He does.
We’ve been discussing this. So I have a piece of software that was designed for researchers to use in capturing something audible and reproducing it in binaural fully calibrated to the individual listener. It has full head tracking and allows you to believably recreate what you would have heard in the room. This module was specially designed to allow A/B comparisons. As you can imagine, actual AB comparisons would be near impossible, so this would be the next best thing.
I would maybe like to head up to Genes and do exactly this. Capture a pair of his speakers in his room with and without these. Then apply the(distortion) of each to tracks for rapid AB comparisons. I think that would be the best and most valid way to objectively test sound quality.
I do have an acoustic accelerometer somewhere around here and numerous very good microphones. We could do a full sweet of measurements. I think the problem however is that these measurements may not tell us much. Let’s say we don’t measure anything. It is completely possible that the benefit these have is related to improvements in transient performance. This may happen in a way that is swamped by reflections in a room. Our brain might tease this out, but the mic wont. This is why we don’t typically measure the transient performance of a speaker in a room. It’s not accurate. The room tends to dominate it.
what if we measure and we get a frequency response difference in the steady state amplitude measurement? Which one is right? The flatter looking one? I wouldn’t trust such a measurement either way. Again,too much room for error. I can’t think of a good reason that a decoupler would change the amplitude response much. I can think of lots of reasons a change in position or height would.
what about vibrations? What if I show less vibrations being transferred to the floor? As they do. Is that good? Here is the thing, the vibrational energy created by the speaker is fixed. Coupling or decoupling doesn’t change that. If we reduce the transfer to the ground, where did it go? If all you do is decouple, then the energy stays in the speaker until it eventually dissipated as heat. Isn’t the floor a far better place for that to happen. Think of the mass of the floor, the energy in the speaker will do very little to it as compared to the cabinet. So if that’s the goal, I question why. If those feet are actually damping the vibrations out by converting them to thermal energy, then I think they are made wrong for that. A series of steel plates and elastomers would make more sense. Someone already made that. No idea if it works or is desirable but it’s a better way to dissipate energy.
even the idea that you don’t want the vibrations to transfer to the floor bugs me. Why not? You know that research has shown that we perceive the bass of headphones as being 10dB less than for speakers with the same response because we can’t feel the pressure. The tactile piece is huge. So why not let it transfer to the floor.
min any case, I feel like this is a tough thing to talk facts about. I don’t think we have much science to explain what is better and why. I am not aware of any great research on this. My hunch is that this is dealing with the .0001% of sound perfection if at all. There are so many bigger fish to fry.
On the other hand. Nothing wrong with a little audio jewelry. I know some folks who have very nice and expensive speakers. They need their speakers to sit higher by a few inches. This is a nice option. I am sure it at least does no harm.
So take the case I made of a trampoline like suspended wood floor that sends vibrations through the house. If you can minimize those vibrations from occurring, propagating additional distortions in the form of door/knick-nack/other structural noise... is
that not a good thing?
What strikes me most from my experience against that of people on a slab floor is that the slab floor has significantly more mass to accept and dampen the vibration. Plus, it is widely accepted that concrete eats up those bass frequencies, anyway.
I don't propose in my own experience anything beyond the minimizing of some of that conducted energy transference, and in so minimizing that, as I stated above, you could perceive the "tightening" of your bass. I think that is a lazy and horrible way to look at it: there are definitely more precise ways to describe what's happening than resorting to Audioph-oolic lingo.
If asked, I would definitely liken the IsoAcoustic marketing to similar claims from Cable companies. Moreover, you are paying for the part of the product that just looks good, which is fine if it becomes qualified as Audiophile Jewelry With Purpose.
But then, the argument is clearly made through the disagreement generated by Theo’s review that this didn’t live up to the standard we expect from AH.
If isolation and coupling/decoupling are going to become a recommended product or methodology, then it needs to be looked at from outside one manufacturers marketing pitch.
Questions from floor material and home construction to what is happening in a box of sand or with a maple butchers board, how and when to use spikes vs rubber feet or foam pads… and what actually changes, if anything, in the performance of the Speaker all need to be looked at.
Right now though, this reads like magic cable threads extolling the virtues of battery packs or quantum tunneling.
