steverino wrote:

Sorry for the potentially ignorant question since I do not yet own one. Can't you remove the battery pack from the unit and see what the sound is like? According to the Pure Power web site the battery packs are optional so I would think the unit's recharger would be inoperative in such circumstances. Based on your and other comments I wouldn't even buy the battery pack.

steverino wrote:

Why are recharging circuits even located within the PP chassis but instead part of a battery pack chassis connected by a cable and toggle switch or something? This is the problem with these audio manufacturers. They constantly add bells and whistles and then stuff them in the same case.At least if they would put them in a separate optional box their side effects might be more muted. Every non essential circuit should be put somewhere separate.

Did anybody ever dealt with it?

http://www.lessloss.com/blackbody-p-200.html

Romy the Cat wrote:

clarkjohnsen wrote: It does not take care of itself (what does?) and following the code doesn't get you there either…. Indeed, it is current leakage... but measured by the difference in potential. Clark, you a bit simplistic understand the the notion of AC polarity.   CJ: Good to know. If you have one individual component in audio system then the AC polarity is matter and you can get it by measure the potential between one neutral and ground and then compare it with reversal connection. However if you have 3, 35 or 135 AC power-using components in system then the AC polarity of individual component need to be set in the same way. CJ: So far, so good. If all components are made by the electrical code (and in 99.99% of cases they are) then you will not have situation that one component AC polarity screw another.   CJ: This is where you veer off course. The AC polarity under discussion (anyway by myself) does not concern code -- that is, the hot/neutral/ground alignment. Instead it's an internal aspect, not under the control of any code or convention. I NEVER saw a production component that has reversed AC polarity. CJ: Then you haven't looked close enough. I hear that some of them do but I never saw it myself.   CJ: Generally speaking, half of them do -- minus those that exhibit no such measurable characteristic at all. From what I saw your current leakage always was smaller in the side that complied with code.   CJ: Internally, again, no code applies. Take the power transformer's secondary leads: what convention instructs a manufacturer which side to use as hot? None! If you begin to flip individual component then the question that you face: do you need to measure the components individual or in assembly into the system. In non symmetrical systems there is no true answer to it.  CJ: All explained in The Wood Effect, and other places.  c   The Cat

clarkjohnsen wrote:

Then you haven't looked close enough.

Or perhaps the equipment that I used was not made by clueless people?

clarkjohnsen wrote:

This is where you veer off course. The AC polarity under discussion (anyway by myself) does not concern code -- that is, the hot/neutral/ground alignment. Instead it's an internal aspect, not under the control of any code or convention.

clarkjohnsen wrote:

Internally, again, no code applies. Take the power transformer's secondary leads: what convention instructs a manufacturer which side to use as hot? None!

This is all theory. If you did it yourself then you would realize that that there is no straight answer to this question and BTW it has nothing to do with secondary but with primary. Yes, if you deal with ONE transformer then the primary has only one position where the leakage between neutral and ground is minimal. But what if you have two transformer or 8 transformers as I have in my amps? Setting each of them individually according the minimum leakage does not assure that all of them combined will have the minimum leakage . Furthermore, take two amps with properly optimized minimum leakage assembly, combine then in the one single ended system and measure the leakage with straight and revered electrical polarity on primary. The logic suggests that if the each of the component with minimum leakage combined in the straight electrical polarity then the summing leakage shall be lower as well. Unfortunately it is not always the case. This makes the subject much more complex than just a theoretical debate.

clarkjohnsen wrote:

: All explained in The Wood Effect, and other places.

It has absolutely nothing to do The Wood Effect, but you can’t help your to bring it in, again,

Romy the Cat wrote:

clarkjohnsen wrote: Then you haven't looked close enough. Or perhaps the equipment that I used was not made by clueless people? CJ I believe one of the points you keep harping on is that most people are clueless. So... as to your equipment...  clarkjohnsen wrote: This is where you veer off course. The AC polarity under discussion (anyway by myself) does not concern code -- that is, the hot/neutral/ground alignment. Instead it's an internal aspect, not under the control of any code or convention.  clarkjohnsen wrote: Internally, again, no code applies. Take the power transformer's secondary leads: what convention instructs a manufacturer which side to use as hot? None! This is all theory. CJ Noop. Actuality, actually. If you did it yourself then you would realize that that there is no straight answer to this question and BTW it has nothing to do with secondary but with primary.   CJ The primary must, in a sense, meet code. No such convention applies, I repeat, to the secondary -- whose leads can be switched with impunity. Yes, if you deal with ONE transformer then the primary has only one position where the leakage between neutral and ground is minimal. But what if you have two transformer or 8 transformers as I have in my amps?   CJ Then you may have a problem! Setting each of them individually according the minimum leakage does not assure that all of them combined will have the minimum leakage . CJ Never said it would. That's yet another problem. Furthermore, take two amps with properly optimized minimum leakage assembly, combine then in the one single ended system and measure the leakage with straight and revered electrical polarity on primary. The logic suggests that if the each of the component with minimum leakage combined in the straight electrical polarity then the summing leakage shall be lower as well. Unfortunately it is not always the case. This makes the subject much more complex than just a theoretical debate. CJ O yay. Never promised you a rose garden.  clarkjohnsen wrote: : All explained in The Wood Effect, and other places. It has absolutely nothing to do The Wood Effect, but you can’t help your to bring it in, again, CJ Rudeness duly noted. Folks, in case you care to learn the truth of the matter, AC Polarity is the subject of Chapter 7.5, pages 63-66. Its connection to acoustic polarity is established there too. That Romy should so boldly assert otherwise, leads me to think that there must be some pages missing in his copy; I must alert the publisher. c The Cat

clarkjohnsen wrote:

Folks, in case you care to learn the truth of the matter, AC Polarity is the subject of Chapter 7.5, pages 63-66. Its connection to acoustic polarity is established there too. That Romy should so boldly assert otherwise, leads me to think that there must be some pages missing in his copy; I must alert the publisher.

Bud wrote:

All transformers are phase inverting. The lowest leakage point of primary and secondary windings relationship to conventional E/I and C core is the physical start of the helical spiral winding. This is assuming more than one layer of wire. In toroid's the spiral wraps around the core and there is no lowest leakage point, except for the one developed capacitively between primary and secondary, unless there is a second or more traverse. Because the windings couple both inductvely and capacitvly to the core and each other, you develop ringing that generates eddy currents on all adjacent ferrous and non ferrous metallic surfaces. These couplings are what drive circulating currents in chassis and provide antenna emitters for circuits. Any winding with AC voltage above safety low voltage potential (33 vac RMS) should be suspect. Most of them will be inert with respect to the chassis, but if you have more than one transformer involved, they can cross couple. There are no mathematical solutions for these events. Ralph Morrison published a book, "Grounding and Shielding Techniques" that is the only useful book I know of. Not a lick of math to be found. The RDH 4 does have the usual delicious hints, but no practical solutions. There is other good work out there, but it is not readily available, being under the seal of the AES, with not enough of an abstract to know if you can extract useful information for your money. Plenty of room here for misunderstandings and "entrepreneurs".

Romy the Cat wrote:

clarkjohnsen wrote: Folks, in case you care to learn the truth of the matter, AC Polarity is the subject of Chapter 7.5, pages 63-66. Its connection to acoustic polarity is established there too. That Romy should so boldly assert otherwise, leads me to think that there must be some pages missing in his copy; I must alert the publisher. I do have a copy of your book and if you insist I can open and read it. I do not recall that you discuss the subject of AC Polarity in there and if you did then you were wrong.   CJ  I insist on nothing but accuracy in your portrayals to others. The facts otherwise speak for themselves. The AC polarity has absolutely no relation to absolute acoustic polarity.   CJ  Do you think you're righter about that than you were about what's in my own book? lol Take one single integrated with power amp with amp CD player (or plug the whole system in one single power strip) and measure the acoustic polarity. Then revere the AC polarity on this CD player (or power strip). You will see that the acoustic polarity will not change. The acoustic polarity is a relationship between the phase of acoustic system and listening environment and it absolutely has no relation to AC polarity. I know that you will be arguing the acoustic polarity now but, Clark, this thread is about electricity. Les separate apples from oranges.  CJ  Thanks for the lecture on material I've been closely acquainted with for thirty years. But please don't try to dodge the issue, viz., that you erroneously said AC plug polarity has "nothing to do with The Wood Effect". There were three pages therein that addressed the topic, including how it's convolved with acoustic polarity. And it is about electricity. CJ  I think Bud's note offers great insight on how this stuff can go wrong, code aside. c The caT

clarkjohnsen wrote:

Thanks for the lecture on material I've been closely acquainted with for thirty years. But please don't try to dodge the issue, viz., that you erroneously said AC plug polarity has "nothing to do with The Wood Effect". There were three pages therein that addressed the topic, including how it's convolved with acoustic polarity. And it is about electricity.

steverino wrote:

Romy said "When I had my magnetic and EMI probes running with open PP2000 cover then the probes showed me that I was in the middle of Chernobyl Black Forest. I think the PP3000  even more poisoning..." Now I begin to understand your concern about putting these PP units far way from your audio components. Have you found a safe Minimum distance for the PP from the system? (without requiring 500 shakti stones or 72 ambient field modulators)

steverino wrote:

Romy said "When I had my magnetic and EMI probes running with open PP2000 cover then the probes showed me that I was in the middle of Chernobyl Black Forest. I think the PP3000  even more poisoning..." Now I begin to understand your concern about putting these PP units far way from your audio components. Have you found a safe Minimum distance for the PP from the system? (without requiring 500 shakti stones or 72 ambient field modulators)

steverino wrote:

You missed in my post one moment: “running with open PP2000 cover”. Running the unit with open cover is like to run a nuclear reactor without a containment chamber and half million tons of concrete. With normal closed box I did not detect any problems. BTW, in past the PP2000 box I think was better – they had some semi-soft rubber compound under the bottom of the top cover. The current units do not have it but the chassis still thick and heavy. I did not detect it had any influence to sound. In my old place I have it 3 feet from the rest of equipment, not I have probably 4-5 feet. I still would not advise to put your DAC on PP2000 or run 50 turns of phono cable around it. I would not put it in rack with the rest equipment unless it is VERY hard rack and you put it very much under the bottom. Anyhow, use common sense but it would be absolutely identical to any other switching power supplies. I have an alternative 12V switching power supply for my preamp (size of laptop PS) and if I use it right behind the preamp then I have a lot of brighter sound and my PS for preamp does perhaps 50mA, the PP2000 will do 15A…. Did you ever try to put your laptop PS while it charges batteries next to your tuner?

I would like to follow up one more time about the subject of PP3000 radioactivity.  Since my site kind of became a good and the only knowledge base about use of PP units I would like to provide sensible information.

Let me to demonstrate how I use the PP3000. I do not insist that I use it properly but what I do does make sense to me. Below is the picture of my PP3000 location. 

Since I do not finish to experiment with PP3000 it sites in kind of temp position and the enter stand with PP3000 and scope is extended for a foot from the back wall. However it does show the location of my PP3000 regarding the rest of my equipment. You can see a lot power cables on the back, 22 cables to be exact, they are all on the back. You can see a single Dominus cable in front; this is the interconnect from preamp to my right channel Milq. The cable loops a bit to run slightly further from PP3000, It does makes sense to me, even though I did not detect any sonic problem if I do not do it. In the right the closest components from PP3000 are the most vulnerable: tuner and A/D (sitting vertically). I did test it and there is absolutely no sensitively in them to the presence of PP3000.

However, if you look in the temp location that I was trying to use PP1500 in 2007 then it was bad location. Why it was temporary? Because my A/D processors did pick up noise from PP1500 as it was fitting a few inches from them.

Also, I know a guy who placed the DAC atop of PP2000 and the sound was horrible, I though the DAC was garbage. Reportedly he later on removed the DAC from atop of PP and it rehabilitated the DAC, supposedly…

So, you can get the idea…

Accuphase has announced a new product

http://www.accuphase.com/model/ps-1220.html

It is 1kW power correction unit made exactly in the same topology as Avicenna was made.

There is a lot of marketing BS in the “technical” PDF file:

http://www.accuphase.com/cat/ps-1220_e.pdf

But still it would be interesting to chat with someone who owns this devise. I do not anticipate that it will have interesting sound; I have quite a number of justifications for this assumption, still it would be interesting to see what the new corrector they made.

I do not think we will see them in US. The Accuphase dealers and distributor in US are clueless and the user who would go for it I am sure will be those who but books to match rooms wallpaper. In japans the unit costs 58.000 yens it means the pimps in US will do around 120.000 -140.000 yens. With contemporary exchange rate it will be around $15K-$20K, with no option to try or return it… and it is all just for 1kW of God know what kind results. So, do not think we will see a lot of them in US.