Fitzcaraldo215
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2016
- Messages
- 1,440
- Likes
- 632
Hmmm. So, you are suggesting the Niagara somehow stores and "speeds up" the current flow to the audio device, and that the plugged in device audibly benefits from this. It might, and that ought to be measurable, but preferably at the audio output of the test device. But, you have to wonder why the audio device designer screwed up the internal power supply so that device performance is compromised with power directly from the wall outlet.
I remember well years ago when Tice and many other conditioners were new. Every subjective reviewer was on the bandwagon using power conditioners in his system, including amps. Then Peter Moncrieff did some measurements in IAR, and, surprise, all the conditioners were restricting current delivery, especially into large loads like amps. The output revealed obviously inferior audio measurements, but certainly an audible difference, which reviewers preferred by ear, of course. After all, conditioned power has got to sound better than unconditioned. Right? Eventually, the bandwagon evaporated, especially for amps, except the power conditioning myth won't die in some circles in spite of the lack of objective proof of any benefit in all but extreme conditions.
As for Niagara, we do not know what it really does. AQ, as is typical, isn't saying, other than to call it a "power conditioner" with wonderful benefits to one's audio system. It might just as easily restrict power with negative audible consequences, but subject to the expectation biased opinions of the listeners. Or, it might have no effect, with the expectation bias conditioning the minds of listeners rather than changing the audible output.
Cue up the old Entreq discussion in this Forum. It is a passive magic grounding box, not a power conditioner, but it sure can screw up the measurements in obviously audible ways. Many audiophiles love it anyway.
I remember well years ago when Tice and many other conditioners were new. Every subjective reviewer was on the bandwagon using power conditioners in his system, including amps. Then Peter Moncrieff did some measurements in IAR, and, surprise, all the conditioners were restricting current delivery, especially into large loads like amps. The output revealed obviously inferior audio measurements, but certainly an audible difference, which reviewers preferred by ear, of course. After all, conditioned power has got to sound better than unconditioned. Right? Eventually, the bandwagon evaporated, especially for amps, except the power conditioning myth won't die in some circles in spite of the lack of objective proof of any benefit in all but extreme conditions.
As for Niagara, we do not know what it really does. AQ, as is typical, isn't saying, other than to call it a "power conditioner" with wonderful benefits to one's audio system. It might just as easily restrict power with negative audible consequences, but subject to the expectation biased opinions of the listeners. Or, it might have no effect, with the expectation bias conditioning the minds of listeners rather than changing the audible output.
Cue up the old Entreq discussion in this Forum. It is a passive magic grounding box, not a power conditioner, but it sure can screw up the measurements in obviously audible ways. Many audiophiles love it anyway.