Review and Measurements of Yamaha WXA-50 Streaming Amp

[GiBo61]

I had hoped that the Sabaj would be close to perceptually identical to the WXA but it sounded very different - a very clear but "clinical" sound. I must confess I only used the Sabaj with the digital inputs, and not with a separate DAC, but at the time I was looking for something all-in-one. I had also read in the Sabaj thread that the consensus was with the Sabaj that using the digital inputs was the way to go and that adding a separate DAC wouldn't be an improvement; I didn't explore using a DAC with it myself.

One thing to note with the WXA 50 - I did notice that changing the PLL settings in the WXA's advanced settings made a much bigger difference with my Revel M16 than with my M106es - it gave the M16s an almost treacly sweet sound, while the difference with the M106 was more subtle (in a good way). I was hoping to get away from messing with that with one of the newer integrateds but I see the R-N800A still has that setting. It's the leading contender for me to replace the wxa, I hope the YPAO room correction has improved a bit.

What is the digital source when you use the Sabaj A30a? Streamer? CD player?

 

[RandomEar]

I had hoped that the Sabaj would be close to perceptually identical to the WXA but it sounded very different - a very clear but "clinical" sound. I must confess I only used the Sabaj with the digital inputs, and not with a separate DAC, but at the time I was looking for something all-in-one. I had also read in the Sabaj thread that the consensus was with the Sabaj that using the digital inputs was the way to go and that adding a separate DAC wouldn't be an improvement; I didn't explore using a DAC with it myself.

You're doing sighted testing and are affected by bias. Assuming that you listened to the amps one after another without instand switching, you should also be aware that echoic memory is only a couple of seconds. You think you hear stuff, but you mind is playing tricks on you.

One thing to note with the WXA 50 - I did notice that changing the PLL settings in the WXA's advanced settings made a much bigger difference with my Revel M16 than with my M106es - it gave the M16s an almost treacly sweet sound, while the difference with the M106 was more subtle (in a good way). I was hoping to get away from messing with that with one of the newer integrateds but I see the R-N800A still has that setting. It's the leading contender for me to replace the wxa, I hope the YPAO room correction has improved a bit.

PLL is a jitter suppresion technique that has no influence on sound. Unless there are actual dropouts in the audio, there will be no audible difference between PLL settings.

 

[sethr]

PLL is a jitter suppresion technique that has no influence on sound. Unless there are actual dropouts in the audio, there will be no audible difference between PLL settings.

I _think_ there is an audible difference between PLL1 and PLL3 settings, the two extremes, on the wxa 50. I am not sure if I could reliably identify PLL1 vs PLL2 in all circumstances. I haven't done any controlled tests and I may be affected by bias, I'll admit, so I'll refrain from any more anecdotes about how I think those settings sound.

In terms of the Sabaj, I was using the digital inputs directly (optical and USB connections).

 

[RandomEar]

I _think_ there is an audible difference between PLL1 and PLL3 settings, the two extremes, on the wxa 50. I am not sure if I could reliably identify PLL1 vs PLL2 in all circumstances. I haven't done any controlled tests and I may be affected by bias, I'll admit, so I'll refrain from any more anecdotes about how I think those settings sound.

In terms of the Sabaj, I was using the digital inputs directly (optical and USB connections).

I believe you that you think you heard that difference - in the past I often thought I did so, too. It is also not 100% excluded that there was a difference, but unless some part of the signal chain is quite broken, it is very unlikely that the PLL setting did change anything.

(D)PLL is a method to handle jitter. You can find more info about jitter here. Unless your digital source has substantial amounts of jitter to begin with and the DAC in the WXA-50 fails to correct for this on the lower PLL level and the higher PLL level actually suppresses this high jitter successfully, there would be no difference between the resulting analog signals. The audibility of jitter also shouldn't depend on what speakers you play the audio on (unless they are absolute garbage and their own distortion masks everything).

 

[peacewise]

Several years ago a friend was using a wxc-50 in his system as the streamer, which is when the Yamaha units came to my attention. Since then I’ve purchased a wxc-50 which feeds into an audiolab 6000a in a pre/pro configuration and does the Tidal streaming duties at 24/96 decently for the bedroom systems Vaf Evo 1 loudspeakers. The WXA-50 powers the home office pc system; whilst in the lounge and feeding from a htpc a Yamaha RN 803D powers the vaf i66 floorstanders.

It’s highly satisfying to use tidal in the lounge and link the bedroom and home office systems all together and put MusicCast music from one end of the house to the other end all in perfect sync.
That’s a genuine treat and I tip my hat to Yamaha for creating so much joy through their technology.

Which other streaming amps or streamers play across multiple rooms/systems in coordination and without audible lag?

 

[Juhazi]

My bedroom system... And living room has RXV-685

 

[Willem]

Chromecast Audio.

 

[AJM1981]

I own the Wxa50 for a couple of years now and had / have it paired with the Wharfedale Evo 4.2. and a sub.

After recently having used the classic Sansui au505 for a while I have to say that I like(d) the Sansui sound as it utilized the potential of the Evo 4.2 woofer much better.

But...

The catch is, it seems that is all about the two manufacturers seem to have a different approach to voicing in both eras.

Most 70s Hifi manufacturers did not have subwoofers in mind. In the initial setup of the au505 (everything dialed to 0) there is no flat sound. The bass blooms , it is midrange focused and there is treble roll-off.

With that blooming bass, it kind of "floods over" the sub frequencies. So there is no straight line from top to bottom. And that bass bloom is exactly why commenters anywhere recommend it for both high and low volume. Bass adds presence.

Now the Wxa50 is clearly voiced to extend any loudspeaker with a sub. It measures flat so the bass extension can follow seamlessly to any of Yamaha's own produced subs or another. This 'voicing' is logic for modern allround appliances like streaming services and their movies and prevents customer complaints, but also makes it less exiting compared to the au505, which was more music focused.

So..after a day at the weekend I connected the au505 to my second setup and was wondering if I could voice the Yamaha wxa50 like the au505 and it worked.

I got rid of the sub, used a 1 volt resistor at the evo 4.2's binding posts for a more classic treble roll-off and turned the mids on +1 and the bass on +2. Which overall sounds really enjoyably "musical"

And before someone virtually kills me, I use Yamaha's enhancer, which in my opinion tops it off. A bit of added harmonics, which kind of emulates the sound of a set amp's signature.

I would like to recommend anyone who owns the Wxa50 and is also into the sound of vintage gear to give it a try at least. I will keep it this way.

 

[SPOautos]

I downloaded REW and when playing test tones. I noticed with a linear sweep test once it got over 8000hz I was get all kind of crazy frequency fluctuations and additional tones. I swapped amps and inspected speaker crossovers. Finally I ran across the posts in this thread on page 19 by @Juhazi https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...s-of-yamaha-wxa-50-streaming-amp.7964/page-19

about wxc-50 distortion from the 'Enhanced' settings. I decided to just turn off ALL DSP stuff and put it on "Direct" and my sweep tests cleaned up perfectly.

Previously some of the test tones were triggering so many other tones that it didn't sound like the played frequency at all. I don't know if maybe some of those high frequencies can cause harshness or ear fatigue in some systems, so the 'Enhanced' is trying to soften it up or something? Regardless I'm glad I saw that info in this thread. Id suggest anyone with a wxc/a-50 using any DSP features to check their frequency range. Even if you just download a free phone frequency generator app and spectrum analyzer app, they aren't perfect, but they can show you how much these DSP settings are really affecting the sound.

 

[valerianf]

Yes. To get the best sound the WXA-50 DSP needs to be disabled.