Stillpoints Ultra 5

With these things one cannot really guess, you have to try both. It may also be not better/worse but different. Even more reason to try.

Symposium  has speaker bases that are better than both of these.Call Peter from Symposium he will tell you the best base for your application.Im using them for my Magico Q3with built in spikes but this is for a Parquet with concrete under it.Good luck though.

Another option would be the Isolation Acoustics GAIA footers. 

Some sunny day when children are playing and laughing and there’s no strife or steadily increasing crime rate somebody with excellent hearing and a really really great system will do a comprehensive review of all the various coupling and decoupling widgets and thingamabobs out there, from, oh, I don’t know, Audio Points and bungee cords and hockey pucks to Minus K and magnetic levitation and, gulp, beyond.

geoffkait,

Yes; I agree.

nkonor

A shout out to Mike at Ingress Engineering.  I purchased his "rollerblocks" for my pre amp, and mono block Herron amps.  Similar to Symposium but a little smaller.  A good value cost wise and they made an improvement between a cable and equipment change. They opened up the soundstage and defined the instruments more precisely and tightened up the base. 

Will the IsoAcoustics Gaia resist the MM3’s weight (575lb/each)?

I use relatively inexpensive Vibrapods under my speakers and they work very well to decouple them from my wood floors. Cheapskate solution? Indeed.

Wolf, you must be kidding us. Under speakers you want either spikes or something that absorbs energy very well. That rubber is neither.
I use both Polycrystal spikes and Boston Audio tuneblocks for speakers with excellent results. Never tried anything else except stock spikes, that were junk.

Wolfie might have a point (cough, cough) here since the Vibrapods act like springs. Like air springs. You know, to decouple the speakers and prevent mechanical feedback. Don’t knock it if you haven’t tried it.

sometimes you feel like a 'couple' sometimes you feel like a 'de-cuopling'.

Different situations, different solutions.

just the building’s own architecture can shove one down this path or another. second story floors, floors without significant support direct ot the foundation have different problems to address.

there are tons of things to try out. thankfully. or regretably.

these [things are ones I keep hearing about in various articles so I am interested.

not having actually seen them, would someone care to describe then and their intended purpose or why their maker says these are the end all in resonance attenuation?

Are these the NOrdost points?

Footers? spikes? For use with speakers, racks, stands, or with components?

thanks.?

Sometimes I feel like Francis Ford Coppola, sometimes I don’t. If your goal is reducing mechanical feedback you better feel like decoupling since coupling insures mechanical feedback. You can also employ damping or some sort of energy dissipation along with the decoupling. On the other hand if you’ve already isolated the electronics, go ahead, couple at will. If you decide to go the cones route be sure to choose those NASA grade ceramics since they couple the best. You know, due to their superior hardness, much harder than steel or brass or aluminum or whatever.

I did try Vibropods under cd player, they did okay.

Inna…Vibrapods do pretty much exactly what other, much more expensive isolation products do…turn vibration into heat. If you touch the floor next to my main speakers when relatively loud music is blowing through them you will feel ZERO vibration from the speakers into the floor, and thus should be able to understand that nothing much from the floor is being transferred up into the speaker boxes. This improved the tonal coherence of the speakers and works beautifully in my system. I've had these under my speakers for years and have noticed in that time a movement in home audio toward what you describe as "rubber" isolation products surrounded by fancy metal casings or whatever, which are designed to accomplish what my 'pods do so well…they're just not expensive enough to lure some into using them, which isn't all that unusual in this hobby.

Sorry for the intrusion on this thread as the topic is about other companies but there are a couple of statements posted above that question or defy reality.

If you decide to go the cones route be sure to choose those NASA grade ceramics since they couple the best. You know, due to their superior hardness, much harder than steel or brass or aluminum or whatever.

Wow! Never heard that one before…?

Enlighten us one more time Mr. Kait, what does “couple the best” mean or is there any proof of this “best” performance prior to determining this is just another farfetched belief?

We noticed you are reverting back to your old cut and paste product commission based referrals and replies. We thought “NASA grade” ceramics or “NASA grade” anything with exception to payroll grade analogies were eliminated from audio cone endorsements a few months back.

NASA grade… is that anything like LIGO grade or how about Smithsonian grade or better yet report card grade? 

Where on earth can we acquire that elusive NASA grade brass?

There are many grades of steels, brasses, aluminum and ceramics too that will yield a host of different variables in performance but could not locate any whatsoever endorsed by NASA. Your generic posts and associated propaganda other than shilling for sales and profit simply display one man’s repetitive opinion that lacks credibility and can easily be proven wrong.

Example: Direct Coupling techniques vary greatly where no two innovations or methodologies sound alike.

Take those ceramic cones you continue to promote and if you dare to compare their most expensive versions to a lesser expensive product such as ours. This platform model weighs in at 14 pounds of resonant conductive mass whereas the ceramics barely provide a couple of pounds. Material hardness has little to do with the end result in sonic when geometry and mass combining with material science and consumer pricing are applied to the equation.

Audition both products and one can easily determine via listening how the results differ from your statements and theorems on material hardness. Your entire post is all about your single ended opinions because in this case, brass and steel largely increases musical performance by comparison.

If your goal is reducing mechanical feedback you better feel like decoupling since coupling insures mechanical feedback.

Another extremely generic improbable statement is born.

Every direct coupled system is different by geometric design, application and materials used, therefore each product should be listened to or tested on its own before making such outlandish statements.

Example – Mechanical Feedback: Wikipedia - Simple causal reasoning about a feedback system is difficult because the first system influences the second and second system influences the first, leading to a circular argument. This makes reasoning based upon cause and effect tricky, and it is necessary to analyze the system as a whole.

There are products available based on mechanical grounding (direct coupling) processes that easily prove this poorly informed statement of “insuring anything” provides zero merit.

Please describe for us what mechanical feedback sounds like and list a few products we can purchase in order to hear or determine how mechanical feedback relates to sound and musical reproduction prior to going round and round in another encircling useless argument?

Yawn...

Robert – Star Sound

Geez, take a Valium, Robert. NASA grade simply means the ceramic material is much harder even than ordinary ceramic material. The hardness of the DH Cones is actually almost as hard as diamond on the Moh scale of hardness. And I'm sure I don't have to tell you diamond is the hardest. NASA Grade ceramic is much harder than hardened steel. And ridiculously harder than brass. AND DH Cones are demonstrably better than other cones, in *listening* tests. Any yahoo in town can easily hear the differences among them. As I’ve stated before, the performance of cones is, in fact, almost entirely a function of hardness, all things being equal. Ringing any bells?

To summarize, NASA grade ceramics 🚀 can easily out perform ALL other cones regardless of price, whether they be carbon fiber, steel, hardened steel, aluminum, hardwood, brass or what have you. It’s the hardness, silly! The second most important characteristic, sonically, of cones is the shape. Exactly what shape that is I’ll leave to the student.

Geez, take a Valium, Robert. NASA grade simply means the ceramic material is much harder even than ordinary ceramic material.

As usual, you are avoiding answering our questions but I am regretabbly  feeling somewhat compelled to reply. Your drug comment is also old, boring and very repetitive.

Funny analogy though… so if we use a harder brass or even harder steel should we define and label it as NASA grade? Where does it stop or where would it end... NASA grade concrete?

To summarize, NASA grade ceramics can easily out perform ALL other cones regardless of price, whether they be carbon fiber, steel, hardened steel, aluminum, hardwood, brass or what have you. It’s the hardness, silly!

NASA does not endorse audio cones or materials silly…!

However, if you require the NASA Trademarked name to promote your brand, I’m guessing marketing is not your strong suit.

Since these commissioned cones of your touting are Made in China, we are sure you have reviewed their chemical certifications and indeed can provide proof in documentation they are one in the same with and/or are approved by NASA or whatever type of analogy you consistently assert in attempts to establish consumer believability or are you just trying to increase sales opportunities via the shill?

Dare I say our company chooses to use US manufactured steel and brass with chemical certifications on each raw material purchase as our findings have proven the metallurgy in our country is far superior to the balance of other price conscious nations and suppliers. Metallurgy affects everything related to any products function and performance.

NASA Grade ceramic is much harder than hardened steel. And ridiculously harder than brass. AND DH Cones are demonstrably better than other cones, in *listening* tests. Any yahoo in town can easily hear the differences among them. As I’ve stated before, the performance of cones is, in fact, almost entirely a function of hardness, all things being equal.

Please provide us the *technical insight* behind your ongoing *nonrepresentational* claims.

Regards to your over-the-top performance assertions; The Capital Audio Fest is in a short couple of weeks. You live fairly close to the site and we can easily locate plenty of neutral show goers or any other “yahoos in town” as you put it, to sit in a quiet room setting and provide the results from comparing steel and brass in comparison to hardened ceramics. A good old fashioned listening test would do us both good.

How HARD is that?

Do you actually know how a cone works? Please feel free to elaborate.

R - Star Sound