Manley Chinook SE MK2

Modwright PH9.0?  Just over $5k with X/T upgrades but good stock.

Lamm, used ARC REF Phono 2se, Herron w HRS damper plate, Nimbus and Nos tubes ….. The Manley is very good…but you have lots of choices

I use a  VPI Classic  also. Different flavor cartridge.

AT ART9 or spend a little more Lyra Delos or whatever in  between.

You're setup is solid. Open the wallet wider later for a new table- then next level phonostage.

The  Chinook SE has been in my setup.

 

I compared the MKI Chinook to a Zesto Andros 1.2

The Zesto was more neutral, more detailed, more dynamic, whereas the Chinook had a warmer, fuller, more tubey presentation. I kept the Zesto and sold the Chinook. A few months later I sold the Zesto and bought a Steelhead which I still own.

@rooze I definitely don’t need a Steelhead with so many features. How does the sound compare to the Chinook?

@tablejockey recently i upgraded my cartridge to a Hana Umami Blue. Its still breaking in but so far i love it. I spoke with Upscale and they recommended the first place i should upgrade was the cart so i did. They said i would have to spend 10k to really up the turntable game so sit tight with the Classic 1.

Recently upgraded my preamp from the LS28 to a Ref6. And several months ago Sonus Faber Olympica 3 to Wilson Sabrina original version.  I have looked at a Audio Research PH8 however,  the downside is only 58db of gain which I think is ridiculous given the cost. Also single ended only.   The Umami Blue is 0.4mv and since I'm single ended, the Ref 6 doesn't have a high gain, I need 65db gain setting. If using XLR I could get by with 60db. 

samzyx12-

 

If you want something to play with, get the Roadrunner/Sota speed control setup and gimbal arm replacement for the Classic. OR, if you’re a DIY guy, buy a nice arm that later can be transferred to the new table.

I'm quite pleased with the new PL all tube phonostage.

Different presentation from the Chinook.

 

How does the PL differ in presentation?

I'm using an ARC Ref 3 Phono with my Hana Umami Blue.  A match made in heaven IMHO.  

I would highly recommend the Sutherland Little Loco current driven phono stage

if you use a low output MC cart

no more settings for gain and impedance

Good luck Willy-T

 

I went from Chinook to Allnic H-5500 and loved the move so much it forced me to continue to upgrade phonos. 

I have a Rogers High Fidelity PA-2 and I've not heard anything better. It has an interesting feature where depending on the tube you use, it can provide different levels of gain. I'm currently running an Ortofon Winfeld Ti and it's output is only 0.2mv. The PA-2 makes 70db of gain in my current setup. Even though it's single ended I have no issues with gain. Have looked at doing something else like a ModWright PH150 but what I have is so good I'm reluctant to let it go. It's worth your consideration for sure 

I cannot be happier with my Icon Audio PS1 MkII, it has made such a big improvement in the vinyl getting its dynamics back especially in the lower highs and midrange. I was in discussions to purchase a Manley Chinook but settled on the Icon Audio instead,  I almost abandoned my analogue side completely and had been concentrating on my digital end, new dac, new CDT, new control application, streaming service, lots of  high resolution digital downloads PCM's and DSD files, you get the idea. Thinking I have all this vinyl and not playing it much anymore.

So if you are still utilizing a low cost phono preamp, an upgrade here could restore your faith in your vinyl. I have since re-invested in my analogue side, including Clear Audio Concept with Satisfy Arm-Turntable, Hana ML-MC cartridge and a Nagoaka MP 500 MM cartridge, to go with the new all tube phono stage and power supply noted above. I am currently rediscovering alot of my vinyl. The vinyl listening sessions have returned and I am loving it!

I am not a big fan of tube phono stages and I had a PH3 SE for decades. There are many SS phono stages that will outperform the Manley. The Sutherland Little Loco and the Channel D Lino C come to mind right off the top. 

@rauliruegas 

should chime in on this one. 

What about adding a SUT? Was recommended by a friend it's a substantial improvement. 

Define “outperform “.

Di you mean”sounds better”, “quieter “, more gain, or what?

 By the way, if the Chinook is like the Steelhead, the gain stage is a tube/transistor hybrid cascode and is remarkably quiet with a very wide bandwidth.

"How does the PL differ in presentation?"

samzyx12-

For whatever reason, the PL is more convincing/realstic. 

I don't know why it would make a difference, but the PL is all tube-MC gain and rectification. 

Manley and most others are FET/transformer gain and SS rectification. 

Not a "better" thing, just what my ears like. The phonostage I demoed against the Chinook and a couple others before I had the PL, is all tube. 

Tube gain is noisier for the "ear to the speaker type." 

 

Again, if the Chinook is like the Steelhead in its gain stage, it uses a hybrid cascode consisting of a transistor on the bottom and a high transconductance tube on top. This topology can develop tremendous gain, wide bandwidth, and low noise relative to an all tube gain stage and on par with most all SS gain stages. No SUT inside.

From the owner's manual to the Steelhead;

An effective means of varying the load seen by the MC cartridge has been included in the form of a 5-position rotary switch. This switch selects various taps on a specially manufactured dual-primary bi-filar wound, high-bandwidth low-resistance and multiple-shielded nickel-core step-up autoformer. A drama to make, the autoformer permits the minute MC cartridge signal power to be efficiently and transparently transformed from low-volts/high-current to high-volts/ low-current. By avoiding conventional parasitic cartridge termination resistors, none of the MC cartridge’s tiny signal power is thrown away before amplification. This results in improved system signal-to-noise ratio. Quite worthwhile provided, as in the STEELHEAD, the autoformer has the necessary performance for the job. This pivotal component has had engineering attention lavished upon it in the only way possible or practical: The Manley Labs magnetics department. In-house transformer prototyping and manufacturing capabilities permit realization of extraordinary transformer designs.

Since an autoformer only differs from a transformer by having no secondary winding I don't understand your comment Lewm. 

Also from the manual:

5. SWITCH-SELECTABLE AMPLIFIER GAIN

Cartridge output levels and downstream line-level interconnect drive voltage requirements can vary greatly between manufacturers. Hence a four-step amplifier-block gain control has been included to accommodate these differences, as well as differing cartridge sensitivities. You may select from 50 to 65 dB of gain in 5 dB steps. The gain figure is referred to amplifier gain at 1 kHz. Notice that the pre-amp gain is about 20 dB higher (10 times) at 20 Hz and about 20 dB lower (0.1 times) at 20,000 Hz. The MC step-up autoformer may also provide approximately 2 to 12 dB of additional voltage gain depending on cartridge source impedance and load switch setting.

Autoformer, not SUT. No secondary makes a big difference. But ya got me. I forgot about that.  You get 50db of phono gain without an Autoformer. Then the Autoformer(s) add up to 15db more, for a max gain of 65db. Happy holiday to all.

Happy holiday and a healthy new year to you Lewm. 

Sounds like I could "borrow" my son's Variac, connect it up backwards, and have a step-up autoformer!

Yeah, I guess you could, but not much bandwidth in a Variac.

To the op i have a REF Phono 2se > REF 5se w Kuzma CAR-40…. imo running single ended with your REF 6 is leaving a LOT of performance on the table…. 

Probably no coincidence both my main phono stages use FET front end Tube back end… as @lewm said …. The relatively high output MC i use allow me and some close friends who use both those and the low output Lyra to evaluate the impact of FET…. my own judgement is yes there are artifacts but trying to hear them defines audiophile vs music lover…

best to you in your search

I am user of a Phon' and DAC that uses 2 x 6922/ECC88 Tubes.

The Chinook has 4 x 6922 in the circuit. I would class this as fortunate as seeking out a quad matched tube set can be a challenge but not impossible.

I have done extensive Tube Rolling along with a friend with a similar device using 2 x ECC88's.

Our discoveries have been Jaw Dropping in relation to how a Tubes influence can transform the presentation and create a sonic not wanting to be changed.

There is good news and bad News in the earlier Trials, it was Tubes from the early 1960's that proved to be the very best selection.

My friend who is a Two Generation Tube collector, has continued trying different Brands and discovered a Tube easier to acquire, that offers a substantial amount in comparison to the Vintage Tubes.

My suggestion is, before the Chinook is demo'd against a more expensive Phon' Model, it may be well worth the time and nominal expense to experience the Phon' with different Tubes.

Disclaimer: Both myself and friend use Valve Power Amp's and ESL Speakers and are adverse to Valve Bottom Frequency Bloom, as well as a Projected Presence of the Upper most Frequencies.

We both share an attraction for what would be considered, a Bias toward the Mid Range and Upper Frequencies being in Harmony with each and the Bass has a clear defined edge at it decays.      

@pindac  the Chinook came with Tungsram as these were the choice of tubes by Upscale. I believe this is why it was named the SE MK2. Now it comes with EH I think because NOS is getting scarce.  

@tablejockey thank you for the information 😁.  PL offers great value. 

 

There are two tubes that would make a difference so far as "matching" goes. Those are the tubes that provide gain in the L and R channels, respectively. In the Steelhead these provide the "top half" of a cascode where the bottom half is probably an FET. The other two tubes are used to create an output stage that is very low in output impedance; in effect they form an unusual type of cathode follower (a stage that turns voltage into current). There is no added gain in the output stage, so the sound of tubes in a cathode follower is generally thought of as not a prominent factor in the overall presentation. I think tube matching is overrated, because tubes are aging as we use them, and no two tubes will age in exactly the same way or rate. So what "matches" today may not match tomorrow. And yet, I am guilty of perceiving that some tubes of any type sound better than other tubes of the same type. In my Steelhead, I use Siemens CCa, I think. I would not shed a tear, however, if some day I had to use some other brand.

By the way, as regards the autoformers in the Steelhead, I get the feeling that my Steelhead sounds best through its MM outputs, where there is no autoformer in the signal path. Interestingly, in the Steelhead, I have read (never tried it) that you can get up to the max 65db of phono gain via the MM outputs.  To me that suggests the autoformers are more for impedance matching to MC cartridges than for their potential to step up voltage.  Also, if you look inside, you can see that for each input R setting available via the rotary switch, there are discrete pairs of resistors whose values match the choices offered via the rotary switch. (If the autoformers were used like SUTs, you would think that the different input impedances would be mostly the product of what pair of primaries is selected.)  It's a bit of a mystery to me.  Manley are very secretive and certainly will not provide a schematic; I have asked.

By the way, as regards the autoformers in the Steelhead, I get the feeling that my Steelhead sounds best through its MM outputs, where there is no autoformer in the signal path. Interestingly, in the Steelhead, I have read (never tried it) that you can get up to the max 65db of phono gain via the MM outputs.  

This has been widely reported-that the MM input with MC often sounds best-by various reviewer and owners. I have tried it and agree. 

I did replace some of the putative MC load resistors in my Steelhead with TX2575 resistor equivalents. (TX2575 are the best most transparent phono load resistors I have ever heard and by general consensus.) That may have improved SQ in the MC circuits; I would not swear by it.

I stand by my suggestion that experiencing a Valve Exchange, could prove to be all that is necessary to discover the sonic that is more of an attraction to yourself, and even possibly an attraction that comfortably fends of other Phon' Models. I am not seeing where the method fails to be a experience that could prove to being cost effective, as a means to make a change. 

For myself to have my E88CC Phon' superseded, it took a Bespoke Built Valve Input/Valve Output design to achieve this. The E88CC is still used and has proven to be my most preferred with a Head Amp coupled to it. It is not one that is a relegated to being a 'sell on' item or to being a 'storage' item either.

The CCa referred to earlier was a Matched Pair demo'd in my DAC, but the Siemens & Halske early 60's E88CC's were the ones selected over all Tubes offered as a loan for the Tube Rolling experience.

Early 60's Mullard E88CC's were selected for the Phon' over the ones used in the DAC and all others loaned.    

Pindac, in what phono stage are you experiencing the benefits of tube rolling? The Steelhead and probably the Chinook use a hybrid cascode (FET/6922) for gain at the input. In that topology it’s not surprising that differences among 6922s would be muted if not inaudible.

I have an early version Mr Nixie DIGNA Valve Hybrid MM/MC Phonostage that has undergone modification that enables the 6922/ECC88/E88CC Tubes to be used.

Even more recently I have been introduced to the use of Low Eddy RCA connections used on both Chassis and Cables. This is another adaption not carrying too much expense to achieve, that is very much worthwhile considering if one feels there is more desired to be extracted from signal path of a electrical device. 

In a system I am very familiar with and one that has been used when I have been a participant in offering ears as part of development works for Audio products being produced. As part of R&D, I have been A/B compared a SS Phonostage and Interconnect Cables with original supplied RCA's and as the design with the RCA connectors swapped to Low Eddy models. The impression left on myself after experiencing the Low Eddy RCA's mounted onto the Chassis and Terminating the Cables, is that this is something I intend on adopting within my own system where it is possible to achieve. The veil/smearing that is removed, alone as a perceived improvement is quite something. The additional perceivable benefits where the  shaping and envelope of the notes and vocal that manifested is totally wanted to be experienced again. 

Any device out of Warranty could easily undergo such an alteration. 

Are you referring to what used to be called "Eichmann Bullet Plugs" and are more lately called "KLE"? Those are a low mass, therefore low eddy current design.  They are my favorites, but they are no longer a new thing; they've been around maybe for 10 years or close to. FWIW, bona fide engineers and physicists to whom I have spoken about eddy currents in audio level signals were not credulous that eddy currents are an important problem. I have no opinion, being untrained in that discipline; I just know KLE plugs continue to sound best.

I am not advocating Brands, I am letting it be known about a experience I had.

This is very different to having a discussion about, when discussing Cables with the Electronics Engineer who has commission built important devices in my system, the EE will not discuss anything in any length, as so called specialised Cable is a waste of time in their view.

My experiences had, where using two identical design Phonostages have had one with a typical chassis mount RCA and the other with a Low Eddy design RCA.

Using Low Eddy RCA's for terminating a Cable in conjunction with Low Eddy RCA's mounted on a chassis has had a outcome where the impression made has been with much more substance than that from a typical RCA Cable > Chassis configuration. A Low Eddy RCA used to terminate a cable being used in conjunction with a typical chassis mounted RCA, does not separate itself much from a typical RCA configuration. The real magic occurs when Cable and Chassis are using Low Eddy RCA's to create the connection.

As said this is not a expensive interface to create, it is the one I intend on aiming for throughout my system. 

I agree with my tube rollers here. Pop you some NOS 6922 Telefunken's in there as you only need (2) and see what you think before spending $5000.

Pindac, I do not disagree that low eddy current RCA connectors, like the KLE types, do sound good.  In fact, I use nothing but KLE connectors, when it comes to RCA. The point is that one does not know WHY they sound good. The fact that the design reduces eddy currents may have nothing to do with the good results. What a physicist pointed out to me is that at the low voltages and currents we encounter in home audio, not much eddy current is ever generated.  That was just one person's opinion, of course.

@theflattire after a lot of research and poking around with a couple dealers, I pulled the trigger on a Modwright PH9-X.  Highly recommended and seems to punch way above its weight.  Some interesting discussions here outside of my original question but it's nice to learn from pindac and lewm.

Modwright PH9-X-nice choice. Did you spring for the "T" upgrade also? 

Look forward to reading thoughts on the differences between the PH9 /Chinook.

Enjoy it!

@samzx12 

I didn't want to say for I have no experience with the Manley, but when I was researching it was almost unanimous that the Modwright was better.

I just did the X/T upgrades and it does take it to a whole different level; soundstage and detail and attack and decay.

Let us know how it goes!

There is an easy upgrade to the Chinook, if its output stage is like that of the Steelhead.  Just upgrade the output coupling capacitors, which are mediocre in the Steelhead and way higher in value than they need to be. I have written about this before, so I won't repeat it here. If someone wants to know, I can post a summary here or send the information by PM.

@lewm As your experience of modifying RCA Cables to use KLE RCA's (Hopefully the Harmony Range) has proved to be a satisfying outcome, then my suggestion of attaching a terminated Cable with a Pure Copper Signal Pin on the RCA to a Chassis Mounted RCA connector produced with a Pure Copper contact for the Signal will be agreeable.

Where we are going to differ is the Low Eddy approach.

KLE Harmony as far as I am aware are well known for being a Pure Copper Signal path, but my knowledge a Low Eddy property being attributed to this RCA design is not known to myself.

Advocates I know of KLE Harmony in a previous school of thought are not using the Harmony on their Cables when working with the Low Eddy approach.

Cable Termination and Chassis Mount RCA's are both the same Brand.

To help reinforce the understanding of these individual developed conviction to the Low Eddy Approach and the Low Eddy experience I have experienced. 

The Cables being used are Two Pairs of SEAC SL 5000's.

One Pair with the SAEC selection for a RCA Termination and the other with the exchanged RCA's to a Pure Copper Low Eddy type. For demo' purposes the Low Eddy RCA Cable was used as the Input only (a modified Tonearm with Low Eddy RCA's as the termination for the Wand Wires enabled this). The Power Amp' and other set of SAEC Cables were yet to be set up with the Low Eddy RCA's.

There have been Two Identical Phon's Designs available, both with PC Triple C internal wiring, the only difference being, one has Pure Copper RCA's and the other the Low Eddy Pure Copper RCA's. 

I have made it know how the experience has made an impression on myself, and follow up talks about the impression made on the system owner with the Power Amp and other Cables in use with Low Eddy RCA's has left me knowing this is a path I intend on following.

As stated, to experience as I have, does not cost much if the SAEC Cables are not selected as the Cables for the initial experience to be had.

As for your suggestion about component exchanges within the Chinook, I can't see this being anything but a positive outcome.

As a account of a past experience, I inherited much of the electrical component cost for the Prototype of the Phon' I now own and use as the main Phon'.

The EE, was adamant only matched components were to be used, which proved  not too difficult for resistors in general, the exchanges of certain Brands and Values are not too costly. Extend this to Z Foils and then Copper Foils as Cap's and monies are soon haemorrhaging when the voicing for the Phon' is not being found to suit ones own personal tastes.

My own Bespoke produced Phon' was a Pair of Prototypes for over a year as it went through various Topologies selected by the EE designer/builder. The only differences in the Phons' was my own was a Single Tonearm Input, the other a multiple Tonearm Input. The multi input model eventually ended up in the Spotlight of a well known off Individual based in the UK, with a long history of owning Companies that have been producing Vinyl Replay products. There was a intention prior to Covid to have the multi input model housed in a new casing, and take it to High End Munich to be shown of as the Companies Flagship Phon' with a £10K price tag. This same design as a result of Covid causing delays, evolved further to becoming a design which incorporated the use of bespoke wound interstage Tranx's supplied by Sowter.

The EE, was sure on a few occasions they had nailed the sonic I wanted and had me carry out a 200 mile round trip to receive demo's. There was a period of frustration as each Phon' voicing demo'd, was not endearing myself in a way that I was looking to have as a long time lived with experience, even though the voicing produced was very much aligned to what the EE was believing they was wanting for their own model.

The DIGNA Phon' was used on a few occasions during this build as a gauge of where the Prototype Phon' was heading as a produced sonic.

After a period of quiet on the Phon' Build front, and my having discussed the build s with another well known Valve Phon' producer. I was given a few pointers of how to move the Sonic produced to being the type I may be seeking.

I purchased other Z Foils Resistors of various Values in accordance to the Prototype Phon' designers acceptable Specs', but also purchased Copper Foils to a Spec' recommended, but not wanted as a Spec by the Phon' designer/builder.

My take on the designers reservations was simple, don't use these new components in your own model, put them in the circuit of my own model only.

In less than a few days I received a call informing myself to visit for a Demo' the description being the Copper Foil Cap's now being used had transformed the perception of Transparency. On arrival for the Demo' the Z Foils were also added.

The EE attempted to dupe me by saying we were to demo' his Phon' first, I was immediate in my stating whatever has occurred has been to my Phon' is all I could ask for.

My additional costs incurred to discover this level of performance have been close to £400. That as a cost is extremely acceptable as an increase, when the Phon' is the 'go to the grave with me ' Valve Design. 

The EE after the addition of alternative components was now left with two quite different voicings for the Phon', with my version being their preferred and being referred to as the upgrade version.

I am absolutely sure the Chinook will find a new level, with Low Eddy RCA's in use and careful thought out placement for Cap's and Resistors as a component change.

The overall changes, if the above methods are adopted might accumulate to $600ish though.         

  

@tablejockey  i did not spring for the T upgrade but once the unit is broken in and i get used to it, I'm sure I'll send it in for the upgrade. From what I'm reading its very noticeable.  In fact, i may call TMR and see if they have one in stock. I wanted black with silver knobs but all they had in stock was the black X model with black knobs. No big deal but if the T upgraded model is in stock with silver knobs then its a no brainer. 

 

@theflattire I'll keep you posted and how long did it take for the upgrades turnaround?

Pindac, eddy currents and copper vs silver conductor are probably subjects for another thread. 

@lewm As you are very well aware, I share experiences had especially the ones that have been able to have a profound effect during a comparison.

My own system that is not up and running at present and the Systems I get out and share in the experience of hearing in use, are ones that I personally class as being very close to being each owners unique preference and ideal as a produced sonic.

It is very fair to say, that Systems that are performing at the levels I am familiar with are ones built over many many years and the selections made by the owners   have great produced set ups that have notable resolving strengths. Night > Day changes are not to be found in these set ups, a change is reduced to where subtleties are detected as being perceived. Such subtleties can be as simple as a  Veiled/Obscureness on a recording has become less obscure and much more aligned to how one feels the Sound Engineer had intended for its presence. In general the impression being detected is one that comes across as having a furthering of the fidelity that has already proven to be impressive.

I am having this experience laid out for myself on both systems heavily laden with Valve designs and Systems without a Valve in use.

I can happily see a system for myself that is the polar opposite of my my own system that is pretty much all Valve Devices downstream of the TT and CDT and  through to the Speakers.

Over the years I have met numerous owners of Phonostages, who are owners of designs belonging to All Valve, Valve Hybrid and SS. During this period I have also discussed with many individuals either face to face, as well as on a forum as a public discussion or a private discussion, methods being used to upgrade a Phon' and how they felt the changes made were perceived. 

This thread is created by a owner of a Phonostage who has inquired about: 

  "What phono preamp and how much would it take to better the Manley? I ask mainly because I have one and considering upgrading. I know it's been stated that it takes $5k upwards to better it but curious of some real world experiences."

My contribution is based on the knowledge that the Phon' in use is a Special Edition made available from Upscale Audio. The Phon' has already been modified,  there is no reason to suggest that ones suggestion that a little more thought and realisation of further modifications will not be a suitable route to consider.

My own suggestions come with a cost and I have made it clear that a outlay of $450ish might be the required budget to be considered. Incremental Spending could prove a lesser spend has been quite sufficient.

I am not one for encouraging an individual to Jump Ship and potentially lose a quick $1500 in the resale. Followed by the need to find another $3K-$4K to not get too further forward with a Sonic being produced.

The OP has made it known their recently purchased Umami Blue is still to be run in, my gut feeling, as a result of knowing what modifications to a Phon' can create, is one where I can see the OP extracting much more to their liking from the Chinook for much less monies than those that will be incurred if Brand Jumping takes place.

For the OP, the Visiting Lurker and the visitor who ends up here resulting from future searches, my suggestions are very relevant within this thread.   

I had a Steelhead (first version, not the earliest, but before the remote control version) and rolled high quality old tubes. I wound up using the MM inputs, because I had a hard time finding a good spot using the autoformer; some frequencies shone life-like but others seemed to be cancelled or suffered from ringing. This may have been down to the system -- Avantgarde Duos, which were originally driven by the curious Audiopax mono blocs, eventually swapped out for Lamm ML2s (glorious).

I eventually replaced the Steelhead with an Allnic H-3000, which some find "burnished" but with the right rectifier in the power supply, sings beautifully in my system. (Some would consider this a lateral move from the Steelhead, but it matched my system and sonic preferences better). I did have an e-conversation with Eva Manley at one point- about her "less is more" approach. I found that adding a line stage, rather than using the passive volume control on the Steelhead gave me more "meat on the bones."

I think it is hard to isolate one component and make judgments about how it sounds within a given system, partly due to all the variables as well as user preference.

Try before you buy is preferable- given the direct sales model, that is possible so long as the return policies are not prohibitive. Otherwise, a good dealer can be a blessing.

I did run a Lamm L2 Reference for a long while, and swapped it out for the Veloce, which is sadly no longer a commercial product, though Vytas is still around. (He was working as the tech director of OMA for a while).

So much is synergy, it's hard to say what is "best" in isolation.  For what it's worth, running all tubes, the system is dead quiet, even though the Duos are extremely efficient and reveal all kinds of nasties if the inter-component grounding is wanky or the power grid is having a bad day. 

@samzx12 

Turnaround was less than a week for both.

Whart thank you for the detailed response.  A fellow audiophile had a Steelhead and didn't care for it whatsoever.  He ended up with a BAT but not sure of the model. He also had Audiopax and Duo's. His system sounds phenomenal.  His room is treated professionally which I'm sure helps greatly plus his analog system is 1st rate. 

I purchased the Modwright from TMR so I'll have a return policy if not satisfied but my gut tells me it will be a notch or two above the Chinook.  

@theflattire good to know thanks. TMR didn't have the T model in stock but once the PH9.0 is broken in,  more than likely I'll send it in for the T upgrade.