Introducing Center Stage 2M

[PeterA]

I have to disagree with your final paragraph with respect to our feet. To repeat, only with respect to our feet. We try very hard NOT to change the sound of the component. We are laser focused on revealing a components true design potential and getting out of the way of its performance otherwise.

Good Morning Joe,

This is an interesting summary. If Center Stage is trying NOT to change the sound of the component, are you implying that other footer companies are trying to change the sound of the component? I think you and Tima are having an interesting discussion about stock footers and the sounds of components. I am not clear on whether you think the sound of a component is defined as how it sounds sitting on its stock footer or how it sounds without the stock footer? And in what context?

How do you go about determining what the sound, and true design potential, of a component actually is and how do you know that you have heard it? Is a component's "sound" not dependent on the system and room context (and listener's ears) in which it is heard? Or are you assuming what its true potential is based on its design without footers and absent any listening to it on its stock footers?

 

[joelavrencikCMS]

Good Morning Joe,

This is an interesting summary. If Center Stage is trying NOT to change the sound of the component, are you implying that other footer companies are trying to change the sound of the component? I think you and Tima are having an interesting discussion about stock footers and the sounds of components. I am not clear on whether you think the sound of a component is defined as how it sounds sitting on its stock footer or how it sounds without the stock footer? And in what context?

How do you go about determining what the sound, and true design potential, of a component actually is and how do you know that you have heard it? Is a component's "sound" not dependent on the system and room context (and listener's ears) in which it is heard? Or are you assuming what its true potential is based on its design without footers and absent any listening to it on its stock footers?

No, I am not implying that other footer companies are trying to change the sound of the component.

Defined by the sound quality the component produces when vibration is greatly reduced in the context of an audio system playing music at a wide range of listening levels.

You can hear it as you manipulate the variables in the footer by 10/thousandths of an inch. During the footer manipulation process the component’s performance will improve and then ultimately degrade after the optimum footer formulation is passed by. At that point, I back up and retest and retest again. Then, I send it to the beta testers to see what happens in their systems. In the case of CS2M, it went to Switzerland first….Soulution/Magico. Then, Steve, Russ and Marty. All different systems in different rooms with different sets of variables. So, I think there is a very big, yes, to one of your questions.

I don’t assume anything about the design potential of a component.

 

[Steve Williams]

Steve, Which two components did you choose to put your beta CS2M footers under? Are you finding your current experience with all the new footers any different in terms of either sound or settling period?

Peter

Ive been posting my daily experiences over the first 2 days which suggests settle in for me is faster

 

[Steve Williams]

Steve, Which two components did you choose to put your beta CS2M footers under? Are you finding your current experience with all the new footers any different in terms of either sound or settling period?

I put the 2 sets sent to me under my Lampizator Pacific (CS2M 1.5) and under my Lamm phono stage (CS2M 1.0)

Please read my daily posts as to settle in. They are in this thread

 

[PeterA]

I put the 2 sets sent to me under my Lampizator Pacific (CS2M 1.5) and under my Lamm phono stage (CS2M 1.0)

Please read my daily posts as to settle in. They are in this thread

thank you Steve. I did read your very interesting two posts. My question is based on the fact that you already had two of the beta versions under two components. So I was simply curious to know if the production version settling time and sound are any different from what you experienced with the beta version under those two components. I will reread your lengthy posts to see if you make any reference to that but I didn’t see it.

My presumption is that you know what the sound of these footers will actually do in your system because of your experience with the beta version and the only difference is that now you have more of them under more components. Perhaps the positive affect will simply be expanded but not fundamentally different from what you have already experienced.

 

[Steve Williams]

thank you Steve. I did read your very interesting two posts. My question is based on the fact that you already had two of the beta versions under two components. So I was simply curious to know if the production version settling time and sound are any different from what you experienced with the beta version under those two components. I will reread your lengthy posts to see if you make any reference to that but I didn’t see it.

My presumption is that you know what the sound of these footers will actually do in your system because of your experience with the beta version and the only difference is that now you have more of them under more components. Perhaps the positive affect will simply be expanded but not fundamentally different from what you have already experienced.

Sorry, I misunderstood

My feeling so far is that these are settling quicker than the CS2 series. Still too early to predict as they change throughout the listening session. Sometimes the changes heard are a step back. So best I can say now is that my entire system is in a state of flux as it settles. Stay tuned however as later today I will update my findings for todays session

 

[Steve Williams]

Day 3 Settle In Observations

As a reminder I run the system for only 8 hours per day as I value tube life. The demo disk continues be what I play streamed via my Extreme

Yesterday's observations gave me some thought that today could be a big day based on having gone through this settle in at least 10 times in my system. Yesterday suggested that today might be special. What I base that on was that by the end of day yesterday the midrange to my ears sounded tonally accurate and based on past experience, typically the rest follows soon behind

Things changed so quickly today that I sat through most of the session and I could hear the system settling in as the songs played. At the end of the day here again are my bullet point findings and some thoughts at the end of this post

. Mid range to die for. To me this is where most of the music resides and for my ears there was nothing lacking and I found I was totally engaged

. The absent upper and lowermost registers yesterday were present today so I was hearing more of what was there but absent yesterday. Of note this top and bottom end didn't suddenly appear but rather through the first 6 hours of an 8 hour session . As I listened there continued to be top and bottom extension until I heard no more improvement in the final 2 hours

. Soundstage is now 3D by the 2nd hour of listening.

. By the 4th hour the focus and clarity was spot on. Imaging has never been better in my system IMO. There was no blurring but rather pinpoint imaging

. There was absolutely no exaggeration in the size of singers, instruments etc. Everything was where it should be in the sound stage

. There was no bloom that I could hear as the feet settled. What I noticed was that the decay mesmerized as it floated in the air and then vanishes.

. Today there was no feeling of sluggishness in the system. In fact the PRAT had me tapping my toes, holding the baton as I played conductor, or playing guitar or drums. I was into it

. Yesterday the system sounded recessed but today the soundstage was not only filled and 3D but it was coming forward towards me but still hadn't crossed that imaginary plane until about 2:00 today

. I crossed the Rubicon at 2:00 PM as it wasn't until then that I found myself immersed in the music which increased as time went on. Initially I easily heard sound down my room's sidewalls

. As the day was ending I began hearing more deep bass, much tighter and very palpable.

. There was no further audible top end roll off. Both top and bottom end music seemed extended to where everything seemed tonally accurate, timbre almost where it should be and deep bass very immersive by day 3. I was totally engaged and stayed through most of the 8 hours only because things were sounding better and better as time went on

. I heard no coloration and no distortion. Once again I could not explain how my system tends to settle quickly. I still feel it is related to the use of Joe's racks with the CS footers

It was said by bobvin that he looks for tonality, dynamics and visceral. Based on how I was acting in my room today, I would say all 3 of those was present. Many call it PRAT and today I heard it

So with this report I would have to say that I am 90% of the way there. My feeling was 3-7 days initially and this might be in that ballpark. Some might ask why not 100%? Answer is simple because I need to listen for many more days to detect any further sonic improvement or worsening. I expect more to come, yet, having said that, I have learned with CS feet there can be some set backs after a day like I just had so stay tuned but so far I am at day 3 and all of 24 hours of settle in time. Clearly these feet and settle in are system dependent and YMMV

 

[thedudeabides]

My sincere apologies to Steve and Joe. I didn't realize that this product is only for speakers. I assume the V2 did not address this issue. My bad for not reading.

 

[Steve Williams]

My sincere apologies to Steve and Joe. I didn't realize that this product is only for speakers. I assume the V2 did not address this issue. My bad for not reading.

Actually it is a component footer that comes from trickle down technology derived from Joe’s LS series (which is a footer for under loud speakers) So it is not an upgrade to CS2

 

[Mobiusman]

It has been 36 hours since I installed CMS2M 1.5's under all of my core and digital components. What is happening is exactly what happened when I switched from the CSM2M 1.0's to the CMS2M 1.5's solely under my Extreme, both with regard to break-in sequence and timing, which was also quite impressive at 36 hours on all fronts, clearly superior to the CMS2's in every conceiveable aspect and some beyond conception.

The only difference is there are now 5 footer component components breaking in simultaneously, which means that even subtle differences with each set is reducing the overall cohesion and believeability. I expect that this will be resolved almost completely by 7 days.

My analog arm has not been updated yet because I am having salt contamination on the arm air tube since I live on the water which is salt water and leave my doors and windows open for cross ventilation which is causing slight resistance to arm travel. Sounds like a Wednesday project for me.

So I think you have two choices if you are "audio ratinonale", which apparently some are not: 1) Install CMS2M footers where ever you can and if possible use 1.5's because they sound the best; and/or 2) take advantage of the used CMS2's on the various sites because they are excellent in their own right and will make a dramatic improvement to just about any system at any price point.

Of course if you are one of the those who thinks that these are morally wrong or somehow represent negative then that is your loss. Both the CMS 2's and CMS2M's provide one of best sonic improvements for the the dollar available in all aspects of audio!!

Bravo Joe for your ingenuity, hard work to produce these marvels and trying your best to get these into marketplace at the most reasonable price.

Let's face it, high end audio has become very expensive in the past 5-10 years, many times without providing significant sonic benefit. Critical Mass Systems Center Stage Footers do not fall into this category. THEY PRODUCE UNPARALLELED SONIC IMPROVEMENT PER DOLLAR, WHICH FOR ME TRANSLATES INTO THE MOST ECONOMICAL PATH TO AUDIO BLISS. I suspect that they would even help a Radio Shack, Bose or other all-in -one unit sound better!!

 

[tima]

Hi Joe,

Thank you for reply to my post and questions. You were helpful.

First, an administrative matter: In your quote of my message #122, the shaded words are not mine. I did not write that. Maybe you pasted something by accident when quoting me. (see below)



With that out of the way ...

While your assumption of CS2Ms intent is broadly (to steal your word) correct, I don’t see much similarity to other footer devices. I don’t know of any that implement 1st Law impedance mismatching and 2nd Law entropy reduction to the extent we do. There’s significant focus on material science, e.g., thin rod speeds and elastic modulus and sequencing and (with CS2M) additive and subtractive damping.

I am not a physicist and it has been a while since Physics 101 in college, so these Laws of Thermodynamics are not at my fingertips.

I vaguely recall the First Law ties to a general Law about the Conservation of Energy - it can be neither created nor destroyed. Energy moves around in different forms. Gurgle tells me the First Law of Thermodynamics is about work (energy transferred by a system to its surroundings) and heat (energy transferred to or from a system by other than work or matter.) Or something like that.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics establishes the notion of entropy (from a Greek word for 'transformation') as a concept and physical property. Vaguely I understand it is about the transfer of energy and the fact that other conditions necessarily obtain during the transfer.

My sense is that these Laws simply obtain - they hold for all audio component footers and the world generally. Thus saying that the CMS footers operate based on the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics is true. Could any other footer manufacturer say the same thing? Equally true is the claim that brand X footers operate under Newton's Law of Gravity. That these two Laws of Thermodynamics are cited as explanations for how the footers work is not personally helpful to me in understanding how the footers work. That is not a criticism - you have no obligation for my understanding. Saying such may be highly insightful to those who have a firm grasp on the implementation of these particular physical principles - how many audiophiles are included in that group, I don't know. I do understand that getting from Laws of Thermodynamics to CMS footers requires a whole lot more information (some proprietary?) than you'd want to divulge in order to protect your intellectual property rights. For me the explanatory gap is too great.

From your post in the thread "Center Stage 2", which I just now saw:

Lavrencik focused on three aspects: impedance mismatching to greatly reduce vibration moving upward from the floor, the reduction of the noise inherent to the materials used to fabricate the foot, and a means to transfer entropy out of the component.

Now this I understand, except for the part about 'transferring entropy' - which my meager Newtonian mind translates to enabling the movement of energy out of the component. Maybe that is incorrect or simply unsophisticated. I have a vague sense of "thin speed rod" as relating to oscillation and energy transference - vibrations travel at different speeds. And "elastic modulus" - a material's tendency to deformity. I understand making use of materials science - I presume advances in damping and other materials are on-going.

I've written a few reviews of vibration management audio products and I'm interested in how manufacturers use words to describe their wares. So looking at your footers from a reviewer's expository perspective I would not be inclined to write about Laws of Thermodynamics or say these things operate according to the laws of nature without a lot more detail. Of course I could be wrong - maybe you've done the marketing research and found that approach works for your audience. Good luck and thanks for your help.

 

[joelavrencikCMS]

Hi Joe,

Thank you for reply to my post and questions. You were helpful.

First, an administrative matter: In your quote of my message #122, the shaded words are not mine. I did not write that. Maybe you pasted something by accident when quoting me. (see below)

View attachment 80961

With that out of the way ...



I am not a physicist and it has been a while since Physics 101 in college, so these Laws of Thermodynamics are not at my fingertips.

I vaguely recall the First Law ties to a general Law about the Conservation of Energy - it can be neither created nor destroyed. Energy moves around in different forms. Gurgle tells me the First Law of Thermodynamics is about work (energy transferred by a system to its surroundings) and heat (energy transferred to or from a system by other than work or matter.) Or something like that.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics establishes the notion of entropy (from a Greek word for 'transformation') as a concept and physical property. Vaguely I understand it is about the transfer of energy and the fact that other conditions necessarily obtain during the transfer.

My sense is that these Laws simply obtain - they hold for all audio component footers and the world generally. Thus saying that the CMS footers operate based on the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics is true. Could any other footer manufacturer say the same thing? Equally true is the claim that brand X footers operate under Newton's Law of Gravity. That these two Laws of Thermodynamics are cited as explanations for how the footers work is not personally helpful to me in understanding how the footers work. That is not a criticism - you have no obligation for my understanding. Saying such may be highly insightful to those who have a firm grasp on the implementation of these particular physical principles - how many audiophiles are included in that group, I don't know. I do understand that getting from Laws of Thermodynamics to CMS footers requires a whole lot more information (some proprietary?) than you'd want to divulge in order to protect your intellectual property rights. For me the explanatory gap is too great.

From your post in the thread "Center Stage 2", which I just now saw:



Now this I understand, except for the part about 'transferring entropy' - which my meager Newtonian mind translates to enabling the movement of energy out of the component. Maybe that is incorrect or simply unsophisticated. I have a vague sense of "thin speed rod" as relating to oscillation and energy transference - vibrations travel at different speeds. And "elastic modulus" - a material's tendency to deformity. I understand making use of materials science - I presume advances in damping and other materials are on-going.

I've written a few reviews of vibration management audio products and I'm interested in how manufacturers use words to describe their wares. So looking at your footers from a reviewer's expository perspective I would not be inclined to write about Laws of Thermodynamics or say these things operate according to the laws of nature without a lot more detail. Of course I could be wrong - maybe you've done the marketing research and found that approach works for your audience. Good luck and thanks for your help.

Yes, that paragraph shouldn't be in there. I'm suddenly wrestling with a ghost pointer on my HP laptop and it causes problems.

Beyond that, thank you for your thoughtful comments.

 

[Steve Williams]

Day 4 Settling Observations

as I commented yesterday it was my feeling that these CS2M's will settle in 3-7 days and yesterday's settling was so dramatic that I felt I was almost there.I said 90% but close to being done. It was my goal to continue the 8 hour sessions and if no change after 4 days then I can safely say that the footers have settled

so once again my thoughts follow as bullet points with a brief summary at the end

In brief the changes today were icing on the cake

. Imaging is razor sharp without exaggeration, color or bloom

. Soundstage is so good today with slightly more immersive effect yet the Immersion that I experience sounds "Natural" and realistic and not exaggerated. I have that "I am there" experience once again

. @PeterA....I have to say that everything for my ears sounds quite natural, to which I attribute the lack of color or distortion from these feet

. PRAT.......PRAT........PRAT. Once again the visceral part of what I was hearing had me toe tapping and conducting the orchestra when I wasn't playing the guitar or drums

. Finally, for my ears, today was all about timbre, dynamics and tone. Everything was coherent, balanced and properly sized. Nothing seemed abnormal and certainly nothing stands out

The sound floor with these footers is virtually non existent as I am hearing so much more information at lower gain control settings

Stay tuned for tomorrow's thoughts

 

[Steve Williams]

Day 5 Settling Observations.

Very little to add here today except more of what I heard yesterday.

. Timbre and tone sounds perfect to my ears. A piano sounds like a piano now better than what I have ever heard in my system

. The dynamics continue to keep me involved and tapping my toes

. Playing the large symphonies has been a real experience with the immersion as it seems much more realistic and natural with the CS2M

. Prcise imaging and realistic sized performers. IOW no bloom but just a feeling of reality and a you are there experience

. Everything is coherent from top to bottom

. I can't repeat this enough with these feet....PRAT, PRAT and PRAT

. Deep bass is somewhat fuller and tighter today so visceral is there in case you're wondering

In summary......there might be some small gain in the next few days to come but after 5 days I can safely say......

"Houston, the Eagle has landed"

So my feeling that there would be a shorter bsettle in with these new feet appears to be corroborated


Having lived with both the CS2 and now the CS2M in my system I can honestly now understand why Joe was going to produce both as there is a somewhat different sound to both, yet having said that , the best way I can put this in perspective is that it is like using a different cartridge on your tonearm and playing the same music. Both are correct and what you listen to might dictate your preference. Once again remember that the CS2 Footers although discontinued remain amazing and were awarded Audio Accessory of the decade by Greg Weaver. I am quite pleased that although there were many barbs hurled at Joe for bringing these to market that I continue to be asked about the CS2 . In fact I have in the past 2 days sold most of the feet I was using in my system. So just because something is archived and out of production doesn''t mean that they are bad.

 

[howiebrou]

Day 5 Settling Observations.

Very little to add here today except more of what I heard yesterday.

. Timbre and tone sounds perfect to my ears. A piano sounds like a piano now better than what I have ever heard in my system

. The dynamics continue to keep me involved and tapping my toes

. Playing the large symphonies has been a real experience with the immersion as it seems much more realistic and natural with the CS2M

. Prcise imaging and realistic sized performers. IOW no bloom but just a feeling of reality and a you are there experience

. Everything is coherent from top to bottom

. I can't repeat this enough with these feet....PRAT, PRAT and PRAT

. Deep bass is somewhat fuller and tighter today so visceral is there in case you're wondering

In summary......there might be some small gain in the next few days to come but after 5 days I can safely say......

"Houston, the Eagle has landed"

So my feeling that there would be a shorter bsettle in with these new feet appears to be corroborated


Having lived with both the CS2 and now the CS2M in my system I can honestly now understand why Joe was going to produce both as there is a somewhat different sound to both, yet having said that , the best way I can put this in perspective is that it is like using a different cartridge on your tonearm and playing the same music. Both are correct and what you listen to might dictate your preference. Once again remember that the CS2 Footers although discontinued remain amazing and were awarded Audio Accessory of the decade by Greg Weaver. I am quite pleased that although there were many barbs hurled at Joe for bringing these to market that I continue to be asked about the CS2 . In fact I have in the past 2 days sold most of the feet I was using in my system. So just because something is archived and out of production doesn''t mean that they are bad.

Amazing! I wish I had some.

 

[Ron Resnick]

. . .

We’ve gotten so precise about the effect of our products on components, we can move vocals forward or backward in the soundstage, change the relative volume levels and size of instruments around the center image and, in the end, lock it all down in proper proportions using processes applied to the foot in increments of 10/thousandths of an inch.

. . .

Hello Joe,

Would you please explain to us how a 10/1000th of an inch change in some dimension of your footer can "change the relative volume levels and size of instruments around the center image"?

How does such a change in such dimension allow you to change the relative volume level of one instrument compared to another instrument around the center image?

Thank you.

 

[joelavrencikCMS]

Hello Joe,

Would you please explain to us how a 10/1000th of an inch change in some dimension of your footer can "change the relative volume levels and size of instruments around the center image"?

How does such a change in such dimension allow you to change the relative volume level of one instrument compared to another instrument around the center image?

Thank you.

Hi Ron

Keeping in mind that there are proprietary aspects to what we do, I’ll do my best to answer your question. The CS and LS feet are derived from our rack designs, specifically the OLYMPUS rack. More specifically the material composition and material sequencing in the OLYMPUS rack is the basis for the structures found within CS and LS.

The internal composition of the foot follows the material composition and material sequencing of the rack. If you cut the foot open, an untrained eye would see absolutely nothing of any consequence. But you would be looking at a miniaturized version of an OLYMPUS superstructure precisely calculated to mismatch impedances to achieve, or net, an effect. The phrase, “every material does something” could not ring truer in this case. The “something” in this case is a ringing noise in a predictable bandwidth. To be clearer, all materials produce noise, but controlling the noise so that it can be exploited to net a desired effect is THE “IT”. That’s the grail. Learn how to control every aspect of your materials and design so that you can exploit predictable weaknesses to achieve a “greatest good".

This brings us to the shelf, or filter (as I like to call it} of the OLYMPUS. The OLYMPUS filter was miniaturized and applied to the CS and LS designs. With the understanding that the superstructure of the foot is critical to the performance of the foot, the key to refining its performance is the miniaturized filter and you find this atop the foot as you would on an OLYMPUS rack. Here is where you cancel out the noise of the foot and reduce entropy stored in the component above in very precise increments.

What seems impossible for those unfamiliar with the CS or LS products to comprehend is that the foot functions as an extremely powerful filter when all its disparate parts are combined. Disassembled, it is nothing. Assembled and placed against the bottom of a component, it is a miniaturized OLYMPUS rack that not only functions in 1st Law energy conversion (mainly to cancel out its own noise), but more importantly, 2nd Law entropy reduction. Only a fool would believe that a foot an inch in height could convert vibration to heat in broad bandwidths. But I digress.

So, understanding that which came prior, the answer to your question is to manipulate the filter. In one of the failed tries with the LS feet, we noticed that the center image was too far back and too quiet compared to the instruments playing around the vocalist. By manipulating the filter, we could enlarge that image, bring it slightly forward, better its detail and prominence and raise its volume level to a proper balance in the process. If you pay close attention to the net effect of many other devices in this genre, you can hear that they get this wrong, along with other things.

So, what Steve and Russ and now others are hearing is the net effect of changing the dimensions of the filter in teeny tiny bits. We can do it using very precise tools. It isn’t a newly discovered process by any means in the design and execution of analog devices or many of the parts used in audio componentry. This has been going on for years in many areas of our industry. It is, however, probably new to footers. The good news is that the same degree of precision that nets advancement in other areas of our industry, works in this one as well.

I hope I answered your question.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Dear Joe,

Thank you for answering my question.

I can understand how your footers can change the overall positioning or location of -- the listener's overall perception of -- the soundstage. I can understand that the footers can change the listener's perception of his/her position relative to the overall soundstage he/she is perceiving sonically.

But I am afraid I will never be able to understand how, or believe that, the footers can manipulate the relative sound pressure level between instruments and a vocalist, or the perceived location of instruments in relation to the perceived location of the vocalist.

Thank you, again, for thoughtfully and comprehensively replying to my question.

 

[joelavrencikCMS]

Dear Joe,

Thank you for answering my question.

I can understand how your footers can change the overall positioning or location of -- the listener's overall perception of -- the soundstage. I can understand that the footers can change the listener's perception of his/her position relative to the overall soundstage he/she is perceiving sonically.

But I am afraid I will never be able to understand how, or believe that, the footers can manipulate the relative sound pressure level between instruments and a vocalist, or the perceived location of instruments in relation to the perceived location of the vocalist.

Thank you, again, for thoughtfully and comprehensively replying to my question.

The latter comes part and parcel with the former when you achieve a high level of precision with the execution of the footer.

Actually, I last did it to Steve, although I never told him. Early on in LS development, I sent him a set of LS1.5s for a beta test and then called them back. By increasing the area of the filter by 275 10/thousandths I did that very thing. It honestly doesn’t matter to me if anyone believes it’s possible. I’m used to that. It matters that I can do it and you can hear it and listeners benefit from the precision.

 

[fbhifi]

Hello Joe,

Would you please explain to us how a 10/1000th of an inch change in some dimension of your footer can "change the relative volume levels and size of instruments around the center image"?

How does such a change in such dimension allow you to change the relative volume level of one instrument compared to another instrument around the center image?

Thank you.

Was curios what 10/1000th of an inch equates to. It’s equivalent to five typical coats of automotive paint.

I share your skepticism Ron