WiiM Amp

[Steve Woodhouse]

Aren't we forgetting dynamics? To be able to control speakers which can be bigger than tiny bookshelves you need current and a properly built output stage. The nice power supply in your Audiolab 8000A will be your friend for many years to go

Regarding the power, as I’ve noted, people are already using this amp with Wharfedale Lintons. But yes, if you have very difficult, power-hungry speakers, you may need a more powerful amp. I don’t think anyone has ever disputed that.

I no longer have the 8000A, and have no regrets selling it. Loved it while I had it, though.

 

[Steve Woodhouse]

My final words to this theme, most likely many will love the word "final" here.
An offer for my near mint and boxed 1989 or 1990 Audiolab/Camtech 8000A was a few months ago 700 €.
No intention to sell this legend, quite sure it will be part of another pure vintage setup one day.
What do you think will be a resale price in more than 30 years for a WiiM "Amp"? Zero, because it will be decades ago that it ended its life on a rubbish dump. That is exactly the reason because it is definitely NOT price worthy.
You get what you pay for, even today. Like it or not. Buy cheap and you will buy twice! Or at least more often, but that is not my way. Go for it. Said in the name of Ken Ishiwata
And now we'll see what the Austria chef brings to the table. Take care @ ALL

I have never, and cannot imagine ever making a hi-fi purchasing decision based on resale value.

I suspect the WiiM Amp’s greatest advantage is also its greatest disadvantage. It’s a superb one-box solution. But it very locked in, with limited facility to upgrade, and if anything breaks down (most likely the amplification stage), you’re stuck.

The same can be said of pretty much any one box solution.

Whether anyone will still be using a current WiiM Amp in 2, 5, 10, 20, 40 years time might be something which some might want to discuss. But at £299, I’m not sure it’s an avenue I’d go down.

But still having an Audiolab 8000A with THD+N of 0.05%, when you can buy a £100 amp today with THD+N of 0.0005% is a spurious advantage to offer into the argument at best.

By the way, going back in time I suppose an older version of the WiiM Amp might be the Denon UD-M31. I bought mine around 30 years ago…it’s still going strong.

 

[musig]

Honestly I think that the THD+N doesn't define an amplifier and tells you almost nothing about how it will sound, nonetheless it is a parameter to be taken into consideration (especially in case of weird values). I appreciate the work done on measurement based tests because objective data are provided and these can be a very useful at choice time. Nowadays it is more and more difficult to find a good reseller with a listening room where to experiment and test equipment (at least in Italy) so, at least, you have some well made measurements and metrics that can be very helpful.

 

[Yoku-San]

Regarding the power, as I’ve noted, people are already using this amp with Wharfedale Lintons

I have a pair of Lintons, they have a quite high sensitivity and are therefore easier to drive than speakers like e.g. KEF LS50.

 

[harkpabst]

But yes, if you have very difficult, power-hungry speakers, you may need a more powerful amp. I don’t think anyone has ever disputed that.

Or just add a sub and enjoy all the substantial benefits of the WiiM providing proper high-pass filtering of the mains, including vastly lowering power demands on the amplifier section. The difference can be huge, especially with relatively small speakers.

Honestly I think that the THD+N doesn't define an amplifier and tells you almost nothing about how it will sound, nonetheless it is a parameter to be taken into consideration (especially in case of weird values). I appreciate the work done on measurement based tests because objective data are provided and these can be a very useful at choice time. Nowadays it is more and more difficult to find a good reseller with a listening room where to experiment and test equipment (at least in Italy) so, at least, you have some well made measurements and metrics that can be very helpful.

Your point is valid. Engineers have always been measuring what they could measure easily. Things have improved over time and (being an engineer) I do appreciate that nowadays we do not simply measure THD+N and that's it. Correlation between measurements and perceived quality is still a challenge, but not as mysterious as it used to be. In the end it's still about what somebody likes or not, but one individual simply liking (or disliking) a certain kind of music reproduction is not helpful for anybody.

And a final note (final as in the sense of Achim's final) on hard to drive speakers: The WiiM Amp can easily drive a pair of KEF LS 50 to insane levels, in a 20 m² room at least.

 

[Atlas B170]

My final words to this theme, most likely many will love the word "final" here.
An offer for my near mint and boxed 1989 or 1990 Audiolab/Camtech 8000A was a few months ago 700 €.
No intention to sell this legend, quite sure it will be part of another pure vintage setup one day.
What do you think will be a resale price in more than 30 years for a WiiM "Amp"? Zero, because it will be decades ago that it ended its life on a rubbish dump. That is exactly the reason because it is definitely NOT price worthy.
You get what you pay for, even today. Like it or not. Buy cheap and you will buy twice! Or at least more often, but that is not my way. Go for it. Said in the name of Ken Ishiwata
And now we'll see what the Austria chef brings to the table. Take care @ ALL

I guess there are still people around that believe "If it costs more, it must be better," even in this day and age...

This hobby has historically been rife with slick marketing, gatekeeping, and nonsensical subjective descriptors from both manufacturers and industry media. The focus on measurement-driven engineering and delivering highly functional and affordable components from the likes of WiiM, Fosi, Topping, SMSL, etc. is the future of this hobby. Sure, there will always be people willing to pay an excessive premium if they believe they're getting the absolute best (and I assure you that the salesmen know that better than anyone), but the actual innovation is being done at the level that you ironically seem to think is inferior.

 

[Achim1811]

I guess there are still people around that believe "If it costs more, it must be better," even in this day and age...

This hobby has historically been rife with slick marketing, gatekeeping, and nonsensical subjective descriptors from both manufacturers and industry media. The focus on measurement-driven engineering and delivering highly functional and affordable components from the likes of WiiM, Fosi, Topping, SMSL, etc. is the future of this hobby. Sure, there will always be people willing to pay an excessive premium if they believe they're getting the absolute best (and I assure you that the salesmen know that better than anyone), but the actual innovation is being done at the level that you ironically seem to think is inferior.

Final final final..
My posts are not about better or worse. It should only make clear that my approach is different and I do not want to be patronized in any way!
I have my own guidelines to decide if a device for me is worth the price. No nonsense at all. I've run successful a company for decades and believe me, throwing money out of the window is still a horror for me and calculating prices was always part of it.
My stereo is as I posted far away from esoteric and overpriced high-end, may be it is mid-end. And I have to confess that the digital part is the less important. So, may be my judgement about this cheap chinois....devices may sound a little harsh. But putting a hand on my (still) budget level amplifier is for me a better feeling than touching those ridiculous fast "developing" and every two months "improving" devices.
So, I grant me this little luxury as part of a reward for performance. My only concern is to be mocked for that.

Added: If you are interested may have a look in my profile under "About" what my actual setup is. Name me one not reasonable item.

 

[Steve Woodhouse]

Final final final..
My posts are not about better or worse. It should only make clear that my approach is different and I do not want to be patronized in any way!
I have my own guidelines to decide if a device for me is worth the price. No nonsense at all. I've run successful a company for decades and believe me, throwing money out of the window is still a horror for me and calculating prices was always part of it.
My stereo is as I posted far away from esoteric and overpriced high-end, may be it is mid-end. And I have to confess that the digital part is the less important. So, may be my judgement about this cheap chinois....devices may sound a little harsh. But putting a hand on my (still) budget level amplifier is for me a better feeling than touching those ridiculous fast "developing" and every two months "improving" devices.
So, I grant me this little luxury as part of a reward for performance. My only concern is to be mocked for that.

Added: If you are interested may have a look in my profile under "About" what my actual setup is. Name me one not reasonable item.

De gustibus non est disputandum.

But when you come to a public forum and tell people that they should or shouldn’t be buying products x, y or z, based on how you feel, and criticise others for using and suggesting scientifically accurate ways of judging kit, then it’s yourself who’s being inconsistent.

When we hear our kit, we hear frequency response, distortion (or jack of it), and noise (or a lack of it). Measuring those, and noting which measures best is a perfectly reasonable way - some might say the only valid way - to judge standards.

If you were to undergo a medical treatment, or take a drug, I’m sure you’d want to base any choice you’d make on scientific measurements of the validity of that treatment. And if someone were to say “The deaths per thousand figures are better, but I prefer the other one”, you’d run a mile.

 

[Steve Woodhouse]

Honestly I think that the THD+N doesn't define an amplifier and tells you almost nothing about how it will sound, nonetheless it is a parameter to be taken into consideration (especially in case of weird values).

It’s certainly not the only parameter, but it’s a very important one. If one amp’s distortion and/or noise levels are high and well within human audibility, and the next one has very low levels, outside the limits of human audibility, then the latter amp will sound better, if by better we mean more transparent to the source - if anyone means something different, they have a responsibility to flag up a massive government health warning on all their comments.

Ideally, an amp shouldn’t sound like anything. It should take the signal it receives, increase it to a level high enough to drive your speakers, and do nothing else.

The measurable parameters we can measure are frequency response (is it flat and full range), what's the total harmonic distortion, is there an issue with crosstalk, what’s the level of noise. We also need to know how much power it can chuck out before any of the above become noticeable.

And that’s it. All of the above have been scientifically proven to show to what extent any amp colours the signal. Nothing else has been shown to do so (my apologies if I’ve missed anything),

If anyone knows of any other parameter, please let us know, and provide documented evidence that there’s a measurable factor that shows how an amp will sound.

 

[Mr Ee]

The price tag

 

[onlyoneme]

And that’s it.

It's just a beginning.

For example:

(Suggestion on) Testing power amplifiers according to IEC 60268-3 standard

(Suggestion on) Testing power amplifiers according to IEC 60268-3 standard I would like to start the debate on ASR power amplifier testing and suggest some degree of conformance with current standards. --------------------------------------------------- The part 3 of IEC 60268 applies to...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Handling a complex load by power amplifiers

Handling a complex load by power amplifiers A power amplifier’s job is to supply a voltage to a loudspeaker and then to deliver whatever current the loudspeaker needs to move its voice coil, producing airwaves with a sound pressure level up to what is specified for the speaker and/or...

www.audiosciencereview.com

And also:

Distortion Surface: old measurement, new approach

Distortion Surface: old measurement, new approach The following metric is typically included for amplifier manufacturers’ specifications: THD+N <...

www.superbestaudiofriends.org

"We need to move on and use distortion measurements that are perceptually meaningful."

An updated post

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Steve Woodhouse]

It's just a beginning.

For example:

(Suggestion on) Testing power amplifiers according to IEC 60268-3 standard

(Suggestion on) Testing power amplifiers according to IEC 60268-3 standard I would like to start the debate on ASR power amplifier testing and suggest some degree of conformance with current standards. --------------------------------------------------- The part 3 of IEC 60268 applies to...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Handling a complex load by power amplifiers

Handling a complex load by power amplifiers A power amplifier’s job is to supply a voltage to a loudspeaker and then to deliver whatever current the loudspeaker needs to move its voice coil, producing airwaves with a sound pressure level up to what is specified for the speaker and/or...

www.audiosciencereview.com

And also:

Distortion Surface: old measurement, new approach

Distortion Surface: old measurement, new approach The following metric is typically included for amplifier manufacturers’ specifications: THD+N <...

www.superbestaudiofriends.org

"We need to move on and use distortion measurements that are perceptually meaningful."

An updated post

www.audiosciencereview.com

I’m not sure most of the points there are saying what you think they say.

I’m quite in agreement that, beyond a certain level (a level we may well have passed a long time ago), there’s little difference in many modern amps for THD+N (for example).

That doesn’t mean it’s not a parameter we can measure, and which we know sounds bad in the worst circumstances.

I personally feel that, unless something is badly broken, within the constraints of trying to get an underpowered amp to drive difficult speakers, most amps are much of a muchness.

What I'm talking about, and warning against, is the idea that some high-end manufacturers have managed to (a) discover some previously unthought of parameter which makes a difference to an amp’s sound (b) they’ve sorted the problem, (c) sorting it costs a fortune, (d) they're not telling anyone what it is, and (e) it’s not measurable.

 

[canard]

pour rappel à l'utilisateur il est déjà possible de faire un joli montage en passe haut en utilisant le mode peq...

 

[onlyoneme]

I’m not sure most of the points there are saying what you think they say.

I’m quite in agreement that, beyond a certain level (a level we may well have passed a long time ago), there’s little difference in many modern amps for THD+N (for example).

That doesn’t mean it’s not a parameter we can measure, and which we know sounds bad in the worst circumstances.

I personally feel that, unless something is badly broken, within the constraints of trying to get an underpowered amp to drive difficult speakers, most amps are much of a muchness.

What I'm talking about, and warning against, is the idea that some high-end manufacturers have managed to (a) discover some previously unthought of parameter which makes a difference to an amp’s sound (b) they’ve sorted the problem, (c) sorting it costs a fortune, (d) they're not telling anyone what it is, and (e) it’s not measurable.

You don't know what I think so you cannot be sure at all.

All these sources provide conclusions that simple sinad measurements are not enough, they are meaningless or even useless. Especially when talking about perceptual aspects of the audio.

 

[Steve Woodhouse]

You don't know what I think so you cannot be sure at all.

All these sources provide conclusions that simple sinad measurements are not enough, they are meaningless or even useless. Especially when talking about perceptual aspects of the audio.

No they don’t.

Again, the onus is on you to state specifically what other aspects of amplifier make a difference, scientific evidence that they do make a difference, and evidence as to how some models have solved the problems caused whilst others haven’t.

By ‘perceptual’ you just mean “I can hear it”. That’s not actually adding anything to the discussion at all.

 

[onlyoneme]

No they don’t.

Again, the onus is on you to state specifically what other aspects of amplifier make a difference, scientific evidence that they do make a difference, and evidence as to how some models have solved the problems caused whilst others haven’t.

By ‘perceptual’ you just mean “I can hear it”. That’s not actually adding anything to the discussion at all.

If you want to talk about 'how X sounds' then you will have to consider perceptual aspects. And, again, I think I know better what I mean or what I think.

And I would say that quotes like below are quite self-explanatory:

"There isn't much controversy about THD+N noise measurements being of limited use. It's been known for some time but people continue to use them because they are easy to make. We need to move on and use distortion measurements that are perceptually meaningful."

Of course you can disagree. You can even think that sinad equality means audio sound equality.
So, all I will point out is that for some people the measurements you noted as "and that’s it" are in fact just a beginning.

 

[musig]

It’s certainly not the only parameter, but it’s a very important one. If one amp’s distortion and/or noise levels are high and well within human audibility, and the next one has very low levels, outside the limits of human audibility, then the latter amp will sound better, if by better we mean more transparent to the source - if anyone means something different, they have a responsibility to flag up a massive government health warning on all their comments.

Ideally, an amp shouldn’t sound like anything. It should take the signal it receives, increase it to a level high enough to drive your speakers, and do nothing else.

The measurable parameters we can measure are frequency response (is it flat and full range), what's the total harmonic distortion, is there an issue with crosstalk, what’s the level of noise. We also need to know how much power it can chuck out before any of the above become noticeable.

And that’s it. All of the above have been scientifically proven to show to what extent any amp colours the signal. Nothing else has been shown to do so (my apologies if I’ve missed anything),

If anyone knows of any other parameter, please let us know, and provide documented evidence that there’s a measurable factor that shows how an amp will sound.

I agree on the whole line, I was just meaning that unless THD+N has very anomalous values, it becomes a measure with little impact on the final experience. Unfortunately, in the end, we don't hear the sound of the amplifier but the whole chain which starts with a source and ends in speakers which are placed in room with many other aspects that inject sensible impact on the listener experience. Back to your list, I would also add to the list of the useful parameters the electrical relationship between the output stage of the amp and the impedance of the speakers which is often named "dumping factor" as it gives a (rough) idea of the dynamic of the system.

Enjoy the music!

 

[Smartplug]

Let’s take a look frequency response its ruler flat but when you listen to them it has its own house signature. Denon/marantz vs yamaha/onkyo for instance. I owned both brand and even on untrained ear could hear the difference between brands. So, if frequency is flat as ruler are they supposed to sound identical? All these measurements on asr are good but are they audible? Can someone tell difference between snr 150 vs 160? The measurements can but can the human ear tell that? They all look good on paper but once cross the threshold human hearing all that stuff is just a moot.

 

[harkpabst]

@Steve Woodhouse, @onlyoneme, it doesn't look to me like your positions are really that far apart. You agree on the importance of objective measurements in general, don't you? You're both not into the golden ears paradigm at all.

Historically, too may engineers did not really follow good engineering practice when it comes to audio: If what your modesl predicts and your measurements don't align with reality (and reality is human hearing), the you should update them. Human hearing might be individual to a certain degree, but if the reproduction equals the original perfectly, if the sound pressure waves surrounding the listener are exactly as in the original sound event, then the reproduction will be perfect for every listener, regardless of individual perception.

Human perception of sound is also measurable, of course. Not in the sense of directly taking technical measurements. But there are scentifically proven psychometrical methods and concepts like double blind ABX testing are no secret.

 

[onlyoneme]

I wouldn't waste my time on measurements if I didn't think they were important. But I'm also against oversimplification and unjustified conclusions, which are quite common in the measurements world.
But yes, if I say that something is a beginning then I do not contradict it itself, so my position cannot be too far apart