To couple or decouple? That is the question.


This is one of my favorite subjects and pet peeves.Is this just a matter of semantics or a misrepresentation of the principles applied in the set-up of equipment. My experience tells me that coupling is what you work for. This is the principle that is expoused in the early Linn literature. The mechanical connection that doesn't introduce or take away any information. This seems important with componets with transducers primarily turntables and speakers. Different materials, like sorbothane, are used to attenuate frequencies but are used in conjunction with metal cups to physically couple to your stand, shelf, floor, etc. Coupling also allows mechanical/acoustical energy to travel away from a componet. The designers at Mission in the early 80's were right on to this. Questions or comments please.
rickmac
I've done alot of different things with my system(s) over the years. Right now I use coupling, and generally coupling has given me the best results for all my systems.

For a scientific paper on what the purpose of coupling is, look at the website http://www.audiopoints.com.

I use Audiopoints and Sistrum products, and they work better in my system than anything I tried before. I haven't tried everything in the world, but I know when I'm going in the right direction.
One of my main contentions regarding the overall approach of our hobby toward this issue is that if we were really serious or bothered about it, we wouldn't accept components whose total build methodology didn't address it right from the ground floor.

There are some that try, but very few. In the vast majority of electronic audio components made (high end or not), circuit boards and chassis are for the most part entirely free to do their (entirely random) thing. And look at how few conventional speakers either pot their crossovers in resin, or better yet take them out of the cabinet box altogether.

The oft-propounded idea that certain footers and shelves can somehow 'evacuate' the alleged self-generated vibrations which are supposedly killing the performance of our electronics, whilst simultaneously preventing air- and ground-borne stimuli from ever reaching them, is to me a bunch of bunk, and I've never seen any good data in support of these claims.

Once again, I am not saying that what you put your electronics on can't make a small difference in the way they sound. I'm just saying that the magnitude of this difference is routinely oversold, as is the scientific (or non-scientific, as the case may be) basis for thinking that what's done is systematic or predictable. There's plenty of snake-oil sold throughout the high end, of course, but IMO this sub-area is probably the worst offender, even more so than a lot of what goes on concerning wire.

For the record, I've played with modestly-priced cones and elastomer isolators (plus racks), with appropriately modest results, so if you want to slam me for not having experience with 'the best' (read: the most expensive), go right ahead. The areas I think merit general application are rigidly spiking speakers to foundational floors, and decoupling of turntables. What one does with the rest of the electronics is to me mostly a crap-shoot given the status quo of their construction.
In my opinion it depends on your room construction. If you live in an old victorian with a suspended hardwood trampoline floor then decouple, seismic retrofit or whatever. If you live in a concrete bunker or steel reinforced highrise then you have the option to experiment. With this scenario coupling makes sense, unless of course you want to enjoy your vinyl rig during an earthquake, then by all means decouple your turntable at least. I've lived in both and I'm currently coupling. Just use common sense before you get talked into the latest overpriced "it's like I bought a new amp" isolation component because in your situation it might be a total waste of money.
The best situation is when vibration has an easier time travelling in one direction and a harder time in the other. This should be the case when you use spikes under your equipment. The reason, I believe, is that you are creating a situation where there is low physical impedance from your equipment to the table, as the small surface area of the tip creates high effective mass (by making your equipment seem much heavier to the table). There is then high physical impedance for vibrations going from the table to the equipment, as these vibrations now have to travel up into what seems like a heavier object.
I grow tired of this techno-babble. True coupling would be to run a long I beam below your equipment into bedrock. This would add the mass of that bedrock to your system mass. There is no real isolation as everything you use has a resonant frequency and your choice is where you want it. This is true for air and magnetic isolation also. In fact coupling is also isolation but with a very low resonant frequency.

Most of my equipment is coupled to my wooden floor, but my speakers have a soft cushion between spikes below and above. My experience is that you need to try both solutions and choose what is best sounding.