It’s that directness and depth of musical communication that makes the ReFract such an impressive and cost-effective upgrade. Obvious with a stark clarity on solo-piano recordings, it’s actually just as apparent on bigger pieces and other genres, once you’ve identified its nature. Cost-effective? At the best part of four-figures each, they aren’t exactly pocket change, but in the context of the investment already made into a CH component or system, they really are a shoo-in that, once heard you’ll find it difficult to ignore.
The use of the ReFracts in their intended application is something of a special case. After all, the CH Precision units are unique in offering a purpose designed grounding system, a grounding system that’s accessible from above and where virtually all the units share the same footprint and thus demand the same solution. The one exception is the M10 power amp, whose chassis components are each 5cm deeper than the standard CH footprint. However, ask nicely (or even just ask) and I’m sure that Music Works will produce ReFracts in the appropriate size. Having heard what the grounding plates do for the M1.1, if I was an M10 owner, I’d be getting myself first in line!
But given just how effective various chassis damping solutions have proved in the past, from the aforementioned HRS DPs to the Shakti Stones (and not forgetting the various, expensive ‘bags of sand’ that have been touted at one time or another) I was curious to discover whether the ReFracts make sense in less specific circumstances, those situations where they simply sit on top of – rather than being physically keyed to – a unit’s chassis. After all, as an effective dump for spurious noise, they still have a role to play with more conventionally configured casework. The physical arrangement of the CH mechanical grounding system means that the ReFract can be positioned closer to the problem, making it more effective. But the very existence of the grounding system itself potentially gives the ReFract less to work with. How does the Acouplex dissipater make out with a standard chassis – and where should it be placed?
There are very nearly as many answers to that question as there are components out there. In the context of the test rig, the obvious place to start is with the Wadax Studio Player, simply placing a ReFract across the unit’s raised shoulders. The musical advantages were as obvious as they were immediately apparent: Better harmonic definition, more explicit spacing of notes and shape to phrases, more accomplished playing and far greater expressive subtlety. Given the unusual, scooped top-plate on the Studio Player, the ReFract works best placed at 90 degrees to its ‘normal’ orientation on the CH pieces, which looks slightly odd, given that it also overhangs slightly, front and/or back. Out of interest, and given the physical discontinuity, I compared the ReFract to a standard, rectangular Acouplex shelf also placed on top of the Player. Although the shelf undoubtedly worked (and enjoyed the theoretical advantage of greater contact area) the ReFract panel definitely delivered greater poise, subtlety and a special, fluid grace in the playing. Seems there’s something in that somewhat exaggerated shape after all! Which is both good and bad news: on the one hand, Music Works clearly know how to get the best out of their material; on the other, the standard ReFract will only suit a certain range of products. CH and Accuphase are fine: the likes of Wadax and Naim demand a more rectangular footprint. Still, a second version that’s re-proportioned to fit that aspect ratio should cover the majority of alternative scenarios – at least as far as placing the ReFract on top of products goes.
