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

[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