Wyred DACS

Got a DAC 2 about 2 weeks ago. Here is a review of in about one week old with virtually no break in. The review was conducted at Mike Lenehans, the maker of Lenehan ML1's, on the Gold Coast in Australia

OK. First off when we arrived Mike (he is the owner of Lenehan Audio) said he had been listening to it and thought it was very good. In fact he thought it was as good as his much more expensive and highly tweaked pcm 1704 DAC - with maybe, just maybe his DAC being a bit better - but not by much. However they were very different. First when we went into the listening area he had the WFS DAC running and a smile immediately came over my face because it was exactly the sound I like - detailed, analytical and dark. Although its not something I particularly look for it had great bass as well - but that may have been part of the great detail. If you have heard delta sigma DAC's before then this was delta sigma in overdrive. Everyone thought it was the best delta sigma they had heard.

We were going to try the DAC Magic but Mike said - don't bother - this is way out of its league so we didn't give it a listen to. Mike was shocked a DAC this affordable could be this good. We then hooked up Mike's DAC. It was entirely different - much more relaxed and well musical - but the detail had gone and the bass was not as good. In quality terms I thought they were both equal - just different. Evidently because Mike was so shocked at how good it was he had been extensively comparing it to his DAC and thought in the end his DAC may have had a slight edge - but it was scary close - not in terms of the type of sound - they were very different - but in terms of how good they were. I had no where near the experience Mike has with his DAC, and of course I have a bias because I purchased the WFS DAC, but to me it was more than scary close - they were equal - again in terms of quality - not in type of sound.

We tried the WFS sound direct into the amp and the digital volume control, and as you would expect, it was utterly transparent - no pre amp required here. We tried both optical and USB - I thought the USB may have been slightly better, but others were not so sure, so it may have been my imagination. One issue though - the USB drivers crashed a few times which is not good. That was on a mac so hopefully the windows version is more stable. Of course that is not good, and is something WFS needs to look into pretty quick.

Next up was the Audio GD which is also a 1704 implementation. It was actually scary close to Mike's DAC - Mike's DAC was better, but really there was not much in it. And at $1300 it is very good value. It had the same relaxed musical presentation as Mike's DAC. However it did not include a digital volume control, but if you are feeding it from a computer then that is not an issue since you can use your computers volume control. But it is not as flexible as the WFS in that sense.

Now to the bottom line. Since all the DAC's were close in quality terms it comes down to a personal preference thing. If you like detail and good bass go for the WFS. If you like a more relaxed musical presentation go for Mike's or the Audio GD DAC (you will need to contact Mike about his DAC- but its a good deal more expensive than either the WFS or the Audio GD). I personally like the extra detail so for me it's the WFS DAC. But the two other guys (Hugh and Terry) liked the 1704 DACs. The WFS is about $1900 compared to the $1300.00 for the Audio GD. To my ears the WFS was sightly better in quality terms - but there was hardly anything in it. Was it $600.00 difference - in the way I judge these things probably not - maybe $100.00 or $200.00. Also this is the middle quality Audio GD - the higher quality DAC would probably more than make up this difference and may even pip the WFS - but we can't be sure because we didn't try it. It so then it would be up to Mike's DAC and have the same relaxed musical presentation.

I will say this is not the result I expected - but was what we found. I am very happy with my DAC since it has the type of sound I like - but it may not be your cup of tea. My suggestion is to try and listen to both types of DAC's - a WFS and a 1704. If you like the WFS sound get that. If you like the 1704 get an Audio GD. Mike is so impressed with the WFS sound he wants it there for longer so he can get to the bottom of its sound - he is still shocked a DAC this cheap can be this good.

I had heard this DAC was scary close to the best out there with the difference in price possibly not worth it - this is what I found. What I did not expect was that is true in quality terms - not in the type of sound you get.

Because of this I am reminded of the Tranquility DAC which is the other DAC people are raving about. It is supposed to combine the best of both DACs - to have the relaxed musicality of the 1704's but the detail of delta sigma DAC's. I was not attracted to this DAC because you need a pre amp - a good one which costs more than the WFS DAC itself. However after hearing both DAC's I can see how a combination of the two would be killer. Pre amp or no pre amp I may just have to bite the bullet and check this DAC out. It may be a fizzer but if true it would really be something. I will give very careful consideration to getting one of these imported.

Me and another guy thought we could easily live with any of the DAC's. It is only via a direct comparison you appreciate the differences. But for some others (Hugh and Terry) the 1704 was their clear preference. Mike had to leave a bit early so I was not able to get his final verdict - but I suspect it was for his 1704.

Thanks
Bill

Using my PC and outputting 192k/24 via digital coax, the differences are minimal when comparing the DAC-1 to DAC-2. The biggest difference is that the DAC-2 has a slightly tighter bottom end.

Hi All

A trusted acquaintance popped around to Mike's last Monday to hear the WFS. He thought it sounded awful and Mike thought it was a lot worse than when he heard it previously. Something funny going on here - it probably needs some serious break-in time - but I would hold off getting one until this is sorted out. I will be leaving it at Mikes to get that break-in and report on how it sounds as the break in proceeds.

Next Saturday me and an acquaintance will be popping around to Mike's and comparing it to a Havana as well as Mikes tweaked 1704.

Thanks
Bill

This a pretty lame post. Earlier you wax poetic about an unbroken in unit then the next day it sounds like poop and you say to hold off buying one until it's all sorted out? Was the unit switched off, cables changed, how many actual hours are on it. I own one mine has about 400 hours on it. It sure doesn't sound like you described it
Maybe you and your buddy Mike should
give it the 200 hours of break in that the manufacturer recommends before commenting on it sounds.

First it was not me that had problems with the unit - it was an aquantance. On Saturday I will be able to report on what I think once it has broken in a bit.

Second I clearly indicated the amount of break in it had - virtually none. It had a slight bit more break-in when my friend listened to it - maybe and extra 20-30 hours.

Thirdly I clearly pointed out it was different to the other DAC's we listened to. I thought its strengths of better bass, dynamics and detail (which in my experience are the strengths of delta sigmas DAC's) bought it up to the level of the 1701 DAC's we were also listening to. Two others did not think so - in their view the the 1701 DAC's were clearly better. Although they freely admitted this was the best delta sigma they had ever heard they did not like it. Basically they don't like the delta sigma signature - quite possibly because the DAC's they listen to all the time are 1701's.

Now as to why it actually went backwards the jury is still out. Mike thought it was because the unbroken in ML1 speakers we tried the DAC on has weaknesses the strengths of the delta sigma DAC compensated for. They are slightly bass shy and recessed in the treble - but they loosen up. The speakers my acquaintance who has done a lot reviews listened to them on were well broken in ML3's. On that system the bass, to him, sounded over bloated and one note. It may simply be he does not like the delta sigma signature either. However he did not think the speakers were the issue - simply units sometimes do funny things during break in.

I must also say anyone who expects a view based on personal preferences to be definitive in any way is mistaken. It should form the basis of what you should seek out and actually hear rather than making purchasing decisions. In the end it may divide listeners - those that like and those that don't. Some famous DAC's are like that eg the MSB Link of quite a few years ago did that - some loved it - some hated it:
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/equipment/0200/anmeetsmsb.htm

Were those that said it was great lame? Were those that said it was hopeless lame? Of course not - they were simply expressing a personal preference. To expect anything else is pretty lame IMHO. I must also add I actually got an MSB Link many years ago and did not like the bass - it was overpowering and one note in my system. It loosened up over time but was never quite there for me. I preferred my less expensive DAC Magic 1. I may be out of luck with this DAC as well. Hopefully not since I did not find the bass bloated and one note - but as Mike said that may because the ML1's were not broken in. If so - tough luck for me. But hopefully not for you since you are alerted to the issue and can hear it first.

Thanks
Bill