Listening
In my experience, it is always best to securely tighten couplers. Despite their unique working principle, AUVAs are no exception. The AUVA’s threaded inserts should be screwed tightly into the isolator disks, which is easy using the supplied wrench and further locked using one of the two round thumb nuts. The other end of the threaded inserts attach to the bottom of the loudspeaker or stand via the threaded holes of the original feet. After leveling the speaker, the inserts should be fixed using the second round thumb nut. This can only be done by hand, and the thin profile provides little grip. I think it would have been better if hex nuts had been fitted, but these can be added later. In any case, it is crucial to tighten these nuts securely for the best incisiveness, transient attack, and sense of pacing.
Stack Audio recommends the threaded inserts are screwed as deeply into the speaker bases as they can. For this review, however, I opted to insert them such that the speaker’s height remains unchanged to create equal circumstances.
The pictures were all taken before the final listening tests (and reading of the manual), which is why they show both nuts tightened against the speaker base. While that also works well, I recommend following the manual’s guidelines and using one nut on each end.
AUVA 50 ready to be mounted instead of standard Magico spikes on Artesania Audio bases
AUVA 50
The AUVA 50s provide a markedly sweeter sound than the Magico’s standard spikes. The bass is rounder, fuller, and seems deeper, although initially less punchy and direct. The presentation seems warmer, but paradoxically, it really is not. This is where the AUVAs prove unique, as there is no blur or thickness and no loss of resolution. The sound is precise yet smooth and delicate.
The initial impression of enhanced warmth comes from reduced dryness and edginess, and the overall calmer feel. When one is accustomed to the controlled and direct sound of spikes, the pacing with the AUVAs may initially appear slower until you adjust to this. After a track of two, it starts to feel more natural and just more relaxed. Meanwhile, the midrange stays beautifully open and focused, and the leading edges remain clean, although transient behavior is friendlier than before, which can subjectively reduce the excitement with some music. What you get, in turn, is greatly enhanced fluidity and flow, a music delivery that feels considerably more organic.
AUVA 70 ready to be mounted instead of AUVA 50
AUVA 70
When switching from the AUVA 50 to AUVA 70, all the smaller model’s benefits are further increased in their effect. Most notably, the bass is more prodigious, fuller, and rounder. It loses a bit of incisiveness but gains richness.
Further, the sound stage is now fully detached from the speakers, hanging freely in the air, while possessing a wider and deeper space. Within the royal stage, vocals or individual instruments float more freely, and acoustic arrangements feel even more organic and natural than with the smaller AUVAs. Interestingly, the overall delivery is calmer and lusher than with the AUVA 50, but still, all the resolution is retained.
AUVA 100 ready to be mounted instead of AUVA 70
AUVA 100
Whoa… If you want big, heavy bass, look no further! Considerably more so than the AUVA 70s, the AUVA 100s provide an absolutely massive bottom fullness, extending into the lower midrange, along with lots of meat on the bone.
The soundstage bubble is comparable to that of the AUVA 70 and still entirely free from the speakers, but the distinction between individual players and sounds in it now appears a little less vivid. Maybe this is a psychoacoustic effect or an interaction with these speakers, but contrary to the AUVA 50 and 70, the AUVA 100 seems to take away a little precision and clarity. One reason for this may be that even when using spikes, my system already has plenty of bass, meaning the AUVA 100s make the sound a little too bass-heavy.
Nevertheless, there’s no denying their effect. I imagine smaller monitor loudspeakers could benefit massively, and the AUVA 100s could also be a hugely effective solution for an overly lean-sounding or clinical system.
Back to Spikes
With the standard Magico spikes back in position, it’s no surprise that the bass is tighter and more incisive, as that is what spikes are typically good at. But although there is technically nothing wrong with the sound, it now feels emotionally very different. The strange thing is that although the soundstage has not collapsed, it has a hugely restrained feel. All the individual elements that make up the music appear more frozen in place, and the entire orchestration is fixed rigidly to the speakers rather than individually floating freely around them. Even though I am a big fan of crisp tightness and articulate bass, I must admit that taking these aspects to the max does come with sacrifices in other fields.
This is indeed a valid discussion point among audiophiles. The tightness of spikes can favor some music, notably electronic music such as R&B, while the AUVA’s lusher free-breathing presentation caters much more to vocals and music with real acoustic instruments. As is often the case, there is no right or wrong, but there will be an ideal match for a given circumstance influenced by personal preference. In any case, the AUVAs present a unique set of skills at a competitive price point and are well worth auditioning.
It has been interesting to note how the AUVAs work toward bridging the gap between ported and closed cabinets by injecting the closed-cabinet Magicos with the lushness and free-breathing aspect that ported speakers traditionally do better. Another way of looking at it is that, in certain aspects, the AUVAs’ performance reminds me of what tube amplification often achieves so effortlessly: to provide all the detail and resolution but in an entirely unrestrained and unforced manner.
Conclusion
The AUVAs provide a sweeter, lusher, and calmer sound than standard spikes, with a considerably more liquid and organic delivery. The music flows effortlessly and 3D imaging unfolds freely in a deep, wide, and inviting soundstage. Although the overall feel is smooth and relaxed, the pacing remains upbeat, and dynamics are retained. Notably, although the transient behavior is friendlier and less sharp than with spikes, unlike soft-coupling spike alternatives, the AUVAs induce absolutely no blur and retain superb detail resolution. There is no shortage of alternative footers, but of all the variants I heard, whether hard-, compliant-, or in-between solutions, none possess the AUVAs’ unique combination of skills.
External Links
Manufacturer: Stack Audio
I understand the sound changes a little while the Auvas settle down, so I would have liked your opinion of the small changes you are so apt to explain. I think the 70s also look good on the S1.
Hi Vladimir, I have not specifically paid attention to long-term effects, so alas, I cannot comment on that.
I agree the 70s look best with the S1s.
Your eagerly awaited AUVA Isolator review was most interesting. I’ve been using 12 (6 x 2) AUVA 70s under my Vivid Giya 3 speakers since March and would never go back to the stock footers. After the change from spikes to the AUVAs under your Magicos, you mentioned a slight loss of bass incisiveness along with the reported gains. I moved in the opposite direction, so to speak, from the tiny Vivid composite material footers to the harder, milled aluminum AUVAs. And the initial result was *more* bass incisiveness and clarity, but with a concurrent brighter balance. So much so that I spent days moving the Giyas further apart and nearer the side and front walls in an effort to recover the reduced mid and low bass. The reward was a fine new balance with improved clarity and wonderful bass energy, tone and texture.
This experience just confirms my conviction that you (and Stack Audio) are right; speakers need to be held rigid to perform their best. I suspect speaker isolation that allows movement of the enclosure may solve some of the vibration issues but also introduces factors that ultimately compromise performance. The brilliance of AUVA’s design is it allows particle movement and tiny collisions in the internal cells to absorb the unwanted energy while the foot’s rigid metal chassis holds the speaker enclosure motionless.
Great feedback, Lee! Do you have a wood or concrete floor? I think the floor type (wood or concrete), the top layer (vinyl planking or carpet), and the layer inbetween (foam cell, paper/felt, or other) are also of major influence. And whether or not the AUVA spikes are used. In my case, I could not use them, but I suspect they may have an large impact on the incisiveness.
“Engineered hardwood” (oak veneer) over a thin compliant layer over 25cm of concrete, so perhaps similar to your floor. Using the felt pads of course, not the carpet spikes. And I replaced the M8 steel attachment bolts with Grade 5 titanium bolts just because I couldn’t help myself. The AUVA 70s are well-proportioned in my opinion, but they are taller than the original stock footers and as a result, the Giyas unavoidably ended up 2cm higher off the floor. I’m not sure how much this contributed to the reduction in bass volume, but the gains in resolution and clarity were more than worth the effort required to recover a good tonal balance.
Hey Christian interesting review. I’m wondering considering the large changes the Avuas made, especially in the bass did you mess with speaker positioning at all? Perhaps a different speaker position might have retained that bass intensity but with more incisiveness?
That said I understand how heavy your Magico’s are so I totally understand if you didn’t experiment!
Cheers,
Jon
Hi Jon, While tweaks do indeed more often than not require another tweak to offset a changed balance, I find this is not the case here, as the speakers are already in the optimum positions. They are heavy indeed, but relatively easy to slide around when on spike discs. But from countless experiments done over many years, ideal positions have emerged, and despite trying alternative positions now and then, these have stuck. They are positioned such that the bass is cleanest and fastest, and the room is most evenly loaded, for the flattest possible frequency response. Interestingly, since the completion of the room acoustics projects, I find that these positions also prove ideal for other speakers, the only exception being dipole magnetostatic panel speakers. In short: while I can achieve a fuller bass or a leaner and more forward sound by moving the speakers back or forth respectively, the quality of the bass is already ideal in the current positions. I think if the AUVAs were used with spikes they would be as incisive or maybe even better than the standard spikes.
Hi Christiian
Thank you for the review. Normally you make more comparisons with different component, which I really like since it gives more chances that I can relate to some of the components and it’s relation in a larger context.
Unfortunately this time you only had a pair of speakers and no other types of vibration reducing candidates (I don’t count spikes).
The ideal would be on different types of floor, suspended wood, concreate etc. In practice that would also mean different rooms with non-comparable room acoustics. But it might give a relative perspective on the possible different effects depending on floor construction. I suspect different isolators/vib-eaters are noy equally effective on different floors.
Would be really interesting to compare some different types; springs, elastomers, balls, wires, particles and combinations thereof.
A large task, I understand, but it would be really interesting.
Maybe a few different ones would be doable?
Keep up your writing Christiian.
Hi Per, I always carry out any comparisons I can using the materials and components at hand. In this case, I had only the Magicos to use. I’m sure the type of floor will indeed have a very large impact, and when I am in the position to try the footers somewhere else, I will certainly add an addendum for that.
Excellent article, this is the first direct comparison I’ve seen with each of the AUVA line. I’m curious about adding the 100s to my setup to support my subwoofer (a Rythmik F12SE, an exceptional component comparable in some ways to REL’s T9x, but with an emphasis on bottom end extension going to 14Hz and slightly more authority on a 1 on 1 comparison). Supposing you were to use AUVAs to support a sub, would you personally favor the 70s or 100s?
Hi Roberto, For a moderately heavy sub, I think I would go for the 70. But it would also depend on whether you want to maximize the feeling of control and tightness (70) or maximize the body and oomph (100).