2. amps-preamps
  3. 129894-7789

Isolation footers for amps

I'm looking for advice/recommendations for isolation footers for my amp -- an Audio Research D300 (solid state). Currently I have it mounted on a free-standing 4" thick maple block, with spiked-tipped brass footers anchoring the base to the carpet on top of a basement (cement) floor. Would I obtain any additional sonic benefits by placing after-market isolation devices between the amp and the maple stand? I should add here that I'm not looking to spend a great deal of money on this... something more in the range of $100-200. Options in roughly that range I've found on line include Audio Prism Isobearings, Herbie's Tender Footers, and Mapleshape's brass footers. My (perhaps imperfect) understanding is that the first two are meant to isolate a component from vibrations in the room (including those from other components), while the third is supposed to help 'drain" vibrations from the component in question itself, thereby minimizing their transference to the audio chain..

I'd welcome advice from fellow Audiogoners more experienced than I on the extent to which these devices confer audible sonic improvements and, if so, which ones they'd recommend. Thanks

Michael
mross1949
kalali's avatar
kalali
1,977 posts
 
I suppose there's a good explanation why most of these "devices" are sold in sets of three whereas every component I own and have ever owned had four legs. Is the idea to buy four sets to use with three components? What am I missing?
dill
2,520 posts
 
Yes, the idea is to form a triangle under your component. Put two in the rear and one in the front center or visa versa. Either remove your existing feet or put the cones next to them, contacting only the bottom of the chassis. By using (3) feet, you are concentrating more weight on the three points and makes it easier to level. 
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 

there are two reasons cones are usually sold in sets of 3. one is that the flat top surfaces of three cones determine a (flat) plane under the component whereas four cones can be a little bit wiggly due to imperfect flatness of the underside of the component. the second reason is that 3 cones almost always sound better than 4.. Flipping the cones over to tips up position won’t solve the problem of 4 cones since tips should always point down.


Lak - I always separate maple plates using DH Cones, as well as use DH Cones under component AND under the plate. If budget permits I use Supers, but if a more cost effective solution is required Large DH Cones work very well, and the Small DH Cones are not chopped liver. It goes without saying some springs should be part of the equation.

toddverrone's avatar
toddverrone
840 posts
 
Just to double check my understanding, wouldn't cones and spikes be coupling devices, not isolation?
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
I suspect minimizing the area where seismic vibration can be transmitted to the component to tiny points AND using very stiff materials to resist bending forces) for the cones are good for isolation, especially when used in conjunction with "real isolation" devices like springs, as I mentioned in my last post. In addition, I’ve always maintained DH Cones or other cones should be used under components that are placed on isolation stands as well as under the isolation stand itself. So, it’s probably accurate to say cones are coupling devices AND isolation devices, no? They're TWO, two mints in one! Click! Click!
More to discover