Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site


In the Forum: Audio Discussions
In the Thread: It’s mad, mad, mad... electricity.
Post Subject: An open letter to PS Audio’s Paul McGowanPosted by Romy the Cat on: 6/29/2007

I just received PS Audio June Newsletter and have written a reply in a format of an open personal letter to Paul McGowan. Below is the text.

Paul,

A new round of my experiments with curing electricity made me to write up this open letter. I did not post it at your site as my objectives are not to humiliate you company but to make you to pay attention to certain facts. If you feel comfortable to post this letter at you company’s site then do so and I will publicity stay behind to what I have expressed.

During the last few years, since the class D amps become more and more available including the one that can swing high voltage, there was a number of On-Line Double Conversion and Delta Conversion become available. They are not the cheap consumers Standby, Line-interactive, or Fero USP devises but they are pure regenerations, costly but powerful and effective. (There is a large army of them staring from $1000 and up).

I went to my data center and tested some of those devises. They do not test ever close to the PS Audio PowerPlants (and I looked juts at distortions and shape of the wave). However, there is more to it. There are companies (APS for instance and their numbers will be growing) that accommodate the very same principle: “AC-DC-battery-AC-DAmp-Filter” making and marketing their regenerators for audio consumers. The Irony is that I do not feel that those companies really compete with PS Audio’s PowerPlants as the SONIC RESULTS that the transformerless-Damp regenerator deliver is WAY BEYOND what PS Audio ever was able to demonstrate. I mean all know to me sonic problems that PS Audio has with their regenerators are not there anymore.

I have no explanation why the “AC-DC-battery-AC-DAmp-Filter” delivers WAY BETTER SOUND - it is your domain to provide technical justification to the facts. Paul, you are a good engineer and you know what you are doing. However, I can assure you Paul that I know about Sound more they you do and I can assure you that SONICALLY the APS regenerators are order of magnitude more superior then your PowerPlants.

Well, if it get your attention, and it should, then here are some thoughts. It is not all as straight with APS regenerators and “DAmp-Filter” topology, as you know, has own set of issuers. Still, I feel that attacking the issuers within the scope of APS-type regenerators is way more PERSPECTIVE FOR SOUND then to do it within the scope of your Class A/B regenerators. I anticipate that what you read my letter you will not allow own ego and your company invested marketing to cloud your judgment. So, what kind judgment I would anticipate in response to my letter and why I am writing it up.

First off all it is important to understand that I am not associated nether with APS not with any other audio company or interest grope. I equally do not give a damn how many regenerators PS Audio or APS will sell. However, I am interested in me, the consumer, have better performing (SOUNDING!!!) regenerators and here where I would like the Hi-Fi power regenerators companies to compete for attention of people like me and to deliver to us, the consumers, better products. The APS does the best they do, however, the PS Audio is longer in power regenerator business, has more experience, more resources, not to mention the marketing momentum. Unfortunately today, when PS Audio develop and promote their new generation of class A/B regenerators they essentially make users to buy technologically-obsolete and inferior sounding products… Very sad… I wish the PS- audio do not waste itself with supplementing the bogus distortion analyzers with new PowerPlants but make better sounding units. 

I sincerely hope that you invest some of your R&D efforts in the APS-like topologies and PS Audio will come up with a new better sounding “DAmp-Filter” re-generator.  The more companies will work in this direction, pushing the boundaries of “availability” the better we, the users, will be served and at better prices. I hope you understand my motivations and take my critiques contractively.

Rgs,
Romy the Cat

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site