I do not make any claims just inform about the LessLoss standing. I do not know how much BS in this and HOW they removed the “outer layer” of conductor from the pass but who knows… might be they are up to something… It is said that begin all those claims no one publishes the screenshot of spectra analyzer with before and after pictures… It would be so simple, would it be?

"The LessLoss …. is a very unique solution to power filtering. It filters the electromagnetic bandwidths which are most destructive to high quality playback. Lower harmonics in the mains are not as detrimental to electronic audio purity as higher frequencies. Input transformers and standard filtering schematics work very well to alleviate the effects of lower frequency interference, but are hopelessly incapable of dealing with high frequency interference. Therefore, this noisy interference should not enter the audio devices at all. At extremely high frequencies, even the enclosures themselves act as resonators. Unpredictable reflections and resonations occur within the gear, not unlike the concept of exciting room modes in the physical science of acoustics.  We want to avoid any and all bottlenecking of the power itself while at the same time attenuating all the unwanted high frequency energy before it even enters the destination gear. The elegant solution LessLoss offers is based on a few known properties of electromagnetic signal propagation -- skin effect and resistance.

Traditional power filters using coils and capacitors cannot block the multi-Gigahertz range as effectively, since electromagnetic wave behavior at this range is unpredictable and more highly reflective in nature. It can travel through the capacitance of a coil and of a capacitor. This high energy nature of low-level noise is very effectively dealt with by the LessLoss Dynamic Filtering …. "

http://www.lessloss.com/page.html?id=18

http://www.lessloss.com/lessloss-firewall-power-distributor-p-196.html?zenid=htfge2p0uagmirjmcoiua0ra44

Did anybody care to try it?

This LossLess idea do sound interesting…. if it works…

http://www.lessloss.com/dfpc-signature-p-199.html

"In the DFPC Original, we utilize the naturally accurring skin effect to its own detriment, in order that the cable be inhibited as an antenna while connecting the gear with the power grid or power filter / distributor. The development of filtering via a purposefully lossy skin treatment has proven a great success with many satisfied users worldwide. We incorporate this same skin treatment in the DFPC Signature. In addition to this, we implement further skin treatment featuring overlapping high frequency absorbance and reflectance spectra to maximize this high frequency noise suppressing faculty. The result is not simply a "poorly conductive" skin, but one which combines poor conduction with refined and highly tuned high frequency spectrum manipulation to inhibit electronic noise more than in the Original and to bring the nature of music more to the forefront. Something as simple as a cheap transistor radio thus becomes an almost holographic sound source, due to lack of noise normally associated with electronics.

Noise always works from the top down. That is to say, low frequency noise does not really exist, apart from the 50 or 60 Hz fundamental power frequency, without which we can't power our equipment. The harmonics (going up) from 50 or 60 Hz exist because the power encounters non-linear loads, because it goes through transformers with hysteresis, because it was created with generators which have non-perfect flux distribution, not to mention things closer to home which buzz and hum, adding harmonics to the 50 or 60 Hz. These are all harmless to your audio quality, as they are effectively filtered out by the filters built into your audio gear's power input electronics, which is exactly what they are built for. But going from the top down, we have the real source of noisiness which intrudes upon the natural sound of music. This is the non-linear, non-predictable interaction of the audio signal or digital clock and data retrieval system with high frequency radio and even light waves. Not all light is visible, and most of it is in bandwidths which we cannot see, but when you add it all together, the spectrum and energy is enormous and has profound influence on the quality of the resulting audio signal. The reason: in an electromagnetically non-controlled environment, you will always have haphazard electromagnetic ambient fields at all frequencies going in all directions at all times. Indepth discussion of this can be found in my discourse on the LessLoss Blackbody."

I do feel that many comments they made in here and across the site are very questionable and some of them are just false but still the concept of UHF filtration via skin effect might be interesting if to know how to use it. Why LossLess do not publish the actual data of the filtration is behind me.  I want to see how many dB and at which frequency, I what to see how the cable length impact dB/frequency ratio. If they clams that it is a filter but do not give the curves then does it makes the whole claim very strange?

If it work then I might be interesting to try it after PP2000. They have 30 days money-back do I need to try?  Did you see anybody try it and published the curves of HF filtration?

Bud, yes and no. They are right and the ultra high frequencies do pass any capacitors, indictors and transformers and I am attractive to the idea of filtering somehow by using the skin effect, I fins it is VERY elegant. The problem is that I do not know if it is possible. The LossLess peoples look like believe that by applying some kind of special isolators right next to the outer layer of conductor they can remove the outer layer from the cable and consequentially the higher frequencies. It makes theoretical sense but I do not think that it is possible.

My major problem with LossLess is not with their claim but with the fact that they provide as a prove of their filtration method the comments of dozens uses from web. I am sorry but it is idiotic! This cable might of not might sound good for zillion other reasons, my interest is about the filtration effect. If the objective filtration effect does exist by LossLess know-how then I would not mind to order from LossLess a couple meters of hook up cable to rewire the PP2000’s feed from amplifiers to output sockets. All those conversation would be over if to drive the LossLess cable with let say 100-800mHz generator and to see on a fast scope if any filtration effect exist compare to the zip cord with the same connectors.

I have to say that LossLess explanations do sound a bit amateurish and more design for pop-culture consumption.  For instance then forget to address the facts the current does not flow in conductor at all but in the magnetic field around the conductor. It does not change the rule of the game – we still treat the outer edge of the field differently then the inner edge of the field. How do it that is the really big question. I thought about it in past when I was experimenting with feedback techniques and used for open loop a shielded cable where the center core was forward signal and shield cared feedback…

Anyhow, I have no idea what LossLess in fact does and how valuable their claims. I read a few comments LossLess use as “review” at their site and it was a typical audiophile’s non-responsible and irrational chitchat.

PurePower wrote:

The PurePower batteries provide power to the AC regeneration whenever it is required. That could be during a black out, it could be during a brownout, it could be for a fraction of a cycle it could be for 10 minutes. The simple fact is the incoming Utility AC can have voltage sags of very short duration - of very long duration and they can be very deep, or very shallow. The batteries provide available power in all of the above. Without its own source of power it would be impossible to truly isolate the PurePower output from the incoming utility power. That is why there is no difference in sound when the PurePwoer is on battery or it is on utility supply. The output of the PurePower is not dependent on the incoming AC in any way - so the output is as if it was always running on battery.

Petrasescu_Lucian,

I perfectly understand your sentiments. There are unquestionable differences in operation between 1050 and 2000 but I do not know if it is the differences due to the topological differences or due to implantation differences. Topologically the APS never was clear what they do and their explanations I found in some case very confusing or even illogical.

I less care about the APS be able to give more than power line can handle, most of my electronics run in class A, has a stable current draw. But you are absolutely right – if this is correct then it is a semi-indication how the buttery if being used in the APS unit.

I said the semi-indication because it is not clear what the ASP software does. It is possible that when the wall power in palace then ASP’s oscillator and amplifier runs from the wall power and secondary circuit just changes the battery. Then when ASP software recognized that the wall power was lost for let sat 1/20 of period then it sources the power from buttery. Not owe would know what is going on and the APS is very not clear about it.

My interest to know it following. If the APS works as I described in the paragraph above then the buttery does not filter/buffer the source of ASP’s oscillator and amplifier. In this case I would like to get rid of the buttery and do not let the APS circuits (allegedly faulty made) of the buttery charging to affect my sound. I do not care about the blackout – the fear of them is just APS marketing fantasy. If the APS do source oscillator and amplifier from buttery regardless if the buttery is being charged or not then the buttery acts as a perfect capacitive tank and the buttery is good think. In this case we just need to wait until APS will finish to purify what they currently do, hoping not introducing any new problems…

Romy the Cat wrote:

If the APS works as I described in the paragraph above then the buttery does not filter/buffer the source of ASP’s oscillator and amplifier. In this case I would like to get rid of the buttery and do not let the APS circuits (allegedly faulty made) of the buttery charging to affect my sound.

Romy the Cat wrote:

If the APS do source oscillator and amplifier from buttery regardless if the buttery is being charged or not then the buttery acts as a perfect capacitive tank and the buttery is good think.

Romy the Cat wrote:

In this case we just need to wait until APS will finish to purify what they currently do, hoping not introducing any new problems…

Lucian,

If your system draws a steady 500W, do not use LC filtration and if you would like to buy 700 model then you might reconsider it and look at 1050 mode or 2000 model. The more load you have on this thing is the better result is, I personally would like to load the APS with 25%. That is why I lobby them to conceder 3kW or even 4kW units as then I will be able to run my .8kW-1kW with better result.

I do not think that “money lost on a bad purchase” is a factor as APS has 30 day trail pres during wish you can make your mind. With all my bitching about many aspect of APS confusion I need to point out that since the last December my PP2000 works flawlessly and sound wonderfully.  The ASP even promised in a couple weeks to send some kind of fix for the “fussiness problem” that I described before. Well, they promised “in couple weeks” six months ago but it is how it goes with them. My own positive experience with positive results I got from PP2000 might not be demonstrable to you, as you might recognize from the comments of others.

However, the main purpose of this there is not product evaluation but finding a solution. I think that is the ASP devises are done properly then they might be a very god tool to fight bad electricity. How to make the ASP to make their regenerators with fewer bags… I do not know. They do get better, in my view not at the level what they shall be. In a normal engendering world they shell compile the list of all know problems, heir an experience consultant to review the whole design, fix up the flows that it had and released the next bugs-free version. Employing the design with service packs is a legitimate way to do business as well but personally would not chose to do it in case of hardware.

Petrasescu_Lucian,

I would like do not accept the premise of you question and do not convert the problem with electricity into bumper sticker slogan. One of the biggest problems is that electricity found the ways to destroy sound very inventively and differently with different playbacks and an different locations. If you have interest about the subject then you might find useful to read the thread from beginning. I am sure that the thread already has a lot of what you would like to read about.

Regardless what you consider the “electricity problem” are you have sometimes have good sound from the playback, when any of the problems you for instance described does not manifest themselves? If so, then let label the sonic delta as the “electricity problem” and let find a devise that would convert the sound of you playback during the bad electricity into the sound of you playback during the good electricity.

Yes, the consistency is good but I have to admit that with all flawless operation of PP2000 I still observed some variation of Sound at time.  I intentionally did not bring this subject up as it looks as none of the users of PP regenerators at this site have yet a comfortable operation from PP2000. Still the fluctuation of quality does exist and I hope after people got more comfortable with updated PP2000 operation this subject might ne discussed.

The residual fluctuation of quality is small, not even close to what it was when playback was plugged into a wall.  I cannot even stress how much “not even close”. I would estimated that if the fluctuation of quality when playback was plugged into a wall might be measured on the scale of 100 then instability of quality after PP2000 might be measured on the scale of a half of a single present.

It is possible that PP2000 still, when some odd evens in power grid took please, is semi-transparent to “some” electricity problems. Or it is possible that PP2000 does sometimes internally something improperly (I do not monitor the PP2000’s output). Or it is possible that the residual fluctuation of quality has nothing to do with electricity at all.

Generally the sound I got from December what I stated to use PP2000 is very stable… but I has one day (juts one day) what I was forced to turn playback down as it was unmanageably bad. I do not insist that it was due to electricity… but then what was it?

Meiko41 wrote:

It is a good idea to try it. At least to ensure that you can live with the noise it makes. By day, it is not really an issue but if you are a big fan if late night session listenings it may be a bit intrusive.