Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Audio Science Review of Expert 200.
(14-May-2020, 20:44)David A Wrote: I don't think it's usual to get any comments about a repair but I wish it was.

This was an unusual situation. Their lack of comment indicates that they are afraid of the answers becoming public.
Bad form from Devialet
Reply
Taking a look at ASR, I notice that they have actually performed the basic "dashboard" check of the repaired D200. Interestingly, it does measure rather differently. The FFT curve is somewhat flatter, with a drop of roughly 10dB at the lowest frequencies for the latest unit. THD+N is a little lower, and the related SINAD a little higher. (THD+N drops from 0.00246% to 0.001835% and SINAD increases from 92.157 to 94.725 if you take the channel 1 numbers)

Nothing spectacular, although the FFT curve does look a lot nicer with the new unit, however, combined with the fact that Devialet have not advised what might have been wrong with the old unit, or what has been replaced or repaired with the new, it begs more questions than it answers.

Some of the recent posts on ASR rather good humoured too!
1000 Pro - KEF Blade - SOtM sMS-200Ultra Neo - tX-USBultra - Mutec REF10 - MC3+USB - Pro-Ject Signature 12
Reply
So they got no Pro Model back for testing?
Reply
(15-May-2020, 13:51)markush Wrote: So they got no Pro Model back for testing?

What do you mean ?
Reply
Is it a D200 no 220 Pro?
Reply
@markush - on the first page of this thread there is a link to the ASR review.  If you read the last page (page 37) of the ASR thread you will know as much as anyone does here.

With reference to my post #142, the FFT curve does look a lot better for the "repaired" unit.  This does make me wonder, I guess it is just possible that Devialet returned the amp as a 220 Pro, and Amir did not notice this when he set the amp up to do the dashboard check.  Unlikely perhaps, but not entirely impossible.  To be honest, it does not look like ASR intend to test the returned amp anyway, so it is a rather academic point.

Here are the FFT curves for anyone's easy reference, with the "old" amp FFT first, the new / repaired amp FFT second:

       


As can be seen, whatever Devialet sent back, it is performing a little better than the original D200 that was reviewed.  So could this be because it is now a Pro?  Not impossible I guess.

One thought occurred to me.  Following the Pro upgrade scheme Devialet probably have a very large supply of old Expert boards in storage somewhere.  I have this image in my head of the broken ASR reviewed D200 arriving in France, and a Devialet tech removes all the electronics, goes to a big skip at the back of the building, finds the innards of on old D200, brushes of the dust and mould, sticks it in the case and sends it back.

Of course, the easiest way to work out what was returned is for whoever has the amp now to power it up, and read the display.
1000 Pro - KEF Blade - SOtM sMS-200Ultra Neo - tX-USBultra - Mutec REF10 - MC3+USB - Pro-Ject Signature 12
Reply
Slightly confusingly though the plot done by Amir after the unit was repaired (https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum...ost-399323) looks to be on the optical input as opposed to the USB input show (left graph on @Confused 's post above. Ideally though, there shouldn't be a lot of difference between the two inputs. I guess that does show the optical input isn't too shabby though.
Nord One SE NC500, Mytek Brooklyn, Melco N1A, Rega RP6/Exact, Raidho C-1.1, Shunyata Denali and cables.
Reply
(16-May-2020, 09:06)Rufus McDufus Wrote: Slightly confusingly though the plot done by Amir after the unit was repaired (https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum...ost-399323) looks to be on the optical input as opposed to the USB input show (left graph on @Confused 's post above. Ideally though, there shouldn't be a lot of difference between the two inputs.  I guess that does show the optical input isn't too shabby though.

Good spot Rufus!  Checking back at ASR, I see that you are absolutely right.  So, this gives us a comparison of two different inputs, with a degree of doubt as to if the amp tested via USB was working correctly.  Difficult to reach a definitive conclusion from that!  Interesting though, maybe the optical input does actually have lower noise versus the USB input? No reason why not.

Maybe Amir is confused?  Now there is a disturbing thought. Sad
1000 Pro - KEF Blade - SOtM sMS-200Ultra Neo - tX-USBultra - Mutec REF10 - MC3+USB - Pro-Ject Signature 12
Reply
Wasn't the original test (FFT) done using the analog input? That would probably explain the slightly higher noise floor.
Roon (Mac Mini), Wilson Benesch Full Circle, Expert 1000 Pro CI, Kaiser Chiara
Warwickshire, UK
Reply
thumb5 Wrote:Wasn't the original test (FFT) done using the analog input?  That would probably explain the slightly higher noise floor.

No, but that might be confusion caused by myself in earlier posts.  The very first dashboard / FFT is via USB, then there are S/N ratio measurements via analogue.

I picked up earlier that the per Paul Miller's measurements via S/PDIF indicated much lower noise in comparison the analogue input, but missed the point that Amir's very first test was via USB.

Interestingly, Paul Miller's measurements also show lower noise via S/PDIF in comparison to USB, which perhaps lead to my own confusion.

With the input optical basically being S/PDIF from a protocol perspective, this could very well explain the higher noise floor.
1000 Pro - KEF Blade - SOtM sMS-200Ultra Neo - tX-USBultra - Mutec REF10 - MC3+USB - Pro-Ject Signature 12
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)