Prana-Bindu

Weird. Last time I called Nebraska Furniture Mart, they said they don't have too many models in stock, that they mostly just order for special requests. Maybe I spoke to the wrong dude. I'll have to check them out. At the heart of my dilema is the fact that Stereo West offers a 1-year full retail value trade-in upgrade program with their Klipsch speakers. Far down the road, I intend to be very happy with Aerial Acoustics speakers. However, until that happens, I wish to get the most bang for the buck from my Klipsch purchases. The only upgrade that seems within reason at this time is to the RF-5. The audition this last weekend revealed some great improvements, but I can't say they are worth the extra $900. However, as you mentioned, Stereo West has crappy rooms and noisy equipment. To add to the problem, the amp I have at home right now (Audio Refinement Complete) is a loaner while the VTL IT-85's remote receiver gets fixed in California. I'm familiar enough with the Complete to identify what the RF-5's bring to the table, but it's still not the amp I would be using in the long run. Otherwise, I'm very happy with my RF-3's, and I can't wait for my VTL to come back to tame those tweeters. The Complete is a great amp, well balanced, fast-paced, accurate and smoother than solid state should be, but it shrieks those highs out of the RF-3's tweeters. Sibilants are harsh (not just bright), and cymbals do to the music what anchovies, cilantro and ginger do to food. On the VTL, they remain bright, but the harshness gets turned into liquidity. Mmmmmm... garlic.... Well, that's the conundrum. Someday I want to hear a mid-range horn in my system, but it doesn't look like it's going to happen. The Reference series seems to herald a move away from mid-range horns for the sake of smaller profiles. The Heresy's require a sub, and I don't like bass THAT much. The Scala's and Belle's are too big and are also accused of thin bass, and the KHorns are in the price range of my beloved Aerial Acoustics and require some unique room compromises. I don't particularly enjoy the sound of the Avantgarde's (Aerial Acoustics 6's sounded a little better to me). Any suggestions are greatly appreciated. ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

Henry Rollins once said that he only enjoys the company of other celebrities, and that he can't stand conversation with those who aren't famous. I set the forums page as the link in my Favorites tab.... The industry emphasis of home theather indeed is a sad development. The only shop where I can audition Klipsch speakers (Stereo West in Omaha, Nebraska -- the other shop doesn't stock too many) only has one two-channel amp available for auditions (some Yamaha clunker), and they even carry Marantz gear! When I went to audition the RF-7's, they were tucked in a corner facing the side of a huge television. Before I could audition either the RF-5's or the RF-7's, they had to "reprogram" the home theater rig to avoid using all the DSP nonsense on the receiver, the sub, the other speakers, etc.; after turning all that crap off, the remaining hiss was not just audible (even on the Marantz gear).... Not to mention the fact that the remote controls that are in style nowadays have more buttons than any car or computer keyboard. Two-channel gear is being shoved into an esoteric, generally unavailable, EXPENSIVE corner of the market. Grrrrrrr..... ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

Probably not, dude. Other than computer speakers, I've never heard of a set of speakers that comes with cable. I suspect your next question will go a little something like this: which cables should I get? This is the perfect opportunity to fan the flames of an old debate -- do cables make a difference? Well, my friend, some say they do and some say they don't. I believe they do, but only in a system that is revealing enough to allow them to do so. Audio Advisor lets you audition cables for 30 days before you commit to the purchase, so you have only one excuse not to find out for yourself: the cost of snake oil cables. Good luck, and don't forget to report your findings. ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

O.K., Phil: thanks for stepping up to the plate. Here's some questions only you can answer: What specific improvements were intended with the RF-5 and RF-7? Are you willing to identify any weaknesses in the RF-3 that were targeted in the design of the RF-5 and RF-7? How would YOU characterize the difference in sound between the RF-3, RF-5 and RF-7? I really want to upgrade AND feel good about it, so if you give me something to listen for, I'll give them them all another try. While we're treading on delicate subjects... what's up with the Jubilee project? Word around the campfire says it's supposed to be a KHorn that doesn't require corner placement. Thanks for all your kind help. ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

I purchased my RF-3's about one year ago, and the dealer (Stereo West in Omaha, Nebraska) has a policy of accepting 100% trade-in value for upgrades. So, until I can afford those Aerial Acoustics, I wanted to maximize the Klipsch bang for my bucks. I considered going with the Heresy's, but the compromised bass scared me away. I've never heard the Legend series, and the KLF-30 is going for about $1000 nowadays, but the dealer is totally out. This leaves the RF-5 as the only choice within my current means (about $950 after the trade-in discount). So I went to Omaha on Saturday, and I got to listen to the RF-5's and the RF-7's. Yes, they do rock. No, the upgrade does not appear to be worth the cost. RF-5 vs. RF-3: slightly lower bass extension, but it's the tightness/accuracy of the bass that really shows. Better dynamics; doesn't have that overly bright sound found in the RF-3 tweeters; the horn and diaphragm sections seem to be better integrated (harder to tell the transition between the two); the decay time might be shorter on the RF-5's (that might be the amp, though). The most obvious differences: bass tightness and dynamics. The dealer didn't have any RF-3's in stock for a direct comparison, but the points identified were obvious enough. RF-7: the room in which I heard them was horrible, so I don't feel like I got to hear them shine. Why does Klipsch keep making its speakers in that nasty black finish? The RF-7's are so HUGE, that the cheapness of the black finish becomes really obvious; shame! BTW, the RF-5's appear smaller than the RF-3's.... Anyhoot, the 7's are obviously more dynamic and better balanced than the whole lot. Again, the tweeters appear more tamed than the RF-3's. From what I could tell in that sorry room, the RF-7's improve in the same way the RF-5's do, but to a greater extent. From $650 to $1500 for the RF-3 to RF-5 is a transition that suffers quite a bit from the evils of diminishing returns. Don't get me wrong: the RF-5 is obviously a better performer than the RF-3, but the price difference is unjustified. I'll withhold judgment on the RF-7's until I get to hear them in an adequate room. I really want to upgrade, but I would feel like a sucker. Maybe I'll bring in my amp to get a more accurate listen. The RF-5's were being driven by a Yamaha 5-channel receiver off a Yamaha 5-cd carousel with Z-series Monster cable: the background noise/hiss was obvious. I really want to use the full value of my RF-3's in a trade-in, but I'm just not sure the RF-5 is at all worth the price difference. ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

I'm sittin' on a Peavey Standard PA Power Pak, Series 260H. I'm wondering if any y'all could answer some questions fer me: What year is it? Are there any resources out there I can use to determine it's value? Thank you much for the beta. ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

A phone call to my dealer just revealed that. My mistake.... I noticed the Heresy's are rated down to 50hz. Do most people use a sub with them? I'm satisfied with the bass in my RF-3's, but I don't know if I want to lose bass extension. I don't really want to have to get a sub, either (expensive!!). ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

I find the stability of the soundstage to be very important to my listening. Very little grates on me as much as following a note through it's extension somewhere in the soundstage only to have it drop/clunk/slap back into the box of the speaker. I suspect the recording and the room are mostly responsible for this annoying phenomenon. I've noticed a similar problem in my RF-3's when a sound goes from the diaphragms to the horn. It's not obvious, and it only happens once in a long while, but it certainly pisses me off. This is one of the reasons I'm considering going away from Klipsch. I haven't had a chance to really listen to a fully horned (or even something like the Heresy's) speaker yet, so maybe I'll give the Heresy's or Scala's a chance before moving on. When are Heresy's gonna be available again? ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

That's why FoxNews is so popular.... ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

Forgot to post the sites that mentioned the cable/jitter connection: http://www.echoloft.com/articles/jitter/jitter.htm (relies on manufacturer) http://www.digido.com/jitterletters.html (attributes the phonomenon to the point where cables would terminate and the DAC inputs begin?) http://www.nanophon.com/audio/jitter92.pdf (a paper on jitter by some dude named Julian Dunn -- acquired from http://www.geocities.com/venhaus1/Audiolinks.html ) Most peculiar, Mamma.... ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

I believe Jon Risch's website (or is it audioasylum?) discusses the issue. I found a great exegesis of the stuff at http://www.digido.com/jitteressay.html The relation to cables, however, was a little fuzzy to me, so I looked into it: it is alleged that different materials upon which the digital signal is transmitted are faster than others at transmitting such a clocked signal. It's as if different "digital conductors" (my words, so take it easy on me) have different "digital impedances" (again, my fantasy word). At the top of my search results was the website of a company that manufactures digital jitter meters (Yokogawa), so I assume they can run a timed digital signal through oatmeal and tell ya how much digital jitter can be introduced by Quakeroats.... My research was limited, so I'm not too comfortable with the "digital impendance" analogy. I wonder if its like optical refraction (the bendy pencil in the water).... Wouldn't the cable material have to have some kind of buffer (memory out of which it would ultimately run out) to be able to send a signal slower than the original signal? The only way I could see jitter to be possible in the conductor is if the conductor itself was not uniform and constant in the rate at which it conducted the digital data. In other words, the digital jitter amount attributed to a material would be the measurement of the margin of error (in time) within which the material would conduct. If the measurement was constant (not a range, but a specific magnitude), it would either be slower or faster than the incoming signal -- slower and you have the buffer-filling issue; faster and you have the material at issue only being able to conduct each sample (or whatever digital unit) faster, but AS it is given to it by the source (at the rate of the source). If all this is true, wouldn't the only place where you can correct such timing error be at the DAC? Wouldn't the clocking device in the DAC be the only means by which to recover timing errors? Making all those jitter reducing toys worthless...? I've been curious about this digital nonsence since my cd player became the weakest part of my system (quite old and somewhat buggy). My ultimate goal is to do on my PC what Perpetual Technologies does with their P-1A (upsample to 24/96(192 soon) and interpolate -- the speaker and room correction are totally in the far horizon of this filthy hobby). The learning curve is steep, and I'm still in the foothills.... As you can see, I'm totally fascinated as well, but the information gap is oftentimes depressing and easy to abandon. Any engineers out there that can clarify things for us? If the value of the timing data of a signal is a function of the rate at which it is originally clocked and the error imposed upon it by the materials through which the timing data passes, how could I2S cable separate the sample data from the clock data? Some kind of metadigitization of the clock data? Great word, huh? I hope I've managed to drag at least a few of you down with me into this quagmire of ignorance and consumer neurosis. ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

As I understand the matter, a huge amount of the digital jitter present in a digital playback system is picked up in the cable. I've read that it has something to do with the fact that the clock data is not separated from the sample data; this is why that I2S (read I-squared-S) cable is supposed to be so great for digital playback -- it carries the two sets of data separately. Of course, this would only be a concern when using separate digital to analog conversion/upsampling/interpolation/etc. Beyond that, my understanding hits the brick wall, as it were.... It's not just 1's and 0's, my friend; it's also information about when to play each 1 and 0. ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

Ray: very nice! It sounded like something Gurney Halleck would have composed and hidden from his young master. And, yes, not only would I also prefer the Ferrari, but I'd end up taking five times as long to get to the store, because I'd be slowing down enough for the honeys to jump in.... TBrennan: Does it matter whether the difference is perceived and otherwise measurable or just perceived? Either way, we're still getting our kicks.... Whatever tests and measurement units you may apply to the phenomenon only gives you a bigger vocabulary to use about the perceived difference. Of course, I'll be the first to admit that the more words you can use about a subject the more interesting the subject is, but only because I like to listen to myself speak. To say that the perceived difference is more "real" because you have this whole new set of words to use about it is a rhetorical trick: when you begin a description with words like "what's REALLY going on here is...", you're only pleading with your audience to use the same vocabulary you're about to use, be it the vocabulary of 0-60 measurements or impedance matches. The most vicious aspect of this obsession with the reproduction of music is the materialism it fuels. It's the perfect capitalistic, consumeristic cycle of want-satisfaction-want that, as we all know, can never end on its own. Even after Ray wires himself up to the river with Godcable, in the horizon he'll see faster waters, teflon turbines and golden ratios. As Mr. Garrison himself stated, better to enjoy the journey than to race to the end. ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

Fire Pinch: I've had a set of RF-3's for about a year now, and I've had the opportunity to listen to them with three different integrated amps. You can get a more-than-adequate soundstage with the RF-3's if you place them well in an adequately treated room. I started out this journey with a Luxman LV-177 and the RF-3's placed on the sides of the components and very close to the wall in front of the listenting position. My first correction -- moving the speakers away from the walls (including the side walls) -- improved the soundstage so much that I didn't think I even had one before. Next changes: component isolation and power conditioning -- these may not have increased the size of the soundstage, but they definitely presented a darker background to the music that allowed for better imaging and tighter-sounding dynamics. Big change: VTL IT-85 integrated amp -- as far as the soundstage goes, not bigger, but more involving, as if the soundstage started to wrap around the listening position (favorite amp so far). Different change: Audio Refinement Complete integrated amp -- flatter and smaller soundstage than with VTL, but very well-balanced sound with a firm grip on the bass. One concern for you if you go with RF-3's: the higher end of the frequency range can be overemphasized (at least to my tastes) with certain amps. I noticed that the two solid state amps in my experience sounded really shrill and too bright as compared to the tubed VTL. The VTL rounded off the high's in a way that made the other two amps almost annoying in their renditions of higher frequencies. The RF-3's are definitely bright speakers, so you'd be well advised to make sure your other equipment will make a good combination for your tastes. Take your gear in to the dealer and demand an audition! Also, the RF-3's are rather up-front speakers. In other words, the soundstage will seem closer to the listening position than many other speakers. If you prefer to have the soundstage further back, be careful about the gear with which you match the speakers or look to other speakers. One of the things that made a HUGE difference in the size and stability of the soundstage with my RF-3's is the amount of toe-in. I found that the lateral soundstage collapsed if I had the RF-3's pointing directly at my ears. I'm still experimenting, but I'm half-way between pointing at my ears and pointing straight out, and the stage keeps growing as I move closer to straight-out. It's somewhere in between the two, though, because I noticed that when they point straight out the soundstage gets totally unstable and the sound gets a somewhat thinner. Of course, these findings probably have more to do with the characteristics of my room, so be sure to experiment with placement of whichever speakers you decide to get. One more thing (I really don't want to get back to work): I'm currently playing around with room treatments, and I've noticed a nice benefit to the absorption of the first side reflection. At this time, the left channel is being subjected to some (not much) absorption and the right channel has absolutely no absorption or diffusion of the first reflection. I've noticed that the left speaker has started to disappear. In other words, there are many more instances when I can tell that the sound is coming out of the box on my right side, and the left channel seems more and more to be spread out along the soundstage and not so much coming out of a box. This seems to be making the left soundstage far more stable than the right, and the left side is more likely to give me that "wrapped around" sound. I'm thinking of building some absorption panels or maybe building some room lenses (exciting!). I wouldn't worry too much about the soundstage capabilities of the horns. I would, however, definitely go out and listen to as many speakers as you have the opportunity to audition. I love my RF-3's, but I definitely like the Aerial Acoustic 6's I heard being driven by the VTL IT-85 a whole lot more. I plan to give horns a chance against the 6's, but it's a sound that's tough to beat. If only the local dealer stocked the Heritage series.... Good luck, young bruh! ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

I suppose it's a function of our tolerance for satisfaction. I could get to the grocery store in five minutes to pick up some milk driving my beat-up chevy, but I'd really like to get there a few seconds faster in a Ferrari. Are those few seconds worth the cost difference? Just because the cost difference is so frickin' huge doesn't mean you're not getting your milk a few seconds faster. Got clean A/C? ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

In addition to whatever solution you find, have you considered loading the speakers in much the same way suspension systems require loading? In other words, place weight on top of speakers; sandbags should load and provide some damping at the top as well. As far as the primary fix goes, I've seen vibration damping panels made for the backs of subwoofers. I can't recall the specific info, but they're available at Audio Advisor. Otherwise, how about rebuilding your cabinets in granite or some kind of space-age, non-resonant plastic? Treating the cabinets with dynamat itself would take out at least some of those vibrations.... Nevertheless, I suspect you don't want to damp the vibrations as much as you want better coupling of the cabinet rigid structure. Besides bracing, I don't see any other solution that does not involve different cabinet materials/design. Let us know what you decide to do. ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

I have very little working knowledge of electricity and electronics, and I've never compared different power cords, so I'll reserve judgment. I must admit, however, that reading the above-referenced review produced a moment of cool, mineral satisfaction. If you genuinely want to hit bottom with solid authority, nothing surpasses audiophilia. It will be your salvation every time you approach such issues and walk away with eternal conviction about your tastes. Speaker wire, tubes/ss, interconnects, power cables, room treatments, component placement, component isolation, digital signal processing, horns/diaphragms/electrostatics, biwiring/biamping, diffusion/absorption, yada, yada -- these will be the puddles of your squallor. I, for one, look forward to many years of swimming in that muck. So far, it has been expensive, but fun; and I gave it an "8" because you CAN dance to it.... After all, who can't love the absolute solitude this obsession can inspire: is this something you do on dates? have you noticed that the quickest way to your friends' hearty yawns is to speak in earnest about your "stereo"? who wants to be seen with a person who spends hours moving his/her speakers around the livingroom millimeters at a time, tape measure in hand? It's as refreshing as a mountain landscape.... Vanity and seclusion, my friends... that's what it's all about. And the chicks dig it. ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

I have a theory about speaker cable: the differences between cables will be more noticeable the more revealing the remainder of the system is. I suspect that if you A/B some Transparent cables and some Kimber cables in a compact system from Fischer, you won't notice a difference. The same would go if you also compared those cables to zip cord. However, if you performed the same tests using high-quality gear, in a well-treated room, with clean power and adequate isolation, I suspect you'd hear the differences. Part of the theory is that if any of the above-stated conditions is compromised, the difference would be masked by the inadequacies of the remainder of the system. After all, it's difficult to determine whether your mom has a sexier voice than your sister if the comparison is made next to a jet engine. Put some Shakti stones on that engine, though, and you've got yourself a test.... It's just a theory, kids, and I'm one of the ignorants with a modest system, so take it easy on me. ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

If it's causing his basement walls to crack, I wouldn't want to be anywhere near it. Why not build it to hit 20hz only, or filter out the signal below that? There's no way that thing is impressing the chicks.... ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

spooky: nearly simultaneous replies... ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

Steve Decker at Decware (the company is called something else now) built one of those things in their new facility. If you take the online tour of the new company, you'll get to see the whole thing in much detail. You can still get there by going to www.decware.com enjoy. ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

Some words that may explain a side of the story that may shed light on the current gig: Klipsch would not be around if it did not have a network of dealers to distribute its products. Switching off a dealer brings Klipsch closer to not being around; especially a dealer big enough to be able to afford poor customer service and chowder-head morons as salespeople. The bigger the dealer, the closer it gets to impunity.... Perhaps an adequate compromise would be to focus all this critical energy at the local level: a dealer getting bitched at by Klipsch has a breaking point that leaves Klipsch without another marketing resource; a dealer being harrassed by customers gets the job done right at the breaking point. I say go all out on those incompetent bastards! Make a scene, raise your voice, demand results.... Make a total *** of yourself until the imbecile behind the counter gets the picture! You get the picture.... I understand that to a great extent Klipsch is responsible for the actions of those who act as agents for Klipsch. However, do we want the burden of that responsibility to break BobG's and PWK's backs? Myself, I'd rather see the boob behind the counter suffer for his/her inadequacies.... Peace!! (please, no flames) ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way.... This message has been edited by Prana-Bindu on 08-02-2001 at 08:06 AM

Max: I strongly recommend the 5th book, but I have to admit that the 6th is my favorite. I've never heard of any listening tests with power conditioners, but I don't subscribe to any audio magazines and I'm quite new to this obsession. I can tell you that I think I noticed a difference in audio with my Chang Lightspeed and I know I noticed a difference with the video (some visible distortions on the side of the screen were eliminated). ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

No connection with Charlie. I like Charlie. Charlie good.... Prana-Bindu refers to the use of the two words by Frank Herbert in his Dune books. If I recall correctly, they are Sanskrit words meaning "nerve" and "fiber", respectively. Herbert's Bene Gesserit employ a physical training technique known as the-nerve-and-the-fiber, Prana Bindu. It's supposed to increase reaction time, speed, accuracy, strength, etc. May be my favorite books.... I'm one of those people who don't think the second and third books were boring. Audio Refinement Complete: very well-balanced detail; perhaps faster in the low end than the VTL IT-85?; somewhat of a thin sound, but that may be only my perception of the particular difference tubes make (first and only tube experience with the VTL); the remote with source selection is spectaculazier; Warmer sound, darker background, bigger soundstage, more laid-back, better image resolution and more stable soundstage than with Luxman LV-117 (no, not the one with the tubed pre-amp section). I love it on the RF-3's. I can't say I like it more than the VTL. I do indeed notice a difference in the tightness of the bass. But the VTL/RF-3 combo has this enveloping (though more laid back) soundstage that taught me (I think) what people mean when they refer to the "warmer" sound of tubes -- the tube difference. Otherwise, had I not heard the VTL and had gone straight to the Complete, I would be perfectly happy. I can't say for sure that the difference I identify as that of tubes vs. SS is accurate: the Complete is touted to have well-emulated the tube sound. Mmmmm... Charlie.... ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

I dig the avatar too, but is there a way to import a custom avatar? Probably not, since it would end up being abused; just like online games where you can spray your mark on the walls (Team Fortress) and you end up seeing a lot of porn under the blood stains. By the way, I delivered my amp for service yesterday, and they let me take an Audio Refinement Complete integrated amp home while the repairs are pending. Very nice so far, but I'll hold off on the full review until I have more hours under the ol' belt. And yes, it does sound nicer at night.... ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....