Is there any science to back up these little feet

[Hipper]

I suggest you just try them. MCRU are happy to give refunds if not suitable. Ask him.

There seem to be bigger ones available that handle 5Kg per foot. I haven't used these and have no idea if they do anything. I have harder ball bearing type devices under my gear. CD Players and amps give the most benefits.

This site lists all sorts of isolation devices to give you an idea of what is available:

http://www.gcaudio.com/products/reviews/infoisolationoverview_2.html

The nearest thing to your interest are Vibrapods but they don't get a good revue.

In my case the effect of the ball bearing devices is best described as lowering the noise floor leading to greater clarity and separation of the instruments in a mix of a typical pop band. Once you know what to listen for it's a real joy to hear.

Where's the science behind this. That was the hope for the Microphony thread. My general impression is that proving the science, as opposed to suggesting a theory, is expensive in comparison to likely profits generated, so it's rarely available. In addition there seem to be variable results when people try these things out, presumably because all our circumstances are different. Hence it's best to try them for yourself.

 

[Lee T]

I would imagine any cd spinning at those speeds are susceptible to the slightest vibration caused by the spinning disc , love irony, this means the error correction system would have to do more which i imagine would never be good for sound quality.

Just don't see how 4 rubber feet would eliminate internal vibration.

By the way I always thought rubber bounced not sat & absorbed so surely rubber is the worst material for absorbing vibration, I mean if you throw rubber it carries on bouncing due to the energy not being turned into heat but storing it & making it carry on bouncing, the energy storage is what keeps the rubber bouncing so surely anything that stores energy under hifi equipment has to a bad thing as it would most probably get back into the equipment.

 

[colasblue]

They aren't made of rubber!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorbothane

The properties of Sorbothane are extensively documented in the scientific community and its use in vibration absorption applications is widespread..

 

[Purité Audio]

No form of islolation, will eliminate internal vibration, rubber is not a particularly good isolation material ,open cell rubber, visco elastic, ie Sorbathane is much more effective.
Keith.

 

[Lee T]

They aren't made of rubber!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorbothane

The properties of Sorbothane are extensively documented in the scientific community and its use in vibration absorption applications is widespread..

Interesting

 

[Lee T]

No form of islolation, will eliminate internal vibration, rubber is not a particularly good isolation material ,open cell rubber, visco elastic, ie Sorbathane is much more effective.
Keith.

But I agree with this more so

I can see how the sorbathane can damp chassis vibration but not internal vibration of components, I can see how components attached to the chassis would benefit but not all internal components are attached so basically the pods are pointless, placing a book on casework will damp the chassis & it's free if you have a few.

Any one sceptical, give it a go, the sound does change, for better or worse is down to the user.

 

[h.g.]

So in your opinion what are customers "hearing" with these feet under the cd player for example, they claim the sound improves but few say how.

If someone says it sounds better to them then perhaps it does. The brain uses more than just the sound waves waggling the ear drums to construct what is perceived as sound.

If a person says it is changing the sound coming out of the speakers by an amount that can be reliably identified blind then that is different because changes of that size are easy to measure and identify. Normal competent designs of CD players are not going to change their sound by this amount unless there is a problem somewhere.

The squidgy feet probably have some effect but have doubts about the write up on the packaging, I feel more the sound is just changing due to being housed on a different surface.

If you know the people selling the product are being dishonest in their description don't you wonder why? Might the reason be that the product doesn't actually do anything beneficial so they cannot describe that and are forced to make up technical sounding guff in order to help promote the product to those without an understanding of how little rubber feet work?

 

[stevec67]

By the way I always thought rubber bounced not sat & absorbed so surely rubber is the worst material for absorbing vibration, I mean if you throw rubber it carries on bouncing due to the energy not being turned into heat but storing it

It does both. A squash ball gets warm when you play a game with it. So do car tyres. Some things will be more heavily damped, for sure. Fish fingers won't bounce.

Once again though, what effect on sound?

 

[FireMoon]

It does both. A squash ball gets warm when you play a game with it. So do car tyres. Some things will be more heavily damped, for sure. Fish fingers won't bounce.

Once again though, what effect on sound?

Breaded or Crispy fish fingers and wouldn't Cod Balls be better having read that site?

 

[stevec67]

Extensive blind testing has shown that breaded fish fingers are the superior solution. Cod balls lead to temporal smearing, jitter and a few other things invented by hifi retailers and imagined by audiophiles.

 

[Lee T]

If someone says it sounds better to them then perhaps it does. The brain uses more than just the sound waves waggling the ear drums to construct what is perceived as sound.

If a person says it is changing the sound coming out of the speakers by an amount that can be reliably identified blind then that is different because changes of that size are easy to measure and identify. Normal competent designs of CD players are not going to change their sound by this amount unless there is a problem somewhere.


If you know the people selling the product are being dishonest in their description don't you wonder why? Might the reason be that the product doesn't actually do anything beneficial so they cannot describe that and are forced to make up technical sounding guff in order to help promote the product to those without an understanding of how little rubber feet work?

That last line makes sense to me as I am yet to see any written scientific proof of this precise substance improving the sound of equipment placed on it, just anecdotal stuff as usual.

The company who make it give very little information & certainly no written scientific findings, just their word & we all know how reliable that is in the audio world.

 

[Sibbers]

I think it'll be a long time before I consider buying into something like this because there are more obvious and certain gains to be had elsewhere. When I get to the point that I can tell if my system improves because my DAC is on some isolation pads, I will be a very happy listener and I probably won't mind if the effect is tangible or not.

 

[h.g.]

That last line makes sense to me as I am yet to see any written scientific proof of this precise substance improving the sound of equipment placed on it, just anecdotal stuff as usual.

The properties of the material (if it is Sorbothane) are well known and are well suited to some applications although not others. Unfortunately the brand name has a lot of promotion behind it which is reflected in the price at least in small DIY quantities.

Who would be interested in performing scientifically valid tests of expensive audiophile doodads? The people selling them don't want to see tests showing they don't work as advertised. The people buying them don't want to see tests suggesting they have made a foolish purchasing choice. The magazines and website carrying the promotional material don't want the income to disappear. The shops selling them don't want the income from the large markup to disappear. Society in general benefits from the tax and employment based on the business. They provide a bit of amusement for those with a bit of technical knowledge and also an efficient way to determine people's technical competence when they come up in conversation. The only people that would seem to benefit from these tests are the internet missionaries trying to save audiophiles from themselves.

The company who make it give very little information & certainly no written scientific findings, just their word & we all know how reliable that is in the audio world.

Not the audio world. The home audio world has suffered from the mainstream promotion of disinformation since the 70s but this is much less the case in other audio market sectors. There is a lot of marketing information on this site but it is nearly all valid in a technical or scientific sense and a surprising amount is useful. If a company produces products with a genuinely high technical performance it is in their interest to build a conversation with potential customers based on technical performance. Harman try to do this a bit in home audio but I can see little to suggest it is helping much with sales. High technical performance seems to be a relatively unimportant part of what goes into a successful home audio product.

 

[Sibbers]

The only people that would seem to benefit from these tests are the internet missionaries trying to save audiophiles from themselves.

Haha, put beautifully

What you really need is a bit mpingo in your life: http://www.shunmook.com/text1.htm

 

[whatsnext]

Haha, put beautifully

What you really need is a bit mpingo in your life: http://www.shunmook.com/text1.htm

Yes stuff endangered wood just look out for your self and what gives you a buzz

 

[Lee T]

The properties of the material (if it is Sorbothane) are well known and are well suited to some applications although not others. Unfortunately the brand name has a lot of promotion behind it which is reflected in the price at least in small DIY quantities.

Who would be interested in performing scientifically valid tests of expensive audiophile doodads? The people selling them don't want to see tests showing they don't work as advertised. The people buying them don't want to see tests suggesting they have made a foolish purchasing choice. The magazines and website carrying the promotional material don't want the income to disappear. The shops selling them don't want the income from the large markup to disappear. Society in general benefits from the tax and employment based on the business. They provide a bit of amusement for those with a bit of technical knowledge and also an efficient way to determine people's technical competence when they come up in conversation. The only people that would seem to benefit from these tests are the internet missionaries trying to save audiophiles from themselves.


Not the audio world. The home audio world has suffered from the mainstream promotion of disinformation since the 70s but this is much less the case in other audio market sectors. There is a lot of marketing information on this site but it is nearly all valid in a technical or scientific sense and a surprising amount is useful. If a company produces products with a genuinely high technical performance it is in their interest to build a conversation with potential customers based on technical performance. Harman try to do this a bit in home audio but I can see little to suggest it is helping much with sales. High technical performance seems to be a relatively unimportant part of what goes into a successful home audio product.

I like this guy

Very neatly put.

 

[Steven Toy]

I think it'll be a long time before I consider buying into something like this because there are more obvious and certain gains to be had elsewhere. When I get to the point that I can tell if my system improves because my DAC is on some isolation pads, I will be a very happy listener and I probably won't mind if the effect is tangible or not.

It is often the other way round: gains like this boost the differences that can be made elsewhere.

Experience usually triumphs over theory.

Sorbathane is no panacea, btw. It can improve a sense of air, space and decay. It can also make things sound overly 'diffused' resulting in an oversized soundstage but poor imaging, a slightly bloaty bass and softer transients.

If you are the type just to take measurements as gospel and as accurate indicators of what you will likely hear, ignore the above.

 

[Sibbers]

Experience usually triumphs over theory

Agree with this bit and learnt it the hard way, but presumably you would agree stuff like this is regarded as a minor tweak in the extreme? It does seem like foo, and I've not noticed moving my gear around from one rack to another, or sitting my DAC on glass versus wood but measurements aren't how I ultimately decide if something has changed.

I expect to change my home and speakers before thinking about isolation pads if I'm honest. They are quite a bit more expensive but I expect a much more significant change for the positive!

 

[Steven Toy]

Agree with this bit and learnt it the hard way, but presumably you would agree stuff like this is regarded as a minor tweak in the extreme? It does seem like foo, and I've not noticed moving my gear around from one rack to another, or sitting my DAC on glass versus wood but measurements aren't how I ultimately decide if something has changed.

I expect to change my home and speakers before thinking about isolation pads if I'm honest. They are quite a bit more expensive but I expect a much more significant change for the positive!

The point I was making was that if you take care of the minor tweaks there are bigger gains to be had when you change the boxes.

I remember the improvement of a Naim CDX (£2400) at the time to be a marginal one at best over a CD5 + Flatcap2 (£1100 + £400) back in 2001. I upgraded my stand instead before revisting the above.

The CDX was then a no-brainer.

 

[moomaloo]

I used to sit my Meridian MCD on a carpet tile. Just saying...