Vibration isolation or absorption?

@audiopoint

I am neither an engineer, nor a "Vibration Management Consultant", but I find some of the assertions in your above post to be dubious.

Springs, discs, pucks, squish balls, pads, cones, spheres, and all the materials have retailed in audio since the late 1980s.

All these devices are coupling products according to the empirical laws.

You are suggesting that springs, used in combination with dampers, are coupling devices?

Would you characterize shock absorbers, used on every car in the world, as coupling devices?

Böllhoff is a German company founded in 1867. They have produced vibration control products for many products over a very long period of time. Their products were used in early VWs, and on the Lunar Module used when Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin became the first men to walk on the moon. Etc.

In reference to some of their current spring/dampening products, they say this (bold emphasis mine):

Vibration and noise decoupling

SITEC® Spring
The decoupling spring system with screw connection

Do you imagine that the engineers at Böllhoff are badly uninformed about "laws of vibration, motion, and gravity", or is the company making false advertising claims?

Here is a link to a patent of a "Vibration decoupling connection device", in which the word "decoupling" is used multiple times:

vibration decoupling device

I have the impression that you are playing semantic games, based on the suggestion that even the best designed springs/dampers are unable to completely decouple components from floors/racks, etc.

It may well be true that like shock absorbers, the best that spring-based isolation devices in audio can do is to greatly mitigate vibration. But there is no doubt whatsoever that, at least in the case of speakers, they can come far closer to decoupling than coupling devices such as spikes.

And as most audiophiles are, in fact, using such tools to "improve sound reproduction", your post strikes me as much ado about nothing.

Robert,

You are indeed playing semantic games, and are clearly biased given that you have related products for sale. Also, please stop with the straw men.

Spikes couple components to whatever they sit on, while spring/damper devices can come very close to decoupling the same components. That difference that can be very important, and your attempts to conflate them, presumably for marketing purposes, are obvious. 

The fact that there is not 100% decoupling is irrelevant, and for what should be obvious reasons.

How’s that for solving the vibration problem?

Dubious. 🤣

All I did was answer your questions. Sorry if I offended you. 

I am here to show there is a superior methodology that exists in this industry and has for a very long time. We are capable of explaining more, having more experience, and seeing through the newfound world of decoupling products and their hundreds of manufacturers with their own stories. 

Robert, I find your continued dishonesty, coupled with arrogance, to be deeply off-putting. 

Had you joined this thread and made it clear that you manufacture and sell coupling devices (e.g. spikes, etc.), then readers might have better understood your efforts to denigrate decoupling devices. Instead, you made no clear mention of your conflict of interest, and attempted, dishonestly, to argue that decoupling is somehow unscientific. 

Now you claim to have a "superior methodology", and the ability to see "through the newfound world of decoupling products and their hundreds of manufacturers with their own stories."

Never mind that Isoacoustics and Townsend Audio, arguably the two leaders in decoupling technology for audiophiles, have been in business for over 10 and 20 years respectively. Never mind that some very high-class manufacturers (e.g. Marten, Wolf von Langa, Spatial, Dynaudio, etc.) are including such products with some of their models.

So no, it's not a "newfound world", but one with decades of R&D and sales to its credit. And any suggestion that those manufacturers are somehow missing the boat because they aren't using your products instead would be dubious, to put it very kindly.

Let me be clear about something: I have not heard your products, and make no judgement about them. Perhaps they are excellent in some applications, and represent very good value. But even if that were true it would be beside the point.

I have no problem with manufacturers or dealers marketing their products, but have no patience for those who choose to do so in other than a transparent, and straightforward manner. If you were willing to give some credit to other manufacturers, and recognize the value of decoupling devices in certain applications, I, and I expect other readers, would likely be more open to your efforts to differentiate your products. 

As it stands, I see mostly hyperbole, dubious tactics, and arrogance.

You have attacked my honesty. That aggravates me to no end...

No, Robert, I haven’t "attacked" your honesty, I have exposed it. That you would again play semantic games in an effort to serve your thinly veiled marketing purposes confirms it as a running theme in your posts.

Regurgitating your resume, and various assertions relating to the success of your products, is not only a red herring, but also notable in that I have never said anything negative about them.

In stark contrast, you seem to feel the irrepressible urge to attempt to denigrate the products of at least some of your competitors. It wasn’t enough for you to suggest, ludicrously, that there is no meaningful distinction between coupling and decoupling devices, you had to go further and assert that only the former fall into the category of "accepted science"! And apparently even that was insufficient, as evidenced by this petty, and frankly pathetic display:

Max jumped up and down on the floor displaying his top-of-the-line product and comparing it to a few dollars worth of cheap spikes.

Never mind that Max isn’t around to defend himself, or that his isolation products are held in very high regard by many audiophiles and professionals in the industry, the overriding point is that those who have real confidence in the products that they sell, and themselves, almost never feel the need to stoop to such tawdry tactics.

Everyone who has been in the game for some time understands that there are snake oil salesmen, and that many products sold represent poor relative value. That’s not news. But when you say this:

There is more marketing versus science going on in the decoupling world.

it is yet another example of your attempts to sell your own devices by raising dubious questions about the validity of those employing different designs. And it bears repeating: Given that high-class manufacturers including Marten, Wolf von Langa, Spatial, and Dynaudio are including such products with some of their models, it simply isn’t credible to suggest that those products somehow lack real-world efficacy.

Experiences encountered have shown there is not a ubiquitous support structure to fix all systems/environments. 

Has anyone ever argued that there is "a ubiquitous support structure to fix all systems/environments"? That's a rhetorical question.

@hchilcoat 

Thank you for sharing your anecdotal experiences so eloquently. As should be clear from my posts, I was never arguing that the products of Isoacoustic or Townshend are necessarily better than those produced by Robert's company. But they have clearly been well-received by a meaningful number of audiophiles, as well as some high-class component manufacturers, and I see no reasonable basis on which anyone should attempt to ridicule them.

You have a terrific system, and are probably aware that I use a Circle Labs A200. I had a similar experience to yours when placing a set of Stillpoints Ultra SS V2 under that amp. A big improvement. Could I squeeze further improvement out by utilizing a different vibration control product? Possibly, but I do have a difficult imagining that it would be significant.

I have also placed Isoacoustic Gaias under my FinkTeam KIM speakers, and am quite happy withy the result. I could imagine that Townsend Podiums, or perhaps the ones that you are using, might produce further improvements. But again, I would expect diminishing returns at best.

I would be very interested to hear your impressions if you are able to compare a Townshend Podium under your WvL SON to the LiveVibe, but I expect that you would agree that it would be nearly impossible to do so "blind".

Finally, I'm also glad to hear that your personal experiences with Robert have been positive. I have no axe to grind with him beyond what I have articulated in previous posts on this thread.