Well, @RebelMan 's post hs certainly livened things up a bit, maybe that was the idea?
I would like to point out a logical issue I have with Rebelman's arguments though. Take the 3P's, propaganda, perception, and placebo. I could add to these, expectation bias, confirmation bias, and so on. All of these issues are real and we should ignore them at our peril, so here I think we agree.
So the 3P's and other phenomena can easily explain why people claim to hear differences where there are none. OK - This I accept.
However, if someone claims to hear clear differences between two amplifiers, say a Devialet 200 and a Devialet 800, there could be two reasons for this. Reason 1, the influence of the 3P's, it sounds the same but some kind of expectation bias is making the listener think there are differences when in fact there are none. Reason 2 is that they do actually sound different, and the listener is correctly perceiving that the D800 is better. The point here is that just because factors such as the 3P's exist, it is not proof that someone has only imagined a difference, it remains a possibility that the listeners has actually heard a real difference.
With respect to the above, @Jean-Marie has a point with respect to ABX testing. Although this is a controversial area too, but despite this, I would love to see more double-blind and ABX tests taking place. I'd love to see dealers do it (trustworthy dealers that is), I'd love to see magazine reviewers do it, rather than just give "Editors Choice" awards to any product for whom the manufacturer places adverts in their magazine. (I have actually attended some quick blind tests at Oxford Audio between music servers, quite fascinating as it happens)
OK - I will now repeat now my subjective experience of listening to a D170 versus a D240 Expert with the KEF Blade - The D250 was substantially better. In fact, the difference was so stark that I believe that for some reason the D170 was not driving the Blades properly, the main issue being a complete collapse with the bass definition. Do you believe me? I am just a bloke on a forum, I could be making it up. Maybe I just thought the D250 was better because it was more expensive? So you could read this and shout "rubbish", they sound the same, you week fool, you have been struck by the 3P's. Maybe. Of course, I have the advantage that I was there, so I am clear in my own mind what I experienced, but for your lot, how do you know? I could say in my defense that I wanted to try the D170 because it was cheaper, and I thought that the drop in 70watts would make no difference, my expectation bias was that they would sound the same. But you could come back and say that the 3P's had struck me subconsciously. The truth is, nobody can prove this, and I mean 100% prove this either way.
An example of this is something I mentioned earlier. I could listen to a track on my iPad, then listen to the same track using a 1000Pro and KEF Blades. I could do this blind in controlled ABX conditions, and get 10 out of 10 right. I am sure most people could do this. I have never tried it though so I might be subject to the 3P's? I would hope that we can all agree that most of us could pass such a test.
This is a topic that fascinates me as it happens because there is plenty of evidence in the world that human hearing is incredibly capable of picking up the tiniest of details. The problem is that at this level, we are also in the range that the human ear/brain combination can be tricked. So when listening to small changes, say two different music servers in a digital system, you could well be hearing differences, but not sure yourself if you are being tricked by expectation bias.
So in my view, none of this is relevant to if a D200 sounds different to a D120, or whatever. It does offer an explanation as to why two identical sounding items might be perceived as different, but it does not disprove that the difference was perceived because it was actually real.
So this leaves us with the technical side of things. Are there technical reasons why different Devialet models could sound better as you move up the range. I have seen many technical reasons why this is the case. The differences in the power supplier, how this affects transient power, and now differences in the Pro ADH, together with further power supply enhancements. I have listened to Mathieu Pernot explaining at great length why power, and in particular transient power capability is very important to sound quality. OK - You could argue that Mathieu is just saying this to help sell the more expensive products, but I have spent many hours talking to him in the past, and he comes across to me as an Engineer, who is happier when he is talking technically to other Engineers. He has zero time for the marketing hype and audiophile snake oil.
As a final point, I would say that stating that something is a fact just by stating it is a fact and putting words in capital letters does not actually make something a fact. Neither does it necessarily make it wrong either. What is actually needed is sound technical arguments. One thing I have found in audio, is that sound technical arguments are hard to come by, they are often incomplete, but that does not stop me looking. I also know that there are some things I have believed to be facts, that I have later learned to be wrong because I did not know all the factors involved. For this reason, I am happy to say that there is a lot I do not know, but I am happy to learn for a collaborative community, not just here but in places like Computer Audiophile. CA is an interesting place actually, it has it's fair share of people that look like they might be influenced by the 3P's, but it also has some of the most technically capable people I have ever experienced in the subject of audio reproduction. It is good to liaise with these people, listen and learn. Audio is a far more complex topic than most people realise. If you think you know it all, then you are almost certainly wrong because you have stopped looking and listening. Keep an open mind I would say, and yes, beware of the 3P's.
I would like to point out a logical issue I have with Rebelman's arguments though. Take the 3P's, propaganda, perception, and placebo. I could add to these, expectation bias, confirmation bias, and so on. All of these issues are real and we should ignore them at our peril, so here I think we agree.
So the 3P's and other phenomena can easily explain why people claim to hear differences where there are none. OK - This I accept.
However, if someone claims to hear clear differences between two amplifiers, say a Devialet 200 and a Devialet 800, there could be two reasons for this. Reason 1, the influence of the 3P's, it sounds the same but some kind of expectation bias is making the listener think there are differences when in fact there are none. Reason 2 is that they do actually sound different, and the listener is correctly perceiving that the D800 is better. The point here is that just because factors such as the 3P's exist, it is not proof that someone has only imagined a difference, it remains a possibility that the listeners has actually heard a real difference.
With respect to the above, @Jean-Marie has a point with respect to ABX testing. Although this is a controversial area too, but despite this, I would love to see more double-blind and ABX tests taking place. I'd love to see dealers do it (trustworthy dealers that is), I'd love to see magazine reviewers do it, rather than just give "Editors Choice" awards to any product for whom the manufacturer places adverts in their magazine. (I have actually attended some quick blind tests at Oxford Audio between music servers, quite fascinating as it happens)
OK - I will now repeat now my subjective experience of listening to a D170 versus a D240 Expert with the KEF Blade - The D250 was substantially better. In fact, the difference was so stark that I believe that for some reason the D170 was not driving the Blades properly, the main issue being a complete collapse with the bass definition. Do you believe me? I am just a bloke on a forum, I could be making it up. Maybe I just thought the D250 was better because it was more expensive? So you could read this and shout "rubbish", they sound the same, you week fool, you have been struck by the 3P's. Maybe. Of course, I have the advantage that I was there, so I am clear in my own mind what I experienced, but for your lot, how do you know? I could say in my defense that I wanted to try the D170 because it was cheaper, and I thought that the drop in 70watts would make no difference, my expectation bias was that they would sound the same. But you could come back and say that the 3P's had struck me subconsciously. The truth is, nobody can prove this, and I mean 100% prove this either way.
An example of this is something I mentioned earlier. I could listen to a track on my iPad, then listen to the same track using a 1000Pro and KEF Blades. I could do this blind in controlled ABX conditions, and get 10 out of 10 right. I am sure most people could do this. I have never tried it though so I might be subject to the 3P's? I would hope that we can all agree that most of us could pass such a test.
This is a topic that fascinates me as it happens because there is plenty of evidence in the world that human hearing is incredibly capable of picking up the tiniest of details. The problem is that at this level, we are also in the range that the human ear/brain combination can be tricked. So when listening to small changes, say two different music servers in a digital system, you could well be hearing differences, but not sure yourself if you are being tricked by expectation bias.
So in my view, none of this is relevant to if a D200 sounds different to a D120, or whatever. It does offer an explanation as to why two identical sounding items might be perceived as different, but it does not disprove that the difference was perceived because it was actually real.
So this leaves us with the technical side of things. Are there technical reasons why different Devialet models could sound better as you move up the range. I have seen many technical reasons why this is the case. The differences in the power supplier, how this affects transient power, and now differences in the Pro ADH, together with further power supply enhancements. I have listened to Mathieu Pernot explaining at great length why power, and in particular transient power capability is very important to sound quality. OK - You could argue that Mathieu is just saying this to help sell the more expensive products, but I have spent many hours talking to him in the past, and he comes across to me as an Engineer, who is happier when he is talking technically to other Engineers. He has zero time for the marketing hype and audiophile snake oil.
As a final point, I would say that stating that something is a fact just by stating it is a fact and putting words in capital letters does not actually make something a fact. Neither does it necessarily make it wrong either. What is actually needed is sound technical arguments. One thing I have found in audio, is that sound technical arguments are hard to come by, they are often incomplete, but that does not stop me looking. I also know that there are some things I have believed to be facts, that I have later learned to be wrong because I did not know all the factors involved. For this reason, I am happy to say that there is a lot I do not know, but I am happy to learn for a collaborative community, not just here but in places like Computer Audiophile. CA is an interesting place actually, it has it's fair share of people that look like they might be influenced by the 3P's, but it also has some of the most technically capable people I have ever experienced in the subject of audio reproduction. It is good to liaise with these people, listen and learn. Audio is a far more complex topic than most people realise. If you think you know it all, then you are almost certainly wrong because you have stopped looking and listening. Keep an open mind I would say, and yes, beware of the 3P's.
1000 Pro - KEF Blade - iFi Zen Stream - Mutec REF10 - MC3+USB - Pro-Ject Signature 12
