I use them under amps...they tighten up the sound and I could hear it...under digital I use DH cones.
Just received 2 sets of pulsar points bought here. Little surprised as the cone protrusion of the base and recess of the top cylinder is different between the two sets.
Anyway, to cut a long story short, I find these to bring subtle but noticeable improvements. There was less smearing of notes which helped improve focus and refinement. Certainly not day and night difference but it's there. I had them under both CD player and tube preamp. At times I have to take them out and put them back under the components, and then take them out again -just to make sure they are doing something. I can't hear any difference when they were under the power amp.
Alexsee... yes i have compared the both. I feel the titanium pulsar points to provide better leading edge definition and spacing of notes than the cerapucs. The cerapucs probably may give you more a sense of power and fullness of bass at the expense of definition. It may vary from component to component but this is my general observation on the gear i have used them with.
This is probably a closed thread, but as I have both Pulsar and Quasar points, I thought I'd leave my insights for anyone who comes here in the future.
The Quasar Points, I've found, work quite well under speakers (Hales Revelations 3) currently in my system. In fact, they suprass the Goldmund cones, which I hadn't expected, under the speakers. I had removed the Hales original feet (brass cones) and put the Goldmunds under them. The sound improved and I thought nothing of it until I got Quasars last week (they're on sale at Music Direct) and decided to try them under the speakers.
That was as nothing compared to what happened when I placed them under my CAT Ultimate MK II preamp, which WAS sitting directly on the rubber feet of the Finite Elemente Spider rack. I'd had some concerns about the sonics, but couldn't put my finger on it until I decided to put down a plain MDF shelf and put the CAT on that, separated by the Quasars.
The difference was substantial. I'd thought the whole bottom range of the CAT (which I'd owned back from 88-94) was murky. And transient detail seemed dulled, much like person talking with a mouth full of food and then without any food in their mouth: clarity. It seems they don't like sitting on rubber pucks. The Quasars separated out the instruments -- CLEARLY -- in layers of depth, so I now KNOW that the piccolo is behind the flute, not just "think" it's behind it. The Quasars allow the CAT to be itself, which it wasn't when sitting on the rubber pucks of the Spider (good as it is).
The Titaniums are also good, but the effect is not as obvious with them as it is with the Quasar. I imagine having the top and bottom part separated by a small ball prevents vibration from reaching the component, as the speaker showed a rather marked difference than it did with the Cones, which did NOT improve the depth layering.
I haven't been yet able to determine if having the Quasars under the amps have helped, but I can say that it's easier for me to evaluate the tubes I put into my Hurricanes with the Quasars making it clear what's an improvement and what's merely "different." The Electron 6SN7 input tubes on the Hurricane are "hard" sounding in this application. The delicacy inherent in say, Copland's Appalachain CD, is gone with the Electrons, but is more achingly tender, more poignant and, actually, even more 3D than the Electrons, which I bought years ago, but did not ever warm up to. I'd say the Quasars do a fantastic job of isolation. I've no doubt there are better, but at what cost???
I also put Titaniums under the CD player preceded by the Quasars. No contest: Quasars are significantly -- and obviously -- superior. I'd say that this is why so many products now have a steel ball that separates top from bottom parts in many components: It Works!
Nordost now has a new tweak out: "Sort Kones." I'll have to try them out