Bringing back theorems from the 80’s and 90’s does not establish anything other than adding dated opinions into the mix. Vibration management has evolved since that time.
There are NO STEEL WHEELS... You don’t couple vibrations to other structures... THINK!!!
Using other applications and sciences that are non-related to music reproduction does not fare well either.
Example: Buildings, car chassis supports and other related industries involving isolation techniques and products containing springs do little to reinforce the art of increasing sound quality and equipment performance. I never heard of an architect or car manufacturer or any electron microscope designer relating spring performance to musical characteristics such as attack, sustain and decay.
With regards to coupling vibrations to other structures… We have been doing so for three decades. Everything in audio from microphones and their stands, musical instruments, sound and visual reproduction equipment, power distribution, turntables, and structural sound rooms are evidence of successful direct coupling products and applied technology that is obviously scalable and highly adaptable.
It is obvious “oldhvymech”, you are a spring isolation advocate and that is OK, but when you produce challenges and/or statements based on your experiences, you can expect rebuttals, or a few questions directed back to you.
Another topic that is never talked about is the fact that springs wear out from constant compression and lose structural efficiency over time.
What happens to the audio signal when metal or stress fatigue involving a spring begins to set in? Is the human ear capable of hearing the slow collapse in performance or do we just go into the dark time-tunnel because we, as audiophiles, fail to go back to the original reference point replacing old parts with new ones?
Why do the finer spring manufacturers place a one-year warranty on their products?
Why are springs severely restricted to weight tolerances? Do you always have to change out springs because of changes in your equipment investments simply because one chassis is heavier than the other? I imagine the spring manufacturers love heavy-to-light and light-to-heavy selections as those changes simply sell more products.
For these reasons, we prefer mechanical grounding and high-speed resonance transfer techniques (direct coupling) supported by material science and geometries specific to parts shapes and designs that are all married to physics and earthly function.
There are no weight restrictions governing performance. The smallest of parts can support 6 ounces and perform the same when applying over 600 pounds. When you purchase a bigger part, the mass increases, geometry improves, sonic quality increases, and the parts do not wear out.
Not saying our technology is better or the best as listeners determine those stats. I just wanted to offer up another opinion based on a newer vibration management theorem known as high-speed resonance transfer.
As Always - Good Listening!
Robert