I have been experimenting with Supercap, Hi-Cap and Mana, Base combinations.
Tests were carried out on shelf 2 of a 6 tier standard Base rack and on 2 phases of Mana: Soundframe/Mana Board/Soundframe/Damped Mana Glass (on concrete floor). Other combinations may bring different results but here's what I found. The words I use to describe my impressions are used in relative not absolute terms - so a Matsui might sound more 'glassy' and a NAP500 more 'weighty'.
1. Hi-Cap on Base.
Dull, lifeless, uninspired - felt like getting up and making a cup of coffee.
2. Hi-Cap on Mana.
Detailed, exciting, fun, uncouth, showy.
3. Supercap on Base.
Weighty, authoritative, musical, coherent, transparent.
4. Supercap on Mana.
Glassy, aggressive, fatiguing, disjointed.
In order of preference I would rate them: 3 then 2 with 1 and 4 equal and opposite lasts. 1 would be more livable with, 4 more immediately impressive.
Conclusions
Mana works wonders for some Naim kit eg. 32.5, Hi-Cap, and buggers up the sound of others, eg. CDS2, Supercap (note the expensive stuff). Mana does seem to add something - this can be good news or bad news depending on the equipment.
Base is neutral and provides good isolation. Despite its poor reputation here I would much rather my S-Cap and CDS2 stayed on the Base rack - its seems not to add anything, nor take anything away.
I find it interesting that the Mana seems to elevate 'lesser' equipment - its protagonists make extravagant but probably correct claims in this regard. Expensive kit which is presumably better engineered and isolated seems to reject any further enhancement and just recquires a solid, level, isolating surface.
Alex
Disclaimer: my system, my setup, my room, my ears, my brain.
ps The combined power and musicality of the CDS2 head unit on Base and the CDPS on Mana really nails you to your seat.
Posted on: 11 September 2001 by John C
Rico " The Voice of Reason " says
"You're all obviously missing the point of the music."
As aspiring Mullet Audio teaboy and gofer Dev and Rico have charged me with the task of suggesting musical enemas to clear the stand fetish fever that currently constipates the forum. For Alex I will have to prescribe a very severe remedy Im afraid
Peter Brotzman - Machine Gun - A classic 40 mintes of free jazz sonic terrorism. Played loud. Ears may bleed but only consult physician in extremis. Other suggestions welcomed.
John
Mullet Audio (teaboy)
" This hurts us more than it hurts you""
Posted on: 11 September 2001 by Alex S.
1. I am doing all this without a Mick Parry blindfold.
2. Rico, you have an agile mind but anyone who asserts: 'I see an LP12/Ittok/Valhalla as broadly equivalent to a CDX' must have very dodgy ears.
BTW surely an experiment is not invalidated if all other things remain constant and equal, ie. in exactly the same place, indeed, I thought this was a requirement of good scientific practice.
3. John, a very kind offer - I look forward to the arrival of 'Peter Brotzman - Machine Gun - A classic 40 mintes of free jazz sonic terrorism'.
Alex
Posted on: 11 September 2001 by Martin Payne
quote:
Originally posted by Alex S.:
BTW surely an experiment is not invalidated if all other things remain constant and equal, ie. in exactly the same place, indeed, I thought this was a requirement of good scientific practice.
Alex,
I believe there is an interaction between the effect of the stands on different pieces of kit.
Assume two components (CD & preamp?) are supported differently. One such that PR&T is enhanced at the expense of spaciousnes. The other so that spaciousness is preserved over PR&T.
The PR&T from the first will be lost by the second component, and the spaciousness that would have been retained by the second is absent in the signal, so is not apparent.
Synergy between components is why LP12s work so well with naim gear - the strengths of one are retained by the other. The same is probably true of racking, also.
This does make scientific comparisons next to impossible, since you need to get hold of large amounts of demo kit, then re-install the whole system. This can cause major changes, even when you think you've set it up the same.
Martin
P.S. having said all this, I actually agree with your conclusions!
Posted on: 11 September 2001 by Alex S.
Rico
quote:
Clearly we are listening for different things
I'm listening for music Rico. What are you listening for?
Martin
As usual, you write complete sense. Not sure about the agreeing with me part though. I shouldn't like you to lose any forum credibility.
You approach synergy here from a very negative angle - perhaps each support is helping to accentuate the positive instead of diluting it.
Synergy is a favourite word of mine and what I am always looking for when balancing my system. I hope you believe that I am not a neurotic, incessant tweaker; I think I'm very nearly there in fact - just 4 or 5 more jigsaw pieces to fit.
As for 'scientific', I agree that everything I do is completely unscientific and almost wholly subjective.
Posted on: 11 September 2001 by garyi
Does everyone on this forum hate each other, I know it could be taken as playfull banter but it don't seem like it, I thought he was just giving his opinion in a friendly way, why is every one so angry?
The trouble with these music forums is that its all purely people opinions, peoples ears, with other forums the problems are tangible the results obvious.
Its the same over at the mana site, evry one bitching about various kit in a very unfriendly way, seems to make the whole point of it pointless.
Posted on: 11 September 2001 by Alex S.
I think nearly everyone likes each other on this forum. I don't hate anyone here and consider many to be friends even though we haven't yet met. I mildly dislike someone who was excessively rude for no good reason.
I think you have found a fault with e-mail - I know I write a load of nonsense which I would not dream of saying to anyone in person. Although I don't have a 'boybander' monnicker I do agree that the anonymity of this place can be dangerous. I find it fun but also a bit like smoking - I think I'd rather give it up (actually I did give up smoking which may be one of the problems). Trouble is, as Paul D. said, it does beat working.
I post excessively partly because of my work which involves waiting for paint to dry or glue to harden or resin to set (and this does beat watching paint dry), but also to help keep the forum moving - I think it helps keep it diverting if there are lots of contributors. I know its hit and miss but I guess we all just hope for a few hits and not too many misses and occassionally to impart some useful information.
Regards,
Alex
Posted on: 12 September 2001 by BrianD
Dozy
I see. So I'm supposed to have misinterpreted what Alex said. Is that why Rico came out with the helpful (yawn) reference to using apple boxes?
I don't think I misinterpreted Alex's post. As far as I can tell, he moved a hicap and a supercap between a shelf on a BASE support and a MANA support. I don't recall reading anywhere that the rest of the stuff was floating about in mid-air, so I've assumed the rest of the gear is located somewhere on the 6-shelf BASE support he mentions.
So, assuming BASE to be good quality, what is so flawed about trying to find out what happens when moving various components onto a MANA support. The known system performance when it is all located BASE is a reference point to work from. If you move ONE item to a different support and detect a different quality sound, then it's caused by the change of support on that piece of equipment. Err, isn't it?
I know this must difficult for some to understand.
Alex
quote:
Soundframe/Mana Board/Soundframe/Damped Mana Glass
'Damped Mana Glass' eh! I hope you used a £100 ex-dem Mana sponge and £50 Mana bottled water or your method was clearly crap. 
Brian
Posted on: 12 September 2001 by Chris L
Okay, I'm a bit bored, so I'm going to join in the fun
I found Alex's post very interesting. I don't think his testing was flawed, just very limited. I took the whole thing as a discussion of the effects that the two supports in question (Base and Mana) can have when used under two very high quality power supplies. And I assumed this was how it was intended.
I didn't take it as an overall judgement on the supports in all circumstances.
I found it especially interesting because we've seen vast numbers of accounts on the effect that total Mana-ing can have, or source Mana-ing, or even amp Mana-ing, but I think this is first account I've seen to consider the effects of use of Mana on the PSU alone.
Just IMHO of course!
Chris L
P.S. I have yet to form an opinion about Mana, there's no doubt it makes a difference, but I don't know whether I'll like the difference in my system - and in my system, whether I like it is what counts above all else.
Posted on: 12 September 2001 by Alex S.
1. Brian, you've completely missed my point.
Let me elucidate. I had a friend at school. He was no great hit with the girls but his facility for gluing together Airfix kits was the stuff of legend. Once finished, he would fix strong but discreet wires and attach them in formation to the ceiling.
This is exactly what I did with all my Naim equipment whilst I placed the power supplies on the supports provided. A sort of Red Arrows 'V' seemed to have the best sonic performance although the CDPS crash landed a couple of times and narrowly missed my Hush Puppy.
2. The latent purpose of my experiment was to see if I could sell the Supercap and subtitute it with a Hi-Cap on (1 or more) levels of Mana. The answer is I couldn't - the excitement was there, most of the detail but the Supercap has a much more assured presentation - It was Beaujolais Nouveau against Chateaux Lafitte I'm afraid.
3. I see no flaw in the argument that certain pieces of equipment are better suited to a given support. True, one may sacrifice a certain sameness of presentation with the same support but if, for example, a CDS2 works best on Base, a CDPS best on a FRAIM and an LP12 best on Mana, why not have it thus (apart from aesthetic considerations which I don't care about).
I still fail to understand how having everything on one support and then moving pieces of equipment one at a time onto another one invalidates the whole experiment.
To my mind Mana does have a sonic signiature which suits the LP12 extremely well but does not suit the CDS2 which becomes edgy and disjointed. I'm sorry but I'm not going to buy the 'you've set it up wrong then' argument. I think Base adds nothing - it just isolates the equipment - it is sonically neutral. If one accepts its neutrality it is the perfect control in my experiments. I simply move each bit off the control and onto Mana to see how it performs differently - I'm sure all/more Mana would just accentuate rather than change the results.
So here again are my findings:
CDPS does not like Mana, nor does a Supercap. A CDPS has mixed feelings. A 32.5 and a Hi-Cap love Mana and the 250 I haven't yet tried. Frankly, I don't care if the experiment's complete crap - my ears are pleased with the configuration I now have. I share the results in the hope that they at least stimulate - I'm not pretending I've discovered some new Hi-Fi grail. Anyone who wants to have a listen is very welcome (you bring the beers).
I am also extremely pleased that the 82 has been replaced by 32.5/Mana/Troika/Linto.
Alex
ps Brian, I'm really enjoying your recent posts.
And thanks Chris L for interpreting my post exactly as it was intended.
And another thing - If all Manaphiles think Naim box accumulators are just sheep then surely it is sheep-like to claim that Mana works brilliantly with everything and yet more brilliantly at ever increasing levels. I am very pleased with the Mana I have. It works wonders where I've put it. That doesn't mean I want to OD on the 'Mana Effect'.
[This message was edited by Alex S. on WEDNESDAY 12 September 2001 at 13:59.]
Posted on: 12 September 2001 by Greg Beatty
quote:
Various people, not just Mana users, have expressed the opinion that mixing different kind
of supports minimizes their effectiveness.
Just to clarify...
...two ways of mixing come to mind.
1) Component A is on Stand Y and Component B is on Stand Z. I believe this is what Alex did.
2) Component A sits on funnybase Y which sits on Stand Z. This is what one gets when a Mana soundbase (or reference top or whatever it is called) is inserted between a component and the current (non-Mana) stand in use.
I believe it is the second type (not what Alex did) that has led quite a few folk here to say "don't do it".
- GregB
Insert Witty Signature Line Here
Posted on: 12 September 2001 by BrianD
Alex said
quote:
Brian, I'm really enjoying your recent posts
Yeah, well I'm not ill anymore now. I went to work last night, the doctor having taken me off the prescription drugs I've been on the last 3 weeks. My posts will probably return to normal once I get the remnants of this stuff out of my body. Then again, it could be the 'Python' influence that got me going so it may never disappear. I quite like that name actually. Made me feel.....well, bigger.
quote:
I still fail to understand how having everything on one support and then moving pieces of equipment one at a time onto another one invalidates the whole experiment
Exactly what I said. Couldn't agree more.
DOZY said
quote:
That is correct. Just being helpful
Just being you, more like.
David said
quote:
Don't get too steamed up about the apple boxes
I'm not. I've got bigger problems to think about than Rico going on about apple boxes. My daughter is 11. Rico's remark made me laugh when I first read it, however I was hoping for some informative comment, that's all.
The point is, I would use Alex's method if I was auditioning supports. You see, I now use 2 identical, home-made supports. Before anyone asks, the answer is no, they aren't apple boxes. Should I wish to change I wouldn't buy (due to expense) 2 x Mana, 2 x QS or 2 x anything. I'd want to find out which kit sounds best on which platform. This sounds like a reasonable way to work out what goes where to me to get best performance. Isn't that what it's about?
BTW Putting my gear on two supports is an upgrade. 
Brian
[This message was edited by BD on WEDNESDAY 12 September 2001 at 18:05.]
Posted on: 12 September 2001 by Martin Payne
It surprises me how different items such as LP12s & electronics can respond in quite similar ways to a stand, despite their huge mechanical differences.
Any stand is a mixture of strengths & weaknesses.
When you setup a mixed arrangement that works resonably well you are finding a combination where the weaknesses don't mask the strengths of the other items.
The rationale for racking the whole system with one brand is that the strengths are retained and magnified.
The downside of this is that demoing a rack on one component will not tell you whether you would like the effct if used across all of your stuff.
cheers, Martin
Posted on: 12 September 2001 by davidf
Let`s face it, BASE must be good, otherwise, why would the late JV have recommended it for his company`s equipment. In case you haven`t guessed, I own a 5-tier BASE rack. It is amazing to me how little attention BASE racks get here on the forum. I guess the users of these racks are too busy enjoying music to bother with a lot of the "blah-blah-blah" about which rack is best.
By the way, anyone know whether BASE has a website? Since Naim took the moniker off their own site, how would one get info? david.
Posted on: 12 September 2001 by BrianD
I've been trying to get info about Base for some considerable time. Not too hard, I have to say, but I am fairly interested.
I became interested during the major "an Argos tranny radio sounds better on Mana than a CDS2/52/NAP500" outburts of last year. 'P' put a couple of posts on and mentioned BASE, the lack of a website being mentioned then. I'm still interested now, which is one reason why I haven't broken my nuts to investigate the latest flavour of month...QS Ref. My plan is to leave it until next Feb' when I hope to get to the Bristol Show. I've been told BASE are usually represented there.
If you do come across a website, or any reasonable access to info, can you post the details please?
Brian
Posted on: 12 September 2001 by BrianD
It appears to be more complicated than I first thought.
Using various Naim components as an example.
(TO EVERYBODY....I'm not going to mention 'real' supports for fear of somebody bursting a blood vessel disputing what is only an 'example'.... supports are soooo serious)
I'm using a CDX / 32.5 / snaps / 160. I imagined that if the strengths of the snaps and 160 were optimised on a PALLET, then I'd use a PALLET support for these. If the CDX and 32.5 strengths were optimised on an APPLE BOX then I'd use an APPLE BOX support for these.
But, from what you're saying, even though an a PALLET may well optimise the strengths of the snaps / 160, I could be wrong to do this because it may mask some of the strengths of the CDX / 32.5. I'm not sure I get how this can happen since the CDX / 32.5 aren't on the PALLET. But assuming your conclusion (I expect you've experimented) is correct then the whole thing becomes a 'suck it and see' scenario for me. It makes the entire subject even more 'personal taste', a bit like speakers except I don't believe they make anything like as much difference. You mess around with supports to squeeze a little bit more from an already good system, NOT to turn a bad system into a good one.
Brian
Posted on: 13 September 2001 by Alex S.
Yes, it was JV's support of choice but he substituted ball bearings for the rubber feet on the shelves. Now where have I seen that.
The Fraim looks the part but technically it seems like an amalgam of Base and Mana's strong points (without getting into Patent problems of course) with a few ball bearings thrown in to honour the late JV.
Here's the number for Base: 01342 826262 (somewhere in Sussex).
They make two racks 'Standard' and 'Star' - Star is better but costs more. The shelves work on both racks - indeed, they work on some other racks too (eg my old Sound Org) as isolation platforms.
Base has gone up horribly in price since the release of FRAIM. Coincidence?
Alex
[This message was edited by Alex S. on THURSDAY 13 September 2001 at 09:03.]
