Isoacoustics Orea vs Townshend Seismic Pod on Components

My preamps are unbalanced due to the heavy transformers mounted to one side. So I set them on inert boards and then the boards are placed on the isolation feet. You can’t see it from the picture but the rear feet are positioned inboard to even out the loading. This way I still have the rubber feet on the component in use. I didn’t want to put the springs in direct contact with the chassis. Based on my accelerometer measurements the isolation this way is just as effective as having the feet directly under the rubber feet of the preamp.

Audio Research Ref 5SE. Nice.

Similarly I didn’t want to place the Nobsounds in direct contact with the chassis so I put them directly under the heavy duty cast-iron feet of the component. Due to the nature of the rack I can’t introduce an additional board between the feet of the component and Nobsound footers. My amp also has unbalanced loading, compensated by reducing the number of springs at location where the load is lighter.

Thank you.  I have the matching Ref 2SE Phono pre as well.  I have been an ARC user since the late 80s.  I try not to chase the wind.  I enjoyed my last ARC preamp for 18 years.  I'm very fortunate to have these preamps.  

I find the Nobsounds to be effective isolators.  I'm using large springs on my speakers and amplifiers.  I bought some 1.5" OD 57 lbf/in springs from McMaster Carr for these heavy weight components.

Gents,

I have found the best spring configuration after 5 days of experimentation. In brief summary, the Nobsounds have brought an appreciable improvement to my system. They are used on a Class A integrated amp, 4 footers under the component's feet. I have another set of Nobsounds which will be tested with the DAC and pre/power amps in another system in due time.

I initially started with 6 springs on each footer. Due to the unbalanced loading of the amp which caused an uneven compression of the footers (the amp is heavier at the front), I later switched to 5 springs @ front, 4 springs @ rear. For ease of illustration, here’s the configuration I’ve tried in chronological order with their corresponding gap between the top and bottom aluminium alloy pieces;

6 springs @ front and rear (8mm gap)

5 springs @ front ; 4 springs @ rear (7mm gap) = 50% compression

4 springs @ front ; 3 springs @ rear (5mm gap)

3 springs @ front ; 2 springs @ rear (3mm gap)

I was expecting the best result with the smallest gap but that didn’t work for me. I then slowly got back up to 6/5 before finally settling with 5/4 which is the best sounding set up to my ears, in my system. Coincidentally, this configuration gave a 50% compression of the springs.

The sound quality is noticeably different with each spring set up. In brief summary, too many springs (low compression) will produce a sound that is lean and light with reduced bass weight. Too little springs (high compression) reduced the airiness and 3-dimensionality. When it sounds right, you will know it and everything just sounds great.

Impressions as follows;

6 springs @ front ; 5 springs @ rear,

- overall presentation is lean and light with certain hollowness to the sound

- bass weight is reduced as it lacks punch and drive

- slight smearing in the midrange

- percussion sounds soft and lacks bite

5 springs @ front ; 4 springs rear (best sound)

- best sound from this set up with the springs at 50% compression

- everything just sounds right as music just flows out freely from the speakers

- notes have more energy with a tube-like quality

- treble sounds airier and has better extension

- improved macrodynamics, airier and 3-dimensional sound with space between instruments

- thwack of drums and percussion all sound snappier and real

- bass weight is back with improved definition and punch

4 springs @ front ; 3 springs @ rear

3 springs @ front ; 2 spings @ rear

- reduced airiness and 3-dimensionality as the sound is slightly dull and flat