ow is possible that when I talk to someone who has something interesting to say, who has an idea for a product that positively influences the sound, I am nodding with understanding only to, in a while, often the very next day, listen to the description of some other product prepared by someone else product that uses different solutions with equal commitment? Is it schizophrenia? Politeness? Or maybe it's that I just do not understand any it? It is possible, of course, that answers to all these questions are a firm yes. I would rather think though, that it is about something else - that there is no one and only “right” solution to a given problem and it can be approached in various ways, thus achieving different effects.

Let's look at anti-vibration platforms, for example. I have been using pneumatic Acoustic Revive RAF-48H platform and rigid RST-38H ones from the same manufacturer for years. A logical and technological peak achievement of the former solutions is the product by the Polish company Stacore in their Advanced platform, and in another, equally interesting form, one can find them in the Pro Audio Bono and Tewo Audio platforms. In turn the most interesting solutions of rigid platforms - apart from the above mentioned Acoustic Revive – I know are the products of the American company HRS. And it is this latter group that Witek Kamiński's proposal, the WK AUDIO PURE platform belongs to.

| Concept

All these solutions are interesting and introduce a lot of good to the sound. But each uses a slightly different concept. Does it mean that someone must be wrong, so that someone else might be right? Not necessarily - audio is not a zero-sum game. There is no single, constant sound ideal – let me remind you that live sound is only one of many equal reference points and is understood as an event separate from the recorded material. Therefore, the final result, as long as it remains within the general consensus regarding the "correct sound", depends to a large extent on a listeners and their needs, as well as on the idea of the sound that designer wanted to present via his product.

This is also the case here. Witek has his own view on the problem of vibrations damping. He believes that as important as shock absorption is damping vibrations generated by airwaves and those coming from the within the device. While the first type of vibration, in general, propagates in the vertical direction, the next two are already spreading in every direction of the three-dimensional space. All types of vibrations should have the lowest amplitude possible and be quickly damped, but the second and third ones are much more harmful and more difficult to minimize (because it is not possible to dampen them completely). That is why he sees the problems associated with soft suspension in a particularly clear way, which automatically directs him towards rigid, massive platforms.

However, this is not the whole truth about Pure. Using his experience - he is an active architect - he invented a system which supresses not only vertical but also horizontal movements. The latter are in his opinion as harmful as former ones, and are completely neglected in soft-suspended platforms. Therefore, although it is nominally a "rigid" construction, it is not a completely correct description. When we press the top board, it will give up, which means that the suspension is not rigid but soft; only it is not the same softness as in the Acoustic Revive and PAB platforms.

| Pure

WK Audio offers one platform model, but differentiates it depending on how the upper board is finished, i.e. the interface between the lossy elements and the device. The lineup has been divided into three parts: Piano, Fusion and Pure. The Piano series features a top board made of plywood coated with black or white high-gloss "piano" lacquer as standard finish. It also features a large company logo carved using CNC machine. This is the best looking solution. The Fusion series features o board with a visible grain layout, but finished with black, satin varnish. And finally there is the Pure series, in which the top board is not painted at all.

Although the external distinguishing feature is texture and color, there is a technical explanation confirmed by long listening sessions. Witek told me about a few months that he and his partner spent listening to platforms differing only in type, type, thickness and hardness of the top board varnish! Any such change, he claims, introduces corrections to the sound. They both believe that the best solution is a board without any varnish and that hardening of the platform the device is placed on impairs its mechanical properties. Unfortunately, uncoated wood is susceptible to dents and dirt.

The finish of the chassis is also important, but it has a much smaller impact on the sound. What matters is what is hidden inside the chassis. One finds there a sandwich made up of many layers of different materials, including those used in architecture, that were never used in audio products until now. Due to their special properties, the platform should be constantly loaded, and breaks in the load should not be longer than several hours. That is why it is delivered “clamped”. The buyer sees only two layers - the upper and the lower ones, and he can see the element placed just below the top layer in a small gap. While the top layer is soft, made of plywood, the bottom one is hard - it is made of granite. Three feet are fixed to it, made of a specially asymmetrically turned plywood.

The tested platform featured unpainted and polished upper plate, and the housing - made of MDF - lacquered black with high-gloss finish. There are other types of finishing available at extra cost. The housing can be made of varnished plywood, or finished with one of a dozen available veneers. If we choose a lacquer finish we can choose any color from the RAL or NCS palette and any texture: high gloss, satin or matte. We also have a choice of pearl lacquers, with glitter or even rust texture. Due to the low-series production there is a huge number of customization options for the housing, which allows user to match it to any audio component and/or interior.

The platform's shape is a square with a side of 460 mm with a slightly smaller top plate with a side of 410 mm. Other sizes are available at extra cost, but you have to take into account that they will sound slightly different than the basic version. Since Pure features feet, it is quite high - it measures 140 mm. It weighs 23.5 kg and one can place on it a device of any weight up to 40 kg.

The WK Audio Pure platform was listened to in the "High Fidelity" reference system and was placed on the top shelf of the Finite Elemente Pagode Edition rack. It was used under the Ayon Audio CD-35 HF Edition SACD player. This was an A / B / A comparison with A and B known. In the first part of the test, I placed the player first on the Finite Elemente (A) shelf, and then on the WK Audio platform (B). In the second part I compared the sound of two platforms: WK Audio (A) and Acoustic Revive RAF-48H (B).

| PURE and the two of us

WOJCIECH PACUŁA: That's the first time you've listened to my system, right?
WITEK KAMIŃSKI: Yes, I've never listened to it before. Therefore, it is a very pleasant surprise for me, because I heard a very similar timbre, almost the same as in my system. Of course I do not mean the same quality level, because my system can not compare to yours, but the timbre is a very important element for me and it is very similar - it's really a big surprise! I had the impression that I listened to my system, only sounding better. It is the same sound aesthetics in both systems, but the quality level is different :)

Maybe we're just trying to achieve the same thing?
Possibly. Even more so that – I'm not sure if I should even mention it - when we moved the player I heard the same kind of changes that I heard at home.

What kind of changes?
The most important feature is a better spacing and a way the soundstage is arranged. It was especially clear when we listened to Mahler, but already in the first track by Peter, Paul and Mary it was perfectly legible. The voices were very nicely arranged, you could even say: extracted. The first impression was that the sound became less “juicy”. But, assuming I understand it correctly, it was not a matter of "dryness" as such, but rather showing everything more distant and calmer, because in Mahler the entrance of string instruments was longer, richer and more "vibrant". It's like if the platform cleaned the sound, removed a slight coloration, which at first we read as "draining the juice" from the music, and after a while it turns out to be a proper tonal balance.

With the first disc, the sounds got “cleaned up”, but it was only with Mahler that it was immediately obvious. I do not want to criticize anything, but without the platform it lacked "placement", you could generally hear the same performance, except that with the platform you could better hear "where" it happened. I think that the dynamic contrast improved with Pure. For example, the string instruments entering in Mahler was more temperamental, more powerful.

And one last thing - I think that the sound was shifted up, both in the sense of tonal balance and the position of the sound scene. The treble in the whole presentation became more present, they attracted my attention more than when the platform was not used. Paradoxically, this phenomenon was accompanied by the strengthening of bass, but rather its lower part. For example, the guitar's entry seemed to be a bit lower, and therefore stronger. By the way, the platform removed some nasality from the vocals, they gained a more natural timbre and became more focused, I could hear more "throat". As if the platform caused that, like dynamic contrast, also the tonal contrast increased.

| PURE and me

The platform prepared by Witek has its own clear sound signature, there is no doubt about it. It shapes the sound of the components placed on it. In this case, however, this is an action that does not affect the structure of the sound in any particular way. The point is that it does not impose its sonic signature over device's, it still disappears to some extent behind an improved sound of the Player, while the latter kept its own sonic signature (it would work the same in case of any preamplifier, amplifier, etc.).

The changes can be divided into several sets. The first coves a significant change in the structure of the sound stage. The second one corrects the frequency range extension. And the third, initially the most difficult to notice, and ultimately the most important one, is about the resolution change, and thus improvement of differentiation.

After placing the Ayon player on Pure, the foreground was withdrawn – not by much, but still - and the back of the stage moved quite far back. In a word - the depth of the scene has increased significantly. On the one hand, sound shaped this way was less palpable than without a platform. Because the instruments and vocals placed by the sound engineers in the foreground were not as "obvious" as they seemed before it felt like something was missing.

It's just that this "obviousness", meaning the sound without a platform, turned out to be flirting with brazenness. Without a direct comparison, the impression disappears, everything is in perfect order. It is enough, however, to compare a few-minute section of any album to realize that in this directness of the player placed directly on the Finite Elemente rack it actually sounded somewhat "simplified". I exaggerate, obviously, but when you know your system really well, when you like it, even the smallest change grows into a fundamental one - as in this case.

So with the platform, the sound is slightly withdrawn, but still palpable. It also better conveys spatial relationships, because the sounds are spread over a larger space (bigger depth). The instruments thus gain more "presence", which is a paradox, because as I said, they are slightly less tangible, right? But this is the case - the improvement of resolution and differentiation leads to the fact that we do not have to strain so much, even if we do it unconsciously, to imagine that what we can hear is a particular instrument and not any other one.

Exactly the same modification will be applied in terms of tonal balance. The top of the band seems very similar in both cases. Meanwhile, the lower midrange and bass are significantly changed. The first impression, after placing the player on the platform, is that the bass is shorter and the midrange is higher than before. And indeed – that's how I perceived it. The reality is a bit different, though. First of all, the bass with the platform goes lower and is better differentiated, i.e. more melodic and better defined.

In turn, the lower midrange is less rich, which in this case, with many albums, creates an impression of a lower nasality. I don't think that my system sounds “nasal”. However, this kind of comparison proves that it can be done differently, maybe even in a better way. The definition of such sound is clearer and yet the whole appears to be softer and more velvety.

All this leads to the category number three, the resolution. It seems to me, that the Pure platform calms down something in the sound that without it blurs the sound. It is not about how detailed the sound is, in fact it seems that the sound is even more detailed without the platform, but rather about the density of the sound and its multidimensionality. With Pure, we get a more authoritative, deeper sound - it's not so much about the depth of the stage as the sound itself. The bass goes lower with it, because on the one hand it is no longer blurred with the lower midrange, and on the other it has a quieter "background", which makes it clearer.

The Acoustic Revive pneumatic platform takes it even further and in a different direction. It lowers the sound, significantly, by moving what previously on the Finite Elemente rack, could have been associated with nasality, to medium bass area and thus deepens it. It also creates a much larger space, also from side to side, which Pure has not changed. The upper treble is smoother with RAF-48H, darker but not less resolving. In turn, the Polish platform shows a better definition of sounds, which can be an asset. Both platforms significantly improve the resolution, making comparison of the SACD and CD versions of Stille Antico Puer natus est very easy. Without platforms, the sound seems to be more "compacted" towards the listener, and thus less three-dimensional and consequently less natural.

Summary

The Pure platform changes the sound in the right direction. It does not do it in such a spectacular way as platforms decoupled with air or springs, because it is more restrained in its operation. But much better differentiation, excellent improvement of the depth and vividness of the sound stage, as well as cleaning of the lower midrange from impurities cause the sound of the system, even very expensive one, to be better with it, more natural than without it. If we take into account that it costs not that much, and is very nicely made, it will be difficult to justify someone not willing to give it a chance. RED Fingerprint for sound, make & finish and price.