NVA Blog

[DaveyTed]

I didn't expect a response that quick - thanks.
How far out from the back wall would you think likely? Is the "tweeter" very directional ?- I was wondering if low stands could help compensate for the low ceiling.
Thanks again

[antonio66]

Where 'normal' loudspeakers create their own soundfield within a space, Cubes treat the room boundaries as a mirror/lens that need to find the right focus point.

Start with the Cubes quite far back and away from each other. Move them incrementally towards each other until you have a unified sound field with no gap in the middle.
Pulling them gradually forward will adjust the bass response.
Then turn them gradually towards each other to sharpen up the imaging and detail.

Every space is different and it is quite a laborious process - and maybe some tweaking sessions later. But if the Cubes are positioned in that 'sweet spot' then they activate the entire room into a unique acoustic chamber.

[antonio66]

Great response Fretless, my Cube 3's are on 60cm stands, I sometimes get the feeling they would be even better on 70cm ones, something I will have to experiment with when I return to the uk. As for a lower height stand with the low ceiling I would not know, but maybe Savvypaul will give his opinion.

[karatestu]

I know I don't have nva cubes (but as close as you can get) but I have had mine at various heights. I like mine low down but I can tilt the tweeters anywhere I like. So it probably mostly depends on where the tweeters are pointing and the height of your head when listening.

There may be more bass as the mid bass driver gets closer to the floor and floor / wall junction. The destructive cancellation from bouncing off the ceiling and floor may change.

Saying all this you might not even hear a difference (or care) unless your brain gives you a frequency response print out

[antonio66]

Great response Fretless, my Cube 3's are on 60cm stands, I sometimes get the feeling they would be even better on 70cm ones, something I will have to experiment with when I return to the uk. As for a lower height stand with the low ceiling I would not know, but maybe Savvypaul will give his opinion.

I had Cube 3 on 70cm stands and putting 25cm breeze blocks underneath to raise them did improve their performance.

Then I switched to Cube 2 and those were fine at 70cm.

[antonio66]

Great response Fretless, my Cube 3's are on 60cm stands, I sometimes get the feeling they would be even better on 70cm ones, something I will have to experiment with when I return to the uk. As for a lower height stand with the low ceiling I would not know, but maybe Savvypaul will give his opinion.

I had Cube 3 on 70cm stands and putting 25cm breeze blocks underneath to raise them did improve their performance.

Then I switched to Cube 2 and those were fine at 70cm.

Try them on some inner tubes with wooden board over the top

[Geoff.R.G]

Great response Fretless, my Cube 3's are on 60cm stands, I sometimes get the feeling they would be even better on 70cm ones, something I will have to experiment with when I return to the uk. As for a lower height stand with the low ceiling I would not know, but maybe Savvypaul will give his opinion.

I had Cube 3 on 70cm stands and putting 25cm breeze blocks underneath to raise them did improve their performance.

Then I switched to Cube 2 and those were fine at 70cm.

Try them on some inner tubes with wooden board over the top

Stu, I do hope you realise that your £4 inner tube (£8 per pair) is going to put a serious crimp in Townshend's sales of their isolation platforms. They want over £500 a pair!

[antonio66]

I have a lot of respect for the late Max Townshend but many of us are very unlikely to ever stump up that amount of money for such a product. This inner tube idea is as old as the hills and I can't take any credit apart from proving to myself that it works on floors like mine and maybe spurring a few people on to try it.

It is seriously good value for money when it improves things to the level I have witnessed. The ironic thing is the Townshend isolation products started life decades ago using air inflation rather than springs

[antonio66]

On Cubes... tweeter at ear height is how they are designed. That doesn't mean it's wrong to prefer to have them slightly lower or slightly higher, but you will hear a slightly different sound. In such circumstances, I try to ask myself whether that is a genuine personal preference or whether I am using it to mitigate something about the system that I don't like.

On supports... a very early Russ Andrews pamphlet suggested putting a part-inflated inner tube under a piece of wood, under a turntable. He did not suggest that it improved the sound, only that it made a difference to the sound. Andrews' prefers coupling - cones, lightweight and rigid platforms and speaker stands. I have been of the same mind with speakers and most turntables, but my Garrard (in heavy plinth) has been improved by putting rubber isolation feet (I found a secondhand set of isoacoustics pucks) under it rather than the large oak cones or metal spikes that I was previously using. I got a very slight improvement with the same t/t by trying sorbothane domes, but the isoacoustics pucks were a much bigger change). So, I'm open minded.

In both cases... experiment.

[Geoff.R.G]

On supports... a very early Russ Andrews pamphlet suggested putting a part-inflated inner tube under a piece of wood, under a turntable. He did not suggest that it improved the sound, only that it made a difference to the sound. Andrews' prefers coupling - cones, lightweight and rigid platforms and speaker stands. I have been of the same mind with speakers and most turntables, but my Garrard (in heavy plinth) has been improved by putting rubber isolation feet (I found a secondhand set of isoacoustics pucks) under it rather than the large oak cones or metal spikes that I was previously using. I got a very slight improvement with the same t/t by trying sorbothane domes, but the isoacoustics pucks were a much bigger change). So, I'm open minded.

... experiment.

Paul, what you have said makes sense. Richard was, rightly, scathing in his criticism of the Linn Sondek. The concept of a suspended turntable isn't at fault though the problem is that almost every suspended turntable has very sloppy springs which means the whole thing bounces around to the detriment of the sound. One need only look at a microphone shock mount to see that a much stiffer suspension works. I am sure there are many other products where the concept is valid but the execution is completely wrong. The belt drive turntable springs to mind, the idea is sound but if the belt is too floppy or too rigid it doesn't do the sound any good, do any manufacturers get it right? I haven't a clue, but nobody has ever, to my knowledge, complained that tape recorders suffer in the way turntables, reportedly, do yet they use belts. I think the main reason so many good ideas fail is that it is difficult to persuade the potential customer that a fraction of a millimetre or movement is sufficient to decouple a turntable from its plinth, or the plinth from the floor. Customers expect to be able to see the effect and that means sloppy springs.