Review: Wyred4Sound's STP-SE ....

mPRE is a more basic product that my suggested STP-SE+DAC, which I wished was more high end.

And indeed there are the announced Aura preamp and power amps coming, and no DAC in it too.

mINT in my opinion should already have had an upgrade on the digital board, with a newer Sabre chip, support for higher PCM rates and DSD, etc.
 
In W4S's defense I would say that they are a small company that builds everything in house. They are slow to change and seem to rarely come out with new products. Unlike many/most of these other companies they do not farm products out. They hand build all products in house.

I also felt that upgrading the mInt would be in order but that would be way down on the priority list. Especially when it continues to win awards and continues to sell well.

I am also not a huge fan of combining components into one, ala adding a DAC in a pre-amp. Yes there are very good ones available out there but in my view they are usually a compromise in one form or another. Yes a modular design could work but then again there is more expense and architectural considerations in that.

By the way Wyred 4 Sound actually does already offer a pre-amp with optional phono and DAC modules. It is called the Theobe and sold under the other line they own and build in their Atascadero facility, the SST line.
 
Thank you for the additional information Randy. Much appreciated.
 
Now that I have had the Stage 2 for a few days I am starting to really settle in with it. Last night I was playing some very good recordings that I have listened to many times and I started noticing some things in these recording that I had never heard before. Subtle things and pretty amazing that there were these types of improvements. I would have never believed it was possible.

Currently I am running with HQPlayer set at -12db and by passing the volume circuit in the T+A DAC. I also having been leaving the T+A and the STP-SE-2 on with both of their displays turned off. Obviously I am trying to get as clean and pure signal as I possibly can into the SET amplifiers. I can't wait for the Rothwell's to arrive so that I can stop doing any kind of attenuation in software.

At this point I have to say the Stage 2 is the best sounding pre-amplifier that I have ever had.

* The Freya was very good, especially for the price. However the Stage 2 is in a different world.
* The standard STP-SE was very good, but the Stage 2 takes everything to a much higher level.
* I really liked the Audio Research and felt it was wonderful sounding. However the Stage 2 is in a different level of openness, transparency, and sound stage.
* I have had others, and can say in my view they all fall behind these, and way behind the Stage 2.

In my view this is a true world class pre-amp which takes my system to an even higher level of musicality! The bottom end is the best I have ever heard in my system without the use of a sub-woofer!

I am also amazed and a little surprised at how much difference a very good pre-amplifier makes in the performance of a sound system. Logic tells me that running the DAC straight to the amplifiers, especially if the DAC has a very good pre-amp section, should be as good if not better. This is what logic tells me, but my ears have consistently told me that having a good pre-amp in line actually improves the performance. The Wyred 4 Sound STP-SE Stage 2 has cemented that point to an entirely higher level!
 
Randy, why would you use the Rothwell attenuators instead of using the STP-SE stage 2 attenuation only? I also use -10dB digital before preamp attenuation.

BTW I had bad a experience with Rothwell RCAs attenuators, they were uneven, one RCA attenuated more than the other, I returned them.
 
The -10db will allow me to not use attenuation in software, in HQPlayer. I feel that I want a bit more of range in low level volume then I get from the pre-amp alone. The attenuation that the Rothwell afford is a way of giving a bit more low level control without using other methods such as software attenuation or using the volume circuit within my DAC. I believe this will give me an even cleaner signal path.

I own a pair of Rothwell RCA attenuators and have had nothing but good experiences with them. I bought them to use with a Goldmund Job amplifier originally. They did the trick nicely. At the time that I bought these I had several people recommend them and express that they are by far the best of the best as far as in-line attenuation goes. After using the Rothwells with the Job amplifier and with other pieces afterwards, I tend to agree.
 
I wish I had those good experiences with Rothwell attenuators...

Back to your case, up to 10 or 12 dB, digital attenuation is lossless, while an additional analog attenuator (Rothwell) would introduce additional coloring. If I were you I would keep the 10dB digital attenuation and attenuate the rest only with the fancy Vishay resistors of the Stage 2 preamp.
 
So you are saying your opinion is that using a -10db or -12db volume setting in HQPlayer would be better than using the Rothwell's inline?

I have always believed and been told that the Rothwells are one of the best inline attenuation and would have no affects or coloration to the sound. I have also heard that there are "cheaper" attenuators that do indeed add a coloration on the sound.

I do recall having a discussion prior to purchasing the RCA Rothwells and the general perception and agreement was that Rothwells have no negative impact on the sound performance.

Any other opinions on this one?
 
Hehe, that was my plan :)... My thoughts are that having HQPlayer do attenuation is adding a slight bit more "work" or processing on the CPUs/GPU Cores, while the Rothwells would be a passive device. Adding more load on the processors might have a bit of an impact because running Roon & HQPlayer already puts a fairly large load on the processors.

Again, as you say this is all theory and I will certainly try it both ways.

As many can testify I do both seek out and greatly appreciate others opinions here on AS. Since I have been relearning and reteaching myself this crazy hobby over the past few years, and there are no dealers remotely close to me, I always consider research (reviews, etc.) and views of those who I trust! I value the input of all, on both sides of almost any issue! :)
 
Best sounding pre I have ever heard. I cannot imagine getting better sound... the rest of my system would limit that :)
 
Hi Randy,

It’s an absolute winner. The standard version is good but the stage 2 kills it. It’s seriously great.
 
Wouldn't using the DAC8 volume control ahead of W4S pre be more transparent than adding the Rothwells? The DAC8's volume control is a resistor ladder type and the Rothwells also work by putting resistors in series with the signal, so my bet would be on the resistors inside the DAC8.

How does the W4S pre improves the sound compared to the DAC8 driving the amps directly BTW?
 
When you flip the switch on the DAC 8 to line it completely bypasses the volume circuit. One less circuit to go through. The Rothwell's are passive, should be completely transparent.

Going through the W4S pre-amp is more transparent, more air, a bit smoother, definitely more musical. It seems that a very good pre-amp really opens the music making it more involved, less sterile in my view. I am at a lose to explain why.
 
In my opinion if the extra connectors, components and wire should add a tiny amount of noise and distortion, the benefit of having a powerful and very regulated power supply from the preamp helps transients come to life, and probably removes their distortion. This is my logical theoretical explanation of why adding a preamp just sounds better, as was the case here too.
 
That sounds completely reasonable to me. All I know is that whenever I have added a dedicated pre-amp versus a DAC controlling the volume, including the very good T+A DAC 8 DSD the system always sounds better with the pre-amplifier in line. It may also have something to do with equipment doing only the function they specialized in versus trying to perform multiple tasks.
 
Randy Myers said:
When you flip the switch on the DAC 8 to line it completely bypasses the volume circuit. One less circuit to go through. The Rothwell's are passive, should be completely transparent.
Click to expand...

The volume circuit inside the DAC8 is also fully passive, there aren't any aditional active components that add gain in Variable mode compared to Line; it is made up of passive components, Melf resistors, which just attenuate the output stage signal, the max output level being the same in Line and Variable modes.
 
Anatta said:
The volume circuit inside the DAC8 is also fully passive, there aren't any aditional active components that add gain in Variable mode compared to Line; it is made up of passive components, Melf resistors, which just attenuate the output stage signal, the max output level being the same in Line and Variable modes.
Click to expand...

I certainly do not disagree with your assessment. Here is from T+A on the volume circuit:

"Two gold-contact relays are provided to by-pass the volume control, i.e. it can be removed entirely from the signal path when not required."

It seems like they go to a high level to remove it from the signal path and by using two gold-contact relays. This tells me they take it seriously and want to make sure if the volume is not being used to by-pass the circuit entirely for even higher performance.
 
wklie said:
One possible factor is the buffer.
Click to expand...

Again Peter, this certainly also makes sense. I personally believe it is probably all of the above that have contributions in making a system perform better when a dedicated pre-amplifier is used.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top