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

[AndrewChen]

Just my personal opinion.

If one looks back at Wadax’s earliest documentation, specifically their “Why Wadax” paper from 2009/2010 (well before marketing fluff took over), it’s clear that the musicIC ASIC, which, let’s be honest is Wadax’s only real tangible differentiator, was designed to correct non-linearity in the analog aspects of a system chain, specifically the phono input RIAA equalisation and Wadax’s active speakers response, period. (IMO, an FPGA would have sufficed, Xilinx chips are infinitely more powerful than Wadax's ASIC).

“Correcting digital artefacts” is marketing fluff that seems to appeared much later out of nowhere when streaming service became much more prevalent. However, digital streaming from any Server, whether via Roon/RAAT or UPnP/HTTP over TCP is 100% error corrected right into the digital heart of any DAC, there are no “digital artefacts”. This is an objective verifiable fact.

IMHO, at the end of the day, until Wadax submits to independent objective analysis (even Stereophile/J.Atkinson might suffice), we’ll continue to see all kinds of fantastical claim. Many of which have no basis in reality.

 

[Carlos269]

My point of all this was to say that I feel the product is unique in its abilities and therefore something new and different.

It is because of this that the question remains open on whether the Wadax is performing a ”straight“ digital to analog conversion or if the dac is making use of the DSP core features of the TI dac chip, and their ”musIC” ASIC, to “doctor” the signal.

 

[caesar]

Guys always get upset when someone doesn't share their taste.

No CH Precision with box speakers doesn't really sound like real music, even if you add wadax to it. But guys can pretend that it does.

Now let's please get back on topic. Really appreciate the replies so far!

 

[KeithR]

See , there you go again, How might your recent posts not involve me when I am a member of an open forum, as is Caesar, where comment within the forum AUP is actively encouraged. On the contrary you seem to have decided to that you might play the un solicited forum moderator role.

Elliot’s right. Caesar continuously disparages product and most now ignore his stir the pot threads. Nobody says you can’t prefer one line to another but he takes it a step too far. He also regularly insults reviewers and other audio industry figures while doing so.

Ironically he owns MBL which is a polarizing speaker that requires mega SS wattage.

 

[Audiocrack]

Just my personal opinion.

If one looks back at Wadax’s earliest documentation, specifically their “Why Wadax” paper from 2009/2010 (well before marketing fluff took over), it’s clear that the musicIC ASIC, which, let’s be honest is Wadax’s only real tangible differentiator, was designed to correct non-linearity in the analog aspects of a system chain, specifically the phono input RIAA equalisation and Wadax’s active speakers response, period. (IMO, an FPGA would have sufficed, Xilinx chips are infinitely more powerful than Wadax's ASIC).

“Correcting digital artefacts” is marketing fluff that seems to appeared much later out of nowhere when streaming service became much more prevalent. However, digital streaming from any Server, whether via Roon/RAAT or UPnP/HTTP over TCP is 100% error corrected right into the digital heart of any DAC, there are no “digital artefacts”. This is an objective verifiable fact.

IMHO, at the end of the day, until Wadax submits to independent objective analysis (even Stereophile/J.Atkinson might suffice), we’ll continue to see all kinds of fantastical claim. Many of which have no basis in reality.

On what grounds do you base your statement cq conclusion that “ we’ll continue to see all kinds of fantastical claim. Many of which have no basis in reality.”? Have you measured any of the Wadax Reference components yourself? Have you heard any of them in your own system? Or are you just speculating while your speculations might have no basis in reality?

 

[caesar]

Elliot’s right. Caesar continuously disparates product and most now ignore his stir the pot threads. Nobody says you can’t prefer one line to another but he takes it a step too far. He also regularly insults reviewers and other audio industry figures while doing so.

Ironically he owns MBL which is a polarizing speaker that requires mega SS wattage.

1. This is a disgusting industry "experts" / marketers lying to each other and to others, by commission and by omission (lack of comparisons of experiences) that keeps incumbents locked in while destroying potential for industry growth
2. My MBL is biamped and with my electronics, including CAT, sounds like a giant, open, 3D high - efficiency speaker with near-horn dynamics and micro- dynamics and great tone
3. Ignore is your friend

Now Gentlemen, back on topic please

 

[Steve Vu]

Caesar continuously disparates products for a long time. He used the very negative words to Wadax even before he can hear them. He has a prejudice against all products which he does not own, especially the top of the line products. He also regularly insults reviewers and other audio industry figures.

Some people is always wonder about the chip Dac, measurement, design... For what? You will hear better music if your product has the better measurement? Remember all of measurements in the current never fully reflect the SQ in products. Never.

You can love your products and dislike others, but you should not use negative words to others when you never hear them in your system.

 

[AndrewChen]

On what grounds do you base your statement cq conclusion that “ we’ll continue to see all kinds of fantastical claim. Many of which have no basis in reality.”?

No need to look too far and wide, the Wadax Reference DAC website itself has all sort of fantastical claims with zero proof

the original Atlantis DAC already surpasses all of the competition

The result is the most accurate and most musically satisfying DAC ever designed.

Not only because we have touched almost theoretical measurements.

Besides the crazy bench measurements we have achieved

Conventional digital decoding struggles to achieve its theoretical performance: components and circuits never behave ideally, generating a complex, polluting mix of non-linearities that contaminates the delicate audio signals during and AFTER conversion

The result is measurably and audibly the most natural and musically communicative digital decoding currently possible

Yup, super fantastical claims

 

[Audiocrack]

No need to look too far and wide, the Wadax Reference DAC website itself has all sort of fantastical claims with zero proof








Yup, super fantastical claims

With all due respect: your reaction makes clear that you have no (own listening or own measurement) experience with any of the Wadax reference components. So you are merely speculating.

 

[Elliot G.]

Guys always get upset when someone doesn't share their taste.

No CH Precision with box speakers doesn't really sound like real music, even if you add wadax to it. But guys can pretend that it does.

Now let's please get back on topic. Really appreciate the replies so far!

Guys always get upset when someone doesn't share their taste.

No CH Precision with box speakers doesn't really sound like real music, even if you add wadax to it. But guys can pretend that it does.

Two sentences that specifically show exactly what you do every single time.

 

[Elliot G.]

" Dedicated to detail and precise design, CAT has maintained its position as the most reliable and highest quality manufacturer of high-end audio equipment since its inception, over 30 years ago."

Hey Caesar and guys, so every company doesn't use hyperbole. This quote is from the CAT website .

or this one:
" MBL’s goal remains unchanged: developing the most advanced speakers and audio players worldwide plus the establishment of a standard above all competitors – with the highest possible demand on quality"

this is marketing and if you are in business every company does some of it.

 

[Steve Vu]

you can disagree. so can Andrew.

but the forum is not about proof. data can be related to listening results. but it's not proof.

and a poster who never talks about listening at all, has to own that approach and accept it's part of the picture. they don't have to like it, or me.

Maybe they heard them by their eyes. Reading and writing about a system or a product without listening are also artistry.

 

[Steve Vu]

" Dedicated to detail and precise design, CAT has maintained its position as the most reliable and highest quality manufacturer of high-end audio equipment since its inception, over 30 years ago."

Hey Caesar and guys, so every company doesn't use hyperbole. This quote is from the CAT website .

or this one:
" MBL’s goal remains unchanged: developing the most advanced speakers and audio players worldwide plus the establishment of a standard above all competitors – with the highest possible demand on quality"

this is marketing and if you are in business every company does some of it.

My wife is the most beautiful woman, the best in the world.

 

[cannata]

In Munich, none of WADAX rooms sounded good. The room with the WB was agreeable on the senses, but the rest were uninspiring, and some, like Göbel and kharma, plain awful.

 

[Ultrafast69]

IMO the OPs question is clear.

But why answer to have things go sideways beyond friendly banter.

Isn’t the intent to discuss what we know, hear or enjoy? You know, read and learn.

 

[Audiophile Bill]

IMO the OPs question is clear.

But why answer to have things go sideways beyond friendly banter.

Isn’t the intent to discuss what we know, hear or enjoy? You know, read and learn.

Unfortunately things go beyond neutral banter here because there are multiple financially vested interests at stake, all with their different (and biased) perspectives.

 

[AndrewChen]

With all due respect: your reaction makes clear that you have no (own listening or own measurement) experience with any of the Wadax reference components. So you are merely speculating.

You’re quite right. I am speculating; that Wadax doesn’t measure up to the best DACs currently available. Well, more like an educated guess really, because even if a single point of Wadax's website claims was true, they wouldn't hesitate to have the likes of Stereophile test it and shout from the rooftops. The fact that they haven’t, proves my point.

 

[Audiocrack]

You’re quite right. I am speculating; that Wadax doesn’t measure up to the best DACs currently available. Well, more like an educated guess really, because even if a single point of Wadax's website claims was true, they wouldn't hesitate to have the likes of Stereophile test it and shout from the rooftops. The fact that they haven’t, proves my point.

Well, as a lawyer I learned that ‘a contrario judgments’ are quite dangerous because they regularly turn out to be plain wrong …..

 

[Elliot G.]

You’re quite right. I am speculating; that Wadax doesn’t measure up to the best DACs currently available. Well, more like an educated guess really, because even if a single point of Wadax's website claims was true, they wouldn't hesitate to have the likes of Stereophile test it and shout from the rooftops. The fact that they haven’t, proves my point.

so Robert Harley, Roy Gregory and Lincoln Chung aren't enough? just asking for a friend LOL

 

[Docdan60]

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

I am old 73 but I think the above is is bias against a large group of audiophiles.