position of 52 on a QS rack....

Posted by: ken c on 02 January 2001

i would like to report the result of changing nac52 from the 4th shelf to the bottom shelf of my 5 level QS.

i took the usual control precaution of eliminating the effect of self cleaning by connecting/disconnecting my system by making only this change to start with. there was a small positive change in that the treble was better integrated with the music, only slightly. worth it though.

then i moved the 52 to the bottom shelf, left the cd2 on the top shelf. after a warmup, the sound was OK, but it had lost "something". i was contemplating reversing the change when i noticed that the power cables of my hydra were now quite untidily sprawled under the 52 now. so i sorted this out next -- dressed the cables away from under the 52, in the process making the whole setup rather neater. i had rushed the reconfig somewhat...

result. my daughter walked into my office (where my system lives) and said ... "what have you done -- your hifi sounds a lot better?".

what more can i say?

enjoy...

ken

Posted on: 02 January 2001 by Bob Edwards

Ken--

Would you please email me at either the address below or at rtedwar@qwest.com

Thanks in advance !

Bob∞

Posted on: 04 January 2001 by Vik

Ken, some months back I was wondering how to maximize the potential of each component on my Mana 6 tier. To cut a long story short, I eventually had the system in the following sequence, top down....
1)NAT02
2)135
3)135
4)Supercap
5)32.5
6)CDPS
The CDS1 sits on its own. As for what happened to the sound after this, let's just say the move was as important as having BOUGHT the Mana in the first place.

Most people feel it is wrong to sandwich the preamp in-between and components that have transformers.

My assertion is that the stand is structurally more sound, closer to the ground.

Anyhow, the move won't cost money, and can easily be reversed if it doesn't work out.

Vik

PS Radio is a secondary source, and there isn't any more space in the room that I'd care to use up. Ideally, it should be on it's own stand

Posted on: 05 January 2001 by ken c

vik, many thanks. i dont claim to understand whats going on here. i certainly took as many precautions as i could to make sure that the effect could not be attributed to anything else, for example self cleaning as a side effect of breaking and making cable connections.

your exaplation "My assertion is that the stand is structurally more sound, closer to the ground. " is philosophically interesting. i do wish more alternative explanations could emerge, but i dont hold out too much hope. equipment support appears to elude rigorous analysis to correlate cause and effect.

your post indicates that the effect may not be specific to QS supports, but may in fact be general. i seem to recall someone reporting that he had good results from getting rid of all supports and using equipment from directly on a concrete floor. how much closer to "earth" (flat earth??) can you get i ask...

enjoy...

ken