• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

WiiM Ultra Streamer Preamp Review

Rate this streamer/DAC/Preamp:

  • 1. Poor (headless panther)

    Votes: 4 1.1%
  • 2. Not terrible (postman panther)

    Votes: 43 12.0%
  • 3. Fine (happy panther)

    Votes: 140 39.0%
  • 4. Great (golfing panther)

    Votes: 172 47.9%

  • Total voters
    359
Well that's the trick. If you are not able to trust the demonstration (not just the words) then you'r only recourse is to get your maths to the poiint where you can follow the maths of shannon-nyquist.
I see, Shannon-Nyquist is guaranteeing frequency sampling process to be reversible.

Is what I guess in my last answer, the subspace of signals on the band limited space is the only considered to be possible to reconstruct. So nice, Shanon-Nyquist, beautiful theorem.

This leads more to physics than to maths, in the sense we suppose physicals signals to be band limited simple frequency composed.

I suppose this is true, or conversely engineers wouldn’t use it. In the context I studied at the faculty, the set of functions being considered was not constrained to this requirement.

So quantization variable is the only non reversible transfer function. I saw also the harmonic distortion added of quantization and need for sacrificing SNR adding dither noise to avoid distortion on some frequencies.

Now I understand the maths, but what in the hell is the reason I hear better on the high digital volume and analogue attenuation? :)
 
Have you considered the issue might be the Ifi zen at 100% output? But you probably ruled that out already. I use a pre amp/dac after the Ultra as well so I'm following this nice discussion, eager to learn.
 
Have you considered the issue might be the Ifi zen at 100% output? But you probably ruled that out already. I use a pre amp/dac after the Ultra as well so I'm following this nice discussion, eager to learn.
Yes, maybe the good answer. I assume that the volume knob is an attenuator but in fact when I switch the “fixed output” to “variable output” mode on a physical lever (that suggest is changing the path of a circuit) the volume drops by 6 dB or so even the volume knob is at max.

If it was simply a passive attenuator, the max position should match the fixed volume. And in the specs they mentioned a different voltage output (curiously they claim more voltage at max on variable than that on fixed).

That suggests there is an active preamp, so maybe the implementation is not working well at its max
 
But using the SMSL as DAC would be better?
Exceptionally unlikely**. The Ultra Dac measures as transparent (audibly perfect). There is nothing to be gained from using an external DAC just for sound quality. Only if it offers other features you need (EG extra inputs, or balanced outputs etc.)


**no
 
Last edited:
This leads more to physics than to maths, in the sense we suppose physicals signals to be band limited simple frequency composed.
Physical signals are not band limited except by the bandwidth of the medium on which they are carried. In order for Analogue to Digital converters to work properley, the signal must be low pass filtered before conversion, to band limit it to less than 1/2 the sampling rate.
 
I cannot extract more information from Morty’s video, and I’m not sure that only one band limited signal that can pass thorough the samples. This is an affirmation by the autor, I can search more with time and learn the mathematics.

I always work better with learning the proofs than accepting authority arguments.

I can intuit what you’re telling with the unique possible line, because if one tries to add another different line passing by same samples, adding extra curves will implicate high frequencies out of the band added to the signal.

Thanks for your patience and effort!

As measure as I write, I can figure what’s going on with the key words “band limited”, this creates also a limited subspace of possible representable signals on the time domain.

Even I understand why I didn’t think about that, always studied Fourier in pure mathematics, and there’s no limitation of frequencies: they go from minus to plus infinity (use of negative frequencies is allowed, too).
I'm following your journey with interest and applaud your desire to understand the fundamental mathematics underlying a digital signal. It's a great approach (one I can't follow, my maths isn't strong enough)

Can I add a thought: you should apply the same rigour to any listening tests that you do as well. There is good behavioural science on perception bias and the need for controls in subjective tests - very well developed in medicine.

This thread, for me, is the embodiment of ASR
 
Now I understand the maths, but what in the hell is the reason I hear better on the high digital volume and analogue attenuation? :)
Missed this question first time around.

Either. your gain post digital is massive to the point of raising the DAC noise floor to audibility (but then you'd be able to hear it as noise)
Or insufficiently accurate level matching for your comparisons.
Or - plain old perceptive bias - from either sighted listening, or from uncontrolled 'tells" in your blind listening.

Also possible - but unlikely - one of the devices you are comparing is doing something "wrong" in the volume control process.
 
I'm following your journey with interest and applaud your desire to understand the fundamental mathematics underlying a digital signal. It's a great approach (one I can't follow, my maths isn't strong enough)

Can I add a thought: you should apply the same rigour to any listening tests that you do as well. There is good behavioural science on perception bias and the need for controls in subjective tests - very well developed in medicine.

This thread, for me, is the embodiment of ASR
I’m a professional healthcare provider :D

Careful blind tests are the best, who can’t argue against… but difficult to implement.

My curiosity (as ancient mathematician before being physical therapist and rehabilitation specialist) is over my obsession for a better sound.

But as a self-formed in this new hobby, I have many “holes” in the complex world of audio and electronics.

Many articles explain how matching voltages is better with proper mathematical techniques on SNR and THD function, but lack in specifying the audible impact of these optimization methods. Probably are negligible…

Others explain the digital basic theory of volume regulation and impact of bit depth, bit still on a theoretical domain or lacking the modern solutions to avoid undesirable artifacts.

Is not an easy world, it reminds me my own professional domain, where they are studies not only incomplete but even openly contradictory. Different claims of best approaches, bias because marketing influence (this late is to me the worst in medicine, and given the increase of private health systems is getting worse and worse).

Always hope the next month I will know better the fascinating world of audio science
 
Missed this question first time around.

Either. your gain post digital is massive to the point of raising the DAC noise floor to audibility (but then you'd be able to hear it as noise)
Or insufficiently accurate level matching for your comparisons.
Or - plain old perceptive bias - from either sighted listening, or from uncontrolled 'tells" in your blind listening.

Also possible - but unlikely - one of the devices you are comparing is doing something "wrong" in the volume control process.
I agree, the actual solution to the loose resolution in digital domain suggests that the issue is on analogue section.

Probably as Romario suggests, my Ifi Zen Dac preamp section is active amplification and has some optimal range on its mid voltage gain, not at maximum.

But I have a question, why all of professionals on audio (I mean technical workers not sellers) and even Genelec websites recommend to use analogue voltage controllers to march signal voltage outputs with inputs instead of more simple adjusting signal strengths digitally?

This is the link to Genelec website, is the same information I found on other articles.

 
Physical signals are not band limited except by the bandwidth of the medium on which they are carried. In order for Analogue to Digital converters to work properley, the signal must be low pass filtered before conversion, to band limit it to less than 1/2 the sampling rate.
I missed the redaction of my post, I was intending to say “composed by single added frequencies” which in practice means that physical signals are always sums of analytical functions. This configure the Hilbert orthogonal basis on Fourier analysis.

When using all of the basis, you have the space of all continuous functions defined on a compact domain, as fundamental Fourier theorem proves.

In nature, is totally unlikely to find non differentiable signals or even non analytical signals, because this will imply infinite values of momentum, acceleration or forces. Even in quantum mechanics, all should be “smooth”

In practical the limitation bandwidth creates a subspace on the Hilbert space, which dimensions are specified with the range of frequencies, so the only region of interest is this subset.

This is the simplest element on the proof to Nyquist theorem that Monty explains when he says “there is only one signal with limited bandwidth that can pass trough the samples”

Any other signal will be a function outside of the subspace of all Hilbert vectors that are linear combinations of the limited chosen basis.

Is a very nice theorem, I had s good time this morning reading the demonstration and it clarified totally to me the influence of bit depth and sample rate on audio digitalization.

Thanks for recommending Shanon-Nyquist!

Still have a lot more doubts, but don’t want to abuse of your time.

I will try to dissociate my learning process form my setup, it cost me a lot in relationship with my salary, and perhaps the experiments I do are perturbing my emotional relationship with music and stressing a little bit when I try to listen and relax.

Always trying to listen defaults instead of enjoying, perhaps this happens to many new audiophiles
 
I’m a professional healthcare provider :D

Careful blind tests are the best, who can’t argue against… but difficult to implement.
:D
 
I agree, the actual solution to the loose resolution in digital domain suggests that the issue is on analogue section.

Probably as Romario suggests, my Ifi Zen Dac preamp section is active amplification and has some optimal range on its mid voltage gain, not at maximum.

But I have a question, why all of professionals on audio (I mean technical workers not sellers) and even Genelec websites recommend to use analogue voltage controllers to march signal voltage outputs with inputs instead of more simple adjusting signal strengths digitally?

This is the link to Genelec website, is the same information I found on other articles.

Because if you do mulitple stages of gain matching (eg in studio use) then the SNR degradation will multiply and may become aduible

And - because it is the technically the way to optimize SNR - and you don't need to check that you are not compensating too low a digital setting, by excessive analogue gain.

But for a single stage of volume control in a normal home audio system digital volume control is goign to be fine - and also have some advantages (such as no channel mismatch at low levels sometimes happening with analog potentiometers.
 
Have you considered the issue might be the Ifi zen at 100% output? But you probably ruled that out already. I use a pre amp/dac after the Ultra as well so I'm following this nice discussion, eager to learn.
Another thing I consider is my WiiM is a bad unit, doesn’t matter what I do the mid section has irritating sound.

Is quite evident, sounds bad whatever we do at home, I requested a second uint to Amazon to see if my unit is working bad.

I will reset the unit also, in case of is a software issue
 
Because if you do mulitple stages of gain matching (eg in studio use) then the SNR degradation will multiply and may become aduible

And - because it is the technically the way to optimize SNR - and you don't need to check that you are not compensating too low a digital setting, by excessive analogue gain.

But for a single stage of volume control in a normal home audio system digital volume control is goign to be fine - and also have some advantages (such as no channel mismatch at low levels sometimes happening with analog potentiometers.
Channel mismatch means that one channel can have higher voltage than the other in low voltage setting?
 
What's missing in digital VC in general (not all of them though) is the art (yes,art) of the logarithmic function.
The lowest 20-25dB are pretty much useless normally and from then on a nice VC should be more based on perception that anything else.

Alps has studied this for decades for example and that's one the reasons for it's reputation (the other is the absolute premium feel).
Can't be too hard for rotaries to be programmed in such way!
(as long as fail-safes exists,that's of the utmost importance)
 
What's missing in digital VC in general (not all of them though) is the art (yes,art) of the logarithmic function.
The lowest 20-25dB are pretty much useless normally and from then on a nice VC should be more based on perception that anything else.

Alps has studied this for decades for example and that's one the reasons for it's reputation (the other is the absolute premium feel).
Can't be too hard for rotaries to be programmed in such way!
(as long as fail-safes exists,that's of the utmost importance)
I love the well made rotary knobs, I didn’t knew were logarithmic based, but I imagined since they match better the sensations.

My Ifi Zen DAC has a lovely one, always find easy my preferred volume.

Sadly wheel of the WiiM Ultra is very unsatisfactory to my taste, first I didn’t give importance to this detail.

The remote is better, most familiar to me to manage, but still prefer the finesse of a good rotary control
 
  • Like
Reactions: EJ3
I always work better with learning the proofs than accepting authority arguments.

If you are up for it, dig into the sampling theorem. It is beautiful math. I've often said if there is magic in audio, it is in Shannon/Nyquist.
 
If you are up for it, dig into the sampling theorem. It is beautiful math. I've often said if there is magic in audio, it is in Shannon/Nyquist.
I red the proof this morning, is very nice theorem. Quite unintuitive, as one can expect a bunch of amplitude coefficients to be necessary to the reconstruction.

The trick is the exigence to the function to be captured by discrete time functions, to have Fourier coefficients to be 0 outside of a finite region, what called here the frequency bandwidth.
 
Last edited:
I've a long forgotten degree in Electronic Engineering from 40 years ago but the maths used in sampling and data transmission is so elegant. Digitally sampling and reconstructing analogue sine waves, error correction in data transmission etc. Understanding these processes gives so much insight into how digital audio works and helps debunk so many of the myths in the hifi world.

It reminds me of the old joke, there are 10 sorts of people in the world, those that understand binary and those that don't. (And hell can be talking audio with someone who doesn't.)
 
It reminds me of the old joke, there are 10 sorts of people in the world, those that understand binary and those that don't. (And hell can be talking audio with someone who doesn't.)
In mathematics we were more magic: we can take a ball of radius 1, divided in some disjoint pieces, rearrange them without deformation and obtain two balls of the same radius 1. We have duplicated volume without paradoxes nor deformations.

Is called the Banach-Tarsky theorem, but unfortunately to the humans is not applicable in the physical world
 
Back
Top Bottom