Footers under my speakers double the perceived value of my speakers!


My first experience with putting footers under my speakers was with Tannoy Westminster Royals.
With some difficulty, I put Mapleshade heavy footers under them. I was amazed. These $20k speakers, all of a sudden, became $30+ speakers! These days, I am into Stillpoints. Same thing-even more. My $30k speakers now sound like $60k speakers. I mean the imaging, the definition, the bass and everything just sounds fantastically Improved. I just put on the Stillpoints yesterday. This morning I jumped out of bed early just to be able to turn on the stereo and be floored. BTW- my speakers are 200 lbs and the Stillpoints Minis are strong enough. Pretty cheap for such an improvement!
mglik
I live in earthquake country.  Putting ultra-minis under 200 lb speakers does not seem wise for my speakers.  My 185 lb speakers rest on four widely spaces metal cones into a 12" thick 3000 lb PSI steel reinforced slab.  Vibration is not a concern from below the speakers.  I intend to purchase speakers weighing 600 lbs each.  No way am I going to mess with the speaker designers footers.  The thought of putting something like tiny footers in unfathomable in earthquake country.   My other 135 lb speakers also have metal cones but on a 4" thick maple block on a carpeted rug on a standard slab.  It has a downward firing woofer (among 3 total) which does not like hard surfaces (metal, granite, etc). that I tried.  Maple sounded better than carpet by a tad.  

Sure, I put footers under some flat bottomed older two way speakers for my video system that weigh under 40 lbs each and raised them off the floor (which is standard 3 1/2" concrete slab) and that tightened up the soundstage/imaging/bass.  
I use several types of Stillpoints most of my equipment. My new DAC does not sound good (hard or unfocused) with Stillpoints, cones or vibrapod type footers. It was designed with vibration in mind. My amps, 2 pre-amps/phono preamp, analog speed controller and digital transport were not as well (or at all) vibration designed and need Stillpoints. The shelving is 1 1/4" HDF on solid rubber isolation pods on steel ball bearing/sand filled welded steel stands (made for audio) on spikes into the above 12" concrete. I experimented with at least 10 different companies footers and more types of products and stuck with Stillpoints. The Townsend sink is 100% necessary for my VPI TNT VI which has bad isolation/vibration lack of control.
@rixthetrick

What thickness steel plate are you using? Do you place the Samlley between the plate and the speaker or between plate and floor? Which model Smalley springs are you using? For your floor standers? And for your other equipment?
Thanks for sharing. I'm very intrigued buy that solution. I think it can fit my budget nicely.

Hello rixthetrick,

Nice post as it describes spring function, zero stiffness and how they relate to isolation theorems and functionality.

We have experimented with springs and isolation techniques for several years.

Our take on the use of a steel plate foundation is the material and mass has natural damping factors that relate well to the mechanical grounding element of the steel springs taking more energy from the springs to floor-ground and at a faster rate of speed. This establishes a resonance conductive mechanical pathway that allows for a greater level of energy dissipation. In our experiments we used steel, brass and copper alloys at a 5/16” thickness. There was a noticeable improvement in sound going from steel to brass.

When we moved to copper, being the harder material with lesser damping factors we had to use a different spring geometry to improve performance over the steel and brass. I would enjoy hearing your findings should you ever decide to test these materials on your model.

The springs worked but due to springs having weight restraints the company decided to discontinue the research. We also noticed within our models that timing artifacts (shortened decays, depth of field and imaging issues) possibly created by speaker chassis movement limited the sonic in comparison to lesser movement by resting the speaker on a rigid direct coupled structure. Please keep in mind that our products are designed to vibrate so there is an infinitesimal movement within these systems as well.

Our focus is on resonance reduction in components, on electronic parts and loudspeaker surfaces providing resonance and noise a conductive pathway to rapidly exit the chassis per the laws of Coulomb friction and damping. The isolation techniques we are familiar with retain most of the resonance inside the chassis and are more focused on outside disruptions.

The sonic results between the two philosophies are quite different as they should because the theorems, applications of technology and product designs are opposites.

The best example of proof relating to electromechanical noise and signal blockage due to resonance build up is taking any version of active iso-tables regardless of price that are used in supporting electron microscopes and placing any of our platforms beneath them. The sonic results from any audio component residing on the isolation device will audibly improve hence providing some supporting evidence where electricity powering the iso-table becomes the noise generator affecting the signal.

Disclaimer: Our participation here is not to challenge, disprove or say this sounds better than that, as public opinion and Industry reviewers steer those ships. Once we realized that resonance formed by vibrations is the primary culprit involving signal clarity, the choice made was to work on taking the source of the noise (resonance) out and away from the instrument (Resonance Energy Transfer) in comparison to focusing on the worldly inaudible and sometimes audible disruptions getting into the instrument (Isolation). Both technical approaches have merit.

Robert

Star Sound