Wood blocks underneath components?? snake oil?

Cdc, FWIW, You are probably correct. I doubt that we will agree on anything when it comes to this subject.

But, FWIW, I would pose a question which no one has ever answered for me. Assuming, for the sake of discussion, that you are correct regarding the "drain" theory, and assuming that you have a component, or part with-in which is more likely because each component part will have its own individual resonance point, which resonates at, say 5000hz, exactly what amplitude must this resonance reach before it actually affects the SOUND of the component.

IMHO, it's only an esoteric theory unless one can establish that it not only actually exists in the minds of our scientists, but as pratical matter for audiophiles that advertised methods actually work to solve a real problem experienced in audio components and their use in the home.

It seems to me that if we have a problem based on something as well explored by the scientific community as resonances/vibrations that there must also exist a method of quantifying the amplitudes necessary to cause a deterioration in sound quality. IMHO this is not an area where 'subjective' observations have much meaning (to me at least).

IMHO, the 'drain theory' is on the same level as someone saying that we aught to provide for compensation in out TT set ups for the effect of the moon. I mean it (the moon) sure effects our invironment - no arguement can be made there - so it must effect our TT's operation which are infinitely suseptible to all sorts of things, and we should be able to make adjustments to compensate, shouldn't we?

FWIW, I get a real kick out of someone saying that a 'component' has a resonance point which can be moved by choice of isolation/coupling. As I suggested above, if a component has 100 parts, it has one hundred resonances within, one for each uncommon part. Do these somehow combine to make just one resonance for the whole component? Perhaps I'm just speaking from ignorance - I guess I'll have to take some physics course so I can understand this

As indicated before, I think the drain theory offers more commercial opportunities than it actually solves real world problems. IHMO of course.

Excellent point Newbee, I will begin design on a moon shield immediately :>)

Hi Newbee

exactly what amplitude must this resonance reach before it actually affects the SOUND of the component

I'm not going there. I will not put on the facade that I have all the answers to everything. Some people get sucked in though, including the Pope, with disastrous results.
While I don't know everything, doesn't mean I know nothing either :-).

BTW, where the heck did warrenh and all the other coupling pundits go? Geeeshhh I'm just out here swaying in the wind.

Question for you, my friend. Did you read my inset from the bad vibes article and how it explains how sorbothane
"can contribute to the subjective impression of a "mushy," "soft," or "boomy" bass response"?
Could be in your system/preference it works well. There are so many variables it's hard to say what will or won't work on an absolute scale, IMHO.
Good luck

cdc: The ideal stand as I gather would be:
1) completely rigid and operate as a single unit. Bad vibes article "Minimize the relative motion between different elements that comprise a system"
2) resonant frequencies would be pushed as HIGH as possible so vibration's amplitudes are as LOW as possible. Bad Vibes article:
"lowest natural frequency will be the most dominant". Minimum resonant frequency = maximum amplitude".
"Reduction in frequency leads to an increase in dispalcement...resulting in a "noisier" less stable
platform".
"The lower the resonant frequency of a platform, the less desirable-the associated increase in amplitude will cause more serious ringing that damping can only partially reduce." So using sorbothane actually INCREASES ringing which damping can only partially reduce.
"Enough damping should be applied" BUT ITS PURPOSE IS TO "further lower the displacement of resonances" not increase it.

As I understand it, sorbothane has
1)high amplitude as in actual dimensional dispalcement
2) soft material with numerous, complex. vibration modes.

cdc, I just wanted to add one more thing, those conclusions you arrive at from reading that article about resonant frequencies are not accurate. "Minimum resonant frequency = maximum amplitude". Does amplitude of vibration in a medium only depend on the frequency of vibration? Can you provide a reference showing that relationship or an equation or something? What about the magnitude of force that causes the vibration in the first place? I just want you to know that some of the best and most effective isolators I have seen have a natural frequency of less than 2 HZ and achieve 99.8% efficiency of vibration isolation above 10 hz.

Another vote for Herbie's Tenderfeet, which are low cost, and can be tried at home with money back guarantee. Seem to work wonderfully on a variety of underlying surfaces, wood, marble, granite.
After trying wood blocks, I have ended up using them on top of certain components to subtly tune sound, and as mini-bases for the famous Star Sound Audiopoints, with and without the additional subtle tuning effect of an intermediate Audiopoint Coupling Base between the point and the wood.
If the basic "sound" of a component is enjoyed then the very simplest idea is to try Herbie's Tenderfeet, first. A lot of what many seek in their system's sound is unveiled, or allowed to happen, with these relative bargains in support.
Herbie's also has many variations to interact with, or modify, their basic Tenderfoot product, and to interact with other manufacturers' products.
Using the plain vanilla Herbie's Tenderfeet is probably the most cost effective way to get started with great "universal" component support. The home trial offer allows one to hear in his/her own listening room before making a final decision.