Footers under my speakers double the perceived value of my speakers!

Scary how few audiophiles can arrive at correct conclusions regarding such things. The improvement is not due to vibration control, but to physically elevating the speaker. The speaker will sound far better with raised soundstage. Just one reason why smallish speakers are inferior. Tweak, tuning sellers certainly have your number, and the isolation authorities show their ignorance. :)
If people are so easily led to false conclusions on this, it’s no wonder they pursue insipid methods of system building.

Oh c’mon Doug-you know better. Every competent speaker designer understands the vertical and horizontal dispersion pattern of their speakers and proper listening position. They account for it 95% of the time. If anything, the height of the Gaia footers would raise most loudspeakers above the optimal height, not into.
I  have not tried every footer under every speaker and nobody else has either. I am sure, though, that the entire matter is loudspeaker and listening room dependent.
Another thing that is certain is that most competent loudspeaker designers do not feel that horizontal compliance is a good idea. Spikes and coupling are the consensus of the engineers, not absorbers. I traded email with John Devore on the subject. He strongly advises against the idea for my O/93’s. My Spendor D7.2’s rely heavily on spikes. They are not the same speaker without the spikes,

Doug (Shroeder);
I respect your opinion and agree with much of what you have said in this thread with the exception of the height theory, and on that, I was the first to disagree. Have you read or even just casually perused Jim Smith’s "Get Better Sound"? He advocates building a small platform for your listening seat because most speaker manufacturers have their dispersion pattern too high and most of us sit in chairs that are too low. In the absence of doing such an extremely cumbersome and non-WAF measure, he advocates tipping your loudspeaker slightly downward. Read his book on the subject for yourself. Do you dispute his knowledge and experience? I suggest you not.
Next I am puzzled by this; you have twice referenced your intent to place isolation under electronics but that is not the topic here. Why not, as an opinionated well-recognized reviewer, buy or borrow some Gaias for your loudspeakers and tell us what you think? Then, if you report being non-plussed, it would mean something.
This other guy who keeps chiming in with how many positives a product got on a website-oh my gosh-wtf? Do you not understand that the small number of "reviews" or "ratings" a product receives are not fake are heavily influenced by buyer’s bias? Incredible that you keep chiming in with that rubbish.
And then finally, back to my original point. A loudspeaker, unlike any other component, has pistonic movement associated with it laterally. Speaker drivers with motors are pushing back and forth. The loudspeaker must resist that horizontal movement to keep the waveforms intact and semi-accurate ("semi" because no other competently designed component introduces distortion the way a loudspeaker does, and by a wide margin!). As others have pointed out, the physically sensible thing to do would be to add extensive weight to the top of the cabinet-if there were an easy and non-damaging way to do so.
I don’t doubt that some (SOME) loudspeakers benefit from Gaia footers in some rooms. That would be due to the deficits inherent in the loudspeaker and other fortuitous conditions. I may buy a set just to say I tried them. Maybe mitchagain will buy them from me if I am not impressed? After all, there are none to be had on the secondary market so they must be good.

Revolution going on in digital, and a new DAC under assessment, and I'm going to spend time on a stand? I'll let someone else do that.  

Can anybody understand Doug's entire posts? I can't. I am reminded of Geoff but Geoff's weird statements are on purpose. 
Take this one. Is he saying that there is currently a revolution going on with digital? What revolution is that? I had not heard. Maybe like a revolution in Bolivia? Has someone magically broken the code as to how to eliminate all problems associated with digital filtering, digital algorithms, interpolation associated errors, power supply spuriae, clocking drift, and all the other things that make digital less than perfect sound forever? If so, I guess I am the last to know and Doug is all over it. 
And since when is "stand" and "footer" interchangeable? He keeps talking about stands and for the life of me I don't know why a floorstander would be on a "stand". Can someone take out their secret decoder ring and explain to my simple mind what the hell he is trying to say?
Thanks in advance. 

Jim’s book is ok, but underrates importance of quality of gear. Setup can’t fix mediocre gear. You can’t reach upper level sound by tuning and tweaking average gear. Anyone disagree? I’m not too bothered by that. :)

Wow, this just gave me a Eureka! moment. I am going to contact Jim, his editor, and his publisher and suggest a new "Chapter One". It will be the shortest chapter in the book and will read along the following lines;
"Before you read the rest of this book full of tedious tips that won’t really do you much good, take my advice and take out a second or third mortgage, sell your kidney(s), cash out your child’s college fund, and just buy a better system for crying out loud!!! Why are you being such a tightwad and why do you want to be like Sisyphus rolling the same rock uphill over and over when you ought to be just up-spending for an adequate system unlike the pieces of crap you have at present. Trust me, whatever you have, it is crap. I know.
All the rest of my suggestions regarding speaker placement, listening position, room treatment and the rest are a needless waste of time if you just spend enough money on the type of gear that Doug Shroeder and I prefer. Thank you. This is a public service announcement. No need to read further unless you insist on being the tightwad I suspect you are and don’t heed my above well-reasoned advice. //s// Jim Smith"

IsoAcoustics provides a "calculator" to determine the best footer for your particular component. If nothing else, they have impressed me by providing such a fantastic tool to the consumer. 
For my Devore O/93's the "calculator" kicked out Orea Indigo's. So I purchased eight of them ($480) and they arrived yesterday. For those not familiar, the Gaias are higher profile in height and are meant for loudspeakers that have screw-in spikes installed by the manufacturer such as my Spendor D7.2s (for which I purchased a set of Gaia's but have not yet had a chance to try). The Oreas are lower profile and resemble pucks with rubber on both the bottom and top surface. 
I listened to one of my favorite records before placing the Orea's under my Devores (which took less than a minute) and then listened to the same side again. My speaker positions are carefully marked with masking tape on my very heavy solid walnut flooring installed over floor joists (sprung floor listening room with a basement underneath).
The sound was immensely different and immediately noticeable. I then listened to three other records I know very well. For the record, they were in order Dos Monos "Dos City" (buy this record if you like hip hop even marginally-there are great riffs/samples from Monk, Zappa, and Captain Beefheart among others!), Shakey Graves' "Can't Wake Up", Paul Simon's "Rhymin Simon", and Frank Zappa's "Apostrophe". My issue is that for the life of me I can not tell you yet if I believe the sound is better or just radically different. My initial impressions after one evening is that with the Devore O/93's, the best adjectives is that the sound is "disassociated" and "less grounded". The soundstage widened and became moderately higher. The sound became more "hi-fi" which is to me is not good. There was more detail and precision particularly in the treble and midrange but the bass became less deep. "Ethereal" and "less corporal" come to mind. I obtained the qualities that I had previously found lacking in the Devores but also lost most of what I most admire and love about the O/93's-their solidity in the bass region and their natural tone and timbre combined with a solid wall of sound that just makes you smile with it's "of a whole cloth" character. In effect, my O/93's came to resemble-to a degree- my Spendor D7.2's though they still offered a greater wall of sound than the Spendors. The balance is definitely tipped up with less bass (though the bass that is there is better articulated), much more midrange and much more treble. The treble was not harsh at all, but still much more noticeable. But I can not emphasize enough-the treble, midrange, and bass no longer transitioned from one to the other smoothly and instead all frequency ranges seemed disassociated with one another. For that matter, all of the music seemed disassociated and just free-floating in space. The more I think about it, a new term came to mind; artificial. 
I will give it two or three more nights of trial and then will likely return them to my retailer which offers a generous 30 day trial period. Now please understand that I am very likely biased by the fact that John Devore advised me not to use after-market footers when I specifically brought up this product. After the continued buzz, I just had to try them for myself. But then again, I was really hoping that the Oreas would give me better imaging without taking away any of the good apects of the Devore O/93's. I believe right now that John is right. They do more harm than good with his speakers. 

I thought boats floated.

Boats float. You need to learn some simple grammar. 
Turds float too. That should be close to home for you. 
And then there is the famous Monty Python skit from Holy Grail. 
But if you are referring to my reference to "free-floating in space" descriptor, I don't regret my choice of words. Read in context, which is likely beyond your skill set, I think my choice of words is appropriate to convey what I heard. 

@rixthetrick; the Gaia's and the Oreas are two different concepts as I explained in my first post in this thread. No, neither provide the "zero stiffness spring" that you repeatedly endorse. The OP praised his Stillpoints. I have those under my Garrard 301 so I can confidently tell you that those are not your vaunted "zero stiffness springs" either. The only other person on this Board who goes on an on about springs is Geoff Kait. Are you and he acquainted? 
The Oreas and the Gaias are both coupling devices and not isolation devices though they both offer an element of isolation, the Oreas moreso than the Gaias. 
As to the finish, mine are Fiddleback mahogany as are 90% of the ones John Devore sells though some people choose the more boring but admittedly elegant maple. 
I listened for a few more hours last night. This time I moved the Devores slightly closer to the back wall to help boost the depleted bass. Things sounded a bit more integrated but I am still inclined to go back to the integral wooden nubs that John Devore implements-his own footers of a rather unusual type. The Oreas do some really nice things for the Devores, but I still miss the original tone and timbre along with solid bass. The power is gone. I drive a '17 VW GTI Sport (tartan plaid seats, locking differential) with mods including an APR downpipe, catback, and Stage 2 tune with Neuspeed sway bars. The Oreas with the Devores is like taking the turbocharger out of my GTI. The oomph is gone.