Ferrum WANDLA - Impressions Thread

[George Hincapie]

Between the HQP filters, I hear the slightest of differences. Like, it doesn't make or break my listening experience if I have one set over the other. The ESS filter sounds the most different to me...a bit sterile but clean/airy; I use that one the least.

I'm hoping to audition the Wandla at CanJam London shortly.

 

[GoldenSound]

Now that I've put my one-month impressions of out there, I'm going to listen more critically to some reference tracks, spending most of my time with the HD650, toggling the GSE features on and off. I do want to give them a chance. It probably doesn't help that I have a 4-year old boy running around the house . Time for new pair of closed-backs?

I remember @GoldenSound saying that he wanted these settings to be tasteful and subtle, so I probably need to reciprocate in my listening. I also appreciate the fact that this DAC doesn't impart itself too much into the chain, but rather, it does its job remarkably well in complementing my gear.

So I would say that the HD650 is unfortunately probably not an ideal headphone to try these on, as they don't really have much soundstage at all, and also fairly notable subbass rolloff.

As a result, both the impact+ and the spatial enhancement will be much less obvious. The spatial enhancement won't 'force' stage for headphones that didn't have it originally, and actually the headphones that'll benefit most from it and show the clearest difference are headphones that already had decent staging and layering capability.

Impact+ I'd say is most beneficial for headphones that don't have an issue with bass extension, but subjectively are better with less of a zero-emphasis straight line subbass. Hifiman Susvara, LCD5 etc. Though also works great for headphones that do have some subbass rolloff and the Impact+ works to fix that. HEDDphone 2, Empyrean 2 etc.

Headphones with really significant rolloff like the HD650 (down about -10dB at 20hz vs 100hz) the impact+ is going to be less obvious simply because it's still going to be bass light after the fact.

 

[SolarCetacean]

I was able to try the Wandla (non-GSE) at a recent meetup and I liked the HQ Apodizing filter the best. The evaluation chain was the Wandla acting as DAC and pre into the Soncoz SGP-1 power amp driving the Modhouse Tungsten DS (thanks to @Menkau-ra for bringing that setup). I found that the HQ Gauss, HQ Apodizing, and ESS filters were all easily distinguishable. Now, the differences were NOT large (and I wouldn't expect them to be), but I could quickly pick up on the differences.

The Gauss filter had slightly sharper transients and sibilants. The snap of the stick hitting a snare drum was sharper, a bit crisper, but also could sound harsher or "spiky". I recall the track I used for this test was "I Lost It" by Lucinda Williams from her 1998 album "Car Wheels On A Gravel Road". That album has pretty hot snare drums in general, so the HQ Gauss filter did not do it any favors. The Apodizing filter was smoother and "cleaner" in the treble (less of a "hashy" sound or texture in the upper treble air region) without any loss of detail to my ear. The ESS filter sounded significantly thinner than the HQ ones; same amount of treble, but the body of the sound - the lower and mid registers - was noticeably reduced in prominence. I preferred the Apodizing filter. The other two filters, which I recall are minimum-phase variants of the HQ filters, were subtler in their differences and I couldn't make any definitive determination of their sound in the brief time I spent with them.

Unfortunately, I couldn't directly compare vs the Erco Gen 2 that I have, but the Erco g2 uses the same HQ Apodizing filter that the Wandla has, so I'm pleased as that was my favorite filter on the Wandla. Hopefully I can demo the GSE Wandla at some point too.

 

[CFGamescape]

So I would say that the HD650 is unfortunately probably not an ideal headphone to try these on, as they don't really have much soundstage at all, and also fairly notable subbass rolloff.

As a result, both the impact+ and the spatial enhancement will be much less obvious. The spatial enhancement won't 'force' stage for headphones that didn't have it originally, and actually the headphones that'll benefit most from it and show the clearest difference are headphones that already had decent staging and layering capability.

Impact+ I'd say is most beneficial for headphones that don't have an issue with bass extension, but subjectively are better with less of a zero-emphasis straight line subbass. Hifiman Susvara, LCD5 etc. Though also works great for headphones that do have some subbass rolloff and the Impact+ works to fix that. HEDDphone 2, Empyrean 2 etc.

Headphones with really significant rolloff like the HD650 (down about -10dB at 20hz vs 100hz) the impact+ is going to be less obvious simply because it's still going to be bass light after the fact.

Yeah, that's a good point. I just figured a familiar headphone would be a good place to start. But duly noted.

 

[Godbluffer]

Do you hear a difference using the HQP filters?

Yes, with the Apodizing filter sounding the most natural of all of them from top to bottom. The other ones seem to possess gradually less body and low end, starting with the Apodizing MP, then the Short, and finally the Gauss, which sounds the thinnest of the four. I leave it on Apodizing pretty much permanently. It just sounds the most right of them all.

At the moment, unfortunately, I’m temporarily (almost) incapable of hearing the differences, because I replaced my (too) worn in stock Susvara earpads with perky, brand new ones, which - at least until they’re sufficiently worn in again - rams most of the warmth and timbral nuance out of the sound picture. It’s almost all leading edges and gleaming silvery surfaces that enter my ears.

 

[OhmsClaw]

@GoldenSound Does the WANDLA GS support all features up to max PCM? Or does higher rates limit dsp/digital volume (including dsd inputs)?

 

[GoldenSound]

@GoldenSound Does the WANDLA GS support all features up to max PCM? Or does higher rates limit dsp/digital volume (including dsd inputs)?

All the features work with any rate PCM, but only the tube mode will work for DSD.
You can't do any sort of DSP on DSD without first converting it to PCM, and we wanted to keep the option for actual DSD playback there, so spatial enhancement and impact+ will not work with DSD.

Tube mode will though as that's not being done via DSP on Serce but rather by intentionally configuring the DAC differently such that it produces a higher level of harmonic distortion, but only in the way that we wanted.

 

[Menkau-ra]

I was able to try the Wandla (non-GSE) at a recent meetup and I liked the HQ Apodizing filter the best. The evaluation chain was the Wandla acting as DAC and pre into the Soncoz SGP-1 power amp driving the Modhouse Tungsten DS (thanks to @Menkau-ra for bringing that setup). I found that the HQ Gauss, HQ Apodizing, and ESS filters were all easily distinguishable. Now, the differences were NOT large (and I wouldn't expect them to be), but I could quickly pick up on the differences.

The Gauss filter had slightly sharper transients and sibilants. The snap of the stick hitting a snare drum was sharper, a bit crisper, but also could sound harsher or "spiky". I recall the track I used for this test was "I Lost It" by Lucinda Williams from her 1998 album "Car Wheels On A Gravel Road". That album has pretty hot snare drums in general, so the HQ Gauss filter did not do it any favors. The Apodizing filter was smoother and "cleaner" in the treble (less of a "hashy" sound or texture in the upper treble air region) without any loss of detail to my ear. The ESS filter sounded significantly thinner than the HQ ones; same amount of treble, but the body of the sound - the lower and mid registers - was noticeably reduced in prominence. I preferred the Apodizing filter. The other two filters, which I recall are minimum-phase variants of the HQ filters, were subtler in their differences and I couldn't make any definitive determination of their sound in the brief time I spent with them.

Unfortunately, I couldn't directly compare vs the Erco Gen 2 that I have, but the Erco g2 uses the same HQ Apodizing filter that the Wandla has, so I'm pleased as that was my favorite filter on the Wandla. Hopefully I can demo the GSE Wandla at some point too.

I'm going to get the GSE upgrade when it's available and I'll bring it with me to the next DC meetup.

 

[GoldenSound]

A few updates!:

- The next batch has arrived and there's a few units remaining! If you want one, would recommend grabbing it before they're sold out again: https://headphones.com/products/ferrum-wandla-dac-goldensound-edition

- The conversion program will be out this month, there were a couple delays but it's almost ready!

 

[Verco]

Has anyone tried both the Wandla and Wandla Golden Edition? I'm planning on getting one of them and my local distributor showed me an amazing demo at the store (with hypsos). However, they don't have the Golden Sound Edition yet, but they'll get their Wandla Golden Sound stock by end of the month. But I'm really close to pulling the trigger with the Wandla. Can someone tell me if its worth the wait?

 

[Menkau-ra]

Has anyone tried both the Wandla and Wandla Golden Edition? I'm planning on getting one of them and my local distributor showed me an amazing demo at the store (with hypsos). However, they don't have the Golden Sound Edition yet, but they'll get their Wandla Golden Sound stock by end of the month. But I'm really close to pulling the trigger with the Wandla. Can someone tell me if its worth the wait?

You can always upgrade Wandla OG to GSE later.

 

[kajetanjazz]

Has anyone tried both the Wandla and Wandla Golden Edition? I'm planning on getting one of them and my local distributor showed me an amazing demo at the store (with hypsos). However, they don't have the Golden Sound Edition yet, but they'll get their Wandla Golden Sound stock by end of the month. But I'm really close to pulling the trigger with the Wandla. Can someone tell me if its worth the wait?

There’s no sound difference between the two, GSE just adds additional features to tweak the sound, but the dac is the same

 

[krude]

I'm probably just going to get GSE upgrade for the sake of completeness. I don't need the tube mode, bc I run only tube amps. I don't need impact+ because I only use transducers that already have a proper amount of bass and have the system tuned to never lack bass impact ... and I would probably only use the spatial enhancer on headphones, but in recent months I mostly listen to speakers and base Wandla with Hypsos already fills the whole room with stage and goes beyond walls with phantom stage ... so I'm not sure if it would add anything to this setup as it's pretty much perfect as it is ... plus it will probably give me the urge to tweak more, which I've cured myself out of recently

But rewind 2 years, while I was still on SS amps and Susvara, and GSE would be a godsend back then most likely.

 

[joseluishs]

More impressions and wishes on the Wandla GSE:

Spatial Enhancement:

I know that the trend is to say that it is subtle, well implemented and my opinion might not be popular. However, it is coming from a place of honesty after more than a month of using the unit.

It is the feature that really made me want to upgrade from my regular Wandla and it has a lot of potential but (at least for me) it is not perfect as it is.

The good:

I love that the imaging and soundstage becomes more coherent and better defined. I actually prefer the "speaker mode" without the cross-feed of the sides as it still retains a bit of the "HP mode" magic but it is less intense. It is a better implementation than others that I tried before like CanOpener, Nx Virtual Mix Room, Chord Mojo 2's crossfeed implementation and RME's cross-feed. The implementation in the HM1 does not apply cross-feed when turning the stereo base knob to the right so I cannot compare it fully. So for me the GSE spatial enhancement was really what I was looking for! It is a very clever implementation.

The "room" for improvement:

When the sides sound as loud as they are in the "HP mode" the impression of the middle gets pushed back a little even if there are no changes in the frequency response. With the sides sounding louder, I also get tired of listening quicker and there is a sense of "fullness" in the air between the ear cups that I only experienced it with things like the plugin CanOpener. The signal is also louder than when it is "off" and therefore it is tricky to compare between the three modes. I would say it is at least 1 db louder which is enough to increase perception of depth and other characteristics of the sound from being "off".

My wishes as an end user who paid for the thing :

1) I really wish in the future if there could be a "HP mode" with different intensities of the crossfeed+mid-side implementation.
2) Retaining the same volume from "off" to "HP mode" in the audio signal.
3) Better documentation of what is happening for the listener implement in a PDF manual. It is an expensive DAC and would appreciate something more formal of what it is happening sonically for me as a listener.

 

[r3f3r3e]

More impressions and wishes on the Wandla GSE:

Spatial Enhancement:

I know that the trend is to say that it is subtle, well implemented and my opinion might not be popular. However, it is coming from a place of honesty after more than a month of using the unit.

It is the feature that really made me want to upgrade from my regular Wandla and it has a lot of potential but (at least for me) it is not perfect as it is.

The good:

I love that the imaging and soundstage becomes more coherent and better defined. I actually prefer the "speaker mode" without the cross-feed of the sides as it still retains a bit of the "HP mode" magic but it is less intense. It is a better implementation than others that I tried before like CanOpener, Nx Virtual Mix Room, Chord Mojo 2's crossfeed implementation and RME's cross-feed. The implementation in the HM1 does not apply cross-feed when turning the stereo base knob to the right so I cannot compare it fully. So for me the GSE spatial enhancement was really what I was looking for! It is a very clever implementation.

The "room" for improvement:

When the sides sound as loud as they are in the "HP mode" the impression of the middle gets pushed back a little even if there are no changes in the frequency response. With the sides sounding louder, I also get tired of listening quicker and there is a sense of "fullness" in the air between the ear cups that I only experienced it with things like the plugin CanOpener. The signal is also louder than when it is "off" and therefore it is tricky to compare between the three modes. I would say it is at least 1 db louder which is enough to increase perception of depth and other characteristics of the sound from being "off".

My wishes as an end user who paid for the thing :

1) I really wish in the future if there could be a "HP mode" with different intensities of the crossfeed+mid-side implementation.
2) Retaining the same volume from "off" to "HP mode" in the audio signal.
3) Better documentation of what is happening for the listener implement in a PDF manual. It is an expensive DAC and would appreciate something more formal of what it is happening sonically for me as a listener.

I agree with you. I didn't really tried the "speaker mode" until I saw your post. Tried it and compared, and I find "speaker mode" much better than "headphone mode".

With "headphone mode", the sides sounds louder than the middle portion, e.g. the vocals & drums get overwhelmed by the sides instruments. After testing the "speaker mode", the sides sounds slightly louder than the "off mode" but yet it doesn't overshadow the middle portion, and definitely sounds more dynamics as well.

The "headphone mode" does sounds more "3D" compared to "speaker mode" as it has the depth enhancement. But I will rather use "speaker mode" as it is less fatigue to listen.


Thanks for the recommendation.