[bmckenney]

I have very much enjoyed the RM 10 over the past 10 days.  I'll be returning it tomorrow and bringing home the Q for a few days of in-home audition.  I'm a excited to see whether I notice much difference between the two.  My mind says I won't notice much difference because these types of devices are not in the signal path. It won't be like an A/B comparison of two different preamplifiers.  And they both have a great reputation, which could make it hard to find one is different than the other.  And they are similar in that they are isolation transformers and not regenerators.  But maybe the more expensive, greater KVAs, balanced output of the Q delivers AC better than the more affordable RM10.  But will I notice a difference?  Is my system up to showing the difference, if there is one.  We'll see.

Back to the RM10.  I really love what it does.  On paper it is apparently borderline from a capacity point of view for my amp but I do not notice any limiting of current.  It does offer up several improvement for me.  BTW, I posted earlier about some forwardness, but that is gone.  My integrated amp and cd player are the only components in the RM10.  And my home is 60 years old with original wiring and I do not have dedicate lines.  Obviously I'm a great candidate for AC conditioning products.

Improvements are:

Very significant improvement in transparency.  Less noise, more information.  I recently installed 7 bass traps in my room which really cleaned up frequencies and I'm convinced that because of this I can here what the cleaner power from the RM10 offers better than what would be heard in an untreated room.  Very high marks to the RM10 in this area.

Greater sense of dynamic contrasting.  Less noise, cleaner attacks?  Does the low impedance design provide better current delivery?  Again, very high marks to the RM10 in this area.

More relaxed, smoother presentation.  Almost liquid like.  Not sure I have described this well.  And I'm not sure that I like all aspects of this, to be honest.  There is a small part of it that isn't quite right.  I'm not sure if the part that bugs me is just something else in my system that the RM10 is bringing to light, or if its the nature of the RM10.

Bryan

[bmckenney]

When I first tried the equi=tech it sounded very constrained with very minimal dynamics and drive.  I had the stock (typical molded Belden type) Torus cord on it.  That's what the dealer gave me when I returned the Torus and picked up the equi=tech.  So I pulled a Virtual Dynamics cord I was using on my CD player and put it on the input of the equi=tech.  Then I put another cord on the CD player, a Foundation Research cord/conditioner I wasn't using in my system.  That made a world of difference.  It's interesting that I didn't have to resort to this with the Torus, but I should have experimented more anyway. 

My thoughts on the equi=tech compared to the Torus are below.  I will be swapping the two units again, hopefully Tuesday, so I can try the Torus again, with the same cords I was using with the equi=tech.  Especially so I can see what the Foundation Research does in the mix, and even with having the VD cord on the input of the Torus instead of the stock cord.  Should be interesting.  I am truly expecting the Torus to ramp up to the equi=tech in terms of transparency but I also hope that it shows up the equi=tech in terms of musicality.  I think that liquid sound I heard with the Torus before will manifest itself in to a musicality attribute that the equi=tech doesn't have, and that doesn't bug me like it did before.  The equi=tech seems to be more about detail from what I'm hearing.  Since the Torus sounded so good without having to swap cords like I did for the equi=tech, I'm hoping it shows the same sort of improvements in my system.  If that's the case, I think I have a winner. 

===================================================================
There is a significant improvement in resolution because of less noise.  It is not subtle at all.  I notice this particularly in the midrange on up.  It's not that it sounds brighter which I think is a false sense of detail.  It is not tilted up in the least.  It's a very natural frequency response sense of increased resolution.  But I do find it to be more like increased transparency without the musicality that should go with the detail.  And I also notice an improvement in how clean bass frequencies are.  It's not as big a factor as what I hear in the mids, but enough to say it wasn't subtle either.  The other thing that I noticed is that liquid, smooth attribute I noticed and didn't particularly like with the Torus is gone.  Things are still smooth of course, as they should be with cleaned up AC, but with the better resolution its sounds like an opaque glassy filter is gone.  If the equi=tech is a 10, I give the Torus a 7.5 in this department.  And I?d give the wall a 4.   

As for dynamics.  This is a much closer call for me.  I'd have to say I can't tell any difference at all.  Both are exemplary in macro dynamic contrasts compared to my wall power.  But I'd give a big nod to the equi=tech in micro dynamics.  I attribute this to the increased resolution I hear.  As I year more detail, less smearing, I also pick up the subtle peaks and valley's of micro dynamics with the equi=tech.

Bryan

[95Dyna]

Hi Bryan,

I appreciate you sharing your findings in this comparison but am curious as to why you are comparing the Q 1.5 to the RM10 when on paper the Q 1.5 looks more like the RM 15 or 20 and costs 2.5 times what the RM 10 costs.  In a recent development the RM/CS 15 is even a better value priced only $200.00 more than the 10.  That being said I would want to see a breathtaking difference in performance in all areas from the Q 1.5 @ $4,500.00.  Here we go again with that pesky "law of diminishing returns"!

Bill

[bmckenney]

Bill,

I was wondering if someone was going to mention this. 

First of all, my supporting dealer does not have the RM15, only the RM10.  I rationalized this being a fair comparision anyway because the only difference between the RM10 and the equi=tech is the KVA current capability difference and my systems requirements are low enough current draw that it can be serviced by either unit.  In theory and from my listening tests the RM 10 is not having a problem delivering current to my system.  The price difference should not be a factor IMO even thought its double from a retail perspective.  And even though the RM15 may be the better buy right now, this is just a comparison of results.  But I may buy an RM15 in the end because of the value.  I'm just comparing the noise reduction capabilities of two different isolation transformer line conditioners.  And what their noise reduction capabilities translate in terms of audible differences in audio playback.

What I don't know is if having more KVA's on tap and more headroom add's audible value even though a system isn't taxing the lower KVA unit.

Bryan

[werd]

Bill,

I was wondering if someone was going to mention this. 

First of all, my supporting dealer does not have the RM15, only the RM10.  I rationalized this being a fair comparision anyway because the only difference between the RM10 and the equi=tech is the KVA current capability difference and my systems requirements are low enough current draw that it can be serviced by either unit.  In theory and from my listening tests the RM 10 is not having a problem delivering current to my system.  The price difference should not be a factor IMO even thought its double from a retail perspective.  And even though the RM15 may be the better buy right now, this is just a comparison of results.  But I may buy an RM15 in the end because of the value.  I'm just comparing the noise reduction capabilities of two different isolation transformer line conditioners.  And what their noise reduction capabilities translate in terms of audible differences in audio playback.

What I don't know is if having more KVA's on tap and more headroom add's audible value even though a system isn't taxing the lower KVA unit.

Bryan

Hello

yes it does, here is a quote taken from James  on another Torus topic.

 A 'normal' linear amplifier power-supply is made up of a transformer, a bridge rectifier and a set of filter capacitors. The filter capacitors smooth the DC in the rectified waveform, and also store energy to supply large transient current demands from the speakers. The filter capacitors in turn are recharged by the transformer on each half-cycle. However, that recharging takes place on the very peaks of the 60Hz waveform, over only a few degrees of conduction. Thus, although the average current from the power cord is only a few Amperes, it is actually a series of very narrow, very high peaks of current, as much as 50 or more Amperes per half-cycle.
 
Those high, narrow peaks of current have a consequence. They equate to drops in Voltage from the power cord, from the wall socket, from the wiring leading to the house.  The audible consequence in turn impacts on focus, dynamics, depth of image, 'holography, etc.


This also demonstrates the need for big transformer output for constant cap regen.

I think you will find more audible results if you overpower your speakers with amp power instead of at the wall. However doing this will require more wall power too.... so it never ends.

[werd]

Hello

Just to clarify where i am coming from. I would even venture to say that with your amp, the rm100 would sound better than the rm10 or the rm20. The bigger the storage the better here is what i am saying.

[bmckenney]

I wonder how much benefit there is with more KVA capability.  I wish I could compare the RM10 to the RM15 to see.  I didn't find much difference between the RM10 and the 15KVA's of the equi=tech in macro dynamics.  But maybe that doesn't mean there aren't differences between the RM10 and RM15 and I just don't realize it. 

What you're saying makes sense.  But I'm sure I asked one of the technical guys from Plitron if there is an audible difference to be had and I thought the answer was no.  Maybe I didn't ask the question right or there was a misunderstanding.  But we did do the math and the RM10 is supposed to work.  But maybe the RM15 just works better, which of course interests me.

The RM10 will be brought back in today hopefully and I'm going to give it another listen with the same cord configuration I ended up with the equi=tech.  If there is an improvement then I think the equi=tech will be ruled out.

I'd like to try one more PLC.  A regenerator instead of an isolation transformer.  A PurePower 1050.  Not sure if this will happen because their dealer network is limited and they seem reluctant to offer me a return policy.

Bryan

[werd]

I wonder how much benefit there is with more KVA capability.  I wish I could compare the RM10 to the RM15 to see.  I didn't find much difference between the RM10 and the 15KVA's of the equi=tech in macro dynamics.  But maybe that doesn't mean there aren't differences between the RM10 and RM15 and I just don't realize it. 

What you're saying makes sense.  But I'm sure I asked one of the technical guys from Plitron if there is an audible difference to be had and I thought the answer was no.  Maybe I didn't ask the question right or there was a misunderstanding.  But we did do the math and the RM10 is supposed to work.  But maybe the RM15 just works better, which of course interests me.

The RM10 will be brought back in today hopefully and I'm going to give it another listen with the same cord configuration I ended up with the equi=tech.  If there is an improvement then I think the equi=tech will be ruled out.

I'd like to try one more PLC.  A regenerator instead of an isolation transformer.  A PurePower 1050.  Not sure if this will happen because their dealer network is limited and they seem reluctant to offer me a return policy.

Bryan

Hello

The law of diminishing returns here is probably what the tech is trying to say. But remember that James pointed out that these techs aren't all audiophiles so they don't have the same respect for subtle change as we do. The rm100  would be definite overkill here and not worth the money. Nonetheless there would certainly be differences in microdynamics and the sensation of limitless power.

[95Dyna]

I wonder how much benefit there is with more KVA capability.  I wish I could compare the RM10 to the RM15 to see.  I didn't find much difference between the RM10 and the 15KVA's of the equi=tech in macro dynamics.  But maybe that doesn't mean there aren't differences between the RM10 and RM15 and I just don't realize it. 

What you're saying makes sense.  But I'm sure I asked one of the technical guys from Plitron if there is an audible difference to be had and I thought the answer was no.  Maybe I didn't ask the question right or there was a misunderstanding.  But we did do the math and the RM10 is supposed to work.  But maybe the RM15 just works better, which of course interests me.

The RM10 will be brought back in today hopefully and I'm going to give it another listen with the same cord configuration I ended up with the equi=tech.  If there is an improvement then I think the equi=tech will be ruled out.

I'd like to try one more PLC.  A regenerator instead of an isolation transformer.  A PurePower 1050.  Not sure if this will happen because their dealer network is limited and they seem reluctant to offer me a return policy.

Bryan

Hello

The law of diminishing returns here is probably what the tech is trying to say. But remember that James pointed out that these techs aren't all audiophiles so they don't have the same respect for subtle change as we do. The rm100  would be definite overkill here and not worth the money. Nonetheless there would certainly be differences in microdynamics and the sensation of limitless power.

As I mentioned earlier I agree with werd and the tech this is essentially a law of diminishing returns discussion.  I have a pure 2 channel application and will never have more than the 7B's, BP 26 and one source on at a time and am going with the CS 15 and will not look back.  This rig sounds so good as is with power right out of the wall on a non dedicated 15A circuit I can't imagine anything bigger making an appreciable difference.  The CS 15 is an ideal size and weight as well which was important to me in my application.  Anyway, I'll still be interested in your conclusions when you have them, Bryan and thanks again for taking the time to share them with us.

[bmckenney]

The RM10 is back.  My impressions are that it's similar to what is was before and not much improved with different cords.  Maybe a touch less noise.  The general impression remains the same, but I think I have a better understanding after this time around.

It was nice to have the opportunity to listen to it twice, once before the equi=tech, once after.  I think it allowed me go get a better handle on what it does in my system.

First off, I do find it to be more musical.  But I believe it's partly more musical because it's less resolving than the equi=tech.  It's not a stretch for audiophiles to conclude that forgiving = musical.  However, I don't think this is a good thing in the case of the RM10 in my system.  On the other hand, I think there is another aspect to musicality underneath it all that is there but hidden that has nothing to do with resolving power.  This is something I don't get with the equi=tech.  For me it's coming across as a more coherent, total picture of the music.  It's there in the soundstage and imaging and the timing.  What I hear, where I hear it and when I hear it sounds more natural and coordinated.  I find the equi=tech tends to spit hi-rez things out at me in a kind of disjointed manner.  I mentioned earlier I can't believe that a PIO would do things like this to music because it's not in the signal path.  But what do I know.  If I could address the other issues I have with the Torus, I think this musicality would really come out of its shell for me.

Secondly, the bass is just not as tight as the equi=tech.  The bass is much looser and soft.  I'm not sure if that's because of noise or current.  Probably current.  Could be the 10 isn't big enough for my amp after all.  But the bass is certainly softer, rounder, and it imparts this sort of washed out hump and rubbery bounce that I do not like.  It's kind of like hitting a big elastic flexible bass drum instead of a tight skin.  Sorry about the description, but this isn't my day job.

I am convinced that balanced AC will help out the Torus.  I know it's only the AC mains that would be balanced with a Torus.  The outputs aren't balanced like the equi=tech.  None the less, I believe that having balanced AC whether it happens on the way to a PIU thru the house wiring or inside the PIU is better than unbalanced AC from a noise reduction point of view, and ultimately the sound.  I wish North American AC was 240V balanced.

I've come to the conclusion the best implementation for me would be to install balanced lines and go with a bigger model like the BAL RM15.   That should do things nicely.

I've asked someone if I can borrow his RM15 to see what that does for the bass.  If the loan happens, and the bass improves, then I think I'll bite the bullet and pay whatever it costs to have an electrician install a balanced run to my room, assuming it's even doable.

The Torus shows great promise to me and hopefully I can address the issues I'm hearing like I think I can.  I believe it's easier to do this than find a way to make the equi=tech work.  Maybe.  I do have another trick up my sleeve that I may try with equi=tech.

Bryan

[Robert D]

Hello

Just to clarify where i am coming from. I would even venture to say that with your amp, the rm100 would sound better than the rm10 or the rm20. The bigger the storage the better here is what i am saying.

Werd you are 100 percent right

Robert

[bmckenney]

Hello

Just to clarify where i am coming from. I would even venture to say that with your amp, the rm100 would sound better than the rm10 or the rm20. The bigger the storage the better here is what i am saying.

Werd you are 100 percent right

Robert

I believe I read that you got your RM20 as a gift.  Did you have a RM10 or RM15 before that and you found the RM20 better?  It would be great to read something from people who have tried different models from small to large and can explain what the difference in sound was.  I don't think I've found a post like that here yet.  And I mean in the context of amplifiers.

Bryan

[werd]

Hello

Just to clarify where i am coming from. I would even venture to say that with your amp, the rm100 would sound better than the rm10 or the rm20. The bigger the storage the better here is what i am saying.

Werd you are 100 percent right

Robert

I believe I read that you got your RM20 as a gift.  Did you have a RM10 or RM15 before that and you found the RM20 better?  It would be great to read something from people who have tried different models from small to large and can explain what the difference in sound was.  I don't think I've found a post like that here yet.  And I mean in the context of amplifiers.

Bryan

Hello Bmc

I think James and Drummermitchell are the very few who can answer that.  What power cords are you using right now in your system? Also don't forget that you might want to connect a sub to it  in the future, so go as big as you can afford. I  bought the rm20 when it was only 200.00 more than the rm15 so it was an easy decision but consider the largest one,especially if you are using 240v.

Your Lsa sig looks like a brute and employs toroidal output current  in the overkill region for 150 watts for transistors (i like it). You wouldn't want to plug it into just anything imo.

[drummermitchell]

I had a 15a Bal)with all my amps in her,couldn't remember what was happenin.
I had 3X7bsst+2X4Bsst and another 7Bsst.Was using Shunyata hyra with hydra2
2 of the 7s were used for 2 channel music the rest were just on.
She got dramatic when I installed another Torus 20a Balanced for the 3X7s.
Gut me so excited  I emaled James and his werds were:I think you have discovered as I have that having GOBSof reserve power available to the amps
MAKES A HUGE DIFFERENCE annd I mean HUGE.
if yo have a couple of 7s try the 15a buy if you can, try the 20,I believe she'll take you for a musical ride that you won't expect.More power is better as it plays the music with ease and authority,better than anything I've tried so far .

[bmckenney]

I managed to get an RM20-BAL.  Thats the 240V balanced AC in version of the RM20.  An electrician will be installing dedicated lines on Weds.  One balanced 240V for the RM20 and one unbalanced 120V just because I might as well have another circuit installed at the same time.

I think this is going to the change the whole game and the past auditions I did that I posted about won't be relevant any more.  In a good way.  There are to many new new things going on now.  Dedicated circuit.  Balanced 240V reduced noise circuit at that.  And the size of the 20 amp transformer will no doubt give the amp some current headroom that I didn't know it needed.

Anyway, I'll post some impressions of what this new beast does for me in a few days.

Edit:  I am hoping that the RM20-BAL will provide the benefits I heard with both the equi=tech and the Torus RM10.  The increased transparency that I heard with the equi=tech was probably a result of the balanced AC noise reduction.  Add to that the more coherent and musical presentation of the RM10.  Should be a real winner.