Sound differences between Devialet 200 and Devialet 250

[GuillaumeB]

I really would like to hear your experience with Hi End brands that you compared to Devilaet and your insights about it. 

PS. Please advice if i should add another D250 (D800) how better my setup will become, the only thing my setup is missing now is better Bass control.
I don't know yet if i can afford another D250 but please advice anyway.

I've compared a Vitus SIA-025 with MPD-201 to my 800, at home in my own setup using the same digital source. That's £50k+ of electronics.

Overall I preferred my 800 although the Vitus rig was very impressive indeed. Where the Devialet was more transparent and crystal clear in its presentation the Vitus was slightly warmer and richer sounding, particularly in the midrange. In fact the soundstage seemed larger and more textured. At the time I had just started getting used to SAM so the Vitus seemed to be missing something in the lower registers and lacked the bottom end grip of the Devialet.

What I would say is that the Vitus was hugely musical and enjoyable, whereas the Devialet was more impressive... to use an analogy from computer games the Devialet had better graphics but the Vitus had better gameplay... 

What was interesting was that adding Stillpoints under the SIA-025 gave it a massive boost in terms of bass capabilities, we tried this literally the day that the Vitus gear left my house so I didn't get much of a chance to play with this. Anyway it just shows that some basic tweaking might have closed the gap in the areas where I thought the Vitus was deficient. 

I've heard a lot of high-end systems, sometimes using the same speakers as I have at home. Many on here will know that I am very keen on Constellation Audio. I've heard lots of their equipment and I am always hugely impressed. I may eventually arrange for a home demo of their gear, I think it would be very interesting to see how it compares to my 800 in familiar surroundings.

As to 800 v 250, I just don't think there's much comparison. The 800 is off the chart, performance-wise. It's not twice as good as the 250 but it's a hell of a jump. 

Guillaume

[f1eng]

Well I know my view is not held by quite a few members of the audiophile community, but as an amateur recordist of live music for the last 50+ years with tape recorders from old valve mono ones, via a Revox B77, Nakamich CR7E, Stelladat to modern ADC/DACs by Metric Halo it is my experience that all the analogue methods add some colouration - tape saturation sounds quite pleasant if not overdone, for example - whereas the digital ones I have used add little or none, certainly I am not able to discern any difference between the microphone feed and the ADC/DAC of my Metric Halo recorder on the sort of things I used to record.

So, based on this experience I am quite sure of two things, firstly I have never heard a transparent analogue system and I do not believe such a thing exists, the colourations can be greater or smaller but except for speed fluctuations pretty well always euphonic. Secondly a properly engineered ADC/DAC has minimal colourations and, in fact, I have never heard a difference of any consequence between the input and output of any of the digital recording systems I have used, and recent ones are completely transparent IME.

People who really like the added colourations of analogue systems and have got used to them are not going to like something audibly transparent. One of the most popular plug-ins in the Metric Halo toolbox is an analogue tape saturation emulator, for example...

Further to this, and relevant in that music is sound data, I have been recording and analysing engineering data since 1971. The first data recorders I used were all analogue, huge, heavy but fairly accurate in a lab environment as long as they were re-calibrated daily. I used them on vibration measurements on large gearboxes, then record players. When I went into Formula 1 motor racing in 1976 very little measurement had ever been done. I did some experiments but nothing as big as the Ampex recorder I used for vibration measurement would fit. We made our own small unit, but the limited number of channels and harsh environment meant the results were of limited use.
Then a way of recording data digitally became available, made by an ex-NASA engineer who branched out on his own in around 1981 and very expensive (1 megabyte of RAM cost £1000 in 1986, making my iPhone worth £128,000,000 at 1980s prices...) and was very slow but reliable and accurate.
It is all fairly straightforward and relatively inexpensive today but the fact is that none of the analogue methods were robust or accurate enough for recording data on a Formula 1 car, whereas the digital systems are, when properly engineered.

[AaronG]

What is the difference between the 200 and the 250 other than watts and that the former bridged becomes the 400 and the latter the 800?

[f1eng]

The casing/heatsinking and hence the tolerance of more difficult speaker loads.
My guess would be that on easy to drive speakers at modest levels the difference would be minimal, but on difficult loads at realistic volume the difference was marked between one and two D-Premiers, for example IME.

[Confused]

A couple of years ago, I did a straight back to back audition with what was then the D170 vs the D240. This was with KEF Blade speakers. The difference was night and day. The D240 sounded splendid and worked well with the speakers, the D170 was very poor, in particular with respect to the bass performance. With the D240 the bass was extended, accurate and very controlled. With the D170, the bass performance just was not there, very muddy by comparison. I think the issue here may be with the Blades having 4 x 9" drivers per side, and these drivers are fitted with voice coils normally sized for 15" drivers. So perhaps not the easiest of loads to drive.

Subsequently, I have been luck enough to hear the D200 with a number of different speakers, and the issue with the Blades I describe above was simply not apparent. So I feel that the apparent difference between the D200 and D250 is very speaker dependant. If the speakers are a nice easy load, then the D250 might not have much more to offer, with more "challenging" speakers, the D250 could offer quite a jump. Plus, in this respect I would not consider "efficient" speakers as being necessarily easy to drive. Resistance curves and peaks can do strange things to amplifiers.

[f1eng]

 Plus, in this respect I would not consider "efficient" speakers as being necessarily easy to drive.  Resistance curves and peaks can do strange things to amplifiers.

Me neither! The Goldmunds are very efficient but seem to be a punishing load. A friend's SET could barely raise a whisper from them.

[Antoine]

and regarding DAC, I found that Linn Akurate DAC is better then Devialet internal DAC and sounds more analog and resolving.

Are you saying that you connect the Linn DAC to the line input of your D250? You do realise that the signal is then going through the D250 ADC and DAC on its way to the speakers? There is no way to bypass the internal DAC of the Devialet design. You can connect a digital source and avoid the ADC, but if you use an analog signal (phono or line inputs) the signal will be digitised for processing in DSP.

I told him twice already, he just doesn't get it and keeps stating the Linn DAC is better.

He's actually giving a compliment to Devialet's DAC (and ADC) as this is transparant enough to keep the Linn's character intact.

[GuillaumeB]

and regarding DAC, I found that Linn Akurate DAC is better then Devialet internal DAC and sounds more analog and resolving.

Are you saying that you connect the Linn DAC to the line input of your D250? You do realise that the signal is then going through the D250 ADC and DAC on its way to the speakers? There is no way to bypass the internal DAC of the Devialet design. You can connect a digital source and avoid the ADC, but if you use an analog signal (phono or line inputs) the signal will be digitised for processing in DSP.

I told him twice already, he just doesn't get it and keeps stating the Linn DAC is better.

He's actually giving a compliment to Devialet's DAC (and ADC) as this is transparant enough to keep the Linn's character intact.

I do find this fascinating though. I have also experimented with different DACs with the Devialet and in one particular instance felt that the SQ was better than the Devialet DAC alone. I know it's totally counter-intuitive and makes little sense. I also know I am not the only one to have experienced this by the way (and I'm not just talking about Stigmater!).

Could it be these other DACs are doing something better which the Devialet's ADC process then captures?  

I know many on here will think that the other DACs are just adding colourations/euphonics, but what if the end result is equally transparent and detailed but with even more spatial information for example? This was my experience I might add.


If we feed the Devialet an analogue signal is there a step/process that is changed/omitted when compared to a normal digital input (in my case AES)? 

Guillaume

[Antoine]

Just to be clear I'm not denying there can't be a difference or that one could or should not like the result from connecting an external DAC.

The only thing I'm saying is that the conclusion that the external DAC must be better is wrong. If anything can be concluded it's that the Devialet's DAC and ADC is transparant enough to let the character of the connected device through. Since the Devialet's internal DAC is in the chain it is always judged. If it wasn't as good the externally connected DAC would also not sound better.

But then why can the externally connected DAC or streamer with integrated DAC sound better? I'm not sure, and I know I'm not being helpful here, but it must be because of something that's been added or subtracted in the D/A process or output drive section of that device or the input section of the Devialet.

In the case of a streamer/music server with built-in DAC also the quality of the digital transport part into the DAC part matters greatly. The digital signal into the DAC circuitry of a Linn DS for example is not identical (electrically and protocol wise, because probably I2S over a very short path) to the digital signal offered on the digital output (it's been converted to S/PDIF, AES/EBU, ... first). So here Stigmater is also comparing the transport quality of the Linn to whatever else he digitally put into the Devialet (AIR?/USB?)

All inputs on the Devialet tie in to the DSP which is the central hub of the Devialet. Analog inputs are converted to 24/96 or 24/192 first. But these different signals do of course initially follow different paths electrically and functionally seen. Natively digital input signals like AIR or USB follow a different path than the analog input signals and even the AES and S/PDIF inputs. The first enter from the Duet card inside the Devialet and are possibly converted by (A)SRC's or processed differently. The latter inputs are on the mainboard and could follow shorter paths with less conversion/processing. I say could because I'm not entirely sure, we'd need a system diagram/flow chart of the Devialet internals to see what happens exactly with all the different inputs.

[JeanF]

Hi and welcome, I can share my little experience,
Not long ago I upgraded my D200 to D250 and that's after trying D200 in monoblocks (D400).
I liked D250 much better even though according to specs D400 should be superior.
D250 will give you better control of the speaker, more air and dynamics.
Most important thing D250 brought to my system is very sweet sound , with D200 I started to regret that I purchased my d800 diamonds,  mostly because those diamond tweeters that were bright and harsh.
Now after upgrade im in heaven, highs are so sweet that I'm enjoying of so much more music , things that before I couldn't listen because of unpleasant and bright sound, I of course blamed it on record quality and my speakers.
I have to be honest and I'll say that D250 was not my only upgrade , I did upgrade DAC and speaker cables ,I chose Stealth audio Reverie which I really liked after my Neotech Sahara (as my dealer said: someone's entire level is other flagship )  and regarding DAC, I found that Linn Akurate DAC is better then Devialet internal DAC and sounds more analog and resolving.
I can share even more, couple of days ago I tried Luxman 700 pre and power (10000$ x2) in my setup , and I liked  Devialet more.

Thanks for your extensive reply Stigmater.

The experienced differences between D200 vs D250 as described by you are equal to what I have heard from my dealer.
His opinion is that the D250 is even better than a D400 when it comes to a more resolving and less grained sound, better resolution and separating of voices and instruments, and even a tighter and more powerfull bass.
The advantage of more power can be the icing on the cake when it comes to speakers which are less sensitive and have a low efficiency.
But honestly, I was not expecting such a good performance of the demo D200 on my Kharma,s. If the D250 will impress me with significant better performance it must be the right amp for me.
Time for an audition at home I guess