DIYing for Fraim — II

Sorry, I’ve never tried Mana at home. The only reliable reference familiar to you was a Quadraspire rack meeting my old Sound Orgs (Z28, the tall ones). I’ve always been aware of the limitations of SO tables but I was not convinced by the merits of the QS, at all. Its more elegant and refined sound missed the real weight and body of the SO. It had a distinctly “aluminium” sound contrary to SO’s “iron” character; my own experiments with alu pillars plus MDF plates gave QS-like results.

It’s worth mentioning that I am very sensitive in perceiving slight differences but just as much undecided when judging which one the better is, especially in A-B testing. And it’s extremely difficult to compare the different setting-ups of the rack. Once having the skill, it still took some 20 minutes to take both supports to pieces and put them together again. (Actually, the whole assembly should have two days for burning-in. Believe it or not.)

It’s worth mentioning, too, that my room is overdamped with books, carpets, and curtains. The SBLs had no places but actually buried in the corners so they always had a Spendor-like character. In addition to it, I have learned in this very forum that older Naim models (like my 12-year-old CDS1, 15-year-old HiCap, 20-year-old renovated 250) all had a mellow sound character compared to recent ones. For speaker cable still I use 2x10 m of A5, no less. So I’d like to make clear that my statements, enthusiastic they are, should be interpreted with the limitation of my equipment in mind. (And you may forgive my poor English. I keep translating, I write what I can, not what I want to.)

It’s widely known you should change only one parameter at the same time. Yet when in the meantime I finally got the “chips” I simply had to try them immediately under the racks — and they caused big confusion, I passed through heavy trials! The whole quality of stereophony changed, I lost my sense of direction. It was like stepping out of the recording studio into the concert hall. Agressive close-miked recordings became spacious and listenable — but at the expense of a strange softening in the presence range. Even so, having lived 2 days with the chips simply there were no way backwards and the improvement became indisputable. To play safe now I put the “chips” under the speaker’s spikes, too — and the result was even more pronounced. OBVIOUSLY THE NEW SOUND CHARACTER HAD TO BE ACCEPTED WHEN FINE TUNING THE RACKS. That’s the price to pay if your equipment support is not a factory-made one.

Another parameter that incidentally was changed during the evaluation was the range order of main plugs in (Naim’s) distribution block. It was discussed in this forum a few month ago but I was not aware of it’s importance. Now assembling the racks over and over, many a time I felt strange treble loss and I tracked it down to the topic mentioned. I can not turn over the pages to find the discussion but IMO there always must come the source first, then the HiCap, then the amp — consequently that was the right order.

The re-built Fraim, even its first variant, has justified my efforts. It belonged to a distinctly higher category than SOs and QSs. The usual energy peaks were eliminated, even when listening to some of my favourite but highly problematic records such as Ellington’s big band from the ’50s or the big black operatic mezzos of the ’60s (Verrett, Bumbry). Distortions reduced, bass register (even with SBLs) soft and extended, dynamic range and space improved. Better Hi-Fi. Changing the CDS1’s burndy cable from grey to black was none of that kind of upgrade.

The final variant, with stainless steel and the addition of “chips” was an other game. Gone the hardness, any mechanical noise from the sound. Now music was tiding in a velvet-like flow, with plenty of depth space and a certain nonchallance. „There is a Linn in the system”, if you recall the old slogan from the ’70s. Recordings known as disturbingly close-miked moved back to a real-life-space. Bass did not come from the speakers any more, rather “from below the floor”, far below the 60-Hz-resonance of my room. (Quantity of bass and warmth of the sound depends on the alu arrangement so it could not yet considered final.) Bass instruments, on the other hand, were very articulate. Since the sound seemed too “mellow”, laid-back in the presence range, the alu structure was modified to fill out the gap in the frequency range. I don’t say it’s perfect but now jazz piano would be “singing” and interpretation much more interesting. Music instruments such as SBLs magic flutes (recorders) and trumpets came to a new life. Opera music listenable from ouverture to finale, human voice better than I’ve hoped. If you are anti-church but if listening to Tannhäuser you have the feeling of deep religiousity then you’ve done a big leap in audio quality.

Conclusion
The main design of Fraim DO WORK even if re-built with (careful!) approximations and with the use of modest materials — my admiration for the designers! I’ll never have the possibility to compare my version to the original, I’m afraid. It’s only a hopeful feeling that if Fraim proves to be a real Stradivarius then my version may be a good no-name-master’s violin, preferably of italian origin.

One of the obvious merits of Fraim is that it’s heavy and light at the same time. (This thinking was pioneered by Mana, I understand.) In addition to it, the resonant frequencies of Fraim’s numerous components seems to be tuned to each other on a congenial way. It may come as a surprise for most but there exists a known method for measuring the acoustical behaviour of mechanical products like this. Tiny vibration sensors when applied on the target object can registrate a kind of frequency range whenever a mechanical impulse is generated on the target. I think Fraim is the only support on the market that’s worth to be measured at all. And I’d not the least be surprised if learning that Fraim had really been measured that way during the designing process.

graphoman