Many (but not all) of the musical examples cited so far have been early pressings that used the appropriate curve to achieve the results described. Perhaps it’s time to give some specific examples of the curves in action, so let’s start with the Colin Davis/Sibelius recordings that I’ve already used as a point of comparison, both for what the P10 does and what it does relative to the P1/X1. As a fan of his taut and explicitly structured performances, I bought the Davis box-set of the seven Sibelius symphonies maybe 20-years ago. I probably played it twice, disappointed by the disjointed and inarticulate performances, the oppressive, sluggish and bloated bass that slowed the tempi, the glassy, forward treble that tilted the balance and flattened the stage. But then, back in the day I never had access to the Philips EQ curve. In fact, I’ve never had access to it until the arrival of the P10. Perhaps not surprisingly, as soon as the P10 arrived rooting out older Philips pressings was a matter of priority and one of the first was the Davis/Sibelius box…
What a transformation. The lumpen bass was banished, the lower registers gaining energy, texture, shape and subtlety. Suddenly the performances had exactly the sort of drama and tension, perfectly paced bass and scaled dynamics I’d always expected. The treble set back into its proper proportion and perspective, adding to a deep, coherent soundstage. The energy and brilliance of the brass emerged, underlining the dramatic tonal and dynamic contrasts in the scores. As I mentioned earlier, it’s a performance that places this box alongside the Berglund and Barbirolli readings at the top of my personal Sibelius tree – and that is only possible because of the Philips curve provided by the P10. It has turned a set of records that was simply filling shelf space into a wonderful musical discovery to be explored and enjoyed.
Nor is the Sibelius box an isolated example. Ask anybody in the classical establishment for a list of the five greatest pianists and there’s a better than good chance that Claudio Arrau will be in there somewhere. Extend the number to ten and he’s pretty much a definite. I bought his recording of Debussy’s Images and Estampes (Philips 9500 965) back in 1980 when it first appeared – and boy was I disappointed by the aimless, wooden and two-dimensional performance. But with the arrival of the P10, all that changed. The performance was literally transformed. The weight, spacing and placement of the notes, the sense of shape in the phrasing and the sheer sensitivity in the playing were astonishing – especially after prior experience. Am I exaggerating the difference here? Invited by CH Precision to once again demonstrate the impact of curves on record replay at the Munich Show, this was the disc I chose to demonstrate the musical importance of the Philips curve. Even under show conditions, this transformation was smack you in the face obvious. Listen to this – as many did in Munich – and the ‘can’t hear, won’t hear’ brigade start to look increasingly ridiculous.
The elusive ‘Neumann Pole’…
But the P10 hasn’t finished with its record optimisation just yet. The ability to switch in the ‘Neumann Pole’ on any curve – and to do so remotely, from the listening seat – is an added bonus. Not every disc will benefit, but then it’s easy to hear which ones do. One particularly clear example was the 1975 DGG recording of Daniel Barenboim and the English Chamber orchestra accompanying Pinchas Zuckerman in RVW’s Lark Ascending (DGG 2530-906). The lilting fragility of the solo part plays perfectly to Zuckerman’s strengths, with his fine-ness of line and bow control. It’s a beautiful recording and performance, but engaging the ‘Neumann Pole’ brought air, focus and a sweet substance to the violin, greater dimensionality, a deeper sound stage and more convincing string tone from the orchestra. It didn’t make or break the listening experience, but it certainly enhanced it, with an added sense of immediacy, presence and vitality that breathed life into the performance. Is this vital to record replay (in the way that curves can be)? No. Is it nice to have? Most definitely – especially when it is as easy as this to apply.
Good – better – better – best…
It’s easy to see the performance progression from P1 to four-box P10 in terms of a simple, linear continuum, but that really isn’t the case. Each step of the way brings new and previously unexpected musical benefits, not just opening the window wider and delivering more detail, but bringing greater clarity and organisation to the picture, a significantly more natural sense of human agency – especially in the case of the P10. If you really want to talk in linear terms, then best do so by considering musical access and distance, rather than sonic minutiae: how much the system tells you about what is being played, who is playing and why they’re bothering – and how close it brings you to that original event. But along the way, let’s not forget just how good the P1 is. The advent of the P10 might show us what’s possible, but for many of us, the already expensive P1 is as much as we could or would pay for a phono-stage. It’s easy to get blasé about price and $31,000 (before you add the optional X1 power supply) is a chunk of anybody’s change. The P1 isn’t going anywhere and, despite the arrival of the P10, I expect it to retain its core position and importance in the CH range – or even, possibly, extend it. It will still be the benchmark phono-stage and the CH product that most often finds its way into non-CH systems.
