Harmonic Resolution vs. Critical Mass RACKS? Sonic and Engineering Differences?

[thedudeabides]

I see stehno is at it again. Sigh.

 

[stehno]

…

If the bar to accept your invitation is to prove I have listening skills the equal of yours, you may as well join Amir in whatever thread he posts in next issuing challenges to any who critique his thinking via ABX tests he’s already “passed”. The conceit is, if I hear what you hear, then you get to hold onto your existing world-view and can make the assumption I have “interpretative listening skills” and understand what “real performance” is. If I don’t, then you get to dismiss me as having skills deficient such that I cannot appreciate how good your product is. As far as holding onto your existing world-view as Amir is wont to do, that seems pretty convenient, right?

You seem to have a gift for obfuscating.

So you won’t be sending me a pm. Now there’s a shock.

The conceit lies with the one who speaks knows nothing about the other or what they’ve accomplished. The conceit lies with the pseudo science type who thinks a lack of real evidence invalidates a claim. I never said you had to prove anything, never said anything about you having listening skills equal to me, etc. That’s just more of your straw man arguments that seems so second nature to you.

But as I suspected here’s the tin-ear dead giveaway once again. I only suggested it would be a good time to consider any developed listening skills so you wouldn’t waste your time or mine as you appear wont to do. That’s a good practice and reminder for any of us especially if one is going to evaluate a product or system.

But really I just made that comment to let you know I already suspected you possessed no such developed listening skills. For if you had a clue of the high percentage of those in possession of no developed listening skills and the damage it’s brought to the high-end audio sector, you most likely would have appreciated the fact that I made mention of it or at least interpreted my comment in a different light. The fact that you couldn't comprehend my cautionary note or why I would even feel the need to state that leads me to believe that you’ve not the foggiest what I meant. Which is what I expected.

As for my 2010 claims, of course I stand by them. Why wouldn’t I? All that I said in 2010 was true then and it’s even more true today. You got that off of my outdated website. That’s one of perhaps 15 or 16 benefits I listed in my “state of the industry" web page I believe. You know what’s funny? I actually had a more complete list of I think 32 or 33 significant benefits but I knew even then that many/most wouldn’t believe it, so I cut in half. I wrote that in 2010. Today, I could probably easily add another 10 – 15 benefits over that original 32 – 33. In other words, anything I wrote in 2010 I certainly stand behind then and especially today. Is that clear enough for you?

BTW, not that it matters but you’ve not offered a single valid comment in response to the OP’s question But you’ve made it clear you’ve been racking shopping. Why not share with everybody your findings thus far? I know I’d be very interested to here about it. Maybe others would be too. Shoot. Who wouldn’t want to hear from intellectually honest and scientifically robust in-person performance gent such as yourself?

I cannot, no. Only a subjectively perceptual one. However, I do know a little about the systemic, algorithmic and methodological testing that SRA, CMS and HRS do that is objectively evaluated. That they manage to propagate that information without denigrating their competition is worth something to me, but perhaps not to you.

I suspect you're exposing your pseudo science skills. Where’s the denigration? Just more straw man arguments. All I said in response to the OP’s question was that I disagree with their methods and that the mfg’ers most likely are acting on faith in their designs.

I never said why and nobody asked why. But if you knew anything about the several vibration controlling methodologies, their intended purposes, their requirements, the materials and executions and joinery required for each method, you would notice that their words are in conflict with their designs. This seems to be true with the majority of vibration isolation product mfg'ers.

To substantiate my point, Jack mentioned a few weeks back in another thread that CMS is now migrating away from the isolation methodology. The very methodology that they’ve adhered to in word perhaps since they opened for business, they are now migrating away from. What does that tell you about your so-called systemic, algorithmic, and methodological testing of CMS?

Kinda’ throws your pseudo science crap right out the window doesn’t it?

But enough about me. Let’s talk about your accomplishments. Let's start from the beginning. What’s your real name again?

 

[JackD201]

They migrated over/around 10 yrs ago. Just thought I should throw that in there. The Black Label series which was a closed system (isolation) was supplanted in late 06 with the open system (energy transfer) P and Q series. They are now in the 3rd generation of filters and interfaces. I witnessed all the changes from 2005 all the way to today's Maxxum G3s. I still have Black filters in my HT. More crazy assumptions on your part. I never said when they did did I? Well now you know. Want links of reviews from the transition years? Google is your friend.

You're still hurling accusations Stehno when in fact you have no idea what they do behind closed doors much less what they have going on in their skulls. Could you be better? Why not? The thing is while SRA, CMS, HRS and other open system designers are continuing to refine their approaches and in return are thriving because of their growing number of happy customers, you are well......where are you really? Maybe it was because as you say, that your marketing skills simply sucked, maybe you just rub people the wrong way, maybe people don't want to see their gear sandwiched in neon green, whatever man. At the end of the day you are simply being perceived as a pot calling the kettle black. Those who live in glass houses and all that. For me it isn't about intellectual honesty it's about moral authority. Your claims are wilder AND you're more secretive to boot. No going to market may not be required to prove oneself, I'll grant you that. Not going to market however makes you a a backseat driver, hmmm, maybe a couch quarterback perhaps?

Bottom line is you don't need to know how to build a car to drive one and a good driver can help the maker improve by providing feedback. You can appoint yourself the savior of lost vibrating souls because you claim to hold all the truths in your limitless self. It might even be true. Hey anything is possible right? Take the hint though stehno. This is not advancing your cause and if you really are as good as you say you are, rendering yourself dismissible is not a win for your detractors it is a LOSS for the community.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[853guy]

You seem to have a gift for obfuscating.

So you won’t be sending me a pm. Now there’s a shock.

The conceit lies with the one who speaks knows nothing about the other or what they’ve accomplished. The conceit lies with the pseudo science type who thinks a lack of real evidence invalidates a claim. I never said you had to prove anything, never said anything about you having listening skills equal to me, etc. That’s just more of your straw man arguments that seems so second nature to you.

But as I suspected here’s the tin-ear dead giveaway once again. I only suggested it would be a good time to consider any developed listening skills so you wouldn’t waste your time or mine as you appear wont to do. That’s a good practice and reminder for any of us especially if one is going to evaluate a product or system.

But really I just made that comment to let you know I already suspected you possessed no such developed listening skills. For if you had a clue of the high percentage of those in possession of no developed listening skills and the damage it’s brought to the high-end audio sector, you most likely would have appreciated the fact that I made mention of it or at least interpreted my comment in a different light. The fact that you couldn't comprehend my cautionary note or why I would even feel the need to state that leads me to believe that you’ve not the foggiest what I meant. Which is what I expected.

As for my 2010 claims, of course I stand by them. Why wouldn’t I? All that I said in 2010 was true then and it’s even more true today. You got that off of my outdated website. That’s one of perhaps 15 or 16 benefits I listed in my “state of the industry" web page I believe. You know what’s funny? I actually had a more complete list of I think 32 or 33 significant benefits but I knew even then that many/most wouldn’t believe it, so I cut in half. I wrote that in 2010. Today, I could probably easily add another 10 – 15 benefits over that original 32 – 33. In other words, anything I wrote in 2010 I certainly stand behind then and especially today. Is that clear enough for you?

BTW, not that it matters but you’ve not offered a single valid comment in response to the OP’s question But you’ve made it clear you’ve been racking shopping. Why not share with everybody your findings thus far? I know I’d be very interested to here about it. Maybe others would be too. Shoot. Who wouldn’t want to hear from intellectually honest and scientifically robust in-person performance gent such as yourself?

I suspect you're exposing your pseudo science skills. Where’s the denigration? Just more straw man arguments. All I said in response to the OP’s question was that I disagree with their methods and that the mfg’ers most likely are acting on faith in their designs.

I never said why and nobody asked why. But if you knew anything about the several vibration controlling methodologies, their intended purposes, their requirements, the materials and executions and joinery required for each method, you would notice that their words are in conflict with their designs. This seems to be true with the majority of vibration isolation product mfg'ers.

To substantiate my point, Jack mentioned a few weeks back in another thread that CMS is now migrating away from the isolation methodology. The very methodology that they’ve adhered to in word perhaps since they opened for business, they are now migrating away from. What does that tell you about your so-called systemic, algorithmic, and methodological testing of CMS?

Kinda’ throws your pseudo science crap right out the window doesn’t it?

But enough about me. Let’s talk about your accomplishments. Let's start from the beginning. What’s your real name again?

Hi stehno,

Like I say, my energy on engaging with you on this is diminishing moment by moment, so I’ll be as brief as I can.

Obfuscation? I couldn’t have been more clear, which I why I specifically addressed every thought you wrote point-by-point. Did you not notice?

My listening skills? Perhaps you’ve mistaken absence of evidence for evidence of absence.(1)

Not having "a clue of the high percentage of those in possession of no developed listening skills"? No, I try to avoid assumption and over-generalizing in cases where the nonlinearity of variables can only ever lead to an averaging of opinion that's less informational in value.

Denigration of other manufacturers? Perhaps you’re unaware of your inability to own your participation in a thread whereby you claim to avoid “slamming others” while using quotation marks around “experts” (Post #11) specifically in the context of manufacturers of which this thread is explicitly addressing and the iatrogenics of claiming to act in defense of “absolute truth” while causing more harm.

My intellectual honesty and robustness? Championed by you in a previous thread when it suited your purposes, called into question when it doesn’t.

My experience of CMS, SRA and HRS? Limited only to hearing them in systems not of my own, so again, I avoid over-generalising when it comes to complex systems of non-linear behaviour, especially when the variables are themselves an asymmetrical function of their interdependence on one another.

My experience of Finite Element Pagoda Master Reference racks, Ceraball, Cerapuc and Cerabases? In the system I had at the time, detrimental to my perceptual subjectivized enjoyment contextualised by my inability to escape the finitude of that same perception, acknowledging that even if I were to attempt to articulate my subjective impressions, it would be defined and limited to my perception and related solely and specifically to the exact system I had - no more and no less.

Whats does CMS’s migration from one methodology to another tell me about their methodology? Not a mindreader, so can only hazard a guess they let their methodology evolve, rather than doubling down on rhetoric in order to give credibility to what they once said so it appears “even more true today”(2).

My accomplishments? Perhaps the slide from assumption of my listening skills to a pissing contest of who I am and what I’ve done is the inevitable result of someone who would prefer to reframe the argument so as to appear victimised (Post #11, #15) because an individual with no vested interests is challenging the perspective of someone who potentially stands to profit despite the conflicting information over the company’s status (3).

I’m done, stehno. Again, I wish you no ill. You may think your defense of “absolute truth” is noble or commendable. Perhaps it could be, if anyone could claim for themselves “absolute truth” beyond the finitude of one’s limitations, although, as you claim, apparently you have none.

853guy


(1) As Amir does in his ABX challenges. If no-one accepts, that must mean no-one has perceptual skills the equivalent of his. Nope, it sure doesn’t.

(2) (Your words in the above quote.) Can something be more or less true over time? I guess when one has no physical or mental limitations, everything and nothing can be true at the same time.

(3) “I’ve not owned a company for maybe 5 years now” and “I have several designs in my possession collecting dust that I could make available to any interested party. Moreover, if you had a squirrelly configuration and needed a custom design, well, for the right price I might be willing to provide you a custom design.” “Dynamic Contrasts, LLC, August 2003 – Present (13 years 10 months)”. Again, your words, verbatim.

 

[Steve williams]

You seem to have a gift for obfuscating.

So you won’t be sending me a pm. Now there’s a shock.

The conceit lies with the one who speaks knows nothing about the other or what they’ve accomplished. The conceit lies with the pseudo science type who thinks a lack of real evidence invalidates a claim. I never said you had to prove anything, never said anything about you having listening skills equal to me, etc. That’s just more of your straw man arguments that seems so second nature to you.

But as I suspected here’s the tin-ear dead giveaway once again. I only suggested it would be a good time to consider any developed listening skills so you wouldn’t waste your time or mine as you appear wont to do. That’s a good practice and reminder for any of us especially if one is going to evaluate a product or system.

But really I just made that comment to let you know I already suspected you possessed no such developed listening skills. For if you had a clue of the high percentage of those in possession of no developed listening skills and the damage it’s brought to the high-end audio sector, you most likely would have appreciated the fact that I made mention of it or at least interpreted my comment in a different light. The fact that you couldn't comprehend my cautionary note or why I would even feel the need to state that leads me to believe that you’ve not the foggiest what I meant. Which is what I expected.

As for my 2010 claims, of course I stand by them. Why wouldn’t I? All that I said in 2010 was true then and it’s even more true today. You got that off of my outdated website. That’s one of perhaps 15 or 16 benefits I listed in my “state of the industry" web page I believe. You know what’s funny? I actually had a more complete list of I think 32 or 33 significant benefits but I knew even then that many/most wouldn’t believe it, so I cut in half. I wrote that in 2010. Today, I could probably easily add another 10 – 15 benefits over that original 32 – 33. In other words, anything I wrote in 2010 I certainly stand behind then and especially today. Is that clear enough for you?

BTW, not that it matters but you’ve not offered a single valid comment in response to the OP’s question But you’ve made it clear you’ve been racking shopping. Why not share with everybody your findings thus far? I know I’d be very interested to here about it. Maybe others would be too. Shoot. Who wouldn’t want to hear from intellectually honest and scientifically robust in-person performance gent such as yourself?



I suspect you're exposing your pseudo science skills. Where’s the denigration? Just more straw man arguments. All I said in response to the OP’s question was that I disagree with their methods and that the mfg’ers most likely are acting on faith in their designs.

I never said why and nobody asked why. But if you knew anything about the several vibration controlling methodologies, their intended purposes, their requirements, the materials and executions and joinery required for each method, you would notice that their words are in conflict with their designs. This seems to be true with the majority of vibration isolation product mfg'ers.

To substantiate my point, Jack mentioned a few weeks back in another thread that CMS is now migrating away from the isolation methodology. The very methodology that they’ve adhered to in word perhaps since they opened for business, they are now migrating away from. What does that tell you about your so-called systemic, algorithmic, and methodological testing of CMS?

Kinda’ throws your pseudo science crap right out the window doesn’t it?

But enough about me. Let’s talk about your accomplishments. Let's start from the beginning. What’s your real name again?

Stehno

I must say that having read this post all I could do is shake my head. As Jack said you are hurling all sorts of accusations with nothing to back them up

TBH having read this I believe that 853 guy was correct in everything he said to you yesterday. Your actions are bombastic as are your claims and further, I, as an owner of CMS racks (which I researched for months before I purchased), I find to be somewhat baseless.

I won't get into a pissing contest with you but I can assure you that you are not endearing yourself of the membership here and frankly you come off as a whiny little kid when your rack design is questioned. I don't think anyone challenged the validity of your rack design but rather the up front and in your face way of pushing it. You should take a step back and pause with a bit of introspection here as I believe you have no clue as to how you are being perceived.

 

[microstrip]

Marketing BS aside, anyone sonically compare these 2 brands? Anyone understand the engineering claims?

Or are people who are buying these operating purely on faith?

Sorry to say, I respect caesar, but when a thread is started with provocative insults on the marketing in such terms it is natural the insults drift on the technical side in an open forum. So the unfortunate drift could be expected...

I have often referred that 99.99% of the technical claims in high-end products are meaningless, vague or incorrect. Most of the time they can not or have been be objectively correlated with sound quality. To summarize MHO - no, no one can understand the engineering claims - they are meant to get your attention, not to teach the competition or DIY's of the critical points and how to use their ideas in their designs.

IMHO some people buy purely from "faith". But in serious audiophiles "faith" is grown on their knowledge and experience in the hobby, not by inspiration or just reading marketing literature.

 

[sbo6]

A word to the wise - If you have to defend yourself with multiple paragraphs you might want to rethink your perspective. Life is short, so should be most posts.

 

[still-one]

I would be stunned if anyone has ever A/B'd HRS and CMS in their system to actually compare them. They are both heavy and difficult to set-up so in home demo's are surely not de rigueur. I would be equally surprised if any dealers actually carry both lines and if they did I don't see them setting up the same gear in both set-ups to perform the comparison. So we are left with "faith". Either we believe that they are doing the job or not.

 

[JackD201]

I would be stunned if anyone has ever A/B'd HRS and CMS in their system to actually compare them. They are both heavy and difficult to set-up so in home demo's are surely not de rigueur. I would be equally surprised if any dealers actually carry both lines and if they did I don't see them setting up the same gear in both set-ups to perform the comparison. So we are left with "faith". Either we believe that they are doing the job or not.

They both do the job. As does SRA, Solid-Tech, GPA, FE, Symposium and others. They aren't identical but these passives pretty much use common theory even if they do differ in implementation by ways of materials, architecture, etc. Heck there's the other camps too, the camp that does sympathetic resonance usually with wood as the main material, then there's the high mass, super rigid camp. They are all different in some way or another sonically. That's why in my mind its really crazy to declare one "best". It's all so contextual. Lets face it though, this is akin to the last mile where you've fixed your acoustics, chosen your gear, been dutiful with your electricity and even your mechanicals like HVAC. How important these small differences I believe is highly personal as they must in the end achieve for their owner what they are required to do, not fall down and make a positive difference.

I think there's always some faith especially on the buyers part. As you say we are logistically limited however its one thing to acknowledge not knowing and slamming what isn't personally known. Anyways that's water under the bridge at least for me.

When we picked up CMS there were IMO three other very capable and promising choices that were not yet represented here. This was in 2005. Most everybody here was using some sort of Flexi-rack or simple furniture. It was an after thought. People like me who were unsatisfied with the Status Quo were using all sorts of after market spikes, pucks, discs, ball and cup interfaces, etc. It was my miserable failed attempt to DIY my way out of the rack conundrum with very crude CLD approaches that had me scouring for people that had netted more success in that area. I buy clothes because I can't spin thread, weave fabric and sew. So sue me When decision time came, we chose CMS because of its greater flexibility with load and load distribution. This knocked out two of the candidates. The last was more expensive and was built specifically to a component because it used pads that deformed easily under weight. If you were to use say a tube amp with heavy transformers in the rear, the rear pads would be too stiff if you tried to use it with say a SS amp with its Toroids in the middle. These were practical decisions not necessarily sonic. They were all however better than the band aids of the day if lowering of the noise floor as opposed to tailoring a sound was the goal. Companies like Combax did the other thing well as Shun Look does very well today but that wasn't what we were looking for. That didn't fit in with our philosophy, after all our company is built around turnkey projects and not retail. Our first weapon of choice for individual contouring is acoustics then equipment selection.

Anyway, I'm rambling. It's a great time to be into this stuff. Choices abound. We should all just be happy.

 

[Steve williams]

It's a great time to be into this stuff. Choices abound. We should all just be happy.

definitely

 

[Brian Walsh]

I would be stunned if anyone has ever A/B'd HRS and CMS in their system to actually compare them. They are both heavy and difficult to set-up so in home demo's are surely not de rigueur. I would be equally surprised if any dealers actually carry both lines and if they did I don't see them setting up the same gear in both set-ups to perform the comparison. So we are left with "faith". Either we believe that they are doing the job or not.

Mike Latvis of HRS is a degreed mechanical engineer with significant industry experience including aerospace applications. Anyone with a technical background can sense his depth of knowledge upon speaking with him. We don't sell his stands, but he designed the isolation on the new MoFi turntables.

 

[kimurastanley]

Is it possible to differentiate Maxxum mk2 vs mk3 physically? The look is quite identical

 

[Steve williams]

They do look identical. It’s what’s inside

 

[kimurastanley]

They do look identical. It’s what’s inside

In used market, how to identify? Serial number?

 

[Brian Walsh]

Unlike some posting to this thread, I have no vested interest in any products mentioned. But there are some fundamental physical principles that apply.
- The structure, especially the platform, should be as stiff and strong as possible.
- The same shall be as light as possible. Added mass is definitely not in your favor when you are trying to control its vibration.

No matter how much handwaving and technobabble is thrown out there, you can't change the laws of physics. It shocks and appalls me how many educated people don't grasp that concept.

 

[VPN]

I have tested in my system:
SRA Scuttle mk.3 rack
Finite Elemente pagode master ref. mk2 amp stands
Critical Mass systems Maxxum amp stands
Critical mass systems Olympus Ultra amp stands
Taiko Daiza
HRS Stand
SRA Virginia class amp stand

For me, so far the best is the CMS Olympus Ultra, but very expensive. I have two for my CH Precison M10 amp.
I am happy with the SRA Scuttle Mk3 rack for my DAC and drivers (preamp). Probably CMS Olympus Ultra (or Maxxum Ultra) would be better
Happy with Finite Element Pagode master ref 2 under my two external crossovers. They were under the M10, but CMS is better
Happy with Taiko Daiza under the Taiko Extreme.

So, I think it is a matter of testing and listening to their effect on each specific component.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I have tested in my system:
SRA Scuttle mk.3 rack
Finite Elemente pagode master ref. mk2 amp stands
Critical Mass systems Maxxum amp stands
Critical mass systems Olympus Ultra amp stands
Taiko Daiza
HRS Stand
SRA Virginia class amp stand

For me, so far the best is the CMS Olympus Ultra, but very expensive. I have two for my CH Precison M10 amp.
I am happy with the SRA Scuttle Mk3 rack for my DAC and drivers (preamp). Probably CMS Olympus Ultra (or Maxxum Ultra) would be better
Happy with Finite Element Pagode master ref 2 under my two external crossovers. They were under the M10, but CMS is better
Happy with Taiko Daiza under the Taiko Extreme.

So, I think it is a matter of testing and listening to their effect on each specific component.

thank you very much for this very interesting report! I don't know anybody else who has compared to how many stand!

Completely predictably I'm going to ask what does "best" mean?

For example, can you please describe for us the sound changes to your system you heard from putting your components on the CMS Olympus Ultra versus from putting your components on the HRS stand?

 

[VPN]

thank you very much for this very interesting report! I don't know anybody else who has compared to how many stand!

Completely predictably I'm going to ask what does "best" mean?

For example, can you please describe for us the sound changes to your system you heard from putting your components on the CMS Olympus Ultra versus from putting your components on the HRS stand?

Dear Ron,

I can describe what I heard, but it was with my specific equipment, with yours it may be different, so you have to try yourself.

I tried the HRS under the Taiko and there was a tonal shift, which to me did not seem as correctly balanced bass/mid/highs, I preferred the Taiko Daisa. Also preferred the Daisa vs. Pagode.

I preferred the Pagode under the CH M10 vs the Taiko Daiza, the Pagode improved the voices, with more body. However, the CMS Olympus Ultra is much better under the CH M10 two boxes, it improves voices, imaging, detail, and more natural timbre.

The FE Pagode seems to improve voices under any equipment, without negative effects of any type.

The SRA Scuttle mk3 rack improved detail and soundstage with the DAC and preamp. You have to specify the weight of the equipment that goes on each shelf so they send shelf supports for those specific weights. If you change equipment, it is cheap to order new supports.

Cheers

 

[Ron Resnick]

Dear Ron,

I can describe what I heard, but it was with my specific equipment, with yours it may be different, so you have to try yourself.

I tried the HRS under the Taiko and there was a tonal shift, which to me did not seem as correctly balanced bass/mid/highs, I preferred the Taiko Daisa. Also preferred the Daisa vs. Pagode.

I preferred the Pagode under the CH M10 vs the Taiko Daiza, the Pagode improved the voices, with more body. However, the CMS Olympus Ultra is much better under the CH M10 two boxes, it improves voices, imaging, detail, and more natural timbre.

The FE Pagode seems to improve voices under any equipment, without negative effects of any type.

The SRA Scuttle mk3 rack improved detail and soundstage with the DAC and preamp. You have to specify the weight of the equipment that goes on each shelf so they send shelf supports for those specific weights. If you change equipment, it is cheap to order new supports.

Cheers

Thank you!

 

[Mike Lavigne]

be interesting to see an off axis measurement in the treble region. same distance. your room is not strictly symmetrical.

could be side to side balance is messing with the treble measurements. might be smoother in another location? it might lead to solutions if you see something interesting.

but if you like the FR subjectively then don't sweat it.