120 vs 200

[MusicLover]

At the time of my listening session I had limited time. Listened to the 120 and only very shortly to the 200. Didn't hear a great difference. It is difficult as although listening to the same speakers and cables speaker positioning and room makes the sound totally different.  Maybe I should have listened to the 200 at home also. I'm am btw very satisfied with the 120 but a small voice keeps questioning if a 200 would be the better choice (in relation to the additional €2000)

Now I have absolutely no need for the additional inputs not for a better phono stage. The specs are exactly the same besides ofcourse power. Sure it is a different DAC chip  but in essence it's the same. The different type number is because in the 200 it is dual channel and in the 120 single channel but the share the same design. My speakers are (I guess) easy to drive (Audio Physic tempo 25) and because of a hearing condition I do not go beyond -10db so do not play super loud.

With my configuration, was the 200 a better choice of marginally better?

What if a future upgrade would be the SF olympica II ?

Thanks

Hi iamwappie,

Owning a D200 and SF Olympica II I felt I may be able to help you.

If you don't need the better phono stage and AES/EBU input, the only question is, do you think you may go D400 in the future? If the answer is a rotund NO, then the D120 is the model for you, even with the SF Olympica II. They are efficient and easy to drive as SF states a min 50 watt per channel.
I have lowered the power output in the past to around 120/130 watts and, to be honest, I couldn't really hear much difference compared to my current 170 watt, and I listen to some very demanding orchestral material.

Regarding your limit, unless you have a very large listening space, to me -10db is way too loud already to enjoy anything, even when I get excited!  (subjective, I know...).

If you have any other doubt you know where we are. Just remember, at this level, this hobbie is quite a luxury, hence home demoeing.


ML