My next Phonostage ? Boulder 2008 or CH Precision P1 or?

shakti

Well-Known Member
May 9, 2015
1,433
2,374
480
Cologne, Germany
Having owned (and used) Aesthetix IO (2 PSU), Thoeress Phono, Kondo KSL M7 / SFZ , Herron, vdh The Grail xlr and some more,
I am looking for the next step.

Being a pragmatic listener without having a preference for tube or solid state, it just has to make "music" in my ear with all the information needed to also "look" into the music.

I learned over the time, that a step up can be a very good way to get some gain, but that mostly the step up will not match perfectly the Cartridge, so the result is a compromise.

High Gain tube only is on the other hand not perfect for the signal / noise ratio.

So a lot of pros and cons. As I am often tend to change the Cartridge / Tonearm combination, I liked the "current Design" of the vdh Grail, auto biasing the Phono Stage to the Cart.

From there the next step to the CH Precision P1 was short , as input MC1 and MC2 do use the same concept.

P1 in Germany is 28.000,-eur , so I am expecting a lot. Sound wise the P1 is very nice with a lot of resolution. Looking for the infinite punch and deepest and widest room image , the CHP X1 external Power Supply should be the next step (for another 14.000,-eur) , which gives the CHP PhonoPre a price of more than 40k eur.

This price tag reminds me, that the old Boulder 2008 phonostage (production was stopped in 2008) had this 40.000,-eur price in Germany (US $ 35.000,-) already 10 years ago. 10 to 15 years ago the complete High End Pricing was not as crazy, as it is at the moment. So I would expect from a 40k price 10 years ago a higher value of the product.

Fortunatley I had today the chance to buy a used Boulder 2008, so I can make the comparison os the CHP P1 (without X1) and the Boulder 2008 in the next days. Tonight I am just getting everything connected an running.

First impression is already very impressive, but I need some more time to compare this 2 state of the Art phono stages.


Sorry for adding picture of a Lampizator Golden Gate, I can edit the text, but I have not found the function to delete one of the uploaded pictures.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_8111.jpg
    IMG_8111.jpg
    95.4 KB · Views: 366
  • IMG_7621.jpg
    IMG_7621.jpg
    101.7 KB · Views: 372
  • IMG_7622.jpg
    IMG_7622.jpg
    61.9 KB · Views: 370
  • IMG_8118-1.jpg
    IMG_8118-1.jpg
    61.4 KB · Views: 373
  • IMG_8120-1.jpg
    IMG_8120-1.jpg
    77.2 KB · Views: 376
  • Like
Reactions: Stump

Tango

VIP/Donor
Mar 12, 2017
4,938
6,268
950
Bangkok
I have P1 + X1 with very low mileage not being plugged in. If you are interested, pm me. Your decision could be easier.

Tang
 
  • Like
Reactions: KenKelso and kjj11

dan31

Well-Known Member
Jul 22, 2010
1,016
365
1,153
SF Bay
Congratulations on finding the Boulder 2008. Rare to be up for sale. I have heard solder in the best matched resistors for loading.

I belive you can purchase additional loading cards from Boulder.
 

bazelio

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2016
2,493
1,744
345
California
Well this will be interesting. I'm very curious to hear the results and, if you could, let us know the load and gain settings used on each phono during the compare.
 

tima

Industry Expert
Mar 3, 2014
5,748
6,770
1,400
the Upper Midwest
There's the Audio Note M9 - Fred Crowder has part 1 of a review on Dagogo. Then there are the Lamm LP1 Signature, the Audio Research Ref 10 Phono and the Ypsilon.
 

bonzo75

Member Sponsor
Feb 26, 2014
22,375
13,414
2,710
London
There's the Audio Note M9 - Fred Crowder has part 1 of a review on Dagogo. Then there are the Lamm LP1 Signature, the Audio Research Ref 10 Phono and the Ypsilon.

There is also the Kondo M1000. The late Detlof had that, the Lamm, AR Ref 10, Wavac, and Zanden. The last 3 were on the shelf. Then there is the EMT, Thomas Mayer, Allnic. Does not stop.
 

awsmone

Well-Known Member
Apr 6, 2014
1,616
513
435
Canberra Australia
There is also the Kondo M1000. The late Detlof had that, the Lamm, AR Ref 10, Wavac, and Zanden. The last 3 were on the shelf. Then there is the EMT, Thomas Mayer, Allnic. Does not stop.

The EMT is awesome with RIAA and other equalisations and 4 inputs

And Ked u didn’t mention Fm acoustic and Fabrizio phono
 

LL21

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2010
14,376
2,497
1,398
Look forward to reading about the comparison.
 

Audiophile Bill

Well-Known Member
Mar 23, 2015
4,293
4,093
675
I would get a dual differential D3A from Mayer if it were my money. The EMT is also very good and flexible though.
 

XV-1

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2010
3,582
2,550
1,860
Sydney
I would be amazed if the Boulder was better than the CH. but, its always in the ear of the beholder.
 

shakti

Well-Known Member
May 9, 2015
1,433
2,374
480
Cologne, Germany
If you have time,what would you say about the vdh Grail?

The Grail (specially the XLR version) is a great phono stage within its price range, specially with low impedance Cartridges.
 

LL21

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2010
14,376
2,497
1,398
I would be amazed if the Boulder was better than the CH. but, its always in the ear of the beholder.

i remember reading the Stereophile review by Michael Fremer waxing lyrical about the Vitus SOTA phonostage in 2010 and comparing it to the other absolutely outrageously good phonostage, the Boulder 2008 Ref Phonostage which he also reviewed. I then went to look up the Boulder 2008 Phonostage review...it was dated 2002!

I have to say, Boulder's products really do remain competitive for quite some time. I still like their older 2060 and have not heard their more recent 2160, let alone their new 3060 and 3050 reference amps.
 

ddk

Well-Known Member
May 18, 2013
6,261
4,040
995
Utah
Don’t know about the rest but I always found Boulder sound synonymous with their name, hard and dead.

david
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: XV-1

Audiophile Bill

Well-Known Member
Mar 23, 2015
4,293
4,093
675
Don’t about the rest but I always found Boulder sound synonymous with their name, hard and dead.

david

Yes agreed with you. Silent noise floor but absent harmonic textures or natural flow.
 

shakti

Well-Known Member
May 9, 2015
1,433
2,374
480
Cologne, Germany
that was a long listening night, good, that all chassis are very heavy, so that you can stack them :)

I used vdh Stradivarius , FR7 and SPU GME MkII cartridges on FR64 and SME 3012r tonearm.

As I do not had the XLR wires to connect available (need to get them soon) , I did the comparison with the original Boulder provided RCA to XLR Adapter on both preamps.

XLR cable to the Koda PreAmp was XLO signature.

At first, both preamps are better than the preamps I had before.

I do listen to the CHP P1 now since 2 month an day impression was always, that I do not miss anything.

Sometimes may be the "glow" of a tube phonostage, but my Tube Amps shine enough, so with the Kondo KSL M7 it was "too much" and the resolution and control in the frequency ends was missing.

The P1 can make a very clear window into the music , the dynamic , specially with the Stradivarius is great! But some of my visiting friends were saying, that they do not get fully connected to the music. That the P1 makes too much information, too less music , not "natural" DDK would say?

Fortunately I have the option to listen to the P1 another 2 month, so I am able to find out, if I am blended by the pure amount of resolution / information.

From the tonal point of view, the P1 is same than my Thoeress, not darker not brighter.

Some listeners recommend the CHP X1 power supply, which might be the best solution, but even having a good offer for the P1, the X1 would boost my budget ( I like to spent currently) easily. But as a later purchase of the X1 is possible, I would give the X1 a try, but in my region is currently a X1 not available for a home test .

Switching over to the Boulder 2008 was interesting (100ohm for FR, 200 ohm for the SPU and the Stradivarius), as my first spontaneous reaction was "this is right"
but going into the details of describing, why I have this reaction is much harder.

In the first step, the P1 gives you more information. If you compare it directly, there is nothing to miss with the Boulder, it is just, that the information is not that prominent offered. Comparing the 3D information in the room, driven by deep bass capability, the Boulder is clearly more natural. You can just see more into the recording room. So all instruments and the singers gets a better contour within the room as well. I would assume, that this is the area, where the Boulder benefits from the huge heavy PSU and the P1 lacks the support of the X1 PSU.

Comparing the tonal balance, the P1 is a littler more brighter, the Boulder a little more darker. So the feeling of more resolution with the P1 can be driven by the minimal different tonal balance.

Looking into the day to day handling, the user interface of the P1 is state of the art!, The Boulder is a little bit like a tank from the last century....and makes it very hard to change the settings . But may be the soldered resistors are one reason, why the performance is so good.

The Boulder has 3 different subsonic filters. I have chosen "bypass" . The flow of music was better without .

My Koda preamp likes high gain phono stages, unfortunately the 993 models of the 2000'er Boulder series are low gain. A clear benefit for the P1, which is much louder.

Both Phono stages are very hum sensible. Compared with the BluAmp or the Grail or the Audiospecials, this is clearly a point of critic.

another important pint of comparison for me is the quality of the MM stage using a step up transformer. I do have several of them and mostly I am using the old Fidelity Research Versions , as they can switch up to three cartridges in parallel. This is very helpful, if you like to compare Cartridges in a multi turntable environment.

I did this comparison with the simple Fidelity Research FRT 4 step up transformer and the Ortofon SPU cart.

Using the FRT 4 on the CHP P1 MC 3 input compromises the performance , the direct connection into MC1 or MC2 "current" stage was much more involving. The SPU was on MC1/MC2 very dynamic with a high resolution, with FRT 4 an MC3 is was more dull, making the FRT4 looking like a cheap and bad step up.

Connecting the FRT 4 to the MM cart of the Boulder 2008 was completely different. The SPU / FRT4 combination sounded more natural, more in a flow with well balanced resolution. I preferred the step up performance of the SPU compared with the direct connection into the 200 ohm or 100 ohm MC card.

I have to say, that I was not expecting this type of difference, so I cross checked the P1 setting. But the MC3 input was set up to 47k, which is recommended for the FRT 4 step up.

I only have compared this with the FRT 4. So with any other step up, this can be different!

But as I am using the FRT4 and the FRT 5 step ups a lot, this is for me an important finding.

I will continue the comparison, as a first impression sometimes leads you in the wrong direction.

Anyhow, I decided to buy the Boulder 2008 ( as the price was very fair) an do the further comparisons now very relaxed,
as I have not to give anything back for the next months.
 
  • Like
Reactions: XV-1

rockitman

Member Sponsor
Sep 20, 2011
7,097
412
1,210
Northern NY
I have P1 + X1 with very low mileage not being plugged in. If you are interested, pm me. Your decision could be easier.

Tang

That is very interesting. Is there something about the P1 you don't like or it's topology..solid state the when compared to tube phono stages ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eugi

gian60

Well-Known Member
Apr 17, 2016
2,501
1,940
343
I think at high level with top brand you need a synergy
I have L1 P1 X1 M1 and i listen a synergy with a sound very natural and musical
Tang with all Ayon top has a perfect tube synergy and could be P1 is not perfect in his system
 

gian60

Well-Known Member
Apr 17, 2016
2,501
1,940
343
@Shakti

X1 bring to P1 more weight,body,dynamic,scene more deep,less noise and more space between instrument
I tested also last week in my friend home that has P1 and i borrow him X1 for a week
Its a pity you cannot try
 

LL21

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2010
14,376
2,497
1,398
Fascinating...thanks! Look forward to following your review here...


that was a long listening night, good, that all chassis are very heavy, so that you can stack them :)

I used vdh Stradivarius , FR7 and SPU GME MkII cartridges on FR64 and SME 3012r tonearm...


...The P1 can make a very clear window into the music , the dynamic , specially with the Stradivarius is great! But some of my visiting friends were saying, that they do not get fully connected to the music. That the P1 makes too much information, too less music , not "natural" DDK would say?

Fortunately I have the option to listen to the P1 another 2 month, so I am able to find out, if I am blended by the pure amount of resolution / information.

From the tonal point of view, the P1 is same than my Thoeress, not darker not brighter.

Some listeners recommend the CHP X1 power supply, which might be the best solution, but even having a good offer for the P1, the X1 would boost my budget ( I like to spent currently) easily. But as a later purchase of the X1 is possible, I would give the X1 a try, but in my region is currently a X1 not available for a home test .

Switching over to the Boulder 2008 was interesting (100ohm for FR, 200 ohm for the SPU and the Stradivarius), as my first spontaneous reaction was "this is right"
but going into the details of describing, why I have this reaction is much harder.

In the first step, the P1 gives you more information. If you compare it directly, there is nothing to miss with the Boulder, it is just, that the information is not that prominent offered. Comparing the 3D information in the room, driven by deep bass capability, the Boulder is clearly more natural. You can just see more into the recording room. So all instruments and the singers gets a better contour within the room as well. I would assume, that this is the area, where the Boulder benefits from the huge heavy PSU and the P1 lacks the support of the X1 PSU.

Comparing the tonal balance, the P1 is a littler more brighter, the Boulder a little more darker. So the feeling of more resolution with the P1 can be driven by the minimal different tonal balance.

Looking into the day to day handling, the user interface of the P1 is state of the art!, The Boulder is a little bit like a tank from the last century....and makes it very hard to change the settings . But may be the soldered resistors are one reason, why the performance is so good.

The Boulder has 3 different subsonic filters. I have chosen "bypass" . The flow of music was better without ...

Anyhow, I decided to buy the Boulder 2008 ( as the price was very fair) an do the further comparisons now very relaxed,
as I have not to give anything back for the next months.
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing