Ruminations on the by:VansEvers Power Conditioners and Power Cords. By: Greg Comnes THE PREDICAMENT There’s no doubt that high-end audiophilia is philosophy. One starts out in the state of a joyous intellectual “reign of wonder,” embracing in turn a variety of audio “-isms,” each of which promises THE path to sonic perfection. Unfortunately audiophiles also tend to end up like old philosophers, either shrilly supporting some dogmatic creed or else skeptically bewailing the futility of it all--Diogenes wrapped in some tube sock-lined barrel ranting against the latest version of the DVD manifesto. While I’m not into tube socks (I have bi-polar feet), I feel a sympathy for ‘ole Diogenes, having amassed over the last twenty years a vast array of both “accurate” and “musical” equipment, together with a myriad of demon mods that I must confess leave me more as one ranting against equipment rather than panting for more. My audio goal is simple: I want the sound I hear at home to move me in the right direction, drawing me into the music as a live performance does. Most equipment, however, moves me away from the music: regardless of its engineering basis or its vintage, the inevitable presence of dissonant artifacts make me stop listening and instead start analyzing sound: “too soft, too shrill, too much bass, not enough bass”--you know the drill. Most of my audio compadres have had similar experiences, a gnawing sense of frustration that might well account for the surge in the demand for one-piece integrated amps, CD players, and the like--if 1,000 different bits and pieces don’t get the music right then why not simplify the system? The rationale: “It may not sound any better (different, yes, but better?) but at least I won’t have as much stuff to fret about when I’m analyz. . .er, listening to music.” Ah the joys of rationalization! Thus, my cynical conclusion: In Audioland things do change, but they don’t seem to improve. Imagine my surprise, then, when an erstwhile skeptic audio acquaintance began singing the praises of some new equipment that improved--not just changed--the sound of his $50,000+ system. After determining that his obvious joy did not result from psychotropic hedonism (the eyes never lie), I agreed to sit down and listen to what turned out to be some of the sweetest sounds I have ever heard. I was drawn into that world that only music can reveal. After the reverie I started exploring his system but to my surprise found no new DAC or preamp: instead he had line and amp power conditioners, support devices, and power cords--including one with two sliding weights on it--all bearing the by:VansEvers moniker. Like most audio philosophers I’ve played around with tweaks, and I’ve found that most do make some difference, but never the kind of positive improvement I heard in my friend’s system. I remained suspicious. Was I being hoodwinked? Were the differences I heard a function of secretly installed dedicated lines, brand new components that, hidden under old (but tres expensive!) faceplates, had finally achieved the “state of the art?” It was time to don the skeptical barrel and begin the quest for, if not audio nirvana, at least some honest answers as to how power conditioners et al might have made such a huge improvement in my friend’s system. After two months of, white papers, extended phone conversations with VansEvers himself, and even more extended listening sessions, I can report the following. THE APPROACH 1. Mike VansEvers, the President/Chief Listener of his eponymous company, constructs his products in accordance with a rather unique design philosophy. [note: if the following explanation seems overly long or out of place in an equipment report, it’s because VE feels that his philosophy itself has component status]. 2. Every component in a system is producer as well as reproducer of sound--every link in the audio chain manifests mechanical resonances--everything in the sonic chain makes a difference. 3. The best sounding system is one where the mechanical resonances are not damped but evenly distributed across the audio spectrum. 4. Tonal balance becomes the interface between the objective issue of accuracy and the subjective issue of musicality: tonally balanced music invariably sounds the most pleasing. 5. This distribution--the spreading out of the “bumps” of the resonant frequency response of different components--can be achieved through tuning, moving the bumps or resonances of different parts of the system up or down the frequency scale. 6. This concept of tuning requires that one approach the audio system synergistically, where the behavior of the whole system is not predicted by the behavior of its parts taken in isolation. 7. This synergy means equal weight is placed on “static” neutrality--determined by conventional measurement--and “dynamic” neutrality--the system’s resonance response. While I’m no engineer, for years I’ve followed the industry’s lively debate concerning the effects of electrical artifacts on signal/music. When it comes to mechanical resonance, however, my take has been the party line as laid down by one Auntie Enid Lumley, late of TAS: viz. that the only good resonance is a dead one. I wondered aloud if what VE was describing was simply a reworking of the concept of neutralizing resonances via “isolation” devices which employ rigid coupling/dampening to control vibration. VE’s response was that the dampening approach was an engineering paradigm that omitted the acoustic realities of music and the components that reproduce them. All our components “sing” mechanically (as Sonus Faber acknowledges about its speaker baffles in its most recent literature). As with acoustic spaces, VE claims the trick is not to eliminate, dampen or even balance the mechanical resonances of components but rather to make the resonances as “friendly” as possible by distributing them across the audio spectrum so that gaps, peaks, and dips are minimized. This reads well, but then so does sophistry. However, my curiosity was sufficiently piqued that I decided to try out VE’s “miracle” in my own system. THE SOUND Like many audiophiles I’ve used line conditioners for years, beginning with an Adcom 515, moving to a Power Wedge, and (before this review) relying on a Chang Lightspeed 9600. I do this because all of them clean up the power and provide some surge protection (I live in the lightning capital of the Western Hemisphere!) I’ve also found that line conditioners can change the sound of the system, but apart from the concept of current limiting--heard as the relative collapse of dynamics--I haven’t known why. VE’s approach to power conditioning assumes that power moves through conductors more easily at resonant frequencies than at non-resonant ones. With that in mind, VE’s goal is to use whatever means possible--parts selection, chassis material, and especially listening--either to spread out the resonances so that there are no peaks or deliberately to place peaks at certain frequencies in order to better balance the system’s sound. By recognizing that power IS the signal path and by attending to the question of how loads interact with the AC power supplied to the wall outlet, VE feels tuning line conditioners and power cords plays an important part in voicing the audio system. To this end VE focuses on flexibility: eschewing the notion of one “best” line conditioner, he offers a variety of products in both standard and reference versions (the reference models have cryogenically treated outlets and come with a 15 year warranty rather than a ten). The model 85 offers multiple outlets marked “analog,” “digital,” and “power,” though all VE’s conditioners can be customized--my 85 came with 4 digital outlets. His power conditioning line-up also includes a “clean line jr.” series--one each for analog, digital, and video--with one ac input on the chassis. In addition VE offers the “Unlimiter,” a conditioner built specifically for power amps. By dedicating a line conditioner for power amps, whose high voltage power supplies have current pulses that are of short duration/high magnitude, the “Unlimiter” avoids the “compression” phenomenon experienced when systems plugged into line conditioners are pushed. With the “Unlimiter’s” massive conductors and soldered connections throughout (the ferrite core in this beast is six inches long, three inches wide and weighs 4.5 lbs!), my Krell KSA 250 never came close to “limiting” the “Unlimiter.” The existence of such a comprehensive range of products reinforces VE’s systemic approach. To him, the best chance of achieving tonal accuracy rests in trying as many combinations as possible. To this end, the 85 and the “Unlimiter” come with detachable power cords (Reference jrs. require user supplied cords), while all of the products include a “transient impedance switch” (the Reference jrs. come with two). This switch allows a tuning of the lower treble (& with the Reference jrs., the upper mids as well), the two areas most crucial to the perception of consonant harmonics. First, let me say that the VE conditioners sounded just fine individually: the 85 was certainly as “clean” sounding as any other power conditioner, and unlike some others, the VansEvers’ products are absolutely silent in operation. I can also testify that the 85Õs tonality differed from the Lightspeed 9600, offering a slightly warmer sound to Lyle Lovett’s Joshua Judges Ruth. I did find the 85 superior to the Lightspeed in terms of sound stage, because the 85 allows dimensional cues to recreate a more palpable sense of space between the voices of Lovett and Riki Lee Jones On “North Dakota.” Next I reinserted the Lightspeed and placed three digital jrs. on my transport, DAC, and jitter reduction box. The jrs. also acquitted themselves well, the biggest difference coming with the increase in air and focus. On The Very Best Of The Fleetwoods, for example, Gary Troxel’s voice had a sheen, a texture, together with a precision and correct sizing, that had been previously masked. I then inserted the “Unlimiter” into the system. With it, the music opened up in the bass in a way I had not heard since changing from Adcom to Krell amplification: both the dynamics and detail of bass lines improved markedly. The biggest surprise was that the “Unlimiter” improved the highs as well. Gone was the hint of stridency previously noticed on the HDCD recording of Joni Mitchell’s Misses (an aside--did all the reviewers miss the fact that the title refers to the song’s thematic content rather than commercial failure?) Finally, I tried ALL the VE products at once: the “Unlimiter,” the Reference 85, and three digital jrs. I must admit that it took a while to try the various combinations (ten power cords and eight transient impedance switches!) before I settled on what sounded best to me. While the right mix is entirely system dependent, mine sounded best using 3 Marigo Reference Series C Prime, 3 VE model 211Õs, 3 Synergistic Research Master Couplers, plus a venerable Belden for my DAC. All the transient impedance switches were set to their numerically higher, “speedier” setting. The results were astounding--I could enumerate how CD after CD sounded so much better, but let’s keep it simple: All my recordings, however diverse their sound, MOVED me toward the music. Tears of joy at the end of Mahler’s Second, an altered consciousness (legal) with Coltrane, frenzied dancing to Joan Osborne’s “Right Hand Man”--you get the picture. When I expressed surprise that the Belden cord sounded better than cords costing ten times as much, VE responded with a wink and a phrase: “resonance distribution.” In isolation the Belden is no match for the Marigo or the Synergistic, but no one listens to one component in isolation. VE opined the mechanical resonance of the Belden better fit my DAC. Then he gave me several three- piece sets of wood blocks--lignum vitae, olive, and Zebrawood--directing me to try them under the power conditioners. The tone changed each time. Noticeably! VE explained that his soon to be announced package “The Art and Science of Audio System Tuning” provides the opportunity to further refine the tuning process, since the different woods (he has listened to and mapped over eighteen kinds) resonate at different frequencies, further reinforcing or diminishing system resonance. I preferred the lignum vitae--more shimmer on the cymbals, or rather I should say more resonance at 8kHz. And then there’s the Double Pandora, what VE advertises as “The world’s first mechanically tuned power cord,” one with two non-ferrous decoupling weights (“The Adjustable Bridge”) attached to it. VE’s approach here is based on what he labels the “String” Effect, the idea that a wire’s resonance frequency will go up when the wire is made shorter and go down when the wire is lengthened. Every length of audio wire, including power that is supported in two places develops a string resonance. The purpose of the “Adjustable Bridge” concept is to create a decoupling effect that mechanically isolates the length of the power cord between it and the IEC connector, thus creating a user-adjustable resonance. One begins this procedure by adjusting the component so that the length of the Double Pandora power cord between the rubber boot of the IEC connector and the edge of the equipment shelf is four inches. Then one places the sleeve of the “Adjustable Bridge” nearer to the IEC so that the bridge is one foot from the shelf’s edge. It is important to adjust one bridge at a time, moving each in one-two inch increments. The “Adjustable Bridge” closer to the IEC connector tunes the midrange, while the other bridge tunes the bass. Here’s what happened. I installed the Double Pandora as the power cord for my Krell power amp, listened for awhile, then moved the mid-range adjustable bridge about one inch per VE’s written suggestions (the Double Pandora comes with a detailed tuning guide). When I sat back down and started listening again, the mids had changed--quite a bit. (Were I Martin Colloms I would insert “the differences are not subtle!” at this point.) It wasn’t automatically “better,” but over the course of the evening, moving this bridge up or down in small increments eventually resulted in locating a “sweet spot.” While I also noticed a change moving the bass bridge, the sonic results were not as dramatic (methinks the Krell/”Unlimiter” combination had already created a pretty nifty sweet spot). Overall, an intriguing prospect for the skeptic: After all is said and done--and purchased-- one can significantly alter the sound of one’s system simply by moving weights on one power cord one inch in one direction or another. To add yet another variable, the Double Pandora also includes a second tuning mechanism, an adjustable machine screw that with either a knurled thumb-nut or wing nut allows tightening or loosening of both the IEC shell and the washers between the wing- nut and the IEC shell. Tightening the shell tunes it to a higher frequency, in turn increasing the treble. (Interestingly I found that when the nut was fully loosened the resulting sound became more detailed). I wish I could report that all of this is hocus-pocus, but I can’t. Despite my entrenched skepticism I DID hear more music in my system with the Double Pandora. VE acknowledges that this degree of tuning is not for everybody (egad! an honest man?!) and so provides a money-back guarantee for anyone who does not hear the beneficial difference claimed for this tunable power cord. Of course pickers of nit might grouse that the concept of mechanical resonance and the emphasis on harmonic integrity isn’t as yet sufficiently quantifiable, but in this regard I think VE’s approach mirrors the pragmatic spirit of quantum physics: If you have to choose between a totally verifiable theory and solving a problem, opt for the latter. Physicists have never seen the virtual photons that explain the electromagnetic exchange force for example, but using them helps account for data otherwise considered anomalous. And remember, at the sub-atomic level those hadrons are “measured resonances” anyway. And, like quantum physics, VE’s approach is an exercise in unconventional wisdom. We don’t have to like it--but as audio philosophers, we should want to know it. Certainly, thinking in terms of balanced mechanical resonance reminds us that scientific virtue is not restricted to purity but also involves wholeness, pattern, harmony, and--dare I say it?-- balanced distribution. (For those who enjoy “white paper” explanations, VE provides comprehensive, robust, and readable accounts for how his theories pass muster. Give him a call.) What I can say is that listening to audio using VE’s concept of tuning a system to achieve distributed mechanical resonance has helped me solve the audio puzzle in a coherent way. It has also moved me in the right direction, leading me closer to musical bliss (and incidentally out of that damn barrel!). What else matters? by:VansEvers equipment reviewed: --Reference 85 (analog, digital, and amplifier outlets). --Clean Line Jr. Model 12 Digital. --The Unlimiter. --Model 211 power cords. --Double Pandora Tunable Power Cord. THE SYSTEM: Speakers: B&W 802 series 2 w/ North Creek external crossovers & Sound Anchor stands. Power amp: Krell KSA 250 Pre-amp: Krell KBL Digital: Meridian 602 Transport, Krell 64X DAC, Sonic Frontiers Ultra Jitterbug. Analog: Teenager challenged software: Static display of damaged styli part of MOMA’s Clicks, Scratches, & Surface Noises collection. Cables: Nordost SPM speaker cables & interconnects, Marigo digital. Power cords: Marigo, Synergistic, and by VansEvers. Power conditioners: by:VansEvers Reference 85, (3) Model 12 jrs. The “Unlimiter.” Other: Black Diamond Pyramid Racing Cones #4.

back to Technical Page