Perfect! Sounds great. I missed that valuable info; this thread got very long real quick. The only problem is I might be real tight on the preamp's clearance to the upper shelf X-bar, but it might still work.
Confessions of an Audiophile Junky-I Got Center Stage With Pitch Perfect Sound
- Thread starter Steve williams
- Start date
Not sure how you can state..” CS is a different approach that nest (???) a different result” .
How do you know what the result of using Harmonix is,without actually having listened to them? Just like I do not know what the result is of using your CS...unless I have personally experienced it in my own system and with music that I am familiar with.
Unfortunately to me, as a musician, music is an experience and a song, both...not in exclusivity one to the other.
YMMV.
....nest is a typo. It,should be, nets
I will not denigrate another manufacturer. If you are a Harmonix user, I respect that. No worries.
I can tell in a couple of ways. Firstly, by reading the words on the website. A manufacturer goes to great lengths to explain the intended effect of their product. CS has a different intended effect and works on a different principle. Secondly, I used to build feet using the same general principle as Harmonix with generally the same intended effect. I am not saying that mine were better. I'm saying that CS is different.
Hi Steve and Joe,
I'm currently running my turntable (with SUT), tube phono, and tube pre on a 3-level CMS Maxxum rack. My tube monoblocks are on plain-Jane Salamander Synergy stands, and an AQ Niagara 7000 power conditioner is off to the side on a very mediocre (at best) Lovan shelf. If I were to consider 1 to 3 sets of these footers to start with, is there an obvious place here where they'd have more effect? And how might they compare, cost/effect wise, versus placing traditional CMS platforms + MXK spikes (e.g. Black Platinum) under the power conditioner and/or amps?
As you can in my system pic below, there's a lot of energy for the components & rack/shelving to deal with -- I play loud, and can't locate the rack elsewhere. In particular, the preamp tubes are quite microphonic and sensitive to even airborne vibrations. It goes without saying, my CMS rack helped out the turntable a LOT, and the matte black finish is exquisite -- very happy with it!
I'd recommend under the amps and the power conditioner. You would be elevating the performance of the non-CMS racks by a wide margin. You could extrapolate the improvement to the racked components and then make decisions about future improvements. Nice System!!!!
Oops. Didn't mean to post over your reply. I think my suggestion will answer the other important questions embedded in the post, as well.
The beauty of this is that in reality these are but recommendations and it is so simple to move from one component to another. It takes all of 5 minutes to remove and replace. Like you seem to feel that if the CS are replaced, the break in does not seem to be as long
This is very interesting. I have a keen interest in footers and have been using stillpoints and sort kones. I have done my best to read through the thread but i have a question. Sorry if this has been asked. After the extensive break in can the footers be removed and replaced without another break in period?
Thanks,
Todd
Thanks,
Todd
I have had them in and out of my system 3 times since June and it is my sense that the break in was shorter however there is always some down time until the system reaches the new equilibrium that Joe talks about
Steve, congratulations on your new venture. I just found this thread and have not found the time to read through it all yet, so I apologize if this has already been covered. I remember not long ago that you were a huge proponent of Stillpoints and you had them under every component in your system, including the speakers. Then those all disappeared. Could you describe how these footers sound different from the Stillpoints in your system? And would you recommend trying them under speakers? Thanks.
Hi Peter
The easier question first.......these are not designed for under speakers. Whether Joe designs one specific for speakers I am guessing is locked somewhere in that brilliant mind of his.
As for Stillpoints, yes I was heavily invested in Stillpoints throughout my entire system. I don't want to get into a direct comparison here but suffice it to say that the mode of action of CS is vastly different
than that of Stillpoints and IMO vastly superior to Stillpoints at a fraction of the cost of the Ultra 5's and Ultra 6's which is what I used
There is no sound immersion with Stillpoints and in fact if anything, IMO Stillpoints rob the listener of the ambient sound which is so vital to the presence of any piece of music.
Simply put the CS is in a league of its own IMHO. There is no other foot in the market that does what it does. There are several CS users now who are now ex-Stillpoints users
Steve, while I respect your enthusiasm for this product, i don't believe you can truly state what you did ( i highlighted) without actually having heard all of the footer type products on the market.
As an example, the Harmonix that i use are an exceptional product that do indeed increase the SQ of everything that I have tried with them. While they may not work from a technological perspective in the same manner as CS, although we may never truly know this, as Joe is so far unwilling to tell us how the CS feet work and Harmonix is just as veiled in their description of the inner workings as well, Harmonix do in fact work.
Hi Davey,
Of course, I would never argue that Harmonix don't work. I have tried to make clear that I respect that company, their work and their products. I firmly believe they do work. As a Harmonix owner, you have my respect.
I see that perhaps, I've made a bit of headway with you in that you seem willing to concede that Center Stage might be technologically different. Indeed they are. And they have a different intended effect. At the risk of repeating myself; cross-border entropic transfer in a reversible thermodynamic system wherein a portion of naturally occurring disorder within the audio component is transferred into a system (or device) with a naturally occurring lower entropic state. Vibration obviously accelerates entropy, so there is additionally the necessary burn-off of floor-borne mechanical energy. But, the explanation I provided bears only a minimal resemblance, at best, to a multi-layered system primarily focused on managing impedance. I am, and probably everyone else in this industry is, a huge believer in managing impedance because it works, but this does not exclude the possibility of advancements in the application and execution of science. CS is an advancement and it is brought to you for the sole purpose of elevating the musical experience. I hope we can move forward without continually plowing the same field. I come in peace and there is really nothing to argue about.
As a PhD chemist I guess I am not really seeing how entropy is playing a significant role here. Solid objects, particularly metal objects are quite highly ordered materials to begin with.
In order to make them inherently vibrate less one needs to cool them to near absolute zero. Vibrations pass through ordered structures like metals, largely unscathed and are absorbed by less structured materials that are connected by chemical bonds. These bonds vibrate and then radiate IR photons as "heat". This heat contributes to the overall delta S of the universe (2nd law) but not necessarily to the local system. All solid matter is a pool of low entropy. Living matter is actively preserving low entropy at the expense of increasing universal entropy.
How these feet supposedly lower entropy in a component doesn't really seem possible unless what is meant is simply good old vibration damping, Funneling away of microjoules of heat or reducing T.
Of course if the feet are somehow doing active WORK to reduce entropy in the component then this would another kettle of fish. Like a heat pump or Peltier cooler etc.
Not saying they don't work but invoking 2nd law of Thermodynamics for these passive devices seems a tall order.
Hi morricab
Thank you for your comments. I would never argue that CS excludes the 1st Law. Perhaps I’ve appeared to do so. I apologize for that. I’d like to bring your attention to the point where you say; this heat would contribute to the delta S of the universe, but not necessarily to the local system. I completely agree. The amount of heat transferred would indeed permeate into the universe (it must), and of course this would make the task of measuring the delta virtually impossible with accuracy. It seems to me that it would be virtually impossible to measure this delta outside of a vacuum. But this doesn’t mean that the transfer cannot occur. The benefit of CS is not specifically derived from its effect on metals. In fact, I’ve never thought of it that way (maybe, I should).
Let’s look inside the component. Gain, relative permittivity and the efficiency of electrical devices can be expressed as dimensionless numbers. For a moment, think of electricity as dimensionless energy moving through 3 dimensional pathways; printed circuit boards, resistors, capacitors, inductors, power supplies, wire, transformers, etc. When vibration is introduced into the atmosphere at the front baffle of the loudspeakers, vibration becomes a 3-dimensional form of energy that can only dissipate by permeating into 3-dimensional objects causing an unnaturally high state of mechanical excitation to occur within them; the objects vibrate the electrical pathways. This, in conjunction with naturally occurring resistance within the signal path creates heat which further accelerates naturally occurring electrical entropy. These 3-dimensional pathways will continue to vibrate when music is playing and eventually establish a relatively constant state of unnaturally high equilibrium that is well known to degrade the performance of audio components.
Looking back over 17 years of developing damping systems, I’ve steadily improved the performance of CMS filter systems and, by extension, the performance of components. But after 17 years, I realize that I missed something. The feet of the component impose a significant penalty on the performance of components. I don’t know how I could have missed this. CS is the first device I’ve developed that MUST be placed in intimate contact with the bottom of the component to be effective. It is also the first device I’ve developed that requires a full 10 days of intimate contact with the component to realize the beginnings of its full potential. If you prefer to think the improvement is strictly 1st Law, that’s fine. I don’t think it’s that simple, particularly since the 2nd Law is fundamental to all forms of vibration isolation and damping systems. A person could place their components on our most expensive (effective) rack systems, and still CS would ratchet the performance up in measure similar to placing the components on a wood shelf………this, 10 days later. By logical extension, it seems to me that the 2nd Law must be present, if not dominant.
Allow me to say how refreshing it is to hear Mr.Lavrencik "balance" his observations in an understanding manner regards to alternative products--Kudos indeed
Footers /feet/tweaks /etc is a minefield we've all been immersed in -whether we like it or not--ha! The impressive reaction to these CS footers is thought provoking and invokes
observing with interest other plaudits as they make there way into other members systems--as along time (25 yr) Harmonix/ Mooky/Marigo user---yes I'd certainly like to try them--gotta find a dealer-!
Good one
BruceD
PS: Sadly I have to agree with Steve on Stillpoints--they added a Hardness to my sonics--but I'm sure others have found them to their liking they are superbly made and Bruce Jacobs is always
obliging in conversation re his products--I wish their continuing success .
Footers /feet/tweaks /etc is a minefield we've all been immersed in -whether we like it or not--ha! The impressive reaction to these CS footers is thought provoking and invokes
observing with interest other plaudits as they make there way into other members systems--as along time (25 yr) Harmonix/ Mooky/Marigo user---yes I'd certainly like to try them--gotta find a dealer-
!Good one
BruceD
PS: Sadly I have to agree with Steve on Stillpoints--they added a Hardness to my sonics--but I'm sure others have found them to their liking they are superbly made and Bruce Jacobs is always
obliging in conversation re his products--I wish their continuing success .
Hi Joe,
I think maybe you are missing my point. I am not asking you to accept that Harmonix works or doesn’t work, I am also not discussing the SQ of CS, as I have not actually heard them. Steve stated that CS is superior to all ALL footers. To this, I pointed out that in order to make this claim, one would had to have heard all footers on the market and to have inserted all of them into ones system to determine that. Not even remotely possible, imo.
You state that your design is different than what is used in Harmonix...to which I say I don’t know how you would know this, as Harmonix are not disclosing their technology and the science behind their footer. You are essentially doing the same thing, and so we as the consumers have really no idea as to the technology...of either product!
You then give me some rational, that Morricab calls into question, and proceed to defend your position, while all the time not fully disclosing the technology behind your product....except to say that it acts as a “insulator “ as best as I can determine. Which, BTW, all of the similar devices exhibit the same characteristics.
Nonetheless, I do have an open enough mind to not completely dismiss this product until I have actually heard it, and in my own system...
Last edited:
Similar threads
