Has anyone heard the differences between the 1z/1a is it a really big difference? I am thinking of getting a DAP for the CA Solaris, the 1z just makes me weep so much.. The 1A is reasonable, but was wondering if it is heavily compromised when compared to the 1z.
The difference between WM1A and WM1Z are surprising small. Unless you really concentrate A-B next to each other. I do not think you can tell the difference. I was not interested in 1A at all, but just listen to it because it is available in the store. I was surprise as well. The price difference vs the performance. The copper will look horrible after a few years but 1A will still look new. I guess after 10 years, when both player is outdated. One can melt down WM1Z and get good scrap copper in junkyard but get nothing from aluminum WM1A. Is this a plus?
just a touch more of 31hz and below will be awesome for wm1a... 1z its other story... dough it is good... clearer than 2.0 and 3.0 was awfull maybe sony could add one more to the vynil procesor like Low mode wich boost 30hz and below for me 3.01 its focused on 1z on 1a i hear too much 125hz boost... thats should be proof enough that 1z has more bass lol
Has anyone heard the differences between the 1z/1a is it a really big difference? I am thinking of getting a DAP for the CA Solaris, the 1z just makes me weep so much.. The 1A is reasonable, but was wondering if it is heavily compromised when compared to the 1z.
The difference between WM1A and WM1Z are surprising small. Unless you really concentrate A-B next to each other. I do not think you can tell the difference. I was not interested in 1A at all, but just listen to it because it is available in the store. I was surprise as well. The price difference vs the performance. The copper will look horrible after a few years but 1A will still look new. I guess after 10 years, when both player is outdated. One can melt down WM1Z and get good scrap copper in junkyard but get nothing from aluminum WM1A. Is this a plus?
Has anyone heard the differences between the 1z/1a is it a really big difference? I am thinking of getting a DAP for the CA Solaris, the 1z just makes me weep so much.. The 1A is reasonable, but was wondering if it is heavily compromised when compared to the 1z.
I have both and will spend two weeks with the 1Z then a week with the 1A. It’s crazy because the difference starts to become massive. It’s maybe how your mind starts to focus and pickup small details. The change going from the 1A to the 1Z is dramatic, if you own both. Though if a person was to own the 1A and try out the 1Z in a shop it may not end up seeming like a big change?
The 1A is more evenhanded in all sonic attributes. It’s musically engaging and highly detailed. But to change to the 1Z the sound becomes gloriously thicker and more analog. The 1Z soundstage is both more foreword and wider with a darker substance inside. The 1Z also has a treble spike and bass boost which becomes a multiplying factor to the thickness. All and all it’s a 10% improvement or 20% improvement, it’s crazy noticeable when you own both.
The difference between WM1A and WM1Z are surprising small. Unless you really concentrate A-B next to each other. I do not think you can tell the difference. I was not interested in 1A at all, but just listen to it because it is available in the store. I was surprise as well. The price difference vs the performance. The copper will look horrible after a few years but 1A will still look new. I guess after 10 years, when both player is outdated. One can melt down WM1Z and get good scrap copper in junkyard but get nothing from aluminum WM1A. Is this a plus?
Sony did make a series of testing exterior metals. The silver and gold exterior created an adverse sound characteristic. Of couse if it was just copper it would show oxidation. Though the players covered with 24k gold have now been out a couple years and show no signs of oxidation? They all look new, though I have to say the copper is softer than the aluminum maybe as far a getting small dings. And even being totally careful there is always a chance of getting those.
But the whole process is like having a nice timepiece in a way. It ages along with you. None of us make it out of this untouched and perfect.
Above was the testing examples:
“The one on the right side is gold plated over a silver intermediate plating, which was plated over the copper chassis. Because copper chassis was porous in the first place, they decided to plate it both silver and gold over it. But that didn’t work well for sound quality as it created some magnetism. After they tried a different alloy for copper which was directly plated with gold. So in terms of R&D they tried many different combinations. After finding out that oxygen-free copper helped the unit to sound great, they then got the go for making the next generation flagship with a copper chassis.”
thats afirmative, with the exception that you can get some of the bass back, but not all enabling percusion + type A low + arm resonance direct mode is unusable in 3.01 awful tuning for wm1a
The difference between WM1A and WM1Z are surprising small. Unless you really concentrate A-B next to each other. I do not think you can tell the difference. I was not interested in 1A at all, but just listen to it because it is available in the store. I was surprise as well. The price difference vs the performance. The copper will look horrible after a few years but 1A will still look new. I guess after 10 years, when both player is outdated. One can melt down WM1Z and get good scrap copper in junkyard but get nothing from aluminum WM1A. Is this a plus?
The copper of the WM1Z doesn't oxidise - you are thinking AK copper players which oxidise such as the AK380 Cu as they only use a very thin chemical coating which wears out just by some light handling, whereas the WM1Z's gold coating completely protects the OFC from the atmosphere and keeps it oxygen-free.
The gold coating was specifically designed to protect the OFC chassis while not introduce any magnetism which may affect the sound, it's basically an extension of gold-plated interconnects application applied to the whole body as well as handled with more care to ensure longevity, and yes they experimented with many kinds of coating before decided on this specific material and finish. Many ignorant people and haters initially thought they did it to appeal to the Chinese bling market, and many even doubt that it actually works, but that only shows their ignorance. My WM1Z which was bought on day 1 which is now more than 2 years old still looks like new even the buttons which is being touched the most often and the gold coating is still completely intact, not even a hint of oxidisation and I never had to polish it like with AK copper players. Sony's proved they know what they were doing.
The copper of the WM1Z doesn't oxidise - you are thinking AK copper players which oxidise such as the AK380 Cu as they only use a very thin chemical coating which wears out just by some light handling, whereas the WM1Z's gold coating completely protects the OFC from the atmosphere and keeps it oxygen-free.
The gold coating was specifically designed to protect the OFC chassis while not introduce any magnetism which may affect the sound, it's basically an extension of gold-plated interconnects application applied to the whole body as well as handled with more care to ensure longevity, and yes they experimented with many kinds of coating before decided on this specific material and finish. Many ignorant people and haters initially thought they did it to appeal to the Chinese bling market, and many even doubt that it actually works, but that only shows their ignorance. My WM1Z which was bought on day 1 which is now more than 2 years old still looks like new even the buttons which is being touched the most often and the gold coating is still completely intact, not even a hint of oxidisation and I never had to polish it like with AK copper players. Sony's proved they know what they were doing.
Much of the time equipment milestones are met with opposition. Why would they not, strange metals, unconventional thought and practices never used in an industry. And it’s this thinking out of the box which makes the 1Z so very fabulous.
It’s not made for everyone really, but a select few who could somehow find value in such a thing made and priced the way it is. It would be sad to have viewpoints stated that the 1A is the same or even super close in sound quality. As that vary statement may persuade the very folks who the 1Z is meant for from not even looking at it.
Still at times the 1A is so good, I guess it could be all I could ever need. It’s no slouch in performance quality. It always gets contrasted against it’s big brother being called cold when it’s still actually warm sounding. The 1A in contrast can even be thought of as incompetent; when in reality it’s simply standing in the shadow of something unbelievable.
Much of the time equipment milestones are met with opposition. Why would they not, strange metals, unconventional thought and practices never used in an industry. And it’s this thinking out of the box which makes the 1Z so very fabulous.
It’s not made for everyone really, but a select few who could somehow find value in such a thing made and priced the way it is. It would be sad to have viewpoints stated that the 1A is the same or even super close in sound quality. As that vary statement may persuade the very folks who the 1Z is meant for from not even looking at it.
Still at times the 1A is so good, I guess it could be all I ever need. It’s no slouch in performance quality. It always gets contrasted against it’s big brother being called cold when it’s still actually warm sounding. The 1A in contrast can even be thought of as incompetent; when in reality it’s simply standing in the shadow of something unbelievable.
I agree, the 1A is definitely well made and designed, but the 1Z is simply a few steps above it. While the 1A is utilitarian and understated, the 1Z approaches iconic status and is more than a mere piece of gadget. If the original cassette Walkman was what defined the Sony's climb to success in personal audio days of the analogue days, then I would argue the 1Z is what would define Sony's personal audio history of the digital era.
Despite many new TOTL DAPs has been released since 1Z's debut, I still don't find myself ever craving for something to replace it. Its all-round completeness as a full package (sound quality, software, usability) is still unrivalled.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
