02-Jul-2014, 21:00
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.
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.
