As An Experiment I Stuck A Few Things Under My Pre-Amp And Am Now On A Quest

First of all I do want to thank all those who have taken the time and effort to respond with their experiences and what pathways they have chosen. 

As we can see there is very little consensus on how to tackle this issue. There is a whole gamut of methods to choose from. 

Aside from one or two companies I haven't seen a lot of measurement behind the equipment. And I certainly apologize if I have missed some, I have spent time reading and looking, but I am sure there is bits and pieces of theory and design I have missed. 

What I find fascinating is how this whole issue came to light to start with. In the past the SS gear I have owned has never had sonic issues related to isolation, and when using isolation devices the results were inconclusive at best. So my interest in exploring them was quite minimal. 

The Classe Omega monoblock amps I use and the Trinov Amethyst never showed these issues when using a pair of JBL 4365 speakers. This only became an issue when I installed  a pair of Martin Logan CLX ART speakers. Now it could also be that the subwoofers ended up having increased output from 50 HZ with the JBL to 80 HZ with the CLX. But now this issue has been brought to the light of day. 

I ahve been busy on and off today, but I have had time to sit down and listen and the foam material below the preamp/DAC is consistent in its results, and its effects still follow the same pathway. I have removed them to verify its not my internal want for this result, But the effects are consistent and noticeable. 

These experiences does point me to the idea that squishy isolation is going to provide the results I need. The Townshend pods look like a viable choice. The EVP pads look intriguing, wish I could get a bit more information on them. A friend of mine swears by the Synergistic Research bullet thingies, and there is an isolation shelf on USAM I believe. But I have a hard time accepting the pathway they work, and that they are a reasonable solution for my issue. However he did bring a set of those bullets once, and they certainly had an audble effect, so I am not able to easily discount them. 

Oh as a side note I do use a get o IsoAcoustics Gaia I feet under the Martin Logan CLX ART speakers. The subwoofers do have a set of Auralex isolation bases under them. I remember when I first brought them home, I was dialing them in and had them turned up fairly strong. We have a tri-level house, and our bedroom is upstairs and on the the other end. My wife texts me "what are you doing? Whatever it is stop it you are making me queasy!" The isolation bases broke the coupling with the frame of the house, and she is happy now. 

Looking forward to whatever else you choose to share. 

@falconquest

I mentioned that I used some Wagner pads in the opening post. That is what they are. Not compliant enough and does not isolate.

Well this is a unexpected development. After about three days the foam compresses down enough that the system gets bright again. 

As an experiment I cut two new pieces this evening and put them in place. Immediately the sound I am looking for returns. Actually the foam itself pretty much gives me the sound I am looking for, this is darn near perfect. 

A friend brought over some of the Nobsound spring assemblies, and another set with fixed springs, and neither came close. to the same presentation. He had another set of plugs that use a ball bearings in them, and tonally they came close but the soundstage moved to behind the speaker. 

The whole process has been fascinating and frustrating. I know there is a way to accomplish what I want, and I actually have it but cannot maintain the final result. 

Crazy hobby. 

@ghdprentice 

Yes I did. Varied them down to 3 and 4 springs per puck. Used varied placement of 3 pick arrangements due to the uneven weight of the component. Not quite the solution I needed. 

This weekend I located a set of the Chinese style mag lev footers, and placed them under the pre-amp. The Trinov has a sophisticated DSP program, and one function it has is a very precise EQ option. I decided to experiment with it. I did in depth reading from websites dedicated to studio/sound engineering work to get an understanding of what I wanted to achieve. 

I started with a 1.1 dB cut from 1K to 5K. I then added a 1dB boost from 200 to 400 Hz. As I understand it you should cut first and boost as a last resort. But I am a newbie, and in this case it worked for me. 

I then started listening to several reference discs and began to reduce my settings. The sound was a bit too smooth and a touch too warm or vague. I can reduce by .2 dB. My first cut was from 1 to 5K and I went to -.6dB from -1.1 dB. Then I started cutting by -.2 increments. I also worked in the 200 to 400 hz range with the -.2 dB amounts. 

My final settings are 

+.4 at 200 Hz

+.4 at 250 Hz

+.6 at 315 Hz

+1.0 at 500 Hz

-.4 at 1KHz to 4Khz

I zeroed out the 5KHz setting, so no correction there. 

My objective was to get to the point where the sound became harder and forward, and back off one click and see what I thought. I am listening to these settings now and appreciate the clarity and detail and have not heard any aggressive tendencies. 

So far this is an enjoyable presentation. What I find fascinating is that a .2dB change in equalization is clearly audible. 1dB is significant, and to think how easy it is to influence the sound should give a person pause when selecting associated equipment, cabling, room placement, and what goes on the walls. This hobby is amazing, and it fascinates me how the little details matter.