Prana-Bindu

mh: I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "musicality", but I think I know: a coherence between the pace of the music, transient response, tonal accuracy and dynamics? I suspect that your concern speaks to the low efficiency rating of the speakers. I shared the same concern, since the speed of a system seems to be so important to what I described above as musicality. I just got the speakers recently, so I'm still becoming acquainted with all their nuances, and they're still breaking in. They're definitely not as fast as those horn tweeters, but I really enjoy the more relaxed presentation. My hope is that the added power of the ST-85 will resolve most speed deficiencies that may become apparent. Or maybe when I own the world I can throw in some Wotans or similarly powerful amps.... Doug: I was in the market for Fortes and Choruses for several months, but I never got to purchase. I was sniped out of a few auctions and I got picky. I'll check out horns again when I can do it right. For now, rowooo should take the step and report. Peace! ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

Hey rowooo!! You WEREN'T the only dude on this board from Nebraska, until I moved to Alabama. I never did get a fully horn-loaded speaker into my system, so I wouldn't have been much help anyway. I heard the Aerial Acoustics at The Sound Environment and fell in love with the laid-back sound. I only got as far as the RF-3's before I went the way of the cone. I still want to hear more horns, but I don't have the room for an all-horns setup. And, yes, I've considered a compromise like the Cornwall's or the Forte's, but I could hear the differences between the cones in my RF-3's and and their tweeter horns, and they annoyed me. Maybe when I own my own place and can outfit a room around a pair of Khorns or include horn subs.... If you're curious, here's my current fix: Aerial Acoustics 7b's, VTL IT-85 (to be supplemented by an ST-85), Perpetual Technologies P-3A/P-1A combo, and Theta Jade transport. If you're not bothered by the horn/cone combination, go for some Cornwalls. Or try out some LaScalas... I'm not advising from experience; I'm just resolving my regrets vicariously. If you don't dig the speakers, you know you can get back what you paid (e-bay, audiogon, etc.). Good luck! ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

I couldn't find a 6 Amp Slo Blo ceramic fuse in either site. Weird.... ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

Y'all rock!! I DID try all the manly electronics supply stores in town, and none of them had that fuse. Then I called Luke Manley (brilliant!) at VTL, and he told me I should be fine with a glass fuse (easier to find). I'm still gonna get the ceramic fuse, though, just to be sure; so, thank you much for the advice. Tonight I'm gonna give tube biasing a try. Let's hope I don't fry. ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

I went out and purchased a multimeter to check my amp's fuses. In reading my amp's manual, I found out I need a digital multimeter to bias the tubes and I got an analog meter, but that's another story. Anyhoot, the main fuse of the VTL IT-85 is the culprit. Hoorah! No need to send the unit in for factory work and be ampless for a month or so!! One problem: no one in Mobile, Alabama has the fuse I need! It's a 6 Amp Slo Blo ceramic fuse, and Rat Shack doesn't carry, nor does Home Depot, nor Lowes, nor ACE hardware. What gives? Any suggestions? Will the quality of the fuse affect the sonic performance? How many electronics suppliers must a man contact before you can call him a mang, mang? ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

I guess I don't know what you mean by color differences caused by subtle changes in overtones. I understand what you mean by "primary sounds". The low-level detail is definitely stuff that is there, but was unnoticeable before because of the system's inability to resolve it, to present it despite the other stuff in the composition. I am under the impression that the color differences you refer to are basically the same instruments/components in the music but sounding differently. For example, warmer vs. brighter, or even horn vs. cone. Am I on the right track? If so, I can't say I've noticed such a difference yet; at least one about which I can be at all lucid. The review I read of the P-1A up against a Theta upsampler (maybe?) mentioned artefacts added by the P-1A not added by the Theta, using an SACD recording as a reference. However, these artefacs were described more along the lines of the primary sounds than the color of the sound itself. Bad news: my VTL IT-85 is dead. The fuses are fine, but it won't power up. It's gonna be about a month of waiting for factory service before I have ANY lovely sounds in my house. The dealer from whom I purchased is back in Nebraska, I just moved to Mobile, Alabama, therefore no likely chance of a replacement unit of any sort to keep me happy while I wait. This sucks. Bad. I'll be back.... ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

Low-level detail: I'm using it as I've seen it used, so correct my vocabulary if it's improper. I mean the quieter sounds in a composition, such as a triangle in the midst of heavy-hittin' drums and gnashing electric guitar, or the sound of a bassist's fingers moving along the neck. The first such detail I noticed was on Sarah McLaughlin's Surfacing, track #10 (the instrumental); the string instrument in the background had more presence, it was more discernible as a separate component of the composition and I could hear the little textures of the bow shifting direction or moving from string to string. Other examples: mouth noises in vocalists (sibilance is more textured, made up of a wider variety of sounds), various distortions in electric guitars/basses (slight clicks and pops and static that add that hard, edgy character some of us love about bands like Sonic Youth, Guided by Voices, etc.), any sounds in a composition that normally get drowned out or smeared by the sheer volume of other sounds. Low-level detail, dude. You know the kind.... The lowest price I've seen for the P-1A is $530 and the highest about $640. I understand the prices are falling because of PT's seeming inability to crank out room correction. I'm not sure about the P-3A prices, as I purchased it from Wrightmod with the modifications (PT endorses the modifications and does not void its warranty as a result thereof). The P-3A did not receive much acclaim on its own before Dan Wright got to it. Now it's highly regarded. I wanted a good DAC and I felt compelled to choose the P-3A because it used the I2S interface offered by the P-1A, and my intention all along was to add the P-1A to my system. I've been busy lately, and my girlfriend has been hogging the stereo with her ridiculous music tastes, so I can only make more promises of a more thorough review. It used to annoy me that she didn't understand why I obsess over this nonsense. Now she's getting into it, and I don't like it one bit. You are warned. ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

Mike: The P-1A is a digital-to-digital only processor. It requires a digital input and outputs a digital signal to a DAC. Right now, the DVD (used as a transport) is cabled via coaxial digital cable (RCA termination) to the P-1A. My CD carousel only outputs in toslink, and the P-1A does not have a toslink input. My plan is to run the CD carousel to an Audio Alchemy DTI jitter filter, which outputs via I2S cable to the P-1A's I2S input. I spoke to Marc Schifter, president of Perpetual Technologies and Audio Alchemy, and he told me that they run Audio Alchemy DTI's in front of all their P-1A/P-3A combos (even less jitter and strips the signal of some kind of encoding to make the P-1A's job easier -- less jitter). It is taking Perpetual Technologies too long to come out with the room correction, and their speaker correction options are few (the KLF-10 is the only Klipsch speaker in the cooker, apparently, and it is not yet available). I have heard that these delays are what is causing the sharp drop in prices for used units. They're coming out with a single-unit processor that does the job of both the P-1A and the P-3A (this Summer, I think), but I don't know what else it's supposed to add to the features. I've been wondering if the room correction is too difficult to do in one reading, and that such is the reason for PT's inability to release the upgrade. Reviews I've read of other room correction devices (TacT, e.g.) describe a very careful, step-by-step process. I bought the P-1A for the cheap upsampling and only-one-in-the-market interpolation features. Other upsamplers use dither and repetition to fill in the gaps between digital words created by the upsampling process. This, from what I've read, sounds great, but different. The amazing price and Class A rating from Stereophile sold me. I'll have a more explicit evaluation after I've done more critical listening. ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

I just got the thing, so I will only mention my initial impressions. One word: low-level detail. Holy minutae, Klipsch Man! I'm still getting a feel for it, but there's something else that grabbed me right away: I was too lazy to switch cables when doing comparative listening, so I just toggled the resolution enhancement on and off. This meant, however (I think), that the P-1A still did its jitter filtering. Even with the resolution enhancement off, transients are less smeared, bass less muddy, imaging is quite a bit less fuzzy. Of course, for interface limitation reasons, I have to use a transport I've never used before and coaxial digital cable instead of the toslink I'm used to. However, the difference is so stark to me (different story from my girlfriend), that I can't imagine only those factors playing such a significant role. Of course, my understanding is that those factors only affect the jitter amounts anyway. I'll try to do some more controlled listening and report back. As far as the resolution enhancement goes: low-level detail and smoooooooth! I sat my girl down to see what she noticed, so she got to choose the music (Sarah McLaughlin, Surfacing). On track #6, after listening without the resolution enhancement, she fumbled for the remote to go to the right track when I turned on the enhancement. She actually thought it was a different track! Here's the gear in use: RCA DVD (cheapo), Acoustic Research coaxial digital cable (cheapo), P-1A, standard I2S cable, P-3A DAC (Level II Wrightmods), Kimber Silverstreak, VTL IT-85 integrated amp, Kimber 8TC bi-wire braided, Klipsch RF-3's. Wow, man! Like, low-level detail! Wow! ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

I've noticed my RF-3's tend to vibrate quite a bit. Perhpas we should try adding some weight up top to minimize this? ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

I haven't done an A/B comparison to be able to identify the audible effects of jitter, but as soon as the next digital upgrade comes along (hopefully within the next two weeks), I'll do much critical listening and report. Others report jitter smearing transients, degrading imaging, and compressing the soundstage. I'll let y'all know what I hear in a couple of months (hopefully). ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

Coax is generally considered less prone to digital jitter than toslink. Really, the amount of jitter added to the signal is the only criterion by which to compare such cables; at least the only criterion so far identified. What is jitter? Timing error. The moment in time, in relation to the rest of the signal, in which a digital unit is played affects the sound. A simple description of the jitter problem that I've seen goes a little like this: the right note played at the wrong time is the wrong note. Remember: each digital sound unit is just an approximation of the original portion of the analog waveform represented by that unit. When a digital signal is converted to analog by a cd player's or separate DAC, the audible result is not the smooth wave that the original analog signal was: it is the best approximation of that waveform that digital blocks can make. Jitter is the playback of these digital blocks at relative times not identical to the relative times established by the digital encoding process (the analog to digital conversion). There are at least five locations in the digital playback process (when using a separate DAC) that introduce timing error (jitter). The biggest culprit is the encoding the signal goes through to be transmittable via an S/PDIF cable (such as toslink and coaxial). The only way to avoid this is to use an interface that does not burn timing error into the signal like S/PDIF does. If you have to use S/PDIF (such as in the choice you're making between toslink and coaxial), it would be best to use the interface that introduces the least amount of jitter. As I understand it (my memory is faulty here), toslink is more jittery than coaxial. You could use a jitter filter between the transport and the DAC, but if you're gonna use S/PDIF interfaces between these units, the filter might not help at all or might add even more jitter. Also, different jitter filters have different jitter "footprints" that work well with some transports/DAC's and not so well with others. This is likely because the accumulation of jitter is similar to the accumulation of wave amplitude in the phenomenon of wave interference: there is constructive and destructive interference. In other words, timing errors from different sources may cancel themselves out or add to each other. Isn't this fun? You have many options to choose from if you want to get paranoid about jitter like me. You can get transport/DAC combos by the same manufacturer that has built the units to work off the same clock (DAC clock fed back to the transport for reference). You can use units that allow use of some attempts at universalizing the transmission of data and clock information separately (I2S, I2S-e, e.g.). No interface is on top right now, but it looks like second-generation I2S-e will likely win out. I say second-generation, because the units that use I2S-e at this time don't allow the feeding of the DAC clock back to the transport as a reference. The capability is in the interface, but no one takes advantage of it yet, as far as I know. So, right now the best way to avoid jitter is to use a transport and a DAC made to work off the DAC clock (same manufacturer) and using their own unique interface. I want to use the Perpetual Technologies P-1A, so I have to deal with what it can do: I intend to run my toslink-only cd player to an Audio Alchemy DTI jitter filter, make the I2S connection from the DTI to the P-1A and another I2S connection to the P-3 DAC. Then, I promise, I'm done with this crap. Probably.... I need a nap. ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

Soundog: Do you mean the Monolithic power supply for the P-1A/P-3 combo? or is there a Monarchy power supply? If it IS the Monolithic, can you run anything else off of it in addition to the Perpetual Technologies gear? For example (ehem), could you run the two units in addition to an Audio Alchemy DTI? Perpetual Technologies is coming out with the P-5 this summer (I think). It's supposed to do what the P-1A/P-3 combo does in a single unit, but I think it's also supposed to add features or quality. After I get my P-1A and DIT, I'm done upgrading DSP; enough is enough.... maxg: I wonder if the inadequacies with vinyl that you identified when comparing with SACD are due to wow and flutter? Granite and marble are cheap and totally available in your area, aren't they? Perhaps a custom-made granite turntable would help reduce those analog problems.... ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

I KNEW it would be Ray.... I had a moment of thinking outside the bun this morning: I called Perpetual Technologies. The dude that picked up the phone was Mark Schifter (sp?) himself -- the brain of the whole operation. He told me they put Audio Alchemy DTI's in front of all their P-1A/P-3 combos. Apparently, the DTI (any one of them) would bring the jitter down to about 20 picoseconds before the P-1A got a crack at it. However, the use of the DTI would have another benefit: it would strip the signal of some kind of ecryption (PCMsomething) before it reaches the P-1A. This is apparently quite the noticeable benefit. Mark also said that, for my purposes, the better power supply would not be a must-have. Is a cheaper power supply just another source of RFI and EMI? I want my snake oil, and I want it now! Ray: you rock! I'm sending you a private message or regular e-mail. Peace!! ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

This is my problem (inter alia): I want to use Perpetual Technologies P-1A DSP device. My CD player only outputs via toslink. P-1A doesn't have toslink input. My idea is to get an old Audio Alchemy DTI jitter filter, which can accept toslink and output via I2S to P-1A. However, there isn't much info on the DTI filters out there, and I don't know which one to get. First of all, since the P-1A does its own upsampling and "interpolation", is there any reason to get the later versions of the filter (2.0, Pro, 32Pro, Plus, etc.) instead of the first version? Is the jitter filtering better in the later models? Also: what's up with the different Power Station power supplies Audio Alchemy came out with? Would the use of an upgraded power supply for the DTI in the above-described configuration make a difference? What about the Monolithic power supply? I know it's made to run the P-1A/P-3 combo, but will it also run the DTI in addition to those two units? I need the help of some of you audionuts that can remember that far back. Help me, Audionut, you're my only hope.... ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

Damn it all. I got outbiddified.... ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

The auction does not run out until tomorrow night. They are oiled oak and allegedly in mint condition (no photos yet). 1996 Forte II's. I intend to follow the advice of others on this forum and wait until the end of the auction to snipe my way to those mid-range horns. Can anyone offer an experienced comparison between the Forte II's and the RF-3's? I'll provide such a comparison when/if I get them, but anticipation is half the fun. They'll be driven by a VTL IT-85 integrated tube amp, from an old Onkyo integra cd-carousel coupled with a modified Perpetual Technologies P-3A DAC. I'll have to make a cable choice, because all I have now is bi-wire braided stuff. I'm all giddy and I haven't even bid yet!! ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

I think I'm gonna go for them. Wish me luck.... Don't let me drive the price up against someone in this forum. Let me know if you want them more than me. ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

you can find some rf-3's in good condition (maybe even mint) for under $300. The high's might be too harsh with that amp, though. Try it out first. study up on speaker placement and save up for a fully horn-loaded speaker or go to an all-cone set. I don't recommend the combination of horn and cone. No doubt people will disagree. Enjoy learning! ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

Wow, dude. Like... love... wow! I'd like to know how the two fellers' advice contradicts each other. It would be a good start to deciphering that little fracas. Wow! Like... love, man, love! Wow! How much do dealers charge to bias new tubes? My manual advises against DIY biasing. Is this advice overstated? Did I just f*rt? Wow! ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

Jitter is just timing error: playing a note at the wrong time. There are supposed to be several sources of jitter. As I understand it, the S/PDIF encoding is supposed to be the biggest source of them all. The various sources may be cumulative or may cancel each other out, much like wave constructive and destructive interference. I don't know what a EFM demodulator is, dude, but it sounds sexy. There are several schemes out there to get over the S/PDIF jitter in a separates situation, but they always entail getting the transport and DAC from the same manufacturer. This is because these schemes essentially try to run one clock as a slave to the other or do a better job of encoding and decoding the S/PDIF signal, because the two pieces are designed to work with each other. As I understand it, most (if not all) jitter sources other than the S/PDIF encoding process add inaudible levels of jitter. Not sure about that, though. If you can find Spider, he seems to know quite a bit about this stuff. ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

Thanks for pinging, dude. I've been very interested in the various options available for the digital end recently, so I'm glad I get to spew for all y'all. Jitter is timing error. It is more present in separate digital systems (separate DAC and separate transport and separate Digital Signal Processing). Single-unit cd players exhibit less jitter, because time errors are introduced in the encoding process to S/PDIF (Sony Phillips Digital Interface?) -- the format used by today's common digital outputs. Where do these timing errors come from? The explanation still confuses me into just wagging my finger. Nevertheless, I'll give it a try. More talkie talkie... Music is digitized at a particular digital-word length (16 bits) and sampling frequency (44,100 words per second). The length of the word is relevant insofar as the more bits used by a binary numbering system the more numbers it will be able to express (the more words that will be available to use). Each word has an association with the aural music (volume, frequency, etc.) qualities. The more words available, the more different qualities will be expressible. Remember: sound spans an infinitely divisible continuum. The more bits in a binary encoding system, the more of the continuum that will be available to express. It's like comparing a crayon box containing only two shades of what we often call red with those outrageous crayon boxes with sharpeners built in. Crazy! Higher sampling frequency crams more differently placed (on the continuum) expressions (digital words)within the time unit used to measure the frequency. It's like the difference of plotting a 5-foot long wave with parallel slide rules and doing so with straws. Again, more of the continum is available for expression. Now, when music is digitized (the wave form is turned into lined-up straws), the original analog waveform signal is pecked at during the intervals and for the length of such intervals defined by the frequency rate. In other words, the music (waveform) expressed in cd's is pecked at (during the digitization process) 44,100 times per second. Each peck can be analyzed for relative volume, frequency, etc. and assigned that peck's (word's) value accoding to the table of values used by CD's (isn't that called Red Book or something like that?). Obviously, cycles per time unit is a measurement of time: the digitization process involves a clock (hardware). So what are the effects of timing error? The playback of the limited (finite) snapshots at times relative to each other that don't match up the times, again relative to each other, at which the snapshots were taken. In other words, a note played at the wrong time is the wrong note. I'm not a practiced enough listener, and I've never heard a less jittery playback next to a more jittery playback to even try to express the effects in the vocabulary of high-end audio (decay times, transient response, detail, soundstage, dynamics, etc.), but I can understand the nature of the error, and it frightens me. So how and where does this timing error occur? Why isn't the timing information built into the digital stream as it's stamped on the cd? I believe the answer to the latter question may be a weakness of the limited storage on a cd, but I don't know enough agout DSP to know whether that information (time) can even be written and reproduced in a more accurate and retrievable manner. Maybe it's a function of storage space, and we're still at the infancy of such technology (only a few years ago from paper and telephone)? Back to the first question: we'll, there's no such thing as a perfect clock; even atomic clocks are subject to measurable error (noticeable error -- heh heh, dirty move). Furthermore, look at the fractions of the units these clocks in cd players and analog-to-digital converters have to tick off! CD's demand at least 44,100 cycles per second -- doesn't that seem like an error-prone task? Maybe not, but even if the tranport mechanism and the digital-to-analog converter (DAC) used the same clock information, the very fact that you have at least two physically distinct clocks(one is at the studio and the other in your listening room) means that one is not going to time the same bits at the same rate. Now we're entering fuzzy territory for me.... You see, the information the transport unit picks up is a series of flat surface and indented surface lengths along a single-track (to hide their numbers, as it were) that wraps around the cd in a spiral around itself (groovy...). The troughs and flat areas don't represent 1's and 0's themselves. No! The change from flat to dug-in and vice versa stands for a change from a 1 to a 0 or vise versa (but not respectively - heh heh). There are other rules to this encoding scheme, such as the maximum number of 1's and 0's that can be in a row, but I'm not very familiar with them. I am under the impression that there is another level of decoding to occur before the DAC has words to conver to specific straws that will make up the reproduced waveform, but I'm not sure. My knowledge of the issue takes a sharp turn to conjecture at this point, so please extend some patience. No matter what, you have a clock that was encoding the analog waveform at one end and a totally phisically separate clock at the other end trying to play the notes at the right time relative to each other. Now, in a single-unit cd-player, this timing error is supposed to be inaudible. The use of separate DAC's and other DSP devices brings the issue of jitter to a supposedly audible level, mostly because the S/PDIF format is another level of encoding of the digital signal that utilizes a clock. S/PDIF signals, though digital, have time information about the signal playback burned into them. In other words, S/PDIF encoding scrambles the timing error inherent in one clock in addition to the digitizing clock right into the signal. Then when the separate DAC applies its clock to the signal, more timing error is introduced. That's at least three clocks (physically separate from each other, messing with the time. For some reason, though the S/PDIF encoding is particularly guilty of time error introduction. The two levels of timing error can be cumulative as well as consecutive or even cross-correcting, much like constructive and destructive interference in waveform interference. In other words, the error of one process may play a note later than it's supposed to be played, and the error of the other clock can make it play even later or sooner or make them cancel each other out, you get the picture.... Why use separates? To upsample, add correcting noise, upgrade current cd-player's DAC process, and other DSP tricks. For example, I run an old (old!) Onkyo cd player into a Perpetual Technologies DAC. After I upgrade my speakers (RF-3's), I'll want to also use the Perpetual Technologies P-1A DSP computer. It does some neat tricks with the digital signal! Anyhow, Perp.Tech. addressed the jitter issue by using a I2S (eye-squared-esssss...) interface that carries the time info separately from the signal so no time-based encoding has to occur to get the info from the transport to the DAC. The P-1A doesn't take an optical input (bastards!), so I'll probably get a transport at the same time that outputs in a Perp. Tech. version of the I2S interface. That expense is gonna suck s**t. Of course, one of the cutting-edge companies out there has come out with a I2S interface that can run the transport at the rate presented by the DAC clock, further reducing the chance of jitter occurring. I don't think they make transports or DAC's that take advantage of this so-called "Level 1" performance. As you can see, this technology is quite new and it's expression in the market is still a matter of handicapped speculation. Why bother when I can just get damn well-timed sound from a solid Arcam cd-player? Because the P-1A is really neat!!! I'm too tired to go into it, but I'm sure if you do a seach on it you'll find more of my drivel about it. What were we talkig about? Did I just fart? ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

I wonder if Mr. of Tarsus' use of the word translated as "shame" ever contemplated that he was saying the same thing Jesus was saying. Would he agree that if God chose those things to "shame", the Devil is responsible for the master-slave dialectic? And, who's responsible for these animated smilie thingies? They rock my p per! Manuel, mucho gusto, you're right: dogma really sucks. Very useful, but ultimately destined for mediocrity and tyrannical tendencies. (isn't that a good name for a band?) Religion and science? Is poetry or shenanigans taken? Just put me wherever Sean Young is. (Any word on my proposal?) Anaximander said that speaker cables and their obvious differences are made of the indistinguishable.... I was just about to place a row of hammering smilie faces for y'all's entertainment, but then I read that too much is annoying sometimes. You're welcome. ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

Is that a Venn diagram? True dat.... mobile homeless: I knew him well -- he was a man, a definite pest. It's all fun and games until somebody offs himself. ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

It IS odd how we believe everything we see and hear on the television, but refuse to acknowledge the stated perceptions of so many on this and other forums confirming the influence of cables. As my practiced colleague mobile homeless might say, exactly HOW do you KNOW that Paula Zahn is a human being, not some kind of sexy Replicant? ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....