Shocked removed spikes, used blue tack, what other non spike footer

My floor standing speakers, monitor stands always came with spikes so I used them always, it's the way they were designed at least I thought. I know everyone can't do this because of there floor type, mine is hardwood over concrete slab. Bass, more natural tone( I'm a tone junkie)  gives the music a nice rhythm, may just be flavor of month but I'm really enjoying it. Highs maybe little rolled off, I just did it yesterday, maybe not as hifi, but no lose of information. Have other people experienced this.Can someone with my floor type suggest a nice reasonable priced non spiked footer, these are floorstander filled with shot so pretty heavy,maybe 70- 80 lb. thanks


This demo says it all.

The video you refer to compares a $0.45 cent part to a $ Multi-hundred-or-thousand dollar product is bunk. Hard to understand why a company would open itself up to such an obvious dispute based on physics, unless it was produced as a marketing tool to increase sales.

If we were to compare a two bit spring even cryogenically treated, to a $2,000 Rhythm Platform™ you would never want to consider a spring again. Funny how that works - eh?

Here is a list of ten questions based on review of your video link.

1. Notice the meters without foot stomping? There should be a clear difference from seismic activity displayed prior to the foot hitting the floor. If seismic is that critical, shouldn’t there be a noticeable change between the meters at idle room noise? I do not see any changes do you?

2. Do you stomp around in your sound room when listening? Do you tap on equipment when you are listening – point being this is about sound reproduction and not self induced noise variables?

3. How do we know what they term is “ringing” displayed on their meters immediately following the stomp? Is the ringing audible? OR is the ringing the natural sustained decays and time dissipation which are extremely important musical characteristics when listening to music? We are "told" it is ringing - I guess…

4. What happens to each meter display with just music playing in the room?

5. The mini-earthquake theorem has been around and sermonized since vibration or anti-vibration appeared on the audio scene. It’s a great story crossing human imagination combining construction techniques and structural buildings that move with the earth’s rotation resisting the forces related to earthquakes and seismic phenomena.

Unfortunately those (+ or -) 4Hz “inaudible” seismic waves generated from the earth’s crust affecting audio equipment performance has a “tough prove”.


Music reproduction demands the "hearing range of humans" as the ‘controlling component’ used in testing speakers, electronics, cables, equipment racking, et’ all by the overwhelming majority of listeners.

Sorry to be in disagreement with the seismic quandary but are we to believe that seismic energy or floor vibration literally jumps off the heaviest grounding plane in the room and moves up the equipment rack avoid the “laws” of motion and gravity? The course of travel is quite lengthy. First up through the geometry of the cone footer, up the rods and across the shelving, up past the equipment or aftermarket footer system through the chassis walls and onto the circuits and then affects your components output capability - how? Keep in mind the majority of resonance is moving down to earth’s ground confirmed by physics and that’s why; in my opinion seismic has a tough believability factor.

6. What vibration comes first - seismic OR are the circuits, power supplies, transformers and component chassis already vibrating due to man-made AC or DC power?

7. How can anyone separate or begin to understand what frequencies are from the earth and which ones are from electric current flow?

8. Are the seismic waves more disruptive than that of the compression waves generated from man-made loudspeakers?

9. If their theorem could be proven and it cannot; in order to prove and validate product function can only be done via third party analysis, testing and “product validation”. Said proof of performance would have to be conducted in a respected laboratory such as ASTM International.

One must also take into consideration that audio reproduction tests (RTA, SPL,acoustic, etc) are viewed as “highly subjective” among the scientific community.

I personally would not approach anyone of science with two meters and a heavy foot.

10. The driver motion thing is unquantifiable. First; in anechoic rooms, the effects of Coulomb friction do not survive the room because the anechoic is designed to eat all energy. Secondly; there is no test for loudspeaker function in a live dynamic environment due to the laws of gravity, motion and Coulomb’s friction. Again they are estimating driver movement and direction and “telling” you unproven, unreliable or estimates at best measurements of driver motion. We call that storyboarding.


Everything related to vibration and the management thereof in audio from methodologies to testing criterion, to human believability to sonic results is solely based on theorems. The key to understanding all this is everybody’s got one!

Once the music starts and volume of sound enters the environment, it becomes quite difficult to understand what we cannot hear. Does anyone have scientific evidence or proof beyond theorem that mini-earthquakes affect audio systems sonic audible performance?

There are far more elements involved in audio reproduction than the amplitudes of energy coming from the greatest energy absorber known to mankind - mother earth.


Instead of attempting to stop, kill or eliminate vibration or attempt to prove where it comes from, we propose;

“We do not care where the vibration comes from. It doesn’t matter, because "resonance formed from vibration is on every surface that exists". 

Instead of theorizing what the sources of vibration are and how to stop them (anti-vibration); why not focus on what to do with resonance because there is no way to avoid resonance in a music or sound reproduction environment”?

That being stated and without argument:

Does one isolate resonance within the component allowing these amplitudes to build and propagate on all smooth surfaces per the laws of Coulomb?

Does one use added damping materials in unison with isolation products in order to dissipate, absorb or attempt to convert the resonance back into heat?

Then does the heat again become trapped in the chassis or is the heat drawn back to the metal chassis in search of earth’s ground and does that same old heat form resonance all over again?

Does one then have to take apart every component and speaker in there system to further dampen resonance? What materials should be used to dampen and then what happens when a signal or dynamics are overdamped?


Does one transfer at high speed the amplitudes of resonance back to earth’s ground knowing that all energy seeks earth in accordance with known physics relying on the natural damping factors of the materials used in the geometrically designed product establishing a 'Basic is Better' approach to solving a problem?

The final decision is your choice of course but we would use the generous return with full refund guarantees provided by the finer companies as the real vibration test method. The bottom line for anyone is sonic performance.

In audio as well as other industries vibration management products appear to be strategically tested solely by the original manufacturer or designer with results always heavily favoring the product being promoted.

These testing methods are designed to increase sales through clever marketing, pushing theorem believability and storyboarding. 

Over the years there has been equipment racks placed on shaker tables, air hammers residing on shelving, various knock, banging, foot stomping and tap testing; all of which are self induced forces that do not exist in musical reproduction environments or when listening. These tests prove absolutely nothing with regards to science or listening in ‘real world’ applications. The tests always include a ton of graphs, charts and posters all claiming proof of concept and they too are manufactured by the company selling the product.

The company I represent is working to prove our theorem and become a useful technology. We use heat reduction as our method of testing for product validation as temperature, unlike sound quality is a well accepted topic among science experts.

ianderson asks:

What might prove useful to apply the seismic test to popular products like Herbies, Star, Gaia, Townsend etc and compare the results.

The seismic test is meaningless and proves nothing for reasons listed above, but if you include opinions and comparisons on the sonic performance of each product – “count us in”!

Please give us a call as that is one test we would love to participate in.  


Star Sound

Post removed 
If springs weren’t part of LIGO’s comprehensive and complex approach to seismic vibration isolation they would never have been able to detect and observe gravity waves, the amplitude of which are atomic scale. In fact, the observation of gravity waves, which occurred two years ago, was not possible for many years because the system was not sufficiently isolated from local vibration.

It is the same situation for audio reproduction. Sufficiently effective means of seismic isolation are necessary to avoid noise and distortion that low frequency vibration causes. Some obvious reasons for isolation are the relatively low natural frequency of the turntable tonearm and cartridge and the susceptibility of the CD laser assembly and the CD itself to external low frequency vibration, with the nanoscale laser and CD data in mind.

Almost all competent isolation devices and systems use springs in some form or another so the only reason I can think of why someone would disparage cryogenically treated springs is out of desperation and/or ignorance of physics and strength of materials.
There has been a peer review of the LIGO results. Was there a mis reading of the collected data.. was it gravity waves or still just noise? Tom

LIGO Receives New Funding to Search for More Extreme Cosmic Events

News Release • February 14, 2019

Grants from the U.S., United Kingdom, and Australia will fund next-generation improvements to LIGO

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is awarding Caltech and MIT


Since LIGO’s first detection of gravitational waves from the violent collision of two black holes, it has observed nine additional black hole mergers and one collision of two dense, dead stars called neutron stars. The neutron star merger gave off not just gravitational waves but light waves, detected by dozens of telescopes in space and on the ground. The observations confirmed that heavy elements in our universe, such as platinum and gold, are created in neutron star smashups like this one.

"This award ensures that NSF’s LIGO, which made the first historic detection of gravitational waves in 2015, will continue to lead in gravitational-wave science for the next decade," said Anne Kinney, assistant director for NSF’s Mathematical and Physical Sciences Directorate, in a statement. "With improvements to the detectors—which include techniques from quantum mechanics that refine laser light and new mirror coating technology—the twin LIGO observatories will significantly increase the number and strength of their detections. Advanced LIGO Plus will reveal gravity at its strongest and matter at its densest in some of the most extreme environments in the cosmos. These detections may reveal secrets from inside supernovae and teach us about extreme physics from the first seconds after the universe’s birth."

Michael Zucker, the Advanced LIGO Plus leader and co-principal investigator, and a scientist at the LIGO Laboratory, operated by Caltech and MIT, said, "I’m thrilled that NSF, UK Research, and Innovation and the Australian Research Council are joining forces to make this key investment possible. Advanced LIGO has altered the course of astrophysics with 11 confirmed gravitational-wave events over the last three years. Advanced LIGO Plus can expand LIGO’s horizons enough to capture this many events each week, and it will enable powerful new probes of extreme nuclear matter as well as Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity."