IsoAcoustics ISO-Puck Series vs OREA Series

After the SQ improvement of adding IsoAcoustics GAIA II isolators to my GoldenEar Triton Reference speakers, it got me to thinking about additional tweaks.

In the process of researching component isolation and its effectiveness; I’ve read in several forum discussions people comment, the only difference between the IsoAcoustics OREA series and ISO-Puck series was primarily cosmetic. I was thinking of using the ISO-Puck series for my BHK Preamp and Amplifiers, initially based on price. Still, I didn’t want to be continually second-guessing if I was getting the best performance.

So, I emailed this question to IsoAcoustics:

What is the difference between the OREA and ISO-Puck?


The ISO-PUCK was originally designed for the Pro Audio market and is a very versatile isolator for studio monitors, guitar/bass amps and cabinets, subwoofers, DJ equipment, mic stands etc… and has a fairly broad performance curve.

The OREA’s on the other hand are designed for Home Audio and have a more “classy” appearance in stainless steel. The performance curve is narrower in weight range and will provide a stronger sonic benefit in it’s range than the ISO-PUCKs. More effective isolation resulting in more sound clarity and focus.

I emailed a followup question:

Regarding the ISO-Puck Series, I couldn’t find the performance Curve information on the website, are the graphs available?


At the moment we don’t have performance curves that compare the ISO-Pucks with the OREA series.

Based on various reviews, personal anecdotes, and this info’ I’m going with the OREA’s.

1 Like

I think that you’ll be pleased. I have them under all my sources, power plant and BHK Pre. None under my BHK300’s. They have so much mass that I’m not sure that they might benefit.

1 Like


I have the Orea under my turntable and I definitely notice better clarity when playing music. I have not tried them under any other equipment at this time.

1 Like

There are way more positive opinions about isolation than negative or kneejerk overreactions.

It seemed to me, the BHK300’s having the tube input stage are more susceptible to unwanted vibration, so I thought I would realize better performance isolating them first. It’s a significant expense installing seven sets of isolators at one time. It seems the power plant wins in the mass category though; the weight delta of components P20 is 96lbs, and BHK300 is 83lbs. I plan to isolate my P20 further down the road.

I find that my new P15 is very responsive to isolation . . . and it’s heavy. My P10 is as well.

I enjoyed the Oreas but they did not unseat my favorites from use: the VooDoo Cable Iso-Pod.

1 Like

Its clear what the horizontal x-axis on the graph expresses. But exactly what is “Performance” on the y-axis? Not subjectively or relatively, but in quantitative terms. The word peformance in and of itself means different things to different people. And why no curve for the isopuck? Implies that something detrimental to IsoAcoustics Orea sales (at a higher margin?) may occur if an actual one was published. Just my opinion, but based on many years experience with corporate marketing stategies (ie.: deception).


I had both. They both made a nice improvement and I couldn’t tell them apart.


Same here.

1 Like

I once had all my two channel components mounted atop oreas or isopucks. Biggest improvement was heard with oreas between my Harbeth SHL5+ speakers and their stands. Without them the characteristic Harbeth enclosure resonance was easily felt with my hands on the stands. With the oreas under the speakers there was zero vibration transmitted to the stands. Subjective performance improvement was a tighter sound presentation particularly among the lower frequencies.

I felt that most of my components sound was improved, or at the very least, not harmed with IsoAcoustic isolators beneath them. Regarding the differences in apparent performance between isopucks and oreas, there was none that I could ever discern. The orea do look “prettier” though which I guess falls into the pride of ownership category.

After migrating to a dedicated headphone system I sold most of my isolators. The only components I now have are oreas under my DSD DAC and Stellar P3 PP. Not sure why though as I no longer have speaker generated sound waves bombarding my components. And I don’t have any under my four headphone amps. Not enough external vibrations to justify their continued use, but I think I just feel comfortable knowing they are protected against the potential vibrations of barking dogs, passing garbage trucks, school buses and auto boom boxes, sonic booms, earthquakes, meteorite impacts, etc. After all I still am an audiophile. Hmm… maybe I should get some for my headphone amps?

1 Like

Thanks, for explaining your experience, which was helpful.

That’s funny/coincidental, as I got them last year to put under my SHL5’s as well. But that was due to the apartment being so small that I was compelled to put the speakers on top of the subs. The Oreas (3 per speaker) did a simply amazing job of isolating from the subs.

I now have a bigger place, and got the Sound Anchor stands for the Harby’s (highly reccommended) and the pucks moved under components. I don’t have experience with the ISO’s vs. the Orea’s, but would bet money they are nearly as good - or as good, but arguably less pretty. They clearly work.

I have a similar “feeling” about using them under components, but have not A/B’d with and without. Do need to experiment with them under the TT though - that would be interesting, as it is the most sensitive to vibration, and unfortunately not very far from a sub. Sanding and finishing a slab of cherry wood for a new TT platform, so will wait to disturb the setup until that’s ready.


Here is the single patent that appears to cover the Gaia speaker bolt-on, Orea and Iso-puck devices. Patent 9,920,811

If they were substantially or even minimally (besides cosmetics) different there would be another patent