Puritan PMS 156 vs. Audioquest Niagara 3000


Has anyone compared these to conditioners to each other?  I would be using them for my front end and 150 watt solid state mono block amps.  I can kind of get a feel via some of the reviews but was looking for a direct comparison on the sound signature.  Hoping to achieve a lower noise floor without restricting the dynamics or existing tone signature.  Thanks.   
goose

Showing 1 response by verdantaudio

I have as I am a dealer of both.  I am not sure I would say that the highs were more aggressive with the Puritan.  Just unconstrained.  Both units reduce the noise floor and corrected some wonky behavior with speakers behaving unlike they should.  I have Wilson Benesch and Vivid speakers and the WBs sounded bright without conditioning and the Vivids warm which is the reverse of what I expected.  

That being said, the AQ did sound a little warmer but that may have been the thunder HC cables.  I think extension gets a bit better when you step up to Tornado or Hurricane.  That being said, you have to use all AQ cables to get the best out of the Niagara.  Puritan allowed for mixing and matching without any issue though the Thunder HC cables led to a warmer sound, even into the Puritan.

That is consistent with what I would expect.  Niagara is best with all AQ cables because of the grounding system.   The Thunder HC cables are very good but not quite at the same level as Hurricane or Tornado.