When I go back and read their investigation, I agree that they could have (and should have?) been more thorough about how they executed. I get it that they are a for-profit company and have a product to sell. But I don't think that means the overall concept of speaker decoupling should be dismissed. I think it's totally worth further exploration. To me it makes sense: if a speaker is vibrating, where do the resonances go? Might some resonances rattle inside the enclosure, and mess with the intended vibration of the drivers? Or resonate down onto whatever surface they are touching, which cause other unwanted sound transduction? etc.
Although far from a perfect example, here's a non-audio one: chainsaws.
Years ago I used to cut trees and turn into firewood. Chainsaws vibrate, A LOT, lol. Those vibrations then go into your hands and arms, causing human wear & tear, and user fatigue. Repeat that for hours on end, or repeated use, and gets old. The German company Stihl, started making their chainsaws with anti-vibrational decouplers installed at what they determined were transitional joints within the saw. I can tell you from personal experience of switching to one of their updated saws, it made a very big difference for the end user.
I think this same concept can be extrapolated to the speaker / stand / room interface (s). Eliminate unexpected / unwanted resonance & vibration at the speaker, as much as possible, so that the drivers can do their job as designed, and send those resonances into the air. I have no idea what the best material or method is, to make that happen. I don't think anyone does. But I think experimenting with Sorbathane, 'foam sandwich', half squash -balls, or whatever, is worth pursuing.
