Whirshfield, I think the relevant point here is the difference between the way cones or spikes function underneath a speaker vs. the other components you are wondering about. The reason Thiels (I own 'em too) come with spike points is to rigidly couple the speaker cabinet to the floor, assuming the floor is not a flexible suspended job and is carpeted (if the floor is too flexible or resonant, degradation instead of benefit may result from direct coupling; without carpet, protective disks may need be used in between for floor protection). The spikes do this by piercing the carpet to the floor below, bringing the speaker's considerable weight to bear on three tiny points (which define a plane) at some extremely high PSI (pounds per square inch). This has the effect of rigidly fixing the cabinet in position without the possibility of sonically significant wobble or flex (particularly in the case of a poured concrete floor substrate, like the foundation of a typical SFH). This in turn gives the drivers, especially the high-excursion bass driver, a less "lossy" "launch platform" from which to operate. In other words, the mechanical impulses as transduced by the moving drivers are not partially dissapated on unwanted cabinet motion ("For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction" - or how about, "If you see the cabinet rocking, don't come a-knocking!"). This makes the speaker's response more accurate and linear, both temporally and dynamically. This type of operation DOES NOT have anything to do with theories about "vibrational drainage" or "resonant tuning" and the like that you see bandied about when it comes to cones being placed under electronic equipment. For that type of useage, you may subscribe to any of the above-posted or similar theories; I take them all with a grain of salt (especially those pertaining to the "mechanical diode" concept of supposed one-way motional transference - the famous "drainage with isolation"). I personally believe that environmental isolation, in the form of non-resonant decoupling support footers, makes the most sense under most components (I like Audio Prism Iso-Bearings here). This should be combined with a highly rigid and inert support shelf and rack, for which good arguments can be made in favor of construction that is either very massive (hard to excite, vibrationally speaking) or very light (quick to stop vibrating, less inertial influence over the component). Good arguments can also be made for suspended (hanging) support systems, to in effect remove the components from sharing the floor with the speakers. The "soft" footer support concept is essentially one of a damped spring, and just as a car suspension is tuned to the mass of the vehicle, a component that very heavy may need several footers underneath to place each footer in its optimum range of compression vs. compliance, while a lightweight component may need to be mass-loaded on top of the cabinet. (Speaking of cabinet tops, many of them will benefit from the internal application of a constrained-layer damping adhesive sheeting material to kill ringing of the casework). Of course, in the final analysis, if you're gonna tweak, then you're gonna have to try different things out and listen for yourself. It's all quite dependent on the component in question, but as for myself, in general I think the improvements to be had from aftermarket footers are fairly marginal in most situations with a good rack system, but not entirely insignificant either. For my all-tube amps, Iso-Bearings result in a little bit more transparency in the bass, and they help keep my API PLC from disturbing the rest of my rack. But I also had a CD player that was more likely to skip when disturbed if on FocalPods, so cones may have helped there. And I have never tried air bladders, microscope tables, ball-and-cup systems, etc., although I do have a Symposium shelf under my TT, which I like. As always, YMMV!