Something very unexpected happened when I put Auralex Mopads under my monitors (Klein +Hummel O 300D's). With all that I've read about them, they were supposed to improve the sound, but they actually did the opposite. Once the Mopads were under my monitors, the bass became very boomy--all the clarity in the bottom range was gone and sounded very hyped. And if I move back from my listening position, the boominess goes away. I then did a little test--I removed the Mopads, and my monitors sounded great again, and walking around in my room, the bass stayed consistent instead of getting boomy when I get close to my listening spot. Why is this happening?
eric_desart Recording Org Pro Audio Group
Joined: May 23, 2003
Posts: 815
Location: Belgium Antwerp
Something very unexpected happened when I put Auralex Mopads under my monitors (Klein +Hummel O 300D's). With all that I've read about them, they were supposed to improve the sound, but they actually did the opposite. ..........
Why is this happening?
The main confusion here is:
Mopads are NOT made/meant to improve sound, nor are any other decouplers.
Decouplers are meant to solve coupling/vibration problems, IF they exist (and Mopads are decouplers).
If it solves coupling problems by speakers exciting e.g. a desk top as some soundboard or whatever other problem related to coupling, THEN they improve sound by healing that vibration problem.
But if wrongly used a decoupler can as well be the source of, rather than the solution of problems.
Hence what companies delivering such utilities ought to do is giving technical info, allowing potential users to check if the functionality of that device (whichever) can be of aid to them.
Translating a decoupler into a sound improver is physically incorrect and relates more to commercial hype.
Improvement of sound is true as A RESULT from vibration decoupling, IF that vibration WAS CAUSE of sound quality problems.
And as is the case with floating floors, or whatever other phenomenon related to coupling or mass-spring resonances, when physically applied wrongly it can worsen or even introdruce a previous non-existing problem.
I don't know what happened in your case, and that's related to how and where these speakers are positioned (the stiffness and mass of whatever they are put onto, and so on.).
Just the idea that decouplers (including Mopads) are sound improvers is a wrong idea (often commercially used/presented in a questionable manner).
You can check the link I entered to see if some of the suggestions can be useful in your case.
yeah Im wondering if maybe instead of using $40 squares of foam under our monitors we can try cutting squares of cardboard to separate the monitor from the desk and maybe reduce the vibrating and save not only $ but still keep that awesome sound... You know what, Im gonna post this idea and see what people think... maybe ill test it out when I get back to the studio...
See, Auralex needs to be upfront about such things. They need to mention that the Mopads don't work for everyone, and what those situations may be.
I'm thinking that maybe some speaker manufacturers take into consideration that the speakers will be sitting on something, so the design already takes that into account, and if you put the said speakers on decouplers, it actually throws off the original design's functionality? Could that be why my O 300D's sounded great without any decoupling and the Mopads made them sound worse?
eric_desart Recording Org Pro Audio Group
Joined: May 23, 2003
Posts: 815
Location: Belgium Antwerp
Speakers are designed to be stable, without anything whatsoever.
Some will deliver as option spikes, in order to assure stability where the underground isn't OK, but standard a stabled mounted speaker is as designed and meant.
All the rest of auxiliaries is meant to solve shortages, limitations or problems.
And good decoupling, if all related requirements are met in function of the mass of these speakers, the resonance frequency of these decouplers under that static load, and the stability and mass of their support or stand will hardly, if any, influence the original stability they are designed for.
Acoustics is physics, techniques. Materials whatever they are called, or be, should respect these basics.
You can perfectly decouple speakers not designed for decoupling (how should designers know).
But I linked to other posts, where I explain some of the basics with suggestions. If you take the time to read them and try to understand them, you can ask follow up questions.
I can't help it that the Audio world is so sensitive to magic and that suppliers indeed make use of that.
A lot rather don't give naked data and explain, but substitute that with tempting stories.
The first real question which you should ask yourself is: DO I NEED TO DECOUPLE THESE SPEAKERS FOR WHATEVER REASON?
Such reasons could possibly be:
1) desks starts radiating structural exited sound causing coloration.
2) Increasing TL towards the outside world
3) Whatever other possibility ...
Decoupling them to get an assumed better sounding speaker is a non-argument.
EDITED:
I checked the Auralex site now:
Mopads: Dimensions: 12" long x 4" wide; Weight Limitations: 100lbs.
In fact one can gamble if that's per piece of Mopad, per speaker or set of speakers.
Let's assume that's per speaker 100 lbs = 45 kg/piece
Your speakers are 14 kg/piece
That should mean that these Mopads are seriously UNDERloaded with your speakers, causing them to get a unnecessary high mass-spring resonance, which is wrong.
Cutting part (say 60%) of the Mopads away will improve them already for your speakers (but my solution in my linked post is better).
Can you find that on the Auralex site carefully explained? No you just find nothing as explanation.
This is where the Auralex MoPADs come in. MoPAD Monitor Isolation Pads provide sonic isolation between your monitors and whatever your monitors are resting on, INSTANTLY improving the accuracy of your entire monitoring system.
Now what's strange is that I know that foam of which the Mopads are made (if I have the correct type in mind), and there's nothing wrong with that foam in itself (it's good). It's just the way Auralex informs potential customers and readers (for some stuff) which I rate below grade.
Kind regards
Eric
Last edited by eric_desart on Wed Oct 03, 2007 4:33 pm; edited 6 times in total
eric_desart Recording Org Pro Audio Group
Joined: May 23, 2003
Posts: 815
Location: Belgium Antwerp
......You know what, Im gonna post this idea and see what people think... maybe ill test it out when I get back to the studio...
Please read that link I entered.
There are only 2 possibilities:
Either you apply physics (which is known, documented and understood), or any in-between solution with a lot of unknown parameters you can test for, and experiment with, yourself.
That's independent of what people think or believe.
Kind regards
Eric
Lunatique Recording Org Pro Audio Group
Joined: Sep 09, 2007
Posts: 41
Location: Fuzhou, China
Thank you so much for the explanations (both here and in that link). I've never even heard of these ideas discussed before, so they really opened my eyes.
eric_desart wrote:
The first real question which you should ask yourself is: DO I NEED TO DECOUPLE THESE SPEAKERS FOR WHATEVER REASON?
Apparently, I didn't, but thinking that all those rave reviews (including when all the damn recording-related magazines routinely tell their readers to use mopads) can't be wrong (after all, they should know more than I do, right?), I gave into unnecessary doubt and figured the damn things will bring improvement to bass clarity, more defined stereo imaging (and whatever other crap people say the mopads do) and if I thought my 300D's sounded amazing now, wait till I put them on the mopads.
It currently looks like my room and my listening position is actually working pretty well all by themselves (except for some ringing, which I'll take care of with side absorption/diffusion panels). Maybe it's a coincidence that I happened to have placed my monitors and listening position in the best spot in the room, but if it sounds great, why mess with what ain't broke? I guess the doubt is always there, asking "But maybe doing more acoustic treatments will improve the sound in ways you can't imagine currently." Too bad the only way to find out is either paying for acoustic treatment, or buy the necessary equipment to do tests on the room myself (A good mic, a pink noise signal, and some frequency analyzer software?).
zemlin Recording Org Pro Audio Group
Joined: Sep 04, 2004
Posts: 1212
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Marketing is a tricky game - the goal, of course, is to make folks want to buy your product. While you don't want to lie, it really doesn't make a lot of sense to list all the reasons one WOULDN'T want to buy your product.
At my old place I had my monitors on wall-mounted brackets. MoPads certainly helped to decouple the monitors from the wall. Now my monitors are on concrete-filled stands the MoPads are on a shelf. They'll probably be headed for eBay pretty soon.
ok sorry guys ive been thinking about my idea. Sound gets trapped in dead spaces right? People build walls-within-walls to kill sound so would cardboard do the same? If you think about what cardboard is its really just a board filled with deadspace inside. I put my studio monitors on some squares of cardboard I cut out and I notice a nice difference in mid-low frequencies.
All im saying is why not give it a try? Cardboard is free...
Marketing is a tricky game - the goal, of course, is to make folks want to buy your product. While you don't want to lie, it really doesn't make a lot of sense to list all the reasons one WOULDN'T want to buy your product.
At my old place I had my monitors on wall-mounted brackets. MoPads certainly helped to decouple the monitors from the wall. Now my monitors are on concrete-filled stands the MoPads are on a shelf. They'll probably be headed for eBay pretty soon.
MediaMurder wrote:
ok sorry guys ive been thinking about my idea. Sound gets trapped in dead spaces right? People build walls-within-walls to kill sound so would cardboard do the same? If you think about what cardboard is its really just a board filled with deadspace inside.
When reading such a thread, I get in trouble with myself.
I can imagine that people can't understand all details of the things they're busy with, nor that they should be interested.
I don't need to understand how a motor works of a car (or whatever) in order to use one.
There are millions of things I don't understand "sh*t" about.
What I find important is if I need a car (or whatever) that I at least find somewhere objective data, giving me the tools to judge for myself.
In fact, that's what I try to do (gradually tried to do) on the net, that people can find objective data in order to give them the right tools to base their decisions on real criteria.
It doesn't matter which decisions they make at the end, because that's defined by their personal priorities.
I don't tell that companies should make a listing of reasons why you shouldn't buy their stuff, but explain when, how and why their stuff should or could be used.
In fact what I notice is that a lot of users from the Audio world themselves, cause themselves not to be protected against misleading information.
MediaMurder,
If I see your quote above it's clear to me that you have no idea what you're talking about.
In itself that's no problem, and I do understand. As I said there are lots of things I don't know about either.
What should be nice however is that you ask: people, this is what I notice with my experiment, can somebody explain the "why"? How safe is this, what are the possible risks?
You clearly didn't mind to understand the post I linked. And that's OK to me. But your response only adds to uncertainty/confusion, not understanding.
SUMMARY:
My intervention here is mainly caused by misleading and wittingly incomplete data published by Auralex who states that no matter what using their material leads to:
Auralex wrote:
....... between your monitors and whatever your monitors are resting on, INSTANTLY improving the accuracy of your entire monitoring system.
As is often the case with floating floors and lots of other stuff and decoupling, applying this is often wrongly interpreted as a quality measure rather than a solution to a problem IF existing.
One doesn't take medication when healthy, and when sick one takes the medication adjusted to the health problem, taking possible side effects into account.
Rather than supporting something in the interest of MANY, my comments get, at least partly, neutralized.
Why the heck should Auralex (or whatever company for that matter) change their approach, if even users don't mind further than their own individual private use.
With technical honesty, you can also become great and sell. This is proven by Green Glue.
Whenever I see wittingly (strategically) lacking data from large companies for main products, which I personally experience as a lack of respect for people, I get serious doubts, and questions why.
And I know that Mopads will work in lots of cases. What I want to know is in which cases it does and in which cases not. And what it does and is meant for.
And I want Auralex to give objective data.
And I even don't want to know for myself, but for these who can't judge this stuff.
I think the morel of the story is to YES read read read, but also contact any manufacture before a purchase to make sure what you are buying is best for your needs. If you feel as they are only giving you "buzz" words then RUN.
I think the morel of the story is to YES read read read, but also contact any manufacture before a purchase to make sure what you are buying is best for your needs. If you feel as they are only giving you "buzz" words then RUN.
Glenn
I partly agree.
The problem however is that once a layman is in a one to one relationship with a supplier, a layman mostly will not feel what is "buzz" and what isn't.
A supplier/salesman is mostly trained/experienced how to handle, and respond to people.
The net is living proof of that.
The morel should be that people as a group, forums, reviews and whatever should use their power to force suppliers to make good data and info public, for anyone to see including non-laymen, open for criticism (which could as well be very constructive).
But too much populism, relationships and commercial interests influence this.
Glenn, as an example, I'm rather sure if I call you (or others) that you (or others) will speak with much more care and weigh your words, than when a layman calls for information (I expect you to question this, but I'm rather sure it is).
An example:
At your own initiative you informed me via PM about your new diffusers. I appreciate that and without questioning whatever, I asked gently how they were measured.
The reason: Nothing is noted on your site about that. I've no idea how I can rate these numbers versus whatever. And surely there is a directivity in these diffusers.
You responded that you would bring me in contact with someone who could answer this question and specifically in function of this contact asked for my private email address.
I gave you that address within a day (Aug 9, 2007), and I never heard back from you or anyone else related to this matter.
I even could (conditionally) believe you have a good product, but it also feels as a narrow band (high Q) absorber, which is certainly important to take into account.
But this is not the topic here, but the way data is presented (the morel of the thread you referred/introduced yourself)
Glenn, as an example, I'm rather sure if I call you (or others) that you (or others) will speak with much more care and weigh your words, than when a layman calls for information (I expect you to question this, but I'm rather sure it is).
Nope I would never try to sell someone something or over hype something just for a buck. The internet is a HUGE place and all we would need is one guy to jump up and complain we sold someone the wrong products (as happened to the guy above). The day I retire or sell my company I want to look back and think I have done things right. Not sold a bag of rocks to people.
Quote:
At your own initiative you informed me via PM about your new diffusers. I appreciate that and without questioning whatever, I asked gently how they were measured.
The reason: Nothing is noted on your site about that. I've no idea how I can rate these numbers versus whatever. And surely there is a directivity in these diffusers.
You responded that you would bring me in contact with someone who could answer this question and specifically in function of this contact asked for my private email address.
I gave you that address within a day (Aug 9, 2007), and I never heard back from you or anyone else related to this matter.
That is strange because I emailed you to tell you about the product. I know you would never buy one or recommend one but wanted you to only know about the product. I am sorry if you did not get the other info and I have emailed Jason to see if he can chime in or email to give it to you. At the time there where 100s of emails flying around so I am sure you just got missed.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
