The shocking SOUND DIFFERENCE Between Speaker Stands 🤯

[@dougking9788]

As a certified machinist, I'd consider looking into a local metal fab shop to build a set of those sound anchors and fill them with sand or spray foam. $1200 just seems high for what is essentially a few of lengths of square tubing. Interesting video though! Congrats on 100,000!

[@LAskeHosting]

50$ for material and 50$ for someone to make them and you are good to go

[@ColtCapperrune]

I would be skeptical that any shop would really be able to get it done for much cheaper. But it’s certainly not a complicated design! Thanks for watching!

[@Endless_Skyway_Adventures]

@@LAskeHosting to your point, cheaper to build but you’re looking at $500 all in.

[@AnthonyRodriguezOnline]

Interesting. I enjoyed it.

[@joshuaestock]

The shipping is a big variable. They’re 70-80 lbs each. I’m guessing the cost to ship is $200 each way best case.

[@BrainztormProductions]

Gotta say though the placement of you guys standing will affect room acoustics and could render a slight difference in testing probably as much as the stands make especially the triangle base stands, you were standing right behind the left monitor and you will act as absorbtion, much thicker than a bit of foam matting

[@NEEDSHES]

Thank you!

[@thomasw1865]

I thought so, too 🤔

[@LovelyDoetje]

Everything in the room will influence his measurement. Moving the concrete blocks as a whole or as parts to a different position will make a difference. They should have taken the not used stands and themselves out of the room during measuring. Also this test doesn't show the difference in sound because of reflections created by the stand or sound difference created by the supportlevel of the speaker. But it is great entertainment.

[@RonGallant]

I came to say this. 👍🏻

[@patrickbuick5459]

Yup yup...

[@JohnOBryan]

During the first test, you were standing behind the left front speaker. During the second and third tests, you were standing to the back right of the right speaker. Do you think this played a factor in the results?

[@coyoteproject999]

@JohnOBryan That’s something I noticed too. For the analysis of the measurements to be good, the parameters must be the same. A person's placement affects diffusion and absorption

[@amb3cog]

You're actually supposed to leave the room when running sweeps. For exactly this reason too. ✌️

[@VisnitchiRaul]

100% it did.

[@Atheistic007]

I feel you should be in the room in your listing position, because that real use. YMMV @@amb3cog

[@RadicDotkey]

These tests are invalid if they were randomly standing in high velocity (low pressure) zones of room modes of this studio.

[@rezolution6272]

Speaking as someone who used to design and install Pro audio and video for home theater systems, these things carry some significance but offer variables that cancel some of the science. It is interesting to see differences but here is the thing, "you" are not a stable object. You move your head. If there were an apparatus, that you locked your head into that made it stable and kept it in the exact same spot every time this would be valid. There is also the fact that Bobby hears music different than Johnny does. None of us have the same exact hearing in both ears. There are also differences caused by hearing damage which happens to everyone over time. There are so many variables that point of position (although somewhat important) doesn't really matter. Acoustic treatment then becomes the most important thing. Canceling frequencies that build in a studio ultimately, are more important than the position relativity to your ears and your speakers. Headphones on the other hand are always relative to your head and don't have any room frequency build-up. The best way to mix would then be to use both. The monitors to hear what the music sounds like in a room environment and how the low and high frequencies build in a room situation (which will be different for everyone and anyone since we don't have the same room) and the headphones to hear it without those frequency builds. The flat response of the monitors is only important as a reference from one song to another and not "shaping" the music to "your" ear. Only the people that have the exact monitors as you do, the same dimensional room, the same acoustic treatment and the same hearing will hear the music as you do. That being said, you have a very nice setup going there!!! I enjoy your content and wish you the best of luck in future endeavors!

[@gregvanpaassen]

Most of what you say is true, but Floyd Toole and his colleagues at Canada National Research Council and later Harman-Kardon Research showed pretty convincingly that listeners prefer a flat frequency response, linear phase response, and "tight" waterfall charts. Even older listeners with degraded hearing. It is true that narrow dips don't matter very much, and that millimetre differences in head/mic/speaker position affect those. Broad valleys in frequency response are much more objectionable. Toole recommends listening to classical symphonies when evaluating sound systems. Completely agree about the importance of room treatments. Hard surfaces produce terrible sound.

[@ronhochhalter3491]

Where this test went wrong was the minute someone said that the video was sponsored by a retailer. At that point there was no chance that a product they did not sell would have any validity in the test. Common sense folks, there's no way you can get anyone to spend $1200 on a speaker stand if it doesn't win the test over some concrete blocks.

[@danielelsinnombre8723]

exacto

[@phenixnunlee372]

Also, the difference in the resonance at 10-50Hz could just be noise floor because frequency response is rated for somewhere in 30ish range. Second the low frequency resolution is heavily affect by the FFT size (Gabor limit) so that can color how you see the response in the water fall. It would also be interesting to see what the standard deviation in the responses. Also, taking a high resolution fit you could use a student's t-test to see if the responses where statically different. I really loved the video it is nice to see people incorporate measurements into their decision. Finally in building acoustics we use things called tapping machines that drop calibrated weight to tap a floor to see how resistant they are to impact noise (foot steps). The tapping was the right thing to do and maybe gator should be tapping to products. I was expecting the concrete to more damped than it was.

[@GaryBeilby]

Great details thanks. I was also expecting the bricks to produce a superior sound. Biggest take away for me is that those pucks make far too little difference to be worth the effort.

[@ScottGrammer]

The dips at about 180Hz and 270Hz are likely room issues. These frequencies would correspond to distances of about 6 feet and 4 feet. I imagine you'll find that raising or lowering either the speakers of the microphone will change those dips considerably. I don't know what kind of flooring you have, but I suspect that coupling to the floor is a problem with all your speaker stands. Have you tried suspending the speakers from the ceiling at the same spots? The screwdriver was a great idea, BTW. Many decades ago, Wharfedale used to build double-walled baffles in their speakers that were filled with sand. They were about as dead as can be when whacked with something.

[@dingdong2103]

The room response was pretty bad in general.

[@sebsoud]

@@dingdong2103 well, the acoustic treatment of the room seems to be non-existent. Better to check this first and then see how things can be improved, that's the logical way.

[@muyeikasamurabi1602]

I bet if you first painted or soaked the cinder blocks in a penetrating poly sealer and then filled them with sand, you would have markedly better results. It comes down to mechanical vibration in the end. Slap some cork sheets and/or dense rubber inbetween each block on top of that and your DIY setup will compete against the expensive stands. The "tone" or resonance of the stand is 100% negatively affecting the results. Remove as much of that resonance as possible and you are off to the races in a much better position. Why do we put tapes and towels on drums? Congrats on the milestone. Great content!

[@markfawcus]

A few years ago I made some speaker stands using the solid version of cinder blocks, using one laying horizontally and two back to back stood vertically on the first to achieve the height I needed. I painted them with latex paint (2 or 3 coats) and 'glued' the blocks together using construction adhesive. I did this in the garage, then when it came to moving them to the listening room I 'noticed' the weight ... something like 75 pounds per stand. To my ears they contributed to a very good solid sound (despite me painting them to match the room color, wifey dictated their removal not too long after I installed them). I'd recommend avoiding the hollow blocks and sealing or painting them. I don't know if your room has a solid (slab) floor or not, but mine is a slab so coupling to the floor isn't too much of an issue.

[@Madrrrrrrrrrrr]

No. Weight will let freqs travel and ring. You want decoupling. And as sturdy as possible. Loose blocks won't help. The weight distribution on the $1200 is off balance. That is why the pole under center of gravity is the best. Wall studio speakers rest on 4 poles per speaker. Even better weight distribution.

[@thecraggrat]

As people seem to be picking up on, the time domain (viz resonance decay) is going to be influenced by the absorption characteristics of the material/structures of the stands. For the concrete blocks, they (from your tap test) are quite resonant, but have minimal absorption. To increase the absorption, isolate the blocks from each other with a rubber like absorbant material (say the sound deadening material for car panels) and fill with a non resonant lossy material, ie sand etc. That should help by reducing the energy that can go into the concrete to make it ring, and then by absorbing the energy that makes it into the concrete after the stimulus is removed. So less energy should be absorbed and should also decay much faster.

[@Matt_Morgan]

I'm sure if you put sand in the Gators, like most users tend to do, you'll find that you'll get similar results as the Anchors, if not better. I changed mine for three legged ones and added crushed glass instead of sand and there's absolutely no ringing when I tap the legs with a metal object. I can also vouch for those ISO Acoustic Pucks. I use them too.

[@charlesbonkley]

Except those speakers in the vid are stupidly massive. I mean, WTF? Why even bother trying such a stand?

[@halrichard1969]

Most non-audiophiles will place their speakers where they can. The room is a compromise and the furniture is a compromise. However, its a good thing to learn something. I have always ignored the Waterfall Chart, because I did not completely understand it, and well, I didnt want to make the effort to learn it. I learned it today with your comparison explanations. Thanks for that. Enjoy your audio sir.

[@audiokemestry]

Before upgrading to Barefoot 01s, I opted for cinder blocks over sound anchors (to save some money). However, I didnt leave mine naked. I wrapped them with a sheet of thick black vinyl, got isopucks, and also filled the hollow parts with rock wool. Not sure how much of a differenve this made (as I didnt do A/B testing with them wrapped) but all I can say is that Im super happy. Along with all the other acoustic treatment Im using (panels, bass traps, MLV, diffusion) my room measures almost flat down to 32Hz using REW. Cinder blocks are more than sufficient in my room and I have no interest in upgrading to sound anchors...at least not yet. Great video!

[@KevinGenus]

Sound Anchors fills each stand with different types of sand/epoxy mixtures to deaden the sand. You can do something similar with the cement blocks and probably get the same results (meaning the "thud" when you hit them).

[@scotth6814]

If I was going to use cement blocks, I would spray expanding foam into them.

[@enricolisk1357]

Tapping test. Please consider: a. Removing the 85-pound speaker before tapping. b. Place a glass of water on the stand, Tap, check the ripple. i) Taller the wave, poorer the performance ii) Longer duration of ripple, poorer the performance

[@peterroy6801]

Brilliant

[@vandimarzio2251]

Don't be around the speaker when measurement is progressing. You guys seems like so big useful basstraps behind speakers affecting between 40-150Hz🙂

[@berinloritsch]

I think what you are seeing is in the difference of the rigidity of the different materials and construction. For the concrete blocks to behave like you thought they would, you would need to fill the gaps with sand and use mortar to make one solid structure. The combination of mass and removing the ability for the blocks to vibrate against each other would make them more rigid and contribute less to the sound of the speakers. When the concrete blocks are loose like that, they all can still vibrate. That said, the results from your sound testing did reveal some standing waves in your room. Parallel surfaces that are about 14.15 feet apart can account for that 80 hz standing wave (speed of sound divided by hertz). That can be fixed by making the surfaces different by as little as 5 degrees, or introducing diffusion blocks on even one side. The low end reverberation can be addressed with some bass traps.

[@djpatrikk]

Well said. I was a bit surprised to see the graph of his room. Not that mine will be any better but it is smaller so I don’t think I’ll have the low end resonances that he has.

[@codycreepcore]

I love tests like this. Acoustics is always sooooooo important for mixing and honestly I never thought to think about the sound of different speaker stands, but just if I had stands or not.

[@archiebeatz]

This is just what I needed dude. Thanks man.

[@ColtCapperrune]

Glad it helped!!

[@simongore29]

Honestly, my favourite part was tapping the stands! A simple technique that doesn't need much. I'm going to Rockwool fill my stands to take out the 'ping'. Thanks for the idea!

[@drgrunn174]

fill inside and isostrip outside, or something alike. Coz, U know, they emit those vibrations outwards.

[@dingdong2103]

Tapping the stands may bring joy in your heart but when you have +-10db peaks in your room response stands don't mean jack shit. You need better monitors and room acoustics...

[@irish7460]

For the record, this is also doubles as a GREAT audio freq graph tutorial too. Kudos to you.

[@gregalee]

The concrete blocks have huge air volumes inside and will resonate because of them. Like you, I built stands out of concrete blocks and measured them. They were terrible. However, I didn't use any flat blocks like you did, only the standard masonry units with the two large voids. I stuffed these with cut squares of recycled denim insulation until there were no more voids filled with air. They calmed down quite a bit and sounded passable afterward. I oriented the blocks so that the open sides of the voids were facing vertically, toward the bottom of the speaker. They essentially eat up any energy leaving the speaker cabinet directly downward.

[@aaronb1138]

I'm willing to bet most of the LF waterfall energy was the fact that the concrete blocks effectively extended the baffle all the way to the floor.

[@andynonimuss6298]

For the rest of us who don't have 82 lb monitors... the stand I recommend is the K&M Konig & Meyer 26720 monitor stand that is height adjustable. Mine are holding up my heavy A77Xs with little effort. The rated load capacity is 35 kg / 77 lb. K&M also has a new model 26722 that is exactly the same specs, but now has a larger top plate.

[@Three-Chord-Trick]

I read a post on KZbin where the author claimed to use toilet rolls as speaker stands. I suspected he was joking, but I tried it (new rolls, with the paper). AND IT WORKS. They eliminate any muddyness and boomy, intrusive bass frequencies. 😮

[@danielelsinnombre8723]

gracias, muchas gracias.

[@oscarmorales-cn3hz]

Filling the main tube with wax helps a lot, and also place the stands with rubber and foam on the top. I did it in my early years for the studios 40 years ago... Good stuff!

[@imhenotic]

Nice test, although it would be nice to have a scientist or an epistemmology guy in the room to check for methodological mistakes that will certainly affect the results. For example, were you guys standing at the same place during measurements? I’m assuming not, behind the speaker is one of the worst spots possible. Where was the camera guy? The audio test must be done remotely with the room completely empty. When you guys took the concrete stands out to test the others, did you left them in the room messing with the acoustics or you took them out? Nevertheless great video!

[@RedSpark_]

Fantastic comparison Colt and a big thanks for putting the effort in to do it properly and showing all of the measurements without smoothing. Just a few comments: The 80hz peak on the blocks might not be a resonance. Notice how it doesn't decay (it's flat), that's the kind of thing you get in measurements when you have some background noise hum. or it's really really long, did you fill them with anything? it is still better though, you can see the smaller sloped peaks get shorter and the slope of the lowest mode is steeper. The measurements for the Gator stands might look a little better because you're providing some bass trapping with your body as you stand behind ready to catch them! Also, did you re-adjust the height when you put the pucks under the sound anchors? It looks like the comb filtering in the high end has shifted up in frequency which is what you'd expect if you changed a path length somewhere.

[@ColtCapperrune]

All excellent observations! We took multiple measurements of each set up, and the results were the same. The HVAC was turned off for each test. And my room is very quiet when nothing is happening we did not adjust the height of the sound anchors when we added the pucks. Mostly because I actually wanted the speakers to be a couple inches taller for the final position anyway. Thanks for the comment and for watching!

[@robertfournier7050]

I like that you work on showing us these differences. I also own a nice pair of Focal ..

[@lorindamikaela]

I made steel speaker stands 2 years ago, stands weigh 43kg [95 lbs] each. Four legs on each stand filled with fine sand, 40cm / 16 inches high. A little overkill but I'm happy --- the speakers sound fantastic !!!

[@ShnukmZ]

my ADHD was twitching when you guys did the sonarworks and were standing in a different position in the room every time🤣

[@AdamsOlympia]

I've been very happy with my Monoprice Monolith stands, mass loaded with sand. I can't imagine the sound quality changing much with more expensive stands, but I could be wrong. Running Adam A7X on them.

[@elianese9319]

Great stuff guys. I have built many speakers in the past as well as stands. the wood stands were filled with a chunk of metal and sand. never had any resonant issues. The cabinet had a partitioned wall inside and stuffed. Tightest sounding speakers ever

[@danweston6109]

The bricks are effectively extending the baffle of the speaker down to the floor, changing the low end response/baffle step designed in the crossover. Hence the 2db upper bass boost with bricks.

[@csdstudio78]

This. I was looking for a baffle step comment.

[@myturningpoint]

I'm literally converting my garage into a home studio right now (video series on my channel) and I have a pair of the Gators (UK/EU versions). Luckily I have PLENTY of acoustic rockwool left over from the soundproofing of my walls and ceiling that I'm using to build about 20 acoustic panels with for the room when the building work is finished. I will be setting aside some of that rockwool to stuff into the Gator's tubes to deaden them as much as possible. I will also be DIY'ing some isolating 'pucks' from the leftover techsound SY100 rubber soundproofing layer and 5mm soundmat underfloor isolation layer under my flooring. So glad I found this video regarding how decent the Gators are for their price point. thanks!

[@utubewillyman]

Great test--very informative. I'm curious to see how solid concrete would do. Those hollow blocks have resonance chambers like the body of a guitar.

[@christopherward5065]

In my experience stands that are stiff, well dampened and low mass are better. Stands that ring are resonant. Stands with high mass do a couple of things. They resonate at lower frequencies and they store more energy longer. Stands couple the speaker to the floor so the floor gets driven and sends sound back into the room. The undulating floor makes the stands wave the speakers around. Decoupling the speaker from the stand cleans up the sound. The iso acoustics pucks on the stand improves the sound by limiting transmission of vibration into the stands and the floor. If you put isolation pucks between the stand and the floor you will get an even better outcome. If you measure the mass of the speaker and its stand and get isolation pucks that are designed to work in that mass range, you will get a very direct sound minus stand resonance and floor resonance. The imaging and resolution will both improve.

[@ClaytonShay]

This felt like an episode of myth busters, so cool! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

[@ColtCapperrune]

Hahaha the highest compliment possible 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻

[@producedbynell]

This is the absolute best video in my 10+ years that I’ve seen on this topic. I’m actually equipped to make a purchase. 🙏🏾💪🏾

[@davidpinkston7072]

Interesting tests. Been through all known permutations and I ended up with ATCs on Sound Anchors tuned with Trinnov System. I need to add the pucks now to see any differences. Appreciate your diligence.

[@ColtCapperrune]

You are running a great set up already!

[@josepuente8852]

I run PMC IB1’s with Sound Anchord and a Trinnov. I also added Iso pucks, the largest ones that allow 40lbs per puck. You’re definitely going to feel and hear a difference, one in the lows, and two with your transients. It’s worth the cost.

[@enricolisk1357]

Considering 20 Hz to 20 kHz human hearing range: Can we really "HEAR" the difference in reduction of resonance below 20hz? Thank you so much for this video. Much appreciated!!!

[@andreashalim6694]

The brick might perform better if you use a hollow brick or construct it differently. I'm guessing what caused the problem was the brick surface area. Its.huge compared to the stands. So it will certainly reflect more frequencies and might store more. Try reducing surface reflection area from the brick, that will be an interesting comparison.

[@OKvalosound]

Interesting comparison. But why didn't you remove the speakers while tapping test? The speakers are so heavy, that they will impact the comparison. And yet there are differences in measurement, I doubt that this will guarantee a better mixing result. Moving the head at the mixing desk while also change the listening experience. But nevertheless, thanks for all the effort!!

[@monarch_music]

Sound Anchors make a kevlar puck for the bottom of their stands that decouples the stands from the floor even further than the built in spikes. They made a huge difference in my room. So much so that I bought a second set of pucks for the subwoofer in my home theater. It would be interesting if you ran the test again with those.

[@ColtCapperrune]

I have a set on the way!

[@slavesforging5361]

ooooh. i likey.

[@mikeeygauthier2959]

@@ColtCapperrune I would recommend the Gaia I or II under the stands ( screwed in).

[@thejunkexperiment553]

Colt! I need a cable management video! Your studio is so organized! How do you get all your compressors, EQ’s, preamps etc in cunjuction with the xlrs/cables organized!

[@EazyRed]

keep in mind. Confirmation bias is a thing. Just so you know, the peaks and dips are due to super slight placement differences. The difference is not the stand lmaooooooo

[@gregvanpaassen]

The screwdriver tap test comprehensively shows the differences. The expensive stands were by far the best.

[@rodmorrison47]

Well. I was certainly not prepared to be that surprised at the differences. You definitely get what you pay for. Great video, and your pride at your 100K award was both wholesome and justified. You've got a new subscriber.

[@unclemick-synths]

Excellent video 👍. Looks like concrete blocks are the new egg cartons! 😀

[@robertmaune8557]

I'm a studio designer/builder and of course have faced the same issues...I didn't hear you mention floor construction but it appears that your studio is above ground. Of course your floor has a resonant frequency too, and will be set into motion by low frequency sound. The comments which suggested a sand-fill are on target, and concrete blocks loosely stacked will have the resonant frequency of individual blocks unless cemented together, and ideally sand filled. At that point you would see a difference, cast as one solid concrete block would most probably be the best, though it's hard not to be driving the floor when your room is not at ground level. Perhaps you should start by measuring your floor's performance, and by the way, striking the individual parts is not at all a bad test. I've done that and measured the results to identify a component's resonant frequency. Great vid though!

[@kelly.david.lee.]

I'd be interested to see this test done with solid wood stands? Awesome vid thank you!

[@ColtCapperrune]

Thanks for watching!

[@davidbadstubner4582]

Interesting... I’m not an acoustician by any means but the idea of a speaker stand is that it is “supposed” to decouple and “remove” as much resonance as possible; therefore being freestanding. The concrete blocks would be a no go for their demonstrated resonance and also that they are coupling those resonances to your floor with a larger footprint. And while you’ve treated your room it’s unlikely that you’ve removed/addressed the fact that you’re likely above a garage. No one expects you to fill your garage with sand or any other nonsense. Cool and fun video!

[@jked7463]

One thing to remember, the anchor stands cantilever the speakers off of the front of the stand posts while the $100 stand support the speakers under the center of gravity of the speaker. That makes them inherently balanced. That puts puts less bending stress into the posts themselves. The anchor stands with the excentric loading makes the post into a spring. The posts are probably filled with a sound deadening material (spray foam?). That makes them a well damped spring, but still a spring. But even though the posts don't resonate, the fact that they are in a bending mode, means that they may be allowing micro movements. And the speakers are also on a cantilevered arm. That would allow for more micro movement as the drivers move back and forth. Those micro movements may be what you are seeing in the waterfall plot and why it is not much better than the $100 stands.

[@erniesanders3724]

Congratulations on the You Tube Award Colt. Love your posts.

[@jorykevinberger7047]

I wanted sound anchors until now. Very disappointed. The pucks doing the heavy lifting. Gator impressive compared to sound anchors. Would have liked to have seen a smoothing as well and to see that “ear” difference AND then hear what you have to say about that ear difference, if what it would show corresponds to what you hear. I wonder in general if the sub is causing the wider null around 270hz in relation to the desk. And if you widened the focal, or put them horizontal, if new placement overall would help? Curious how you decided how far back from the front wall and how wide cone to cone was the best measurement? Cheers! Loved seeing this insight!

[@ColtCapperrune]

So the sub was turned off for all of these tests. The pucks are definitely the most impressive part of all of this. And with smoothing turned on it was definitely a better curve with the sound makers plus pucks over anything else. Thanks for watching!

[@gregvanpaassen]

@@ColtCapperrune The sub doesn't need to be on to affect the results. The mere presence of the sub's cone and cavity would colour the sound. It drives me nuts listening to "speaker tests" with other speakers in the same room, resonating merrily at random frequencies. Having got that off my chest, your Focals are very nice!

[@KC0MAE]

I have the Gator stands with much lighter speakers. After hearing the sound of tapping on them, I was thinking about stuffing foam in the tube part of the stands. I believe that will help. IMO.

[@davidpinkston5102]

Back in the 70s Johnny Sandlin (Allman Brothers) had us stuff the drum hardware with cotton balls as they were hollow and he said he could hear them. Maybe stuff some insulation in the Gators would help.

[@AtTheSourceStudios]

I ONLY wish you had showed the audio comparison as well. Other than that I love these kinds of videos. Comparison videos FTW!!

[@ColtCapperrune]

Unfortunately, there’s no good way to show you what it sounds like. First of all I would get a copyright strike for listening to music. Secondly, a mono camera microphone is in no way even a decent representation of what’s happening in the room. I wish there was a better way to do it, but I have tried several, and the results are all very underwhelming. Once they go through a camera and get posted on KZbin.

[@slavesforging5361]

as a former air frame mechanic i can tell you not all metals are created equal. (yes, i'm an all-around metal head)! In fact the exact opposite. possibly the most wide-ranging human-made material on earth. softer metals are less brittle. this makes them stronger in ways, but also 'deader' acoustically. compare airframe skin aluminum to car intake manifold aluminum. they are notably different structurally, thermally, and yes, acoustically. So it's not the powder coat. (though a good one will help slightly). it's the exact alloy of metal they're made from. possibly why they're so expensive. oh, i should mention, softer, denser metals tend to be more expensive too. Honestly, i'm surprised how much the iso pucks are doing. I always considered them overrated. Very helpful video!

[@kellydonnelly7828]

Great vid Colt. Doesn't look like you are using the spikes and coasters. I've been using Sound Anchors since 1999. To me ultimate performance would be Sound Anchors on spikes and cone coaster with Isopucks. Also the stands have less resonance due to the filling and the actual mass of the stands. The powder coat does little as far a I know. K.

[@ColtCapperrune]

I agree! Unfortunately, they are out of stock, but I will be getting some as soon as they are available

[@mjagsfan11]

I am the Operations Manager at Sound Anchors. We absolutely have conecoasters in stock! LOVE the video. Seeing the comparison was very cool, and you did a great job explaining everything.

[@kellydonnelly7828]

@@ColtCapperrune You won't be dissappointed Colt. You might want to try the original spikes with the cones. You have 2 be carefule during install but they're easier to adjust for level. Originally those were the only spikes avaiable. Coasters now come w a smaller wider surface point designed for the cones. They r much shorter, harder to level but fit tighter on the cones.

[@ejmarti]

I don’t know if this has been mentioned, I’m not gonna read all the comments, but the cinderblovks are probably transferring all that low end wingers into the floor and actually coupling the speakers to the room since your room isn’t on a cement slab and on joists, right? Therefore the gator stands will be better because they wiggle and wobble and don’t pass the low end into the floor. I could be wrong, but it makes sense that they’re the worst if your not on a concrete slab

[@mallek1989]

I have those same sound anchor stands. So there is a very specific reason why the brick and sound anchors resonate longer in the sub audible levels. It’s density. Because those stands are so dense, they transfer a ton of energy to the floor. That energy shows up in your waterfall. The gators are not dense. Energy doesn’t transfer to the floor as well. Nice to see you make the move to sound anchors!

[@Endless_Skyway_Adventures]

The part that is shocking is that you didn’t test the difference with the speakers raised so that the waveform leaving the speakers doesn’t encounter turbulence from reflections off of your console. Assuming a vertical dispersion of 90 degrees you have 30% of that field bouncing off the console and back to the woofer.

[@ColtCapperrune]

The reason that wasn’t a concern is because we were simultaneously testing for the real world. Speakers and stands don’t live in a vacuum. So they had to be in the correct placement for my mix position in order for the data to mean anything to me personally hope that helps!

[@Endless_Skyway_Adventures]

@@ColtCapperrune alternatively you could run them horizontally and raise them to keep your mid and tweeters at the same level. Or you can just ignore the destructive resonances in the low end. At least test it, maybe I’m wrong.

[@AndrewCCM]

THIS. Console/Desk always contributes to nulls/dips. I see it most for me at 120hz using smaller monitors (Kali IN-5, etc). Solved by moving them up and to the side of my console. Its a bit weird, but it fixed the giant null I was getting at 110-120ish...

[@rileymcmead]

The recording of the sound anchors with the pucks sounded like it was playing natively through my speakers. That is really amazing. You could use that setup for film production.

[@MusicCityAcoustics]

This is awesome! Thanks so much for making this video! Now we can send people this video when we're shouting from the rooftops about the importance of good speaker stands. 😂

[@ColtCapperrune]

It makes a significant difference! Thanks for watching!

[@aharmonicparticle6776]

Same, the intelligibility and clarity gain, as well as just low-end tune-up from the Soundanchors needs to be experienced to be believed. Instant 'soundgoodizer' for your monitors. Love my Soundanchors :).

[@the_adam_gallant]

Thank you so much for this video! I'm wondering, did you take these kinds of measurements when you were doing the ultimate monitor shootout vid? If not, do you think this kind of measurement process would affect your selection process?

[@ColtCapperrune]

Great question! We did not take measurements of the different monitors because it wouldn’t have really told us much. Just the difference in frequency response between the monitors. Choosing monitors is deeply personal, and much less technical. We need to to get as technical as possible to find these results for this video. Thanks for watching!

[@itisjustacomment]

I've just bought some lovely wooden stands 69cm high. Slightly lean back. Fit my speakers to the 16th of an inch or mm . Just one bar from floor to stand thin facing forward for upright . I had tables before . I've noticed the sound it much more open , the sound stage has risen vastly, very noticeable indeed plus more airly . Between, they cost £107 around the same in dollars, custom made . It's amazing what you can find online . So happy with my purchase.

[@laserfloyd]

Those high-dollar stands must have some kind of insulation inside them? That's pretty wild that they don't resonate nearly at all when tapped. Of course, you could just pour a solid concrete slab of a stand and call it a day. 😂

[@ColtCapperrune]

They must have something inside them, they weigh a ton, but we couldn’t get the end caps off without damaging them to check

[@shanegrush]

The uprights are filled and damped from the factory, but anytime I’ve asked I’ve not gotten a direct answer as to what the material is. 😂 Love the Sound Anchors though!

[@johnplainsong9769]

Thanks for doing this analysis. It reveals what your ears cannot.

[@guillaumev1022]

You should try to fill the cheap gator stands with sand and measure to see how much of a difference it makes.

[@ColtCapperrune]

I would have loved to do that, and fill the concrete blocks with sand

[@tfbattag]

What I was thinking too. I used to do that with hi-fi stands back in the day.

[@circlemover]

Top tip: I just purchased Gravity stands here in the UK. The stands are made from steel round tubing. To reduce unwanted resonance frequencies I simply used ARMAFLEX SELF SEAL PIPE INSULATION LAGGING...matching the tubing diameter. This significantly removed unwanted resonance, was very easy to install, was inexpensive and no need for sand. Check it out.

[@andyracksthecams]

If the concrete blocks cost thousands then hifi nob eds will say they sound better yes!

[@InnerSiegeMetal]

Without even watching ... this is brilliant. Great content !

[@Transistor97]

First of all, congrats on hitting 100k subs! That's awesome! I was thinking you could cut down on some of the resonance in the Gator stands by filling them with cotton balls or sand or something similar along with the pucks. Obviously with a smaller profile speaker. Might be worth a try?

[@ColtCapperrune]

Thanks so much! I think that’s absolutely worth a try, and the pucks on the gator stands with smaller lighter speakers is probably a wonderful budget option! I would’ve loved to have a bit more time to experiment with filling the concrete blocks, and the gator stands with sand to see what would have happened

[@matthewpritchard6109]

Really interesting! I hadn't realised how much of a difference: (a) the speaker stand makes; and (b) the acoustic pucks make. Yet MORE kit I'm going to have to try to convince my wife to let me buy...

[@EthanWiner]

The reason your measurements were surprising is because you didn't measure what you think you measured. I promise you that all of the sonic differences you measured are due to very small changes in speaker placement. I understand that you used a laser device to get the speakers as close to the same location each time, but they must have been slightly different. Even 1/4 inch is enough to make a real difference in both the response and waterfall graphs you showed. The ringing you heard tapping the concrete blocks is at midrange frequencies, so that won't affect the bass range. And it probably wouldn't be loud enough to show on the graph anyway. A sine wave sweep excites that resonance much less than whacking it with a screwdriver. This stuff is very tricky to do correctly! When I measured speaker isolation, and proved it has no effect on competent speakers like yours, I kept the speaker placement differences to less than 1/4 inch. And even then there were small differences due to room acoustics, unrelated to the isolation devices being compared.

[@EthanWiner]

@ColtCapperrune001 Thanks Colt, I truly appreciate your mature and reasoned response to my clear explanation of the physics.

[@baronvonlichtenstein]

I think the differences fall off with distance. From the distance his speakers were to the measurements I would think minor angles would be trivial.

[@keithspillett5298]

It would be interesting to 'squeak' the room to make sure the frequency distribution in the room appears as flat to the measuring equipment. This would give a baseline to be working from. Some years ago, I was involved in the recording/mixing the soundtrack for an 'experience' type audio-visual show, plus the subsequent installation of the audio equipment in the venue. We needed to ensure that the audio in the studio and venue were both flat in response, so the soundtrack sounded the same when we transferred everything from the studio to the venue. The difference between the sound we were used to experiencing in the studio before and after equalisation was absolutely extraordinary!

[@RBBlackstone]

Try neoprene between each block. I heard the same thing and that fixed it. Great video!

[@juanfebresc]

I remember my dad telling me that long ago maybe during the 50's, speaker cabinets used to be filled with sand. I guess the more weight, the less air and resonances, and at that time would have made sense when more advanced materials were nonexistent. I think if we extrapolate some of those ideas, we can probably guess why the concrete blocks were not the best solution. First, they're not solid, those holes will be "accidentally" tuned to frequencies that for sure are being shown on those spectrograms and FFT waterfalls. They're also made with mixed/light materials to make them heat-isolating, cheaper and not heavier on construction structures. I loved your analysis, acoustics and resonances are often overlooked and play a very important factor in getting the right response out of your speakers and listening environment.

[@toddwmac]

Good stuff, thanks. With any inexpensive speaker stands, DIY or modified cheap ones, deadening is key for both structural as wells as material resonance. Of the best DIY fillers, a sand/rubber mulch mixture works great. Liquid RV roof material with sand also works great. Coat with a bed liner or other rubberized spray and you are good to go. BTY...powder coating does nothing for deadening.

[@sebastianhabicht4880]

well done, very professionally executed

[@bradleyriddle7354]

The waterfall graph suggests that the sound anchors may be coupling the speaker to the floor. Maybe the rigid stands are doing a great job coupling energy through the stand to the floor. The gator is likely moving with the driver, transferring less energy to the air and the floor. In addition to decoupling the speaker from the stand you could try decoupling the stand from the floor? A single layer of decouplers may decouple a wide band of frequencies but a narrow resonant or coupling frequency still exists. The theory is to couple a narrow frequency band to a surface with a decoupler, then couple to a different surface at a very different frequency with a second layer of different decoupler types. If the stands have spikes try using cone/spike decouplers.

[@alexrichardson9125]

You have a way of explaining complicated points such as the waterfall chart very clearly and creating real interest - you should be a teacher!

[@fernandofragoso4118]

Room placement is the most important factor since early reflections could completely mask the sound. Regarding stands what you need to focus is on a surface that doesnt shift horizontally everytime the speaker pumps a transient. Ideally the speaker shouldnt move horizontally. With that you get more transient delivery precision. Its so important as the speaker weight regarding fidelity because it messes with speaker damping. If it was me, i would put those speakers on mounts fastened to the wall, but still distant from it. It will need strong mounts.

[@TheOnlyTomAsh]

My dad taught me this - Put oven burned clean sand into the speaker stand. And all your problems go away. Also put heavy base on that stand. We've used to made our speakers stands ourselves. 5-6cm diameter pipe. Base made out of 8mm thick solid steel plate, and top out of rigid 5mm plate. Weld all together, sand it, coat it with any paint you like, then put sand in the pipe. Plug it. Put speaker on the stand. And if you're not overly attached to the speaker being pristine - glue the speaker to the stand. We've used quite hard silicone-like glue.

[@AndrewH.]

For the past few years I've been using a pair of Pangea DS400 stands that I filled with play sand. They are of course meant for much smaller speakers, such as the Klipsch bookshelf speakers currently on them, but they work amazingly well for the rear surround in the living room. Being $250 for the pair of stands with $5-$10 for the sand, it's a great budget option that I don't foresee ever needing to replace; Unless I win the lottery or lower my seating position. They are solid, have no wobble, and they have the same non-resonant mass-deadened sound as the "Sound Anchors" shown when tapped. The only drawback is that the DS400 aren't height adjustable, but thankfully that isn't a concern for my more budget-oriented setup. ngl, sitting here drooling over those Focals...

[@lahattec]

Another thing to consider regarding the Gator stands is that they allow the speaker cabinet to move when the low frequencies push the speaker against the air (the speaker moving absorbs some of the sound energy), which will reduce/change, and distort in time, what the room receives from the speaker. It's like the speaker having a different excursion.

[@zackw4941]

If you have cinder blocks stacked up and are still looking to save money, try getting some rubber tool-box drawer liner. The solid sheet, not the perforated stuff. Put a single sheet between each layer of blocks. It doesn't seem like a lot, but it should act as a damper. For the blocks to ring, they'll need to vibrate. The thin rubber sheet will absorb some of that vibration without giving them the leeway to each vibrate individually.

[@dferrandiz]

If you drop sand inside the Gator/Chinese stands with the triangle base, it reduces the resonance and improve measurements. Thanks for this video, this is something that many people is not aware when build home studios.

[@DD-dp4pj]

Not sure why Chinese here is something has to be mentioned. Almost everything today has made in China and if it’s a good brand it’s a good quality.

[@thegreatsiberianitch]

@@DD-dp4pj because those stands are from China and they are sold under many different brand names but they're all from the same manufacturer in China. I don't see why you assume they are of lower quality because they are generic stands from China when the subject was never brought up.

[@switchmuso]

Minute 16:00, mapping the resonances; everybody interested in audio should see this... what fun!

[@Bladecutter]

Great video. My wife watched it with me and was engaged! How did you make your measurements? I am considering starting to use REW, can it provide the graphs that you used? If not what do you recommend?

[@hotchpotch3278]

A very interesting video. Thank you for putting yourself out there. For me your experience demonstrates Holy Grail principles for speaker stands that I have read about over the years and tried to apply trying to get the best out of the gear I've had over the years. I'm not surprised the Sound Anchors with pucks won out, because they epitomise best principles. 1) Something is better than nothing - some kind of stand is better than no stand at all; any improvement in the factors below will improve things massively. Of course after a certain point diminishing returns kick in and you have to spend a lot more money, time or effort for even a little improvement. 2) Inert materials and construction - the very fact you could get a 'musical' note out of the blocks and the Gators would be a red flag in itself. One of the reasons why hollow stands get filled with sand. If I could only afford construction materials, I 'd be inclined towards a thinner solid or filled single column, or combination of thinner columns , depending on the weight and size of your monitors, with a concrete slab base and top. 3) Lateral Rigidity - no motion: one of the problems with the Gators, not enough rigidity to inhibit sympathetic motion of the speakers. Tripod construction can help. 4) Stability - firm attachment to a solid heavy base one of the reasons why top flight studio mic supports etc are so heavy. Sandbags or similar added to a lighter stand can make a huge difference. 4) Low profile relative to weight and stability - the sheer size and large flat surfaces of the massive pile of blocks would introduce reflections I also remember reading something about massive structures absorbing enough energy into themselves to interfere with fidelity - back to my smaller column preference. 5) Decoupling - what the pucks do, reduce the vibrations travelling into the stand and beyond into the building. The best stands incorporate all these principles. These principles apply whether the speakers are on stands or suspended. In my view. In particular inertness, rigidity, stability and decoupling from the building structure would make suspension would introduce complications which might outweigh the benefits of floor space and visual appeal. These are not the only game in town though, and engineers have worked over the decades on making the best of necessary compromises - from headphones up!

[@necuz]

Thanks for validating my purchase of what is apparently called Gator Frameworks in the states. Got them for 61€ last year for a pair of significantly less hefty Klipsch speakers. :)

[@HarleyBob957]

Thanks for the demo, I have been considering buying some blocks, now I’ll wait. Great info.

[@ColtCapperrune]

Thanks for watching!

[@RedSpark_]

If you're thinking of using hollow blocks, some people fill them with sand. That should help.

[@juricabura8967]

It was great test, but only mistake is that You changed Your standing positions in the room while recording. It will effect the sound a lot. Thanks for test and effort, really cool video

[@akosiniroh]

those blocks together with those iso pucks... ding ding ding!

[@leroyusa935]

Fill most speaker stands that are well built with sand and are coupled to the floor with spikes, would make speakers sound dramatically better. I even placed bags that look like pillows with lead shots on the bottom bases to dampen any coupling effects to the floor.

[@captainslapem]

Thank you for risking your monitors for us

[@davepetersen6884]

Thanks for making this, I've been in analysis paralysis for a year looking for some information along this line. Good stuff, and not much like it is available.

[@ReferenceFidelityComponents]

As a speaker designer, what surprises me is how many enthusiasts continue to confuse coupling with isolation. By using stands and spikes, you are coupling the stands to speaker and floor. By isolating the speakers using sorbathane or similar isolation pucks between speakers and stands, you isolate the speaker and sink remaining resonance in stands to the floor. By using stands you can fill with sand or similar deadening material, you reduce drastically resonances in the stands. The waterfall decay plot is very useful in seeing how these things work. It remains the case though that cabinets should be engineered so that panel resonances are kept very low, preferably -45dB on program or less, at their harmonic resonance points and that sub panels created by introducing internal bracing breaks the resonant frequencies up so that amplitude of resonance at any given frequency is drastically reduced. The advent of efficient mass loaded vinyl elastomer materials allows speaker builders a great sheet material to damp down remaining panel resonances.

[@csj9619]

Good idea for a comparison and a video. Before watching, I'm gonna say YES, it does make a difference. I made stands that the base can be filled with sand/concrete/ballast of choice and they made a noticeable improvement over the previous rickedy stands that looked like someone in a elementary school shop class built 'em after a drinking binge.

[@pliedtka]

The Sound Anchors are mass loaded by monitors mass, so they really resonate less - meaningless test. But I do believe they do weight more and resonate less, comparing to the adjustable tubes of the other manufacturer. The biggest improvement would be proper room treatment with bass traps and some experiment in spkr/listener placement if possible.

[@t-boog2173]

Here's a great solution if ur a poor guy like me. I cut two squares of a carpet padding with air pockets that I had laying around. I put one under each monitor and the diff was night & day. It works great for cutting down vibration transfer. I can't imagine pucks working any better. Cheers!