WHF equipment rack reviews

[spiny norman]

I think they should be told. 🙂

It's almost like "We haven't a scooby what we're talking about, so we're going to say it in as obstructive, yet superficially impressive-sounding, a way as possible". It reads like it's written by people who don't ever read any other books or magazines or whatever.

Or perhaps they're paid by the word or have pages to fill, so need to use as much superfluous verbiage as possible. Whichever it is, the magazine, and this site, is becoming less readable by the issue.

 

[Gazzip]

You lot really do hate this hobby don't you.

 

[Vladimir]

Being sane and rational member of a cult, cracking jokes about Xenu, its brilliant.

 

[spiny norman]

You lot really do hate this hobby don't you.

No, we hate those endeavouring to mislead, confuse or exploit those who love the hobby as much as we do.

 

[Gazzip]

...but where is the hobby for you? All amps sound the same. All sources (excluding turntables) sound the same. All cables sound the same. Racks make no difference. Seems to me that the hobby for you guys can only be about knocking the products and the industry in general. Is that a hobby? I'm not so sure it is.

 

[spiny norman]

All amps sound the same. All sources (excluding turntables) sound the same. All cables sound the same. Racks make no difference.

Don't think I'd agree with any of those statements.

 

[steve_1979]

...but where is the hobby for you? All amps sound the same. All sources (excluding turntables) sound the same. All cables sound the same. Racks make no difference. Seems to me that the hobby for you guys can only be about knocking the products and the industry in general. Is that a hobby? I'm not so sure it is.

Too black and white.

Speakers sound different. Headphones sound different. Amplifiers sound different when overdriven or designed to sound different. Badly designed electronics or digital sources can sound different. Turnables and other analog sources sound different.

Then there's the aesthetics, build quality and user interface of HiFi equipment which is interesting. Oh and the music... I have a passing interest in that too.

 

[steve_1979]

You lot really do hate this hobby don't you.

No, we hate those endeavouring to mislead, confuse or exploit those who love the hobby as much as we do.

+1

Yep.

 

[Gazzip]

All amps sound the same. All sources (excluding turntables) sound the same. All cables sound the same. Racks make no difference.

Don't think I'd agree with any of those statements.

Ok. Then perhaps you are not one of the "guys" I was referring to.

 

[Andrewjvt]

I love speakers/amps but when a rack can be discribed as having detail, I know its bs

 

[Blacksabbath25]

...but where is the hobby for you? All amps sound the same. All sources (excluding turntables) sound the same. All cables sound the same. Racks make no difference. Seems to me that the hobby for you guys can only be about knocking the products and the industry in general. Is that a hobby? I'm not so sure it is.

Too black and white.

Speakers sound different. Headphones sound different. Amplifiers sound different when overdriven or designed to sound different. Badly designed electronics or digital sources can sound different. Turnables and other analog sources sound different.

Then there's the aesthetics, build quality and user interface of HiFi equipment which is interesting. Oh and the music... I have a passing interest in that too.

+1 a good Hifi rack makes sense if you want to put a record player on it or just to make you Hifi look good but I can not see how a Hifi rack can improve the sound of your setup as much as I want buy a Hifi rack I am not going to spend £500 on one

 

[Gazzip]

This thread is a classic example unfounded cynicism. Not one of you has "listened" to the rack in question but you are all dismissing the WHF review as foo. An unwavering belief in the "facts" has left you guys as closed to new experience as the subjectivist is closed to the facts. Walk the middle ground guys. It is a happy place.

 

[Gazzip]

BTW I bought an Audiophilebase Starbase rack which made a HUGE improvement over the Partington Minim I had before it. Huge.

 

[Al ears]

I love speakers/amps but when a rack can be discribed as having detail, I know its bs

Racks are there to support kit, isolate as well as they can and look good. That's about it. Star ratings are meaningless.

 

[Al ears]

BTW I bought an Audiophilebase Starbase rack which made a HUGE improvement over the Partington Minim I had before it. Huge.

Huge improvement in what? Aesthetics? You'll be moving up to Stillpoints next then. 🙂

 

[Vladimir]

...but where is the hobby for you? All amps sound the same. All sources (excluding turntables) sound the same. All cables sound the same. Racks make no difference. Seems to me that the hobby for you guys can only be about knocking the products and the industry in general. Is that a hobby? I'm not so sure it is.

When a salesman tells you that adding green stripes on your car will make it burn less fuel, being the sane person I expect you to be, you would do one of these three things:

1) Laugh with him, because you consider you are both reasonable and he must be joking.

2) Laugh at him, for being an ignorant believing such nonsense and even selling it.

3) Insult him, for considering you an ignorant and trying to part you with your money with no return benefits.

We do all three in a random fashion in this hobby. I like to laugh, some like to feel insulted. It's a mixed crowd. Fun, no? *drinks*

 

[Blacksabbath25]

I've got a super big can of snake oil if your interested it's only £900 bargain *ROFL*

 

[Gazzip]

I've got a super big can of snake oil if your interested it's only £900 bargain *ROFL*

Like I say, completely closed to anything outside of you tiny "fact" bubbles.

 

[Vladimir]

I've got a super big can of snake oil if your interested it's only £900 bargain *ROFL*

Like I say, completely closed to anything outside of you tiny "fact" bubbles.

I know. Ozzy is terrible. He reads algebra to his toddlers before bed time.

 

[steve_1979]

This thread is a classic example unfounded cynicism. Not one of you has "listened" to the rack in question but you are all dismissing the WHF review as foo. An unwavering belief in the "facts" has left you guys as closed to new experience as the subjectivist is closed to the facts. Walk the middle ground guys. It is a happy place.

I don't need to see the details of a perpetual motion machine to know that it won't work. It's for the same reason that I don't need to listen to a wooden table to know that it won't effect the way a solid state amplifier sounds.

I agree with being open minded but lets not lose touch with reason and logic while being open minded.

 

[steve_1979]

I want a Hifi rack myself but not sure which one to go for as i only have 2 separates but can not believe the prices of this racks I mean £500 for a Hifi rack is it worth it ?

From a purely sonic point of view no of course not. You could buy a solid rack or table for a few quid that will work just as well.

However the 'Hifi Racks' rack does look fantastically well made and depending on how much you value the handmade craftmanship it could still be worth it to you.

 

[andyjm]

This thread is a classic example unfounded cynicism. Not one of you has "listened" to the rack in question but you are all dismissing the WHF review as foo. An unwavering belief in the "facts" has left you guys as closed to new experience as the subjectivist is closed to the facts. Walk the middle ground guys. It is a happy place.

Gazzip,

Had the reviewer used a turntable (effectively a microphone on a pole), or a valve amp (a microphone in a light bulb) then they may have been some merit in the review. Both turntables and valve amps are highly microphonic, and it seems reasonable to assume that there MAY be some interaction with how they are supported, particulary if the rack is close to the loudspeakers.

The reviewer used solid state equipment, and while it is possible for solid state to be microphonic, in these days of surface mount components it is very unlikley that this is in any way significant.

Given this, the liklihood is that the review is unreliable at best.

 

[Infiniteloop]

This thread is a classic example unfounded cynicism. Not one of you has "listened" to the rack in question but you are all dismissing the WHF review as foo. An unwavering belief in the "facts" has left you guys as closed to new experience as the subjectivist is closed to the facts. Walk the middle ground guys. It is a happy place.

You're wasting your time Gazzip. This is the reason these forums have become boring, rigid and unpleasant. Hardly anyone dares to post anymore for fear of unfounded and undeserved ridicule.

 

[Jota180]

This thread is a classic example unfounded cynicism. Not one of you has "listened" to the rack in question but you are all dismissing the WHF review as foo. An unwavering belief in the "facts" has left you guys as closed to new experience as the subjectivist is closed to the facts. Walk the middle ground guys. It is a happy place.

Ahem, well founded cynicism based on the realities of human beings, their auditory frailties and inherent baises. People cannot reliably A/B anything if it's minutes/hours apart. That has been scientifically demonstrated. This is not accusing anyone of anything other than being a human being like all the rest of the human beings on the planet. Our ears are not reference devices, they never have been and they never will be. No two human beings have the same ears, same ear canal, same shaped bones in the inner ear, same neurons, same brains so no two humans hear exactly the same way. Similar yes. Very similar, likely. The same, no.

If you get up to change some device you're comparing, do you sit back down with your head in the exact same position? If not there's a chance you're going to hear a difference becase there is a difference in different spots in the room. Maybe the act of getting up, bending over, lifting, moving, exerting yourself ups the heart rate, ups the blood pressure and changes the way the ears are performing. Maybe the act of putting a new bit of kit in place of one of your favourites subconsciously affects your thinking. Back up the human opinion with a reference measurement showing if sound is altered or not. If that was done perhaps people would be more likely to think there was something in it. If no difference was measured it could be put down to audio memory lapse, some subconscious bias or something.

Your middle ground is actually head in the clouds.

 

[Al ears]

This thread is a classic example unfounded cynicism. Not one of you has "listened" to the rack in question but you are all dismissing the WHF review as foo. An unwavering belief in the "facts" has left you guys as closed to new experience as the subjectivist is closed to the facts. Walk the middle ground guys. It is a happy place.

You're wasting your time Gazzip. This is the reason these forums have become boring, rigid and unpleasant. Hardly anyone dares to post anymore for fear of unfounded and undeserved ridicule.

Whilst what Gazzip says holds some truth I feel that essentially all rack reviews are foo. I don't see anyone rushing out to by a particular rack to disprove the reviewer but what the heck do they use as a reference? All their kit stacked on top of each other on a suspended wood floor? A concrete floor? Come on now everything is relative and to review well you have to have a reference and declare what it is.

As stated previously I use a HiFi Racks rack but I didn't buy it because I thought it would change the sound of my system, I bought it because it is very well built, I like the choice of wood, and more importantly, it is one of the very few that could provide the leg length that I needed on the lower tier.

I still believe one thing about the review and that is the one in question appears overpriced for what you get. That, however, can be said for a lot of racks.