Composite.com

[JerryDelColliano]

Have you guys heard of these racks?

I met Gus at CES via my friend PJ Zornosa who sells the product for him and he has some COOL stuff. Pretty expensive, all composite racks for audio and home theater applications.

We are going over to a local dealer to learn more.

They also have some performance shelves for wall-mounting gear and or rack mounting gear in Middle Atlantic or Salamander type racks. Very smart.

Composite.com - check them out and post what you think.

[rlpiii]

These look very nice. I am a huge fan of carbon fiber parts. My only problem with what I see is that the shelves are on a 3-point support. I have never been a fan of 3-point support for rectangular shelves. I passed on Lovan racks a while back for that same reason.

[kennyt]

If you are worried about balance, you have no need to worry, many people use three point systems as by definition three points define a plane, four, a three dimensional space. Therefore three points will always balance weight distribution better than four.

If you have ever tried to balance speakers on four points, then tried some with only three you know exactly what I mean. With three points, you merely adjust the level, with four, you level the speaker, then play that famous dancing game getting it to stay stable..... That simply never happens with a three point system.

I don't like the three point systems as they can make it difficult to use balanced IC's or other wires in the middle of the rear of some components, but I've seen these and the shelves are pretty large so that shouldn't be a bug problem.

These are very cool looking racks, and as a cyclist I LOVE carbon fiber!!!

[kloneman]

Originally Posted by kennyt

If you are worried about balance, you have no need to worry, many people use three point systems as by definition three points define a plane, four, a three dimensional space. Therefore three points will always balance weight distribution better than four.

I consider the assertion that "because 3 points define a plane, a 3 point distribution system distributes weight better than a 4 point system" to be a fallacy. The actual distribution of the force is determined by the distribution of the masses within the confines of the chassis rectangle that encloses it. I assert that when such a rectangle is supported at only 3 points, a disproportional amount of the force is placed one of the points, and the two unsupported triangular sections of the chassis are now not mechanically damped, so they are free to pick up vibrations coupled from the room.

Originally Posted by kennyt

If you have ever tried to balance speakers on four points, then tried some with only three you know exactly what I mean. With three points, you merely adjust the level, with four, you level the speaker, then play that famous dancing game getting it to stay stable..... That simply never happens with a three point system.

My speakers are too large to place on points. The difficulty you refer to is caused by misalignment of the floor, and a 3 point support better tolerates the misalignment, but it's not really distributing the weight any better.

Originally Posted by kennyt

I don't like the three point systems as they can make it difficult to use balanced IC's or other wires in the middle of the rear of some components, but I've seen these and the shelves are pretty large so that shouldn't be a bug problem.

These are very cool looking racks, and as a cyclist I LOVE carbon fiber!!!

Perhaps there are also means to accomplish appropriate conductor routing with constraining devices that attach to the rack or to the shelves. I have not looked into this.

[kennyt]

Originally Posted by kloneman

I consider the assertion that "because 3 points define a plane, a 3 point distribution system distributes weight better than a 4 point system" to be a fallacy. The actual distribution of the force is determined by the distribution of the masses within the confines of the chassis rectangle that encloses it. I assert that when such a rectangle is supported at only 3 points, a disproportional amount of the force is placed one of the points, and the two unsupported triangular sections of the chassis are now not mechanically damped, so they are free to pick up vibrations coupled from the room. My speakers are too large to place on points. The difficulty you refer to is caused by misalignment of the floor, and a 3 point support better tolerates the misalignment, but it's not really distributing the weight any better.

kloneman,

I know what you are saying, and yes, in an ideal world where each of the four feet is perfectly balanced and having equal pressure contact with the floor the weight is distributed over four rather than three points and therefore more evenly distributed.

My point is that in a four point system, this almost never happens, and each foot is seeing different load, whereas a three point system first off is more likely to equally distribute the weight to each footer and will always align with any surface, even markedly irregular floors and tiling. As far as the load I believe you will find a three point system will generally do this.

Now, there are the extra shelving pieces left unsupported, but the shelves for these are pretty thick (I think an inch) and can be covered in carbon fiber for even more strength and resonance control so I think you'd be pretty good there.

KT

[deacongreg]

The CF-1000 stands and shelves look pretty good. Simple, no clutter, not too busy. Speaker stands, CF_2000, seems packed with a good degree of care and sound technology.

Now, the ultimate test for someone to actually try them.