Stereo vs dual mono (250/800, 200/400)

[Mikeeo]

Hi,

I am still waiting, I think, for my slave to burn in as I am waiting for that homogenous sound picture I had with the 200. Now to the point: Yesterday I disconnected the system and configured the master into a 200 again, just to listen. Wow, the homogenous soundscape is back! It is now clear, to me and wife, that there is something with the slave/400 that doesn't give this feeling. With the 400 we always feel there is 'unbalance' ie one channel (master) is more open and liquid in presentation and the slave section a bit restrained. I am not talking about balance as this is spot on in 0,0 dB but more that the slave sound less open or even like another amp.
However it is clear that the 400 is more dynamic, detailed, clean etc specially the top freq.

I really do not how to describe this but the word is perhaps inhomogeneous (400 set-up).

I do not have 500 hours yet on the slave as this was the time it took for the 200 to bed in, if that is now the reason.

I will give the 200 slave some more time and also test another digi cable between the units.

Anyone else sharing my experience?

/Mike

Hi

This might seem like a really silly question but are you sure your units are configured to play in stereo mode?

When configuring the units to dual mono the configurator automatically defaults the speakers configuration to mono mix - see attached image. Equally make sure that the correct unit points at the correct speaker...

Might be teaching you to suck eggs but I made this mistake myself once!

Guillaume

Guillaume,

I now sucked some eggs but my ? remains! Kindly tell me what setting is correct in terms of setting the 'Mix' should it be 'mono' or 'left' and 'right, respectively? My master and companion had L and R as default and not mono but did you 800 guys have Mono?

Confused!

Until a fully moved to the new home I only use my 200 companion as full amplifier (master i sound at sleep waiting for the move )

/Mike