Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site


In the Forum: Audio Discussions
In the Thread: It’s mad, mad, mad... electricity.
Post Subject: Capacitors versus batteries in regeneratorsPosted by drdna on: 1/25/2016
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Romy the Cat wrote:
Well, the StormTank is currently is being sold for $30K.
Oh well, I can forget about buying one to try it out...
 Romy the Cat wrote:
The PurePower has a bank of caps that shunt the battery. Intellectually, it is very good; in practice it has no effect.
I beg to differ. It may contribute to the unique sound of the PurePower. I still have my old SA-3 amplifiers made by Nelson Pass. The massive capacitors take up 90% of the inside of the amplifier, and it does have an impact on the sound when taken to the extreme.
 Romy the Cat wrote:
The StormTank use good and more expensive Lithium Iron Phosphate butteries. The main advantage for LiFePO4 is that they live much longer then lead but basically it is the same. Now, StormTank claims that they have 1000A/H of batteries in there and this is a lot. More batteries means lower impedance of the whole battery back and means deeper filtration of in real time regeneration mode.
This is the main selling point of the StormTank: a gigantic battery. Who knows if it makes a difference to the sound, but intellectually it is appealing and is the main marketing point. If it did not weigh hundreds of pounds, standard audiophiles would be less willing to part with $30,000.

It is interesting to me to think about the use of Lithium batteries in the circuit. I have done many experiments with different metals for audio use, as they all have slightly different mechanical, electrical, and physical properties. Lead has a deep, placid but musical quality to its sound which can be quite seductive. I am not familiar at all with the sound that lithium may impart to the circuit, so it would be quite interesting to listen to this unit purely on that basis.

Adrian


Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site