Confessions of an Audiophile Junky-I Got Center Stage With Pitch Perfect Sound

[DaveyF]

Another question...why would an isolation device...like these CS's, sound bad in the first place???
That makes no sense to me whatsoever. They should sound better than no isolation from the git go...and perhaps only get better as time goes by...although I am failing to see the mechanism that allows this to happen.

 

[Steve Williams]

Another question...why would an isolation device...like these CS's, sound bad in the first place???
That makes no sense to me whatsoever. They should sound better than no isolation from the git go...and perhaps only get better as time goes by...although I am failing to see the mechanism that allows this to happen.

you are indeed Davey

Try a set and then comment rather than making upfront suggestions based on nothing relevant or personal experience

 

[Steve Williams]

This break in is a curious thing. How are they able to get them to sound good at shows if they only have a couple of days to allow them to break in? I had thought I read up thread that once a set is broken in, if it is moved to another component, then the break in is not the full 8 or so days but substantially shorter. Is this true? I wonder what playing music has to do with it. The component's weight and transformers being on I would think would do the trick. I assumed the footers are "settling" or compressing during this break in period. Perhaps something more radical is happening and heat from the component is important to the process.

Peter

For me this is the $64 question as I remain, like you, concerned about insufficient burn in prior to a show

The reality is that 100% of users have made the comment that their system sound terrible for the first several days before the mid range begins to develop and the system opens up.

For people to be confused as to the efficacy or to be a doubter is IMO to be a flat earther. The only way to understand what these do is to do the A-B-A test in their system

 

[Ron Resnick]

Steve, DaveyF is asking one question and you are providing an answer to a different question.

DaveyF asked why the footers do what they do; why do they initially make the stereo system sound terrible.

You are answering those questions by explaining what the footers do (how they make the stereo system sound).

Even if someone inserts the footers into his own system and hears for himself what the footers do, the why questions still remain open.

 

[Steve Williams]

As I said in a reply to PeterA, I wish I knew the answer. I can say that it is universally evident to every user. I have said to everyone to be patient. Some have implied that the change is nothing more than our ears becoming accustomed to the change. To that I reply to do the A-B-A test will quickly disprove that notion

I wasn't trying to be elusive at all Ron. It is something that everyone talks about for the first several days. I know that Joe is purposely remaining somewhat tight lipped about what he says as his patent is pending

 

[Mobiusman]

I am in the process of doing the latest step of an A-B-A-B-A-B with these Center Stage footers, which is another way of saying after being one of the initial field testers for what I have referred to as V1 and then several weeks later V2 (the current production version without the black and white graphics) and now having inserted my final production footers, I can say that I have no doubt about the impact of these footers, even though I do not get aspects of why they work.

I am 68 and have played this audio game since I was 15 and have had some grand systems and a custom built music room, only to going back 13 years ago to my post divorce main system being the CD/radio in 5 year old Maxima and now building a respectable system with Spectral electrons, VPI/ZYX/Lamm analog, ARC digital feed by a highly modified MacMini server, and all going into a pair of Vivid G3's and a pair of JL F113 subs, all connected with MIT top shelf cabling and speaker wire and some Cardas Beyond Clear on the analog side and evolving AC cords. I have used my systems as hiding places, treatment for my OCD, and, when healthy, a vehicle for happiness.

12 days ago I had cancer surgery and have been home recuperating and watching more TV than I care to admit. BTW, during that time I was not listening to much music because I did not "feel" like it, for whatever reason, but I used my system for the TV audio most of the time and sometimes just the Samsung 65" SUHD audio section on days that I was not feeling good at all. 7-5 days ago I started inserting my latest set of Center Stage footers back into my system (it was too much for me to install 16 of them on a single day due to my inability to lift some of my equipment. Yesterday I watched a couple of movies on and off axis on my couch, but found myself raising the volume so that I would be more into what was going on and because it just sounded better than it has for the past couple of months without the footers.

By the end of the day I realized that for the past 2 months I had not enjoyed a movie, plain old Fios on-demand on a good 2 channel system, as much as I had yesterday and that clearly the sound got better during the 4 hours of movie watching. I am not surprised by this finding because this is my third go round with Center Stage footers and I know what their impact is.

If you are truly curious about their impact and willing to spend the money if you like them, then do the trial and put aside your theories to explain what you do not understand and just see if you prefer the impact and if it makes the overall experience more enjoyable. You will know by the third day and for sure by day 7 and kicking yourself for not doing it sooner by day 10.

 

[Steve Williams]

You will know by the third day and for sure by day 7 and kicking yourself for not doing it sooner by day 10.

I totally agree

Get well soon Russ. May music help you in your recovery

 

[microstrip]

Any further update on the set under your DAC?

It is now stable, and IMHO a very positive contribution to the DAC and my system sound. It did not affect the master tape stability and size of soundstage of the Vivaldi, but it looks it added some of the explosiveness of the Metronome system to the DCS - the CenterStage effect is created by better, more natural dynamics in sound, that brings instruments more in front of us. I am particularly sensitive to the quality and continuousness of transients. Movements of the sticks among drums are better delineated, but in a non fatiguing way. The only think I have not confirmed yet is the deep bass performance.

It is different from any change we can make to our system - my only analogy would be letting a quality class A SS system warm-up for a few days. Surely the feet that came to my system will stay - every time a play a different recording it seems to have something new.

Considering the DCS digital system I am only using the footers under the DAC , perhaps I will try a spare set under the transport.

 

[microstrip]

(...) DaveyF asked why the footers do what they do; why do they initially make the stereo system sound terrible. (...)

As far as I remember no one has provided an acceptable explanation for burn-in in any tweaks, why should we expect that these footers will be different?

 

[Ron Resnick]

As I said in a reply to PeterA, I wish I knew the answer. I can say that it is universally evident to every user. I have said to everyone to be patient. Some have implied that the change is nothing more than our ears becoming accustomed to the change. To that I reply to do the A-B-A test will quickly disprove that notion

I wasn't trying to be elusive at all Ron. It is something that everyone talks about for the first several days. I know that Joe is purposely remaining somewhat tight lipped about what he says as his patent is pending

I did not think at all that you were trying to be elusive. I hoped only to suggest why there was a gap in mutual understanding.

 

[JackD201]

Another question...why would an isolation device...like these CS's, sound bad in the first place???
That makes no sense to me whatsoever. They should sound better than no isolation from the git go...and perhaps only get better as time goes by...although I am failing to see the mechanism that allows this to happen.

I suspect it partially has some relation to why it takes a phono cartridge coincidentally about the same hours of use to settle in.

In my experience only fully rigid couplers need no settling time. Well, those and couplers where the "soft" parts are not load bearing.

Note* My experience is based on trying out a whole bunch of stuff starting with vibrapods and eventually going on to carry 3 companies that take 3 different approaches for their coupling products, TechDAS (rigid - FEA), Townshend (Highly Compliant - Sprung-Pneumatic), CMS (hybrid CLD) .

 

[DaveyF]

Steve, DaveyF is asking one question and you are providing an answer to a different question.

DaveyF asked why the footers do what they do; why do they initially make the stereo system sound terrible.

You are answering those questions by explaining what the footers do (how they make the stereo system sound).

Even if someone inserts the footers into his own system and hears for himself what the footers do, the why questions still remain open.

Ron, you are exactly correct. I am questioning why the footers would sound bad in the first place. So far, I have seen no plausible reason for this.
Jack, no cartridges that I am aware of sound bad when new and first installed...assuming of course that the installation has some merit. While these very same cartridges may well sound better after a few hours of burn in, that is entirely attributable to the suspension settling in. OTOH, the CS footers are apparently ’unlistenable’ until some amount of break in has occurred. It is this ‘unlistenability’ that I am failing to comprehend.
With my Combax Harmonix footers inserted there is an instant increase in SQ, very noticeable and easily heard ( and they certainly don’t make the sound worse than no isolation footers at all!) Like all decent isolation devices, the better the isolation, the more immediate the increase in SQ. So, when the ‘CS’ devices initially rob the system in regards to SQ, I question why this would be....??
Steve, don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that the ‘CS’ devices don’t work well as isolation devices, since I have not heard them, I cannot say that; but as Ron pointed out...so far nobody has been able to supply any of us with a logical( or for that matter ‘scientific’) reason as to why they a) work at all ( at least any better than any other competent isolation device) and b) require the break in period that you state, while sounding terrible until that point is reached!
I hope you now can see my point....

 

[Steve Williams]

Ron, you are exactly correct. I am questioning why the footers would sound bad in the first place. So far, I have seen no plausible reason for this.
Jack, no cartridges that I am aware of sound bad when new and first installed...assuming of course that the installation has some merit. While these very same cartridges may well sound better after a few hours of burn in, that is entirely attributable to the suspension settling in. OTOH, the CS footers are apparently ’unlistenable’ until some amount of break in has occurred. It is this ‘unlistenability’ that I am failing to comprehend.
With my Combax Harmonix footers inserted there is an instant increase in SQ, very noticeable and easily heard. Like all decent isolation devices, the better the isolation, the more immediate the increase in SQ. So, when the ‘CS’ devices initially rob the system in regards to SQ, I question why this would be....??
Steve, don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that the ‘CS’ devices don’t work well as isolation devices, since I have not heard them, I cannot say that; but as Ron pointed out...so far nobody has been able to supply any of us with a logical( or for that matter ‘scientific’) reason as to why they a) work at all ( at least any better than any other competent isolation device) and b) require the break in period that you state, while sounding terrible until that point is reached!
I hope you now can see my point....

I hope you can see mine

we are talking in circles. There is a reason for this occurrence Davey and as I stated Joe's patent is pending and he is keeping his secret tight to the hip for obvious reasons. I do know that early in his posts he did suggest the mode of action based on different metals and their interactions. I'm not the scientist Davey, nor are you but I can assure you that the first few days of one's system sounding far from usual is the norm.

Every foot available today seems to be a variation of some old techniques but just rebadged. I can tell you in my search that there isn't another foot in the market that is based on the same principles of Joe
I do remember when I owned Audio Research gear that it always sounded good right out of the box but then very quickly muddied up for the next 100 or so hours until burned in. Can you explain to me Davey why that is so?

 

[DaveyF]

I hope you can see mine

we are talking in circles. There is a reason for this occurrence Davey and as I stated Joe's patent is pending and he is keeping his secret tight to the hip for obvious reasons. I do know that early in his posts he did suggest the mode of action based on different metals and their interactions. I'm not the scientist Davey, nor are you but I can assure you that the first few days of one's system sounding far from usual is the norm.

Every foot available today seems to be a variation of some old techniques but just rebadged. I can tell you in my search that there isn't another foot in the market that is based on the same principles of Joe
I do remember when I owned Audio Research gear that it always sounded good right out of the box but then very quickly muddied up for the next 100 or so hours until burned in. Can you explain to me Davey why that is so?

Well Steve, in regards to ARC sounding good right out of the box...and then being muddied up, this does make some sense...from a psycho acoustic perspective. The new item is pulling all of our ‘expectation bias’ receptors...and so it sounds good....( when in reality, it probably really doesn’t, and to those who don’t have the same bias...doesn’t sound that great). However, once the piece has ‘burnt in’ and the caps have stabilized etc., the piece typically sounds better! (Hopefully,lol )
Unfortunately, your ‘CS’ footers apparently sound terrible right out of the box....I guess regardless of expectation ‘bias’!
While I respect the fact that Joe wants to keep his design, shall we say ‘under wraps’ at the moment, since he does not yet have a patent, so far I have failed to comprehend his scant reasonings....particularly in reference to the 2nd law of Thermodynamics!!

 

[JackD201]

Jack, no cartridges that I am aware of sound bad when new and first installed...assuming of course that the installation has some merit. While these very same cartridges may well sound better after a few hours of burn in, that is entirely attributable to the suspension settling in. OTOH, the CS footers are apparently ’unlistenable’ until some amount of break in has occurred. It is this ‘unlistenability’ that I am failing to comprehend.

I have a feeling the footers sounding really bad out of the box is overstated. I'll know for sure when I get my sets. Joe says much the same thing about settling time for the filter shelves and while they do improve over time as the layers settle they were never "unlistenable". I chalk this down to Joe being more cautious. It's the same way for carts and suspension. MMs and high compliance MCs settle in faster but man missing bass surely happens with mid and low compliance carts. A few hours the bass is there probably because the carts are now tracking better but more like 50+ for everything to really gel and get the grittiness out too. It would take forever on the AF1 until I realized that with the vacuum system in play the cart suspensions weren't getting flexed so I now run them in with vacuum off. It's not a case of being bad but rather having them at their best. It is common for me for example to lower the VTF over time when the suspensions are no longer too stiff from being brand new or being unused for very extended periods of time.

 

[PeterA]

Well Steve, in regards to ARC sounding good right out of the box...and then being muddied up, this does make some sense...from a psycho acoustic perspective. The new item is pulling all of our ‘expectation bias’ receptors...and so it sounds good....( when in reality, it probably really doesn’t, and to those who don’t have the same bias...doesn’t sound that great). However, once the piece has ‘burnt in’ and the caps have stabilized etc., the piece typically sounds better! (Hopefully,lol )
Unfortunately, your ‘CS’ footers apparently sound terrible right out of the box....I guess regardless of expectation ‘bias’!
While I respect the fact that Joe wants to keep his design, shall we say ‘under wraps’ at the moment, since he does not yet have a patent, so far I have failed to comprehend his scant reasonings....particularly in reference to the 2nd law of Thermodynamics!!

Davey, here is my theory based on knowing nothing about these footers. When the footers are initially inserted under the equipment, something about their design and construction actually causes the vibrations that are meant to be drained away from the component instead are actually being reflected back into the component, in effect, compounding the problem. The stock footers either isolated or drained vibrations and there was a certain base line performance and sound. Inserting these CS footers make the sound worse because vibrations are not being isolated or drained initially. Whatever the design is, it needs time to settle. Perhaps the various mysterious materials require time to settle and reform so that their properties don't reflect back vibrational energy, but rather drain the energy away by forming a drainage path. It may be pressure, temperature, or some combination of the two, but something is probably happening with the basic form of the composition of the materials and how energy moves through it. That is my best guess, not being at all technically oriented, as to why the actually sound worse than the stock footers initially and then, after sufficient settling time, eventually work as designed and then sound better than the stock footers.

The analogy I know from construction experience is this. Imagine stacking the raw materials needed for concrete in a stack or pile. The bags or piles of aggregate (stone or sand), lime, Portland cement and water have some strength. One could stand on that and not sink far into the pile of separated materials. Now mix the batch together and try to stand on it. You would slowly sink into it because it has not formed into its final state. There is a chemical reaction that needs to occur over time. Then return 24, 48 or more hours later, and that concrete mix will support a great load. Initially, that pile of concrete ingredients is less stable than a wood column. It gets even worst when first mixed together. But over time, its function improves and eventually becomes even better at supporting a load than the wood column.

This is one potential explanation, for what it is worth. I have no real idea if my explanation has anything to do with reality, but the problem is certainly intriguing. Once that patent is awarded, we may learn more from Joe about how these footers work. For now, I have to agree with Steve, that the best we can do is to make a judgement on their efficacy based on reports from other users and then try them in our own systems to find out for ourselves. I understand why some are skeptical. I don't think there is any way around it unless one is willing to take the risk to find out.

 

[RBFC]

Peter, I was thinking along the same lines. The footers initially do not allow the component to fully "sink into" them, and actually allow detrimental vibration to be reflected back into the equipment. Almost like a tuning fork vibrates when standing free in air, the entire contact area of the footer has not yet been achieved and effectively amplifies the vibrational modes it's exposed to. Imagine standing on a nail, then standing on it once it has been pounded down into a flat disc....

Lee

 

[Steve Williams]

Davey, here is my theory based on knowing nothing about these footers. When the footers are initially inserted under the equipment, something about their design and construction actually causes the vibrations that are meant to be drained away from the component instead are actually being reflected back into the component, in effect, compounding the problem. The stock footers either isolated or drained vibrations and there was a certain base line performance and sound. Inserting these CS footers make the sound worse because vibrations are not being isolated or drained initially. Whatever the design is, it needs time to settle. Perhaps the various mysterious materials require time to settle and reform so that their properties don't reflect back vibrational energy, but rather drain the energy away by forming a drainage path. It may be pressure, temperature, or some combination of the two, but something is probably happening with the basic form of the composition of the materials and how energy moves through it. That is my best guess, not being at all technically oriented, as to why the actually sound worse than the stock footers initially and then, after sufficient settling time, eventually work as designed and then sound better than the stock footers.

The analogy I know from construction experience is this. Imagine stacking the raw materials needed for concrete in a stack or pile. The bags or piles of aggregate (stone or sand), lime, Portland cement and water have some strength. One could stand on that and not sink far into the pile of separated materials. Now mix the batch together and try to stand on it. You would slowly sink into it because it has not formed into its final state. There is a chemical reaction that needs to occur over time. Then return 24, 48 or more hours later, and that concrete mix will support a great load. Initially, that pile of concrete ingredients is less stable than a wood column. It gets even worst when first mixed together. But over time, its function improves and eventually becomes even better at supporting a load than the wood column.

This is one potential explanation, for what it is worth. I have no real idea if my explanation has anything to do with reality, but the problem is certainly intriguing. Once that patent is awarded, we may learn more from Joe about how these footers work. For now, I have to agree with Steve, that the best we can do is to make a judgement on their efficacy based on reports from other users and then try them in our own systems to find out for ourselves. I understand why some are skeptical. I don't think there is any way around it unless one is willing to take the risk to find out.

Peter, I was thinking along the same lines. The footers initially do not allow the component to fully "sink into" them, and actually allow detrimental vibration to be reflected back into the equipment. Almost like a tuning fork vibrates when standing free in air, the entire contact area of the footer has not yet been achieved and effectively amplifies the vibrational modes it's exposed to. Imagine standing on a nail, then standing on it once it has been pounded down into a flat disc....

Lee

as Joe commented, it is like dumping the trash at the street every day

 

[Steve Williams]

Davey, here is my theory based on knowing nothing about these footers. When the footers are initially inserted under the equipment, something about their design and construction actually causes the vibrations that are meant to be drained away from the component instead are actually being reflected back into the component, in effect, compounding the problem. The stock footers either isolated or drained vibrations and there was a certain base line performance and sound. Inserting these CS footers make the sound worse because vibrations are not being isolated or drained initially. Whatever the design is, it needs time to settle. Perhaps the various mysterious materials require time to settle and reform so that their properties don't reflect back vibrational energy, but rather drain the energy away by forming a drainage path. It may be pressure, temperature, or some combination of the two, but something is probably happening with the basic form of the composition of the materials and how energy moves through it. That is my best guess, not being at all technically oriented, as to why the actually sound worse than the stock footers initially and then, after sufficient settling time, eventually work as designed and then sound better than the stock footers.

The analogy I know from construction experience is this. Imagine stacking the raw materials needed for concrete in a stack or pile. The bags or piles of aggregate (stone or sand), lime, Portland cement and water have some strength. One could stand on that and not sink far into the pile of separated materials. Now mix the batch together and try to stand on it. You would slowly sink into it because it has not formed into its final state. There is a chemical reaction that needs to occur over time. Then return 24, 48 or more hours later, and that concrete mix will support a great load. Initially, that pile of concrete ingredients is less stable than a wood column. It gets even worst when first mixed together. But over time, its function improves and eventually becomes even better at supporting a load than the wood column.

This is one potential explanation, for what it is worth. I have no real idea if my explanation has anything to do with reality, but the problem is certainly intriguing. Once that patent is awarded, we may learn more from Joe about how these footers work. For now, I have to agree with Steve, that the best we can do is to make a judgement on their efficacy based on reports from other users and then try them in our own systems to find out for ourselves. I understand why some are skeptical. I don't think there is any way around it unless one is willing to take the risk to find out.

Peter, I was thinking along the same lines. The footers initially do not allow the component to fully "sink into" them, and actually allow detrimental vibration to be reflected back into the equipment. Almost like a tuning fork vibrates when standing free in air, the entire contact area of the footer has not yet been achieved and effectively amplifies the vibrational modes it's exposed to. Imagine standing on a nail, then standing on it once it has been pounded down into a flat disc....

Lee

as Joe commented, it is like dumping the trash at the street every day

 

[Steve Williams]

I have a feeling the footers sounding really bad out of the box is overstated

Jack you are probably correct. What is different is the sound one hears from their system which is far from what they are used to hearing.