Romy the Cat wrote:

Lx, this is very interesting. At the initial picture I posted you do can clearly see the difference in dynamic range. When I did what you did and went to higher resolution then you are right - the difference disappears. Dose the Wivelab is so screwed that it deforms the presentation in respect to graphic resolution. Then what the DC came from. You are right it does have DC but where it come from?! The most important I stat the files do sound drastically different, it can’t be explained by DC and we need to see objective data differences. I agree that the experiment need to be doe again with more methodologically clean condition, the DC at least shell not be there. The Cat

• It makes the smaller signal look less dynamic; and as it happened, it was the bad signal that got the smaller rendering and looked worse, which seemed natural
  
• It completely changes the way a very packed signal is drawn on screen, and changes how the signal looks like; I would not fault wavelab, this would happen for nearly all rendering software and is due to the pixel size: resolution on today's screens is quite good, but far from being enough in this case

• I would try to repeat the measures several times with bad electricity, just to see how much variation we get from the measuring process only (or from normal variation from playback)
• I would use a signal with greater dynamics or louder so as to minimize the influence of noise from the recording equipment
  
• I would use a signal with more HF (there is almost none here)
  

N-set wrote:

Sorry for being naive, but may gathering spectral fingerprints of the electricity during bad and good days give something? Perhaps after N samples some pattern might emerge, although I guess nobody knows what to look for.

N-set wrote:

Also, is that certain that the bad interference comes solely via the lines and not (partially) via the air? I remember reading once an interview with a guy commercially converting listening rooms into faraday cages by placing copper rods.

Lx_ wrote:

As to the DC offset, I find it strange too obviously. However as it quickly disappears I am not too worried about it. Maybe this indicates a problem in the soundcard when starting the recording.

steverino wrote:

I'm not surprised at your disappointing results as I have experienced the same with a variety of power filtration or generating devices. Your surmise is correct that such devices work much more easily with AV equipment or computers than they do with audio. I have an Audience power filtration unit which was unacceptable with my 2 pure audio systems (although HP swore by them) but works well on my TV and its associated stereo system as well as on my computer (audio). Similarly, I have a PS Audio power cable unacceptable with the audio systems but works like a charm with the computer. I did not like the early PP for both sonic and practical reasons. The only device which I have found to work with multiple units in the chain are the PS Audio Ultimate Outlets (discontinued). They can be found used at modest cost but they sell quickly. You could try them with the other units. The lack of any real improvement in batteries over the years is becoming more frustrating with the increasing garbage in the AC and in the surrounding environment.

I called to Audience and I spoke with their sales manager.

 It was very little that I did not expect and I let him to run his sales pitch. Or course it never intended to be a commercial product, they did it for own home use but it was so good that they were forced to make it available to public. Holly BS as usually. The guy poses himself as he knows everything about the adeptResponse conditioners but what I asked specific question he was ruining his mouth but was expressing absolute nonuse. I was listening him and interpreted him what he said “ with adeptResponse power amplifiers sound like they are 10 % more powerful”. I asked him what it meant. He gave me his explanation that was laughable. I asked him 3-4 more time how an amp after his filter might “sound more powerful”.  I even asked him to describe how subjectively one amp sound more powerful then another. Eventually he said the does not know and that was what he was told to say. Poor guy, he told me that if I need more evidence that his adeptResponse “works” then I need to read HP review or to study “multiple posts at AudioAsylem.com”. Oh, boy!!! I do not have any animosity to the guy, the pure thing die not understand what we was dealing with. So, I pretty much discard what he said.

From what I understand and very much in contrary to what that sale guy was trying to convince me the adeptResponse is just a regular capacitive filter. The sales guy was insisted about the super-isolation quality of adeptResponse but it is all BS, he did not understand what he was talking about.

In really I do not care about the adeptResponse power factor correction functionality adeptResponse has no idea what kind load it will be driven. The PP2000 has own factor correction functionality. The BS about super massive cooper ground bus terminal and about 5K price tag sound too ridicules to me to take seriously. What the story about adeptResponse boils down is that they use their own Auricap to shunt signal. Auricap are good capacitors, not the very “Best in the World” and the sales guy was insisted but Auricap are out there along with a handful of the best caps. If the adeptResponse would help to suppress the returned noise from PP2000 but would not affect Sound negatively then it would indicate that a use of good quality of capacitors might work out.

I think if adeptResponse will be able to make PP2000 parallel-able then it would make sense to get a few 200V Auricaps and to shunt PP2000’s input with them. That will be all that necessary and it will cost $50. I still a bit defensive and I do not think that very good caps would make the full difference but I would certainly am willing to try.

clarkjohnsen wrote:

The sales guy was insisted about the super-isolation quality of adeptResponse but it is all BS, he did not understand what he was talking about. You are arguing that the unit can't be much good because the sales guy was talking like... a sales guy? I actually know a couple people who use these and love them, but as we all know, if only from reading here, YMMV.

steverino wrote:

If the units are to be placed between the wall and the PP then I think that would be a safe way to use it. I do not recommend connecting audio equipment directly through them though.

Romy the Cat wrote:

I got my last PP2000, after the repair was done. My second new unit works since I got it repaired; it runs the whole playback, sounding very well and my attempts to add a second PP2000 led, as I described to worsening of sound. In the very deep core of my soul I was hoping that the second PP2000 that I was trying to add was in some way broken. It sounded fine itself but running along with my main unit it was not usable sonically. I thought that there is some other unknown defect in this second unit that made it happens. Two days ago I got the last third unit and it behave identically when it added to the first unit – so it was no fault of the specific wrongly assumed to be “broken” PP2000 but rather the characteristic of the topology, or at least the given implementation of the topology. Ok, I have now 3 fine working PP2000 and I can use only one unit, that sucks. I truly would like to have my power class A DSET amps to be driven from separate PP2000 and my class A/B ULF channel amp along with the front end to be driver from another PP2000. I have agreed with a ridicules idea to use my third PP2000 in my office as UPS for my computers. Still I need to learn how to employ two PP2000 for audio. The whole point to have two PP2000 to sound worse than one PP2000 defeats the purpose to employ the second PP2000. My objective is very simple: I have the whole playback running from one PP2000 and then to have another PP2000 plugged idle in the same line, while doing it I shall not have any degradation of sound in first unit. I do not have this result now. As soon I plug second PP2000 into the wall I got a lot of zippy brightness in the first unit. I am not willing to do any capacitive filtration before first PP2000. This is the condition of the task and I do not have a solution for now.

So, the sound was clearly degraded in the same way but the unit outputted less noise back to power line Interesting. I took an electric heater with adjustable power and was sliding the load to the second PP2000. The variation of the load made the second PP2000 to output very different amount of noise to power line (more load = less noise) but what was surprising the amount of HF harshness was fluctuating very little. I got to be something else I figured.

I asked myself if it is possible that two PP2000 mutually affect each other by magnetic of radio filed?  My two PP2000 are sitting parallel to each other at very low high proximity:

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Site_Images/InsulationTransformer_3KW.JPG

So, I pull one of the second PP2000 out of the shelf and placed it good 6 feet away. Halleluiah! The HF harshness dropped very substantially. It was not gone but I would say 80% of it gone!!!! OK, I said, it is in the power cable that was running from the second PP2000 to the power receptacle behind the first one. I took as much large ferrite as I had in home and winded with power cable a huge choke, addling in the free space of the cable over 20 like HF common mode chokes. The noise dropped practically to nothing. It is still very slightly recognizable but it is not as near offensive as it use to be, at least it is how it sound with TODAY electricity.

OK, this is VERY good result, the PP2000 turned to be “radioactive” but this is workable. It is ironic that I discovered it in the 25 anniversary of Chernobyl catastrophe! The discovery made me VERY happy as not I can construct some kind of shield between the two PP2000. It also gives me another VERY fruitful direction to think. The PP2000 power cord is 6 feet and it sits right next to the many power cord that leads to the clean output power receptacles and cables that do to the equipment. So, the PP2000 power cord is “dirty” with the PP2000 returned noise and the PP2000 power cord must go away from clean output power cords. Since it is not possible in my layout then my PP2000 incoming power cords must be shielded.

BYW, this also would explain why Bill does not bitch about the PP2000 effect each other in his situation as his has his 3 unit sitting in 3 different location of his room.

Wow, this, if it confirms itself in the next few days, will be a major breakthrough in my use of the PP2000.