CH Precision 10 series

[Ron Resnick]

Are you gonna say the same thing to Marty and his recent setup who seemed to describe very similar issues?

No, because Marty has perfected his loudspeaker and room set-up meticulously. Marty experienced with CH amplifiers a very specific and narrow issue to his ears. I do not deduce any issue of general applicability from Marty's personal experience and preference.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Oh Ron, you mean the same Marty who bought and then switched out these amps in a matter of months for the same shortfalls described here by pk_LA?

 

[spiritofmusic]

No, because Marty has perfected his loudspeaker and room set-up meticulously. Marty experienced with CH amplifiers a very specific and narrow issue to his ears. I do not deduce any issue of general applicability from Marty's personal experience and preference.

Well, now you have two data points.

 

[Elliot G.]

Well, now you have two data points.

. There are many other opinions out in the world , some on this webpage ( CK for example and Arnie), plus some prominent reviewers, that would say that the complete opposite. There is another review coming shortly that also will totally disagree with these opinions. The two systems being discussed are completely different.
Different rooms, speakers, preamps, cables, sources, etc. They were set up and installed by very different people.
I have no problem with Marty expressing his thoughts and findings as he actually had the product in his system and actually listened to it. The gentleman n La walked into a dealers showroom in a completely different type of set up and is truly criticizing the wrong thing. If I am correct that the system is bi-amped and the second amp is driving the bass and is not an M10 then his observation about the sound may be valid but the cause of such is NOT the amp in question since it is not playing the bass portion of the speaker.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Interesting observations, pk_LA. Of at least 2 M10 mono owners, JackD201 has self-powered subs as part of his VS Ultra 11s and Arnie has the Arrakis with a huge reputation for extraordinary, propulsive bass PLUS the legendary REL 6-pack.

I dont think im qualified to enter this discussion as i have never heard them .
But these 2 systems have their bass basically taken care of by a active bass amp .
To really say something about CH amplifier bass control on a particular speaker you have to let it drive standalone "Full range" speakers like marty / Madfloyd / Arnie have ( no additional subs allowed )
With good size woofers and open the throttle
You can bi amp but the CH then has to be bass amp as well off course

 

[gian60]

In september 2020 i went to CH company to listen L10 and M 10,both stereo with Stenheime Alumine 3 and the bass was perfect for me,full and deep,i listened for 2 hours and also compared M10 with M1.1 and M10 was better with bigger scene,depth and sound come out from speaker more easily and bigger instrunment and very natural,same difference when i listened in my system A1 mono with M1 mono.

So i cannot understand this problem

 

[Ron Resnick]

Well, now you have two data points.

No, I do not. You keep repeating yourself, and I keep disagreeing with you!

I view Marty's inability to optimize the negative feedback setting to satisfy his personal listening preferences as a totally different issue than possibly sub-optimal loudspeaker positioning in a warehouse-style audio salon.

 

[LL21]

LL21 said:
Interesting observations, pk_LA. Of at least 2 M10 mono owners, JackD201 has self-powered subs as part of his VS Ultra 11s and Arnie has the Arrakis with a huge reputation for extraordinary, propulsive bass PLUS the legendary REL 6-pack.

I dont think im qualified to enter this discussion as i have never heard them .
But these 2 systems have their bass basically taken care of by a active bass amp .
To really say something about CH amplifier bass control on a particular speaker you have to let it drive standalone "Full range" speakers like marty / Madfloyd have ( no additional subs allowed )
With good size woofers and open the throttle
You can bi amp but the CH then has to be bass amp as well off course

Yes, I think we were observing something similar. My observation was that 2 extremely satisfied owners are using speakers with deep bass that is separately driven/amplified (actually the Arrakis is entirely passive, but Arnie has use a 6-pack REL set to drive everything below around 27Hz or so as I recall.

So it is indeed difficult to marry that up with Marty's observations where he was entirely dependent on the M10 for bass.

In any event, no doubt more to come...look forward to reading more.

 

[andromedaaudio]

LL21 said:
Interesting observations, pk_LA. Of at least 2 M10 mono owners, JackD201 has self-powered subs as part of his VS Ultra 11s and Arnie has the Arrakis with a huge reputation for extraordinary, propulsive bass PLUS the legendary REL 6-pack.

Yes, I think we were observing something similar. My observation was that 2 extremely satisfied owners are using speakers with deep bass that is separately driven/amplified (actually the Arrakis is entirely passive, but Arnie has use a 6-pack REL set to drive everything below around 27Hz or so as I recall.

So it is indeed difficult to marry that up with Marty's observations where he was entirely dependent on the M10 for bass.

In any event, no doubt more to come...look forward to reading more.

It would be interesting if arnie for example would decouple the subs for us and hear/ describe what the M 10 could do with the 2 15 inchers

 

[LL21]

It would be interesting if arnie for example would decouple the subs for us and hear/ describe what the M 10 could do with the 2 15 inchers

Particularly since he used to run VTL Siegfriend monos (2 sets) to drive the Arrakis which I believe are known for pretty potent bass.

 

[pk_LA]

I don't find any issue with bass in my system and my room and from reading Roy Gregory's review in his room he had no issues. Isn't the system heard in LA bi amped? If that is the case are they even using M10 to drive the bass? IN a multi amped system the levels for the bass are set separately and there is a dedicated bass amplifier.

I believe the setup was, indeed, bi-amped. But, it was also setup for the audition before I showed up by a reputable professional.

btw, I was also accompanied by another enthusiast/audiophile who drew the same conclusions I did.

My sense is that the issue was one, or a combination, of the following.
1) The speakers were too far from the wall and unable to generate appropriate bass.
2) The feedback on the M10/L10 was set such that the bass wasn't emphasized.
3) The M10/L10 are mid-range favoring amps and that is just part and parcel of their character.

Please know that I am not trying to impugn the CH-Precision gear at all. I am just curious about others' impressions given my experience. Also, I will reiterate that the mid-range was maybe the best I have ever heard.

 

[JackD201]

Ultra 11s are passive down to their mid bass driver sections' 50Hz mechanical roll-off. These sections are sealed/acoustic suspended and thus need current. The 4 on board subs come in below that with adjustable phase starting from either 0 or 180 degrees.

I run my M10 monos in Monaural Mode, one power rail drawing from two supplies. In my case, I had too much bass and moved my speakers further out into the room closer to where I had originally placed the speakers that came before them, the VR-11 Mk2s. The distance was about 7 inches with a slight increase in toe in of about 7 degrees. This is done with the rear woofers off (think giant bookshelves LOL) then these subwoofers are calibrated in pairs starting with the bottom sets of subs then the upper pair until the tympani strike set in a loop go from strike to decay without any curls at the crossover point and I get a unified launch and natural decay. The latter is more a function of the room's inherent bass handling design of course.

The bass quantity of the M10s are in the ballpark of Centaur II 500s which are one of the pushrod big blocks of the amp world.

My guess is that the Stennheims were indeed in need of some boundary support. I am pretty sure I can bring my system to weaken my mid bass punch if I move my speakers further out into the room and/or away from each other.

 

[MadFloyd]

"So it is indeed difficult to marry that up with Marty's observations where he was entirely dependent on the M10 for bass."

My understanding is that Marty was using Gotham subs....?

 

[Elliot G.]

I believe the setup was, indeed, bi-amped. But, it was also setup for the audition before I showed up by a reputable professional.

btw, I was also accompanied by another enthusiast/audiophile who drew the same conclusions I did.

My sense is that the issue was one, or a combination, of the following.
1) The speakers were too far from the wall and unable to generate appropriate bass.
2) The feedback on the M10/L10 was set such that the bass wasn't emphasized.
3) The M10/L10 are mid-range favoring amps and that is just part and parcel of their character.

Please know that I am not trying to impugn the CH-Precision gear at all. I am just curious about others' impressions given my experience. Also, I will reiterate that the mid-range was maybe the best I have ever heard.

and I am not questioning what you heard only that without the amp actually driving the bass part of the speaker how can one think its the amps fault?
1) if the speakers are improperly positioned then the bass can never be correct no matter what amp
2) Feedback wont fix what bad placement or levels on the xover don't have correctly
3) this conclusion cant be made from the observations stated. It may have some truth or it may not have some truth but to ascertain that they need to be listened to driving a full range speaker

 

[MadFloyd]

Ultra 11s are passive down to their mid bass driver sections' 50Hz mechanical roll-off. These sections are sealed/acoustic suspended and thus need current. The 4 on board subs come in below that with adjustable phase starting from either 0 or 180 degrees.

I run my M10 monos in Monaural Mode, one power rail drawing from two supplies. In my case, I had too much bass and moved my speakers further out into the room closer to where I had originally placed the speakers that came before them, the VR-11 Mk2s. The distance was about 7 inches with a slight increase in toe in of about 7 degrees. This is done with the rear woofers off (think giant bookshelves LOL) then these subwoofers are calibrated in pairs starting with the bottom sets of subs then the upper pair until the tympani strike set in a loop go from strike to decay without any curls at the crossover point and I get a unified launch and natural decay. The latter is more a function of the room's inherent bass handling design of course.

The bass quantity of the M10s are in the ballpark of Centaur II 500s which are one of the pushrod big blocks of the amp world.

My guess is that the Stennheims were indeed in need of some boundary support. I am pretty sure I can bring my system to weaken my mid bass punch if I move my speakers further out into the room and/or away from each other.

Jack, I assume you had M1.1s beforehand? While the M10s are obviously BETTER than the M1.1s, how would you describe the differences in the bass?

 

[marty]

I listened to the M10 monos and L10 a couple weeks back. The system was Wadax Ref DAC -> L10 -> M10 monos -> Stenheim Reference. The system was incredibly detailed, smooth and quiet. But, there were two major issues that stood out with every single track I listened to.

While the soundstage for vocals and mid-range was incredible, everything from lower midrange to low octaves was coming out of two boxes.

The second issue for my ears was the bass itself. There seemed to be a tremendous lack of it and what there was did not feel appropriately controlled.

The audition was, frankly, a bit stunning. The combination of resolution while maintaining a smoothness was as good as I have ever heard. But the bass problem was really very much a standout problem. Now, to be fair, I did not play with any of the feedback - I believe it was set to 6%. Also, the speakers were quite a ways from the wall and in a very large room. My point is that I suspect something must have been amiss because it would be very odd for such vaunted gear to sound that off.

I am posting this more to hear from any of you whether you have experienced similar or what kinds of things you suspect were wrong. Again, I suspect that something was off and that it was not that the gear was the flaw.

I feel your pain. You might wish to read my thread on my similar experience with the M10 and the Wilson Alexx V. Your experience with the Stenheims might be very similar in that the amps might just not do well with certain speakers such as the Stenheims due to an impedance load mismatch between speaker and amp. Is there any published data on the Stenheim impedance as a function of frequency? That might point to the issue directly.

 

[marty]

"So it is indeed difficult to marry that up with Marty's observations where he was entirely dependent on the M10 for bass."

My understanding is that Marty was using Gotham subs....?

As I said in the thread where this was discussed, the Gothams supplemented the bass and the Alexx V was run full range. This allowed a lot of masking of low frequency deficiencies in the M10 driving the Alexx V when both are run together, When I turn off the subs (which regrettably did not do for Elliot), the full impact and deficiency of the Alexx V bass running fuil range with the M10 was far more readily apparent. The bass of the Alexx V was just not at the same level as the mids and highs which were, as I mentioned, as good as I have heard. The range of 30-70 Hz in particular sounded obviously sluggish, as if it was coming from another time zone (if you will pardon the obvious exaggeration). In a word, it was underdamped. It's very reasonable to assume this is a specific mismatch between one specific speaker and one specific amp. If we hypothesize that the Stenheim may also not be great match, that gives us a whopping n=2. It would be foolish to deduce much of anything from that data. If Robert Harley likes the CH10 with the Chronosonic, good for him. However that speaker is not the Alexx V, and I would wonder it has the same impedance curve. (I will be curious to see if he ends up owning the M10).

It's just foolish to assume there's a he's right/he's wrong scenario here. No scientist worth their salt would ever come to such a conclusion with an n=2. I suggest it would be unproductive for audiophiles to do the same.

 

[JackD201]

Jack, I assume you had M1.1s beforehand? While the M10s are obviously BETTER than the M1.1s, how would you describe the differences in the bass?

Hi Ian, I passed on the .1 upgrade and waited for the M10. I've always run with feedback at 0. The M1 is leaner and to address that the speakers were moved closer to the front wall and closer together. Then I played with the gain structure a bit to better suit the Ultra 11s. I had that at +6. I already described what I did with the M10s.

With the bass dealt with, which is usually my first step anytime a new amp gets inserted in my system, everything else pretty much fell into place save for those last few mm's that I saved for when everything had about two months of regular play (plus the CS2 roller coaster time). I'm at a point where I feel there's more I can squeeze from the stone but am happy enough to let what needs too be addressed come to me. I feel i'm so close right now and frankly its a point where I just give in and enjoy complete with silly grin specially when it is "open a sealed original" occasion LOL The textural contrast in the music is something special mated with the timing characteristic of the M1 not diminished in the slightest way. Again very tube like in that regard except with the current my sealed speakers require. I missed the texture provided by my Lamm M2.2s with Valvo tubes and the M10s brought that back to the party. While I still consider M2.2s to be one of the steals of past decade and a half, they could run out of steam with these particular speakers which are about 4db less efficient than those they replaced.

 

[JackD201]

...........

It's just foolish to assume there's a he's right/he's wrong scenario here. No scientist worth their salt would ever come to such a conclusion with an n=2. I suggest it would be unproductive for audiophiles to do the same.

I totally agree. Sometimes the fix can come from so far left field, sometimes right in front of our noses or not come at all. I do feel bad that they didn't work for you my friend. It must really suck to have a chunk being "as good as you've heard" but not be able to get the whole enchilada. If only I didn't live exactly half way around the world, I would have dragged Stevie from SoCal and dropped in to hear what you are hearing. I probably wouldn't have been able to help but we could have happily quit and had a good amigo time anyway

 

[marty]

It must really suck to have a chunk being "as good as you've heard" but not be able to get the whole enchilada.

So true that it hurts! But what can you do except move on to other options to hopefully will get you get to the promised land!