There seems to be a fundamental difference of opinion between those who would couple their speakers to the floor (e.g., with spikes), and those who would decouple them (e.g., with springs). I’ve gone both ways, but have found that I prefer the latter; I’ve currently got Sorbothane feet attached to my tower speakers, so that they wobble or "float"—much like the Townshend Platforms videos show for that similar, but more expensive, approach. My ears are the final arbiters of my listening experience, so they rule my choices. But my mind likes to have a theoretical explanation to account for my subjective preferences.
That’s where the question comes in. A very knowledgable audiophile friend insists that what I prefer is precisely the opposite of what is best: that ideally, the speaker enclosure should be as rigid and immovable as possible so that the moving cones of the drivers can both most efficiently and most accurately create a sound front free of the inevitable colorations that would come from fighting against a moving cabinet. He says that transients will be muddied by the motion of the cabinet set up by the motion of the speaker cones. And this makes perfect sense to me in terms of my physical intuitions. It’s perhaps analogous to the desirability of having a rigid frame in a high-performance vehicle, which allows the engineers to design the suspension without having to worry too much about the complex interactions with a flexing chassis.
Am I just deluded, then, in preferring a non-rigid interface between speaker and floor? Or does it depend on the kind of floor? (I get that most advice seems to favor decoupling from a suspended wood floor, and coupling to a slab; my floor is hardwood, but not exactly "suspended" as the underflooring structure is very rigid.) Or are there trade offs here, as there usually are in such options: do I gain something (but what, and how?) even as I lose something else (i.e., clean transients, especially in bass tones)?
The ears will win this contest, but I like to have my mind on board if possible. So thanks for any input you may have on this question.
Here are a few new things on heat conversion that you might find interesting.
We worked for a couple of years with springs and many absorbent materials. Springs were effective at first until we listened to a six-month-old application and replaced them with new springs.
Spring fatigue set in on the original set of eight. We realized that losing a minimalist amount of tension produced a higher loss of dynamics when using the application for sound reproduction.
I recommend checking the old with a new set annually. As spring fatigue sets in, ears might not pick up on the losses over time. The musical presentation also suffers. Without an A to B comparison, you might think it is time for a new amp, different wires, or speakers simply because a design fails slowly over time.
We then realized there were weight handling and tension issues with every application. This model would not serve our needs as we searched for a universal way to manage vibrations without premature failure and would compensate for any amount of weight without the cost of constant mixing and matching parts.
Converting energy to heat is again the most popular methodology for dubbed decoupling or isolation devices. It is hard to prove what percentages of resonance convert to heat when absorption or damping is applied.
An accredited Russian Scientist has discovered a new physical paradox
“Saint-Petersburg Polytechnic University recently published documents supporting that heat generated from resonance conversion became airborne and then again was attracted back into the chassis in the form of vibration titled Ballistic Resonance hence re-establishing the problem of resonance build-up in a constant repetitive state.”
Ballistic Resonance shows that heat energy from phase cancellations and absorbent materials is born again. Once airborne, heat returns to the original device of mass that created it. Therefore heat dissipation is a returning process of vibrational energy affixed to the parent mass and eventually seeks and locates the ground plane via resonance transfer. Heat is a recurring problem at best.
Another discovery: Researchers uncover a new way heat travels between molecules
by Ali Sundermier, the University of Pennsylvania, released their findings, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, showing that heat transfer occurs when the electron moves between two molecules that are at different temperatures. Electron transfer is possibly the most important process in chemistry, according to Nitzan."Half of the chemistry is electron transfer processes," he said. "It has been investigated for 100 years on the molecular scale."
Our research displayed a sluggishness in sonic when working with less efficient or so-called isolation and decoupling products. In audiophile terms, we lost the leading edge dynamic and shortened the decay of the sound. When used with tubed or solid-state amplifiers, the component’s operational temperature climbed to create more heat.
Heat establishes excessive inefficiencies in operation.
The noise in electricity is the initial problem forming resonance. Rapidly grounding electronics and loudspeakers came next. Finally, the sound room was built and is unlike anything you have ever experienced took us thirty years of product development.
We are a live music-listening organization. A goal of mine is to produce the dynamics, harmonic structures, and decays associated with the live performance. Mechanical grounding allowed us to achieve the closest I have come to capturing the live event.
We travel to hear sound rooms and playback environments. If you are such a traveler or want to listen to a sound room you can build, the Energy Room is open for auditions.
This test is one-sided and similar to the other spring-loaded companies' versions. This one has more computer-generated visual enhancements and appears more professional, but the content remains the same.
A few indicators stick out in plain sight and play a role in the outcome of the testing methodologies.
Notice the block of marble, stone, or tile separating the actual ground plane of the floor. The stone or tile is a false ground and contains less mass than the floor. The added material reflects and vibrates at higher frequencies than the floor mass. The experiment provides a hidden agenda that affects sonic, compression wave velocity, and reflections.
The tester refers to speakers standing “directly on the floor” too often. The speakers are standing on plinths and not on the floor.
Here we go again with a marketing class in vibration management.
A one-dollar spike made from aluminum, one of the worst materials used for mechanically grounding anything, proves nothing except delivering a convincing visual statement for the home team’s product. The cost-to-investment ratio for the products tested is hundreds of dollars to one dollar.
Their dubbed isolation products cost how much more than the $1.00 spikes?
They add a second plinth layer made from aluminum and attach it to the speaker base, enhancing the ringing qualities of the generic spikes.
Do you believe this as being a fair test?
Did you learn anything from this video about sound in real context?
Here is what could happen if they played on an equal playing field.
I understand the speaker A/B comparison is coming soon. We can then hear a loudspeaker on an expensive damped spring product and a damped spike innovation costing closer to the same investment dollars.
i personally believe speakers should ideally be well grounded, so that the driver movements occur against a stiff, inert backdrop
question is when you spike speakers in your room, are they spiking into a medium/environment that indeed provides excellent, solid grounding - wood floors bounce, and so on...you get my drift...
if very good grounding can’t be done, one might profitably look into letting the speakers ’float’ via softer mount points, simply give up the idea of proper grounding entirely as it is impractical in said room... that is where isopucks springs and so on could well be the lesser of the evils
the idea that a speaker should float as an ideal is to me, simply misguided
Every speaker is different the floor you're setting them on etc. I liked speakers without spikes due to more body, inter detail, and natural highs. A few with them on. One show setup specialist wants no spikes on any speaker and much due to what I've mentioned. I spoke with a speaker designer once and he told me they have to use spikes because its become expected, without having spikes it would hurt sales, an ingrained myth you could call it. But in the end it what you like, your room impacts the sound we hear more than a spike, footer of any design, all they all do is change what is more present from the speaker, be it the lows, midrange to the highs and that what you may enjoy than the speaker el-natural.
I've tried many floor standing speakers that I have owned, using both soft isolation footers and hard spikes to the floor. I have found that ,for me, large floor standers benefit from spikes, while stand mounted book shelf speakers, sound better with sorbothane or blu tak coupling to the stand.
With well-designed speakers, if there is no acoustic data conveyed through the cabinet, so why is there some "decoupling" need? This is an aesthetic marketing tool. It is expected. On the flip side, nothing is perfect, so there remains some sound transmission no matter how good the cabinet is. So then isolate the floor. My drivers float on a gasket so the front wave is not a problem, but as it is a monopolar closed box system, the backwave is. Despite the "Acoustic coffin" cabinet design, that is with no backwave sound escaping, I still isolate the floor. Does it make a difference? No.
Even with springs, damping and resonances play a role in the effectiveness. Robert's points, Max's springs, Herbie's elastomers, or the NHL's pucks will each perform differently wrt the transmissibility, amplitude, and frequencies of vibrations from one system (the speaker) to the other (the floor), or the other way around. The audibility and effect on the resulting sound of an audio system will be unique to each system and room. It is no surprise that there is no consensus here on what sounds best.
Damping is using a material or device to take the energy out of vibration by transferring it to heat. The shock absorber on a car forces oil or gas through small passages. That takes energy, which becomes heat, in the process damping suspension movement. Materials like sorbothane, cork, a phone book, anything like that is a form of damper.
Damping only works when the two parts are coupled together. Therefore, damping is a form of coupling. The difference is when the material being coupled is rigid and inflexible we call this coupling. When the material is soft and yielding we call it damping. Either way, coupling.
Decoupling, or isolation, allows the isolated component to vibrate freely on its own. Because if it touches anything the physics of mechanical vibration dictates this vibration will propagate into the adjacent material.
We all know if you hit a table, the water in the glass across the other side of the table will move. There is even a famous movie where the first hint of the T Rex is the water in the glass. The glass that is in the car. The car with shock absorbers. Dampers. Coupled to the ground, car, glass, water.
Even with all that earth, tires, dampers, dashboard, and glass in the way the footsteps of the dinosaur travel right on through to the water. Only slowly. The vibrations are slowed and smeared, but still there. We all know this, which is why Spielberg uses it.
Damping is a form of coupling. It is damping and coupling that slows and smears. It is isolation that alleviates this. QED.
Hello Robert – You are correct, "decoupling" implies totally separating two systems. The proper term would probably be “damping” but this is one of those industry slang issues. Decoupling is commonly used in the soundproofing and audio products industries and has been adopted by manufacturers, industry spokespeople, and audiophiles on these forums.
Damping indicates the dissipation of vibrational energy, implying some portion of the energy entering a system is absorbed and ultimately changed to another form of energy such as heat, resulting in a reduction of the vibrational energy transmitted between the two systems. This more accurately describes what happens when elastomeric materials are used between speakers and the floor. The term "isolation" is sometimes used when referring to mass-loaded spring damping systems. These types of vibration dissipation systems are prevalent in the automotive and machine industries.
As with many things related to this audio hobby, decades of point-proving and arguing have not determined a clear “winner.” Audiophiles are inundated by manufacturers clamoring about how their products are “the best” and frequently using pseudo-science and marketing psychology to influence purchasing decisions. At some point, all arguing aside, it comes down to a comment I recently read on a different thread, to paraphrase, “buy and listen to what you like.”
OP, the products you compare are the difference you hear in performance. Comparing methods are meaningless as only one methodology uses science by definition, and the other does not.
The price points should accompany the products to help others understand your progression in vibration management. I can show you a poor performance using a spike and another that will convince you otherwise. The same goes for any vibration management part.
The Audio Industry has a lot of issues when writing about vibration management. Instead of delivering education, they use methods to simplify their audience. They would rather have the public make up their language, methodologies, names for technical approaches, and beliefs.
DECOUPLING – AUDIO’S SECOND ULTIMATE MISCONCEPTION
Audio forums and video blogs continue to dispute the topics of coupling versus decoupling.
In scientific facts and physics, the mechanical coupling has developed over the millennia, becoming one with the understanding of worldly functions. Mechanical coupling is well-documented and accepted by our peers.
Decoupling methodologies are based on theorems or storyboarding marketers. Decoupling beliefs for audio are non-compliant with the accepted laws of motion, gravity, Coulomb’s law, and science as we know it.
Techniques, opinions, or products claiming to decouple are present in the Audio Industry. A baseless opinion rendered by marketers, accessory salespeople, and audio reviewers is taking you aboard the mystical Ripley’s train.
Couple – a pair of equal and parallel forces acting in opposite directions and tending to cause rotation about an axis perpendicular to the plane containing them
To mechanically ground a device: to move or transfer unwanted resonance energy out and away from the listening device or devices, forming greater efficiency in operation.
Decouple – separate, disengage, or dissociate (something) from something else
To isolate or float a device, keeping the earth’s vibrations away from entering the device.
Make the interaction between (electrical components) so weak that there is little transfer of energy between them, especially to remove unwanted AC distortion or oscillations in circuits with a common power supply. (Definitions from Oxford Languages)
The key words are ‘little transfer’ of energy. Resonance Energy Transfer is a geometric model using material science where resonance is transferred through high-speed conductive pathways, exiting the instrument via a mechanical ground. The ‘instrument’ can be an electronic component, loudspeaker, musical instrument, structural building, fan motor, transformer, compressor, etc.
The Science-Based Reality:
Again, both technically and scientifically, coupling follows the laws of motion and gravity and is supported by formulas such as Coulomb’s law and mathematics. You can do your research on decoupling to see how far you get.
Our take on decoupling is slowing down the speed of resonance transfer by separating mass or altering the chemistry of the materials.
In sound reproduction, everything has a timeline related to speed associated with the musical characteristics known as attack, sustain and decay. Sluggishness, slowness, and deceleration make for poor storytelling, so the term decoupling has been installed to lessen the impact of poor descriptive content. Altering the speeds of resonance transfer will change sound and musical qualities.
Designs such as ‘springs’, pucks, wafers, cones, spheres, discs, and wood blocks helped to shape and improve sonics where manufacture’s of equipment could care less. The tidal wave of shapes and sizes, various designs, and logical and ill-logical parts began in the late 80s.
These designs use coupling for function and have been a part of audio reproduction for decades.
Every fifteen years or so, a company figures out how to disguise or put a more techy shroud over the part and charges a lot more money for the same things we grew up using. New marketing for new products making more revenue is the result.
My gripe is:
A tiny fifty-cent part ($.50) has driven every couple-decouple argument throughout history.
That part is called the spike. Did you ever see a three-hundred-dollar ($300.00) cone, a thousand-dollar ($1,000.00) coupling device, or a directly coupled platform compared to a spike?
Spikes rule the audiophile testing criterion and comparisons agenda. They serve the isolation and decoupling waves of innuendo.
First used in the late 1960s, the sole purpose of spikes was to put airspace between a floor-borne speaker and the wood, tile, or carpeted surface. In the early days, most homes used carpeting.
Along comes the nail head spike. It was the answer to most of the public objections. The cost of the part drove it home as speaker manufacturers included a set with each speaker sold.
In 2021, I asked you why we are comparing a nail with a thread to that of many other expensive designs. Using spikes related to today’s modern vibration management concepts makes no sense. Are we that ignorant and refuse to move on?
Look at the house-favorite video comparison again. The nail head spike compared to a two-thousand-dollar ($2,000.00) spring-loaded stand is a marketing ploy. Are we that confused not to realize the money-making gambit?
The floor-borne vibrations are only one “smaller segment” in the overall process of vibration management. Speaker movement is also minimalist to the sonic quality heard.
Vibrations are part of audio reproduction, including electricity, room surfaces, equipment chassis, racking, ceiling grids, etc. Vibrational energies come from everywhere and in all directions. Vibrations and resonance build-up are continuous and located on all surfaces from the smallest transistor to the building structure. It is all going to vibrate.
Resonance is the problem.
Vibration is sound.
Why so focused on just the floors? There are airborne, electrical, electromechanical, and reflective vibrations too.
I have designed critical listening suites and recording studios and worked in theaters and arena-sized concerts. I have yet to hear smearing, speakers ringing, or sonic imperfections from adequately powered loudspeakers, so I have yet to experience ringing and do not know how that effect sounds.
Is the speaker ringing within the frequency of the human ear, or are we seeing it reproduced from manufactured energy, such as a man stomping on a floor?
My focus is on the audible range of musical reproduction.
I also learned through experience that most distortions begin at the source, the equipment rack, the microphone stand, manufactured force, or the musical instrument, but these distortions are always audible and not some foregone conclusion based on storyboarding.
You can provide home team testing, and I will show you the flaws in the experimentation. Without independent third-party qualification and quantification, testing becomes a marketing tool. I prefer listening to exhibit A and then B rather than being shown the result on a screen.
Mechanical isolation and decoupling are myths. Only in audio are we taught, brainwashed, or advertised into believing so heavily in them. I was a victim of this philosophy for years before studying vibration and resonance. You are not alone.
grannyring Walked the IsoAcoustics Gaia l footers road and they were great. Moved to Townshend Podiums and even better at a much higher price. Speakers are ATC 50 actives, so they are back heavy with the tri-pack of amplifiers. The podiums are individually adjustable to you can balance the spring tension.
I for one am certainly all about "becoming one with the understanding of worldly functions" which is why I am deeply shocked to learn that the decoupling solution I am using under my speakers is "based on theorems or storyboarding marketers." Simply a "baseless opinion rendered by marketers, accessory salespeople, and audio reviewers" that is "taking you aboard the mystical Ripley’s train."
Robert, believe it or not, you are trying too hard.
Springs and the podiums make me think I’m hearing more details. The bass line sounds distinct and easy to follow. Again, I think this is true, I’m not trying to sell the idea or suggest owning the truth on the matter.
Before trying the podiums, I used the Nobsound springs and ‘thought’ I heard improved clarity. I ordered the podiums with an option to return, but did not.
I moved the springs to another set of standmount speakers, and like the sound.
Bottom line for me is I prefer decoupling in my set up over spikes into my slab.
The argument that convinced me to isolate speakers says that coupled speakers waste energy by delivering part of their energy into the floor or speaker stands.
Every speaker I have sounds better isolated.
And some speakers never sounded quite right until they were isolated.
Couple then decouple. Couple you speakers to a large mass, mine are 450 x 330 x 180 mm laminated pine blocks ( large butcher boards), these are then decoupled from the floor with audio springs (Nobsound type). This essentially isolates any vibration to the speaker / mass alone, lowers any vibration to below anything audible and does not transfer to or through the floor. You can measure this by placing a measuring instrument (programs for your iPad are OK) on each speaker with only one playing at a time. You can see the difference clearly. The sonic effect is quite marked especially separation and sound stage.
Vibration isolation in audio is a subject surrounded in mystery half truths and any number of wild theories. As an engineering exercise, the explanation is quite straight foreword and may be explained by the “Theory of more stuff”.
Take a surface, be it the floor or a table, on which your hi fi component is placed and it is desired to reduce the vibration from the support to the equipment. The way this is done is to put “some stuff” between the equipment and the supporting surface. There are three possible outcomes.
1 The vibration in the equipment is more than the vibration in the support.
This is not possible as if it were; the energy crisis would be solved! More
out than what is put in. Free power forever! Unfortunately, this scenario
contradicts the first and second laws of thermodynamics, so is not
possible.
2 The vibration in the supported equipment will be the same as in the case of no stuff. The chances of this are one in a million because something has been changed… it may be the same, but that is extremely unlikely, therefore, the only possibility is,
3 The vibration will be attenuated, to a greater or lesser degree, and this is the case.
There are many products out there that do in fact attenuate vibration. Be it spikes on glass, wood and slate, aluminium spikes in cups, ball bearings in cups, solid plates separated by compliant sheets, lead, Bluetack, sand, marble, concrete, the list is endless. It is also known that multiple combinations of the above produce better results because there is more stuff. E.g. multiple platforms stacked really high.
The engineering approach is to get the best result in the simplest manner by optimizing the “stuff” and way back about two centuries ago the Victorian engineers came up with the solution…. the spring! The spring may be anything “springy”, from elastic, rubber, coiled steel, straight steel, air-bladders to flexible wooden strips. As long as it has sufficient spring or compliance, when optimised with an appropriate mass, a mechanical low pass filter is realised.
The ideal is to have the resonant frequency as low as is possible, ideally around 2Hz in both the horizontal and vertical planes and with a damping ratio of about 0.16. This will give an attenuation of about 25dB at 10 Hz increasing at 20dB per decade above. This will ensure excellent isolation for the deleterious audio system vibrations which are from 5Hz to 500Hz.
Over the years, I have tried multiple types of spikes (including Audiopoints) into the concrete floor beneath my 175 lb main speakers (inc. stands), and also under my two 160 lb subs (inc. stands). About a year or two ago, I removed the spikes and tried using damped springs beneath the speakers and subs, and I found the springs to be an improvement. Most recently, I have switched to using Herbie's Giant Fat Gliders both for convenience and stability, and I have not perceived any sonic detriment compared to using the springs.
After looking at this thread, I put the springs back under my speakers just for fun and found that I actually like the sound of the Herbie's Giant Fat Gliders better, I know...blasphemy, right? What would Max Townshend say? Springs, sorbothane, silicone, or Herbie's dBNeutralizer all provide some type of elastic damping and isolation. To me, the Herbie's products resulted in slightly fuller sounding body and better bass/dynamics, while the spring supported speakers sounded slightly thinner. The difference was noticeable but not substantial, and not as apparent as changing from spikes to springs. Maybe the differences I heard were the result of vibrational feedback or some slight distortion, but to me it doesn't really matter because it sounded better. FWIW, both the springs and the Herbie's products sat directly on commercial grade carpet over a dense commercial grade foam pad, over a concrete slab on grade. With either solution, over time the carpet and mat became quite compressed at the contact points. YMMV
sorbathane feet are okay but they still don't stop the vibration from coming back into the speaker and smearing the sound, the best speaker isolation product out there is the Townshend podiums, they isolate down to three Hertz and also stop the Earth vibration which is constant from shaking your speakers as well, they're not cheap but best upgrade I've ever done to my system, sounded like I changed the electronics to more expensive gear, well worth it, will never take them out from under my speakers ever, I've got the monitor audio platinum 200 ll.
"How about for monitors on stands? Between the stand & floor or between stand & speaker?"
Follow and apply the logic of isolation. Anything touching anything else sets the whole thing ringing. Isolation works by minimizing the amount of stuff ringing. Springs under the stand leaves the speaker/stand to ring. Springs under the speaker isolates from the stand minimizing the amount of stuff subject to ringing. So that’s the way to go.
That seems perfectly rational to me. No doubt that the preferable method of managing vibration/resonance is dependent on the particular speakers and circumstances. I don’t believe that universally one approach is superior to the other without any exceptions.
The graphs show the vibration in the stands. They don't show the delta between the driver motion and the cabinet. If the driver motion is different, then the graphs are a red herring.
I read a review a few days back on a speaker and the background story dealt with coupling/decoupling. The maker said not to use springs as the speaker cones are meant to work against the cabinet holding them and if the speaker can react and move with input from the driver, it would lessen the speakers intended performance.
I am now looking for some footers for under my Fyne F704 speakers. They are much heavier in the front and am considering both Audio Points and Townshend.
Not excited about 150 pound speakers on the sharped tipped Audio Points resting on the matched coupling discs on my hardwood floors. However, based on my past experience with the Townshend Pods and bars, these speakers are sure to be a frustrating set-up experience. I don’t think the Townshend platforms will fit/work under my speaker
I agree with your assessment. The Live Vibe audio points are well thought out, utterly effective and excellent in actual use. For your big speakers have you considered using the larger (More stable) footprint APCD5 discs? 4 of these per speaker would seem to provide a stable and secure base.
Hi Mitch2, I had done that for some time with the Townshend Pods. I had no other choice with my rack. It helped me set up the pods a tad more easily, but after selling the Pods I just let it hang free of floor, other cables, rack etc…
In the beginning and for quite some time all my efforts were with speaker cables. Power cords and interconnects were routed away from each other, but with no attempt at isolation.
Until one day I had all these extra speaker cable elevators laying around and thought, what about power cords? Much to my surprise the improvement was almost as great as under speaker cables.
One day looking at my turntable, the phono leads going down to the gain stage touch the rack at both ends. Surely whatever vibration is in the rack winds up transmitting along the lead into the arm and this can't be good. So I rigged up a way to suspend the phono leads at both ends. Very nice improvement!
My friend in Belgium with a killer Magico Q7 system tried this, was floored at the improvement.
Gradually over time my whole system has been isolated and floats like this. Power cords, even the ones going to subs, benefit about as much as anything. This I find odd, because suspending the 3 power cords going to my subs seems to make an even bigger difference than the power cords themselves! The only thing I can think of is, without isolation they wind up feeding vibrations into the conditioner and everything else, just like the phono leads into the arm.
Isolation is so important, it even predominates with the power cord going into the motor pod of my Sovereign turntable. I've upgraded turntable motor power cords before, always with a nice result. But was disappointed with the Sovereign. Odd, since the power cord being used was a lot better than anything I had done this with before. I could only surmise maybe because it is so stiff?
So after a few failed experiments I thought well if isolation is so important maybe instead of all this crazy good expensive wire that is thick and stiff how about try cheap hook up wire that is soft and flexible? Just for the last few inches into the motor.
I soldered this to a spare IEC and connected a Synergistic power cord. Success! Isolation uber alles!
I believe you have a SA stand as I do also. As an inexpensive solution, I use velcro looped around heavy power cords and then around the rack above to help relieve the weight hanging off of the component. It is not something that can be seen easily, the velcro is easy to adjust as needed, and in my system it serves the purpose.
ALL components on Sorbothane. IMO, and especially for bottle rockets, all components should be isolated. In an earlier life in previous concrete slab home, components were in one room and speakers on spikes in another. Many good studios have the mains rigidly mounted while other have them compliantly mounted. Gear maybe in a separate room or in a control room alcove trading cable length for vibration control. There's no free lunch.
Current media room floor is 2nd over garage:
Spica TC-50 on shot filled spiked stands and 4 Sorbothane pucks to stands.
LFT8b on sand filled Sound Anchor stands on spikes with damped spike protectors.
Like almost everything HiFi, it's local. Change the program and the perceived improvement may vanish.
Forgot to mention how the weight and length of your power cord and cabling can also add to the frustration of proper Townshend Pod placement and functioning. My integrated amp has a long and heavy power cord on it that hangs off the back as my amp rests at the very top of my 4 foot tall audio rack. This makes the dialing in process additionally challenging with the Pods
I purchased a bunch of Townshend pods and bars for under my gear and former speakers. I liked how they made my system sound and found their service to be top notch. In the end I sold them because I found them hard to place and work with.
If your gear is much heavier on one side, then these can be cumbersome to work with and dial in. I had one heck of a time getting the proper combination under my Circle Labs integrated amp and Mojo Audio dac. Ended up with five pods of various ratings to finally “work” under my amp. It was still not quite perfect and one spring was not ideally loaded.
I ended up replacing these Townshend products with Live Vibe Audio Points under my electronics. They were far easier to work with, under electronics, and actually improved the sound in some ways. Articulation from top to bottom was improved and well as overall resolution, speed and imaging.
I am now looking for some footers for under my Fyne F704 speakers. They are much heavier in the front and am considering both Audio Points and Townshend.
Not excited about 150 pound speakers on the sharped tipped Audio Points resting on the matched coupling discs on my hardwood floors. However, based on my past experience with the Townshend Pods and bars, these speakers are sure to be a frustrating set-up experience. I don’t think the Townshend platforms will fit/work under my speaker.
Both Audio Points and Townshend offer great sounding products. Townshend Sounds a tad more warm and full while the Live Vibe products sound more articulate and resolved. At least this has been my experience. The set up frustrations and challenges were real for me and another factor to consider with these types of products.
Audio Points couple while Townshend decouples as I understand the products. Both products have sonic advantages.
Funny I watched a video where the guy measured the speaker resonances using three different isolation methods on YouTube. I’ll see if I can find it and post it here.
Here’s Credo Audio Switzerland demo of coupling vs de coupling:
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
