Having read the comments here, I'm not sure you guys are looking at this in the clearest way possible. For several reasons:
1. As you may know, there are 3 primary methodologies to addressing vibrations. Isolation (de-coupling), mechanical energy transfer (coupling), and hybrids of the two. For example, de-coupling and coupling are diametrically opposed to one another. Yet, in each of the racks pictured herein I can see a combination of both so I would consider each of these pictured racks as hybrids favoring one primary method or the other. And if they are hybrids of any sort, why would the designer intermix the 2 methods and was there a conscious decision to make certain portions lean toward de-coupling and others lean toward coupling? Or was it mere happenstance?
2. I suspect you are not viewing things from a holistic or final perspective. For example, let's say one has purchased the absolute best performing rack in the world - bar none. Obviously, that rack is adhering to one of the three methods. Yet, what is inserted or sandwiched between the components' baseplates and the shelve's surfaces could just as easily turn that rack into the world's worst performing racking system. Hence, the chosen footers design methodology and subsequent performance is perhaps equally important as the chosen racking system.
3. Chosen materials. If a racking system's design truly follows the manufacturer's stated vibration controlling method, do the rack's materials and joinery follow suit? In other words, if a rack manufacturer is committed to one vibration controlling methodology do the rack's materials and joinery substantiate the chosen method or do they seem contradictory and defeating? Materials matter because obviously some material makes for better mechanical energy conduit than others. The hard and more rigid the material, the greater the opportunity for mechanical energy to travel. The softer and less rigid the material, the greater the opportunity to disconnect or severe the conduit and thus keep the energy from traveling.
4. As you may also know, there are 3 primary sources of mechanical vibration; floor-borne, air-borne, and internally-generated (e.g. motors, power supplies, electrical current, etc). The question that deserves a correct answer is, which of these vibration sources are you convinced are the most harmful? This is critical because if you're convinced that one source is more deleterious than the others, you cannot satisfactorily address both. For example. If you've determined that floor-borne vibrations are the most destructive vibrations and address matters accordingly, then you've instantly trapped all air-borne and internally-generated vibrations inside the component and thereby will release its full energy within. On the other hand, if you've determined that air-borne and/or internally-generated vibrations are the most destructive and act accordingly, then the potential exists for floor-borne vibrations to travel upward to the component as air-borne and/internally-generated vibrations are traveling downward.
5. IMO, one of the most important questions worth asking is, does mechanical energy (or for that matter any energy) by nature travel or remain stationary? The significance of this question/answer determines everything, i.e. chosen vibration-controlling method, design, execution, materials, types of joinery, suggested footers, etc.
6. Though active vibration control is mentioned, I suspect the technology hasn't matured all that much otherwise we'd be hearing far more about it and many more of us would be using it. Besides, since the problem is mechanical in nature, it seems to me that a proper mechanical solution should suffice.
Among the 3 racks pictured, I'm not overly impressed with any of them since they all seem to clearly be hybrids of the de-coupling and coupling methodologies. And as such I suspect all 3 racking systems have significant built-in performance compromises. If you've ever heard of a mug-whomp, that is what I see with these 3 racks from these pictures alone. A mug-whomp is where somebody's mug is on one side of the fence and their whomp is on the other side of the fence. IOW, indecisive.
That said, and assuming we're not all in agreement with the points mentioned above, from my perspective I'd lean toward the HRS as potentially edging out a bit better performance with Mike Lavigne's pictured rack being the worst performer of the 3. From an aesthetics-only perspective, to me the infinite element rack is superior as it has the appearance of a sophisticated/thoughtful piece of furniture with a nice contract of man-made and natural materials.
