To couple or decouple? That is the question.

I don't think I've ever made a better improvement in my system's sound than placing my Oracle Delphi Mk.2 on a fishing line suspended slab of acrylic. The suspension even worked more precisely and it now maintains almost perfect vertical motion when disturbed.

I've done alot of different things with my system(s) over the years. Right now I use coupling, and generally coupling has given me the best results for all my systems.

For a scientific paper on what the purpose of coupling is, look at the website http://www.audiopoints.com.

I use Audiopoints and Sistrum products, and they work better in my system than anything I tried before. I haven't tried everything in the world, but I know when I'm going in the right direction.

One of my main contentions regarding the overall approach of our hobby toward this issue is that if we were really serious or bothered about it, we wouldn't accept components whose total build methodology didn't address it right from the ground floor.

There are some that try, but very few. In the vast majority of electronic audio components made (high end or not), circuit boards and chassis are for the most part entirely free to do their (entirely random) thing. And look at how few conventional speakers either pot their crossovers in resin, or better yet take them out of the cabinet box altogether.

The oft-propounded idea that certain footers and shelves can somehow 'evacuate' the alleged self-generated vibrations which are supposedly killing the performance of our electronics, whilst simultaneously preventing air- and ground-borne stimuli from ever reaching them, is to me a bunch of bunk, and I've never seen any good data in support of these claims.

Once again, I am not saying that what you put your electronics on can't make a small difference in the way they sound. I'm just saying that the magnitude of this difference is routinely oversold, as is the scientific (or non-scientific, as the case may be) basis for thinking that what's done is systematic or predictable. There's plenty of snake-oil sold throughout the high end, of course, but IMO this sub-area is probably the worst offender, even more so than a lot of what goes on concerning wire.

For the record, I've played with modestly-priced cones and elastomer isolators (plus racks), with appropriately modest results, so if you want to slam me for not having experience with 'the best' (read: the most expensive), go right ahead. The areas I think merit general application are rigidly spiking speakers to foundational floors, and decoupling of turntables. What one does with the rest of the electronics is to me mostly a crap-shoot given the status quo of their construction.

In my opinion it depends on your room construction. If you live in an old victorian with a suspended hardwood trampoline floor then decouple, seismic retrofit or whatever. If you live in a concrete bunker or steel reinforced highrise then you have the option to experiment. With this scenario coupling makes sense, unless of course you want to enjoy your vinyl rig during an earthquake, then by all means decouple your turntable at least. I've lived in both and I'm currently coupling. Just use common sense before you get talked into the latest overpriced "it's like I bought a new amp" isolation component because in your situation it might be a total waste of money.

The best situation is when vibration has an easier time travelling in one direction and a harder time in the other. This should be the case when you use spikes under your equipment. The reason, I believe, is that you are creating a situation where there is low physical impedance from your equipment to the table, as the small surface area of the tip creates high effective mass (by making your equipment seem much heavier to the table). There is then high physical impedance for vibrations going from the table to the equipment, as these vibrations now have to travel up into what seems like a heavier object.