I just took a proper engineers advice,
Quote,
‘This part of the design is actually one of the features that attracts me most to this manufacturer.
From a noise and vibration isolation perspective speaker supports have been amongst the most technically misunderstood aspects of hifi in the press IMO.
The whole "mount them rigidly" fashion was bollox from day 1 because
nothing is rigid over the full range of audio frequencies, but the press ran with it (on record players too) and have continued for decades.
If you don't want your stands and floor to be an inaccurate sounding board for your speakers making sure they are mechanically decoupled is essential and these are the first I have seen with both polymeric (good for higher frequencies) and springs (good for low frequencies).
Decades ago I measured the difference in cabinet and stand vibration level on a pair of LS3/5as and target stands I had in my office between sitting on cones and using peas sized balls of blutak squidged between them. I didn't quantify the squidging
so maybe not a strictly scientific test, but the vibration level on speaker and stand were both reduced by "lots", or to use a different unit "shed loads".’
When I looked into vibration transmission some ten years ago working with a manufacturer who make laboratory isolation equipment Ie not foo) they concluded that structural borne transmission isolation would only be beneficial in a very small percentage of user cases.
And of course you might ameliorate structural borne vibration/resonance but there is still air borne.
They do bring the speakers nearer to ear height though.
Keith