[jimtranr]

In my experience with Stillpoints footers, the real estate mantra applies: Location, location, location.

The natural inclination to place the footers in a symmetrical three- (equilateral triangle) or four-footer (rectangular) configuration seems to work in most instances. But I've found that the weight distribution and/or power transformer location of some components renders asymmetrical placement more effective in maximizing audible improvements in noise reduction, detail retrieval, and soundstage presentation.

This is true of Ultra Mini placement under my TEAC UD501 DAC (replaced by a UD505) and Ultra SS positioning under my c-j MF2500. Symmetrical placement of four footers under the 501 "thinned out" the sonics. In view of the 501's "off-balance" distribution, I spent some time determining where best to place three footers (yes, doing this can be a PITA) and hit sonic paydirt with an asymmetrical configuration that rendered the DAC a different, far more pleasant animal.

With the MF2500, I stuck with four Ultra SS, but given the amp's power transformer location and resultant "cockeyed" weight distribution, it was evident that rectangular footer placement wasn't going to cut it. Playing with footer configurations under the 56-pounder (all the while dodging the side-mounted heat sinks) was no picnic, but I could hear perceptible-enough differences with various footer placement schemes (I'm sure my cardiologist would have had a cow if he knew) to make the effort worthwhile.

I'm of course not done. The UD505 has three stock feet with manufactuer-claimed special isolation properties. So I'll be testing that against both the Ultra Mini and the Ultra SS to see which footer and configuration profile hits the mark.