When the Scubapro Mk 10 came out, there was much wailing over the new swivel turret and great concern over how less reliable this would be than the "old reliable" standard in high performance first stages - the Mk 5. The hue and cry was in fact so loud that Scubapro kept the Mk 5 in production and for a brief time produced the Mk 9 which was a MK 10 without the swivel turret. Of course it was a lot of sound and noise about nothing as I have never even heard of a turret failure on a Mk 10 and it is considered the benchmark in reliability today. It is also one of the most copied reg designs in history. Now, that is a MK 10, not an Apeks but I am equally confident the turret on the Apeks reg will be just as a reliable.
It's nice to talk about theoretical failure points but it's a mistake to let imaginary threats run your life or your gear configuration. The turret does not pose any additional risk and it does allow more flexibility in hose routing and can reduce stress on hoses that are at legitamate risks for increased failure over time when attached to fixed ports.
2. Everything has the same connection, therefore redundancy is reduced slightly (although if you're reg goes, unless you have a spare, you're not diving that day anyway, unless they have a spare on the boat)[/QUOTE]
This argument is pretty valid as 1/2 ports would require extra items in the save-a-dive kit. I have used Dacor regs with 1/2" ports and it was more a pain than anything else and I never noted a decrease in performance with an daptor and smaller hose. In my opinion 1/2" ports are more a marketing gimic than a real performance booster.
The larger internal hose diameter usable with a 1/2 port will theoretically flow more air for the same reason a 5 inch fire hose will flow more water than a pair of 3 inch hoses. However it is not real relevant as the flow possible with a standard hose is more than enough.
And if you want to talk about potential failures, the higher flow rate (assuming it existed) in excess of what you need even at depth, would be a concern as it would allow a faster free flow if the first stage fails and would result in more air loss in the time it takes to shut down the valve.
I do not agree with the comment that the larger diameter will slow down the air and help prevent freeze ups. The physics of the situation just do not support that claim.
