Jump to content
  • The Computer Audiophile
    The Computer Audiophile

    Ayre Acoustics QB-9 Asynchronous USB DAC Review

    QB-9_USB_Digital-to-Analog_Converter_imaThe Ayre Acoustics QB-9 asynchronous USB DAC is currently one of the hottest products around. Everyone is listening to it or talking about it. In fact I did both at the Computer Audiophile Symposium in June at Fantasy Studios. My first impression of the QB-9 was so good that I asked Ayre's Steve Silberman about using the DAC in one of the very high-end systems at the Symposium. I assured Steve that the rest of the system would be completely capable of faithfully reproducing the analog output from the QB-9. Thus, the QB-9 was connected to a Mac Mini, a nice preamp and pair of amps, and Magico v3 loudspeakers. Based on the Symposium attendees' reactions to the sound and my countless hours of listening to the DAC in several different systems I completely understand why the Ayre Acoustics QB-9 asynchronous USB DAC has everyone talking. The reason this DAC is so hot is because it's so good.

    [PRBREAK][/PRBREAK]

     

     

     

     

     

     

    <b>Hit The Ground Running</b>

     

    At CES 2009 Ayre Acoustics introduced the QB-9 to the world. Ever since that show the DAC has continued to gain in popularity. This gain in popularity can be tough to accomplish. Some manufacturers introduce products at CES and talk about them, and talk about them, and talk about them, building incredible hype. This often backfires as there is a huge hype-hurdle to jump when the product is finally released. Everyone expects everything from such an over-hyped product. Ayre on the other hand bet on the QB-9's performance and let it speak for itself. The DAC was setup in a fully functional system at CES where people were free to tap the touch screen of a Mac Mini to select music they wanted to hear. Nothing generates great press like a great performing product and the CES demo got the ball rolling for Ayre's QB-9. Since CES there hasn't been much talk from Ayre itself but there's been a groundswell of Internet chatter and talk amongst those in the industry. I can't count the number of times I've been asked, "Have you heard the new Ayre DAC yet?" Since this DAC is only being reviewed by a few writers in 2009, I took the question seriously and assumed the person hadn't heard the QB-9. After listening to the QB-9 for a lengthy period of time I started to ask others in the industry, "Have you heard the new Ayre DAC yet?" However, when I asked people if they'd heard the DAC it was more of a statement than a question. I knew what the QB-9 was capable of and I likely tipped my hand by the way I spoke. Either way I communicated my positive thoughts about the QB-9.

     

     

     

    <b>Differentiation Is In The Details</b>

     

    <img src="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1011/QB-9_USB_Digital-to-Analog_Converter_image.jpg" style="padding: 5pt 10pt 7pt 5pt;" align="left">The Ayre Acoustics QB-9 is unlike most USB DACs on the market today. It's one of only a handful of USB DACs using asynchronous transfer mode and it's a solid state design. In a recent article here on Computer Audiophile titled <a href="http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Asynchronicity-USB-Audio-Primer">Asynchronicity</a> I delved into the differences between USB transfer modes used by USB DACs. The following information from that article should be helpful for readers unfamiliar with the concepts of Adaptive and Asynchronous USB transfer modes.

     

    <i>"The main thing to keep in mind when reading about adaptive and asynchronous USB modes is clocking. Clocking is extremely important with digital audio. Many digital audio experts agree that keeping the clock as close to the DAC as possible, or using a master clock for all digital components is the way to achieve the most accurate sound. In consumer high-end audio as well as professional audio clocking is a major concern and very often external master clocks are used to achieve the best sound.

    Asynchronous USB DACs are few and far between. Currently Ayre, Wavelength, and dCS are the major manufacturers with asynchronous products on the market. In my opinion the reason for this lack of async DACs is simply because it's very difficult implement this technology. There is a specific skill set required to implement asynchronous USB and it's not common place in high-end audio. Implementing async USB requires a manufacturer to write its own software for the TAS1020 chip and invest thousands of hours on this part of the DAC alone. The limited number of manufacturers who've decided to take on this task instead of going with a plug n' play chip are doing it because they think the performance gains far outweigh the development pain.

    Asynchronous USB essentially turns the computer into a slave device as opposed to adaptive USB which does the opposite. Thus, an asynchronous USB DAC has total control over the timing of the audio. One very important feature of asynchronous USB mode is bidirectional communication between the computer and the DAC. The computer sends audio and the DAC sends commands or instructions for the computer to follow. For example the computer's clock becomes less accurate over a given period of time and can send too much data too quickly and fill up the buffer. Asynchronous DACs will instruct the computer to slow down, thus avoiding any negative effects of a full, or empty, buffer which can manifest itself into audible dropouts and pops or clicks. According to Wavelength Audio the tail is no longer wagging the dog when using asynchronous USB mode. Plus all of this is done without additional device drivers or software installation."</i>

     

    Ayre Acoustics currently licenses the Streamlength Asynchronous USB code from Wavelength Audio. Even though Ayre and Wavelength share the same Streamlength Asynchronous USB code in their USB DACs most other design elements differ quite a bit. The most obvious difference is the QB-9's solid state design. However, The QB-9 is <b>not</b> just a solid state version of a Wavelength DAC. Wavelength uses custom filters on the new Sabre32 board and its Wolfson parts use different filters than the typical sharp units found in most DACs. Ayre uses its Minimum Phase digital filter. The MP filter used in the QB-9 is the result of extensive research by Ayre into improving compromises with pre and post ringing in typical digital filters. Typical "Brickwall" filters have about ten cycles of pre and post ringing.

     

    To help readers understand a bit about this ringing concept here is my layman's cheat-sheet.

     

    A pre-ring results in audible pre-echos

    A post-ring results in audible post-echos

     

    Pre and post echos are audible sounds that surround an actual event like an invigorating transient. Pre-echo >> Transient >> Post-echo. A live performance has no such thing as pre and post echos such as those involved in analog to digital conversion. An easy way to think of this pre and post ringing concept involves the Super Bowl. There is a pre-game show (pre-echo), the actual game (musical transient), and a post game show (post-echo). If one only wants to watch the actual game, the pre and post game shows should be eliminated. Brickwall filters can't eliminate the pre and post game shows. They force one to watch the pre game, game, and post game. Watching all three certainly detracts from the actual event if that's all one wants. Listening to an audio track one certainly doesn't want to hear pre-echoes and post-echoes in addition to the wonderful transients that are supposed to be reproduced. If the goal is to recreate a musical event in one's home then we must use components that drastically reduce these echos. The Ayre MP filter is somewhat equivalent to watching only the Super Bowl game and a small snippet of the post game show. Instead of ten cycles of pre-ringing and ten cycles of post-ringing, the MP filter has zero pre and only one cycle of post-ringing. To my ears this sounds like a highlight reel where only the best of the best is heard.

     

    In addition to the MP filter the QB-9 has fully balanced discrete circuitry and what's called the Ayre Conditioner. The Ayre Conditioner is a non-ferrous RF power line filter developed in-house at Ayre. A huge benefit of using a built-in RF power line filter is that the listener is virtually guaranteed this filter improves the sound. Ayre is not going to add features to its own product that decrease fidelity. The same cannot be said of external RF power line filters or conditioners. Third party filters or conditioners can make wonderful improvements in one's sound system, but the products must be designed to work with many different components on the market. Finding a power product that is a perfect match for one specific component can be difficult. Finding a power product that is a perfect match for all of one's components is even tougher. Thus, the value of the built-in Ayre Conditioner RFI power line filter should not be underestimated.

     

     

    One other factor in the QB-9's increasing popularity is that this DAC is getting more and more mainstream dealers interested in computer based audio. Ayre has been a well known brand for over seventeen years. It has a wide dealer network penetrating many different markets. Ayre is a Blue-chip company. When it releases products people can expect a very high level of quality and support. Thus, I've received emails from Ayre dealers about music servers and Ayre customers saying their dealer is really trying to get into computer based audio and has the QB-9 on display in a very good system. These are all very positive things in my opinion and have not only contributed to the QB-9's popularity, but the industry as a whole.

     

     

     

    <b>System Integration & Listening</b>

     

    I've listened to the Ayre QB-9 in more than a few systems since I received the review sample. Not only have I tried it with a plethora of components here in my listening room, I brought it with me to a colleague's studio in Northern California. There I listened to the QB-9 through an MSB and TAD based system. I really like the sound of TAD loudspeakers and the QB-9 made the listening session a great experience. The most impressed I've been with the QB-9 was at the inaugural Computer Audiophile Symposium at Fantasy Studios in June, 2009. The complete system was as follows.

     

    Magico V3 speakers, Ayre QB9 Asynchronous USB DAC with WireWorld prototype USB cable to a Mac Mini, WireWorld Silver Eclipse 6 Single-ended, (RCA), from the Ayre QB9 to Mbl 6010D preamp, WireWorld Silver Eclipse 6 balanced interconnect from preamp to Mbl 9007 mono power amps, Wireworld Silver Eclipse 6 speaker wire to the Magico V3 speakers. All power cords in this system were Wireworld Silver Electra Power 2 meter. External music was stored on a Thecus N7700 NAS drive with Seagate ES hard drives.

     

    The goals of this system were great sound, ease of use, and great aesthetics. Many people can't or don't want to put a large Mac Pro desktop computer with a Lynx card in their living room or listening room. Thus the QB-9 / Mac Mini combination was a no-brainer. It's simple to use, sounds great, and looks great.

     

    By far most of my listening was done here in my listening room. The winning combination I settled on for the most critical listening was the QB-9 connected to an Ayre AX-7e Integrated Amp, with Verity Audio loudspeakers. My Mac Pro desktop running OS X Leopard and later Snow Leopard with iTunes & Amarra was used for much of my listening as it's my current go-to computer for most listening.

     

    The Ayre QB-9 is incredibly simple to use. It has one USB input and both balanced XLR and single ended RCA analog outputs. There's no rocket science involved when making the physical connections from computer and to preamp. Using Mac OS X the software setup is just as easy. In the Audio Midi Setup application the QB-9 needs to be selected as the output device. A couple clicks and configuration is complete and bit transparent music is ready to flow into the listening room.

     

    <img src="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1011/QB-9_Black_Detail_web.jpg" style="padding: 5pt 10pt 7pt 5pt;" align="left">The sound of the Ayre QB-9 was just as I expected from an Ayre component at this level in the Ayre line-up, it was great. Most of the music I listen to does not hit the extreme ends of the <a href="http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/main_display.htm">frequency chart</a>. I don't listen to test disks for fun that's for sure. Thus the Ayre performed stellar 99.9% of the time. Remember, there is no such thing as an Ayre Acoustics all-out-assault DAC for $2500. There are bound to be some design compromises to hit this price point. The only faults of the QB-9 are the extreme highs lacked ultimate separation and resolution and the very bottom end frequencies were a tad smeared in my system and in my dedicated listening room. Everything in between was stellar. At $2500 the QB-9 is a great DAC. Music has a wonderful flow to it when played through the QB-9. I was not straining at all to hear the fine details of the new Beatles remasters. The Ayre QB-9 brought the music to me in all its glorious detail. Switching from the 16/44.1 Beatles collection to some 24/88.2 and 96k material delivered an even more pleasing experience. The QB-9 changes sample rates on-the-fly instantly. Users will hear no gap in playback like some DACs that take their time switching from sample rate to sample rate. Since recommending the Stone Temple Pilots DVD-A album Core to some of the Computer Audiophile readers, I've been listening to it quite a bit. I've ripped the files to 24/96 WAVs then converted them to AIFF via the Max application so I can add metadata and album art to the files in iTunes. This album sounded awesome through the QB-9. I know some of the more traditional audiophiles may be jumping out of their skin right now asking (the following should be read out loud in a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurston_Howell,_III">Thurston Howell, III</a> voice) "How he can judge the quality of components with such abrasive Rock and Roll?" When one is intimately familiar with certain albums it is simple to evaluate components with this material and the differences in sound are identifiable immediately. Continuing my Rock and Roll high resolution road, I ripped Neil Young's Greatest Hits DVD to 24/96 WAV files and followed the same conversion process to AIFF. Again, the sound was great, listening was easy, and I didn't even have to think about the components in my system. There was no offensive sounds coming from anywhere. The QB-9 and AX-7e combination is extremely musical and very transparent. One thing I have really noticed about this asynchronous USB device is the way the music just flows to the listener. There is no leaning on the edge of the chair to hear the music or straining to hear the opening and closing of microphone channels before and after certain vocal recordings. It's all there and all served right to the listener. During my listening sessions I listened to a fair amount of acoustic Jack Johnson albums. Again, the music was right in the QB-9's wheelhouse. Jack's guitar sounded so real, almost like Jack was in the room sitting behind one of the Verity loudspeakers. This was some of the best sounding acoustic guitar I've heard in my system in recent memory. Flowing, accurate, and easy is a good description for listening to music through the Aye QB-9.

     

    Readers of Computer Audiophile know that my listening room as recently become the land of Asynchronicity. I have so many asynchronous USB products here that it's difficult to get excited about some of the good adaptive USB products currently on the market. During the review period I compared the QB-9 to the Wavelength Cosecant, Wavelength Proton, and dCS U-Clock asynchronous USB to S/PDIF converter connected to my Alpha DAC and the dCS Paganini DAC. Listening to The Beatles remastered Mono box set via the QB-9 and the Wavelength Cosecant was a very telling experience. I wish everyone who was considering these two DACs could listen to this material via each DAC side by side. In the simplest terms, if you like tubes you'll prefer the Cosecant. If you prefer solid state components the QB-9 will be the instant hands down winner. I will say the Cosecant's warmth made the Mono box set sound as close to vinyl as I've ever heard in any system. But, is that accurate or just what some listeners prefer? I have no idea, that's for each listener to decide. A major difference between the dCS combinations I used and the QB-9 DAC was soundstage, and of course tens of thousands of dollars. The dCS and Alpha DAC had a very deep transparent soundstage, and much larger price tag, that the QB-9 just couldn't match. There was no hearing all the way to the back of the hall during an orchestral performance with the QB-9, but one can't have it all without paying for it.

     

    Two other products readers are likely considering when researching the $2500 Ayre QB-9 DAC are the Bryston BDA-1 and the Benchmark DAC1 HDR. The Benchmark DAC1 HDR is a wonderful component that can be considered a jack of all trades. It has a remote control, volume control, analog input, several digital inputs, and a headphone amplifier all in one chassis. In addition to these features the DAC1 HDR uses an adaptive USB implementation developed with CEntrance. Some readers could use the aforementioned data to make a purchasing decision already. If you want all the extra features, and circuitry, the DAC1 HDR is your component. On-the-other-hand the QB-9 is at a big sonic advantage with its asynchronous USB implementation and the fact that is does one thing and one thing only. It receives digital data via its USB input and converts it to analog audio. Comparing the sound of the DAC1 HDR to the sound of the Ayre QB-9 is a pretty simple task. The DAC1 HDR has the CEntrance adaptive USB "house sound" and the DAC1 HDR is extremely tight, a little edgy, lacks the decay of the best DACs, and can be a tad fatiguing during long listening sessions if the listener isn't used to its presentation. The Ayre QB-9 sounds vastly different just as I described earlier in the review. The music flows unhindered right to the listeners ears with a sense of rightness that the adaptive USB DACs just don't have yet. Not only is the QB-9's asynchronous USB implementation and advantage, but the analog output stage in the QB-9 is very strong. Comparing the QB-9 to the Bryston BDA-1 via memory only I sense that the BDA-1 lacked a little something in its analog output stage. I remember saying the sound of the BDA-1 wasn't all that different between its numerous digital inputs. I tend to think this has to do a little with homogenization of the sounds all traversing through the same analog output stage in addition to other internal circuitry. The Bryston BDA-1 is a really good DAC, but I favor the Ayre QB-9's sound in my system.

     

     

     

    <b>Thousands of Miles and Hundreds of Hours Later</b>

     

    The QB-9 asynchronous USB DAC is Ayre's first entry into the USB DAC market. Based on performance Ayre has hit a home run on its first plate appearance. Asynchronous USB is currently the technology to beat in the USB DAC arena. Ayre made a very wise decision to release a product when the time and technology was right. Ayre did not go down the adaptive USB path just to release a product and sell units in a down economy. Again you're not going to get Ayre's all-out assault for $2500, but you will get a DAC that is incredibly pleasing and accurate. A sense of ease emanates from the QB-9. This translates into wonderfully relaxing listening sessions where one can forget about the components and get lost in the music without even trying. I hope listeners have a couple hours to spare each time they sit down to listen via the QB-9. Time flies when Sonny Rollins is whaling on his tenor sax or Beck is weaving a unique story with his lyrics and great sounding instruments. Thanks to Ayre for contributing to my musical enjoyment over the last few months and congratulations for making the Computer Audiophile Suggest Hardware <a href="http://www.computeraudiophile.com/Computer-Audiophile-Suggested-Hardware-List">(CASH)</a> list with the QB-9 asynchronous USB DAC.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Associated Equipment: Mac Pro, Lynx AES16e card, Kimber USB cable v1 & v2, Benchmark DAC1 PRE & HDR, Kimber Select cable, Verity Audio Fidelio loudspeakers, McIntosh tube amplification, Virtual Dynamics power cables, Richard Gray's Power Company cables, dCS Paganini DAC, dCS U-Clock, Devilsound DAC v2, Berkeley Audio Design Alpha DAC, Wavelength Audio Proton & Cosecant, Ayre AX-7e Integrated Amp, Windows XP "Music Server for a Song."

     

     

     

    <img src="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2009/1011/about-this-mac.png" style="padding: 5pt 10pt 7pt 5pt;" align="left">Mac Pro detailed specs:

    Model Name: Mac Pro

    Model Identifier: MacPro3,1

    Processor Name: Quad-Core Intel Xeon

    Processor Speed: 2.8 GHz

    Number Of Processors: 2

    Total Number Of Cores: 8

    L2 Cache (per processor): 12 MB

    Memory: 10 GB

    Bus Speed: 1.6 GHz

    Boot ROM Version: MP31.006C.B05

    SMC Version (system): 1.25f4

    System Version: Mac OS X 10.6.1 (10B504)

    Kernel Version: Darwin 10.0.0

    Boot Volume: Macintosh HD

    Boot Mode: Normal

    Computer Name: Mac Pro Music Server

    User Name: Chris Connaker (Chris)

    Secure Virtual Memory: Not Enabled

    64-bit Kernel and Extensions: No

    Solid State Hard Drive - MemoRight GT Series 2.5 64GB SATA SLC SSD

    Gigabit Ethernet direct connection to Thecus N5200B Pro NAS

    Digital I/O - Lynx AES16e w/ custom HD26 to XLR AES/EBU cable

    Software - iTunes with Amarra from Sonic Studio

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     




    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    Wow, where to begin Doctor. Your comments are so full of misinformation that it's just easier to write off your whole post. I'm not sure where you got your information that ASIO is the same thing as Asynchronous but I suggest you find a new source. You also mention rips of SACDs. Again, wow.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Chris,<br />

    <br />

    Are these not your words?<br />

    <br />

    "The EMU 0404 is technically asynchronous via USB"<br />

    "...the EMU is... one of the only async USB DACs in the world."<br />

    <br />

    <br />

    Perhaps you might consider the words of one of your sponsors:<br />

    <br />

    "Guys,<br />

    <br />

    Remember just like any other interface all Async's are not created equal.<br />

    <br />

    The big payoff is using an ultra low jitter Master clock as the reference clock to output the I2S to the dac/spdif converter.<br />

    <br />

    This is the real key...<br />

    <br />

    The Transit does not do this. The EMU does, but has a lot of DCDC converters and power supply issues.<br />

    <br />

    Thanks<br />

    Gordon<br />

    J. Gordon Rankin"

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The Sony PS3 converts dsd to PCM 24/176 over HDMI. The Oppos convert to 24/88.<br />

    <br />

    Using an HDMI breakout box one then captures the 24/176 PCM converted to SPDIF.<br />

    <br />

    Press record.<br />

    <br />

    Voila...<br />

    <br />

    "Again, wow."

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    "Wow, where to begin Doctor. Your comments are so full of misinformation that it's just easier to write off your whole post."<br />

    <br />

    Gee Chris,<br />

    <br />

    Could you please document at least one or two of the misinformative comments?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    OK Doc - I won't play into your entire game here but I will respond. By the way I certainly hope you give more respect to the people you write to in your professional career than you have given me here. Your original post is full of innuendos and statements like you are the king of all knowledge. I'm beginning to wonder if someone has stolen your username and password as I find your comments rather sophomoric. <br />

    <br />

    <i>"Two pages of flatulent commentary on this review, yet no one has yet questioned the wave of the hand dismissal of the E-Mu 0404 as unworthy competition for Ayre, dCS, and other rarefied (and Computer Audiophile sponsoring) Asynchronous USB DAC uber priced competitors (God forbid that you might mention that "asio"is a common term for the same damn thing, lest the fool and his money make the connection?)."</i><br />

    <br />

    A. The reason nobody questioned it is because I provided solid engineering reasons why the EMU is inferior.<br />

    B. Ayre and dCS are not sponsors of Computer Audiophile. Your comments suggest that I only mention the Async manufacturers because they are sponsors. This goes to show your ignorance or willingness to lie in spite of clear facts.<br />

    C. Wavelength and Ayre are far from uber priced. As a highly paid Doctor you are very well aware of this fact. <br />

    D. ASIO is not another term for Asynchronous Mode USB.<br />

    <br />

    <i>"Well golly gee, this impoverished unit does not even require an optional several $$$ dollar hardware/software upgrade (if they’re dopey enough the first time might as well keep ‘em sucking at the teat) to decode native hi rez 24/176 and 24/192 music files, not to mention the hi rez tunes on your vintage DVD-A discs (Foobar DVDA decoder). No extra charge for the asio driver either (see new Wyred four Sound USB DAC)."</i><br />

    <br />

    You're right, the EMU doesn't require anything extra. Neither does a 1982 Ford Escort. It will travel 70 mph. But so will a Ferrari and the Ferrari will travel 70 mph much better than the Escort. To be clear, I am saying that just because the EMU can handle higher sampling rates doesn't mean anything in terms of sound quality.<br />

    <br />

    <i>"If your proposed USB DAC purchase cannot decode an asio-excuse me, ASYNCHRONOUS- delivered hi rez music file out of the box, walk, nay run away! I am rocking out to downloaded hi rez files of every stripe (heck Foobar even has a plug in that will convert DSD to hi rez PCM and another for native rate decoding of DVD-A discs); even digital hi rez rips of SACDs."</i><br />

    <br />

    You mention the ASIO / Async thing again. Where did you ever come up with that information? Converting DSD to higher resolution PCM has nothing to do with any of the DACs mentioned here. It's been done for years. It also has nothing to do with SACD the physical format. DSD and SACD also have nothing to do with DVD-A discs. Again, what are you even talking about?<br />

    <br />

    Then you suggest that SACDs can be ripped by something less than a several thousand dollar mastering workstation. What's happening with your PS3 example is a simple SACD DSD to PCM conversion. Again, this has been going on for years and is not what I call ripping DSD from an SACD. If you have native DSD or DST images ripped from an SACD that would be another story.<br />

    <br />

    <i>"Look, I know dCS, Meitner, and others make nice sounding products. But price no object, the humble E-Mu is right there with them and does not require a wealthy freshly killed elderly relative to afford."</i><br />

    <br />

    I can't argue with what you hear but I can disagree with your inferences of equality. Suggesting the EMU is even close to sounding as accurate or "nice" is absolutely preposterous. When did you make the direct comparison between these DACs? What music was used? What sample rates? What was the rest of the system? What is your reference that you use to judge the sound of equipment?<br />

    <br />

    <i>"The great thing about computers for the audiophile is that it exposed many of the rotten lies that pervade high end audio."</i><br />

    <br />

    That's a great thing if it's true. Please elaborate and give everyone a few examples of rotten lies that pervade high end audio. Again, it's a great thing if true.<br />

    <br />

    <i>"Can't we reserve this $$$ nonsense for Stereophile and The Absolute Sound?"</i><br />

    A $900 Proton and a $2,500 Ayre QB-9 are not "$$$ nonsense" whatever than means. <br />

    <br />

    <br />

    <i>"would it be so painful to admit (at least way down in the fine print) that a damn fine "Asynchronous" 24/192 USB DAC can be had for under $200 clams?"</i><br />

    <br />

    It really seems like you have a vested interested in raising interest in this DAC. And Yes, it would be impossible for this type of admission as it would be a blatant lie on my part.<br />

    <br />

    <i>"Where is your review of the Musiland Monitor 02, another sub $200 hi rez capable asynchronous USB Dac?"</i><br />

    In the same place as my review of 10,000 other components that I've never heard.<br />

    <br />

    <i>"BTW, Creative Professional is not a start up. I would venture to guess that their volume of product sales would swamp several-fold "major manufacturers" Ayre, Wavelength, and dCS."</i><br />

    <br />

    I don't get your point. But I do suspect a vested interest on your part.<br />

    <br />

     <br />

    <br />

    If you don't like what your reading here at Computer Audiophile you can have a full refund of your purchase price and move on to any other website in the world that you like.<br />

    <br />

    <br />

    <br />

    <br />

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Chris,<br />

    <br />

    I apologize for the inference that this is some kind of sliming. It is not. But i would suggest that your attacks on me have been a great deal more personal.<br />

    <br />

    Nobody is claiming the E-Mu 0404 USB's innards cost the same as the dCS. The point is that there have been few computer dacs at any price capable of high rez playback. Even fewer that have done so asynchronously. The E-Mu and a few professional firewire units for the most part. Maybe a couple of others. And no I am not begrudging Ayre or Wavelength their right to a proper livelihood. dCS OTOH has abandoned the professional market for PT Barnum like reasons. What makes the E-Mu different and ultimately better sounding than the ~ 6X more costly Benchmark is asio. I'm glad that others are now getting on board, but you have to demonstrate why one should consider spending 10-12x the cost of the 0404 for a brand new dac that still cannot decode HRx and 24/192 until it has been sent back for a costly upgrade. <br />

    <br />

    Granted, from a $$$ standpoint, the Ayre, dCS, and Wavelengths are apples to E-Mu's oranges. But from a functional standpoint they are not. Thus when you review one of these $$$ asynchronous Dacs you owe your readers some reasoned and detailed commentary beyond "published jitter measurements" and presumed power supply issues why they should consider spending their hard won $$ on equipment that may in fact have few advantages over much much less expensive professional units. You owe your readers some listening comparison between 24/96 asioed to an E-Mu and 24/96 asynched to an Ayre or Wavelength. And perhaps a reminder that an upgrade of __ dollars will be required before said Dacs will be able to handle the 24/176 and 24/192 sources that the E-Mu decodes with ease right out of the box (well after the asio drivers are installed anyway). My God man, higher sampling rates and longer bit lengths are what achieving high quality digital sound is all about. The rest is mostly sock chips and fancy enclosures.<br />

    <br />

    If there is a significant distinction between asio (asynchronous input output) over USB and "Asynchronous USB" than clearly I am not appreciating it, nor from his remarks apparently is Gordon Rankin. As my moniker indicates, I am no engineer so please explain it to me.<br />

    <br />

    You have an entire thread up about ripping SACDs with the conclusion that it can be done only by recording from the analog outputs or digitally in 16/44 from the CD layer. There would be little point in ripping SACDs to DSD as so few components would be able to properly decode the data. No place for that file on the old music streamer. Inexpensively converting dsd digitally to high rez PCM has been a bit of a holy grail for computer audiophiles for many years. The fact that it can now be done easily and $$ painlessly qualifies as significant. Or perhaps you have already described the process here on your website and I missed it. I know many have asked the question. Why don't you steer us to the post where you described the process of obtaining 24/176 files from SACDs without an analog conversion?<br />

    <br />

    <br />

    And I'm sorry but $2500 for a dac is uber in my house. Your Ford Ferrari metaphor is indeed appropriate to those dirty little lies about "high end" audio and video. Take the innards of a Ferrari and drop 'em in a Ford. What do you call that? Or more likely, take the innards of a Ford and drop it into a gorgeous Ferrari body and call it high end. Take an Oppo BDP-83, drop it into an opulent enclosure and you've got a Lexicon or a Theta or god forbid an Ayre? Take a Panasonic plasma display remove the label and add a shiny bevel and sell it for 3-5x the price as a Runco.<br />

    <br />

    Ayre and dCS may not support the forum directly but their dealers may be another story. As a physician I must disclose any financial conflict of interest before I publish or speak in public. Do Ayre, dCS and the like not provide some perks and favors in exchange for your selection of their product among the 10,000 others competing for your attentions? What % of retail will you pay for your review sample, eh? Is that perhaps at least part of the reason that we should look elsewhere for that review of the Musiland Monitor 02?<br />

    <br />

    Okay Chris, you got me. I just bought Creative Professional and I am now planning to corner the high end Dac market.<br />

    <br />

    Just kidding....

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Does anybody know which DAC chip the QB-9 uses? I know the USB streaming is handled by the TI TAS1020B, but which DAC does the actual conversion? Just wondering. I realize that the real magic of the QB-9 is not really which DAC chip is employed, but mostly the superior way USB is handled and the superior analog circuitry post-DAC.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Hello Chris,<br />

    <br />

    Since you are to the best of my knowledge the only one to hear all the dacs in your cash list... In your opinion, just how much better to the best of your memory is the more expensive dacs in your list to the Ayre? Is the cost really that much better to justify the cost difference? <br />

    <br />

    I just recently read a review about the Ayre saying it is the best value in DACs on the market today... I've also been very impreessed with all the reviews ive been ready about the new NAIM DAC...<br />

    <br />

    I'm looking to buy a new DAC in the next few days, i would love some more advice...<br />

    <br />

    Thanks<br />

    <br />

    Cam

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The Ayre uses the Texas Intruments DSD1796 a 24bit 192kHz Delra Segma DAC

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    one other detail re DAC chip, etc. The QB-9 runs a custom oversampling/digital filter on a FPGA chip, this is a fundamental difference between its digital side and the digital of many conventional DACs using TI DAC chips like the 1796. After the USB receiver section, the signal is sent (I2S) to the custom digital filter, and then to the DAC chip. It is important that all signal processing (oversampling and digital filtering) is done in the FPGA with Ayre's custom maths, and the DAC chip only does D to A conversion, with current output. Many/most DACs using the TI chips (1792,1794,1798,1796, etc) will use the oversampling and digital filters built into the DAC chip-the QB-9 does not.<br />

    A big part of the sonic performance of the QB-9 comes from the custom digital filter ("MP").<br />

    More info on these technical details can be found at Ayre's website.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    If I understand the technology correctly, the asychronous USB mode enables the DAC to ask for more data wheneve the buffer is being drawn down. As long as it does that, there is no sonic consequence to the transport of the data into the buffer. The only thing that matters is that the buffer isn't drawn down or overfilled.<br />

    <br />

    If that is the case, why would the USB cable matter at all? <br />

    <br />

    And for that matter, another review I read said that the Ayre sounded much better when the reviewer installed more RAM. Why should any characteristic of the computer matter if the DAC is running everything and just ordering up more bits of data as needed?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    these are valid questions, and as far as I know, the answer is: for the most part, no one knows.<br />

    Additional questions along these lines are:<br />

    1. Why does using an SSD in the computer sound better?<br />

    2. Why does using Amarra or Pure Music sound better?<br />

    3. Why does paying special attention to computer power supplies sound better?<br />

    Asynchronous USB transfer achieves bit perfect data transmission, and very low jitter operation at the DAC chip-these facts are confirmed by measurements (in the case of the QB-9), but still, better USB cables, using Pure Music/Amarra, paying attention to the details of computer and HD power supplies have all been reported to contribute to better sound. It seems clear to me that we still do not know all of details of what is really happening with computer audio, of course the same could be said about analog circuit design, much to the chagrin of many electrical engineers!<br />

    We should continue to ask these questions, in hopes that someday answers will be found-in the mean time it is important to also accept the technical performance that is achieved by well sorted Asynchronous USB transfer as implemented in the QB-9.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Well in the case of SSD the primary reason that makes your computer sound better is because it has no moving parts ie electric motor that generates radio frequency noise...<br />

    <br />

    amarra, I have no idea, that makes no sense to me what so ever and i still have trouble believing it...<br />

    <br />

    Power supply I can only feel can have something to do with radio noise as well...

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites




    Guest
    This is now closed for further comments




×
×
  • Create New...