Dave, that is certainly true. A power cord is easier to switch out. And everything we do can potentially change the sound of our systems. The point that I am trying to make is that electronics usually come with power cords. They also come with footers. I would argue that footers and power cords are tweaks, because we can choose to alter the sound of the component we have bought by changing parts of that component that were supplied with it when we bought it. Tubes are similar.
Somehow, speakers, electronics, sources, and signal cables seem different to me. They comprise the fundamental components of an audio system and are all required for the system to function. The system will function without the need to buy aftermarket power cords and footers.
Yes, I agree. I also think systems operate in contexts that can and do impact their operation and success. That it pays to consider the overall system as including the context of operation. Imo, to avoid such is a constraint imposed on evaluation that will limit a system's potential. To simplify I call it 'Infrastructure' but it includes acoustics, power, and vibration management, each of which is a its own wide and deep topic. We get tangled up with semantics about what is a 'tweak' but infrastructure, imo, is not a tweak because a systems context is a necessary aspect of its functioning.
Now Peter that is a challenge which I hadn't even considered.
I need to think about that such is my faith and widely considered opinion about the benefits of aftermarket footers.
Have you tried it?
Well, if you do it, be prepared for an outcome you were not expecting (such as it was when I told you to ditch the footers on your YGs).
Along the way, I've seen and heard things go both ways (improvement/no improvement). I will not be as emphatic as I was with the YGs perhaps, but you definitely should give that a try, to see where things stand with your system.
Barry, footers are a complicated topic. Do they drain away vibrations, do they isolate the component, or do they do both as is described in the CS2 White Paper? I enjoy reading about and contemplating the various theories about footers and hearing my friends try various brands.
I start with the stock footers as a base line and remind myself that this is how the manufacturer and designer tested his component and is presenting it for sale. One can experiment with aftermarket alternatives once he knows well the sound of his system. I find that footers usually change the sound and that one must reevaluate these and other tweaks after a major component change.
Currently I use air isolation under all of my components which sit on their stock footers. Each time I deflate or remove the air isolation, I lose some naturalness and energy from the sound of my system. I am now trying to apply those same standards to my power cord and cable experiments.
Barry, footers are a complicated topic. Do they drain away vibrations, do they isolate the component, or do they do both as is described in the CS2 White Paper? I enjoy reading about and contemplating the various theories about footers and hearing my friends try various brands.
I start with the stock footers as a base line and remind myself that this is how the manufacturer and designer tested his component and is presenting it for sale. One can experiment with aftermarket alternatives once he knows well the sound of his system. I find that footers usually change the sound and that one must reevaluate these and other tweaks after a major component change.
Currently I use air isolation under all of my components which sit on their stock footers. Each time I deflate or remove the air isolation, I lose some naturalness and energy from the sound of my system. I am now trying to apply those same standards to my power cord and cable experiments.
Peter, I suggest you do yourself a great disservice when you consider stock footers as your base for performance. Stock footers have been around for as long as components have been designed. And to the best of my knowledge were designed/installed for no other reason than to keep from scratching / marring the furniture underneath.
Moreover, I suggest you also do yourself great disservice by presuming that any designer / manufacturer knows more than you when it comes to superior methods of vibration management.
Well, if you do it, be prepared for an outcome you were not expecting (such as it was when I told you to ditch the footers on your YGs).
Along the way, I've seen and heard things go both ways (improvement/no improvement). I will not be as emphatic as I was with the YGs perhaps, but you definitely should give that a try, to see where things stand with your system.
Barry, footers are a complicated topic. Do they drain away vibrations, do they isolate the component, or do they do both as is described in the CS2 White Paper? I enjoy reading about and contemplating the various theories about footers and hearing my friends try various brands.
I start with the stock footers as a base line and remind myself that this is how the manufacturer and designer tested his component and is presenting it for sale. One can experiment with aftermarket alternatives once he knows well the sound of his system. I find that footers usually change the sound and that one must reevaluate these and other tweaks after a major component change.
Currently I use air isolation under all of my components which sit on their stock footers. Each time I deflate or remove the air isolation, I lose some naturalness and energy from the sound of my system. I am now trying to apply those same standards to my power cord and cable experiments.
Thanks Peter
On the whole I am now satisfied with my existing use of footers.
I may be tempted to dip my toes in the water with the CMS footers under my amp but will see.
Peter, I suggest you do yourself a great disservice when you consider stock footers as your base for performance. Stock footers have been around for as long as components have been designed. And to the best of my knowledge were designed/installed for no other reason than to keep from scratching / marring the furniture underneath.
Moreover, I suggest you also do yourself great disservice by presuming that any designer / manufacturer knows more than you when it comes to superior methods of vibration management.
Not sure what is meant by always changing. But my point was that there is zero performance in the traditional stock footers. The same type of footers under a toaster or a blender and were designed only to protect the furniture underneath. Hardly what I'd consider a sufficient base to draw from. No footers would be a better base as a starting perspective. But they are all too common so by default they already are a base.
Peter, I suggest you do yourself a great disservice when you consider stock footers as your base for performance. Stock footers have been around for as long as components have been designed. And to the best of my knowledge were designed/installed for no other reason than to keep from scratching / marring the furniture underneath.
Moreover, I suggest you also do yourself great disservice by presuming that any designer / manufacturer knows more than you when it comes to superior methods of vibration management.
What would you start with as a base line from which to experiment if not the stock footers on which the component was voiced by the designer? By switching out the footers, you are changing the sound of the component as designed and delivered to the customer. I am all for experimenting and I am not saying one can not improve the performance with after market footers, I'm just saying that that is my starting point. In what way is it a disservice?
Thank you for clarifying - I remember when you did.
"Refused" is a rich, pointed term as if I was crazy to decline the offer. Honestly, I don't want to spend $9k on feet as much bigger sonic priorities are on the horizon (see my speaker thread).
I was interested in feet a few years ago and have sets of Wave Kinetics and Aurios at my home (considerably less expensive than CS). I subsequently did an audition including a half dozen different footers at a friends house under his DAC - I find the effect exaggerated by most here. In fact in my demo of 6, most had very little or no effect and others were even deleterious to sound. Therefore, I left the footer arena for greener pastures.
Keith, I have a better suggestion. You find another pr spkrs to replace the pr you replaced yr Zus with. And I'll still be v happy w mine. Whatcha think?
I was hoping you wouldn't notice. But you still said no multiple times when asked. So given your comments here, it seems you've drawn certain conclusions about footers and their potential limitations and chose instead to move on to other things. Regardless what new designs may be around the corner.
I was interested in feet a few years ago and have sets of Wave Kinetics and Aurios at my home (considerably less expensive than CS). I subsequently did an audition including a half dozen different footers at a friends house under his DAC - I find the effect exaggerated by most here. In fact in my demo of 6, most had very little or no effect and others were even deleterious to sound. Therefore, I left the footer arena for greener pastures.
That's good to hear, KeithR. However, I wouldn't exactly call the Wave Kinetics or Aurios the cat's meow. IOW, I'd hate to see you potentially throw the baby out with the bathwater. If you purchased 2 interfior amps back to back, would you call it quits on amps?
Have you ever tried just some simple straight-forward steel spikes/cones that actually screw into the chassis and speakers? Not that spikes / cones would necessarily be all that much of an improvement by themselves because your rack type also matters a great deal, as would a few other things. I tried stessing earlier that mechanical energy mgmt is really an all or nothing matter before large and potentially huge gains can be made.
What would you start with as a base line from which to experiment if not the stock footers on which the component was voiced by the designer? By switching out the footers, you are changing the sound of the component as designed and delivered to the customer. I am all for experimenting and I am not saying one can not improve the performance with after market footers, I'm just saying that that is my starting point. In what way is it a disservice?
Good point, Peter. I just interpreted your statement about using stock footers as your base / starting point as something you considered a positive. Sorry.
But I would suggest forgetting all about a designer's voicing a product using stock footers. I know many do and IMO they are closet morons for doing so. This practice may have been sufficient enough 20 years ago but not today.
You are correct to some extent when you say "you are changing the sound of the component. And if it's for the better, thank goodness, right? Otherwise, are you implying nobody should touch a thing because this is the config the designer used to "voice" his product? What if it's a tube and he chose what you already know to be the worst performing tube? Would you not instinctively wanna' upgrade to tubes you knew were far superior?
But again, I think it's important to note that too many designers and manufacturers suffer from the same shortcomings and limitation many consumers suffer. Often times their ability to discern what they hear is no better than ours. Their thoughts on peripheral matters (matters outside their expertise) like superior AC filtering techniques and superior vibration mgmt techniques are all over the map just like ours.
For example. I know one well-regarded component designer who among other things considered himself an expert with vibration mgmt. His testing for vibration mgmt was limited to his flicking the top plate with his middle finger and he called it the "ding" test. Well, I was not about to remain quiet with that one so I suggested he should rename it the "ding-a-ling" test.
Good point, Peter. I just interpreted your statement about using stock footers as your base / starting point as something you considered a positive. Sorry.
But I would suggest forgetting all about a designer's voicing a product using stock footers. I know many do and IMO they are closet morons for doing so. This practice may have been sufficient enough 20 years ago but not today.
You are correct to some extent when you say "you are changing the sound of the component. And if it's for the better, thank goodness, right? Otherwise, are you implying nobody should touch a thing because this is the config the designer used to "voice" his product? What if it's a tube and he chose what you already know to be the worst performing tube? Would you not instinctively wanna' upgrade to tubes you knew were far superior?
But again, I think it's important to note that too many designers and manufacturers suffer from the same shortcomings and limitation many consumers suffer. Often times their ability to discern what they hear is no better than ours. Their thoughts on peripheral matters (matters outside their expertise) like superior AC filtering techniques and superior vibration mgmt techniques are all over the map just like ours.
For example. I know one well-regarded component designer who among other things considered himself an expert with vibration mgmt. His testing for vibration mgmt was limited to his flicking the top plate with his middle finger and he called it the "ding" test. Well, I was not about to remain quiet with that one so I suggested he should rename it the "ding-a-ling" test.
Stehno, I shutter to think how you would have responded if I had written that I use Stillpoints, Aurios, or Wave Kinetics as my base line footer. I suspect they all change the sound slightly so how do we have some reference point from which to start evaluating the sound of the product? I can't imagine simply inserting some aftermarket footer before listening to the gear "as is" first. It would be like asking the weight staff person to add salt or pepper or fresh parmesan cheese before you have even tasted the meal.
Seriously, how would you suggest we get started with this very complex topic of footers or vibration control if we don't start with the component as it arrives in our house ?
I acknowledge that designers may not know as much as you about vibration management, but some do make some serious attempts at addressing it. Just look at all of the different solutions offered by turntable designers. Apparently, Solution or some company will start shipping product with the Center Stage 2 footers as standard. I wonder if people will experiment further with those.
On the righty see one red point,this had the maximo density,we had also with green and yellow point with low and medium density,this in 1989
We already were crazy
Anything that removes corruption of the audio signal such as micro vibration will be in the right direction improving total clarity and focus ect. Is it a tweak or just a better understanding of how to improve the whole reproduction of sound. I always look for the most efficient method....very happy. BTW there are some manufacturers that overthink what is needed to accomplish a un corrupted audio signal....very inefficient and expensive.
Are footers a tweak or just improved re engineering?
