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

[Audiocrack]

I couldn't imagine brands more diametrically opposed sound wise than Zanden and Boulder!

The Zanden equipment I played with for many years (currently still using the Zanden 2000p cd-transport) never ever sounded clinical / cold. So are you implying that the (top of the line) Boulder equipment / amplification does have a tendency towards such a presentation? As mentioned earlier I am not familiar with the Boulder brand in the sense that I never listened to it under controlled circumstances.

 

[howiebrou]

The Zanden equipment I played with for many years (currently still using the Zanden 2000p cd-transport) never ever sounded clinical / cold. So are you implying that the (top of the line) Boulder equipment / amplification does have a tendency towards such a presentation? As mentioned earlier I am not familiar with the Boulder brand in the sense that I never listened to it under controlled circumstances.

That tendency has been mentioned by some, yes.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I am not familiar with Boulder amplification but might it be the signature of these Boulders (pre)amps that you experienced as somewhat clinical sounding?

people that like the Boulder amplifier sound will like the Wadax with the Boulder, unless they intentionally match the Boulder sound with something warm because they believe the Boulder needs warming up.

so it's a Boulder issue, or a matching issue, but it's not a Wadax issue.

if you stray from neutral/natural and then need to balance sources or amps with the opposite, don't blame neutral/natural gear for being neutral/natural.

it's a system building philosophy that must be worked out from the get go. and why i start with darTZeel. it's already where i want to end up. it does not need added or subtracted flavor. i'm sure i'm not alone in my view of my electronics. hopefully we all feel that way.

buying an amp, a 6 figure amp at that, and maybe a near 6 figure preamp, and then needing to tone it down, take the edge off, seems a bit crazy. it ought to be dead solid perfect.....to it's buyer.

i'm not saying Boulder is that gear that needs that, but some do say that.

YMMV.

 

[andromedaaudio]

I am not familiar with Boulder amplification but might it be the signature of these Boulders (pre)amps that you experienced as somewhat clinical sounding?

Yes it most likely is .
I was hoping they had the Gryphon Apex in the listening room playing but it was at a customer.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Hey Audiocrack,

Will be interesting to hear what Andromeda comes back with. My understanding is he is a huge fan of Boulder, particularly their flagship work. He is also a big fan of Zanden which is a sound you know well as a small means of understanding a little bit about his particular taste.

I m already back from portugal im curremtly in spain.
I m not a huge fan of boulder lloyd i simply love well made / machined gear and boulder is a prime example .
Soundwise the character still shines through to the 3000 series as to what i remember of the 1060 i once owned.
By the way the perlisten sub they had playing surprised me in a positive way

 

[andromedaaudio]

Boulder has a firm place in the market so there are obviously people who like the sound .
Im just talking from my perspective coming from tubeamplification that i own .
I dont wanna go into whether its right or wrong here.
Manufacturers make what they want and if you re still in business after 40 plus years you re obviously speaking to a certain clientele / doing something right .

 

[Audiocrack]

Boulder has a firm place in the market so there are obviously people who like the sound .
Im just talking from my perspective coming from tubeamplification that i own .
I dont wanna go into whether its right or wrong here

Fair enough. Was only asking about the signature of the Boulder (pre)amps because the Wadax imo has no tendency to sound harsh / cold / strident / clinical or whatever you call it. Those descriptions can - or in anyway could - be associated with a typical digital sound reproduction while the Wadax gear sound in my opinion typical ‘undigital’. I also never heard that feedback from anyone before who listened to the Wadax reference dac (sometimes in combination with the Wadax reference server) in a home / dealers set up, that is under controlled circumstances.

 

[Alrainbow]

I doubt many of them have the digital technical chops to realistically evaluate WADAX's claims. I also have a highly technical background and understand a lot of the digital discussion quite well but what WADAX does I don't really know (as someone here put, what does "feedforward" digital really mean? What are they actually doing? If it is a way to further eliminate jitter then it seems they first measure the jitter and it's nature and then send an "inverse" jitter signal forward to "correct" the digital waveforms?? Maybe? probably not...no idea.

Maybe it is a bit like DSP time correction of speakers. There the timing of the drivers is measured and then delays are applied to make so the result at the microphone is in time at all frequencies (or nearly so). Can something like that be done with a digital waveform? That is kind of what it sounds like.

I personally don't like when companies say they think something works in a way that is not very consonant with known physics...the problem is, how many audiophiles know what is possible or not in physics?

My biggest problem with ASR, and engineers in general, is that they are not scientists...they are engineers and there is a big difference in the way of thinking. Engineers design to a set of criteria and once they hit that target they are satisfied. Some of them are also defining that target but it is often based on purely objective goals (certain THD and jitter over X frequency range etc.). Very few of them are actually concerned with the WHY does it sound a certain way and is that the way it is supposed to sound. Psychoacoustics is the realm of science where understanding what and why we prefer certain sound quality over other quality, when objectively, the differences are quite small (or arguably inaudible).

The problem is those guys are convinced (not sure by what other than their own disbelief in how sensitive human hearing can be) that below certain levels of distortion and noise or whatever other artifacts are generated that all things will sound the same. However, experience tells us that this isn't so... no matter how good it measures... it seems that the path in design to get to certain measurements matters a lot too.

I have heard some of these cheap DACs, especially a Topping DAC, because a friend of mine bought one. He brought it over and while it doesn't sound bad, it doesn't sound particularly high end either (made pretty flat images for example)...and it for sure has better measurements than just about anything else out there! I have had similar experiences with not-so-cheap Weiss DACs where they just sound horribly sterile and flat (except they cost several thousand). The Topping might actually sound better than the Weiss...so price indeed is not a guarantee!!

I think what bother's me about the WADAX the most is that I heard it in several rooms in Munich and it failed to deliver great sound, IMO. Hard then to justify the spend. In the room with Goebel speakers I thought the analog setup with Kronos absolutely KILLED the WADAX setup there. I know which of those I would buy for that kind of money.

So, even IF WADAX has made a huge leap in the digital section of their DAC, what comes out, to my ears at least in these show rooms doesn't advance sound quality in the way the price would suggest it should...or at all. The Kronos TT setup wowed me with SQ (I have noticed over the years that rooms with a Kronos consistently delivered great sound)...the WADAX not. Maybe if WADAX put a good tube output stage on their tech it would sound a lot better? Maybe they need the advice of really good analog circuit designers (the tech between digital and analog are quite different realms of engineering)?

Why should people spending big bucks willingly be deceived by marketing copy? Not saying WADAX is being in anyway deceptive (as I said, I lack the digital circuitry chops to judge if it is technobabble or the real deal) but there are claims to such and that is worth debating.

I own a toppings and a gustarrd and a few others
if we tune around the source
this matters far less then one thinks
no dac nor source is done in A plug and play way

trouble is claims that yield probable incorrect results is in part why this thris threads are here.

 

[Audiocrack]

people that like the Boulder amplifier sound will like the Wadax with the Boulder, unless they intentionally match the Boulder sound with something warm because they believe the Boulder needs warming up.

so it's a Boulder issue, or a matching issue, but it's not a Wadax issue.

if you stray from neutral/natural and then need to balance sources or amps with the opposite, don't blame neutral/natural gear for being neutral/natural.

it's a system building philosophy that must be worked out from the get go. and why i start with darTZeel. it's already where i want to end up. it does not need added or subtracted flavor. i'm sure i'm not alone in my view of my electronics. hopefully we all feel that way.

buying an amp, a 6 figure amp at that, and maybe a near 6 figure preamp, and then needing to tone it down, take the edge off, seems a bit crazy. it ought to be dead solid perfect.....to it's buyer.

i'm not saying Boulder is that gear that needs that, but some do say that.

YMMV.

Thanks Mike.

 

[Alrainbow]

I don’t think neutral and natural should be used together

 

[LL21]

I couldn't imagine brands more diametrically opposed sound wise than Zanden and Boulder!

It is interesting. I have to say, I was amazed to hear Gian60 speak about all the amazing tubes he has owned for decades (how he STILL is looking to buy the new Ongaku)...and yet he is now a CH owner definitively. And JackD201 spoke about his own time as a tube owner finding something in the CH that 'rang true' of his time with Class A tubes in Lamm.

In the case of my own more limited experience, I have long been and still am an enormous fan of Zanden...and big Class A SS amplification. I found much to like in the 2000 series Boulders of old...preferring Gryphon but that is a personal taste choice. On an absolute level, I did like the Boulder 2060 for a lot of what it did. And I could imagine being very impressed with the Boulder 2100 and 3000 series as well for similar reasons of effortless power, a Class A approach to power and endless dynamic range with exceptional delivery of detail/nuance.

 

[morricab]

I own a toppings and a gustarrd and a few others
if we tune around the source
this matters far less then one thinks
no dac nor source is done in A plug and play way

trouble is claims that yield probable incorrect results is in part why this thris threads are here.

Source is coming from reclocking (Mutec) and SP/DIF coax connection.

 

[Alrainbow]

Both gustard and toppings sound best on spidif , I also use a usb to spidif reclocker
I also use a transport spidif reclocker too.

 

[morricab]

Both gustard and toppings sound best on spidif , I also use a usb to spidif reclocker
I also use a transport spidif reclocker too.

Maybe but the Topping didn’t sound good. It didn’t sound horrible either, so I guess for the money not a bad deal.

 

[Alrainbow]

T

Maybe but the Topping didn’t sound good. It didn’t sound horrible either, so I guess for the money not a bad deal.

the topping is thin but this means more neutrality as well
both dacs I mentioned need a real gain stage preamp after them. Then things become better.
one did dsd better then pcm big time
mqa was ok on both but one was way above the other.
going back on topic the gustard should be the better one if using the pro model
neither measure bad lol.
wadax is very expensive stuff
I doubt the real path and effects of why the sound is as is needs to be shared
it should remain a secret.
but over time some secrets will be shared.

 

[Stereophonic]

It has rained a lot from this post:
https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/new-wadax-atlantis-line.23204/

 

[andromedaaudio]

In general Just Fiy every dac ive owned had groundbreaking technology and was more true to source then any other

I don’t think neutral and natural should be used together

May be we could open a Wadax natural sound thread lol

 

[Audiocrack]

Just to be sure I also insert this link in this Wadax thread: the first part of Roy Gregory’s review of the Wadax Reference server. This first part is largely a very interesting interview with Javier while the actual review will come out as part 2.

Wadax Reference Server and Akasa Optical Interface – Part 1 - Gy8

What makes the Wadax Reference Server so different?

gy8.eu

 

[caesar]

Just to be sure I also insert this link in this Wadax thread: the first part of Roy Gregory’s review of the Wadax Reference server. This first part is largely a very interesting interview with Javier while the actual review will come out as part 2.

Wadax Reference Server and Akasa Optical Interface – Part 1 - Gy8

What makes the Wadax Reference Server so different?

gy8.eu

Thanks.

Good Lord, it's about time this guy starts getting his story out instead of relying on disgusting "audio journalists" rambling gibberish and just calling his dac "the best".

Also, recommend doing some sessions with John Atkinson, as these great designers have done:

 

[Audiocrack]

You never get tired of yourself, Caesar, being sarcastic / negative all the time? Audio life is apparently quite difficult for you