The Legacy Wavelet II (Part 2)

by Bill Heck

In part 1, I introduced you to a radically different product, indeed a different product category: the Legacy Wavelet II, a music DSP processor. If you've not read that article, check it out here. In part 2, I discuss the results of deploying the Wavelet II in my system and suggest how it might work in yours.

Results

DAC and Preamp: Yes, these functions work well and sound excellent, as expected. There may be subtle differences relative to other products of this sort, but again we’re looking for big changes, not subtle ones. For us today, it’s go big or go home.

Crossovers: As my Legacy Signatures are bi-amp capable and I had an extra older but excellent amp lying around, I figured why not go for it? To make a longish story short, things never sounded quite right with the two different amps, so I eventually sprang for a second PowerBloc2, and all was well. I still don’t know just why the original amp did not work out, and Legacy assures me that other customers have successfully integrated two (or more) different amps. YMMV.

So, is bi-amping worthwhile? On one hand, the effects, while real, are not the sort that revolutionized my listening experience. In other words, we’re back to subtle – although certainly real – improvements, and then there’s the expense of a second amp. On the other hand, amps are getting less and less expensive, and bi-amping is another way to wring a last, noticeable bit of performance from bi-amp-capable speakers. That performance included slightly deeper bass, as confirmed by using test tones, and a subjective sense that the midrange was “cleaned up” a bit. For those already into multi-tens of thousands of dollars territory, it certainly makes sense; if you’re in for that kind of money, you can afford an extra amp or two. In my case, I don’t foresee upgrading the speakers, so my final available avenue for optimum performance was indeed bi-amping.

Oh, about those two channels reserved for subwoofers: I do have a subwoofer and in theory I could use it to fill in extremely low bass (mid-20’s Hz and down); I’ll give it a try when I have some extra free time.

Room Correction / DSP: Here’s where things get really interesting. With apologies to Captain Kirk, DSP is the final frontier, at least for stereo listening. I said that I didn’t want “subtle”; the effects of room correction and other DSP processing are anything but.

I’ve had considerable experience with at least one well-regarded room correction system: Dirac Live (full range version), which was built into my previous preamp. Although I felt that Dirac involved a few compromises, I found that overall, it almost always made noticeable improvements in the reproduction of live music, particularly in the areas of imaging and the reduction of resonances in the nether regions of the spectrum. (I should add here that there are room correction approaches that require multiple additional speakers or subwoofers. I have enough difficulty with the economics and aesthetics of a stereo pair, so for me such systems are not real world options.)

Because I had both the Wavelet II and my older preamp during the transition from my old speakers, Waveform Mach Solos, to my new Signatures, I was able to compare the effects of the Dirac and Böhmer systems within fairly short time periods with both sets of speakers: not true blind testing by any means, but enough (I hope) to develop fairly reliable impressions. To my ears, the Wavelet II’s Böhmer room correction was smoother and more effective, with fewer compromises, than Dirac’s. For example, Dirac tightened bass but at the expense of lowering the perceived bass level; an acceptable tradeoff for me, but Böhmer manages the tightening part without the perceived reduction part. Moreover, Dirac correction works for a specific location; as you (or just your head) start to leave that location, the correction breaks down. To be clear, while you do not need to keep your head locked as though in a vise, moving even a short distance across the sofa is problematic, and moving several feet away is somewhere between disappointing and disastrous. In contrast, the Böhmer correction is constant throughout the room; indeed, I’ve found that I can get a reasonable stereo image while lying on the floor in front of the speakers. (Not that I recommend that listening position in general, but after a long day with an aching back….). Finally, to my ears, the Böhmer correction just sounds more “right”, more “natural”.

Microphone in front of
speaker for room correction.

Meanwhile, the Böhmer correction is far easier to set up. Typically, room correction systems require multiple closely spaced microphone measurements in a listening “window”; the Böhmer approach uses just one measurement per side with the microphone at about tweeter height 48” in front of the speaker. After my first time running the Dirac process, I could replicate it in something between 45 – 60 minutes; replicating with true precision was difficult and demands something like a boom microphone stand to do properly. I can run the Böhmer in under 10 minutes, including positioning the microphone with truly anal attention. Complicating any measurement regimen is the fact that you should conduct any measurement regimen with as little environmental noise as possible; the shorter the process, the less likelihood of interruptions from plane flyovers, trucks passing by, and furnace or AC systems kicking in. The bottom line: it’s easy to set up the Böhmer correction initially, and also to rerun it you change anything in or near the system.

Now let’s zero in on details of what the Wavelet II does for music. Fortunately, it was easy to switch the Wavelet II’s room correction on and off instantaneously to evaluate its effects. (The switch did insert a fraction of a second of silence, so it wasn’t literally instantaneous.) Here’s are some results:

Orff: “0 fortuna” from Carmina Burana, Seji Ozawa / Boston SO: The most obvious effect of room correction was that the words sung by the chorus were more intelligible. (Sadly, room correction did not translate those words into English. No doubt the Universal Translator Upgrade will take care of that.) The orchestral backing and male voices also had slightly more weight.

Quarter Chicken Dark Yo-yo Ma:Room correction brings up the mid to lower bass without changing the overall volume.

Given that I ran these tests around the Christmas holiday, it seemed appropriate to try some passages from Tchaikovsky’s Nutcracker ballet.

Act 1, No. 7: The Nutcracker Battles the Army of the Mouse King, Gergiev / Mariinsky Orchestra: The crack (gunshot?) just after the movement begins seems a little louder with room correction off. But, with room correction on, the initial pop, meaning the leading edge of that shot, is more startling, distinct, realistic, and exciting. (Seriously. I jumped.) Similarly, at the very end of the movement, the repeated plucked double notes on the basses are deeper and more resonant. In general, turning on room correction clarifies the various instruments; it also brings the orchestra forward slightly.

Piano transcription by Stuart Goodyear, TH14, act 1, tableau 1: With room correction on, the lower registers of the piano have more body, as does the big chord at the very end.

Waltz of the Flowers, Los Angeles Guitar Quartet: The contribution of room correction was particularly noticeable with this recording. The guitars not only have more body, but it also is easier to tell that there really are several different instruments playing different parts. With room correction off, you still hear all the notes, but it’s not so clear where each line is coming from. Metaphorically, with room correction off, we have a caricature of some guitars; with room correction on, four people are playing individual guitars.

Nutcracker Suite as arranged by Duke Ellington and Billy Strayhorn; played by the Harmony Ensemble of New York, conducted by Steve Richmond. I promised classical music, and I suppose this just sneaks in under the wire, but this wonderful arrangement sounds more delightful with room correction on. Without correction, the sound is noticeably two-dimensional on a plane in front of the speakers. Turning on room correction opens it up, adds a little punch, and just helps things fly along.

The second form of DSP offered with the Wavelet II is the aforementioned “Omnio”. Subjectively, the effect is obvious, and here’s my best effort at description: Imaging is “solidified”, made more three-dimensional and precise, with instrumental and vocal positions clarified. The image also is deepened front to back, while the overall sound fills out, with instruments and voices having more tonal depth or body. For example, in orchestral music the brasses and woodwinds are more clearly behind the strings, and the sound of the orchestra is “thicker” (in a good sense), as though more of the full sound of each instrument comes through. An abbreviated way to say all this is that the sonic “picture” of performers in space became significantly more believable, which is not the sort of thing that one normally hears by simply flipping a switch.

These benefits can be recording dependent. Omnio really rescued some recordings: for example, without Omnio, the Supraphon recording of the Dvorak Symphony 6 with Mackerras leading the Czech PO had the violins plastered to the left speaker. With Omnio, the sound was not perfect, but the violins managed to move back toward the rest of the orchestra. In contrast, in the Vox recording of Rachmaninoff’s Symphony 2 with Slatkin / St Louis, now remastered and reviewed on Classical Candor here, things sound more confused and messy with Omnio on. (Apparently, this is because the recording originally was mastered for 4-channel – shades of Quadraphonic! Omnio is stumped when trying to figure out what to do.) Fortunately, a simple tap on the control app turns Omnio on and off, so it takes only a few seconds to decide whether to use it or not. When you do turn it on, note that the perceived volume increases, so adjust accordingly. In any case, over the months I found myself happily using the Omnio feature for most recordings.

But wait, what about that Omnio+ thing that I mentioned earlier? With the current firmware, you now can choose Omnio Bypass (meaning off), original Omnio, or Omnio+. As I hear it, Omnio+ is indeed "plus": Omnio, only moreso. In particular, with the original Omnio I occasionally felt that the central image might be a little “clogged up”; Omnio+ eliminates that issue while providing even clearer imaging with a more natural feel. Omnio+ also seems to work a little more reliably, although not always perfectly, with problem recordings.

One editorial comment: product descriptions and other reviews that I have seen of both the original Wavelet and the Wavelet II generally give but little attention to the Omnio feature. I find this surprising. I said earlier that Omnio/Omnio+ make an immediately noticeable change, i.e., one that is not subtle. This is just the sort of improvement that you can obtain only with advanced DSP, and as such, it is a big deal. It’s why one would be interested in a unit such as the Wavelet II – and it may be a harbinger of even bigger changes to come.

Minor Gripes

Lest I be accused of seeing only the bright side, I will admit to a few minor gripes.

On the hardware side, the USB connectors on the rear panel all are USB 2; I wish they were USB 3.1 to help future-proof such a premium device. The USB digital audio input connector could be a micro-B, an A, or better yet the new universal C standard connector rather than the old-style original B-connector. WiFi connection is by means of an adapter plugged into one of the USB communications ports; that’s fine, but the adapter is restricted to WiFi 802/n, using only the older 2.4 GHz band. Finally, although WiFi setup is done only once (unless something changes in your network), the process is a little cumbersome.

In Böhmer/Legacy’s defense, one can argue that they should allocate development resources to hardware and software improvements, which is exactly what they have done – but a few minor tweaks still would be nice. Anyway, that’s the end of my nit-pickng.

In Summary: The Wavelet II

The Wavelet II is an extraordinary product with powerful sonic capabilities. I’ve barely touched on the technology involved, preferring to concentrate on the more accessible features and sonic outcomes. But there’s no doubt that we are operating here at a frontier of sound reproduction.

In my earlier overview of the Legacy Signature speakers, I stressed how “real world” they were; in a different way, the Wavelet II also is a real world product. A simple, intuitive user interface combines serious processing power and control flexibility to work with real systems in real rooms. Sure, it’s nice that the Wavelet II is suitable for use with superspeakers in purpose-built audio rooms that already are full of treatments and tuned to perfection, but it’s really exciting that it works even for lesser speakers in plain old real rooms in real houses, condos, or apartments. (One hesitates to think of the prodigious capabilities of big Legacy speaker unleashed in apartments with unsuspecting neighbors...but I digress.) Obviously, the room correction is front and center, but don’t forget the Omnio / Omnio+ processing. And, of course, there’s the bi-amping capability if your speakers support it.

But what about the price ($7950)? By the rarified – feel free to pick a less flattering adjective – standards of “high end” audio, with folks shelling out well into five figures for everything from phono cartridges to cables, the Wavelet II is not particularly expensive. However, by more down-to-earth standards, it’s a significant investment.

Meanwhile, though, a lot of audiophiles spend a lot more on equipment and accessories that return a lot less than the Wavelet II provides. Also, the price is easier to swallow when you remember that the Wavelet II obviates the need for a separate preamp and DAC. In my own system, given that it would be difficult for several reasons to upgrade my speakers, the Wavelet II is by far the single most significant upgrade that I could have made. In fact, I would speculate that, in many (most?) systems, investing in a Wavelet II could make a bigger difference than an equivalent investment in new speakers. Here’s the point: at the least, you really should try to hear a Wavelet II in a system fully set up to use it. DSP truly is the final frontier of audio; the effects are immediate and obvious.

The Crystal Ball

I suppose that I shouldn’t even mention this last bit, as Legacy has plenty on their plate already, but here’s a dream: could there be a less expensive “mini-Wavelet”? Dump the analog inputs and maybe even a digital input or two, make the output just four channels (for bi-amping) or even two channels (single amp), maybe back down the numeric processor to original Wavelet standards (it used a lower bit depth and a shorter processing window), all to bring the price down to a level that might be accessible for those earlier on the curve of building their audio systems. Böhmer room correction, Omnio processing…it’s a dream of bringing this kind of power to a wider audience. I hasten to add that this is my dream; I certainly can’t speak for Legacy or Böhmer. But wouldn’t it be nice?

Meanwhile, take a listen and imagine what the Wavelet II might do in your listening room. If you are tired of swapping similar components to eke out tiny gains, maybe it’s time, as Monty Python would say, for something completely different.