2. tech-talk
  3. 170242-3610

Isoacoustics Orea vs Townshend Seismic Pod on Components

I installed a set of Isoacoustics Gaia 2s on my speakers about a month ago and was extremely pleased with them. I'm now curious about the Oreas.

My components are currently placed on a good rack with Finite Elemente Cerabase footers at the bottom of the rack. I was wondering if individual isolators such as the Orea or Seismic Pod placed under components can further improve sound quality. I've read contradictory comments about the Orea. Some say they brought an appreciable difference when placed under components such as DAC or amplifiers. Some say they bring nothing to the sound, zero difference.

I would appreciate experiences on the Isoacoustics Orea or the Townshend Seismic Pod, or the comparison between the two products. The Oreas look better than the Pods to me although the latter may be costlier.
ryder
ryder OP
1,709 posts
 

Tonywinga, looks good. Thanks.

I am currently getting a very good sound quality from the system with the current set up. I’ve made some adjustments to the number of springs at each Nobsound footer. I had to remove two springs from each footer to get the gap down to optimal levels. Before I post my very positive impressions with the Nobsound, I need some advice as I’m not sure if the current setup is considered to be the best configuration.

No matter how I adjust the number of springs at all 4 footers, the gap between the top and bottom metal pieces of the two footers located at the front will not be the same as the two footers at the rear.

Current Setup

Two Nobsound footers at the front = 3 springs

Gap between top and bottom metal pieces = 3.5 mm

Two Nobsound footers at the rear = 2 springs

Gap between top and bottom metal pieces = 2 mm

 

Question : Is it better to add one more spring to both footers at the rear or remove one spring from the front footers? I have checked the levels with a spirit level and there is no issue with the leveling. The uneven gap of the Nobsound is caused by uneven weight distribution of the component which is heavier at the front and lighter at the rear.

The gap between the top and bottom metal pieces of the front footers will not be the same as the rear footers no matter how the adjustments are carried out.

I would appreciate any advice.

tonywinga's avatar
tonywinga
844 posts
 

I’d say stay with fewer springs.  That keeps the resonance point as low as possible.    The difference in gaps doesn’t matter.  This is static loading.  The only time the springs move is when you put your hands on the component.  As long as a gap remains once you let go the component is isolated. 

ryder OP
1,709 posts
 

I appreciate the advice. It makes sense to stay with fewer springs.

tonywinga's avatar
tonywinga
844 posts
 

tonywinga's avatar
tonywinga
844 posts
 

My preamps are unbalanced due to the heavy transformers mounted to one side. So I set them on inert boards and then the boards are placed on the isolation feet. You can’t see it from the picture but the rear feet are positioned inboard to even out the loading. This way I still have the rubber feet on the component in use. I didn’t want to put the springs in direct contact with the chassis. Based on my accelerometer measurements the isolation this way is just as effective as having the feet directly under the rubber feet of the preamp.

More to discover