Ash Design Rack - Good Sonically or Not ?

The ordinary QS Reference rack is not to my taste, making things sound generally broken - nice in terms of detail and air/space but nowhere as together as the standard un-Referenced rack.

If you have 'only' £500 - £600, the standard QS rack would be my choice. After all, this would fit in with your price range for 7 tiers. If you wanted to consider a more capable rack in the QS Reference price range (i.e. £600-ish for 4 tiers), then you should definitely consider the Hutter racks which are beautifully built and have great sonic ability for the money - way better than the QS racks in my view. (Incidentally, if using an LP12, Hutter make a special little isolation platform which sorts the LP12 tubby bass perfectly.)

Then there's the Fraim...but that's a different price bracket again.

Regards,
Frank.
All opinions are my own and do not reflect the opinion of any organisations I work for, except where this is stated explicitly.

Cheers,

Steve.

The modular idea is good, but looking at it, for the price difference I would probably consider the Fraim, I could use one without a base for a while and then build as and when i need to....

Scott

I have the QS Ref. MK1 sans holes, having bought it on the strength of an A/B dem with a standard QS "furniture" table.

Moving the CD player across from QS standard to QS Reference was a no-brainer.

The racks may look similar from the pictures, but the way the shelves are attached to the supporting rods is fundamentally different, with the Ref. version having concave rods taking around three times as long to turn as the ones for the standard QS.

In addition, the shelves are decoupled by small aluminium rings which prevent each shelf from coming into contact with the one immediately above it, and the top shelf is further decoupled by splitting the supporting rods to allow an additional set of spikes to be used.

Cheers,

Steve.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steven Toy:
It isn't so simple.

I have the QS Ref. MK1 _ sans _ holes, having bought it on the strength of an A/B dem with a standard QS "furniture" table.

Moving the CD player across from QS standard to QS Reference was a no-brainer.

The racks may look similar from the pictures, but the way the shelves are attached to the supporting rods is fundamentally different, with the Ref. version having concave rods taking around three times as long to turn as the ones for the standard QS.

In addition, the shelves are decoupled by small aluminium rings which prevent each shelf from coming into contact with the one immediately above it, and the top shelf is further decoupled by splitting the supporting rods to allow an additional set of spikes to be used.

Cheers,

Steve.

---

Thats a shame, i could have been onto a winner....I kinda guessed that it wouldn't be quite that straight forward!!

Never mind eh...looks cool I have to agree, and the other half even likes the look and the fact that there is furniture to match! mmmm Coffee table

Cheers,

Steve.

Wouldn't go back to that 'other' rack for the world...

TC '..'
"Girl, you thought he was a man, but he was a Muffin..."

I think many modern recordings are crap compared to a previous decades. I blame , to some extent, studio engineers and their fixation about technology and convenience. Give me 32 i.p.s analogue on a 24 track deck anytime over digital studio formats. Rudy van Gelder recorded in the most simple way on very simple studio equipment. Can you tell me of any modern Jazz recording which captures the tonality and MUSICALITY of these great recordings?

Compressors, effects, equalisers - all take a bite
from the direct path of instrument to tape. I think we would all have collections of superior recordings if more studios had paid attention to equipment isolation issues all these years. IMHO I believe all parts of the reproduction chain are effected by the introduction of vibration and unwanted energy.

I very much doubt that you'll be as sceptical with your flawed rational having heard for yourself.

Stands seem to defy logic with the sonic improvements they bring, but if there is any conflict between logic and what my ears tell me in my mind, then the ears win.

A CD5 @ £1125 on QS Ref. sounds more musical - better timing, pitch, flow, and focus than a CDX @ £2400 on QS standard.

Without decent supports the source/amp upgrades are a waste of money.

Even Mana is better than no stand, a cheap stand or a DIY effort stand.

Cheers,

Steve.

I have spent a couple of hours this morning at Phonography in Ringwood litening to my likely system on standard QS, QS Ref, Hutter, and Isoblue. As a newcomer to all of this Naim business I found the whole experience remarkable. And I was quite surprised at the outcome.

Living in West Sussex you should be able to get there fairly easily and try the same experiment. I am cetainly glad that I did.

01425 461230 if you are interested.

Cheers

Max

The suspense is killing me!

Cheers,

Steve.

John Lindberg trio A Catbird Sings or Tree Frog tonality on Soul Note/Black Saint. Great recordings, as usual from this extraordianry Italian label.

Anything on Label Bleu but to show how Rudy messed up piano try Bojan Z (Solobsession).

John

However my basic point still remains, in general terms would you agree or not or am I turning into Mr Rose tinted spectacle man.

] I love Rudy too.n

Cheers
Ade

regards,

dave

Is it worth considering the standard Q4 rack or is this definately not as good as the Ash Designs rack. I have also seen mentioned Hutter racks. I have never heard of them. Are they modular and how much do they cost.

"Max In Hampshire" I would be interested to know what you thought of the racks you compared.

Mark - (Still impatiently waiting for Hicap!, see my post on delivery times)

well, to my surprise, this wasnt the case!! its not as if QS sounded "broken", far from it. but i found i much preferred the "invisible" nature of the Projekt -- i suppose you could say "neutral" -- but this is not a very useful/meaningful word.

i know the QS Ref is meant to be much better, but how much better its going to be for my power components, i dont know.

interestingly, i found the QS Std worked extremely well with my 112/150/Kan system -- the room has a parquet floor, whereas my office of carpet on concrete floor. either this is fact, or perhaps the system is less revealing, dunno.

my QS Std is done up hand tight, so it doesnt "feel" rigid, as recommended by QS themselves.

conclusion: i am not going to trade in the Projekt. if i am going to change anything at all, the QS Std is the one that is going. i will then consider either QS Ref or Fraim, when i have saved enough dosh for it, and with "management" approval.

moral of this story is "newer is not necessarily better", i guess??

sorry ade, i havent directly answered your question, but i hope you pick up my "be careful" -- only change if you are convinced, in your own listening environment.

hope this helps...

enjoy

ken

[This message was edited by ken c on FRIDAY 01 February 2002 at 12:21.]

Didn’t mean to leave you in suspense! I am very conscious of my inexperience in audio matters. I didn’t choose my e mail address for this group (audio virgin @ virgin net) without good reason! That being so I would not presume to put my three penny worth in uninvited.

However, as you have invited me. Here goes!

My wife joined me for yesterday’s session at Ringwood. Hitherto she has not really been involved in my musical odyssey. She had no prior knowledge of what was considered good, bad, or indifferent. Nor did my wife know the cost of any of the stands so she would not have known if she was preferring the cheapest or most expensive.

Driving to Ringwood I told her that I did not really expect to hear any significant difference between the various stands myself so it would probably all hinge on cosmetics given that our system is going into our lounge. My wife thought it was going to be a case of the Emperor’s new clothes.

The proposed system is CDX, 112, FC2, 150, Allaes. I tried CDX, 102, 180 but rejected it because introducing the 102,180 brought out an unacceptable harshness in the system as a whole. As I have said, the stands I was listening to were QS standard, QS Ref, Isoblue, and Hutter

All the music I listened to was classical. I think that this might be significant in the conclusions I came to, but more of that later.

I decided to go about the business by eliminating the weakest in each round of listening until the final round when we would choose the best from two.

In the first round we very quickly eliminated the standard QS as the weakest of the bunch. To my ears and, surprisingly for both of us, to my wife’s it simply wasn’t in the same league as the other three. We did not analyse why, we just agreed that on the basis of what we had heard, compared with the others, it was a non starter.

So now it was going to get quite exciting. At last I was going to get to grips with these stands that you experts all discuss - and never agree on. And on which I had no real preconceived ideas.

To my mind/ears the very first track we played in the second round identified the next to go. But wanting to be absolutely sure of this we listened to four more, quite different, tracks. But hearing the additional tracks did nothing to change my view, with which my wife agreed. Out went the QS Ref. Compared with the Hutter and Isoblue it produced a very thin sound, and when the pace of the music quickened the QS Ref seemed to lose control whereas the other two kept up and played some fine music. It was simply less involving, less musical.

So far we had made two quite straightforward decisions. Choosing between Hutter and Isoblue was not so easy. We changed to new music, and then went back to listen to the tracks we had previously heard. We compared short snatches of music and we compared lengthy sections. After about two hours of serious listening we came to the following conclusion. With solo instruments eg piano sonatas there was little, if anything, to choose between the two. So they were marked as being equal. But when we played full orchestral pieces the Hutter won the day. It brought the music together better, it had a more orchestral and more musical sound. It was just that little bit nicer to listen to. So, on the basis that the Hutter won some and never came second to the Isoblue it got our vote. But it was very, very close.

I should add that Phil March, who I know is highly respected by many on this forum, did the dem and he agreed with our views. And Phil is not a man to say he agrees if he does not! Digressing slightly Phil also agreed about the 102/180. In fact, to be honest, it was he who highlighted the harshness of this combo to me. I have a lot of time for anyone selling me something who tells me he thinks a cheaper solution is superior to a more expensive one.

I said in my previous post that I was surprised at the outcome of our listening. So why was I surprised? Firstly, in spite of all that I have read on the subject, I simply did not expect to hear such a difference in sound between the stands. I am not being patronising when I say I did not expect my wife to hear any differences, but she most certainly did, and in a very clear way. So anyone out there who thinks it is a load of whatever take it from me it is not – I am converted. Secondly, I was surprised at how obvious the differences sometimes were. Finally, I was surprised that we eliminated the QS Ref so easily and quickly and that, IMO, it was outclassed by the much cheaper Isoblue. I think someone else on the forum has expressed this view.

But, given my experience yesterday, I wonder if a key issue with stands is the type of music we listen to. I don’t recall many of posts in the various stand wars threads actually referring to the type of music involved. Yet, based on my experience, it could have a major influence on how we each perceive the relative abilities of stands. If I find that there were different results within music of the same genre it must follow that rock, jazz or whatever could equally well have yielded totally different results. I don’t think I am expressing this well. What I mean is if, say, I only listened to solo instrument sonatas and chamber music (pretty unlikely I know) I would probably have gone for Isoblue as in this area it equalled the Hutter for less money. So even my tastes within the classical genre has influenced my findings. How much more would they have changed if I was into jazz etc.

Anyway, FWIW, those are my views. Sorry I haven’t used forum speak to describe my impressions PR&T and all that– but then according to Vuk I’m just a boy bander after all!

So, it’s just a home trial next week and then I’ll be on board with Naim! Hallelujah it’s taken me nearly a year.

Mark

You say you have never heard of Hutter. FWIW I understand it is what Naim
used before bringing out the Fraim. In fact their demo room at Salisbury is full of the stuff. Yes, it is modular. I’m not really sure of the cost I suspect it may be a touch more than you really want to pay but it is still worth a listen – you will probably have your stands a long time and based on my experience it is worth getting it right if the cost is not that much more than you really want to pay. The Isoblue is certainly cheaper, I think that is something like £100 a shelf. Give Phil a call and ask.

Tom

Why didn’t I listen to Fraim? Well I am a guy who started out looking for a new system by picking up What Hi Fi and regularly read of cracking systems for £2500. So I had a starting budget of £3000! I think you can guess the rest. But basically I think I have found a well balanced and nice sounding musical system at cost that makes me wince but is not actually painful!
Cheers

Max

a subject close to my heart, or ears. and i dont think there is any problem with the way you are expressing yourself. when i was having a problem with my system over christmas, the type of music that showed it most clearly was piano music, jazz or classical. piano music sounded "out of tune".

i played patrick noland "ascending" many times, schubert "improptus" (alfred brendel) and also quite a few chopin. next time i do any serious equipment review, piano music will feature very prominently, in fact i might use it exclusively. my system has to capture the full note value and capture as much of the character of the piano and pianist as possible.
... Sorry I haven’t used forum speak to describe my impressions PR&T and all that–

and as a result, your posting is much clearer for it. the further away you are from "forum speak" the better, in my view...

i am glad you have both selected what you are happy with. what kind of floor did you try these racks on? just curious...

good luck and

enjoy

ken

ps: you will of course be aware of my latest surprise on Projekt vs QS Std... this really threw me...

No idea what type of floor. Never thought of that. See I told you I am audio virgin @ etc etc!

Main thing is how will it sound on our floor. Phil is kindly letting us have the kit Tues - Sat next week. That's the acid test for all of it.

Pleased to read your comments on the piano. For me, in coming to decisions re systems it has proved the "killer" more than once. I have both the CDs you mention and I rarely do a dem without Brendel's Beethoven Choral Fantasy this enables me to listen to solo piano, then orchestra then choral all rolled up in one easy to carry CD!!

Cheers

Max

man, you have used your own ears to decide what you want. that makes you a guru st away!!!

Main thing is how will it sound on our floor. Phil is kindly letting us have the kit Tues - Sat next week. That's the acid test for all of it.

exactly, said like a real pro. no seriously, i agree with you -- this is the crucial test. quoting naim manuals again " .. the dealer must be prepared to take back any naim equipment he has sold you, at the time of sale, if he cannot make it work to YOUR satisfaction in your own home"

Pleased to read your comments on the piano. For me, in coming to decisions re systems it has proved the "killer" more than once. I have both the CDs you mention and I rarely do a dem without Brendel's Beethoven Choral Fantasy this enables me to listen to solo piano, then orchestra then choral all rolled up in one easy to carry CD!!

it has taken me a while to reach this conclusion. my main music is jazz. naim hifi got me exploring other genre and now i have a lot of classical recordings, significantlt dominated by piano and vocal baroque (purcell, blow, etc).

i dont have brendel's beethoven choral fantasy -- should i feel disadvantaged?

enjoy

ken

The keys are margin (to the dealer) and commission (to the salesman). It is sometimes in the dealer's interest to sell a cheaper item because the markup is higher than for the more expensive item.

Additionally, salesman 'spiffs' are often attached to stereo, photo, etc. items. When I sold cameras, spiffs made my income much higher if I sold a Yashica SLR than if I sold a Minolta. A long time ago when I sold cameras, Minoltas were far better mechanically and optically than the Yashicas. And in the US, the margin and commission on a used car can be higher than that on a new car.

Sometime spiffs varied widely within a line.

I doubt that this is a consideration with Naim, but caveat emptor. All generalizations are questionable.

Thanks very much for your commenst on your stand comparison.

Regards.

Phil

I happen to like Beethoven's Choral Fantasy regardless of the fact that, for the reasons I have given it is a useful dem disk. But then I am a Beethoven freak and I like Brendel.

Didn't know that bit about dealers. Perhaps putting it in a manual is a touch too late!

But I think Phil has been good to let me borrow his dem kit for a while before I finally decide to go for it. One other local dealer would not agree to doing so.

Cheers

Max

As for Isoblue and Hutter being better than QS Reference, I cannot possibly comment as I have never heard either of them.

One or both of them may yet prove to be better to my ears also.

However, there are many unexplored variables here including Mains block and leads used in the dem at Phonography - QS Ref. is designed to be used with the Music Works stuff that I use along with Stallion, Tony Lonorgan, Dave Cattlin or Wobblin/at home in Rochdale et al.

Then there is all that ferrous/non-ferrous bollocks, which I have yet to explore...

It is interesting that you highlighted a problem with th 102/180 combo. Personally, I can only get along with this pre-amp when partnered with a 140 - go any higher, and the better power amps reveal its harshness.

Try an 82 instead - just as a point of reference (excuse pun.)

The hierarchical sonic imbalance derived from using a 102 with a 180 - and it gets worse with a Hi/250, imho, is exacerbated on the QS Reference rack, so I can see why you prefered the more modest 112/150 combination.

As for your choice of programme material, this is immaterial, imho - when set up correctly a system should sound good with all musical styles.

The subjectivity concerning your verdict on these matters relates to precisely what you listen for in the music, rather than your tastes in terms of actual genre.

The PR&T and tune aproach is only one set of criteria...

quote:

---

Anyway, FWIW, those are my views. Sorry I haven’t used forum speak to describe my impressions PR&T and all that– but then according to Vuk I’m just a boy bander after all!

---

My interpretation of "boybander" - someone hiding behind a one-word pseudonym to conceal one's identity for the purposes of disingenuous posting does not really ring true here from where I am sitting.

People choose to be vague about their identity for security reasons rather more frequently than for reasons of trolling.

The actual content of (a) posting(s) should reveal all in due course.

One last thing, May I suggest that you at least try a Densen B200/300 with Chord Anthem interconnects in conjunction with the CDX?
This is what I use.

You may yet be pleasantly surprised at what this combination can do.

Cheers,

Steve.

[This message was edited by Steven Toy on SATURDAY 02 February 2002 at 04:51.]