CH Precision L1 vs C1.2 Pre-Dac?

[agencal]

I had an L1/X1 (with an A1.5 amp) in my system prior to getting my MSB Reference. I ended up selling it and added the Reference Digital Director which did make a positive impact in my system. I also sold the A1.5 and replaced it with a D'Agostino Momentum MxV S250. In my room, these moves sound better than what I had previously. YMMV.

My amp before gryphon was d’agostino prıgression integrated. Such a great brand. I hope you are enjoyğng it.
Can you tell some more about the msb vs ch c1.2?
Do you use X1 for both L1 and C1.2? Which one values more from X1?
By the way you have a great system

 

[Elliot G.]

Just curious and not disputing your expertise and familiarity with the CHP product line, but how does adding a component (an active preamp) to the signal path improve the sound, assuming there are no impedance matching or overall gain issues between the source and the load?

I can understand that an active line stage preamp has a role in many vinyl playback chains (since many phono preamps do not have oodles of super low noise gain) but most modern DACs have a low output impedance and enough voltage to drive most amplifiers to their full rated output.

I can understand that the output stage of a high end preamp is likely to be superior to that found in most modern DACs (some Aries Cerat DACs and the Playback Designs MPD-8 being notable exceptions) but it isn't like the DAC's output stage is bypassed when using an active preamp, only the resistor network of the volume control. Or is this not correct in the context of an all CHP signal path?

I am not an engineer nor did I stay in a holiday Inn last night but I do know what my ears tell me. I have tried the dCS/MSB/ Ch etc DACs drving directly a power amp and then tried them with a good line stage in the signal path. There is very littler comparison IMO. I won't try to describe this since I think that its useless, people either get it/hear it or they don't. I advise you to try this and make your own decision. I am not a fan of any of the ones I have heard in comparision with a top preamp in the circuit . ( remember all line stages and not the same)
In every clients home we did this they bought the CH line stage !

 

[7ryder]

My amp before gryphon was d’agostino prıgression integrated. Such a great brand. I hope you are enjoyğng it.
Can you tell some more about the msb vs ch c1.2?
Do you use X1 for both L1 and C1.2? Which one values more from X1?
By the way you have a great system

Thanks for your compliments on my system. To clarify, I never owned a C1.2, I had the L1 preamp with the X1 power supply.

 

[agencal]

Thanks for your compliments on my system. To clarify, I never owned a C1.2, I had the L1 preamp with the X1 power supply.

Ohh my bad,sorry

 

[ashandger]

I am not an engineer nor did I stay in a holiday Inn last night but I do know what my ears tell me. I have tried the dCS/MSB/ Ch etc DACs drving directly a power amp and then tried them with a good line stage in the signal path. There is very littler comparison IMO. I won't try to describe this since I think that its useless, people either get it/hear it or they don't. I advise you to try this and make your own decision. I am not a fan of any of the ones I have heard in comparision with a top preamp in the circuit . ( remember all line stages and not the same)
In every clients home we did this they bought the CH line stage !

Totally agree Elliot. I would also add that, in general, there seem to be very few really excellent preamps on the market.

 

[Young Skywalker]

Totally agree Elliot. I would also add that, in general, there seem to be very few really excellent preamps on the market.

Can’t argue with one’s subjective opinion.

Objectively, an active linestage preamp cannot improve on the purity of the audio signal and my subjective experience, and that of many others who have gone MSB Reference DAC direct to amp/s, supports that.

To be fair, I haven’t tried a CH Precision preamp but it would have to be a sonic revelation compared to the Reference DAC driving my active crossovers to even begin to justify the asking price. I find that extremely difficult to believe.

 

[zbub]

In terms of signal purity, adding an active preamp in the signal path might seem counter intuitive. However, in the majority of situations I have encountered, in terms of body, texture, and musicality, a high quality active preamp is beneficial.
For me personally at least, I did try C1 directly to the amp when I purchased it many moons ago, and I really wanted to like it enough so I can get rid of the preamp, but the preamp stayed.

 

[Elliot G.]

Can’t argue with one’s subjective opinion.

Objectively, an active linestage preamp cannot improve on the purity of the audio signal and my subjective experience, and that of many others who have gone MSB Reference DAC direct to amp/s, supports that.

To be fair, I haven’t tried a CH Precision preamp but it would have to be a sonic revelation compared to the Reference DAC driving my active crossovers to even begin to justify the asking price. I find that extremely difficult to believe.

Only difficult to believe until you listen the first time

 

[JackD201]

CH does attenuation in a very unique way. Anybody can look it up if one wants to get into the geeky side of things. In a nutshell it bypasses the usual problems that come with the more common stepped resistor way without introducing bigger problems.

When we signed on with CH Precision, the L1 was not yet released. The C1's volume control was already competitive with separates. Just recently while evaluating Marten Parker Trio DEs I set up a system around it using the C1 as DAC and Pre into M1 monos, fed by my now ancient W20 running Conductor 4. Yes the addition of the L1 will improve on using the onboard volume control. In general terms the L1 will provide a quieter base (not bass!) which in turn leads to more subtlety and nuance in quiet passages which again in turn gives greater dynamic contrast from silence on up to crescendos. This of course impacts all types of music but is least impactful on studio recordings which don't have clean and clear noise floors to begin with.

As Elliot says it is an interim step. In my experience it is one that won't be making you rush into taking the next one. Totally livable and good enough for us to make the decision to apply for distributorship.

Here is an ancient clip (2014) of a system playing with the C1 as Preamp. Here it is using ADCs to convert the output of an Einstein phonostage.

By the way the C1.2 is a different animal from the C1 and mine has yet to receive the latest firmware update.

 

[agencal]

CH does attenuation in a very unique way. Anybody can look it up if one wants to get into the geeky side of things. In a nutshell it bypasses the usual problems that come with the more common stepped resistor way without introducing bigger problems.

When we signed on with CH Precision, the L1 was not yet released. The C1's volume control was already competitive with separates. Just recently while evaluating Marten Parker Trio DEs I set up a system around it using the C1 as DAC and Pre into M1 monos, fed by my now ancient W20 running Conductor 4. Yes the addition of the L1 will improve on using the onboard volume control. In general terms the L1 will provide a quieter base (not bass!) which in turn leads to more subtlety and nuance in quiet passages which again in turn gives greater dynamic contrast from silence on up to crescendos. This of course impacts all types of music but is least impactful on studio recordings which don't have clean and clear noise floors to begin with.

As Elliot says it is an interim step. In my experience it is one that won't be making you rush into taking the next one. Totally livable and good enough for us to make the decision to apply for distributorship.

Here is an ancient clip (2014) of a system playing with the C1 as Preamp. Here it is using ADCs to convert the output of an Einstein phonostage.

By the way the C1.2 is a different animal from the C1 and mine has yet to receive the latest firmware update.

Thank you Jack
So what i understand is i can live happyly with C1.2+ X1 as a pre , at least for some time to drive my M1.1.
May i ask you about m1.1 stereo vs mono?
I spoke to sonus faber if m1.1 is enough for driving il cremonese ex3me. They said it is ok but it is always better to have more power to drive those soeakers.100 to 800 w . So i have 2x350w at 4 ohm to drive them with m1.1.
Do you think adding another m1.1 to make it mono will improve the sound? When i look at the specs m1.1 stereo and mono has the same power at 4 ohms which is strange. And adda 1 ohm i guess. Speaker never drops below 1.9 ohms.
Up to budget is it better to add another m1.1 or L1 will improve sound especially for soundstage and detail?

Best
Ahmed

 

[JackD201]

Any time agencal,

I've had my M1s Monos peak at over 2kw. My HVAC ducting and light fixtures were not happy LOL I guarantee that one's ear's will give way, the room will overload before you get the protection circuits to kick in. For the record, I DO NOT RECOMMEND trying this. When I ran both Monos through their paces I was carefully monitoring the operating temperature in real time.

The M1.1 S and Ms have a much improved power supply section over the M1s. They should provide the headroom any sane person would need. If one infers that I may be just a little off my rocker, well, yeah I really can be sometimes and yet....

Ultimately if one can spring for an M10 Stereo I would take that route (I jumped from M1 Ms to M10 Ms). It isn't a power issue though. The 10 series really do push hard against known ceilings in many respects, particularly in the liquidity department. I would give the nod to M1.1 monos over a stereo M10 in terms of peak current delivery. I don't think your speakers and room judging by the photo will rarely ever need it unless Pipe Organs and Kodo drums are a regular part of your music diet.

Honestly, I would hold off on the X1 if it meant getting your L1 faster. I would add the X1 last. Just use a good power cord. Avoid power cords that are designed for clarity like Shunyata. Too much of a good thing. CH is clear enough. Something neutral or even warmish if you so choose. When the X1 comes use that power cord on the X1 and use the stock free cord for the C1.2. The IEC power supply will then be used only for the onboard control processors and will be out of the signal path.

Oh and if you go with the C1.2, the sound via the HD card (Ethernet) is extremely good with the CH App. A worthwhile option if you are already a Roon member and have a NAS library.

On the last question, only what I would personally do, L1 first, another M1.1, X1 last. If you were playing discs with a D1.5, I would put the X1 clock before the X1. In any case, save the icing for last and enjoy the cake

 

[JackD201]

Oh sorry my friend, a few points I forgot to mention regarding power. When you go from a M1.1 Stereo to a set of Monos, you get two additional operational modes. In Mono mode the power per channel will be upped as the channel rail chosen will now draw from both power supplies. In Bridged mode you will now have access to crazy power (800 at 8ohms). Again though, as a believer in headroom the Stereo should do for now. X1 would still be the icing in this scenario. X1 last.

 

[agencal]

Oh sorry my friend, a few points I forgot to mention regarding power. When you go from a M1.1 Stereo to a set of Monos, you get two additional operational modes. In Mono mode the power per channel will be upped as the channel rail chosen will now draw from both power supplies. In Bridged mode you will now have access to crazy power (800 at 8ohms). Again though, as a believer in headroom the Stereo should do for now. X1 would still be the icing in this scenario. X1 last.

What can i say for a detailed answer like this Thanks again.
So i will not in a hurry to buy X1 but go for L1 at first which i hope wil nake the biggest differebce in my system. Then i will try X1 for C1.2 or L1 or maybe to use for both. M1.1 seem ok for now but if i will have budget i will buy one more to use it at bridge mode

 

[JackD201]

Sounds like a plan!

 

[JackD201]

You'll need speaker cables that can spread wide. You will be using a terminal each from the left and right side of the chassis

 

[RoyGregory]

I have used an awful lot of different CH combinations in many different systems. Normally, I would suggest adding the X1 before the second M1.1 - power is nothing without authority and adding the X1 to the L1 delivers just that, musical authority (along with substance, dynamic range and bass extension, additional space, focus and transparency). However, in this case there is indeed an argument for adding a second M1.1 - and it isn't about going mono. Instead, you should look at vertically bi-amping the speakers - almost always the way to get the best performance out of the M1.1 (or any other CH amp). The best thing is, as long as you can borrow a second set of identical speaker cables, it costs you nothing to try, compared to high-current mono operation. I'd be really surprised if bridged operations offers any musical advantages (I think it's mainly about posting big numbers when it comes round to measurements...)

 

[agencal]

I have used an awful lot of different CH combinations in many different systems. Normally, I would suggest adding the X1 before the second M1.1 - power is nothing without authority and adding the X1 to the L1 delivers just that, musical authority (along with substance, dynamic range and bass extension, additional space, focus and transparency). However, in this case there is indeed an argument for adding a second M1.1 - and it isn't about going mono. Instead, you should look at vertically bi-amping the speakers - almost always the way to get the best performance out of the M1.1 (or any other CH amp). The best thing is, as long as you can borrow a second set of identical speaker cables, it costs you nothing to try, compared to high-current mono operation. I'd be really surprised if bridged operations offers any musical advantages (I think it's mainly about posting big numbers when it comes round to measurements...)

Thank you Roy. Maybe i can buy a A1.5 to drive mid and highs and m1.1 will take care of the bass drivers. They say A1.5 is a more open and detailed amp.

 

[JackD201]

I have used an awful lot of different CH combinations in many different systems. Normally, I would suggest adding the X1 before the second M1.1 - power is nothing without authority and adding the X1 to the L1 delivers just that, musical authority (along with substance, dynamic range and bass extension, additional space, focus and transparency). However, in this case there is indeed an argument for adding a second M1.1 - and it isn't about going mono. Instead, you should look at vertically bi-amping the speakers - almost always the way to get the best performance out of the M1.1 (or any other CH amp). The best thing is, as long as you can borrow a second set of identical speaker cables, it costs you nothing to try, compared to high-current mono operation. I'd be really surprised if bridged operations offers any musical advantages (I think it's mainly about posting big numbers when it comes round to measurements...)

Bi-amp is where I initially started as I used to Bi-amp with 2 pairs of Lamm M2.2s. Of the 3 modes available, Monaural became my go to. The only advantage of Bridged mode is if you need to play above an abnormally high noise floor, like show conditions. A condition I am not in. Bridged is not bad, but I feel it gives up texture when compared to Monaural mode at least when it comes to M1s and M10s. The last show, I still went with Monaural. While busy our room would quiet down whenever music started anyway. Make it the Hong Kong show in the large rooms of their convention center with A LOT of people, I could not blame CH for going Bridged a few years ago. Last year they went Monaural with the XVX. It sounded fine. The XVX could clearly play above the breathing of 50 people.

 

[agencal]

Bi-amp is where I initially started as I used to Bi-amp with 2 pairs of Lamm M2.2s. Of the 3 modes available, Monaural became my go to. The only advantage of Bridged mode is if you need to play above an abnormally high noise floor, like show conditions. A condition I am not in. Bridged is not bad, but I feel it gives up texture when compared to Monaural mode at least when it comes to M1s and M10s. The last show, I still went with Monaural. While busy our room would quiet down whenever music started anyway. Make it the Hong Kong show in the large rooms of their convention center with A LOT of people, I could not blame CH for going Bridged a few years ago. Last year they went Monaural with the XVX. It sounded fine. The XVX could clearly play above the breathing of 50 people.

Maybe i am wrong but what i understand from upgrading monos from stereo is some power gain. At least some brands’ specs show the power increase. I do not see it at the tech specs of my M1.1. Stereo power output and monos are same other than 1 ohm drive. So what sould i expect to upgrade monos? What is the benefit and most important is will it worth

 

[JackD201]

Normal listening my meters usually show in the 30s to 60s. When at a pretty healthy volume, I'd be rocking between 100 and 170 watts whether I'm listening to jazz, classical or even melodic tech and trance. When I do decide to get really stupid wattage use can climb very quickly as the amp deals with the increases in back EMF in order to control the speaker drivers. In the case of both M1.1 and M10s we are talking about playing distortion free in the kilowatt range. Strangely enough it isn't classical music, pipe organ included that tends to eat up gobs of power. I've found music that employs constant beds of electric bass guitars (mic'd up guitar cabinets) and especially percussive piano parts.

We have to remember that sound pressure is logarithmic and the wattage use can climb very quickly. Doubling wattage does not double SPL. What going from Stereo to Mono gives you is not so much the rated rms gains but double the power supply reserves. The left and right channel will not be drawing/competing for the reserves that reside in the capacitor banks ergo headroom. This also helps with channel separation/imaging but this is typically made out to be a bigger deal than it is. The improvements are there but most will not say WOW WHAT A DIFFERENCE!

For me it is like having a 2.0 litre turbodiesel rental vs a performance car. The speed limit will have you driving at the speed the cops will willingly turn a blind eye and no more than that but the rental will be pretty close to its limits overtaking at 140 to 160kph but the performance car might not even have to kick down a gear when you move over to the overtake lane to pass. The limit in audio is when things like thermal compression, clipping and even potential damage happens. Going mono gives you that added cushion.