Is plugging a head into a power conditioner bad?

[seamonkey]

So, my copy of Led Zeppelin II on cd should sound like my LP version ? Because, it clearly does'nt.

That's right. The CD is more accurate.
You're probably more familiar with LP limitations and prefer it because of audio familiarity - that's all.

Blind tests have proven that when you record an LP (noise and all) to a CD, those that claim to prefer LP can not tell a difference.

A lot of people prefer one thing to another because it's familiar to them. No science to it. Like drinking pure water - has no taste.

 

[jnewmark]

Bill's point was that if you were to sample YOUR LP and burn the result to a CD, that CD would be an indistinguishable image of the LP. Of course, as the LP wore out, the CD would remain a capture of how it sounded on that particular player, that day.

Your Zeppelin II CD was mastered differently for the CD than it was for the LP. "Digital remastering" adds another issue there, where the original masters were reworked in an effort to demonstrate and use the enhanced fidelity of the CD.

<subjective> Often, if the remaster isn't done tastefully, I find this reveals a lot of artifacts (clipping, noise) that were not audible on the original media. </subjective>

Ok, I get it, thanks for the info. But, the record still sounds better, imho, than ANY cd I have heard of that particular recording.

 

[lindseyp]

I use the Furman SS-6B for the EMI/RFI protection and the circuit breaker. I have three of them, I plug all my guitar and bass amps into those. I have no faith in any wall outlet in Texas or Virginia.

 

[billfitzmaurice]

But which sounds more three dimensional, has more realistic timbre, better treble extension and superior imaging?
None of these things can be measured (except treble extension), but they are what makes the LP better.

Ah, yes, the classic argument of the Golden Eared Oddiophile. To which the engineer always replies that there is nothing which cannot be measured, except for that which is imagined.
As for the demise of the CD, perhaps. Where the average listener is concerned convenience has always trumped fidelity; were it not so the tape cassette would never have lasted ten minutes. Not to mention AM radio...

 

[uglyrumor]

This is the response I recieved from Janet Furman, founder of Furman, regarding the original post. Since she gave me permission, I thought I'd share it so the argument could either be settled or restarted, depending upon the whims of the forum. I found it helpful, and will continue to use protection with strange women and strange electrical outlets. Also, since she sold the company in about 1999, she was nice enough to check with the new company to see what may have changed.

Also, a quick look shows Phil Lesh and Mike Gordon using Furmans, although I'm not sure if the amps are run through them.


Hi Ricky,

I spoke to the engineering people at Furman to get you the most up-to-date answer. Here's the gist of it:

It depends on what kind of power conditioner you're talking about. Something basic, like the original Furman PL-8 or PL-PLUS that just offered MOV protection, would not have any effect at all on the ability of a power amp to respond to transients.

More modern conditioners that use series inductors to stop AC line spikes might. It would depend on the design. This type of conditioner is a tuned, damped filter that passes only 60 Hz and rejects all else. It provides better protection, but must be designed carefully. This is an issue that the different power conditioner companies focus on to claim an advantage over competing products. So you may see conflicting claims. At this point, I should say that while I no longer have a financial stake in Furman Sound, I'm not completely neutral. It's mainly that I know a lot more about Furman products and have a lot of experience in listening to them in use. So if this sounds like a plug for Furman, it sort of is because I have a lot of faith in the company's expertise, though it doesn't benefit me in any way if they sell one more unit.

Furman has some proprietary designs that make them particularly suitable for use with amps. I'm referring to the Power Factor series products that have a 45 amp current reservoir that "minimizes the detrimental effects of line impedance on high-current gear such as amplifiers and powered monitors". Yes, I'm quoting from a Furman ad, but this is exactly what you asked about. The Power Factor conditioners are available in either rack mount or floor box configurations.

The upshot is that if you do want to provide optimum protection and filtering for your power amps or bass amps, you need to get a conditioner that's designed for that purpose. Either that or use a classic, relatively inexpensive conditioner that doesn't provide more than minimal protection, but neither does it interfere with transient response.

Glad to help with this. You have my permission to quote from this letter.

Best
Janet Furman Bowman

(please call me Janet)


P.S. Janet is also one of us...a bass player!

 

[agedhorse]

Do you include the ferroresonant type device in that? Someone gave me one that came out of a hospital. Rated 1kVA it weighed 50 lb at keast. It was too large and too heavy for any use I might have so I tossed it. Maybe I should have sold it instead?

No, I didn't because of the weight. It's another form of voltage stabilizer that uses effectively a tank circuit (LC) to store/absorb and then release energy. These really do tend to work pretty well but AC line distortion may become a problem. From what I am aware of with them, their potential for oscillation is pretty limited due to the "R" factor in the tank that's unavoidable due to practical construction methods. Maybe Bob has some more experience with these?

 

[agedhorse]

Ok, I get it, thanks for the info. But, the record still sounds better, imho, than ANY cd I have heard of that particular recording.

It's also quite likely that the CD tracks have been re-mixed from the original multi-track materials (assets) in a way that does not sit well with your personal tastes.

 

[TheEnthBass]

I use a furman M-8x. I use it with a carvin b1500 solid state, also with a 73ish ampeg v4b. I play in some crappy places with power issues on occasion and have checked the difference between running both thourgh the furman and not. I get rid of unwanted hum and fluctuations in tone in places with dirty power and ground issues and havent encountered any issue with lose of tone, gain, or anything else. It is essentially a glorified power strip, just built well and you can put it in a rack. Convienient, not as cheap as a powerstrip but not much more than a good strip either. Harder to lose and has been perfectly consistent for 4yrs. The model your looking at is essentiallyt the same but with a few more features including a gimmicky voltmeter. I dont really care whats coming in for voltage just that whats coming out is clean. Why would you need a digital display that says "im doing what you bought me for" seems superfluous.

 

[zaubertuba]

I personally feel power conditioners of the type the OP is asking about may only really be effective in the line-level/preamp parts of the signal chain. It's easier (and cheaper) to deal with power quality issues at low signal-levels. Much more expensive when you get into serious amperage. Case in point:

Our venue (a good "medium-sized" house of 1,500 seats) indeed has power conditioners for all the FOH equipment. On top of this, we run a Soundcraft K2 mixer that has it's own dedicated, highly regulated and filtered power supply unit.

Our amp racks backstage don't have power conditioners--and they don't really need to: They're fed by a dedicated sound system power service with it's own 100-amp Transformer that isn't used for anything else but the audio system.

Perhaps a bit extreme, but the picture becomes fairly clear when you have hundreds of thousands of dollars of gear (and nearly as much in ticket sales) on the line.

Coming back down to earth, if I was pushing serious wattage, and was really worried about the quality of what was coming out of the outlet, I'd more likely get a power regenerator like one of the high-end PS audio units. Not really an issue for me at this point. As has been said, power amplifiers (at least decent ones) already have serious design work done at the power supply/filtering stage.

I have heard some say they got very good results with the less expensive conditioners like the OP is asking about when used with preamp/processing equipment, but that's for critical listening/monitoring, not necessarily live performance. I've personally seen even modest improvements in the power supply chain help the overall sound quality in a noticable fashion when doing critical listening with quality reproduction equipment.

Whether this is helpful at all in a live performance environment, well, I'm only now getting back into the performance scene as a musician myself, so the jury's still out.

As far as the endless cable and analog/digital debate, I have a lot of things I could say, but nothing relevant at all to this thread's actual topic.

 

[Calaverasgrande]

Dynamic range, signal-to-noise, frequency response, etc.

You can transcribe an LP to CD and it'll sound like like the LP.

If you transcribe a CD to LP, it'll sound like an LP recording.

uh, no. I am surprised that you cant hear the difference. Really. Records just plain sound great. It isnt a matter of how much lower or higher CD's go (in theory, actually you can't get right up to the nyquist point because the lowpass filter has to start rolling off before you get there) Also not a matter of SNR or dynamic range.
There is a certain immediacy and thickness to the sound that comes out of records that I have yet to hear in CDs. Maybe it's because LPs have so little channel separation, or the compression of the lathe, or the RIAA transfer curve. All of the above? But saying Cds are better than records based on specs is so 1985.
BTW I am not an anti digital snob, I have done dozens if not hundreds of digital recordings of other peoples music, and literally hundreds of my own songs/bands. A few analog ones before digital got cheap. Little demo for a band called Rancid once?
High sample rate/bit depth digital is pretty damn spiffy. But you gotta watch your headroom and make sure the tones are good going in.
16 bit 44.1k is kinda gross in comparison to 24/88.2.
And heck cheapo implementations of good converters with crappy op amps can have worse SNR than an LP. Regardless of what the CD's dynamic range is!

 

[Korladis]

Why are we talking about records? I thought this thread was about power conditioners.

 

[fourstringburn]

Furman has some proprietary designs that make them particularly suitable for use with amps. I'm referring to the Power Factor series products that have a 45 amp current reservoir that "minimizes the detrimental effects of line impedance on high-current gear such as amplifiers and powered monitors". Yes, I'm quoting from a Furman ad, but this is exactly what you asked about. The Power Factor conditioners are available in either rack mount or floor box configurations.

Funny thing , Furman recently discontinued the

"Rack mount and floor box power factor",

I wonder why?

 

[BassIan]

uh, no. I am surprised that you cant hear the difference. Really. Records just plain sound great. It isnt a matter of how much lower or higher CD's go (in theory, actually you can't get right up to the nyquist point because the lowpass filter has to start rolling off before you get there) Also not a matter of SNR or dynamic range.
There is a certain immediacy and thickness to the sound that comes out of records that I have yet to hear in CDs. Maybe it's because LPs have so little channel separation, or the compression of the lathe, or the RIAA transfer curve. All of the above? But saying Cds are better than records based on specs is so 1985.
BTW I am not an anti digital snob, I have done dozens if not hundreds of digital recordings of other peoples music, and literally hundreds of my own songs/bands. A few analog ones before digital got cheap. Little demo for a band called Rancid once?
High sample rate/bit depth digital is pretty damn spiffy. But you gotta watch your headroom and make sure the tones are good going in.
16 bit 44.1k is kinda gross in comparison to 24/88.2.
And heck cheapo implementations of good converters with crappy op amps can have worse SNR than an LP. Regardless of what the CD's dynamic range is!

First off, not a comparison to put "cheapo implementations" with "crappy converters" against a good turntable. Keep it fair, as nobody is trying to state that you can't make a CD sound bad.

Unless you can discern 16 bit 44.1k samples from 24 bit 88.2k samples in a double blind test, your assertion there is meaningless. Yes, there is absolutely a place for working with higher sample rates and bit depths, particularly with any potentially destructive processing. However, I wouldn't be alone in my awe if you could audibly discern two samples of the same audio at these different bit rates/depths.

What you call "immediacy" and "thickness" can be attributed to any number of parameters depending on what those terms mean to you. However, the limitations of vinyl in channel separation, dynamic range, and frequency response (RIAA curves) can all be matched completely by equivalent processing of a digital signal. Having produced as much as you claim to, you would know that you can only take away what's already there. If you want a "thick" sound, you can shelve off treble, or add some roundness from 80-150 hz. If you want "immediacy" you could add a bit of compression, maybe with some compressor pump for a bit of punch. But, if you *don't* want those things, it's pretty darn hard to remove the compression or frequency limitations of a vinyl.

I love vinyls just like I love my tube amplifiers and anything else nostalgic. However, I wouldn't kid myself into thinking I couldn't accomplish the exact same thing with more freedom by knowing my digital gear and DSP techniques.

CDs have more fidelity that vinyls. It is impossible to argue that. But, just the same, it is impossible to conclusively state that one media is better than the other when it comes to listening pleasure. This is entirely in the eye (ear?) of the beholder. But, let's be honest about what makes it enjoyable.

 

[JimmyM]

what kind of machine measures immediacy?

 

[billfitzmaurice]

what kind of machine measures immediacy?

First you have to define 'immediacy'.

 

[peterpalmieri]

Interesting read guys, thanks for the info.

For those that insist on using a "furman" in their rack and insist on plugging their amp into it there is a simple answer buy a rack mounted surge protector. Or run two power cords out of the rack one for the "conditioner" and the other for the power amp, it still keeps things neat and you are using the equipment for what it is intended for.

Interesting story...

A band I was playing with at an outdoor event was provided a poor power source (the same line as a refrigeration unit) and no other options. The bands PA had a true power conditioner and my bass amp was plugged into a floor box surge protector and into the outlet. When the refrigeration unit kicked on and the conditioner did it's thing both Crown XTI amps went into protection mode and were renderded useless for a half hour or so. No harm to my amp. I took an Aux out of the board and ran it into my bass amp to finish the set, vocals only.

Next set I plugged the XTI for the monitors directly into my power strip, during that set the mains went down again we flipped the monitors out towards the audience and continued playing.

I'm not an EE but I learned this lesson that some want to deny because it's cool to have a fancy rack...

 

[okcrum]

Interesting read guys, thanks for the info.

For those that insist on using a "furman" in their rack and insist on plugging their amp into it there is a simple answer buy a rack mounted surge protector. Or run two power cords out of the rack one for the "conditioner" and the other for the power amp, it still keeps things neat and you are using the equipment for what it is intended for.

Interesting story...<edit>

I'm not an EE but I learned this lesson that some want to deny because it's cool to have a fancy rack...

For this situation, it's not a conditioner that's needed; you'd need uninterruptible power. Even a resonant transformer conditioner wouldn't have enough energy storage to hold up under the suck of those big refrig units coming on. I'll bet they threw some nasty transients onto the power feed too.

 

[Burlington]

uh, no. I am surprised that you cant hear the difference. Really. Records just plain sound great. It isnt a matter of how much lower or higher CD's go (in theory, actually you can't get right up to the nyquist point because the lowpass filter has to start rolling off before you get there) Also not a matter of SNR or dynamic range.
There is a certain immediacy and thickness to the sound that comes out of records that I have yet to hear in CDs. Maybe it's because LPs have so little channel separation, or the compression of the lathe, or the RIAA transfer curve. All of the above? But saying Cds are better than records based on specs is so 1985.
BTW I am not an anti digital snob, I have done dozens if not hundreds of digital recordings of other peoples music, and literally hundreds of my own songs/bands. A few analog ones before digital got cheap. Little demo for a band called Rancid once?
High sample rate/bit depth digital is pretty damn spiffy. But you gotta watch your headroom and make sure the tones are good going in.
16 bit 44.1k is kinda gross in comparison to 24/88.2.
And heck cheapo implementations of good converters with crappy op amps can have worse SNR than an LP. Regardless of what the CD's dynamic range is!

 

[peterpalmieri]

For this situation, it's not a conditioner that's needed; you'd need uninterruptible power. Even a resonant transformer conditioner wouldn't have enough energy storage to hold up under the suck of those big refrig units coming on. I'll bet they threw some nasty transients onto the power feed too.

Again I'm no EE but from what I understand the change in power was enough to effect the conditioner which threw the amps into protection. When the amp was plugged directly into the source there was no problem.

This happened a few years back now, I took some advice here similar to what BFM and others mentioned including getting a tester and always looking for a clean source of power if things seem suspect.

That band no longer runs the power amps through a conditioner....

 

[okcrum]

Again I'm no EE but from what I understand the change in power was enough to effect the conditioner which threw the amps into protection. When the amp was plugged directly into the source there was no problem.

This happened a few years back now, I took some advice here similar to what BFM and others mentioned including getting a tester and always looking for a clean source of power if things seem suspect.

That band no longer runs the power amps through a conditioner....

Understand. I'm just surprised the amps didn't trip from the sag in the power, or that no other gear failed from the transients. I think you dodged a bullet there.