Would the Panamax piece do what you want if you connected it at the component end instead of the sub end? Why does it matter which end it is at as far as protection is concerned?

The whole thing about using the left input or using both inputs with a Y connector comes from the original way sub signals came from preamps and receivers, with a dash of misunderstanding added.

Some of the early preamps and receivers had left and right sub outputs, so a stereo cable was used to connect to one sub, or two subs were used. You could also use a sub straight off of the main channel outputs (so you HAD to have two cables) because the sub would filter out the highs. When the method changed to one sub output, sub manufacturers did not change because they wanted to be sure their product would work with all existing sources.

There is no need at all to use a Y cable and both inputs, but this was done because it made the sub play louder, or because someone thought that if there were two inputs, they both should be used. This, despite the fact that many subs are labeled "left or mono input."

Those two inputs are simply summed together, with a high enough impedance that two main outputs would not be turned into mono by shorting them together. This summing makes the Y-connected scenario play louder than a mono connection. If you think that is better, well, it is not; it is like saying that a subwoofer is better at a volume of 4 than 3. It's just volume.

However, customers and installers did not understand this. Salespeople were more than glad to sell a Y connector and a special short mono cable. That's money in the pocket, which buys more lunch than a clear explanation. And, of course, Noel Lee saw that he could sell more stuff by making custom product for this. So he did. Rather than explain the truth, he bent to the temptation to sell a needless product. But then, so did everyone else.

Rick, main reason for wanting to use the line protection was due to some sotries Ive heard about Panamax making you have all your ducks in a row when/if filing a claim. I think it was this very type of equipment scenerio. (remote mounted sub, with cables running in-wall/ceiling) and them wanting the entire "bubble" of protection.

I could be remembering incorrectly however.

It doesnt, other than the fact that if I wanted to protect the sub at the component end, I would need to home run the power to the a/v rack. Not ideal or logical in most cases. As well, this would be defeating what I THINK (see post to Rick below) is Panamax's intention to protect any lines that run through the house outside of the A/V rack, to keep the "bubble" in tact. (Voltage spike, lightning strike, shorted wire etc in the attic. hell I dont know what their reasoning is)Not sure if I understand your question. If your referring to protecting the LINE input at the component end, I guess that could be done by using TWO max subs, one at the sub end (for POWER protection) and one at the component end (for LINE protection)

Now that I keep thinking about it more, maybe it was just the POWER that they insisted on having protected as well in this "remote mounted " scenario. Anyone else ever hear these preferred connection methods from PAnamax? i.e., what is the "proper" way to protect all equip?

All devices need to be properly plugged into a Panamax surge protection device, all signal that connects to the equipment from the outside needs to be protected.

Sat feed, cable TV feed, phone line feed, data line feed, etc.
They also made a special terminal block unit for rotator control wires for satellites and antennas.

Component to component cabling does not necessarily need to be protected. You wouldn't use a Sub Max if the sub were right beside the rack, would you?? The Sub Max sometimes causes more harm than good (like in your case).

If you are concerned about coverage, call Panamax directly and ask them for the official opinion. Let them know that the signal originates from a device that is already fully protected in their circle of protection (this is true, isn't it?), and that this signal does not go outside the home or share any conduits, junctions, or grounds with any other cabling.

Also be straightforward that their method of signal protection is injecting noise into the system in this application, and I am pretty sure they will recommend the power protection only.

All of these surge manufacturers throw huge multi-million dollar protection numbers on the packaging, but it's as much for marketing and piece of mind than anything.

Most of the other manufacturers of surge protection devices do not include phone, data, and RF connections on their components... so are they wrong?? is Panamax right??

The other variable is the client's insurance company...

If a small surge comes down the pipe and the ONLY thing that takes a hit is the Panamax, or the Panamax and one component connected to it, call Panamax...

If a massive lighting strike hits the house to the point where it gets into the cabling inside the home, there will be A LOT of damage and the insurance company is bound to be involved replacing/repairing appliances, HVAC units, etc.

Either way it sounds like you have done due diligence to make sure the client has as much protection that you can provide.

Why would it ever not be ideal or logical not to home run the sub power back to the AV rack? this is the only way I do it and it's been the only way I've done it since about 1997. And since that time I no longer piss away hours trying to solve ground loop problems. I automatically put a Jensen transformer on the cable feed and SURGEX for 120V conditioning. Other than occasionally needing line level transformers between two separate AV racks, ground loops are not an issue, and shouldn't be on our small scale. Now the poor bastards doing commercial work, they know what a ground loop is.

ground loops...try this one on for size....dod(department of defence) job we are doing.
4 dlp projos, 8 plasmas, 32 inputs, ranging from elmo's, hd-sat, dvd, and 18 computer and a video conferencing devices..... its in 4 different rooms that combine to make 1 big room.

we are running off of 4 dedicated circuits.........

this wil be a challange even for the great luke skywalker

so far so good........

One thing for sure -- if you run into ground loops along the way, just keep on installing. I have had a couple of large (area-wise) installs where, by the time all the different grounds were connected, the currents that had caused hum were then not causing any problems.

[Link: jensentransformers.com]

This actually doesn't seem to bad to me. As long as you specified IG outlets and keep the four circuits on the same phase you should have minimal problems. Now if it's also tied into a large scale surveilance system you'll could be in for a LOT of Jensen transformers.