In Stallion's 'I've been FRAIMed - in the NAIM of music' thread Paul Darwin made some interesting comments about the latest QS Reference developments. I am reluctant to post on the original thread as it has largely degenerated into noise and bickering, so I thought I would start a new thread. Here is a slightly provocative quote from Paul that I have taken nicely out of context! -
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.
Posted on: 16 November 2001 by Craig B
Dave Simpson
quote:
What is desirable supporting a hung-suspension device?
Yes Dave, that does seem to be a very well reasoned answer. Let's add it to the list...well anyway...let's just start the list with it then and hope that others chime in and offer other suitable questions to 'the answer is vertical rigidity' or other relavent answers for that matter.
If I may be so bold as to add one of my own to the list as a way of helping to get the game rolling...
The answer is vertical rigidity.
Q. What is one design objective that all of the market leading stands share?
See isn't this fun? The game could very well ask very revealing questions if others where to offer other more interesting answers.
Posted on: 16 November 2001 by ken c
Having thought about how to do stands 'on the cheap' it's plain that the problem is I don't know what the hell I'm trying to achieve. Ask the right questions and I reckon the answers would become reasonably apparent.i am exaclty the same position. quite a lot of what i have read recently suggests stand design is largely empirical, perhaps starting from the simplest design (ikea?) and then figuring out/listening to how it can be improved.
whenever "fundamental" principles are stated, i find they are couched in mysterious one-liners like "soak extraneous energy to ground" "resonance reduction" ..blah blah blah ...
frustrating.
enjoy
ken
Posted on: 16 November 2001 by Craig B
Please restate your reply in the form of a question.
Kindest regards,
the Jeopardy Audio Staff
'ask us no questions and we will tell you no lies'
Posted on: 16 November 2001 by John C
They also sang "She got bit on the udder by an adder" and "Dont let the Stars get in you Eyeballs" or the immortal "You Tell Her, I Stutter" or even "Malady of Love" with the heartfelt line "you said your heart belonged to me, but the rest of ya kept goin' out with other guys!"
John.a
Posted on: 16 November 2001 by dave simpson
But Dave, assuming that the dominatrix' suggestion as to your pedigree were true, wouldn't that make you your mother's nephew?
Hold on.... I'm getting a calculator.
Posted on: 16 November 2001 by Craig B
Do you have Excel installed? The Microsoft suite has a basic Organisation Chart applet available via Insert, Object on the menu bar.
Craig
NB before inserting any objects please ensure that any and all siblings are at a safe distance.
[This message was edited by Craig Best on SATURDAY 17 November 2001 at 04:51.]
Posted on: 16 November 2001 by dave simpson
..that wonders if certain salisbury employees sit around a pc during break , peeking into here and going "what the f&#k...?"
Perfect time for the overdue VIP visit from the engineering staff. Topic: "Stands: Forum Obsession,Delusion and Myths"
'Course, I know they're busy...wait... I've got Amar Bose's phone number somewhere....
Posted on: 16 November 2001 by Craig B
quote:
...wait... I've got Amar Bose's phone number somewhere...
Watch out for Doctor Evil, he's got a big litigation "l-a-s-e-r" you know. The problem is that he just can't decide what direction to shoot it in.
That reminds me...
The answer is... 'two, one for the front and another for the back'.
The question is... 'How many Bose engineers does it take to design a shite loudspeaker?'
Posted on: 16 November 2001 by dave simpson
I even stooped to this once or twice....
Customer: "Mr. Dealer, what do you think of the Bose 901s?"
Dealer: (facing away from the customer and towards the nearest wall) " What's wrong with this picture?."
P.S. shouldn't it be "nine, one for the front and eight for the back"?
Posted on: 16 November 2001 by Craig B
quote:
P.S. shouldn't it be "nine, one for the front and eight for the back"?
Dr. Evil originally hired nine inept engineers with the intention of putting them all on the design team to create the top of the line bog box. However seven of them had no sense of direction and failed to show up for work. The two that did manage to make it to the factory wondered off into different departments, with one managing to arrive at the R&D department where he assisted Dr. Evil in creating the 901. However, the other engineer showed up after a protracted time delay and appeared somewhat confused and directionless. Dr Evil deamed the slaker as redundant and immediately let him go.
Posted on: 17 November 2001 by dave simpson
The two that did manage to make it to the factory wondered off into different departments, with one managing to arrive at the R&D department where he assisted Dr. Evil in creating the 901.
You know, I smell another hit in this. Where's Speilberg ?
