This reviewer might be just as likely to describe a vinyl playback system with the same words. It's probably just the reviewer's way of describing a resolving playback. A thousand other adjectives could probably be used by a reviewer to describe the same sound (like clear, or natural, or vivid). I think reviews of how something like a DAC sounds is meaningless unless done in the context of comparing to another DAC in the same system.
New Wadax Atlantis Reference Dac
- Thread starter Stereophonic
- Start date
Is WBF in a decade's time gonna be populated by vastly more recorded snippets and less and less wordsmithing?
If so, you guys are SO gonna miss me Lol.
If so, you guys are SO gonna miss me Lol.
Elliot G.
Industry Expert
In all my years in audio I never remember three major reviews from three top reviewers agreeing on one component. Robert Harley, Roy Gregory and Lincoln Cheng .
No we won't, your posts will retain the same value
I asked about a very specific description of one very particular aspect of the sound. This is nothing like using the word natural or clear.
I can see this is going nowhere so the discussion and the review of what it says I guess is pretty much meaningless. What is the point of writing such a review and then sharing it if we can’t discuss what it says? The pictures are pretty.
It is a data point. Many reviews then get people you know curious enough to explore it, then the product soon comes to a location near you.
Maybe Ian will get it one day, even though Al will say Schitt yggy is better
He also said it “sounded extremely musical and elevated the listeners to the heaven of music“. Lol
Elliot G.
Industry Expert
Wadax Atlantis Reference Digital-to-Analog Converter - The Audio Beat - www.TheAudioBeat.com
read audio reviews, ratings, and user opinions on audio equipment before you buy an audio system
www.theaudiobeat.com
Elliot G.
Industry Expert
You can ask whatever you want and discuss about anything.
That is WBF and we like to see components that we never will listen, pictures that keep we dreaming, reading reviews that says nothing and other ones which we discover something new, sharing opinions even having different rooms, components, taste, etc…
I don’t like Lincoln’s Tidal speakers, room seems small, tube amps aren’t my cup of tea…
So, to me, it is imposible to have an objective opinion about his review as other forum member opinion.
But it is funny, because we are audiophiles and we love to read, write and see every theme about audio…
Wadax Ref. Dac is new, different and technical superb. It is the perfect item to be analized in this crazy hobbie were nobody knows the true and everybody is looking for to improve their systems…
Last edited:
Peter,
The reviewer gives us some detailed comments on a few recordings - Licoln Cheng is not a newcomer to the audio scene, he has been around for many years writing many reviews, you can easily find about his preferences and systems in the net.
His opinion is just a data point, but IMHO the technical discussion about the Wadax is the best part of the review - it clearly explains that the Wadax Reference is a different type of DAC, using correction techniques based in high speed processing to generate an error signal that is subtracted from the raw signal. It would be great if we could listen to raw digital signal going directly to the DAC with and without correction!
The only thing that does not seem clear to me is the reference to feedforward techniques - what is the point of referring to feedforward with digital signals, that can be easily delayed?
I agree about the disconnect and not understanding the sound of a unit from an unfamiliar (to me) writer. However, as I understood him, Peter was not asking about the sound of the unit en large, but about a very specific description. I don't feel I need familiarity with Lincoln Cheng or his other writings to know what 'super fine, vivid image outlines" intends to convey - seems pretty straightforward. Even if Mr. Cheng's personal experience finds image outlines even finer or more vivid (or less) than my personal experience of components about which I would say similar, I get what that particular description conveys. Even though a translation, it was in English.
This is the 'problem' of using one medium (words) to describe another medium (sound). Absent personal listening experience, all we have are words. Even if Stereophonic had heard the unit and did concur with Cheng's account, I agree it would not tell one about the sound of the component, but it might tell Peter enough for him to pursue or to pass further interest. Which is about the best a review can hope to accomplish. The tell was the end of Peter's sentence: "is this what you hear from this DAC and also in real life?"
My point is super fine vivid images used by Lincoln, is not necessarily used in the same context that Peter uses them. He might use them to describe just resolution you will then we then used for everything from vdh, Lyra, micro seiki 8000, dCS, American sound, Magico, etc.
It is a way of describing I see real life images. Which you do see in real life.
Peter might use it differently, but Lincoln is not tuned to his wavelength
It is a way of describing I see real life images. Which you do see in real life.
Peter might use it differently, but Lincoln is not tuned to his wavelength
But the words were not super fine vivid images, but the outlines of images were super fine and vivid. I don't know how it can be more explicit or be misunderstood. What context differences could make the meaning of that different?
And it's not about seeing - it is about the images had when hearing. Hearing in the audio room and hearing in real life - in the concert hall. If I close my eyes in the concert hall, there are no super fine vivid image outlines. In the audio room, some gear will produce that.
My point is that we can still communicate about what we hear despite the fact we cannot hear what others hear - particularly when the communication is well constructed. One does not have to be "tuned to his wavelength" to have clear communication. If that possibility does not obtain, all the yip-yap we do online is just that. Some guy posts a question "how does the ABC compare to the XYZ?" and he will get answers from people he does not know but still, information is exchanged.
But he might not be listening with his eyes closed. He might be describing what he sees. The outlines are super fine when you are looking at them. There are so many ways to describe this'll
Now, if he tells me which of Magico pass or a set up I like has that description, and which doesn't, I might understand him better. Without a reference I have no idea what his wavelength is.
Now, if he tells me which of Magico pass or a set up I like has that description, and which doesn't, I might understand him better. Without a reference I have no idea what his wavelength is.
Thr reviewer said what he said, and it's clear. Let's not pretend that it isn't.
Or have we arrived at a "post-truth" moment?
Similar threads
