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
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?
chacoustic's avatar
chacoustic
11 posts
 
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.
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?
chacoustic's avatar
chacoustic
11 posts
 
"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.
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?
More to discover