Alexx V arrive in NJ
- Thread starter marty
- Start date
Gryphon good choice, open dynamic sound i had years ago the s100 amp with martin logan for some month.
I haven't heard the Mephisto yet, but they have a house sound, if that is still there it will be really good. Have fun
I haven't heard the Mephisto yet, but they have a house sound, if that is still there it will be really good. Have fun
Marty,
Can you return the Mephisto Solo if doesn't work for you?
IMO it's easier to design / optimize a component with fix rather than variable requirements. Parasound JC1+ is design / optimized to a fixed NF ... CH M10 is like Swiss army knife with many options / adjustments. I wonder M10 performance in eliminating all the adjustments.
Lol funny .
May be its just simply catering to a market , ,audiophiles love to fiddle.
Other thing :
where does one simply ever read " this is the sound i like ."
On forums Its allways stated as "this is the best".
Or they wanna convince other people to their" whats the best "or what to like .
I hope marty likes the memphistos , and if not SAL (swap and learn)
Last edited:
As my experience and review with the CH Precision M10 amplifiers have been referred to or quoted in the preceding posts, I thought it might be worth clarifying the extent and details of that experience. I’d also like to add a couple of observations…
Having waded (and I think ‘waded’ is the term) through over 300 posts related to this subject, a couple of things become pretty clear. But before going there, I should probably establish the extent of my own listening with both the M10(s) and their older but somewhat smaller brother, the M1.1.
I’ve spent a long time listening to and working with both of these CH Precision amplifiers, singly and in pairs, as well as in a variety of rooms and system contexts. Apologies for the laundry list, but here goes:
I’ve listened to the M10 in four different rooms and in three of them, I was able to make direct comparisons between the M10 and the M1.1. That listening has included Stenheim (Alumine 5SE, Alumine 5 Signature and Reference Ultime 3), Goebel Divin Noblesse, Wilson-Benesch Resolution, Wilson Sasha DAW and Rockport Avior loudspeakers. In the case of the Alumine 5 Signature, Divin Noblesse, Sasha DAWs and W-B Resolutions, that listening also included periods in which I paired the speakers with PureLow LO passive subs, driven by the main amplifiers.
In addition to that, you can add considerable time spent with the M1.1s on the original Alexx, with and without Thor’s Hammer subs, as well as a host of other speakers.
In all that time and in all those situations, I can categorically state that I’ve never run into bass control or quality issues with either the M10 or the M1.1. In fact, the adjustability of the amplifiers, in terms of GFB, system gain structure and individual channel gain (in bi-amped configuration) has meant completely the opposite. One of the qualities that sets the CH amplifiers apart from the crowd is the clarity, articulation, dimensionality, textural qualities and timing of their low-frequencies. This is particularly apparent when used with speakers like the Divin Noblesse, Stenheim Reference Ultime 3 and PureLow subs that share those qualities. The M10 used with these latter speakers has consistently delivered the most convincing and natural bass reproduction that I’ve ever achieved.
I did not use the M10s with the Alexx, although Robert Harley has used a single pair of M10s with XVX and Subsonics to considerable effect. Compare the specs of the Alexx V and XVX and they are almost identical in terms of sensitivity and bandwidth, while the XVX’s minimum impedance drops to 1.6 Ohms as opposed to the 2.0 Ohms of the Alexx V. Factor in that the M10s in RH’s system were driving not just the XVX but the Subsonics too and it seems reasonable to conclude that while there can be little doubt about the problematic results from the Alexx V/M10 combination in Marty’s system, this was NOT an amplifier/speaker issue. Is there some ‘Secret Sauce’ in the Alexx V that causes a problem with the M10? I don’t think so. So what could explain his experiences?
Which brings me to my first caveat.
Most of my listening has been in large spaces and most of it has involved classical and acoustic recordings. Yes, I listen to OST recordings and electronica – but those are not my gold standard for bass reproduction. I love the Gravity soundtrack. I can certainly tell you whether a system makes it an enjoyable listen or just a sludgy, bass-polluted mess. I can tell you whether that system maintains the drama, scale and above all, the sheer tension in the music. What I cannot tell you is whether it is accurate.
Which leads me to the question of expectation. Everybody has their own listening biases and prejudices. My attitude to low-frequencies – live or recorded – is that on the one hand, there is no substitute for bandwidth but that on the other, bad bass is considerably worse than no bass. My personal tolerance for ill-defined, overweight, lumpy, exaggerated or non-linear low-frequencies is extremely limited. But that’s just me. Other listeners may vary. I am not right and they are not wrong. But when it comes to qualitative and value judgements, expectation plays a huge part – yet there is no measure or gauge of that expectation. Look at all of the opinions expressed here and the one thing that you can say for certain, is that no two posters share the same expectations. One man’s (or woman’s) “lean and light” can easily be another’s “subtle, deft and clear”.
My second caveat is more by way of an observation.
I mentioned the M1.1 and my experience with it, both in isolation and in direct comparison with the M10 for a specific reason. Bear in mind that these two amplifiers share very similar circuit topologies. The M10 adds a different (considerably superior?) input stage as well as better componentry, more output devices and a LOT more power supply. Knowing that the first question many readers would ask was how the two amplifiers compare, I carefully conducted exhaustive, direct comparisons between them.
But to do so (AND THIS IS THE BIT THAT MATTERS) it was necessary to adjust the position of the speakers to optimise the system performance with each amplifier. Those comparisons were carried with the Stenheim Alumine 5 Signature and the Divin Noblesse. In the case of the Stenheims, inserting the M10(s) into the system, I had to move the speakers forward almost 30mm. In the case of the Divin Noblesse it was a case of forward 20mm and raise them two complete plus one-eighth turns on their feet. That reflects significant positional adjustments! Which in turn suggests a major difference in bass output from the system as a whole – enough to seriously upset the overall system balance. And that’s with two, topologically at least, extremely similar amplifiers.
Now, if we look at Marty’s situation: the Alexx Vs were set up with the JC1+. Replace that amplifier with an entirely different one and the low-frequency balance goes to hell in a handcart. Put the JC1+ back on and whaddya know? Back comes the bass balance. I suspect that this is not a question of quality but one of set up. As we have seen from my own comparisons, the spectral balance of and sheer energy generated by the M10 at low-frequencies is more than enough to upset a speaker/amplifier/room balance optimised for the M1.1. So what happens when you do a direct swap with a completely different amplifier? If I was having to use 15 - 20% GFB to balance the bass, that would be telling me to move the speakers… It would be telling me, LOUD AND CLEAR – but that’s where experience with both this and other products comes in.
Bottom line: the “change only one thing” rule just plain doesn’t work, because the relationships between system components and system and room are too complex. It’s almost impossible to change one thing without significantly impacting others – and that applies with a vengeance to amplifiers.
If anybody out there thinks this is fanciful or flies in the face of accepted wisdom and practice (which it does), just consider this: take a pair of amplifiers like the JC1+ and the Audio Research REF 110 as an example. Compare the bass output and control of these two amplifiers. Now, when you position your speakers, you are balancing their low-frequency output (character and extension) against the bass nodes in your listening room. But the bass extension and character of the speaker’s output depends in turn on the driving amplifier. Change the amp and you will change the balance and weight of the speakers’ low frequency output – its spectral balance. So, if the positioning of your loudspeakers depends on the relationship between the speaker, the amplifier driving it and the room acoustics, do you really think that you’ll get the best results from both the JC1+ and the REF 110 using the same speaker set up? Yet that is exactly the basis on which the ‘one in-one out’ reviewing and listening approach is based. This whole issue – the fact that you cannot listen to a product, only a system (with all its complex interactions) – is a massive industry blind-spot. It’s one I touched on in the recent discussion of parallel tracing, pivoted tonearms. It’s one I have demonstrated repeatedly in show presentations. At one RMAF we used a comparison between a Moon integrated amp and a Border Patrol 300B , with both amps driving Living Voice Avatar IBX loudspeakers. The positional adjustment required? A shade over four inches!
If Marty is confused, frustrated and disappointed by his experience with the M10s, he absolutely has my sympathy. As a member of the press, I feel his pain but sadly, it does not surprise me. He has carried out a process – and I’m sure that he has carried it out meticulously – that not only have most of us (reviewers and magazines as well as dealers) been telling him to do for years, most of us have been doing it ourselves. The results are as perplexing as they are contradictory: not because of the products involved, but because the process itself – a process pretty much the entire industry stands behind – is just plain flawed. It’s an almost inevitable consequence of an industry and magazines that have become obsessed with product over process. Despite the appeal of the notion, the answer to every audio issue or performance upgrade isn’t simply a different box.
I’d love to see a return to the consideration and understanding of system – or even better, system within the room. High-end audio started as a hobby and became an industry: As that happened, we forgot about the ‘practice’ and instead started concentrating on the ‘consuming’. To me, this whole saga just underlines the role of ‘practice’ in achieving performance, just how critical set up is and how much more critical it becomes with every step you climb on the performance ladder.
Having waded (and I think ‘waded’ is the term) through over 300 posts related to this subject, a couple of things become pretty clear. But before going there, I should probably establish the extent of my own listening with both the M10(s) and their older but somewhat smaller brother, the M1.1.
I’ve spent a long time listening to and working with both of these CH Precision amplifiers, singly and in pairs, as well as in a variety of rooms and system contexts. Apologies for the laundry list, but here goes:
I’ve listened to the M10 in four different rooms and in three of them, I was able to make direct comparisons between the M10 and the M1.1. That listening has included Stenheim (Alumine 5SE, Alumine 5 Signature and Reference Ultime 3), Goebel Divin Noblesse, Wilson-Benesch Resolution, Wilson Sasha DAW and Rockport Avior loudspeakers. In the case of the Alumine 5 Signature, Divin Noblesse, Sasha DAWs and W-B Resolutions, that listening also included periods in which I paired the speakers with PureLow LO passive subs, driven by the main amplifiers.
In addition to that, you can add considerable time spent with the M1.1s on the original Alexx, with and without Thor’s Hammer subs, as well as a host of other speakers.
In all that time and in all those situations, I can categorically state that I’ve never run into bass control or quality issues with either the M10 or the M1.1. In fact, the adjustability of the amplifiers, in terms of GFB, system gain structure and individual channel gain (in bi-amped configuration) has meant completely the opposite. One of the qualities that sets the CH amplifiers apart from the crowd is the clarity, articulation, dimensionality, textural qualities and timing of their low-frequencies. This is particularly apparent when used with speakers like the Divin Noblesse, Stenheim Reference Ultime 3 and PureLow subs that share those qualities. The M10 used with these latter speakers has consistently delivered the most convincing and natural bass reproduction that I’ve ever achieved.
I did not use the M10s with the Alexx, although Robert Harley has used a single pair of M10s with XVX and Subsonics to considerable effect. Compare the specs of the Alexx V and XVX and they are almost identical in terms of sensitivity and bandwidth, while the XVX’s minimum impedance drops to 1.6 Ohms as opposed to the 2.0 Ohms of the Alexx V. Factor in that the M10s in RH’s system were driving not just the XVX but the Subsonics too and it seems reasonable to conclude that while there can be little doubt about the problematic results from the Alexx V/M10 combination in Marty’s system, this was NOT an amplifier/speaker issue. Is there some ‘Secret Sauce’ in the Alexx V that causes a problem with the M10? I don’t think so. So what could explain his experiences?
Which brings me to my first caveat.
Most of my listening has been in large spaces and most of it has involved classical and acoustic recordings. Yes, I listen to OST recordings and electronica – but those are not my gold standard for bass reproduction. I love the Gravity soundtrack. I can certainly tell you whether a system makes it an enjoyable listen or just a sludgy, bass-polluted mess. I can tell you whether that system maintains the drama, scale and above all, the sheer tension in the music. What I cannot tell you is whether it is accurate.
Which leads me to the question of expectation. Everybody has their own listening biases and prejudices. My attitude to low-frequencies – live or recorded – is that on the one hand, there is no substitute for bandwidth but that on the other, bad bass is considerably worse than no bass. My personal tolerance for ill-defined, overweight, lumpy, exaggerated or non-linear low-frequencies is extremely limited. But that’s just me. Other listeners may vary. I am not right and they are not wrong. But when it comes to qualitative and value judgements, expectation plays a huge part – yet there is no measure or gauge of that expectation. Look at all of the opinions expressed here and the one thing that you can say for certain, is that no two posters share the same expectations. One man’s (or woman’s) “lean and light” can easily be another’s “subtle, deft and clear”.
My second caveat is more by way of an observation.
I mentioned the M1.1 and my experience with it, both in isolation and in direct comparison with the M10 for a specific reason. Bear in mind that these two amplifiers share very similar circuit topologies. The M10 adds a different (considerably superior?) input stage as well as better componentry, more output devices and a LOT more power supply. Knowing that the first question many readers would ask was how the two amplifiers compare, I carefully conducted exhaustive, direct comparisons between them.
But to do so (AND THIS IS THE BIT THAT MATTERS) it was necessary to adjust the position of the speakers to optimise the system performance with each amplifier. Those comparisons were carried with the Stenheim Alumine 5 Signature and the Divin Noblesse. In the case of the Stenheims, inserting the M10(s) into the system, I had to move the speakers forward almost 30mm. In the case of the Divin Noblesse it was a case of forward 20mm and raise them two complete plus one-eighth turns on their feet. That reflects significant positional adjustments! Which in turn suggests a major difference in bass output from the system as a whole – enough to seriously upset the overall system balance. And that’s with two, topologically at least, extremely similar amplifiers.
Now, if we look at Marty’s situation: the Alexx Vs were set up with the JC1+. Replace that amplifier with an entirely different one and the low-frequency balance goes to hell in a handcart. Put the JC1+ back on and whaddya know? Back comes the bass balance. I suspect that this is not a question of quality but one of set up. As we have seen from my own comparisons, the spectral balance of and sheer energy generated by the M10 at low-frequencies is more than enough to upset a speaker/amplifier/room balance optimised for the M1.1. So what happens when you do a direct swap with a completely different amplifier? If I was having to use 15 - 20% GFB to balance the bass, that would be telling me to move the speakers… It would be telling me, LOUD AND CLEAR – but that’s where experience with both this and other products comes in.
Bottom line: the “change only one thing” rule just plain doesn’t work, because the relationships between system components and system and room are too complex. It’s almost impossible to change one thing without significantly impacting others – and that applies with a vengeance to amplifiers.
If anybody out there thinks this is fanciful or flies in the face of accepted wisdom and practice (which it does), just consider this: take a pair of amplifiers like the JC1+ and the Audio Research REF 110 as an example. Compare the bass output and control of these two amplifiers. Now, when you position your speakers, you are balancing their low-frequency output (character and extension) against the bass nodes in your listening room. But the bass extension and character of the speaker’s output depends in turn on the driving amplifier. Change the amp and you will change the balance and weight of the speakers’ low frequency output – its spectral balance. So, if the positioning of your loudspeakers depends on the relationship between the speaker, the amplifier driving it and the room acoustics, do you really think that you’ll get the best results from both the JC1+ and the REF 110 using the same speaker set up? Yet that is exactly the basis on which the ‘one in-one out’ reviewing and listening approach is based. This whole issue – the fact that you cannot listen to a product, only a system (with all its complex interactions) – is a massive industry blind-spot. It’s one I touched on in the recent discussion of parallel tracing, pivoted tonearms. It’s one I have demonstrated repeatedly in show presentations. At one RMAF we used a comparison between a Moon integrated amp and a Border Patrol 300B , with both amps driving Living Voice Avatar IBX loudspeakers. The positional adjustment required? A shade over four inches!
If Marty is confused, frustrated and disappointed by his experience with the M10s, he absolutely has my sympathy. As a member of the press, I feel his pain but sadly, it does not surprise me. He has carried out a process – and I’m sure that he has carried it out meticulously – that not only have most of us (reviewers and magazines as well as dealers) been telling him to do for years, most of us have been doing it ourselves. The results are as perplexing as they are contradictory: not because of the products involved, but because the process itself – a process pretty much the entire industry stands behind – is just plain flawed. It’s an almost inevitable consequence of an industry and magazines that have become obsessed with product over process. Despite the appeal of the notion, the answer to every audio issue or performance upgrade isn’t simply a different box.
I’d love to see a return to the consideration and understanding of system – or even better, system within the room. High-end audio started as a hobby and became an industry: As that happened, we forgot about the ‘practice’ and instead started concentrating on the ‘consuming’. To me, this whole saga just underlines the role of ‘practice’ in achieving performance, just how critical set up is and how much more critical it becomes with every step you climb on the performance ladder.
@RoyGregoru,
Well said! Excellent exposition. Very well written with clarity, and incisive observations. And spot on advice about the critical importance of optimizing speaker placement before comparing different components in order to make valid conclusions; especially in higher end systems.
Well said! Excellent exposition. Very well written with clarity, and incisive observations. And spot on advice about the critical importance of optimizing speaker placement before comparing different components in order to make valid conclusions; especially in higher end systems.
So, one pair of challenging speakers, likely at least a challenging room, two amps. One brand just doesn't click on these spkrs re the bass, in the chosen position, the other one does.
The argument here is that this setup should not be accepted as a final analysis, but the spkrs moved around until the first brand maybe comes into focus re bass. Then try the second brand again. If that sounds substandard, go back to the first position. See how the two brands sound in the bass in their optimal positions.
Then make your decision.
Is this really true? Two brands of amps could have two totally different spkrs positions to sound optimal in?
The argument here is that this setup should not be accepted as a final analysis, but the spkrs moved around until the first brand maybe comes into focus re bass. Then try the second brand again. If that sounds substandard, go back to the first position. See how the two brands sound in the bass in their optimal positions.
Then make your decision.
Is this really true? Two brands of amps could have two totally different spkrs positions to sound optimal in?
I’ve seen the effect of optimal speaker placement in my system on two separate occasions. It’s easy to hear the effect.
The first time was when I purchased a new set of speakers and hired one of the premiere setup professionals in the industry. To hear the impact on sound, even from small adjustments in the six degrees of freedom (x, y and z axes and rotations around each axis) was revelatory.
The second time was a shootout between two high end cable looms in my listening room. Optimizing the speaker placement for each cable loom was essential to proper comparison.
I’m a firm believer in the practice. I’m waiting for the delivery of an amplifier in the spring. Properly setting the speakers around the amp is definitely on my list.
If the frequency response of both amplifiers is flat across the audio spectrum (+/- 0.5 dB), there should be no spectral imbalance and speaker repositioning should not be required. What you are alluding to is that the frequency response of the amplifier is not flat across the audio spectrum, which is not a good thing for amplifiers costing over $200,000.00.
I alway suspected that these boutique amplifiers are voiced, tuned, for a particular sound and that would explain the non flat frequency responce.
Anyone remember the early days of high-end when the goal of amplifier design was a “straight wire with gain”, I guess that in the world of boutique amplifiers that world is long gone.
One variable at a time is at the heart of the scientific process.
Did you run this theory by your technical advisor? [edited to delete obnoxious comment]
Last edited by a moderator:
When your speakers are set correctly. When your system sings to you. When all sounds harmonious and in time /time then yes of course you can change one components in a one in one out situation to hear it’s singular effect. Particularly if it’s a Nordost cable youre switching out eh
I’d say probably all amps are ‘voiced’ per the designers preference. Shame some of these fools have little knowledge of how the music should sound. They have van Goughs ear for music. Maybe THEY should get down and dirty in the studio and produce some records, instead of guessing.
Ahmine. What DOES a hi hat sound like
? You won’t find out on no test bench.
Apparently, to actual subjective audiophile perception, there is more to this question than a single, objective measurement.
Thank you very much, Roy, for your informative, insightful and clearly-written essay!
Oh is that so. Care to expand? You want to maintain credibility, you better substantiate with supporting evidence.
Is this one also going to get deleted?
I am raising a question, more than stating a claim. This particular question is not my area of expertise, so I have no evidence to provide. I simply find the opposing views interesting to consider.
Your question did not strike me as obnoxious or snarky (a little unnecessarily sarcastic, maybe), so why would I delete it?
Well let me explain something to you and I will keep it simple: A well designed amplifier should have a flat frequency response across the entire audio spectrum. I would like to see someone dispute that.
Carlos, I think the keyword here is “should“. I think companies voice their amplifiers to have different sounds, and different characteristics, which may include non-flat frequency responses, to distinguish their products in the marketplace.
I appreciate your view on this but I am very naïve about amplifier design so really have nothing to offer. I have observed that amplifiers can sound very different from each other and for whatever reason, either more or less appropriate for a given speaker design. I’m not saying that’s a good thing, but I think it’s the way things are.
Audiophiles do have different tastes so personally I prefer the choices we have so that we can assemble a system that is pleasing to us. Things would be very different if every amplifier sounded the same.
Peter, either you practice the purist approach or you don’t. Which one is it? You can’t argue both sides of the coin. Either audiophiles are after truth to the original or they are not. Which one is it??????????
Last edited:
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |