Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site
In the Forum: Audio Discussions
In the Thread: It’s mad, mad, mad... electricity.
Post Subject: The APS Purepower 2000: IntroductionPosted by Romy the Cat on: 12/21/2008
OK, at this point I might say my patience with APS has paid off and this new 2000W unit is something way more civilized – a very cool New Year gift to me. The result that the regenerator produces is VERY interning and I think it would be worth to talk about it a bit.
When my last Purepower 1050 (unit number6) got burned after a few hours of work (and not even being connected!!!) I got very pissed. My friends advised me stop expecting from APS any none-combustible result suggesting that I just wasting my time. In an email that I received a reader of the site asked me why I with my habits to be drop very fast negative judgments give so many chances to APS. I asked myself this question multiple times and I always came with the only one arguments – because the very first APS units that I got in June 2007, after it was plugged in path, in contrary to any other power devises, did not ruin bass. Honesty this memory kept me going over the year and a half.
Would it be right to say that that new Purepower 2000 regenerator is just more powerful and none-combustible version of Purepower 1050. When my last 1050 unit is burned I called to APS people and explicitly told them that I do not want my money back but I want a properly functioning unit. At that time they had some kind of upgrades and engendering revisions and I was proposed to wait a few months, the new upgrades were part of the 2000W unit design. After some consecration I figured out that larger unit would better for me since I found out that 1050 regenerator worked not good with more than 250W load. I shipped back the burned unit #6 and proposed to pay $500 difference and to sight up for Purepower 2000. I had a number of conversations with APS president and he assured me that 2000 unit is the very same as 1050 with exception of location of batteries, size, number of outlet, cooling, sinking and a few other irrelevant thing. The circuit and the operation are very much the same he said. Last week, when we discussed shipping I asked if any of APS current users of the 2000 unit have commented on any differences between 2000 and 1050 regenerators. I was told that there were no comments about it and sonically the units are identical.
Well, for regular readers of my site it would not be surprise that I consider all APS users out there as deaf Morons. I also do not extend a lot of credibility to capacity of APS personnel to assess sonic qualities of their regenerators. They are in business to make them and as far as I was able to see than are clueless about sound. The truth is that there is quite big difference in Operation AND in Sound between Purepower 1050 and Purepower 2000, with very high advantage in the last one. The fact that APS did not acknowledge is just extra evidence that they are ignorant and thier customers who use 2000 after 1050 and did not notice any differences are… what kind word shell I use here? Would the “deaf Morons” work out in this case?
Anyhow, after “spending a night” with Purepower 2000 I would like outline the Operational and Sonic technical moments of the regenerator that I feel worth to mention. The results of those observations might be a bit more far-fetching then it might be expected. It will be two articles: “Purepower 2000: Operation” and “Purepower 2000: Sound” that will be coming later on. I assure you that it will be, particularly in sound section, very little related to Purepower 1050.Rgs, Romy the Cat
Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site