Industrial Power Filters Beat Audiophile Power Conditioners (in Measurements)

[Ron Resnick]

We prefer quality posts.

Well, it is on his own accord. To the detriment of his own forum. Ask yourself why?

Tom

This was a responsibly and soberly written article which questions our subjectivist views on WBF, without being perjorative or ridiculing. The thesis of the article is not ludicrous. In fact, Peter indicated that even from his purely subjectivist comparative auditioning point of view he agrees with some elements of the article. Mike Lavigne is quoted in the article.

I believe in the marketplace of ideas. Some members are not so weighed down by their dogma as to be intellectually incapable of defending substantively their subjectivist views against objectivist critiques.

I enjoy debating people with views with which I disagree. Some people are not temperamentally disposed to be able to engage in that kind of a debate.

Your suggestion that I ever would do anything to the "detriment" of this forum is offensive. I am happy to leave that question to the good judgment of our members.

I understand that you perceive as threatening my occasional efforts to maintain the hobbyist-centric focus and ethos of What's Best Forum. Silly me for raising a possibly interesting audio hobby question for audio hobbyists on an audio hobby forum.

 

[tima]

The OP is not exactly a ground-breaking article.

The following 2024 article provides some specifications and pricing for 24 different PDUs, mostly from audiophile oriented manufacturers while covering similar territory with less chiding. More interesting, fewer pearl-clutching comments follow the article.

A Sanely Priced Power Conditioner That Actually Works Objectively and Subjectively - OnFilter Powe Distribution Unit

Hello all, As the title may suggests this is my review of OnFilter’s PDU (Power Distribution Unit) which is power conditioner (EMI + RFI Filtering) plus power strip. I very well know this might be a controversial topic, but I will still go ahead. As a disclaimer, I am not affiliated with...

www.hifivision.com

 

[tima]

Well, it is one of the sites co-owners who posted a link to the article and started the thread. Are you suggesting the moderators should prevent the owner from starting a thread on his own audio forum? People can read the article or ignore it and decide for themselves whether or not it has value. Why advocate for censorship?

I think Tom's post was not advocating censorship so much as preferring not to drag a mediocre article that introduces controversy from another audio Web site over here to discuss it, particularly if only talks in terms of measurements. (As he mentions he may be reflexing on the past Amir debacle, which is understandable.*) I think we both agree that the topic of using industrial products in audio systems is certainly worth exploring. Surely someone here is fully capable of starting such a thread that covers both the performance of non-audiophile products and listening, although that may be distasteful to certain dealer/sponsors.

* not to be confused with current member @Amir

 

[PeterA]

I think Tom's post was not advocating censorship so much as preferring not to drag a mediocre article that introduces controversy from another audio Web site over here to discuss it, particularly if only talks in terms of measurements. (As he mentions he may be reflexing on the past Amir debacle, which is understandable.*) I think we both agree that the topic of using industrial products in audio systems is certainly worth exploring. Surely someone here is fully capable of starting such a thread that covers both the performance of non-audiophile products and listening, although that may be distasteful to certain dealer/sponsors.

* not to be confused with current member @Amir

I am all for superior measurements, but in this subjective hobby, I think judgments should be made based on the comparative listening experience. The possibility that an industrial grade product delivers better performance and we prefer how it sounds should be welcome news, especially since it may cost less than something with an audio file label.

I’m not speaking to the quality of the article. I simply like the existence of such articles because they introduce some like me to an alternative outside of the audio magazines, reviews, and marketing. And I agree with Ron that the conclusion is not that surprising. If anything, I think such articles just encourage us to do more comparative listening and not to simply accept that audio file grade is better.

 

[Holmz]

I am all for superior measurements, but in this subjective hobby, I think judgments should be made based on the comparative listening experience. The possibility that an industrial grade product delivers better performance and we prefer how it sounds should be welcome news, especially since it may cost less than something with an audio file label.

It is not like there is a choice though.
Few, if not none, of these things have any measurements provided.

I’m not speaking to the quality of the article. I simply like the existence of such articles because they introduce some like me to an alternative outside of the audio magazines, reviews, and marketing. And I agree with Ron that the conclusion is not that surprising. If anything, I think such articles just encourage us to do more comparative listening and not to simply accept that audio file grade is better.

Agree

 

[PeterA]

It is not like there is a choice though.
Few, if not none, of these things have any measurements provided.

I was under the impression from the article that industrial grade products do often have measurements.

 

[Holmz]

I was under the impression from the article that industrial grade products do often have measurements.

Yeah I was referring the audiophile ones.

If one is doing something in a laboratory, then they usually have things like NIST traceability and metrology departments,
And those things need to do what they say that they do, from a scale to callipers, to voltmeters.

 

[Kingrex]

I was disappointed in the article. It didn't contain much valuable information. I was into it when he was talking about distortions and how some scope read it. Or smooth it over and don't measure the peaks. But he lost me when he had 0 measurements of anything outside the OnFilter.

When he started talking about recording studios and noted they don't use filters, or use Equitech, I knew he was full of crap. Art Kelm or Ground One, as far as I know, has worked on at least 200 studio and from what I remember of my conversations with him, the majority use a Controlled Power or Torus isolation transformer. Non use a balanced power transformer like Equitech. It is something about how some studio equipment may have the signal grounded. If some gear saw 120v to ground and another piece saw 60 volt to ground, it would cause all sorts of problems.

Anyhow, I am sure the OnFiler is a good commercial filter. If you wanted to use a filter with a computer, it might be a very good choice. If someone were on a budget, it may be a lot better than no filter at all. In certain circumstances. In others, it may cause more harm than good.

 

[Gregm]

The OP is not exactly a ground-breaking article.

The following 2024 article provides some specifications and pricing for 24 different PDUs, mostly from audiophile oriented manufacturers while covering similar territory with less chiding.

Thanks for sharing this reference—really interesting!


When it comes to measurements, we all know that they’re absolutely essential for designing and manufacturing the products we use. The subjective part comes later, when we listen to those products and form personal opinions about the sound we enjoy.

OTOH we wanted to measure the sound we like, we’d first need to identify which measurements can objectively capture those characteristics—a far more complex task than simply expressing a preference. On the flip side, how many people can accurately predict the actual physical sound of a piece of equipment (aside from speakers) just by reading its measurements?

Indeed, which measurement(s) correlate directly to what groups of people together call "great sound". Tube amps, for example, are favoured by a large number of people, but their measurements are not stellar -- which begs the question of whether said measurements correlate directly to our perception of pleasant or preferred sound.

 

[tima]

Indeed, which measurement(s) correlate directly to what groups of people together call "great sound". Tube amps, for example, are favoured by a large number of people, but their measurements are not stellar -- which begs the question of whether said measurements correlate directly to our perception of pleasant or preferred sound.

Considering your two sentences together ...

If the measurements of an amp "are not stellar" but people like its sound, maybe those measurements are not the ones to look at for correlation "to what groups of people together call "great sound"."

Perhaps a better understanding of what Ralph K calls "the rules of human hearing" and V. Lamm described mathematically as "the human hearing mechanism" would help us learn what measurements are important for assessing "great sound". We cannot change how we perceive sound or music, even in the face of what passes for good specs.

“As humans,” Lamm observes, “we are created in a certain way. We perceive sound on various levels: conscious as well as subconscious or intuitive. We perceive sound not just with our ears, but with the whole body.” He called these constructs the Absolute Linearity of a System -- a sort of unified field theory of amplifier design he uses to explain how an amplifier should measure if it is to reproduce sound congruent with the way people naturally perceive it.

We find few audio manufacturers talking in these terms, or at least I don't read it in most of the marketing literature. Perhaps there is a reluctance to reveal certain beliefs. I suspect that to many manufacturers the measurements available to them are descriptions not predictions. They all have the same measurements available to them but most products sound differently from one another. Understanding how people hear may give us insight to correlation.

 

[wil]

Considering your two sentences together ...

If the measurements of an amp "are not stellar" but people like its sound, maybe those measurements are not the ones to look at for correlation "to what groups of people together call "great sound"."

Perhaps a better understanding of what Ralph K calls "the rules of human hearing" and V. Lamm described mathematically as "the human hearing mechanism" would help us learn what measurements are important for assessing "great sound". We cannot change how we perceive sound or music, even in the face of what passes for good specs.

“As humans,” Lamm observes, “we are created in a certain way. We perceive sound on various levels: conscious as well as subconscious or intuitive. We perceive sound not just with our ears, but with the whole body.” He called these constructs the Absolute Linearity of a System -- a sort of unified field theory of amplifier design he uses to explain how an amplifier should measure if it is to reproduce sound congruent with the way people naturally perceive it.

We find few audio manufacturers talking in these terms, or at least I don't read it in most of the marketing literature. Perhaps there is a reluctance to reveal certain beliefs. I suspect that to many manufacturers the measurements available to them are descriptions not predictions. They all have the same measurements available to them but most products sound differently from one another. Understanding how people hear may give us insight to correlation.

I totally agree that our complex mental and sensory experience is all that ultimately matters in this audio game.

Measurements are useful to the designer/engineer in understanding where they are in relation to specific goals. If you’re trying to reduce EMI, then obviously every measurement tool at your disposal to measure EMI can be useful. Whether this work translates into “better sound“ is another story.

My problem is with some audio manufacturers who allow their marketing departments to speak to their customers in fairy tale language. But they are sure to throw in the word “technology” in almost every sentence lest we forget.

Or, for example, extremely expensive cables whose only claim to fame is that they use “gold” as if that will make us weak in the knees. (Never mind that this is micron thick gold electroplate that is dirt cheap.).

And if a magic box is specifically marketed at reducing atmospheric emi in the listening room, but offers no objective data that it actually does so — color me sceptical.

Back to the article, and the example of OnFilter: I appreciate that they offer apparently meaningful measurements related to the object of their filter. Whether that translates to an improvement and sound quality, who knows until you try it. I have found it does make an improvement here, but I’m still trying different scenarios.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

thank you.

yes; he took my performance comments about my dirty in room outlets, and then tied it to my comments about the plug in box size not related to performance.

complete miss quote and made up.

i did post a request for a deletion of my comments.

all about click bait....all the time.

looking this morning, they did delete the miss quote of me and all reference to me. credit where credit is due.

 

[tima]

Back to the article, and the example of OnFilter: I appreciate that they offer apparently meaningful measurements related to the object of their filter. Whether that translates to an improvement and sound quality, who knows until you try it. I have found it does make an improvement here, but I’m still trying different scenarios.

Listening is important. If there is a general rule that reducing or eliminating EMI yields better sound, that rule did not come from measurement.

 

[Paul1960]

The outcome of a subjective review of the OnFilter was less favorable than the measurements suggest: https://6moons.com/audioreview_articles/onfilter/. All in the context of the reviewers system of course.

I'm not going to try and plow through 6moons horribly formatted review but I can tell you that I own 3 of the OnFilter AFN515FM power filters which I evaluated subjectively and found to be a significant improvement. Two of them are used behind my Krell FPB 650M monoblocks with absolutely no diminution of dynamics etc. And one of them is at the front end of my source components followed by a Nordost QBase 8 MK III. They are cheap and effective.

 

[Holmz]

Listening is important. If there is a general rule that reducing or eliminating EMI yields better sound, that rule did not come from measurement.

Actually it probably did come from measurements.
People have been doing RF and communication devises for over a century, and of course the first hifi/music units were radios in houses.

Of course there is a lot more EMI now than when Marconi started out.

 

[tima]

... If there is a general rule that reducing or eliminating EMI yields better sound, that rule did not come from measurement.

Actually it probably did come from measurements.
People have been doing RF and communication devises for over a century, and of course the first hifi/music units were radios in houses.

Of course there is a lot more EMI now than when Marconi started out.

How did the judgement that low EMI improves system sound come from measurements ?

 

[wil]

I'm not going to try and plow through 6moons horribly formatted review but I can tell you that I own 3 of the OnFilter AFN515FM power filters which I evaluated subjectively and found to be a significant improvement. Two of them are used behind my Krell FPB 650M monoblocks with absolutely no diminution of dynamics etc. And one of them is at the front end of my source components followed by a Nordost QBase 8 MK III. They are cheap and effective.

I agree that the 6 moons review is basically unreadable — just a confused mess. If a reviewer can’t organize their thoughts to be comprehensible, I’m not going to take them seriously. (Interesting that when I’ve heard him verbally in conversations with Darko, he’s organized and eloquent.)

 

[JiminGa]

Considering your two sentences together ...

If the measurements of an amp "are not stellar" but people like its sound, maybe those measurements are not the ones to look at for correlation "to what groups of people together call "great sound"."

Perhaps a better understanding of what Ralph K calls "the rules of human hearing" and V. Lamm described mathematically as "the human hearing mechanism" would help us learn what measurements are important for assessing "great sound". We cannot change how we perceive sound or music, even in the face of what passes for good specs.

“As humans,” Lamm observes, “we are created in a certain way. We perceive sound on various levels: conscious as well as subconscious or intuitive. We perceive sound not just with our ears, but with the whole body.” He called these constructs the Absolute Linearity of a System -- a sort of unified field theory of amplifier design he uses to explain how an amplifier should measure if it is to reproduce sound congruent with the way people naturally perceive it.

We find few audio manufacturers talking in these terms, or at least I don't read it in most of the marketing literature. Perhaps there is a reluctance to reveal certain beliefs. I suspect that to many manufacturers the measurements available to them are descriptions not predictions. They all have the same measurements available to them but most products sound differently from one another. Understanding how people hear may give us insight to correlation.

Thanks. Very interesting and I agree while heartedly. I'll add a few more thoughts. "Sound" is transmitted to the brain via a membrane, vibrating bones and its own dedicated cranial nerve to the brain where it is interpreted as "music". If it stopped there we could have an objective basis by which Lamm or others could design for and please almost everyone. But it doesn't. No two people naturally perceive sound the same way ( but they can be trained to come close) PET scans clearly show that the very same data stream is being interpreted differently by different parts of the brain depending upon whether its classical or jazz or if the listener is a professional musician or a casual listener. .Different ages, musical preferences, training also lead to different listening curve preferences. Speaker manufacturers are aware this. Pleasing one group may leave another cold. This is fundamental to understanding many of our differences here and why we will never have a holy grail spec to design to in isolation. Everyone's brain by nature interprets music differently. Lamm can not build an amplifier that will "appeal" to everyone. What "spec" can we use where everyone's human mind (as opposed to simply the brain) will interpret it as meeting its specific needs? What he can do is develop a sound which will resonate with as many potential buyers as possible who are willing to pay the price demanded. That is in fact what a lot a manufacturers do without having any actual understanding of personal psychoacoustics. This is why we all get it so wrong here, on ASR and, in other much more important aspects of our life. We assume that we are all more or less the same and that variances spring from "deficiencies" (Others - 'stupid" tube/ss, vinyl/digital people etc. Ours- I wish I could hear like Fremer or Harley or Valin. I'll just do what they say) They don't. The fact is we all seek different things because we are all so very beautifully different and we are actually seeking different things. (or at least different avenues to the same things)The human mind (as opposed to the human brain) is actually very poorly understood and there are those who argue that it doesn't even exist. Music is one of the most fundamentally personal/spiritual things in existence. Anything that connects us to it is a very good thing. This is a great thing for manufacturers.Work hard to find human connection however you find it and go all in. Everyone's not going to like it. That's ok. Sorry for going on so long and veering off.

 

[Kingrex]

Just because a filter has good measurement readings does not mean it was made with quality parts. The Onfilter is a bank of capacitors and some Chokes or inductors. There is a circuit board in there as well as solder, wire and connectors. Lots of places distortions that are not included in the filters measurements can be introduced.

What I am saying is, we have little idea if measurably higher performance characteristics in a filter is good or not so good because we are unsure the influence the whole of the parts used are influencing the end, perceived sound.

 

[Paul1960]

Just because a filter has good measurement readings does not mean it was made with quality parts. The Onfilter is a bank of capacitors and some Chokes or inductors. There is a circuit board in there as well as solder, wire and connectors. Lots of places distortions that are not included in the filters measurements can be introduced.

What I am saying is, we have little idea if measurably higher performance characteristics in a filter is good or not so good because we are unsure the influence the whole of the parts used are influencing the end, perceived sound.

I agree that how something measures in audio has little correlation with how things sound, assuming measurements don't show any gross flaws. I bought the first OnFilter unit because of the subjective improvement in sound some users were claiming. I bought the other two OnFilter units because of the subjective improvement in sound that I experienced.

For some reason there seem to be people who object to the OnFilter products because they measure well and don't cost very much or make assumptions about how they must sound from the design. I have learned to ignore people like that.