drdna wrote:

I think it has already been stated. Batteries in audio are inherently of limited utility. It is a tendency of audiophiles to dedicate themselves to a single "silver bullet" instead of building the system based on the particular needs and compromises involved. In the case of batteries, these are not perfect sources. Rather they are very real physical objects with their own physical problems restricting the flow of electricity in idiosyncratic ways. The conflict is that these issues will be more prominent in low signal applications, while in high current applications, the batteries would need to be so large as to make their use prohibitive for the home. This leaves the use of batteries limited, as Romy opined, to those systems plagued by such bad electricity that even this heavily compromised approach is an improvement. Adrian

Romy the Cat wrote:

Rakesh, I think you’ve missed the accent of my battery post.  We do not argue abstract topologies but we argue the validity of topology in respect to sonic results.  I hope we all agree that we do not exactly know WHY affects electricity sound. We do know that deformation of sinusoid or not good, high distortions are not good but we do not necessarily know what is good for sound. PS Audio give a truly perfect sinusoid but and no distortion but has no sound. Dima’s Avicenna corrector gives absolutely perfect sinusoid and no distortions but has absolutely no effect to sound. So, what we do is invent to ourselves a panacea we call “battery”. However, if you talk to people who use buttery in fix bias then the claim the ALL batteries sound very different. So, the point that I made is that I do not need any anecdote of accidental successes of using battery, even if it is my own experience. What I do need is a methodologically legitimate method of assessments of sonic result caused by electricity.  From this perspective ANY SINGLE PERSON I heard who advocate battery was wrong in my view, let me to explain why. Pretend you use battery and get better result. I do not doubt your finding BUT you got better result compare to bad electricity that you had before. So, you result is irrelevant be it proves that good electricity is better than bad electricity – very useful! What I would like instead is you to get good electricity and good sound and THEN introduce batteries. I have VERY high doubts that the result will be as dramatic as the battery-advocate love to claim. The Cat

oxric wrote:

I fail to see the utility, as I have always done, of opinions, approaches or theories which make some dogmatic assumption based on limited experience with the said device. So for your opinion, which seems to deny that the Living Voice or the Red Wine Audio propositions have anything to offer, I take it that you must have tried these solutions and compared them maybe with solution(s) that in your view best addresses our dissatisfaction with the quality of mains electricity. I trust that this must be so, in the light of the opinions you express, and must therefore bend to your findings until I have the chance to do such a comparison myself, doubtful  as it is that I should ever get  the opportunity.

drdna wrote:

Remember I am not systematically anti-battery. I am anti-"pro-battery" which is to say I do not view it or anything else as a panacea. Each electrical device accomplishes a goal and degrades sound. The goal is to work within your system to find the optimization of device configurations that achieves the goal of conveying Sound with the least degradation. I do not argue at all that in some systems, the battery will work well. It may not be the best possible solution for that system nor the most practical, but it may be an improvement. Similarly, if my speaker wires were broken and I got some Monster Cable from Radio Shack, it may not be the ideal solution, but it is an improvement over no music.  The core of what I am saying is that no device is a panacea. Each device is simply a tool for a specific purpose, that must be viewed within a context. The battery may work well in some systems for some purposes, but we should not be lulled into the belief that it is a universally good thing, nor should we come to believe that we need look no further. Adrian

oxric wrote:

But I take issue with your often used accusation that other audiophiles are using faulty methodology and their conclusions are null and void. I do not think anyone has ever questioned this stance of yours and the more you make this accusation uncorrected, the more you will perpetuate the myth that there is only ONE valid methodology and everything else is invalid. First of all the issue of correct methodology is only ever assessed with respect to the objectives one is striving for, and  for many audiophiles, that necessarily entails achieving an improvement in terms of sonic results. Unless someone is blatantly violating some basic tenet, such as examining the results on an oscilloscope but not switching on and listening to the equipment, I think most people with a modicum  of intelligence will use the methodology you advocate although they will see  no need to spell it out for all and sunder. Secondly, irrespective of what you claim, methodology, as you well know coming from an engineering or scientific background, can have different objectives at different stages of a project. If you are  building a bridge, you will probably select in the early stages materials on the basis of generic principles rather than investigating how they will perform in the specific application. With electricity that makes even more sense. we try to make sure the evils we know about are addressed first before worrying  about the varying and specific issues of different batteries and implementations.

I wish I had time now and strength to argue this above subject, which I find very interning and stimulating for me. Unfortunately nowadays my mind saturated not with audio ideas but with polyurethane fume and with frustration the all 1.5” pipe connectors are all sold out after the last week New England flooding. To be very abridged I would say that I do feel that in most of the cases audio people do not use any methodologically sensible methods.  I am very much one of them and although I do advocate “methodologically clean” way to conduct audio assessments I very frequently do NOT use them. Here is we approach to most interesting subject on your post. I never felt that there is “ONE valid methodology and everything else is invalid” but since you pitch me this idea I VERY much like it.

Warn you that we DO NOT talk about the methodology of audio evaluations. I begin to cover this subject in here:

http://www.romythecat.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=50

… and I have  or need no second opinion on the subject. However, the methodological “CLEANNESS” of the following and the alleged existence of the ONLY ONE valid bind with methodology is something that I find very interesting to think about. I think I will return to this subject when my mind will be free from hardwood floor sanding and from trees planting… I think this stupid mode of self-inflicted domesticated neutering will be over in 2-3 weeks.

Bill wrote:

Have a hum through my center channel speaker, the SET amp of which sits directly in front of the pp200 about a foot away.  It is not relaTED to the DC offset of the 2000 as adjusting that does nothing to the hum, and running the amp from the wall rather than the 200 also doesn't decrease the hum. Thus the 2000 must be giving off a significant field. Moving the 2000 a couple of feet significantly decreases the hum as does running the 2000 on batteries. Also have noted a slight increase in ambiance information while running on the batteries but am unsure whether this is due to more information coming through or less hum from the center channel. The unit does such a great job, far superior to anything else I've used over the years that I've ordered two for a review. Hoprfull that will allow me to run my Crown Macro Reference off one of the units, and the eight SET amps off the other, as with peaks now the pp2000 goes into protective mode with the Crown attached to it as it draws 1500 watts on peaks.

Well, in this unique case we can truly compare notes and we used the SAME unit. What the chance that another two people in the face of the Earth will have two identically performing PP2000.  But how many people out there truly coals to what PP2000 outputs? Do you see anybody beside me measure the PP2000 output – you NEVER see it. Furthermore, I insist that the PurePowe manufacturer do not measure/test their units at all, since all production runs have own set of “behavior” and they learn about it … from customers.

I did not have any hum of any kind, so I can’t comment on this. Most likely, since you have a LOT of equipment in your room, you have a differenced in grounding between your many amps.

The field that PP2000 radiate is significant. It is an impulse amp – an audio equals of a radioactive device – so I would keep it further away from system.  In my ne room I am planning to put PP2000in basement.

About the sonic differences between batteries vs. wall. In some of my PP2000 it did not exist and the unit was measured identically when it runs on batteries or connected to wall. In my unit indeed there is a VERY SMALL difference, I feel a negligible difference. My init also clearly measured identically as they fuck up battery charging circuit and as a result the unit has the “famous fuzziness”. I reported about it a year and a half ago; they promised to fix but what I talk to them I do not feel that we are in the same page as any single conversation with them do not sound like a continuation of the previous one. I only presume that if they fix the “fuzziness” then the difference between the batteries vs. wall will not exist. Now, will they screw up something while they fix the “fuzziness”? No one knows….

Bill wrote:

….It does produce the cleanest electricvity I've heard in my system in over 30 years of trying… but I'd rather trade out the am than lose the sound I'm getting from the unit.

This perception of the relationship between cleaner electricity and better sound is something that I feel is not clear and I would like to avoid by making the “easy” assumption. The PP2000 does not produce “cleanest electricity”, let do not mislead ourselves. Whatever electricity it produces does have very good Sound, it is undeniable and in a way unique among ALL other electricity dealing equipment I have seen so far. So, we do not taking about the sound of electricity itself but the sound of the mechanisms that create/recreate electricity. It is not so simple, Bill, and I do not know who knows what the relationship between electricity and sound. I doubt that PurePower people know themselves – they just by pure accident hit something that happened to be good - let hope they will not lose it. Be advised that I had the PurePower unit (I think it was number 5 or 6, you need to look back in the thread) that did not sound right at all and the PurePower folks did not know the difference.

I do not think I will need my unit soon. I did measure the electricity in my new house – it was a nightmare. I was bitching about the clipping in my Back Bay home but in at new place it 10 times worse (measurable, not auditable). So, I will need it but later. I wonder if you will be able to get your unit within a month. Then you will be able to compare the sound of my unit with the sound of your unit. They might be VERY different. I would like also to measure you new unit to see what the PP new production is. I local guy that I know did buy 2 month back a new PP2000 and it was measured horrible  - a pure faulty production and no quality control at all. The PurePower admitted that it was faulty production run and promised to fix it. Now, how many people out there are going in the extend I do and demand proper operation, how many people out there are running faulty PP2000 and do not know about it? My estimate is that the majority of PP2000 out there are just broken and are not to the own specification. They do sound good however. Still my agenda is not promote or demote PP2000 or any other power de but a consumer advocacy and my desire to have for myself a better performing product.  I am with PurePower for 2 years, had 7 of their units and my current is still has a faulty operation.

I do understand that PurePower is a work in progress and they do take care about their customers but that way how they do all of it is a bit ridicules for me and insult me with amateurism. They have a great product in my view, they sell it very fast and I hope they do fine financially. I do not know how much time and money they west for support but I know a LOT of people who keep fixing their PurePower units. So, why PurePower would not heir a truly knowledgeable engineer who would chaise all bags that PurePower has and convert it in a stable product, virtually “support free”? I good engineer-contractor would cost them let say $30K-$50K, who care – that is a single rain drop in a whole ocean…