…
If the bar to accept your invitation is to prove I have listening skills the equal of yours, you may as well join Amir in whatever thread he posts in next issuing challenges to any who critique his thinking via ABX tests he’s already “passed”. The conceit is, if I hear what you hear, then you get to hold onto your existing world-view and can make the assumption I have “interpretative listening skills” and understand what “real performance” is. If I don’t, then you get to dismiss me as having skills deficient such that I cannot appreciate how good your product is. As far as holding onto your existing world-view as Amir is wont to do, that seems pretty convenient, right?
I cannot, no. Only a subjectively perceptual one. However, I do know a little about the systemic, algorithmic and methodological testing that SRA, CMS and HRS do that is objectively evaluated. That they manage to propagate that information without denigrating their competition is worth something to me, but perhaps not to you.
You seem to have a gift for obfuscating.
So you won’t be sending me a pm. Now there’s a shock.
The conceit lies with the one who speaks knows nothing about the other or what they’ve accomplished. The conceit lies with the pseudo science type who thinks a lack of real evidence invalidates a claim. I never said you had to prove anything, never said anything about you having listening skills equal to me, etc. That’s just more of your straw man arguments that seems so second nature to you.
But as I suspected here’s the tin-ear dead giveaway once again. I only suggested it would be a good time to consider any developed listening skills so you wouldn’t waste your time or mine as you appear wont to do. That’s a good practice and reminder for any of us especially if one is going to evaluate a product or system.
But really I just made that comment to let you know I already suspected you possessed no such developed listening skills. For if you had a clue of the high percentage of those in possession of no developed listening skills and the damage it’s brought to the high-end audio sector, you most likely would have appreciated the fact that I made mention of it or at least interpreted my comment in a different light. The fact that you couldn't comprehend my cautionary note or why I would even feel the need to state that leads me to believe that you’ve not the foggiest what I meant. Which is what I expected.
As for my 2010 claims, of course I stand by them. Why wouldn’t I? All that I said in 2010 was true then and it’s even more true today. You got that off of my outdated website. That’s one of perhaps 15 or 16 benefits I listed in my “state of the industry" web page I believe. You know what’s funny? I actually had a more complete list of I think 32 or 33 significant benefits but I knew even then that many/most wouldn’t believe it, so I cut in half. I wrote that in 2010. Today, I could probably easily add another 10 – 15 benefits over that original 32 – 33. In other words, anything I wrote in 2010 I certainly stand behind then and especially today. Is that clear enough for you?
BTW, not that it matters but you’ve not offered a single valid comment in response to the OP’s question But you’ve made it clear you’ve been racking shopping. Why not share with everybody your findings thus far? I know I’d be very interested to here about it. Maybe others would be too. Shoot. Who wouldn’t want to hear from intellectually honest and scientifically robust in-person performance gent such as yourself?
I suspect you're exposing your pseudo science skills. Where’s the denigration? Just more straw man arguments. All I said in response to the OP’s question was that I disagree with their methods and that the mfg’ers most likely are acting on faith in their designs.
I never said why and nobody asked why. But if you knew anything about the several vibration controlling methodologies, their intended purposes, their requirements, the materials and executions and joinery required for each method, you would notice that their words are in conflict with their designs. This seems to be true with the majority of vibration isolation product mfg'ers.
To substantiate my point, Jack mentioned a few weeks back in another thread that CMS is now migrating away from the isolation methodology. The very methodology that they’ve adhered to in word perhaps since they opened for business, they are now migrating away from. What does that tell you about your so-called systemic, algorithmic, and methodological testing of CMS?
Kinda’ throws your pseudo science crap right out the window doesn’t it?
But enough about me. Let’s talk about your accomplishments. Let's start from the beginning. What’s your real name again?
You seem to have a gift for obfuscating.
So you won’t be sending me a pm. Now there’s a shock.
The conceit lies with the one who speaks knows nothing about the other or what they’ve accomplished. The conceit lies with the pseudo science type who thinks a lack of real evidence invalidates a claim. I never said you had to prove anything, never said anything about you having listening skills equal to me, etc. That’s just more of your straw man arguments that seems so second nature to you.
But as I suspected here’s the tin-ear dead giveaway once again. I only suggested it would be a good time to consider any developed listening skills so you wouldn’t waste your time or mine as you appear wont to do. That’s a good practice and reminder for any of us especially if one is going to evaluate a product or system.
But really I just made that comment to let you know I already suspected you possessed no such developed listening skills. For if you had a clue of the high percentage of those in possession of no developed listening skills and the damage it’s brought to the high-end audio sector, you most likely would have appreciated the fact that I made mention of it or at least interpreted my comment in a different light. The fact that you couldn't comprehend my cautionary note or why I would even feel the need to state that leads me to believe that you’ve not the foggiest what I meant. Which is what I expected.
As for my 2010 claims, of course I stand by them. Why wouldn’t I? All that I said in 2010 was true then and it’s even more true today. You got that off of my outdated website. That’s one of perhaps 15 or 16 benefits I listed in my “state of the industry" web page I believe. You know what’s funny? I actually had a more complete list of I think 32 or 33 significant benefits but I knew even then that many/most wouldn’t believe it, so I cut in half. I wrote that in 2010. Today, I could probably easily add another 10 – 15 benefits over that original 32 – 33. In other words, anything I wrote in 2010 I certainly stand behind then and especially today. Is that clear enough for you?
BTW, not that it matters but you’ve not offered a single valid comment in response to the OP’s question But you’ve made it clear you’ve been racking shopping. Why not share with everybody your findings thus far? I know I’d be very interested to here about it. Maybe others would be too. Shoot. Who wouldn’t want to hear from intellectually honest and scientifically robust in-person performance gent such as yourself?
I suspect you're exposing your pseudo science skills. Where’s the denigration? Just more straw man arguments. All I said in response to the OP’s question was that I disagree with their methods and that the mfg’ers most likely are acting on faith in their designs.
I never said why and nobody asked why. But if you knew anything about the several vibration controlling methodologies, their intended purposes, their requirements, the materials and executions and joinery required for each method, you would notice that their words are in conflict with their designs. This seems to be true with the majority of vibration isolation product mfg'ers.
To substantiate my point, Jack mentioned a few weeks back in another thread that CMS is now migrating away from the isolation methodology. The very methodology that they’ve adhered to in word perhaps since they opened for business, they are now migrating away from. What does that tell you about your so-called systemic, algorithmic, and methodological testing of CMS?
Kinda’ throws your pseudo science crap right out the window doesn’t it?
But enough about me. Let’s talk about your accomplishments. Let's start from the beginning. What’s your real name again?
Marketing BS aside, anyone sonically compare these 2 brands? Anyone understand the engineering claims?
Or are people who are buying these operating purely on faith?
I would be stunned if anyone has ever A/B'd HRS and CMS in their system to actually compare them. They are both heavy and difficult to set-up so in home demo's are surely not de rigueur. I would be equally surprised if any dealers actually carry both lines and if they did I don't see them setting up the same gear in both set-ups to perform the comparison. So we are left with "faith". Either we believe that they are doing the job or not.
It's a great time to be into this stuff. Choices abound. We should all just be happy.
I would be stunned if anyone has ever A/B'd HRS and CMS in their system to actually compare them. They are both heavy and difficult to set-up so in home demo's are surely not de rigueur. I would be equally surprised if any dealers actually carry both lines and if they did I don't see them setting up the same gear in both set-ups to perform the comparison. So we are left with "faith". Either we believe that they are doing the job or not.
They do look identical. It’s what’s inside
thank you very much for this very interesting report! I don't know anybody else who has compared to how many stand!I have tested in my system:
SRA Scuttle mk.3 rack
Finite Elemente pagode master ref. mk2 amp stands
Critical Mass systems Maxxum amp stands
Critical mass systems Olympus Ultra amp stands
Taiko Daiza
HRS Stand
SRA Virginia class amp stand
For me, so far the best is the CMS Olympus Ultra, but very expensive. I have two for my CH Precison M10 amp.
I am happy with the SRA Scuttle Mk3 rack for my DAC and drivers (preamp). Probably CMS Olympus Ultra (or Maxxum Ultra) would be better
Happy with Finite Element Pagode master ref 2 under my two external crossovers. They were under the M10, but CMS is better
Happy with Taiko Daiza under the Taiko Extreme.
So, I think it is a matter of testing and listening to their effect on each specific component.
Dear Ron,thank you very much for this very interesting report! I don't know anybody else who has compared to how many stand!
Completely predictably I'm going to ask what does "best" mean?
For example, can you please describe for us the sound changes to your system you heard from putting your components on the CMS Olympus Ultra versus from putting your components on the HRS stand?
Dear Ron,
I can describe what I heard, but it was with my specific equipment, with yours it may be different, so you have to try yourself.
I tried the HRS under the Taiko and there was a tonal shift, which to me did not seem as correctly balanced bass/mid/highs, I preferred the Taiko Daisa. Also preferred the Daisa vs. Pagode.
I preferred the Pagode under the CH M10 vs the Taiko Daiza, the Pagode improved the voices, with more body. However, the CMS Olympus Ultra is much better under the CH M10 two boxes, it improves voices, imaging, detail, and more natural timbre.
The FE Pagode seems to improve voices under any equipment, without negative effects of any type.
The SRA Scuttle mk3 rack improved detail and soundstage with the DAC and preamp. You have to specify the weight of the equipment that goes on each shelf so they send shelf supports for those specific weights. If you change equipment, it is cheap to order new supports.
Cheers
Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |