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

[Mike Lavigne]

is this so hard....which....MSB....dac?

which....server?

USB or ethernet?

and if you don't know, then why make an issue if you don't pay attention?

for all we know the MSB dac might have been 15 years old too.

and an old MBL dac might be better than a new MSB dac? MBL made some nice dacs and some were spendy with top level output circuits. and there is the synergy with MBL electronics too as well as personal preferences.

 

[Carlos269]

and if you don't know, then why make an issue if you don't pay attention?

for all we know the MSB dac might have been 15 years old too.

The MBL 1611F DAC, which I own, is a tough dac to beat, although it is over 15 years old, MBL has not bettered or replaced it and not many dacs are as good or better. It takes a very special dac to best the MBL 1611F, trust me I know.

 

[sbo6]

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:

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.​

To be frank - while the techie in me might be marginally curious as to Javier's sausage making, in the end I really could care less, it's the sound that matters.

Also, FWIW I've been using HQPlayer for years and to me in my system no filters, modulators or upsampling sounds the best.

 

[sbo6]

The MBL 1611F DAC, which I own, is a tough dac to beat, although it is over 15 years old, MBL has not bettered or replaced it and not many dacs are as good or better. It takes a very special dac to best the MBL 1611F, trust me I know.

Based on what? I'm genuinely curious because if it's that good, maybe I'll pick one up.

 

[Carlos269]

To be frank - while the techie in me might be marginally curious as to Javier's sausage making, in the end I really could care less, it's the sound that matters.

Also, FWIW I've been using HQPlayer for years and to me in my system no filters, modulators or upsampling sounds the best.

Interesting and telling comments, that is all I will say to be polite. If you need help with HQPLAYER let me know and I will help you out. Also if you are interested in DSP soundscapes I can also point you in the right direction there also.

 

[Carlos269]

Based on what? I'm genuinely curious because if it's that good, maybe I'll pick one up.

Based on comparison with many other very fine dacs. Good luck finding one…..and if you do enjoy!

 

[microstrip]

on mbl 101; compared to mbl reference dac.... similar results when comparing msb to other dacs in too many scenarios to list - msb is dynamically feeble

sorry that your feelings are hurt, msb fanboys... additionally , the dealer with an online forum had similar results with msb on mbl ... he ended up going with esoteric instead of msb, despite hyping up msb as the BEST.. you can find it online in his esoteric forum.. (if the guy had good taste, he would have stuck with MBL, but he's selling esoteric gear )

I have owned MBL 101c's for some time - they are omnidirectional and are very atypical Although in very specific conditions they can sound excellent, people should consider that IMHO the data points obtained with such speakers are not relevant for generalization considering the almost uniqueness of the 101's.

It would be great to have your positive opinions with detail, your systematic hate negative opinions in a five line post without complete details and reference to recordings is just useless and misleading brand bashing. Yes, I know the opinions on dCS of a friend of yours will come next ...

 

[caesar]

I have owned MBL 101c's for some time - they are omnidirectional and are very atypical Although in very specific conditions they can sound excellent, people should consider that IMHO the data points obtained with such speakers are not relevant for generalization considering the almost uniqueness of the 101's.

It would be great to have your positive opinions with detail, your systematic hate negative opinions in a five line post without complete details and reference to recordings is just useless and misleading brand bashing. Yes, I know the opinions on dCS of a friend of yours will come next ...

why is MBL different? please answer specifically

People claim msb the best in the world. if msb is the best, or one of the best, why doesn’t it get along with MBL? At $60k and $120k , the best should at least be able to work, personal tastes aside

esoteric can, as that dealer is using. TotalDac can. Of course MBL reference can…

and why not have integrity to call out the trade offs instead of misleading people? Why is being honest called brand bashing? Why waste peopl’s time?

 

[sbo6]

Based on comparison with many other very fine dacs. Good luck finding one…..and if you do enjoy!

Thanks! If you could be a bit more specific it would be very helpful. Compared to

Interesting and telling comments, that is all I will say to be polite. If you need help with HQPLAYER let me know and I will help you out. Also if you are interested in DSP soundscapes I can also point you in the right direction there also.

Thanks for the offer for HQP help, however I am fully capable of manipulating any and all settings / features. Also, not sure where you're going WRT being polite; are you insinuating lack of picking one of the plethora of combinations = lack of ability or hearing? If so, that truly is revealing of your character, my friend. In any case enjoy!

 

[sbo6]

Based on comparison with many other very fine dacs. Good luck finding one…..and if you do enjoy!

Thank you. Can you please be a bit more specific? Which DACs in what system(s)?

 

[Carlos269]

Thank you. Can you please be a bit more specific? Which DACs in what system(s)?

Here you go read it yourself:

MBL 1611F listening impressions and comparisons

 

[Carlos269]

Thanks! If you could be a bit more specific it would be very helpful. Compared to

Thanks for the offer for HQP help, however I am fully capable of manipulating any and all settings / features. Also, not sure where you're going WRT being polite; are you insinuating lack of picking one of the plethora of combinations = lack of ability or hearing? If so, that truly is revealing of your character, my friend. In any case enjoy!

Let’s sort your troubles with HQPlayer out:
1) Which DAC are you using with HQPlayer?
2) Are you up sampling to high rate PCM or transcoding to DSD?
3) What output rate are you listening at? DSD512? 44.1KHz or 48KHz based?
4) Which filter are you using?
5) Which modulator are you using?

 

[sbo6]

Let’s sort your troubles with HQPlayer out:
1) Which DAC are you using with HQPlayer?
2) Are you up sampling to high rate PCM or transcoding to DSD?
3) What output rate are you listening at? DSD512? 44.1KHz or 48KHz based?
4) Which filter are you using?
5) Which modulator are you using?

No troubles at all my friend, I have tried many combinations of variables you list above. In the end, native always sounds best with my system which is in my signature. Feel free to share your experiences and final settings based on whatever system you possess.

 

[sbo6]

Here you go read it yourself:

MBL 1611F listening impressions and comparisons

Thank you for sharing. I understand where you are coming from now. And I'm glad you're happy with your DAC. Enjoy!

 

[Carlos269]

No troubles at all my friend, I have tried many combinations of variables you list above. In the end, native always sounds best with my system which is in my signature. Feel free to share your experiences and final settings based on whatever system you possess.

I would post my HQPLAYER experience and settings, but I don’t have a problem with them, on the contrary I couldn’t be happier.

In my interest to figure out why HQPlayer isn’t working out for you, I found a few things that caught my attention:

"Aqua Acoustic quality's Formula xHD processor sounded as smooth and warm and enjoyable as Jason and Mr. O suggested, but I don't regard it as a pleasure machine, nor do I see it as a cure for systems that sound too bright. In my system, the Formula xHD was simply too opaque for a perfectionist DAC at any price. My head is shaking in disbelief." -- Herb Reichert

“xHD upsampling to Quad DSD: I know many folks swear by DSD files (and true native DSD recordings) and I'm now a believer. Playing DSD upsampled to Quad DSD is other worldly good. The amount of information is staggering, the sound stage layering in depth and width is another level better and again, the realism is better than I expected my speakers could articulate.” - by YOU

“This is a processor without a reconstruction filter so you see that the DAC's sample-and-hold output creates a neat staircase waveform.” - John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

“Terminator sound quality is much better than Formula xHD” - Butifull01

And finally we start getting some helpful insight on the issue:

“I am just curious how DSD is being processed inside the Formula xHD.
If i understand correctly the R2R DAC architecture accepts PCM only.
So with PCM upsampling to Quad DSD there seem to be two conversions:
From PCM to DSD by HQplayer and from DSD to PCM by the Formula.
Does this double conversion makes sense?” - Mathis

“I believe you are correct, the Formula is not native DSD, it converts from PCM to DSD. IM more recent experience the Formula sounds best fed PCM via HQPlayer up-sampled / converted to PCM”. - by YOU

My thoughts:

I think that the PCM to DSD conversion inside your Formula xHD dac to feed its R2R converter, is undoing the benefits of HQPLAYER. It is best to send PCM only to your Formula xHD dac.

Secondly, you are not realizing the full extend of HQPLAYER if the dac is not extended in its high frequency reproduction and lacks a proper reconstruction filter.

With HQPLAYER, I have had the most success with chipless DSD-Only dacs, I own 4 of them, that will convert native x48KHz based DSD512 and that is the best with HQPLAYER at this time, until servers can have the processing power and speed for HQPLAYER‘s most demanding filters and modulators, at DSD1024.

My recommendation for you is to try a new dac. I strongly suggest a discrete, chipless, DSD-Only dac that can convert native x48KHz based DSD256, DSD512 or DSD1024, for best results with HQPLAYER.

This may not be what you wanted to hear but hopefully it helps. When you realize the full potential of HQPLAYER, you will be in for a treat.

 

[Stereophonic]

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

Answering latest posts, one of the keys is bit perfect reproduction.
Both HQ Player or DSP are not recommended.

 

[Carlos269]

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

Answering latest posts, one of the keys is bit perfect reproduction.
Both HQ Player or DSP are not recommended.

HQPLAYER is most definitely not “bit petfect”, neither is the Wadax as it internally upsamples its inputs to 384KHz, at a minimum and may be performing DSP.

if you value “bit-perfect”, which mean conversion at the native rate and bit depth, you are mostly limited to 24 bits and 192KHz and below, with most available music at 16 bit 44.1 KHz.

I myself find that HQPLAYER offers more than what “bit perfect” playback offers but if you enjoy 16 bit 44.1 KHz, 24 bit 48/96/192KHz playback then you have been “content” for a very long time.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

HQPLAYER is most definitely not “bit petfect”, neither is the Wadax as it internally upsamples its inputs to 384KHz, at a minimum and may be performing DSP.

if you value “bit-perfect”, which mean conversion at the native rate and bit depth, you are mostly limited to 24 bits and 192KHz and below, with most available music at 16 bit 44.1 KHz.

I myself find that HQPLAYER offers more than what “bit perfect” playback offers but if you enjoy 16 bit 44.1 KHz, 24 bit 48/96/192KHz playback then you have been “content” for a very long time.

you need to read what Emile of Taiko writes about HQ Player, and where it offers improvements and where not. i'm not expert about it, but used it and enjoyed it for years with his first server. Emile is an expert about it.

my MSB was a 'bit perfect' dac so did not benefit much at all from HQ Player, verses the Lampi GG 1.5 and Trinity dac i owned previously which did benefit. whether it is still fully relevant today i don't know. but Emile does know.

with Wadax i just listen and don't worry about it.

 

[Carlos269]

you need to read what Emile of Taiko writes about HQ Player, and where it offers improvements and where not. i'm not expert about it, but used it and enjoyed it for years with his first server. Emile is an expert about it.

my MSB was a 'bit perfect' dac so did not benefit much at all from HQ Player, verses the Lampi GG 1.5 and Trinity dac i owned previously which did benefit. whether it is still fully relevant today i don't know. but Emile does know.

From Emile’s own writing:

We hold HQ Player, and its creator Jussi, in very high regard. Jussi’s filter and modulator algorithms are in a league of their own. There is much more to Jussi then meets the eye. We may all be using algorithms, or parts of, he designed without even knowing it on a daily basis. It does provide a way to very high levels of playback fidelity without the need of very expensive DAC designs.
You can get remarkable results from a whole range of relatively affordable DACs by using HQ Player algorithms rivaling much more costly solutions.
We designed the original SGM 2015 to do exactly that, extract top level performance out of affordable DACs, using HQ Player algorithms. The value for money equation is beyond dispute.
The current upper market segment DACs all do a much better job at “bit perfect” playback then a few years ago. We are following suit with the Extreme, we do indeed primarily focus on improving “bit perfect” playback. But we are in no way suggesting nor implying HQ Player is an invalid approach.

My previous comments stand, as stated.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

From Emile’s own writing:

We hold HQ Player, and its creator Jussi, in very high regard. Jussi’s filter and modulator algorithms are in a league of their own. There is much more to Jussi then meets the eye. We may all be using algorithms, or parts of, he designed without even knowing it on a daily basis. It does provide a way to very high levels of playback fidelity without the need of very expensive DAC designs.
You can get remarkable results from a whole range of relatively affordable DACs by using HQ Player algorithms rivaling much more costly solutions.
We designed the original SGM 2015 to do exactly that, extract top level performance out of affordable DACs, using HQ Player algorithms. The value for money equation is beyond dispute.
The current upper market segment DACs all do a much better job at “bit perfect” playback then a few years ago. We are following suit with the Extreme, we do indeed primarily focus on improving “bit perfect” playback. But we are in no way suggesting nor implying HQ Player is an invalid approach.

My previous comments stand, as stated.

and when did Emile write that? in the last 6 months to a year? he might have written it yesterday.