Purpose of triangular placement of cones/spikes?

It's simply to insure that the feet or supports for the component all make contact with the shelf. If there are 4 feet and one is not making good contact, this can cause the chassis to vibrate, resonate. I think it's stupid to make these out of turned brass or other exotic materials. If you have a really cheesy rack, then soft rubber or sorbothane feet might help...

For a number of years it has been thought that a pointed cone provides vibration control by "draining" unwanted stored energy out of a component and restricting the movement of vibration up into the bottom of the component due to the small contact area of the point against the shelf surface. Some people have called a pointed cone a "mechanical diode" allowing energy to transfer in one direction but restricting the energy flow in the opposite direction.

A closer look at the interface of the bottom of the component with the top of the cone, the point of the cone with the shelf surface and the material from which the cone is made and its shape will reveal the true nature of a cone's capabilities and limitations. A component placed on a normal shelf is subject to external vibration trying to enter from underneath due to the transfer of energy from the speaker through the floor and up through the equipment rack, plus the shelf itself contains additional resonance due to its vibrating in sympathy with the air-borne vibration from the speaker.

Placing the component on a cone will change the nature of the stored energy present in the component by altering its resonant frequency. The amount of change will differ from component to component due to the way the bottom plate of the component will be damped by the amount of surface contact with the top of the cone, the pressure of the cone against the bottom plate, the resonant frequency of the cone (which depends on its material construction and shape) and the position of the cone on the bottom of the component. That is why some cones sound better in some situations than others. It is really "hit and miss", especially when you consider that a cone is a rigid device. Being rigid, it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to really stop vibration from entering from underneath a component. In fact, it readily transfers vibration into the bottom of a component, it just does so differently than the original feet did. Additionally, raising the component further away from the shelf allows more acoustic energy to reach the bottom plate directly from the speaker. Using only three cones under a component (a popular practice) which reduces chassis "chatter" by allowing the three points to more easily define a plane so the component will sit evenly, allows two of the component's corners to dangle unsupported. This situation is not desirable since the chassis can now be more easily excited by air-borne vibration.

A cone may sometimes be better than using the original feet on a component but it cannot stop or absorb unwanted vibration or resonance.

Barry Kohan

RE: my previous post - I should identify that I am a manufacturer of vibration control products.

Barry Kohan

Of course 3 is better IF a plane is maintained, inferring a very rigid chassis. If the damn thing's sagging or trampolining then more is better, but maybe it's hopeless at that point! (sorry)
Yes, cones transmit, not absorb, Their directionality should be selected according to which mass is the preferred recipient of said energy. Here's where Ken Lyon's comments on the Neuance on top of upturned spikes/cones would be really useful. KEEEEENNNNNN!....