Review: CH Technologies X15 power cord Power cord

The cables Craig Hampel has designed are absolutely the most wide open in bandwidth, dynamics, and detail I have ever heard. They are tonally spot on and put you right there with the recording = presence so real I just shake my head and joyfully laugh out loud over and over. I've been in audio 45 years and these cables are by far the most thrilling and satisfying items I have ever bought. Truly!

That would be CH Acoustics :)

At first I thought Manngrove's response was a little over the top. How could cables be the most satisfying items ever bought for a stereo system?
But now I get it.
The reason is simple. When I think about it, there are maybe 4-5 different speakers out there that I would be very happy to live with. The same can be said of CD players, pre-amps, and amplifiers. But the only cables I could ever see myself using are the CH Acoustics. There is simply more music and dynamic realism that passes through them compared to anything else I've ever tried. When a system has them I feel compelled to listen to music for long periods of time. When they aren't in a system I find that I am always distracted by other things to do.
When I audition new equipment I always use my CH Acoustic X20 line-up of cables. Otherwise the audition is pointless.

how did these compare to silent source reference?

In my system, as really good as the the Silent Source Music Reference are, each of the CH Acoustic X20 cables beat the Silent Source Music Reference in every area.

To put it another way, I had the Silent Source Music Reference power cords and interconnect when I auditioned the CH Acoustic X20 interconnect and X15 power cords. I ended up selling the Silent Source Music Reference and buying the CH Acoustic cables because once I heard what they allowed my system to do, I didn't want to be without them.

I later upgraded to the X20 power cords when they were introduced into the CH Acoustic line. They are noticeably better than the X15 power cords.

CH Acoustic has an auditioning program available if you'd like to check them out for yourself.

Chuck

I will try the pc,int, and spkr cable from CH and compare to kubala sosna elation. I am awaiting several components for my system first so hopefully sometime in January. Thanks for the input.m

Natan,

Did you get a chance to compare?

Michael

Michael,

I believe that the shootout will be happening shortly. I may be wrong, but I think that Natan has received the X20 cables, but is still waiting on the others.

Chuck

6355,

Did you do your shoot out? Seems like both are dead in the water.

Nice review Chuck and would like to hear a AC cable for my ASR Emitter 1 amp.

Gary,

Natan6355 still has the X20's, but I don't know how the shootout is going.

Have a good holiday!
Chuck

Chuck,

Better AC cable the Crown or Music Ref?

Gary,

I replaced my Silent Source Music Reference power cords with the X15 (Crown Jewel) because they sounded much better in my system.

Try it and see what you think in your system. The X20 is even better, but the X15 will give you the idea of what you have.

The problem is that if you're using the Crown Jewel on you Dmitri now and swap it out with another power cord, that will affect what you're hearing putting the Crown Jewel on your Emitter. Unless you put another power cord on your Dmitri and get used to what you're hearing, then put the Crown Jewel on your Emitter so that you have a baseline.

Chuck

No more DMitri. Can get a Crown for 1K and A/B it with a Crystal Cable Ultra.

Gary,

It sounds like it's time to update your system page.

Chuck

6355,

You are killing us Dude!!

Got a X20 20amp coming to run my ASR Emitter amp. Right now is the Cystal Cable Ultra. Willet you know how it does next to the Ultra.

What is inside the X20 and what brand ends are used? Thinking about their SC if the X20 is any good.

Chuck,

You are the MAN!!

Got the X20 on the ASR. So no words on the sound as you know what I am hearing LOL. We don't want the urinators pissing on my positive thoughts on this cable so very few words here.

Thanks so much for this review and your time to write it.

Gary

KM,

This cable has left me speechless. Are the SC's as good as the AC cables?

6355,

I don't need your feedback anymore. I have heard 1st hand with a 20amp 20X on my ASR Emitter. No word change from the praise already posted in this thread.

I owe Chuck a big fat steak for this one.

So Chuck you have moved on to something new?

Gary,

No I haven't, I'm still using the X20 loom. I'm glad that you're enjoying it as much as I am.

Chuck

Gary, let us know how the X20 sounds compared to Dale's Pitcher's analog power bridge.....

I will when Dale ships it to me to hear it first like he did the digital Power Bridge. Forking over 3.8K for one AC cable is crazy $$$ without hearing it first.

X20/X30 can be demoed first correct?

I am surprised you have added that contingency after hearing what the digital cord did in your system. I have made a lot of expensive audio purchases based on gut instinct. What does your gut tell you Gary? You have cycled through many PCs in the last few months. What are you looking for exactly?

Krellman, this sounds like a good product. I scanned the website, but there is scant data regarding the science behind them, proprietary elements, etc. What is the scoop? Copper, silver, magnets, proprietary winding scheme (who doesn't have that these days)? What is the designer's pedigree? Engineer? Scientist? Inspired enthusiast (aka DIY)?

Agear,
Greetings! Some of the questions you ask were addressed in the comments at the other review that was posted by Krellman.
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?rcabl&1282593547

In short, the proprietary element of our cables is the specific geometry. To claim anything else in a modern cable (Ie. materials) is "proprietary" is simply a canard. It doesn't matter who is claiming it. We use the best materials available. Period. But we don't spend time focused on that element simply because so much of the cable industry revolves around clever marketing BS and, in come cases, flat out lies. We are not marketing geniuses, we are scientists. So we stick with what we know.

Our pedigree is a conglomerate of engineers, physicists and various other scientists. A few men are responsible for the final design. But it would not have been possible without the knowledge base and various direct contributions from some of the greatest scientists in the world. Literally. We never mention who exactly for two reasons. First, because it distracts from the cables themselves. We believe our product to be unmatched, and so far this has proven true. But knowing who is behind all aspects of the design would be cumbersome and ultimately will not let your ears know what they can do for your system.
The second reason is more practical. It turns out that the end design has appealing applications in other scientific areas. And some of those who contributed to the project are doing further research in their own specific fields. They are doing this on their own and we are facilitating it by not mentioning who they are. The competition between Universities and laboratories can be fierce. We don't need a singular University preemptively claiming credit for future discoveries.

Regarding the "sparse" nature of our website. What you say is true. Again, for two reasons. First, and again, because we aren't marketing geniuses. What started off as a professional "science project", so to speak, turned into a product that was unmatched in performance. But it was the enthusiasm and word of mouth of a handful of audiophiles that literally dragged us into the market. We don't intend to ever be as big as a Nordost or an Audioquest. Frankly, that would never work with our product anyway. We're content with being an artisan shop that delivers the best products on earth while engaging directly with our customers.
And that's the other reason for the sparse nature of the website. It's designed to encourage those who are truly curious to engage by contacting us directly.

Even so, this summer we've been working on a number of short essays that reveal a deeper understanding of what we are all about. They don't get deep into specifics of the product, such as copper versus silver, because that's not what makes our cable unique. But it does provide a platform whereby we hope that music lovers can connect and maybe say to themselves, "Yeah! That's what I'm looking for too".
We have a couple more to finish before posting them. But hopefully within a week or two they will be up.

Thanks for your questions, Agear! We appreciate the interest. And please do, if you have more questions, contact us directly with the email at the website.

Cheers!

Correction:
We've gone ahead and posted the first five essays.
They are on the website and may be downloaded right away.
They are PDF files.

Thanks!! Happy reading and Joyful Listening!

CH Acoustics Team

And that's the other reason for the sparse nature of the website. It's designed to encourage those who are truly curious to engage by contacting us directly.

I am curious. Now humor me. I come from a long line of scientists, have 20 years of education under my belt (medicine), including 4 years of research slanted towards the material science side of things, patented something during medical school, etc. I appreciate good science and innovation when it is there. Time and phase alignment seems important in audio. How did you measure time and phase accuracy in your cable?

Good question, Sir.
First, and for the most part, when it comes to measurements Time is directly linked to Phase. It's just more impressive to say Time AND Phase. But it's mostly just the actual time aspect that we are measuring.

Now, as to HOW we measure, that gets a little more complicated. And, to be honest, too great of an explanation could potentially reveal proprietary information. So let me handle it this way. To prove that there is efficacy in measuring the time domain in cables, let me point you towards an already published paper on the matter. Nordost has done the audio community a great service in publishing a PDF at their website titled "New Approaches To Audio Measurement". It's near the middle of their "downloads" page. It's a great paper. Everyone should read it.

What they demonstrate is a method to measure aggregate time distortions in audio equipment, including cables. What we've done is identify the individual aspects that lead to these aggregate time distortions and figured out ways to measure each individually. Basically, anything that stores energy has a time component associated with both the build-up and the release of that energy. Cables have more than one means of storing energy when exposed to alternating current. We've done our best to address each one individually. The end result is a significant reduction overall.

I am familiar with the Nordost piece. They have co-developed software that looks at changes in jitter (time error) with insertion of cabling, conditioners, etc.

As you have stated, very little in cable land can be classified as "proprietary." Other than your novel weave that rejects RFI/EMI without shielding, what is unique here that promotes time and phase alignment?

"They have co-developed software that looks at changes in jitter (time error)"

What they measure is not jitter. It IS time errors. But it is not jitter. There is a distinct and important difference.

Also, you misread my post. I did not say that very little in cable land can be classified as "proprietary". I made the distinction that to claim anything regarding materials is proprietary is a canard. Which is so say, there are no meaningful materials that could be exclusively used by one company.
Sure, some company could go to the effort of coming up with some unique alloy that has never been used as a conductor before. But it wouldn't be meaningful. And I would call into question the validity of that claim anyway. It's incredibly expensive to manufacture new alloys. No small time cable company is going to be able to afford that type of research. And in the grand scheme of things, ALL audio cable companies (except Monster, of course) are small!
But this theoretical company might convince a segment of audiophiles that it's "special alloy" somehow sounded better. But it wouldn't.
Science has already solved what conducts best. That was established a very long time ago.

Same goes for insulating materials. Someone could buy the most expensive silk known to man, soak it with a super secret mineral oil that they concocted in their kitchen and call it proprietary. I guess that would be somewhat proprietary. But even if somehow it was, it still wouldn't be meaningful. Again, because science proved a long time ago what insulators were meaningful.

What they measure is not jitter. It IS time errors.

One contributes to the other and are synonymous in audio parlance, right? Teasing out the definition is not germane to the topic at hand and seems like digression to me. The Nordost/Vertex contribution has potential and could/should make cable manufacturers nervous (http://www.stereophile.com/rmaf2010/nordost_and_vertex_measurements/index.html).

you misread my post. I did not say that very little in cable land can be classified as "proprietary". I made the distinction that to claim anything regarding materials is proprietary is a canard.

Not really. Here is what you said:

In short, the proprietary element of our cables is the specific geometry. To claim anything else in a modern cable (Ie. materials) is "proprietary" is simply a canard.

The construction of that sentence is a little awkward and threw me off I guess. You start with an open ended declaration and then qualify it with "i.e. materials." Which brings me to my next point:

Which is so say, there are no meaningful materials that could be exclusively used by one company.

This is incorrect. If you have any experience with patents, you would realize that common materials can be patented within the context of a specific application. For example, magnets are used by many in audio including cable manufacturers. Rick Schultz, formerly of Virtual Dynamics, recently applied for a patent regarding the use of magnets in cabling when assembled in a specific array. Conceptually, this is similar to the CH "proprietary" winding pattern. Furthermore, the sheer range of patentable things is stunning. You can literally patent a thought and a sketch without concrete prototypes, research, etc.

We never mention who exactly for two reasons. First, because it distracts from the cables themselves. We believe our product to be unmatched, and so far this has proven true. But knowing who is behind all aspects of the design would be cumbersome and ultimately will not let your ears know what they can do for your system.
The second reason is more practical. It turns out that the end design has appealing applications in other scientific areas. And some of those who contributed to the project are doing further research in their own specific fields. They are doing this on their own and we are facilitating it by not mentioning who they are. The competition between Universities and laboratories can be fierce. We don't need a singular University preemptively claiming credit for future discoveries.

This makes little sense. Knowing the who's and why's would invigorate me and many audiophiles and contribute significantly to the cause. I do understand a reticence to divulge intellectual property. I also understand the impulse to avoid patents as they can become a blueprint for theft if you lack the cash to pursue the case.

So dude, let's hear more particulars. The prosaic essays on your site are not satisfying. I know I am made of carbon. What is your wire made of and how does it work?

Wow, lots to respond to. Let's see how well I can keep from rambling......

RE: Jitter

One contributes to the other and are synonymous in audio parlance, right?

For general discussion, I suppose so. From a design perspective, very different.

The construction of that sentence is a little awkward and threw me off I guess.

I do that all the time. There is often a disconnect between my brain and my syntax.

This is incorrect. If you have any experience with patents, you would realize that common materials can be patented within the context of a specific application.

The operative word in my sentence there was "meaningful". And we do have experience with patents. A LOT of experience. But, in the interest of avoiding argument, let's chalk this up as personal opinion. We don't think anything other than the most conductive materials are "meaningful" in designing a perfectly transparent audio cable. Those metals are known. Playing around with "special" alloys doesn't appeal to us. In our research, we tested all sorts of different alloys. None of them returned results nearly as good as what science had already proven worked best long ago.
Furthermore, turns out I could have been partially wrong anyway. I claimed that small time audio companies wouldn't bother with "proprietary" alloys. But in the meantime I came across JPS Labs and what they call "Alumiloy". This sounds like some sort of aluminum alloy. But it's only a trademarked name. Which means not an actual patented alloy. Though it seems they are trying to patent whatever it is. Not even sure if it is an alloy. They're kinda vague on that point. I wonder, would you demand of them to know exactly what the "ultra-pure metals and other elements" were in they're design? If they refused to tell you, would you move along? Just curious.

This makes little sense. Knowing the who's and why's would invigorate me and many audiophiles and contribute significantly to the cause.

Honestly, I doubt it. (incidentally, Agear, don't read the rest of this as a directly personal response. It's more of a general response for anyone who ever comes across this thread. Thanks!)
But before I get too far into it, let me reiterate, it's not up to those of us engaged in this audio commercial endeavor. Let me try to explain as best I can.
The primary occupation of just one of the scientists we worked with is NMR. (You can Google that if you like.) And he has seen huge potential in applying what we all learned from this project to his primary occupation. In this Google age, where cross referencing the right search terms can lead you to the most interesting information, he specifically does NOT want his name mentioned anywhere near our product. Why? Because he doesn't want it popping up alongside some random search associated with his name. Let's say some other lab looks him up. They see that he's doing some research that could drastically alter the efficiency of their work. They also see him associated with us. Whats not to stop them from posing as audiophiles, buying samples from us and trying to figure out what he is up to? Sound far fetched? NOT Nearly!! Having that happen would kind of make for a bad day, probably even longer. We have several of just these types of scenarios to deal with.
So it begs the question, why mention this sort of pedigree at all, if you won't come clean on WHO it is? Well, you can't ever please everybody. But you can please some people. And for some people, just knowing that we have THAT level of intellect that contributed to this product is enough. Others won't (and haven't) cared at all. All that matters to them is that it works as described. And there will be some who will yell, "Liars!!" because we won't mention exactly who we speak of. And you know what? That's fine. Move along. Nothing to see here. Sound harsh? Like I said, you can't please everybody. And we've found that the ones who demand that you tell them everything about your stuff aren't really interested in buying it. They just want the satisfaction of having gotten the information out of you. Mostly so that they can then argue with you about how it won't work as described. (Without ever hearing it, of course.) And some, more sinister types, want to steal from you. And yes, we've already encountered that as well.

Warning! From here on out I'm going to wax philosophical on this subject.

SO!!! What exactly do we use and how do we use it?
Oh, a little silver, a little copper. Ten nines pure, of course! Oh, and also single crystal. Of course the exact recipe is proprietary!
Does that make you want to run out and try it? Nah! Everyone is doing that. What makes you DIFFERENT?
OH! That would be the algorithm that we use to determine the exact content of all the materials.
Does THAT make you want to run out and try it?
Absolutely not! I want to know the algorithm first.
Really? And what will that tell you about how it sounds?
See, NONE of this information will tell you how it sounds.
Here are but a couple reasons why.
1) Some materials have earned a reputation for a certain "Sound". Not always true. But trying to reverse years of strongly held belief is near impossible.
2) One company touts wicked fast propagation times. Another's claim to fame is their ultra low impedance.
How do these relate to each other? They don't. Practically apples and oranges. Does it tell you anything about how they sound? Nope.
But what it will do is provide all sorts of fodder for anyone who loves to argue to ceaselessly to engage in just that sort of behavior.

This why the only thing important to us is that WHAT you know is that we design from a time domain perspective. (This is all over our website.) HOW we do that is not important.
Trying to explain HOW will fly over the heads of those who are not versed in science. It will give opportunity to steal ideas from those who are. How is either one beneficial to us?
Because it will generate interest!!
Highly doubt it.

Let's get back to the WHO we had on our design team.....
Let's say that none other than Nikola Tesla was alive and well and that HE was on our team. Would that impress you enough to listen to the cables? For a tiny few it might. But probably only those who know who he was very well. But along with that there would surely be a dozen Edison types who would want to argue with us endlessly. (If you are not familiar with the Tesla/Edison history, look it up. It is very fascinating!)
And it STILL won't tell you how the cables sound!
We like to think we have the most accurate cables on earth. And we state that at times. But you have to take it on faith that what we say is true until you actually hear them.
We also were fortunate enough to arrive at this design due to the ridiculously fortunate input from some of the worlds elite scientists. But you are going to have to take it on faith that what we say is true. What difference does it make WHO it was? Until you actually hear the cables, you are still taking it on faith that it mattered in the first place. It DID matter, to us! It shaped the way we all approached each new problem. We found that there is a difference in the way some scientists approach problems. Kind of like the difference between Michael Jordan and your average college player. Sure, there is a difference in talent level. But more importantly, there is a difference in the way they approach the game. The same holds true for scientists. That was the biggest contribution from some on our team. It was the occasions where it was said, "Here, look at it THIS way." that made all the difference.
So, final word on exactly WHO was on our design team. If anyone ever reaches the same level as the most elite that we worked with, we'll go ahead and tell you the whole roster. How will we know anyone has reached that level? Simple. We may just be reading about your timely vacation to Sweden. :)

In conclusion (to this TOO long post), I'm going to relate a meaningful example to try and sum up how we see ourselves fitting into this industry, our intention to keep some things secret, and how we feel about internet forums in general.
A couple years ago I came across an very long thread at Headfi that was all about the Sonicweld Diverter, a USB to SPDIF converter. And I trudged through all 21 pages of it.
It was early on that contributors became indignant about how on earth a simple USB-SPDIF converter would/could cost so much. It wasn't long before there were calls for the designer, Josh Heiner, to weigh in on the discussion. What transpired after that was both illuminating and frustrating. There was the gamut of people commenting. Some were grateful for Josh's time and contribution. Some were absolutely indignant that he did not lay out in extreme detail everything inside his product. The discussion started to turn nasty and it wasn't long before Josh bowed out.
A few things became abundantly obvious in that thread.
The most notable to me was that there seem to be a LOT of faceless people out there who just love to argue. And mixed into that crowd, it became obvious, were people who would try to leverage and manipulate for the sole purpose of gaining information that would allow them to replicate his ideas. And there were a few that were simply the jealous types. "Why make the construction so elaborate?" "You don't need to make it that expensive!!"
Basically, the lesson learned was that not only are you NOT going to please everybody. You're probably not even going to please most people.
But even with all that, the most notable thing about that whole thread, to me, was the way in which Josh both held his ground and did it with dignity.
That's what we aspire to be like with CH Acoustic on any sort of forums.
It seems inevitable that we occasionally join in the discussions, for the sake of the curious.

That thread on the Diverter was memorable to me. I wasn't in need of one. But much later we had a customer who was doing extensive trials with USB-SPDIF converters. He wasn't aware of the Diverter and had pretty much given up on the idea. At first it was awkward to approach him and make a recommendation on an item we had never heard ourselves, especially one so expensive. But that's how impressed I was with who the designer was, based solely on his engagement in that hostile thread. By our customers own admission, everything we had claimed prior to that had turned out true. So he went ahead and purchased a Diverter. And, Holy Cow!, that thing is good! If we had need of one, you can bet we'd be getting one for ourselves. And if it weren't for the fact that having metal encasing our cables is a performance detriment, we'd probably be having Josh make cosmetic ends for us, even if it did increase the price drastically.
But here's the point of all of this. While there were a LOT of hostility towards Josh for not revealing every tittle of information that people wanted. My personal response was one of admiration and respect. And it turned out well for me. And the last time I checked, Josh is still selling a lot of Diverters.

So I think there is something to be said about sticking to your guns. Keeping the things you want to keep secret, secret. And not worrying about what others will think. There is no way we are ever going to please everybody. But we'll please enough.
We've already learned that once customers get a hold of our cables, they absolutely love them. And since word of mouth from very happy customers is still the greatest advertising, we'll stick with that.

So we're not going to answer every question. We're going to keep certain information private, sometimes stubbornly. And we're not going to worry about the results of that. If our philosophy resonates with you, that's awesome! We are pretty sure you are going to love our product.

Okay. Let's try this again.

We don't think anything other than the most conductive materials are "meaningful" in designing a perfectly transparent audio cable. Those metals are known. Playing around with "special" alloys doesn't appeal to us. In our research, we tested all sorts of different alloys. None of them returned results nearly as good as what science had already proven worked best long ago.

What alloys did you test and what were the results?

But in the meantime I came across JPS Labs and what they call "Alumiloy". This sounds like some sort of aluminum alloy. But it's only a trademarked name. Which means not an actual patented alloy. Though it seems they are trying to patent whatever it is. Not even sure if it is an alloy. They're kinda vague on that point. I wonder, would you demand of them to know exactly what the "ultra-pure metals and other elements" were in they're design? If they refused to tell you, would you move along? Just curious.

As I stated in my previous post, basic information is all I want. JPS has provided that, and you have not. Although you "doubt it," providing some semblance of a scientific description of your cabling would be helpful. Not doing so fails to differentiate you from the many essentially DIY cable outfits that use seductive prose and witchcraft to try and sell things....the very companies you disparage. The irony is stunning....

The primary occupation of just one of the scientists we worked with is NMR. (You can Google that if you like.) And he has seen huge potential in applying what we all learned from this project to his primary occupation.

Craig, I am a physician. I do not need to Google NMR. Furthermore, I know another manufacturer who makes cables and conditioners among other things who has done preliminary research with an associate looking at MRI image quality improvements through conditioning. Tell your "scientist" friend his idea is not a revelation....

Final thoughts:

Craig, although you seem to discount research or use of alternative conductors since "science" has already determined what is adequate, I find this area most interesting intellectually. JPS and Teo have both taken stabs at this with good results. I think their primary focus is noise reduction. Gary/Glory Anderson has some of the Teo stuff and the results are apparently stellar. Unfortunately, the prices are steep. Another interesting realm is wireless. I personally believe the future is there whether people like it or not. The days of exotic metallurgy are numbered.

An interesting experiment (in which no cable manufacturer would likely participate) would be to subject cabling to that Nordost software mentioned. Whose cabling would reduce "timing errors" the most?

"Basically, the lesson learned was that not only are you NOT going to please everybody. You're probably not even going to please most people. "

Can't understand people. Everyone should shell out thousands for wires to make their stereos finally sound good.

I certainly didn't intend to disparage any other companies. Poor choice of words on my part.
I was simply trying to convey the idea that WE don't see much use in any metals other than what is the most conductive, the least resistive. In our research we tested just about anything that conducts, including carbon, controlling for all other factors. What we found is that what has been tried is true. The best performance came from the most conductive materials.

Not doing so fails to differentiate you from the many essentially DIY cable outfits that use seductive prose and witchcraft to try and sell things....

Before we officially launched CH Acoustic we designed a power cable for Running Springs Audio. They call it the HZ Crown Jewel. Running Springs Audio is an off shoot of a larger company formerly known as RTI. RTI is the OEM behind a vast number of specialty capacitors in the high end. RTI's engineers are well known, trusted, and relied upon by many of the best known high end equipment companies for services beyond capacitors.
The fact that RTI came to us for the design of their best power cable is something that I'm pretty sure separates us from not only the "DIY" cable outfits, but many of the better known ones as well.

Craig,

I want to apologize to you and all Audiogoners who actually enjoy our hobby and have the desire to delve into it a little deeper.

I have had my system page hijacked three times by a small number of deceitful people trying to push some product that has nothing to do with my system. It makes me sick that, for the third time now, I've had to wipe out all of the posts from legitimate Audiogoners simply trying to discuss different things in order to erase the crap.

Now I find that my simple review has been hijacked by one of them. Unfortunately, I can't erase it here, so we're stuck with it. But I wonder how a well known manufacturer like Stealth, Wadia, MBL, Esoteric, EMM, Wilson, etc. would respond to someone doing this?

I believe that they'd just laugh, especially when the person asking the questions is beating their chest and proclaiming their intelligence. It leads me to believe that they've missed the mark on their chest a few too many times and connected with their head, and they may not be able to distinguish the difference between important and impotent any longer.

I don't think that Mapman understood what was behind the latest dialogue being exchanged when he made his post. I understand his frustration and response, and I hope that others outside this crappy little loop aren't turned off or offended as it appears Mapman was.

Craig, to be completely clear here with you, this hasn't anything to do with you or your cables. If I were using cables from brand XYZ, the result would be the same for them.

It's not you or a brand that they're focusing on, it's me that they're coming after. Because I have a decent reputation on Audiogon, they're trying to exploit that for their own benefit. The problem is that I'm not afraid to protest against the exploitation, and that apparently bothers them quite a bit.

They could simply create their own system pages, post actual pictures of what they have, and then promote whatever they want from there. It kind of makes me wonder why they don't.

I'm sorry that you got dragged into this, and I'm sorry that a lot of good people have been subjected to this mud bath just trying to learn more about our hobby.

Chuck

Krell,

Your consideration is appreciated, but don't worry. My comment was more just a quick reaction to what I found to be a particularly ironic statement. That expensive wires please ANYBODY is something I find interesting. I would clearly agree that none will please everybody. Few things do, especially high end audio tweaks that are expensive and inherently controversial. It has nothing to do with any particular product/vendor, just a general observation that happened to come into my mind while reading this thread.

I guess we all have some axes to grind from time to time. As long as it is done in a civilized manner, I suppose all is good in the end.

You gotta have some thick skin to be a success in most worthwhile endeavors. High end audio is no exception I would say. IT is exceedingly hard to differentiate products and demonstrate unique value these days. Not an easy challenge.

The testimonial of a satisfied customer always says something, at least in my mind.

Chuck, no worries. I BELIEVE in cabling. The influence of well executed cabling on a system can be profound IMO. Gary likes the CH product, and he has heard and owned a LOT of cables. Craig, keep up the good work.

Hi guys,

Sorry about the delay, I've been having way too much fun listening.
First a big thanks to Craig Hampel for his generous trial period and his willingness to educate.
Long story short, i bought an x20 pc
for my Dimitri (no brainer) and another for my Dartzeel 108 amp. I need 4 more for the remaining front end components which I will purchase when I finalize my interconnect choices.

I spent about 5 months so far doing this shootout and will continue until I have my system cabled. I had over 50 k worthof kubala elation alone, Craig sent me 4 x20 pc, 2 x20 interconnects, and 2 pairs of x20 speaker cables, tara zero gold and Tara omega onyx were there as well.

The system is a dedicated treated room,powered by a dedicated 100amp service to controlled power co 15 kva isol transformer to isoclean zero ohm breaker panel with all in wall 10 g analysis plus oval, isoclean, shunyata, and oyaide outlets . This power feeds dartzeel 108 and 18ns
pre, connected by 5 m of Evolution acoustics bnc. I also have nat audio se2se 211 tube monoblock with military united tubes and rca's. Speakers are built in small numbers by a friend and basically truly time aligned, 1st order 5way crossover, dynamic driver, modular , 92 db sens, powered subs, vented midbassmodule , infinite baffle midrange. Front end is united home audio phase 10 modified tascam xb20 r2r, audio aero prestige sacd, amazon one turntable, tweaked shroder ref arm , allaertes mc2 finish cart, tron meteor phono preamp.

The x20 power cords handily stole my heart over kubala elation, shunyata anaconda, genesis absolute fidelity which I have on hand. From memory I have had jps aluminata and elrod gold statement pc's which were great performers but the x20 drew me in to the music, engaged me more and the money saved will go towards interconnect and speaker cable which from the looks of it won't be cheap.

CH x20 interconnect performed better on my audioaero and tape deck than Tara zero at almost 3timesthe price, and kubala elation at about 1.5x. The kubal elation cabling in my system fully cabled was very nice sounding but I became bored quickly, and surfed more music rather than listened at full length. I found that images were oversized and not true. I think in the right system kubala elation
can work, therevus also some personal taste involved. I did buy Kubala sosna elation digital interconnect which blew away too many cables to list here. Don't laugh but it does wonders on aN underwood hifi modified sonos 90 player feeding the audioaero prestige dac.

The ch x20 interconnect will be revisited soon along with the following jorma prime, stealth sakra, silent source music ref, united home audio Celtic silver pendragon, nordost Odin.

Regarding speaker cablebnot ready to comment yet.

Krell_man,
My family and I enjoy our moderately high end system. We run an all digital system; Sound Application RLS Line Conditioner, Elrod Statement Gold (awaiting arrival), MAC Burley with Furtech plugs, Meridian 800, 861v6, 621, Oppo 93, MIT MA-X2 interconnects, MIT MA-X SHD Speaker cables, Pass XA-200.5 monos, 3 Pass X-250.5 (for theater), Wilson Sashas, Watch II center and sides and Snell Sub-1800 sub-woofer. We recently sold our CubII sides and will eventually replace them. Theater cables are mostly MIT; Oracle v2.1 center and M1's for sides and rears, with older MIT and Audioquest speaker cables for the sides, rear and sub-woofer. I list all this to qualify our system.
I have been reading this thread with keen interest.
I've been searching for a "good deal" on power cables - by this I mean power cables that compete with the best but not priced extremely high (~$8,500 or so). Seems like the CH Technologies X20 (and soon to be released updated X-20) power cords may be the answer.
I happen to stumble upon your post because a new friend recommended Silent Source Reference power cords, and after reading your post - I am humbled by your findings.
If I may, how do you find these to compare to Elrod Statement Gold power cord?
Jim Weil, the designer and manufacturer of Sound Application power conditioners developed his line conditioners using Elrod power cords, so I'm comfortable using the Gold Statement to feed it - but I'm looking for power cords to supply our digital components and power amplifiers. Any experience you can share would be greatly appreciated.
Kindest regards, Thomas Foti.

Hi Thomas,

If your system is moderately high end, I wish that my system was closer to yours.

Craig had to change the name from CH Technologies to CH Acoustic because CH Technologies was already in existence.

Here's his email address:
c.hampel@comcast.net or info@chacoustic.com

and his website:
http://chacoustic.com/

I've never had an Elrod power cord, so I don't have anything to help in that area, but Craig is familiar with David Elrod's cables and designs and can explain the similarities and differences in the power cords.

He usually has demo cables to send out so that someone may evaluate them in their own systems. I think that you'll be amazed at how much they can help your listening experience, They sound like they aren't there, so you really hear just how good your components are.

Shoot him an email and if there's anything else I can help with let me know.

Chuck

Hi Tom, I just came across this thread as I'm interested in Sound Application products. Can we discuss?

Ptss,

I just saw your post and wanted to let you know I would be happy to help you anyway I can.

Contact me and we'll discuss SA power conditioners.

Kindest regards, TJF.