Incredible Stillpoints
- Thread starter scouter
- Start date
-
- Tags
- stillpoints
My experience with the Ultra SS under my speakers has been just the opposite; more bass energy and slightly more clarity in both the bass and midrange. But also as I've posted several times, those effects can vary considerably just by using a different number of Stillpoints and how you orient them, so it pays to experiment; probably another variable is the surface they are on as well as the particular speaker. And from others' experience it seems Ultra SS may work better than Ultra 5 with some speakers.
Interested parties should read Gery's old thread on all this http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...ing-with-particular-reference-to-loudspeakers
Where the C1002 differs is that it's so hard, it's practically not visco-elastic, and products that sway are (and he has an example). And here's that old thread on C1002 where Gary also contributes http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?4369-Isolation-materials
Where the C1002 differs is that it's so hard, it's practically not visco-elastic, and products that sway are (and he has an example). And here's that old thread on C1002 where Gary also contributes http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?4369-Isolation-materials
That's because they were implemented entirely wrong. Had the stillpoints been under the speakers on top of the stand the results would have been much different. You put the device next to the vibrating surface...the bottom of the speaker in this case to drain vibration/resonance from the speaker and isolate it from vibrations coming up through the stand. Why in god's name would you wait for the vibration to come through the stand first ? It makes no sense what so ever.
You would put on the bottom, as he did, because you need the weight from the stands, for the best coupling; my experience is that these things don't work on light loads at all (in fact, I had the SS's as VPI feet for a short while - did absolutely nothing because the total weight per puck was not enough to energize them; my VPI and his one Mini are roughly the same weight). I'll admit these things change the tonal balance which can be to someone's liking, but the leading edge softening is a huge issue.
why would you include the stands in the resonant loop. Makes no sense. Had you implemented them properly the results would have been far different. That is all I am going to say in the matter. Rack components don't weight much yet you do put them directly under the component.
The stands are an integral part of the design. My bottom line is, I cannot imagine having any floating surfaces underneath speakers or speaker stands; I think Gary describes the engineering issues quite well. The problems are very similar to having casters underneath - improper mechanical ground.
steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
People don't try a lot of things, but sometimes it's because physics speaks for itself. Don't forget, if you were to put the pucks under the speakers, the lighter weight would offer even more freedom of movement in the pucks. This is not rocket science to understand.
Perhaps you missed my response to your post the first time you suggested I put them under my speakers. The top of the speaker stand is tilted back about 2.7 degrees. The Stillpoints can easily slide on a smooth surface. I'm afraid that if I place these Ultra 5s with smooth bottoms on the stand's smooth aluminum top plate, the extreme excursions from the drivers and the incredible pressure inside the sealed cabinet would cause the Stillpoints to slide backwards (downhill) and off of the stand, along with the speaker. I do not want to risk that.
I also agree with Ack's assessment of the mechanical issues of coupling the stand to the floor. As I wrote before, the stand is an integral part of the design. The stand in effect mass loads the speaker and aids in the drainage of energy. Gary writes about this in the link that Ack provided up the thread in post #83. I do not want to separate the speaker from the stand with something that slides back and forth, especially if there is a chance it might slide off the stand and get severely damaged. My decision to return the Stillpoints was based on the results of three separate listening sessions to very familiar music. As I wrote before, they did do some things I liked and some things I did not like. In the end, the compromise is not one that I want to make.
Last edited:
Apparently, but I do grasp physics. And Stillpoints cannot undo physics. Is that fair also?
Just be sure when you render an opinion on stillpoint's from this datapoint experience you point out improper implementation was executed. It would have been pretty easy to alleviate the sliding off the aluminum platform objection with some simple double sided tape.
This would imply the tweak needs a tweak to work correctly, in this application. Sorry doesn't compute
read up on stillpoints. It is obvious it doesn't compute to you based on the incorrect implementation of putting them under the speaker stand vs the speaker itself. You want the stillpoint pockets of technology as close as possible to the vibrating/resonating source...the bottom of the speaker in this case. I will end with the old saying..."you can lead a horse..."
Don't know if this is relevant, but I've placed each of my 12" x 12" Zu spkrs, spikes removed, on 4 Symposium Rollerblocks Jnrs, one per corner. These are magnetically opposed pairs of 1.5" diameter x 0.5" high stacked cylinders with a ball bearing sandwiched btwn, acting as vibration dispersing pivot points. The spkrs wobble gently on each Rollerblock, but no stability issues. Subtle, but overall positive contribution to bass control, and greater detail resolution. The wobble is a design feature.
Hi Guys,
I'm a Stillpoints dealer and I can asure you that the correct way to install them is direct to the speaker or gear.
Going out of this path will not give the correct improvement expected.
Totally understand that you can't put them direct under your speaker but is not stillpoints fault that you can't.
N.
I'm a Stillpoints dealer and I can asure you that the correct way to install them is direct to the speaker or gear.
Going out of this path will not give the correct improvement expected.
Totally understand that you can't put them direct under your speaker but is not stillpoints fault that you can't.
N.
I'd like to hear from Stillpoints directly that "improper implementation was executed." Would double sided tape be considered proper implementation? I have not read that anywhere. I had thought that they needed to be "a credit card distance from the bottom of the speaker." So I assumed from that that they should not be flush against the bottom of the speaker. There are also reports that speakers can be leveled by changing the height of the Stillpoint inserts? How would this work with sticky tape? I think I read that one user described how he simply put them between the floor and his speakers and he was told that he would get bad results because he was not using them properly. So I guess I would have to figure out how to lift the center of the puck away from the underside of the speaker and what to do when the tape dries out and my speakers slide off the stand in the middle of the night or during a listening session.
Absent an official word from Stillpoints, "improper implementation" is just conjecture. If they are in fact not meant to go under the Magico Mini 2 speaker stand, then that is fine. In that case, they are not designed for my specific application and I would not buy them in that instance anyway.
Also, I'm now curious why I in fact observed some positive results like "increased sense of depth and spacial information and an enhanced mid range presence that made vocals and violins sound more beautiful". If I had them improperly installed, why did I hear some positive attributes from their use? Ack and I only described what we heard in some detail, both the positive and the negative, in order to share the listening impressions with others who may appreciate a more balanced report. As LL21 wrote, "no tweak is perfect."
There are other members of this forum who have also had "mixed" results with these products and a few who sold them after having quite a few in their systems. Clearly, they work great in some contexts and less so in others.
When someone expresses "mixed results" with a cartridge, or simply that it was not right for him, do thread followers and owners of the cartridge suddenly question the guy if the VTA was proper, the VTF enough, the azimuth correct or the alignment right? Or do they just accept that that cartridge was not the right fit for that tonearm/analog front end, that system or that user?
This is a forum in which we share listening impressions and ideas about the hobby.
Who'd have thought it would be tweaks like these that would bring out such strong opinions in people? I'm sure there must be a way to objectively discern one way or the other whether Peter was justified in using the 5s how he did. And hence if his experience was or wasn't to the full advantage of the 5s. This reminds me of the active isolation/Table Stable thread where posters, incl. myself got pretty heated re advantages claimed, and correct utilisation of said devices. I was one of the few who had doubts, and was impressed, but knocked out in the short trial I managed to set up.
What's interesting is that a good 90% of Stillpoints guys swear by them, but there is a significant minority like peter who find they fall flat. YMMV, I guess.
for me once i sort out power issues further (PC/IC loom, more Entreq grounding, I'm going to get back to isolation as my final series of tweaks and seriously a-b Ultra 5s v Symposium Acoustics Rollerblocks.
What's interesting is that a good 90% of Stillpoints guys swear by them, but there is a significant minority like peter who find they fall flat. YMMV, I guess.
for me once i sort out power issues further (PC/IC loom, more Entreq grounding, I'm going to get back to isolation as my final series of tweaks and seriously a-b Ultra 5s v Symposium Acoustics Rollerblocks.
Similar threads
