I NEVER said I didn’t like the P3 or what it did in my system. I’d like to see the data sheet claims match the measurements.
The measurements can still be a lie and the device works, but for different reasons.
1 Like
The distortion is lower yes. The noise floor is actually higher if you look at the base around the 60Hz signal. The lower distortion makes overall THD+N lower, so in that sense the Powerplant is definitely cleaner in my opinion. The point about the noise floor being higher is that with full regeneration of the power you would expect a lower noise floor than the original signal because the new waves noise would only be what is generated from the Powerplant itself. In this case the higher noise implies the amp in the Powerplant is either noisey or something else like a partial wave regeneration is going on. Since the spectrum of all the noise and distortion is so similar, the latter was likely the case and has since been confirmed by Paul.
The argument is about whether that difference in distortion performance amounts to anything in audio devices that already have their own power supplies and filtering. They’re designed to run on varying AC while also running at stepped down DC voltages way below the 120V inputs. As indicated, testing performed on the output of these devices, literally the analog signal going to your speakers, which is incredibly well understood in the audio and electrical fields, regarding how loudspeaker drivers function when fed analog signals didn’t show any measurable difference at high resolution with instrument grade measurement equipment. As indicated, this was expected based on current electrical engineering and electrical theory. If PS Audio has an amplifier with poor power filtering ability, they may be able to show a difference in performance with the Powerplant running from poor Mains power. I would shoot for that as an example if I were interested in showing possible benefits for edge case owner setups.
As far as manufacturers swapping passive components around with exact values to change the sound, I understand that many people believe in this idea, but I’ve never seen any evidence that it’s not another audiophile myth. Most crossover designers use modeling software to design the crossover. These models can be used because the electrical theory regarding passive components affects on sound reproduction are understood. Many people have also tested passive crossover audiophile component upgrades by ensuring the values of the swapped components are actually the same, you’d be surprised how often they’re actually not due to tolerance which can make small changes to the sound, and measured them electrically and with frequency response of the actual speaker with and without the upgrade components. When properly controlled for exact value components there hasn’t been a demonstrated audibly measurable difference as would be expected by electrical theory. Here are some hobbyist examples showing this if you’re interested:
You may or may not find this an interesting read. I’m not trying to change the discussion to go down this path and I’m not going to defend it or argue on that point any further than this post. The intention is to respond to the line of questioning above that just because the measured output of an amplifier is the same doesn’t mean the loudspeaker will sound the same. I believe that is wrong. The evidence and electrical theory point to it being wrong, hobbyist level practical testing shows it to be wrong, and null testing of identical signals shows it to be measurably and audibly wrong when listening to the actual null signal. Analog signals that drive loudspeaker drivers are well understood. If the signals are the same then the sound produced will be the same. I don’t believe there is any unknown audio phenomenon going on there, and have never heard or seen proof of any such claims.
2 Likes
In addition, based on the .pdf posted, it IS going from AC to DC, and back to AC. The AC powers the unit - it is after all, NOT battery powered. The circuit, then generates a DC PWM (likely) reference for the corrected sinewave. The PWM reference is then used to generate a ‘more perfect’ AC sinewave - half the wave for positive reference/half for negative reference. If you go out and buy a true sinewave generator at the Borg, that is what it does as well.
The now sinusoidal AC wave then has to be amplified to 120v AC. This amplification HAS to occur through the use of mains voltage, since, again, it’s not battery powered - or gas/propane powered.
I don’t understand what the hash is if there’s high frequency noise. I haven’t read the entire white paper, and only read enough of Amire’s review to see that he himself stated that it is regenerating.
I have read enough of his other reviews to see that in other equipment tests, he clearly states that high frequency (supply) noise is NOT usually a problem if it’s occurring out of band.
1 Like
I have noted a tack to a more productive and informative discourse in your last few posts and I appreciate it.
Cheers.
6 Likes
Have to go scooch a porcupine from the yard before the dog gets to it…
1 Like
Agreed! 
2 Likes
@Shazb0t You stated, “The noise floor is actually higher if you look at the base around the 60Hz signal.” The item you are seeing is indicative of MultiWave being enabled, and can vary in strength depending on the users selection. It can also be disabled.
2 Likes
Paul has verbally addressed that there is in rush current limiting on the HC outlets to protect the Powerplant for some initial time window, but the testing performed by ASR in which a power sweep was run with a power amplifier, not a short burst test, showed that the amplifier lost ~10% of it’s full power. This indicates that the in rush limiter does not turn off and is actually affecting the impedance of those ports even after some initial time period and all the way up to full power draw:
Paul did allude to the Powerplant under ASR test not having the latest firmware, which appears to have been released after the review without any release notes. The owner of the Powerplant sent for review confirmed it had the latest firmware available at the time of testing. From the thread on this forum asking about what changed in this new firmware release, PS Audio did not indicate anything regarding the in rush current sensing had been changed, but Paul’s assertion implies that maybe something was. It would be good to get clarification on that because a lot of owners probably rightly plug their power amps into the HC outlet on the Powerplant and it would be unfortunate if those outlets do have some permanently higher output impedance as shown in the available testing, as Paul has indicated the lower output impedance of the Powerplant is one of the factors for why it improves sound in his opinion.
2 Likes
@Shazb0t I’m thoroughly aware of the ASR information you’re posting. I would recommend that the owner seek to have his unit inspected for proper operation. Please refer to my previous post concerning this issue.
My understanding is that the testing shown is without the MultiWave feature enabled. I have steered away from commenting on MultiWave as I don’t really understand the function of it. The Powerplant was designed to correct/regenerate the “flat tops” of poor incoming power back to a “perfect sinewave”. Why would you design a device to remove this unwanted distortion only to have a feature that adds it back in afterwards? I haven’t been able to really understand that so have not commented. Either way, I believe the testing of the output of the devices shows that it doesn’t make a difference enabled or disabled. However, I may be wrong as my understanding of this feature is limited.
1 Like
After viewing a few ASR cable “reviews” one can safely conclude that ALL “audiophile” cable manufacturers are frauds. Amir has the indisputable measurements to prove it. And he delivers the bad–or good-- news in such an even, avuncular manner that we know he’s just doing his best to save us.
1 Like
You may or may not find this interesting: The live demo begins at ~19:40 if you’re not super interested in how the device was built/operates.
Sometimes I wonder, if the almighty snaps his/her finger so everything and anything in hi-end audio has unlimited supply and free of charge starting tomorrow, how would the measurement only crowd fair on the crazed internet we have today?
My point: is it about the sound? or is it about the money?
Since you posted a link to a video with this character, I have to take back everything nice I wrote about you.
3 Likes
To state that anything is “fully” understood, imo, is the height of ignorance.
1 Like
Do you have a specific issue with something technical from the video? Character attacks aren’t the best basis for solid arguments. I appreciated your comments regardless.
He mentions that the null differential is generally 60db below signal and up to 100db. If the ‘differential’ was considered ‘noise’ – unwanted differences, and the measured noise was -60db, is that not problematic? I think a level of -60db cannot be considered ‘insignificant.’
He also generalizes that there’s no way someone could hear such a difference. That is a heavy assumption on what another individual can or cannot hear based on ‘expected norms’ and averages. It’s like using a C-weighted curve in measuring sound. C-weighting is based on an ‘average’ of how the human ears perceive the spectrum of sound, but it’s just that – an ‘average’ – ie. some people will hear more lower frequencies, some people will hear more higher frequencies, etc. I’m not even going to get into how brain processing further affects THAT (which can bring in other factors such as synesthesia, absolute pitch (many refer to this as “perfect pitch”,etc.).
Also, no matter how “perfectly” he designs his apparatus, all electronic components are inherently imperfect – ie. there truly is no such thing as a “straight wire with gain,” as it is an impossibility with current technology.
He also mentions housing the power supply in a separate housing to avoid noise. I’m sure he is referring to reducing radiated noise; however, he does not explain what he does to eliminate TRANSMITTED/TRANSFERRED noise (such as what the argument about the P12 appears to be about) and how that affects the differential output.
That’s NOT to say there is no value in null testing. My personal view is that null testing is of great value many times, but it’s a fallacy (and conceited) to think it’s a prefect test – NOTHING is.
andrewc may have an issue with Winer’s qualifications though, as in rebuttal to stevensegal’s post about Hans Beekhuyzen, he stated:
“If you didn’t know, he’s a Journalist with no actual Engineering qualifications whatsoever. Those test instruments sitting on his deck in his YouTube videos are just props.”
Like Hans, Winer himself states he “is not a “scientist,” and he is the first to point out that he has no advanced degrees, no Ph.D. from MIT. Everything he’s learned has been self-taught.”
By the way, they are both AES members.
That’s not to discount his (or Hans’ knowledge, methodology, etc.), just that it was andrewc’s counter regarding Hans. I personally feel that any degree (or lack thereof) is not automatically indicative of one’s qualification, ability, or knowledge. Many achievements/breakthroughs/etc have come from people with no formal education, and many really screwed up things have come from people with decades of formal education. Thomas Edison being a great example of the great things that can be achieved with no formal education at all.
3 Likes
Before I scooch off again, I wanted to clarify my previous statement regarding positive and negative regarding AC. I probably shouldn’t have referred to it as positive and negative, as it’s more correctly “phase” in reference to neutral.
The issue with ALL audio components, is we don’t really test under dynamic loads. Two speakers playing a 1 KHz test tone won’t sound different to most people. When we play music, the speakers can be startlingly different. Look at Stereophile’s speaker reviews, Speakers can be well within +/- 2dB of one another but sound far, far more different than that even in anachoic chambers.
The amp. cable, speaker interface is a different animal under dynamic tests. Our amps as “perfect” as they seem to be under static tests are far less neutral playing dynamic loads. You could say that all the numbers for amps and preamps are too low to “hear”. I agree with the first blush approach to that generalization until we hit them with dynamic reactive signals. Now things aren’t the same at all.
This isn’t just a cable thing. Cables are measurably different,100% with known tests. How much of that we hear is a system-to-system issue. It doesn’t change the how and why cables can be optimized for analog. I provide all the data on the HOW and WHY the cabels are changed to suit analog. There are few secrets there. There are issues that avoid detection, still, like EM wave effects of the metal grains. There are no true repeatable answers for that response people hear.
We have static tests to sort some things out but those aren’t the final answer by any means. They can be answers to the right questions as we fill in the blanks. Good components should pass each stepping-stone that we can test repeatably, yes. We’re not across the stream though.
The differences in components are real even if the numbers are never, ever, the “sound” we hear. We don’t have the ability to convey sound with numbers, just the GENERAL data that suggests it should be from poor to good to better.
Best,
Galen
10 Likes
If I measure two cables for R, L and C and they are different, we don’t need a NULL tester that also SHOULD show differences unless the test isn’t capable of resolving the differences. But a R, L and C changes are indeed “different” and so are the design(s) to change them.
You can prove your null tester isn’t good enough, I suppose, to show what a quality LCR meter plainly shows.
Best,
Galen
2 Likes