Rack Order ?

Posted by: Ade Archer on 17 January 2002

Hi
Because it's such a pain in the backside shifting kit about, I thought I'd ask opinions first as to which order may be best for equipment in the rack. Current order from top down is:
82
CDX
Empty shelf
Hicap
250
The reason I ask is that I'm borrowing an XPS (again) and obviously slotted it into the empty shelf. Thing is, even though it powers the CDX immediately above it, I wasn't sure whether to swap it and the Hicap around so that I had the smaller power supply next to a source component, keeping the large XPS and 250 further away. I felt originally that things sounded better with the 82 at the top, as far away as possible.
What do you think?

Cheers
Ade

Posted on: 17 January 2002 by ken c

last time i tested this, the pre-amp, at that time an 82, sounded best on the bottom shelf. this was most emphatic when i was using a sound org, less so on a quadraspire. right now my 52 is on the top shelf of an isoblue --- cant be bothered to shoft things around.

if you experiment, let us know what you find...

enjoy

ken

Posted on: 18 January 2002 by Steve Toy

quote:
Every CD player I have owned/tested (including the CDX) sounds best on the lowest shelf.
Vuk.

Is this just on Mana, I wonder, or did you make this presumption when you tried QS Rf, and found that it didn't work for you?

My experience has been that "sensitive" components close to the top of the hi-fi chain like CD players, and preamps, like to sit at the top of the rack.

Ideally, you should have two racks so that both the CD player and the preamp get to sit on a top shelf.

The "brawnier" components, such as power amps and PSUs with large transformers should occupy the bottom shelves.

Between the "brawn" and the "brain" there should be a spacer shelf.

Moreover, the top shelf of the QS ref. is designed to offer additional isolation to the CD player, so the bottom shelf is surely therefore the last place for it...

Mana, or any other stand you have tried may yield different results.

It's always a nice day for it Have a good one!
Steve.
It's good to get back to normal.

Posted on: 18 January 2002 by dave simpson

Hi Steve,

Vuk's single, it's Friday night, he has a life unlike some of us old married farts (Petrik for example) so until he gets here....

"Every CD player I have owned/tested (including the CDX) sounds best on the lowest shelf.

If memory is correct, he came to this conclusion with his home-brew stands, maybe earlier, definitely pre-Mana.

regards,

dave

yawn...it's bedtime, where's my teeth and glass.

Posted on: 18 January 2002 by Steve Toy

It's even later over here

I read this thread a few days ago, but I didn't decide not to respond to it until this morning...

I do hope that Vuk can elaborate, removing one or two variables.

It's always a nice day for it Have a good one!
Steve.
It's good to get back to normal.

Posted on: 21 January 2002 by Paul Hopkins

How would you deal with a Rega Planet ?

Posted on: 21 January 2002 by ken c

i tend to have all the "source" components on one rack, and the power components on another -- see my profile. loose reasoning is that the magnetic field in the power components is directed upwards therefore power components on one rack will have minimal effect on the source components on the 2nd rack. i can't defend this in a royal society of the learned, but it works pretty well. cable dressing is as uninterferring as i can make it, but 3 burndys make for awkward routing. one thing that i was told by paul d. is discouraged was for the supercap/snaxo burndy to be mechanically "grounded" (what he meant was touching/resting on the floor or wall). i havent quite achieved this yet. but, hey, there are other things to do... one of these fine days...

enjoy

ken

Posted on: 21 January 2002 by Ade Archer

quote:
I can understand Vuk's preference for putting his CDP on the bottom shelf and it sounding best there. On metal stands such as Mana, Soung Org, Stand Design etc, the lower shelf is the most desirable because it is less prone to "ringing" than the other shelves above, due to the welded construction of these stands.
His CDX is thus easily accommodated in that position, as it's a front loader. Wait till you get a top loading CDSII Vuk!

quote:
"Stallion"
You don't know what the f*ck you're talking about you pompous idiot, so don't ever attempt to speak for me again. I thought Paul Stephenson had banned you.

Oh Dear !

Ade :

Posted on: 21 January 2002 by Ade Archer

If the 82 is on top and the CDX below it, the CDX is more likely to be affected by any power supply interference, degrading CD performance. If I swap 82 and CDX, 82 is more likely to be affected, degrading, to a lesser extent, CD performance, but also vinyl performance.
Which is more sensitive,a pre-amp or a CD player, and do you compromise one source to spare another, or compromise two sources, but to a lesser degree each. I would eventually like a Supercap for the 82, so whichever way I then arrange things, there are going to be some big transformers on the 3rd, 4th and 5th shelves down. I am of the opinion that it would be best to keep the 82 as far away as possible.
I do only have one rack, and only room for one rack. LP12 is on wall shelf above it.

Cheers
Ade

Posted on: 21 January 2002 by David Dever

Listened to an Linn Ikemi / ATC CA2 preamp / ATC SCM10A system last night on a four-tier Mana amp rack, with the ATC preamp on top, the Ikemi below, and two empty shelves at bottom.

Remove glass from bottom two shelves--voila, instant music. (Duh.)

Move Ikemi to bottom shelf, tune glass. Lots more bass, but slow and undetailed. Move speakers farther out from wall, perhaps?

Replace Ikemi under CA2 on second shelf from top, allow Ikemi to warm up for an hour (inadvertent disconnect) and, amazing, back to music again. Bass was taut and manageable, not slow and droopy.

I've seen this before, but it may be that racks of uni-body construction may have positions that are tunably preferable, based on your setup at the time....

Dave Dever

P.S. Steve K. set up the racks. Upper shelves rang longer than lower ones.

Posted on: 21 January 2002 by Steve Toy

quote:
delayed response
"Stallion"
You don't know what the f*ck you're talking about you pompous idiot, so don't ever attempt to speak for me again. I thought Paul Stephenson had banned you.

You really can display all the traits of a belligerent and objectionable chap...

Easy boy!

It's not compulsory you know!

If you wished to add to anything that Stallion may have said, why didn't you just do so without any of this?

As for banning Stallion - coming from you, that's a bit rich, don't you think?

We were having a sensible discussion on optimising our system and its respective order upon our stands.

Let us please continue with this, and keep this thread here and not in the Padded Cell, or deleted altogether.

With respect, Vuk,

Have you ever considered anger-management strategies?

It's always a nice day for it Have a good one!
Steve.

PS: All Stallion was doing was challenging your viewpoint and making speculation as to how you reached your conclusions - nothing wrong with that, IMHO.

A sensible and constructive response from you would now be most welcome.

[This message was edited by Steven Toy on TUESDAY 22 January 2002 at 05:21.]

Posted on: 21 January 2002 by Dr. Exotica

While we're on this thread - are there any opinions regarding rack placement of the following equipment on a Standesign Penta (5 shelves) that I am awaiting delivery of. I was considering the following arrangment, listed from top to bottom:

LP12
CD3.5
32.5
110
SNAPS2 and Hi-Cap

I will be buying some Neuance supports for the rack (top two shelves?).

One obvious problem is where to put the LP12 - a wall mounted rack is envisioned (as it becomes affordable).

Erik

Posted on: 22 January 2002 by ken c

stallion,

When you're feeling bored one afternoon, try it and tell me what you think.

right now my system sounds so good i am adopting the rule "if it ain't broke...". over christmas, my system was sounding depressingly mediocre, now that i have sorted that out (by swapping an old 250 out) -- i want to enjoy every moment without messing around. as it happens, the snaxo burndy is dead easy to "unground" - just pulled the snaxo and its supercap forward a bit in the rack. i cannot say this has made a big difference -- it actually wasnt making that much contact with the wall ...

when i better understand what optimum component configuration actually means, or if i obtain specific recommendations from naim audio, or if my dealer suggests so, then i will re-arrange accordingly. the idea of experimenting (number of possible configutaions in an active system is actually quite large) doesnt enthuse me at all, i am afraid.

I hope that you've got your pops and clicks sorted out. The RA "silencer" I recommended definitely works!!

nope... this is an easy thing to try, so, one of these days. thanks for suggestion.

Take care,

you too, and

enjoy(?)

ken

Posted on: 22 January 2002 by Martin Payne

quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Exotica:
+ LP12
+ CD3.5
+ 32.5
+ 110
+ SNAPS2 and Hi-Cap

Erik,

the CD3.5 will have a transformer it's the right-hand side, so put the 32.5 on the left-hand side of it's level.

Put the 110 on the right-hand side, again to avoid transformer problems.

Then put the HiCap on the left side, and the SNAPS on the right.

quote:
One obvious problem is where to put the LP12 - a wall mounted rack is envisioned (as it becomes affordable).

Getting the LP12 away from the Naim stuff had such benefits for me, that I bought a Stageline to let me do it properly.

cheers, Martin

Posted on: 22 January 2002 by Martin Payne

Actually, one more possibility:-

LP12
CD3.5
32.5 on left, as above (all same down to here)
SNAPS2 on right
110 & HiCap on botom, play around and find which way around sound best.

cheers, Martin

Posted on: 22 January 2002 by Steve Toy

Not for the source component to suffer does not necessarily equal it to be realising its optimum performance regarding which shelf it should be sited on.

This is a big-time no-brainer with the CDS2, because you have no other option other than to site it on the top shelf, given its top loading nature.

What we need now is for the Ulmighty and Venerable Vuk to explore all the possible outlined variables, and explain the context for his finding that a CDX sounded better on the bottom shelf...

Over to him with baited breath....

It's always a nice day for it Have a good one!
Steve.

Posted on: 22 January 2002 by John

I've tried just about every combination possible with my Mana racks. I now sit with:

Two tier:
52
---
CDS1

Four tier:
CDPD
----
Supercap
---
135
---
135

I agree with Vuk regarding the bottom shelf. I recommend trying to islolate your weakest component or the one that is most sensitive to the stands and try and put it on the bottom shelf. I am lucky the two tier will accomodate the top loader. I have learned that you can't put the 52 or CDS1 on a rack with any of the other components. When I did there was a slight electronic edge to the sound. The 135s are on the bottom of my 4 tier because they were the most sensitive to stand. This also makes sense as my 135s are probably the weakest link in my system.

My 2 cents
John

Posted on: 23 January 2002 by Steve Toy

It's always a nice day for it Have a good one!
Steve.

Posted on: 23 January 2002 by Rico

Vuk explained that one many, many times, and many, many moons ago. perhaps you could try asking him nicely, and he'll give you the appropriate answer?

As for a CDSII not being able to be used on the bottom shelf of a rack - have you explored all the possibilities? The rest of the forum will all check in to their local A&E ward suffering from Baited Breath as they await your response.

Rico - SM/Mullet Audio

PS - Ade, try the XPS underneath the 250 if you're leaving PSU's/Amps beneath the source. Noisiest supply furthest away from CDX, and additional benefit of easier Burndy Dressing.

Posted on: 23 January 2002 by Steve Toy

Use extra-long supporting rods between the bottom shelf and the one directly above so that you can open the lid...

Mana racks are already sufficiently spaced out, I think.

I am saying nothing about their owners...

[joke smilie]

If Vuk had contributed to this discussion in the normal way to begin with, there would be no need for me or anyone else to grovel for this little teeny-weeny tit-bit of info from the Almighty One!

It's always a nice day for it Have a good one!
Steve.

Posted on: 23 January 2002 by Top Cat

I have to say that it seems to make little difference in my system where the CD player goes, just so long as I keep it at least 18 inches away from the preamp - they don't get on.

It's currently around about 18", and the improvements stop coming beyond that distance. No other component seems to disagree with the preamp in this way, incidentally.

I've got power amps and preamp PSU on the bottom shelf, preamp on the second shelf, headphone stage on the first Reference top, and a reference shelf (dual tier) with CD player and TT on top (securely wall-bolted with six 4.5" bolts into a brick wall, just so that lightning doesn't strike twice )

TC '..'
"Girl, you thought he was a man, but he was a Muffin..."

Posted on: 23 January 2002 by Steve Toy

Source components always (usually) benefit from the additional decoupling afforded by the top shelf of QS Ref.

It's always a nice day for it Have a good one!
Steve.

Posted on: 23 January 2002 by Top Cat

...but it was never going to be an option due to the fact that the preamp and CD player would then be too close, and they HATE each other's close company - the sound turns a bit mushy, and detail and pace is lost. It's very easy to demonstrate...

TC '..'
"Girl, you thought he was a man, but he was a Muffin..."

Posted on: 23 January 2002 by Rico

[

quote:

Rico,
Hows it hangin?

Rather well.

quote:

Re: VUK
You asked that we could: "perhaps try asking him nicely and he'll give you the appropriate answer."
I'm sorry but that just doesn't work with Vuk if you are either Steve Toy or myself.

There may be something in that - try looking for the root cause. Simple!

quote:

He thinks we talk "crap" - [snip] he expresses such terms of endearment to me as quote (Vuk): "You don't know what the f*ck you're talking about you pompous idiot" [snip]
Another thing is this: "Vuk explained that one many, many times, and many, many moons ago."
What you seem to forget is that much of this was discussed either, before I arrived on the "new" forum, or on the "old" forum. Therefore, myself and many others are unaware of the details of these discussions and it would be nice for that to be taken into consideration.

Try the search bicycle. It would save many megabites of needless needling posts on the server. That would be "nice".

quote:

That's all. I don't want to make a big deal about it, but I felt that this needed to be clarified.

Ditto.

Rico - SM/Mullet Audio

Posted on: 23 January 2002 by Steve Toy

This esprit de clique is getting a bit tiresome now.

The forum has moved on, and there are new members who won't always be junior members.

For example, the more the "Old Guard" lambast me for using smilies - because they weren't available on the old forum , the more I shall use them - I am one stubborn mutha like that!

You can spot a member of the "Old Guard" - they have taken to putting [snip]s in the middle of quotes - a bit like one of those funny handshakes...

Only more irritating.

It's always a nice day for it Have a good one!
Steve.

Posted on: 23 January 2002 by Paul Ranson

quote:
For example, the more the "Old Guard" lambast me for using smilies - because they weren't available on the old forum , the more I shall use them - I am one stubborn mutha like that!

I'm 'new guard'. I hereby LAMBAST you for indiscriminate use of 'smilies'

Paul