120 vs 200

[iamwappie]

At the time of my listening session I had limited time. Listened to the 120 and only very shortly to the 200. Didn't hear a great difference. It is difficult as although listening to the same speakers and cables speaker positioning and room makes the sound totally different. Maybe I should have listened to the 200 at home also. I'm am btw very satisfied with the 120 but a small voice keeps questioning if a 200 would be the better choice (in relation to the additional €2000)

Now I have absolutely no need for the additional inputs not for a better phono stage. The specs are exactly the same besides ofcourse power. Sure it is a different DAC chip but in essence it's the same. The different type number is because in the 200 it is dual channel and in the 120 single channel but the share the same design. My speakers are (I guess) easy to drive (Audio Physic tempo 25) and because of a hearing condition I do not go beyond -10db so do not play super loud.

With my configuration, was the 200 a better choice of marginally better?

What if a future upgrade would be the SF olympica II ?

Thanks

[MusicLover]

At the time of my listening session I had limited time. Listened to the 120 and only very shortly to the 200. Didn't hear a great difference. It is difficult as although listening to the same speakers and cables speaker positioning and room makes the sound totally different.  Maybe I should have listened to the 200 at home also. I'm am btw very satisfied with the 120 but a small voice keeps questioning if a 200 would be the better choice (in relation to the additional €2000)

Now I have absolutely no need for the additional inputs not for a better phono stage. The specs are exactly the same besides ofcourse power. Sure it is a different DAC chip  but in essence it's the same. The different type number is because in the 200 it is dual channel and in the 120 single channel but the share the same design. My speakers are (I guess) easy to drive (Audio Physic tempo 25) and because of a hearing condition I do not go beyond -10db so do not play super loud.

With my configuration, was the 200 a better choice of marginally better?

What if a future upgrade would be the SF olympica II ?

Thanks

Hi iamwappie,

Owning a D200 and SF Olympica II I felt I may be able to help you.

If you don't need the better phono stage and AES/EBU input, the only question is, do you think you may go D400 in the future? If the answer is a rotund NO, then the D120 is the model for you, even with the SF Olympica II. They are efficient and easy to drive as SF states a min 50 watt per channel.
I have lowered the power output in the past to around 120/130 watts and, to be honest, I couldn't really hear much difference compared to my current 170 watt, and I listen to some very demanding orchestral material.

Regarding your limit, unless you have a very large listening space, to me -10db is way too loud already to enjoy anything, even when I get excited!  (subjective, I know...).

If you have any other doubt you know where we are. Just remember, at this level, this hobbie is quite a luxury, hence home demoeing.


ML

[Damon]

Just my thoughts on your question- second-guessing a recent purchase is unsettling. I have the D120, modest 2 way speakers that are about 86 db efficient, and I listen, sometimes, with a volume setting higher than -10. Getting beyond 0.0 is pretty hard, so I don't think I'm running out of headroom on the amp.

I really think that difference between the 120 & 200 is relevant at louder volumes and with less efficient speakers. It seems that you are not listening at head-banging sound pressure levels, and that you have fairly efficient speakers. I suspect that the extra 2K is better in your pocket than in a few extra watts.

[Jnan_devi]

D120 + KEF 203/2. sensitivity - 89dB

got cue from Damon. My room size 16'x18', I cannot go beyond -20. Mostly i m around -25 or during evenings, i m at -30.
in one stage i went upto -15 only for short period head banging stuff else never found it to be low on power.

But if you are looking for future upgrade then 200 is good is what folks on the forum suggest. for me it was also valet size being important and i dont intend (toungue check) to enhance or upgrade my speakers. even if i change i might go small speakers something like LS50 like future speakers.

[iamwappie]

Thank you for your responses and reassuring that the voice can stop whispering :-) Also good to read the 120 will also drive de SF Olympica II speakers without any problems.

[Jnan_devi]

today tried some Brahams classic (B&W Music Society download) i m not sure about the quality. i had to increase all the way to -15 to even enjoy. then i looked into the dB levels that goes to each speakers (Tone Long press, then browse until you see these), it was around -50 to -70 range ...

for experiment i tried other record by Allan Taylor, Color To The Moon, downloaded from same B&W Music Society - the dB levels were reaching beyond -30 or even -20 (orange to almost red ). The Clarity was FANTASTIC. this is one among my records that i carry as reference songs for auditioning sessions.

Currently i m listening to Ethan Johns - good recordings and i m at -25 - the levels are similar to Allan Taylor's ... above.

Looks like it all depends on the recording studios. anyways diverging.

I think its your choice on 200 Vs 120. it maybe a wrong comparison as there is extra ports, extra features, extra power, able to become mono block-able

[brit]

today tried some Brahams classic (B&W Music Society download) i m not sure about the quality. i had to increase all the way to -15 to even enjoy. then i  looked into the dB levels that goes to each speakers (Tone Long press, then browse until you see these), it was around -50 to -70 range ...

for experiment i tried other record by Allan Taylor, Color To The Moon, downloaded from same B&W Music Society - the dB levels were reaching beyond -30 or even -20 (orange to almost red ). The Clarity was FANTASTIC. this is one among my records  that i carry as reference songs for auditioning sessions.

Currently i m listening to Ethan Johns - good recordings and i m at -25 - the levels are similar to Allan Taylor's ... above.

Looks like it all depends on the recording studios. anyways diverging.

I think its your choice on 200 Vs 120. it maybe a wrong comparison as there is extra ports, extra features, extra power, able to become mono block-able

Hi,

You are not alone in having to increase the gain whilst listening to some of the B&W Music Society Classical downloads, I have the same issue. My normal listening range, with my D400, is between -32db and -24db, but for some of the B&W classical downloads I am at -18db. I assume that this issue is more as a result of the way in which the original music was recorded?

David

[Pim]

today tried some Brahams classic (B&W Music Society download) i m not sure about the quality. i had to increase all the way to -15 to even enjoy. then i  looked into the dB levels that goes to each speakers (Tone Long press, then browse until you see these), it was around -50 to -70 range ...

for experiment i tried other record by Allan Taylor, Color To The Moon, downloaded from same B&W Music Society - the dB levels were reaching beyond -30 or even -20 (orange to almost red ). The Clarity was FANTASTIC. this is one among my records  that i carry as reference songs for auditioning sessions.

Currently i m listening to Ethan Johns - good recordings and i m at -25 - the levels are similar to Allan Taylor's ... above.

Looks like it all depends on the recording studios. anyways diverging.

I think its your choice on 200 Vs 120. it maybe a wrong comparison as there is extra ports, extra features, extra power, able to become mono block-able

Hi,

You are not alone in having to increase the gain whilst listening to some of the B&W Music Society Classical downloads, I have the same issue. My normal listening range, with my D400, is between -32db and -24db, but for some of the B&W classical downloads I am at -18db. I assume that this issue is more as a result of the way in which the original music was recorded?

David

Hi Guys,

You might find that the recordings from the society are recorded better. Can you please have a look at this

http://dr.loudness-war.info

site and see if the dynamic range is good? Most modern recordings are very compressed and just sound LOUD. That the music from the society doesn't could be a good thing.

Looking forward to your findings. There's a small piece of software you can download to check dynamic range.
 

[Jnan_devi]

Interesting!... But Like i said the record i downloaded from Society "Allan Taylor, Color to the Moon" sounded very CLEAR and and the two bars went up all the way to orange to red.

Same thing happened to the album I down loaded from Ethan Johns.

When i played Brahams, i had to increase the volume to -15, just to understand whats going on ? i suddenly doubted whats wrong with D120. so switched to Color To the Moon, Private Investigation (original CD without scratch - ripped to /wav) and few track i used to see if nothing wrong with D120. Fully Satisfied then i moved on other than Brahams ...

[PhilP]

According to the loudness wars database the DR of all the Allan Taylor recordings are quite limited though its not specified what the source files are that have been measured. I couldn't see any info for Ethan Johns.

DR clearly isn't the be all and end all. Whilst I'm sure we'd all like as much DR as possible, like Jnan_devi I have recordings which sound very 'clear' and enjoyable but which apparently have limited DR.