Do equipment stands have an impact on electronics?

agear, for anyone desiring measured proof of the effectiveness of the Townshend Audio Seismic Isolator, let me once again state that Max Townshend has a video on You Tube in which he explains the theory and design of the product, and demonstrates its isolation capabilities and effectiveness in a couple of ways. One demonstration is of a speaker with its enclosure having a surface mounted microphone (there is a name for them, but I can’t recall it. It’s the type John Atkinson uses to measure cabinet resonances in the Stereophile speaker reviews) attached to it, the output of the mic displayed on an oscilloscope. Max stomps on the ground near the speaker, both with and without the Seismic Platform installed under its enclosure, the oscilloscope displaying the cabinet resonances produced in response to the foot stomping both ways. He also raps on the speaker cabinet with his knuckles, again both with and without the Platform under the speaker, the mic output again displayed on the oscilloscope. Max does another demonstration proving the effectiveness of his products in regard to minimizing (or eliminating?) internally generated resonances. Very interesting and informative, to me anyway.

There is an Audiogon member who lives not far from me, an owner of a very nice system (the member has posted it in the Audiogon Virtual System section, but I don’t feel I should assume he doesn’t mind me identifying him) with loudspeakers under which he has installed the Townshend Seismic Platform. He found it to provide a very noticeable improvement to the sound of his speakers, and has extended to me the offer of an invitation to come over and take a listen, which I intend to do very soon. I will then consider whether or not to acquire a set of the Townshend Seismic Pods for my own speakers (as well as perhaps for my turntable and CD player).

In our humble opinion, the Townshend technical comparison and videos are “Creative Marketing” tools supported by audio theory and are lacking any proof from third party independent testing:

1. Comparing $0.90 cents worth of some kind of "typical" generic spike to an approximate $3,000.00 isolation product clearly puts the test and results in the favor of the host company. This would be like Star Sound comparing a Rhythm Platform™ next to generic springs which would not be a reasonable comparison or fair to the listenership either. This test or proof of effectiveness is reduced to marketing before the first physical tap on the speakers takes place.  

2. There is a level of noise displayed on “both” monitors before the experimentation of jumping and taping begins. Those noise levels are never analyzed to see what the differences are at the outset (between the cheap spikes and the ultra expensive product) in order to establish a ‘Control’ factor for the comparison.

3. Does anyone ask why they have to physically have to rap the cabinet or jump up and down to excite motion in the environment in order to get their 'desired' result? Do people do this when listening? Why not pulse the speaker system with frequency and high volume? So many more questions...

4. Then there is the technical data, charts and mechanical motion models. We will refrain from exploring those inefficiencies because this is not an equitable comparison. This ‘proof of effectiveness’ appears to be anchored on comparing two methodologies where one is heavily favored to the isolation spring side of marketing and gives the newest technical advancement and competition that our company is involved in - a bad rap.

NOTE: No two spikes or coupling devices are nearly the same in mechanical function and sonic performance AND one should note that before deciding coupling or decoupling is the way to go. Mass and Geometry play an extremely important role in mechanical grounding via high speed resonance transfer designs and products. The generic spikes used in this comparison are maybe a quarter pound of total mass? What is the total weight of the isolation device?

We have absolutely nothing against this company. Creating sales is first and foremost in order to advance products and fund technologies but if you really want to show the differences between coupling (mechanical grounding) and decoupling (isolation) then why not be a bit more fair and place a $1,700.00 Rhythm Platform or any other existing product from the same cost bracket as the Townshend and compare from there?

In my personal opinion, Townshend has a great storyboard depicting isolation as this methodology has been accepted for years. Staying away from comparisons might be the better way to go and avoid the rebuttals from the competition entirely.

Did anyone ever compare the two really strong products mentioned above side by side? Let me elaborate on what one may experience. Clearly the Townshend and Sistrum Platform are two totally different approaches to vibration management. The technologies are opposite one another and SO are the Sonic Results (highly subjective to end users of course). The products do ‘not’ sound similar as if someone is comparing subtle differences between two good amplifiers. In this case, the differences are extremely audible and will easily provide you a favorite choice.

Thank you for your time,

Robert

Star Sound.