Romy the Cat wrote:

I did detect something not good. Take a look. This is Avicenna in buffering mode, driving 1340W.

Paul S wrote:

how many LCs does one need , given perfect, quiet AC to begin with?

drdna wrote:

Well, it gave me a chuckle. I will be interested to hear about the listening results, considering I have just bought a PP2000, which should be here in a few days. Will I have to buy a Avicenna now also? Adrian

Adrian, I do not sell audio things to people. In fact, and the people who do not know me personally do not know about it, I do not feel comfortable what people buy the audio things just based upon my experiences. My experiences with audio are very much not oriented for other, I do audio for myself not for others and I would like not to feel a hostage of anybody’s buying decisions.

A few days back a local audio stop by to listen my new version of playback and after I shoed to him the Avicenna’s board he asked me the question what I would do with my new PP2000 if Avicenna turn out to be better.  I replied that I would be grateful if it happen and would not feel as I lost anything: if PP2000 does well sonically Avicenna let assume even better then the only side that will be at lost is “bad electricity”.

Anyhow, I do not know yet about the rivalry between PP2000 and Avicenna, I myself very curios as everyone understand. I am sure the next week will show what is going on in the competition. Avicenna and PP2000 are different units, the PP2000 is regenerator and Avicenna is more like power processor. They use so much different idea that I do not even know what to expect.

About the commercial opportunity for Avicenna – I do not know yet. The design in my view is brilliant and if it sound good then it might be interesting if Avicenna become a commercial product. Dima, claimed the way how he designed and tested the Avicenna it is ready to go to production right now and there is nothing to improve there or optimize in there. BTW, Dima had a solution and adjustment to the “nervousness” that I measured above. Still, Avicenna is Dima’s invention and if it has any future then it will be under his umbrella, still I do not think that he might be interested to build the things, he specializes on design and invention of electronics not on building of electronics.

Anyhow, let see how it goes…

Romy the Cat wrote:

I do not feel comfortable what people buy the audio things just based upon my experiences. My experiences with audio are very much not oriented for other, I do audio for myself not for others and I would like not to feel a hostage of anybody’s buying decisions.

drdna wrote:

Oh no, after all, you haven't even said anything about how it sounds. I suspect that both the Avicenna and the PP2000 will be equally great. However, since you mentioned Dima was thinking of making this into a commercial product possibly, I couldn't resist the idea of buying one after seeing that sine wave. So basically, it is the oscilloscope holding me hostage.

Since the PP2000 works in my playback a bit over two weeks I think it would be worth to mention the changes that I observed after two weeks.

The HF and upper mid region returned back. Not completely but most of it. They returned without mind-oppressing pressure and noise, that it good. Not I run tweeters at minus 5 and MF at 30mA. Also my reference listening position is a feet and closer (huge benefit!) that also played a role in the “returned” of HF. So, I have no problems as now and in contrary to what “scooter” suggested I do not “experimenting with the PP2000” anymore.  The PP2000 has lost it novelty, it is indispensable there, it does its job and I am not challenged by it’s performances anymore.

Is anything that I do not like? Yes, there is something- I do not like the sound of my MF channel in context of better sounding electricity. It is not that it is bad but rather that I would like to see it differently that it is now. However, at this point I would attribute my dissatisfaction to the Macondo-Milq MF tandem and not to the “sound” of PP2000. I might be wrong but it is my judgment for now. I think in context of “good electricity” the whole view on sound extraction form compression driver need to be revised. I will be exploring this subject in coming months but it most likely will not be the subject of this thread.

Romy the Cat wrote:

The wider question is very interesting: if we need to make any design provisions in case we know that our audio is powered by “good sounding electricity”.

I played the full system today driven from Avicenna possessor.  It was interesting and in way different. The full system (Milq + digital front ends) draw 685W from Avicenna in buffer mode and 800W from the wall, so the efficiency was very good for analog circuit – 86%. The voltage sinusoid was perfect with perfectly symmetric current sinusoid – very cool. 

Sound. It was interesting. What stroked me first was a very uncommon senesce of elegance and eloquence. I would say “soft” but I have a better word. Last week a local guy visited me and he pitched me another word as the description of my playback with better elasticity. He called flexibility of sound or the state where sound might be banded with ease. I found it much better description then “softness”, I wish I would come up with this association myself. So, in my view this sonic elasticity of sound was with Avicenna was absolutely wonderful, even more fascinating then with PP2000.

Also, Avicenna has very right since of minuteness. This is soothing that I am not sure that I like in PP2000. The PurePower looks like paints a picture with bold and large brushes. Very high quality but the very fine details get blurred. I many times analyzed and thought about this PP2000 behavior and I did found it acceptable. The Avicenna do not do it as it portrays very fine and very miniature fractions of sound, but in contrary to many other pieces of electronics Avicenna does not overlay highlight them - very nice and kind of funny as I am not talking not about an amplifier but about a Power Processor.

Unfortunately, it was all that I liked in Avicenna. It had issues with dynamic, with contrast, with the whole measure of excitement in music. It was a first draft and I still have in a lot of options in Avicenna that I so far not employed but the first try was not so optimistic, in fact in a way disappointing.  I need make more concussive experiments but frankly the disillusionment is high to bare and I will live the further fight for another date.

Romy the Cat wrote:

I played the full system today driven from Avicenna possessor.

Romy the Cat wrote:

It was interesting.

Romy the Cat wrote:

So, in my view this sonic elasticity of sound was with Avicenna was absolutely wonderful, even more fascinating then with PP2000. Also, Avicenna has very right since of minuteness.

Romy the Cat wrote:

Unfortunately, it was all that I liked in Avicenna. It had issues with dynamic, with contrast, with the whole measure of excitement in music.

drdna wrote:

So what we did not see was the dynamic response of the Avicenna in maintaining its perfect sine wave against a variable dynamic load. I guess this is where the improvements can be made.

Well, spent a few more hours to listening Avicenna. Although it has much better sound then from the wall but there are a lot of moments in this sound that I do not like. It is kind of freakish and demoralizing as Avicenna feeds system with absolutely perfect, ultra low distortions sinusoid. Anyhow, sonically so far PP2000 beats Avicenna hands down that as you understand is kind of make me say and happy at the same time. There are two qualities Avicenna however that likes a lot but I do not know how to capitalize on them; if I found how to use this Power Processor then I would write about those qualities.  I have some difficulties to set up a proposer working environment for Avicenna, there are some issues (not with the processor but with my environment) and I most like will be dealing with them during this week. Meanwhile I would not be surpassed if I will be able to get slightly better result from Avicenna. Sometimes after then I will be trying to engage the Avicenna’s insertion functionality – who know perhaps it will do something better.

Meanwhile the upper range of PP2000 is back completely and oh boy – I do not like my MF channel now. I clearly would like it to be loaded to 2-3 time higher impedance; I mean much higher, the way how I use to have it 2 years back. If you remember my progress with S2 driver then you will see how I fought with it “liveliness” by loading the stage that drives S2 harder and harder. The first Melquiades was driving S2 with 1700R that is VERY high impedance for 6C33C.  The best load I go at the time was at 1350R, it was very high as well. Then I started to cure (as I presume now) the electricity problems with damping of my MF driver. I was driving with 1000R, 650R and in the end with 550R. When I circulated my MF transformer for single-stage 6E6P I made it 15:1 or relatively heavy loaded. Now I can go for much-much higher loading – the electricity from PP2000 shell be able to care it.

One more thing. I have a conversation with APS people, the promise to cure the “nerviness”, that is good but controversial. Also, and probably because they read my site they informed me that the new generation of 1050 PurePower regenerators incorporated all changes the made to PP2000 and they assure me that they also do not burn anymore. I pass this comment along as I made a lot of bad but deserving reputation for older APS units but it is a comment from APS owner and shell be treated accordingly.

That is about it for now. I have nothing to talk in this thread anymore unless Avicenna would demonstrate some sighs of life.

I am continue to look into Avicenna and trying to resolve a puzzle why when Avicenna is engaged the sound compare to the sound of the “Wall” looses dynamics. I do not compare Avicenna with PP2000 but rather I compare it with the sound of the Wall. Avicenna objectively outputs a perfect signal and there is absolutely nothing in the electricity path that might be responsible for sonic degradation. The whole idea in Avicenna is that electricity goes directly from input to output with no passing there anything but just “spruced” or complimented with by Avicenna’s processing. If the Avicenna’s out is objectively perfect wave then why Avicenna’s sound sank?

We have a disagreement with Dima about it. He feels that the key is in the specific distortions that need to be deliberately injected into power line in order to make the sound “better”. Avicenna has built-in special injection functionality and Dima pushes me to start using it. I disagree and refuse to use it so far. The injection functionality is fine and I will be there bit I think about injection as a cream on the top of the probably baked cake. If cake is faulty then no amount or quality of cream can be benefited in the way how it might be if the cake were good.

I certainly do not claim that Avicenna is faulty; in fact it performs absolutely perfect and dose what it need to do. However, there is something in what I do that impact sound negatively. It can’t be otherwise as Avicenna outputs absolutely perfect electricity with no distortions. It is can not be that “perfect electricity” would sound less dynamic then clipped and high distortion electricity. Something is wrong and I think that the experiment with injection might be started ONLY what the sound via Avicenna would be not worse then would from the Wall. Otherwise if does not make sense to me.

Take a look at the images. This is CD transport, DAC and preamp (65W and Power factor 0.7) driven in top image from the Avicenna in bypass mode (effectively right from the Wall) and then the Avicenna power processing is engaged. The images contain both voltage and current sinusoid and it is absolutely obvious that with Avicenna the voltage and current wave are way more able. Why they sound worse?

BTW, do be distracted with current sinusoid – this is how the crappy power supplies with capacitive input work. You might compare with the imaghe below that shows the way how Melquiades (that uses only input chokes) sucks current.

Romy the Cat wrote:

IIs it possible that the methods of sinusoid construction are mater – so where is the causality?

drdna wrote:

1. The perfect sinusoid unmasks the compensation of the system for imperfect power -- it is like when the car stereo comes on when you start the car, way too loud, because there is no road noise to adjust for any more. The sound of the capacitors might be polished and bloated, like a man in a finely tailored suit treading water in a large pool.

An interesting take, I never thought in this way. So, you feel that with a perfect sinusoid if sound gets worse then it not the fault of the powers source but rather the refection of imperfection of the rest playback. I personally do not think that it is the case but it definably a perspective that might be taking under consideration

drdna wrote:

2. Of course the method of sinusoid construction MATTERS, but how much? It is an indisputable fact from quantum physics. The effect is more subtle. The music is not as relaxed, not as open, the dynamics seem "disconnected." The music does not flow easily and the connection to the Sound is more removed.

Actually I do not know as I did not see the connection between the shapes of sinusoids as sound. When I have an “another” type of sinusoid shape I do not feed the system with different shape but with different methods of construction of sinusoids. It is possible that one method is sonically better than other and it is just happen that the “one method” has perfect sinusoids. To tell something defiantly it would be need to have let say am amp (A/B or D) that is driver from a generator and then feed the amp with different sinusoids – perfect and distorted. Then it will be objectively auditable is the shape of sinusoids (both current and voltage) is the factor in sound.  Otherwise we compare apples and oranges…

Are we all in agreement that up to now "the best power" in terms of sound has been the best wall power?

Maybe this has something to do with the fact that on a good day there is a LOT of current pushing the "best" wall power into a system that was literally designed for it.

I have also noticed that on the best power days the system is much quieter, which I have attributed to quiet ground as much as "correct", quiet "power".

Could any of Avicenna's problems be ground related?  It seems like every component and every combination of components has it's own best ground solution.  Why would a conditioner or regenerator be any different?

I also wonder if system backwash and/or inter-component crosstalk are factors.

At this point I am inclined to think that if the conditioners and regenerators do not sound good, then they are "doing something wrong" to the power vis-a-vis the load/system, "perfect sinusoid" notwithstanding; we just don't know exactly what they are doing wrong yet, or why, whether it's fixable, or how to fix it.

Curve balls?  Some conditioners hate inductors; some hate big capacitors; some hate both.

But the simple balanced "test" load is an abstraction, basically irrelevant for predicting sound via music.

Romy's tests are the only ones I have seen to date that show actual traces of the output of a system-loaded regenerator.

No wonder we are still trying to figure this out; no one who builds and markets these things actually bothers to test them using relevant criteria; all they ship are Betas.

If "perfect sinusoids" don't sound right, then I think there is either more to it than that or we should be looking elsewhere for symbolic cues that actually signify good-sounding power.

Best regards,
Paul S

Romy the Cat wrote:

I did not see the connection between the shapes of sinusoids as sound. When I have an “another” type of sinusoid shape I do not feed the system with different shape but with different methods of construction of sinusoids.

Paul wrote:

Maybe this has something to do with the fact that on a good day there is a LOT of current pushing the "best" wall power into a system that was literally designed for it.

OK, after some experiments I did find something that reduced dynamics what Avicenna was on line. Avicenna has two power transformers. First one is a low voltage (6.3V/1A) transformer to feed Avicenna’s distortion analyses, oscillators, frequency PLL, reaction delays and logic generation circuits. He second is high voltage (12V-35V/20A) transformer to feed Avicenna’s unique “hanging” amplifier. This amp is for processing the wave correction. So, what I found out was that the polarity of the primary of this big ass toroidal transformer was the key that eat the Avicenna’s dynamics. Why would know that the polarity of primary in this circuit worked be so critical, particularly knowing that the primary electricity stream that feed load does not go over this toroidal transformer.

So, the problem is resolved? The Avicenna does not screw sound anymore? Yes, the Avicenna does not worsening sound anymore but it did not resolved problem but only escalated the problem. Now Avicenna in bypass and operation modes has absolutely identical sound despite to the fact the in operation mode outputs absolutely perfect and no-distortion sinusoid (look to images a few post back). How the hell this possible? Flipping the bypass swatch very dramatically changes the waveform on the scope but has no effect of any kind to sound. I am officially confused!

The Cat

I do not know, the Sound of Avicenna is mystery for me and I have no idea by outputting no-distortion electricity but at the same time it has no impact to audible character of the plagued into it components.  Still, the Avicenna is a very slick design idea and beautifully implemented.  It‘s operation is flawless but I have to admit the with all flexibility of operation modes it is very dangers to use it as a prototype. I had already a few “near death experiences” with Avicenna and the only brilliantly engineered self-protecting circuit saved Avicenna from flame (Dima claims that it is imposable to damage this power processor).

So, since Avicenna does what it intended I decided to put my sonic experiments aside and convert the Avicenna into a non-prototype version, putting in a secure utilitarian box and compliment it reasonable thermo sink for proper heat dissipation. After then will continue to play with it trying to get sound out of it. I will not do any sexy enclosure, juts enough to make the operation secure… I think it might take a month or so what all things arrive… Until then the Avicenna project will be on hold.

One way or another, Time has a way of putting things into a different perspective.  So I'm wondering how things are going for the bold explorers who forked over their expectations for a whack at the PP2000.  Have the things turned out to be Plug and Play along with All That, or is this yet another case where Romy has managed to get the Only Good One they ever produced, which only He could ever manage to adapt for acceptable use?

It's not that I don't trust the Manufacturer to Walk the Talk...

OK, it is that I don't trust them.  Why would I, especially since they are still Officially Silent as the Grave on all Pertinent Issues.  Apart from posting only and exactly the parts of Romy's lenghty, ogoing commentary that sells it best, you'd never know there was any feedback about their products.  Also, I still wonder if the "Nervousness", condemned by the Mfg. (as unique to Romy's unit...), has turned out to be the (dithering?) Key to it's very singular success in One Man's application.  They don't seem to know, themselves, that's for sure (or, they are not saying...).

Judging by the traffic numbers, this is one of the most shopped threads on the Whole Board.  There have to be others who have dashed out and bought the PP2000 based on the sterling "recommendation" proffered here, and surely there is someone who bought one he bought it has some objective sense not only of why but also how to evaluate it in terms of audible results.

Adrian, you mentioned a while back that you'd taken The Plunge.  How goes your own test?  You've never mentioned it again.  Was it Plug and Play Paradise, or are you still battling QC issues and/or finding things more complicated than you'd wished?  Also, I'm wondering if the recent spate of remarks regarding the 2241s is in any way connected to the PP2000...

Any crumbs from The Table would be appreciated.

Paul S