CH Precision C1.2

[adyc]

I don’t think Chord Blu I upsampling is superior to CH 1.2 upsampling. If you are going to use Blu1 with CH1.2, leave it with native rate.

I found a big improvement with my Chord DAVE with having the Chord M Scaler (initially as the one box solution then later upgrading my Chord Blu MK1 CD Transport by Chord Electronics to have an inbuilt M Scaler like the MK2) with connecting them together (DAVE & Blu) with the superb Wave High Fidelity STORM Digital Data BNC interconnects. These additions put a lot of 'meat on the bone' to the music I was hearing.

Wondering if purchasing and installing either the Sean Jacobs DC4-ARC6 or the Farad Super3 or Super10 external linear power supplies for my Chord DAVE would nicely complete my digital source set-up with further improvement to the sound i.e. even 'more meat on the bone' to the sound, bigger (deeper and wider) sound stage, even higher clarity etc. as written in a number of online reviews and WBF Members feedback who have installed one of these external linear power supplies to their Chord DAVE.

By the end of this year, I will be in a dilemma with my next upgrade for my UK HiFi System of whether to buy a Sean Jacobs DC4-ARC6 or the Farad Super3 or Super10 for my Chord DAVE or think about purchasing a CH 1.2 in 2025 (and selling my Chord DAVE to help fund a C1.2, but with using my Chord Blu CD Transport I will only be getting a maximum 352kHz sampling rate into and from the C1.2 with a single digital data BNC interconnect) or purchasing another CH P1 and X1 to have a full mono CH P1 Phono Stage in 2025 for my TT set-up (along with an upgrade replacement for my MSL Eminent Ex cartridge (i.e. a MSL Signature Gold or Platinum etc.) by end of this year as by end of 2024 my Ex will surely have 1,200+ ours of use on

 

[sunnysideOC]

I have borrowed CH1.2 from my dealer for home audition for 10 days. I have an ARC6 Chord DAVE. I love my DAVE. I have compared it to MSB Select II over a period of 6 months in my system. I don’t judge performance based on price. Believe it or not, in my system, DAVE beats Select II comprehensively.

Back to C1.2, I only do local file streaming. My files are offline upsampled to 16FS using PGGB software. The first day impression of C1.2 is not very favourable. Not too sure whether it is cold and needs to warm up. But as days go by, I grow to love C1.2. I appreciate C1.2 qualities. The presentation is different. DAVE is more punchy and a bit raw. C1.2 is more smooth and graceful. I would say DAVE is like a heavyweight boxer and C1.2 is like a ballet dancer. But what ulimately wins me over is that C1.2 is rock solid in imaging and the imaging is very details. In comparison, DAVE imaging is wavy and blurry. I am shocked at this. Why am I shocked? Because C1.2 is a R2R DAC. R2R DACs have intrinsic linearity problems as the resistors can’t be 100% matched. DS DACs should better at resolution. But this is what I find.

At the end of my 10 days home audition, I find C1.2 is a superior DAC. One caveat is that my files are offline upsampled to 16FS before feeding to both DAC. So in essence, I do not use the upsampling function of C1.2. I have confirmed this with Florian.

Will I upgrade to C1.2? No. Because Chord is going to have Ultima DAC and CH is going to have C10 this year. I will wait for them.

Hi. Thank you for sharing your experience on Dave. I have also enjoyed Chord Dave for many years. I tried M scaler, but to my ears, Chord Dave sounded better by itself in my system via AES/EBU from Aurender N20.

Although I am happy with Dave, it’s also the oldest product in my system, and I have been searching for its replacement or “upgrade”. So far, I have tried Berkeley Alpha Reference mk3, Soulution new 3 series DAC, and Ideon Ion DAC. At the end of each home audition trial, Chord Dave came on top in terms of musicality. I mostly listen to classical and jazz music. These other DAC’s might offer a different combination of better details, dynamics, clarity, and imaging, but Chord sounded most natural and less fatiguing to me.

Now, I am about to home audition MSB reference DAC, which sounded very promising at the store. After that, I will go listen to CH Precision C1.2 at another dealer. Both these models are available either as store demos or preowned at steep discount. So, I am hoping that one of these two will win the battle over each other and over the Chord Dave. MSB reference has been recently discontinued and upgrade pathway is very limited whereas CH Precision offers affordable lifetime upgrades. MSB Select, cascade, or CH Precision C10 are way beyond my budget. I like solid state gear so excluded Lampizator. Your suggestions or recommendations would be appreciated. Thank you.

 

[adyc]

Hi. Thank you for sharing your experience on Dave. I have also enjoyed Chord Dave for many years. I tried M scaler, but to my ears, Chord Dave sounded better by itself in my system via AES/EBU from Aurender N20.

Although I am happy with Dave, it’s also the oldest product in my system, and I have been searching for its replacement or “upgrade”. So far, I have tried Berkeley Alpha Reference mk3, Soulution new 3 series DAC, and Ideon Ion DAC. At the end of each home audition trial, Chord Dave came on top in terms of musicality. I mostly listen to classical and jazz music. These other DAC’s might offer a different combination of better details, dynamics, clarity, and imaging, but Chord sounded most natural and less fatiguing to me.

Now, I am about to home audition MSB reference DAC, which sounded very promising at the store. After that, I will go listen to CH Precision C1.2 at another dealer. Both these models are available either as store demos or preowned at steep discount. So, I am hoping that one of these two will win the battle over each other and over the Chord Dave. MSB reference has been recently discontinued and upgrade pathway is very limited whereas CH Precision offers affordable lifetime upgrades. MSB Select, cascade, or CH Precision C10 are way beyond my budget. I like solid state gear so excluded Lampizator. Your suggestions or recommendations would be appreciated. Thank you.

There was a second hand set of CH 1.2 mono. I sold my DAVE and bought this set. There was no regret. C1.2 mono comprehensively beat DAVE in every department you can think of. C1.2 mono is a big upgrade over C1.2 stereo. I had a chance to listen to C10 stereo development sample. Strangely, I found C1.2 mono beats C10 stereo. I should have a chance to listen to C10 mono in the showroom in the coming few months. At this moment, I have no desire to upgrade to C10.

One thing to mention that CH equipments are very sensitive to vibrations. The footers came with CH are crap. You can use your favorite footers to improve the sound further. I use Carbide micro.

 

[RideCA]

There was a second hand set of CH 1.2 mono. I sold my DAVE and bought this set. There was no regret. C1.2 mono comprehensively beat DAVE in every department you can think of. C1.2 mono is a big upgrade over C1.2 stereo. I had a chance to listen to C10 stereo development sample. Strangely, I found C1.2 mono beats C10 stereo. I should have a chance to listen to C10 mono in the showroom in the coming few months. At this moment, I have no desire to upgrade to C10.

One thing to mention that CH equipments are very sensitive to vibrations. The footers came with CH are crap. You can use your favorite footers to improve the sound further. I use Carbide micro.

All CH Precision units are supplied with a dedicated mechanical grounding/leveling solution. In addition, the accessory box also contains polymer footers and stacking caps. The use of the stacking caps is self-explanatory, but the footers are a different matter… These can be used in two different ways:-

As a positional aid, they engage with the rubber O-rings embedded in the feet of the unit, allowing you to slide the heavy chassis into place. The footers can then be removed, allowing the grounding spikes to engage directly with the supporting surface (and removing any risk of scoring that surface when placing the component).

In certain situations, if the supporting surface is extremely hard (Corian or marble, for instance) then there can be an advantage in leaving the footers in place, winding the spikes down into the wells provided. But this is a case-by-case decision and should always be the result of listening with and without the polymer interface.

These details are included in the manuals, but just for clarity, the polymer footers should mainly be considered as a set-up tool employed for positioning. In most cases, the CH units sound best coupled directly to a lossy supporting surface.

Kevin Wolff
Head of International Sales

CH Precision Sarl
ZI Le Tresi 6B
1028 Preverenges
Switzerland
www.ch-precision.com