Equipment support design concepts?
Posted by: Tony L on 14 November 2001
quote:
I will not seek to enter the, QS is better than Fraim debate, although I do have my personal preferences !!I do however find it interesting that the latest "improvement" to the QS involves the cutting of a hole in the shelf, which is well nigh a copy of the Fraim design. Perhaps, soon to be followed by a sophisticated decoupleing solution based around an extensively researched and engineered approach involving a ball bearing and a cup arrangement with a glass shelf to provide further isolation and energy disipation.
The thing that interests me is the indication that Naim hold some theories as to how and why their Fraim stand works. Mana also claim to know why their stand does what it does, though ain't telling anyone despite it being safely patented. Larry (the designer of the QS Reference) has some theories on why the QS Ref works, though a large part of that tables design appears to be the work of trial and error combined with really extensive listening tests at every stage. (I will let someone closer to the shop outline his theories - Dave C you out there?).
It is interesting that the four stands that have emerged at the top of the pile (QS Ref, Fraim, Mana, Hutter) all use radically different techniques to achieve what they do. At one end of the scale we have the ultra floppy QS Ref which noticeably wobbles, through multi level Mana that sort of sways, to Fraim which appears ultra rigid. Massive differences exist in design before we even start to think about the materials used and their effect on electronic components.
OK Naim, how and why does Fraim do what it does? What properties do you reckon are desirable in an equipment support? I am sure these questions could be answered without giving out any trade secrets.
Tony.