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

[pawel8]

Nokia N9 is still the best phone ever made. And given the markets it was made available in it was immense success.

 

I'm still using mine, and will be using until it breaks up.

 

But more than making successfully selling products (given zero marketing), I enjoyed the journey from Nokia 770 to Nokia N9. Jolla still continues the journey. I moved on to other things because seven years was enough for me of that track.

That was exactly my point.

Nokia is great company and has very good products but "is not an IPHONE"

BTW,iPhone is one of the worst phones I ever had.

[Ned Kelly]

Jesus, why don't you and charles combine your talents in a ethernet enable new Ayre DAC?

I imagine something like ethernet-to-i2s-dac...

 

@ Charles, having a usb only dac, serves well the computer-centric audiophiles, (especially the tweekers that love to try all software combinations) but is a limitation for network-centric audiophiles (who prefer the simplicity of networks)...

You could expand your user base...

 

MikeJazz, I'm not entirely sure what an 'ethernet-to-i2s DAC' is : are we talking UPnP streaming ala your Sneaky ?

[Miska]

I imagine something like ethernet-to-i2s-dac...

 

That's something I've had for one and half years already...

 

And now it's easy to run a full player in a tablet (Win 8 tablets), so no need for "remote control" stuff anymore.

[Claude]

It feels like ages, since I last replied One this thread ;-). So one more try. Has anyone listened to the dsded QB9?

claude

[Claude]

Hi Charles,

do you have any idea when the first boards will be shipped to Germany? I am in line and eagerly waiting.

Claude

[Charles Hansen]

Hi Charles,

do you have any idea when the first boards will be shipped to Germany? I am in line and eagerly waiting.

Claude

Dear Claude,

 

We don't have an exact timeline, but I would expect within the next month or so. We are interviewing new employees now to help us catch up. My younger son just started yesterday now that school is out, and my older son will start in two more week when his school is out. They are VERY good and will help a lot! :-)

 

Thanks for your patience,

Charlie Hansen

Ayre Acoustics, Inc.

[Charles Hansen]

It feels like ages, since I last replied One this thread ;-). So one more try. Has anyone listened to the dsded QB9?

claude

 

Dear Claude,

 

We have only shipped about 20 of the new units so far. I don't think that most of these people read these forums -- they are too busy listening to their music! :-)

 

Best,

Charlie Hansen

Ayre Acoustics, Inc.

[Charles Hansen]

Charles, having a usb only dac, serves well the computer-centric audiophiles, (especially the tweekers that love to try all software combinations) but is a limitation for network-centric audiophiles (who prefer the simplicity of networks)...You could expand your user base...

 

Hello Mike,

 

It's kind of funny how the computer DAC market has evolved. The USB camp versus the ethernet camp is almost as entrenched as the PCM camp versus the DSD camp.

 

To my mind, the best thing to do in both cases is to combine the advantages of both.

 

USB Advantages

• Works with any music player software (eg, iTunes, Foobar, J.River, etc)
  
• Simple to connect - every computer has USB ports
  
• Asnychronous USB transfer eliminates interface jitter (do NOT confuse with Asynchronous Sample Rate Conversion)
  

USB Disadvantages

• Length of connection limited to 3 meters (10 feet)
  
• Point-to-point only - one computer feeds one DAC
  

Ethernet Advantages

• Cable length is unlimited (for all practical purposes)
  
• One music server can feed multiple DACs, all playing different music streams
  

Ethernet Disadvantages

• Software is difficult to configure
  
• Limited choice of music players - most are very primitive
  
• Requires a NAS to store music - a NAS is just a computer with no keyboard and display
  

 

This is just a partial list of the major points. In Europe, ethernet dominates because Linn and Naim both make ethernet systems. But just read the review by Art Dudley in Stereophile. (I went to look for a link, but it's not on their website. It must be too embarrassing to publish!) He spent 3 days with the help of the local Linn importer and they could NOT get the system to work! Finally Linn sent an ENTIRE PRECONFIGURED SYSTEM direct from Scotland, with a new computer, NAS with preloaded software, router known to work with Linn hardware, and the Linn DAC. That was the ONLY way they could get his system to work!!! Art thought that it sounded great, but obviously he had reservations about recommending a product that was so difficult to use...

 

So what is needed are systems that combine the advantages of both.

 

And it turns out that we are getting there already. I don't have it set up, but I am told that J.River is the ONLY DLNA software that will reliably work with ANY hardware -- Linn, Pioneer, Naim, you name it. Luckily, that is one of the best players around. My only gripe about it is that it has so MANY features that it can take quite a bit of time to set up.

 

I have also heard that J.River either has a new feature now or are working on it for a future release -- the capability to send multiple USB streams out at the same time with different music on each one. If this is correct, this is a MAJOR development for USB! The other disadvantage of USB is length of cables. We have successfully tested the Icron USB extender with excellent results. We had a sample 100' extender and it played asynchronous USB (signals going in both directions -- the music going from computer to DAC and the "feedback pipeline" going from DAC to computer) with no problems at all even at 192/24. The only problem is that it is expensive at around $300.

 

However, we also have successfully tested a much lower cost cable. We need to put this information up on our website, because it was only $30 or $50 for a 100' extender (I forget which). I think that it was the BlueJeans brand, but I need to check to make sure.

 

With these two items addressed, much of the advantages of ethernet disappears.

 

The other way to attack the problem is from the ethernet side. Specifically somebody needs to make a software driver for the computer so that the output from ANY software music player can be directed to the ethernet port. Then all of the advantages of ethernet could be used while staying with your favorite playback software that you know and love. I can't say anything specific at this point, but I believe that there are some companies working on an approach like this.

 

You must remember that SERIOUS computer audio is still only a few years old. It takes a while for a new format to mature and sort itself out. But just as Ayre was the first company to make a solid-state USB DAC with asynchronous signal transfer, I can promise you that we have been and will continue to be at the forefront of digital audio technology. For an example, please read the first page of our white paper on asynchronous USB signal transfer:

 

http://www.ayre.com/white_papers/Ayre_USB_DAC_White_Paper.pdf

 

(We just changed ISP's. If you receive an error message, try hitting the "reload" button on your browser. You may have an old page in your cache. It takes a day or two for the DNS's around the world to update to the new ISP address.)

 

We are waiting for a few of these new technologies to sort themselves out before releasing a new DAC. We want to make sure that our new products will have at least a 10 or 20 year lifespan, even in the rapidly-changing area computer-based audio.

 

Best regards,

[labjr]

 

We are waiting for a few of these new technologies to sort themselves out before releasing a new DAC. We want to make sure that our new products will have at least a 10 or 20 year lifespan, even in the rapidly-changing area computer-based audio.

 

Best regards,

 

At what point will you realease a new DAC instead of upgrading the current model? Is Thunderbolt also being explored?

[Charles Hansen]

At what point will you release a new DAC instead of upgrading the current model? Is Thunderbolt also being explored?

 

Hello Lab,

 

We currently have 17 models in production (including the dps turntable that we import and build a custom power supply for, but not counting cables and/or other accessories) with one more around the corner -- the KX-5 preamp to match our new VX-5 power amplifier. Since our founding 20 years ago, we have discontinued only 6 models -- the two DVD players (people want Blu-ray now), and the original 1 series and 3 series amps and preamps.

 

It is obvious why we discontinued the DVD players. The reason for discontinuing the 1 series and 3 series products was not that they didn't sound good or were "obsolete". It was that they were too difficult to manufacture, too difficult to repair, and the sharp-cornered rectilinear styling was a bit dated and didn't match our current products.

 

I see no reason to discontinue any of our current products. As long as a product is still in production, if we have an new idea that produces a performance upgrade, we will continue to upgrade it. The QB-9 was the first separate DAC we ever made as the S/PDIF standard that is normally used (or its variants) causes an inherent performance degradation. To my way of thinking it is silly to start with a flawed system such that one has to throw money at it to achieve an acceptable degree of performance. So we never made an S/PDIF-based DAC.

 

But when Gordon Rankin developed the first asynchronous isochronous USB transfer mode that was compatible with all modern computers, there was finally a way to put the transport (in this case a computer) and the DAC in a separate box and NOT compromise the performance.

 

Obviously it is not for everybody. Some people don't care if the performance is compromised -- they just want a way to connect (say) their cheap DVD player to their stereo and get a performance improvement. Other people are willing to pay $20,000 or more on a DAC that has enough technology that the inherent degradation of S/PDIF is limited to an acceptable level. We don't want to take either of those roads!

 

In the first instance, I don't want to sell something that only offers limited performance if it is going to have the "Ayre" name attached to it. In the second case, I want our products to offer exceptional value for the money. If a DAC is going to cost $20,000, it should completely blow away any other DAC on the market. One shouldn't have to spend a big chunk of that money just to overcome the limitations of an inherently flawed format.

 

Obviously we will offer more DACs with more features in the future. But one thing you can be sure of is that they won't offer mediocre performance just for the sake of adding features. And the other thing you can be sure of is that they won't be overpriced because we were trying to fix a problem by throwing money at it. I am a big believer in "brains over brawn".

 

For example, it would be trivial to make a killer sounding power amp that cost $100,000 and ran in pure class-A mode and put out 1000 watts of heat into your listening room and weighed 300 pounds. I've no interest in such a thing. To me the question is how to make a product that can compete sonically with something like I just described but do it at a much lower price and without all of the practical drawbacks that go along with that approach. The only way to do that is to be more clever, more creative, and to work harder at what we do. And I think we have done a good job of that. We make a wide range of products from analog to digital to AC power filters. All of them sound great, are reasonably priced, and have won many awards.

 

By the end of the year we will probably introduce two more DACs with more features, one in the 5 series and one in the R series. We also have a few more surprises up our sleeve that should be very interesting. We don't ever want to build a product unless we feel it will offer a substantial performance improvement over what is already out there. It's not like the world NEEDS just another "me, too" DAC (or any other product). But when we have a new idea about how to do something better than anybody has ever done it before, that's when we come out with a new model. And we always have more ideas than time to put them into production!

 

Other times we make new discoveries. With the DSD updates to the current DACs the original plan was just to offer the DoP feature and not raise the price. But they have been out for a few years now and it we have learned some new tricks in the meantime. So we thought, "This is a good opportunity to see if these new tricks will make a big enough improvement in performance to be worth charging people money for." And we did it and surprised ourselves at how big of an improvement it made.

 

So we offer upgrades when we have an improvement that warrants it. In between upgrades, we are FASTIDIOUS about maintaining the quality of the existing product. But when it is time for an upgrade, we go all out -- but also make sure that it can be retro-fitted to the existing units in a way that makes sense and isn't overly expensive.

 

Best regards,

[Miska]

[*]Requires a NAS to store music - a NAS is just a computer with no keyboard and display

 

Why would a NAS be needed? At least my setup is identical from file storage point of view for both USB and Ethernet cases. Also player is identical. Only difference is different connection on the DAC, and that there's a many-to-many access capability unlike with USB.

 

Although normal SMB/CIFS file share is useful. I run that anyway in my server for other purposes, so it's useful for music storage too.

 

He spent 3 days with the help of the local Linn importer and they could NOT get the system to work! Finally Linn sent an ENTIRE PRECONFIGURED SYSTEM direct from Scotland, with a new computer, NAS with preloaded software, router known to work with Linn hardware, and the Linn DAC. That was the ONLY way they could get his system to work!!!

 

Part of the problem is called UPnP/DLNA. It's a very tricky protocol with number of problems. Probably that's why Apple is not using it either.

 

Another common problem is that for example Apple AirportExpress seems to block UPnP, while my protocol works through it just fine...

[The Computer Audiophile]

Why would a NAS be needed? At least my setup is identical from file storage point of view for both USB and Ethernet cases. Also player is identical. Only difference is different connection on the DAC, and that there's a many-to-many access capability unlike with USB.

 

Although normal SMB/CIFS file share is useful. I run that anyway in my server for other purposes, so it's useful for music storage too.

 

 

 

Part of the problem is called UPnP/DLNA. It's a very tricky protocol with number of problems. Probably that's why Apple is not using it either.

 

Another common problem is that for example Apple AirportExpress seems to block UPnP, while my protocol works through it just fine...

 

Miska - I don't think your setup is the norm. UPnP direct from a NAS to the renderer is the most likely scenario.

 

Apple doesn't block UPnP.

[Paul R]

I have also heard that J.River either has a new feature now or are working on it for a future release -- the capability to send multiple USB streams out at the same time with different music on each one. If this is correct, this is a MAJOR development for USB!

 

I don't know if it is a new feature or not, but I use that all the time to test out different DACs. I usually have my little Wavelength Proton connected along with one or two other DACs. Some DAC require a USB->SPDIF converter like a Peachtree XD1 or V-Link. Runs great.

 

Admittedly, I usually play the same music through each channel to A/B/C the DACs, but it works just as well with different music playing to each DAC - even if they have separate options selected, like max sample rate and bit depth.

 

-Paul

[Charles Hansen]

Why would a NAS be needed? At least my setup is identical from file storage point of view for both USB and Ethernet cases. Also player is identical. Only difference is different connection on the DAC, and that there's a many-to-many access capability unlike with USB.

 

Hello Miska,

 

I think you just answered your own question! :-)

 

Maybe you are a single man. But let's say that your customer is married and has two teen-aged kids. So the advantage of having a one-to-many (or many-to-many) capability that ethernet offers becomes obvious -- instead of each person having to rip their entire CD collection on to their own separate computer (with a lot of redundancy), there can be ONE hard-drive that has ALL of the music for the entire house stored on it.

 

But now we have created a new problem. With the USB, the computer is obviously on when you are using it. So the files need to be stored locally and the DAC needs to be local. This is fine if you just want an office system to listen to music while you work. Or it is also good if you just have one system in a dedicated listening room.

 

So people take a look at a networked system so that they can play music in many different locations around the house. Obviously the user will turn on the local DAC ("renderer" in UPnP terms) to listen to it. But if the files are now stored in one separate location, that file server must be on 24/7 so that any of the users can play music whenever they want to. There are only two choices. Either you have a dedicated file server with a large (internal or external) hard drive, or you have a NAS.

 

People are told to buy a NAS, and in a way it makes more sense. If the machine has to be on 24/7 in order to serve the files whenever any user wants them, it makes sense that such a device should draw as little power as possible. I suppose that one could also set up a server that is configured to "wake up" with the "magic packet" command over the ethernet connection, but again, this is one of the drawbacks of the current ethernet systems. Either the customer or the dealer must (for all practical purposes) be an expert in computer networking to get everything working correctly.

 

And that is one big reason why USB has been so popular -- it is very easy to understand, and very easy to configure and use. But just as with anything it life, its greatest strength also tends to be its greatest weakness. So the fact that USB systems are easy to install and use is BECAUSE they have limitations that ethernet-based products don't have. And conversely the strength of the ethernet solution is also its greatest weakness. The fact that one can create a centralized file server with all of the music and send it to multiple locations simultaneously means that necessarily it will be more complex to configure and use than a USB system.

 

As I said, we are still early in the evolution of computer-based audio systems. And I think in another five to ten years (and perhaps much sooner), someone will come up with a solution that is different from either of the existing ones that provides the best of both worlds. I cannot predict the future, so I cannot say what the physical transport will be, but it is a safe bet that it will probably be either USB or ethernet. Ethernet has been around for FORTY years now and shows zero signs of going away. USB has been around for almost 20 years during which time we have seen FireWire come and now almost completely go away.

 

If I were a betting man, I would probably put my money on ethernet. But I also think that there will always be a market for USB devices. When people don't need the advantages that ethernet offers, a USB product can be made for less money that will be extremely easy to install and operate.

 

Best regards,

[Miska]

Miska - I don't think your setup is the norm. UPnP direct from a NAS to the renderer is the most likely scenario.

 

I rarely do anything that is norm. In fact I try to avoid it.

 

And I don't count a "DAC" with UPnP renderer a "DAC" anymore. It's at entirely different complexity level than a USB DAC (or an Ethernet DAC).

 

Apple doesn't block UPnP.

 

I don't know what they do, but I have number of friends who have the same issue with AP-E set up as WLAN access point while having UPnP server at the ethernet side and control point at the WLAN side. I did a lot of Wireshark'ing on this and the UPnP discovery messages just don't come through between WLAN and Ethernet. When I and others switch to for example D-Link's WLAN-AP things work perfectly fine.

 

I have tested this at least with Bubble UPnP on Samsung Galaxy Tab and PlugPlayer on iPod Touch. Same issue with both, fixed by replacing the WLAN AP. And I'm pretty certain since I've been sniffing the traffic with Wireshark on the ethernet.

[Miska]

But now we have created a new problem. With the USB, the computer is obviously on when you are using it. So the files need to be stored locally and the DAC needs to be local. This is fine if you just want an office system to listen to music while you work. Or it is also good if you just have one system in a dedicated listening room.

 

No, I can have the files stored either locally or on a network share and the DAC can be local through USB or remote through Ethernet. I can still play music to the listening room or to the living room. While someone else is playing from their computer to the bedroom system.

 

So people take a look at a networked system so that they can play music in many different locations around the house. Obviously the user will turn on the local DAC ("renderer" in UPnP terms) to listen to it.

 

In my case, there's a player sitting between the file storage (NAS or local storage) and the DAC. DAC doesn't understand anything about files. It just knows about PCM and DSD data streams.

 

Of course of the point is that such "ethernet DAC" doesn't need any configuration. You can set a name for it from the player, but that's all.

 

I suppose that one could also set up a server that is configured to "wake up" with the "magic packet" command over the ethernet connection, but again, this is one of the drawbacks of the current ethernet systems.

 

That's possible too, it's called WOL (Wake On LAN). It has been supported by network adapters since early 90's.

 

But generally lot of people have NAS or other kind of storage for storing photos, videos and other kind of media. I just have a HP MicroServer.

 

And that is one big reason why USB has been so popular -- it is very easy to understand, and very easy to configure and use. But just as with anything it life, its greatest strength also tends to be its greatest weakness. So the fact that USB systems are easy to install and use is BECAUSE they have limitations that ethernet-based products don't have. And conversely the strength of the ethernet solution is also its greatest weakness. The fact that one can create a centralized file server with all of the music and send it to multiple locations simultaneously means that necessarily it will be more complex to configure and use than a USB system.

 

Cannot disgaree with this...

[Charles Hansen]

Is Thunderbolt also being explored?

 

Sorry, I forgot to answer this question. We always look at new technologies. But there is no point to offer a new technology just because it is there or just because it is new. It needs to provide an advantage that makes it worthwhile.

 

Currently USB 2.0 can handle 16 channels of 192/24 audio data. So I don't think there is much point in going past that now, either with USB 3.0 or Thunderbolt. Thunderbolt has about twice the bandwidth that USB 3.0 does, which at 5 Gbs is roughly 10x faster than USB 2.0, which at 480 Mbs is roughly 40x faster than USB 1.1 at 12 Mbs.

 

This can also be compared with ethernet. Almost all current ethernet networks are running at 100 Mbs, but nowadays it is fairly trivial to switch over to Gigabit Ethernet operating a 1 Gbs.

 

So for most audio uses, USB 2.0 is more than fast enough as long as you can live with the length limitations. If you require the extra distance that ethernet offers, standard (for today) 100 Mbs ethernet is enough for most practical purposes. However, if I were building a brand new network, I would go ahead and use Gigabit Ethernet, as although standard ethernet can easily be handle multiple locations with high resolution audio, the network will start to become bogged down if one is trying to send multiple streams of VIDEO!

 

Another problem with Thunderbolt is that it is a short-distance interface, at least for now. It was originally conceived as an optical interface, but that was too expensive so it was released with copper conductor cables. These are limited to 3 meters, just like USB. Sumitomo of Japan has recently released optical Thunderbolt cables that will reach 100', but I've no doubt that these cables probably cost more than the average laptop computer!

 

Thunderbolt licensing is also quite expensive. This is what killed FireWire in the USB versus FireWire "war". And you have to remember that while it was free to use USB, the licensing fee per device for FireWire was only $1. So it doesn't take much extra cost to kill a technology despite whatever other advantages it may (or may not) possess.

 

The bottom line is at this time I see no reason to use Thunderbolt. But if it turns out that it does provide some compelling advantage, then it may be worth looking at. There are many anecdotal reports of higher speed devices (eg, main CPU's, more memory and higher speed memory, et cetera) providing improved audio quality. But there are also many anecdotal reports of the opposite being true. There is a guy from somewhere in Europe that has developed a system he calls "cics" (I think that is what it is calld) whereby he goes through and removes all of the extra processes and services from the operating system and then UNDERCLOCKS the CPU to go as slowly as possible, and many users report excellent sound quality from this approach.

 

I suppose there is more than one way to skin a cat (as they say in the US). But the ideal solution would be to determine what is the actual mechanism that is affecting the sound quality so that the same kind of improvement could be made without having to purchase a new Thunderbolt-equipped computer (if it turns out that Thunderbolt DOES offer a performance advantage). This is what we did with DSD. We spent enough time studying it to understand exactly what it was about the format that provided an advantage and then incorporated that into PCM.

 

Hope this helps,

[Audio_ELF]

Sorry, I forgot to answer this question. We always look at new technologies. But there is no point to offer a new technology just because it is there or just because it is new. It needs to provide an advantage that makes it worthwhile.

 

[snip, snip, snipperty]

 

Hope this helps.

Nicely written and explained post Charles. Yes was helpful...

 

The only place I could see Thunderbolt being useful would be if someone produced a SotMesque Thunderbolt to USB adaptor to give a completely separate (and isolated) USB bus dedicated to the DAC.

 

Eloise

[Paul R]

If the Airportss are setup as bridges, they will pass all the information around properly.

 

DLINKs are a the cause of a lot of trouble around here. Rather, they used to be until they were recyled to the Goodwill and replaced with Airport devices.

 

I rarely do anything that is norm. In fact I try to avoid it.

 

And I don't count a "DAC" with UPnP renderer a "DAC" anymore. It's at entirely different complexity level than a USB DAC (or an Ethernet DAC).

 

 

 

I don't know what they do, but I have number of friends who have the same issue with AP-E set up as WLAN access point while having UPnP server at the ethernet side and control point at the WLAN side. I did a lot of Wireshark'ing on this and the UPnP discovery messages just don't come through between WLAN and Ethernet. When I and others switch to for example D-Link's WLAN-AP things work perfectly fine.

 

I have tested this at least with Bubble UPnP on Samsung Galaxy Tab and PlugPlayer on iPod Touch. Same issue with both, fixed by replacing the WLAN AP. And I'm pretty certain since I've been sniffing the traffic with Wireshark on the ethernet.

[Adyc]

There is a similar thread in AA with one manufacturer also prefers PCM to DSD if anyone is interested.

 

Computer Audio Asylum

[Miska]

If the Airportss are setup as bridges, they will pass all the information around properly.

 

It is configured as bumb access point (bridge, no routing). And no, no matter how much UPnP Control Point sends disco messages from WLAN, those don't appear at all at the Ethernet side and naturally UPnP Server is not discovered as a result.

 

Or then I, and my friends are too stupid for this particular AP (the first generation model).

 

DLINKs are a the cause of a lot of trouble around here.

 

Yeah, not so great, you need to be careful about model and firmware version. But in this case it was the one that works. Although it sends dummy replies to the disco message. Someone forgot to disable all UPnP IGD feature stuff when they modified the firmware for access point -only model...

[Adyc]

 

USB Advantages

• Works with any music player software (eg, iTunes, Foobar, J.River, etc)
  
• Simple to connect - every computer has USB ports
  
• Asnychronous USB transfer eliminates interface jitter (do NOT confuse with Asynchronous Sample Rate Conversion)
  

USB Disadvantages

• Length of connection limited to 3 meters (10 feet)
  
• Point-to-point only - one computer feeds one DAC
  

Ethernet Advantages

• Cable length is unlimited (for all practical purposes)
  
• One music server can feed multiple DACs, all playing different music streams
  

Ethernet Disadvantages

• Software is difficult to configure
  
• Limited choice of music players - most are very primitive
  
• Requires a NAS to store music - a NAS is just a computer with no keyboard and display
  

 

I found the current music server softwares are very poor in terms of handling classical music. The best music servers handling classical music are Logitech Media Sever (LMS) with great controller Ipeng in iOS and Minimserver.

 

LMS is installed in my iMac sitting somewhere in my study room. I then use Logitech Touch to connect to LMS through ethernet. And with EDO plugins, Logitech Touch can output up to 24/192 through USB to USB DACs. There is a Foobar plugin from Lumin that can wrap the DSD file into 24/176 flac file so that I can play DSD through Touch as well. I guess in this way to me, it combines the strength of both ethernet and USB.

 

With this arrangement, I can easily select Karajan conducting Beethoven No.9 with year 1963 or 1977 or 1984. Also I have a few Touch connecting to different DACs. LMS can output the same stream to different Touch at the same time so that I can A/B compare different DACs.

 

I am a big fan of Ayre products. I got QB-9 and KX-R. I have bought and sold a lot of DACs in the past few years but QB-9 always stay in my system. Having learnt that you are going to release a R-range DAC, I have no intention of upgrading QB-9. I will sell the QB-9 and buy the R-range DAC. Please keep up the good work.

[Miska]

There is a similar thread in AA with one manufacturer also prefers PCM to DSD if anyone is interested.

 

Computer Audio Asylum

 

Yeah, speculating about non-existent pure-high-bit-high-rate PCM hardware. Which would have awful low level linearity performance in real world due to component tolerances. And spit out much more high frequency on DAC side due to fs/2 being closer to audio band.

 

Six bit SDM has seven levels so it has 20*log₁₀(7) = 16.9 dB noise level advantage compared to 1-bit SDM.

[Paul R]

First Gen Airport? Gads, that's like - 25 years old? I think you are talking about something newer!

 

I would try a fifth or sixth generation pair of units, and I expect your troubles would disappear. After the DLINKs stop working that is - why fix something that isn't broken?

 

-Paul

 

It is configured as bumb access point (bridge, no routing). And no, no matter how much UPnP Control Point sends disco messages from WLAN, those don't appear at all at the Ethernet side and naturally UPnP Server is not discovered as a result.

 

Or then I, and my friends are too stupid for this particular AP (the first generation model).

 

 

 

Yeah, not so great, you need to be careful about model and firmware version. But in this case it was the one that works. Although it sends dummy replies to the disco message. Someone forgot to disable all UPnP IGD feature stuff when they modified the firmware for access point -only model...

[Charles Hansen]

Nicely written and explained post Charles. Yes was helpful...

 

The only place I could see Thunderbolt being useful would be if someone produced a SotMesque Thunderbolt to USB adaptor to give a completely separate (and isolated) USB bus dedicated to the DAC.

 

Eloise

 

Hello Eloise,

 

Thank you for the kind words.

 

There is another way to do what you want and it is not difficult at all. If you have a laptop, you can purchase a PC Card USB 2.0 plug-in for about $20. (They are very cheap because everybody thinks they are obsolete and wants USB 3.0.) If you have a desktop, purchase a PCI USB 2.0 card.

 

In this case, the second USB controller has direct access to the main CPU with its own interrupt. There is no interference with any other USB devices connected to the computer. This creates a large increase in the sound quality for a very low cost. Certainly much less expensive than purchasing a new computer with Thunderbolt and then a Thunderbolt-to-USB adapter!

 

Cheers,