Why Wadia?

caesar

Well-Known Member
May 30, 2010
4,290
767
1,698
There a many good digital companies out there. Why should one choose Wadia? How does their sound stand out from the pack?
 

P.C.

Well-Known Member
May 30, 2010
34
0
1,561
Vancouver, WA, USA
a couple of reason that made me choose them where 1) their pedigree.Must be one of the first , and still one of only a few solely digital specialists.
2) their built in digital volume control is possibly the best and most adjustable on the market.
 
Last edited:

JackD201

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
12,308
1,425
1,820
Manila, Philippines
Proprietary algorithms? If one of them floats your boat, it's a good reason to consider them.
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
Then there are those of us who believe that "good digital company" and "their sound stands out" are contradicting terms.

Tim
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
Then there are those of us who believe that "good digital company" and "their sound stands out" are contradicting terms.

Tim

Curious, I never noticed a good digital company advertising that "their sound does not stand out" ...
 

JackD201

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
12,308
1,425
1,820
Manila, Philippines
Then there are those of us who believe that "good digital company" and "their sound stands out" are contradicting terms.

Tim

Why is that Tim? Every DAC's got an algorithm, whether it's run via DSP or programmed into a chip.
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
Why is that Tim? Every DAC's got an algorithm, whether it's run via DSP or programmed into a chip.

Because we believe the objective is high fidelity to the recording, and nowhere is it more important than at the source, and at no time has it been more achievable than now, with mature digital. Therefore, to those of us who believe this, a DAC's sound shouldn't stand out, a DAC should have no sound at all, it should transparently convert the recording.

Tim
 

JackD201

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
12,308
1,425
1,820
Manila, Philippines
That's the thing, it is the source. How do you know which DAC is doing the right job? They are all crunching the same numbers, just differently. If one sounds different from the rest, that's not proof positive that it isn't doing its job and being "true" to the code and hence the recording. It is within the realms of possibility that one of these "different" sounding DACs might actually be the more faithful.
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
That's the thing, it is the source. How do you know which DAC is doing the right job? They are all crunching the same numbers, just differently. If one sounds different from the rest, that's not proof positive that it isn't doing its job and being "true" to the code and hence the recording. It is within the realms of possibility that one of these "different" sounding DACs might actually be the more faithful.

That is the challenge. It's a whole lot easier if you believe in comprehensive, independent measurements, and you can find them. It helps to shop pro equipment where, more often than not, the objective is accuracy, not tone. It takes a shift in approach to audiophile marketing and the audiophile press. When someone tells me that a source component is "warm," "euphonic," or "musical," I take that as a warning. When a manufacturer seems obsessive about the reduction of noise, distortion and coloration, beyond what is reasonable, below what is audible, when they use terms like imaging and noise floor instead of sound stage and micro dynamics, I take that as encouragement. When I see a tube sticking out of a DAC or I read that the product sounds "analog," I know I'm in the wrong place. Finally, you learn to hear it. If you have a reasonably neutral component in your system and you replace it (quickly switching between it and your benchmark blind), you should hear nothing additive. If it is an improvement, the window becomes a bit more transparent; the background a bit darker, the mids and trebles become more clearly defined without being either smoothed or etched. If it seems to add anything, it is probably wrong. If you can't tell them apart, everyone has done their job. That's good news.

Your mileage, of course, may vary, and I may just be hearing what I like and believing it is more accurate. I take some comfort in the fact that what I hear, as described above, seems to correlate well with the aforementioned comprehensive, independent measurements, when I can find them. Then again, that could just be my expectation bias. I do compare things blind when I can, but my listening is certainly not statistically valid and proves nothing.

Tim
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
(...) I take some comfort in the fact that what I hear, as described above, seems to correlate well with the aforementioned comprehensive, independent measurements, when I can find them. (...)
Tim

Considering DACs, I would like to know which are the "comprehensive, independent measurements," you refer. Anyone in the business will tell you that the so called "independent measurements" ( a nice name for magazine tests) are not comprehensive at all. They are just a very reduced set of measurements that will only show gross faults.

The only comprehensive measurements I know about are Miller Audio technical reviews for HFNRR - they are accessible at http://www.milleraudioresearch.com/avtech/index.html. However there is so much information that a non technical consumer probably will probably not know how to interpret it. And we know manufacturers use other measurements during development, involving listening tests, they keep secret.

Unhappily Paull Miller tested only a few digital units - however the last Krell CD 525a or the Mark Levinson No 512 show to be exemplary. But I can assure you they do not sound alike.

BTW, anyone claiming that tube sound is due to added distortions and colorations that are easily measured should look at the measurements of Audio Research recent preamplifiers - they show to be better than many solid state equivalents. Yet, the preamplifiers still have the "tube liquidity and tridimensional sound" characteristic of the brand.
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
I'll get back to you...

Tim

Sorry for the delay, had to take some kids to school. Here you go...









There were a few more that wouldn't copy and paste for some reason. All of them, with the text, can be found here:

http://theaudiocritic.com/plog/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=30&blogId=1

Tim
 
Last edited:

Orb

New Member
Sep 8, 2010
3,010
2
0
Considering DACs, I would like to know which are the "comprehensive, independent measurements," you refer. Anyone in the business will tell you that the so called "independent measurements" ( a nice name for magazine tests) are not comprehensive at all. They are just a very reduced set of measurements that will only show gross faults.

The only comprehensive measurements I know about are Miller Audio technical reviews for HFNRR - they are accessible at http://www.milleraudioresearch.com/avtech/index.html. However there is so much information that a non technical consumer probably will probably not know how to interpret it. And we know manufacturers use other measurements during development, involving listening tests, they keep secret.

Unhappily Paull Miller tested only a few digital units - however the last Krell CD 525a or the Mark Levinson No 512 show to be exemplary. But I can assure you they do not sound alike.

BTW, anyone claiming that tube sound is due to added distortions and colorations that are easily measured should look at the measurements of Audio Research recent preamplifiers - they show to be better than many solid state equivalents. Yet, the preamplifiers still have the "tube liquidity and tridimensional sound" characteristic of the brand.

Totally agree with you Microstrip and just expanding upon it in support of what you say.
You can also add in terms of digital accuracy the different filters such as the apodizing used by Meridian (and I think now Ayre), different dac such as the ring dac from dCS or that from Chord Electronics (think its a Pulse Array DAC) in the QBD76.
One area some subtly differ is that of the noise shaping-brickwall where the very high frequency can be subtly affected (say for some -0.5db at 18khz and drops to -1db at 20khz), but then it is said by some that majority of us listeners over the age of 30 would not identify that.

And agree, Paul Miller is a wealth of measurement data, great of him to publish all of the information, still I do like JAs testing in Stereophile as well even though it is nowhere near as extensive (or possibly is just not reported online).

Regarding tubes, again agree that the current SOTA have measurements equal to SS, even when it comes to power amps (such as the latest anniversery McIntosh), bad examples exist for both tubes and SS but an excellent SOTA tube design can cost substantially more - you sometimes do pay for what you get.
Anyway, I think most using tubes in a CD implement this at the output stage or power.

Looking at this debate, it is fair to say some strive for accuracy while others look for products that will provide extended listening enjoyment-preference as a priority, both are right if viewed in the correct context, but importantly both can overlap in terms of the same SOTA audio product.

One thing that makes me think a lot about accuracy.
Accuracy as currently measured and used to deem a product transparent (whether this is too limited is for other threads) can only go so far when using it for source-pre-amp audio products because speakers are far from accurate and have different characteristics so what was recorded is artificially changed anyway.
And isnt the recording an illusion and not an accurate representation of the event for many reasons?
Such as mixing the many channels in the studio down to just a stereo pair that is also played on two speakers, that also generate a false illusion of soundstage and intruments, or the use-placement-number of mics involved in the recording (different engineers will use different techniques) and this is important for real instruments and orchestras.
This possibly comes back to ambisonics and whether this would had been a better solution for studios to adopt, still an illusion but possibly more accurate.
I wonder what the reasoning was for people to go multi channel, and whether it is related to creating a more accurate sound of the event recorded, but this is way off from the OP, so maybe Tim's post and our responses should be moved.

Cheers
Orb
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
While I agree that SOTA tube designs can be transparent enough, I consider the inclusion of a tube output stage in a DAC a pretty good indicator of an intent to color the sound. If I'm wrong and the tube DAC is utterly transparent, I'm still ok with eliminating it because it will be unnecessarily expensive and fiddly (the technical term).

One thing that makes me think a lot about accuracy.
Accuracy as currently measured and used to deem a product transparent (whether this is too limited is for other threads) can only go so far when using it for source-pre-amp audio products because speakers are far from accurate and have different characteristics so what was recorded is artificially changed anyway.

And isnt the recording an illusion and not an accurate representation of the event for many reasons?
Such as mixing the many channels in the studio down to just a stereo pair that is also played on two speakers, that also generate a false illusion of soundstage and intruments, or the use-placement-number of mics involved in the recording (different engineers will use different techniques) and this is important for real instruments and orchestras.
This possibly comes back to ambisonics and whether this would had been a better solution for studios to adopt, still an illusion but possibly more accurate.
I wonder what the reasoning was for people to go multi channel, and whether it is related to creating a more accurate sound of the event recorded, but this is way off from the OP, so maybe Tim's post and our responses should be moved.

I've never understood this argument. Why should the limitations of 2-channel technology, the recording, the transducers or even the room forgive the errors that lie between them? I can't have transparent speakers, I get that. I'll choose my color there, then, and keep it as faithful to the recording as I can afford to up to that point. If further adjustments need to be made, that's what EQ is for. YMMV, of course. This is my approach; I'm not asking anyone else to follow it.

Tim
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
I'll get back to you...

Tim

Sorry for the delay, had to take some kids to school. Here you go...

(...)
Tim

Tim,

The review you refer, although a little more comprehensive than usual, just makes my point. If you compare the amount of data available in Paul Miller reviews with the one you quote you will find many missing items (for example spectral analysis versus level) .

Even the reviewer position about jitter is currently unacceptable by many people.

I quote Audiocritic " Distortion is distortion, no matter where it comes from, and the tests above cover that ground in sufficient detail. To isolate and measure jitter, one would have to remove the cover and go inside the Benchmark DAC1, because it doesn’t have a digital output (nor does it need one). The instruction manual goes into great detail about jitter, with four different graphs to prove the DAC1’s immunity to it." end of quote. I would not call referring the manufacturer graphs "an independent comprehensive measurement". And I leave to our jitter experts the burden of commenting his suggestion that just looking for figure 7. " Spectrum of a full-scale 20 kHz tone, 8 kHz to 32 kHz, one channel", you can state "And that’s all, folks" about jitter.

Disclaimer - I never listened to the Benchmark DAC and only read excellent reviews of it. I have no reasons to think that is is not an excellent unit - I am just questioning the use you made of the review.
 

Orb

New Member
Sep 8, 2010
3,010
2
0
While I agree that SOTA tube designs can be transparent enough, I consider the inclusion of a tube output stage in a DAC a pretty good indicator of an intent to color the sound. If I'm wrong and the tube DAC is utterly transparent, I'm still ok with eliminating it because it will be unnecessarily expensive and fiddly (the technical term).



I've never understood this argument. Why should the limitations of 2-channel technology, the recording, the transducers or even the room forgive the errors that lie between them? I can't have transparent speakers, I get that. I'll choose my color there, then, and keep it as faithful to the recording as I can afford to up to that point. If further adjustments need to be made, that's what EQ is for. YMMV, of course. This is my approach; I'm not asking anyone else to follow it.

Tim
Not necessarily disagreeing with this Tim, just how accuracy can be used and in reality its scope, especially if one is a strong advocate of accuracy to what we hear (in comparison to live sound), which must also include and consider the recording-mastering-stereo sound process.
That aside I feel my comment in previous post matches yours to some extent.
orb said:
Looking at this debate, it is fair to say some strive for accuracy while others look for products that will provide extended listening enjoyment-preference as a priority, both are right if viewed in the correct context, but importantly both can overlap in terms of the same SOTA audio product.

Thanks
Orb
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
I quote Audiocritic " Distortion is distortion, no matter where it comes from, and the tests above cover that ground in sufficient detail. To isolate and measure jitter, one would have to remove the cover and go inside the Benchmark DAC1, because it doesn’t have a digital output (nor does it need one). The instruction manual goes into great detail about jitter, with four different graphs to prove the DAC1’s immunity to it." end of quote. I would not call referring the manufacturer graphs "an independent comprehensive measurement".

Jitter measurements of the DAC1 are available elsewhere, but I personally consider them unnecessary these days. Even Amir, who is very well-trained to hear jitter artifacts and quite experienced in dealing with them puts on reference headphones and cranks the volume up to identify them. Reasonable men can disagree, but I just don't consider jitter an issue worth worrying about much in modern digital equipment. It is only an issue when it is well below current standards or when you're listening for jitter. I don't do that. Jitter is the HM of the digital age; much ado about little. It's also expensive to measure, so I forgive the omission. What is important, IMO, to the neutrality, transparency, accuracy of a DAC and its analog output stage is, not to sound like the ghost of Ethan, noise, analog distortion measured across the spectrum instead of in isolation, channel separation (which has a profound effect on imaging), and frequency response. The Benchmark, by Aczel's measurements and all the others I've seen, is neutral by these measures, and it sounds the part.

But, and again, these are my criteria alone, I put nearly as much weight in the company/cultural stuff. Show me a manufacturer of digital audio who talks about musicality, warmth and analog-like sound instead of a very low noise floor beneath flat frequency response and low distortion across the audible spectrum, and I'll show you one I don't trust and probably won't even audition. Do I miss some good stuff that way? Probably. But if someone has designed and built a neutral component and chooses to market it as "warm," "euphonic," "analog-like..." you get the picture, well, I'd just as soon deal with someone a bit more honest and straightforward.

YMMV.

Tim
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
Not necessarily disagreeing with this Tim, just how accuracy can be used and in reality its scope, especially if one is a strong advocate of accuracy to what we hear (in comparison to live sound), which must also include and consider the recording-mastering-stereo sound process.
That aside I feel my comment in previous post matches yours to some extent.


Thanks
Orb

Orb,
F. Toole says it magisterly in his book "Sound Reproduction"

"A simple reproduction of the microphone signals cannot duplicate the experience. That is where the professional recording industry steps in."
 

Orb

New Member
Sep 8, 2010
3,010
2
0
Orb,
F. Toole says it magisterly in his book "Sound Reproduction"

"A simple reproduction of the microphone signals cannot duplicate the experience. That is where the professional recording industry steps in."
Thanks Micsrostrip,
and then there is the technique and number of mics used on top of that.
Always enjoy reading JAs posts when he mentions how he recorded X, or when he structurely comments to a certain other person and his way of recording on another forum :)

Thanks
Orb
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
That aside I feel my comment in previous post matches yours to some extent.

Originally Posted by orb
Looking at this debate, it is fair to say some strive for accuracy while others look for products that will provide extended listening enjoyment-preference as a priority, both are right if viewed in the correct context, but importantly both can overlap in terms of the same SOTA audio product.

I don't think they're mutually exclusive. A neutral system is never at odds with "extended listening enjoyment," though the recording can be. I think I just disagree with many audiophiles on the solution. They seem to think building a system with "good sound" that makes the bad recordings sound better without compromising the good ones too much is the answer. I think a system with as little sound of its own as I can manage is the answer, and I compensate for the bad recordings in a way that is reversible when the good ones come along. I just had my Mac on shuffle and a Springsteen tune from The Promise came on. Like far too much of his recent work, it was loud, compressed and bright. I quickly hit a pre-set that boosts the lower mids and cuts the upper mids a bit, dropped the volume a notch and it was quite listenable. When that beautifully recorded Bruce Cockburn tune comes up next, it won't be affected; I'll just defeat the eq.

Honestly, I don't feel the need to adjust very much of my collection. Most of it is quite listenable as is.

Tim
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
J(...) But if someone has designed and built a neutral component and chooses to market it as "warm," "euphonic," "analog-like..." you get the picture, well, I'd just as soon deal with someone a bit more honest and straightforward.

YMMV.

Tim

Happily some of the Benchmark supporters are not as strict as you.

http://www.benchmarkmedia.com/content/thomas-w-bethel

If I was not immune to testimonials of happy owners in manufacturer sites I would be really curious to listen to this DAC. :D
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing