To me, listening at moderately high volumes for extended periods is no problem as long as the music is smooth and not harsh. Even at low levels, equipment that is bright or harsh can't be taken for long.
45 responses Add your response
I do not know positively. My own experience is that I like to listen to each recording at a different setting. Classical music I like to play loudly. Rock too. However, Jazz is often played at a lower volume. It depends on the recording really.With the system I have now the only limiting factor is my nieghbors, and it is only out of consideration for them that I will turn down my music. It is only that I have to go to sleep at some point that I consider turning off my system at all. However, when I had an all pioneer system I really had to struggle to listen as long as I wanted to at any volume. This particular combination of components would give me the most unbelievable headache if I did not seriously limit my time with it.The sound was very bright and forward- grainy. In retrospect, I can see that there was a lot I could have done to tame some of this. As well, I think pioneer is a great company that makes some excellent components, so this is in no way a criticism of their products. What I made of this combination was unfriendly in the extreme. I think it was that grainy quality that lent most to my fatigue,even more so than perceived brightness. And yet, I remember still wanting to turn my music up louder. wierd.
Listening fatigue starts at the source and works its way towards your ears. A great source, good cableing, high quality amp and speakers that compliment your listening preferences and your pretty much guaranteed to have fatigueless listening. From my experience the source is where the battle is won or lost.
In addition to what Tireguy wrote, I also feel that speakers contribute to listening fatigue: If the power output from the drivers is not matched correctly (due to incorrect choice of drivers &/or ill-designed xover) then one or more area of the freq. spectrum will be emphasized. In my experience an accentuated tweeter causes listening fatigue real quickly + for me, excess bass also causes listening fatigue.
Now, several listeners like tizzy tweeters & ample bass! I was @ a Radioshack store buying a battery for my wrist watch & a HT system was demo-playing. The shelves in that section of the store were rattling & the bass boom was driving me nuts but the salesman told me "more, the better!". I can only extrapolate what his 2-ch might sound like if he had one!
Every situation is different. I agree with all the posts but the culprit in anyone's system (including environment) can vary. Generally, for me, brightness is what causes fatigue and from my experience is normally due to a "hard" environment with few absorbtive materials (e.g., rugs, couches) or from a mismatch of speakers and amplifiers. Cabling can help alleviate that, but using cables as an equalizer may not provide the optimal solution (though it is cheaper than replacing speakers or amplifiers).
A bad source system is a nightmare. A bad cd is a nightmare. If either of those situations is there, forget about it. But, most source systems today that an audiophile would buy are pretty good.
Harshness! It can come from any number of souces. It can be a bad recording, noisy power, poor set-up, any of the various pieces of equipment, cables, etc, or any combination thereof. The lower the total level of harshness, the louder I can play the music and the longer I can listen to it without fatigue. :o)
Assuming that the components are of a certain caliber (that statement really needs to be qualified), I'm of the opinion that listener fatigue is primarily the result of poorly designed or no AC line conditioning, poorly designed or no vibration controlling apparatus', no dedicated AC circuits/lines, and poor choices in ics and speaker cables.
One can own the very best components, but without properly addressing each of these other items, one is likely to be doomed for mediocrity and much listener fatigue.
Of course just as every athlete has their limits of endurance in a given situation, every audiophile has their specific pressure points when it comes to fatigue.
A lot has already been mentioned but in general I would say anything that deviates from your standard listening parameters would cause fatigue. I like to think of this as a bell shaped graph, with the mids being at the apex & so less likely to fall outside a narrower band of acceptability, with bass being more forgiving & the high freqs being out of normal hearing range. Note that this is just an approximation I thought of after I started typing, as everybody doesn't respond to the same stimulus, although I'm making the assumption the mid band would cause more problems for more folks than the other ends of the sonic spectrum. Additionally, I would have to think there are those that cannot tolerate much outside of their system, as they just have gotten so used to their *sound* nothing else can match up. This is not a subtle snub, rather an observation of how we become creatures of habit & in this case in regards to a certain level of sonic reproduction.
I don't care for brightness or harshness & tend to reduce the mid/upper-freqs at the 1-2kHz levels by cutting the signal level -4 to -6 dB but that's just how I prefer to listen. On gear that isn't adjustable I buy/sell until I find what I like best.
With all that, I'd have to say volume only exacerbates the issue of fatigue but doesn't cause it in & by itself and I'd also have to say the electronics contribute more to fatigue, one example being when I heard the same horn spkrs. with different tube electronics, with one application very close to unlistenable for more than 10 minutes. Then again everything but the spkr. was different, so who's to say it was just the amp & not the CDP or TT? It all still qualifies as electronics to me.
Also there's no doubt the room plays a big part but you can mostly bypass that with nearfield listening, which would at least let you know if it was the gear or not causing the problem, if any.
The worst offender causing the ailment of "Listening Fatigue" is the acoustic suspension speaker as designed by Kloss and Allison in the early 1960's and still around today. The scientific reason the resultant sound completely wears me out in less than ten minutes is due to the nature of the acoustic suspension enclosure (completely sealed) that sucks the energy of the amp resulting in 10DB or more loss of acoustic watt db's. The sound is so unatural that the listeners brain MUST then make up for the loss of "Reality" in the produced sound, this overworks the brain during the first few minutes of listening. This overtaxes the acoustic center of the brain (Temporal lobe).The sealed acoustic suspension speaker enclosure is the single WORST audio invention of all time.Although benifiting amp manufactoures who then made 200 watt amps. On the other hand EFFICIENT enclosures (horn and reflex) do the exact opposite and energize my brain. The acoustic suspension enclosure sucks acoustic energy and brain energy(and more dollars for hi watt amps).
#1 recording quality or lack of quality actually. If it's recorded correctly there shouldn't be any listener fatigue. the system components also play a large role in this equation also speakers are the hardest component to make fatigue less most speakers simply cannot sound unstressed at real live music levels. those that can are usually big elaborate expensive speakers i.e. Genesis 201 see my system below.stress = 0
I agree it could be any element in your system but the speakers you choose and the format i.e. analog versus digital are the main culprits in producuing glare, hash, digititis, painful, shrill, harsh sound. That is what makes music fatiguing. Also agree it highly dependent on the listener preference, the volume (I like it loud but only for an hour or so ) I can listen to my analog set up at low volume all day. Therefore it is frequently inherently a function of your preferences. On the other hand, I wouldn't buy a flabby or bloated system just to compensate for the brighter, clean sound of a fine system.
You may want to try more relaxed systems which aren't going to everwhelm you, such as a pretty monitor on a good box, like Merlins with a tube amp and listen in a relatively small space at moderate/low volumes if hours of critical listening are your ultimate aim.
I employ several choices to meet my musical needs. If I want a rock concert experience I use big box vintage horns with relatively high power solid state in a huge room 30' x variable widths. I usually limit that to an an hour or so. If I simply want to hear good classical/jazz/acoustic its moderate volume using lower powered tubes and an analog source which I can listen to for an unlimited time or until I get bored with it, then I have to rock my soul.
Regarding mint604's assessment of acoustic suspension designs; a certain person with the last name of Dunlavy happened to design some of the best sounding speakers of the era that are still holding there own this very minute. I wish I had some Dunlavy's, like the SC-IV, SC-V or SC-VI. Dunlavy would disagree with your hypothesis, as do I.
Driver: The Sunfire line of amps is voiced with a similar dip to what you tend to prefer.
Mint604: Your comments are not only ridiculous in they slam a whole genre of speakers by saying that they are not capable of producing at least reasonably listenable performance, but your facts and figures are just as whacked.
First of all, Villchur and Kloss came up with the Acoustic Suspension design in the 1950's, not Kloss and Allison in the 60's. On top of that, changing a speaker from an acoustic suspension design to ANY type of vented design will only produce 3 dB's of output difference over a relatively narrow range of frequencies. To say that there is a 10 dB difference demonstrates the lack of understanding behind your comments.
Other than that, i think that Driver hit a large portion of it with his response. Upper midrange and treble response non-linearities are the prime contributors of fatigue. This is why systems that tend to sound "warm" and / or "dark" are more listenable for a longer period of time. That is, the aforementioned frequency range that produces "grain" & "glare" are less pronounced.
As a side note, "cleaning up" the AC tends to limit the bandwidth of the AC signal. By limiting the bandwidth, you remove the upper harmonics or "spikes" that are generated in the AC process, not to mention all the other grunge that comes in on the line. Just as the "rolled off" response of the audio components reduces fatigue, "rolling off" the higher frequency grunge on the AC line can accomplish much the same task. Sean
Sean, hope you are doing well. Perhaps you are speaking of poorly designed line conditioners of which there are many.
And I am certainly aware of some component mfg'erers who attempt their own flavor of line conditioning within the component itself. In these case it seems all too common that the mfg'er reduces the output of the offening frequencies. And then to hook up that component to a line conditioner (good or bad) the result is most always bad.
Whereas, a properly designed line conditioner would do no such thing as to suppress offending frequencies.
Sure, Sean. I'd be happy to address the first part. But I'm not going to pretend to be an electrical engineer by explaining exactly how a line-conditioner does what it does. That is, so long as you promise not to pretend either. :)
How I would describe what a 'proper' line conditioner attempts to do includes the following:
1) A well designed line-conditioner attempts to dramatically lower the noise floor revealing tremendous amounts of true, subtle, low level musical detail. This detail that was previously masked has a tremendous impact on the ability of the listener to connect with the music.
2) A well designed line-conditioiner attempts to reduce AC noise by removing the A/C RFI and EMI noise that is ubiquitous in every system to various degrees. These noise artifacts have the effect of artificially highlighting frequencies where the noise manifests itself. Also, the noise artifacts are amusical and instead of these frequencies adding to the musical experience, they cause listening fatigue and unnatural listener tension that ultimately reduces and more often eliminates the ability of the listener to connect with the music. Classic manifestations of this type of noise are unnatural/negative vocal sibilance not present in the original recording and distortions on crash cymbals and high hats in drum kits. The presence of external A/C RFI and EMI noise causes these sibilances and cymbals to separate from the musical tapestry and they appear to separate from the soundstage. They are so easy to pick out once the phenomena is pointed out that even casual listeners can pick them out with ease. Because these distortions are errors of commission, where the noise floor effect discussed in a) above is an error of omission, they are, for me, the greatest reason that a system fails to communicate the musical message.
3. A well designed line-conditioner attempts to induce no sonic harm of it's own. ie the rather common suppression (rolled off) of offending frequencies as you implied above.
4. A well designed line-conditioner attempts to avoid being the bottleneck with regard to current limitations.
5. A well designed line-conditioner attempts to provide bi-directional noise filtering. A tremendous benefit for anyone using a cdp since the digital noise generated will most always inject digital noise even all the way back into the service panel and hence contaminate other components if left untreated.
6. A well designed line-conditioner attempts to best utilize a one line-conditioner per component only. Surely this is the most effective way to keep noise from contaminating other components as well as the optimal way to take full advantage of dedicated circuits/lines.
I hope this helps educate you a bit regarding 'proper' line-conditioning. If you have any other questions, you know where to reach me. :)
Stehno: Thanks for the schooling. I do have a few more questions for you though : )
1) How can "out of band" noise that is supposedly hundreds of KHz / MHz above the audible passband affect the clarity of the signal that we hear from our speakers?
2) How does one remove the aforementioned offending noises?
I don't want to take up all the time that you have for class, but i can't wait to get to the technical stuff. I'm sure that with a little help from you, this thread will clear up all the pre-conceived notions and lack of understanding that i had about power line conditioners and how they work : ) Sean
Sean, you little turkey. And after all we've been thru together? :) You're darned and determined to make me into a sub-par electrical engineer, aren't you? For pete's sake, don't we already have enough of those lying around? :)
But in all seriousness, would you agree or disagree with my previous post describing the basics on what 'proper' line-conditioning should attempt to do?
Also, would you please share what, if any, line-conditioning products and/or strategies you own?
And how does your own line-conditioning and/or strategies used in your system meaure up against what 'proper' line-conditioning should attempt to do? (whether you use my stated definition, your own, or another's)
Stehno: I could easily answer all of your questions, but i'll refrain from doing so at this time. I'll be glad to do so once we've resolved what is already on our plates. After all, first things first : )
You challenged the statements that i made, now i'm asking for an explanation of your statements and how you arrived at the beliefs that you did. If i'm wrong, i'd like to understand where i went wrong and how i can correct the flaws in my thought process.
Not only did you challenge my statements, but you also challenged my level of education and experience on the subject. As such, i really can't understand why you would defer the questions that i asked you back to me? It is obvious that you already have all of the answers and understanding required to solve this puzzle, so how could i hope to compete with that???
With that in mind and for the future edification of myself and all of Audiogon, please clarify your comments for us. You can do so by answering the questions that i've previously provided for you. Since you proclaim to be well educated and experienced in the subject at hand, the floor is yours. After all, who am i to challenge such a proclamation? Your answers will obviously demonstrate the authoritative level of understanding that you have on the subject. I'll only ask questions as it pertains to the subject at hand and the previous comments that were made. I just hope that i'll be able to keep up with your teachings and fully comprehend the technical explanations that you'll offer in support of your statements. Sean
Good greif, Sean. Here we go again. SSS.
I suppose I deserve some of this for a few of the jabs I gave. But knowing you as I do and knowing what you were up to, I simply could not resist. Let me explain what I mean by this:
Initially, you made some general comments about line-conditioning and line-conditioners. If I recall, you made a broad sweep looping all line-conditioners into the same category with pretty much the same deficiencies or design flaws.
Innocently enough, I responded by attempting to clarify or add a little specificity to your broad-brush statements regarding potentially all line-conditioners. There was no challenge there, only my attempt to clarify or confirm that you really meant all line-conditioners.
You began the challenge phase by questioning me regarding what I think a 'proper' line-conditioner should attempt to do. And this is where you thought you could trap me, believing that I may not be able to provide a sufficient response.
I responded to your question (or at least the first pertinent part) by providing valid and perhaps irrefutable answers and at the same time I threw a few jabs out there. But only because I wanted you to know that I knew what you were up to (again). And I knew it would drive you a little nuts. My bad.
You realizing that you did not trap me there, and knowing that you'd have to take things to the next level, decided to pursue your course of entrapment (again). Even though you know full well I have no electrical engineering background, by this time your ego's already on auto-pilot and your going to make me into an EE.
In addition, you charge me with 'challenging' you as if I would have committed some sort of criminal act had I done so. Really, Sean. Any idea why it's called 'open' forum?
But again, it was you who initiated things. Your whole existence in this forum has been just one continuous challenge. Just go thru some of your 4000+ posting and the some to many that had to be pulled. Go figure. But we've covered much of this before.
Anyway, rather than blindly follow your lead down that path, knowing exactly what you are up to, I decided to go back to my safety zone of real world applications and simply asked you what you did to resolve your own AC problems.
Again, knowing you as I do, I knew at this point that it would be far easier for me to answer your electrical engineering questions than it would be for you to answer my real-world application questions.
And now you're convinced that you have set me up under the spotlight and you've dragged me in front of the whole forum and now I must pretend to be an electrical engineer for not only you but for all of A'gon. Gee, are you having a deja vu too? Sorry, but Homey still don't play that game.
I will say this Sean. It always troubles me whenever you use plurals like we, us, etc.. For you always use such plurals to try to impress on the reader the false sense of authority that everybody is behind you and that you are their official grand poobah. But that's a whole nuther subject, eh? And I hope that we've covered that one.
But take for example your comments a while back regarding Marty DeWulf of Bound for Sound, you said (paraphrasing): "We can't believe everything Marty is telling us these days."
Who's the we here? Do you have a little mouse in your pocket?
Stehno: We could play games here forever. I made statements that i'll be glad to explain. You made specific statements that you can't and / or won't explain. Who's the person making comments about something that they don't understand, can't explain and repeating what they've been told by some third party?
THAT'S why i asked what i did i.e. i was trying to get you to "prove" your point, just as you have asked me to support my points in the past. If you actually knew something about what you were talking about, you could support your statements. The fact that you chose not to and tried to put it back to me pretty much explains itself. Your "half-answer" was meant to deflect how obviously cornered you were. That is, you ran your mouth but can't support the how's & why's of your critical comments.
You see, that's the whole problem with "open forums". While they are great in the fact that ANYBODY can ask questions and ANYBODY can share their thoughts, people that know nothing are soon treated as "experts" with little to no background on the subject. This is how "audio myths" get started and are perpetuated far longer than they should be allowed to. Those that try to dispell those myths, aren't afraid to "tell it like it is" and have the technical background to do so get castrated by those in control. That's because the audio industry pretty much survives on snake-oil and corruption. The more that the customers are kept in the dark, the easier it is to pick their pockets. The old motto of "an educated customer is the best customer" RARELY applies to anything in "hi-end" audio.
Like i said, i've never run away from explaining my statements or supporting my point of view, nor have i ever run away from discussions with those that have opposing points of view. If you look through my "4000+ posts" that you claim i've made, you'll also see more than a few instances where i've specifically asked others to correct any "mis-information" that i've posted. I'm not above being wrong, making mistakes or correction. As such, i don't take kindly to piss-ants crawling out of the woodwork to annoy / antagonize / play games with me when they can't even have a decent conversation about the subject. On top of that, I really don't like when they approach me with smart-ass comments that are completely insincere, wishing me well and then insulting me and the effort that i've put into helping to educate those that are willing to learn while breaking down audio myths.
As far as the situation that you mention between myself and a specific "reviewer", I'll just say that you probably aren't aware of all of the information that i'm privy to. If you were, you would understand why i made the statements that i did. Then again, maybe i'm giving you too much credit for being "reasonable" and / or a logical individual.
As far as "we" are concerned, i sometimes take the liberty of speaking for the mouse in my pocket and other audiophiles when responding to comments made as a blanket statement. The only time that i did this in this thread is when i asked how "we" could hear some of the things through our speakers that you are describing. The only ones that seem to mind me speaking for them are the ones' that talk trash on a regular basis, can't support their statements and / or try to manipulate the information available in these threads for their own financial gain. Which one of the three different categories do you fall into? Sean
PS... This thread is nothing less than fatiguing to say the least.
Stehno: By the way, i never "a broad sweep looping all line-conditioners into the same category with pretty much the same deficiencies or design flaws". It was you that commented that line conditioners that shared a specific design concept were "flawed" and / or poor performers. That's why i asked you to explain what you thought the goals of a good line conditioner should be and how they could go about achieving those goals without resorting to the design concept that i mentioned and you criticized. Once again, you try to paint me as something that i'm not and turn the table on me when it was YOU that were guilty of the charges that you're levying against me. This in itself demonstrates your insincerity and level of integrity. I hope that i wasn't the only one that caught this. Sean
This is rather interesting, Sean. I suspect by this time tomorrow night, you will have fabricated quite a case against me.
I'm not ignoring you, well perhaps I am. I'm just dying to see where you take this before I feel I need to step in to rescue you.
Now remember the rules, Sean. No name calling like the first time (remember my ears aren't garbage pails), no calling me out onto the playground like both times before, no gouging of the eyes, no wedgies, um, I forget the other one.
Stehno: I've said my piece. The ball is in your court. Support your statements and demonstrate where i lied / fabricated in my rebuttal. If one of us is telling the truth / being honest here, the other obviously has to be lying and lacking in integrity. I'll let the masses judge for themselves as to who is doing what. Sean
In your original post of 8-27-04 explaining the what a "proper" line conditioner should do:
(1) is the result of (2). (1) does not stand a line conditioner design objective by itself rather it is the result of successfully attaining the goal written in (2). Line conditioners, AFAIK, are made from passive elements (xformer, L & C) & I don't think that a passive element can do anything to lower the noise floor. Lowering a system's noise floor takes energy i.e. an active ckt. Needless to say, this will not be for free.
When a line conditioner successfully cleans up an AC signal & provides clean power to the electronics, it allows the system to operate at its inherent cummulative noise floor level that is, generally, much lower than that system's noise floor when fed with "dirty" AC power. This is what reveals "tremendous amounts of true, subtle, low level musical detail".
I 2nd Mejames: do answer Sean's questions, which seem very fair to me as well.
Bombay, I have one minor quibble with your post - passive elements CAN lower the noise floor by reducing the bandwidth of the power line noise. RMS noise is proportional to the square root of the bandwidth. However, the filters used in this approach usually degrade the transient response of the system. Active regeneration can lower the noise floor and still provide good transient response, constrained only by the dynamic current delivery capability of the regenerator's output.
Mejames: There's no point in Stehno answering the questions now. Bombay has already shown that ALL forms of line conditioning that achieve both audible and measurable results alter bandwidth in some way, shape or form. That's why i wanted to ask Stehno a series of questions. With his own responses, he would have realized that the goals that he mentioned could only be met with the ideas / designs that he was critical of.
Bombay: Your explanation basically sums up the situation. I just wanted Stehno to do his own homework. Not only would he have seen how contradictory his own statements were, he would have helped educate others in the process.
Nighthawk: It's quite possible to limit bandwidth without limiting transient response. The key to doing this would be to pick the proper hinge frequency and slope. Once these parameters were chosen, you would have to select individual components that could easily pass the desired amount of energy. For optimum performance, you would have to look at how much energy was needed in both a steady state draw and on a dynamic basis. By using "heavy duty" components that will easily pass the necessary power, series resistance is minimized and thermal losses are reduced. Sean
Well, technically you are correct & thanks for pointing this out. I'm aware of this but I discarded the concept for my post because:-
My post was with reference to context where I referred to Stehno's 8-27-04 post. I referred to Stehno's "proper" line conditioner. So, I was putting forth my comments w.r.t. that. If you read his original post where he puts forth some 6-7 points re. what a "proper" line conditioner should do, #3 is: "A well designed line-conditioner attempts to induce no sonic harm of it's own"
If read Stehno's earlier 8-27-04 post he says "Whereas, a properly designed line conditioner would do no such thing as to suppress offending frequencies".
So, given that Stehno's "proper" line conditioner doesn't subdue the high freq by limiting bandwidth, I thought that I should not talk about passives lowering the noise floor - clearly these types of power conditioners are out of the discussion here.
Maybe I should have said that they can but put in parenthesis that this discussion here is not re. those types of pwr conditioners. I personally thought that this would further add to the confusion (there's plenty here!).
Anyway, hope that this clears things up.
Bombaywalla, you make some interesting points.
Sean, responding to you is like shooting at moving target. If you keep shucking and jiving with more postings and hence more accusations, name calling, labeling, etc., then I'm just chasing my tail around the mulberry bush. Not to mention that for a while there you seemed to be doing pretty good without me and besides I do have others things to do than just dance with you all weekend.
I had several responses for you over the last 30 hours or so, but you just keep moving. Strike and move, strike and move. I believe Muhammad Ali made this strategy into an art form. But you ain't so bad yourself. :)
Of course Sean, knowing you as I do, I knew exactly what you were really up to. And I've seen way too many Wild Kingdom episodes to not recognize that same opportunistic instinct in you as those agressive little critters when they smell blood.
For the other readers here, there's much more to this little saga than meet's the eye. You may see Sean's questions as innocent enough, but I have had several rather intense bouts with Sean in time past regarding potential personal agendas, destruction of companies, reviewers, magazines, products, owners of certain equipment, self-shilling, etc..
And I'm quite confident that more of his blood was spilled than my own on every occassion. So there is certainly the potential for one of us to have vengeance on their mind. Hence my perception that he was/is darned and determined to make me respond to technical questions that I admitted I felt unqualified to answer.
What I'm really trying to say is that, knowing Sean as I do, I would never let my gaurd down when he is around. My experience with him clearly indicates that he is forever waiting in the wings for yet another opportunity to strike. Therefoe, I must approach every one of his questions and statements from multiple angles and never for it's face value alone.
As for the issue(s) at hand.
For which of Sean's 15 to 20 questions/accussations (the list was certainly growing) to me does anyone believe deserves a response? And even though I made it clear to him several times above that I did not feel qualified to answer and that he is simply attempting to trap me, does anyone still think I am obligated to provide a response even though I felt unqualified to properly respond and freely admitted as much?
I was unaware that that type of response is no longer a valid response.
And regarding my first post to Sean in this thread, does anybody (other than Sean) consider my statements there a serious and/or unfriendly or clandestine challenge to Sean as he claimed? Sean made a somewhat broad-brushed statement regarding cleaning up the AC and I was simply looking for clarification in my post.
Sean's response to my followup post seemed to an attempt to entrap me by asking me questions that I admittedly felt unqualified to attempt a response.
If Sean or anybody else still thinks I have an obligation to respond to those technical questions, then I'll respond right now: Gee Sean, those are very good questions but I simply do not feel qualified to answer those questions.
But I already answered that way in my previuos posts. Sean simply was unaccepting of those answers.
Now for which of the other 14 to 17 questions/statements does Sean deserve a response?
And what of the few simple question I posed to Sean that he has not answer? Those being:
1. What has he done in his own system to resolve his AC issues?
2. Does he agree or disagree with my assessment as to what constitutes what a 'properly' designed line-conditioner should attempt to do?
Stehno, I've followed the discussions with interest but still don't understand how line conditioning should work if it does not suppress offending frequencies. Does that mean the offending frequencies are passed along to the component? Or does "suppress" have a specific meaning? To me, "suppress" means to reduce or eliminate. In reading your posts, I think you define that word more narrowly. Please explain -- it doesn't have to be technical. Thanks.