Thanks, you have a fantastic setup.
Forgot to mention I also have a SVS SB2000 Pro, connected to the Niagara as well.
I also have an Auralic Mini but now connected to other speakers as they do not work with HQPlayer. Very convenient but could not find much different than with an RPi4.
I think the different additions I added definitely helped in some way but the Niagara helped to improve each component and hence the biggest improvement overall.
Having a Niagara 5000 itās amazing to experience such an amazing improvement. This is for all analog & digital devices which can be connected. I have Roon core running on a QNAP NAS and using Devialet 440 Pro as streamer / amplifiers. There is much more connected - and all devices heavily benefit from it.
The 5000 vs. 3000 are the number of devices managed, correct? Or are there other differences?
Yes and Transient Power Correction: 55 amps peak vs 90.
I do need the extra device management and the transient peaks would be better. Thank you for the input.
Your welcome. You will have a great listening experience with the 3000 but even more with the 5000.
Thank you again. I have asked a store (which has sold me other components) for a price on both 3000 and 5000. The only hesitation is knowing Audioquest makes at least one device (Jitter Bug) that is touted to do things that it does not. Other than that, I have no hesitation buying the 5000. I have three Cullen (familiar) cables and would add more of them.
Yes the jitterbug is a tool I am also not convinced of. But regarding Niagara itās great. Just have in mind that the Niagara should be connected to the wall socket also with an Audioquest power cord having the noise dissipation technology. Iād suggest a High Current Thunder.
What, only one device?
For a price on Niagara check out Amazon.
Instead of the overpriced, overrated, and overhyped Audioquest Niagara, try a Furman, with non-sacrificial surge protector added in.
https://www.amazon.com/Furman-Reference-20-Discrete-Symmetrical/dp/B000WV5K34/ref=sr_1_28?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1233275803&sr=1-28
When I looked at the Furman, I could not find a meaningful way to compare it with the Audioquest product. The Furman is several years old, butā¦if it is superiorā¦
Thanks for reminding me of it.
I read this on AVSForum: āThe lead engineer for the Niagara is Garth Powell. He was also one of the top engineers at Furman Sound for many years. He is the designer of products such as the Furman IT-Ref 20i, which I own and has been a great piece. Judging by the work that Garth has done at Furman, Iām sure the Niagara is a great performer. One thing Garth does is build bullet proof pieces that never dull or add an edge to the sound. The IT-Ref has some serious surge protection built into it, hopefully that has made it into the Niagara as well.ā
Interesting, but why get a copy when you can get an original at 2/3 the price?
FWIW, I donāt trust anything Audioquest sells.
By that they mean non-sacrificial.
I bought a lesser Furman model because of that.
I also found the conditioning part had a positive effect on SQ, or so it seemed 
.
I have a Furman PL-8C coming my wayā¦ I am not after an improvement of sound, I donāt believe in that. Where I live, mains power is not reliable at all, so I decided on a power conditioner out of a desire to protect my HiFi equipment. If I wanted to improve the sound of my system, I certainly wouldnāt spend thousands of dollars on overpriced Audioquest magic, but on room correction, speakers or amplifiers.
MANY years ago, I had a power conditioner for the home theater. I eventually blew it, but it weighed 75lbs and was $3500 back then (1990?).
I would like that it made an SQ difference but do not believe it will. I do need protection; a stereo condom.
The Audioquest will be the same cost (to me) as the Furman so price is not a consideration so much as quality or ROI.
If protection is what you need, look at the models Furman aims at protecting professional gear on stage, on the roadā¦ Youāll be surprised the money you can spare and use for something more useful.
Wow - seems some have a strange, negative bias concerning Audioquest 
But just having a serious look at the products that Garth Powell developed for Audioquest - this is the evolution of his work at Furman.
Just compare like I did, the Niagara 1200/3000 or 5000 to other brands like PS audio, Furutech, ā¦ itās absolutely great performance / value you get.
I think that there is a negative leaning toward some manufacturers. Warranted? I cannot say, but it appears to be present.
When an engineer goes to a new company, there are likely factors of which we are not aware. I speculate it has to do with financial enticements.
Do power conditioners sound different from each other? Again, having not owned one, I cannot say, and my reason is more for protection of the equipment.
I appreciate all of the input.
They follow different approaches / technologies - so they do sound differently.
Iāve owned PS Audio regenerators for years. I currently own two P10 and two P5 units. After making some upgrades to my speaker system, I decided to explore replacements for the P10. I examined and demoed various options from many manufacturers, starting with balanced power units from Equi=Tech, the various AQ units [including the 7000], Transparent products, Audio Magic, Shunyata, and the PS Audio P20. In the end, I chose a Torus AVR2-20 for my speaker system. No regrets. AQ says it well on their website: there are a number of ways to get to improved power results. And to the point of Dr. Aās question, itās not just the different tech that each employs that can produce different outcomes; itās also the types of problems your mains supply presents that can affect the outcome. The Torus meets my needs. I liked the Niagara series, and was impressed by the AQ teamās enthusiasm, but overall preferred the performance and feature set of the Torus. I will likely soon add a Torus wall mount or all-in-one to my listening room for even better power performance.