We used Telos Macro Q noise-blockers in all of the CH Precision USB firmware update ports and the WAdax Ref DAC’s USB input..
We used Chord GroundARAys in the parallel outputs on the C10 DAC and L10 line-stage, and the RCA inputs on the M10s.
The M10 power amps were moved further back, well behind the plane of the speakers, with considerable musical benefits.
Acouplex cable risers were used on the power cords feeding the telos Power Station Tai Chi units, the L10 power supply and the M10s.
We used Acouplex ReFract panels on the CH Precision audio chassis and critical power supplies (D10, C10 Mono and L10), until we exhausted the supply. HRS damping plates were used on all other power supplies (CH and Wadax).
Finally, we were able to optimize the gain structure within the system (higher on the DACs and line-stage, lower on the power amps) and the feedback and relative gain settings on the M10s. Such is the linearity, even bandwidth and overall coherence of the Monarque that we were able to run the speakers with both zero global feedback and even gain across all four channels.
Wider implications…
Although this whole process and the articles it has generated are focused around several, interlocking or inter-related reviews, it also has a wider significance for reviewing methodology and practice, as well as audiophiles wanting to maximise the performance of their own systems.
It was a time-consuming, convoluted and demanding exercise. It would not have been possible without the help of a number of willing individuals, the forbearance and broader vision of the manufacturers involved and without Stirling Trayle’s input in particular. But then this is also an unusually demanding scenario, involving not only large and heavy loudspeakers (loudspeakers that promise to establish a new benchmark for performance at their elevated price point) but also the two leading, currently available, digital replay systems, themselves replete with configurable operational and hardware options. Such an extreme scenario demands an extreme response, but it’s a response that’s extreme in terms of extent rather than detail. This system and this process stands as a blueprint for the care and attention to detail with which all reviews can (and should) be conducted. It underlines just how intimate the relationships are within any system. It establishes beyond any sensible question the principle that, before all else, a review should establish the best possible performance from a product being reviewed. Whether that’s a half-a-million dollars-worth of loudspeaker, or an integrated amp that barely scrapes over the four-figure price barrier, the principle is exactly the same, as is the approach and the care and attention required.
If you don’t get the best possible performance out of a product, then all of the listening, all of the comparisons that you might make are, if not useless then severely limited. It’s a sobering thought, especially if you consider our established approach to selecting equipment and our collective, long-term reliance on reviews. As I’ve already stated, none of this is particularly new, even if it has been largely ignored or dumped into the ‘Too Hard’ bin. As products get progressively more expensive, with no apparent reduction in the upward cost spiral, it’s an issue that’s becoming more and more serious, whether we’re discussing performance at shows, in reviewer’s systems or customer’s homes and systems. The implications are profound, whether they relate to manufacturers developing product, reviewers assessing it or owners employing it. Poor set-up generates poor results, whatever your goal.
