Dan check out my comments on this thread.
7 responses Add your response
I also preferred the BPT 3.5 sig over the Hydra 8. The Hydra sounded a little dark with rolled off highs in my system. On the other hand I do use the Hydra 4 on my digital, none of that darkness. Perhaps the Fesi and copper of the Hydra 8 vs. no Fesi and silver of the Hydra 4? I've also found no current limiting with the BPT
I suppose there's nothing wrong with reporting/describing one's impressions of two (or three or four) different "power treatment" devices; but unless they are all (operationally) the same kind of device, I think making any comparisons between them is inappropriate.
So for instance, saying the "BPT beat out the Hydra" is not a revelation. I'd always expect a balanced power unit to trump a conditioner of reasonably equivalent build quality regardless of brand.
09-01-06: SnsFunny, I found just the opposite in my system. Furthermore, the BPT was different when my amplifier was plugged into the GFCI outlets on the BPT vs. the non-GFCI outlets (more closed in when using the GFCI outlets, although the background was inky black).
In the end, my system breathed with air and life when using a Hydra unit, and it did not when using the BPT.
As usual, preferences are all about synergy.Absolutely the truth...and it's not just about personal taste. There really is an electrical thing going on.
Two friends own Sound Applications Reference LineStages and love them. I bought one and installed it, and I thought it didn't sound as well as my Hydras. I invitied my friends over who love the Sound Applications units, and they both agreed that the Hydras sounded better in my system. Conversely, I think the Sound Applications sound excellent in their systems.
So, I suppose the moral to the story is one has to listen to these devices in their own systems, and use the opinions of others as a guide, but not as experiences that will necessarily correlate to one's own.