Stereo vs dual mono (250/800, 200/400)

[Confused]

We have the 250 vs 400 thread, but what about the experiences of those who started with a stereo Devialet and then moved up to dual mono? I did think of starting a 250 to 800 only thread, but I suspect there may be some interesting commonality with the experience of those that have gone 200 to 400. So all dual mono upgrade experience welcome here!

Any interesting experience out there??

[Mikeeo]

Well, for me, moving from 200 to 400 was a multitude of reasons. First of all I am on the hunt for new speakers and a hot candidate is the Amati Futura which played beautifully with the 200 but perhaps missed the last control and delicacy. And also I felt that I wanted to future prove and be done with the amp side for what ever loudspeaker I'll finally chose. Another reason was that mono as such always been a way to get better music reproduction and my previous amplifier setups have been at least mono power amps. The technical specs with the lowered noise floor, one ADH etc dedicated only for one channel promised some real performance hike, which it also did.
And the 400 delivered more than I thought it would and it is hard to believe before you hear this when coming from the excellent sounding 200.
For me this served as good value for the money and something I wouldn't be without now.

/Mike

[Mikeeo]

Hi,

I am still waiting, I think, for my slave to burn in as I am waiting for that homogenous sound picture I had with the 200. Now to the point: Yesterday I disconnected the system and configured the master into a 200 again, just to listen. Wow, the homogenous soundscape is back! It is now clear, to me and wife, that there is something with the slave/400 that doesn't give this feeling. With the 400 we always feel there is 'unbalance' ie one channel (master) is more open and liquid in presentation and the slave section a bit restrained. I am not talking about balance as this is spot on in 0,0 dB but more that the slave sound less open or even like another amp.
However it is clear that the 400 is more dynamic, detailed, clean etc specially the top freq.

I really do not how to describe this but the word is perhaps inhomogeneous (400 set-up).

I do not have 500 hours yet on the slave as this was the time it took for the 200 to bed in, if that is now the reason.

I will give the 200 slave some more time and also test another digi cable between the units.

Anyone else sharing my experience?

/Mike

[Kunter]

Hi,

I am still waiting, I think, for my slave to burn in as I am waiting for that homogenous sound picture I had with the 200. Now to the point: Yesterday I disconnected the system and configured the master into a 200 again, just to listen. Wow, the homogenous soundscape is back! It is now clear, to me and wife, that there is something with the slave/400 that doesn't give this feeling. With the 400 we always feel there is 'unbalance' ie one channel (master) is more open and liquid in presentation and the slave section a bit restrained. I am not talking about balance as this is spot on in 0,0 dB but more that the slave sound less open or even like another amp.
However it is clear that the 400 is more dynamic, detailed, clean etc specially the top freq.

I really do not how to describe this but the word is perhaps inhomogeneous (400 set-up).

I do not have 500 hours yet on the slave as this was the time it took for the 200 to bed in, if that is now the reason.

I will give the 200 slave some more time and also test another digi cable between the units.

Anyone else sharing my experience?

/Mike

What is the cable you use to connect the 2 units?

[Mikeeo]

Hi,

I am still waiting, I think, for my slave to burn in as I am waiting for that homogenous sound picture I had with the 200. Now to the point: Yesterday I disconnected the system and configured the master into a 200 again, just to listen. Wow, the homogenous soundscape is back! It is now clear, to me and wife, that there is something with the slave/400 that doesn't give this feeling. With the 400 we always feel there is 'unbalance' ie one channel (master) is more open and liquid in presentation and the slave section a bit restrained. I am not talking about balance as this is spot on in 0,0 dB but more that the slave sound less open or even like another amp.
However it is clear that the 400 is more dynamic, detailed, clean etc specially the top freq.

I really do not how to describe this but the word is perhaps inhomogeneous (400 set-up).

I do not have 500 hours yet on the slave as this was the time it took for the 200 to bed in, if that is now the reason.

I will give the 200 slave some more time and also test another digi cable between the units.

Anyone else sharing my experience?

/Mike

What is the cable you use to connect the 2 units?

Its the Crystal Cable that Dev supplied. But I will diy my standard 75 ohm next week, then we'll see/hear.

/Mike

[Kunter]

Hi,

I am still waiting, I think, for my slave to burn in as I am waiting for that homogenous sound picture I had with the 200. Now to the point: Yesterday I disconnected the system and configured the master into a 200 again, just to listen. Wow, the homogenous soundscape is back! It is now clear, to me and wife, that there is something with the slave/400 that doesn't give this feeling. With the 400 we always feel there is 'unbalance' ie one channel (master) is more open and liquid in presentation and the slave section a bit restrained. I am not talking about balance as this is spot on in 0,0 dB but more that the slave sound less open or even like another amp.
However it is clear that the 400 is more dynamic, detailed, clean etc specially the top freq.

I really do not how to describe this but the word is perhaps inhomogeneous (400 set-up).

I do not have 500 hours yet on the slave as this was the time it took for the 200 to bed in, if that is now the reason.

I will give the 200 slave some more time and also test another digi cable between the units.

Anyone else sharing my experience?

/Mike

What is the cable you use to connect the 2 units?

Its the Crystal Cable that Dev supplied. But I will diy my standard 75 ohm next week, then we'll see/hear.

/Mike

Have you tried switching the master with slave? (if you are using any other source than wifi, which the companion does not have I suppose). And try to see if you still have the same amp giving you inadequate performance? if yes, blame the amp but if not, you will be very right to check your standard 75ohm cable as an alternative...

[GuillaumeB]

Hi,

I am still waiting, I think, for my slave to burn in as I am waiting for that homogenous sound picture I had with the 200. Now to the point: Yesterday I disconnected the system and configured the master into a 200 again, just to listen. Wow, the homogenous soundscape is back! It is now clear, to me and wife, that there is something with the slave/400 that doesn't give this feeling. With the 400 we always feel there is 'unbalance' ie one channel (master) is more open and liquid in presentation and the slave section a bit restrained. I am not talking about balance as this is spot on in 0,0 dB but more that the slave sound less open or even like another amp.
However it is clear that the 400 is more dynamic, detailed, clean etc specially the top freq.

I really do not how to describe this but the word is perhaps inhomogeneous (400 set-up).

I do not have 500 hours yet on the slave as this was the time it took for the 200 to bed in, if that is now the reason.

I will give the 200 slave some more time and also test another digi cable between the units.

Anyone else sharing my experience?

/Mike

Hi

This might seem like a really silly question but are you sure your units are configured to play in stereo mode?

When configuring the units to dual mono the configurator automatically defaults the speakers configuration to mono mix - see attached image. Equally make sure that the correct unit points at the correct speaker...

Might be teaching you to suck eggs but I made this mistake myself once!

Guillaume

[Mikeeo]

Hi,

I am still waiting, I think, for my slave to burn in as I am waiting for that homogenous sound picture I had with the 200. Now to the point: Yesterday I disconnected the system and configured the master into a 200 again, just to listen. Wow, the homogenous soundscape is back! It is now clear, to me and wife, that there is something with the slave/400 that doesn't give this feeling. With the 400 we always feel there is 'unbalance' ie one channel (master) is more open and liquid in presentation and the slave section a bit restrained. I am not talking about balance as this is spot on in 0,0 dB but more that the slave sound less open or even like another amp.
However it is clear that the 400 is more dynamic, detailed, clean etc specially the top freq.

I really do not how to describe this but the word is perhaps inhomogeneous (400 set-up).

I do not have 500 hours yet on the slave as this was the time it took for the 200 to bed in, if that is now the reason.

I will give the 200 slave some more time and also test another digi cable between the units.

Anyone else sharing my experience?

/Mike

What is the cable you use to connect the 2 units?

Its the Crystal Cable that Dev supplied. But I will diy my standard 75 ohm next week, then we'll see/hear.

/Mike

Have you tried switching the master with slave? (if you are using any other source than wifi, which the companion does not have I suppose). And try to see if you still have the same amp giving you inadequate performance? if yes, blame the amp but if not, you will be very right to check your standard 75ohm cable as an alternative...

I did that, meaning I switched the channel (R/L) for the companion and master. When the companion drive the other loudspeaker the effect remained.
But if you mean that I should make the companion into a master (didn't know it was possible), I did not try that.

/Mike

---

Hi,

I am still waiting, I think, for my slave to burn in as I am waiting for that homogenous sound picture I had with the 200. Now to the point: Yesterday I disconnected the system and configured the master into a 200 again, just to listen. Wow, the homogenous soundscape is back! It is now clear, to me and wife, that there is something with the slave/400 that doesn't give this feeling. With the 400 we always feel there is 'unbalance' ie one channel (master) is more open and liquid in presentation and the slave section a bit restrained. I am not talking about balance as this is spot on in 0,0 dB but more that the slave sound less open or even like another amp.
However it is clear that the 400 is more dynamic, detailed, clean etc specially the top freq.

I really do not how to describe this but the word is perhaps inhomogeneous (400 set-up).

I do not have 500 hours yet on the slave as this was the time it took for the 200 to bed in, if that is now the reason.

I will give the 200 slave some more time and also test another digi cable between the units.

Anyone else sharing my experience?

/Mike

Hi

This might seem like a really silly question but are you sure your units are configured to play in stereo mode?

When configuring the units to dual mono the configurator automatically defaults the speakers configuration to mono mix - see attached image. Equally make sure that the correct unit points at the correct speaker...

Might be teaching you to suck eggs but I made this mistake myself once!

Guillaume

Any new way to suck an egg is welcome

My units are config in left' and 'right', respectively. Is that correct or should it be 'mono', as I can't recall any default 'mono' setting!? And when should one chose 'mono' for the mix?

/Mike

[Kunter]

Mike,

I mean: make the slave "master" for a change

They may even like the role play...

If you are using anything other than wireless, it should be possible...

[Mikeeo]

Mike,

I mean: make the slave "master" for a change

They may even like the role play...

If you are using anything other than wireless, it should be possible...

Hi, as I am writing this my slave is officially a master! Yes I do not use the wifi at all as I stream from my Naim dig out into the Dev.
It is clear that the slave sounds a bit different, not tonally though. I would characterize it as a slimmer sound and slightly less 3D, more confined in the loudspeakers. Perhaps I would say it is held back and doesn't bloom as much as the master. There is also a slight less tightness to the sound. I guess I have some 300 hours on the slave. Right now I try to remember if the master 200 sounded the same before bedding in but it is hard because down the road my 170 became a 200 and that jump was very big in SQ.

/Mike