Woo Audio WA11 Topaz Portable Headphone Amp/DAC Review

[Penguino]

The Woo Audio WA11 looks like yet another piece of over-priced, under-performing boutique audio kit to me, but for the same price, the Quloos QA390 looks very promising - so much so, that I started a dedicated thread on it...LINK

Nice, but the link doesn't work.

 

[Xulonn]

Nice, but the link doesn't work.

Thanks Penguino. I had linked to my composition page and hadn't posted the entry. Now posted and link fixed in my comment - but, of course, the link in your reply is still the bad old one that does not work.)

 

[Billy Budapest]

The thing is made in Brooklyn, NYC, by a very small company using high quality materials for the enclosure. That probably is what accounts for the $1,400 price tag.

 

[suttondesign]

Should've been snake skin instead of alcantara.

 

[infinitesymphony]

Wonder if you could replace the internal battery with a larger LiPo. Worst case, you could add a portable power bank.

 

[Tks]

The thing is made in Brooklyn, NYC, by a very small company using high quality materials for the enclosure. That probably is what accounts for the $1,400 price tag.

Grado gets by fine without such an ordeal.

Should've been snake skin instead of alcantara.

Sure and then be given a panther not only missing a head - it's limbs as well (no pun intended). I'd be knocking on their door in revulsion a snake had to be killed for such device..

 

[Billy Budapest]

Grado gets by fine without such an ordeal.

Grado’s upper end headphones and cartridges are extremely expensive.

 

[Tks]

Grado’s upper end headphones and cartridges are extremely expensive.

Then we're all good and Woo needs no defense. They can do what Grado does, or not and lose out to competition..

Especially in light of something like this from years ago obliterating this Woo portable amp's reason for existing. Granted made in China, but add a 5X New York Tax if you like, and you're still at less than 50% the cost of the Woo, and who knows how much quantitatively in performance difference.

 

[Robbo99999]

Amen....is all I have to say to this review.

Silly man! How could you think that they could possibly afford to do that in a cheap, portable DAC/HeadphoneAmp than only costs $1,400???

And they don't even include a nice dog carrier harness with it? For shame! /snark

View attachment 52058

C'mon, you know you like a bit of that!

 

[snake3276120]

Everything looks OK until below jitter section... not to mention it's a $1,400 unit...32 tone is a mess...

 

[Billy Budapest]

Then we're all good and Woo needs no defense. They can do what Grado does, or not and lose out to competition..

Especially in light of something like this from years ago obliterating this Woo portable amp's reason for existing. Granted made in China, but add a 5X New York Tax if you like, and you're still at less than 50% the cost of the Woo, and who knows how much quantitatively in performance difference.

I’m just saying there is a reason for Woo’s high price, not whether it is actually worth it to pay that price.

 

[Doodski]

Even with the clean battery power eliminating any sort of 60Hz and harmonics distortion from a linear wall wart this thing still measures horrible. I guess Woo Audio stuff is simply expensive. I see Woo Audio headphone amps at Canuck Audio Mart and the owners expect big bucks for them. Perhaps that will change.

 

[Tks]

Even with the clean battery power eliminating any sort of 60Hz and harmonics distortion from a linear wall wart this thing still measures horrible. I guess Woo Audio stuff is simply expensive. I see Woo Audio headphone amps at Canuck Audio Mart and the owners expect big bucks for them. Perhaps that will change.

If things haven't change since this published review.. Then those folks are hopeless pretty much.

I’m just saying there is a reason for Woo’s high price, not whether it is actually worth it to pay that price.

And in summary, I'm just saying - they have no sound reason. At least none that would concern a consumer looking to listen to music. And lives in the same world as the rest of us.

I never deny there are reasons of some sort for virtually everything. So what I'm also 'just saying' is: whatever the reason is.. I don't see much cause for appreciation of such a reason given that we're holding goals like good sonic performance as a goal. So simply saying there are 'reasons' is beside the point in actuality, and isn't informative when the question in of itself is trying to take account for what that reason for cost actually is.

Even if their reason is literally as you claim "New York costs", that's fine. Question of main interest being; why would any sensible person care unless they're a collector of all things "New York of Origin" for a museum perhaps?

Lastly, whatever their reason is - I can't imagine a sound one. If it's "New York Costs", then you're not concerned with sound if that is the main cost contributor. If it's R&D, then your costs failed in recuperation, and failed objectively unless the R&D and effort to sonic quality was equalized to sub $100 devices, or should I say sub $50 devices. If it's "we charge because we're a brand and we want to capitalize as much we can in any way legally afforded, while doing the least amount of work to get the thing on the market" then simply uhh.. fuck off with your self circle jerk, and go put your pieces in a Museum dedicated to products from New York, or better yet, start your own.

They could take up also philanthropy (or market research) for audio companies that were wondering if doing business from New York makes sense. They can provide these products as proof-of-concept of just what it possibly may look like if you tried to make your own portable amp, and charge money for it. And perhaps charge companies for the data, rather than consumers.


The ONLY time I would care for devices who's costs are sunken elsewhere, is if performance is already chart topping, and sinking more costs doesn't really achieve much, when for that same cost you could get a bunch of other things refined, and make a great product.

Safe to say for $1,400 this thing is nowhere near being considered as a device who's performance metrics were consciously considered in the cost analysis that would warrant worrying about it's other aspects of design and such.

 

[Doodski]

If things haven't change since this published review.. Then those folks are hopeless pretty much.

They keep selling the stuff at Canuck Audio Mart and the ads disappear so I am guessing people are buying them.
https://www.canuckaudiomart.com/det...s-headphone-amp-and-dac-with-extra-new-tubes/
https://www.canuckaudiomart.com/det...ireflies-wa7-and-matching-wa7tp-power-supply/

 

[Billy Budapest]

If things haven't change since this published review.. Then those folks are hopeless pretty much.




And in summary, I'm just saying - they have no sound reason. At least none that would concern a consumer looking to listen to music. And lives in the same world as the rest of us.

I never deny there are reasons of some sort for virtually everything. So what I'm also 'just saying' is: whatever the reason is.. I don't see much cause for appreciation of such a reason given that we're holding goals like good sonic performance as a goal. So simply saying there are 'reasons' is beside the point in actuality, and isn't informative when the question in of itself is trying to take account for what that reason for cost actually is.

Even if their reason is literally as you claim "New York costs", that's fine. Question of main interest being; why would any sensible person care unless they're a collector of all things "New York of Origin" for a museum perhaps?

Lastly, whatever their reason is - I can't imagine a sound one. If it's "New York Costs", then you're not concerned with sound if that is the main cost contributor. If it's R&D, then your costs failed in recuperation, and failed objectively unless the R&D and effort to sonic quality was equalized to sub $100 devices, or should I say sub $50 devices. If it's "we charge because we're a brand and we want to capitalize as much we can in any way legally afforded, while doing the least amount of work to get the thing on the market" then simply uhh.. fuck off with your self circle jerk, and go put your pieces in a Museum dedicated to products from New York, or better yet, start your own.

They could take up also philanthropy (or market research) for audio companies that were wondering if doing business from New York makes sense. They can provide these products as proof-of-concept of just what it possibly may look like if you tried to make your own portable amp, and charge money for it. And perhaps charge companies for the data, rather than consumers.


The ONLY time I would care for devices who's costs are sunken elsewhere, is if performance is already chart topping, and sinking more costs doesn't really achieve much, when for that same cost you could get a bunch of other things refined, and make a great product.

Safe to say for $1,400 this thing is nowhere near being considered as a device who's performance metrics were consciously considered in the cost analysis that would warrant worrying about it's other aspects of design and such.

I think you are missing the point of my comment, as it was not to make an argument whether the product was worth the price charged. Rather, it was to inform why the price was $1400.

The reason does include the high cost of labor in New York, as your above comments focused on. However, it also includes a few other factors: 1) high materials cost; 2) economies of scale (they aren’t going to sell a super lot of these, and a custom enclosure made for just a few hundred pieces is going to be expensive); 3) the traditional markup of 5x-10x over BOM for boutique audio products; 4) the company’s realization that a small outfit cannot make many pieces of anything, and in order to recoup their costs on a marginal basis, they will have to charge more per unit and priced it accordingly.

So yeah, $1,400 doesn’t really give me sticker shock for this thing. Would I buy it, though? Heck no.

 

[Billy Budapest]

They keep selling the stuff at Canuck Audio Mart and the ads disappear so I am guessing people are buying them.
https://www.canuckaudiomart.com/det...s-headphone-amp-and-dac-with-extra-new-tubes/
https://www.canuckaudiomart.com/det...ireflies-wa7-and-matching-wa7tp-power-supply/

The Woo Audio Fireflies wa7 is a really cool LOOKING amp, almost like sculpture, and that is probably one of the reasons why people buy it—not necessarily for its audio performance.

 

[Doodski]

The Woo Audio Fireflies wa7 is a really cool LOOKING amp, almost like sculpture, and that is probably one of the reasons why people buy it—not necessarily for its audio performance.

If the tubes glow is so appealing they should buy some candles.

 

[Tks]

I think you are missing the point of my comment, as it was not to make an argument whether the product was worth the price charged. Rather, it was to inform why the price was $1400.

The reason does include the high cost of labor in New York, as your above comments focused on. However, it also includes a few other factors: 1) high materials cost; 2) economies of scale (they aren’t going to sell a super lot of these, and a custom enclosure made for just a few hundred pieces is going to be expensive); 3) the traditional markup of 5x-10x over BOM for boutique audio products; 4) the company’s realization that a small outfit cannot make many pieces of anything, and in order to recoup their costs on a marginal basis, they will have to charge more per unit and priced it accordingly.

So yeah, $1,400 doesn’t really give me sticker shock for this thing. Would I buy it, though? Heck no.

If I still missed the point, it was because you only just provided it in full in this post. Which is fine, so lets toss everything I've said prior to the wayside.

Most interesting is how you come to factors 1, and factors 2.

Factor one, I don't see where they're getting this much cost. I see no precious materials, so I simply utterly fail at the calculus of how anything here is considered "high material cost". Alcantara is simply a name brand synthetic suede that is as much marketing and branding as most boutique silliness is. The stuff isn't all that expensive in actuality, and the cost is mainly due to suppliers being starved of inventory and supply chains being reduced. Also, it's a completely idiotic material to use in cars, and just as idiotic to use here. Impossible to keep clean, and good looking. Here's what the easy to produce, but high cost cleaner of it can cost, simply due to artifical supply in the same vein as the Alcantara itself.

Imagine not being able to actually hold your device simply due to the disgusting look it will take on from the oils and pressures your hands will exert.

Factor two, this can be used as justification for everything, and thus cannot be used to justify anything. So as long as I produce something in low enough quantity, there is sense at charging whatever price? I'd understand if they were making EVERYTHING in-house, then on some level the luxury aspect would be evident.. But this device fails in it's purpose by definition (as a portable high performance class A amp). Fails in portabilitiy due to the dumb decision of making it class A (hot and low battery life), and fails in traditionally accepted ideas of what class A affords (no expense spared in pursuit of the best performance, even if efficiency is tossed out the window). So just like the nonsensical idea of using Alcantara for something thats going to be handled often, thus is - by definition, the classification of this device. They seem to be concerned with just including anything that sounds catchy under the Sun, never once considering if it made any sense.

Factor three and four, fair enough point, but that is lacking in justification here.. Unless you want to say along with me, such pricing is simply psychological based greed pandering. Meaning if they charged too low, big buck spenders would avoid it just because of the price tag implying it's not a luxury product. With that understanding, factor three holds relevancy - but that also means their justifications have no actual basis within the products performance itself, and is simply a high margin device that is meant to rob the wealthy. As opposed to every other industry, that makes their high cost products at least their best performing, or best looking, or logistically most expensive to create with sensible reason aside from just telling someone for example "yep you'd actually be buying a car made of platinum, who cares if it can barely stay on, you'd be the only person on Earth to have such a car". That doesn't happen in any other industry, you actually do get some semblance of performance out of the product that doesn't feel like it's being out performed by something in some fashion that LITERALLY costs 1,000x less.

Apologies for the long post. In summary, I'm just not a fan of products that pander more to vanity while at the same time fulfilling intended purpose no better than a device made in factories no one knows the source of.

Also, they don't use "great parts" or "high cost" ones worthy of note. Heck the DAC chip in there is a very old ESS ES9018M that I can't even find spec sheets for anymore. Why are they using over half a decade old chips (chips used in the now defunct Pono players), in a 2019 product?

The product makes no logical sense from any viewpoint aside from desk decoration, and even then I'd argue at $1,400 I could be contracted to decorate your desk better.

The Woo Audio Fireflies wa7 is a really cool LOOKING amp, almost like sculpture, and that is probably one of the reasons why people buy it—not necessarily for its audio performance.

That at least we can agree on, unlike this portable amp at that cost >_>

 

[Billy Budapest]

If I still missed the point, it was because you only just provided it in full in this post. Which is fine, so lets toss everything I've said prior to the wayside.

Most interesting is how you come to factors 1, and factors 2.

Factor one, I don't see where they're getting this much cost. I see no precious materials, so I simply utterly fail at the calculus of how anything here is considered "high material cost". Alcantara is simply a name brand synthetic suede that is as much marketing and branding as most boutique silliness is. The stuff isn't all that expensive in actuality, and the cost is mainly due to suppliers being starved of inventory and supply chains being reduced. Also, it's a completely idiotic material to use in cars, and just as idiotic to use here. Impossible to keep clean, and good looking. Here's what the easy to produce, but high cost cleaner of it can cost, simply due to artifical supply in the same vein as the Alcantara itself.

Imagine not being able to actually hold your device simply due to the disgusting look it will take on from the oils and pressures your hands will exert.

Factor two, this can be used as justification for everything, and thus cannot be used to justify anything. So as long as I produce something in low enough quantity, there is sense at charging whatever price? I'd understand if they were making EVERYTHING in-house, then on some level the luxury aspect would be evident.. But this device fails in it's purpose by definition (as a portable high performance class A amp). Fails in portabilitiy due to the dumb decision of making it class A (hot and low battery life), and fails in traditionally accepted ideas of what class A affords (no expense spared in pursuit of the best performance, even if efficiency is tossed out the window). So just like the nonsensical idea of using Alcantara for something thats going to be handled often, thus is - by definition, the classification of this device. They seem to be concerned with just including anything that sounds catchy under the Sun, never once considering if it made any sense.

Factor three and four, fair enough point, but that is lacking in justification here.. Unless you want to say along with me, such pricing is simply psychological based greed pandering. Meaning if they charged too low, big buck spenders would avoid it just because of the price tag implying it's not a luxury product. With that understanding, factor three holds relevancy - but that also means their justifications have no actual basis within the products performance itself, and is simply a high margin device that is meant to rob the wealthy. As opposed to every other industry, that makes their high cost products at least their best performing, or best looking, or logistically most expensive to create with sensible reason aside from just telling someone for example "yep you'd actually be buying a car made of platinum, who cares if it can barely stay on, you'd be the only person on Earth to have such a car". That doesn't happen in any other industry, you actually do get some semblance of performance out of the product that doesn't feel like it's being out performed by something in some fashion that LITERALLY costs 1,000x less.

Apologies for the long post. In summary, I'm just not a fan of products that pander more to vanity while at the same time fulfilling intended purpose no better than a device made in factories no one knows the source of.

Also, they don't use "great parts" or "high cost" ones worthy of note. Heck the DAC chip in there is a very old ESS ES9018M that I can't even find spec sheets for anymore. Why are they using over half a decade old chips (chips used in the now defunct Pono players), in a 2019 product?

The product makes no logical sense from any viewpoint aside from desk decoration, and even then I'd argue at $1,400 I could be contracted to decorate your desk better.



That at least we can agree on, unlike this portable amp at that cost >_>

I don’t really disagree with anything you said. However, I don’t think anyone (not the manufacturer and not me, as I am an outsider just trying to logically figure out the price) is trying to “justify” the price charged. The manufacturer is charging the price it needs to in order to make a profit.

 

[YSC]

Looks like performing worse overall than my 6 years old oppo ha-2... not good for 10x the price..