Center Stage2 White Paper for Owners and Potential Owners

Eichenbaum

Well-Known Member
Sep 29, 2013
39
2
238
#21
Unfortunately, no. The fly in the ointment is the consistent (variable) magnitude of the energy field the component sits in. The mechanical energy produced by loudspeakers permeates into the component and your right back where you started from. You would hear a gradual sonic drift back to the original state of equilibrium.

So, lets's say you have a component chassis that has been knocked off of neutral by the manufacturer. There is 1 component I can think of made with a double bottom separated by a teflon buffer with a nylon pole connecting the top plate to the bottom. The manufacturer uses a proprietary foot that benefits from the teflon liner and the pole. I've never tried it, but my guess is that upon inserting CS2 in place of the proprietary feet, you would hear the teflon/nylon pulling the sound field in an unpleasant direction. In this example, removing the CS2 feet would return the component to its original state of equilibrium and that would be a good thing provided my suspicions were correct.

It works both ways.
Ok, the mechanical behaviour of the system will be affected. Anyway after the settling period the feet could be removed and reinstalled since S(n)>S(n-1), the disorder never diminishes.
 

joelavrencik

Industry Expert
Nov 15, 2016
251
37
93
Chicago
www.criticalmasssystems.com
#22
D’Agostino Momentum Mono’s. I have no problem helping :).
From everything I can see, there should be an excellent match between CS2 and the amplifier as it pictured on the D’Agostino website and in the owner’s manual. I always recommend CS2 1.5s for amps and certainly do so here. I notice there is a good amount of focus on ventilation in the owner’s manual which tells me the 2nd Law characteristics of CS2 could make a substantial contribution to overall performance. I’m not sure if the 1.5s fall within your budget, so please don’t think I’m trying to point your product choices in 1 direction.

Another clue for a good match is we regularly build amp stands and rack mounted gear for D’Agostino products. In my experience, if the component benefits sitting on one of our stands or racks, CS2 is a match. Everything we make has the same DNA.

If you do move forward with CS2 , could you please keep me posted on your experience.

Admittedly, I wasn’t quite understanding your reference to top plate mounted circuit boards in this case, or in the case of a power supply. I didn’t see that with respect to this amp. If I missed something, or if you are asking this question in the general sense, please let me know.
 

joelavrencik

Industry Expert
Nov 15, 2016
251
37
93
Chicago
www.criticalmasssystems.com
#23
Joe,

I have just started to test two sets of CS2's. I have the large size under my amp and the medium size under my preamp.
I wish I had a few more sets to try elsewhere but that will possibly come later.

I have some of my gear on Symposium shelves. Remember those? I have the larger Ultra's and the thinner Svelte's.
Would you footers be expected to work together with these shelves or would it be better to leave the shelves out of the equation?

thanks,
Ken
I'm really not sure. The metal surfaces cause me a bit of concern but that's not a knock on the product. So, to be sure, I suggest starting with the platforms out (if possible) and then after the settling process is done and you have that level of performance locked into memory, putting the platforms back in. You may go through some form of re-settling but I think it would be worthwhile to know for sure. If you have the time, please let us know what you find. This benefits all of us.

If you can't remove the platforms, then I'd start with the platforms in etc., and then insert any thin piece of wood (MDF is fine) directly under the feet to create a separation from the metal surface. It would be interesting to know what happens here as well.
 

joelavrencik

Industry Expert
Nov 15, 2016
251
37
93
Chicago
www.criticalmasssystems.com
#24
Ok, the mechanical behaviour of the system will be affected. Anyway after the settling period the feet could be removed and reinstalled since S(n)>S(n-1), the disorder never diminishes.
Formula aside, I may not be clear on where you're going. If you're making the simple statement that the feet can removed and replaced under the same component and the component will react to the changes as a result of sitting in an energy field, you are absolutely correct. .....A/B/A

If I'm missing it, please let me know. Having said this, obviously you're a smart guy with a solid background in physics and I applaud that, but I'd like to keep this thread at the user level. The way I look at it is the physics and electrical pieces were locked in as we went through the design and testing phases. At this point the product is out there and the larger questions revolve around applications. I hope this is ok.
 

Eichenbaum

Well-Known Member
Sep 29, 2013
39
2
238
#25
Formula aside, I may not be clear on where you're going. If you're making the simple statement that the feet can removed and replaced under the same component and the component will react to the changes as a result of sitting in an energy field, you are absolutely correct. .....A/B/A

If I'm missing it, please let me know. Having said this, obviously you're a smart guy with a solid background in physics and I applaud that, but I'd like to keep this thread at the user level. The way I look at it is the physics and electrical pieces were locked in as we went through the design and testing phases. At this point the product is out there and the larger questions revolve around applications. I hope this is ok.
O
Formula aside, I may not be clear on where you're going. If you're making the simple statement that the feet can removed and replaced under the same component and the component will react to the changes as a result of sitting in an energy field, you are absolutely correct. .....A/B/A

If I'm missing it, please let me know. Having said this, obviously you're a smart guy with a solid background in physics and I applaud that, but I'd like to keep this thread at the user level. The way I look at it is the physics and electrical pieces were locked in as we went through the design and testing phases. At this point the product is out there and the larger questions revolve around applications. I hope this is ok.
Ok.
 
Aug 28, 2018
66
18
105
Seattle, WA
#26
From everything I can see, there should be an excellent match between CS2 and the amplifier as it pictured on the D’Agostino website and in the owner’s manual. I always recommend CS2 1.5s for amps and certainly do so here. I notice there is a good amount of focus on ventilation in the owner’s manual which tells me the 2nd Law characteristics of CS2 could make a substantial contribution to overall performance. I’m not sure if the 1.5s fall within your budget, so please don’t think I’m trying to point your product choices in 1 direction.

Another clue for a good match is we regularly build amp stands and rack mounted gear for D’Agostino products. In my experience, if the component benefits sitting on one of our stands or racks, CS2 is a match. Everything we make has the same DNA.

If you do move forward with CS2 , could you please keep me posted on your experience.

Admittedly, I wasn’t quite understanding your reference to top plate mounted circuit boards in this case, or in the case of a power supply. I didn’t see that with respect to this amp. If I missed something, or if you are asking this question in the general sense, please let me know.
Thanks for the response, and want to clarify.

The internals of the Momentum appear to mounted with the chassis upside down, the the bottom plate is then added, and the component flipped right side up, which makes the internals suspend for a lack of better term.

Separate power supplies was a general statement, however, I do have separate power supplies in the Momentum PreAmp and the Brinkmann DAC.

On the Momentum preamp, it is built like the mono amp stated above but sits on a separate power supply designed to mate nicely. So with the power supply sitting outside the component, is there a benefit?

Steve, AKA Dr Evil, made reference to hearing a gain but not sure what he has the feet on and I did too on my Nordost QX4.

In terms of cost, I don’t know the retail pricing, but curious. There are a few projects I am doing in the quarter and will look at Center Stage after I determine it makes sense.

I already have HRS M3X platforms the entire system rests on and no plans to change this. and do have the DD OEM stands for my amps that are currently being used realizing a better look but no gain on sound over previous isolation there before.
 

Steve Williams

Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
#27
Steve, AKA Dr Evil, made reference to hearing a gain but not sure what he has the feet on and I did too on my Nordost QX4.
all of my components including power supplies are sitting on CMS racks
 

joelavrencik

Industry Expert
Nov 15, 2016
251
37
93
Chicago
www.criticalmasssystems.com
#29
Thanks for the response, and want to clarify.

The internals of the Momentum appear to mounted with the chassis upside down, the the bottom plate is then added, and the component flipped right side up, which makes the internals suspend for a lack of better term.

Separate power supplies was a general statement, however, I do have separate power supplies in the Momentum PreAmp and the Brinkmann DAC.

On the Momentum preamp, it is built like the mono amp stated above but sits on a separate power supply designed to mate nicely. So with the power supply sitting outside the component, is there a benefit?

Steve, AKA Dr Evil, made reference to hearing a gain but not sure what he has the feet on and I did too on my Nordost QX4.

In terms of cost, I don’t know the retail pricing, but curious. There are a few projects I am doing in the quarter and will look at Center Stage after I determine it makes sense.

I already have HRS M3X platforms the entire system rests on and no plans to change this. and do have the DD OEM stands for my amps that are currently being used realizing a better look but no gain on sound over previous isolation there before.
IMO, the Momentum will be fine. I would use the CS2 1.5 or the CS2 whose height will lift the amp feet off the stand, depending on budget.

Thank you for the clarification of your power supply question. From user feedback, we know that CS2 works in that DD array when placed under the separate power supply. The appropriate height feet will be fine. Later, should you choose to, another set can be added between the PS and Pre. For his pre, RH was using a complete Persius stack arranged vertically. We placed 1.0s under each piece in the vertical array. He told me he will share this experience in the March issue of TAS........haven't seen the article at the time of this post.

Also, we have feedback that CS2 works fine on your HRS equipment. No issues.

If I missed anything, please let me know.
 

robje24b

Well-Known Member
Oct 7, 2012
12
4
233
#30
How do i choose between the different models (0.8 - 1 - 1.5)? Is it just based on the weight of the equipment? I have a network streamer (10 kg), dac (18kg), power distributor (7 kg) and a power amplifier (28 kg). I've read you advise the 1.5 for amps, but can i just buy the 0.8 for all the other equipment?
 

joelavrencik

Industry Expert
Nov 15, 2016
251
37
93
Chicago
www.criticalmasssystems.com
#31
How do i choose between the different models (0.8 - 1 - 1.5)? Is it just based on the weight of the equipment? I have a network streamer (10 kg), dac (18kg), power distributor (7 kg) and a power amplifier (28 kg). I've read you advise the 1.5 for amps, but can i just buy the 0.8 for all the other equipment?
With the CS2 we were able to eliminate weight constraints. The feet do not compress so they are not limited by weight requirements and/or limitations.

There are 2 considerations that matter:

1) The height of the stock feet on the component. In order for CS2 to work, they have to hoist the stock feet off the surface. It doesn't matter how far they get the stock feet off the surface, just get them off the surface. So, if the 0.8 gets it done, your good to go.

2) Your personal performance objectives vis-a-vis your budget. CS2 0.8 and CS2 1.0 and CS2 1.5 perform progressively better as they get progressively taller. The height progression is: 13/16", 1.0" and 1.5" respectively. You can hear the performance improvement, but they cost more as they get taller. So, there's a decision to be made.

The most important thing to me is that you understand that you need 4 feet under each component to get the most out of your investment. If you want to reach higher up the performance spectrum, but can only afford 3, forget it. Don't do it. Choose the product that accomplishes #1 and meets your budget.
 

PeterA

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2011
7,044
2,196
660
North Shore of Boston
#32
The most important thing to me is that you understand that you need 4 feet under each component to get the most out of your investment. If you want to reach higher up the performance spectrum, but can only afford 3, forget it. Don't do it. Choose the product that accomplishes #1 and meets your budget.
Joe, have you experimented with more than 4 feet under a component and does the placement in proximity to transformers or corners matter?
 

joelavrencik

Industry Expert
Nov 15, 2016
251
37
93
Chicago
www.criticalmasssystems.com
#33
Joe, have you experimented with more than 4 feet under a component and does the placement in proximity to transformers or corners matter?
The answer to the first part of the question is, no and I am not going to pursue that. I started with 3 for the obvious reason, 3 makes a tripod. At some point along the way (can’t remember exactly when) I discovered that 4 feet made a significant improvement. So, I proceeded forward making sure CS2 was the best I could make it in a 4-foot configuration. I think it would be bullshit if a customer tried 4 feet, read the white paper, went through the last section of “need-to--have’s” and checked yes to all the boxes, got a bad result only to read, “Well, obviously you need 1 more! No wait, make that 2 more!” I designed it for 4 and that’s my live or die standard.

The answer to the 2nd part is that I don’t feel confident enough to make a definitive statement about that. During the final testing and modification phase of CS2, I had the feet in and out from under my test gear probably a dozen times. I never made any effort to place them in a specific spot. To my way of thinking, the product had to be viable in a wide range of positions so locking them into a single position under a component would have been a mistake. I think the product is better for me not having pursued that. ………..although, you ask a very good question.
 
Jan 4, 2019
61
11
15
Toronto, Canada
#34
I'm really not sure. The metal surfaces cause me a bit of concern but that's not a knock on the product. So, to be sure, I suggest starting with the platforms out (if possible) and then after the settling process is done and you have that level of performance locked into memory, putting the platforms back in. You may go through some form of re-settling but I think it would be worthwhile to know for sure. If you have the time, please let us know what you find. This benefits all of us.

If you can't remove the platforms, then I'd start with the platforms in etc., and then insert any thin piece of wood (MDF is fine) directly under the feet to create a separation from the metal surface. It would be interesting to know what happens here as well.
I'll report back but it'll be awhile. Thanks.
 

robje24b

Well-Known Member
Oct 7, 2012
12
4
233
#35
With the CS2 we were able to eliminate weight constraints. The feet do not compress so they are not limited by weight requirements and/or limitations.

There are 2 considerations that matter:

1) The height of the stock feet on the component. In order for CS2 to work, they have to hoist the stock feet off the surface. It doesn't matter how far they get the stock feet off the surface, just get them off the surface. So, if the 0.8 gets it done, your good to go.

2) Your personal performance objectives vis-a-vis your budget. CS2 0.8 and CS2 1.0 and CS2 1.5 perform progressively better as they get progressively taller. The height progression is: 13/16", 1.0" and 1.5" respectively. You can hear the performance improvement, but they cost more as they get taller. So, there's a decision to be made.

The most important thing to me is that you understand that you need 4 feet under each component to get the most out of your investment. If you want to reach higher up the performance spectrum, but can only afford 3, forget it. Don't do it. Choose the product that accomplishes #1 and meets your budget.
Thank you. If budget doesn’t allow the tallest CS2’s on every piece of equipment, is there a way to tell which will benefit most from the larger ones? E.g the incremental effect of the different sizes on amplifiers is usually larger than on a streamer or DAC? Demoing them would be the best option i guess but i can’t find a dealer in the Netherlands.
 

joelavrencik

Industry Expert
Nov 15, 2016
251
37
93
Chicago
www.criticalmasssystems.com
#36
Thank you. If budget doesn’t allow the tallest CS2’s on every piece of equipment, is there a way to tell which will benefit most from the larger ones? E.g the incremental effect of the different sizes on amplifiers is usually larger than on a streamer or DAC? Demoing them would be the best option i guess but i can’t find a dealer in the Netherlands.
So, I'll give you my opinion on how to build a truly high end system using CS2 in a way that uses all 3 sizes yet conforms to a "budget", "budget" meaning, avoids the suggestion to go with the most expensive.

Before we released the each size we put them under everything to make sure we weren't getting "too much of a good thing". After each size passed that test, the question was, how to distribute them throughout a system to balance budget with performance; the real-world question you're asking me now.

I like the 1.5s under an amp/integrated. You hear more low cycles with much more musicality, articulation and control. This sense of musicality, articulation and control extends upward into the power range, the midrange and high frequencies. For me, that's a no-brainer, (if budget allows).

I like the 1.0s under a cdp, dac, pre, phono. I hear a tremendous sense of realism and immersion with 1.0s in that position.
A/C power distributors are a wild card. I like the 1.0 here because they feed electricity to the system.

IMO, servers and power supplies are fine for the 0.8.

So again, this is my opinion and not a rule. You can do it anyway you want. MOST users haven't done it the way I outlined above because I stay out of those decisions. But, you asked so there you go.............

We can hook you up through our distributor in the Netherlands should you wish to proceed. You can email me at: info@criticalmasssystems.com and I'll help make that happen.
 

robje24b

Well-Known Member
Oct 7, 2012
12
4
233
#37
So, I'll give you my opinion on how to build a truly high end system using CS2 in a way that uses all 3 sizes yet conforms to a "budget", "budget" meaning, avoids the suggestion to go with the most expensive.

Before we released the each size we put them under everything to make sure we weren't getting "too much of a good thing". After each size passed that test, the question was, how to distribute them throughout a system to balance budget with performance; the real-world question you're asking me now.

I like the 1.5s under an amp/integrated. You hear more low cycles with much more musicality, articulation and control. This sense of musicality, articulation and control extends upward into the power range, the midrange and high frequencies. For me, that's a no-brainer, (if budget allows).

I like the 1.0s under a cdp, dac, pre, phono. I hear a tremendous sense of realism and immersion with 1.0s in that position.
A/C power distributors are a wild card. I like the 1.0 here because they feed electricity to the system.

IMO, servers and power supplies are fine for the 0.8.

So again, this is my opinion and not a rule. You can do it anyway you want. MOST users haven't done it the way I outlined above because I stay out of those decisions. But, you asked so there you go.............

We can hook you up through our distributor in the Netherlands should you wish to proceed. You can email me at: info@criticalmasssystems.com and I'll help make that happen.
Thank you Joe for your opinion on this. You know your product best and it provides me with a strategy for trying them in my system. I think i found the distributor. I will send an e-mail to check if i got it right.
 

joelavrencik

Industry Expert
Nov 15, 2016
251
37
93
Chicago
www.criticalmasssystems.com
#38
Thank you Joe for your opinion on this. You know your product best and it provides me with a strategy for trying them in my system. I think i found the distributor. I will send an e-mail to check if i got it right.
My pleasure.

It may be the case, that they don't have them in stock. Let me know what you're interested in auditioning (when the time comes) and I'll make sure you have that opportunity.
 

gian60

Well-Known Member
Apr 17, 2016
2,133
1,223
258
#39
Dear Joe,
i would like to ask some info

I have pre CH L1 with power supply X1 and i have phono P1 and i will buy a second X1 for P1

When Ked came to visit me brought his S.Mook to try.
We put under pre L1 and we didn't listen benefit,while under X1 we listened better sound,could be is normal because is the power supply of any product we need to isolate.
So could be don't need under L1.

So do you have some experience with some your customers with CH?

I have mono amp M1,which model you suggest under X1 and under M1 that has the weight of 75 kg?

Thanks
Gianluigi
 

joelavrencik

Industry Expert
Nov 15, 2016
251
37
93
Chicago
www.criticalmasssystems.com
#40
Dear Joe,
i would like to ask some info

I have pre CH L1 with power supply X1 and i have phono P1 and i will buy a second X1 for P1

When Ked came to visit me brought his S.Mook to try.
We put under pre L1 and we didn't listen benefit,while under X1 we listened better sound,could be is normal because is the power supply of any product we need to isolate.
So could be don't need under L1.

So do you have some experience with some your customers with CH?

I have mono amp M1,which model you suggest under X1 and under M1 that has the weight of 75 kg?

Thanks
Gianluigi
I believe JackD201 may have a version of CS under his CH gear. I’m not absolutely sure about this so I suggest looking him up and asking him his experience directly. Jack’s system is pictured on the home page of this website. Please note that Jack is a Distributor for CMS products.

Of greater note is the difference between SM and CS2. These 2 products have absolutely nothing in common. There is nothing common about the materials, the approach, the execution of the designs or the intended effect of the products. It is best to think of CS2 as totally different than SM and forget your previous experience. Your experience with CS2 will be different.

In certain ways, the execution of the CH chassis bears similarity to the execution of the advanced Esoteric product’s chassis. Both manufacturers use steel bottom plates with internal isolation schemes designed to lessen the effects of vibration. CS2 works with both manufacturers because they executed their processes without knocking their chassis out of neutral. The settling process may be a bit longer than normal, but this is a temporary condition.

I suggest CS2 0.8 under the X1 and CS2 1.5 under the M1, if budget allows.
 
Likes: CK Tam

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high-end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. A place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss existing and new audio products, music servers, music streamers and computer audio, digital to audio converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel to reel, speakers, headphones, tube amplifiers and solid state amplification. Founded in 2010 What's Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing