Which cone's or platforms have helped?

I was recently challenged by a friend who is a Sistrum Platform non believer to measure in room response of a system consisting of Thiel CS6's Krell amp and pre and Krell cd. All of this sat on a Stand Design audio rack. I used Audiocontrol RTA and calibrated mic as my tools. Using pink noise and taking spl measurement set at 80db. Variation in actual spl measured between 79 and 81.5 db. I did not at first realize this variation was caused by the compression and expansion of the room itself. WE then took frequency response measurements at the same level and recorded these and stored them to the rta. Step two was to add the Sistrum Platform under the Krell CD player and to repeat the same test in the same identical manner as the first. The SPL measurement shocked me! The variation in SPL was less and also flucuated at a slower rate. I really thought the spl would increase with the addition of the platform because I could always hear much improved dynamics with the use of Sistrum products. Next we took frequency response measurements and stored these as well. Upon comparison of the 2 curves my friend and I both could see marked improvement in the lower mid bass to mid range shape as well as the range from about 3k on up. This improved curve was now more of a flat line with the use of the Sistrum Platform. This was the first time I had ever measured a system with and without the platforms. I really did not think that all the improvements I knew I have been hearing with the platforms could actually be measured so easily. My friend stated he thought the reduction in spl related to less distortion when using the Sistrum platform. This was my perception when listening with these devices in place. More detail and separation, much lower noise floor and much greater contrast. Let me state I do not make it a habit to walk around with an RTA taking measurements of my system or anyone else's. The texture of the music is the turn on for me. I did however thank my friend for the Sistrum challenge.

Jazzdude, isn't it saying that titanium is a better conductor of vibration in that the sub was noiser, thus allowing vibration to resonate better? I would think a quiter sub would be absorbing or otherwise not conduction vibration, thus less noise.

First - the cause of the vibration needs to be understood.

Second - the means at which to dissipate the vibration also needs to be understood.

"A specified geometry has to work with a specified material."

If you are missing either side of this equation the cause and effect is essentially void.

Geometry works - all cones or materials are not created equal.

Brass alone has different types of metallurgy. Each variation will yield a different sonic result. At the very least brass used in the development of musical instruments provides us musical history.

Performed my initial Nordost titanium Pulsar Points testing last night & these things do show some promise.
I installed 3 of the Pulsar's with their tops directly contacting the EAD Ultradisc 2000 CD player chassis - I figure that's a more valid comparison since the Orchard Bay's were also done that way.
Bear in mind however that for my last change recently I had gone to the ceramic DH Labs cones & did not like them at all, so at this point *anything* was a significant improvement.
I think that those ceramics were probably worse than nothing at all.

The rig was powered down Thursday due to thunderstorms in the area so unfortunately it was a cold startup, but nevertheless so far I like what I've heard.
Many of the same characteristics as the Orchard Bay titaniums, although with not quite as aggressive / articulated HF extension (pretty much a good thing) but also the LF's do not seem to be quite as deeply extended (not such a good thing).
Also the dynamics are not quite as lively; wife was listening too, & she basically decided right away that she favors the O.B's dynamics over the Pulsar's & she asked me right away to put them back in.
I held off however, reminding her that this solid state Accuphase equipment takes about a day or so to warm up & sound its best.
So this was just an initial assessment with cold equipment; take that for what it's worth.

The sound last night very much reminded me of the characteristics of the brass Audio Points & pucks, good, but not quite up to the level of the Orchard Bay.
Now I want to reinstall the brass cones & pucks just to make a close comparison, then I'll restore the OB's & then go back to the Pulsar's so I can make some very close comparisons & report back.
I also would like to repeat the whole comparison process after changing out the Black Diamond shelf for a Zoethecus Z-Slab; the Z-Slab being different in some ways just as the two sets of titaniums differ, & not sure which I actually prefer.

Since it was advised that 3 Pulsar's seem to be preferred over the 4 placed under factory footers, I probably won't bother to test with 4 but again there's another set of variables that could be played around with. Nordost's instructions actually recommend placing them 1ea. under the 4 factory feet.
More later...

Bob, I have found in using the Sistrum products they work even more effectively when I remove all factory feet, rubber or any other material. I think the rubber slows down the extraction of resonance that Sistrum drains away so well. I wonder how the Nordost product could be effective when placed under a hunk of rubber. Seems there would be very unstable contact of dissimilar materials to provide any physical value at all. Please let us know more about your findings. Tom