a bit further, read Floyd Tooles book:  Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms (Audio Engineering Society Presents) 

Thanks for the suggestions. I haven't had much knowledge on room acoustics, yet. And I also can't tell you what exactly happened that caused my perceptions. Maybe the cones did have very little effect themselves. Maybe it's the 5cm elevation of the speakers and the slightly different angle now, more than that. Maybe the foam pieces behind the bass reflex openings are also responsible, reducing the space to the back wall a little. You could probably identify the effects of these various small changes better than me. 


[...] but the "self leveling" is a cool idea. Makes for tippy speakers if someone bumps into them.


Actually, they aren't even that tippy, even if you were to bump into them. Three points of contact are enough, the weight also helps. Since I placed them on two corners and in the middle of the opposing edge, you really have to push down on the unsupported corners on top to tip them over, else they will just move sideways.

And that was the whole point from the beginning: If you need to put things beneath the thing, consider trying to use three things in a triangle instead of four and spare yourself the additional problems and work I did.


When you're done reading, you measure your room with and without the spikes. Mark the speaker locations! Report back! It will be interesting to see the data.

That's definitely something I will look into, but don't have the time or money for currently, so don't expect anything too soon.

Re: Why are always 4 spikes used instead of 3? (Bass-coupling)
Reply #10
[...] but the "self leveling" is a cool idea. Makes for tippy speakers if someone bumps into them.

Actually, they aren't even that tippy, even if you were to bump into them. Three points of contact are enough, the weight also helps. Since I placed them on two corners and in the middle of the opposing edge, you really have to push down on the unsupported corners on top to tip them over, else they will just move sideways.

Just think of a tricycle, tripod, the position of wheels at a aircraft are also in triangle shape. I also wondered why speakers have 4 instead of 3 spikes.

btw. I'm using ice hockey pucks as base for the spikes. It saves the wooden floor from damage with the spikes.

.halverhahn

Re: Why are always 4 spikes used instead of 3? (Bass-coupling)
Reply #11
If you have your speakers in a room that isn't frequented by large, excitable pets or small, clumsy humans, three feet/spikes would be a much simpler way to go for setting up speakers. But I suppose manufacturers see four as the safer default design.

  • ev13wt
  • [*]
Re: Why are always 4 spikes used instead of 3? (Bass-coupling)
Reply #12
I must say that it's quite funny that you're trying to explain the sense-adjustment functionalities of my brain to me, one of the many areas of neurology which is still widely unexplored, without any evidence whatsoever, while demanding me to prove my claims vigorously.

So, you won't believe that some random guy on the internet was able to achieve these differences in sound with the modifications he made to his setup. That's fine. I understand that. But since you seem to be unable to display reliable evidence on how you got to your solid pespective on this, maybe, just as a constructive advice, consider to broaden your research a little bit.


You misunderstood me. I am only trying to help you. I have been there where you are now, and the only thing that made me realize my expectation biases control over my sound analysis by measuring stuff.

You claim that it "worked". But cannot verify it for yourself. Not for me. For yourself. The possibility that it was your brain instead of the spikes is 50/50.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=biased+expectation+theory&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=expectation+bias+psychology&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=expectation+bias+clinical+trials&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart


Re: Why are always 4 spikes used instead of 3? (Bass-coupling)
Reply #13

The "bettering of bass" you experience after fiddling with decoupling is only your brain adjusting to the new sound. Keep going and one day it will simply feel "right". Its not of course. This burn-in of your brain to the new sound ... (get where I am going with this?) [...] I do like your 3 spikes idea - won't help with your problems of course, [...]

I must say that it's quite funny that you're trying to explain the sense-adjustment functionalities of my brain to me, one of the many areas of neurology which is still widely unexplored, without any evidence whatsoever, while demanding me to prove my claims vigorously.

The fact that an area of technology has many areas that remain to be explored is a bogus reason to, without evidence blithely dismiss the reliable information that we already know in that area.

I don't think you  know where you are posting. Maybe some little understanding of that  will seep into your mind  if you do something crazy like actually read the Terms Of Service (TOS, especially #8) that you agreed to when you signed up to post here.

Quote
So, you won't believe that some random guy on the internet was able to achieve these differences in sound with the modifications he made to his setup.

I'll believe it or not depending on the quality of the supporting evidence the that random guy presents.

At this time the quality of your evidence is hovering between zero and trivial. If you get around to reading and understanding TOS8 that you claim you agreed to, you may get a clue as to why.

Quote
That's fine. I understand that. But since you seem to be unable to display reliable evidence on how you got to your solid pespective on this, maybe, just as a constructive advice, consider to broaden your research a little bit.

I'm not unable to display reliable evidence. I'm simply not doing it because I don't think you could or would bother to understand it should I take the time to do so.

Since your research in the matter appears to be hovering between zero and trivial, and my research extends over years and includes scientific experimentation and analysis of both the physical and perceptual aspects of this issue, what are you talking about?

Remember, you brought up this issue. That makes providing relevant reliable evidence your responsibility before it would be mine.

Got any reliable evidence, now that you know that "It's true because I say its true" is not adequate for this forum?




  • Tux
  • [*]
Re: Why are always 4 spikes used instead of 3? (Bass-coupling)
Reply #14
btw. I'm using ice hockey pucks as base for the spikes. It saves the wooden floor from damage with the spikes.

That's a good idea, although that doesn't really sove the issue of "always standing on 3/4 points". Unless the pucks are a little soft and give in so that all points make contact.


If you have your speakers in a room that isn't frequented by large, excitable pets or small, clumsy humans, three feet/spikes would be a much simpler way to go for setting up speakers. But I suppose manufacturers see four as the safer default design.

I'm definitely going to remember that description for my little nephew, but I guess your explanation makes sense on the manufacturer side. Better play it safe and set it on four feet than having to take in lots of complaints from customers because of unsafe product design.


You claim that it "worked". But cannot verify it for yourself. Not for me. For yourself. The possibility that it was your brain instead of the spikes is 50/50.

I can verify that it indeed "worked" for myself in the sense of being extremely irritated by certain bass-frequencies before, applying the modifications that I did and listening back to the same piece of music about an hour later without hearing these frequencies stick out any more, there has been no adjustment period whatsoever.

Now, I am unable quantify this or identify whichever modification may have been (most) responsible in changing the sound. I would have to test this thoroughly in order to convey this in any kind of scientific way, but currently I simply do not have the spare time and other plans with my finances than buying measurement equipment, while I do consider your suggestions useful.


You misunderstood me. I am only trying to help you. I have been there where you are now, and the only thing that made me realize my expectation biases control over my sound analysis by measuring stuff.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=biased+expectation+theory&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=expectation+bias+psychology&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=expectation+bias+clinical+trials&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

I have attended some lectures on media psychology in my bachelor degree and know a few basics about expectation bias. I also understand that it is potentially a great tool to explain unexpected observations that would diffuse an otherwise solid hyothesis on a certain topic.

I don't think this discussion will lead anywhere unless I supply reliable, scientifically sound data that is irrefutable, which I have already ruled out at the moment. You justifiably claim that what I experience must be the cause of expectation bias, as it probably often is the case with acoustics, while I am absolutely certain that my perceptions can not be explained with the most profound case of expectation bias and without me having concrete expectations on the exact consequences of my actions at the time, because of being simply unsure if there would be any effect at all.


I don't think you  know where you are posting. Maybe some little understanding of that  will seep into your mind  if you do something crazy like actually read the Terms Of Service (TOS, especially #8) that you agreed to when you signed up to post here.

At least for the record, I have read the terms of service. With what exact contents of my posts am I violating rule 8 any more or less than anybody else by appealing to "years of anecdotal experience" to prove their point without providing any kind of solid evidence for their claims? I believe you either completely misunderstand my intentions or attempt to remove uncomfortable statements endangering your fixed perspective on a topic by your repeated claims of my supposed term violation. Which one is it?


I'm not unable to display reliable evidence. I'm simply not doing it because I don't think you could or would bother to understand it should I take the time to do so.

I promise you that I can and will bother to understand your evidence, as though I am very inexperienced with the techniques of speaker cabinet design, room acoustics and its alteration of sound, I am interested to learn more about this and haven't been able to find reliable scientific sources myself, yet.


Since your research in the matter appears to be hovering between zero and trivial, and my research extends over years and includes scientific experimentation and analysis of both the physical and perceptual aspects of this issue, what are you talking about?

Well, what are *you* talking about? What is "the issue" at hand even, from your point of view? What parts of your research apply to my observations? Are you referring to spikes beneath speakers being unable to alter the perceived sound in any way? Or are you suggesting that none of the various coupling-decoupling techniques have any effect in reducing bass? Are you stating that elevating speakers by around 5cm with whichever material has no impact on the sound? Or is reducing the distance between bass reflex openings and the back wall incapable of shaping the sound, as you view it?


Remember, you brought up this issue. That makes providing relevant reliable evidence your responsibility before it would be mine.

No, I really did not. I never made this topic an issue. I may have stated that my modifications resulted in my described observations in a small subclause to conclude my actions, but I never, at any point, considered this the main focus of this thread (please re-read the title).

In fact, I never even expected a discussion to take off in the direction it did. I merely asked myself why manufacturers design products the way they do and if I have missed anything in trying to replicate or "enhance" them, in a way.


Got any reliable evidence, now that you know that "It's true because I say its true" is not adequate for this forum?

No, I do not. And for the reasons I already explained, I will not anytime soon.