theaudioamp,
Why is a pure sine wave not an advantageous waveform? Fourier analysis shows that any complex waveform is a mathematical combination of various sine waves at different frequencies. You could reduce this complex waveform to a combination of other waves such as triangle waves, but then the triangle wave is also a combination of simpler sine waves. The same could be said about a "prettified" modified sine wave that PS Audio is producing as an option. That modified sine wave can still be reduced to a combination of pure sine waves. Ultimately the sine wave is the most natural, simple waveform. Mathematically, the 1st derivative of sine x is cosine x, which is actually sine x 90 degrees out of phase. The 2nd derivative of sine x, or the 1st derivative of cosine x is minus sine x. We never left the perfect home--the sine wave. So the sine wave is the most natural, universal component wave from which all waves are derived. As far as I know, the only other function whose derivative is the same as the function, is "e to the x power" but this is not an audio wave.
(Kren0006, did I remember my math correctly? It's been over 50 years!)
Using a decent recording such as the opening at 0:00 on the 1st video with S1000 and opening at 3:00 on the 2nd video with S2500, it is OBVIOUS that the S2500 has much more spatiality and fine resolution. I just used another computer which emphasizes high freq, which made this more obvious than on my other computer. I can just imagine the squiggles of ultrasonic HF junk in the inferior S1000 waveform, which are greatly diminished in the better reconstructed waveform of the S2500.
theaudioamp--Did you carefully listen to these videos, or are you merely giving us engineering theory? My guess is that your statement, "If those amps are as good as Jay claims, excuse my skepticism about any claim of reliably hearing that the Stromtank improves it," shows that you did not listen. Although to prove my point, Jay would present the system with and without the S2500. He may be tired of all the skeptics and may not want to bother to do this. He already showed that the S2500 is a big step up in sound purity from the S1000, which I imagine is also a big step up from no battery/inverter at all. So I would expect the jump from nothing to the S2500 to be humongous.
Jay, I agree wholeheartedly that the S2500 makes a much bigger improvement in clarity and naturalness than any combination of power cords. It probably often makes a greater improvement than getting a different power amp or preamp. Although better power/pre amps have lower distortion circuits, they still have to filter out the ultrasonic HF garbage superimposed on the pure AC sine wave they were designed to work with. Their high capacitance input takes the AC from the wall and creates DC which feeds the main circuits. Is this DC perfect, free of ultrasonic artifacts? I doubt it, and I believe a reconstructed AC from these battery/inverters does a better job.
Do you agree, theaudioamp? If not, why? Using your quote about the hundreds of meters' distance from the power generating station, there is lots of ultrasonic HF junk all systems must get rid of, and I think that a well executed battery/inverter is the best way to do it.
