Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Upgrade D-Prem?
#31
(02-Jul-2014, 13:09)Confused Wrote: So the extra £4k or so for the 250 is just for a slightly different case? That's one expensive box! And if all the case does is improve cooling, buy a fridge to put it in or buy a fan! The suggestion here is that the Devialet's "marketing positioning" is simply a way to get more money, via the 250, out of people who have more money.

TBH the case and power supply are usually the most expensive parts of an amp. In the Devialet the power supply is clever rather than expensive.

In terms of what actually happened your story is upside down.
The D-Premier came first as a premium product in a cast and hand finished case made in fairly small quantities. The 240 is an update of that.
The 170 and 110 came along as a cut price version using the same technology in a (much) cheaper to make case.
The heat sinking is a very expensive part of any case.
It does not surprise me at all that the 200 is a lot cheaper to make than a 240/D-Premier. It may be the case that the D-Premier was the most expensive of all Devialets to make.

So your assumption is incorrect IMHO, the first product was expensive hand made in small quantities and the subsequent models are a cheaper to make design, more mass produced.
I would not imagine that many people will buy a 250 any more at all, and the 800 will probably be mainly confined to those of us who updated a pair of D-Premiers.
The cheaper models make much more sense to new buyers requiring 400 watts or less.

If you prefer having a noisy and bulky fridge in your room (which probably wouldn't be effective anyway) help yourself Wink
Devialet Original d'Atelier 44 Core, Job Pre/225, Goldmund PH2, Goldmund Reference/T3f /Ortofon A90, Goldmund Mimesis 36+ & Chord Blu, iMac/Air, Lynx Theta, Tune Audio Anima, Goldmund Epilog 1&2, REL Studio. Dialog, Silver Phantoms, Branch stands, copper cables (mainly).
Oxfordshire

Reply
#32
+1 !!!
Reply
#33
f1eng - I wasn't actually trying to make any assumptions in my last post. My post was in fact made in the hope that it would get a reaction from someone who actually knows some facts! So anyway, it looks like that one worked, your response has clarified much in my mind - thanks! It still leaves the subject of why with some speakers (maybe those that present difficult load), the 240 (250) sounds much better than the 170 (200). Does the extra case allow optimisation in the power / ADH side of things that is not possible with the 170 (200) case? When I tried the 170, then the 240, with Kef Blades the difference was clear, well out of the subjective range. So I am sure there is some kind of difference in nominal SQ performance, even if it is limited by software optimisation rather than the electronics as such?
Reply
#34
Maybe the instantaneous current delivery mapped into the power supply can be substantially more in a 250 due to the more complex and higher mass case giving much better medium term heat sinking???
Devialet Original d'Atelier 44 Core, Job Pre/225, Goldmund PH2, Goldmund Reference/T3f /Ortofon A90, Goldmund Mimesis 36+ & Chord Blu, iMac/Air, Lynx Theta, Tune Audio Anima, Goldmund Epilog 1&2, REL Studio. Dialog, Silver Phantoms, Branch stands, copper cables (mainly).
Oxfordshire

Reply
#35
(02-Jul-2014, 17:50)Confused Wrote: f1eng - I wasn't actually trying to make any assumptions in my last post. My post was in fact made in the hope that it would get a reaction from someone who actually knows some facts! So anyway, it looks like that one worked, your response has clarified much in my mind - thanks! It still leaves the subject of why with some speakers (maybe those that present difficult load), the 240 (250) sounds much better than the 170 (200). Does the extra case allow optimisation in the power / ADH side of things that is not possible with the 170 (200) case? When I tried the 170, then the 240, with Kef Blades the difference was clear, well out of the subjective range. So I am sure there is some kind of difference in nominal SQ performance, even if it is limited by software optimisation rather than the electronics as such?

As early adapter we pay a premium. Development hast to be paid and it was always a bit expensive to be the first with a new technology. However it is hard to see how much the prices of the d-premier have already dropped .... I bought my second as brand new NOS which I have send in for an update for 4200€ -Sad
Most of the tonal differences can be probably explained by psychoacoustic phenomena . The nice shiny handmade chrome enclosure just sounds better -Smile
Bricasti M1 SE DAC -> Pass labs XP30 & XP25 phono -> Bryston B28sst2 -> Sonus Faber Amati Futura  -> JRiver MC 21 -> Synology NAS / Quboz  - Denon DP 7000 SME 5012
D1000pro -> Magico V2 -> Fanless NUC i5 (Broadwell) -> Jriver MC 21/ Bauer DPS3i / Lyra Kleos
Reply
#36
I agree with the early adopter stuff in general, it has always been so. However, the 250 / 200 are both current models, so essentially at the same stage of adoption.

With regard to my sound quality observations, I did the audition with a friend, who although is interested in music, is not into the hi fi in any way. When listening to the 170 with the Blades, I stated no opinion long after making my own mind up. My companion, without any prompting, stated something along the lines of "that's nowhere near as good". I have only done this comparison with the Blades, so other people, with other speakers, may have a very different experience. On another occasion, listening to the 240 vs the 500, I could discern a small improvement, I think better imaging and slightly less "grain", for want of a better term. Slightly less "grain" as I'm calling it is still quite impressive, as the Devialet to my ears is the most "grain free" amp /dac I have ever heard. The same companion during this audition said "I can't really tell any difference."

At the end of the day I listened to loads of kit and the 240 was the one I liked the sound of best at the price. Sound per £, and most importantly, being happy with the end result SQ wise is the bottom line. Would I have gone for a 400 if it was available at the time? I'm not sure, I've never listened to one, so I have no idea where it lies within the spectrum I have heard with the 170 to the 500.

One thing, the temptation to have the upgrade path to the 500 (or 800 as we are now), would probably swung it in favour of the 240. So I am perhaps one of the very happy 250 owners. I'm certainly very happy with my system. However, I'm still curious why two 200's = 400, whereas two 250's = 800. (or why the 250 did not grow to say a 300 if the mono 250 is 400) Many of the posts here have given me a few clues but I don't feel I have the full picture. It's interesting stuff though.
Reply
#37
(02-Jul-2014, 18:27)f1eng Wrote: Maybe the instantaneous current delivery mapped into the power supply can be substantially more in a 250 due to the more complex and higher mass case giving much better medium term heat sinking???

There is some good logic here I think, it makes sense to me and does fit with the observations of some that the 200 sounds the same as the 250. After all, if you have a speaker that does not need or demand the current, you will not notice any benefit or difference if the amplifier can deliver or not. If your speaker does need it, then the difference becomes apparent. I have always thought that there are very few absolute best / better cases with hi fi components, system matching is important.

I wonder if anyone knows the full facts here, clearly some of the guys at Devialet will, they seem to be keeping a lot of it to themselves though......

I've abandoned the fridge idea though, the big hole I've cut for all the cables is letting the cold air out and the beer's warming up.
Reply
#38
Some interesting thing, on the nz Devialet website :
"The Devialet without compromise for enthusiasts. Equipped with complete options, over-powerful, twin 250's configured as 670W mono-blocks and totally upgradable. Exclusive solid aluminium hand-polished frame."

On this site, the 800 is presented as 2 x 670W monoblocs…

http://www.devialet.co.nz/catalog/
&
http://www.devialet.co.nz/play/
Reply
#39
Ummm, probably best not to let the Kiwi's loose with too much power eh? (No offence meant to any NZ folk on here) A good spot though! This one gets more and more curious. Probably irrelevant in practical terms, I'm sure most people would set a power limit in the configurator to something similar to the speaker max power rating, but nevertheless, why the difference? 500 watts, then 800, now 670. My confused tag is looking quite appropriate.
Reply
#40
(02-Jul-2014, 22:29)darthsteph Wrote: Some interesting thing, on the nz Devialet website :
"The Devialet without compromise for enthusiasts. Equipped with complete options, over-powerful, twin 250's configured as 670W mono-blocks and totally upgradable. Exclusive solid aluminium hand-polished frame."

On this site, the 800 is presented as 2 x 670W monoblocs…

http://www.devialet.co.nz/catalog/
&
http://www.devialet.co.nz/play/

Maybe there are consumer regulations or an importer who uses 8 ohms as the standard load for power specs??
The Devialet specs are into an unusual (for the english speaking countries at least) load of 6 ohms.
Some other continental makers don't use 8ohms but the tradition here and the US, and so maybe NZ and Oz has been 8 ohms for yonks, and that is what those magazines that test kit use too.
Devialet Original d'Atelier 44 Core, Job Pre/225, Goldmund PH2, Goldmund Reference/T3f /Ortofon A90, Goldmund Mimesis 36+ & Chord Blu, iMac/Air, Lynx Theta, Tune Audio Anima, Goldmund Epilog 1&2, REL Studio. Dialog, Silver Phantoms, Branch stands, copper cables (mainly).
Oxfordshire

Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)