Rockna Wavelight Impressions/Review

From Nicolae about the new Wavelight firmware:

“We did not changed specifically sound related blocks. But, FPGA physical implementation of the code is a complex thing and eventually may cause subtle sound changes.
We will release anyway 1.11 in a couple of weeks which will enable hybrid volume control.

Best Regards,
Nicolae”

 

@Ksaurav402 ,@loadexfa and @rlow , Thanks for the heads up guys. I am in need of a network bridge anyways and I don't think one can do better than the Pi2AES these days for $250. So no regrets getting the Pi2AES. I read somewhere that the I2S input on the Wavelight has a smoother sound. So hopefully it would help offset the added incisiveness. The current level of incisiveness is less of a bother in my speaker system than the headphones, so I just might end up using the Wavelight only in my speaker system.

@AdvanTech , interesting. I didn’t notice a difference in the incisiveness between the 2 firmwares. But the gain in midrange texture and body was quite noticeable. Perhaps it was the running-in of the DAC too.

@ChaChaRealSmooth , fatigue is definitely from the incisiveness and not the slammy and macro nature. In fact, I actually would like a touch more slam and macro, provided the incisiveness was more rounded.

@Michael Kelly , not trying to flatter you here, but the way I see it, it is not that Pi2AES by itself, which worsens the incisiveness. After all, what it does is provide a high quality digital signal to the DAC. It is just that, when a DAC is inherently incisive sounding, then a clean source might make the incisive nature more obvious.

 

Does this imply that you are turning your DAC off at all? I've not heard the Wavelight (thinking about it or its big brother, though...), but I've owned (and still own) several other discrete R2R DACs, and they really want to be left on all the time, as it takes quite a while for the resistor arrays to reach thermal stability. And the sound does change during that long time. Of the ones I've owned/own, the Holo Spring 2 is the least sensitive to this, but still worth keeping always on.

 

@earnmyturns , that is correct, I turn it Off every night before going to bed. Also, where I live, we have fairly-frequent power cuts (a few power cuts every week), so it would be pointless to leave it On all the time. So when I was deciding on a DAC, not having the need to leave the DAC On 24/7 was an important criteria. And based on the feedback from Rockna, Wavelight apparently only requires about 30-mins of warm-up, which was one of the reasons I went with the Wavelight.

Feedback from Rockna aside, so far I haven't been able to make out any difference between how it sounds at 2hrs and 10hrs after boot up. I have tried leaving it on for more than 24hrs a few times and I was lucky twice, without any power cuts interrupting the experiment. And during those 2 times, I really couldn't hear any noticeable differences between day 1 and 2. I guess I am just not sensitive to these minute differences or my auditory memory is just not that good. But what I can tell for sure is, both these times, the DAC sounded just as incisive on Day 2, as it sounded on Day 1.

 

+1. In the spectrum of dacs I have heard, Schiit ranks quite in the top in terms of 'incisiveness' (strong sharp lines on images), I have not yet heard the Rocknas. The Pi2AES only brings this quality out more, but also helps it to deliver the good stuff. More of everything.

 

So, I initially planned to do a head-to-head comparison of the Rockna Wavelight to Soekris dac2541 (since I have both on hand). I have notes typed out and everything. Turns out, it's not very interesting to read; to no one's surprise, Rockna wins pretty handily, in basically every category.

I also lack the experience to give it a fair comparative review, as I've not heard any other DACs in its price range. I'll instead just share some more general thoughts I've had since I bought the unit.

First, this may be contentious, but the Wavelight is the first DAC I've had where I didn't feel that something was blatantly wrong in at least one aspect. RME ADI-2 is, well, RME ADI-2. Prism Callia was somewhat grainy and recessed/thin in the lower mids, and also felt too high-contrasty and bright, especially in regards to leading edge transients and treble. Soekris dac2541 has a bit of decay undershot, which imparts a slight overdamped feeling to the music. Holo Spring 2 had the opposite problem, overshooting the decay and making things sound slow and mushy at times.

Now, I've not heard many of the SBAF favourites. I don't have any relevant experience with Schiit (the only DAC from them that I've heard is the Bifrost Uber gen1). Nor have I listened to any of the popular pro DACs such as Dangerous Convert 2 or Burl B2. Perhaps there exists a cheaper DAC that gives off the same impression that nothing is blatantly wrong; maybe a more experienced member can chime in here.

Conversely, I've also gained quite the appreciation for the DACs I've tried. They were all mostly very good DACs despite what I said earlier, and were I put into a situation where I was forced to downgrade, I definitely would not be completely dissatisfied. If I had to pick one to downgrade to, it'd probably be the Soekris dac2541. It has the fewest sins of commission, which I find I am more sensitive to than sins of omission. The decay undershot can also be worked around with synergy; for instance it works very well with Auteur, which has naturally long decay.

So, with all that out of the way, I'd describe Wavelight (with the linear filter, and the 1.10 firmware) as a slightly warm and thick sounding DAC, with excellent staging, dynamic heft, and transient response (particularly in the decay domain).

With respect to staging, this includes image sharpness, image placement, layering, separation, depth, and sheer size. Just very impressive, period.

For dynamic heft, I'd agree with @EagleWings with the big fat wet dictionary on table analogy; it's definitely got more oomph to it. Drums are especially fun to listen to. Somehow, drum hits seem fuller and more engaging, whilst simultaneously gaining in nuance and subtlety. Seems counterintuitive to me. Distinctions between softer drum hits and harder drum hits are made very apparent, leading to the best sense of rhythm and fun I've had yet. Incredibly engaging. Of course, this extends to all instruments, not just drums.

What might possibly be my favourite aspect about this DAC though is how it handles its transients. As I mentioned earlier, I felt that Soekris dac2541 undershot its decay, which made me feel like I was missing some detail due to the loss of natural reverberation and trailing notes. On the other hand, I felt I got all that with the Holo Spring 2, but at the cost of sounding loose and sloppy especially with busy passages. With the Rockna, I can have my cake and eat it too. It somehow is able to render all the little details, volume fluctuation and nuances from instrumental and vocal decay, whilst also wrapping itself up neatly and not overstaying its welcome. Some real goldilocks territory stuff right here, I must say.

The only real criticism I could come up with is that it may not work in everyone's system. Due to its warm and thick character, depending on the rest of the user's chain, the Wavelight may push things into cloying territory in regards to warmth. Also, people who prefer a drier, crisper, and more textured sound would likely have better options than the Wavelight. Even a $5000 DAC can't be slotted into just any system.

I'll end this off with saying that I don't quite agree with earlier impressions that this is a dreamy sounding or laidback DAC. I'm more inclined to agree with @EagleWings that this has quite some incision to it, despite the presentation being further back. Everything else, I generally agree with.

 

Just to calibrate your impressions for me (I'm thinking of the Wavelight for one of my systems), what sample rates were we using, and was the Spring 2 in NOS or OS mode? Reason I ask is the comment I've made elsewhere that Spring 2 NOS sounds slightly smeared to me on some 44.1 and 48 material, which is not so surprising given NOS, which the other two DACs have upsampling filters. I don't hear overshoot on Spring 2 with 88.2 and above material.

 

The Spring 2 impressions were made with NOS mode, on mostly redbook material. I bought it to see if the NOS sound would work out for me. It does, to an extent, and I am glad that Rockna has a NOS mode for me to play with when I'm in the mood. I'm still developing my thoughts on how I feel about the other filters, but I will say I definitely enjoy NOS on Rockna.

I wasn't a fan of the stock OS filters for Spring 2, and I didn't want to have to use HQPlayer or other upsampling software to circumvent the stock filters. Would rather just buy another DAC altogether.

 

Yeah, this is the question I'm pondering myself. For 88.2+ material, Spring 2 KTE is the best DAC I've owned (vs Spring 1 KTE, Yggdrasil A2, Metrum Onyx, Sonnet Morpheus, Soekris dac1541) and I really don't want to change it. Using Roon 2x upsampling for lower sampling rate material is acceptable, but not as good as native 88.2+ material. Holo's OS filters are not as good as Yggdrasil A2 for my taste. I suspect I'll end up getting a Wavelight to check out its OS performance.

 

Hey guys, I saw an earlier poster mention this from Rockna regarding the forthcoming software update: "1.11 in a couple of weeks which will enable hybrid volume control"

Does anyone know what "hybrid volume control" is? The "smart phone app" nature of the remote control for volume control is one of the things that's kept me just "watching" this DAC... I would plan to use it as my preamp and would like an intuitive way to change volume in the dark without looking at my phone's screen. Perhaps this is an update to allow other 3rd party bluetooth volume control devices? Honestly why Rockna just can't release a $50 or even $100 remote as an optional extra is beyond me. Thoughts? Thanks!

 

Currently, the volume adjustment on the Wavelight is done in the analog domain. The upcoming hybrid volume is a digital-analog hybrid. Yes, I would also like a dedicated physical remote over controlling the volume through the app. The Wavelight iOS app is quite buggy, let alone seamless. So if you are looking for a DAC with a breezy volume control function, Wavelight may not be the right one.

 

@Jonah - Out of curiosity - what amp/s and headphone/s or speaker/s did you use?

In my time with the loaner, I agree with most of your comments aside from the incisiveness which to me was about average on most songs. However, given the unique fluid nature of the DAC and potential variations in other equipment + individual psycho-acoustics, I could see how some could say it would be more incisive with some songs / setup - I just didn't get it myself.

And yes, I also agree that I may even pick the 2541 over the Wavelight despite the Wavelight being the technically superior DAC. Granted, it's more system setup and synergy for me but I would agree with your comment regarding less sins of commission.

 

Sorry, I should have stated in my original review, my fault.

My headphone chain is pi2aes (i2s) -> Wavelight (RCA) -> SW51+ -> Auteur/hd6xx. Unfortunately, I don't have a balanced input transformer, so I can't test the bal. vs. SE thing that's been going on in this thread.

My (near field) speaker chain is pi2aes (i2s) -> Wavelight (using the included pre-amp, XLR) -> Neumann KH120.

It's definitely more incisive than Soekris dac2541 or Holo Spring 2 to my ears at least. Less so than Callia, which I felt could be over-incisive at times. I forget where RME ADI-2 fits in place here, been too long. Have no clue where the Wavelight would fit in the grand scheme of things. I just wanted to illustrate that I didn't find the Wavelight dreamy or laidback. Perhaps average in incisiveness is appropriate? There's also been talk about the latest firmware being more incisive than previous ones; unfortunately I lack the previous firmware files to rollback to and find out. I might email Nikolai and see if he can give me the files.

I don't know if I would go so far as to say I'd pick dac2541 over Wavelight, haha. dac2541 is good, but wavelight is good. But of course, system synergy reigns supreme here. I was more pointing out the tremendous value proposition that dac2541 offers, as well as diminishing returns to an extent. I'd still say Wavelight is significantly better, and suits my preferences more to boot.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll go ahead and just post my impressions of Rockna vs. Soekris dac2541 for the purposes of allowing SBAF members to better triangulate from my impressions, despite it being boring to read. Apologies for the lack of capitalization and grammar.

When using the dac2541, my chains were are follows:

Pi2AES (AES) -> Soekris dac2541 (black filter, RCA) -> SW51+ -> Auteur/hd6xx
Pi2AES (AES) -> Soekris dac2541 (black filter, RCA) -> Wavelight (as preamp) (XLR) -> Neumann KH120

presentation: soekris more upfront, vocals are more forward especially. wavelight has everything relatively pushed back.

bass: more heft, weight, slam on the wavelight. more texture, slightly better pitch differentiation. slightly richer, more fleshed out on wavelight. drier and more limp on the soekris.

mids: thicker, slightly warmer, more saturated on the wavelight. a less coloured, drier, thinner presentation on dac2541. a toss up, i like both presentations.

treble: slightly brighter on the soekris, more crisp and drier but a bit lacking in texture. by comparison, wavelight meatier (esp. w cymbals), even if darker. better texture, better presence.

stage: no contest. much better depth, width and layering from the wavelight. 2541 pretty good at layering, but is definitely flatter and narrower in direct comparison to wavelight.

imaging: both are strong at image placement, though wavelight is better with the 3d depth aspect. images seem more vivid on the rockna though, so it's better at sharpness. notes seem slightly 'bigger' with rockna. separation is also better on rockna.

transients (decay): 2541's biggest weakness. i feel like it truncates/undershoots the last bit of decay, lacking in natural reverberation, and contributes to an overdamped impression. rockna renders decay beautifully, without overshooting and making things mushy or slow.

transients (leading edges): slightly more incisive/cleaner on rockna. neither overshoot the leading edges, nor seem mushy or soft.

clarity: blacker background on rockna. 2541 seems ever so slightly more veiled/smothered sounding, possibly due to undershot decay, possible due to lacking overtones. not sure.

macrodynamics: significantly better on the rockna. better at slam and better at going from 0-100.

microdynamics/plankton/microdetail: grouping these together because rockna is plain better in all these aspects. nuances, both in terms of volume and detail are better rendered on the rockna. a better sense of 'atmosphere' or 'live' feel with rockna.

timbre: slightly richer on the rockna, more r2r-like. both strong here, though soekris is more plasticky in comparison (probably due to undershot decay and comparatively less heft)

 

Now that I have spent more time with the Wavelight and have tried it with the Pi2AES too, here is my final take.

Wavelight seems to combine the burly, punchy and dense sound of the Schiit DACs and the refined, resolve and speed of the Chord DACs. In terms of tone, it is quite neutral up until the upper-mids region, and starts to take on a slightly brighter tone from lower treble and onwards. And since most music will have overtones going into the lower-treble, I would describe the overall tone of the DAC as neutral-bright. Which is not surprising because, I find both Schiit and Chord DACs to be bright. So if you haven't had trouble with brightness from Bifrost2 or Chord DACs, there is a good chance you might not perceive the Wavelight as bright either.

Like the Schiit DACs, this DAC hits hard and and is very dynamic in nature overall. While it may not be the hardest hitting in the bass, I don't think anyone would have anything to complain about its bass authority. Be it rumble, slam, punch or kick, it has got it all. But unlike the Schiit DACs, it presents bass in a much cleaner manner with plenty of nuance, texture and layers. I wish the hits were just a bit smaller in size, but went a tad deeper.

The midrange again is full-bodied and has the density like that of Schiit DACs. But the tone is still neutral here. So if you are looking for NOS like density and warmth, Wavelight may not have it, not even on the NOS mode. While the DAC produces dense notes in the mids, per my reference and definition, this is not what I would describe as thick. While macrodynamics seems to be excellent regardless of the headphone I used, microdynamics seemed to vary between headphones and I suspect there are 2 aspects in play here. On a headphone that doesn't have powerful bass and has very good microdynamics ability, the microdyamics are present in spades. But on a headphone with strong bass and is not quite great with microdyanmcis, the microdynamics comes across as a bit lacking. I can't tell if it is the issue with the DAC or the headphone, but I thought I will mention it. Perhaps it is the DAC’s resolving ability ruthlessly reveal the shortcomings of the headphones.

The treble is where things go South for me on this DAC, especially on headphones. It is as incisive as Schiit DACs in the lower treble, and is also overall brighter in the entire treble region similar to the Chord DACs. So I find this DAC harsh, fatiguing and unforgiving. While I am able to overcome the outright harshness by pairing it with some smooth sounding gear, the fatigue gets to me sooner or later, unless I pair it with completely dark and smooth sounding gear. Also, this bright treble ruins the otherwise beautiful timbre present in the midrange. Despite the punchy bass and the dense midrange, this DAC tips towards the detail side on the tonality-detail scale, because of the treble. The treble issue seems to be not as apparent on speakers, so I enjoy this DAC quite a bit on speakers, as it sounds less intense and presents better timbre.

This DAC really shines on the technical front. The separation, imaging and resolution are excellent and at least a few notches above the Bifrsot2. The stage, while not cavernous in nature, is still very large with excellent depth and layering of instruments. While I have heard this level of speed, agility, attack and transients on Chord DACs, Chord DACs don't have the authority, dynamics and a sense of natural decay that the Wavelight has. The punchy and bright nature of this DAC makes it a very energetic sounding DAC. So with the right gear it can be a very engaging listen and with the wrong gear it can be quite aggressive and quickly fatiguing. If you are after a laidback DAC, you may want to look elsewhere.

On Speakers:
On speakers, as you have the ability to control the treble by toeing out the speakers, the Wavelight does not come across as bright in a speaker chain. As a result, it is less fatiguing and also the timbre seems quite nice. The DACs depth and layering abilities are also more easy to perceive on speakers. So on some music you can hear the singer placed on the plane of the front wall, and the instruments emerging from beyond the front wall. My speaker-room setup is not ideal to judge the stage width capabilities of the DAC, so I can’t comment on it. The biggest highlight about the Wavelight on speakers though, is its ability to separate the sound from the speaker and make it appear like the sound is coming from the empty space adjacent to the speaker, instead of from the speaker itself.

Filters:
All my impressions above are based on the Linear filter. On the NOS filter, the upper treble rolls off a bit and the midrange gains some warmth. But, the lower treble becomes even sharper and brighter than the Linear filter. Also the stage seems to compress a little and the bass seems to lose some authority on NOS. So I mostly use Linear filter these days. Compared to the Linear filter, the Minimum Phase filter is just more etched and edgy sounding. I am yet to test the Hybrid filter properly, but I doubt I will like it more than the Linear filter.

SE vs BAL:
Upon testing SE and BAL inputs in the Yamaha A-S2100, I found the SE to be a tad rougher and shouty. And the difference was so small that I had to listen very closely to identify it. And even that could be attributed to how the Yamaha handles the SE inputs. So it still doesn’t tell us anything conclusively.

Preamp:
The variable analog output seems to be quite good that I didn't notice any degradation in sound quality, when reducing the volume on the Wavelight. While that qualifies the Wavelight to be a good preamp in a chain, having to either use the up/down buttons on the unit or the app to adjust the volume, is a bit of a clunky preamp experience.

Setup:
Sources: Pi2AES (I2S, Coaxial), Hiby R6 (Coaxial), MacBook Pro (USB)
DACs: Wavelight, Bifrost2
Amps: EC BW2, Yamaha A-S2100
Headphones: HD800, HD650, LCDi4, 64Audio U12t, Final E5000, DQSM Turandot
Speakers: Graham LS6

 

Thanks for the impressions, EagleWings! I don't know if you ever use EQ, but I'd be curious to hear what sort of change would tame the treble for you (at what frequency does the trouble begin, and how drastically does it need to be pulled down).

 

I used to be a big time EQ user. But in my DAC journey (Hugo2, Cayin N8, Modius, Bifrost2, Wavelight), it was almost impossible to get rid of the treble issues from a DAC through EQ, without ruining the sound quality. Also I found EQs to impact dynamics, transients and depth. When I owned a Hugo2, I used to EQ my HD800 with the Sonarworks profile. But Sonarworls was not able to completely fix the issues. It wasn't;t until I tried a Cayin N8, with which I was able to listen to the HD800 even without EQ because it was so smooth and yet was excellent in details, transients and dynamics. Since that experience I have been on a pursuit to find a similarly smooth DAC that doesn't compromise on dynamics and transients.

These days the only form of EQ I use is the Reveal Plugin for my LCDi4, which corrects its otherwise wonky frequency response.

 

I got the chance to hear the Wavelight at home with my own rig, and compare it to my personal Wavedream Signature.

I originally posted impressions on the Wavelight here, but was unsatisfied with them for a number of reasons. For one, the setup used in that comparison was a): in less than ideal conditions, and b): outdated. I no longer run a BHA-1 and my Utopia sees little use these days. The other glaring issue was that I had no idea what firmware the unit I heard was on (I found out when I brought this unit back that it was 1.04), and as evidenced by the impressions in this thread and my own personal experience with the Wavedream, that matters a lot. So I resolved to set things right by making the time to bring one back home for a loaner.

Spoiler: Setup information

Macbook Pro USB > Wavelight SE > EC Studio Jr 2A3 Bal out > White paper HD580
Macbook Pro USB > Wavedream Signature SE > EC Studio Jr 2A3 Bal out > White paper HD580
Studio Jr is running a metal base GZ34 for the rectifier, ACME 2A3s for the power and NOS GE5670 square getter for the input.
Regarding the Wavelight SE vs BAL conundrum, I'm told by WL owners that the WL's BAL output is really just different as opposed to better. Of course, this is irrelevant given the downgrade in performance that having to used balanced in any situation brings to the table with the Studio Jr.

The first thing to discuss with the Wavelight is warmup time. I was initially led to believe it only took 2 hours, and upon listening I found it to be excessively thick, somewhat veiled and rather dull, quite a large difference compared to how I originally heard it. I went to bed, left it running for another day or so, and found the results much better. Essentially, I would recommend about a day of warmup for the Wavelight.

As I discussed with the Wavedream's firmware, it seems like earlier updates have a more mellow, spacious sound, which can be a bit too laidback on some setups, while the latest firmware is more upfront and aggressive. I personally prefer the latter, so I don't mind this at all. Such applies to the Wavelight. One of my complaints regarding the 1.04 Wavelight firmware was that it lacked tactility despite having awesome macrodynamics. This is no longer the case on the 1.10 (and 1.23, but I'll get to that in a moment) firmware.

So how does the Wavelight sound on this setup, and how does it compare to the Wavedream Signature? The Wavelight is not quite as warm as the WD Sig, it presents a leaner tone with a bit of stridency in the upper mids. The tone can be altered slightly by maxing out the Studio Jr's potentiometer and using the volume control available on the Wavelight itself, but I will go into more detail on that later.

Technical performance in comparison to WD Sig is, unsurprisingly, not quite up to par, though I'd question the sanity of anyone who was expecting that. WL loses out in timbral purity (slightly strident upper mids as mentioned), has slightly less microdynamic performance, and it lacks the raw macrodynamic impact (or "slam" if you will) that the Wavedream Signature has in spades. In some regards it's similar to the WD Edition, except the Edition still has more sheer macrodynamic range and better microdynamic performance overall. Unfortunately the Edition SE has been discontinued, making the previous dilemma of WD Edition SE vs WL now irrelevant. Regardless, I would say that the Wavelight is still more macrodynamic and microdynamic than its competitors; it's certainly not as compressed as, say, the Yggdrasil, and is far more nuanced than any D/S DAC I've heard.

Midway through my loaner period for the WL, the long awaited 1.23 firmware released. Quite lucky timing and completely unexpected, I would have been more than happy to have only listened to the 1.10 firmware during this period. Needless to say I updated it once again (thankfully without a hitch) to hear what changes the latest firmware would bring.

And the answer was... not really any. For such a big firmware update one would have expected drastic sonic changes, but I found the WL to sound essentially the same. It could simply be a case of me not being used to the WL and therefore not being sensitive towards changes applied to it, but as is any such differences are subtle enough that I hear nothing.

The biggest feature that the 1.23 update brought was the hybrid volume control option for the preamp. Prior to this on the 1.10 firmware, I'd experimented with the analog volume control on the Wavelight itself, with less than satisfactory results. I found it to have worse microdynamic delineation and spotted some treble harshness. On 1.23, I didn't really notice as much of the microdynamic issues, but the treble harshness was definitely still present, if not worse.

In comparison to both the analog volume and the Studio Jr's own pot volume, I found the Wavelight's hybrid volume to be more laidback (some have said "spacious" which I get) and tonally warmer, probably about as warm as WD Sig. I also don't hear any of the treble harshness I got from the analog volume, and some (if not most) of the upper midrange stridency I was getting with Studio Jr's volume pot seems to have been reduced. To sum it up, I would take the Wavelight's hybrid volume control over both the pot volume and the analog volume. This does not take into account my opinion on usability, which is less than positive due to my dislike of IoT type design. Give me a proper remote over it any day of the week.

With that I've summarized most of what there is to discuss with the Wavelight, so it only feels apt now to discuss the Wavelight's place in the market. With the discontinuation of the Wavedream Edition SE (I am unsure about the Balanced Edition), the only option left at non-ORFAS prices (if one can even call a $5k new DAC that) is essentially the Wavelight. For the going price of around $2-3k used, I think the Wavelight is the best DAC I've heard for that price point, and I only really have interest in one other competitor which may be perhaps too esoteric for a general audience. I remain unconvinced with the pro audio DACs floating around these days and have never particularly liked the other popular audiophile catered options on the market. Per my tastes and preferences and with what I've heard to date, the Wavelight is probably as good as one can get without getting into really silly territory, though it certainly isn't the last word in performance as evidenced by the gap between it and the Wavedream Signature. I hope this read has been a satisfactory and informative conclusion to my original notes from months prior.

 

Wavelight vs Yggdrasil A2



I was lucky to get to borrow a Wavelight DAC from a generous fellow SBAFer recently and thought I should write some brief impressions now and possibly expand on them in the future if I can.

Gear

Tidal -> Pi2AES ->

-> AES -> Wavelight -> Jensen iso MAX PO-2XR -> switcher input 1
-> BNC -> Yggdrasil -> Jensen iso MAX PO-2XR (yes I have two of them for comparing DACs) -> swticher input 2 ->

-> Liquid Gold X -> modded Audeze LCD-X, modded LCD-4
-> Jottenheim A -> modded Audeze LCD-R

Form Factor
I hate the huge LCD or whatever screen of the Wavelight I don’t know what they were thinking or who would want that, but luckily it can be turned off so it’s not a big deal. Otherwise I much prefer the form factor of the Wavelight. Being thinner is nice for my setup and the chassis is prettier on the Wavelight with these muscle car sort of lines compared to the very basic chassis of the Yggdrasil that I’ve seen so many times it’s boring at this point. But I don’t care about nice aesthetics, I just don’t want bling that is distracting.

Background
I wasn’t as impressed by the Wavelight as I thought I would be. i was expecting it to be the best DAC I’ve ever heard by far. So far I’ve basically only heard (in home for an extended period) Schiit DAC’s: the Airist R2R DAC, Gungnir A1, Gungnnir A2, Bifrost 2, and Yggdrasil A2.

Sound
I actually thought the Yggdrasil was more resolving. They both had good tonality to me, though different. i was expecting the Wavelight to have some kind of magic here but I didn’t really hear it sounding better tonally than the Yggdrasil. The Wavelight had a denser, meatier sound and seemed more linear in its FR, a bit less bass while the Yggrdrail has that (very slight IMO) bass emphasis. In fact, if anything I would agree with @Hands about the Wavelight missing a bit of upper bass richness. The bass sounded a bit thin if I'm nitpicking. But the point is that the Wavelight didn’t sound better to me or more correct. They both sounded very good tonally and very accurate and realistic. I got lost in the music with both DAC’s equally. Which was, like i said, a surprise.

The Wavelight had a blacker background, and more dynamic contrast. This was the biggest difference. And slightly less resolution than the Yggdrasil.

I’ve noticed a pattern with DACs’ now that I’ve picked up with the Soerikis 2541, Ygddrasil LIM and now the Wavelight as well, where blacker background comes at the cost of resolution. By resolution I mean plankton, or what i like to call “grit”. The tiny bits of information along the edges of. notes. When DACs have a blacker background, they smooth off this grit and loose this information. The Yggdrasil A2 has a more gray backhround but has more of this grit than all 3 of these DACs.

I liken this, as I’ve said elsewhere to noise reduction in photography. You reduce noise (blacker backgroiund) but you also loose information and smooth the sharp grit along shapes that is the information that makes up detail. More noise reduction = smoother = less inforamation.

There’s a similar pattern with DACs and black background that I feel confident now is likely a pattern through all DACs. A balance between black background and resolution. The Yggdrasil sacrifices some black background for resolution, the most of any DAC I’ve heard (not that many).

The 2541 and ultimately the LIM after spending more time with it bothered me because of this smoothing effect where you loose the grit and hear more of a smoothed tone. The Waveligiht didn’t bother me like these others. I’d rank them like this in terms of smoothing effect for the sake of black background, from more to least smoothing

2541
LIM
Wavelight

It didn’t bother me with the Wavelight, but it was still there. So when swithcing back and forth I found myself appreciating the black background of the Wavelighight compared to the Yggdrasil, and then when I switched to the Yggdrasil I found myself appreciating the increase in resolution or “grit”.

I ultimately decided that I preferred the resolution of the Yggdrasil A2 vs the more black background of the Wavelight. The price difference did not help with this, seeing that I pad 1,500 for my Yggdrasil and a used Wavelight would be at least 3000.

Other aspects

Soundstage seemed about the same to me. But I don’t really care about soundstage subtleties and did not listen for this. It’s so much more dramatic between different headphones, the differences between DACs just don’t really phase me unless they are really cramped and stuffed up.

The Wavelight has, like i said, more dynamic contrast than the Yggdrasil. It’s as if dynamic swings are pulled apart more. If I was to make a comparison to photography, I would liken it to more contrast. Quiet to loud happens faster and hits harder with the Wavelight. I found this to neither be a positive or a negative for me, but simply a difference. I wondered if it might get fatiguing for me over time and I don’t think so, but I think that’s a possibility for some people. In fact I’m sure a subset of listeners would find the Wavelight fatiguing. Those who like NOS DACs should not bother with the Wavelight. Those who like smooth tube like analog DAC sound might be bothered by this. It had no sense of digititis, but it also wasn't necessarily natural sounding either. Nor was it unnatural, but I don’t think vinyl has this kind of dynamic contrast. Just for example.

I thought the Wavelight was the best DAC with a very black background I’ve heard. It beats the LIM and 2541 in resolution and immersion and musicality. I could live with either the Yggdrasil A2 or the Wavelight. I wish I had more time to just listen to the Wavelight for longer and see how I would fare over a longer period of time instead of A/Bing.

But my general final thought was that regardless of whether I might wind up preferring the Wavelight, it definitely was not worth the price compared to the Yggdrasil A2. I’d been lusting for a Wavelight based on the reviews, and the big take away for me in borrowing one was to calm this lust. It made me realize that my Yggdrasil is good enough and that a Wavelight would be a sidegrade, not a big improvement that would change my enjoyment of music.

But I would add that the slight grayness of the Yggdrasil is something I can get used to and it does not bother me like it does some people, it’s just something I notice when compared to DAC’s with blacker background. So if you’re someone who feels a black background is really important, the Wavelight is the best I’ve heard at not smoothing notes and maintaining grit and resolution with a black background. And it might be the DAC to look for. If I had a lot of money I would get one to listen to again, but until that day, I don’t feel the need and think the Yggradsil is at least good enough if not more suited to my preferences vs the Wavelight. I would not, however say that its better.

I ultimately think both DAC’s are about at the same level objectively. With different strengths. That’s not to say that the Wavelight is a rip off or not worth the price. I think getting that black background while maintaining resolution is likely something they worked very hard at and cost a lot of research and possibly parts costs.

Hopefully this is helpful to those considering a Wavelight. It really just comes down to how important a black background is to you IMO.

 

I have noticed this as well, and was wondering when the 2541 was being reviewed at first if folks were going to link this up. It did not take as long with the LIM, though Marv sort of hinted, suggested, and all but said it at the very beginning if memory serves.

There is a similar-but-different phenom with transducers as well. Now that I think about it, I'm somewhat surprised the Gun A2/Yggdrasil A2 are as popular as they are here at SBAF, given that their analogs that come to my mind in transducers are the Focals, which are not liked by so many because they are too fast, too gritty, not smooth enough.