PS Audio Noise Harvester AC Cleaner Review

[anmpr1]

No surprise that all you haters are against the Noise Harvester, but all I can say is that the Noise Farmer that lives down the road from me swears by his at this time of year...

Actually, if he's a real noise farmer I bet he's not using a PS Noise Harvester, but an International Noise Harvester. It's easy to mistake, because it's easy to confuse Paul McGowan with Hall McCormick, who originally founded the International Noise Harvester company.

Unlike PS, International Noise Harvester was always on the cutting edge of R&D. In the early days of the company, it's chief designer, Commander Bascom F. Gatti explored the Seven Continents in search of new ways of solving the 'Noise Question'. Eventually winding up in the Belgian Congo, Gatti (or BFG as he's known by comrades) accidentally stumbled across the legendary Elephant Graveyard. It was then that he discovered the amazing properties of ivory (99 44/100 % pure) to suppress unwanted noise in electrical circuits, especially tube/MOSFET hybrid circuitry.

His groundbreaking design was eventually sold as the BFG 9000, a device that spelled DOOM for all manner of noise demons infesting modern electrical components.

Below is flyer of BHG's 'Jungle Yacht' that he used during his expeditions.

 

[Boomzilla]

I can't deny that - but I still contend that products should be evaluated individually.

 

[sergeauckland]

I can't deny that - but I still contend that products should be evaluated individually.

Possibly so, but the ethics of the provider are also relevant. I don't care how good an individual product might be, if the supplier is a rogue, I won't buy it.

It's not as if any particular supplier is the only one available, there are any number of alternatives from companies that don't engage in cheating their customers.

S.

 

[Boomzilla]

Hi @sergeauckland - I'd agree that a 100% honest and reliable provider is preferred, but I won't toss out an entire brand for one bad product. Hyperbole is common in advertising however inherently dishonest it may be. I've owned PS Audio products before that performed well, were well-made with quality parts, and that seemed good values for the money. So although I wouldn't consider the "Noise Harvester," I would consider other PS-Audio products on an ad-hoc basis. YMMV

 

[KaiserSoze]

The fourth post in this thread quotes PS Audio's description of the Noise Harvester as "A simple product designed to reduce power line noise above 10kHz." I based my post on that. No, I haven't read all the PS Audio advertising for the device (or all 11 pages of this thread), and yes, "all the unwanted noise" is a much broader claim and significantly different from "all the unwanted noise above 10kHz."

I read the product description on the PS Audio website just now, and they do, indeed, claim to reduce "all the unwanted noise." So the description is fraudulent.

I'm nonetheless disappointed by the posts in the thread claiming that because this product is superfluous (it is) and falsely-described (it is) that ALL PS-Audio products are similarly without merit and that Mr. Paul McGowan is a snake-oil peddler. These assumptions are without merit. One bad apple does not not spoil the basket in this case. PS Audio, to the best of my knowledge, offers some fine products. The Noise Harvester, however, is not one of them.

The product is fraudulent for reasons that go beyond the discrepancy between the advertised claims and the actual performance. It would be silly and unrealistic to base the assessment, of whether it is or isn't bunkum, on the simple question of whether the manufacturer's claims are literally correct. It is necessary to consider implied claims, when there are implied claims that are clearly identifiable and that are vital in explaining why people buy the product. In other words, it would be disingenuous for the manufacturer to say, "But I never said that it would make your audio gear sound better. Maybe that's what you thought, but you can't blame me for that, because I never said that it would make your audio gear sound better." Inarguably it would be disingenuous and dishonest for the manufacturer to defend himself in this manner. As such, it is fully fair and fully appropriate to consider implied claims that are clearly identifiable and vital in explaining why anyone would buy the thing, in assessing whether the product is fraudulent. It is overtly apparent that this product is fraudulent at face value, with no need to consider whether the claims the manufacturer had actually made were false in a strict literal sense. The approach you took, in assessing whether the product is fraudulent, is not realistic and is not itself genuine.

The following statement of yours is not fully truthful:

I'm nonetheless disappointed by the posts in the thread claiming that because this product is superfluous (it is) and falsely-described (it is) that ALL PS-Audio products are similarly without merit and that Mr. Paul McGowan is a snake-oil peddler. These assumptions are without merit. ...

To my way of thinking a statement needs to be fully truthful in order to be considered truthful. Truth does not come in shades of gray. A statement is either truthful or not. To be truthful there must be no spinning or bending of the facts, and nothing should be conveniently omitted if it bears on the veracity of the question under consideration. I haven't read all the posts in this thread so I can't know whether anyone actually did say claim that "ALL PS-Audio products are similarly without merit..." So I can't say whether you are wrong about that, but let's consider the broader and more pertinent question of whether Mr. McGowan sells other products for which he overstates the capability in order to sell them for a lot more money than equivalent products bought elsewhere. How about this wall outlet:

https://www.psaudio.com/products/power-port-classic/#tab-features

The claims for this $49 wall outlet include:

• Improves images
• Easy to install
• Cleans the soundstage
• Open, airy, top end
• Improves midrange bloom
• Will not degrade over time
• Improved connectivity
• Lowers apparent noise floor
• AV Grade

Thus, an ordinary wall outlet that improves images, cleans the soundstage, has an open, airy, top end, improves midrange bloom, has improved connectivity, lowers the apparent noise floor, and most important of all, is AV Grade. You can buy the very same thing at any hardware store for one dollar and change. By what form of extreme rationalization would this not be deemed fraudulent?

Or how about the power cord? The only sort of upgrade that anyone ever needs with respect to power cords is when the one included with the product isn't long enough. The one-meter length of Mr. McGowan's power cord sells for $800; the two-meter length sells for $1200. By what form of extreme rationalization would this not be deemed fraudulent? All outrageously expensive power cords are fraudulent because the implied claim is that they improve the sound quality of your system, which they cannot possibly do.

https://www.psaudio.com/products/ac12-power-cable/

There is also a surge protector that he sells for $500, with claims that are similar to the above claims for the wall outlet.

 

[Laederofmen]

Actually, if he's a real noise farmer I bet he's not using a PS Noise Harvester, but an International Noise Harvester. It's easy to mistake, because it's easy to confuse Paul McGowan with Hall McCormick, who originally founded the International Noise Harvester company.

Unlike PS, International Noise Harvester was always on the cutting edge of R&D. In the early days of the company, it's chief designer, Commander Bascom F. Gatti explored the Seven Continents in search of new ways of solving the 'Noise Question'. Eventually winding up in the Belgian Congo, Gatti (or BFG as he's known by comrades) accidentally stumbled across the legendary Elephant Graveyard. It was then that he discovered the amazing properties of ivory (99 44/100 % pure) to suppress unwanted noise in electrical circuits, especially tube/MOSFET hybrid circuitry.

His groundbreaking design was eventually sold as the BFG 9000, a device that spelled DOOM for all manner of noise demons infesting modern electrical components.

Below is flyer of BHG's 'Jungle Yacht' that he used during his expeditions.

View attachment 82800

BRAVO

 

[Boomzilla]

Hi @KaizerSoze - I can't argue with any of your comments about those specific products. They meet the common definition of "snake oil."

However, I have heard (and owned) PS Audio preamplifiers and power amps. I didn't read the manufacturer's claims for any of them since I bought them used. Their performance was equivalent to any other manufacturer's gear in the same price range. Did PS Audio make unjustified claims for those products? I don't know (and don't much care). The products spoke for themselves (res ipsa loquitur).

So is PS-Audio a bad company because some of their products are deliberately misrepresented? I think that if you examine other common audio companies, many, if not a majority of them have at least some product(s), somewhere in their lineup, that have exaggerated advertising. Does that disenfranchise the entire company? Maybe. But maybe not. An Audioquest or Monster Cable speaker wire may work just fine despite exaggerated claims.

What I'm objecting to is the "gotcha" attitude that if a manufacturer (or their advertising agency) makes an unwarranted claim for one product (or in this case, one class of products) that the entire company is dog droppings. I can understand the opinion, but I just don't share it.

 

[AudioSceptic]

Hi @sergeauckland - I'd agree that a 100% honest and reliable provider is preferred, but I won't toss out an entire brand for one bad product. Hyperbole is common in advertising however inherently dishonest it may be. I've owned PS Audio products before that performed well, were well-made with quality parts, and that seemed good values for the money. So although I wouldn't consider the "Noise Harvester," I would consider other PS-Audio products on an ad-hoc basis. YMMV

Who says that PS Audio produces only one bad product? Have you looked at other products reviewed here?
E.g. <https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...f-ps-audio-perfectwave-directstream-dac.9100/>
Edit: added a link!

 

[whazzup]

So is PS-Audio a bad company because some of their products are deliberately misrepresented? I think that if you examine other common audio companies, many, if not a majority of them have at least some product(s), somewhere in their lineup, that have exaggerated advertising. Does that disenfranchise the entire company? Maybe. But maybe not. An Audioquest or Monster Cable speaker wire may work just fine despite exaggerated claims.

What I'm objecting to is the "gotcha" attitude that if a manufacturer (or their advertising agency) makes an unwarranted claim for one product (or in this case, one class of products) that the entire company is dog droppings. I can understand the opinion, but I just don't share it.

A rare instance an audio cable company is brought to task for misleading claims about its products without being able to provide evidence (in UK):
https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/the-chord-company-ltd-a14-274211.html

Coincidentally, MQA also has a brush with them and came out unscathed:
https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/mqa-ltd-a18-470395.html

Many audio companies come out with products backed up with claims that can be substantiated, while others chose to come out with more dubious ones. And actual work has been done on ASR to test some of these claims.
But you decide what the data means for you. And it's your right, and everyone else's right too, to decide for themselves if a company's business practices can be accepted.

So continue to buy and use their products if they bring joy to you, no one will argue with you.
Conversely, on ASR I believe many derive joy from testing whether the claims are true or are misleading. And if based on the factual data, they made some extrapolations and decided the company is dog droppings, who are you to argue with them? Do they not have the right to decide for themselves?

Unless you want to challenge their findings with your own reproducible test results that support certain claims made? I'm sure many here will be happy to have constructive discussions with you on that.

 

[Jimbob54]

No surprise that all you haters are against the Noise Harvester, but all I can say is that the Noise Farmer that lives down the road from me swears by his at this time of year...

Ooh arrrrr

 

[KaiserSoze]

Hi @KaizerSoze - I can't argue with any of your comments about those specific products. They meet the common definition of "snake oil."

However, I have heard (and owned) PS Audio preamplifiers and power amps. I didn't read the manufacturer's claims for any of them since I bought them used. Their performance was equivalent to any other manufacturer's gear in the same price range. Did PS Audio make unjustified claims for those products? I don't know (and don't much care). The products spoke for themselves (res ipsa loquitur).

So is PS-Audio a bad company because some of their products are deliberately misrepresented? I think that if you examine other common audio companies, many, if not a majority of them have at least some product(s), somewhere in their lineup, that have exaggerated advertising. Does that disenfranchise the entire company? Maybe. But maybe not. An Audioquest or Monster Cable speaker wire may work just fine despite exaggerated claims.

What I'm objecting to is the "gotcha" attitude that if a manufacturer (or their advertising agency) makes an unwarranted claim for one product (or in this case, one class of products) that the entire company is dog droppings. I can understand the opinion, but I just don't share it.

I've taken a look at his products. It is altogether apparent that the general theme is products that are greatly overpriced and overhyped using extreme hyperbole. Somewhere in the mix there may well be a product or two that isn't overhyped and overpriced, but if so it is the exception, not the rule. If the opposite were true your attitude would be fair and reasonable.

Most people here who are bothered by the peddling of audio snake oil are nevertheless restrained in their comments and careful to avoid strongly worded, direct criticism of the man behind the brand. The measure of the criticism found here is generally milder than what is warranted by the amount of bunkum that McGowan sells, and by the preposterous claims he makes for his products generally. If people were much more directly critical of him than they generally are, Mr. McGowan would have no grounds for protest.

 

[Jimbob54]

The product is fraudulent for reasons that go beyond the discrepancy between the advertised claims and the actual performance. It would be silly and unrealistic to base the assessment, of whether it is or isn't bunkum, on the simple question of whether the manufacturer's claims are literally correct. It is necessary to consider implied claims, when there are implied claims that are clearly identifiable and that are vital in explaining why people buy the product. In other words, it would be disingenuous for the manufacturer to say, "But I never said that it would make your audio gear sound better. Maybe that's what you thought, but you can't blame me for that, because I never said that it would make your audio gear sound better." Inarguably it would be disingenuous and dishonest for the manufacturer to defend himself in this manner. As such, it is fully fair and fully appropriate to consider implied claims that are clearly identifiable and vital in explaining why anyone would buy the thing, in assessing whether the product is fraudulent. It is overtly apparent that this product is fraudulent at face value, with no need to consider whether the claims the manufacturer had actually made were false in a strict literal sense. The approach you took, in assessing whether the product is fraudulent, is not realistic and is not itself genuine.

The following statement of yours is not fully truthful:



To my way of thinking a statement needs to be fully truthful in order to be considered truthful. Truth does not come in shades of gray. A statement is either truthful or not. To be truthful there must be no spinning or bending of the facts, and nothing should be conveniently omitted if it bears on the veracity of the question under consideration. I haven't read all the posts in this thread so I can't know whether anyone actually did say claim that "ALL PS-Audio products are similarly without merit..." So I can't say whether you are wrong about that, but let's consider the broader and more pertinent question of whether Mr. McGowan sells other products for which he overstates the capability in order to sell them for a lot more money than equivalent products bought elsewhere. How about this wall outlet:

https://www.psaudio.com/products/power-port-classic/#tab-features

The claims for this $49 wall outlet include:

• Improves images
• Easy to install
• Cleans the soundstage
• Open, airy, top end
• Improves midrange bloom
• Will not degrade over time
• Improved connectivity
• Lowers apparent noise floor
• AV Grade

Thus, an ordinary wall outlet that improves images, cleans the soundstage, has an open, airy, top end, improves midrange bloom, has improved connectivity, lowers the apparent noise floor, and most important of all, is AV Grade. You can buy the very same thing at any hardware store for one dollar and change. By what form of extreme rationalization would this not be deemed fraudulent?

Or how about the power cord? The only sort of upgrade that anyone ever needs with respect to power cords is when the one included with the product isn't long enough. The one-meter length of Mr. McGowan's power cord sells for $800; the two-meter length sells for $1200. By what form of extreme rationalization would this not be deemed fraudulent? All outrageously expensive power cords are fraudulent because the implied claim is that they improve the sound quality of your system, which they cannot possibly do.

https://www.psaudio.com/products/ac12-power-cable/

There is also a surge protector that he sells for $500, with claims that are similar to the above claims for the wall outlet.

It's not fraudulent to jack up the price of a device based on fluff as long as it serves its primary purpose. I'm sure ps audio power kit provides the requisite power.

The power harvester, to me, treads a very very thin line. The cables:a fool and their money...

 

[KaiserSoze]

It's not fraudulent to jack up the price of a device based on fluff as long as it serves its primary purpose. I'm sure ps audio power kit provides the requisite power.

The power harvester, to me, treads a very very thin line. The cables:a fool and their money...

I do not believe that the point of view you have expounded is the correct point of view. The power cables are fraudulent because of the implied claim that they improve sound quality. People buy them because this is implicit, and the manufacturer knows full well that this is why people buy them, therefore it is fraudulent. The fact that people ought to know better has no bearing on the question of whether it is fraudulent. It can almost always be argued, easily and convincingly, that the buyer should have known better, but what matters is not whether the buyer should have known better, but only whether the seller should have known better. The seller is aware when people buy something because of an implied claim, and when a seller exploits this by selling a product for more than its fair market value, this is a form of fraud. This gizmo is fraud, the power cables he sells are fraud, and the wall outlet is fraud.

 

[sergeauckland]

Hi @KaizerSoze

What I'm objecting to is the "gotcha" attitude that if a manufacturer (or their advertising agency) makes an unwarranted claim for one product (or in this case, one class of products) that the entire company is dog droppings. I can understand the opinion, but I just don't share it.

If a manufacturer knowingly makes a false claim for one of their products, or allows their advertising/marketing agency to do so, then of course the entire company is dog droppings. Their other products may not be bad, their other products may even be exemplary, but by allowing even one false product to be marketing, they are showing a lack of ethics that does, in my mind, make the entire company dog droppings.

Just because you break the law only a little bit, you're still a criminal....tell that to the UK government......

S.

 

[Jimbob54]

I do not believe that the point of view you have expounded is the correct point of view. The power cables are fraudulent because of the implied claim that they improve sound quality. People buy them because this is implicit, and the manufacturer knows full well that this is why people buy them, therefore it is fraudulent. The fact that people ought to know better has no bearing on the question of whether it is fraudulent. It can almost always be argued, easily and convincingly, that the buyer should have known better, but what matters is not whether the buyer should have known better, but only whether the seller should have known better. The seller is aware when people buy something because of an implied claim, and when a seller exploits this by selling a product for more than its fair market value, this is a form of fraud. This gizmo is fraud, the power cables he sells are fraud, and the wall outlet is fraud.

Then you will no doubt finance a private prosecution in your jurisdiction of choice? I wish you all the best.

Do I like such practices? Not at all. Are they spivs? Yes. Should they be regularly called out? Yes.

But lets not accuse them of criminality if it isnt.

 

[KaiserSoze]

Then you will no doubt finance a private prosecution in your jurisdiction of choice? I wish you all the best.

Do I like such practices? Not at all. Are they spivs? Yes. Should they be regularly called out? Yes.

But lets not accuse them of criminality if it isnt.

I really appreciate your sarcasm, because if there is one thing I like, it is being addressed in a sarcastic tone by someone who did not like my having not deferred to their judgement when they told me I was wrong about something.

You have made it clear that you are confident that Mr. McGown has not committed legal fraud notwithstanding that he has made preposterous claims for the power outlet and the power cords in order to get away with selling them for exorbitant sums, because according to your understanding of the legal definition of fraud, all manner of false claims can be made, without committing fraud, so long as the product fulfills its primary purpose:

It's not fraudulent to jack up the price of a device based on fluff as long as it serves its primary purpose. ... The cables:a fool and their money...

This strikes me as very much the kind of thing that people just invent on whim and post to an internet forum. But if not, and you are able to share the reason why you arrived at this opinion, by providing quotations from legal dictionaries, or case studies from judicial rulings, etc., this would be genuinely relevant to the topic at hand.

 

[Boomzilla]

Fraudulent products SHOULD be outed. If ASR or other forums provide that service, BRAVO!

But the "mad dogs" quickly claim that since some claims are fraudulent, then the entire company's product line is too.

Prove it. Pick a top of the line PS-Audio preamplifier, power amplifier, or DAC (your choice) and show me the fraudulent claims. You prove it, and I'll concede the point.

OTOH, if you want to believe that the entire company is lying dog-doo, then it's a free country - believe what you want.

 

[JustJones]

I haven't read the entire thread did someone claim all their products were advertised with misleading claims or that some were? Doesn't matter how many products they use misleading statements for, it still reflects on the entire company.

 

[KaiserSoze]

Fraudulent products SHOULD be outed. If ASR or other forums provide that service, BRAVO!

But the "mad dogs" quickly claim that since some claims are fraudulent, then the entire company's product line is too.

Prove it. Pick a top of the line PS-Audio preamplifier, power amplifier, or DAC (your choice) and show me the fraudulent claims. You prove it, and I'll concede the point.

OTOH, if you want to believe that the entire company is lying dog-doo, then it's a free country - believe what you want.

I completely agree. If anyone had said, truthfully, that all of PS-Audio's products are fraudulent, then by all means they should have to prove it. But if this isn't actually what someone had actually said, then it's a different story. I've watched this thread since it got awakened from the dead a few days ago, and since then, I haven't seen where anyone said exactly that. What I DID see is one or two people saying in essence that when someone has demonstrated a proclivity for hyperbole and overpriced bunkum that doesn't do a damn thing to improve the sound quality, that whenever anyone considers buying any of their products, they should not disregard the manufacturer's demonstrated proclivity for hyperbole and overpriced bunkum that doesn't do a damn thing to improve the sound quality. Or at least I think this is what somebody had said, in essence.

 

[Jimbob54]

I really appreciate your sarcasm, because if there is one thing I like, it is being addressed in a sarcastic tone by someone who did not like my having not deferred to their judgement when they told me I was wrong about something.

You have made it clear that you are confident that Mr. McGown has not committed legal fraud notwithstanding that he has made preposterous claims for the power outlet and the power cords in order to get away with selling them for exorbitant sums, because according to your understanding of the legal definition of fraud, all manner of false claims can be made, without committing fraud, so long as the product fulfills its primary purpose:



This strikes me as very much the kind of thing that people just invent on whim and post to an internet forum. But if not, and you are able to share the reason why you arrived at this opinion, by providing quotations from legal dictionaries, or case studies from judicial rulings, etc., this would be genuinely relevant to the topic at hand.

Nah, I'll let you keep frothing. You've got a list there of audiophile companies successfully prosecuted for fraud, I'm sure.