Stillpoints and reference-level speakers

Your point is well taken. On the other hand, what does the Stillpoint contribute in the case of a state-of-the-art cost-no-object speaker design? I think that the designers of said speakers would consider their choice of footer to be intrinsic their designs.

In other words, maybe the Stillpoints will emphasize certain qualities and downplay others, but is this perhaps working against the intended design and voicing of the speaker?

My understanding is that most footers are intended to somehow channel resonances into whatever is underneath. In contrast, the Stillpoint is only loosely coupled to the underlying support. Vibrations are said to be dissipated within the Stillpoints device. Sounds good in theory...

Its nice when the maker of an add-on product (Stillpoints in this case) explains how their product works. Its something that many makers of 'tweaks' cannot or will not do. This makes me want to give the Stillpoints products a try, although the prices give me pause.

Wrm57, those are interesting results. I use some digital EQ in my system, so I might be able to compensate for the mid-bass issue that you mentioned. Creating more air and separation are things that I'm looking for.

Hi Crna39, the Alexia is a great speaker, and I'm sure a lot of effort went into the design of the stock Wilson footers. What differences did you hear with the Ultra V's?

Tbg, Wilson is not for me either, but I think its more an issue of preference than quality. My speakers are the TAD References One. The stock footers are simple cones, solid but nothing fancy. As good as the TADs are, I find that they cannot do some of the nice things that I hear with (for example) the Phy-hp30 driver in an open baffle driven by 10 watts of high quality SET. Maybe putting Stillpoints under the TADs would take me further away from the things I admire in those Phy-hp drivers.

Charles1dad,
Yes, I have two systems that are polar opposites. Each one provides different joys and shortcomings, depending on source material. Your system looks very sensible, combining full range with high sensitivity.

I'm going to try them, for sure. Stay tuned.

Bo 1972, I've been listening to two-channel for a lot longer than 16 or 18 years. With rare exceptions (such as recordings with phase anomalies), two-channel stereo doesn't produce 3-dimensional sound. Unless of course there's a problem in the playback chain. In that case it would be better to call it 3-distortional sound.

Agear, I kind of lost interest when Bo1972 hijacked the thread with his usual nonsense. I tried the Ultra 5's under my TAD Reference Ones with questionable benefit. Some increase in resolution, at the expense of tonality. I couldn't justify the price of six Ultra 5's.

In other words, there was an apparent increase in clarity, at the expense of warmth and fullness. More analytical, less musical. This could be an advantage for some speakers, but not for the TADs in my system. I do have thick carpet with a heavy liner underneath, and I also wonder what the results would be like on an uncovered floor. Maybe better, maybe worse.

TBG, I forgot to mention that the Stillpoints can work for you if you have the threaded inserts shortened so that the body of the footer is flush with the base of the speaker. I had this done by the seller, in this case The Cable Company. I'm told it wasn't easy, as they are aircraft-grade stainless steel.