Introducing Center Stage 2M

[marty]

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.

 

[Addicted to hifi]

Part 2

Bass example #4
Let’s move a bit lower into subterranean bass. Play these tracks from Reference Recordings 2011 sampler

View attachment 81694


Very few things ever recorded let you assess deep bass performance as well as these two tracks.

View attachment 81695

The Liszt piece is “bowels of the earth” bass impressive. Don’t even waste your time without subwoofers. The Respighi piece has it all from subterranean bass to upper bass. The lower brass and horns have real weight and articulation here much like the real thing and is once again a testimony as to what the M1.0 can do in the bass registers.

These examples highlight the bass strengths of the 1.0M footers nicely. However, the one area of the 1.0M that is unfortunately not quite as rewarding as the v2 yet is the overall sense of musical “life” that currently renders the midrange and upper registers somewhat compressed and lifeless compared to the performance of the bass register. I made a similar comment after the day 6 session and although it is better, it is just not musically correct. At least not yet. This can be also be heard in all the previous recording examples; i.e, the realistic presence or “life” of the mandolin is not quite there in the first piece, nor is there realistic “life” of Rana’s right hand on the piano. In fact, if I had to pick a footer to live with at this time, I would probably choose the v2 vs the 1.0M because of the sense of musical life and rightness in the former, even though the bass articulation has finally exceeded what I had with the v.2

Therefore, at this point, my plan is to leave the 1.0M footers in while I am away in Colorado starting Sunday. I think that break-in of the 1.0M is more similar to v1 (10- days) than v2 (7-10 days). My sense is that break-in is not yet complete on the M1.0 and 14 days or more may be necessary for the sense of “breathability” or “life” to reveal itself fully. My hope is that we will ultimately be able to say the 1.0M is superior to v2 in every way, but at this time, it is only the bass range that is clearly superior.

Finally, although its completely hypothetical, I’d like to suggest why I think the bass performance of the 1.0M is superior to the v2, at least in part. My sense is that it’s not the initial transient of the leading bass note, but rather, it is the decay of the note which has a quicker settling time. That is what makes the overall articulation seemingly better. There’s less “hang” time (less stored energy?) and therefore what is being played just sounds more highly resolved. Not sure if that makes sense to you that’s the way I interpret it. The paradox then, is that the upper mids and treble seem slightly over-damped by comparison. Go figure! I sure hope this is only a matter of time before the mids/treble come around. We shall see.

In conclusion, I think the new footers may ultimately perform better than v2. However, break-in is a bitch (that’s putting it mildly). If they don’t eventually come around and have the sense of “life” that the v1.0’s have, I’ll probably try some long term creative mix and match approach to see if I can harness the best of both series although candidly, I would not look forward to going that route. In the meantime, patience is required. I would not be surprised if all my concerns are addressed after another week or so of break-in.

Joe, I hopes this helps with your assessment and sorry I could not be more enthusiastic at this point. FYI- all comments here are confidential however I did reply to Russ and Steve as well since they shared their detailed impressions with us which were more favorable than mine.

Aug 20
Joe,

Recall I left town for 2 weeks in back in Aug 1st and returned 3 days ago.
When I left, I had the 1.0M under the Soulution 725 preamp for 10 days (swapped out for 1.0 v2) and just while it looked like I was headed out of the break-in woods, I left town not being sold on the M's merits although I found them compelling (using my standard "single variable" experimental approach by putting a single set under the pre-amp only). However, immediately before leaving town, and not wanting to waste 2 weeks of break-in for which I wouldn't be there anyway, I inserted the 1.5M under the Extreme and didn't listen until 3 days ago. The preamp 1.0Ms now have nearly a month on it and the Extreme has about 3 weeks. Listening this week was still a struggle. Simply put, something just wasn't right. While I can appreciate that there is more "there" there with 2 sets of M's (more spatial detail and inner clarity, especially with regard to soundstage imaging) there was a disturbing trade off in overall vitality. The new footers still rendered things a bit more lifeless than the v2. It's as if there was an unnatural compression of the air or "penumbra" of the music. In more straight forward parlance, neither a simple piano or an orchestra had the right "bloom" that is a hallmark of the real thing, at least for me in my system.

I'm honestly frustrated as hell. The question now is whether to mix and match or find another approach that gets me where I need to be. Mix and match is an attractive possibility since there's no reason to assume that every piece of gear is best suited for with a specific size or iteration of any of the footers. I boiled it down to 2 options. Either inset the old 1.0 v2 back under the preamp and take a painful road of assessing one piece at a time, or add the recently received 1.5M under the Lampizator so now my entire digital source (Extreme/Lampizator/Preamp) is using the M footers in which case, we're back to break-in hell with the Lampi 1.5M.

As far as the Zanden phono stage- will I live long enough before I begin to play with the new 1.0M under that? Hmmm....

And that's when when I received the word from high above in which you said :
FWIW, I'd put all the feet in at the same time. Staggering seems like an assured painful slog through endless settling insanity.

So that's exactly what I just did. (I also just added a spare set of 1.0 v2 under the separate power supply of the Zanden phono). So as of now, I have 4 sets of Ms running.
Extreme 1.5M
Lampizator GG2 1.5M
Soulution 725 1.0M
Zanden 1200 Mk3 1.0M (power supply uses 1.0 v2)

Time to just sit back and wait now. I'll keep you posted and check back in after 10 days or so.
In the meantime, if I ever get an email telling me there's a a next-gen v4 footer available, remind me to take a gun to my head....

Sept 4

Upon returning from an out of town trip for a week, I re-evaluated the system sound anew with the CMS array above. Unfortunately, the first impression I had was confounding. On the digital side, I noticed an uncanny amount of information and detail, but the overall impression was that I lost more than I gained. Most obvious was a loss of impact and vitality especially in the bass region. This was a nagging sense I had ever since I place the 1.0M under the preamp. My hope is that it would abate with break-in, but yet after 2 weeks, it was still there. My head was spinning. How could something so potentially good in some respects, sound so, well, disappointing in others? More disturbing was that I simply wasn’t sure what to do next, but I knew I had to do something.

My thoughts turned again to what I heard when I installed only the M footers under the preamp and realized that the quality I so admired regarding the life and vitality of the system with v2 footers were AWOL and I longed for their return. Therefore, at this point, I decided to remove the 1.0M under the Soulution 725 and re-install 1.5v2 footers. Voile! The beneficial sonic effects I remembered had returned. The effect was obvious but once again, required another 7 days for optimization. In summation, the “hybrid” system of footers I was now listening to the digital side (1.5M’s under Extreme and Lampi, 1.5v2 under the preamp) resulted in overall improvements that made for the best sound I had to date! I was smiling again for the first time in a long time. I mean months! I don’t pretend to understand why, but using the unusual pairing of the 1.5M under the Extreme and Lampi GG2, and the 1.5v2 under the preamp had dramatically improved the definition and musicality of the deep bass while simultaneously opening the top end so the air or “penumbra” of the hall returned in spades. At the same time, the added resolution, improved dimensionality and control that the M footers had added to the midrange remained unabated. In short, what I heard was paradoxical- the bottom and top opened up yet the midrange had more control. Although it is not offered as a scientific explanation, sonically it seemed as if the Q factor of the bass and top end increased, while the Q of the midrange decreased, especially when pushed hard (which seemed to reduce a bit of “edge” when the system was pushed hard). Quite the conundrum. But I also know what I hear and that’s really the only thing any of us can count on.

to be continued....

Reference recordings do have excellent deep bass extension.try Telarc recordings as well.

 

[Bobofei86]

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.

Thanks Marty for your very detailed summary, fully understand that the frustration for the "break-in" process and it still doesn't work even after a few weeks... got the same feeling when i tried some tubes and fuses which we "assumed" it will sounds better after few hundreds hours but at the end of the day it doesn't

Based on Steve's and yours experience, both Extreme and Lampizator (GG2 or Pacific) work well with CS2M 1.5 to get the best results, we can follow the same route to wait for them settle down first before we try in other components

 

[marty]

Based on Steve's and yours experience, both Extreme and Lampizator (GG2 or Pacific) work well with CS2M 1.5 to get the best results, we can follow the same route to wait for them settle down first before we try in other components

I think there are many others besides Steve and me who have experienced significant benefits with the CMS footers under the Extreme and Lampi units, not to mention perhaps dozens of other brands. As suggested previously, I suspect there are several other factors that can influence the overall benefit. Shelving is one important consideration. My Extreme and Lampi are on 1" thick stainless plates. My Zanden is on 3" maple. Is that the reason the former are very successful with the M footers, but the latter are not? Who knows? My preamp is on 1.5" granite. Is that why the v2 works better than the M for that particular piece? Again, who knows? Another factor not previously mentioned is the chassis construction of the component used. Are they made of stainless plate? Aluminum? Alloy? Solid? Perforated? Thickness? I suspect that like almost all things in high end audio, everything matters so compatibility may be the critical issue. The only sure way to know is to try them!

 

[PeterA]

I think there are many others besides Steve and me who have experienced significant benefits with the CMS footers under the Extreme and Lampi units, not to mention perhaps dozens of other brands. As suggested previously, I suspect there are several other factors that can influence the overall benefit. Shelving is one important consideration. My Extreme and Lampi are on 1" thick stainless plates. My Zanden is on 3" maple. Is that the reason the former are very successful with the M footers, but the latter are not? Who knows? My preamp is on 1.5" granite. Is that why the v2 works better than the M for that particular piece? Again, who knows? Another factor not previously mentioned is the chassis construction of the component used. Are they made of stainless plate? Aluminum? Alloy? Solid? Perforated? Thickness? I suspect that like almost all things in high end audio, everything matters so compatibility may be the critical issue. The only sure way to know is to try them!

Marty, this is very interesting to read. I was not aware that the surface on which the footers are placed can influence the sound to this degree. I had the impression that the CS footers are more universally beneficial, regardless of shelf material. Perhaps other users don't have such a variety of shelving materials that you have.

I have all of my gear on 1" thick stainless steel plates. Why did you decide to try the steel plates?

 

[Bobofei86]

Totally agreed nothing is guaranteed and the best option is judging by our ears and test them side by side
Just want to narrow down the options to start first, and find the baseline to further evaluate on other components

 

[joelavrencikCMS]

Part 2

Bass example #4
Let’s move a bit lower into subterranean bass. Play these tracks from Reference Recordings 2011 sampler

View attachment 81694


Very few things ever recorded let you assess deep bass performance as well as these two tracks.

View attachment 81695

The Liszt piece is “bowels of the earth” bass impressive. Don’t even waste your time without subwoofers. The Respighi piece has it all from subterranean bass to upper bass. The lower brass and horns have real weight and articulation here much like the real thing and is once again a testimony as to what the M1.0 can do in the bass registers.

These examples highlight the bass strengths of the 1.0M footers nicely. However, the one area of the 1.0M that is unfortunately not quite as rewarding as the v2 yet is the overall sense of musical “life” that currently renders the midrange and upper registers somewhat compressed and lifeless compared to the performance of the bass register. I made a similar comment after the day 6 session and although it is better, it is just not musically correct. At least not yet. This can be also be heard in all the previous recording examples; i.e, the realistic presence or “life” of the mandolin is not quite there in the first piece, nor is there realistic “life” of Rana’s right hand on the piano. In fact, if I had to pick a footer to live with at this time, I would probably choose the v2 vs the 1.0M because of the sense of musical life and rightness in the former, even though the bass articulation has finally exceeded what I had with the v.2

Therefore, at this point, my plan is to leave the 1.0M footers in while I am away in Colorado starting Sunday. I think that break-in of the 1.0M is more similar to v1 (10- days) than v2 (7-10 days). My sense is that break-in is not yet complete on the M1.0 and 14 days or more may be necessary for the sense of “breathability” or “life” to reveal itself fully. My hope is that we will ultimately be able to say the 1.0M is superior to v2 in every way, but at this time, it is only the bass range that is clearly superior in some aspects..

Finally, although its completely hypothetical, I’d like to suggest why I think the bass performance of the 1.0M is superior to the v2, at least in part. My sense is that it’s not the initial transient of the leading bass note, but rather, it is the decay of the note which has a quicker settling time. That is what makes the overall articulation seemingly better. There’s less “hang” time (less stored energy?) and therefore what is being played just sounds more highly resolved. Not sure if that makes sense to you that’s the way I interpret it. The paradox then, is that the upper mids and treble seem slightly over-damped by comparison. Go figure! I sure hope this is only a matter of time before the mids/treble come around. We shall see.

In conclusion, I think the new footers may ultimately perform better than v2. However, break-in is a bitch (that’s putting it mildly). If they don’t eventually come around and have the sense of “life” that the v1.0’s have, I’ll probably try some long term creative mix and match approach to see if I can harness the best of both series although candidly, I would not look forward to going that route. In the meantime, patience is required. I would not be surprised if all my concerns are addressed after another week or so of break-in.

Joe, I hopes this helps with your assessment and sorry I could not be more enthusiastic at this point. FYI- all comments here are confidential however I did reply to Russ and Steve as well since they shared their detailed impressions with us which were more favorable than mine.

Aug 20
Joe,

Recall I left town for 2 weeks in back in Aug 1st and returned 3 days ago.
When I left, I had the 1.0M under the Soulution 725 preamp for 10 days (swapped out for 1.0 v2) and just while it looked like I was headed out of the break-in woods, I left town not being sold on the M's merits although I found them compelling (using my standard "single variable" experimental approach by putting a single set under the pre-amp only). However, immediately before leaving town, and not wanting to waste 2 weeks of break-in for which I wouldn't be there anyway, I inserted the 1.5M under the Extreme and didn't listen until 3 days ago. The preamp 1.0Ms now have nearly a month on it and the Extreme has about 3 weeks. Listening this week was still a struggle. Simply put, something just wasn't right. While I can appreciate that there is more "there" there with 2 sets of M's (more spatial detail and inner clarity, especially with regard to soundstage imaging) there was a disturbing trade off in overall vitality. The new footers still rendered things a bit more lifeless than the v2. It's as if there was an unnatural compression of the air or "penumbra" of the music. In more straight forward parlance, neither a simple piano or an orchestra had the right "bloom" that is a hallmark of the real thing, at least for me in my system.

I'm honestly frustrated as hell. The question now is whether to mix and match or find another approach that gets me where I need to be. Mix and match is an attractive possibility since there's no reason to assume that every piece of gear is best suited for with a specific size or iteration of any of the footers. I boiled it down to 2 options. Either inset the old 1.0 v2 back under the preamp and take a painful road of assessing one piece at a time, or add the recently received 1.5M under the Lampizator so now my entire digital source (Extreme/Lampizator/Preamp) is using the M footers in which case, we're back to break-in hell with the Lampi 1.5M.

As far as the Zanden phono stage- will I live long enough before I begin to play with the new 1.0M under that? Hmmm....

And that's when when I received the word from high above in which you said :
FWIW, I'd put all the feet in at the same time. Staggering seems like an assured painful slog through endless settling insanity.

So that's exactly what I just did. (I also just added a spare set of 1.0 v2 under the separate power supply of the Zanden phono). So as of now, I have 4 sets of Ms running.
Extreme 1.5M
Lampizator GG2 1.5M
Soulution 725 1.0M
Zanden 1200 Mk3 1.0M (power supply uses 1.0 v2)

Time to just sit back and wait now. I'll keep you posted and check back in after 10 days or so.
In the meantime, if I ever get an email telling me there's a a next-gen v4 footer available, remind me to take a gun to my head....

Sept 4

Upon returning from an out of town trip for a week, I re-evaluated the system sound anew with the CMS array above. Unfortunately, the first impression I had was confounding. On the digital side, I noticed an uncanny amount of information and detail, but the overall impression was that I lost more than I gained. Most obvious was a loss of impact and vitality especially in the bass region. This was a nagging sense I had ever since I place the 1.0M under the preamp. My hope is that it would abate with break-in, but yet after 2 weeks, it was still there. My head was spinning. How could something so potentially good in some respects, sound so, well, disappointing in others? More disturbing was that I simply wasn’t sure what to do next, but I knew I had to do something.

My thoughts turned again to what I heard when I installed only the M footers under the preamp and realized that the quality I so admired regarding the life and vitality of the system with v2 footers were AWOL and I longed for their return. Therefore, at this point, I decided to remove the 1.0M under the Soulution 725 and re-install 1.5v2 footers. Voile! The beneficial sonic effects I remembered had returned. The effect was obvious but once again, required another 7 days for optimization. In summation, the “hybrid” system of footers I was now listening to the digital side (1.5M’s under Extreme and Lampi, 1.5v2 under the preamp) resulted in overall improvements that made for the best sound I had to date! I was smiling again for the first time in a long time. I mean months! I don’t pretend to understand why, but using the unusual pairing of the 1.5M under the Extreme and Lampi GG2, and the 1.5v2 under the preamp had dramatically improved the definition and musicality of the deep bass while simultaneously opening the top end so the air or “penumbra” of the hall returned in spades. At the same time, the added resolution, improved dimensionality and control that the M footers had added to the midrange remained unabated. In short, what I heard was paradoxical- the bottom and top opened up yet the midrange had more control. Although it is not offered as a scientific explanation, sonically it seemed as if the Q factor of the bass and top end increased, while the Q of the midrange decreased, especially when pushed hard (which seemed to reduce a bit of “edge” when the system was pushed hard). Quite the conundrum. But I also know what I hear and that’s really the only thing any of us can count on.

to be continued....

Quick question, I don't recall asking before: When you leave town, does the system play or is it shut down. I would assume the latter.......

 

[marty]

Quick question, I don't recall asking before: When you leave town, does the system play or is it shut down. I would assume the latter.......

Yes, it is shut down

 

[joelavrencikCMS]

Yes, it is shut down

Marty

Thank you, as always, for your in-depth assessment. Had I been aware of your extensive travel schedule, I would not have troubled you. I apologize for the frustration I brought upon you. This was not my intention.

I concur. If a system is not settled when shut down for an extended period, regression upon restart is assured. The settling doesn't necessarily restart from the beginning, but the settling period will likely be extended in an unpredictable manner. I have experienced this, and it is even more frustrating if you are not expecting it. But, raising the issue helps everyone, so I thank you for mentioning it as often as you did.

CS2Ms are out for professional review, so I called a few folks to see if they felt there was a loss of air with any of the 2M models. Although, they are not hearing this, nor am I, it doesn’t mean that you are not in your system. The truly gratifying part of your post is that you chose a variety of CS products to elevate your system to a better level of performance. As a manufacturer, this is the outcome most hoped for. This is a great compliment coming from someone as detailed as you. Thank you again for participating.

CS2 just received the HiFi+ Sound Investment Award recognizing innovation in audio that will be published in their milestone 200th issue. CS2 continues to be recognized as a great product and I am proud they have a place in your outstanding system.

I think the 2M series will receive many more awards over time for their ability to help components bring us a few steps closer to that remarkable “suspension of disbelief” that creates reality in high end audio systems.

 

[wil]

Joe, are you saying that the components need to be powered on in order for the settling process to occur? And if that settling process is interrupted at any point before completion, the process regresses?And would that require tube gear to be left on24/7 or just left in stand-by mode?

Wouldn’t the whole delicate settling process be upset by simply removing the footers to do a before/after listening test?

 

[joelavrencikCMS]

Joe, are you saying that the components need to be powered on in order for the settling process to occur? And if that settling process is interrupted at any point before completion, the process regresses?And would that require tube gear to be left on24/7 or just left in stand-by mode?

Wouldn’t the whole delicate settling process be upset by simply removing the footers to do a before/after listening test?

No, seems to be the best answer here. I think this has been addressed many times before. I am not referring to the normal settling process.

I'm addressing the effect of extended downtime upon an unsettled system.

 

[aniwolfe]

HI
Question for this thread.
I have one set of CS2M 1.5 and one set of CS2M 0.8. I own a ARC LS28 Tube Preamp at 18lbs and a Lumin T2 Dac/Streamer at 13lbs. Which component would benefit more from the 1.5 in your opinion? Thank you in advance.

 

[Drpie]

Today I removed Stillpoints Ultra SS under the Classe monoblocks and installed CMS2 1.5. After a minute, the sound of my system was transformed in all aspects. Absolutely everything! It's my birthday in a week, and I'm waiting for another gift from these devices))
My CMS 2M 1.0 is waiting in the queue for the test

 

[Addicted to hifi]

Today I removed Stillpoints Ultra SS under the Classe monoblocks and installed CMS2 1.5. After a minute, the sound of my system was transformed in all aspects. Absolutely everything! It's my birthday in a week, and I'm waiting for another gift from these devices))
My CMS 2M 1.0 is waiting in the queue for the test

thats excellent news.

 

[Steve Williams]

HI
Question for this thread.
I have one set of CS2M 1.5 and one set of CS2M 0.8. I own a ARC LS28 Tube Preamp at 18lbs and a Lumin T2 Dac/Streamer at 13lbs. Which component would benefit more from the 1.5 in your opinion? Thank you in advance.

That's a good question as IMO I would likely use the 0.8 under both. I worry that the weight of your 2 components might be insufficient with the !.5's. Hopefully Joe will chime in. I use 1.5's when the load weight of the component is at least 40 lbs. Perhaps Joe will see this as well and comment

 

[joelavrencikCMS]

HI
Question for this thread.
I have one set of CS2M 1.5 and one set of CS2M 0.8. I own a ARC LS28 Tube Preamp at 18lbs and a Lumin T2 Dac/Streamer at 13lbs. Which component would benefit more from the 1.5 in your opinion? Thank you in advance.

I suggest starting with the dac/streamer for the 1.5s.

 

[joelavrencikCMS]

Today I removed Stillpoints Ultra SS under the Classe monoblocks and installed CMS2 1.5. After a minute, the sound of my system was transformed in all aspects. Absolutely everything! It's my birthday in a week, and I'm waiting for another gift from these devices))
My CMS 2M 1.0 is waiting in the queue for the test

Happy Birthday!!!!

 

[Cyrus]

@joelavrencikCMS

" Do not use CS2M under components with acrylic bottoms or over-damped chassis......AR Re6, ASR, Goldmund,"

I do not believe my T+A SDV 3100 HV chassis is "over-damped" but would like to make sure. Do you have clients using your CS 2M footers successfully under T+A HV components?

Thanks.

 

[Cyrus]

Yes, I would remove the SR. This is not a criticism of the Tbase. My concern is that it is a conflicting technology that will most likely, imo, interfere with CS2.

CS2 works with the component's circuits through direct contact with Its chassis. The Tbase will reach around CS2 and tweak the circuits through dial-determined electromagnetic field forces. Totally different.

It might be good enough to unplug them, but I do not know this for a fact. I wish I could help you more.

Joe: Extending on the above... any additional cautions on using your CS M2 footers with Synergistic Research, in general?

For example: proximity to their cables, grounding solution, etc.?

And specifically, under the SR PowerCell?

Thanks.

 

[Cyrus]

Final question.

Do you recommend using your CS M2 footers on Townshend Platforms? Thank you!