Are isolation products a waste of money?

I must admit that I don't ever listen to pink noise on my system as That never ends up on any music charts to be rated.

What I can say for certainty is that two solid state power amps that I have owned benefitted from isolation supports in a noticeable way. A Behringer A500 power amp sounded awful until I put a bamboo chopping board underneath it, which transformed the sound immediately and obviously. I had a Rotel Michi power amp that again leaped forward in sound quality when I slid a Super Kinabalu platform underneath it. Having said that, the Lyndorf power amp I have now seems to be unaffected by whatever support goes underneath it.

Casework makes a difference, so why not isolation? Most amps sound better without the top. Putting the same circuit on an acrylic slab for the NVA statement amps was said to improve the sound, so I can accept your premise.

I'm still wondering why my DAC seems to sound better stood on thick sorbothane 'blobs'. It's subtle, but not imagined.

I have loads of various sorbothane 'blobs', mainly for TT isolation, but I tried them under every bit of gear and with the DAC I noticed there was definitely something there. And it's repeatable.

I can’t really be bothered either, these days. My kit has to look great too, so leaving lids off or using weird isolation devices isn’t my thing.....although I do think it would sound better.

I’m just very happy every time I listen so “better” just isn’t needed.

Nah.
Did notice a difference with a CDP; but what the hell is a difference anyway, has it anything to do with the music, unless the system is so off colour it needs serious and drastic surgery.
How many Audiofools any way can tell the difference between a Cornet and a Trumpet let alone the difference in tone. A Concert violinist friend played me the same music on 4 different violin's and each one had a slight and noticable difference in tone, thus taking all the wind out my Audiophile Argy Bargy.
Most vibrations are air born; what the hell you gonna do about that?

Who the hell can hear "the finer detail" (bollocks) at a live performance, unless it is an intimate jazz trio or something like that and you sitting on top of the band.
I want the system to "Imitate" a live performance as close as possible. a system that allows me to just listen and enjoy the music forgetting about the system and all the usual beating The Dead Horse Audiofool Codswallop.

We've gotta lot of lurkers.

Your Krell, if you look in the instructions, had an option of fancy-foo add-on feet. Whether this was purely to lift the amp off a carpet or rug further for best air-flow through the case from underneath, I don't know really, but rich-men's homes don't usually go for paving slabs, bricks or similar...

In the article he measures the output with and without vibration. It isn't a listening test. Using pink noise makes it easier to see if there is any change in the measurement. Not harder.


As regards placebo and other psychological effects, yes I agree they don't matter when we are just enjoying listening to music. Or if we are choosing between two bits of equipment or two systems as to which we prefer. No measurements or objective analysis can change our mind as to which one we like the sound of the most.


For other considerations - the 'how things work' side of it then it's my opinion they do have to be taken into consideration. I see it this way - I couldn't live for 5 minutes with the rubber feet under the amplifier. My gut told me it sounded worse. Fairly obviously worse. But basic physics, measurements, audio engineers, blind testing and good old common sense all tell me that those feet won't change a thing in the amp's performance.


Now you will say that is due to unknown unknowns. And you mat be right. As a gambler I'd give you a small chance to be right. It's not impossible it is just highly unlikely. As a gambler I'm going to bet the odds and say it is my imagination. But the real point is that in the real world it matters not a jot who is right. I would not put the feet back under if you paid me - since they ruin the sound - just as you would not voluntarily take the feet out from under yours as that would ruin the sound.

Regardless of the science, we don't get to decide what we perceive as real.

Ken Ishiwata Signature player with lots of mods from standard by the man himself. But he didn't think to simply change the feet on the player to get such an  improvement in sound quality? 

Does it not bother you that there is no known reason why supporting the player with oak cones might change how it sounds? That if you were to measure the output of the player with and without the cones the results would be identical? That based on how a cd player works there really is no possible mechanism by which changing the support can change the sound? Fair enough if it doesn't bother you, but it bothers me. 

I know from my own experience that such things 'work'. I used to place a 10 kilo weight on top of the cd player, I was convinced that it 'tightened up' the sound a little. Now that I know how cd players work I know for a fact that it did nothing of the sort. But I certainly perceived that it did and that's really all that matters. What I find odd is that people refuse to accept that such improvements are purely psychological.

Now it does not matter if there really is a technical improvement or if it is just in the mind, it is still an improvement. But people don't like that idea - they have to believe the improvement to be objectively real even if it cannot be explained or measured or quantified in any way and even when they cannot distinguish the modded player to an identical unmodded one when they can't see which one is playing. As though human psychology doesn't exist and has no influence on our perceptions. Even though we know it does exist and influences our perceptions massively.  What's that all about?

It isn't possible to tell whether something we witnessed is real or psychological simply by experiencing it. Just putting the cones under the player could have been enough of a cue for you to experience a change. I suppose it depends on what your definition of 'real' is.

I'm not saying it is a big deal, it is this certainty that something objectively real has occurred that puzzles me. Especially when all the evidence says it hasn't.

Personally I'm getting one of the best sounds I've ever heard and without using any 'foo' type products at all (unless you count fancy cables as foo which I don't).

Yet I've heard plenty of systems festooned with expensive isolation products, racks, cones, platforms, cable lifters and so on and they've been very mediocre. There was a system at Cranage last year where just the cable lifters alone cost more than my entire system. And it was crap.

If I've gone off course then I wish I'd gone off course years ago!

One pic had cable lifters, but one looped end was touching the wall next to the mains socket! Total loopy nonsense and you can put it all down to Enid Lumley on Ab Sounds many years back, who claimed to 'hear' how her mains was generated and all sorts. her cables *had* to be a certain height above the floor and away from walls. She was taken seriously too and I'm certain she started all this. yes, some cables are microphonic I gather, but that's been known about for decades and the best manufacturers have worked bloody hard to eliminate it.

It's amazing that when you get your sound system balanced up and sounding nice with careful choice of room and speaker, that all this foo Sh#t becomes as meaningless and overpriced as it really is I mean, why spend a fortune on black ravioli when a thin sheet of foam would probably do an identical job for peanuts - assuming you needed this at all of course

Has anyone ever tried them? I’m a bit sceptical too, but I may try for fun. If you make your own it will cost peanuts.

i used to have my own way to isolate turntables

2 real heavy slabs of marble with a bike inner tube between them...works wonders and cost next to nothing