Introducing Center Stage 2M

[joelavrencikCMS]

What are the first three walls?

In no particular order, right, left, rear. The 4th is the front wall and that's the tough one. You have to seriously lower the noise floor without taking out the high frequencies in the process. Knocking down the 4th wall is what CS does and the reason why Greg Weaver thought it deserved the "Product of the Decade" Award. I shouldn't have to say it, but it also improves the other 3 walls.

 

[joelavrencikCMS]

In no particular order, right, left, rear. The 4th is the front wall and that's the tough one. You have to seriously lower the noise floor without taking out the high frequencies in the process. Knocking down the 4th wall is what CS does and the reason why Greg Weaver thought it deserved the "Product of the Decade" Award. I shouldn't have to say it, but it also improves the other 3 walls.

In this post, I should have said, "Accessory of the Decade"

 

[PeterA]

In no particular order, right, left, rear. The 4th is the front wall and that's the tough one. You have to seriously lower the noise floor without taking out the high frequencies in the process. Knocking down the 4th wall is what CS does and the reason why Greg Weaver thought it deserved the "Product of the Decade" Award. I shouldn't have to say it, but it also improves the other 3 walls.

Joe, thank you for the clarification. I imagine the bottom wall, floor is not affected, but that the top wall or ceiling might be raised. When I think of the front wall, usually at the plane of the speakers as coming down, I think of the listener as being more immersed in the sound field, almost enveloped by the sound from the instruments up on stage, rather than simply observing the music as from a distance. However, I do not think of the listening perspective as changing with the listener suddenly being transported to the center of the stage.

Ideally, and if the result is truly natural, the perspective should be of the musicians and stage being laid out in front of the listener at some distance, as in real life, assuming this is captured on the recording and is the intent of the recording engineer. I want the listening room filled with the sound of the instruments whose images are located in front of me. If done really well, the listening room should disappear, and the listener should be transported to the venue as a member of the audience in front of the stage.

I like the description of the fourth wall, the front wall, being removed as some kind of barrier separating the listener from the music. It is much more easy to grasp than what I think of as the unfortunate imagery in the early ad copy of the listener being moved to the center of the performance stage. This indeed implies, at least to me and to some others here, that the use of the CS footers moves the listening perspective to be up on stage so the listener is surrounded by the instruments themselves, not just their sound. This is actually quite unnatural and not typically experienced in real life unless the listener is up on stage. It is kind of cool on Pink Floyd LPs though.

I heard the early iteration of these footers in a friend's system. They were under each component and had been settling in for two weeks. I tried to remember the sound of his system before as I heard the system that day with the new footers in place. I did not experience this transportation to the center of the stage. I recall the stage being brought slightly forward and a bit flatter than before. We then proceeded to remove each set of footers, one component at a time, and the stage recessed a bit but became less flat. The effect was obvious and heard each time we removed another set from under a new component. I understand that the second version sound different from what I heard, and presume this new technology changes it further. This is only to say that I have heard the early footers and can relate to some of the comments.

Joe, I remember Magico receiving similar criticism some 10-12? years ago shortly after they released their $90K M5 flagship speakers and rather quickly announcing the much less expensive Q5 speaker. Valin praised the newer one as sounding superior and people were thrilled that it cost less. The owners of the M5 who had just bought the latest and greatest did not feel the same way. I commend you for keeping at it and for developing a completely new technology with the M version. It puts you in a similarly difficult position to Magico at that time and open to criticism as we see here. I do not know what the best answer is, but as the owner and developer, you made your decision. You seem to have many satisfied customers and the new footers are selling very well. Congratulations.

This may be an aside, but as you mention this new M technology developed for the LS speaker footer as being distinct from the CS footers which trickled down from your platforms, are you working now on moving this new technology into your rack systems, and if so, could you talk a bit more about how this technology is different? I am curious because as a non technical guy, I have just completed my own DIY rack system and know full well that what components rest on can make quite a difference.

As product launches have migrated from magazines and shows to audio chat rooms on the internet, one must be prepared for the nature of the open dialog which will result. The anonymity of the net makes it possible and easy to express both accolades and criticisms with ease. This is the nature of hobby now, and with the criticisms comes the opportunity for quick promotion and exchanges with potential customers. I appreciate being able to hear directly from the designer and his representatives, and read feedback from the users all right here in one place.

 

[cmarin]

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

Hi Steve,

Thanks for sharing your experience with the new CS footers.

With respect to their use on the Extreme, do you recommend using three or four footers?

Also are you using, or have you previously used the footers on the Extreme with Taiko’s Daiza platforms/footers? If so, how did they compare?

thanks

 

[Steve Williams]

Hi Steve,

Thanks for sharing your experience with the new CS footers.

With respect to their use on the Extreme, do you recommend using three on four footers?

Also are you using or have you previously used the footers on the Extreme with Taiko’s Daiza platforms/footers? If so, how did they compare?

thanks

Always 4 under any component. They come in sets of 4 as that is how they sound best as Joe tested 3 vs 4 and with 4 there is a huge jump over 3

as for platforms I have not used Emile’s Taiko Daiza
I use Joe’s Critical Mass Systems platforms. As an aside of all the users we have now I am the only CS user who also uses Joe’s racks. I say this because I find my settle in time with these feet is shorter than other users. I feel this is because the feet sit on his platforms. The other reason people should at least consider CS to audition is because the original CS feet were based on Joe’s top of the line platform called the Olympus. These are truly beyond anything I have ever heard as well as something I could never afford. The feet are affordable in comparison and the discontinued CS2 IMO is a bargain now at a discounted rate of 50%. To get something at that price based on Olympus technology IMO is a no brainer.

Definitely use 1.5’s under the Extreme Emile heard them settling in when he visited shortly after I installed my Extreme.

 

[Mobiusman]

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?

Peter,

As I have mentioned in my writings on the CMS2M footers, I have been a beta tester for the originals, the CMS's and now the CMS2M and have talked with Joe many times, not to mention having talked with other footer users and having listened extensively with the other two beta testers, (Steve and Marty and me the Three Amigos) and can say withiout any hesitation that while the break-in is less than a pleasure, once stabilized theswe footers are transformative to the systems that they are used in to the point that I now consider them an essential Component.

I will give you my estimate ot the comparisons between the three iterations of the footers.. The originals were a total uinknown to me, but as I beta tested therm I marveled at their impact on the sound, typically with an hour or two very impressive, albeit not perfect sound quality improvement in the realm of better soundstaging, resolution and ultimately when broken in (28 days for the originals) a much more cohesive sound from the my system, moving it more towards the sound of live performances.

I do not remember the amount of time until the CMS2's came out, which also included a new model the 1.5, but they were much easier to break in and much more refined than the originals. The sonic improvement is best described as every benefit you got with the originals was now amplified substantially, probably just shy of 100% improvement, with a marked increase in cohesiveness. I took advantage of Joe's then upgrade policy and returned all of muy CMS originals for upgrades to CMS2's and bought 8 CMS2 1.5's for my heavy amps (VAC 452"s) and my Taiko Extreme. It is important to note that the CMS 2 where modifications to the original CMS footer with external lasering to identify them as CMS2"s.

The CMS2's are so good that I have various sizes of all of the under every component in my Bucket List System which very high end. I even have them under external power supples. I have written WBF posts about My Bucket List System on a number of occasions saying I could not get the sound I get without the CMS2's throughout.

By virtue of being asked to be one of three Beta Testers for the CMS2M and because I have a very high end system where it is easier to he1.0'sar subtle differences, not to mention having been a beta tester for the original and CMS2's and them extensively, I was a natural choice to be a tester for the CMS2M's. Joe sent me 4 CMS2M 1.0's and 4 CMS2M's 1.5's He specifically asked me to replace the four CMS2's under my Taiko Audio Extrteme, which weigjht 94#'s and put the new 1.0's and after some break-in get back to him with my observations, which was that they were better thand the CMS2 1.5's in every way, but had a substantial break-in period. After about 2 weeks of break-in I already knew that this new technology, (which is a derivative of the LS speaker footer, which I own, but are not installled because Damon and Leif from VSA, who are both good friends at this poinnt and have visited me, wanterd to be present for the modications to my Ultra9's necessary to accommodate the footers.) was superior to the original footer technology and inserted 4 CMSM 1.5's under my Extreme. That level improvement was nothing short of jaw dropping---much bigger improvement than the CMS1's CMS2's made and quite simply something I had to have in my new Bucket List System, even though I am now retired and did not want to spend any more money on my system.

The level of impriovement was so substantial that I ordered another 20 CMS2M 1.5 footers' to suppliment the four I already had from Joe. I can tell you that they are still improving, with periodic digressions, to the point that I do not think I have ever heard a better system and I have had heard a lot. While the rest of my system is still sitting on CMS2's of various sizes, I want all of my core components (mono blocs, preamp, phono pre, music server and DAC are sitting on CMS2M's because they are that good, make that amazing. I have also been leaning on Damon and Leif to get here NJ from Riverside so we modify my 9's to accommodate the LS 1.5 speaker footers, which is the design base for the M series of CMS footers.

I have had company every day since my new footers arrived Thursday and did not want to risk degrading my overall sound by inserting so many new footers at once. But today I am going to put in the other 20 CMS2M's into my system and hope that the break-in I have endured with the 4 under my Extreme will be the same as what will happen the five components that will be up graded, meaning ,my entire signal path will benefit.

Any one using CMS2 footers in their system that have broken in knows that they are as good as any single compoent upgrade, if not better. So I do not know what all of the complaints are about, other than a reflection of those making the complaints, because the sonic benefits are amazing. I credit Joe with keeping the price down for the M's by not having to absorb the trade in cost, and discontinuing the CMS2 series because the M's are only moderately more expensive, but SO SO Much Better.

Keep your eyes open for my post when all of the new M 1.5's are broken in, I cannot conceive at this point what my system will sound like, other than it will clearly be more amazing that it already is, which is beyond my wildest dreams.

I hope that this help

 

[Mobiusman]

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

See my comments in my post, the second one on this thread and my answer to Peter A's at the top of this page.

 

[joelavrencikCMS]

Joe, thank you for the clarification. I imagine the bottom wall, floor is not affected, but that the top wall or ceiling might be raised. When I think of the front wall, usually at the plane of the speakers as coming down, I think of the listener as being more immersed in the sound field, almost enveloped by the sound from the instruments up on stage, rather than simply observing the music as from a distance. However, I do not think of the listening perspective as changing with the listener suddenly being transported to the center of the stage.

Ideally, and if the result is truly natural, the perspective should be of the musicians and stage being laid out in front of the listener at some distance, as in real life, assuming this is captured on the recording and is the intent of the recording engineer. I want the listening room filled with the sound of the instruments whose images are located in front of me. If done really well, the listening room should disappear, and the listener should be transported to the venue as a member of the audience in front of the stage.

I like the description of the fourth wall, the front wall, being removed as some kind of barrier separating the listener from the music. It is much more easy to grasp than what I think of as the unfortunate imagery in the early ad copy of the listener being moved to the center of the performance stage. This indeed implies, at least to me and to some others here, that the use of the CS footers moves the listening perspective to be up on stage so the listener is surrounded by the instruments themselves, not just their sound. This is actually quite unnatural and not typically experienced in real life unless the listener is up on stage. It is kind of cool on Pink Floyd LPs though.

I heard the early iteration of these footers in a friend's system. They were under each component and had been settling in for two weeks. I tried to remember the sound of his system before as I heard the system that day with the new footers in place. I did not experience this transportation to the center of the stage. I recall the stage being brought slightly forward and a bit flatter than before. We then proceeded to remove each set of footers, one component at a time, and the stage recessed a bit but became less flat. The effect was obvious and heard each time we removed another set from under a new component. I understand that the second version sound different from what I heard, and presume this new technology changes it further. This is only to say that I have heard the early footers and can relate to some of the comments.

Joe, I remember Magico receiving similar criticism some 10-12? years ago shortly after they released their $90K M5 flagship speakers and rather quickly announcing the much less expensive Q5 speaker. Valin praised the newer one as sounding superior and people were thrilled that it cost less. The owners of the M5 who had just bought the latest and greatest did not feel the same way. I commend you for keeping at it and for developing a completely new technology with the M version. It puts you in a similarly difficult position to Magico at that time and open to criticism as we see here. I do not know what the best answer is, but as the owner and developer, you made your decision. You seem to have many satisfied customers and the new footers are selling very well. Congratulations.

This may be an aside, but as you mention this new M technology developed for the LS speaker footer as being distinct from the CS footers which trickled down from your platforms, are you working now on moving this new technology into your rack systems, and if so, could you talk a bit more about how this technology is different? I am curious because as a non technical guy, I have just completed my own DIY rack system and know full well that what components rest on can make quite a difference.

As product launches have migrated from magazines and shows to audio chat rooms on the internet, one must be prepared for the nature of the open dialog which will result. The anonymity of the net makes it possible and easy to express both accolades and criticisms with ease. This is the nature of hobby now, and with the criticisms comes the opportunity for quick promotion and exchanges with potential customers. I appreciate being able to hear directly from the designer and his representatives, and read feedback from the users all right here in one place.

In my opinion, the footers/components were probably not completely settled in your first experience. I don’t think you heard the full effect. The soundstage should not flatten in a fully settled system unless there was a speaker placement issue or some other limiting factor. With CS, the high frequencies always fully resolve last and the absence of high frequencies flattens the soundstage. Accordingly, I agree that your CS1 experience is not relevant to CS2M (or CS2).

Honestly, I see no linkage between Magico and Critical Mass Systems in that story. I did not lower prices. Asserting this as fact opens a negative fiction to public debate in a manner similar to others asserting fictions as fact in this thread. As a consequence, I’m reading and responding to what amounts to theater. This is not a criticism of anything you wrote, it is a general comment in support of the “sometimes” consequences of your final paragraph.

I am all for DIY-ing. Simple is generally better. For the DIY-er, wood is generally better than metal. The trick with racks (for those who get super-serious about it) is to avoid overdamping the component. There is a tendency to become too heavy-handed with respect to eliminating edge in the upper registers and the baby can easily go out with the bathwater. A simple “tell” is, if your system is really good at playing one genre of music and not good at playing others (recording quality held equal), there could be a bathwater problem.

 

[Mobiusman]

Agreed.

That would be doing it backward.
You buy the best component that you can afford, then you see if you could make it better by adding the footer.
But if you are happy with the component, why worry about it?

Same for cables or any other tweak.
Footers are not any different.
Not sure why you single out footers.

CMS footer will simply help just about any audio product by reducing noise and noise floor. The overall sonic quality is determined by the component design, which the footer will potentiate

 

[Mobiusman]

As per my posts on this thread and being a beta tester for the new CMS2M footers, I have absolutely no doubt that they are in a different league that the CMS2's, which BTW are excellent and have been an essential part of my since they came out. However, puting just four CMS2M's uner my 94 pound Taiko Extreme (a peripheral piece) and leaving all of the CMS2 footers used throughout my system in place, I was jaw dropped with the overall improvement, especially with the 1.5's which is why I bought 20 more 1.5 CMS2M footers for every core compoent in my signal path.

Before going any further, I want to state that an additional week of break-in of the CMS2M 1.5 footers under my Extreme, has only increased the immersive effect and soundstage and articulation that I had noted in my last post with this configuration a week ago.

Today I am going to insert the additional 20 CMS2M 1.5 footers and then sit back and observe and hope that my decision is on target, which I strongly suspect it is, and thus expect a glorious improvement I will repurpose the exisiting CMS 2's in a few place in my system and then sell the balance at probably somewhere just above 50% off and have already decided that whatever I recoup is bonus because I will not take the M's out of my system.

 

[PeterA]

Congratulations to you Joe for your line of products. I understand that you do not want to discuss any future rack developments based on this new technology.

Thank you for your response Russ. I am happy for your early adoption of the footers and your obvious satisfaction.

 

[Steve Williams]

Mine finally arrived today by FedEx which I’ve never seen deliver in a Sunday but these were due two days ago.
So CS2 are now out and new CS2M’s installed. My system is warming up before I’ll do any listening. Let me just say that if you have heavy and/ or bulky gear having a 2nd set of hands ti help makes it go a lot easier

 

[Steve Williams]

 

[JIB222]

I recently purchased the 0.8 CS2 footers & put under my Supratek Cortese preamp. Unfortunately they didn't work under the that unit, probably since I need a taller footer under it. I then put them under my Tambaqui DAC and after a few days (It didn't take 7 days for them to work well.) it was like I went from the Mola Mola to the top of the line DCS DAC! It was amazing, the amount of additional quietness (and with my SR Galileo PC, my system is pretty quiet as it is), detail and wider soundstage is breathtaking.

I just spoke with Steve after going online to purchase the 1.0 CS2 footers and will now purchase the M series to try under my preamp. I have no desire to now upgrade the 0.8 CS2 footers under my DAC, but of course just like everything else in this hobby, I probably will upgrade to the M series at some point. From what I have seen, they do very well in the used market and I'm sure that in the next few months, while the used prices will probably come down a bit with more supply (due to people wanting to upgrade now to the M series) it is a great opportunity for people who maybe couldn't afford the CS2 footers to now purchase them at a nice discount. I myself will be doing such since at this time don't want to spend a ton of $$ on all new M series footers, but will want to try them under my other components. Greg Weaver was definitely spot on with his review, they are "that" good!

 

[delphi17]

I recently purchased the 0.8 CS2 footers & put under my Supratek Cortese preamp. Unfortunately they didn't work under the that unit, probably since I need a taller footer under it. I then put them under my Tambaqui DAC and after a few days (It didn't take 7 days for them to work well.) it was like I went from the Mola Mola to the top of the line DCS DAC! It was amazing, the amount of additional quietness (and with my SR Galileo PC, my system is pretty quiet as it is), detail and wider soundstage is breathtaking.

I just spoke with Steve after going online to purchase the 1.0 CS2 footers and will now purchase the M series to try under my preamp. I have no desire to now upgrade the 0.8 CS2 footers under my DAC, but of course just like everything else in this hobby, I probably will upgrade to the M series at some point. From what I have seen, they do very well in the used market and I'm sure that in the next few months, while the used prices will probably come down a bit with more supply (due to people wanting to upgrade now to the M series) it is a great opportunity for people who maybe couldn't afford the CS2 footers to now purchase them at a nice discount. I myself will be doing such since at this time don't want to spend a ton of $$ on all new M series footers, but will want to try them under my other components. Greg Weaver was definitely spot on with his review, they are "that" good!

Awesome, another Tambaqui buddy

I have ordered a set of the 1.0 CS2M to upgrade under my Tambaqui which is now also using 0.8 CS2.

Will report back once I receive them and when the sound settles.

 

[thedudeabides]

I frankly don't know why Joe, Steve and others are questioning those who believe that the long term value of a product has been inadvertently (prematurely?) diminished on a product that is on its third iteration in four years. It is a very valid question given the cost of the product with no upgrade path. For those with disposable income, it probably isn't a problem. And I don't "hate" you Joe or anyone else for that matter. Wasted energy. Resale value notwithstanding, I'm sorry that you can't understand this basic, justifiable concern.

 

[Steve Williams]

I frankly don't know why Joe, Steve and others are questioning those who believe that the long term value of a product has been inadvertently (prematurely?) diminished on a product that is on its third iteration in four years. It is a very valid question given the cost of the product with no upgrade path. For those with disposable income, it probably isn't a problem. And I don't "hate" you Joe or anyone else for that matter. Total waste of energy. Sorry that you can't understand this basic, justifiable concern.

Dude

this has been asked and answered. If you don’t like what you are reading move on to the next thread because all you’re adding now is noise to the discussion.
people are wanting to discuss these. I suggest you read some of their responses

 

[tima]

I read the newer posts in this thread and while not certain, Steve, I believe you referred to me when you wrote:

The issue of stock footers has been discussed by time but I would disagree with his premiss that stock footers have no sonic signature.

Two thoughts on this:

- However any component interfaces with its environment can influence its sound.

- I've rarely (ever?) seen a component that doesn't have some sort of feet. 'Stock footers' are part of the native component and thus are part of that component's sound. One might say stock footers have no sonic signature apart from that of the component. You could take the stock footers off a component and put them on a different component in which case they will have a sonic signature, but they are no longer stock footers.

 

[marty]

Joe, thank you for the clarification. I imagine the bottom wall, floor is not affected, but that the top wall or ceiling might be raised. When I think of the front wall, usually at the plane of the speakers as coming down, I think of the listener as being more immersed in the sound field, almost enveloped by the sound from the instruments up on stage, rather than simply observing the music as from a distance. However, I do not think of the listening perspective as changing with the listener suddenly being transported to the center of the stage.

Ideally, and if the result is truly natural, the perspective should be of the musicians and stage being laid out in front of the listener at some distance, as in real life, assuming this is captured on the recording and is the intent of the recording engineer. I want the listening room filled with the sound of the instruments whose images are located in front of me. If done really well, the listening room should disappear, and the listener should be transported to the venue as a member of the audience in front of the stage.

I like the description of the fourth wall, the front wall, being removed as some kind of barrier separating the listener from the music. It is much more easy to grasp than what I think of as the unfortunate imagery in the early ad copy of the listener being moved to the center of the performance stage. This indeed implies, at least to me and to some others here, that the use of the CS footers moves the listening perspective to be up on stage so the listener is surrounded by the instruments themselves, not just their sound. This is actually quite unnatural and not typically experienced in real life unless the listener is up on stage. It is kind of cool on Pink Floyd LPs though.

I heard the early iteration of these footers in a friend's system. They were under each component and had been settling in for two weeks. I tried to remember the sound of his system before as I heard the system that day with the new footers in place. I did not experience this transportation to the center of the stage. I recall the stage being brought slightly forward and a bit flatter than before. We then proceeded to remove each set of footers, one component at a time, and the stage recessed a bit but became less flat. The effect was obvious and heard each time we removed another set from under a new component. I understand that the second version sound different from what I heard, and presume this new technology changes it further. This is only to say that I have heard the early footers and can relate to some of the comments.

Joe, I remember Magico receiving similar criticism some 10-12? years ago shortly after they released their $90K M5 flagship speakers and rather quickly announcing the much less expensive Q5 speaker. Valin praised the newer one as sounding superior and people were thrilled that it cost less. The owners of the M5 who had just bought the latest and greatest did not feel the same way. I commend you for keeping at it and for developing a completely new technology with the M version. It puts you in a similarly difficult position to Magico at that time and open to criticism as we see here. I do not know what the best answer is, but as the owner and developer, you made your decision. You seem to have many satisfied customers and the new footers are selling very well. Congratulations.

This may be an aside, but as you mention this new M technology developed for the LS speaker footer as being distinct from the CS footers which trickled down from your platforms, are you working now on moving this new technology into your rack systems, and if so, could you talk a bit more about how this technology is different? I am curious because as a non technical guy, I have just completed my own DIY rack system and know full well that what components rest on can make quite a difference.

As product launches have migrated from magazines and shows to audio chat rooms on the internet, one must be prepared for the nature of the open dialog which will result. The anonymity of the net makes it possible and easy to express both accolades and criticisms with ease. This is the nature of hobby now, and with the criticisms comes the opportunity for quick promotion and exchanges with potential customers. I appreciate being able to hear directly from the designer and his representatives, and read feedback from the users all right here in one place.

A very thoughtful and relevant post. Thanks Peter.

 

[delphi17]

I read the newer posts in this thread and while not certain, Steve, I believe you referred to me when you wrote:



Two thoughts on this:

- However any component interfaces with its environment can influence its sound.

- I've rarely (ever?) seen a component that doesn't have some sort of feet. 'Stock footers' are part of the native component and thus are part of that component's sound. One might say stock footers have no sonic signature apart from that of the component. You could take the stock footers off a component and put them on a different component in which case they will have a sonic signature, but they are no longer stock footers.

Unless you use the exact sample speaker, same cable, have the space, same power, same hifi-rack, otherwise you are not hearing whatever the component maker is hearing.
Does that mean you need to get the exact same setup as the component maker, in order to hear what the component really sounds like?
And, does it really matter?
And if does, which component will you base your system on?

Music is all about personal taste, and if adding footers change the component sound, but it suits your personal taste.

I believe that's more important than anything else.