Lampizator with RevOPods?
- Thread starter pk_LA
- Start date
I rarely get enthusiastic about posting my experience with tweaks anymore because I think that such preferences are not always translatable to something that is useful or informative for other readers. That’s also a nice way of saying…nobody really cares anyway! But this post involved an observation that I thought might be worth passing along, so here goes.
I’ve been a long time user of CMS footers under my Lampi Horizon 360. In fact I use them under my preamp, Taiko Olympus server and Meitner SACD player as well. For reasons I can’t explain, they don’t work well under my Zanden 1200 MkIV phono stage sitting squarely on a Rix Rack but I can assure you it’s not because I haven’t tried.
Like many others, I found the CMS footers to be a wonderful addition as they provided performance benefits that many others have also found; namely improvements in bass performance, imaging, and an elusive sense of “immersion”, although that attribute is a bit harder to explain than experience. However, I’ve long had an interest in learning what an active suspension such as a TMC, Herzan or Accurion might bring to the listening experience and after years of wondering, I finally decided to scratch that itch and buy a like-new Herzan T-150 at a very attractive price (under 5K). I’ll cut to the quick as this post is not about the Herzan. Much to my surprise, I found the addition of the T-150 a very mixed experience that was ultimately not satisfying. On the plus side, the resultant effect on the mids and top end actually had some minor benefit in a bringing a tad more (and here is where words don’t quite serve as good descriptors) clarity and calmness to the images within the soundfield. The detriment, was that the bass response was negatively impacted. It wasn’t necessarily deficient in frequency response but rather, more of a liability on the dynamics, particularly of the low bass. Low bass transient information just seemed a bit off as if the immediacy of the transients were just a step removed from the impact a real instrument would be capable of delivering. In a nutshell, the Herzan detracted rather than added to the overall experience. The good news is that I bought the product knowing it was returnable, which is exactly what did. But the experience was useful because I learned not only something important (i.e. the Herzan T-150 didn’t work for me), but discovered something I didn’t know previously; namely, that although the 1.5” CMS footers were excellent, particularly in the bass regions, it seemed that there was still some room to improve upon their performance in the mids and highs. This was something I never considered until I heard what the Herzan T-150 brought to the party in those areas.
And so I was left to ponder- why did the Herzan improve the mids and highs and was there perhaps another way to skin that cat that didn’t have the bass liabilities that limited my enthusiasm of the Herzan? (I used the Herzan on a ¾” inch stainless slab and used the CMS footers directly on the Herzan top plate to support the Lampi on top of the CMS footers.). In thinking about the piezo electric mechanism of the Herzan, it was obvious, especially looking at the built-in scope on the Herzan T-150 front panel, that the device is active in the X, Y (Herzan calls these H1 and H2) and Z planes (Herzan calls this Vertical) but with reasonable SPL from the speakers, it was easy to see that the physical deformations were most vigorous in the vertical plane as compared the X and Y planes. It made some sense to consider whether the T-150 was therefore most effective in decreasing resonances in the X and Y plane, and less so in the vertical (Z) plane? If that were indeed the case I then wondered, would a device that is thought to be more effective in damping vibrations in the horizontal planes (such as the numerous rollerball, Still Points, etc) be something I might add to supplement the CMS footers so that I could gain that slight benefit in the mids and top end, without loosing the exceptional bass response of the CMS footers (that I presume work most efficiently in the vertical plane)? Well, it took a while but now you can see we’re finally returning to the relevant topic of this thread. Enter the RevOPods.
I thought that the RevoPods, which appear to be designed to reduce vibration in the X, Y and Z planes, might be somewhat effective, particularly for what they do in the X and Y planes. If they were not detrimental to the excellent bass that the CMS footers provided, might this combination ultimately prove beneficial? It didn’t take long to find out. I placed 3 RevOPods under the stainless slab (which normally rests on a 1.25” thick synthetic marble slab), while the CMS footers supported the Lampi resting on top of the stainless slab. In short, I am currently very impressed with the synergy of the combination. The bass is excellent and certainly not inferior to what the CMS footers offer by themselves. What did improve, much to my delight, was that the midrange and top end clarity was ever-so slightly improved from the sound I enjoyed with the CMS footers alone. A reduction of something pernicious that never really bothered me previously was now quite apparent and its absence is very beneficial sonically. Is the damping in the XY planes by the RevOpods the reason for the improvements I hypothesized based on the slight benefit I heard in these areas with the Herzan T-150? As a scientist, it’s always nice to assume that a good experimental outcome is for the reasons one suspected. But honestly, I have no idea. No damn idea at all! What I do know is that this was a clear demonstration that using 2 different footer devices that each work differently, was a very useful and cost effective addition on my system. In retrospect, I’m hard pressed to name another improvement in SQ that was as cost effective as this one in the big rig. Actually, any day that delivers this kind SQ benefit at a modest cost is a good day. I just wish there were more of them.
I’ve been a long time user of CMS footers under my Lampi Horizon 360. In fact I use them under my preamp, Taiko Olympus server and Meitner SACD player as well. For reasons I can’t explain, they don’t work well under my Zanden 1200 MkIV phono stage sitting squarely on a Rix Rack but I can assure you it’s not because I haven’t tried.
Like many others, I found the CMS footers to be a wonderful addition as they provided performance benefits that many others have also found; namely improvements in bass performance, imaging, and an elusive sense of “immersion”, although that attribute is a bit harder to explain than experience. However, I’ve long had an interest in learning what an active suspension such as a TMC, Herzan or Accurion might bring to the listening experience and after years of wondering, I finally decided to scratch that itch and buy a like-new Herzan T-150 at a very attractive price (under 5K). I’ll cut to the quick as this post is not about the Herzan. Much to my surprise, I found the addition of the T-150 a very mixed experience that was ultimately not satisfying. On the plus side, the resultant effect on the mids and top end actually had some minor benefit in a bringing a tad more (and here is where words don’t quite serve as good descriptors) clarity and calmness to the images within the soundfield. The detriment, was that the bass response was negatively impacted. It wasn’t necessarily deficient in frequency response but rather, more of a liability on the dynamics, particularly of the low bass. Low bass transient information just seemed a bit off as if the immediacy of the transients were just a step removed from the impact a real instrument would be capable of delivering. In a nutshell, the Herzan detracted rather than added to the overall experience. The good news is that I bought the product knowing it was returnable, which is exactly what did. But the experience was useful because I learned not only something important (i.e. the Herzan T-150 didn’t work for me), but discovered something I didn’t know previously; namely, that although the 1.5” CMS footers were excellent, particularly in the bass regions, it seemed that there was still some room to improve upon their performance in the mids and highs. This was something I never considered until I heard what the Herzan T-150 brought to the party in those areas.
And so I was left to ponder- why did the Herzan improve the mids and highs and was there perhaps another way to skin that cat that didn’t have the bass liabilities that limited my enthusiasm of the Herzan? (I used the Herzan on a ¾” inch stainless slab and used the CMS footers directly on the Herzan top plate to support the Lampi on top of the CMS footers.). In thinking about the piezo electric mechanism of the Herzan, it was obvious, especially looking at the built-in scope on the Herzan T-150 front panel, that the device is active in the X, Y (Herzan calls these H1 and H2) and Z planes (Herzan calls this Vertical) but with reasonable SPL from the speakers, it was easy to see that the physical deformations were most vigorous in the vertical plane as compared the X and Y planes. It made some sense to consider whether the T-150 was therefore most effective in decreasing resonances in the X and Y plane, and less so in the vertical (Z) plane? If that were indeed the case I then wondered, would a device that is thought to be more effective in damping vibrations in the horizontal planes (such as the numerous rollerball, Still Points, etc) be something I might add to supplement the CMS footers so that I could gain that slight benefit in the mids and top end, without loosing the exceptional bass response of the CMS footers (that I presume work most efficiently in the vertical plane)? Well, it took a while but now you can see we’re finally returning to the relevant topic of this thread. Enter the RevOPods.
I thought that the RevoPods, which appear to be designed to reduce vibration in the X, Y and Z planes, might be somewhat effective, particularly for what they do in the X and Y planes. If they were not detrimental to the excellent bass that the CMS footers provided, might this combination ultimately prove beneficial? It didn’t take long to find out. I placed 3 RevOPods under the stainless slab (which normally rests on a 1.25” thick synthetic marble slab), while the CMS footers supported the Lampi resting on top of the stainless slab. In short, I am currently very impressed with the synergy of the combination. The bass is excellent and certainly not inferior to what the CMS footers offer by themselves. What did improve, much to my delight, was that the midrange and top end clarity was ever-so slightly improved from the sound I enjoyed with the CMS footers alone. A reduction of something pernicious that never really bothered me previously was now quite apparent and its absence is very beneficial sonically. Is the damping in the XY planes by the RevOpods the reason for the improvements I hypothesized based on the slight benefit I heard in these areas with the Herzan T-150? As a scientist, it’s always nice to assume that a good experimental outcome is for the reasons one suspected. But honestly, I have no idea. No damn idea at all! What I do know is that this was a clear demonstration that using 2 different footer devices that each work differently, was a very useful and cost effective addition on my system. In retrospect, I’m hard pressed to name another improvement in SQ that was as cost effective as this one in the big rig. Actually, any day that delivers this kind SQ benefit at a modest cost is a good day. I just wish there were more of them.
Last edited:
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Co-Owner, Administrator
Center Stage footers work best on CMS platforms IMHO. They were designed to work together. Just my $-0.02 of course as my entire system is supported on Center Stage footers standing on CMS platforms. TBH I don't hear the deficiencies that you were hearing with Center Stage alone.
Thank you so much for this! Now, so I get this right...
You have:
Ground plane (marble) -> CMS footers -> stainless plate -> RevoPods -> H360 ?
From the bottom up....
Wood shelf, marble slab, 3 RevOPods, Stainless plate, 4 CMS footers, H360.
Like so many things in this hobby, we often don’t know there is something sonically better (not just different) until we come across it. I wouldn’t use the word “deficient” to characterize the sound of the CMS footers, which is excellent. But that doesn’t mean it can’t be bettered. I can't speak for others as I do not use CMS platforms, but in my specific installation, it was bettered by the addition of RevOPods.
I’m sure many of us had the same experience I had in which we thought the Lampi H360 sounded just divine in its latest incarnation using a good USB cable to receive music from a server until the XDMI interface came along, which we all agree is a game changer that once heard, can’t be unheard.
Audiophilia is a hobby that perfectly encapsulates Thomas Gray's 1742 poem "Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College," where he wrote "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise".
I am going to try a couple different options. I will report on them once in place.
1) A mechanical isolation platform.
2) A pneumatic isolation platform (need to confirm that I can get away with a compressed air tank instead of a compressor - I have large compressor in my garage to refill a tank)
1) A mechanical isolation platform.
2) A pneumatic isolation platform (need to confirm that I can get away with a compressed air tank instead of a compressor - I have large compressor in my garage to refill a tank)
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |