PS Audio PowerPlant 12 Review (AC Regenerator)

PS Audio PowerPlant 12 Review

This is interesting. The testing concludes that the filtering inside of the actual electronics device is what matters and that this PS Audio product actually adds its own noise. Some irony.

seanheis103-02-2022 6:22am

Showing 5 responses by frogman

frogman Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 7,364 posts 03-03-2022 at 12:09pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete ** Conclusions I hope you appreciate the comprehensive assessment that I presented to you above trying to tease out in every possible way what the P12 does. ** Conclusions? Comprehensive? Every possible way? Really? Not one word, not one, in this “review” about what the “reviewer” actually heard. Haven’t we learned anything yet?
frogman Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 7,364 posts 03-05-2022 at 05:20am Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete ** Nothing to hear it’s 60hz AC power. ** Ridiculous response. Or, are you simply being contrarian? Not only did the author offer zero impressions of how plugging gear into the regenerator actually impacted the sound (get it now?), he went on to opine on why those who do hear an improvement in the sound of their gear are just fooling themselves. All this without actually listening for the effects of using this device!
frogman Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 7,364 posts 03-05-2022 at 11:49am Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete I don’t mind educating you guys 😊. ** I’m sure it has good PRAT No, IT would not have good PRAT. Instead, it might improve, or perhaps make worse some components’ PRAT. What would his impression tell you? ** It would tell me that his “review” is, in fact, thorough and complete (it is not); and that his comments are, in fact, worth considering. Worth considering, because he understands, like all audiophiles should, the old truism that measurements alone tell only part of the story. Btw, I don’t own this regenerator and my experience with others has been as described above.
frogman Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 7,364 posts 03-06-2022 at 08:43pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete djones, silly analogy; not applicable at all. With respect, you seem to always be so hell bent on sticking to the objectivist mantra that you miss the bigger point. The audiophile pursuit, and obviously music, is first and foremost about listening; measurements always take a back seat. That is the reason that the review is incomplete. Important to remember that there is as much vested interest for the naysayer to NOT hear a difference in sound as there is for the delusional to hear it; whether there is actually a difference or not. Of course, if the listener can’t hear then all bets are off.
frogman Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 7,364 posts 03-07-2022 at 06:27pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete Yup! What I always find curious, and this is a perfect example, is why there is this, at least implied, objection to someone else listening and arriving at a subjective impression; along with whatever other criteria the measurements may or may not satisfy. This is what belies the bias of the naysayers; the predisposition to NOT hear a difference. IOW, here we have the measurements and no listening. To some, the absence of listening impressions invalidates the review for reasons already mentioned. To others, listening is deemed irrelevant and subject to placebo effects; measurements are the last word. However, we still have the measurements. So, the objectivists have their “proof”. Why does it matter to the objectivists that others use different (additional) criteria (listening)?

More to discover