I have noticed certain questions being raised as to the scientific nature (or lack thereof) of this review. The claim seemed a little spurious, but I figured I would at least examine it.
PS Audio's claim regarding this product: "In the process of regeneration any problems on your power line such as low voltage, distorted waveforms, sagging power and noise are eliminated. The results are both audibly and visually stunning when powering either audio or video products."
Thus, the theory being advanced by PS Audio is that AC power "regeneration" addressees "problems" in one's power line and eliminates issues with low voltage, distorted waveforms, sagging power and noise. These improvements will lead to : "audibly and visually stunning when powering either audio or video products."..."greatly improved performance and safety from just plugging into the wall socket and far better dynamics, bass and a much bigger, open soundstage"
So, by using PS Audio's regenerating AC power unit one will improve audio and video products in an "audibly and visually stunning" fashion, through "greatly improved performance... and far better dynamics, bass and a much bigger, open soundstage."
The theory provides simple enough hypothesis to test. Many of the test limitations raised by
@restorer-john and
@KSTR are irrelevant because they do not address the theory as presented by PS Audio in any apparent fashion; i.e. power regenration dramatically improves "dynamics, bass and a much bigger, open soundstage." Additionally, their proposed tests give absolutely no insight as to whether the P12 makes visually stunnnig improvements to video products. To evaluate the validity of the theory all one has to do test a hypothesis relating to the claim; i.e. a simple hypothesis would test the outcomes/benefits (as defined by the theory) of using the product.
In the case of video products, there are a number of objective tests that can be performed with a projector or monitor to determine if there measurable improvements. PS Audio provides absolutely no data to support the claim despite the fact that it would be fairly simple to test such video products.
@amirm did not test for video improvements, but that is to be expected, this is an audio site.
This leaves us with the audio tests. Considering the hypothesis that will be tested to evaluate the theory, criticism of the review should focus on whether the tests performed by
@amirm actually relate to audio performance and in what case can they be found wanting.
However, the criticisms instead have focused on whether the unit is able to address low voltage situations, sagging power, etc. That is not what the test is supposed to addressed. Again, the theory is regeneration of AC power will lead to "dynamics, bass and a much bigger, open soundstage." Nothing in the tests suggests this is the case, and nothing about
@restorer-john and
@KSTR (among others) criticisms actually challenges these facts. The only claim is that one can contrive an incredibly poor AC power situation in which these unit can improve one's audio performance, but that is not what the theory states. PS Audio's claim of improved performance (and theory) is for general application, and the units are marketed as such; i.e. the AC power regenerators are not marketed to those extremely rare situation where this unit might improve matters (at an excessive price, since a solution can be had for 1/5 the cost).
In the context of the limited purpose of the review (to evaluate PS Audio's theory on AC power regeneration and audio/video improvements), the review does what it seeks out to do in a fairly scientific fashions (well, as scientific as one can expect considering the circumstances). The review is not contrived or rigged, it merely evaluates the theory. If you feel there are circumstances under which power regeneration can be of value, fair enough, but that does not invalidate the review (i.e. the assessment of PS Audio's claim/theory). On the contrary, arguably, advancing such critics are a rigged attempt at obfuscating the purpose of the test.
PS I am not suggesting
@restorer-john and
@KSTR are attempting to obfuscate, but the logic proposed can't help but obfuscate.
