I was referring to the option, not the merits, of operating it either way.
m1 mono
- Thread starter tunes
- Start date
I was referring to the option, not the merits, of operating it either way.
This is the answer from Florian. I’m not sure it will answer your question. I suggest you email to him directly. He is very responsive.
In fact the monaural mode also exists for M1.1, and it is different compared to bridged mode. In monaural mode, a single amplifier channel is used and it is driven by the full power supply. That's a typical mode of operation when connecting low impedance speakers. The bridged mode is more appropriate for high impedance speakers which requires high voltage excursions.
In term of noise, I do not see any penalty to use bridged mode as long as the amplifier section itself is quiet enough. it is correct on the other hand that in bridged mode, each amplifier sees 'half' of the load and needs to be able to drive low impedances. For the M1.1, it is not recommanded to connect speakers with an impedance below 2 Ohm in bridged mode, while loads below 1 Ohm are supported in monaural mode.
In fact the monaural mode also exists for M1.1, and it is different compared to bridged mode. In monaural mode, a single amplifier channel is used and it is driven by the full power supply. That's a typical mode of operation when connecting low impedance speakers. The bridged mode is more appropriate for high impedance speakers which requires high voltage excursions.
In term of noise, I do not see any penalty to use bridged mode as long as the amplifier section itself is quiet enough. it is correct on the other hand that in bridged mode, each amplifier sees 'half' of the load and needs to be able to drive low impedances. For the M1.1, it is not recommanded to connect speakers with an impedance below 2 Ohm in bridged mode, while loads below 1 Ohm are supported in monaural mode.
Thanks for your detailed response. So, in the mono mode for the M1.1, are half the amplifier components, other than the power supply, lying there dormant?
Ken
I don’t think it is quite true. For example, the two big red capacitors are used all the time.
Based on the Fremer review I just read and John’s measurements, this is an amp that can sound very different based on the feedback amount selected as well. I wonder if long term listening, one gets accustomed to its uniquely dryer sound? Others who recently heard this amp at the CA show this weekend have also publicly commented on the dryness. So it’s not just me!
I would like to play with the feedback a little to see how this could affect this characteristic. Hey, it might just be the wrong setting for my tastes and a simple adjustment and you find nirvana!
Yes, I could be totally wrong on this amp and maybe just always heard it with the wrong feedback setting.
I would like to play with the feedback a little to see how this could affect this characteristic. Hey, it might just be the wrong setting for my tastes and a simple adjustment and you find nirvana!
Yes, I could be totally wrong on this amp and maybe just always heard it with the wrong feedback setting.
MF’s review says the amp is slightly warm and rich. I can’t find the word “dryness” in his review.
My tastes lean towards zero negative feedback even with the higher distortion levels. As you dial up the negative feedback, distortion will decline but something desirable sound wise is lacking. My ideal monoblocks are zero negative feedback and built as monoblocks from the ground up. Those are two big reasons I own what I own.
Ken
Agreed. But others who have heard them have commented publicly on the “dryness” aspect. So, it’s not just me. However, I’m wondering what feedback setting these folks at the shows have set it at. Even in Munich, I heard a lot of CH, and not once noticed anything but the dryness aspect. That being said, what was the feedback set to?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And your amps have tubes! I [emoji3590] tubes. [emoji41]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Are these capacitors in the power supply?
I don’t mean to be hard on the M1.1’s. They are excellent sounding amps. Not my favorite but really fine. I just feel for six figures that the monoblocks should have zero compromises and be built from the ground up as mono amps. Audionet Heisenberg, dartZeel NHB-468, Nagra HD and my amps, Vandersteen M7-HPA, are just a few examples.
Ken
Seriously, I don’t think CH will design M1.1 mono mode with compromise. Most people use them in mono mode. Extra modes of operations should be considered as plus rather than minus IMO. I have compared M1 to one of the amps mentioned in your post in my own system for a month. I can say M1 is up to the the level. Actually, I’m getting a pair of M1.1 to replace my current amp.
Jambo
New member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2016
- Messages
- 74
Stereophile review of CH M1.1 has been published online, it can be now be read at the link below.
https://www.stereophile.com/content/ch-precision-m11-power-amplifier
https://www.stereophile.com/content/ch-precision-m11-power-amplifier
The
Excellent review of the CH Precision M1.1 monoblocks by Michael Fremer. I was surprised that he said that on the spectrum of bright/fast/lean/analytical vs. warm/slow/rich/forgiving that the M1.1’s were slightly on the latter side, while the dartZeel NHB-458’s were slightly on the former side. I would reverse that. I feel the dartZeel sounds more warm and tubey, while the CH sounds more clean and clear. I don’t think the M1.1’s sound tubey at all.
I was correct about one bank of the M1.1’s stereo components laying dormant in the mono mode. This is a trade-off in my opinion as you’re paying for a bank of devices in each amp that you’re not using in the mono mode. However, this should not impact sound quality.
Ken
Excellent review of the CH Precision M1.1 monoblocks by Michael Fremer. I was surprised that he said that on the spectrum of bright/fast/lean/analytical vs. warm/slow/rich/forgiving that the M1.1’s were slightly on the latter side, while the dartZeel NHB-458’s were slightly on the former side. I would reverse that. I feel the dartZeel sounds more warm and tubey, while the CH sounds more clean and clear. I don’t think the M1.1’s sound tubey at all.
I was correct about one bank of the M1.1’s stereo components laying dormant in the mono mode. This is a trade-off in my opinion as you’re paying for a bank of devices in each amp that you’re not using in the mono mode. However, this should not impact sound quality.
Ken
Agreed. However, I would like to hear the amps with the feedback setting he was using. It might be a whole different ballgame.
Hi Mike,
Michael Fremer used Ralph Sorrentino’s suggested feedback settings, so I would suspect you’ve already listened to the M1.1’s optimal feedback settings at the audio shows.
“I consulted with CH’s American representative Ralph Sorrentino, and we chose monaural configuration.....and we began with 20% global feedback. I found that more than 20% global feedback made the bass sound overly tight and constricted somewhat the musical flow of my system; less than 20% feedback pushed the sound beyond liquid, into a place that bordered on being soggy: Sorrentino’s suggested 20% feedback proved ideal.”
Ken
KeithR
Active member
Yes, most I know would reverse those comments as well. Curious review