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

[labjr]

I don't know what or how you listened, but I have the Police albums in vinyl, CD, (also inclucing some MFSL versions), and DSD. They're all good. But the DSD versions are clearly the best. Especially Synchronicity - it just sounds amazing.

 

Again, in spite of what's being written here, there are lots of Analogue Tape direct to DSD conversions. (The ABKCO Rolling Stones catalogue, for instance). Many of them are amazingly good sounding - IMO often better than the original LP.

 

 

Every Breath You Take - SACD sounded better than anything I've ever heard by The Police.

 

The Rolling Stones ABKCO collection on SACD is probably the best digital version you're ever gonna hear since everything else is transcoded from those "DSD masters".

[hifitubes]

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

 

+1

[Charles Hansen]

Agreed, whether the converter is using 1bit SDM or 4bit SDM, it's still SDM.

 

NOT ACCORDING TO SONY!

 

"DSD" is a made-up marketing term. Whoever makes it up gets to decide what it means. Sony defined it very specifically as 1-bit delta-sigma modulation with at 2.8224 MHz using 7th-order noise shaping.

 

THAT'S IT. IF IT'S NOT THAT, IT IS NOT DSD.

 

Furthermore they made a VERY big deal about why 1 bit was better -- perfect linearity, blah, blah.

 

They were VERY red-faced at the AES convention when they had to face Lipshitz and Vanderkooy and admit that the Sonoma worked in PCM!

 

Don't forget -- IF IT'S NOT ONE BIT -- IT AIN'T DSD!!!

[Hiro]

NOT ACCORDING TO SONY!

 

"DSD" is a made-up marketing term.

 

DSD is a marketing term, but SDM isn't and that's what a DSD recording actually is. If you play a 24bit PCM recording via 32bit PCM DAC for instance, it's still PCM, right?. The same holds true for 1bit and 4bit SDM, whether 1bit SDM or 4bit SDM it's still SDM.

 

If you play a 5.6MHz DSD recording via the Auralic Vega DAC the recording's sampling rate stays at 5.6MHz (128x SDM) during playback, it isn't downsampled to 2x PCM for example. That's what I gather from the review.

[Charles Hansen]

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

 

+1

 

You guys crack me up! :-)

 

Gordon Rankin and I came up with the "DSD over PCM" idea over four years ago. We got all excited talking about how easy it would be. Then we both said "Nah. It's not worth it to make a DAC for the 17 guys around the world that rip SACD's with their PlayStation 3's to their computers."

 

Now there are enough small companies making DSD downloads (and enough people drinking the Kool-Aid) that there is actually almost a reason to add DSD support. So we did.

 

If there are ever more than 100 titles world wide that are offered in DSD-128 we will probably add an upgrade for that. (In case you hadn't noticed, Ayre makes equipment that is upgradeable. That was the OP's thread topic.) In the meantime if you guys want to make buying decisions based on 7 obscure titles, because your perception of what you think the sound quality will be like is more important to you than the actual music to which you are listening, be my guest. It's a free country.

 

Cheers,

Charles Hansen

Ayre Acoustics, Inc.

[Charles Hansen]

PCM is digital, DSD is not, it is analog.

 

Wisnon,

 

I agree with you that implementation is important. And I am clear that the reason for your preference of DSD over PCM is exactly due to implementation. I am clear that properly implemented PCM sounds better than equally implemented DSD. Plus it has huge advantages in terms of an installed base, in terms of ability to process the signal, in terms of freedom from out-of-band noise, plus in terms of bit efficiency.

 

But I am also clear that DSD is NOT analog. Many of the problems with digital (whether 1-bit or multi-bit) are analog problems. For example, jitter is an analog problem. But DSD has no more nor any less freedom from those problems than does PCM. Analog is analog. DSD is digital. Even Sony never tried to get people to believe that (and they tried to get people to believe all KINDS of things about DSD that were untrue...)

 

Thanks,

Charles Hansen

Ayre Acoustics, Inc.

[Freann]

Some thread… Let’s debate DSD et al in other threads? Please.

 

 

On topic now.

Quick confirmation Mr. Hansen: will the upgrade be performed by the local agent, or will the agent have to ship the dac to the factory?

[Onkle Je]

Hi Charles,

 

Thank you again for taking time to answer us.

Allow me to reiterate my little question and, in the same time, focus this thread on QB-9 and its upgrade (even if the PCM/DSD debate is quite interesting) :

 

Do you have an idea of when the QB-9 DSD and the upgrade will be available worldwide (for instance, where I live, in France) ?

[Charles Hansen]

But that takes me back to the question of why your computer audio DAC is missing a key and desirable feature to be more broadly used? A remote control attenuator.

 

Hello 57,

 

Every system needs to have a volume control somewhere. If you are trying to simplify your system, in my opinion, it make s MUCH more sense to put the volume control in the amplifier rather than the DAC. In other words, use an integrated amplifier. I talk about this in great detail in this post:

 

RE: Ping Charles Hansen - Integrated amp question - Charles Hansen - Amp/Preamp Asylum

 

We now make two integrated amplifiers, at two widely differing price points. With either solution, you still have two boxes in your system, but putting the volume control in the amp has so many more advantages that I'm not sure that we will ever make a DAC with a volume control. But you never know...

 

This summer we will probably make a USB DAC + headphone amp that will (obviously) have a volume control. We will probably include some preamp outputs and this might serve your needs also.

 

Best regards,

Charles Hansen

Ayre Acoustics, Inc.

 

PS -- Why a gold top? It's seems to me a shame to cover up that beautiful curly maple with opaque paint. I'd go for the sunburst....:-)

Of course I'd probably also rather have a '60 -- my small hands like the thin necks better. I'll just have to sell the company helicopter....

[Charles Hansen]

Hello Wisnon,

 

This guy you quoted knows a lot about video systems. Apparently he doesn't know quite as much about audio systems.

 

Charles,

 

Miska and many other engineer types have said the same thing long ago. I also read similar on whatsbest forum:

---

 

You do have to watch for buildup of ultrasonic noise, though. Remember, for DSD-narrow the ultrasonic noise is the carrier. Every conversion in and out of the 1-bit domain carries a noise penalty; that's probably the reason that Scarlet Book specifies no more than 50% modulation for the analog signal going into DSD-narrow, in order to prevent clipping from added noise over several conversion steps.[/i]

 

The real reason that the modulation limit was set at 50% was because the 7th order noise shaper was unstable and would oscillate if pushed beyond a certain point. They keep making progress in this area. When noise shaping was first invented, they thought that a first-order shaper was the limit and that it was impossible to even go to a second-order noise shaper. By the time that they developed SACD, they were all the way up to 7th order -- although with some restrictions.

 

It seems like this is an area where progress continues to be made. I don't know what the order of the noise shaper in the ESS DAC chip is, but you can exceed 90% modulation with that device! That's a darned impressive achievement. I believe this also contributes to the fact that (depending on which filter is chosen for DSD signals) the Burr-Brown DAC chips have between -1 and -7 dB lower output when operating in DSD mode compared to PCM mode. But the ESS chip has the exact same output level with either type of input.

 

Thanks,

Charles Hansen

Ayre Acoustics, Inc.

[One and a half]

 

Do you have an idea of when the QB-9 DSD and the upgrade will be available worldwide (for instance, where I live, in France) ?

 

This thread started April 4. Now May 21 or wherever you live, and this question is not answered. I have no vested interest in the Ayre DAC, but sympathise with owners who do. There are many reasons why the question is not answered, for a sure bet, I'd put some money on the lead time of key parts which have yet to be made into reality.

[wisnon]

Cant you use software to upsample DSD64 to 128 and play it back via a compatible Dac?

[wisnon]

Wisnon,

 

I agree with you that implementation is important. And I am clear that the reason for your preference of DSD over PCM is exactly due to implementation. I am clear that properly implemented PCM sounds better than equally implemented DSD. Plus it has huge advantages in terms of an installed base, in terms of ability to process the signal, in terms of freedom from out-of-band noise, plus in terms of bit efficiency.

 

But I am also clear that DSD is NOT analog. Many of the problems with digital (whether 1-bit or multi-bit) are analog problems. For example, jitter is an analog problem. But DSD has no more nor any less freedom from those problems than does PCM. Analog is analog. DSD is digital. Even Sony never tried to get people to believe that (and they tried to get people to believe all KINDS of things about DSD that were untrue...)

 

Thanks,

Charles Hansen

Ayre Acoustics, Inc.

 

DSD is PDM, and if you play it back with s simple low pass filter you get music thru the speakers. If you do the same with PCM, you get hash. PCM is digitiallly enCODEd, hence the pulse CODE modulation. Class D amps could be referrred to as class DSD....or SDM we have just clarified in a recent thread here.

 

DSD64 is also bit efficient, in that it is 16/176 but is comparable to 24/192 to me and many others.

 

Perhaps its a question of semantics and if so, i will defer to you.

 

I was not aware of people ripping SACDs as long ago as 4 years???? I thought it was a 2011 thing.

[Miska]

It seems like this is an area where progress continues to be made. I don't know what the order of the noise shaper in the ESS DAC chip is, but you can exceed 90% modulation with that device! That's a darned impressive achievement. I believe this also contributes to the fact that (depending on which filter is chosen for DSD signals) the Burr-Brown DAC chips have between -1 and -7 dB lower output when operating in DSD mode compared to PCM mode. But the ESS chip has the exact same output level with either type of input.

 

It is a set of low-order modulators, you can check their Sabre WP for details.

 

I have found that it is possible to make almost any order stable, regardless of modulation level. It of course just won't go further and just clips. In any case I have constant watch of the output for the DSD 50% modulation spec and the output is limited there to avoid potentially nasty behavior from some DACs.

 

ESS has the same level for PCM and DSD because it processes DSD and thus has 6 dB gain compensation. Cirrus Logic DACs also have same level when their DSD processor is engaged, but when the DAC is switched to Direct DSD mode, output level is 6 dB lower as it should. Since it is different kind of output, there should be alternative analog stage switched in with different filter characteristics, plus additional 6 dB gain, so the gain should still stay the same.

 

(for best performance, PCM and DSD modes should have different analog stages)

[57gold]

Hello 57,

 

PS -- Why a gold top? It's seems to me a shame to cover up that beautiful curly maple with opaque paint. I'd go for the sunburst....:-)

Of course I'd probably also rather have a '60 -- my small hands like the thin necks better. I'll just have to sell the company helicopter....

 

It's a 1957, as old as me. Most GT's have plain maple tops, so not covering up figured wood, just the "secret technology" that made Gibson's first solid body have a depth of sound created by a hard, dense top (bright) and less dense (warmer) wood body. As a teenager, the best player around played one (along with Duane, Dickie and a few others). Same guitar as a Burst, but @ $100k less at the time I bought it. Like big round necks as much as I dislike skinny necks, even though I have smaller hands...also have big neck 1957 Jr, TV and 1958 Custom (photo in link), though the 1962 LP/SG in photo has a neck that is on the scrawny side, for me (my other mentor as a young player played and LP/SG Ebony Block).

 

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb118/57gold/LPFAMILY_0105.jpg

 

Like me, many folks have power amps that do a fine job making their speakers come to life, and aren't looking to get rid of them for an integrated amp. Amp technology has generally progressed at slower rate than DACs. Not sure why a high quality attenuator with a remote control to pad high quality output from a DAC is not an relatively simple task, but I'll read the paper.

[Axiom05]

Like me, many folks have power amps that do a fine job making their speakers come to life, and aren't looking to get rid of them for an integrated amp. Amp technology has generally progressed at slower rate than DACs. Not sure why a high quality attenuator with a remote control to pad high quality output from a DAC is not an relatively simple task, but I'll read the paper.

 

The same can be said for people who have high-end preamps that don't want a DAC with unneeded features & circuitry. Personally, I have been frustrated that just about every new DAC being released contains a full-featured preamp section. I just want a DAC, although it would be useful to have both USB & S/PDIF inputs to select from. If you have more than one digital source, you are out of luck with the QB-9.

[PhilipAC]

Hi Everyone

 

I've been following this thread with great interest, and have now decided to intercede.

 

To start with, I would like to say that I think it is remarkable that a CEO should be willing to contribute so fully to a thread like

this- so thank you Charles (I declare an interest- I have the Ayre KXR and MXR amps!).

 

To my mind, the thread has focused almost entirely on whether Margaux clarets are better than Pauillac (I say Pauillac!). I would like to put this into perspective (as I see it).

 

Taking everything between the DAC and one's ears as a given, I think the three overwhelmingly important factors in the production of great music are:

 

* the quality of the recording- I am still regularly amazed at the variation here

 

* the quality of the source (implementation, if you like)

 

* the use of some form of hi-res disc/file rather than 44.1/16.

 

In my experience, the form of hi-res matters far less, and will mostly depend on availability and whether one uses a transport or

a computer. In my case I accumulated about 700 SACDs because (especially recently) there has been such a wonderful supply of

both new and classic recordings of classical music, which is pretty much all I listen to. However I also have about 100 PCM

recordings which weren't available on SACD. Although I had a high-end SACD player, I found that the SACD sounded no better than

exactly the same recording played in hi-res PCM, and my CDs sounded better through the computer. So when the PS3 solution

became available, I sold my SACD player.

 

I am now about to take delivery of a new DSD DAC (a Lampizator Level 5), so soon I will be able to listen to my DSF files in DSD

rather than converted to 176 PCM by Audirvana +. I am sure they will sound just as good- maybe better, maybe not- who knows?

 

The key point is that hi-res PCM and DSD are both, other things being equal, much better than RBCD, and that what we each listen to will depend much more on hi-res availability of one's favourite music rather than any perceived differences between them, IMHO!

[57gold]

The same can be said for people who have high-end preamps that don't want a DAC with unneeded features & circuitry. Personally, I have been frustrated that just about every new DAC being released contains a full-featured preamp section. I just want a DAC, although it would be useful to have both USB & S/PDIF inputs to select from. If you have more than one digital source, you are out of luck with the QB-9.

 

Agree, that whilst folks continue with legacy technologies, like vinyl, CDs, FM radio...demand will exist for volume control less DACs. Those who need to amplify low output magnetic cartridges, alternate between sources requiring switching capabilities require a preamp and will dig a minimalist DAC.

 

Going forward, in a download and streaming environment in which all medium will be stored on an HD or the Cloud or some other server, guys like me who have ditched their preamps as unnecessary circuitry, switching, cables and arguably noise/coloration, will be looking for DACs that serve as the brains of the system. I use a Mytek to do this with multiple inputs and both analogue and digital remote volume control features.

 

I have admired the Ayre brand since I first heard one of their amps making great music from a pair of big Theil speakers, which I thought at the time sounded harsh, but the Ayre made them beautiful. A buddy has a pair of Ayre mono amps that are a work of industrial art and his system sounds (and looks) great. So, as I searched for a USB/FW capable DAC, the Ayre was the first one I listened to and I enjoyed its musicality...but, it was missing an important feature, to me.

 

I guess, it seems obvious, as a business man who is constantly selling and thinking about market dynamics, that those who do not offer DACs with a high quality remote volume control will be severely limiting the long term marketability of their products. Purists, who market to hobbyists wed to legacy technologies, well, will be selling to a subset of consumers, and that may work for a small business.

 

For the record, I'm a St Emilion man. Enjoy the wines, loved the town.

[beetlemania]

. . . There is a lot of confusion surrounding filters . . .

 

So the BIGGEST lie of all on this graph is that the bandwidth of the full record + PLAYBACK of a DSD system is no wider than that of a 96/24 system, let alone a 192/24 system. Furthermore, the presence of the third order filter in the player will cause visible ringing when a pulse is input into the system. As the filters are generally analog, this ringing will all be post-ringing.

 

The RECORD side of a DSD system generally has no filtering. So there is nothing to kill the music. The playback side has a bandwidth no better than a 96/24 system, although there will be less ringing than a TYPICAL PCM system. But if Sony hadn't LIED about the true transient response of the SACD system, it would look virtually identical to the 96/24 system, but with no pre-ringing -- only post-ringing. . .

 

Well, it is certainly possible to implement PCM in a far better way than has been done before. In our QA-9 A/D converter we use a delta-sigma modulator running at 256 Fs that puts out 6 bits. We run this through a low-pass filter to turn it into bog-standard PCM that can be used by any bog-standard DAW. BUT we don't use a brickwall filter. Instead we use a filter that give a frequency response very much like an analog tape machine running at 30 ips.

 

This filter has NO pre-ringing, NO post-ringing, NO ringing at all. So it has even BETTER transient response than DSD.

 

And since we are running at 4x the rate of DSD and with 6 bits (64 times as many levels as DSD), we have an information density that is 256x greater than DSD. This means that we can end up with a signal that not only has better transient response than DSD, but also has essentially ZERO out-of-band noise. And since it is bog-standard PCM, it can be used with any tools (hardware or software) that can handle quad-rate signal for any type of signal processing that is desired.

 

That was very educational - thanks, Charles!

 

One thing I'm still wondering about is the apparently lower noise floor for DSD thru' much of the audio band: dsd

 

I would think the difference would be inaudible, certainly less audible than the "out-of-band" HF noise that some can hear on DSD (eg, Barry Diament).

 

But, back to your post, it seems likely than the differences btw PCM and DSD reported by Michael Lavorgna are due to the filters used on the Korg and Mytek. It would be interesting to have him repeat the trial using files recorded by a QA-9 with playback by a QB-9.

 

At any rate, you've presented compelling evidence that there is nothing special about DSD - it's all about the filters.

[beetlemania]

Taking everything between the DAC and one's ears as a given, I think the three overwhelmingly important factors in the production of great music are:

 

* the quality of the recording- I am still regularly amazed at the variation here

 

* the quality of the source (implementation, if you like)

 

* the use of some form of hi-res disc/file rather than 44.1/16.

 

In my experience, the form of hi-res matters far less, and will mostly depend on availability and whether one uses a transport or

a computer.

 

I haven't yet heard "DSD" but I have heard SACD, and I have to agree with you. In addition to the filters, as described by Charles, it seems very likely the the handful of DSD titles have been well-recorded, which further confounds comparisons.

[PhilipAC]

 

guys like me who have ditched their preamps as unnecessary circuitry, switching, cables and arguably noise/coloration, will be looking for DACs that serve as the brains of the system.

I have admired the Ayre brand since I first heard one of their amps making great music from a pair of big Theil speakers, which I thought at the time sounded harsh, but the Ayre made them beautiful.

 

Re Ayre and Thiel, my KXR/MXRs drive a pair of Thiel 3.7s. I thin k Ayre and Thiel go beautifully together.

 

Re DAC VC, I agree in principle but I haven't yet found a DAC with VC which sounds as good as keeping the KXR in the system.

[57gold]

Re Ayre and Thiel, my KXR/MXRs drive a pair of Thiel 3.7s. I thin k Ayre and Thiel go beautifully together.

 

Re DAC VC, I agree in principle but I haven't yet found a DAC with VC which sounds as good as keeping the KXR in the system.

 

Funny, the first time I listened to the QB-9 was at a local dealer who just happened to have a rep from Ayre in the shop prepping for a demo night. It was totally random as I was not on any mailing list. So, the rep played some computer audio (Mac with Decibel, as I remember) through QB-9, KXR, and MXRs driving some Wilson Sophias, which had been recently updated. Played some Mark Knopfler that I know well, and it was very, very nice sounding. QB-9 was a new product so when I asked about volume control from the unit, the rep said I would have to get a preamp...I had to chuckle as he was suggesting a $18K preamp to control volume of a $2500 DAC...

 

Personal priorities, $18K is a couple of custom guitars or starting my third college tuition at $50k/yr...how I wish one of them went to UF. (Mr Hansen, if you like Les Pauls, check out Johann Gustavsson's Bluesmasters. Own the red S version on his sight...like the best Gibson ever made.)

[Charles Hansen]

DSD is a marketing term, but SDM isn't and that's what a DSD recording actually is. If you play a 24bit PCM recording via 32bit PCM DAC for instance, it's still PCM, right?. The same holds true for 1bit and 4bit SDM, whether 1bit SDM or 4bit SDM it's still SDM.

 

If you play a 5.6MHz DSD recording via the Auralic Vega DAC the recording's sampling rate stays at 5.6MHz (128x SDM) during playback, it isn't downsampled to 2x PCM for example. That's what I gather from the review.

 

Hiro,

 

What do you do for a living? Are you a student? What grade are you in?

 

The question you are asking make no sense.

 

"PCM" stands for "Pulse Code Modulation", which is a digital encoding system.

 

"SDM" stands for "Sigma-Delta Modulator", which is a type of analog-to-digital converter.

 

There are several other types of digital encoding systems. There are several other types of analog-to-digital converters.

 

PCM and DSD (really DSD is a specific type of PDM or "Pulse Density Modulation") are two different modulation systems that can be compared to each other.

 

Trying to compare PCM with SDM is like try to compare analog with a tape recorder. You can't compare analog to a tape recorder. You can compare a turntable to a tape recorder.

 

Why do you make so many posts when you don't even understand the basic fundamental points we are discussing?

 

I may not agree on every point with Miska or Peter St., but clearly these gentlemen are schooled in the subject at hand. You on the other hand are just spewing out random words that you have heard, with no understanding of what they mean. My recommendation to you is to refrain from posting until you have learned a little bit of what is actually involved. This is clearly not the case and everyone reading these forums can see it. You simply make yourself look foolish.

 

Regards,

Charles Hansen

Ayre Acoustics, Inc.

[Charles Hansen]

That was very educational - thanks, Charles!

 

One thing I'm still wondering about is the apparently lower noise floor for DSD thru' much of the audio band: dsd

 

I would think the difference would be inaudible, certainly less audible than the "out-of-band" HF noise that some can hear on DSD (eg, Barry Diament).

 

But, back to your post, it seems likely than the differences btw PCM and DSD reported by Michael Lavorgna are due to the filters used on the Korg and Mytek. It would be interesting to have him repeat the trial using files recorded by a QA-9 with playback by a QB-9.

 

At any rate, you've presented compelling evidence that there is nothing special about DSD - it's all about the filters.

 

Hello Beetle,

 

Well, there is a bit more than filters, but that has a lot to do with it. For example if you have a great converter, but then you analog circuit is just a bunch of cheap op-amps with gobs of feedback, it still ain't gonna sound great....

 

But ANDREAS????!!!!! He is a very smart guy. He builds nice equipment.

 

But I guess he has picked up some BAD habits from Sony and now tells lies in his presentation. BAD Andreas. Please don't tell any more lies!!! Sony has told too many already....

 

If you look at the figure on Positive Feedback (accomplice in telling lies), the graph is a LIE. The jaggedy curve is taken from an FFT of the noise floor of the output of the DSD modulator. This graph shows the noise in each little point of the curve. To get the broadband noise, you have to add the noise of all the points together (integration).

 

So if you look at a CD player you know it only has a BROAD BAND signal-to-noise ratio of ~96 dB, yes? So how do we explain this:

 

http://www.stereophile.com/images/1111Simfig11.jpg

 

This is an ordinary 16-bit CD player. But the noise floor of the FFT is greater than -140 dBFS!!!! (The spikes are the test signal of the 16-bit JTEST that should only be used to measure the jitter of an S/PDIF connection.)

 

It's because the broadband noise of all of those little "bins" of noise have to be added together. And when you add them together you get......(drum roll, please).........-96 dBFS. Groan...

 

So when ANDREAS showed noise floor of the FFT of the DSD system and compared to the BROADBAND NOISE of a 24-bit system, he LIED!!!

 

If you took an FFT the noise floor would drop (depending on how many points you took) typically around -50 dB. So the PCM system would be around -200 dB on the FFT noise floor that he used for measuring the DSD system.

 

NAUGHTY, NAUGHTY Andreas!

[wisnon]

Charles, whether we agree on everything or not, I would like to join the chorus to thank you for your time and patience in explaining your worldview. I think its great food for thought and think you are generous in nature. Kudos.