Turntable Isolation Journey


Nearing the end of my journey to solve footfall & feedback issues in my small-room "home office" system with very bouncy floor and flexible walls. Turntable is the only source here -- and it’s a Clearaudio Innovation Compact with no suspension or special isolation feet. This system always sounded good, but was rendered nearly unusable at higher volumes due to turntable isolation that was inadequate relative to this room’s challenges. The worst artifact was when structure-borne feedback from the speakers would cause amp clipping on bass-heavy tracks. This clipping would manifest as an extremely loud singular POP sound, especially hitting the tweeters. It only occurred during the loudest parts of track with bass-heavy elements, and was so loud it was still significantly above the level of the music -- much louder than a POP you would hear from vinyl surface defects. The POP sound was startling, and clearly very bad for tweeters (fortunately my Tannoys seem to have survived several of these incidents). For a time I thought these POPs were from static electricity discharge, but they were NOT. In my quest I tried many solutions and tweaks over a few months, and I’d like to share a rundown of what worked versus what didn’t.

What Helped (MVP products & tweaks):

  1. Townshend Seismic Isolation platform -- Single biggest difference maker, for combating both footfalls and structure-borne feedback from speakers. Amazingly-well designed and built. Leveling was a snap. Well worth the price! If you spend money on isolation, spend it here. Highly Recommended. I’m now considering more Townshend products for under my speakers and in the big loft rig.
  2. Rack Bracing -- Pushed rack right up against the wall (stud / drywall) with a 2’x2’x2" Auralex foam panel tightly wedged in between the top half of rack & wall. This SIGNIFICANTLY cleaned up rack oscillation from footfalls. I see a LOT of folks with nice turntables atop tower-style audio racks, and they could benefit greatly from this "hack". It is cheap & free; the only downside is you may need to reposition your rack. I learned about this "hack" by a couple comments buried in "turntable isolation" threads searched via google. This really CANNOT be overstated.
  3. HOCKEY PUCKS -- Placed under rack spikes in place of the stock aluminum cups or Herbie’s Giant Gliders. Just let the spikes sink right in! This actually cleaned up the very last bit of energy from footfalls; foot stomps with needle-in-groove are now DEAD QUIET. super cheap and effective! Far superior to most audiophile footer devices. Might also help in rack bracing by tightly constraining the rack between wall & floor (Herbie’s Gliders were too slippery).
  4. Rack positioning -- Get your turntable & rack away from the speakers. If you can move the rack far enough behind your speakers, that might be OK, but most rooms cannot accommodate enough depth for this. Placing the rack several feet down a sidewall worked best in this room. Choosing a structural wall also aids in rack bracing. Make sure you don’t place the rack in a room "node" where bass is amplified. Walk around while music is playing to find a nice quiet-ish spot. I kept my amps by the speakers and ran 5 meter XLR cables from the preamp / rack.

What Underperformed:

  • Critical Mass Sotto Voce rack -- the rack is gorgeous and nicely rigid, but doesn’t have nearly enough mass to combat the bouncy floor in this room. Once braced against a wall, the rigidity of this rack was allowed to shine. However, before the bracing, its performance was poor. I will say I have Critical Mass’s Maxxum rack in my (main) loft system on a more solid floor, and the immense mass & rigidity of that rack was game-changer for that system. I do like CMS products, but they are dearly expensive.
  • Critical Mass Black Platinum filter -- Top shelf of the rack. This actually has a significant positive effect, but is limited to the midrange and treble frequencies. It cannot combat footfalls or low frequency feedback. I still like and use this platform, but at more than twice the cost of a Townshend platform it belongs in this category.
  • SOTA Nova V Turntable -- I thought this table’s suspension would render it impervious to room issues, but it’s not. It helped with footfalls but some structure-borne feedback was still getting through. I suspect the suspension needs a tune-up. Quite frankly I think the OLD suspension (it started life as a 1990s Star III) was better tuned and more stable before it came back as a fully rebuilt Nova V, circa 2018. The new vacuum platter was a huge improvement but the new suspension has been disappointing. The Clearaudio deck also sounds a bit better, so now with the Townshend platform it’s an easy choice. Note that the Townshend also uses springs as its isolation mechanism, but I noticed that the Townshend’s oscillation is far better controlled and damped versus the SOTA. You can SEE and HEAR its performance advantage.
  • ISOAcoustics Gaia III speaker feet -- these seemed to have some small positive benefit, but honestly not a lot. Not worth the money.
  • Lovan Sovereign modular rack (three 10" modules high) -- these are very similar to the VTI racks I see everywhere (which I’m also familiar with). These racks lack rigidity and stability. I would not recommend placing a nice turntable on one of these racks. However, if you do, please brace it against a wall (Auralex foam works great). They’re relatively cheap and look good, so I at least understand their popularity. If you have this rack, at least try hockey pucks under its spikes :)

What Was Worthless (Don’t waste your money like I did):
I’m not going to bother expanding upon these; suffice to say they had no discernible positive effect.

  • ISOAcoustics Orea Indigo feet (under maple board & turntable).
  • Symposium Segue ISO turntable platform
  • Herbie’s Lab Giant Gliders (steel) - Placed under Sotto Voce rack spikes
  • Speaker spikes -- at least they look cool :)

128x128mulveling

@no_regrets 

Yes, the Vibrasystems EVA-BFR was very effective in isolating and grounding my last turntable.  They are specifically designed to reduce minor vibrations.  I also tried springs, but I found that they induced a some what “tinny” quality to the sound.  Hockey pucks did seem to ground the turntable, but vibrations  seemed to be rather easily transmitted through even two stacked pucks.  The EVA-BFR allowed the turntable to sound very grounded, much more detailed, and very neutral.  Here is the link to the items, where you can buy various sizes: (let us know what your experience is with them)

https://vibrasystems.com/foam-rubber-pad.html

 

Didn't the guy from Kung-Fu walk barefooted across sand without leaving tracks? There is your footfall problem solved. 

I am very familiar with the Vibrasystems Sandwiched Blue Foam Pads, I was able to acquire these as a 300mm square that was a surplus material. I was also able to pass on as gifts these same pads to the local HiFi Group.

The Local Hifi Group are Gaia III users after my introducing them to the AT 616. 

I also have used the same construction as the Vibrasystems Pad which is using a Sandwiched Cork. Each Types have been tried under as footers in direct contact with Sources, Amp's and Speakers and also as a Separator of Tiers in a Sub Plinth assembly. 

My experience with these pads used as above is that as a alternate material in a structure they will change the sonic at the time of their addition, but are not able to offer a attraction that has been discovered from other designs for Footers that have been adopted.

My experiences of working with structures as interfaces for equipment and the loaning of materials and devices used for these purposes, has yielded very similar results to what has been realised when doing similar with a TT Platter Mat. 

There is in my view no ubiquitous solution for a produced structure or use of a Platter Mat. When creating the experience, there are two factors to be considered. One being the capability of the device/materials in use to perform a particular function and then there is the unique preference for a sonic that is perceived as the most attractive to the end user.

The desirable sonic/presentation across a range of experienced users of audio equipment can be to the polar extremes. One seasoned user can prefer a lean transparent presentation, like myself, but where I stray is that I will welcome a little richness offered up for a certain genre of music, this makes my own preferences unique and I have worked to learn how to satisfy this within the used system. A SUT swap out, Platter Mat exchanges or a Cable or Valve exchange are easily carried out and more than enough to change the perception that a Lean or Rich sonic is presented.

Another seasoned user can pursue a Rich Warm Tone or even a Lush Overbearing Coloured Tone. There is certainly no correct or incorrect in my books, just end users who are happy with their creations.

As the OP's Thread Title suggests, A Journey has been undertaken to find a place where they are satisfied with what is used as a structure to get the best from their listening environment and to suit their preferences for how they perceive a sonic and presentation.

More importantly, as attractive as an Off the Shelve solution is, especially one that comes with a substantial purchase price, there is not any asurity, the sonic produced and the presentation is going to be satisfying to all who experience the device in use. For a selection of individuals it may be the very best experience to date, for a different selection of individuals the impression made may be quite different.