Isoacoustics Orea vs Townshend Seismic Pod on Components


I installed a set of Isoacoustics Gaia 2s on my speakers about a month ago and was extremely pleased with them. I'm now curious about the Oreas.

My components are currently placed on a good rack with Finite Elemente Cerabase footers at the bottom of the rack. I was wondering if individual isolators such as the Orea or Seismic Pod placed under components can further improve sound quality. I've read contradictory comments about the Orea. Some say they brought an appreciable difference when placed under components such as DAC or amplifiers. Some say they bring nothing to the sound, zero difference.

I would appreciate experiences on the Isoacoustics Orea or the Townshend Seismic Pod, or the comparison between the two products. The Oreas look better than the Pods to me although the latter may be costlier.
ryder

@arafiq I would start by using the least amount of springs possible to keep at least 2.5-3mm in each individual set.

For example. lets say that you will end up using 4, and that your tube amp has 2 transformers on the back left and not much on the front.

Then for your amp lets say you need 6 springs in the back-left to get the gap to 3mm, then your back-right might need 4 to keep the 3mm gap, then the front-right might need just 2 and the front-left 3 for example. 

If your amp is really heavy in the back, you might need lest say 4 sets. with, starting from the left-back all strings, then one less on the back-middle-left, 3 less for the back-middle right, and 4 less for the back right.

In other words use the least amount of springs to keep the gap as consistent as you can. This should be your base line, and experiment from there either moving the sets around, changing the spring load or both. 

For my RELs I spent a lot of afternoons, trying different configurations, listening and measuring. REW is a great tool to visualize how your sound is changing and guide you in the right direction. By no means I am a sound engineer, sound expert or anything remotely similar. I used to do the tuning by ear but it would take me for ever, and not always end up with the sound I used to like, but the sound was not an accurate reproduction so it took me a while to get used and fully appreciate the changes. Give your ear time to adjust to the new sound, then move in the way you think is best. I have found that going back and forth without getting used to the new sound it led me many times in the wrong direction.

For example one the records I was using that used to sound warm now started too too bright, but others records sounded much better, lots of definition and dimensionality. It turned up to be that the record was recorded too bright, and given the decay I had, before the changes, was very big so it kind of cancelled the brightness. 

Other records that felt had no bass, now they started to have very defined bass, I would assume that it could also be attributed to decay and distortion.

I am an engineer so I make one change at the time, listen, make notes then measure and see how it correlates, and so on until I got now where I can be confident that I am listening to the records as recorded and not as an artifact of distortion, decay, timing etc. 

I would say that I am 75-80% where I would say that I am happy, I still have some excess energy around 28.5Hz and  321Hz that I need to fix but I have a very flat response. All this was achieved using Nobsound, Townshend pod and podiums, REW and moving things around in my room.

The mechanical isolation was of huge help to position my speakers and subs.  

I am sorry if my English is not good that you can not understand. I just started to use English when referring to audio.

I just noticed that instead of unscrewing a Pod to show how it is made the Troll cut it up, destroying the Pod and giving a false impression of how it is made. So destructive not only of ideas and concepts but physical property too. Hard to be sure if deliberately deceptive or just incredibly inept. No reason can't be both I guess.

@ryder I ordered the Nobsound springs, arriving tomorrow. I have a few questions …

1. Which component stands to benefit the most? Dac, amp, or streamer? Eventually I might get more sets but want to start small.

2. My amp is the Audio Hungary a50i. It’s about 55 lbs and like many tube amps, it’s much heavier in the back due to the transformers. Is there any specific configuration I should start with?

3. Do I place the springs under the existing footers on my component or underneath the chassis itself? If in case it’s the latter, do I need to remove the factory installed footers?

 

@arafiq sorry for the late response.

1. I have only tried the Nobsounds under the amp and DAC. The Nobsound will have an effect to everything that’s being supported. However, it is crucial to experiment with the number of springs to find the best configuration. This is the only disadvantage of the Nobsounds. I removed the Nobsounds from the DAC as the optimal compression of the springs could not be achieved due to the light weight of the DAC. The Nobsounds currently remain on the amps in my main and second systems.

2. The key is to get an almost similar compression for all footers ie. same gap between the top and bottom pieces. You may start with 2 springs at the front, 3 springs at the rear then slowly increase to 3 springs front, 4 springs rear. If it is a lot heavier at the back, you may try 2 springs front, 4 springs rear etc. Personally I prefer a larger gap which is about 50% compression of the springs. There is no other way than to try and listen for yourself as everyone hears differently and has their own preferences.

3. Below chassis is the recommendation, 3 or 4 footers for each component. Having said that, I placed the footers directly under the feet of the Luxman as I’m afraid the chassis could not support the weight of the unit. (> 60 lbs).

Post removed