CH Precision 10 series

[andromedaaudio]

Its a CH thread so i will keep it brief.
Audionet Dagostino MSB Soulution dartzeel TAD monos plus the rest of the SS i havent mentioned were not in the same league afaik .

Based on show and dealer presentations i have to add .
Good sound is all about mixing and matching .
Stenheim LS and Wilson Ls for example were very disappointing

 

[LL21]

I would say CH , Gryphon APEX , Robert Koda , FM acoustics and Halcro are all great solid state amps

Pilium is nice/ neutral sounding too

Boulder is not SOTA afaik too clinical /lacking naturalness

Based on shows and dealershows , so limited off course , id say

Gryphon Apex ( and also Halcro but its leaner sounding ) mesmerizes through sheer grip and control of the loudspeaker .
Especially with the APEX you have a feeling of being completely immersed in sound very atractive / addictive it would be my first choice if going SS , limitless powerreserves

CH slightly more clinical but very detailed sound , very good

FM acoustics natural with an exceptional fast risetime , the amps just makes you think they re ultra fast / capable

R koda very natural pleasing sound reminds me the most of tubes probably

Thanks! Interesting to read. I have a good idea of your description of Apex based on 11 years of consecutive Gryphon ownership all the way thru Mephisto. Yes, it has a remarkable 'image density'. That translates into the sense of instruments being nailed-to-the-floor solid and that sense the music is 'live' and 'alive' in the room is very very special.

 

[MadFloyd]

I am surprised at how fast the term natural has become a popular descriptor. I see it in use all over the forum. Perhaps I am just imagining it, but I thought it was kind of a dirty word, way too vague, and that few understood it’s meaning in audio terms.

Peter, there's natural as a normal adjective (which has been around forever) and then Natural, a term you happened to employ. The latter is perceived negative for reasons you are already aware of.

 

[ddk]

Peter, there's natural as a normal adjective (which has been around forever) and then Natural, a term you happened to employ. The latter is perceived negative for reasons you are already aware of.

Hi Ian,
NATURAL, Natural or natural are the same term/adjective I have often capitalized it for emphasis and/or importance but that doesn't it has a different meaning or connotation, perception is the domain of the reader and not under the author's control. "Natural TM" on the other hand is Francisco's invention and nothing that Peter nor I ever discussed.

david

 

[PeterA]

Peter, there's natural as a normal adjective (which has been around forever) and then Natural, a term you happened to employ. The latter is perceived negative for reasons you are already aware of.

Ian, I have no idea what you mean by negative. This is in the minds of some people here who do not seem to understand it, but certainly not by everyone. Natural simply means natural, as in real life. The sound of real instruments. What could possibly be negative about that? It is a target, a listening experience to aspire to.

I thought Andromeda was critical of the term, but here he is using it repeatedly. Natural TM is a strange aberration invented by Micro.

 

[LL21]

I would say CH , Gryphon APEX , Robert Koda , FM acoustics and Halcro are all great solid state amps

Pilium is nice/ neutral sounding too

Boulder is not SOTA afaik too clinical /lacking naturalness

Based on shows and dealershows , so limited off course , id say

Gryphon Apex ( and also Halcro but its leaner sounding ) mesmerizes through sheer grip and control of the loudspeaker .
Especially with the APEX you have a feeling of being completely immersed in sound very atractive / addictive it would be my first choice if going SS , limitless powerreserves

CH slightly more clinical but very detailed sound , very good

FM acoustics natural with an exceptional fast risetime , the amps just makes you think they re ultra fast / capable

R koda very natural pleasing sound reminds me the most of tubes probably

Hi...I just wanted to let you know I am going to PM you about something specific. Look forward to speaking offline.

 

[microstrip]

Ian, I have no idea what you mean by negative. This is in the minds of some people here who do not seem to understand it, but certainly not by everyone. Natural simply means natural, as in real life. The sound of real instruments. What could possibly be negative about that? It is a target, a listening experience to aspire to.

I thought Andromeda was critical of the term, but here he is using it repeatedly. Natural TM is a strange aberration invented by Micro.

No Peter. But since you question it, your appropriation of the word natural and its strict use against common sense and audiophile use can be considered an aberration - I need too use Natural Sound TM when answering you just to show in such sentences I am not using the words with the sense used by most audiophiles, including the majority of tweak and high-end cable manufacturers, some very praised in this forum. Just searched in a old TAS issue in PDF and found it used natural many tens of times.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I am surprised at how fast the term natural has become a popular descriptor. I see it in use all over the forum. Perhaps I am just imagining it, but I thought it was kind of a dirty word, way too vague, and that few understood it’s meaning in audio terms.

Hi Peter,

What makes you think the term “natural” has only recently become a popular descriptor?

I think this may be for you an example of recency bias or of the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon (a cognitive bias that once one becomes aware of something he/she tends to notice it more frequently).

“Natural” has always been an extremely common sonic descriptor. A quick search has me using the word “natural” to describe reproduced sound as an impression and as an aspiration ever since I joined WBF. In 2015 I wrote in a post: “I listen for a ‘natural’ sound.”

You are imagining that “natural” ever was a dirty word in the audio vocabulary, or that few people understood its meaning.

 

[Al M.]

Of course "natural" is a common descriptor.

I outlined the problem with Natural Sound(TM) or "Natural Sound" vs natural sound in post #2,973 here.

 

[howiebrou]

Of course "natural" is a common descriptor.

I outlined the problem with Natural Sound(TM) or "Natural Sound" vs natural sound in post #2,973 here.

May be Peter should have used the term "SuperNatural"....

 

[andromedaaudio]

Peter ,
First page of my website put online in 2014.
When i switched from diamond / ceramic membranes to paper and softdomes
Now whether one agrees with it is up to the listener off course , but the term has been in use since the stoneage i reckon when they banged a stone against a hollow tree


Those who are after a natural ,highly accurate ,real full range soundexpirience will enjoy the XPE loudspeakerdesign.

Designed to compete with anything on the market regardless of price ( comparable systemsize/membranesurface )

This design is a ultra stiff /non resonant monocoque , 4 way loudspeaker in MTM configuration.

Its made from 40 mm HPL solid plates (phenolic resin composite ) over 250 kg a piece , braced inside with HPL as well .

The mid- unit membranes are made of stiff propietary natural fibers which have a natural presentation .

The woofers are made in Germany and are 11 inch , 12 inch respectively , stiff non resonant membranes with a natural presentation, and a very low resonance freq.

Tweeters used are multiple in this design as described elsewhere , but as with all other components are chosen for their excellent specs and natural presentation never harsh, always without any listening fatigue

 

[gian60]

In 1990 first and then in 1993 Be Yamamura and Imai ,Audio tekne,explain to me how is natural sound for them and I understood immediately thal all top amp and speaker i listened until that period was not natural

 

[gian60]

Now i can understand a natural sound thanks to them

 

[bonzo75]

Now i can understand a natural sound thanks to them

it’s explained on the forum every week in case you forget due to old age

 

[christoph]

May be Peter should have used the term "SuperNatural"....

...but that would have been superseded by some supervocal shilling people here in no time with the term "UberNatural"

 

[andromedaaudio]

This being a CH thread , i hope we re not getting back into the NN (natural nonsense ) yet again

 

[PeterA]

Hi Peter,

What makes you think the term “natural” has only recently become a popular descriptor?

I think this may be for you an example of recency bias or of the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon (a cognitive bias that once one becomes aware of something he/she tends to notice it more frequently).

“Natural” has always been an extremely common sonic descriptor. A quick search has me using the word “natural” to describe reproduced sound as an impression and as an aspiration ever since I joined WBF. In 2015 I wrote in a post: “I listen for a ‘natural’ sound.”

You are imagining that “natural” ever was a dirty word in the audio vocabulary, or that few people understood its meaning.

Ron, Who amongst us is not biased? I just mentioned it here because it is unusual to see it used so much in one post about different amps. It seems we all agree. Keith even wrote the whole forum is now about natural sound.

Natural is an easily understood term and has been in common use as an audio descriptor for a very long time. I even used it years ago in my old system thread. Real, believable, and convincing are good ones too. There is the danger of overuse. Marc asked a while back, “Who doesn’t want his system to sound natural?”

I distinctly remember some member here, perhaps Microstrip, claimed the term is far too vague to have any real value. It seems that Andromeda would disagree as he clearly uses the term to distinguish between different amplifiers.

 

[tima]

It became a dirty word only since recently

You [Peter] are imagining that “natural” ever was a dirty word in the audio vocabulary, or that few people understood its meaning.

This imagination strikes me as misdirected.

This being a CH thread , i hope we re not getting back into the NN (natural nonsense ) yet again

That concern seems odd for he who constantly quips.

 

[andromedaaudio]

This imagination strikes me as misdirected.



That concern seems odd for he who constantly quips.

Tima do you have anything usefull to say regarding CH amps ??

 

[Al M.]

Keith even wrote the whole forum is now about natural sound.

Oh please, Peter. Do you really not understand what Keith meant by that? Seriously? Or are you just pretending?

Natural is an easily understood term and has been in common use as an audio descriptor for a very long time. I even used it years ago in my old system thread. Real, believable, and convincing are good ones too. There is the danger of overuse. Marc asked a while back, “Who doesn’t want his system to sound natural?”

I guess you are now intentionally ignoring what the problem is. The problem is not "natural" sound, but Natural Sound(TM), as has been pointed out repeatedly.

Marc asked a while back, “Who doesn’t want his system to sound natural?”

Yes, exactly, and that is why people are offended and angry at you since you hijacked "natural" for Natural Sound(TM), implying that "natural sound" can only be achieved in full measure with certain types of high efficiency speakers and SET amps, with everything else being second rate on the scale towards "natural". There are many people who use unamplified live music as reference for natural sound, and do not end up in your particular lane. The whole "Natural Sound" thing is just offensive to those and other people.

And by the way, Peter, since you are always whining when someone derails your thread(s), and even went to the moderators asking to "clean up" your Natural Sound thread: it is you who now has derailed this thread. It seemed nicely on topic, more or less, until you came in with #198 on the previous page.

It is about the CH Precision 10 series, remember? Maybe we can get back to that.