05-Dec-2014, 23:43
Damon,
My question was, in fact, a very specific technical question, and the opinion I asked for did concern exactly that and not about sound character and musical expression. That is, I specifically asked for his opinion regarding my hypothesis that the sound difference I heard is related to the Parasound-Pass Labs combination adding something to the signal that is not there while the Devialet does not.
I think that most Devialet owners argue that the hypothesis is indeed true, but until science can come up with some unbiased method of testing the hypothesis, it will remain a hypothesis only. In this context it is interesting to study e.g. the measurements of the Parasound Halo JC-1 monoblock and JC-2 preamplifier as a combined entity that can be found in this link to a review in Australian Hifi:
http://www.avhub.com.au/product-reviews/...c1--392666
When the JC-1s are in class A there is actually less distortion (in the COMBINED entity) of the power- and the pre-amp than what is shown in the measurement of the Devialet D-Premier in Stereophile. This result was obtained even though the Newport Test Labs, as the result of a misunderstanding, performed the test with the JC-2 sitting directly on top of the JC-1, which is to say the least less than optimal. An almost identical measurement was obtained when the test lab measured the much cheaper combination Parasound Halo A21 power amplifier and P3 pre-amplifier (costs around one third of a Devialet 200).
Hence, I am still very interested in this technical question. While I lean towards the answer that the Devialet is more true to the input signal than most other combinations, I am far from certain that it bests all other similarly priced equipment. See for example my link to the test of the Parasound gear. Or, I guess (I have never heard it), Bruno Putzey Mola Mola gear....
Kari
My question was, in fact, a very specific technical question, and the opinion I asked for did concern exactly that and not about sound character and musical expression. That is, I specifically asked for his opinion regarding my hypothesis that the sound difference I heard is related to the Parasound-Pass Labs combination adding something to the signal that is not there while the Devialet does not.
I think that most Devialet owners argue that the hypothesis is indeed true, but until science can come up with some unbiased method of testing the hypothesis, it will remain a hypothesis only. In this context it is interesting to study e.g. the measurements of the Parasound Halo JC-1 monoblock and JC-2 preamplifier as a combined entity that can be found in this link to a review in Australian Hifi:
http://www.avhub.com.au/product-reviews/...c1--392666
When the JC-1s are in class A there is actually less distortion (in the COMBINED entity) of the power- and the pre-amp than what is shown in the measurement of the Devialet D-Premier in Stereophile. This result was obtained even though the Newport Test Labs, as the result of a misunderstanding, performed the test with the JC-2 sitting directly on top of the JC-1, which is to say the least less than optimal. An almost identical measurement was obtained when the test lab measured the much cheaper combination Parasound Halo A21 power amplifier and P3 pre-amplifier (costs around one third of a Devialet 200).
Hence, I am still very interested in this technical question. While I lean towards the answer that the Devialet is more true to the input signal than most other combinations, I am far from certain that it bests all other similarly priced equipment. See for example my link to the test of the Parasound gear. Or, I guess (I have never heard it), Bruno Putzey Mola Mola gear....
Kari
