Ayre wants $1.5K for DSD'ed QB-9

[Hiro]

Hello Hiro,

 

Well, I suppose that if you have equipment that sounds better with large amounts of RFI (all the way to the hundreds of MHz range) injected directly into the input jacks, then you would prefer the straight output of a Delta-Sigma Modulator.

 

However most people go to great lengths to keep RFI out of their audio system. They use things like shielded cables and metal chassis that shield the circuits, and many use power line filters. But I suppose that your system has none of these things because you like the sound of RFI contamination so much....

 

Have fun listening to your RFI,

 

Charles,

 

Don't worry. Recordings made directly to 1bit / 11.2MHz or 4bit / 2.8MHz could still be converted to PCM (16/44kHz or 24/96kHz), if you prefer that to the original masters.

[Hiro]

But don't forget that practically every PCM DAC on the market will eventually convert the dumbed down PCM signal back to SDM upon playback.

[Charles Hansen]

Hello Charles,

 

I sure hope you are wrong about this. I am trying very hard to make exactly that happen.

 

I am sorry if I took your thread off-track, but I had to respond to the Sonoma comments.

 

Your friend,

gus...

 

Dear Gus,

 

Since this is a public forum, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge your tireless efforts for the last 15 years to bring better sound to everybody. Because it is absolutely true that the DSD system produces much better sound than standard Redbook PCM system. It was also much easier to use than the competing DVD-Audio format, which REQUIRED a video display to navigate the complex menus. SACD also offers surround sound, and although it is not a format for everybody, every surround-sound disc (except for ONE!) also offered a two-channel mixdown for normal stereo systems.

 

But everybody knows that Sony's main goal was not better sound -- Sony's goal was to not lose the $1 billion dollar per year royalty stream when the CD patents expired. And for reason that I do not understand, they did not start working on this at least 5 years before they did. They waited until the last minute and did not have time to fully develop and test the system.

 

I think that if the recording format had been the 8-bit 64x signal used in the Sonoma, then they could use the Sonoma for the DAW and the final release format could be DSD, that would have been more successful. Or if they waited for the blue lasers to come out they could have released the music to the public in the original 8-bit 64x format.

 

But we all know the reality of consumer electronics and the IMMENSE pressure to lower the cost. After all, the bulk of the $1 billion royalty stream came from the discs themselves. And the royalty on the disc was only $0.07!!! So if all of the record companies and all of the CD player manufacturers were sick of paying Sony such a small royalty, they would NEVER pay $1 to release a disc in a format that required a red laser (DVD-Audio or SACD), and FOR SURE would NEVER, EVER pay $2 per disc to release in a format that requires a blue laser. Not when they can pay $0.25 per disc (including jewel box and booklet insert) to release in CD.

 

In fact now they want to only pay $0.01 per virtual "disc" for the download fees from the ISP!!!

 

So the fact that DSD happened to sound better than Redbook PCM was an accident. Both Sony and the DVD-Audio forum strongly believed that the MAJOR selling point was NOT better sound quality. Instead they thought that since everybody had a home theater that everybody would want surround-sound music. And THAT was the main selling point of both formats.

 

The only reason that they went with the single bit format was that they could obtain some patents on it to generate licensing fees. And it turned out completely accidentally that it sounded better. Even when they found out AFTER THE FACT that it sounded better, they thought it was because a 1-bit system is inherently more linear than a multi-bit system.

 

But it took over a decade for anybody to figure out that it was NOT the 1-bit that was the secret. The secret was the complete lack of brickwall filters. And Ayre is the FIRST company in the world to make a PCM system without ANY brickwall filters.

 

So we both have the same goal -- beautiful high-resolution sound. The only difference is that we disagree on how to get there. But we include BOTH methods now. Our updated USB DAC's support DSD, and our A/D converter supports DSD, DSD-128, and DSD-256. So we can support either approach at both the record side and the playback side.

 

My personal belief is that the world is too entrenched in PCM to ever switch. It all boils down to money. So my approach is to improve the format that we already have, and improve it to the point that it won't matter if we don't switch encoding schemes. That means that our job isn't finished until we can get PCM to sound as good as DSD. And I believe that we have done that.

 

It is the same thing with tubes. Tubed equipment can sound WONDERFUL. It is very difficult to find any tubed equipment that sounds BAD!! The only way to do it is to add some horrible high-feedback solid-state op-amp based power supply regulators. But the reality is that the world will never switch back to tubes. People want iPods and iPhones, not tube-based amplifiers! But to make a solid-state amplifier that has the magic sound of tubes is not so easy. There are MAYBE only a handful of brands in the whole world that even come close.

 

But getting rid of brickwall filters in PCM isn't as hard to do. Once we have led the way then other people will follow. It just requires a small shift in their thinking, not to start all over again, or spend decades learning subtle behaviors of mysterious devices that are being discontinued. So I think that it will be easier and quicker to have people improve their PCM systems than it will be to have people replace all of their equipment with DSD equipment and have to learn new ways of working to minimize the number of conversions performed during the post-production process.

 

But PLEASE don't stop what you are doing. PCM will only improve if it is under pressure from a better-sounding alternative. Competition is healthy -- it forces both sides to improve. With only one system things will become stagnant. So keep making the Sonoma and promoting DSD. Even if PCM remains the dominant system, it will be forced to improve because of the pressure created by the standard that DSD sets.

 

So thank you for your hard work! Don't ever feel like you have wasted your time. Even if DSD disappears completely, it will only be because it will have changed PCM to the point where DSD is no longer needed. And that would be fine too. If PCM improves that much, you will have done your job and accomplished your goal. And that would not have happened without DSD.

 

Warm regards,

Your friend,

[labjr]

But don't forget that practically every PCM DAC on the market will eventually convert the dumbed down PCM signal back to SDM upon playback.

 

It make sense to me to use the original SDM data with no further processing. Seems possible to have better sound with less data throughput. More bit efficient. Charles has been making some concessions about DSD recently.

[Charles Hansen]

Charles,

 

Don't worry. Recordings made directly to 1bit / 11.2MHz or 4bit / 2.8MHz could still be converted to PCM (16/44kHz or 24/96kHz), if you prefer that to the original masters.

 

Hiro,

 

Who do you work for? Who pays you to make these posts? You always reply to any post within two minutes at any time, day or night. Is this a job that you have? It sounds like something that Karl Rove would have done for George W. Bush -- pay people to make posts on public forums in an attempt to try to sway public opinion...

 

~~~~~~~~

 

Guess what, Hiro? I worry about some things. I worry about global warming. I worry about over population. I worry about fracking to get more oil that contaminates our water supply. I worry about the nuclear reactor built by General Electric in Japan in 1960 that was designed to have only a 40 year lifetime and that had a meltdown after 50 years. I worry about the Japanese executives who took the blame. I worry about the people at General Electric that avoided taking any responsibility whatsoever. I worry about the Japanese workers that exposed themselves to near-lethal doses of radiation to put out the fires inside the damaged power plant. I worry about the future of the rain forest in South America. I worry about the religious extremists that become suicide bombers. I worry about the US foreign policies that have made them so desperate that the only way they can see to control the destiny of their own country is to become a suicide bomber. I worry about the civil wars in Africa. I worry about the rich people of the world continuing to change the rules so that they keep getting richer while the poor become poorer. I worry about the 30% of US citizens that go without food at least once a week to be able to afford medicine or housing. I worry about the 1 in 8 Americans who live below the poverty line.

 

There are lots of things that I worry about. But I don't worry about using digital filters to remove the noise from Delta-Sigma Modulators so that PCM recording can sound great.

 

Our A/D converter uses a 12.288 MHz, 6-bit modulator which has FAR, FAR more resolution than the modulators you describe in your post.

 

We have developed filters that remove the remaining out-of-band noise with ZERO ringing, ZERO overshoot, and ZERO overshoot so that we can have a 192/24 PCM signal that can reproduce an analog signal that ABSOLUTELY INDISTINGUISHABLE from the source.

 

So we have made 192/24 that is INDISTINGUISHABLE from the original masters. Why would I worry about that?

[elcorso]

Absolute rubbish. Then again, I have no idea of your definition of "great musicians".

 

Maybe like Madonna & Lady Gaga?

 

Roch

[Charles Hansen]

But don't forget that practically every PCM DAC on the market will eventually convert the dumbed down PCM signal back to SDM upon playback.

 

Hiro,

 

Did you make another 50¢ for that post? How much do they pay you for each post?

 

If you think that filtering out the ultrasonic noise results in a "dumbed down" signal, I feel sorry for you.

 

If you like the sound of directly injecting RFI noise into the inputs of your audio system makes for "good sound", I feel sorry for you. You have my deepest sympathies.

[Charles Hansen]

Absolute rubbish. Then again, I have no idea of your definition of "great musicians".

 

I don't think that ANYBODY can define "great musicians".

 

But I think the Beatles were "great musicians".

 

When iTunes finally received permission to sell the Beatles' music on the iTunes Store, it was a landmark for the entire concept of downloadable music. It was evidence that downloadable music is here and it is here to stay. Even though they were selling the crappy compressed music for MORE than you could buy either the CD box set OR the higher resolution 44/24 USB stick, there were millions of dumb people that actually bought that swill from the iTunes Store.

 

That was PROOF that downloadable music is an idea whose time has come. It is viable, it makes money, and people want it. They prefer convenience over quality. They were too lazy to even go to Amazon an purchase the 16 GB thumb drive in the cool solid aluminum green apple that had the same music that iTunes was selling for more money but with 1/5 of the data density.

 

Stupid or not, it is real.

 

When the Beatles are available on DSD, that will be a landmark sign that DSD is real.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~

 

The early half of the Rolling Stones catalog was available on DSD for less than a year. The reason that it was only half the catalog was that was the part that was owned by the Allen B. Klein Co. (ABKCO). So Sony bribed them to release the remasters in DSD.

 

But guess what?

 

It flopped.

 

It lost money. If it had MADE money, you could still buy them today. Companies stay in business when they make money. They go out of business when they lose money. The Stones' SACD's lost money, so they pulled the plug so that they wouldn't go out of business.

 

What do you think that has changed such that a format that has already failed once will somehow resurrect itself?

[labjr]

But everybody knows that Sony's main goal was not better sound -- Sony's goal was to not lose the $1 billion dollar per year royalty stream when the CD patents expired. And for reason that I do not understand, they did not start working on this at least 5 years before they did. They waited until the last minute and did not have time to fully develop and test the system.

 

I think almost everyone who buys or makes high end audio knows this by now. Nobody else really cares. Things were different 15 years ago. Computers couldn't handle handle high resolution formats and hard drives weren't large enough to store it all. But times have changed. The internet has grown. When you look back it's easy to see what Sony was doing. But before age of powerful computers and internet, audiophiles wanted something better than CD.

 

 

I think that if the recording format had been the 8-bit 64x signal used in the Sonoma, then they could use the Sonoma for the DAW and the final release format could be DSD, that would have been more successful. Or if they waited for the blue lasers to come out they could have eleased the music to the public in the original 8-bit 64x format.

 

So why isn't someone doing this now? Why isn't there a consortium with a common goal of making the highest possible quality recording system which will benefit PCM and DSD people.

[Hiro]

If you think that filtering out the ultrasonic noise results in a "dumbed down" signal, I feel sorry for you.

 

I feel sorry for you if think that one SDM front end has automatically more resolution than another only because it uses 256x and not 128x oversampling.

 

Like I said, if you prefer a dumbed down 2x or 4x PCM signal to a native SDM capture you can have that, that's available today.

[labjr]

 

 

When the Beatles are available on DSD, that will be a landmark sign that DSD is real.

 

 

 

You can get the same data that was on that green apple on vinyl and people are buying it.

 

The early half of the Rolling Stones catalog was available on DSD for less than a year. The reason that it was only half the catalog was that was the part that was owned by the Allen B. Klein Co. (ABKCO). So Sony bribed them to release the remasters in DSD.

 

Those DSD files have become the de facto "masters" for the ABKCO Stones Albums.

[Charles Hansen]

It make sense to me to use the original SDM data with no further processing. Seems possible to have better sound with less data throughput. More bit efficient. Charles has been making some concessions about DSD recently.

 

Hello Lab,

 

All modern audio A/D converters use delta-sigma modulators. The best A/D technology is a flash converter. Every delta-sigma converter has a flash converter in the heart of it. But the reality is that it is completely impractical to make a flash converter with more than 10 bits.

 

If one could buy a 24-bit flash converter, there would be no need for any other type of converter. A 24-bit flash converter would completely obliterate any other technology that is available. But such a device would require 16,000,000 comparators per channel, all accurate to 1 part in 16,000,000. It ain't possible.

 

Since low cost is the main constraint in consumer electronics, they only use 4 or sometimes 6 bit flash converters. Then they wrap this in a feedback loop with an analog noise shaping filter. In order to get 24 bits of resolution in the audio band, they have to move the noise somewhere else. They move it to high frequencies. You can't hear it but it is there, and it causes problems.

 

All PCM does is filter out all of that high-frequency RFI garbage.

 

And guess what?

 

The signal sounds BETTER when you do that!

 

As Einstein said, "Everything should be made as simple as possible --- but not simpler."

 

The raw output of a delta-sigma modulator is TOO SIMPLE. It is PCM with a TON of RFI noise mixed in with it. To get the pure PCM out, all you have to do is filter out the high-frequency RFI noise. Then the system fits perfectly with Einstein's maxim.

 

~~~~~~~~~

 

I have not "been making concessions" about DSD. It is a stupid system. The only good thing about it was it demonstrated what was the problem with digital audio -- steep filters with sharp corners and bad transient response. But it has too many practical disadvantages to ever be useful as a recording system. But it has shown us how to make our PCM systems sound MUCH better than they did before.

 

Twenty years ago, or even ten years ago, did you think that you would EVER hear one of the most respected reviewers in the world say that a digital copy of an analog recording was SO good that it COMPLETELY INDISTINGUISHABLE from the ANALOG original?

 

Of course not!

 

But now that is a reality. And it was done with PCM, using the lessons learned from DSD:

 

Ayre Acoustics QA-9 USB A/D converter | Stereophile.com

 

Cheers,

[Charles Hansen]

Maybe like Madonna & Lady Gaga?

 

Roch

 

Very clever, smarty pants....

 

You think that by insulting my musical taste that it will change the economic reality of the world.

 

But don't be stupid.

 

If Madonna walked into Blue Coast records and said to Cookie Marenco, "I heard you can make the best sounding recordings in the world. I would like to sign a contract with you" that Cookie would say, "Fuck off, Madonna -- you suck."

 

Don't be stupid.

 

Cookie would LOVE to sell a million copies of a Madonna album....

[Hiro]

Hiro,

 

Who do you work for? Who pays you to make these posts? You always reply to any post within two minutes at any time, day or night. Is this a job that you have?

 

Charles, I wish I had more time to reply to your biased and misleading posts about DSD. Unfortunately I can barely scratch the surface, and not even Gus, Tom and Miska together can keep up correcting them.

[firedog]

Originally Posted by Charles Hansen

 

 

When the Beatles are available on DSD, that will be a landmark sign that DSD is real.

 

You can get the same data that was on that green apple on vinyl and people are buying it.

 

Those DSD files have become the de facto "masters" for the ABKCO Stones Albums.

 

What has a vinyl pressing of the 24/44.1 masters have to do with Charles' remark about the Beatles not being on DSD?

 

The Beatles USB stick sounds slightly better than the CDs of the same material. I'm sure nothing comparable to how the original 24/192 digital transfer done from the original master analogue tapes would sound.

 

Yes, the DSD masters of the early Stones' albums are the basis for todays CDs (after being converted to 16/44.1) and they sound good. But that clearly isn't the same as making the actual DSD files available.

 

You are only making Charles' point for him - in the cases of both the Beatles and the Stones, the material hasn't been released in DSD. In the Beatles' case it won't (EMI-Abbey Road have said they have no interest, and regard the 24/192 digital transfers as the "digital master tapes" upon which all Beatles digital releases will be based (if there are any more). In the Stones case, the ABKCO original analogue masters were converted to DSD, and yet they were never released that way. Only as SACD, CD, and PCM (24/88 and 24/176) digital downloads . Get it -no DSD - even when "hi-res" versions were released.

[Charles Hansen]

Keep in mind I've never heard an analog master so I have no reference to compare.

 

Hello Lab,

 

Just listen to a good high-end turntable with an "audiophile" re-issue pressing and you will have a nearly perfect idea of what an analog master sounds like.

 

I was fortunate enough to be invited to hear one of the master tapes of a great rock album being transferred to the cutting lathe of a re-issue on Classic Records. This was one of my favorite albums and I was intimately familiar with the "normal" LP release, having played it literally hundreds (if not thousands) of times since it had been release over 25 years earlier.

 

When they pulled out the original master tape, complete with the original engineer's notes (who was there to do the remaster also), I just about peed my pants. I thought, "OMG, I am about to hear the ORIGINAL MASTER TAPE of one of my all-time favorite albums on a big Studer professional reel-to-reel tape recorder in one of the best mastering facilities in the world (Sterling Sound, NYC).

 

And when they played it, it was a letdown. At BEST it was only maybe 10% better than the regular LP! The system comprised the Studer, a custom mixing console, some Hafler pro series amps, and some Energy Veritas speakers (quite good, but not "super audiophile" quality).

 

A month or so later I received a gift copy of the LP. When I played it on our reference system at the Ayre factory (which was better than the system at the mastering studio), the LP sounded BETTER than the master tape played on the somewhat less good system at Sterling Sound!!!

 

I would estimate that the audiophile-quality LP captured at least 98% or 99% of what was on the original master tape.

 

Best regards,

[Onkle Je]

Thank you again Charles for your very detailed response. I would like to say I understood it perfectly but then I would lie.

Can you please explain the following part of your answer in other terms and give me a definition of what is a "switching power supply". As you see, my English isn't as fine as needed.

 

"But your question is somewhat different. When you unplug the AC power supply to the MBP, it is a switching power supply. All switching power supplies generate noise. Now with the updated QB-9-DSD, this noise will not travel through the computer to the USB cable. BUT it will travel into the AC mains in your house. Then it can put noise into the AC power of every component in your house. Some audio components are more sensitive to this noise than others. But even the best will have some effect from the noise on the AC. That is why so many companies make power line filters."

 

Let me precise, if useful, that when I unplug the MacBook Pro AC power I disconnect the "wall side", not the "MacBook Pro side". Don't know if it helps. Now I feel really dumb...

Also, I would be glad to try what you suggested, in particular the Ayre power line filter. However, I'm not sure the French seller (Sound & Colors) is prepared for lending pieces of equipment. I'll let you know about that.

Thank you again

[elcorso]

Very clever, smarty pants....

 

You think that by insulting my musical taste that it will change the economic reality of the world.

 

But don't be stupid.

 

If Madonna walked into Blue Coast records and said to Cookie Marenco, "I heard you can make the best sounding recordings in the world. I would like to sign a contract with you" that Cookie would say, "Fuck off, Madonna -- you suck."

 

Don't be stupid.

 

Cookie would LOVE to sell a million copies of a Madonna album....

 

Charles,

 

I'm not trying to insult anybody, like you are in this thread...!

 

As I said from the beginning of this thread and now you stated "...the economic reality of the world...". BTW, I know a lot about this matter, and said it before and repeat again: Everything is about money, and NOT because DSD is so bad format as you try to convince the readers.

 

Everybody loves money, but if you knew Cookie you should know she loves music above all things (of course well recorded on analogue or DSD). I'm about the same, believe or not...

 

I'm trying not to be stupid, but I wonder who is more stupid, who is gently answering (or with some sense of humor), or who is carried away by their impulses, insulting others because he believes being superior to them.

 

Please take a break, anger is the worst thing for the health. Listen to some well recorded music (DSD128 if possible) and, of course, with a nice tubed Amp. & Preamp.

 

Take care,

 

Roch

[Charles Hansen]

So why isn't someone doing this now? Why isn't there a consortium with a common goal of making the highest possible quality recording system which will benefit PCM and DSD people.

 

Hello Lab,

 

First of all, the ONLY reason that this will happen is if somebody can make money doing it. That is the biggest obstacle.

 

There is one group that is working on making good sounding recordings be the standard format. That is Pono, led by Neil Young. There is a lot of support for what they are doing among the big record labels. They are working on it. It MAY be successful. It is the only system that has any chance of success. It uses 192/24 PCM. I know some people who have heard the prototype system. They have said that it sounds incredible.

 

That is what you should be looking at if you want a high resolution format that actually has a chance to succeed.

 

Best,

[Audio_ELF]

Both Sony and the DVD-Audio forum strongly believed that the MAJOR selling point was NOT better sound quality. Instead they thought that since everybody had a home theater that everybody would want surround-sound music. And THAT was the main selling point of both formats.

With respect Charles, how does this fit with the FACT the initially SACD was marketed as a stereo format?

 

You appear to have a major anti-Sony chip on your shoulder. Ayre should sell what they think is right for their market; but your posts on this topic are (purely in my opinion) verging towards a rant worse than any Android vs iOS arguments!!

 

Eloise

[The Computer Audiophile]

Ok Guys - Enough personal comments. I've received too many emails about this thread turning into a pissing match. If the personal stuff continues I may simply remove the entire thread. Combing through each post can be more time consuming than it's worth. Act like adults people.

[tailspn]

What do you think that has changed such that a format that has already failed once will somehow resurrect itself?

 

Native DSD downloads for the emerging market who value unprocessed, non-format converted sound.

[Miska]

Well, I suppose that if you have equipment that sounds better with large amounts of RFI (all the way to the hundreds of MHz range) injected directly into the input jacks, then you would prefer the straight output of a Delta-Sigma Modulator.

 

How does it help anything if you remove the noise in ADC and then put it back in the DAC's modulator, rather than never taking it out in first place and removing modulator from the DAC altogether? Noise is anyway tamed by analog reconstruction filter in the DAC.

 

The intermediate digital presentation "looks cleaner", but with a cost.

 

And the heavily correlated RFI of slow roll-off oversampling filters is typically tens of dB higher than the modulator noise.

[Miska]

All PCM does is filter out all of that high-frequency RFI garbage.

 

And guess what?

 

The signal sounds BETTER when you do that!

 

And then all your modern "PCM" DAC's run the data through poor oversampling digital filter and delta-sigma modulator to put all that noise back that was once removed. With a losses of double conversion of 1) removing it once in ADC 2) putting it back in DAC. All that back and forth shuffling without any good reason.

[labjr]

 

In the Stones case, the ABKCO original analogue masters were converted to DSD, and yet they were never released that way. Only as SACD

 

 

SACD's are DSD. Just need to RIP them. So DSD is the best digital format that these albums are available in.

 

BTW, didn't Bob Ludwig say the DSD files were virtually indistinguishable from the analog tapes?