isoblue...

Posted by: ken c on 12 May 2001

hi folks, you will recall that i had promised to report on the comparison between isoblue and quadraspire in my home. unfortunately, at the time the isoblue was installed, quite a few things went wrong so it wasnt possible to compare properly. right now my cd2/52/nat02/snaxo are on the isoblue -- with the widest spacing -- not very left-right rigid, but quite bwd-fwd rigid enough. the system sounds great, so it cant have done much harm. if i ever need to disconnect my system for whatever reason, will do the comparison (i still have the quadraspire) and let you know. but i would only bother if there is interest -- seems to be accepted wisdom that the isoblue is better than QS anyway -- so this may be flogging a dead horse...

enjoy...

ken

Posted on: 13 May 2001 by mr saucisson
Ken,

If you get chance to make such a comparison, then I for one would be most interested to hear how it sounds, alone or in comparison to anything else, as I am currently considering it myself. Have you (or anyone else!) by any chance heard it against a WB Asside or Hutter, as I would love to be able to do this dem, but can't find anyone who carries more than one of these?

Have you found it to be well built? I ask because when I went along to hear it at a dealers, I was told that they had stopped carrying it as it was simply TOO wobbly and kept coming apart (not just in the places it was meant to) . Did he just have a dodgy sample, or are they all as bad as that? Or is that lack of rigidity part of the design philosophy?

Cheers

Ben

Posted on: 13 May 2001 by ken c
hi, my isoblue certainly doesnt "keep coming apart". as i said, it lacks left-right rigidity, but is OK bwd-fwd. i know there were a few problems with the larger spacer blocks at with the early samples, but i gather this has been sorted out now. i have asked isoblue about whether lack of sideways rigidity is part of the design or a fault -- i was promised an answer some weeks ago -- it hasnt come yet. annoying.

one thing i can tell you is that the table looks very nice indeed and is also very convenient in use. to get access to any component on the rack, you simply slide the shelves above it fwd a bit and voala! as i said, it doesnt appear to have done any harm to the sound quality.

enjoy...

ken

Posted on: 13 May 2001 by mr saucisson
that is very useful to know. I shall make an effort to find another dealer who does keep it in stock and go and have a listen to the new improved version.

How many layers of it do you both have? Am I right in thinking that you can stack it as high as you want, or is there a maximum? Is there also an optimal number of shelves to be put on one base, or does it not make a significant difference? I would prefer something that could go reasonably high, as I already have a Mana table for the TT, and so do not want to have three racks worth of equipment in the room if possible.

Otherwise, I would have bought a WB Asside already, as I think they sound superb - and look stunning. However, you only get 4 shelves, and I need more than that, so would have to go with 2 racks - not ideal for aesthetic and space reasons. Furthermore, the total cost would be £1200, as opposed to the £700 for the amount of isoblue I would need - assuming that it can all go on one base.

Thanks very much again

Ben

Posted on: 13 May 2001 by Norman
Hi Ken,

sounds very good what you tell about isoblue. Have you, or anybody out there, compared isoblue to the Mana stuff. What differences in sound and character are there?
And the FRAIM... any comments, maybe by David Devers, one of the few previleged to tell about that.

Ken, can you tell about the positioning in your isoblue! Seems imp. since most of us have to many black boxes...


Cheers, Norman

Posted on: 13 May 2001 by ken c
i assume you mean positioning of equipment. i have a 4 level cherry (i.e base plus 3 shelves) isoblue and from top to bottom -- cd2, nac52, nat02, snaxo.

the power amps and p/s are on projekt in the order supercap (for nac52), supercap (for snaxo), nap250 and nap250. i sometimes wonder whether the quadraspire, which i still have, would be better for the high current stuff?? any thoughts anyone? if i ever feel the urge, i might compare... but when does one then have time to play all that music??

enjoy...

ken
ps: i have not compared with mana or fraim(!!) as i dont have either

Posted on: 13 May 2001 by Norman
Right you are, Ken!
My pain is to place all stuff at one stand. So I have the CDPS directly under my 72 and the NAT, followed by two 135 down there. On top the CDS, so all five places are filled. That means my hicap and the NATPS are in the moment on the floor....not perfect at all. But, you know, I don´t like to have x stands in my room. I would prefer to hide all the amp boxes...it´s a living room after all.
On the other hand I´m not completly happy with the sound(some harshness) and so I have to separate my preamp from the P/S and poweramps and give my p/s a stand. Hmmm not easy to make all ends meet.

A lot people have their NAIM on Mana, sure you know Ken. Was´nt worth a try for you? Are´nt at least the SBL stands a good thing. After all I will change to the new SNAIC´s and Burndy btw.

Good night,

Norman

Posted on: 14 May 2001 by mr saucisson
shall make an effort to hear Hutter too. BTW how much does this cost? I note that you say it is better value, but suspect it may be getting too much...no good if it's fraim money!

Ben

Posted on: 14 May 2001 by ken c
quote:
A lot people have their NAIM on Mana, sure you know Ken. Was´nt worth a try for you? Are´nt at least the SBL stands a good thing. After all I will change to the new SNAIC´s and Burndy btw.

when i get a chance, i will try a soundtable for my lp12 and maybe soundbases for my sbls. i was actually very keen to try the soundbases sometime ago, but now that i have gone active, i really cannot see the point in that exercise -- especially as i have to mess about with the spike adjustments to make the sbl sit squarely on the soundbase -- and then if i dont like the effect i have to do this all over again so it sits rigidly on the floor.

in general, even though my hifi is in my office, i.e not in the lounge, the two women in my life (my wife and my daughter) would certainly object to a complete mana takeover.

on the question of how many racks you need, my view is that you need at least 2.

enjoy...

ken

Posted on: 15 May 2001 by MarkEJ
quote:
Fyi (so you cen see where I am coming from) I do not like the Mana effect.

The problem is, everyone who tries it seems to get a different "Mana effect", so it's really difficult to establish common terms of reference here. The sound achieved by Mana at shows (eg Bristol 2000, IMHO dire) is in my view radically different to what happens if you install a bit of Mana at home. In my case, I tried two sound frames under the TT and was gobsmacked. Subjectively, it came across as more naturally paced, more naturally tonally balanced, more intimate, more atmospheric, etc. The impression was more one of "removal of previously undefined negatives", than the addition of a definite "effect". At the show, it had just clanged.

The interesting thing is that "herd syndrome". Someone tries it and likes it, then someone else tries it and likes it. They talk about it and automatically assume that they are both experiencing the same thing! Chances are, they're not, IMHO.

On brief (Royd room, Bristol 2001) listen, I agree with you broadly about Hutter v. IsoBlue. IsoBlue has a lot going for it in terms of simplicity and expandability, while looking great (no curves!). It'd be interesting to "season" it with a Soundframe or two... wink

Best;

Mark

(an imperfect
forum environment is
better than none)

Posted on: 15 May 2001 by mr saucisson
Jason, thanks for that, I will definately ensure I hear both Isoblue and Hutter now.

I do agree about mix and match, it seems rather contra-intuitive somehow. I do plan to stick with the Mana table under the TT though, as I have never heard anything do for a TT what Mana does. That was certainly the case for a P3, P25, Gyrodec and Xerxes. So I am in agreement with the Mana fanatics there.

However, for me the effect is not nearly as appealing when applied to anything else. BTW, yes, it did have a profound and noticeable effect, so I presume it was set up OK. Furthermore, I can certainly see why so many people really like it. However, it did not do it for me with a 72, Hicap, CD3.5, CDI, or Quad FM4 on it. I did not even find the effect of putting a sound frame on an old Sound Org stand I have appealing, so I think it is time to go for a "pedigree" option!

ben

Posted on: 15 May 2001 by MarkEJ
Mixing & matching design philosophies is very likely a bad idea. However, for the sake of completeness in this discussion, shouldn't we therefore take account of the philospophy (if any) inherent in the design of the casework of the gear we propose to support?

EG: Arcam stuff, while undeniably excellent value for money has the bare minimum of design hours expended on casework and vibration handling generally, and thus (by general agreement) usually benefits considerably from ANY support which addresses this, however it does it.

Naim Audio CD players, on the other hand, have considerable thought given to vibration-related issues, as part of their overall design. Supports for them should therefore at least subscribe to the same theoretical ideals, in order to avoid the "mix & match" problem.

Bugger, I've just sold myself a Fraim... wink

Best;

Mark

(an imperfect
forum environment is
better than none)