WHAT HAS WORKED FOR YOU? ISOLATION PLATFORMS, FOOTERS, ETC. for a DAC?


What is reasonable to expect in SQ gain with respect to a DAC, since there are no actively moving parts?

Footers only? Platforms only? Or is a combination of both best?

Keeping this open ended (as well as budget wise) to see what Audiogon Members recommend and advise.

However, thoughts on Gains v.s. Spend with the specific products you are recommending are welcome and will be very helpful.

The only footers I have used in the past are those from Herbie's Audio Lab.  I have used two different 'audio' racks (which have been dismantled) and I am using their shelves as isolation platforms for my speakers and other components (but not the DACs).

The DACs in use are a Schiit Yggdrasil and an Exogal Comet Plus. The stock rubber footers with the Yggdrasil are as basic as they come; The Comet has an acrylic plate with rounded metal screws.

THANK YOU!
david_ten
Post removed 
Actually the 6 degrees of freedom is a misnomer since it’s obvious that for the horizontal plane there are an infinite number of directions, not just the two X and Z directions. Which explains why roller bearings are so effective for the horizontal and why isolation devices with multiple lateral springs like my olde Nimbus unipivot and whatever iso pod that has a bunch of lateral springs radiating outward from the center. You will also get better rotational isolation with a single spring or air spring than with multiple ones. It’s too bad you can’t get away with using a single roller bearing assembly.
And is why roller bearings are best positioned as an equilateral triangle.
That would be true if the mass distribution of the component is uniform. But since mass is often not uniform - such as when a large transformer is located on one side of an amplifier or a motor is located on the side of a turntable - the mass should be distributed equally among the bearings to ensure the component can move freely in all directions. Obviously cords and cables must be squared away so they don’t apply forces, including rotational forces, to the delicate set up. If mass is not distributed equally more force will be applied to one or more bearings than the other one or two. So, the best arrangement for the bearings is often a non equilateral triangle. It’s whatever gives the best "action" when you touch the component. When pushed slightly the component should return to its original equilibrium position. When the mass and forces are all balanced out, including friction, the system is in equilibrium. It’s the same for springs, the mass should be distributed equally among the springs, so the forces are balanced out, assuring uniform mass-on-spring performance as well as perfect level of the component.
@geoffkait  and others, 

Is there a simple or somewhat simple way to figure out mass distribution of a component, other than eyeballing transformer postion(s) and weightier sections and going by felt weight?