Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Sep 2016
- Posts
- 11,425
My speakers are 50kg each so I doubt drivers overcome the mass of the speakers themselves, spikes into hard floor so zero movement. Guess different have £80 floorstander cheap n nasty
Isoacoustics Gaia three feet review
- Thread starter 3t3P
- Start date
The principles of energy management in a music reproduction system are well established. There are plenty of examples of this. Most of us (I hope) understand that inadequately-braced speaker cabinets resonate whereas better braced ones don't so much; cabinet materials have been played with such as Aerolam as used by Celestion for their groundbreaking SL6 speakers in the 1980s; shapes of cabinets have been experimented with such as rhomboids and curves; B&W went further with the spiral-shaped Nautilus speakers; we have metals and composites and exotic materials for speaker cones.
In electronics too, there's been a lot of focus over the past four decades at least on chassis design to manage energy coming from both the device and the room. We also see damping of critical components on circuit boards. Then there are turntables, where a variety of techniques have been used from weight to lightness, solid versus suspended, and a raft of solutions that allow some limited movement to dissipate energy. I have a Roksan turntable that has a suspension that allows movement in the horizontal plane but not vertically. Townshend Rock turntables have used a tonearm-mounted paddle immersed in a viscous oil bath trough for damping for as long as I can remember.
Then of course there's the room itself. Dealing with sound energy in the room, whether it's some kind of Hi-Fi stand or acoustic treatment are pretty-much given and accepted techniques. At some point in the past though, all these were new ideas. That's gradually changed with our improving abilities to measure and understand the way energy affects the performance of equipment. I picked up a 60s Hi-Fi guide book when I was a kid getting in to stereo gear in the early 80s. The prices were in Pounds Shillings and Pence 'plus purchase tax', and I recall reading the introductory chapters about setting up new gear where it recommended putting speakers on chairs rather than on the floor as a way to improve sound. I guess at that time the idea of dedicated stands hadn't yet taken hold. That's something which had changed by the time I came to start buying.
Why is it so hard then for some folk to accept that there might me something in the way that Gaias work that has a benefit to the energy management in speakers, and maybe even the room?
It's not just about vibration from the drivers. The sound we hear is energy too. There's as much energy coming off the back of the driver cones as the front, so the first place it will end up is within the cabinet. We know from spectral plots that stored energy results in smearing which is a loss of precision, and so something to help drain that without then energising other parts of the room such as a suspended floor seems like a pretty decent plan to me.
The big question is whether £400 tipped in to the original speaker budget would have produced as big an improvement in sound. Bearing in mind that the Dali Ikon 6 mkIIs were a £1200/pr set of speakers new, and that another speaker is likely to be from a different brand which then makes it harder to decide if the changes are solely due to better materials and design, it's a tough one to answer.
Hand-on-heart, I'm more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the Gaias in the same way that I'd favour room treatment and equipment set-up over just throwing money at new gear. IMO, we rarely get the maximum performance from stuff we buy because of the compromises required in anything other than a perfect listening room. If the Gaias help that, then in my book that's a worthwhile upgrade.
In electronics too, there's been a lot of focus over the past four decades at least on chassis design to manage energy coming from both the device and the room. We also see damping of critical components on circuit boards. Then there are turntables, where a variety of techniques have been used from weight to lightness, solid versus suspended, and a raft of solutions that allow some limited movement to dissipate energy. I have a Roksan turntable that has a suspension that allows movement in the horizontal plane but not vertically. Townshend Rock turntables have used a tonearm-mounted paddle immersed in a viscous oil bath trough for damping for as long as I can remember.
Then of course there's the room itself. Dealing with sound energy in the room, whether it's some kind of Hi-Fi stand or acoustic treatment are pretty-much given and accepted techniques. At some point in the past though, all these were new ideas. That's gradually changed with our improving abilities to measure and understand the way energy affects the performance of equipment. I picked up a 60s Hi-Fi guide book when I was a kid getting in to stereo gear in the early 80s. The prices were in Pounds Shillings and Pence 'plus purchase tax', and I recall reading the introductory chapters about setting up new gear where it recommended putting speakers on chairs rather than on the floor as a way to improve sound. I guess at that time the idea of dedicated stands hadn't yet taken hold. That's something which had changed by the time I came to start buying.
Why is it so hard then for some folk to accept that there might me something in the way that Gaias work that has a benefit to the energy management in speakers, and maybe even the room?
It's not just about vibration from the drivers. The sound we hear is energy too. There's as much energy coming off the back of the driver cones as the front, so the first place it will end up is within the cabinet. We know from spectral plots that stored energy results in smearing which is a loss of precision, and so something to help drain that without then energising other parts of the room such as a suspended floor seems like a pretty decent plan to me.
The big question is whether £400 tipped in to the original speaker budget would have produced as big an improvement in sound. Bearing in mind that the Dali Ikon 6 mkIIs were a £1200/pr set of speakers new, and that another speaker is likely to be from a different brand which then makes it harder to decide if the changes are solely due to better materials and design, it's a tough one to answer.
Hand-on-heart, I'm more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the Gaias in the same way that I'd favour room treatment and equipment set-up over just throwing money at new gear. IMO, we rarely get the maximum performance from stuff we buy because of the compromises required in anything other than a perfect listening room. If the Gaias help that, then in my book that's a worthwhile upgrade.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2013
- Posts
- 9,354
The problem i have with a lot of this audio stuff, is its very hard to convince yourself, something you've just bought doesn't improve things. I'm in the snake oil camp, where you get people recommending horrendously overpriced cable, and a new one on me (some guy from my work sent me a link for a laugh), an oil that you can put on you cables to improve them. Imo its also quite hard to 'remember' exactly what you heard pre upgrade, so your brain could be playing tricks on you.
Thanks lucid you better explained it than I could. I have the review verbatim on the AV Forums right now, it's a far higher proportion of cynics on there.
In fact some of their replies make me inclined to never frequent there again, not because they disagree with me but their manner.
My line of work (healthcare/NHS use your imagination) means I am more formally versed than most about placebo. I see the effects of this first hand on a daily basis across thousands of interactions with people each year.
I am fairly resilient to placebo effect but am a human none the less.
Factor in psychoacoustics, an extremely interesting field where your measurements of objectivity mean nothing. It can pretty much be summed up as if you think it sounds better because of X or y then it IS better.
Another 'motive' for posting the review is I genuinely want people to consider them and use them, as lucid said it allows you to get the most from what you have.
I can't change my speakers as it's timbre matched to an IKon & Dali 7.2.4 surround setup. They have allowed my speakers to work at full capacity, coupled with robust amplification of course.
The only thing I can (and intend to do) next is acoustically treat my lounge.
As people have noticed yes you can obtain rubber or sorbathane easily and cheaply but then what? Are you going to produce your own feet? Can you beat something developed with laser interferometry? How much would all that time really cost you?
Again, take in Lucids post, design matters and now that my floorstanders float partially decoupled from the ground I can hear them sing.
Any of you with a centre channel put it on monitor foam wedges and tell me things aren't clearer and more resolved.
The argument of the driver mass not 'overcoming' cabinet mass is like saying your speakers are outside the realm of known physics. Or your speaker cabinet is a mountain. It will vibrate and resonate, less than mine I'm sure though
In fact some of their replies make me inclined to never frequent there again, not because they disagree with me but their manner.
My line of work (healthcare/NHS use your imagination) means I am more formally versed than most about placebo. I see the effects of this first hand on a daily basis across thousands of interactions with people each year.
I am fairly resilient to placebo effect but am a human none the less.
Factor in psychoacoustics, an extremely interesting field where your measurements of objectivity mean nothing. It can pretty much be summed up as if you think it sounds better because of X or y then it IS better.
Another 'motive' for posting the review is I genuinely want people to consider them and use them, as lucid said it allows you to get the most from what you have.
I can't change my speakers as it's timbre matched to an IKon & Dali 7.2.4 surround setup. They have allowed my speakers to work at full capacity, coupled with robust amplification of course.
The only thing I can (and intend to do) next is acoustically treat my lounge.
As people have noticed yes you can obtain rubber or sorbathane easily and cheaply but then what? Are you going to produce your own feet? Can you beat something developed with laser interferometry? How much would all that time really cost you?
Again, take in Lucids post, design matters and now that my floorstanders float partially decoupled from the ground I can hear them sing.
Any of you with a centre channel put it on monitor foam wedges and tell me things aren't clearer and more resolved.
The argument of the driver mass not 'overcoming' cabinet mass is like saying your speakers are outside the realm of known physics. Or your speaker cabinet is a mountain. It will vibrate and resonate, less than mine I'm sure though
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 32,222
- Location
- Leafy Cheshire
TBH a miniDSP UMIK-1 and REW should answer if the improvement is real or a placebo, around £100 if you fancy giving it a go, you will need a tripod though.
Have come close to getting a UMIK-1 before. Have a tripod but I'm not gonna do this as my thoughts on the feet have been made clear
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Sep 2016
- Posts
- 11,425
Don't think it matters not matching side/surrounds I've had one brand for front three, side and rears from two different brands.
Now have front three and rears same brand same range but sides are another brand, and bipole, as the matching side brand are dipole, which I have but again another brand but I think dipoles not the ideal side speaker with more modern discrete soundtracks.
I'd rather have non matching but better speakers than matching but lower quality. For example I had kef q75 years ago, the matching q95c was a piece of trash, awful. Two drivers. So bought non matching kef model 200 reference and far higher quality sound, and frequency response (4 driver)
Now have front three and rears same brand same range but sides are another brand, and bipole, as the matching side brand are dipole, which I have but again another brand but I think dipoles not the ideal side speaker with more modern discrete soundtracks.
I'd rather have non matching but better speakers than matching but lower quality. For example I had kef q75 years ago, the matching q95c was a piece of trash, awful. Two drivers. So bought non matching kef model 200 reference and far higher quality sound, and frequency response (4 driver)
There should be a healthy degree of scepticism in all Hi-Fi purchasing, yet no one really bats an eye when someone announces they're looking for some better speakers or a better DAC, do they? Why not come out with the same claims that better anything in Hi-Fi is placebo and snake oil? Why do main bits of hardware get a free pass but things such as equipment stands and cables all attract howls of "fake fake!" After all, at some point in the past, all of this stuff started with some bloke in an office or a workshop or a shed wondering "What happens if....?"
Some speculating would have been based on established engineering principles transferred for the first time to making Hi-Fi. Other stuff will have been based on technologies or materials becoming available at a certain price point. Go back far enough though, and lots of stuff we now take for granted will have come from a point before we had the technology to take measurements at some point will have been before the technology was available to measure the results. Blokes with names such as Stan, Eric, and Burt will have smoked pipes and cogitated and then tried some mad idea.
The point here is that we still don't have a complete understanding of what's going on with all the parts of a reproduction chain to affect sound. Speak to any real scientist, and they'll tell you the same. Most of it is best guess. We have some models of the way the world works that are close enough to make some fairly reliable calculations, but those models are only good until something better comes along.
There is an issue with the Hi-Fi industry and spurious claims about the properties of devices. Some of this is people making up stuff, but other things could come under the banner of "we haven't got the ability to measure that yet".
I have personal experience with this with subwoofer cables. Some here will know that I'm a system designer and installer, and I've spent a lot of time studying the causes of electrical noise in systems. One common area plagued by this is subwoofers. We get hum and we encounter issues where a sub won't come out of auto-standby reliably. These problems can be caused by inadequate shielding within a sub cable. In domestic systems, sub cables are usually unbalanced, and so prone to noise. They're longer than most other unbalanced cables, so more likely to pick up interference. Also, they often run around the periphery of a room which means they could be running parallel to the ring mains cable which is another unshielded cable operating at a frequency right in subwoofer frequency territory.
The market is stuffed with sub cables, and most of them are crap.
The cheap ones have inadequate shielding. More expensive "shielded" cables have the wrong type of shielding that is either ineffective or makes the cable inflexible... or both! What's surprisingly common though is that the resellers often have no clue about the construction of the cables they sell.
A few years ago I stumbled across a coax cable for digital signalling that I felt would offer some genuine advantages for subwoofer use. I've been selling it ever since. It's thin, less than 4mm diameter, which makes it easy to hide. The double thickness woven braid shield is very effective at audio frequency shielding; so this improves the signal to noise ratio and 'kills' RFI hum. Having two woven layers rather than a braid-plus-foil shield makes the cable very flexible without compromising shield integrity. I've been selling it ever since and getting very positive feedback from customers. The price helps too. It's half that of the competing thin QED sub cable
You were still buying within the family sound of KEF, so not really in the same boat as 3t3P would be with that front stereo pair.
I've done similar for customers. From Monitor Audio, Bronze for most of the speakers but the Silver series for the centre. From Focal, the Chorus 7 for the main system but the 8 series for the centre, or Arias and Electras mixed. B&W, 600 series with CDM centre. KEF mixing Q and R series.
None of this would be the same as having a mainly-Dali-Ikon system but with say a pair of say B&W 704 S2 up front.
Yes same brands for sure in surround is the only way I will do it but I've seen others mix and match and be happy.
I wonder if a speaker manufacturer released a speaker that had its plinth designed to decouple the speaker (stands on the high end Q acoustic bookshelves do this) and you bought said speaker and thought it sounded great.
Bet you any money if your mate asks you about your speakers you'll be sure to remember that they've been designed to be decoupled from the ground
I wonder if a speaker manufacturer released a speaker that had its plinth designed to decouple the speaker (stands on the high end Q acoustic bookshelves do this) and you bought said speaker and thought it sounded great.
Bet you any money if your mate asks you about your speakers you'll be sure to remember that they've been designed to be decoupled from the ground
so whose cable do you recommend .. I'd bough onyx 2025 @£1.30
subsequently found an interesting sorbothane analysis ... hadn't appreciated it could mark a wood floor, and usually supplied with adhesive
https://www.qtasystems.co.uk/articles/how-to-use-sorbothane-hemispheres.htm
https://www.sorbothane.com/Data/Sites/31/pdfs/product-guides/Sorbothane-EDG.pdf
.... CALCULATING VIBRATION RESPONSE FOR SORBOTHANE
The Sommer Onyx 2025 will be fine for anyone who doesn't have problems with interference, just the same as any basic spiral-wrap audio cable. In design, it's a better version of what's inside cables such as these
The centre core and its PVC jacket are surrounded by a spiral wrap of wire for shielding. The Sommer cable uses a thicker centre core, and it's copper rather than copper clad aluminium (CCA). The spiral braid is copper too, I think. It manages to provide 90% coverage when the cable is straight and new. That's pretty good for a spiral braid cable.
Spiral wrap as a method of shielding has been around for a long time. It's relatively easy to do, and doesn't use a lot of source material. It also keeps the cable light and flexible.
For anyone unfamiliar with what spiral wrap actually is, if you've ever would a bit of string around a pencil, that's a spiral wrap. When it comes to cables, a single copper strand wouldn't be sufficient for making a tail to solder to a plug end, so several stands are laid flat next to each other to form a band, and it's this band that's wrapped around the insulation of the central core. It's a bit like wrapping an arm or a leg with a roll of bandage, but the successive loops don't overlap. This brings us to the inherent weakness of a spiral wrap.
As soon as the cable has to be bent or shaped around something, then the act of flexing the cable opens up gaps in the wrap just as you would have if you tried to wrap a straight- knee or elbow joint with a roll of bandage without the successive loops overlapping. As soon as the joint bends then the skin underneath becomes exposed through the gaps. That's not so good if the bandage was applied to keep the skin beneath clean from a dirty environment.
The dirt in the case of signal interference is all the radio frequency hash flying through the air around us. Some of it is useful to us, such as Bluetooth and Wi-Fi and 4G/5G and TV and radio transmissions. Other stuff, less so. For example, there's the radiated noise from HDMI cables, and mains cables, and poorly-shielded or failing switch-mode power supplies that are now used in almost everything from the wall-wart transformer for some Christmas lights through to the PSU in that new high-end TV.
The cable I use and sell is made by Belden, and it doesn't use a spiral wrap. It's a woven braid, a bit like the equivalent of a Tubigrip bandage or a sock. It covers the cable's core 360 degrees around with an overlapping dense mesh. The coverage is 95% for the first layer, and 94% for the second. Together, this double layer produces a near-impenetrable encasement that is still flexible and that doesn't expose the central core when the cable is formed around the periphery of a room. It's a more expensive solution, but far better at keeping the delicate audio signals free from radio frequency interference.
I auditioned a fair number of speakers when I bought the Ikons.
A set of regas bested everyone for seamlessness, truly astonishing crossover (very simple so I understand) and that sideways mounted bass driver. Like liquid music poured into your ears. They looked so utilitarian though!
Focal arias I forget which, 926? Then started sounding like 'proper hifi' speakers if you like but I think we're £1800+ for the pair and a surround setup using those would have been serious cash.
A set of regas bested everyone for seamlessness, truly astonishing crossover (very simple so I understand) and that sideways mounted bass driver. Like liquid music poured into your ears. They looked so utilitarian though!
Focal arias I forget which, 926? Then started sounding like 'proper hifi' speakers if you like but I think we're £1800+ for the pair and a surround setup using those would have been serious cash.
so (new word i learned) that seems to be reussen shielding -
I have looked predominately at the resistance and the capacitance +cost, on cables I selected, with the idea on minimising loading for the driver .. but will think more about shielding ... had looked at some ebay 2nd hand van damme plasma last time I needed some.
Everything I've read so far about reussen shielding suggests it's simply two spiral shields wound in opposite directions. That's not the same as a woven braided shield.
Here's what proper double braided shielding looks like in some mad super-shielded BBC-spec RG6-sized coax I have. This is like the AK47 of mother-humping shielding "When you have to kill every last shred of RFI and EMI; accept no substitute"
Here's the Belden mini coax I use for sub leads. It's double braid shielded as well.
And here's a shot of the thickness - or thin-ness
Side cutters, yes.
The braid is tinned copper, so it is made with a layer of tinning on the wire before the weaving takes place. That's why it looks silver. If it had to be soldered, this would make it easier to get a good joint.
F plugs really wouldn't be much use for audio. There are better solutions. I use Belden compression plugs which are designed for this diameter of cable. They're lovely; brass body with a chrome finish, a quality bit of gear and very close to 75 Ohm impedance which is something of an achievement for an RCA. Here's the straight and 90 degree versions fitted to the cable.
Canare get close to 75 Ohm too with their RCAP-series RCAs, but their plug body design is really quite long. That always worries me because these are designed for much thicker and heavier cables. It puts a lot of strain on the RCA sockets on domestic gear.
To be honest, the fact that may cable and plugs are 75 Ohm doesn't make much of a difference at audio frequencies, and even less at the sort of audio frequencies used for subs. A 20Hz signal has an electrical wavelength of 15,000 kms, so a few metres of cable and the impedance mismatches won't make much impact. It's really about the quality and consistency of the products. They're built to a higher standard than run-of-the-mill audio products.
The more important factors for me are the universality that a low capacitance cable offers even when the output impedance is relatively high, but the biggest thing is the shielding in the cables and in the plugs.
Having a double braided shield construction is far more effective than a spiral wrap. It's more metal in the way of interference. The braid retains it's effectiveness even when the cable is bent. Also, more metal provides a better conduit to channel away the induced energy. The plugs play a very important part too. They maintain the coaxial shielding all the way through to the finial connection point. That's something that solder-tag plugs don't do.
The braid is tinned copper, so it is made with a layer of tinning on the wire before the weaving takes place. That's why it looks silver. If it had to be soldered, this would make it easier to get a good joint.
F plugs really wouldn't be much use for audio. There are better solutions. I use Belden compression plugs which are designed for this diameter of cable. They're lovely; brass body with a chrome finish, a quality bit of gear and very close to 75 Ohm impedance which is something of an achievement for an RCA. Here's the straight and 90 degree versions fitted to the cable.
Canare get close to 75 Ohm too with their RCAP-series RCAs, but their plug body design is really quite long. That always worries me because these are designed for much thicker and heavier cables. It puts a lot of strain on the RCA sockets on domestic gear.
To be honest, the fact that may cable and plugs are 75 Ohm doesn't make much of a difference at audio frequencies, and even less at the sort of audio frequencies used for subs. A 20Hz signal has an electrical wavelength of 15,000 kms, so a few metres of cable and the impedance mismatches won't make much impact. It's really about the quality and consistency of the products. They're built to a higher standard than run-of-the-mill audio products.
The more important factors for me are the universality that a low capacitance cable offers even when the output impedance is relatively high, but the biggest thing is the shielding in the cables and in the plugs.
Having a double braided shield construction is far more effective than a spiral wrap. It's more metal in the way of interference. The braid retains it's effectiveness even when the cable is bent. Also, more metal provides a better conduit to channel away the induced energy. The plugs play a very important part too. They maintain the coaxial shielding all the way through to the finial connection point. That's something that solder-tag plugs don't do.
Last edited: