Power strip that goes in the stereo rack

[Helevitia]

I've been thinking of ways to clean up the wiring mess in the back of my home theater system. One way that appeals to me a lot is having a power strip that is shaped like a piece of stereo equipment that I can plug all of my cables into. This idea lead me to this:

http://www.monstercable.com/power/productPagePower.asp?pin=1020&LastPage=Reference%20Power

Now, I know a lot of people are to fond of Monster Cable, but this looks really nice and it isn't too expensive. I'm wondering if there are alternatives that anyone can recommend?

Also, what is the difference between Stage 2 power and Stage 4 power? And is it worth a $300 upgrade???

What are things I should look for in a $200+ power strip? Thanks!

[Jammrock]

Most people just aren't fond of Monster cables, as you can get better cables for less money if you go to a specialty AV shop. AudioQuest's low-end cables are generally better than Monster's highest end and cost less. Anyway...

The different "stages" in Monster Power equipment is merely the amount of filtering it does to block out power line and digital feedback garbage. The AV purist shuns such contraptions as they typically restrict the amount of power and current that goes to your system (if you don't have a really high end audio system of power draining giant TV it's not a big issue). SOme of the minimalist-purists (there are all sorts of purists in teh AV world) shun any "unecessary" circuitry, meaning anything that can't be done in a single stage isn't worth doing.

Anyway, if you want some "non-Monster" options you should check out these (kept the price down to >=$600 )

PS Audio:

http://www.psaudio.com/products/upc200.asp -> (detailed) http://www.psaudio.com/products/upc200_overview.asp

If you have an audio hum there is a second option: http://www.psaudio.com/products/upchb.asp

The theory behind this is you plug all your digital equipment into one zone and all your analog (amps and whatnot) into a second zone. This isolated the two types of equipment from each other and provides a cheap, efficient method of power filtration, cleaning and umph.

A Review: http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volum...er-6-2005.html

There are other options out there, but that's the one I've heard the most about, and is well under $1000. Some of the really high-end jobs will completely regenerate the AC power and send a pure 120 Hz, 120 V sine wave to the equipment, but those suckers are expensive.

Anyway, I'd research the Monster and PS Aduio option and see which one you like more.

Jammrock

[Nowhere]

Uhmmm...but can you abx ANY of this fancy stuff?

[Jammrock]

abx?

[Nowhere]

...also known as double-blind test

hydrogenaudio.org

edit:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=16295

[Tjalfe]

Looks fancy, but I don't trust a company who sells optical cables for $150+ CDN claiming they give better sound quality

[Nowhere]

Exactly...

(wait a bit, I'll dig up few interesting links on the matter)
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=11442
http://sound.westhost.com/cables-p2.htm
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=33951
http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/...es/23down.html
http://www.pcavtech.com/ABX/abx_wire.htm (other types of gear also on the site)
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=36908
http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/ampin...o/subjectv.htm

[Jammrock]

Exactly...

(wait a bit, I'll dig up few interesting links on the matter)
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=11442
http://sound.westhost.com/cables-p2.htm
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=33951
(more to come)

Ah, you're one of them Read the review I linked to.

As for abx (never seen that acronym thing used), it works to disprove certain hype and fairie tales in the AV world, most of them regarding cables; however, when dealing with power and video it is a completely different beast. With video you can accurately and logically see differences in cabling. I ran my own tests before I purchased my current AudioQuest video cables. I did blind testing with flatmates comparing "lamp wire" (the cheap thin black cables that come in the box), Monster and AudioQuest s-video cabling. There was a noticable visual difference in each cable, with AQ winning hands down. True abx testing, true result, real-life difference in how video cables can make a difference.

As for power, this beast has to do with what else the power line conditioner/filter/etc. can do. Line noise introduced by digital devices and power line intereference are real. Ever seen a TV flicker when someone turns on a vacuum cleaner? Hear a stereo pop when an appliance kicks in? Ever hear tons of hum and buzz in a high end audio system? Power conditioners work to eliminate this type of stuff using various methods. In the case of the UPC-200 it uses passive filtration and a couple of big ass transformers. You'd have to read testimonial to believe it makes a difference, but there is method behind the madness.

Power cables are a completely different beast and I'm not convinced they make much difference.

Speaker cables and analog audio cables is a completely different monster. I won't get into this battle, as hearing is a function of a well functioning ear system, familiarity with the material, and psycological and mental condition (recent scientific studies have found that people can have hearing loss but have perfectly functioning ears, and so they theorize that some types of hearing loss is mentally related), thus "hearing" a difference is dependant on the person (and yes I've read all the arguements before on all sorts of places like Hydrogen Audio). For example, my wife can't tell the difference between our $80 stereo and my $6000 stereo. To me however it's a night and day difference.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Jammrock

[Nowhere]

"One of them"? :|

ABX is a fairly used acronym...and describes the methodology at the same time (sample A, sample B, unknown sample). And it works moreso to prove certain things. Actually, in science, it's hard to disprove anything...
Video cables are totally different matter from audio cables - not kHz ranges anymore and so on...

As for power - uhmm...that's shittiness of your house installation mainly How come I DON'T live with things like that? Oh yeah, but every place I lived in recently had new electricall installation made by pro's...

Speaker cables and analogs...read my links. In one of them there's a test made by "audiophile" himself, on his equipment/music, in his house, using only his favourite cable vs. cheapest. Result: he scored worse than random. But that's not really important. Overall, I'd like to point out that what you're saying means that abx is the ONLY way in which sites/magazines/salesmann/etc. can evaluate and recommend audio equipment, because it's the only relevant info we can get from them (plus some technical data, usability, images, etc.). What you're saying means that in terms of sound quality, it doesn't matter that much what you buy, because it's a matter of taste and placebo anyway.

I'll never happen though...people doesn;t want to read "this sounds exactly the same", they want to read tales...

[Jammrock]

Yes, one of them. "I read an article about this guys once you thinks audiophiles are full of $#!* and backed it up with his own double blind comparison, and it sounded good to me, so all audiophiles are full of $#!*," type of guys.

Yes there is a lot of psychological, placebo and snake oil in the audiophile world, but it's not all bull. I've heard stereos that cost anywhere from $80 to $120000 and just about everything in between. Ananlog audio cabling will make a difference to a point. Do I think that a $3000 per meter pair cable made of solid, 8-guage, %99.999 pure silver, solid core, long pull conductors with teflon tubing, silver shielding, and white noise generators to keep the cable "live" while not in use are worth it? HELL NO!

Does cabling make a difference? In my opinion, and based on personal experience and testing, it does to a point. Where that point is is up to the listener and his budget. But do I think a 22-gauge lamp wire cable will sound just as good in a system that can push 1000 W RMS per channel versus a higher end cable ... uh, no.

[Helevitia]

BTW, Belkin makes some too, I like this one:

http://catalog.belkin.com/PureAV_detail.process?Product_Id=178339

Oh, I don't want to spend more than $200-$300 after tax and shipping. So, I'm mor einto the "makes my wires look cleaner", than any kind of filtering/conditioning it might do. I mean, I am hooking this up to a $4000 system. Nothing special. Harman/Kardon Amp, DVD, and CD Player. 40" Toshiba RP HDTV, Comcast Dual Tuner HD PVR.

So I am not too worried about performance. I am more worried about price and looks. It looks like I can get this:

http://catalog.belkin.com/PureAV_detail.process?Product_Id=178914

For $250 shipped to my door. But it is from a company that might be shady so I need to do some research before ordering.

[Nowhere]

Ekhem, Jammrock, this is rather the case of some claims beeing full of BS...if, so far, objective tests haven't verified them? (also when done by audiophiles; ABX test can always be flawed that someone wants to prove there's no difference (as I've said, you really can't prove that in science), but in case of these guys they tried hard for sure...)

And you see, you're giving me arguments. You haven't said that you had heard, for example, stereo X and stereo Y, you've said thay you'd heard stereo that costs A and stereo that costs B. Now, I don't question your motives...but do you really think this doesn't make the whole thing mostly placebo? (=psychological, I'm not sure why you repeat that). Of course I'm not talking here about comparing cheapest shit with uber-expensive, I'm talking starting with something that is build good, but not necceserily excessivelly expensive. Furthermore, you state that something will make a difference, based on opinions and experience...but don't have anything to back it up. (note: in that case, I'm also talking about "not-shitty" stuff of course; cable should be properly build, with good shielding and connectors...) Not a problem really if you apply this to yourself and spend your money on your equipment...but this shouldn't be common knowledge in that case. However there's very easy way to prove your claims I, and I'm sure HA community also, will be very interested in your positive results. You see, we are the ones who don't asume any outcome (contrary to what you say)...so that also means we don't assume it before it has been tested

BTW to everyone, enjoy: http://www.ebaumsworld.com/videos/tapwater.html


PS. Helevitia, cables are in the back, da?

[Marshmallowman]

Yeah those Belkin power racks look pretty good, and the equipment warranty sound like quite nice bonus.
The phone line suppresors would be cool as well (says someone who has lost a few modems and routers to electrical storms)

I guess it would come down to how many power outlets you need, 8 *should* be enough(htpc may use a few extra tho), I guess you can always plug in a double adaptor to add a extra 1 or 2 outlest for low amperage gear (dvd player..etc)



just to help with derailing Helevitia thread as well, given a certain diamater of copper wire and adequate insulation you will get very little difference in power transmission through wire.

But, high quality cable will, have many individual copper wires, this adds to flexibilty of the cable(and lonegevity) becasue copper is prone to hardening and breaking if flexed to much/often...should happen to often but that may be the diifference in 10 years.

The other thing is the insulation from electrcial noise, admittedly high current signals will pretty much drown out most electrical noise anyways.

The other things is form factor of the cables, eg flat and flexible is good for audi cable becasue you run it under carpet etc..

Having said that, its pretty easy to get cable that does all the above quite cheaply...not need for uber cable

[Jammrock]

You're such a blast to argue with, Nowhere

Ekhem,

Ahem?

Jammrock

That's me!

this is rather the case of some claims beeing full of BS...if, so far, objective tests haven't verified them?

Did you read the review?

(also when done by audiophiles; ABX test can always be flawed that someone wants to prove there's no difference (as I've said, you really can't prove that in science), but in case of these guys they tried hard for sure...)

Any test can be flawed no matter WHO does it. Even scientist make mistakes and produce flawed results. And yes some audiophiles make mistakes and their tests are flawed, or their mind plays tricks on them. Same old song and dance. But not all audiophiles are scientific dolts.

The good reviewers have a reference system that they are intimately familiar with. When new equipment arrives to test they listen to that equipment, as well as the familiar equipment, until they are familiar with both pieces of equipment (the good reviewers will test equipment for 6 months minimum). Then they write reviews on what they like and do not like about the sound changes in their system, and whether there is any greatly noticable difference.

Some of them, heaven forbid, even break out omnidirectional measurement microphones and software that will *gasp* measure the output of the system and, oh dear, analyze the results all scientific like so certain @$$#@*$ will shut the #!@* up about audiophiles being delusional because a microphone isn't affected by placebo, or psychological mind tricks. Granted not all reviews have that kind of equipment, because not all reviewers have the budget to shell out a few grand for a high-quality mic and testing equipment/software.

And you see, you're giving me arguments.

Uh ... no.

You haven't said that you had heard, for example, stereo X and stereo Y, you've said thay you'd heard stereo that costs A and stereo that costs B.

And this matters because... this only means that I have experience in listening to a wide range of equipment. I never once said that I tested cable differences in a $120k system, only that I've heard one before.

What I did say is that I have tested various cables in MY system, and did ABX comparisons with my friends. MY ABX on MY stereo yielded noticable results.

Now, I don't question your motives...but do you really think this doesn't make the whole thing mostly placebo?

I don't doubt that there is placebo. When I was testing lossless audio CODECs I had a problem where it appeared that one sounded different than the other. Once I moved into a more quiet room without interupptions the differenced vanished. However, that does not mean ALL my experiences are placebo/psychological, as I have done ABX with OTHER people (i.e. they did not know which cable I had plugged in, but chould hear audible differences in each).

(=psychological, I'm not sure why you repeat that).

Placebo = an inert or innocuous substance used especially in controlled experiments testing the efficacy of another substance.

Psychological = directed toward the will or toward the mind specifically in its conative function.

So a plcaebo effect would be something along the lines of when the same cable was used over and over again to see if someone supposedly hears the difference. A psychological mind trick would be when your predjudice towards one cable caused your mind to think that you heard a difference when there was not one.

Of course I'm not talking here about comparing cheapest shit with uber-expensive

Cables come in both cheap and uber varieties, too, you know.

I'm talking starting with something that is build good, but not necceserily excessivelly expensive.

Didn't I say I believed that cabling only made a difference to a point ... ? Why are you disagreeing with something we both agree on?

Furthermore, you state that something will make a difference, based on opinions and experience...but don't have anything to back it up.

Experience does make a difference. You don't pull some Joe Schmoe off the street to be a judge in a wine tasting contest now do you? Or to analyze a complex work of modern art? If you have no experience in the audio/music industry beyond listening to music on your factory car stereo, or a cheap stereo, how can you be a good judge on what audio equipment is good? And like a wine tester can taste every small nuance of a wine, a real audio equipment judge can tell the difference, if any, that a piece of equipment will make in a stereo. Why? Because they both require the good use of a sense (hearing or taste), experience in that field (tasting wine or reviewing equipment), and the knowledge needed to unserstand every little nuance of the medium.

However, there are people that will never understand, whether they refuse to or are incapable of it depends on the person, the differences. To me, there is no good wine (the smell alone repulses me). I can enjoy grape juice, Welches rules!, but wine repugnant. True I do have a predjudice against wine, but then again I bet most of the people who say audiophiles are full of shit have predujices of their own. In the same way, some people enjoy their hip-hop on a boombox (grape juice), while others prefer enjoying a symphony on a high-end stereo (wine).

I can't make it any easier than that.

(note: in that case, I'm also talking about "not-shitty" stuff of course; cable should be properly build, with good shielding and connectors...) Not a problem really if you apply this to yourself and spend your money on your equipment...but this shouldn't be common knowledge in that case. However there's very easy way to prove your claims I, and I'm sure HA community also, will be very interested in your positive results. You see, we are the ones who don't asume any outcome (contrary to what you say)...so that also means we don't assume it before it has been tested

I have done tests on my system and it is built to maximize performance on my budget. One of my good friends did testing with me on each piece of equipment, and then I did blind testing with my flatmates. Like really blind. Like, "hey, what did you do to your stereo? this sounds awesome!" because I didn't tell them I changed anything, just waited to see if they discovered the changed on their own.

Jammrock

[Nowhere]

(I've mixed you responces a bit so mine could remain more integrated, hope you don't mind)

...
Did you read the review?

Why yes, but that was clearly response to your generalisation...

Any test can be flawed no matter WHO does it. Even scientist make mistakes and produce flawed results. And yes some audiophiles make mistakes and their tests are flawed, or their mind plays tricks on them. Same old song and dance. But not all audiophiles are scientific dolts.

Don't bring the topic of niunses of methodology of science/philosophy (you shouldn't want me to bringing it more ) . it was about dismissing scientific methodoly completelly.

The good reviewers have a reference system that they are intimately familiar with. When new equipment arrives to test they listen to that equipment, as well as the familiar equipment, until they are familiar with both pieces of equipment (the good reviewers will test equipment for 6 months minimum). Then they write reviews on what they like and do not like about the sound changes in their system, and whether there is any greatly noticable difference.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. It doesn't make their claims any more factual automagically...they could (however, not must) actually grow more and more in bias about things...that aren't there.

Some of them, heaven forbid, even break out omnidirectional measurement microphones and software that will *gasp* measure the output of the system and, oh dear, analyze the results all scientific like so certain @$$#@*$ will shut the #!@* up about audiophiles being delusional because a microphone isn't affected by placebo, or psychological mind tricks. Granted not all reviews have that kind of equipment, because not all reviewers have the budget to shell out a few grand for a high-quality mic and testing equipment/software.

Uhmm...and you seem to support this practise? This is...utter BS. Sound listening IS a subjective experience - sound can't be measured, it can't be visualised and based on slight difference we can't brought up any meaningfull conclusions (whole the time talking about "quality side" of properly built audio system for listening of music - but nothing more). It is pseudoscience, similar thing to what "Intelligent design" folks use to give them more credit. And also variation of the fallacy "appeall to authority". Only because someone has kick-ass gear, knows a lot of big words and combines them together properly doesn't make them right. The only thing we can do to push it more in the science area is something like ABX...heck, many social sciences, which research things that can't be quantified easily, do just that.

Uh ... no.
...
And this matters because... this only means that I have experience in listening to a wide range of equipment. I never once said that I tested cable differences in a $120k system, only that I've heard one before.
...
Experience does make a difference. You don't pull some Joe Schmoe off the street to be a judge in a wine tasting contest now do you? Or to analyze a complex work of modern art? If you have no experience in the audio/music industry beyond listening to music on your factory car stereo, or a cheap stereo, how can you be a good judge on what audio equipment is good? And like a wine tester can taste every small nuance of a wine, a real audio equipment judge can tell the difference, if any, that a piece of equipment will make in a stereo. Why? Because they both require the good use of a sense (hearing or taste), experience in that field (tasting wine or reviewing equipment), and the knowledge needed to unserstand every little nuance of the medium.

However, there are people that will never understand, whether they refuse to or are incapable of it depends on the person, the differences. To me, there is no good wine (the smell alone repulses me). I can enjoy grape juice, Welches rules!, but wine repugnant. True I do have a predjudice against wine, but then again I bet most of the people who say audiophiles are full of shit have predujices of their own. In the same way people can enjoy their hip-hop on a boombox, while others like me prefer enjoying a symphony on a high-end stereo.
I can't make it any easier than that.
...

And the thing that I have no such experience means I have nothing to offer? Or perhaps "no experience, nothing to offer" is projecting your lack of desire to search for measured evidence on me, who do have such desire and place value in it, and specifically when it could disprove your pre-determined "beliefs"? Oh, but in that case nobody on the Earth has means to convince non-believer that his beliefs are not true...simply because they're not only "only sometimes" based on facts, but also often contradict them and all is OK...

Placebo = an inert or innocuous substance used especially in controlled experiments testing the efficacy of another substance.

Psychological = directed toward the will or toward the mind specifically in its conative function.

Wrong, the whole effect is also described like that. Psychological effect.

So a plcaebo effect would be something along the lines of when the same cable was used over and over again to see if someone supposedly hears the difference. A psychological mind trick would be when your predjudice towards one cable caused your mind to think that you heard a difference when there was not one.

No, broader meaning: your brain notice/feels the difference (of any kind) where there isn't any. In part of nomenclatures of course. There are almost as many of them as psychological schools... (btw, your second example is quite near the description of placebo happening while testing medicines)

Cables come in both cheap and uber varieties, too, you know.
...
Didn't I say I believed that cabling only made a difference to a point ... ? Why are you disagreeing with something we both agree on?

Well, yeah...I simply meant here that it's pointless to compare obviously shitty cable with some uberexpensive one. The test should be: properly build, "solid" cable vs. uberexpensive.
So...what is "the point" for you? For me it would be simply...as above (big enough for given electric specification (while applying true physics , no fancy metals...), with good insulation and shielding and solidly made connections, etc, so it won't be falling apart... )

What I did say is that I have tested various cables in MY system, and did ABX comparisons with my friends. MY ABX on MY stereo yielded noticable results.
...
I don't doubt that there is placebo. When I was testing lossless audio CODECs I had a problem where it appeared that one sounded different than the other. Once I moved into a more quiet room without interupptions the differenced vanished. However, that does not mean ALL my experiences are placebo/psychological, as I have done ABX with OTHER people (i.e. they did not know which cable I had plugged in, but chould hear audible differences in each).
...
I have done tests on my system and it is built to maximize performance on my budget. One of my good friends did testing with me on each piece of equipment, and then I did blind testing with my flatmates. Like really blind. Like, "hey, what did you do to your stereo? this sounds awesome!" because I didn't tell them I changed anything, just waited to see if they discovered the changed on their own.

Jammrock

Did you describe in the first two parts the blind testing in the third? Because...that's not properly made test test at all . One of proper tests is ABX for example...because there are sooooo many things that could influence perception in your friends. (one go? give me a brake...was that the same sample, same ludness? were thye drunk or tired the last time when they've heard it...the list goes on)

I'll give fun example (quite extreme, but...you'll get a picture). In the past a group of students apparently discovered that very (very!) small children like to be fed with the blue spoon rather than green spoon (actaully, it was more like "blueish" and "greenish", the difference was small). However they repeated the test using proper methodology...with different criteria for "research group" and "control group". In the first one mothers were told the purpose of experiment is as follows: "we think that babies like to be fed with green spoons more than with blue ones" (YES, they reverted it!). In the second I think they haven't said what they think or haven't revelaed the purpose at all (merelly that it was for studying "eating habits"), I'm not sure (probably the latter). The result: all babies in the first group preffered the green spoons this time But in the second group...total randomness. It turns out the mothers influenced subcouncioussly their babies. BTW, effect was the same when non-mothers fed the babies in some later study (with obvious complications ).

Now...1 year old or something like that babies could recognize what others want from them. You should give your friends more credit...


Of course, there's also possibility that you've made proper, scientific testing and analysis of data...in that case, I encourage you to post results for example on HA, with full details (equipment, what music if possible), I'm sure it'll be of great interest there, potentially changing a bit some part of "their" knowledge.