 I have reviewed already two systems that decouple loudspeakers from the floor they stand on, using my audiophysics copy of loudspeakers. Not realizing audiophysics has its own solution. The vibration control feed VCF for short. In this review the VCF 2 Magnetic Plus M8 for floor standing loudspeakers. Judging from the numbers of times these reviews have watched, the importance of these isolators is generally underestimated. Before I reviewed the Townsend Plateaus also by me, to be honest. And of course they are not sexy products, although some might like the oil rig appearance of the Townsend. Now what are we talking about, sound wise? Search the web on problems with bass tones and you'll find all kinds of references to standing waves. These are the result of room modes. Every room has room modes since they are the result of the distance between two planes in a room, like the short walls, the long walls and the ceiling and the floor. If half a wavelength or multiples thereof equal the distance between two planes, that wave will be stationary in the room. That might result in a higher or lower sound pressure level at that frequency depending on where you sit in the room. Every room suffers from room modes, also my room. But why is it they have a bigger impact on the sound of a stereo than on the sound of a piano in the same room? That has puzzled me for a long time. Most will search for cures rather than courses. You can of course place bass traps and when used sparingly that might help. But bass traps also cause time smearing due to the way they work, for they are in fact acoustic filters and thus introduce time distortion. And they are not always accepted by the aesthetics committee. But what if you start looking for the courses instead of the cures? Over the last year my reference setup 1 upgraded significantly into a setup 1A and 1B. See my video on my reference setups. In the 1A I noticed that the difficult low frequency spots in my room became less difficult. Imagine the acoustic behaviour of my room was positively influenced by the network player and DAC. And when I tested the Townshend seismic platform and the I2 acoustic Gaia 2, I noticed a further reduction. That got me thinking. What was improved when the core Dave DAC was added to my setup 1A? Time resolution. What did the Grim Audio Mew1 network player improve? Timing. And what did the speaker isolation improve? It reduced small resonances in the speaker cabinet and thus time smearing. It might also have reduced vibrations in my approximately 2 cm thick oak floor on top of the concrete floor in my living room. Resonances here, no matter how small, might also be of some influence. But again in the time domain. I am aware we are talking about limited time smearing, both in time and amplitude. But over the recent years we have learned that the time resolution of our hearing is far higher than was concluded from the limited bandwidth of our hearing. And don't expect that a few micron movements in a speaker cabinet will produce hefty SPLs. But then again the average movement of a mid-range speaker is also in a few microns range and you'll hear that too. Time smearing is not about hearing a harpsichord tone somewhat later, it's about the harmonic and envelope of a tone, it's about the low frequency texture, it's about resolution in the mid-range and it's about distortion in the high frequencies. Or at least, that's what I hear when time behavior of equipment improves. They use the bottle to produce a tone by blowing across the top. Did you notice that it takes some time before a tone becomes audible? May we conclude from that that it takes some time for a resonance to build up? What if time smearing of a stereo makes the difference between exciting room modes or not? For when time smearing smears out the energy over a longer period, there is more chance a resonance is set in motion. Especially if the music has a repetitive character. It would explain what I heard when the time resolution of my reference set of 1A was improved. It would also explain why a piano doesn't suffer so badly from room modes since it has no unintended time smearing. I'm no scientist and not clever nor rich enough to research this. But perhaps this will stimulate others. The fact remains that using speaker isolators do have a profound effect on the low-frequency behavior of the speakers. Time to look at yet another one. The AudioPhysic VCF2 Magnetic Plus M8. AudioPhysic has a complete program of vibration control feed. There are models for under electronics like network players and DACs. There are feed for floor-standing loudspeakers that don't have spikes. Feed for people that want to keep using their spikes on their speakers and feed that replace the spikes. The latter category is available in three weight classes, 15, 20 and 35 kg per unit. So for loudspeakers, weighting up to 60, 80 and 140 kg. For my AudioPhysic Scorpios, the Gaia 2s are advanced. I need 8mm threads but other sizes are available. They come in a case in a set of 8, 4 for each loudspeaker. The construction is only vaguely described. There is a top and bottom plate that are isolated from each other mechanically using two opposing neodymium magnets and are capable of supporting 20 kg per feed. The neodymium 48mm in diameter makes them match the feed of the AudioPhysic loudspeakers. Being only 28mm tall when screwed under, they keep the loudspeakers at about the same height, in contrast to other solutions I have reviewed. The total height, including the thread, is 36mm. Screwed under the AudioPhysic Adventurance they look like this. They don't stand out. Not even in close-up. Comparing isolation feed isn't easy, for you can't switch easily from one to the other. When I changed the Gaia 2s that I currently use, I initially thought the VCF sounded better. It took me three sessions to conclude that they just sounded slightly different. Both gave clear improvements. Bass became tighter, there is more resolution in the mid-range, micro-dynamics improved, spatial information is richer, the sound quality is more convincing. The difference between the two are subtle. Where the Gaia 2s gave slightly more openness in the mid-low, the VCFs were slightly tighter in the bottom-low end. Chances are this might differ when using other loudspeakers. The best speaker isolator still is the Townsend platform but starting at €1690 is by far the most expensive and might not pass the aesthetics committee. The ISO acoustic set of 8 costs €678 while the audiophysic set of 8 will set you back €769. Differences in sound quality are small, although that might depend on the loudspeakers you use. Optically the ISO acoustics are more high-tech, the audiophysics are less intrusive while they keep the speakers at about the same height. The choice is yours. Which brings us to the end of this video. There will be a new video next Friday at 5 pm central european time. If you don't want to miss that, subscribe to this channel or follow me on the social media so you will be informed when new videos are out. Help me reach even more people by giving this video a thumb up or a link to this video on the social media. It's much appreciated. Many thanks to those viewers that support this channel financially, it keeps me independent and lets me improve the channel further. If that makes you feel like supporting my work too, the links are in the comments below this video on YouTube. I am Hans Beekhuyzen, thank you for watching and see you in the next show or on theHPproject.com. And whatever you do, enjoy the music.