For those unconvinced by Mana....

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ok. I didn't read the whole post. But I read enough to get the gist that he thought the new mana stands made from stainless steel are much better than the originals, made from Iron.


Now just hold on one god damn minute !!!


If this is the case then all that talk about JW having searched high and low for the "absolute best" material to use for his stands when he was originally developing them and all the rhetoric from his products fans about how they're not just any old normal angle iron but something "special" is just the biggest load of marketing hyperbole ever. ??? Stainless steel was readily available when Mana stands were first produced, so it would seem that he can't have tried it originally as obviously the stands would have been made from SS originally.

Now I am in a priviliged position as I know people in the industry and if what they tell me is true, then manufacturers just make up "reasons" for why their use of materials is the best choice, when in fact the real reason for the choice of materials is purely down to the bottom line of cost.

So if anyone asks me whether I believe JW put in months of development choosing exactly the right grade of metal and glass to get the best possible sound or if he just made it out of the cheapest available materials and then came up for reasons as to why they are the best I'm keeping quiet about which version of events I believe.


GTM
 
For anyone interested:

GB Patent 2 230 426


SUPPORTS FOR SOUND REPRODUCTION EQUIPMENT
The present invention relates to a support, for example, a table or a shelf, for sound reproduction equipment such as record turntables, compact disc players, tape players, amplifiers, loud speakers, etc.

It is appreciated, especially by hi-fi enthusiasts, that the nature of the surface on which a piece of equipment is placed will affect its performance in relation to the quality of sound which is reproduced, particularly in the case of a record turntable. For example, there are many materials and structures which are known to affect performance adversely across either part or the whole of the audible frequency spectrum.

Consequently there are a number of purpose built supports for sound reproduction equipment available on the market to the discerning hi-fi enthusiast, some costing as much as from £300 to 400. However, I have found that even reputedly the best of these still leave something to be desired, and I believe my invention provides a support which enables a quality of sound reproduction to be obtained which is far superior to that obtainable from supports currently available.

According to the invention there is provided a support for sound reproduction equipment comprising a substantially rigid support frame which is devoid of tubular elements and closed cavities in its construction, and a glass plate mounted on, and supported solely by, a plurality of substantially pointed members carried by the frame, the glass plate defining the surface on which the equipment is to be placed.

Preferably the support frame is made of metal, preferably iron or steel, and is preferably of a welded construction. A particularly strong and rigid frame may be obtained by using angle-section members for the main components of the frame.

The pointed members for supporting the glass plate are preferably adjustable relative to the frame so that the glass plate can be levelled, and preferably they are formed by screw-threaded spikes received in correspondingly threaded holes in the frame.

The glass plate is preferably of plate glass and may be provided on its under surface with locating rings arranged so that the pointed members will contact the glass within the rings, but without contacting the rings themselves, when the plate is correctly positioned on the frame. These rings will serve not only to position the plate but also to retain it on the frame in the event of the support being knocked accidentally.

There may, of course, be more than one glass plate mounted on the support frame in a manner similar to each other, thus providing the support with more than one surface on which equipment may be placed.

The support may take the form of a shelf or a table.

In the case of a shelf, the frame will include members which are designed to be attached to a wall. In the case of a table, however, the frame will be designed to be free standing, and is preferably provided with adjustable feet for ensuring that the support will be firmly supported on the floor. The adjustable feet may be formed by further substantially pointed screwthreaded members suitably carried by the frame with their pointed ends arranged to engage the floor.
 
GTM said:
manufacturers just make up "reasons" for why their use of materials is the best choice, when in fact the real reason for the choice of materials is purely down to the bottom line of cost.
Click to expand...

No, there's feel good factor to consider as well. Examples being The DAC64's machined billet case, Cyrus' cast alu box and Rega's extrusion. They feel nice, look good (well, different at least) and it gives them a shop presence compared to your average rotel amp of yesteryear with its plastic knobs and relatively thin casework.

If they can dress this up with a bit of hyperbole on top, even better.
 
and may be provided on its under surface with locating rings arranged so that the pointed members will contact the glass within the rings, but without contacting the rings themselves, when the plate is correctly positioned on the frame. These rings will serve not only to position the plate but also to retain it on the frame in the event of the support being knocked accidentally.
Click to expand...

This aspect never materialised - and no mention at all of the famous central black strips.
 
michaelab said:
:D

Michael.
Click to expand...

To be fair, Michael, I think "plate glass" has a particular meaning in the glass industry. It means large plates, as made by the "float" method pioneered by the Pilkingtons, which allows a high degree of flatness. A small plate of glass cast, say, directly in the right size of a Mana plate, may strictly speaking not be "plate glass".
 
michaelab said:
In the case of my DAC that's bullshit. I like my NOS DAC because of the way it sounds. However, I know that it measures quite differently from my DAC64 (frequency response and harmonic spectra are both quite different) so there's a difference there which I'm not imagining. OTOH you can measure an amp or CDP on 8 phases of Mana or 9 and it will measure exactly the same.

Satisfied? :rolleyes:

Michael.
Click to expand...

No Michael... the only thing I am not satisfied with is you (in a good way, obviously):

"Originally Posted by BerylliumDust
I won't test the Sim because I don't believe in its philosophy which was proven by Tube Dude to be not accurate by null testing it."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

"As WM and merlin have said, that is just the most ridiculous thing to say. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

One thing is to measure two amps and say that the one that measures better sounds better. People may disagree but it's a rational argument. However, suggesting that you can tell that an amplifier will measure badly just because it doesn't use global feedback is absurd, not to say extremely arrogant.

How do you know that Sim don't have a way to make a low distortion amp without global feedback? Even if TD has measured amps and found that, generally, no global feedback produces worse null test results that doesn't mean that someone else doesn't know how to do it .

This kind of fundamentalist narrow mindedness is really staggering. First it was "only speakers with metal drivers can sound good", then "only multibit DACs can sound good", now this.

Einstein said that the speed of light is constant and nothing can travel faster than it. Now João Magueijo (a Portuguese physicist working in London University) is showing that may not be true afterall. Nothing is written in stone.

Michael."
 
That website does make me laugh...I think if I were JW i'd be a bit embarrassed by that over the top reply.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ditton - it was me who said "nothing is written in stone", BD was quoting me :) . Of course I'm not claiming to be the first person to say it.

Michael.
 
Robbo said:
Still, I guess this has been discussed over and over again and nothing has changed so there is no more to say.
Click to expand...

And yet this is already page 7 of this thread. :confused:
 
michaelab said:
ditton - it was me who said "nothing is written in stone", BD was quoting me :) . Of course I'm not claiming to be the first person to say it.

Michael.
Click to expand...

mea cupla, to both BD (for libel, or is it slander) and yourself.
 
michaelab said:
I don't see any inconsistencies in the two things I said :confused: .
Click to expand...

The problem is...

Have you ever heard a TT or a CDP with Mana and then without it?

No!

Have you measured it?

No!

Did you measure your NOS DAC?

No!

Did you measure the DAC64?

No!

Did you compare your NOS DAC with the DAC64?

Yes!

Did you like it better?

Yes!

Did Mana followers hear and compare non Mana and Mana systems?

Yes!

Did they like Mana systems better?

Yes!


SO, WHERE IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOU AND MANA FOLLOWERS???
 
my good friend the analoguester might be right,to quote from the link in the first post

Just when you think you've experienced almost everything Mana has to offer, along comes something new and so extraordinary that it redefines your conceptions. What I'm going to describe is justifiably a revolutionary discovery that will no doubt impact dramatically on the exploits of discerning hi-fi enthusiasts, and their enjoyment of music. Indeed, I can say that in terms of performance support solutions for hi-fi systems, the ante has been upped, the goalposts moved, and a totally new and different league createdââ'¬Â¦ I refer to the new stainless steel range of supports from Mana.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top