I seem to be in the minority on this forum for being disappointed by the CH power amps. The L1 is magnificent, especially with the X1 power supply, but the power amps left me largely unmoved, especially at lower volumes, which was one of the OP's requirements. Audionet Heisenbergs much more of an event to listen to irrespective of volume setting.
A1 vs A1.5 vs M1.1
- Thread starter goodsource
- Start date
My speaker is around 98 db and in my big room,85 sqm, when i listen in normal way,not high,not low,the level i see in M1 display is 0 or 0.5 watt
With this low power i listen all the dynamic,details and natural sound of M1 and i dont ask more
With this low power i listen all the dynamic,details and natural sound of M1 and i dont ask more
In my 72M2 room I usually see between 5-50 Watt on the M1.1 displays, however in case playing up to 90-96 db (at seating position) I will see between 0,25 and 1,0 Kw. If playing really loud (96-100 db at seating position) I see the 0,5 - 1,5 Kw range on the displays. (Note that this is only mid/high, bass amplification is by Gryphon). Of course, if I have guests not interested in music, I see 0,0 Watt on the displays. Actually, I don't see anything at all, amps are turned off 
. I'm happy at all levels though, but for me when listening at very low levels it means I'm not really listening, but merely want to have some background music. Likely using a much cheaper amp would equally satisfy me at those levels...
. I'm happy at all levels though, but for me when listening at very low levels it means I'm not really listening, but merely want to have some background music. Likely using a much cheaper amp would equally satisfy me at those levels...For me, listening to music must be an event rather than something going on in the background. I want to be distracted by it, pulled into it, wowed by the skill of the musicians etc. The Audionet does this, the CH doesn't, simple as that.
The harder bit is to analyse why. What I think is going on is that the Audionet has a very slight emphasis on the leading edge of notes. This gives a realism to the music and imbues it with dynamics and presence. It's perhaps most evident when you hear a bass drum or timpani beat as there is an initial attack or bite to the sound which, importantly to the OP's question, happens at lower volumes as well as "realistic" volumes. I should add that in no way is this fatiguing - the cleaness and lack of distortion with these amps mean this never occurs.
I didn't get this with the CH amps, and as such, they didn't grab my attention in the way I am seeking.
Thanks...interesting observation and one to bear in mind if/when I do hear the CH M1.1s...and the Audionet Heisenbergs.
Could be. The result is that the Audionet feels more dynamic than the CH for sure. Speaking to Marshall Nack who is the only reviewer I know who has spent time with both comes to a similar conclusion but he prefers the CH as he feels it is more natural and I can see where he is coming from. Guess it comes down to personal preference.
Yes, so much is subjective. It could also be that your source is somewhat soft so you need something more snappy. I say that because I once had a Lampizator and my experience was that it was too soft on transients. Just a guess though.
the comments on this thread by few folks also lines up with what fremor says in his review
for example michael fremor believes CH is warm where as dartzeel is bright, lean and analytical in. a good way.
may be this is what people are interpreting as warm or soft or laid back etc etc.
Quoting him below :
--
On the spectrum of bright/fast/lean/analytical vs warm/slow/rich/forgiving, the M1.1s were slightly on the latter side, just as the darTZeels are slightly on the former
https://www.stereophile.com/content/ch-precision-m11-power-amplifier-page-2
--
for example michael fremor believes CH is warm where as dartzeel is bright, lean and analytical in. a good way.
may be this is what people are interpreting as warm or soft or laid back etc etc.
Quoting him below :
--
On the spectrum of bright/fast/lean/analytical vs warm/slow/rich/forgiving, the M1.1s were slightly on the latter side, just as the darTZeels are slightly on the former
https://www.stereophile.com/content/ch-precision-m11-power-amplifier-page-2
--
You didn't match the right valves in your big 7. You can make it soft or otherwise.
Last edited:
Audio is always an evaluation of the total system not just one component. Fremer is using a whole bunch of different gear and reporting on the interactions. He has CH amps and Phono but not the Preamp. Why? Mixing up stuff may be fun but it is far from the best way to get a handle on what the gear really does. Whether you are using CH or Dartzeel or any other high quality brand it makes to me to listen to it the way it was designed FIRST to truly get the point of the designers and the sound.
Personally i don't like any of the cables he used, don't like the amps plugged into anything except the wall with a top quality power cord.
The amps can't play anything other than what is fed to them.
Also how is something bright, analytical and lean in a good way?? I never found anything described that way as some choice I would make on purpose IMHO
Personally i don't like any of the cables he used, don't like the amps plugged into anything except the wall with a top quality power cord.
The amps can't play anything other than what is fed to them.
Also how is something bright, analytical and lean in a good way?? I never found anything described that way as some choice I would make on purpose IMHO
so reviewers should only evaluate complete stacks of equipment? doesn't make sense to me. there are several amp makers that don't make great preamps (and probably vice versa). not to mention many like to use tube preamps with SS amps. I understand this isn't the CH model, but for most other gear stacks aren't necessary to evaluate a component.
at least Fremer compares components and has the freedom to criticize unlike the marketing-laden reviews TAS puts out.
They should do both. So we know if a stack is the right way to optimize them or not, and how they sound individually as well
I did not say that you are putting words in my mouth. I said that he did not try the gear the way it was designed to work and PERHAPS that is why he got the result he did. This is in my opinion important , you may or may not like it but that at least gives a clear picture to start at what they are trying to build and what their systems sound like.
An amp can only play what it is receives that is my point.
@Elliot G. and others, Since you mentioned that the M1.1 was superior in every aspect to the A1.5, if I understood correctly.. What would you advise as a superior set up if you had to choose between one M1.1 in Stereo or two A1.5's that you can use as mono's in bridged mode?
Also would like to know if anyone has done any comparisons with Vitus Amps and the differences they have noted between the two?
Thanks!
Also would like to know if anyone has done any comparisons with Vitus Amps and the differences they have noted between the two?
Thanks!
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |