Rockna Wavelight Impressions/Review

I've had this DAC a few weeks now in my desktop set. I agree with most of what you said with the exception of texture. I find it to incredibly textured, Superbass for example is amazing to listen to. Might be a speaker thing for you, or amp.

Overall, this dac at this price point is really quite an incredible piece of kit. Has me really curious as to what the step into the Wavedream would be like in comparison.

 

Yep, definitely resolving plenty of texture in my setup. I feel like when penguins talks about a lack of texture, he's talking about this slight gritty bite that the Wavelight is devoid of. I think this grit-free nature with a touch softer bite is what some people are calling smooth or mellow (not to be confused with lack of dynamics).

 

Made some quick notes while giving a local Wavelight unit a demo. All of this is stream of consciousness written during listening and originally from chat logs (rearranged and edited to make more coherent sense as a thought process) so bear with the slightly messy layout.

Setup was Lynx AES16e > Wavelight AES > balanced BHA-1 > balanced Utopia. Did not evaluate other digital inputs due to time constraints. Did not evaluate SE out due to time constraints and a lack of RCA cables. Didn’t mess with filters, stuck with Linear the whole way through since it sounded good and seemed to be the generally approved filter on here. My main reference point for comparison will be the Bifrost 2 as it is my main DAC and I have a couple hundred hours on it and know its sound well, although I didn’t have it for direct comparison during listening. A direct comparison would likely have revealed more, but a lack of space and the warmup time of the BF2 made it impractical regardless.

• the mellow presentation comments make sense. stuff that’s usually loud enough to be slightly piercing on BF2 is not piercing at all on wavelight
  
• this thing is crankable as hell without sounding piercing. initially confused the shit out of me, because it didn't nullify all peaks, only some of them, and doesn’t seem to detract from dynamics (if anything this is more dynamic than BF2)
  
• this thing actually makes me inadvertently listen louder than usual because i expect things to be piercing and they aren’t.
  
• took me a fair amount of listening to realize that the less piercing sound is likely due to the more laidback nature. i strongly agree with purr1n's comment about "As such Steve Albini produced recordings (Pixies Surfer Rosa) with drums don't quite have that that smack (that it hurts) to our ears as much as the Schiit DACs", though i don't really know if i'm for or against this type of presentation

• layering is really good at making things not accidentally fall in the background when it shouldn’t. overall great sense of clean separation
• laidback sound makes things sound slightly more distant and more spaced out
  
• layering on dense stuff is seriously great. digs up stuff i haven’t heard before on tracks i’ve exhausted a billion times on gear that's both shitty and good
  
• the wavelight can really sound massive when called for. laidback sound works very well on full scale orchestral stuff, especially with the utopia's already incisive nature and upfront headstage.
  
• BF2 always sounds a little small and close, wavelight may feel distant at times but this sounds perfect on tracks that need that space
  
• i'm mixed on this. i'm very used to the incisive schiit sound so this is a change of pace that i'm not exactly fully acclimated too. i'm not sure if i like or hate this.

• microdynamics smooth as hell. really strong sense of refinement and class to things
• crazy dynamic. making me recognize the upwards compression BF2 has. inky black background is one way to put it. definitely no haze or greyness like i felt yggdrasil A2 had.
  
• dynamics are definitely not compromised despite the slightly laidback sound. it does throw off my senses a little but stuff still jumps like it should. somewhat paradoxical to be both mellow/laidback and extremely dynamic.

• definitely not anywhere near as warm and dark as the BF2. i would say it’s neutral with a very slight filter that imparts a sweetness to stuff
• i f'ing hate using this word, but the neutrality with a tinge of sweetness really does have a good sense of transparency to it. doesn’t feel veiled or hazy or anything, just clear and clean
  
• i do hear the slight lack of bass heft. it doesn't seem to have as much fullness and weight to it down low as the BF2. not a bad thing and definitely contributes to the "transparency" of the wavelight
• i am liking the less overly warm sound though. gives me an idea of what direction to go in, in terms of upgrading DACs. didn't feel like the utopia needed more warmth. maybe a little more bass impact, but not warmth.

• the transients on this thing are really really good. i hear the effortlessness/liquidity people talk about
  
• mvt 4 of bartok’s 4th quartet is incredible to listen to on this setup because all the transients and dynamics are seriously sharp and clear. all the pizz strings sound incredibly well defined. maybe you could say that’s good “prat” but i hate that word
• big cymbal crash in rite of spring has such a good decay to it. mix of the excellent layering and nuance this DAC has along with the transient response, but it sounded so well defined amongst the cacophony of instruments that i felt the need to point it out, of all things.
  
• extra note: the wavelight seriously shined with this particular rite of spring recording, compared to all the other tracks i heard. the laidback presentation was perfect for laying out the orchestra on the utopia's smaller headstage, the top tier layering made everything sound distinct and well separated, the lack of piercing peaks meant that i could crank that shit loud (and this recording gets super loud) without my ears hurting. easily the best setup i've heard this recording in, by a long shot.

• is all the stuff above subtleties and nuances? yeah, but holy damn they really add up. does it add up to 4.6k usd (6.2k sgd)? maybe not. but maybe i might be crazy enough to spring for it, or a used one
  
• my favorite part about it is definitely the transients and dynamics. so much fluidity to stuff with so much dynamism. sounds fast without sounding like it truncates decay. basically as close to perfect as i've heard
• the biggest thing i can see against it is the slightly laidback presentation. it definitely worked for and against itself depending on recording
  
• i may shop around for more DACs before deciding on anything, as the wavelight certainly isn't perfect. it's very close though, and it's easily the best DAC i've heard to date. bear in mind i have not heard most of SBAF's reference DACs (DC2, CS solaris, gungnir A2 etc.) and my experience with the yggdrasil A2 is limited and in unideal conditions at best, so this statement of mine likely means nothing to others.
• overall i'm extremely impressed with the wavelight. if the wavedream is truly a step above i honestly can't imagine how good it'd be, and that may be for the better given the pricetag it comes with.

 

Would it be fair to say the tonal density of the wavelight is reduced in comparison to something like the BF2? Sorry if this has already come up on the thread, been awhile since I reviewed it.

 

I would say so, yeah. BF2 to me is quite dark and warm in a pleasant way, A little slower and compressed (in comparison to the Wavelight) as well, but it all works towards the same sound. Even with the Wavelight in mind it's definitely not bad sounding, but they're in completely different tiers.

 

One could make the argument that Rockna shows the dynamics shades of grey better than other DACs, but yeah I would definitely say this is the biggest headscratcher about the house sound. There have been many moments where a snare has caught me off guard and make me jump, but usually sounds less obviously slammy.

 

One more thing I'd like to add on - thick sound is not the cause of lack of texture to my ears. As mentioned, Morpheus, which has a much thicker (and slower) sound than the WL, absolutely was NOT lacking in texture. The Yggdrasil A2, while not thick as the WL, does IMO lean towards a thick rather than thin sound, but it doesn't lack texture either.

However, if someone were to show "mathematically or scientifically" that a thicker sound or tone density results in it being harder to render texture from a signal theory or DSP standpoint, I wouldn't be surprised at all.

 

I’m not sure if I understand what “tone density” means in this context then, though I do agree with the tonality impressions.

The shades of grey thing is something I would agree with, it's what I was trying to get at with the point about microdynamics being smooth.

I would compare it using an analogy I used previously for the Focal Utopia. If one were to portray dynamics as a straight line being rendered on a screen, the dynamics of the Schiit DACs would sound aliased, so to speak, with steps in graduation being audible, while the Wavelight has an anti-aliased or super-sampled sound to it, with no steps being audible. Just an extremely smooth delineation between loud and soft.

I'm honestly still confused about how it sounds both laidback and dynamic at the same time. I've never heard any other piece of gear period that sounds like this. It's almost always a direct correlation between upfront/laidback presentation and dynamic performance, and it's making me heavily reevaluate how I feel about laidback presentations in general (which I usually stayed away from because of their compromised dynamics). Or at least this particular laidback presentation.

 

So just to aid my understanding as perhaps I’m not using the terms correctly:

Something tonally dense can be perceived to be louder than something thinner even if it is not, yes?

At least I thought that was one of the keys to the differentiation. Hence my thinking as to why the wavelight may be perceived as laid back even though it has reportedly good dynamics.
I do know the use of density and thickness has a bit of variation so I could very much be incorrect in my usage.

Same thought process for me here. Im likely missing the proper descriptors.

 

The laidback yet super dynamic sound is a very interesting mix of attributes. It is the first thing I dream about when thinking how I want my future speaker system to sound.

I know it is Wavelight's thread, but do you guys know if the Wavedream shares this particular character, or is it more pronounced in the Wavelight, despite the Wavedream being the "better DAC"?

 

Granted only had an evening with WL, but I did mention it above as "house sound", WD definitely has this sound too.

 

Any further insights on how the preamp compares to quality passive (e.g. Goldpoint) or active preamps?

 

I've found the analog resistor ladder volume control to be transparent and I had no problem selling the Goldpoint that was in the system. Using my phone to adjust volume was also much more convenient than using the knob on the Goldpoint.

 

UPDATED

Comparing the Rockna Wavelight to the Metrum Adagio, which is the Metrum Pavane with built-in volume control. For those interested in my comparison of Adagio to other TOTL DACs, look here.

System: Allo DigiOne transport -> DAC under test -> Pass Labs XA25 -> B&W 801 series 3.

Pulling out the WaveLight and hooking it up, I was pleased with how it sounded right away. I did experience many instances where the WaveLight would lose sync with my source, but that never happens with the Metrum Adagio. Also, WaveLight takes a second to switch bitrates and it involves an audible click. Rockna’s Bluetooth remote control worked well and is convenient. I imagine the I2S volume integration would be awesome. The iOS app does annoyingly have to reconnect after switching bitrates. I suppose there might be an EM spike from the switching relays that screws up the Bluetooth connection.

I’m using a single-ended amplifier (Pass XA25), so I needed to find a solution for listening to the Adagio, which is a balanced DAC. Later, @animus advised that WaveLight was also better out of balanced, which I would’ve known had I read other reviews first, but I prefer a blank slate when doing a review and I didn’t. Well, I also found SE was sour sounding. I settled on the solution of taking only the positive phases of the balanced outputs instead of using the single ended outputs. I used this solution for both DACs. To learn why, see spoiler.

Spoiler: Single ended options.

Metrum achieves its built-in SE outputs by using Lundahl transformers. These seriously compromise the quality of the SE out, as discussed elsewhere.

My impression of the SE on WaveLight is better than that the SE on Metrum, but I feel that the tonality is sour when using the WaveLight SE. It’s really bad with NOS mode, which doesn’t make a lot of sense, but repeated this many times to the same conclusion.

Initially I opted for an op-amp based solution that uses LME 4990s. This is the most tonally neutral solution I have that combines both sides of the balanced DAC and which has a lower distortion relative to transformers. See here.

Unfortunately, I later discerned the LME4490 was not tonally accurate or flat across the frequency spectrum, sounding a bit flabby and rolled off in the treble compared to Rockna’s built-in solution. My first solution was really ruining the instrumental timbre.

Since Metrum Adagio is a hard-balanced system, I built a de-balancing cable to drop out the negative-phase from the balanced output (thus using only half of the Adagio’s internal DAC chips). Suddenly, the Adagio pulled ahead.

I then tried the same cable with WaveLight and I liked it more than the SE, even though this DAC is reported to be single-ended inside. This makes very little scientific sense. My only way to explain this is that the output stage for the balanced line is run a few dB hotter, and this higher voltage may be in a more linear regime for the op-amps or whatever transistors are used. I didn’t spend a whole lot of time comparing the different WaveLight outputs back-to-back, so it might have been an artifact of the music at the time and something that really extensive testing would reveal to be B.S. In any case, the perceived effect of using the balanced output was to remove the sourness that I was hearing in WaveLight’s SE outputs.

My final conclusion is that the Metrum Adagio is the winner—but gosh I'm impressed with the Rockna WaveLight. WaveLight is far superior to P.S. Audio DirectStream, Lavrey Black, Schiit anything, and Dangerous Convert II. WaveLight is of a different ethos (a more conventional one) than that of Crane Song Solaris, which is velvet sound and compressed dynamics, but Solaris is still a very special DAC in my mind even if not for everyone. Now I’ve heard what Rockna can do, I really want to hear their WaveDream.

For WaveLight, linear phase is the way to go if using the SE output, but with my rebalancing cable I found the filters easier to differentiate and the trade-off between filters more evenhanded. I’m a timbre and stage guy, so I’m not surprised I wound up gravitating back towards NOS, but with balanced outputs only.

Here are my detailed quasi-objective notes for the cable-rebalanced configurations of both DACs (unless otherwise specified).

Quasi-Objective Measures

Tonality (evenness):
WaveLight ~ Adagio
*I revised this. Adagio is unabashedly warm, which works for my 801s, but with subsequent testing on my second system I found the WaveLight worked better

Macrodynamics (naturalness):
Adagio > WaveLight Linear > WaveLight NOS
A caveat here is that Adagio being NOS has overly soft transients, but I find the Linear filter transients a bit harsh.

Detail:
Adagio > WaveLight Linear > WaveLight NOS

Timbre:
Adagio > WaveLight NOS ~ WaveLight Linear. WaveLight Linear and NOS have different timbral weaknesses; it depends on the instrument. When using the balanced out, I tend to gravitate towards NOS for classical acoustic music and Linear for more processed sounds. When using WaveLight’s SE, only linear sounds good to me. Overall, the WaveLight has problems with bassy instruments like upright bass. Adagio has more natural decay for these where WaveLight kind of thumps and surges. Adagio has softer transient clicks (e.g., pizzicato if stings hitting the fingerboard) and WL emphasizes them; I’m not sure which is more accurate. I want something in between.

Stage Depth:
Adagio >> WaveLight NOS > WaveLight Linear

Stage Width:
Adagio >> WaveLight NOS > WaveLight Linear.

Imaging (with DigiOne SPIDF source):
Adagio > WaveLight NOS > WaveLight Linear, but WaveLights are very close

Blackground (essentially this IMD):
Adagio > WaveLight NOS > WaveLight Linear. But WaveLight linear plays a trick on you that makes transients and treble sound more forward and thus suppresses the background a bit.

 

Curious, since you were talking a lot about converting BAL to SE, does this apply to both the Wavelight and Adagio or just the Adagio? Because it seems like the general consensus is that the Wavelight’s SE outs are gimped in some form.

 

Only Adagio. Crap. Do I have to do this all again with de-balancing both?

 

Seems like it would only be fair to.

 

Ok. My review has been totally reworked to reflect use of Rockna’s balanced outputs.

 

We should get to the bottom of the Wavelight’s SE outputs. It’s even more surprising given the WL is internally single ended (per the designer’s answer).