Puritan PMS 156 vs. Audioquest Niagara 3000

@phillyb it depends. If the people listening were ASR acolytes and they were told everything measured perfectly and had been blessed by Amir, there would be no system ever that could compare. If it was done blind, likely, "fine".
YMMV

That system probably doesn't exist!

ozzy

@phillyb 

I’ve always wondered what a system consisting of only ASR approved components would sound like. 

Lol. You bypassed $10000 worth of products above the Niagara 5000 to get to the Stromtank. You had better prefer it.

I agree with twoleftears.   I’d try and get a home trial as systems are so different.   In my system I tried the Niagara 5000 and the PSM156 and I preferred the Niagara.   The PSM made things too bright.   
 

I ended up with a stromtank 1000 which I prefer over both.

Good Luck!

I have the 3000 powered by a Hurricane cable.  Just tried the PSM156 (with its own classic power cable).  Not a subtle difference, the PSM is WAYYY better.  Better image, better soundstage, better bass, better clarity, better life, more musical, 3000 is dull and flat in comparison.

No brainer, get the PSM (not affliated in any way- the PSM is just better - and cheaper)

Puritan Audio PSM156 Review (AC Filter) | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum

there are now literally hundreds of choices for power conditioning in this general price range and it seems new entrants near daily….some just a box w good grounding, outlets and inlet…it goes up from there…
also Brick and Mortar dealers are getting more rare.
some ability to buy and trial
a relationship with several trusted dealers AND forum posters of merit are a way to reduce risk and the sample size
So getting the kind of trusted valuable inputs above are part of the process…at least my process…i did listen to 8+ tube phono preamps…. BUT w n=8 you won’t see me posting the one selected is the giant killing best ever…..

have fun, enjoy the process and music

Jim

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.

Can't you get the two units for an in-home trial?  I'm sure you can get the Niagara; try and find a dealer (Puritan have an increasing US network) willing to let you try one.

As I've posted elsewhere, I found that the PSM 156 bested a Niagara 1000 and an Isotek Sigmas EVO3, among several other units.

A direct comparison...with their gear, in their room (not yours)...seems useful to you, why? On what basis do you think that the difference they hear will somehow transcend those differences in gear, room -- let alone taste, physiology of hearing, etc.

This may seem like a snarky question, but I don't mean it to be. I've wondered about these conditioners before and after reading various posts it occurred to me that there'd be no way for me to know without trying them myself. That's why I wonder why you're hopeful you'll learn something with this question.

Yep a direct comparison which is helpful....any others? 

tvad, thanks for your input, I think they are both excellent but it's hard to tell without a direct comparison.