Vibration Absorbtion or Vibration Transfer?

Is better to absorb vibration, or is it better to transfer vibration away from the components?

One of the best audio racks out there do not use vibration absorbtion at all:

Of course, there are many designs that use vibration absorbtion, or a combination of vibration absorbtion and transfer sucessfully. So, I am not sure if one way is for sure better than the other.

My own experience showes that both could be used sucessfully. However, the key is to find which component is better served by one or both methods. These two method will change the SQ dramatically so one needs to find the right balance.

A good example is my PST since it is more sensitive than others in my system. I have experienced with PST using different types of cones, dampers, Duro70 rings, metal supports. I have settled on these for the last year


These are four metal supports with four duro70 discs on top. I like them much better than Orea, VooDoo, and some other supports. I use the same support for the power plug too (try it!).

But my tweaking nature got to me. From reading the Live-vibo article the vibration transfer may be the better way to go.

So, I replaced the duro70 rings with duro70 sheet to reduce the damping quantity, and I use three instead of four columns under PST. I replace the duro disc with sheet on power plug too:

The improvement on vividness, dynamic and detail is quite noticeable. It seems that I used a bit too much absorbing material in the past. Yes, I did try the metal supports without any duro70 at all, and I did not like the result. The SQ is a bit too jumpy and gets brighter. So, this is the best supports I found for my system, for now. :grin:

What do you use?


It totally depends on the purpose.

Is it for a unit which causes vibration itself or not?
Is the unit prone to airborne noise or not?
Is the base absorbing deducted vibration of the feet or not?
Is the base itself or the rack under it affected of airborne noise or floor vibrations (from a subwoofer etc.)?
Does the component you want to resonance control have a kind of sound that needs to be influenced in tonality or not?
Is the floor soft, solid, concrete or floating?
Does the room/flat below have to be isolated from the resonance noise above or not?

Depending on all of this, the rough decisions (resonance derivation or absorption) have to be made (possibly in several alternating combinations) and then the more detailed ones. The choice will be different for every record player, CD drive or speaker (even in the same environment and even more in differing environments).

Resonance control always changes the sound, but if not chosen meaningfully, just creates new areas of compensation at other places or already just compensates existing areas out of the optimum.

So the better question would be:
What are others‘ situations and gear and why did they chose as they did. The only problem: it mostly wouldn’t help you because you probably have all factors different, but it could be a kind of seminar. That would help most, but takes effort and time. :wink:


Very much agree.

One of the biggest jokes is that Rega, who have obsessed about vibration control for 50 years, spent a year developing the material for the feet of the Rega P10 and some people think they can do better with some generic after-market product that costs a fortune.

I was discussing this issue with the chap at The Classic Turntable Company and we decided on this design. I already have the feet and the sorbothane sheet is easy to source. So there is damping top and bottom and isolation in the middle.
The plinth is made of ply because it’s not too dense so vibrates less than solid woods, but heavy enough to minimise airborne vibrations.
There is nothing special about this, Kridon who make these feet have sold over 3,300 sets of 4 on eBay alone.
If I had a bouncy floor I would probably use a Townshend plinth as my first consideration would be footfall bounce. Fortunately I don’t have that problem.

1 Like

There are too many variables to consider I agree. One has to try different footers to decide which one is preferable to his/her system. For instance, I still prefer Orea footers under the BHK pre more than my metal/sorbothane combo under PST. By the way, these metal supports have three ball bearings in each of them, and I prefer the ceramic balls than steel balls, I think. :roll_eyes:

I am trying a number of footers under DS MK2 now, and I have not decided which one I like better. There is a bit difference from each, but they all sound good. Ted did a great job on this DAC :laughing: :thinking:


I’ve experimented a lot with footers. My Rega gives the best sound when it sits on a trio of VooDoo Cable IsoPods (3 ceramic balls!) which are on top of a PS Audio PowerBase, sitting atop a 4" maple platform from Mapleshade, on a two inch shelf of my Mapleshade Samson Version 2 rack. Subtract one of these. . . the sound isn’t as good.

Most of my components are on these IsoPods atop PowerBases, and my speakers are best isolated from the floor on top of (unfortunately no longer made) Herbie’s Audio Iso-Cups with Deep Moss Green Quartz “balls.”

It was fun to experiment for years with different footers, platforms et al.


That sounds like a great solution.

1 Like

Anyone ever tried RevOpod footers? I sincerely don’t want to pay all that money for footers, they are crazy expensive. I read somewhere that they work very well and are able to bring remarkable improvements to sound.
They are not on my list and probably won’t but, as always, I’m curious.

And next month there will be a review on another newer one that is the best ever. Carried for a few months by the usual suspect dealers and then quietly dropped when they don’t sell.

These fancy footers surely look expensive. Footers can tune SQ (in addition to their main function: vibration absorption/transferring), and in some cases they can make quite an impact. They are system dependent too (may be more audio rack dependent).

I settled with my homemade metal/sorbo supports for PST and Lumin U2 (clearly better than others), and I like them under LHY SW-10 switch too (surprisingly how a switch can be affected by footers). But MK2 and BHK pre are better off with Oreas. Somehow, I am losing detail and life with metal supports under them, but it is the oppsite when they are under PST and Pre. Very interesting!

1 Like

Arya Audio is the baby of two very serious acoustic engineers. They are from Southampton University, which has been a world class engineering research centre for decades, especially in marine engineering. It’s up alongside Imperial College and Cambridge.

I’m almost tempted.

Audio components, when being designed and evaluated by the designers, are probably at best placed on whatever rack or platform they have in the room with their speakers.
So they’re voiced with however good or bad vibration control, but surely nothing as extreme as hitech footers - they’d want to integrate them into the product or ship them with it if they’d been part of the voicing process.
So now we often have some technically performance-worsening aspects baked into the designer’s intended voicing of the product. This could even be a good thing if it makes for a good balance of sonic traits. And now making things technically better could offset that balance. Or not.

Happy cake day!