IsoAcoustics Isolation Feet - Does it really make positive effect or fancy accessories

[Mart68]

For speakers stood on desks, shelves, cabinets etc I use these washing machine anti-vibration feet:



Suspect they are as good as anything in that situation and they are cheap.

I've used them under electronics too but only where the device doesn't have proper 'Japanese-style' feet and I want a bit more of an air gap between it and the component below.

Obviously with electronics there's no mechanism by which adding feet can make any change to the output of the device.

The glossy black ones actually look like they're integral to the component when in place.

 

[ivayvr]

I do not have experience with IsoAcoustics Isolation Feet, but generally believe that using any decoupling method is mostly dependent on the surface that it is being used on.
For years, all my bookshelf speakers were sitting on top of a flimsy cabinet. By placing my palm on that shelf, I could feel that shelf was a part of the sound system, contributing to whatever the resonant frequency was. I read somewhere about isolation/decoupling properties of sorbothane, ordered some on eBay and made some feet based on the calculator that was available on their web page (if I remember correctly). To answer the question if I made some blind tests or some measurements, no I did not. I used my palm as a measuring instrument again and the, shelf speakers were sitting on, was completely inert. I don't see any justification for use of any special isolation feet on solid, non resonant surfaces. Turntables could be a possible exception.
Using any isolation feet or weights on electronics is only for the real audiophiles!

 

[decomo]

Ethan Winer covered this pretty extensively on his blog:

Testing Loudspeaker Isolation Products

It's all hokum as far as I know. Ethan's testing confirms that.

Thank you very much for sharing the link. Very interesting read indeed. For those who have little time to read full article, I copied the Conclusion from the article.

In short, any isolation device does not do any sizeable impact on measurement. But speaker placement and room treatment such as bass trap makes much more impact.
By putting isolation device under the speakers change the height of the speakers, which do change on measurement and it might the reason that people claim that there are noticeable hearing difference before and after placing isolation device.

Conclusion

I'm convinced that the measured changes are too small to account for the "obvious" improvements so many people claim to hear after floating their speakers on isolation pads. Most of the response differences are less than 1 or 2 dB, with the biggest differences at the 155 Hz "floor bounce" null frequency due to slightly different heights. An obvious change, to me, is at least a 3 dB response difference over a wide range of frequencies, or a 30 percent change in decay times. It's possible some people have even poorer tables than the one I used, though I doubt it! So why do people swear that adding isolation improved the sound of their loudspeakers? The frequency response varied less than 2 dB for all these products, which I believe is due to different speaker placements. Further, the impulses barely vary, and the waterfalls vary even less. The differences are all 20-30 dB down, so how could this be perceived as a "more-and punchier-low end" as described by Reviews Editor Andy Hong in Tape Op magazine?

One reason the sound can change is because raising the speakers on isolators puts them higher than they had been. As my Audiophile Beliefs article confirms, moving even a few inches changes the frequency at your ears by a very large amount. You can easily hear this on IsoAcoustics's Difference Page that plays music through two sets of speakers, where the microphones are in different places for each speaker. So the obvious difference heard is due entirely to the microphone for one speaker being off-axis compared to the other speaker!

Other than the change in frequency response due to different speaker placements, which is real and easily measured, I believe the frailty of human hearing tricks people into thinking the sound improved even though it did not. Call it placebo effect, or wishful thinking, or even a misguided allegiance to a magazine's advertisers rather than its readers. The bass didn't really become "much better controlled" (shorter decay times), nor did the speakers produce "better defined mids, clearer highs," nor did "detail and depth improve significantly" as claimed in the various quotes above. If any of those changes really occurred, they'd be clearly visible in my measurements. They are not. Simply lowering the loudspeaker three inches changed the response much more than the difference between no isolation and any of the tested devices.

Click image for full size.​

Most of the product reviews and user testimonials for loudspeaker isolation products claim they make the bass sound tighter and clearer, less boomy, and better controlled. I've even seen people suggest that speaker decoupling reduces the need for bass traps. For reference, the graph at left shows the bass range response and ringing in a small room with and without six 2x4-foot bass traps. The blue waterfall is the room empty, and the red is after adding the traps. It's easy to see that the response is flatter with bass traps, and all of the modes decay much more quickly. Versus the minimal changes with any of the isolation devices.

So what can we learn from these tests? First, it's clear that moving a loudspeaker even a small amount makes a very real change in the perceived and actual frequency response. So raising your speaker on an isolating stand can change what you hear because of the height difference alone, even if any isolation present had no effect. (It's well known that the correct loudspeaker height puts the tweeter at ear level because that gives the flattest response, so please do that!) But my tests also call into question the hearing acuity of professional recording engineer endorsers, and "golden eared" magazine reviewers, who claimed to hear "obvious" improvements in clarity, bass tightness, and imaging. Either they don't realize the limits of their own hearing, or they all have even worse speaker stands than the flimsy piece of crap table I used!

If anyone reading this believes I missed something, and speaker isolation (or any isolation) makes more difference than my tests show, I urge you to measure the response and ringing for yourself. Then please email me your results, or send me the link where they're posted.

 

[decomo]

I do not have experience with IsoAcoustics Isolation Feet, but generally believe that using any decoupling method is mostly dependent on the surface that it is being used on.
For years, all my bookshelf speakers were sitting on top of a flimsy cabinet. By placing my palm on that shelf, I could feel that shelf was a part of the sound system, contributing to whatever the resonant frequency was. I read somewhere about isolation/decoupling properties of sorbothane, ordered some on eBay and made some feet based on the calculator that was available on their web page (if I remember correctly). To answer the question if I made some blind tests or some measurements, no I did not. I used my palm as a measuring instrument again and the, shelf speakers were sitting on, was completely inert. I don't see any justification for use of any special isolation feet on solid, non resonant surfaces. Turntables could be a possible exception.
Using any isolation feet or weights on electronics is only for the real audiophiles!

Yep. I also believe that any isolation device would do anything on solid state audio component but may impact on record player and possibly on tube amp which tubes are sensitive to external vibration?

Very interesting to see Sorbothane used. I see some isolation device uses Spring as isolation and some use silicone or Sorbothane.

Is Soborthane the best material for damping vibration currently available in the market?

 

[JustJones]

For speakers stood on desks, shelves, cabinets etc I use these washing machine anti-vibration feet:



Suspect they are as good as anything in that situation and they are cheap.

I've used them under electronics too but only where the device doesn't have proper 'Japanese-style' feet and I want a bit more of an air gap between it and the component below.

Obviously with electronics there's no mechanism by which adding feet can make any change to the output of the device.

The glossy black ones actually look like they're integral to the component when in place.

I use those under my washing machine. Real PITA to get them in place especially when your washer is in a closet.

 

[fatoldgit]

The idea that mechanical vibrations can affect the operation of solid state electronics is preposterous. However, this does not occur to the shills who review these devices as they rely not on science or logic but their ears.

Not going to argue this as I don't have the knowledge but from my reading, persons of knowledge (but with potentially vested interests) have linked the need for vibration control for solid state electronics (esp the "draining" of vibrations from a chassis) to the piezoelectric effect (like those old cheap phone cartridges of yaw)

Their theory is semiconductors under pressure from vibrations will undergo micro piezoelectric effects and thus add unwanted noise to the signals passing through them.

Can't say I have ever seen any empirical evidence presented for this but as others have stated I can see the potential that vibration control for turntables and speakers might help with some edge cases (like tables/speakers on sprung floors).

And if you believe in such things, then those fancy oven baked oscillators (or oscillators in general) might also be upset by vibrations.

Peter

 

[kharan]

Someone should ship set of Iso Acoustics to Amir or Erin to measure, assuming they have a set of speakers that could benefit from isolation.

But as I mentioned, I don't think it'll show up in FR, but maybe in THD, IMD or you could measure side panel acceleration.

Come to think of it, Ascilab sells some isolation pads too, and they have a Klippel, not that you need one for IMD and THD..

 

[MattHooper]

Thank you very much for sharing the link. Very interesting read indeed. For those who have little time to read full article, I copied the Conclusion from the article.

In short, any isolation device does not do any sizeable impact on measurement. But speaker placement and room treatment such as bass trap makes much more impact.
By putting isolation device under the speakers change the height of the speakers, which do change on measurement and it might the reason that people claim that there are noticeable hearing difference before and after placing isolation device.

Conclusion

I'm convinced that the measured changes are too small to account for the "obvious" improvements so many people claim to hear after floating their speakers on isolation pads. Most of the response differences are less than 1 or 2 dB, with the biggest differences at the 155 Hz "floor bounce" null frequency due to slightly different heights. An obvious change, to me, is at least a 3 dB response difference over a wide range of frequencies, or a 30 percent change in decay times. It's possible some people have even poorer tables than the one I used, though I doubt it! So why do people swear that adding isolation improved the sound of their loudspeakers? The frequency response varied less than 2 dB for all these products, which I believe is due to different speaker placements. Further, the impulses barely vary, and the waterfalls vary even less. The differences are all 20-30 dB down, so how could this be perceived as a "more-and punchier-low end" as described by Reviews Editor Andy Hong in Tape Op magazine?

One reason the sound can change is because raising the speakers on isolators puts them higher than they had been. As my Audiophile Beliefs article confirms, moving even a few inches changes the frequency at your ears by a very large amount. You can easily hear this on IsoAcoustics's Difference Page that plays music through two sets of speakers, where the microphones are in different places for each speaker. So the obvious difference heard is due entirely to the microphone for one speaker being off-axis compared to the other speaker!

Other than the change in frequency response due to different speaker placements, which is real and easily measured, I believe the frailty of human hearing tricks people into thinking the sound improved even though it did not. Call it placebo effect, or wishful thinking, or even a misguided allegiance to a magazine's advertisers rather than its readers. The bass didn't really become "much better controlled" (shorter decay times), nor did the speakers produce "better defined mids, clearer highs," nor did "detail and depth improve significantly" as claimed in the various quotes above. If any of those changes really occurred, they'd be clearly visible in my measurements. They are not. Simply lowering the loudspeaker three inches changed the response much more than the difference between no isolation and any of the tested devices.

​

Click image for full size.​

Most of the product reviews and user testimonials for loudspeaker isolation products claim they make the bass sound tighter and clearer, less boomy, and better controlled. I've even seen people suggest that speaker decoupling reduces the need for bass traps. For reference, the graph at left shows the bass range response and ringing in a small room with and without six 2x4-foot bass traps. The blue waterfall is the room empty, and the red is after adding the traps. It's easy to see that the response is flatter with bass traps, and all of the modes decay much more quickly. Versus the minimal changes with any of the isolation devices.

So what can we learn from these tests? First, it's clear that moving a loudspeaker even a small amount makes a very real change in the perceived and actual frequency response. So raising your speaker on an isolating stand can change what you hear because of the height difference alone, even if any isolation present had no effect. (It's well known that the correct loudspeaker height puts the tweeter at ear level because that gives the flattest response, so please do that!) But my tests also call into question the hearing acuity of professional recording engineer endorsers, and "golden eared" magazine reviewers, who claimed to hear "obvious" improvements in clarity, bass tightness, and imaging. Either they don't realize the limits of their own hearing, or they all have even worse speaker stands than the flimsy piece of crap table I used!

If anyone reading this believes I missed something, and speaker isolation (or any isolation) makes more difference than my tests show, I urge you to measure the response and ringing for yourself. Then please email me your results, or send me the link where they're posted.

There actually have been measured differences with footers, including, I believe the isoacoustics. These have been posted in various threads about the subject. Sorry I’m not arssed enough to dig them up at the moment.

 

[genesisaudiorack]

Has any one enjoy using Isoacoustics Orea or IsoPuck on audio component and speakers?
They are quite expensive and wondering if it is really worth the money and make positive effect.

And, does anyone know if it is spring loaded inside or something else?

if you want to test some materials i can send you something to test. i work in vibration management in different industries now. i have compound solutions that work way better than feet with foamy bottoms. if i was to get into detail about cool solutions ive worked with some people on this forum might not like it. i can tell you one thing. materials matter, the weight of your components matter with what specific material to be used. this means expensive heavy record players can actually become more coupled to a table with vibration if the wrong density feet are used or aftermarket feet with the jelly foam on the bottom.

the solution is duplex decoupling effect. two different materials makes the world of difference. not here to sell, but i have rolls of all kinds of specialty materials used even in analytical hardware and semiconductor vibration isolation. i swear by these materials and ive seen major benefits. you dont need expensive feet. you can use regular feet that come with your turn table. ideally its whats under it and how decoupled the item is from its environment.

im probably going to be attacked over this. but pads arent expensive like feet but they work better persay. ive seen all kinds of hoorah products on the market, ive had analytical gas spectrometers and hplc devices on tables and carts with vacuum pumps and electronically controlled switch bays and gear pumps cause havoc in detection hardware. when the surfaces were treated, and specific pads installed properly with was like 1000s in fold reduction. to the point where vibration sensors wouldn't even trigger during calibration modes. since then ive been cutting my own pads with circle molds and i use them under all my gear. i did a duplex appplication under my vpi where i cut a whole mat to cover the area, and then placed pads where the feet were. you can tap a wooden pole against the table stand and the turn table dowsnt make a peep.

 

[genesisaudiorack]

Yep. I also believe that any isolation device would do anything on solid state audio component but may impact on record player and possibly on tube amp which tubes are sensitive to external vibration?

Very interesting to see Sorbothane used. I see some isolation device uses Spring as isolation and some use silicone or Sorbothane.

Is Soborthane the best material for damping vibration currently available in the market?

the really soft sorbothane material is a chemically altered neoprene, and its "okay". beleive it or not engineered high quality neoprene is actually better at vibration isolation. sorbothane is a similar makeup to wesuit neoprene. engineered neoprene is not the same as wetsuit neoprene. but sorbo is very similar to wetsuit neprene type material.

 

[genesisaudiorack]

Someone should ship set of Iso Acoustics to Amir or Erin to measure, assuming they have a set of speakers that could benefit from isolation.

But as I mentioned, I don't think it'll show up in FR, but maybe in THD, IMD or you could measure side panel acceleration.

Come to think of it, Ascilab sells some isolation pads too, and they have a Klippel, not that you need one for IMD and THD..

i could do better. i can send a stack of several types of different material all blind labeled for testing. materials you cant easily buy on internet or through typical suppliers.

 

[MattHooper]

the solution is duplex decoupling effect. two different materials makes the world of difference.

Is that something like constrained layer damping?

 

[genesisaudiorack]

Is that something like constrained layer damping?

maybe were on the same page, not sure

so for instance using two different materials.
one specifically setup for handle maximum dampening for the weight on it. this would typically be the harder material and denser one.
second one is specifically softer to decouple the first layer.
really soft material once compressed can technically begin to couple more than decouple. especially with heavier hardware and components on them.

edit: i have the vpi hw40 "elastomer feet" on my vpi which are incredibly similar to the isoacoustics. i feel like my table is more wobbly with them.
i have been looking online for a different foot for my turn table so i can decouple it better. i was looking at a basic solid rubber foot possibly a formed pyramid or just a solid rubber foot. then using duplex mnaterial under it. i have duplex right now under my power amps and tube preamp. but ive been lazy about the turn table because i need to figure out what thread they use. i am aiming to do this soon. does anyone know the correct thread size for a vpi classic with the hw40 style feet?

 

[Thomas_A]

If I recall correctly, Kevin Voeck's said something like, 'ideally the speaker would weigh 800 pounds with spikes on top of a concrete floor'.

He knows what he is talking about.

Very, very heavy speakers would lower the resonant frequency enough even using spikes.

 

[Thomas_A]

For speakers stood on desks, shelves, cabinets etc I use these washing machine anti-vibration feet:



Suspect they are as good as anything in that situation and they are cheap.

I've used them under electronics too but only where the device doesn't have proper 'Japanese-style' feet and I want a bit more of an air gap between it and the component below.

Obviously with electronics there's no mechanism by which adding feet can make any change to the output of the device.

The glossy black ones actually look like they're integral to the component when in place.

They may work for speakers, ideally for speakers of similar mass as the washing machine.

 

[Thomas_A]

Someone should ship set of Iso Acoustics to Amir or Erin to measure, assuming they have a set of speakers that could benefit from isolation.

But as I mentioned, I don't think it'll show up in FR, but maybe in THD, IMD or you could measure side panel acceleration.

Come to think of it, Ascilab sells some isolation pads too, and they have a Klippel, not that you need one for IMD and THD..

Like this. Audible distortion with a speaker on hard feet on a bench, which disappears with isolation pads (sylomer pads in this case).

 

[Thomas_A]

I had some Yamaha HS8s on my computer desk. They would vibrate the desk. I could feel it. Drove me crazy. I also wanted to raise them a bit. 2 yoga blocks later, problem solved. Yoga blocks can also be used for headphone storage. I should market audiophile yoga blocks.

Yes, it is perfectly normal to get desk vibrations if the speaker is hard coupled to it, especially at certain "resonant" frequencies. And if you're unlucky, the desk or other objects on the desk may induce audible distortion.

 

[ppataki]

So this morning I had some time to perform the measurements

tldr version: no real difference (at least in my opinion) on any of the curves

Measurement was done in the MLP (approx. 250cm from the speakers)
Speakers used were these heavily modified Adam Audio T5Vs (that reminds me that I will need to update that thread too with the latest changes/measurements)
Speakers are on a tripod shaped stand (actually an IKEA standing lamp....)

On all curves: blue is without the Iso-Puck and orange is with the Iso-Puck

Frequency response:

Distortion:

Phase:

GD: on this one there are some differences but I would have a hard time telling which one is better

IR:

Waterfall and Wavelet also look the same
You can scrutinize the measurement file in the attachment

The pucks are staying nevertheless and here is the reason why:
I cannot prove this with the measurements but during performing the measurement sweep I could totally hear resonance coming from the speakers at certain frequencies. With the pucks it is not there at all - the sweep becomes clear; I have tried this many times to make sure I am not hallucinating
I assume that audible resonance is caused by the stand - the pucks must isolate them better so they are not vibrating that much

And how does it 'sound'?
To be honest I am sure I would fail a proper blind test but I *think* I hear more air and vocals sound clearer too (this is all subjective and I cannot prove it and I guess it is just the honeymoon effect)

So as said above, I will keep them since they are doing a good job at least in my case with reducing the vibration of my speaker stands but if one has a 'proper' speaker stand that does not vibrate that much in the first place then I doubt you would need these pucks

I hope this helps, in case of any questions please shoot
Have a nice weekend everybody

 

[Thomas_A]

So this morning I had some time to perform the measurements

tldr version: no real difference (at least in my opinion) on any of the curves

Measurement was done in the MLP (approx. 250cm from the speakers)
Speakers used were these heavily modified Adam Audio T5Vs (that reminds me that I will need to update that thread too with the latest changes/measurements)
Speakers are on a tripod shaped stand (actually an IKEA standing lamp....)

View attachment 413557

View attachment 413558

View attachment 413559

On all curves: blue is without the Iso-Puck and orange is with the Iso-Puck

Frequency response:

View attachment 413560

Distortion:

View attachment 413561

Phase:

View attachment 413562

GD: on this one there are some differences but I would have a hard time telling which one is better

View attachment 413563

IR:

View attachment 413564

Waterfall and Wavelet also look the same
You can scrutinize the measurement file in the attachment

The pucks are staying nevertheless and here is the reason why:
I cannot prove this with the measurements but during performing the measurement sweep I could totally hear resonance coming from the speakers at certain frequencies. With the pucks it is not there at all - the sweep becomes clear; I have tried this many times to make sure I am not hallucinating
I assume that audible resonance is caused by the stand - the pucks must isolate them better so they are not vibrating that much

And how does it 'sound'?
To be honest I am sure I would fail a proper blind test but I *think* I hear more air and vocals sound clearer too (this is all subjective and I cannot prove it and I guess it is just the honeymoon effect)

So as said above, I will keep them since they are doing a good job at least in my case with reducing the vibration of my speaker stands but if one has a 'proper' speaker stand that does not vibrate that much in the first place then I doubt you would need these pucks

I hope this helps, in case of any questions please shoot
Have a nice weekend everybody

Can you share the sweeps with/without the feet?

 

[ppataki]

Can you share the sweeps with/without the feet?

What do you mean sharing the sweeps?