Why spend more than $25 per piece of equipment on vibration reduction?

I used to use Herbie's Tenderfeet (different types and sizes) and they used to work for me back when I first started in this hobby. As my equipment got more discerning and revealing, they tended to soften and muddy the sound so I just used the standard footers on my Marantz Reference gear. 

On a lark, I tried the Isoacoustic Oreas and they made a very big difference in the focus of the sound from top to bottom. Nothing negative to report. As the focus improved, so did imaging, decay, ambience and all those subtle cues that make for better realization of what's in the recording.

The Iso-Pucks look like a less fancy version of the Oreas and did come out first, and are used by lots of recording studios for their monitors. They should work fine for your gear. Most places have a return guarantee as long as you return them in as new condition.

All the best,
Nonoise

Springs, pods, air ride. Everything else is to impress your friends and look pretty.

If your speakers are slot loaded with an open botton (no butt plate) they can’t be decoupled. Don’t bother. 80s tech anyways along with spikes of any kind.

If spikes worked every power plant on earth would be set up that way.
NONE are, they all use isolation with vibration control..

Regards

@jerryg123 

Yes, real hockey pucks are under most components, all of which sit on a concrete foundation (as those on suspended floors may find more suspension/spring elements work better than they did for me).  Lighter components (turntable, phono stage) also have a sponge puck under the real puck, which, in my experience, did quiet the background, offering a more "solid" sound. . . 

For Dave and Troy, what do you mean by "not that effective ..."? Is technical data available on the relative vibration reduction capabilities of different isolation products? If you could point me in that direction, I'd love to look at the information.

Thanks.

Dan

Springs Are the answer