New convert to CH Precision - advice needed
- Thread starter Derekw14
- Start date
Hi Ron,
I cannot detect any loss of liquidity in my system using CH phono, CH Linestage and the CH M1 amps. I did extensive listening evaluations with each of these prior to making any purchase decisions. Initially I ran the phono stage and linestage with my VTL Siegfried Series 2 amps (for about 5 months) before I then auditioned the M1 amps. To my ears, everything is improved. Upper mids and highs are definitely fuller and richer than with the Siegfrieds (which surprised me) and speed, dynamics, transparency, bass, imaging and speaker control are all better than what I had previously. The M1 amps also have adjusatable global feedback (like the Siegfrieds) but it is a much finer grained control being adjustable from 0% to 100% in 10% increments versus the 4 settings on the Siegfrieds. I loved my Siegfried amps and never expected to replace them, but the CH M1 amps along with the phono and linestage convinced me otherwise.
Arnie
I cannot detect any loss of liquidity in my system using CH phono, CH Linestage and the CH M1 amps. I did extensive listening evaluations with each of these prior to making any purchase decisions. Initially I ran the phono stage and linestage with my VTL Siegfried Series 2 amps (for about 5 months) before I then auditioned the M1 amps. To my ears, everything is improved. Upper mids and highs are definitely fuller and richer than with the Siegfrieds (which surprised me) and speed, dynamics, transparency, bass, imaging and speaker control are all better than what I had previously. The M1 amps also have adjusatable global feedback (like the Siegfrieds) but it is a much finer grained control being adjustable from 0% to 100% in 10% increments versus the 4 settings on the Siegfrieds. I loved my Siegfried amps and never expected to replace them, but the CH M1 amps along with the phono and linestage convinced me otherwise.
Arnie
That is actually an interesting question Ron. I believe most of us who are heavily into the CH family did so precisely because there was little to no sacrifice in liquidity. What is diminished is overhang. The control on the drivers just seems so effortless. It is nimble in the way it handles the drivers as opposed to being iron fisted/slow and heavy, velvet glove or not. It is actually visible if you watch the driver excursion closely. None of that weird bouncing around.
Okay I'll stop now. I just realized I just might have given other OCD audiophiles something to obsess over. LOL
Absolutely fascinating Arnie...what increment setting do you use? 10% (ie, i mean very low feedback)?
My take is when I owned the Nola Concert Grands I was using tubes as Carl designed them for.
To help Elliot, we began listening to some solid state stuff, all very impressive. When we put in the M1 I was blown away. If any thing, Carl’s speakers were more dynamic, more “liquid” and way more detailed. I was amazed at how much better what I thought couldn’t be improved was.
For me l, particularly in FL, I am done with tubes and have no regrets after hearing (and later purchasing) the M1.
Now using them with Gobel Aeon Fine until my “Ferrari Red” Aeons are ready. Amazing combination being driven direct by the MSB Select II.
Yet another high end and discerning Tube-driven audiophile converted to this SS amp...and specifically noting how it did not give up anything on liquidity, transparency...'done with tubes' seems to be the universal conclusion from this converted set of audiophiles...quite a remarkable achievement!
And in my case I was literally sold on the “tube only” concept from the designer of the remarkable Nola Concert Grands. Truly a great speaker. I have to say, I never truly “heard” them until I replaced my tubes with the M1. Carl should reconsider how he shows his speakers.
CH is great stuff. Absolutely love my M1
I was impressed about the effect of adjusting the overall global feedback on the A1. The test setup was fine with 20% global feedback, but I can imagine, that other speakers do prefer the higher settings.
Looking forward to listen to the M1 amplifier, but this is not too easy in Germany , not many are around.
Looking forward to listen to the M1 amplifier, but this is not too easy in Germany , not many are around.
Welcome to WBF, Steph!
There are a lot of converts from tubes to CH. It is interesting and puzzling.
How would you articulate the costs and benefits of switching from your tubes to CH? ? If the cost is that touch of dryness you write about, what are the benefits? (I appreciate you have already given us your impressions of the benefits of the CH, but perhaps you could elaborate by comparing and contrasting more directly the CH with the tubes.)
In your view do the benefits outweigh the cost of the touch of dryness? Why?
Doesn’t that touch of dryness detract from “musicality”?
use of the word 'dry' or 'touch of dryness' for solid state to contrast with the view of liquid tube sound is a wrong descriptive approach IMHO. we spent many posts covering this in other recent threads. a more valid way to go is degrees of liquidity.....'less' liquid or 'more' liquid. the concept of dry is absence of any moisture.....where that is not what is intended. so we should avoid that word. I view the best solid state amplifiers as having a natural suppleness to their sound......which is another way to say this.
are there actually 'dry' amplifiers? I think so. this would be where the lack of suppleness does detract from musicality. OTOH the degree of suppleness I enjoy from the darTZeel amplifiers to my view is an ideal level, where it's never a sameness over the music which gets in the way of the message. where-as tube amps do give me that sense of 'sameness' from their liquidity, as beautiful as that can be.....and, of course, this perception varies from tube amp to tube amp. for instance; the Lamm ML3's were much less overly liquid compared to the VAC Statement 450's.
but outside of extremes we have degrees of moisture......degrees of liquidity.....suppleness.
as far as the CH Precision amplifiers being 'dry' or having a 'touch of dryness'......I've not lived with one to be able to have that view. but I think I understand Steph's meaning but just don't like that way to put it......as I would expect he feels it is sufficiently supple to fully express the music.
We have been reading 'done with tubes' for decades and tube amplifiers are still high in popularity. I have gone in and out of tubes several times, sometimes feeling it was a definitive move - surely not anymore!
Hi Lloyd,
Since my Arrakis are true bi-amped speakers (with the Rockport external crossover), I run my 2 CH M1 amps in active bi amped mode. This allows me to use 1 M1 per speaker instead of 2 Siegfried’s per speaker. In active bi-amped, each M1 has 2 separate and independent adjustable global feedback and gain controls for each speaker. For the bass drivers of the Arrakis I use 60% global feedback and for the mid bass, mids and highs I use 0% global feedback. I did experiment with different feedback settings for the bass drivers and found that 60% gave me everything I wanted - especially incredible overall speaker control. Another advantage of using the M1’s is that with the Siegfried II’s, as you increase the global feedback (its has 4 settings for this) the gain of the amplifier is lowered (this is not the case with the M1’s). So in order to properly bi-amp each speaker I had to use the gain controls of the external Rockport crossover to keep the 2 Siegfrieds per channel in proper balance. With the M1’s this isn’t necessary and so the crossover is set to them “0” setting and just acts as more a signal pass through.
Since my Arrakis are true bi-amped speakers (with the Rockport external crossover), I run my 2 CH M1 amps in active bi amped mode. This allows me to use 1 M1 per speaker instead of 2 Siegfried’s per speaker. In active bi-amped, each M1 has 2 separate and independent adjustable global feedback and gain controls for each speaker. For the bass drivers of the Arrakis I use 60% global feedback and for the mid bass, mids and highs I use 0% global feedback. I did experiment with different feedback settings for the bass drivers and found that 60% gave me everything I wanted - especially incredible overall speaker control. Another advantage of using the M1’s is that with the Siegfried II’s, as you increase the global feedback (its has 4 settings for this) the gain of the amplifier is lowered (this is not the case with the M1’s). So in order to properly bi-amp each speaker I had to use the gain controls of the external Rockport crossover to keep the 2 Siegfrieds per channel in proper balance. With the M1’s this isn’t necessary and so the crossover is set to them “0” setting and just acts as more a signal pass through.
Just come to the Lausanne area and visit CH demo room. Take that vacation trip to listen to Dart, Goldmund, audio Consulting, Tron, Nagra and Manufacture Le Son.
Like many people here I truly am trying to understand the number of tube lovers who have switched to CH. One person switched to CH from Viva Aurora. Jack switched to CH from Lamm. And Arnie! These are serious former tube people, among several others.
As someone who has Rockport Arrakis (which I love) and (formerly) Siegfried IIs (which I love) I (and maybe LL21) am (are) finding Arnie’s switch to CH to be the unkindest cut — ah, the most interesting switch — of all.
(Further a good friend of mine in California uses two pairs of Siegfrieds to drive his Arrakis.)Of course we all are well aware that Andy Payor switched from Siegfried IIs to Gryphon.
I am going to be happy with the Siegfrieds.
That is absolutely fascinating to me Arnie! It is particularly fascinating that you found the CH to have fuller and richer upper mids and highs than the VTLs! I never would have expected that!
Thank you very much for this detailed comparison!
This is so interesting, Jack! I wonder how the CH amplifiers would perform on ribbon or electrostatic panels?
Mike, please know that I was not trying sneakily to relitigate the discussion of “slightly more dry” versus “slightly less liquid.”
Steph, in his opening post, wrote “the CHP timbres sound a touch (and by this i mean slightly) dry” and I simply was following up on his exact statement by quoting him verbatim.
Shakti, I give you (and Jack and Arnie and Gian and Kedar and Mike and others) a lot of credit for being so non-ideological with respect to the topology of audio electronics!
(But there is no obvious independently variable reason to maintain ideology on something like tubes versus transistors. Our ears should do all of the judging! Even I switched from 100% tubes/zero transistors in the signal path to solid-state woofer amplifiers and solid-state output stage line preamplifier.)
Similar threads
