31-Jan-2022, 23:01
A wide range of interpretations of "functionally identical" are possible.
At a wide interpretation, one could say the M33 is functionally identical to the 220 Pro as it's a one-box high-quality audio solution containing an amplifier with digital elements. But of course this is not the intended meaning.
At a more moderate interpretation - "it's a Devialet product with approximately the same inputs, general design and implementation scheme, similar place in the range, and output power."
And a rather narrow interpretation - which is what I tend towards : "the function of this product is its distinctive and pleasing sound quality, which is a product of the electronics".
The further comments in the Devialet message, I would say, tend to - correctly or incorrectly - reinforce a narrow interpretation of the meaning of "functionally identical". The greater power is suggested to be of possible use with transient reproduction on difficult or complex loads. There is no suggestion of more general or widespread improvements.
Then we appear to have run out of sonic differences to mention, and move swiftly on to the visual aspects, and finally heat dissipation.
It is quite true that it is not stated definitively, in this message, that the electronics are identical, but it does seem to me to be implied by omission. As we're all long aware, Devialet are well known for loudly proclaiming their design advances, patents, and achievements - with some justification! So it would seem somewhat out-of-character to omit to mention electronic improvements between the 220 Pro and the 250 Pro, if there were any. Unless, as is suggested, and as is not unusual, one hand of the company doesn't know what the other hand is up to.
At a wide interpretation, one could say the M33 is functionally identical to the 220 Pro as it's a one-box high-quality audio solution containing an amplifier with digital elements. But of course this is not the intended meaning.
At a more moderate interpretation - "it's a Devialet product with approximately the same inputs, general design and implementation scheme, similar place in the range, and output power."
And a rather narrow interpretation - which is what I tend towards : "the function of this product is its distinctive and pleasing sound quality, which is a product of the electronics".
The further comments in the Devialet message, I would say, tend to - correctly or incorrectly - reinforce a narrow interpretation of the meaning of "functionally identical". The greater power is suggested to be of possible use with transient reproduction on difficult or complex loads. There is no suggestion of more general or widespread improvements.
Then we appear to have run out of sonic differences to mention, and move swiftly on to the visual aspects, and finally heat dissipation.
It is quite true that it is not stated definitively, in this message, that the electronics are identical, but it does seem to me to be implied by omission. As we're all long aware, Devialet are well known for loudly proclaiming their design advances, patents, and achievements - with some justification! So it would seem somewhat out-of-character to omit to mention electronic improvements between the 220 Pro and the 250 Pro, if there were any. Unless, as is suggested, and as is not unusual, one hand of the company doesn't know what the other hand is up to.
1000 Pro / Magico A5 / REL Studio III
