Harmonihyllan

Hardware and software, modifications and DIY

Moderator: Staff

Post Reply
Ozzzy189
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 702
Joined: 2011-08-30 18:49
Location: North Lincolnshire -UK.
Contact:

Post by Ozzzy189 »

Hi linnofil, mine is a wood based system, the platform being a grid work of oak blocks between a thin layer of oak sheet, with three oak legs. When you knock it with your knuckle there's just a light knock, no instrument like sound from a wooden instrument, it's kind of dull. There's three legs for stability, and the bottom unit is on spikes to the floor.
It's made in the UK and sold by russ Andrews. I paid 800 pounds for a four shelf unit about 10 years ago. I'll try to put a picture up.
ADS3/SagMono/Tundra 2.2- . Totem Tribe Tower.
Lejonklou demos available in the N of England.
Ozzzy189
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 702
Joined: 2011-08-30 18:49
Location: North Lincolnshire -UK.
Contact:

Post by Ozzzy189 »

Image
ADS3/SagMono/Tundra 2.2- . Totem Tribe Tower.
Lejonklou demos available in the N of England.
Linnofil
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 343
Joined: 2007-02-05 22:22
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Post by Linnofil »

Charlie1 wrote:Hi Linnofil, has there been any recent consensus as to where the Harmoni fits into a system's hierarchy in terms of musicality/source first?
No consensus as far as I know. I think I have my own conclusions that not all agree with, especially those who haven’t heard the Harmoni. But I think it is a pretty significant contribution on all levels (source, pre/power amp). Source first principle applies, so the best shelf on source etc.
Charlie1 wrote:I seem to recall a couple of opinions over the years, including KDS is better no matter what the support, vs ADS on Mimer can outperform KDS on a lesser support.
Personally I'm guessing (pretty sure!) that a ADS/1 on Mimer K outperforms a KDS/1 on Quadraspire, maybe even on a Oden shelf. That's why I don't think they are that expensive. I know for sure that a KDS/KK in a "standard" installation is easy to beat with an ADS/Kikkin combo in a good installation (NAS, network and rack).

Thanks for the info and picture Ozzy. I don’t know (at all) how good that rack is. All I know is that the entry level (Oden) Harmoni rack is on a different planet compared to Quadraspire and Naim Fraim. It’s just so good that I have a hard time believing anything can come close. The Mimer K is unbelievable when heard, just can’t imagine how believable it is for those who haven’t heard it at all… Take a flight to Gothenburg, that’s all I can say.
Ozzzy189
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 702
Joined: 2011-08-30 18:49
Location: North Lincolnshire -UK.
Contact:

Post by Ozzzy189 »

Maybe one day! I know the Russ Andrews torlyte is held in pretty high regard, I'll look into the harmywotsit in the future. I'd probably get 300 quid plus for mine.
Cheers for the info.
ADS3/SagMono/Tundra 2.2- . Totem Tribe Tower.
Lejonklou demos available in the N of England.
Charlie1
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 4831
Joined: 2007-12-11 00:30
Location: UK

Post by Charlie1 »

Linnofil wrote:
Charlie1 wrote:Hi Linnofil, has there been any recent consensus as to where the Harmoni fits into a system's hierarchy in terms of musicality/source first?
No consensus as far as I know. I think I have my own conclusions that not all agree with, especially those who haven’t heard the Harmoni. But I think it is a pretty significant contribution on all levels (source, pre/power amp). Source first principle applies, so the best shelf on source etc.
Charlie1 wrote:I seem to recall a couple of opinions over the years, including KDS is better no matter what the support, vs ADS on Mimer can outperform KDS on a lesser support.
Personally I'm guessing (pretty sure!) that a ADS/1 on Mimer K outperforms a KDS/1 on Quadraspire, maybe even on a Oden shelf. That's why I don't think they are that expensive. I know for sure that a KDS/KK in a "standard" installation is easy to beat with an ADS/Kikkin combo in a good installation (NAS, network and rack).
Thanks Linnofil

Maybe one day someone in the UK will take on the Harmoni racks. I hope so.
User avatar
ThomasOK
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 4358
Joined: 2007-02-02 18:41
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by ThomasOK »

I'm glad this got brought over here where it belongs. I have to agree with Linnofil's comments regarding the Mimer K performance. I also don't consider it mega-expensive considering how great the performance boost is, not to mention that there are some $40,000 racks for sale in the US (and Naim Fraim ain't cheap either).

I received my first Mimer K a few weeks ago and was able to set it up last weekend. While I am not ready to do a full report on it yet I can say Wow! It is a very musical shelf. How musical? Well I have been a longstanding believer in the light weight stand theory and have been happy to have my LP12 on the best of that breed I know: the Archidee. That is until now. As unlikely as it seems to me theoretically, the Mimer K as the top shelf of a rather heavy 5 shelf Harmoni rack is easily musically superior, to a degree I wouldn't have thought possible, and is now home to my LP12. Nuff said!
Efraim roots
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 312
Joined: 2009-10-23 01:37
Location: Sweden

Post by Efraim roots »

Linnofil wrote:
Efraim roots wrote:Harmonihyllan is a good product (expensive thou), but I definitely think the praise of Mimer shelves should be taken with a pinch of salt (mega expensive).
Personally I think that the Harmonihyllan is brilliant and really can't be overrated. I know we who are customers at Tonläget are used to the performance of that rack and almost take it for granted. But the performance level compared to other racks is just impossible to believe for those who have not had the privilege of hearing it. Even the cheapest Oden humiliates the competition and the Mimer K is so much better. I wouldn’t call in mega expensive, since it improves the performance of the gear and makes sense in a performance/price perspective. If you save £20k in equipment with the same performance for a £4k investment, how can it be mega expensive?
Well, this comment actually is based on my very recent experience with mimer shelfs. I have owned a full Harmonihyllan Tor 5 shelf for several years and always been happy with it. I haven't really compared it to other rack systems thou.

1 month ago I bought two Mimer 3.1 shelfs to add for my rack and to my BIG surprise they were really bad, the music was clearly worse than before. Every record sounded like a 180g audiophile remaster, big and clean but with a provoking priority of "sound" over music, sounded like the musicians were staring down in the notebook while playing. Tor sounded like original press, the musicians were having fun and loved playing togheter. After lots and lots of testing I could only get this result in varying degree. In the end it turned out that I got the wrong wooden shelfs for my mimer.
I have now the proper spruce shelfs at home and continue my tests right now. I'm not very convinced yet, hard to describe really, but one thing stands clear for me, Mimer 3.1 is no way "incredibly superior" to Tor, it might be a tiny bit better musically but I'm in doubt. Comapred to Tor, Mimer to me mostly sounds like the musicians have a drumstick up their arse but the studio got a better tape recorder.

Mimer seems to have a bad effect on the rack as a whole, maybe that's why it's harder to detect that mimer isn't very good. You often compare shelfs on a already hybrid Harmoni rack. One of my recent conclusions is that it might be that the only way to actually get a better result with Mimer is to have one Mimer only in the top, everything else has too much negative impact on the shelf as whole. I'll try this more.

Mimer K might be the first decent Mimer shelf, I don't know. But in the context of my experience it's really expensive I think. I have no idea why all you guys have been praising Mimer for years, It must have hit your audiophile-spot or something. Or maybe it's a Linn thing, it sounds like expensive linn (not music, linn). And a touch of mass psychosis maybe. If it was a powercord from Nordost at the exact same price as Mimer and had the exact same difference in sound, I think you all would have regarded it as a audiophile product, not very bad but you'd probably preferred the best original powercord from Linn/Lejonklou (representing Tor in this case).

A little bit hard in my judgement maybe, sorry but I got so disappointed really. I've been wanting Mimer for years because I'm a source first advocate and love to upgrade my LP12 and been reading all this praise over the years. I also heard Mimer a lot but I haven't done the proper tests related to my own shelf. I promise to follow up when I have given the proper Mimer 3.1 a longer test run.
the players of instruments shall be there..
User avatar
lejonklou
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 6523
Joined: 2007-01-30 10:38
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by lejonklou »

A surprisingly hard post, Efraim! I am not sure why you're having trouble, but I remember you saying that you were testing two Mimer in the middle of a 5-shelf rack, with the other three being Tor?

I have for years had a rack with 3 Tor and one Mimer at the top. Mimer 3.1 with the spruce wooden plane was a very nice upgrade to me and there's always been a BIG difference, musically and sound quality-wise, between the Tor shelves and the Mimer on top. Very easy to demonstrate!

Now I have a Mimer K shelf as well and it's another major step up from 3.1. This time I think the main difference is that Mimer K is more musical and less "glossy" and HiFi sounding than Mimer 3.1.

I still have 3 Tor below, but thought I might upgrade them later on. What I have learned, with the help of Erik, who has made many carefully evaluted experiments with Harmonihyllan, is that it doesn't work well having all four or five shelves Mimer. The bottom one needs to be Tor or Tor Silver (maybe Oden works well too, I don't know). If all shelves are Mimer, the rack sounds disharmonic. So the bottom shelf is certainly important and affects the others.

I don't know, however, how the top shelf is affected by levels 2 and 3 (and 4 in case it's five shelves). Will Mimer K on those levels make the top Mimer K sound a little worse? There is some more experimentation needed in this area. Because given a source first approach, anything that makes the source perform worse will make the whole system worse. Even if your pre amps, power amps etc get a better shelf.

Do you see how I'm reasoning?
Efraim roots
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 312
Joined: 2009-10-23 01:37
Location: Sweden

Post by Efraim roots »

lejonklou wrote:A surprisingly hard post, Efraim! I am not sure why you're having trouble, but I remember you saying that you were testing two Mimer in the middle of a 5-shelf rack, with the other three being Tor?
Yes, I'm sorry about that but please everyone don't take anything personally. I just had to tell about my experiences to get some nuance in the discussion about Mimer. The praise was exaggerated so my critic became a little exaggerated too. I'm more interested to have a discussion on good level.
Yes, I have a 5 shelf rack, with shelf 2 & 3 from the top Mimer 3 and the rest Tor. When I got the wrong wooden shelfs I did a lot of testing and that's when I reached the conclusion that only 1 Mimer in the top was best because it didn't affect the rack system as a whole too much (still worse than Tor tho!), but I must make all this different tests again now when I got the proper wooden shelfs. What I hear now is not satisfying, I will try to explain why:
Mimer 3 in this configuration sounds very pitch accurate and is very transparent of harmonics. The sound is cleaner, bigger, more powerful and more nuanced.
BUT, what about the pace, the rhythmic tempo, the interplay between musicians. The structure of the rhythms and melodies is less catchy. I also hear worse responsiveness of the delicate proportions and intonation of each instrument/musician in the musical interplay. I can't dance as good with Mimer in place. And that's with Mimer on Radikal and Uphorik, the most important boxes! My LP12 is on a Audiotech wallshelf. If Mimer was anything like a source upgrade the outcome would have been very different. What I hear with this shelfs right now has nothing in common with upgrades like Dynamik for Radikal/Uphorik, Lejonklou adjusted LP12 and all other upgrades I've done for LP12. Or other important upgrade steps like changing preamp from Naim nac202 to nac82 to nac52.

My shelf look like this

TOR-NAC52-(pre)
MIMER-UPHORIK
MIMER-RADIKAL
TOR-52PS-(psu)
TOR-NAP110-(power)

Cable dressing is best this way and it's a must with the preamp on top since I have small children. My options seem to be to give the preamp Mimer (only 1 Mimer on top) or go back to Tor, I'll try this quite soon. Suggestions?

lejonklou wrote:I have for years had a rack with 3 Tor and one Mimer at the top. Mimer 3.1 with the spruce wooden plane was a very nice upgrade to me and there's always been a BIG difference, musically and sound quality-wise, between the Tor shelves and the Mimer on top. Very easy to demonstrate!
I see, yes a Mimer shelf in the top seems to be the best way to do it according to my tests. But have you actually, in a critic manner, tried it against a full Tor rack?
Talking strictly about musicality, is it really a big upgrade? Can you describe why somehow?
the players of instruments shall be there..
User avatar
lejonklou
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 6523
Joined: 2007-01-30 10:38
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by lejonklou »

No, I have not compared my current 3 Tor+1 Mimer with 4 Tor. I have always had a Mimer on top. And as I said, the difference between the Mimer on level 4 and the Tor's below is very big. It seems unlikely to me that the rack as a whole would improve more [by replacing the top Mimer with a fourth Tor] than this. But real life testing is the only way to know for certain!

Regarding the number of shelves, I'm afraid I must report that 4 levels is the best. 3 and 5 are significantly worse, according to tests done by Erik. The reason is probably that the entire development has, to my knowledge, been with 4 shelves. I also think that all Mimer development has been made with the Mimer(s) on top. Not the way you have it with a Tor on top of Mimer. This could potentially have a bigger impact than we think.

Erik and I just decided to collaborate in a test of the following:
In which configuration does the top Mimer K shelf sound best?

Mimer K
Mimer K
Mimer K
Tor

or

Mimer K
Mimer K
Tor
Tor

If the second configuration wins (=the top shelf sounds better), we will continue with

Mimer K
Tor
Tor
Tor

Evaluation will be made with an LP12 on top, one heavy (Klimax) box below, one lighter box (Tundra/Sagatun) below that and T1 filters at the bottom. We will also check how different weights on the lower shelves affect the performance of the top shelf.

The purpose: Trying to find the configuration in which the top shelf performs optimally. With the source on that optimal shelf, the overall best result should follow (source first logic). Why the top shelf? Because in my experience, it sounds as good or a little better than the lower shelves (in a four level rack). It's also where the Mimer shelf should likely be positioned, as they are developed that way.
Efraim roots
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 312
Joined: 2009-10-23 01:37
Location: Sweden

Post by Efraim roots »

Good initiative, good luck with your tests, I'm looking forward to hear about your conclusions.

Ok so you really think mimer is superior musically, I'll try to be cool and try some more configurations. Today I honestly just don't understand how it could be regarded as better, that's why I asked.
the players of instruments shall be there..
User avatar
DelNaja
Active Member
Active Member
Posts: 93
Joined: 2011-12-30 11:22
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Post by DelNaja »

Efraim roots, have you spoken with Anders about your findings? It would be interesting to hear what his thoughts are.

Just a thought.
Efraim roots
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 312
Joined: 2009-10-23 01:37
Location: Sweden

Post by Efraim roots »

DelNaja wrote:Efraim roots, have you spoken with Anders about your findings? It would be interesting to hear what his thoughts are.

Just a thought.
Yes of course we have discussed the issues, the answers were a little vague but he suggested to change place on boxes, try to put mimer on the preamp instead because maybe it's more sensitive and stuff like that. Nothing that helped. The effect is same on every box and source first principle rules. He did mention that my configuration is untested. To have two mimer from the top has been well tested and shouldn't be problem. But I think I'll try one mimer on top first and if that acutally is better than full Tor shelf I can try to put two mimer from the top.
the players of instruments shall be there..
User avatar
DelNaja
Active Member
Active Member
Posts: 93
Joined: 2011-12-30 11:22
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Post by DelNaja »

I wish you good luck in your tests, I hope it all works out. Please keep us posted on your findings.
User avatar
Erik
Active member
Active member
Posts: 217
Joined: 2007-01-31 20:14
Location: Sweden

Post by Erik »

I think this discussion is very inspiring!
I find the Mimer K superior to Mimer 3.1. I also find 3.1 a step up from 2.3. When I upgraded Tor to Mimer 2,3, I also thought it was an upgrade. The only time I have been disappointed was when I swapped all my Mimer 3,1's for Mimer K's and at the same time put the Mimer 3 shelves on the bottom level. It sounded broken and faulty. Stressed and almost unlistenable. When the bottom level was rebuilt back to Tor, everything felt right.
I used to have a decent Naim system a couple of years ago and one of the things Mimer K gives is the accurate pitch and natural dynamics and at the same increasing the musical flow and ease.
I am one Mimer K short and alter the KDS and the Radikal to be on a Tor shelf. Digital music has never been so good as when the KDS is placed on a Mimer K! Letting it down to the Tor shelf makes it digital again.

I'm curious to see what another Tor shelf will bring to the party.
User avatar
Music Lover
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 1673
Joined: 2007-01-31 20:35
Location: In front of Lejonklou/JBL/Ofil

Post by Music Lover »

Efraim roots wrote:
lejonklou wrote:A surprisingly hard post, Efraim! I am not sure why you're having trouble, but I remember you saying that you were testing two Mimer in the middle of a 5-shelf rack, with the other three being Tor?
Yes, I'm sorry about that but please everyone don't take anything personally. I just had to tell about my experiences to get some nuance in the discussion about Mimer. The praise was exaggerated so my critic became a little exaggerated too. I'm more interested to have a discussion on good level.
Hi Efraim roots.
Please don't assume the praise is exaggerated, just because you haven't (yet) get it to perform as it should.

Good Luck with getting your Mimer to perform!
It's all about musical understanding!
User avatar
ThomasOK
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 4358
Joined: 2007-02-02 18:41
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by ThomasOK »

Overall I have to agree with Erik, although I have not done the amount of testing he obviously has. The first Harmoni rack I got was purchased to be a 5 shelf rack with 4 Mimer 2.3 and a Tor bottom. When I initially put it together I constructed it with Oden bottom and 3 Mimer above to allow for some experimentation. With the extra parts not installed I was able to swap the top shelf between Mimer 2.3, Tor and Oden to assess the differences. I definitely found the Mimer 2.3 to be more musical than the Tor or Oden with the Tor being pretty much midway between the other two. I posted my reports earlier on the thread but I did not hear anything in the Mimer 2.3 I didn't feel was musically better whether using the top (4th) shelf for a Radikal or a KK/1.

I then reassembled the rack with the Tor bottom and four Mimer 2.3 as originally intended. I did not notice a loss of performance but I also kept the most important component, the Radikal, on the 4th shelf. When I got the Spruce thin shelf from Anders I found using it with an undamped aluminum Mimer shelf was easily more musical than the Mimer 2.3 with the birch shelf and damping. As noted above, when I recently received the Mimer K shelf I found it to be easily superior to the 3.1 and probably the biggest upgrade in a shelf that I have yet heard. As mentioned by Erik I definitely found the Mimer K to increase the musical flow and sense of ease along with improving resolution and dynamics. It was just a much more musical experience and made my previous reference for the LP12, the Archidee, sound somewhat coarse and flat by comparison.

Now I will have to try taking the top shelf off and see what difference it makes. If four shelves makes everything on the rack more musical now is a good time to find out as I will soon be outgrowing my single Harmoni rack thanks to both Anders and his wonderful Mimer K (which will have to be the normal resting place for my LP12 from now on) and Fredrik who is going to take up two shelves for a preamp! So two 4 shelve racks should pretty much do it.
magnuska
Active Member
Active Member
Posts: 98
Joined: 2012-09-21 08:46

Post by magnuska »

Hi!

This Mimer k looks very interesting.
I have two harmoniracks , one with all Oden shelves and one with 2 TOR shelves. My plan is to upgrade one of the TOR to a Mimer.

My Q is what to place on that shelf?
I use a minicomputer NUC fanless as a source thats connected to a usb/spdif converter. Boths of these are rather small so they will fit on one shelf luckily. Or is it better to place the preamp (same size as the converter) on that top Mimer shelf next to the computer?

Allt this is of course easy to try out later when its arrived but maybe you have opinions about it.

Here is an older picture of the setup (without the computer part)

http://www.klangedang.se/bilder/02.jpg

Magnus
Sonore Mr streamer/Teddy Powersupply/Didit DAC 212/ Teddy PR/MB100 Rega P 3/Slipsik Klångedang T1
User avatar
lejonklou
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 6523
Joined: 2007-01-30 10:38
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by lejonklou »

Efraim roots: How is it going with your Mimer 3.1? Have you reached any conclusions?

I have done a few tests as I've had to take my rack apart. It does seem you have a point in that an all Tor rack has something harmonic in its signature. When I replace a Tor shelf (top position) with a Mimer K shelf, with a unit on it that is not active in the system, the remaining Tor shelves are not quite as good as before. They seem to stiffen slightly in their sound quality. When moving Sagatun (preamp) to the Mimer K shelf, however, it performs a lot better than on the Tor shelf.

My conclusion is that perhaps the Mimer K you add needs to be used with a source - or the unit closest to the source in the hierarchy. Because maybe the remaining wooden shelves don't really benefit from the prescence of the Mimer. Please note that this is speculation based on inadequate testing.

magnuska: Hard to know without testing and it might depend on whether you have more sources and value their performance too. If it's only one, Source First usually rules.
With my small units (Slipsik, Gaio etc), I found that two units on each shelf was really good. Both on Oden, Tor and Mimer.
Charlie1
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 4831
Joined: 2007-12-11 00:30
Location: UK

Post by Charlie1 »

lejonklou wrote:It does seem you have a point in that an all Tor rack has something harmonic in its signature. When I replace a Tor shelf (top position) with a Mimer K shelf, with a unit on it that is not active in the system, the remaining Tor shelves are not quite as good as before. They seem to stiffen slightly in their sound quality. When moving Sagatun (preamp) to the Mimer K shelf, however, it performs a lot better than on the Tor shelf.
A friend has his system on TimeTables. Their advise is that all components reside on TimeTables so that all components have the same micro vibrations, including interconnecting cables. I have probably not fairly explained this, since it was a while ago.

But like you suggest, source first should trump this if you put the source (pre-amp if LP12 is on a wall shelf) on a different, but better, shelf.

Maybe this is analogous to your testing of two chakra amps on 212s. You found one amp per speaker was more cohesive (similar to all-Tor rack), but ultimately source first dictated that the superior signal to the treble was in fact the most important aspect. Therefore, one amp on ST and T and then daisy chain to the other amp for mid and bass was the best configuration - or something like that :)
User avatar
ThomasOK
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 4358
Joined: 2007-02-02 18:41
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by ThomasOK »

Magnus, considering the way your racks are setup in the photo, and also the findings of Efraim roots and Fredrik, I would recommend leaving your two Tor rack as is and upgrading the top shelf of your all Oden rack to Mimer. This way you won't have to give up a Tor and the Tor rack should perform optimally. The Oden rack will have your new Mimer K on top and I would place your most important source there.
magnuska
Active Member
Active Member
Posts: 98
Joined: 2012-09-21 08:46

Post by magnuska »

Thomas, Fredrik thanks for your answers.

My plan was to update one rack to 1 mimerK + 3 TOR shelves and leave the other rack with all oden. I listen mainly today on the computer as source and would optimize that section first. This would include having the monoblocks and external filters to Klångedang on better shelves as well. They sit on the right oden rack today.

One question that I have been thinking of is how it´s possible for Mimer to improve a computer with ssd or a Linn DS with no moving parts at all?

What is actually happening? I can more understand the benefits when using a turntable or something with some more moving parts , well I´m lost here. Can someone share some light?

Magnus
Sonore Mr streamer/Teddy Powersupply/Didit DAC 212/ Teddy PR/MB100 Rega P 3/Slipsik Klångedang T1
tokenbrit
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2012-03-22 19:47
Location: New England

Post by tokenbrit »

ThomasOK wrote:Magnus, considering the way your racks are setup in the photo, and also the findings of Efraim roots and Fredrik, I would recommend leaving your two Tor rack as is and upgrading the top shelf of your all Oden rack to Mimer. This way you won't have to give up a Tor and the Tor rack should perform optimally. The Oden rack will have your new Mimer K on top and I would place your most important source there.
You wouldn't rebuild the racks to use a Tor shelf at the bottom of each, in preference over an Oden, for a stable foundation... ?

I am not able to test, but wonder whether Tor at the bottom with 3 Oden above is better than Tor above 3 Oden. I guess it depends which is more important: the quality of the shelf on which your most important component sits, or the stability of the rack as a whole? All for one, or one for all??
User avatar
ThomasOK
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 4358
Joined: 2007-02-02 18:41
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by ThomasOK »

magnuska wrote:Thomas, Fredrik thanks for your answers.

My plan was to update one rack to 1 mimerK + 3 TOR shelves and leave the other rack with all oden. I listen mainly today on the computer as source and would optimize that section first. This would include having the monoblocks and external filters to Klångedang on better shelves as well. They sit on the right oden rack today.

One question that I have been thinking of is how it´s possible for Mimer to improve a computer with ssd or a Linn DS with no moving parts at all?

What is actually happening? I can more understand the benefits when using a turntable or something with some more moving parts , well I´m lost here. Can someone share some light?

Magnus
That sounds like a good plan to me. From what I've been told, having a Tor bottom level improves the entire rack regardless of what is above it although I have not tested this myself.
magnuska
Active Member
Active Member
Posts: 98
Joined: 2012-09-21 08:46

Post by magnuska »

Hi Thomas,

I have just talked to Anders. I asked if the bottom shelf can consist of double oden instead of TOR ( one thin and one thick plane) and he confirms that its possible.That way I recycle the oden shelf thats residual. Has anyone done this for the bottom level in a Harmonyrack?
I guess its not bad it must be even sturdier.

Magnus
Sonore Mr streamer/Teddy Powersupply/Didit DAC 212/ Teddy PR/MB100 Rega P 3/Slipsik Klångedang T1
Post Reply