Sound differences between Devialet 200 and Devialet 250

[f1eng]

Are you saying that you connect the Linn DAC to the line input of your D250? You do realise that the signal is then going through the D250 ADC and DAC on its way to the speakers? There is no way to bypass the internal DAC of the Devialet design. You can connect a digital source and avoid the ADC, but if you use an analog signal (phono or line inputs) the signal will be digitised for processing in DSP.

I told him twice already, he just doesn't get it and keeps stating the Linn DAC is better.

He's actually giving a compliment to Devialet's DAC (and ADC) as this is transparant enough to keep the Linn's character intact.

I do find this fascinating though. I have also experimented with different DACs with the Devialet and in one particular instance felt that the SQ was better than the Devialet DAC alone. I know it's totally counter-intuitive and makes little sense. I also know I am not the only one to have experienced this by the way (and I'm not just talking about Stigmater!).

Could it be these other DACs are doing something better which the Devialet's ADC process then captures?  

I know many on here will think that the other DACs are just adding colourations/euphonics, but what if the end result is equally transparent and detailed but with even more spatial information for example? This was my experience I might add.


If we feed the Devialet an analogue signal is there a step/process that is changed/omitted when compared to a normal digital input (in my case AES)? 

Guillaume

One can not get any more transparent than transparent!

A friend who is a consulting engineer and designs a lot of kit for several well known brands has done quite a few experiments to investigate the audible effects of adding various colourations. The actual audible impression is by no means always what one might expect.
It was kicked off originally to investigate why LPs sound so nice despite being technically weak with significant colourations and distortions.

He told me that adding a bit of noise, but particularly music-correlated noise (whatever that is), gives a bigger stereo image, and the impression of more spatial detail, so does slight compression (done on LPs to keep the ambient information out of the background noise).

I am as close to 100% sure as I can be that any digital source which is preferred into the analogue input must be adding some type of colour or euphonic distortion. I can think of no other sound explanation.