Devialet Chat

(12-Aug-2015, 07:14)thumb5 Wrote: [ -> ]I bet Devialet were surprised to be asked about it - I'd naturally assumed that the outputs from master and companion would be in sync.  Why shouldn't they be?

Yes one would, however historically nothing can be taken for granted with Devialet. Devialet is very proud of their technology/product and with all rights, but I also sense some it-is-all-perfect hybris and for that I never take anything for granted.

My 5 c/M

Yes, I can quite understand your position too

(12-Aug-2015, 07:14)thumb5 Wrote: [ -> ]I bet Devialet were surprised to be asked about it - I'd naturally assumed that the outputs from master and companion would be in sync.  Why shouldn't they be?

Me to and also don't understand why you would need to be told, with electricity travelling at a substantial proportion of the speed of light then unless your link cable goes out to new horizons and back you should not see any delay

If there is a problem it's not the cable propagation delay but the delay due to digital processing (in the internal DSP's, FPGA's etc.) this is a well known 'issue' that everyone who has ever owned a surround processor/AV receiver knows about and knows how to correct (lipsync correction).

I almost can't imagine Devialet has not compensated for this type of delay but then I'm not an owner of a dual mono setup so don't know for sure.

(12-Aug-2015, 12:08)Antoine Wrote: [ -> ]If there is a problem it's not the cable propagation delay but the delay due to digital processing (in the internal DSP's, FPGA's etc.) this is a well known 'issue' that everyone who has ever owned a surround processor/AV receiver knows about and knows how to correct (lipsync correction).  

I almost can't imagine Devialet has not compensated for this type of delay but then I'm not an owner of a dual mono setup so don't know for sure.

Surely if you receive a digital signal then any processing takes place on both channels so there will only be an equal delay (if any) on left and right signals. And as any analogue signal is immediately digitised then surely all bases are covered or am I being to simplistic.

Have to say I do not notice any negative's from being dual mono but notice a huge pile of positives.

Processing on the companion can't start before the digital signal enters into it and then it of course has already been processed on the master. The master has simply had a headstart so it's output needs to be delayed.

After some googeling on the net I found this in in firmware 7.1.1

"Improve latence music between master and companion"

https://en.devialet.com/new-firmware-7-1-1/

So they have been doing something about this in the past but who knows if it is correct today, one would think that they have the correct delay in the firmware.

(12-Aug-2015, 12:38)Antoine Wrote: [ -> ]Processing on the companion can't start before the digital signal enters into it and then it of course has already been processed on the master. The master has simply had a headstart so it's output needs to be delayed.

Are we sure that there is processing in the slave and that it is not all done in the master.

Yes I believe so although they could have found smart ways to circumvent some "blocks" in this modular system. I think there's always some processing done in between the digital input and the analog speaker binding posts.

The DSP is a central part of the Devialets, it's not an analog amplifier and the DSP is the central hub to which all inputs eventually are connected. Perhaps there's some processing off loaded to the master (like perhaps SAM or other FPGA tasks) for both channels but I don't think any and all processing is (like the internal upsampling to feed the ADH stage). Of course no one except Devialet knows the details and how much latency is left to deal with.

Well if my 400 are anything to go by they have done it properly as I think my speakers are pretty revealing and everyone who comes here thinks the system sounds great (as do I)