Part 3 and conclusion
I do not pretend to understand how the CMS footers work. I wouldn’t recognize the second law of thermodynamics if it hit me in the face. But what I do understand is that results speak for themselves. The unusual bastardization of the M and v2 footers I used seem to suggest one obvious explanation for my findings which is that, at least in my case, it could be that every piece of equipment might have an ideal CMS footer pairing. Could it be that some gear sounds better with one version of the footer while others sound best with another? I can appreciate that nobody wants to hear this as it makes “plug and play” a far less attractive option. Perhaps taking the slow boat and returning to an installation method of trying footers under one piece of gear at a time is really the better method to achieving long-term satisfaction?
A final piece of the puzzle seemed to support this approach. It was finally time to listen to my phono after having footers under the Zanden 1200Mk3 and its power supply for two weeks without being played due to my absence from town. My disappointment could not have been greater when I finally listened. The system didn’t sound good at all. The Zanden phono excels in two areas prominently; tone density and naturalness. No matter what version of footers I used under both pieces, the end result, and again, for reasons I do not understand, was that nothing sounded as good to me as no footers at all. One can only speculate why, but the Zanden’s signature qualities that usually leave me breathless, were gone. When I returned to no footers at all (other than the stock footers that Yamada-san has chosen for his masterpiece), the sound again returned to its magisterial self. Go figure. However, perhaps this should not be surprising as Joe Lavrenchik has said quite clearly that some gear just does not work well with his footers. I can only assume that the Zanden 1200MkIII is one such exception. To be fair, there are many of possibilities that account for my findings. For example, it might be that the type of shelving used is a factor? It has been suggested that benefits and footer break-in may be improved when used in conjunction with CMS shelving, which may not be surprising. But what about footer compatibility with other shelving?) I also suspect that the choice of the footer (both version and size) might be optimized for the weight of the unit being supported. That makes some sense to me. I certainly have not tried every potential combination of footer version and size under each component and have no intent of trying to do so. But the variability of results I obtained for some individual pieces of gear suggest that the phrase “YMMV” is as true now as it ever was. After all, that’s part of what can make the hobby both frustrating as well as very rewarding. If this aspect of the hobby isn’t your cup of tea, well, you might want to think twice before boarding the train.
Taken together, a fair summation of things to date suggests that the judicious use of these marvelous footers can positively be game changing, but their selection (or omission) for best results may require some considerable trial and error. At least it did for me. But when you arrive at your sonic Valhalla, you just might find that the result provides very real benefits of increased definition, musicality, and a tangible “reach out and touch it” sound field as a result of the vaunted ”immersive” effect these footers provide, that once heard, is hard to live without. It’s worth repeating my previous comment that I’m still stunned these little things can have such profound sonic consequences, but they do! My current plans are to do further listening but thankfully I have no immediate plans to add, remove, or swap any more footers now that I have spent a considerable amount of time optimizing them for my particular set-up.
I do not pretend to understand how the CMS footers work. I wouldn’t recognize the second law of thermodynamics if it hit me in the face. But what I do understand is that results speak for themselves. The unusual bastardization of the M and v2 footers I used seem to suggest one obvious explanation for my findings which is that, at least in my case, it could be that every piece of equipment might have an ideal CMS footer pairing. Could it be that some gear sounds better with one version of the footer while others sound best with another? I can appreciate that nobody wants to hear this as it makes “plug and play” a far less attractive option. Perhaps taking the slow boat and returning to an installation method of trying footers under one piece of gear at a time is really the better method to achieving long-term satisfaction?
A final piece of the puzzle seemed to support this approach. It was finally time to listen to my phono after having footers under the Zanden 1200Mk3 and its power supply for two weeks without being played due to my absence from town. My disappointment could not have been greater when I finally listened. The system didn’t sound good at all. The Zanden phono excels in two areas prominently; tone density and naturalness. No matter what version of footers I used under both pieces, the end result, and again, for reasons I do not understand, was that nothing sounded as good to me as no footers at all. One can only speculate why, but the Zanden’s signature qualities that usually leave me breathless, were gone. When I returned to no footers at all (other than the stock footers that Yamada-san has chosen for his masterpiece), the sound again returned to its magisterial self. Go figure. However, perhaps this should not be surprising as Joe Lavrenchik has said quite clearly that some gear just does not work well with his footers. I can only assume that the Zanden 1200MkIII is one such exception. To be fair, there are many of possibilities that account for my findings. For example, it might be that the type of shelving used is a factor? It has been suggested that benefits and footer break-in may be improved when used in conjunction with CMS shelving, which may not be surprising. But what about footer compatibility with other shelving?) I also suspect that the choice of the footer (both version and size) might be optimized for the weight of the unit being supported. That makes some sense to me. I certainly have not tried every potential combination of footer version and size under each component and have no intent of trying to do so. But the variability of results I obtained for some individual pieces of gear suggest that the phrase “YMMV” is as true now as it ever was. After all, that’s part of what can make the hobby both frustrating as well as very rewarding. If this aspect of the hobby isn’t your cup of tea, well, you might want to think twice before boarding the train.
Taken together, a fair summation of things to date suggests that the judicious use of these marvelous footers can positively be game changing, but their selection (or omission) for best results may require some considerable trial and error. At least it did for me. But when you arrive at your sonic Valhalla, you just might find that the result provides very real benefits of increased definition, musicality, and a tangible “reach out and touch it” sound field as a result of the vaunted ”immersive” effect these footers provide, that once heard, is hard to live without. It’s worth repeating my previous comment that I’m still stunned these little things can have such profound sonic consequences, but they do! My current plans are to do further listening but thankfully I have no immediate plans to add, remove, or swap any more footers now that I have spent a considerable amount of time optimizing them for my particular set-up.
Last edited:
