Torus RM15 vs. PS Audio Power Plant Plus

95Dyna · « **on:** 13 Jan 2009, 08:08 pm »

I'm far from knowledgable on power conditioning and regeneration and would appreciate some advice regarding the differences in these two products. Both claim to do the same thing and make the same improvements to the sound, both are very highly reviewed by the media as well as end users for the same benefits and both are the same price. The PS Audio PPP weighs less than half of the Torus and generates less heat simplifying placement but I am suspicious the extra bulk of the Torus translates into better current delivery. Does anybody have any experience with these two products. I would be using the unit with either the 7/14 or 28B.

Sasha · « **Reply #1 on:** 13 Jan 2009, 08:44 pm »

I do not have Torus, I bought my conditioner (Equitech) before Torus became available, so I cannot comment from the perspective of direct comparison of Torus vs. PS Audio Power Plant, but can with Equitech in the picture.
So, as far as I am concerned, if power amps, and especially large ones like 7/14/28, are to be connected, the ONLY viable option is balanced conditioner (be that on primary or secondary windings) with as large transformer as possible. The size matters in this case.
Power Plant is nice but not for amplification.
Go for largest Torus you can afford / your place can accommodate.

KeithA · « **Reply #2 on:** 13 Jan 2009, 09:46 pm »

I'm not sure if the PS Audio has the same level of surge supression or not (or any)?

I had one the older Power Plants (before they were redesigned in the small chassis). It worked great. I got rid of it because the large footprint (and wierd shape) meant it had to be in the middle of the floor.

I have the RM20 single phase and it workd great. I have a 14B and 6B SST running in there and there's never a problem.

I agree with Sasha to get the biggest one you can fit/afford. Overkill in that area is never a waste. However, the RM20 single phase is a viable option, IMHO. Not that I wouldn't have gotten the balanced....but I wasn't going to tear walls up to install the electrical circuit and the reviews of the RM20 single phase were all good, so I went with that one.

Keith

drummermitchell · « **Reply #3 on:** 14 Jan 2009, 12:55 am »

I have never tried the PS audio either,I was using Hydras(6) and Hydra 2s on my amps.
Dedicated lines ect.Torus leaves the Shunyatas way behind.I now have Torus 20a balannced(components)and a 60a balanced for my amps(5)
I had the 15a torus(components) and some amps.I then added a 20a which I used for my amps.
Everything got huge,bottom end ,soundstage.I even e-mailed James and asked what was happening.
I thought I was losing it.Torus for me is a MAJOR upgrade.I won't be selling these.

.
I possibly be receiving 28s also(I'll know friday)I am using7B-sstsX3+2X4Bssts.
I'm sure you won't be dissapointed.

95Dyna · « **Reply #4 on:** 14 Jan 2009, 02:08 pm »

Thanks for the input. Sounds like the Torus products are the favorites regardless of what they are compared to.

Syrah · « **Reply #5 on:** 14 Jan 2009, 03:00 pm »

Hi,

I have not heard the Torus so I can't directly answer your question. The PPP is not an iso trannie so I don't think one can assume that it is inferior because it weighs less.

I have a 2kva iso trannie that I used for my 120W tube monoblocks. The PPP was a big improvement over it.

The PPP is a slightly different animal from the former Ps Audio regenerators.

I hope this helps.

95Dyna · « **Reply #6 on:** 14 Jan 2009, 09:02 pm »

Thanks Syrah,

This is what I was looking for. I didn't necessarily want to conclude the Torus was a better regenerator because of its weight over the PPP. I also thought it possible that the PPP could provide comparable performance using a different more efficient technology. Its hard to tell from all the discussion and specs that are available. I've seen a couple comments out there to the effect that it is a great unit but not for high powered amps and lots of other great comments and reviews that don't mention this issue.

I'm not biased either way. The reason I'm interested in the comparison is that the Torus units RM 15/20 represent a placement challenge for me, not impossible, but the PPP would represent a much easier solution. I don't want to compromise for the sake of ease, however.

Bill

woodsyi · « **Reply #7 on:** 14 Jan 2009, 09:18 pm »

PPP is a power regenerator and Torus is a conditioner (trannie based) and surge protector (Zero-surge) from what I understand. Different animals for different habitats IMHO.

95Dyna · « **Reply #8 on:** 15 Jan 2009, 02:56 pm »

I just realized I mis-named the PS Audio product, it is the Power Plant Premier not Plus. In any event I think I'm beginning to understand they both are regenerators they just go about it differently. The PPP takes the AC from the wall and converts it to DC and during that process distills all the impurities out (voltage fluctuations et al) then converts back to lab quality AC at exactly 120V. It provides up to 1500 WATTS which is close to all you can get from the wall. The Torus is an isolation transformer as some of you have pointed out. I don't know how they work to achieve the same end but would be interested to know only as it relates to performance in my particular scenario mentioned previously. Specifically why the claim that an isolation transformer is the better approach for the 7/14B SST2.

James Tanner · « **Reply #9 on:** 15 Jan 2009, 03:21 pm »

Quote from: 95Dyna on 15 Jan 2009, 02:56 pm

I just realized I mis-named the PS Audio product, it is the Power Plant Premier not Plus. In any event I think I'm beginning to understand they both are regenerators they just go about it differently. The PPP takes the AC from the wall and converts it to DC and during that process distills all the impurities out (voltage fluctuations et al) then converts back to lab quality AC at exactly 120V. It provides up to 1500 WATTS which is close to all you can get from the wall. The Torus is an isolation transformer as some of you have pointed out. I don't know how they work to achieve the same end but would be interested to know only as it relates to performance in my particular scenario mentioned previously. Specifically why the claim that an isolation transformer is the better approach for the 7/14B SST2.

Hi Dyna

The reason 'the bigger the amp the better' with the Torus is because:

Benefit #1: Very low source impedance and high current for the power amplifier
Torus power isolation units present low impedance to any electronic device that is connected to them. A Single 20 amp Torus PIU has an output impedance of 0.2 ohms and can deliver 400 amp peaks (instantaneous current). The 100 amp unit only has .04 Ohms of output impedance. There is no electric (ohmic) connection between the outside power grid and the equipment plugged into the Torus and power is transferred magnetically. Magnetic transfer of power eliminates the effect of the source and the line impedance and also eliminates the transfer of DC components to the equipment. A typical 200 watt audio power amplifier demands 10 amps RMS current from a 120 volt line (1200VA) but may demand up to 50 amp instantaneous peaks. The standard residential wall receptacle can't supply the 50 amp peaks because they typically have higher nominal impedance. A Torus 20 amp PIU plugged into the same wall plug can supply these peak current requirements quite easily.

james

95Dyna · « **Reply #10 on:** 15 Jan 2009, 03:26 pm »

Thanks James and welcome back from the show. From all that I'm hearing it was a great show for Bryston with the Thiel and Maggie setups. Your explanation of the Torus has advanced my education considerably.

James Tanner · « **Reply #11 on:** 15 Jan 2009, 03:30 pm »

Quote from: 95Dyna on 15 Jan 2009, 03:26 pm

Thanks James and welcome back from the show. From all that I'm hearing it was a great show for Bryston with the Thiel and Maggie setups. Your explanation of the Torus has advanced my education considerably.

Thanks - nice to be back.

The show was very rewarding indeed. My 'mantra' for many years now has been "The Demo Is Everything" and I am happy to say this years demos were superb even if I do say so myself!

james

Moon Doggy · « **Reply #12 on:** 12 Mar 2009, 09:43 pm »

Quote from: 95Dyna on 13 Jan 2009, 08:08 pm

I'm far from knowledgable on power conditioning and regeneration and would appreciate some advice regarding the differences in these two products. Both claim to do the same thing and make the same improvements to the sound, both are very highly reviewed by the media as well as end users for the same benefits and both are the same price. The PS Audio PPP weighs less than half of the Torus and generates less heat simplifying placement but I am suspicious the extra bulk of the Torus translates into better current delivery. Does anybody have any experience with these two products. I would be using the unit with either the 7/14 or 28B.

The Torus RM 15 supplies 300 Amp peaks whereas the PS Audio Power Plant Premier supplies 50 Amp peaks. (See u-Tube vid) Thats the same amount as the Torus RM 2.5 delivers and it costs $895 vs. the PPP's list price of $2195. So if you find your PPP is getting very hot it is probably having trouble delivering enough current to your amp thus inhibiting dynamics etc. According to the Torus website the RM 2.5 is only suitable for the smallest of amps. About 50 watts, since it delivers 2.5 amps of continuous current. What does that say about the PS Audio Power Plant Premier?

Its a 1500 watt amp whereas the Torus 2.5 is a 300 watt amp....?

Very confusing to say the least since the PS PPP has some great reviews.

95Dyna · « **Reply #13 on:** 13 Mar 2009, 06:44 pm »

Hi Moon Doggy,

Indeed it is confusing. Bryston engineering has confirmed that the 7B SST2 will require 15 to 18 amps in peak demand situations or 30 to 36 total for the pair. If the PPP provides 50 for peaks and the ExactPower EP15 provides 46 seems to me both would be more than adequate. The Torus looks good to me but it weighs 95 pound and presents a placement problem. The PPP and EP15 weigh 36 and 30 lbs. respectively. There was a post on another thread from someone who added a PPP to his 14B configuration and he reports it took his sound from tolerable to excellent (see the 4B SST B & W 803 thread) and he did a number of tests to document the PPP's ability in the application. I'm assuming he used the display which provides information on power usage and voltage fluctuation etc.

Thanks for the response,

Bill

James Tanner · « **Reply #14 on:** 13 Mar 2009, 11:26 pm »

Hi All

The theory behind the PS power conditioners is a good one. It internally generates a very low-distortion AC sinewave, cleansed of RF and other noise artifacts. The amplifier should certainly be happy with that, so long as the peak current delivery is sufficient to satisfy the amplifier(s) plugged into it.

The theory behind the Torus Power Conditioners is a bit different: It still removes RF and noise artifacts, but it uses the incoming AC waveform from the wall, coupled with a high degree of internal energy storage. This allows the Torus to supply very high peak current, (hundreds of Amperes), and also provides a positive block against spikes and lightning strikes on the power line.

On short term transients large amplifiers can demand hundreds of peak amps.

james

NewBuyer · « **Reply #15 on:** 14 Mar 2009, 01:23 am »

This thread is helpful to me, as I too am considering PS Audio vs Torus at this time. I'm interested in each option and having trouble deciding as well.

My understanding is that in addition to removing noise and RFI, etc, the PPP as an active regenerator will notably also take care of clipped and distorted waveforms (including removal of the odd-order harmonics) as well as regulate voltage and provide a low-impedance output. In addition to providing a clean and newly-generated/undistorted waveform, the PPP can also output a choice of proprietary improved waveforms (i.e. MultiWave, CleanWave) with noticeably improved sonic results. Downside is the presence of an internal fan (which may rarely turn on), but still is a moving part.

The Torus is a passive device intended to handle the conditioning/isolating/noise-removal and a low-impedance output, but you are still left with the clipped and distorted wave form from the wall. The Torus may be very heavy and difficult to place - but has no moving parts. However the recent Secrets of Home Theater and High Fidelity review of the Torus seemed to show that, when actually hooked up to an FFT analyzer and compared with the power directly from the wall socket, the tested Torus unit actually produced more AC noise within the potentially audible band of 3k to 12k! (and in the comments below the review, said this may not be uncommon in isolated and balanced power conditioner products generally)

So I will (as usual) just have to demo both and see for myself. Amounts to work, but fun work!

Moon Doggy · « **Reply #16 on:** 14 Mar 2009, 07:38 am »

I settled on the Torus BX 10. It was dead quiet compared to my previous Rotel RLC-1040. And the isolated power supply was like a major amp upgrade. My amp sailed through track 3- "The Battle" from the Gladiator soundtrack with ease. I now detected what seemed like 3 or 4 different bass lines at times in the song where before the bass was muddy and indistinct without the Torus in my system.

95Dyna · « **Reply #17 on:** 16 Mar 2009, 01:39 pm »

Quote from: James Tanner on 13 Mar 2009, 11:26 pm

Hi All

The theory behind the PS power conditioners is a good one. It internally generates a very low-distortion AC sinewave, cleansed of RF and other noise artifacts. The amplifier should certainly be happy with that, so long as the peak current delivery is sufficient to satisfy the amplifier(s) plugged into it.

The theory behind the Torus Power Conditioners is a bit different: It still removes RF and noise artifacts, but it uses the incoming AC waveform from the wall, coupled with a high degree of internal energy storage. This allows the Torus to supply very high peak current, (hundreds of Amperes), and also provides a positive block against spikes and lightning strikes on the power line.

On short term transients large amplifiers can demand hundreds of peak amps.

james

HI James,

I hope you'll bear with me here but the short term peak current requirements of the amp (in this case the 7B SST2) as it relates to what the power conditioner can provide becomes more confusing to me the further I dig into this. On the other Torus thread Chris in engineering responded to the question and said the 7B SST2 will require from 15-18 amps (30-36 for a pair) for short term peak current. Here you're saying a large amp can require hundreds of amps for peak requirements. This leads me to the conclusion the definition of "short term peak requirement" is different in the two scenarios. Are we talking about two different things here?

Thanks,

Bill

James Tanner · « **Reply #18 on:** 16 Mar 2009, 04:20 pm »

Quote from: 95Dyna on 16 Mar 2009, 01:39 pm

Quote from: James Tanner on 13 Mar 2009, 11:26 pm
Hi All

The theory behind the PS power conditioners is a good one. It internally generates a very low-distortion AC sinewave, cleansed of RF and other noise artifacts. The amplifier should certainly be happy with that, so long as the peak current delivery is sufficient to satisfy the amplifier(s) plugged into it.

The theory behind the Torus Power Conditioners is a bit different: It still removes RF and noise artifacts, but it uses the incoming AC waveform from the wall, coupled with a high degree of internal energy storage. This allows the Torus to supply very high peak current, (hundreds of Amperes), and also provides a positive block against spikes and lightning strikes on the power line.

On short term transients large amplifiers can demand hundreds of peak amps.

james

HI James,

I hope you'll bear with me here but the short term peak current requirements of the amp (in this case the 7B SST2) as it relates to what the power conditioner can provide becomes more confusing to me the further I dig into this. On the other Torus thread Chris in engineering responded to the question and said the 7B SST2 will require from 15-18 amps (30-36 for a pair) for short term peak current. Here you're saying a large amp can require hundreds of amps for peak requirements. This leads me to the conclusion the definition of "short term peak requirement" is different in the two scenarios. Are we talking about two different things here?

Thanks,

Bill

Hi Bill,

When we tested the 4B ST we were getting peak requirements of 48.6 amps so the 7B (each) would be similar and the 14B and 28B would be much larger. The maximum current requirement will depend on the speaker impedance as well - lower the impedance the more current it needs. I will have Chris do a much more detailed answer for you.

james

James Tanner · « **Reply #19 on:** 17 Mar 2009, 02:54 pm »

Hi Bill;

Sorry for the confusion, I should have been more clear: The short-term current peaks that I referred to in my previous answer were actually short-term RMS current levels. That was confusing because the current waveform to the power supply of a large amplifier is quite non-linear. The DC power-supply actually only recharges the filter capacitors over a small portion of the waveform, at the peaks of the AC Voltage sinewave. With an undistorted sinewave, the peak-to-average ratio is 1.414:1, so an RMS current of 15A calculates to peaks of 15A RMS X 1.414 = 21.21A pk. However, when charging the filter caps in a DC power-supply, the peak-to-average ratio of the distorted current waveform can be as high as 3:1 or 4:1. Thus, a 15-Amp RMS current from the wall-socket to a power amplifier can easily translate to 50 or more Amperes of peak current being asked for over parts of the waveform.

When that happens, the wiring in the house and in the power lines restricts those peaks, due to resistance in the lines, and drops them by as much as 20%. The Torus Power Conditioner solves that problem by supplying the peak current from its huge magnetic energy-storage capacity. The house wiring 'sees' only the 1.414:1 peak-to-average ratio of a relatively undistorted current sinewave, while the Torus Power-Conditioner supplies the full 50-Amp peaks without restriction. That allows the dynamic energy in the music to come through much more powerfully, eliminating any mushiness or loss of focus in the reproduction.

Thus, when talking about a 7B SST2 amplifier drawing 36 Amperes RMS, that can easily translate to instantaneous peaks of 125 Amps or more over parts of the waveform. The larger the amplifier, the greater the need for these high charging currents.

cwr