Dspr - it seems to me that if there is a difference, the outriggers would be an improvement, not just different strokes. In product design, we always have to stop somewhere, and spikes in the base is where we stopped. I can see how a broader base of support would improve launch integrity, but can't visualize how it might hurt. (But, of course, imagination has its own limits!)
A recent (these past year(s)) observation is how surprisingly active the top and bottom of the cabinets are. I found "it" on the 2.2, but it's on all the models, contrary to my assumption that the small size and therefore relatively greater effective stiffness of those end panels would make them inert. In fact, the 2.2 has extremely small size and moves enough to hear / measure. Bottom similarly. The vertical air column dynamics and and end effects of the panels work to concentrate vibrational forces at the column ends. I think that absorbing / neutralizing the energy being transmitted into the spikes and therefore the floor would help quiet the cabinet. (To wit, all those pucks and springs and geometries of isolation feet.) I've been introduced to an Italian casting product developed as an acoustical cement for damping resonances in highway bridges, among other applications. It has promise both for inside the panels and as pin pucks.
I don't know whether you guys know our youngest brother John. He's recently retired as the senior bridge maintenance engineer for the USA. He's a civil / structural engineer who knows this kind of stuff.
