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

[Fred Crane]

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.

Well, if this is you trying to stay on the sidelines, I look forward to when you jump in and assert yourself : ) A few things come to mind; all of the large venerable companies to which you've referred make their chip sets to a very strict cost ratio. They would never consider making a great r2r module as the applications are too small and the cost too large. Secondly, the applications are wonderfully broad, perhaps in some instances placing variety of uses over simply making something sound great in a 2 channel atmosphere. Have you ever read the manual on the latest Sabre Chip? It's vast, and the multitude of implementations is in part why I feel its taken years for makers to come to a place of making them sound decent...a learning curve at the least. Don't get me wrong, it's a phenomenally impressive piece of engineering, (which doesn't mean it sounds good) but there's very little it couldn't be positioned to do.

The idea that larger companies produce better sound has never been a constant. With the size of the companies you rightly brought up, their goals were never to satisfy something as small as high-end audio, or even audio. Take a look at Burr Brown, which was not as broad in applications as say, T.I. and they still worked in industrial process and control, including nuclear power generation, telecommunications, test and measurement, medical and scientific instrumentation, medical imaging, personal computing and multimedia, and somewhere near the end of their focus, digital audio and video. Do you imagine they did quite a bit of listening on high-end gear outside of the lab? Or do you imagine they were more concerned with how many things it could accomplish, how many niches it could fill? Nothing in my listening has led me to believe that larger tech companies set the standard for sound.

HQ Player sounds like a great tool. A few of the studio engineers I work with use it. That doesn't mean that your average audiophile would ever want to take it on...it is a rather broad tool that is only effective when someone has taken the time to learn how to use it. Perhaps a few would go down that road, but not many.

Lastly, before you knock something about which you admittedly know very little, (if only due to the manufacturer not providing their thinking and process) go have a listen. Do you prefer to wade through white papers on why something may be better before taking the time to hear it? Once you do have a listen, you can lob all of the haymakers you want, or conversely, if you're delighted with what you've heard, you make have to order a 'Gullible Audiophile' t-shirt. I have a few of those myself.

 

[Alrainbow]

i think if one takes the time to learn and use HQ player it’s an amazing product. in reading his papers its painfully obvious digital in just playback alone is not a one size for all task.
until I read his Manual I never knew or remembered how many types of playback methods we needed to match the recordings alone
it made me look up to a simple cd player in awe
I remember years ago ps audio made there memory player and it had a selection of type filters
while it had a few only one was good lol. Then msb had there types I think effected things too.
In hq player all matter and can be heard. now whats better is another thing.
as for chips there are some I like better but again it’s still the complete product in the end.
digital seems simple at first up until one reads and pays attention more.
vinyl in some ways has become a more simplistic choice. Who seen this coming , not me heck I ran from it to play cd s.
great thread and I’m not trying to ruffle some either. i can’t see spending the money on power cords as some much less a magic box at these levels.

 

[Carlos269]

Well, if this is you trying to stay on the sidelines, I look forward to when you jump in and assert yourself. A few things that come to mind; all of the larger companies to which you've referred make their chips to a very strict cost

Fred, don’t kid yourself. The R&D budgets of these companies are substantial and when you factor in the economies of scale….. are you implying that the scientific community is holding back, because of cost? Having spent a portion of my career working for NASA, for space, and military contractors I can assure you that isn’t the case.

 

[Carlos269]

Fred, don’t kid yourself. The R&D budgets of these companies are substantial and when you factor in the economies of scale….. are you implying that the scientific community is holding back, because of cost? Having spent a portion of my career working for NASA, for space, and military contractors I can assure you that isn’t the case.

It was implied in my last response, but some might not pick it up, so I will spell it out: the costs differences to manufacture Integrated Circuit (IC), Field Programmable Logic-Gates Arrays (FPGA), and Application Specific Integratec Circuit (ASIC) chips is negligible; their cost of development on the other hand not so much.

if someone is writing code to flash onto an FPGA and thinks that they have something special then they will get a batch of ASIC manufactured. Although not an inexpensive endeavor, if one writes their own code and the run is at least than a silicon wafer unit then we can assume that the cost of development will want to be recuperated in the revenue generated by the sale of the initial batch of chips over time but these are all economics and does not inherently address any technical advances or special features. Does Javier have a patent or Intellectual Property (IP) that he is trying to protect?

Next is implementation, yes there are differences to be derived from similar or varied implementation of the same devices, but inherent performance is driven by the digital processor original’s design parameters and limitations. In other words, just like Intel, NVIDIA, ESS, AKM make their chips available to numerous and varied manufacturers (OEM’s), it would raise an eyebrow if any of them claimed higher performance, in areas bound by the technology, than the original developers. Sure you can increase boost clocks in GPU’s with better thermal solutions but try to claim higher Junction Temperature specifications at the silicon level.

Don’t get swindled, do your homework. I have already stated how ears can be misleading and greater inner detail can be perceived with the judicial addition of certain distortions.

 

[caesar]

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…

Hi Stereophonic,
I think you are making an assumption. From an outsider perspective, it seems like the target market of the wilsons and dcs is the old rich audiophile who wants a cerebrally accurate sound instead of emotion. Strikes me that these old cats who have acquired that preference , which is constantly reinforced in stereophile, haven't left their basement since the 70s, and follow Queen Victoria advice to" close their eyes and think of England". That sterile. No wonder . High end audio is a winner take all market. They are the ones raking in the cash by serving their customer, while the overall hobby is dying. So why upset that?

And I think as I previously mentioned the dcs guys / Goodwins audio customers in boston actually preferred the old, pre-acme upgrade dcs to the wadax

 

[caesar]

Seems like the only guys who are crazy about wadax are solid state guys. I heard the Garbell - CH precision system with Wadax system at a show, and although it was not bad, it sounded like "good" solid state, not magic. Nothing I'd want to spend time pursuing without more data

I remember guys hyping up msb 3 years ago. No one addressed the downsides like the fact that msb sounds flatter that a VIP table that costs $15.99. I am not an audiophile , so what msb lacks may be called "bloom" by audiophiles, but I don't know my audio vocabulary.

And then comparing msb to musically engaging gear like totaldac, you can tell msb is sterile in 1 minute against a basic totaldac model... and then no one also talked about how msb lacks micro and micro dynamics., and sounds dead and boring compared to many other dacs/..... then plugged it into an MBL system and it sounded totally dead...

seems like guys focus on the few details they like and it takes off...

So I wonder if it's just solid state guys exaggerating small differences in this case also

 

[Al M.]

And I think as I previously mentioned the dcs guys / Goodwins audio customers in boston actually preferred the old, pre-acme upgrade dcs to the wadax

Did they state a reason for the preference?

 

[caesar]

Did they state a reason for the preference?

they preferred the spatial presentation of the wadax, but thought overall dcs was better... I believe many guys at high end just have got and acclimated to a certain sound ...kinda like that type of sound is right and everything is wrong

 

[Fred Crane]

Fred, don’t kid yourself. The R&D budgets of these companies are substantial and when you factor in the economies of scale….. are you implying that the scientific community is holding back, because of cost? Having spent a portion of my career working for NASA, for space, and military contractors I can assure you that isn’t the case.

No, I wasn't implying that they're holding back...rather as I wrote, I don't think high end audio is their primary focus.

 

[caesar]

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.

Why are you making wrong assumptions? what makes you assume someone else shares you tastes and preferences?

as I mentioned about the msb hype of several years ago, MSB's weaknesses were eventually undressed... so why waste time chasing something others hype up?

What systems did you hear?

why not discuss high end audio in good spirit? nothing personal, but why do you specifically think it's one of 2-3 best dacs in the world?

 

[Fred Crane]

Why are you making wrong assumptions? what makes you assume someone else shares you tastes and preferences?

as I mentioned about the msb hype of several years ago, MSB's weaknesses were eventually undressed... so why waste time chasing something others hype up?

What systems did you hear?

why not discuss high end audio in good spirit? nothing personal, but why do you specifically think it's one of 2-3 best dacs in the world?

Sorry, you'll have to be specific about my incorrect assumptions. Ahh wait, because I wrote that I or we should/would consider Wadax to be one of the great dacs of our day. Perhaps I should have made my observation more personalized and written, 'to my ears, after these sessions, I would consider the Wadax Dac to be one of the finest DACS in production.' I suppose the reason I felt more comfortable making a blanket statement, is those I've spoken to who have actually heard the Wadax gear, have counted it, if not their favorite, then among their favorites, making it an obvious dac to audition if one is searching among the elite, cost no objects dacs on the market.

I was merely responding to what was written by Carlos (via my quote) as I understood it and added my two cents. Pretty typical procedure, and then wanting to be understood, I expounded a bit. I don't know what this has to do with MSB of a few years ago, nor how your views were validated and as a result MSB was undressed? As far as I know, MSB is doing pretty well, has a fairly enviable lineage and continues to innovate. Maybe not to the taste of some, but they have their audience and I imagine a pretty consistent following and are still mentioned in conversations about the best digital gear.

Do I believe that others share my tastes and preferences? Well, no, certainly not. You have a point there. I do think that there are typically subset groups that are often agreed upon by a majority. For instance, if you were to ask the majority of football fans who the greatest players in the game were in the last 20 years, a fair number of them would have Lionel Messi somewhere in their top three. I'm not saying in audio that such a thing would make them correct, nor that a correct answer can be reached, but at least one could make the round robin of components to be demoed if one were serious about that kind of acquisition. As a perennial outside the norm listener/purveyor, I feel a bit off balance arguing for the centrists of audio...but I respect them and admire many. It can be noted, that I sell none of the manufacturers that have come up in this discussion.

I think the Wadax DAC is one of the best because it's one of the best I've heard. (and yes, I've heard it with tubes and solid state)

I don't consider going to hear a system or a component chasing someone's hype. It's my job and before it was my job, I did it out of curiosity and a love of music-hoping one day to get the sound as right as the musicians who worked so hard to develop it...with the understanding that without hearing it, opinions are as solid as cotton candy and as plentiful as sand on a beach.

I have been discussing this in good spirit. This is me in good spirit. : ) I think WBF should have a series of listening sessions around the globe. The Parlor Sessions. Then we could have some real meat on the bone. I doubt there would be any firm conclusions drawn, but I bet we would have a good time and open many doors to new music.

 

[KeithR]

Why are you making wrong assumptions? what makes you assume someone else shares you tastes and preferences?

as I mentioned about the msb hype of several years ago, MSB's weaknesses were eventually undressed... so why waste time chasing something others hype up?

What systems did you hear?

why not discuss high end audio in good spirit? nothing personal, but why do you specifically think it's one of 2-3 best dacs in the world?

Since when has flatness been an MSB trait?

btw, I’m assuming you’ve never tried a Totaldac or MSB in your system. Correct?

 

[Carlos269]

Here is some additional details on the Wadax Reference DAC for consideration:

The digital-to-analog conversion circuitry is differential, with sepa- rate signal paths for the left channel + and - signals, and for the right channel + and - signals. The DAC is a Texas Instruments Sigma-Delta type, with only a section of the DAC chip used. Wadax has replaced many of the DAC functions with its own circuitry.
The most interesting aspect of the Reference DAC’s design is Wadax’s “musicIC” chip that corrects errors introduced by the DAC, the current-to-voltage converter, data-correlated jitter, the analog output stage, and even some of the effects of the power supply. Here’s how it works. Wadax measures the errors introduced by the conversion and amplification circuits, and then programs the musicIC chip to introduce, in the digital domain, an inverse of those errors before digital-to-an- alog conversion. It’s similar to feedback in that the process corrects errors, but unlike feedback the musicIC doesn’t wait for the error to occur and then send the feedback signal to correct the error. There’s no time lag as there is with a feedback loop. The signal is modified in advance rather than measured and corrected on the fly. This approach, based on something called Adaptive Delta Hilbert Mapping, reportedly removes the DAC’s sonic signature and other artifacts from the output signal. Wadax introduced this feed-forward concept back in 2010, and was the first high-end company to create a custom integrated circuit. The Reference DAC is the first Wadax product to benefit from a new musicIC chip that has much greater processing power than those used previously. This additional processing power confers greater correction capability, particularly in correcting time-domain artifacts. Wadax be- lieves that the time alignment between an instrument’s fundamentals and harmonics is of utmost importance to fidelity. Wadax designed its own measurement procedures to understand and quantify the er- rors that needed to be corrected by the musicIC chip. The chip also upsamples the input signal to 352kHz or 384kHz, depending on the frequency of the input signal. Incidentally, the chip operates with 128- bit fixed-point processing.
The analog output stage reportedly plays a large role in the Refer- ence DAC’s sound. It is a three-stage discrete differential circuit that
can deliver a robust 1W of output power—a level far high- er than that needed to drive a preamplifier’s input. When decoding DSD signals, four output filters are available. The most open filter, with a cutoff frequency of 80kHz, is for higher DSD rates and systems that won’t be bothered by the high levels of noise just above the audioband present in the DSD format. The higher the DSD rate, the higher in frequen- cy the ultrasonic noise is pushed, which allows for a higher cutoff frequency in the analog output filter.
The user-selectable output impedance mentioned earlier is realized by varying the bias of transistors in the output stage. Wadax maintains that the optimum output impedance of a source depends on the cables and system to which that source is connected. According to Wadax, a less-than-ideal output impedance for a particular system can introduce tim- ing errors that propagate through the system to the loud- speakers, where they are heard as a reduction in timbral re- alism. Wadax believes that if the harmonics aren’t perfectly time aligned with the fundamentals, the brain has to focus on putting the sonic components together, which leads to re- duced realism and thus listener involvement. A forthcoming software update will provide 16 levels of output impedance rather than the five levels in the review sample’s software.
Much attention was paid to physically isolating sub- systems from each other. In addition to separate left- and right-channel power supplies in outboard chassis, the main unit is split into three sections, left channel, right channel, and digital electronics. The chassis is rigidly constructed from machined aluminum to reduce vibration (see photo).
Overall, the Reference DAC’s design and build-quality reflect innovative thinking and no-holds-barred execution. In addition to the ten custom power transformers, the Ref- erence DAC features 23 separate printed circuit boards and more than 5500 discrete components. It is the product of more than 30,000 man-hours of development. With that much engineering and the obviously expensive construc- tion, the Reference seems more like a platform to explore the state of the art than a commercially profitable product.

 

[caesar]

Since when has flatness been an MSB trait?

btw, I’m assuming you’ve never tried a Totaldac or MSB in your system. Correct?

Of course I have. And in many friends’ systems. Msb is totally flat. It doesn’t work for me , for the reasons I stated above, except on horn systems. Only then it’s what people claim it is

 

[Carlos269]

Here is some additional details on the Wadax Reference DAC for consideration:

The digital-to-analog conversion circuitry is differential, with sepa- rate signal paths for the left channel + and - signals, and for the right channel + and - signals. The DAC is a Texas Instruments Sigma-Delta type, with only a section of the DAC chip used. Wadax has replaced many of the DAC functions with its own circuitry.
The most interesting aspect of the Reference DAC’s design is Wadax’s “musicIC” chip that corrects errors introduced by the DAC, the current-to-voltage converter, data-correlated jitter, the analog output stage, and even some of the effects of the power supply. Here’s how it works. Wadax measures the errors introduced by the conversion and amplification circuits, and then programs the musicIC chip to introduce, in the digital domain, an inverse of those errors before digital-to-an- alog conversion. It’s similar to feedback in that the process corrects errors, but unlike feedback the musicIC doesn’t wait for the error to occur and then send the feedback signal to correct the error. There’s no time lag as there is with a feedback loop. The signal is modified in advance rather than measured and corrected on the fly. This approach, based on something called Adaptive Delta Hilbert Mapping, reportedly removes the DAC’s sonic signature and other artifacts from the output signal. Wadax introduced this feed-forward concept back in 2010, and was the first high-end company to create a custom integrated circuit. The Reference DAC is the first Wadax product to benefit from a new musicIC chip that has much greater processing power than those used previously. This additional processing power confers greater correction capability, particularly in correcting time-domain artifacts. Wadax be- lieves that the time alignment between an instrument’s fundamentals and harmonics is of utmost importance to fidelity. Wadax designed its own measurement procedures to understand and quantify the er- rors that needed to be corrected by the musicIC chip. The chip also upsamples the input signal to 352kHz or 384kHz, depending on the frequency of the input signal. Incidentally, the chip operates with 128- bit fixed-point processing.
The analog output stage reportedly plays a large role in the Refer- ence DAC’s sound. It is a three-stage discrete differential circuit that
can deliver a robust 1W of output power—a level far high- er than that needed to drive a preamplifier’s input. When decoding DSD signals, four output filters are available. The most open filter, with a cutoff frequency of 80kHz, is for higher DSD rates and systems that won’t be bothered by the high levels of noise just above the audioband present in the DSD format. The higher the DSD rate, the higher in frequen- cy the ultrasonic noise is pushed, which allows for a higher cutoff frequency in the analog output filter.
The user-selectable output impedance mentioned earlier is realized by varying the bias of transistors in the output stage. Wadax maintains that the optimum output impedance of a source depends on the cables and system to which that source is connected. According to Wadax, a less-than-ideal output impedance for a particular system can introduce tim- ing errors that propagate through the system to the loud- speakers, where they are heard as a reduction in timbral re- alism. Wadax believes that if the harmonics aren’t perfectly time aligned with the fundamentals, the brain has to focus on putting the sonic components together, which leads to re- duced realism and thus listener involvement. A forthcoming software update will provide 16 levels of output impedance rather than the five levels in the review sample’s software.
Much attention was paid to physically isolating sub- systems from each other. In addition to separate left- and right-channel power supplies in outboard chassis, the main unit is split into three sections, left channel, right channel, and digital electronics. The chassis is rigidly constructed from machined aluminum to reduce vibration (see photo).
Overall, the Reference DAC’s design and build-quality reflect innovative thinking and no-holds-barred execution. In addition to the ten custom power transformers, the Ref- erence DAC features 23 separate printed circuit boards and more than 5500 discrete components. It is the product of more than 30,000 man-hours of development. With that much engineering and the obviously expensive construc- tion, the Reference seems more like a platform to explore the state of the art than a commercially profitable product.

Which raises one instant question: How can “The analog output stage reportedly plays a large role in the Refer- ence DAC’s sound.” If it has already been corrected for?

This dac uses an off-the-shelf TI/Burr-Brown dac chip (Sigma-Delta) and upsamples all input to either 352kHz or 384kHz.

There is the fixed correction but it is called Adaptive mapping. Which sounds like a look-up table, that if fully implemented would change the correction’s coefficients based on output voltage level, output impedance, and filter selected by the user. Judging by different options available to the users, it would take a sizable look-up table to be comprehensive. I wonder if they measure and hand select components to tight tolerances and characterize them over the operating temperature range, like FM Acoustics does, otherwise the corrections would be less meaningful compared to active real-time global feedback correction schemes.

There is a lot to chew on here; and less impressive, from my point of view, compared to the tools and processing options offered by HQPlayer.

 

[Audiocrack]

Seems like the only guys who are crazy about wadax are solid state guys. I heard the Garbell - CH precision system with Wadax system at a show, and although it was not bad, it sounded like "good" solid state, not magic. Nothing I'd want to spend time pursuing without more data

I remember guys hyping up msb 3 years ago. No one addressed the downsides like the fact that msb sounds flatter that a VIP table that costs $15.99. I am not an audiophile , so what msb lacks may be called "bloom" by audiophiles, but I don't know my audio vocabulary.

And then comparing msb to musically engaging gear like totaldac, you can tell msb is sterile in 1 minute against a basic totaldac model... and then no one also talked about how msb lacks micro and micro dynamics., and sounds dead and boring compared to many other dacs/..... then plugged it into an MBL system and it sounded totally dead...

seems like guys focus on the few details they like and it takes off...

So I wonder if it's just solid state guys exaggerating small differences in this case also

Your assumption that only “solid state guys” are crazy about Wadax is wrong. Just one example: I am combining Wadax with Kondo electronics (tube preamp as well as tube power amps).

 

[caesar]

Your assumption that only “solid state guys” are crazy about Wadax is wrong. Just one example: I am combining Wadax with Kondo electronics (tube preamp as well as tube power amps).

great to hear! ... it's not my assumption , by the way ...

the most vocal guys about wadsx have been ch precision guys (with both Göbel and stenheim speakers) and dartzeel fans... and that solid state gear is not my favorite... I haven't followed all the threads, and am not familiar with your system... and I LOVE Kondo!

So what is so special about Wadax compared to what you have heard?

 

[caesar]

Sorry, you'll have to be specific about my incorrect assumptions. Ahh wait, because I wrote that I or we should/would consider Wadax to be one of the great dacs of our day. Perhaps I should have made my observation more personalized and written, 'to my ears, after these sessions, I would consider the Wadax Dac to be one of the finest DACS in production.' I suppose the reason I felt more comfortable making a blanket statement, is those I've spoken to who have actually heard the Wadax gear, have counted it, if not their favorite, then among their favorites, making it an obvious dac to audition if one is searching among the elite, cost no objects dacs on the market.

I was merely responding to what was written by Carlos (via my quote) as I understood it and added my two cents. Pretty typical procedure, and then wanting to be understood, I expounded a bit. I don't know what this has to do with MSB of a few years ago, nor how your views were validated and as a result MSB was undressed? As far as I know, MSB is doing pretty well, has a fairly enviable lineage and continues to innovate. Maybe not to the taste of some, but they have their audience and I imagine a pretty consistent following and are still mentioned in conversations about the best digital gear.

Do I believe that others share my tastes and preferences? Well, no, certainly not. You have a point there. I do think that there are typically subset groups that are often agreed upon by a majority. For instance, if you were to ask the majority of football fans who the greatest players in the game were in the last 20 years, a fair number of them would have Lionel Messi somewhere in their top three. I'm not saying in audio that such a thing would make them correct, nor that a correct answer can be reached, but at least one could make the round robin of components to be demoed if one were serious about that kind of acquisition. As a perennial outside the norm listener/purveyor, I feel a bit off balance arguing for the centrists of audio...but I respect them and admire many. It can be noted, that I sell none of the manufacturers that have come up in this discussion.

I think the Wadax DAC is one of the best because it's one of the best I've heard. (and yes, I've heard it with tubes and solid state)

I don't consider going to hear a system or a component chasing someone's hype. It's my job and before it was my job, I did it out of curiosity and a love of music-hoping one day to get the sound as right as the musicians who worked so hard to develop it...with the understanding that without hearing it, opinions are as solid as cotton candy and as plentiful as sand on a beach.

I have been discussing this in good spirit. This is me in good spirit. : ) I think WBF should have a series of listening sessions around the globe. The Parlor Sessions. Then we could have some real meat on the bone. I doubt there would be any firm conclusions drawn, but I bet we would have a good time and open many doors to new music.

Thanks for clarifying. nice post.

So what systems have you heard it in and what specifically makes you say it is one of the best?

 

[andromedaaudio]

great to hear! ... it's not my assumption , by the way ...

the most vocal guys about wadsx have been ch precision guys (with both garbell and stenheim speakers) and dartzeel fans... and that solid state gear is not my favorite... I haven't followed all the threads, and am not familiar with your system... and I LOVE Kondo!

So what is so special about Wadax compared to what you have heard?

Its not true ceasar .
I like CAT gear just like you .
I did not particular like the stenheim/ dartcombo in munich
I m certainly not a kondo fan untill now ( tubey)
Plus i dont have any $$ so i have to design my own speakers .
Plus im a tapefan and have been very sceptical regarding high $$$ digital over the years
But ...
If there is any modern digital i would spend any money on it ll be wadax .
Have you heard it ?
Speculation only gets one so far

 

[Audiocrack]

great to hear! ... it's not my assumption , by the way ...

the most vocal guys about wadsx have been ch precision guys (with both garbell and stenheim speakers) and dartzeel fans... and that solid state gear is not my favorite... I haven't followed all the threads, and am not familiar with your system... and I LOVE Kondo!

So what is so special about Wadax compared to what you have heard?

To give you some perspective: I have been using and listening to tube dacs in my various audio systems for many, many years. To name a few examples: Kondo dac (with the Kalista reference transport), Zanden (latest version of the) signature dac (with its matching Zanden 2000p transport) and Lampizator Golden Gate dac (with a Lampizator server). However, the better my audio system became (the Tidal La Assoluta loudspeakers play a significant role in that regard) and the lower the noisefloor I was able to achieve (with (various evolving) Tripoint ‘grounding’ equipment) the more the intrinsic ‘noise’ of tubes in a source component started bothering me. So I changed a few years back to a solid state dac (Tidal Camira dac). The Wadax reference line is in my view superior because it is extremely ‘silent’ (of its own although the Wadax dac does profit from top notch grounding). As a consequence it is not only extremely transparent without being analytical at all but the Wadax reference line is also able to portray a very large soundstage (deep as well as wide) which I find important because I listen a lot to ‘big’ classical symphonies (from composers such as Bruckner, Mahler, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, etc). However, most importantly I have always tried to achieve a ‘pure’, that is non-mechanical sound (that is why I have always loved what Kondo has been doing with its tube equipment). The Wadax reference gear sounds very pure, serene and fluid to my ears while at the same time enormously dynamic and all that with great density.