Introducing Center Stage 2M

[Steve williams]

I heard an early version perhaps the original a couple of years ago in an A B A scenario. I would be interested in reading from the beta testers of the new footers how they sound different from the previous footers.

How has the sound of your systems changed?

Introducing Center Stage 2M

Center Stage2M Designed by Joe Lavrencik, Critical Mass Systems Introduction We are very pleased to announce a major revision and replacement to our Center Stage2 audio feet. Each Center Stage2 model has been improved and replaced by Center Stage2M. There were several objectives behind...

whatsbestforum.com

Introducing Center Stage 2M

Center Stage2M Designed by Joe Lavrencik, Critical Mass Systems Introduction We are very pleased to announce a major revision and replacement to our Center Stage2 audio feet. Each Center Stage2 model has been improved and replaced by Center Stage2M. There were several objectives behind...

whatsbestforum.com

Introducing Center Stage 2M

Center Stage2M Designed by Joe Lavrencik, Critical Mass Systems Introduction We are very pleased to announce a major revision and replacement to our Center Stage2 audio feet. Each Center Stage2 model has been improved and replaced by Center Stage2M. There were several objectives behind...

whatsbestforum.com

(Peter, I even used the term "Natural" in my evaluation

 

[PeterA]

Introducing Center Stage 2M

Center Stage2M Designed by Joe Lavrencik, Critical Mass Systems Introduction We are very pleased to announce a major revision and replacement to our Center Stage2 audio feet. Each Center Stage2 model has been improved and replaced by Center Stage2M. There were several objectives behind...

whatsbestforum.com

Introducing Center Stage 2M

Center Stage2M Designed by Joe Lavrencik, Critical Mass Systems Introduction We are very pleased to announce a major revision and replacement to our Center Stage2 audio feet. Each Center Stage2 model has been improved and replaced by Center Stage2M. There were several objectives behind...

whatsbestforum.com

Introducing Center Stage 2M

Center Stage2M Designed by Joe Lavrencik, Critical Mass Systems Introduction We are very pleased to announce a major revision and replacement to our Center Stage2 audio feet. Each Center Stage2 model has been improved and replaced by Center Stage2M. There were several objectives behind...

whatsbestforum.com

(Peter, I even used the term "Natural" in my evaluation

Thanks Steve. I made note of your use of that term. I like the no fatigue and no coloration.

"It would be easy to continue but I would be accused of hyperbole as I find that describing these new footers brings me to those new heights. This is as real as it gets and I hate to use the word "Natural" but in the context of what I heard with these new CS2M footers , the sound I heard sounds Natural. I am sure that comment will evoke a lot of controversy but for me fact is fact.There is no fatigue and no colorization and to hear so much more information in the soundstage which engulfs me in the performance brings me even closer yet to the music."

I also noted Joe's mention of the number of these that he has sold in just a few days, by all accounts, quite a success. Congratulations to you both. Are you finding that most buyers of the 2M are upgrading from the CS2 or are they new buyers from perhaps other brands of footers?

I find brand loyalty versus migration a fascinating aspect of the hobby and something that must be on the minds of the designers.

 

[Steve williams]

Hi Peter. I can tell you that over the years of selling these feet the groups are divided. Most of my clients are return customers who gradually add more sets to their system as they like what they hear but lately I am getting clients who have been using other brand footers who have become Center Stage converts. I warn all users that they need to beware because once you hear them in your system you can’t unhear them.

 

[gds7368]

Have the new footers been tried A/B/A under an Extreme server?
What were the results? Different sizes tried? What size is recommended?

 

[Steve williams]

Have the new footers been tried A/B/A under an Extreme server?
What were the results? Different sizes tried? What size is recommended?

Yes

I have used both CS2 1.5 under my Extreme and now I use CS 2M

1.5’s are the way to go under the Extreme

 

[tima]

I just see these posts about people who bought the prior model (of anything) complaining when new products are introduced shortly after they purchase and it rubs me the wrong way.

I understand where you're coming from, Bob. I generally support dealers and manufacturers, but I was confused by the post about 'haters' and then your follow-up, so thanks for the reply.

And I'm really glad your cat got rescued. I have a tree-climber myself.

 

[wil]

I'm curious about the 10-14 day break in or "settling" period on CS footers.
What is happening here? Are the components settling in independent of the component they are sitting under, or are they settling in or coupling uniquely to the component they've been sitting under for 2 weeks? I guess this makes some vague sense to me and I don't doubt the reports from users that this is their subjective experience.

But how does this comport with Steve's recommended ABA evaluation (footer "A"- CS footer "B" - footer "A"?

Wouldn't the CS footer lose it's coupled relationship with the component it has settled into for 14 days once its taken out? Or does it somehow maintain that special state even after being moved? Or do you start all over again for another 14 days?

And, how is it a fair evaluation to footer "B" when you've taken it out of it's special coupling (assuming something similar in footer "B" might be occurring)?

A/B testing (particularly when sighted) is already a fraught endeavor imo. Throw in an X factor like settling times and I don't how you can trust anything you hear.

The best way I can imagine to make a meaningful A/B comparison among footers would be to have both sets in their optimal, settled, state with each under the identical components where you can compare one to the other within seconds. One way to do this is by having footer "A" under the left speaker and footer "B" under the right speaker. Have someone disconnect, or baffle, one speaker at a time while listening.

I did this comparing Stillpoints to EVP pads, and it was easy to hear the difference in real time. (no suspect auditory memory factor involved)

 

[spiritofmusic]

Wil, the only equivalent I can come up with is Entreq. It can take up to 48 hrs to fully show effects, lost almost fully on even the briefest disconnections.
Makes ABA comparos wholly difficult.

 

[PeterA]

It’s too bad people don’t apreciatee the value or potential of iPhone video comparisons. When I heard an earlier version of these footers the difference in information retrieval and presentation/listener perspective very obvious. I strongly suspect this would show up in a video comparison which of course can be done very quickly in real time.

Of course this is no substitute for actually hearing them in one’s own system, but it is an effective way to do quick comparisons later after settling and conditions have been optimized.

 

[Steve williams]

I'm curious about the 10-14 day break in or "settling" period on CS footers.
What is happening here? Are the components settling in independent of the component they are sitting under, or are they settling in or coupling uniquely to the component they've been sitting under for 2 weeks? I guess this makes some vague sense to me and I don't doubt the reports from users that this is their subjective experience.

But how does this comport with Steve's recommended ABA evaluation (footer "A"- CS footer "B" - footer "A"?

Wouldn't the CS footer lose it's coupled relationship with the component it has settled into for 14 days once its taken out? Or does it somehow maintain that special state even after being moved? Or do you start all over again for another 14 days?

And, how is it a fair evaluation to footer "B" when you've taken it out of it's special coupling (assuming something similar in footer "B" might be occurring)?

A/B testing (particularly when sighted) is already a fraught endeavor imo. Throw in an X factor like settling times and I don't how you can trust anything you hear.

The best way I can imagine to make a meaningful A/B comparison among footers would be to have both sets in their optimal, settled, state with each under the identical components where you can compare one to the other within seconds. One way to do this is by having footer "A" under the left speaker and footer "B" under the right speaker. Have someone disconnect, or baffle, one speaker at a time while listening.

I did this comparing Stillpoints to EVP pads, and it was easy to hear the difference in real time. (no suspect auditory memory factor involved)

When you do the ABA test the way I suggest you end up taking out the CS Footers (B) and now are left with the stick footers A. If you can’t tell the difference Wil from the CS footers to the stock at this point I’d worry as the change back to where you started is dramatic with complete collapse of the sound stage as well as everything else. I also tried them against Stillpoints and the Stillpoints don’t even come close. You lose all ambient sound with Stillpoints

 

[wil]

I don't doubt that you and others hear a difference between stock footers and CS. There are probably dozens of commercial footers that sound better than stock footers. That's a pretty easy win. My point is that if I were considering different non-stock footers, like CS, or whatever, I'd want to remove as many variables as possible. Variables like settling time, time between listening to A and then B, and expectation bias.

For speaker footers anyway, the simple method I described above is a good way to do so from my experience.

 

[the sound of Tao]

It’s too bad people don’t apreciatee the value or potential of iPhone video comparisons. When I heard an earlier version of these footers the difference in information retrieval and presentation/listener perspective very obvious. I strongly suspect this would show up in a video comparison which of course can be done very quickly in real time.

of course this is no substitute for Ashley hearing them in one zone system, but it is a effective way to do quick comparisons later after settling and conditions have been optimized.

I think a product sounding apparently so improved should certainly demonstrate some noticeable scale of change in even a video replay… and videos do clearly demonstrate change. Whether they then allow you to assess all the implications of that change may be a different matter. That’s where traditional audition experience comes to play.

But I’d love to see some videos from the CS2M compared to their previous model in a system where CS already has proven to work. Using videos to show in ways these upgrade shifts would be useful especially given the products inordinate settling times.

But I’d add that I still feel the success (or otherwise) of any strategy with any components is still most likely in large ways context specific.

I usually steer clear of discussions on tweeks but after years of reading regular use of disparaging criticisms on stillpoints I’ll simply say that I’ve made stillpoints work so have come to doubt the universality of the claims. Certainly poor match or inappropriate implementation isn’t going to work with a revealing product and I never suggest stillpoints are at all a universal solution either. But the claim that they rob the sound of any information isn't what I’ve found at all… quite the opposite. I find them more revealing and extended and so if your setup has issues in the top end or is too lean in balance they certainly won’t hide that away. They definitely need a considered approach to application and in concert with using the appropriate mass for damping.

So its always about finding the appropriate solution to bring what is there already more into rightness… and everyone has a different road to get to rightness. CS might be perfect for some but I think tweeks are so system specific and the choice to use any or none is justifiable if you can simply make the strategy work for you. That is our job (and perhaps our journey).

So while I’ve largely stayed out of this topic I’d simply add that the other thing that has not sat easily for me is the notion of the whole immersive thing itself where you are projected up onto centre stage. It just doesn’t sound to me to be a natural effect but getting some clarity on what that actually means would also be useful.

And I’m not saying that CS does or doesn’t exaggerate but there’s plenty of tweaks that actually tend to hype things up and make them seem more exciting or more surreal or the sound-field more obvious or noticeable and that doesn’t sound to me a recipe for more natural. So implementation and expectation about what is rightness and how we assess and then bring it together comes in to play here as well. How the parts come together into the whole.

Ultimately though just because something works for some doesn’t mean it will be right for others let alone make it the only way to go. Where’s the challenge for us in a off-the- rack one way only plug and play one system fits all… it just isn’t reflective of anything real or possibly even desirable. Monocultures are vulnerable to fail and if there wasn’t an available diversity of rightness then we’d all be at home playing music and not here enjoying the journey.

 

[Bobvin]

So while I’ve largely stayed out of this topic I’d simply add that the other thing that has not sat easily for me is the notion of the whole immersive thing itself where you are projected up onto centre stage. It just doesn’t sound to me to be a natural effect but getting some clarity on what that actually means would also be useful.

I have to agree that the comments about CS footers creating an effect of sitting center stage has been a part of my reluctance to try them. Sitting center stage sounds to me a lot like the surround effects one hears on Roger Water “Amused to Death” album. If all my music sounded like that I’d be very unhappy. My experience of live music has never had me sitting on the stage. And when I’ve been front row or even front couple rows… its been too long and happened too infrequently for me to ascribe any preference. It might be that classical music is not my preferred genre; I certainly don’t have a history of attending the symphony on a regular basis from which to build a reference. I‘m a rock, blues, funk, some jazz kind a guy. Sure I like girl with guitar cuts too, and solo cello, etc. I just don’t think ”immersive” is a term, to my understanding, that I’m looking for from my system’s soundstage presentation.

Believable, realistic, dynamic, visceral, balanced — these are some of the attributes I expect from my system.

So I agree further clarity would be terrific.

 

[tima]

there’s plenty of tweaks that actually tend to hype things up and make them seem more exciting or more surreal or the sound-field more obvious or noticeable and that doesn’t sound to me a recipe for more natural.

Yes - I agree with that, particularly when it comes to 'footer devices' put under components. My theory/opinion: when a generic or one-fits-all footer reaches its own maximum resonant frequency it directs its energy into what it sits on, resulting in more complex mechanical energy in the component itself.

For many (not all) this will change what is heard, change the sound of the component and often the 'new' sound is obviously different from that of the component without the device. Whether different translates to improvement is the customer's to decide. Typically the new excitement wears off and by then another revolutionary footer comes on the scene to try. Very few footers are upgradeable and the market churns.

Occasionally/rarely you'll find a manufacturer who includes a third-party footer with their component. And the sound of that, coming from the manufacturer is his component's sound. Some manufacturers offer their own devices as complementary add-ons - Wilson and Shunyata come to mind. Otherwise, the majority of manufacturers do not think adding a third party footer is necessary to complete their product. (I believe this is different for platforms and racks.)

What is somewhat baffling to me is the scenario where footers are added to some pretty pricey gear. Someone adds brand X footer under their $150k Wadax box. They no longer hear the component they bought as it was designed. Did it need to be fixed? Does the brand X footer manufacturer know the secret to unlocking the 'true sound' of the Wadax box? Why not choose a component whose sound you prefer in the first place.

 

[XV-1]

Interesting how the best can get better, over and over a few times withina short period of tine.

Please explain.

 

[delphi17]

Interesting how the best can get better, over and over a few times withina short period of tine.

Please explain.

It's called being innovative and striving to be the best.

Just like Olympic and World Record being broken all the time.
It's best now, not best forever..

 

[delphi17]

Yes - I agree with that, particularly when it comes to 'footer devices' put under components. My theory/opinion: when a generic or one-fits-all footer reaches its own maximum resonant frequency it directs its energy into what it sits on, resulting in more complex mechanical energy in the component itself.

For many (not all) this will change what is heard, change the sound of the component and often the 'new' sound is obviously different from that of the component without the device. Whether different translates to improvement is the customer's to decide. Typically the new excitement wears off and by then another revolutionary footer comes on the scene to try. Very few footers are upgradeable and the market churns.

Occasionally/rarely you'll find a manufacturer who includes a third-party footer with their component. And the sound of that, coming from the manufacturer is his component's sound. Some manufacturers offer their own devices as complementary add-ons - Wilson and Shunyata come to mind. Otherwise, the majority of manufacturers do not think adding a third party footer is necessary to complete their product. (I believe this is different for platforms and racks.)

What is somewhat baffling to me is the scenario where footers are added to some pretty pricey gear. Someone adds brand X footer under their $150k Wadax box. They no longer hear the component they bought as it was designed. Did it need to be fixed? Does the brand X footer manufacturer know the secret to unlocking the 'true sound' of the Wadax box? Why not choose a component whose sound you prefer in the first place.

A few component / speaker do use 3rd party footers for their products.
Just to name three on the top of my mind.
Isoacoustic are used on Martens.
Isoacoustic are also used on Focal speakers.
And staying close to our subject, Soulution uses CMS CS2 for their components.

Not all component manufacturers want to spend the time to focus on footers, when other company can do it better.
And also we need to factor in that a lot of high end customers have bespoke and extreme hi fi racks, which makes fancy footers un-necessary.
So there is another reason why manufacturer do no think adding a third party is necessary to complete their product.
It's best to keep it vanilla as possible, so user's can tailor their sound based on their preference.
Also helps to keep cost down too.

 

[delphi17]

Wow. New CS footers. I find this [somewhat] surprising. I recall Joe's statement on this very forum to the effect of CS2 footers not being capable of further improvement. This was in response to concerns around future obsolescence as CS2s were being rolled out and deemed superior to the still fairly new original CS feet. Yet now, we read CS2M are not a mere tweak to the CS2 platform, not a minor incremental improvement, but are in fact (again) superior. Oh and by the way, there's no upgrade path this time, and previous customers who feel estranged and express their disappointment are written off as 'haters' by the manufacturer.

When CS2 footers were introduced, the feedback had them parting the Red Sea and ushering angels down from heaven into the listening room. And yet now, they've been exceeded by a quantum leap and therefore the M in CS2M stands for "MAXX". (One X wouldn't have sufficiently conveyed their superiority and excellence?). My only confusion lies in understanding why it is at all difficult to accept as valid the frustrations of CS2 customers after all of this. I can easily sympathize. But I also truly hope the new versions will deliver as promised. Having auditioned CS2 feet, I did personally believe there was room for substantial improvement. So perhaps it has now arrived. Best of luck to CS2 MAXX adopters, and happy listening to all.

This is not CS2 modified, this is a totally different technology that Joe/CMS have learnt from the speaker footers.
Joe and Steve have both been very clear about this.
So, yes, the CS2 was not being capable of further improvement.

Products get renewed all the time, it's not like CS2 will cease to work after the release of CS2M.
Android and iPhones get renewed every year, and it's always the next "best", I don't see any complaint about that?
Nordost recently released Odin Gold cable series, that's even more crazy money.
And we don't see Odin2 customers jumping up and down that their products are no longer the best.

As long as it's truly improvement, and the products keeps getting better.
Then we as customers can choose when and whether we buy.

David

 

[tima]

It's best to keep it vanilla as possible, so user's can tailor their sound based on their preference.

I won't buy components that sound different from what I want to hear in the hope I can modify them with a footer.

 

[XV-1]

It's called being innovative and striving to be the best.

Just like Olympic and World Record being broken all the time.
It's best now, not best forever..

That is true, but even the Olympics are every 4 years.
Manufacturers need to be wary of releasing products too soon, as multiple reissues do piss customers off - that is a fact.