CH Precision 10 series

[Al M.]

Yesterday I heard again the system of Ian (Madfloyd), with his CH Precision L10 preamp, as well as CH Precision M1.1 monoblocks. The sound was once more stunning. We did some DAC comparisons and in the process were able to end up with amazingly realistic sound of solo violin (Rachel Barton Pine playing Bach), jazz ensemble (Lee Morgan, Tomcat) and tenor voice.

There was no trace of clinical sound about any of that; instead the sound was full-bodied, with naturally developed color palette and harmonics. Just marvelous.

 

[Al M.]

You just have to know how to set up a CH Precision system, or any other system. System setup us everything, as Elliot and others repeatedly have pointed out. If you end up with "clinical" sound, it's not the fault of the CH Precision gear.

And remember, some fans of tube gear have ended up with CH Precision. There is a reason for that.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I just mentioned it here because it is unusual to see it used so much in one post about different amps.

I am sorry I misinterpreted, Peter.

In your post you wrote: “I see [natural] in use all over the forum,” so there was no way I could’ve known you intended to refer only to that one post.

 

[jbrrp1]

I've had the 10 series now for 6 months, and as I've worked on my system I am amazed at how much this amplification brings. I am hearing deeply into the musical performance like I have not experienced in any system before, and I can tell that I have the ingredients for something very special for sound quality that I appreciate. The 10 series gear is a stunning achievement to my ears, and in the context of my admittedly limited experience.

I attend many live concerts per year, mostly of "classical" music in solo recital, chamber music, and orchestral settings. And my wife is pretty proficient with piano repertoire and harpsicord, which she plays most days in our house. I am pretty well calibrated to the sound of live acoustic instruments playing in their natural way. The 10 series is sounding very "natural" to me, but that is really a useless adjective on its own. All systems ask for some compromise on the part of the listener, and our tastes, temperaments, predilections, etc., determine which compromises are too much and which ones we can live with. So, you have to articulate what sound aspect is making a system change more "natural" to you. Otherwise, it's no better than simply saying "it floats my boat".

What's making my system's sound stand out to me is a combination of: 1) very even-handed frequency response, so I hear the music with less coloration than ever before from a system; 2) incredible unraveling of inner detail and micro-dynamics in the music, the sonic envelope of each sound, and in the playing technique, all without being "spotlit" or showy; this gives very meaningful insight into the music making 3) transient launch that has a timing I have never heard from a system, making percussive sounds seem startlingly life like, such that the drums grab you and propel the musical line; and piano sounds so velvety percussive, too; 4) very solid rendering of holographic instruments located in a very large space (if the recording allows), with completely stable localization at all times. This, for me, all adds up to a transparent window into the reproduction that mesmerizes. I have come from the tube end of the system spectrum historically, and I find the 10 series, while not a "tubey" sound by any meands, to be very satisfying. Certainly more truthful, without being "hurtful" to the music making.

The CHP gear was not a natural mate to my TAD speakers, I would say. TAD's have a well-deserved reputation for being potentially "ruthlessly revealing", and they need careful system design to spark the magic. But they are totally capable of magic, when you get there. It's taking some work to get my system voicing right after introducing the CHP gear into it, but I have definitely gotten there now, and I'm in the process of optimizing further. As I've improved my cabling from Elrod Master Gold to Master Diamond, the 10 series simply reports the significant improvements these bring, cord by cord (still ongoing for the next couple of months as I flesh out my loom). When I switched from a PS Audio P20 to a Shunyata Everest, Lordy, what a nice improvement. This CHP gear tells it all, and tells it musically. I'm pretty smitten!

 

[Ron Resnick]

When I switched from a PS Audio P20 to a Shunyata Everest, Lordy, what a nice improvement. This CHP gear tells it all, and tells it musically. I'm pretty smitten!

Congratulations on the evolution of your system!

Could you please tell us in what way(s) the Everest was an improvement over the P20? Do you mean sonic improvements or an electrical improvement, or both?

Thank you.

 

[Ron Resnick]

And remember, some fans of tube gear have ended up with CH Precision. There is a reason for that.

Yes, that’s for sure: MadFloyd, Arnie, Gian, Jack, Andy Payor, etc.

(I still remain puzzled by this.)

 

[PeterA]

Yes, that’s for sure: MadFloyd, Arnie, Gian, Jack, Andy Payor, etc.

(I still remain puzzled by this.)

Ron, This does not seem like a generalization. It may simply mean that these listeners prefer CH gear in their systems more than whatever tube gear they had before. It could be as simple as speaker matching. Why specifically do you remain puzzled by their choices?

 

[cmarin]

I've had the 10 series now for 6 months, and as I've worked on my system I am amazed at how much this amplification brings. I am hearing deeply into the musical performance like I have not experienced in any system before, and I can tell that I have the ingredients for something very special for sound quality that I appreciate. The 10 series gear is a stunning achievement to my ears, and in the context of my admittedly limited experience.

I attend many live concerts per year, mostly of "classical" music in solo recital, chamber music, and orchestral settings. And my wife is pretty proficient with piano repertoire and harpsicord, which she plays most days in our house. I am pretty well calibrated to the sound of live acoustic instruments playing in their natural way. The 10 series is sounding very "natural" to me, but that is really a useless adjective on its own. All systems ask for some compromise on the part of the listener, and our tastes, temperaments, predilections, etc., determine which compromises are too much and which ones we can live with. So, you have to articulate what sound aspect is making a system change more "natural" to you. Otherwise, it's no better than simply saying "it floats my boat".

What's making my system's sound stand out to me is a combination of: 1) very even-handed frequency response, so I hear the music with less coloration than ever before from a system; 2) incredible unraveling of inner detail and micro-dynamics in the music, the sonic envelope of each sound, and in the playing technique, all without being "spotlit" or showy; this gives very meaningful insight into the music making 3) transient launch that has a timing I have never heard from a system, making percussive sounds seem startlingly life like, such that the drums grab you and propel the musical line; and piano sounds so velvety percussive, too; 4) very solid rendering of holographic instruments located in a very large space (if the recording allows), with completely stable localization at all times. This, for me, all adds up to a transparent window into the reproduction that mesmerizes. I have come from the tube end of the system spectrum historically, and I find the 10 series, while not a "tubey" sound by any meands, to be very satisfying. Certainly more truthful, without being "hurtful" to the music making.

The CHP gear was not a natural mate to my TAD speakers, I would say. TAD's have a well-deserved reputation for being potentially "ruthlessly revealing", and they need careful system design to spark the magic. But they are totally capable of magic, when you get there. It's taking some work to get my system voicing right after introducing the CHP gear into it, but I have definitely gotten there now, and I'm in the process of optimizing further. As I've improved my cabling from Elrod Master Gold to Master Diamond, the 10 series simply reports the significant improvements these bring, cord by cord (still ongoing for the next couple of months as I flesh out my loom). When I switched from a PS Audio P20 to a Shunyata Everest, Lordy, what a nice improvement. This CHP gear tells it all, and tells it musically. I'm pretty smitten!

Hi jbrrp1,

Thank you for the detailed and eloquent description of what the M10/L10 bring to your system’s performance and enjoyment, and for taking a stab at a definition of natural - albeit with an acknowledgement of the shortcomings of trying to do so.

I recently listened to a YouTube interview with Josh Clark of Rockport Technologies in Epsiode 10 of the “Inside The Designers Studio” show hosted by Elliot Goldman and Veronica Díaz; where Josh mentions, among other topics, the issue of “natural” sound in the context of speaker design.

As an aside, I wanted to extend congratulations to Elliot and Veronica for making these informative and entertaining interviews.

I’ve tried to paraphrase some salient comments from Josh and their approximate timing. I apologize in advance if I mischaracterized any of his comments. To get a better feel for the points he makes, it would be advisable to watch the interview for which I’ve included a link below.

At around the 14:30 mark, Josh discusses using recordings of (natural) live music, in live venues, of acoustic instruments to evaluate their speakers.

Then around the 24:30 mark, he discusses the myth that Hi-Res sound is incompatible with natural/musical/realistic sound.

He later goes onto explain that unnatural sound is characterized by a lack of balance and colored by noise/distortion.

And then finally around the 29:00 minute mark, he makes a direct connection between the speaker design goals and the specific sound they’re targeting. He states that their goal is to have a balanced presentation in terms of dynamics, amplitude and frequency, with high resolution, and minimal distortion/noise - which leads to a musical and engaging sound.

Lyra is known for their “natural” sound and it makes sense that it is inherent in their design philosophy. And I can attest that the Lyra speakers and the CH Precision M10/L10 combo, the latter albeit being solid state electronics, are a great example of an electronics/speaker combination that provide, if properly setup, a natural, realistic and engaging sound.

Link to the video:

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ron, This does not seem like a generalization. It may simply mean that these listeners prefer CH gear in their systems more than whatever tube gear they had before. It could be as simple as speaker matching.

I understand, and I agree with you. Obviously, for each of these listeners, they prefer the CH on a net basis.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Why specifically do you remain puzzled by their choices?

I know what I love, in general, about tube electronics. I don’t think there is any combination of sonic attributes which would cause me to prefer a different amplifier on a net basis if I had to sacrifice the sonic attributes I love, in general, about tube electronics.

If each of these audiophiles were to tell me that they feel the CH sound preserves or improves upon the sonic attributes I love, in general, about tube electronics, then I would no longer be puzzled.

Would you be puzzled if several heavy-hitting audiophiles who have your speakers switched from low power SETs to CH amplifiers to drive your speakers?

 

[ddk]

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.

Which forum have you been reading Ron? WBF is now a war zone! The narrative is either there's no natural sound, natural is to vague, some social justice crap about inclusivity and now @microstrip goes at it with another favorite word, appropriation. He replaced his scholars with others and became a SJ warrior to protect the appropriated!

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.

Don't get me wrong, I don't care what this group of the TM flunkies have to say, they bring nothing of any value to anyone but as a friend it bothers me when you walk into these threads and comment without a clue.

david

 

[jbrrp1]

Congratulations on the evolution of your system!

Could you please tell us in what way(s) the Everest was an improvement over the P20? Do you mean sonic improvements or an electrical improvement, or both?

Thank you.

Let me just note to start that the P20 was a "compromise" piece to some degree. Prior to it, I was using an HB Cable Designs Marble that was fed by an Elrod Diamond Statement power cord. I changed from that to a P20 + Elrod Statement (early version) because the Lampi GG1 that I was using then could not handle the power sag that happened when my or any number of neighbors' air conditioning units switched on. All summer long I would experience momentary gaps in digital playback of ~5 - 6 seconds in duration whenever my A/C kicked on, as well as others'. This was clearly a problem, and one that a P20 solves well with its regeneration and stable power. But sonically, the P20 was slightly obscuring and a bit "rounding" compared to the HB + Elrod set up. However, the difference struck me as rather slight at the time.

I use a Lampi Pacific now, and it seems to be dealing well with my summer time power feed since I dropped the P20 - - no interruptions. Going to the Shunyata Everest, I definitely hear some of the musical detail that was obscured by the P20, but the Everest is delivering a lot more differentiation in this regard vs. the HB (on a much more resolving system today, however!). The Everest allows for very clear transient starts, as well as satisfying tonal development to follow, feeling pretty "meaty" harmonically. I note this simply because a system that has you noticing transient snap often does so at the expense of full harmonic development, and can be fatiguing as a result. Not what I'm hearing now. The Everest also allows me to hear deeper into the musical fabric, with a very nice sense of separation among musical lines, even in dense pieces. It just feels like the whole system "let's go" of the notes so naturally(!). And my system is maximally informative with the Everest in place, IME.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Let me just note to start that the P20 was a "compromise" piece to some degree. Prior to it, I was using an HB Cable Designs Marble that was fed by an Elrod Diamond Statement power cord. I changed from that to a P20 + Elrod Statement (early version) because the Lampi GG1 that I was using then could not handle the power sag that happened when my or any number of neighbors' air conditioning units switched on. All summer long I would experience momentary gaps in digital playback of ~5 - 6 seconds in duration whenever my A/C kicked on, as well as others'. This was clearly a problem, and one that a P20 solves well with its regeneration and stable power. But sonically, the P20 was slightly obscuring and a bit "rounding" compared to the HB + Elrod set up. However, the difference struck me as rather slight at the time.

I use a Lampi Pacific now, and it seems to be dealing well with my summer time power feed since I dropped the P20 - - no interruptions. Going to the Shunyata Everest, I definitely hear some of the musical detail that was obscured by the P20, but the Everest is delivering a lot more differentiation in this regard vs. the HB (on a much more resolving system today, however!). The Everest allows for very clear transient starts, as well as satisfying tonal development to follow, feeling pretty "meaty" harmonically. I note this simply because a system that has you noticing transient snap often does so at the expense of full harmonic development, and can be fatiguing as a result. Not what I'm hearing now. The Everest also allows me to hear deeper into the musical fabric, with a very nice sense of separation among musical lines, even in dense pieces. It just feels like the whole system "let's go" of the notes so naturally(!). And my system is maximally informative with the Everest in place, IME.

Thank you very much for this thoughtful and detailed response!

I understand and I agree with: “a system that has you noticing transient snap often does so at the expense of full harmonic development, and can be fatiguing as a result.”

 

[MadFloyd]

I know what I love, in general, about tube electronics. I don’t think there is any combination of sonic attributes which would cause me to prefer a different amplifier on a net basis if I had to sacrifice the sonic attributes I love, in general, about tube electronics.

If each of these audiophiles were to tell me that they feel the CH sound preserves or improves upon the sonic attributes I love, in general, about tube electronics, then I would no longer be puzzled.

Would you be puzzled if several heavy-hitting audiophiles who have your speakers switched from low power SETs to CH amplifiers to drive your speakers?

Which forum have you been reading Ron? WBF is now a war zone! The narrative is either there's no natural sound, natural is to vague, some social justice crap about inclusivity and now @microstrip goes at it with another favorite word, appropriation. He replaced his scholars with others and became a SJ warrior to protect the appropriated!

Don't get me wrong, I don't care what this group of the TM flunkies have to say, they bring nothing of any value to anyone but as a friend it bothers me when you walk into these threads and comment without a clue.

david

It's a war zone because some of us push back on the BS from you and your disciples (or are they shills)?

 

[ddk]

It's a war zone because some of us push back on the BS from you and your disciples (or are they shills)?

You pushback with what? This disciples and shills bullshit?

david

 

[microstrip]

(...) Don't get me wrong, I don't care what this group of the TM flunkies have to say, they bring nothing of any value to anyone but as a friend it bothers me when you walk into these threads and comment without a clue.

david

David,

Fortunately many people in this forum are knowledgeable enough to understand and comment constructively on my posts.

The refusal to analyze your interesting preference that others and I call Natural Sound TM is what makes these threads inconclusive and circular. Just telling us that each week the system becomes more real and shielding it from gear debate or any kind of objective analysis limits the possibility of any participated constructive discussion.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Which forum have you been reading Ron? WBF is now a war zone! The narrative is either there's no natural sound, natural is to vague, some social justice crap about inclusivity and now @microstrip goes at it with another favorite word, appropriation. He replaced his scholars with others and became a SJ warrior to protect the appropriated!

Don't get me wrong, I don't care what this group of the TM flunkies have to say, they bring nothing of any value to anyone but as a friend it bothers me when you walk into these threads and comment without a clue.

david

Thank you, David, for being my friend and for trying to protect me. But I do not consider myself to be “without a clue.” I am well-versed in the recent discussions regarding natural sound.

 

[PeterA]

I know what I love, in general, about tube electronics. I don’t think there is any combination of sonic attributes which would cause me to prefer a different amplifier on a net basis if I had to sacrifice the sonic attributes I love, in general, about tube electronics.

If each of these audiophiles were to tell me that they feel the CH sound preserves or improves upon the sonic attributes I love, in general, about tube electronics, then I would no longer be puzzled.

Would you be puzzled if several heavy-hitting audiophiles who have your speakers switched from low power SETs to CH amplifiers to drive your speakers?

Ron, have you described what sonic attributes you love from tube gear? If not, how would these guys be able to tell you anything, puzzling you or not?

I have no idea how to answer your question. These guys all own today CH having owned some tubes before. I don’t know what speakers they all own. I do not know anyone, let alone “heavy hitting audiophiles”, who own Vitavox CN-191 speakers. Why would anyone use CH with them? Do these guys all now use CH on speakers that they drove with 18 watt SETs? The question makes no sense to me? What is your point? Heavy hitting audiophiles is pretty funny. Good one.

 

[ddk]

Thank you, David, for being my friend and for trying to protect me. But I do not consider myself to be “without a clue.” I am well-versed in the recent discussions regarding natural sound.

I wasn't protecting you Ron, I made a distinction between you and the TM crowd.

David,

Fortunately many people in this forum are knowledgeable enough to understand and comment constructively on my posts.

The refusal to analyze your interesting preference that others and I call Natural Sound TM is what makes these threads inconclusive and circular. Just telling us that each week the system becomes more real and shielding it from gear debate or any kind of objective analysis limits the possibility of any participated constructive discussion.

I want to hear the constructive comments on your appropriation quote as it relates to sound and audio systems! You haven't even explained the meaning your Natural Sound TM, what's constructive about it in audio terms? I asked you many time but you never answered. Anyone who uses it is basically in a personal capacity and nothing to do with audio. You'd debate the system if your intention for debate was genuine and not make it all personal.

david

 

[LL21]

Yes, that’s for sure: MadFloyd, Arnie, Gian, Jack, Andy Payor, etc.

(I still remain puzzled by this.)

For all the back and forth recently on this, I have to admit Ron, I also was most intrigued by what was taking Gian and Jack (as well as Arnie) in this direction. Andy Payor was already a big fan of Gryphon so I could not consider him a dyed-in-the-wool SET fan. I have actually had the pleasure of meeting MadFloyd but could not read that he was necessarily dyed-in-the-wool SET, pure tube-only.

But Gian has been a rarified owner of so many exceptional tubed pieces (Kondo, Riviera, etc), and JackD201 a long-time Lamm owner. So I asked Jack about CH. My recollection is that he said that something to the effect of some tube-fans actually hear/love something perhaps slightly different in SET tubes than what others might seek -- specifically that it was not necessarily humane warmth of SET, but its crystalline purity that he admired and craved...and THAT was something that at least Jack had found in the CH SS which he found revelatory.

I suppose some might describe FM Acoustics in a not dissimilar fashion and by extension Dartzeel. I have not heard CH myself, but I have heard FMA in our system at home and could quite see the allure in its crystalline purity up top.

I read between the lines of Arnie's communications something similar though less sure of that.