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

[bottlerocket]

I actually did read through the thread and found no pertinent information to answer my question. Perhaps you can answer as authoritatively about the actual price and when it will be available?

 

See post #41 from Charles Hansen/Ayre. Price is $3250 for DSD QB9.

[Hiro]

That is curious! I wonder if the mega-rez DSD capabilities are intended for recording professionals?

 

The 128x and 256x DSD capabilities are already available to recording professionals, as Merging have updated their Pyramix DAW and Horus converters to support both sampling rates. However, the higher DSD sampling speeds aren't intended at recording pros only. There are apps that let you upsample your DSD64 files to DSD128 (think 4K upscaling), and send the DSD128 stream to a DSD128-compatible USB DAC. If my memory serves me well, the 256fs upsampling is possible too, so if your DAC is 256fs ready, then you can feed it with the upsampled "8K" content.

[beetlemania]

The 128x and 256x DSD capabilities are already available to recording professionals, as Merging have updated their Pyramix DAW and Horus converters to support both sampling rates.

 

You're making it a habit of typing words on my behalf. I never wrote or thought that the QA-9 was groundbreaking with DSD.

 

But there are reasons to suspect the QA-9 might be the "best" ADC, whether for professionals in the recording industry or audiophiles that want to digitize their LPs.

 

The Fifth Element #78 | Stereophile.com

[Hiro]

You're making it a habit of typing words on my behalf.

 

What are you talking about? Care to explain?

 

I never wrote or thought that the QA-9 was groundbreaking with DSD.

 

And where have I said that you wrote anything like that?

[beetlemania]

What are you talking about? Care to explain?

 

 

I suggested that the higher sampling rate DSD of the QA-9 might be intended for recording professionals. Seems simple enough to me.

 

Your response was: "The 128x and 256x DSD capabilities are already available to recording professionals, . . ."

 

What did you mean?

[Hiro]

I suggested that the higher sampling rate DSD of the QA-9 might be intended for recording professionals. Seems simple enough to me.

 

Your response was: "The 128x and 256x DSD capabilities are already available to recording professionals, . . ."

 

What did you mean?

 

I meant what I wrote. There's nothing open to interpretation in this sentence.

[Hiro]

PS That you somehow managed to interpret the post as offensive is your problem not mine.

[beetlemania]

I meant what I wrote. There's nothing open to interpretation in this sentence.

 

Sorry, I misinterpreted when you wrote that the Merging Pyramix and Horus already have 128x and 256x DSD capabilities, as in "they did it before Ayre". But tell me, if that isn't what you meant, then what does your statement have to do with what I wrote? Or did you just randomly pick my post as a launching point for something unrelated?

[Charles Hansen]

Can you please elaborate a bit more on the PCM improvement taken from DSD? I doubt that PCM can have the same impulse response as DSD and while I agree that quad rate PCM is close, I still feel DSD is a bit better and from what I hear chipless DSD conversion may be even a bit better again.

 

The only difference between modern day PCM and "DSD" is the filtering. (Delta-sigma ADC and DAC chips have been the rule, rather than the exception for the last ten or fifteen years.) "DSD" uses no filtering during recording and a very gentle (third order) filter.

 

Typical PCM is designed by digital engineers that don't know much about sound and/or analog circuitry. Give them a higher sampling rate and they just put in a wider bandwidth brickwall filter. The filter is what does the damage. 99.9% of all DSD recordings are converted to PCM at some point, so it's not like there is some magic there, despite Sony's deceptive advertising from ten years ago that fooled a lot of people.

 

You may indeed like the DSD that you have heard better than the PCM you have heard. That proves nothing.

 

As far as impulse response goes, your doubts are incorrect.

[Charles Hansen]

I don't know if I'd use vinyl as a reference, even for analog.

 

I don't know why you wouldn't. Have you ever compared a master tape with the vinyl pressing made from it? I have. The degree of difference in sound quality was shockingly small.

[Charles Hansen]

Don't know if there were any computer geeks among the audio journalists invited by Marantz for the presentation of their latest NA-11s USB DAC, but according to Michael Fremer they all preferred DSD playback to 24/96 and 24/192 PCM.

 

"Well-recorded files included 192/24 and 96/24 bit resolution ones that sounded quite good but all agreed the best digital sound came from an analog tape-to-DSD transfer. It wasn’t even close. It was the only one that produced a credible, involving, three-dimensional soundstage and a sense of space that made you want to look as well as listen."

Marantz Launches NA-11S1 Reference Class Network Audio Player and USB DAC | Analog Planet

 

Yes, and I prefer the sound of my Ayre QB-9 to my Mattel Close'n'Play, so that proves that digital is better than analog....

[Charles Hansen]

I'd like to know what DXD512 is?

 

Seriously, judging by Charles Hansen's posts, I wonder if he listens to his own products. I mean why is he taking John Atkinson's word for it? How are his own ears? Has he listened and compared sources before and after the ADC and DAC process. Has he compared DSD to PCM himself? Seems like he hasn't.

 

What? You'll have to speak a little louder. I can't hear you. (I'm a bit hard of hearing.)

[Charles Hansen]

I think I've read pretty much everything Charles Hansen has written on the subject. You'll see I asked a question in that thread. The difference between PCM and DSD is quite audible. I've demo'd it to regular people who can hear the difference. Which is why I can't understand why he would make such a statement like PCM is good enough.

 

I also recall him stating there was virtually no difference between BB DAC chips and ESS Sabre DACs unless you need the extra features the Sabre DAC has. Now all of a sudden at the advice of Gordon Rankin he finally listened to the Sabre DAC and was stunned at how good it sounded. Well, why didn't he use every DAC chip on he market 4 years ago. I'd think anyone would use every possible resource at their disposal to design their product.

 

That's a pretty good trick! Test a product that doesn't yet exist! Let me just fire up my flux capacitor and I can test all of the DACs that will be introduced in the next decade. Then I'll know which one to use. I just hope that I can bring those non-existent chips back with me without overloading the flux capacitor.

[Charles Hansen]

Let's stop arguing, shall we?

 

I think that if Charles Hansen loves Sony & Philips so much that he isn't willing to stray away, in any way, from the SACD standard defined by the two corporations, not even in the (DRM-free, open, and consumer driven) computer environment, we won't convince him otherwise. Although this kind of attitude may seem strange to some of us, we have to respect it.

 

What is it with you? Where in the world do you come up with such insane BS? Or do you think that every company in the world should invent their own format?

 

The wonderful thing about recorded music is that you can hear many more performances of wonderful artists than you can hear at the local music venues. Of course that doesn't mean that recorded music does (or should) replace listening to live music. But if you are advocating format anarchy, I strongly disagree. It's hard enough to find music that is well recorded on ANY format. But if you are going to insist on only listening to DSD-256 (or whatever it is that you think is so wonderful), have a ball listening to all three releases that are available on all two machines that can play them.

[wisnon]

The only difference between modern day PCM and "DSD" is the filtering. (Delta-sigma ADC and DAC chips have been the rule, rather than the exception for the last ten or fifteen years.) "DSD" uses no filtering during recording and a very gentle (third order) filter.

 

Typical PCM is designed by digital engineers that don't know much about sound and/or analog circuitry. Give them a higher sampling rate and they just put in a wider bandwidth brickwall filter. The filter is what does the damage. 99.9% of all DSD recordings are converted to PCM at some point, so it's not like there is some magic there, despite Sony's deceptive advertising from ten years ago that fooled a lot of people.

 

You may indeed like the DSD that you have heard better than the PCM you have heard. That proves nothing.

 

As far as impulse response goes, your doubts are incorrect.

 

I have heard wonderfully portrayed PCM on 4 different Lampizator Dacs and on my Chord Qute, so its not like I have real complaints about the format. I will wait until I hear DSD on a quality tubed DSD Dac and report back.

 

While I clearly dont agree with all you wrote, I would like to thank you for taking the time to respond. Much appreciated.

[Hiro]

Sorry, I misinterpreted when you wrote that the Merging Pyramix and Horus already have 128x and 256x DSD capabilities, as in "they did it before Ayre". But tell me, if that isn't what you meant, then what does your statement have to do with what I wrote? Or did you just randomly pick my post as a launching point for something unrelated?

 

You said that you "wondered if" the higher DSD rates were intended for professionals, and ended your sentence with a question mark. By giving an example of 128fs / 256fs DSD-ready DAW already available to recording professionals I sought to remove any remaining doubt as for the intended use of the mega-rez DSD. In the second part of my post I gave an example how that the higher sampling speeds (128x and 256x DSD) may be used by consumers.

[Hiro]

if you are advocating format anarchy

 

All I'm advocating for is choice. If Five/Four Recordings want to use 256fs DSD for their recording sessions, they should be able to choose the best sounding 256fs ADC/DAC for the job. When you limit your converters sampling speed to 64fs, you're simply limiting their options. But if that's your objective, then you're of course entitled to it. Just don't complain about the limited availability of DSD256 recordings, when your very actions hinder the growth of the format.

[Booster MPS]

All I'm advocating for is choice. If Five/Four Recordings want to use 256fs DSD for their recording sessions, they should be able to choose the best sounding 256fs ADC/DAC for the job. When you limit your converters sampling speed to 64fs, you're simply limiting their options. But if that's your objective, then you're of course entitled to it. Just don't complain about the limited availability of DSD256 recordings, when your very actions hinder the growth of the format.

 

I don't think that it is a reasonable request of manufactures to encompass all formats and at the same time future proof their product. We are talking about formats that are in the extreme niche circles of audio and it is a significant commercial decision to commit to those technologies.

[Hiro]

I don't think that it is a reasonable request of manufactures to encompass all formats and at the same time future proof their product. We are talking about formats that are in the extreme niche circles of audio and it is a significant commercial decision to commit to those technologies.

 

New DAC chips like the ESS Sabre support 128fs DSD anyway. I don't see how enabling it is a 'significant commercial decision'.

[Freann]

Hiro: are you involved in the audio industry? You seem to have intimate knowledge in the construction, production and worldwide marketing of high end gear. Please elaborate on how you see the commercial potential of hi-bit formats like DSD128, in the context of bringing a $3200 product to market in may 2013.

[Hiro]

Hiro: are you involved in the audio industry? You seem to have intimate knowledge in the construction, production and worldwide marketing of high end gear. Please elaborate on how you see the commercial potential of hi-bit formats like DSD128, in the context of bringing a $3200 product to market in may 2013.

 

A $3200 DAC without DSD128 support is a non-starter for me. That's how I see it.

[beetlemania]

I imagine those who work in the industry have had the oportunity to listen to source tapes and compare. How about making their own analog tape and comparing? Or compare the sound of digital formats to a microphone feed like Barry Diament does.

 

Here's what Barry Diament wrote, in the "Why did SACD fail" thread:

"Give me properly done 4x PCM (i.e. 24/192) any day. It is the first (and only) format I've ever experienced where I have had trouble distinguishing the output from the input."

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/why-did-sacd-fail-16030/index2.html#post225404

[wisnon]

The only difference between modern day PCM and "DSD" is the filtering. (Delta-sigma ADC and DAC chips have been the rule, rather than the exception for the last ten or fifteen years.) "DSD" uses no filtering during recording and a very gentle (third order) filter.

 

Typical PCM is designed by digital engineers that don't know much about sound and/or analog circuitry. Give them a higher sampling rate and they just put in a wider bandwidth brickwall filter. The filter is what does the damage. 99.9% of all DSD recordings are converted to PCM at some point, so it's not like there is some magic there, despite Sony's deceptive advertising from ten years ago that fooled a lot of people.

 

You may indeed like the DSD that you have heard better than the PCM you have heard. That proves nothing.

 

As far as impulse response goes, your doubts are incorrect.

 

So Charles, how do you explain this?

 

and

 

[Hiro]

Here's what Barry Diament wrote, in the "Why did SACD fail" thread:

"Give me properly done 4x PCM (i.e. 24/192) any day. It is the first (and only) format I've ever experienced where I have had trouble distinguishing the output from the input."

 

And here's what Paul McGowan from PS Audio wrote:

 

"Over the last few days we’ve been discussing the two main technologies in digital audio today: PCM and DSD. In my mind there’s no doubt that DSD is superior to PCM – if for no other reason than the fact it is simply closer to analog than anything I have ever heard. Properly implemented you’re not even aware of its presence and that’s how any piece of equipment or format in a high end audio chain should be: not there."

 

PS and DSD | PS Audio

[Charles Hansen]

While I clearly dont agree with all you wrote, I would like to thank you for taking the time to respond. Much appreciated.

 

Dear Wisnon,

 

Sorry for the negative tone. I hadn't read this thread for a while and a came back to see many silly posts, many of which contained personal attacks. Some of my resultant foul mood spilled into the reply to your post, which was not warranted. My apologies.

 

Your questions regarding PCM versus DSD are quite common and the result of Sony's misinformation campaign when SACD was being introduced. One of the many lies that they put forth was a series of graphs purporting to show the superior transient response of DSD compared to any other format. I'm sure you remember the one that showed an extremely narrow and high amplitude pulse that was supposed to show the pulse response of "DSD". Then there were some graphs for PCM, and if I recall correctly, maybe even one for analog.

 

The problem was this -- the graph they showed for "DSD" was for the record response only, and not for the combined record + playback response.

 

It's easier to understand this if we just think about a pure analog system. So let's take an analog system with a bandwidth of 1 MHz. First of all, unlike a typical digital system the frequency response of an analog system doesn't hit a "brick wall" and then drop off drastically. There will be interactions between parasitic resistance and capacitance that form a first-order filter. Standard practice with analog circuitry is to have a single pole roll-off until the gain drop below unity (1x = 0 dB). This is to avoid any possibility of oscillation when feedback is applied.

 

When there is a first-order roll-off (digital or analog, there's no magic and no free lunch), there is NO overshoot, no pre-ringing, and no post-ringing. The circuit can complete a single cycle in 1 µsec, so the output pulse will be roughly 1 µsec wide, no matter how narrow you make the input pulse.

 

Now if you run that same signal into a circuit with a 100 kHz bandwidth, it will rise more slowly and fall more slowly because it cannot respond as quickly. So the pulse width will be stretched. The height of the pulse won't be as great for the same reason. But a wider, shorter (less tall) pulse will have the same area. Again there will be no ringing, overshoot, or undershoot.

 

So all that Sony graph showed was that the 2.8 MHz sampling rate of "DSD" had a bandwidth of roughly 1.4 MHz. But what they didn't show you was that when you play the signal back through an SACD player, that the Scarlet Book requires a third-order analog filter at 50 kHz to try to keep all of the noise from the system from destroying tweeters and overloading poorly designed amplifiers, et cetera. If they had show you that signal coming out of the player, it would no longer be less than a µsec wide -- it would be over 20 times wider and 20 times shorter (less tall). Not only that, but a third-order filter will ring and have both overshoot and undershoot.

 

This is some of the disgusting lies that Sony routinely used to promote their "wonderful" system. The reality is that Sony and Philips were losing a $1 billion per year revenue stream because the CD patents were expiring. People do funny things when that much money is at stake, and lying is just the tip of the iceberg. So when you look at any of the claims made for "DSD" you need to put on your skeptic's hat, because almost every claim they made for it was blatantly false.

 

Now, that said, PCM isn't perfect. It wasn't designed to be perfect. It was designed to replace the cassette. But they were able to make a fortune off of it, so it naturally grew to become bigger than it should have. The biggest problem was that the technology of time only allowed around 12 bits of actual resolution (out of a nominal 16) and to get the desired playing time on the desired disc size and still have response out to 20 kHz required a "brickwall" filter.

 

Wadia were the first to show that brickwall filters damaged the sound quality. But now, 30 years after the introduction of the CD, one can easily record and play back PCM at quad-sample rates. With a quad sample rate, it is trivial to use a gentle filter that won't ring. So now the advantage of "DSD" is gone and all you are left with are the disadvantages:

 

a) Massive amounts of out-of-band noise. The Scarlet Book filter removed enough of it so that it wouldn't damage your tweeters and it wouldn't freak out most amps and preamps, but there are still some that will make funny sounds when connected to an SACD player.

 

b) Restricted high frequency response. The S/N ratio of DSD at 100 kHz is less than -30 dBFS. Do you know of any music that has any energy at -30 dBFS at 100 kHz? No, because it doesn't exist. The usable frequency response of "DSD" is only 30 or maybe 35 kHz.

 

c) All new equipment is required to record and play back "DSD" as the modulation scheme is diffeent.

 

d) No manipulation of the signal is possible without converting the signal to PCM. Then it needs to be reconverted to "DSD", adding even more out-of-band noise. You can't even adjust the levels or do a fade, let alone EQ or add reverb or any other effects. It is completely useless as a recording format for modern music. The Sonoma workstation converts the DSD signal to 8-bit PCM, so probably less than 1% of all SACD's ever released weren't converted to PCM at some point in their production process.

 

e) The required equipment is expensive and requires new techniques. This has limited the amount of available material.

 

The bottom line is very simple. "DSD" was not designed to provide better sound for audiophiles. It was designed for one thing only -- to create a licensable format to replace CD so that Sony and Philips could continue to make money. That's all -- pure and simple. Fifteen years ago, Sony was still a powerhouse with a massive marketing machine and they were able to pull the wool over many people's eyes that should have known better.

 

In the meantime, PCM has gone to higher sampling rates, but the average digital engineer has no knowledge of sound quality nor human perception. So they continue to make the same mistakes that they've always made, ever since digital audio was commercialized. A brick-wall filter at 96 kHz sounds slightly less bad than one at 48 kHz, which in turn sounds noticeably less bad than one at 20 kHz. But none of the digital engineers had enough vision to realize that by going to quad-sample rates, that one could have all of the advantages of both "DSD" and PCM with none of the disadvantages of either.

 

Until now.

 

Go read the story at: The Fifth Element #78 | Stereophile.com

 

You can download a free MP3 or you can download the original 192/24 file for $5. One listener wrote this note to John Marks:

 

"This recording is a kind of revelation, in a way. *The only way I can express it is that it doesn't sound electronically recorded. *Not that it's the same as actually being there at the church, but there doesn't seem to be much of any kind of sound that I always associated with electronic recording of any kind. *I suspect Charlie is onto something with his QA9, but obviously you and the rest of your team have done very well, too. *The recording is one step better (whatever the heck one step might be) than Chesky's own recordings."

 

To which a highly regarded mastering engineer who owns a QA-9 noted, "Having worked with the Ayre QA9 as the capture ADC in the mastering chain here, I agree completely.** There is something about the QA9 that appeals to the ear with a sound that feels less processed and more natural.* If there exist subconscious reactions to digitally recorded music* that signal “digititus” to the listener they are absent here.* This may well be down to the zero feedback no coupling cap analog stage for all I know, but whatever is in the mix, the QA9 stands apart, IMO."

 

What I am trying to point out to you, is that unlike the (accidental at best, and faked at worst) "breakthrough" that "DSD" represented, that the QA-9 is a true breakthrough. If you haven't heard one, then you simply haven't heard PCM at its best. And making blanket statements about the technologies of PCM versus "DSD" are pointless, because they all depend on the level of execution used. There is nothing magic about "DSD" (which we have known for over a decade, ever since Sony revealed that the Sonoma DAW converted "DSD" to PCM).

 

Now we have shown the world how to get the sonic advantages that were part of "DSD" into plain ol' vanilla PCM, I think that in another ten years that the sound of almost all digital recordings is going to be much higher than it is today. Conversely, I seriously doubt that we are going to see the widespread introduction of "DSD" recordings anywhere, for all of the reasons noted above.

 

Best regards,

Charles Hansen

Ayre Acoustics, Inc.