Greg Weaver Reviews Center Stage 2 In Positive Feedback
- Thread starter Steve Williams
- Start date
Damon,Hi DaveyF, glad to share my insight.
I don't think what I'm about to say will be revolutionary to anyone on this forum but we'll see
Considering what component upgrade may have the greatest impact on any particular system is what we all struggle with; either in our personal system, a friend's system, a potential customer or even a system we're preparing to present at a show. It's an exercise we do regularly. And Leif and I consider these things together; we argue, we experiment, we confirm
First, let me lay some disclaimers down.
1 - I won't speak for any hypothetical product or generalize the performance of all the products in a category. Instead I'll try be very specific.
2 - I don't consider the isolation of electronics a "tweak." From my experience and in my mind it's a critical component to achieving higher levels of performance; especially so in very high-performance systems.
3 - In every situation, your miles will vary.
Considering Leif's current home system, he has our $40K Endeavor E-5 MkII being driven by roughly $8K in Audio Alchemy source and amplification. And he presently has a modest rack that I would estimate provides very little if any isolation. From my first-hand experience of adding $6K of the original CS footers (zero CS2 footers), the improvement in the signal being transmitted by the Audio Alchemy front-end to the E-5 MkII was far superior (by a magnitude not a percentage) than swapping out the line stage and amplifier with ones that I highly respect (and have won several Best of Show with) that cost 7.5 times as much. Clearly the footers were the better choice to me, the greatest ROI. In this case, the weakest link in the chain was isolation, not the quality of the front-end.
Now on to the hypothetical proposition of swapping out the E-5 MkII (again $40K) with the ULTRA 11 ($300K or 7.5 times as much), I would estimate the improvement would not be as great.
While the ULTRA 11 is far more revealing than the E-5 MkII, the weakest link in Leif's system was the isolation issues with the front-end. So upgrading the loudspeakers would have little positive affect.
In my consideration, it might even degrade the overall performance with the ULTRA 11 exposing issues that are less perceptible on the E-5 MkII. I think the old hack "garbage in, garbage out" would apply in this case. Loudspeakers perform at the level of what's put in front of them, period. They are incapable of improving the source, only diminishing it.
So in this case I think improving the signal going into the E-5MkII is the better choice than breaking our backs moving the ULTRA 11 into Leif's sound room. You haven't seen his stairs. Let's wait until we significantly upgrade the front-end first
Wow! Thank you for such a detailed and thoughtful answer to this question!
Aside from complementing you on your superb explanation, I would ask all the nay-sayers (like KeithR and DaveyF in particular) to go back and re-read posts 2, 3, 7, 10, and 13 of this thread, in particular, with Damon's post in mind.
Last edited:
Wowza. What a powderkeg of a thread!
I'm too busy being entertained to even comment other to say that it's not been a particularly good day on the gameboard for decorum.
I'm too busy being entertained to even comment other to say that it's not been a particularly good day on the gameboard for decorum.
I'm glad things have quieted down.
A few weeks ago, I was notified that Center Stage received an Editor's Choice Award that we'll see in the March issue of The Absolute Sound. CS was installed on an OLYMPUS rack in Robert Harley's new listening room just after the last RMAF. As memory serves we placed 1,0s under the rack mounted gear and 1.5s under the amps. I have absolutely no idea what Robert is going to say. But the award, suggests something supportive.
I mention this because it strikes me that an Accessory of the Year Award from Alan Sircom at HiFi+,, David Robinson's Brutus Award from Positive Feedback (a rubber stamp of Greg's review as he explained it to me) and an Award from Robert Harley at TAS suggests that a broad range of professionals (along with WBF members right here), guys who don't need to give a damn about a footer, support Center Stage.
I want to say, THANK YOU. Thank you for your support.
A few weeks ago, I was notified that Center Stage received an Editor's Choice Award that we'll see in the March issue of The Absolute Sound. CS was installed on an OLYMPUS rack in Robert Harley's new listening room just after the last RMAF. As memory serves we placed 1,0s under the rack mounted gear and 1.5s under the amps. I have absolutely no idea what Robert is going to say. But the award, suggests something supportive.
I mention this because it strikes me that an Accessory of the Year Award from Alan Sircom at HiFi+,, David Robinson's Brutus Award from Positive Feedback (a rubber stamp of Greg's review as he explained it to me) and an Award from Robert Harley at TAS suggests that a broad range of professionals (along with WBF members right here), guys who don't need to give a damn about a footer, support Center Stage.
I want to say, THANK YOU. Thank you for your support.
Smart people know when to turn incident into an opportunity. We have a bunch of smart people here.
Tang
Thank you so much. My pleasure Bob. Oh, if I havenn't told you already, you're room and system is downright GORGEOUS. Ennjoy my friend.
LOL
Man, I wonder how many posts I'd have if I crapped on everybody whose writing style rubbed me the wrong way regardless of what he or she is trying to say. When the heck did people become so friggin' literal anyway? I don't want to write like a robot. It just isn't fun.
Thank you for your thought-provoking post, Ron. To me the key lies in your second sentence. Exactly because of what you say, I think the reviewer should try to get his point across in a manner that is more educative. This is not about self-censorship, but about communicating with his audience in the most effective way. If not that, what is a review for?
I think DaveC in # 94 hit the nail on the head: quantifying improvements is near impossible, and the perceived degree of improvement may even vary greatly between different listeners. Hence saying that the set of Centerstage footers makes a system sound as good as a system twice the price is deeply problematic. Why does not the reviewer simply say that in his opinion the improvement is, in relative terms, worth far more than the monetary investment, could be achieved otherwise only by a much more expensive upgrade of components, and therefore the acquisition of this product prior to other component upgrades is the most recommended way to proceed? Such a statement, which is just semi-quantitive at best, would be both rather uncontroversial and much more credible, certainly compared to the alternative that was presented. Therefore, it would achieve much more for the praise of the product because it would not raise the hyperbole flag in a lot of readers. And we would not have had to have the whole heated debate on this thread.
Last edited:
Hello Joe. That is very interesting. I have read from Steve that they can not be taken out and then reinserted and listened to again shortly afterwards, as you are suggesting. Steve has reported on WBF that the break in period starts all over again once they have been removed and that is up to ten days. Regardless, this is the sequence I auditioned them under: out of the system, in the system (after a three week break in period), out of the system. This is the A-B-A sequence to which I was referring. Steve recommends an A-B-A sequence too, but from what I understand, it is not this: in the system, out of the system, in the system as you suggest.
Actually, I don't think it matters much. One hears the system with them and without them, in either order, and prefers one over the other. The approval for these footers has been near unanimous from what I can tell by reading the pages of WBF, but I suspect people who don't like them just don't report on it here for reasons I suggested earlier. This is understandable though very different from the many differing opinions expressed about nearly all other components and tweaks discussed on audio forums. Just look at any Wilson, Magico, Spectral, horn, SS, belt drive, cartridge type discussion and there will be differing opinions, often strongly expressed. This is not the case with these footers.
A few years ago I auditioned Stillpoint footers in my system, both under my amps and under my speakers. When I shared a rather luck warm impression, I was immediately criticized for the method of my experimentations. I described everything I did and people told me they were not oriented correctly, they were in the wrong location, etc, etc. Supporters of those feet simply could not accept that someone had a different opinion. Now, years later, one does not read much about Stillpoint footers. They used to be all the rage.
I understand criticising those who have not heard the CS Footers. But for those who have, I don't know if it is helpful to tell them that their ABA should really have been a BAB sequence, or that they need to be auditioned in one's "own" system. This standard is not applied to those who form opinions by listening to speakers at shows, dealerships, or in friends' systems. Why should it be any different for auditioning footers? If my opinion based on hearing them in a friend's system should be qualified or even discounted, then there is always the opinion of the friend who did in fact hear them in his "own" system and decided to return them. Mine is only one data point in one specific system context, contrary to the many glowing reports from others. I don't think there is anything to be concerned about. The near unanimous recommendations and positive reports and reviews are worth celebrating.
Welcome to Greg Weaver to the forum and for taking the time and making the effort to share his opinion.
Hi Al
This is not directed at you or anyone else in particular. On a more global note billions of bits of written information are passed on from person to person every second. With today's technology we have all become "published" writers. Personally, I would direct my energy towards making my best efforts to communicate what I am thinking and feeling rather than pore over perceived failure in form, substance of opinion pieces which do not require the exactitude of say, journals, educational materials or legal texts. Reviews fall within the domain of opinion pieces. They are what they are.
Yes, audio is important to us, very important but let us not forget the wider context. As a member already stated, it isn't "life or death". Choice of words is the writer's call Al. It's his call to take or leave the criticism as well. So while I see your point as perhaps being constructive towards Greg or any other member, I also see, as I have experienced first hand, how he (or myself in the past) could be put off because we've been effectively told not to just let our thoughts fly.
The way I see it, disband the hyperbole police. Let the exuberant run wild. Why not? We let the curmudgeons run wild anyway. Let's have as wide a range of style as well as opinion.
This is not directed at you or anyone else in particular. On a more global note billions of bits of written information are passed on from person to person every second. With today's technology we have all become "published" writers. Personally, I would direct my energy towards making my best efforts to communicate what I am thinking and feeling rather than pore over perceived failure in form, substance of opinion pieces which do not require the exactitude of say, journals, educational materials or legal texts. Reviews fall within the domain of opinion pieces. They are what they are.
Yes, audio is important to us, very important but let us not forget the wider context. As a member already stated, it isn't "life or death". Choice of words is the writer's call Al. It's his call to take or leave the criticism as well. So while I see your point as perhaps being constructive towards Greg or any other member, I also see, as I have experienced first hand, how he (or myself in the past) could be put off because we've been effectively told not to just let our thoughts fly.
The way I see it, disband the hyperbole police. Let the exuberant run wild. Why not? We let the curmudgeons run wild anyway. Let's have as wide a range of style as well as opinion.
Discussion is always good. Arrogance is always bad in my opinion. This thread has seen both and I will not point fingers at which contributors on this thread I believe fall in the discussion and which fall into the arrogance groups. However, I will add my two cents from my personal experience with the original CMS footers and two versions of the CMS V2 footers, especially as one of the Beta Testers for V1 and V2. One advantage of being a beta tester is there is no other reports to bias initial impressions. Steve was raving about these and asked Marty and me to evaluate them and get back to him. Both Marty and I have been in audio for a while and have heard some great equipment and more than our share of overhyped new entries. Therefore, we were both skeptical, but proceeded to help Steve as promised.
The first evidence that we were on a totally new trip came when we each initially placed the V1 footers progressively into our respective systems. The first evidence was how bad the sound was, which demonstrated that they did something profound, whether good or bad TBD. As time went on after several days (4-5) there was some sense of improvement back to my prefooter sound. By day 10 we were both in new territory, but had some differences in our perspectives, with Marty being the more skeptical and scientific. By day 15 I was unable to explain what was going on, but knew that I liked it a lot. By day 20 I was experiencing some of the best sound I had ever had, and clearly dramatically better sound than the same system without the footers.
My biggest assessment was the level of cohesion of my system to levels that were new to me and incredibly enjoyable. Then Steve said we had to return the V1 prototypes for V1 production models.. This was truly telling because once I pulled them out of my system and waited about 2 weeks to get the production models, I basically did not listen while they were gone because I did not enjoy it. Other than having to go through another break in, there was little change from the prototypes. When the V2's arrived, the break-in was quite a bit shorter (50%) to excellent sound, but the best was yet to come, the extension of the V2 improvements to realms that previously unheard with the V1 footers. I even bought four more 1" footers for my Niagara 7000, which believe it or not made a difference, albeit not as much as my front and back end, but clearly audible.
As I am now about to replace my current system with my hopefully final system during the next several months as the speakers (VSA Ultra 9's and VAC electronics all connected with full loom of MasterBuilt Ultra Wire arrive, there is no doubt that an ESSENTIAL component of this hopefully super system will be the CMS footers under everything, with the addition of 4 1.5" footers under my VAC Statement 450IQ Stereo Amp.
I'll let you know what I think, but the question is not if they will help, but how much!
The first evidence that we were on a totally new trip came when we each initially placed the V1 footers progressively into our respective systems. The first evidence was how bad the sound was, which demonstrated that they did something profound, whether good or bad TBD. As time went on after several days (4-5) there was some sense of improvement back to my prefooter sound. By day 10 we were both in new territory, but had some differences in our perspectives, with Marty being the more skeptical and scientific. By day 15 I was unable to explain what was going on, but knew that I liked it a lot. By day 20 I was experiencing some of the best sound I had ever had, and clearly dramatically better sound than the same system without the footers.
My biggest assessment was the level of cohesion of my system to levels that were new to me and incredibly enjoyable. Then Steve said we had to return the V1 prototypes for V1 production models.. This was truly telling because once I pulled them out of my system and waited about 2 weeks to get the production models, I basically did not listen while they were gone because I did not enjoy it. Other than having to go through another break in, there was little change from the prototypes. When the V2's arrived, the break-in was quite a bit shorter (50%) to excellent sound, but the best was yet to come, the extension of the V2 improvements to realms that previously unheard with the V1 footers. I even bought four more 1" footers for my Niagara 7000, which believe it or not made a difference, albeit not as much as my front and back end, but clearly audible.
As I am now about to replace my current system with my hopefully final system during the next several months as the speakers (VSA Ultra 9's and VAC electronics all connected with full loom of MasterBuilt Ultra Wire arrive, there is no doubt that an ESSENTIAL component of this hopefully super system will be the CMS footers under everything, with the addition of 4 1.5" footers under my VAC Statement 450IQ Stereo Amp.
I'll let you know what I think, but the question is not if they will help, but how much!
I find myself in agreement with many perspectives discussed here. Though what has been kind of missing is some lightness and good humoured moderation.
Music is such a very broadly and invaluable part of most every culture. Being an audiophile is just a wafer thin niche of a slice of a point in time in a barely slithered crack in civilisation and as such is at all meaningful to just so very few. So ideally we should then be caring and understanding of each other yet so often it’s the very lack of perspective within that can be the hallmark and our lasting Achilles heel as a group.
We are a super small and apparently dying breed... surely we should then be kind to each other and understanding of each other even just as some mutual support in what can be as much an obsessive affliction as it can be a joyful journey. A bit of self discovery along the way would be a lovely thing... and comedy is a sure sign that we can still distance ourselves just enough to see the funny and very human side of just who we are as a group.
Music is such a very broadly and invaluable part of most every culture. Being an audiophile is just a wafer thin niche of a slice of a point in time in a barely slithered crack in civilisation and as such is at all meaningful to just so very few. So ideally we should then be caring and understanding of each other yet so often it’s the very lack of perspective within that can be the hallmark and our lasting Achilles heel as a group.
We are a super small and apparently dying breed... surely we should then be kind to each other and understanding of each other even just as some mutual support in what can be as much an obsessive affliction as it can be a joyful journey. A bit of self discovery along the way would be a lovely thing... and comedy is a sure sign that we can still distance ourselves just enough to see the funny and very human side of just who we are as a group.
I disagree with that view. I think reviewers and enthusiasts have an obligation to carefully articulate conclusions in a measured way as (1) these may influence the purchase decisions of less experienced, less wealthy enthusiasts and (2) results can vary wildly across different systems (as has been pointed out earlier in this thread by DaveC and others). I think it’s significant that there has been no controversy over Alan Sircom’s review of the CS2 Footers (already shared in this thread).
I am very excited for you that you will be putting together the best and final system of your life!!!
Will you be putting your components (on the CS footers) on CMS equipment stands?
Someone posts enthusiasm about a great product that performs amazingly well then gets mobbed with criticism from people who haven’t heard it....gee I wonder what’s that’s like?
Congrats on a great product (Joe/Steve) and great moderation (Ron)
Congrats on a great product (Joe/Steve) and great moderation (Ron)
Someone posts enthusiasm about a great product that performs amazingly well then gets mobbed with criticism from people who haven’t heard it....gee I wonder what’s that’s like?
Congrats on a great product (Joe/Steve) and great moderation (Ron)
Really? I am not aware that anyone here said there is something wrong with enthusiasm. If there is, then I am enormously guilty of committing to it on a regular basis.
Hyperbole is a different matter. Unlike unbridled enthusiasm, I try to avoid it. Yet I am certain to fail now and then myself.
Your points are of course perfectly valid. Mine is simply that reviews are basically opinion pieces. In my view, we the readers share some of the responsibility too.
Many, many years ago I was asked to describe the carts I was using at the time. I described as best I knew how making reference to actual colors and hues. It looked pretty hyperbole laden. I bet it still does now wherever that is in the ether. What I didn't realize then was that I was chroma synesthetic (always have been) but more importantly, apparently that makes me quite the oddball. I just thought everybody was to some degree.
Still, I think we all can discern to a pretty good extent when things are either said to make a point or said to state an observation. Admittedly there are times when a lack of prefacing makes the distinction difficult. My rule of thumb is that if it sounds like hyperbole, that is what it is. Pinch of salt just comes out with nary a thought. In other words I think of hyperbole as simply stylistic devices. For that reason, it doesn't bother me especially since ultimately reviews are only a small part of my purchasing decision making chain. Typically, unless the reviewer (pro or not) is someone I'm pretty in sync with historically, the reviews are constrained to just eliciting interest for further exploration rather than a piece of outright validation.
That is just me though and yes again you are right inn that out there there are people that buy solely or in large part based on reviews alone. The thought of them getting their hopes up only to be dashed by reality is unpleasant to say the least. I am pretty sure however that like myself many years ago having experienced buyer's remorse first hand, the bad experience is more likely to have readers have that pinch of salt within arms reach because ultimately and most especially when the pennies are tight, nothing but nothing beats a home trial anyway.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |