Supplied equipment feet or cones ,etc?

Some care should always be taken when replacing the component manufacturer's stock supplied feet.
IME, while many manufacturers don't always select their chosen feet very carefully for maximum isolation benefits ,they nonetheless voice those components using them and thus swapping footers can easily undermine musical properties that the manufacturer designed into the product.
Regardless, often aftermarket footers can be very effective tools for fine tuning for component,system and individual requirements.
I find that most elastomer devices have a negative impact on pace,dynamics and timing.In addition, the benefits of using elastomerics is very component specific. To my ears, the detriments more often than not, outweigh their usefullness.On the occassions that a damping device is required or beneficial,my experience has been that the most consistantly effective of these have been the EAR footers.
I consider most cone devices to be mechanical filters that produce specific tonal emphasis or sonic effects.The shape of a cone is one of the major determinants of the narrowness of the bandwidths that are enhanced.Straight sided and steep cones will have the most narrow frequency related characteristics.Non-linear,curved sided cones tend to have a broader,more even balance.
Of all the cone type devices I have experience with, the most widely effective,PRaT friendly, broadband cone footer has been the "Jumbo" cones from DH Labs.I recommend them highly.

A comment on DH labs cones: the various cones in this line are designed for equipment of different weights and also feature different frequency balances. The 'Jumbo' are designed for heavy equipment and do not, IME, work well under light components. Also their frequency balance is slanted toward fuller bass. I find the 'Super' s to be considerably more versatile and broadband for most front end components.

While it may be the manufacturer's intent to match the cone size to the weight of the component,of all the DH cones,the Jumbo are the least detrimental to pace and flow.My experience with the Jumbo in lightweight applications has been very positive and we regularly use them beneath several components of well under 10 pounds total weight to good effect.
IMO,the flagship Super is a PRaT disaster regardless of its impressive sonic properties and I have yet to find an application beneath any electronics where they were preferred.
I find the DH Large to also be good devices at quite reasonable expense tho they have more traditional cone-type filtering properties and more limited range.

Apologies for my mistake. I meant to say "Large" and NOT the "Super" for front end applications. I failed to check Golden Sound's naming conventions at their site before posting (the boxes don't have names printed on them).
There are significant differences in frequency balance between the large and jumbo, and I strongly suggest you try both before deciding.

THANKS FOR ALL OF YOUR RESPONSES,I'LL PONDER THE NEW CHOICES PRESENTED.SEEMS LIKE IT'S YET ANOTHER CAREFUL DECISION TO MAKE IN THIS COMPLEX HOBBY OF OURS...