What SPECIFICALLY is better or different about the Wadax Design? How do these design choices manifest in better sound?

[caesar]

Does anyone understand What SPECIFICALLY is better or different about the Wadax Design?

How do these design choices manifest in better sound?

Thank you in advacne

(Let's please stay on topic as the Wadax marketing by the disgusting audio journalists is already covered in other threads.)

 

[bonzo75]

Subscribed as hottest day in the UK today so am not going anywhere and have not much to do

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Does anyone understand What SPECIFICALLY is better or different about the Wadax Design?

How do these design choices manifest in better sound?

Thank you in advance

(Let's please stay on topic as the Wadax marketing by the disgusting audio journalists is already covered in other threads.)

i think we have to separate speculation about what might be the why behind the (apparent) performance advantage of the Wadax, and actually knowing what is doing what. personally i'm no techie in any way, all i can do is to use intuition and experience and then read what Wadax writes about what is going on and then speculate how it looks to me.

unless you are involved in the design of a product and hear how each piece of the puzzle contributes to the whole, you are mostly guessing. and over time we observe that many times even the producer of a product does not exactly know what the "secret sauce" actually is......or throws out a smoke screen to throw off competitors.

all that said, i do have opinions/specualtions on the subject of "what-specifically-is-better-or-different-about-the-wadax-design-how-do-these-design-choices-manifest-in-better-sound".

---digital error correction hardware. musIC feed-forward error correction process.---when i directly compared the Wadax Ref Dac to the MSB Select II with either the Wadax server or the Extreme, the MSB Select II was exposed as having considerable non musical digital artifacts that were absent with the Wadax, and the musical experience was different and much better with the Extreme. more analog, more life like. with either server. this difference is the foundation of what is different. who can say what is really causing this difference?

----build quality. Wadax talks about the considerable efforts they made to optimize everything in their build quality and it shows.

----Roon is hard wired into the Wadax. from the get go. might Wadax have some inside Roon info? what other dacs and servers view as a compromise, Wadax embraces and optimizes. it awesome.

----the Server is equally as over-the-top in build quality. when i compared the Wadax server to the Extreme directly with both dacs using USB, the Wadax was clearly better. more not processed, quieter, more refined.

---Akasa Optical interface. whoa, double whoa. this takes things to a whole new level of realism. eliminates noise between the server and dac. when i compared the Extreme and Wadax server with the Akasa it was game over, not close. i cannot tell i'm not listening to my vinyl on better digital recordings unless i play vinyl directly.

i made all these points repeatedly in my own Wadax thread. not claiming any of this to be accepted by anyone. it's simply my connecting dots.

nothing to really argue about. but i did actually take the time and effort to directly compared to the limits of my ability the Wadax to an optimized reference in my own system. and i had other owners of my reference on hand to hear it too. one of those attendees, an MSB dealer, now owns the Wadax too. he has done this same compare in his system and had the same result.

 

[Steve Williams]

I’m curious as to what the non musical digital artifacts you heard. I have no idea to what you are referring

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I’m curious as to what the non musical digital artifacts you heard. I have no idea to what you are referring

how could you? you need a reference without them from the same recording to hear it.

take your Horizon to Sunny's and A/B it. or do what PK did. or ask Ron if he heard the differences when he joined PK for his Wadax<->dCS compare.

or ask Ed from Audio-Ultra who has an MSB Select II and Ideon Epsilon dac on hand with an Extreme to directly compare to the Wadax.

 

[Steve Williams]

Thanks for your explanation. I guess it must be privileged information. I have no idea what a non musical artifact is and you seem to be having trouble offering up a definition. Really Mike. You should re read your answer. That was probably the best non answer I’ve read here.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Thanks for your explanation. I guess it must be privileged information. I have no idea what a non musical artifact is and you seem to be having trouble offering up a definition. Really Mike. You should re read your answer. That was probably the best non answer I’ve read here.

ok, compare your vinyl to your digital. what differences do you hear?

those are the ones.

where you get information glossed over, congealing on complicated passages, edge here and there assumed part of the recording, smearing of transients, lack of fine micro-dynamics, absence of tonal density, lack of textures and timbral delicacy. i'm sure i've missed many, i did not make a list as it's easy hear when you A/B. lots of little things that add up to a higher realism.

that kind of stuff. same you hear comparing digital to vinyl.

when i had the group listening to the A/B the differences jump out. not that the MSB was bad, just not the same level. particularly that the Wadax was 'clean' lacking the digital distractions now exposed. some hard to define but none the less evident in contrast.

 

[Fred Crane]

I've had the pleasure of listening to Wadax gear on 3 occasions wherein the listening was at length for a daily venture. I was familiar with two of those systems intimately. It was the best those systems have sounded banging out digitalis. So, I have to count Wadax as one of the finest DAC's in the world. I would think, (though I try not to...) that if one was looking to purchase one of the 2 or 3 top dacs in the known market (there are a few boutique brands that I feel compete with the acknowledged 'US reviewed brand champs' very well) then you would have to audition Wadax.

That's the real enabler of this thread...the ease or lack of ease with which one can audition the very top sources in your personal system. Of course, if a dealer does that work for his or her systems, Bob's Your Uncle if you should walk in off of the street and want the ultimate.

We could pick the technical aspect of the design apart as to why it would be better. (a better mousetrap?) I understand that Javier writes his own code ad infinitum. I suppose it would only matter depending upon the fellow writing the code. . For instance, if I were to write the code, there would be a brief countdown before the DAC caught fire. I believe most, (certainly not all) DACS have off of the shelf solutions that are in the upper echelons slightly altered to create their sound.

 

[Steve Williams]

ok, compare your vinyl to your digital. what differences do you hear?

those are the ones.

where you get information glossed over, congealing on complicated passages, edge here and there assumed part of the recording, smearing of transients, lack of fine micro-dynamics, absence of tonal density, lack of textures and timbral delicacy. i'm sure i've missed many, i did not make a list as it's easy hear when you A/B. lots of little things that add up to a higher realism.

that kind of stuff. same you hear comparing digital to vinyl.

when i had the group listening to the A/B the differences jump out. not that the MSB was bad, just not the same level.

so these are things one can only know that they are present by listening to the WADAX. To me comparing digital to analog is music. so I am still at a loss as to your postulate. You stated initially that you heard it on your MSB after you compared it to the Wadax but then you implied that these non musical artifacts are present on every DAC but the WADAX or did I mis interpret what you said. What I read in your last post to me seems a comparison of musical differences. Not trying to be difficult but frankly I have never ever heard the term non musical artifacts which if one never hears a Wadax it would never occur to them that it is there. Im not knocking the Wadax at all. I am merely trying to understand

Fred's statement here makes sense to me

I believe most, (certainly not all) DACS have off of the shelf solutions that are in the upper echelons slightly altered to create their sound.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

so these are things one can only know that they are present by listening to the WADAX. To me comparing digital to analog is music. so I am still at a loss as to your postulate. You stated initially that you heard it on your MSB after you compared it to the Wadax but then you implied that these non musical artifacts are present on every DAC but the WADAX or did I mis interpret what you said. What I read in your last post to me seems a comparison of musical differences. Not trying to be difficult but frankly I have never ever heard the term non musical artifacts which if one never hears a Wadax it would never occur to them that it is there. Im not knocking the Wadax at all. I am merely trying to understand

Fred's statement here makes sense to me

here is an edit to the above post i did after you responded.

when i had the group listening to the A/B the differences jump out. not that the MSB was bad, just not the same level. particularly that the Wadax was 'clean' lacking the digital distractions now exposed. some hard to define but none the less evident in contrast.

 

[Steve Williams]

thanks Mike

 

[Carlos269]

We could pick the technical aspect of the design apart as to why it would be better. (a better mousetrap?) I understand that Javier writes his own code ad infinitum. I suppose it would only matter depending upon the fellow writing the code. . For instance, if I were to write the code, there would be a brief countdown before the DAC caught fire. I believe most, (certainly not all) DACS have off of the shelf solutions that are in the upper echelons slightly altered to create their sound.

One can only imagine what Digital Signal Processing Javier is performing on the digital signal stream in the ASIC IC. Has a sample of the Wadax been provided to Stereophile? John Atkinson’s measurements would provide some insight, in particular the sine wave reconstruction analysis. It would sure to be interesting to prove or dispel the claim that the Wadax is a “straight” digital to analog conversion or just a very expensive Digital Signal Processor.

Where is the AES White Paper with the technical details of how Javier’s /Wadax’s conversion is higher precision, provides higher resolution, or offers more accurate digital to analog conversion than commercial solutions from Asahi Kasei Microdevices (AKM), ESS Technology Sabre, Texas Instruments (TI)/Burr-Brown (BB), Crystal Semiconductors (Cirrus Logic), Analog Devices (AD), or Wolfson Microelectronics (WM)? Hey, maybe Javier and Wadax know something that these multi-billion dollar corporate giants, with extensive PHD led Research and Development teams, do not.

When you take a step back and think for a second, you realize how silly this is and how gullible audiophiles are. If it is Digital Signal Processing you are after nothing beats HQPLAYER for this application, incredibly inexpensive, with tons of options and permutations, many orders of magnitude compared to tube rolling with tubes in the Horizon and Pacific:

Resampling filters:​

• 28 linear phase
• 3 intermediate phase
• 11 minimum phase
• 3 impulse optimal
• 3 closed form

Dithers and noise-shapers:​

• 4 dithers
• 5 noise shapers

Delta-Sigma conversion:​

• 14 modulators
• 49 oversampling filters (64x - 2048x)
• Direct rate conversions, 3 algorithms
• Digital volume control
• Convolution engine
• Routing and mixing

HQPLAYER with its filters, modulators, and DSP pipeline architecture is so good that even my re-mastering systems have been silenced and may soon be put up for sale.

”We” audiophiles are supposed to be smart or at least most pretend to be, but the lunacy, silliness and ignorance that permeates these forum pages really make me wonder how low in IQ , short in general logic & common sense, and gullible some of our deep-pocket colleagues can be.

Sorry, I have been trying to stay away and on the sidelines but I can’t close my eyes and pretend something is something that it’s not.

 

[Alrainbow]

Daaaammmmnnnn !!!
on a quick observation hq player seems to be the most complicated and diverse player no doubt.
now having said this as I use the player , it also owns the most complex to use Title.
i have read and read his papers on using it. yes he forces you to pay attention and learn at the same time.
as I’m getting tired I just want a hit play lol.
the kicker is how he creates the players in the first place. he is or was not a fan of LPS nor cpu noise in his pc builds yet
he is I think the most important man in digital playback.

 

[Stereophonic]

Does anyone understand What SPECIFICALLY is better or different about the Wadax Design?

If someone would know it, don’t you think other brands would be doing already the same?
I understand your interest, but you aren’t the only one who is searching secret sauce…

 

[Carlos269]

Daaaammmmnnnn !!!
on a quick observation hq player seems to be the most complicated and diverse player no doubt.
now having said this as I use the player , it also owns the most complex to use Title.
i have read and read his papers on using it. yes he forces you to pay attention and learn at the same time.
as I’m getting tired I just want a hit play lol.
the kicker is how he creates the players in the first place. he is or was not a fan of LPS nor cpu noise in his pc builds yet
he is I think the most important man in digital playback.

Never said HQPlayer is easy to use, but we are supposed to be smart aren’t we?

I agree that Jussi Laako is the most important person in the realm of the audiophile digital world.

If someone would know it, don’t you think other brands would be doing already the same?
I understand your interest, but you aren’t the only one who is searching secret sauce…

If there is this “secret sauce“ that increases digital to analog conversion precision beyond what is known to the scientific community, I’m sure that the astronautic, aeronautical and military contractors would want to know about it.

Lamm made use of audio psychoacoustics in his designs, perhaps Javier is doing something similar. Sure he will not share the “secret sauce”, but let’s not pretend that it is something that is not if that is what it is.

This is not a one size-fits-all hobby and that is the beauty of HQPlayer.

 

[microstrip]

If someone would know it, don’t you think other brands would be doing already the same?
I understand your interest, but you aren’t the only one who is searching secret sauce…

IMHO the secret sauce in the high-end audio is a myth. People hide behind secrecy because they have nothing to tell or are afraid that knowledge affects their marketing.

 

[Tam Lin]

”We” audiophiles are supposed to be smart or at least most pretend to be, but the lunacy, silliness and ignorance that permeates these forum pages really make me wonder how low in IQ , short in general logic & common sense, and gullible some of our deep-pocket colleagues can be.

Bravo! You took the words right out of my mouth.

 

[Stereophonic]

If there is this “secret sauce“ that increases digital to analog conversion precision beyond what is known to the scientific community, I’m sure that the astronautic, aeronautical and military contractors would want to know about it.

You forgot almighty god too… hahaha

 

[andromedaaudio]

but we are supposed to be smart aren’t we?

Carlos i think nobody on WBF has ever stated audiophiles are smart, most state the opposite .
As in spending large amounts of money on small sonic differences

 

[Carlos269]

Carlos i think nobody on WBF has ever stated audiophiles are smart, most state the opposite .
As in spending large amounts of money on small sonic differences

I guess that you did not catch my tongue in my cheek.