2. member-reviews
  3. 1282568800

Review: CH Technologies X15 power cord Power cord

Category: Cables

CH Technologies is owned by Craig Hampel in Champaign, Illinois. I've known Craig for about four years. At the time, Craig was working for Geoff Poor in Geoff's audio shop. Geoff is a partner in BAT (Balanced Audio Technology).

I hadn't seen Craig for about a year when I sold my Wadia 581se CD Player to an Audiogoner also living in Champaign, Illinois. He told me that Craig had perfected his cable line and was now selling them. Dale's system sounded really good and Dale suggested that I try them. I was pretty busy and never got around to giving Craig a call.

Then about four months later, I sold my HRS SX rack to another Audiogoner in Champaign, Illinois. Tom has a Wadia 781i CD Player like I have, and he said that he was also using CH Technologies cables. He told me that I should call Craig and give them a try. This time I did.

Craig sent me two X15 power cords and one set of X10 interconnects and one set of X20 interconnects. They took me completely by surprise! After all of the power cords and interconnects I've had ranging from $1,500.00 to $5,000.00, none do what Craig's power cords and interconnects do in my system.

The CH Technologies power cords and interconnects are the closest cables I've ever heard that don't have a sound at all. I heard more of music than I've ever heard coming out of my system, and it flows in the most natural state I've ever heard. I hear more minute details because it's so quiet. Along with this, those details seem to make every instrument sound more authentic than I've ever heard it in my system.

If you're looking to get closer to your music than you ever have before, I'd strongly recommend sendng Craig an email. Here's the email address of CH Technologies: c.hampel@comcast.net


Chuck

Associated gear
Click to view my Virtual System

Similar products
Dream State Epic Gold, Veridical, Lucid and Dream Catcher
Stealth Dream power cords and Indra interconnects Silent Source Music Reference power cords and interconnects
Acapella interconnects
krell_man

Showing 8 responses by agear

agear
1,362 posts
 
Gary, let us know how the X20 sounds compared to Dale's Pitcher's analog power bridge.....
agear
1,362 posts
 
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
1,362 posts
 
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?
agear
1,362 posts
 
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?
agear
1,362 posts
 
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?
agear
1,362 posts
 
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....
agear
1,362 posts
 
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?
agear
1,362 posts
 
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.
More to discover