Tweakers' Asylum Tweaks for systems, rooms and Do It Yourself (DIY) help. FAQ.

---

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Tweakers' Asylum ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

RE: EAR Isodamp C-1002 vs rubber and cork footers

Posted by Duster (M) on July 24, 2016 at 16:51:51

In Reply to: EAR Isodamp C-1002 vs rubber and cork footers posted by Tweaker456 on July 24, 2016 at 14:54:53:

I'm not surprised EAR Isodamp C-1002 material when used within a DIY audiophile footer design would sound better than rubber and cork pads primarily designed for industrial applications. Neoprene when used as a compliant decoupling material has an identifiably heavy-handed sonic signature that makes it unacceptable to my ear, and cork as a material only serves well as a spacer/standoff rather than an effective vibration control material for audio purposes, IME. Brute-force vibration control footers do well to avoid TT footfalls and CD skipping due to high energy level vibration prone environments, but I'm not impressed by mundane rubber and cork pads that actually affect various audiophile listening cues if used as an audiophile system tuning device, in addition to heavy-duty vibration dampening purposes. BTW, I'm currently compiling an affordable DIY vibration control footer recipe that might find benefit via the use of thin EAR Isodamp C-1002 material as one of several design options.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Parts Connexion

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---