Mating power cords with APL 3910

John, I look forward to Grant's response, too.
You asked: "I would like to isolated the high-current amps from
the low-current APL. And, if its is not too costly to isolate the right
channel from the left to reduce cross-channel talk and
contamination."

The UPC-200 has two isolated power cell modules that I believe
accomplish what you wish to do. From the PS Audio website:
"Each module is connected to a rear mounted Power Port and is
isolated from the second internal UPC module.  This arrangement allows
the user to separately power their equipment, providing isolation for
digital and analog, or power amps and source equipment, or video and
audio."

The PS Audio product comparison chart lumps all the Ultimate Outlet
products (including the UPC-200) into one category: Standard/HC/UPC-
200.

Regardless, having read on another thread about your system and your
power cord short list, it appears you are focusing on a certain price point
which is above PS Audio and other products I've highlighted. My posts
were attempts to offer value-per-dollar alternatives to the most
expensive Shunyata products, and other stratospherically priced power
cords. I'm preaching to the wrong congregation here, so I'm going to
wish you good hunting on your power cord/conditioning quest. I'm
certain your APL is going to sound terrific with whichever product you
choose.

Tvad,
You are not preaching to the wrong crowd! Note how many times I explicitly stated or implied in my posts that I am looking for an economic solution. If I was not interested in your suggested value-per-dollar alternatives I would not have wasted my time checking your links and reading the reviews (where available) for those alternatives. In my response to your previous post, I stated that I found the UPC-200 to be more interesting to me than the Ultimate Outlet precisely for the reason you point out in your last post. Namely, the two zones in the UPC-200 are isolated, which means that I could achieve my major goals with two UPC units on two dedicated AC lines. One to isolate the right channel from the left one for my Jadis mono amps. And on the other UPC unit, I could isolate the high-current Krell from the low-current APL. Based on Grant's comments about Hydra 2 and Mr. Perry's observations, it appears that Hydra 2 is more optimal for amps than the Hydra 4. At this point, it appears to me that Hydra 2 will not be able to isolate my APL from my Krell. Consequenty, I will need 3 or 4 Hydras to accomplish my major goals. And for each additional power conditioner, there is another power cord. Grant's clarification about the level of isolation and filtration in the Hydra units, will help determine the number of Hydras I will need. I also need to know more about UPC's balun type filter. The UPC-200 is new and I was unaware of its existence until you brought it to my attention. I am grateful to you for that. At this stage, the Hydras and the UPC-200 are the frontrunners for my power conditioners.

As with the power conditioners, I do not have a set price point in mind for the power cords. However, there is a bigger picture to my upgrade journey. Namely, I will need to upgrade the power cords for the three amps as well. Since I will not have a preamp in my sytem, logic dictates that I put the best PC on the APL. Based on the characterists of PCs described in this thread as well as several others, I would place Virtual Dynamics Night 2 (which I heard), Elrod EPS sig 2, and the Xindak gold as the front runners on my short list to audition first on the APL unit. The remainder of the short list consists of Wolf Carbon Source, Mini Khan Plus, Foundation Research, Shunyata, and VH AirSine. In view of the fact that I will need a total of 6 or 7 power cords, all the value-per-dollar alternatives are still viable candidates for an economic solution.
John

I am using both the Ps audio uo high current version and the hydra2 in my system. I am running the power amplifier (ML331) through the Hydra2 and the cd-player-preamp ML 39 through the UO. Accoring to my experiences, the UO is shifting upward the soundprint of the system. The combination Ps audio Lab cable (original) and the UO proved to be the right combination to return to a more equally balanced soundprint ( or how I was accustomed to).

First, to answer Sean's question about wiring and voltage drop in the Hydras. The Hydra 8's outlets are all wired individually and run from each outlet to the internal chassis that has the Copper buss system and FeSi 1002 compounds within, so with the 8, the point is moot.

The Hydra models 4 and 6 duplex outlets are connected consecutively with 2" silver/rhodium plated buss straps--as pictured on our web-site. The measured Voltage drop across a 2" 9 gauge silver plated buss strap is so small that it is irrelevant to operation and could not possibly create a voltage sag that would harm or otherwise alter the performance of electronics that are connected. There will always be a common point at which current converges no matter the wiring or buss arrangement, so pointing to this as evidence of inexpensive construction quality is far off the mark. Running wiring from the individual outlets in the 4 and 6 would actually be *less expensive* than designing and manufacturing the silver/rhodium buss straps. Caelin made that design choice to improve the units performance, not to cheapen manufacturing. We did have measurements posted in our technology section that show the outlet-outlet isolation in the 8 but Caelin wanted to update that and re-post with more complete test results. Caelin will be re-posting a recently completed set of measurements representing the circuit isolation of all the Hydras. In the mean-time, the fluke 43 power analysis results can be seen via our SoundStage Hydra 8 review-link:http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/shunyata_hydra_8.htm

To answer the other questions regarding Hydras, the most relevant difference between the units performance in Audio/studio applications is not the number of filter elements used, necessarily, but the difference in the units buss architecture. The Model 8 uses all copper wiring and a massive (7lbs) Copper buss, milled from solid ingots of CDA 101 copper. It also has the patented compounds surrounding the buss structure. The Hydras 6 and 4 are more minimalist in design (purposefully) and use the more direct-connection-silver buss (minimal contact impedance, minimalist AC path) construction. These differences mean that the Hydra 8 will have a more robust tonal presentation, it will sound more rich, full-bodied, but slightly slower(subjectively speaking) than the more immediate, forward presentation of the 6 and 4 models. The Hydra 2 splits the difference tonally because it has no buss and only has the 9 gauge copper wiring running from IEC to outlet. The Hydra 8 is definitely our reference, and that is the product I generally recommend when working with studios, but the smaller units might actually be preferred in predominantly tube or all analog systems--it depends on one's preference. Sony Music New York preferred the models 6 and 4 because to they seemed more "Transparent" with mastering equipment, while other studios such as Astoria and Rick Rubin preferred the 8 and the 2's because they had more weight and richness...

When working with 2-3 dedicated lines, it is best to try model 2's for amps on separate lines whenever possible, and then choose the Hydra to evaluate that best suits the number of components that make up the rest of the system. If cost is no object, then an 8 is our reference, but the 4 and 6 might be worth trying if you only have 2-3 other components.

I hope this helps answer some of your questions.

Regards,

Grant

Samuel aka Grant: Thanks for taking the time to respond and provide more info. I was beginning to wonder if this was going to be like the last thread where i asked questions of a manufacturer and they never responded. They did respond to others within that thread both before and after those questions / comments, but they somehow seemed to overlook what i threw their way. Wonder how that happened ??? : )

As to my previous comments, i based them on the info and pictures available on your website. As such, you might want to update your website and check the wording used. While you state that the Hydra 8 is parallel wired rather than daisy-chained, where would the use of copper buss bars come into play then? The info on your website makes a big deal of how heavy the buss bars are that are used in the Hydra 8 and even shows them, but doesn't actually show the internal construction of the unit. As such, one is lead to believe that these units are all based on the same basic design / operating parameters with the only variables being the amount of outlets available. Evidently, such is not the case. This is confusing to say the least.

"The measured Voltage drop across a 2" 9 gauge silver plated buss strap is so small that it is irrelevant to operation and could not possibly create a voltage sag that would harm or otherwise alter the performance of electronics that are connected. There will always be a common point at which current converges no matter the wiring or buss arrangement"

I never said that voltage sag would result because the Hydra's used buss bars. What i did say is that there was more potential for sag or "modulation of the voltage" for the outlets later in the line because of this type of lay-out / wiring scheme.

If a device is plugged into the first outlet that pulls gobs of current on a dynamic basis, all of the outlets wired behind that first outlet will demonstrate at least a small amount of ripple. There is the potential for greater sag as the current draw increases. That's because the current will go where it is being drawn first and then whatever is left will "meander" downstream accordingly. If there is enough pull "upstream" at the first outlet, there's not as much current left to wander "downstream" to the other outlets. That lack of current is what causes voltage sag.

If you had multiple rivers ( individual outlets ) with their own feedpoints ( parallel branch wiring ) to the ocean ( wall outlet ), the potential for any starvation downstream is reduced. That is, so long as the ocean ( wall outlet and power cord ) could provide enough flow. That's because each parallel branch doesn't see what the other branches ( outlets ) are pulling whereas with the daisy chain arrangement, one river ( outlet ) feeds into the next in a series arrangement. If the first river ( outlet ) restricts the flow, all of the other rivers ( outlets ) feel the consequences.

Based on the info that you provided in this thread, this type of situation could only apply to the units that are wired in "daisy chain" fashion i.e. the 4's & 6's. As mentioned elsewhere in this post, the use of buss bars within the 8's still leaves me a bit confused though.

As to the link that you provided ( THANK YOU for making it simple for all of us to follow along ), i never, not once said that the Hydra's couldn't provide noise reduction. Anyone that has ever experimented with parallel noise suppression circuity would know better than to make such a claim. What i did question was the amount of isolaton as referenced over a specified bandwidth that the Hydra's provided from outlet to outlet. The test results that you linked to here didn't cover anything like that.

For sake of reference, my main concern is what happens when a component plugged into the Hydra generates AC noise / interference / RFI and tries to pump that back into the AC system??? Not only would such a test tell us how well each component is isolated from the other within the confines of the Hydra itself, it would also tell us the level of noise suppression that the unit is capable of providing for the incoming AC too. I hope that i'm clear enough in my explanation as to the type of info that i'm looking for.

Thanks again for the timely response and looking forward to any further info you would like to provide. Sean
>