Talk but not walk?

Michael: After I last posted here I checked out your website to learn what this tuning stuff is all about. I see you have several approaches to optimizing the triad of audio elements. So we are alike in that I have sought my own version of "tuning" through the years, but my approach is very different than yours. My version of "tuning" is more focused on room treatment (absorption and diffusion) and speaker/listening position/placement. I am also a proponent of time and phase correct speakers with wide response drivers and 1st order crossovers. I am not into taking protective covers off of electronic components and placing such items on multilayer wood plinth stacks and girders that fill up the listening space. I’ll theorize that all the acoustic reflections you get off of all that stuff in the listening space are as impactive as any mechanical vibration mitigation. My theory, based on personal observations that are constantly evolving through trial and error, is that a good stand is very important, and for that reason I have enjoyed Pierre Sprey’s maple, steel and brass stands from Mapleshade. I was initially attracted to Pierre’s approach because his aerospace engineering background appealed to my interest in material sciences and control of resonance by design. It works. I have also heard Adona stands and was impressed. But ultimately, I would rather get to a point where my system sounds sufficiently enjoyable so that I can simply listen to music and forget about the hardware and more "tuning." In my mind, that’s still walking. Theory is mostly talking (one exception is subatomic nuclear physics math), but it should be based on the walking performed previously, otherwise, it’s simply conjecture and hand waving, and there’s nothing wrong with expressing an opinion. Experiments are the walk, no doubt, and if 5% of the time one learns something that advances understanding from pure experimentation, even if the result is no change, then that is informative. I don’t understand your approach and why you "walk" the way you do with your experiments. Perhaps a little about the basis of this here would be informative to those of us curious to know what is the scientific/engineering/acoustic grounding of some of your configurations and constructions? Why do you think they work from a physical standpoint? WHat exactly is vibrating, the transformer? A platform is not going to stop that. I also respectfully disagree with you about your use of the term "audio code." Audio is analog; there is no code. A sinewave may be a "code" in terms of a mathematical formula, but it’s not music. The proper term is timbre and it’s an important one to use when referring to (from Wiki!) "the character or quality of musical sound." Again, there is no code, just as no two systems are ever alike, even if they were composed of exactly the same components and room dimensions/materials, they will never exist in the same time and space. Hence, no code; the variables are virtually infinite. And, the recording process is fraught with distortions, (phase, time, etc) that accumulate from violin to speaker to ear. Minimizing distortion of timbre throughout the recording/playback chain is the key. Please explain why removing a chassis accomplishes this?