Purpose of triangular placement of cones/spikes?

In 20+ years of listening, I have always preferred 3 feet instead of 4. In fact, I have yet to listen to any component where 4 feet sounds better than 3.

I also prefer the solid brass cones of Walker Audio over any other material including, aluminum, steel, soft rubber, hard rubber, plastic, felt, inner tubes, etc. And I have tried them all.

For a rectangular component, I also feel that it is possible to balance the overhanging mass on three feet by varying the area and location of the support triangle. I have even written and copyrighted a computer program to calculate the optimum placement.

RE: my previous post - I should identify that I am a manufacturer of vibration control products.

Barry Kohan

Of course 3 is better IF a plane is maintained, inferring a very rigid chassis. If the damn thing's sagging or trampolining then more is better, but maybe it's hopeless at that point! (sorry)
Yes, cones transmit, not absorb, Their directionality should be selected according to which mass is the preferred recipient of said energy. Here's where Ken Lyon's comments on the Neuance on top of upturned spikes/cones would be really useful. KEEEEENNNNNN!....

Hi Subaruguru,

My point (!) is that a cone is not exclusively a single direction transmitter of vibration. Being a rigid device it MUST transfer vibration from the shelf INTO the component that is resting upon it. The hard point is directly coupled to the shelf and the hard cone material cannot absorb vibration, it can only transmit it. If, as a cone enthusiast might claim, the point has such a small contact area with the shelf that it restricts vibration from passing up into the point, how can they also claim that the tiny point is able to "drain" the vibration so efficiently out of the component? Those two claims are mutually exclusive.

The much more important situation to consider is that the vast majority of vibration control products on the market (and also nearly all of the home-made variety) do not effectively address ALL three main sources of vibration that affect a component:

1) Vibration that is directly-coupled from the loudspeaker, and transfers through the floor and up through the component stand into the feet of the component.

2) Air-borne vibration sent directly from the loudspeaker drivers through the air towards the chassis of the component.

3) Self-generated vibration that is created within the chassis of the component by spinning motors, humming transformers and cooling fans.

The other significant sources of vibration are heating and air conditioning systems and exterior traffic (trucks, subways, trains, airplanes, cars, etc).

A component resting on the cone is immediately contaminated with vibration once any of the vibration sources are active. Attempting to "drain" the problem out is like closing the gate after the horse is out of the barn. The signal has ALREADY been contaminated and altered by the vibration and no amount of "draining" can undo the damage to the signal that has already been done. The most effective vibration control will be attained by thinking of the problem as a “system” and creating a method to place the component in an environment that eliminates as much of the vibration as possible BEFORE it can enter the component and affect the signal.

Best,

Barry Kohan

Disclaimer: I am a manufacturer of vibration control products.

Subaruguru,
Mr. Kohan is correct provided one looks at a cone footers function without regards to the substrate material that the cone's tip interfaces with.It's not actually the cone itself which provides the benefits and so-called "directionality" but rather the cone footer's filtering effects makes damping easier for the substrate by raising their frequency, combined with the high pressures applied to the substrate,which, *when optimised* will promote localised deformations of the substrate material beneath the cone's tip and subsequent energy losses via their conversion to heat.

best,
Ken
GreaterRanges/Neuance