For context, let's quote from my previous LessLoss review: "If I were hard-pressed to tell differences between LessLoss and Boenicke, there were two. The latter was a bit leaner and rendered images closer so a bit taller. Here the Lithuanian ought to have been more distant, possibly chunkier, slower and less spatially immersive so not quite as gifted. Not. Both were indistinguishable on slam, energy, willingness to scale and reach low. The clear draw on these fronts was why the LessLoss didn't feel an iota slower or veiled while its equally high-tiered articulation didn't make it any less resolved. If anything, with the Swiss distributor I had the impression of minorly louder SPL. That was more audible than the two other aspects. From this I gather that Sven's internal tweaks and soldered connections remove some fatty tissue and slightly elevate tonal balance while the less radical LessLoss makes the sound a touch heftier and more romantic. Either way these were sideways moves rather than progressions and nowhere near as important as the functional differences between the two."
With that covered, my DAC powered by the Boenicke and LessLoss produced bass that dug deeper and scored more authority while the resultant feel of stronger control morphed each bass-heavy cut into a noticeably more massive yet also energetic version of itself. The entire landscape rendered by the sound|kaos monitors struck me as a fair bit inkier, calmer and more spatially sorted. Tonal saturation notched up to make a fuller fruitier sound which still seemed as articulated and brimming with details as ever. In short, I saw no downsides, just improvements. The more I thought about their flavor, the more they reminded me of the key difference between Ansuz titanium Darkz T2S footers and their pricier Darkz Z2S counterparts made of zirconium. During their comparison the heftier zirconium variants had been no slower, dimmer or chunkier versus the primarily lean agile T2S. The more muscular harder-slamming Z2S simply emerged as texturally juicier, fleshier and more tactile with in-room presence. It also delivered finer weightier treble. The simple takeaway was that the Ansuz Z2S pucks either equaled or surpassed the T2S on individual fronts then portrayed music in more tangibly vivid fashion. Upon learning that the LessLoss boosted the Boenicke roughly by the same effect, I had to find out whether this love affair was one-sided or not.
So the two distributors traded places. Now the LessLoss connected to the wall and powered my entire system with C-Marcs while the Boenicke connected to it via its primary captive M2 cord. The remaining three M2s were off duty to level the field. As before, the LampizatOr saw the same standalone C-Marc that moved from one distributor to the other. The result? All above observations stayed put. My DAC fronted by two wooden power bars performed audibly better than with just one. More importantly, now I knew that it didn't matter which distributor came first. The conclusion is twofold. The efficacy of Firewalls inside these products does indeed pile up. These modules make a noticeable difference despite all the extra contact points and wiring created by the secondary box. Because of the latter's mechanical obstacles I'd thought that two boxes would either cripple the sound or make no difference at all. Their two-stage Firewall squad however gave a stiff Johnny Cash salute to such assumptions. Live and learn. Although my DAC enjoyed the performance boost regardless of sequence, mild differences remained. With the Boenicke first, the sound was a touch heftier and more picturesque. Upon reversing the order, the balance gently steered towards the leaner more contrasting side of the street. Since these observations corresponded to each distributor's own tuning, the Pacific DAC emphasized the one it saw directly.
These subtle mood swings were nowhere near as large as the performance leap between using one or two power bars. Now it was time to tackle one last thing. The LessLoss fronted the Boenicke as before but now all components received power through the latter's captive M2s. That's how I got my very best results. The initial LessLoss as passive noise-filtering device pushed the performance envelope several notches in the familiar direction to make quite the difference. This acted like a sweetener, espresso shot and drop of lime juice all at once. It enhanced contrast, extended the color palette, injected extra blackness into the background and unlocked greater firmness and heft. To be clear, the sound|kaos speakers, Pacific DAC and Enleum amp are all radiant quick lean spacious types so combining these two distributors was a highly synergistic fit.
Until now I had thought that two high-performance power distributors in series wouldn't stand a chance against just one given how purity would step down with more contact points and additional wiring. It seemed reasonable to expect the longer pipeline with its extra mechanical hurdles to devolve the sound. Now my view on the matter has matured. At their core the LessLoss and Boenicke power bars are noise strippers disguised as outlet multipliers. Using two of these über-Firewall types in series multiplies their noise attenuation. That had a highly positive impact on my system. Although the odds are that yours would respond in the same way, in most cases just one decent six-outlet passive power distributor should suffice, making anything more pure luxury. Alas, such reasonableness can't deny what I just heard. I don't really need extra outlets. But another passive noise-filtering device which noticeably elevates my system's sound – now that's a whole other story. Silence² indeed!
Publisher's afterword: Dawid's finding reminds me of apparently superfluous multi-stage reclocking. It's when a digital signal sees multiple RAM buffers and clock generators in series, either via external boxes or slaved inside one. A common assumption is that multiple reclockers won't or shouldn't make any difference. Yet mounting evidence suggests that they do. A perhaps suitable image is multi-stage polishing whereby compounds of ever finer grit increase the luster of shiny objects. There's also multi-stage water purifying and washing of clothes where the first cycle/time removes some dirt but not all of it. Perhaps noise filtering, be it on the mains, between signal lines of components or as mechanical resonances, works the same? In which case, what the first process or stage doesn't catch the next one keeps working on; and so on. Back on digital and cloud-based network streaming, SOtM's May Park shared that their reference system runs three of their network switches in series all connected via their specialty cables fitted with noise blockers then powered by external linear supplies and sync'd via master clock. All that happens before the cloud files ever see their streamer/server. It reads like gratuitous overkill but they swear by it. Could it be the same principle which Dawid described for the incoming AC?
LessLoss respond: Agreed with Srajan, albeit with a caveat. Once I had access for a time to about 30 of those for-digital type filters based on caps and coils. They were modular and my inquisitiveness got the better of me. Adding one of those on my CD player and DAC was at first perceived to be very nice. Smoother sound overall, calmer and somehow more analogue in nature. So I added a second. Then a third, then more and more. I quickly become disillusioned. I was left with a muddy far cry from natural dynamically interesting audio. Everything sounded steeped in rubber and unfree. Dead is the word that came to mind. It so obviously displayed the faults of traditional caps-and-coil filtering. Around this same time we developed our first skin-filtering power cable through which we gained all the stable silence but none of the dynamic muddiness and tonal shifts towards the dark and lifeless. Today with our Firewall 640x tech, we don't know of a limit in its usage which would raise such doubtful results as in the aforementioned cap-and-coil filter series. In fact we have 28 of these in our highest performance DAC. So yes, more of a good thing is good but only under the condition that whatever the filtering mechanism, multiples of it should never reveal its core coloration. Used in multiples, if a solution portrays a skewing from what would be considered just better and better, there's something wrong at its core. We're happy that Dawid found no such artefacts using two of our most advanced in a row. – Louis Motek
