Do stands make a difference for equipment?

Elizabeth,
I frequently agree with your no nonsense, common sense views on sound systems. If I were you, and had not experienced the difference that Sistrum stands could make under my speakers, I too would consider them a wasteful purchase. I recently spent $60.00 on EVS ground enhancers, and while they did add to soundstage coherency a little in my system, I probably would not spend the money again for the small difference I perceive. The $20.00 AMR fuse is a different story. A substantial improvement in midrange clarity for very little money. Would I spend 60 or 100 dollars on a different fuse if I knew for a fact that it was a little better sounding? No.
My point is that sadly, it is nearly impossible to know what is or is not going to be "worth the investment " in your system until you try it. It is always a gamble.
Where I disagree with you in this case is believing that spending more than a given amount on such things is foolish. I don't see why it would matter by what means improvement is made, as long as it is genuine. In the case of the Starsound speaker supports, there is a shocking level of improvement. Of course, in your case, you use Maggies, so I don't think it is possible for you even if you cared to do it.

Syntax,
I can understand your components may gain no benefit from that particular wood product. I believe that properly approaching vibration management with solid engineering-grounding solutions would improve the performance of all components to some noticeable degree.I agree that the level of change will vary depending on specific applications.
Regards,

Agear: His stands are made with a 1/4" of proprietary material sandwiched between two 1/2" sheets of acrylic. There is a wire to be plugged into the system powerstrip, but it only actively connects to ground so no electricity is drawn from the wall. Posted the following reaction on his FB wall (business). At this point Alan had already stated that a component on his stand was allowed to operate entirely above its own internal noisefloor:

"Something else I discovered that I didn't expect. Using a modified DEQ2496 as a DAC. Stock or modified, there was always a slight dynamic penalty imposed when using the digital parametric EQ. Choosing a frequency and slope (or q) is no problem - until you go to move the level away from 0 db, either up or down. At the minimum step of .5 db there is always a noticeable reduction in dynamics that extends the width of the slope you've selected, but, oddly, no more than that. For example, if you choose a q of 3 octaves you'll hear that reduction in dynamics within that 3 octave band, but not beyond. Once you go beyond the first .5 db there is no additional reduction in dynamics no matter what level you choose, but there is always that initial penalty imposed as soon as you move away from 0 db. Normally this is a minor annoyance by itself, but if you select nearby center frequencies that have overlapping slopes, then you take multiple hits in that one general area and that's when it all begins to be a real limitation on the sound. As a matter of practice, I've learned to use the EQ for as broad and as gentle a curve as possible with the fewest number of overlapping center frequencies as possible to minimize all this (not really a bad rule of thumb with analog EQ for that matter anyway). But, a few hours after placing the DAC on the Q-stand, I noticed I could no longer hear this effect. If it is there at all, it is no longer audible. Then I remembered what you said Alan, that Q-stand allows the component to operate, in effect, free and clear of it's own internal noise floor (or words to that effect). Huh...no more problem."

This was Alan's reply:

"John - In effect what you are experiencing with the Behringer is its version of digital circuit clipping most people confuse clipping with db output but clipping also applies to all internal circuitry amplitudes .so increasing/decreasing causes ringing artifacts to be super imposed on the signal but using the qCell or Tri-Cell platform under the component eliminates the ringing artifact at the source which quickly becomes apparent via playback just imagine the potential for project quality when this technology is applied from studio capture to playback".

Afterward, I then realized that the slightly increased tolerance of the main digital input meters on the DEQ (which hadn't been touched) was not my imagination playing tricks on me after all. This is also about the best way I'm aware of to take a direct shot at reducing digital "self noise" inside a component.

But, it was the overall change in sound quality that did it for me...far better vocal and instrumental hues and textures and ALL that good stuff!

Agear, at the end of day most stands should be seen as a design element. When you put some Sorbothane devices between Speaker and Stand (no matter which one) you have a very good working solution without spending big bucks.
When you want a real vibration transfer, the speakers should be screwed into the stand, no one does it, so you will find all kind of window dressing :-)

" Total cost, about $500. How much better can a expensive stand improve on this?
..."

Excellent question. I can only relate actual experiences and not anecdotal experiences.

When my hardware gear (amp and Cdp) went from $4K to $24K the stand and isolation tweaks eventually went from $850 to almost $5K with no other stand tweaks. The speaker cables and ICs also went from $2K to $6K also.

Did I Gulp and sweat it? - U betcha. But did it make a difference? Again U betcha... and a very noticeable improvement difference - Go figger!

Acoustic room treatments with Echo Busters became the integral matched steps. Room nodes, first order reflections, bass damping and reverberation times et al all needed attention, along with tinkering with the speaker - to - listener positions .

Can I directly parse out with near accuracy just much of the overall improvement was attributed just to the stand?

Hmmmm ... not exactly, other than to say it was not subtle. Again I was the ultimate skeptic before.