Vibration isolation or absorption?

You see those pointy things at the bottom of a speaker that are very very sharp.  Arguably a weapon in the wrong hands.  And then you see those same pointy things inserted into a disk.

So the pointy things, aka ‘spikes’ , can Channel vibration elsewhere and away from the components and speakers, or they can isolate it.

Seems channeling vibration away from a component/ speaker, which I guess is absorption, is preferable.

Is this true? And why do they keep saying isolation.



You are suggesting that springs, used in combination with dampers, are coupling devices?

Would you characterize shock absorbers, used on every car in the world, as coupling devices?

Hello, whipsaw,

Yes, the coupling is when any product comes in contact with the ground plane of the earth. This definition includes shock absorbers. 

I would prefer the conversation to stay within musical boundaries. In audio, outside sciences and principles and analogies are difficult to describe what it means for sound quality.

Here is a link to a patent of a "Vibration decoupling connection device", in which the word "decoupling" is used multiple times: 

Our Company Founding Fathers held multiple Patents. Our material science engineer holds a degree in Patent Law, so I am familiar with US and Global Patents. Patents, their writings, and the logic behind them are topics for a separate thread.

The device involving this Patent changes the frequency or converts energy into another form. Once the part adapts to a vehicle, the new mechanism is mechanically grounded or coupled to the Earth. 

I have the impression that you are playing semantic games, based on the suggestion that even the best designed springs/dampers are unable to completely decouple components from floors/racks, etc.    

I do not play games. Our company has designed equipment racks, studio environments, and other musical instrument parts.

Please NAME ONE PRODUCT that “completely decouples components from floors, racks, etc”. 

But there is no doubt whatsoever that, at least in the case of speakers, they can come far closer to decoupling than coupling devices such as spikes.

It is time we stop comparing everything out there to the expensive one-dollar ($1.00) spike and realize there is much more we can learn from our peers. How does a low-end part command comparison and remain the primary topic driving conversations in High-End Audio?

Are we stuck in the mud?





You are indeed playing semantic games, and are clearly biased given that you have related products for sale. Also, please stop with the straw men.

Spikes couple components to whatever they sit on, while spring/damper devices can come very close to decoupling the same components. That difference that can be very important, and your attempts to conflate them, presumably for marketing purposes, are obvious. 

The fact that there is not 100% decoupling is irrelevant, and for what should be obvious reasons.


Max once said “ Any material or device you put under any piece of equipment will change the sound”. Sometimes for the better, sometimes not.

Some things I have found to work:

Townshend Platforms, Ingress cup and balls, slate, very slightly inflated tyre inner tubes, springs, a combination of these.

Do you know the acoustical tiles people put in their ceilings, and on the wall. They’re about three or four dollars for one square foot piece.

These are excellent absorption panels and they fit real nicely underneath certain speakers and other components. And what’s really cool about them is that you can easily slide the component around, and the speakers can slide a around to if the footprint isn’t too large.

How’s that for solving the vibration problem?