Jump to content
IGNORED

Looking for comparison: Ayre QB-9 to Weiss Dac2


Recommended Posts

Sorry for diverting from the original discussion but I wanted to reply to aljordan and I don't think there is an easy way to do this so that he or others who read his post can see my comments and inquiry.

 

I will add to and move my post to a new forum topic. In the past I suggested that Chris move certain posts as he felt prudent. I don't want to add to Chris's burden so perhaps if there is a way for readers to tag posts that should be moved, then either by consensus of the readers and the posters , the post can be moved automatically or by the author of the original post.

 

Aljordan, is the Fit-PC2 suitable for cMP/cPlay? The specs for the $399 Fit-PC2 XP HD are as follows:

 

* CPU: Intel Atom Z530 1.6GHz

* Storage: 160GB SATA hard disk

* WiFi: 802.11b/g

* OS: Windows XP Home SP3 with CyberLink PowerDVD codecs

 

Standard features:

* Memory: 1GB DDR2

* Display: DVI up to 1920x1080

* Audio: High definition 2.0

* LAN: 1000 BaseT Ethernet

* USB: 6 USB

* IR Receiver

* miniSD socket

* 12V power supply

* PN: FITPC2-C1600-H-W-XPC

 

Is this likely to be sonically better or worse than the small form Mac solution of iTunes + Amarra on a Mac Mini for $599+$395=$994?

 

Are there other small form PC options?

 

 

Link to comment

I had the Ayre QB-9 and the Weiss Dac2 on loan and I’ve just placed a order for the DAC2 from Coops.

 

Admittedly, I never had them on loan at the same time but I used my CD player as a benchmark. Both are good DAC’s but the DAC2 was clearly better to my ears using:

 

MacPro > ITunes > FW400 > AVI Lab Integrated > Spendor SA1 Speakers.

 

 

Link to comment

Barrows, If you have a need (or many hi-res files) for sample rates up to 192khz then the Weiss is the one for you. You wouldn't be disappointed with either choice sound wise. Silverlight & Clay, I'm doing this firewire adapter deal myself with an Audioquest 1394-1 6-pin to 4-pin firewire cable connected to my Mac Pro via a 4-pin to 6-pin adapter with noticeably better results. It made my system "quieter" as far as background noise which in return allows me to use a lower setting on my volume knob and I can hear individual seperation of instruments better with punchier low end. People can laugh but I have swapped between the Audioquest (4-pin to 6-pin) with the adapter and my Belkin Silver Pure AV cable (6-pin to 6-pin) and have always wondered why the Audioquest with a super cheap adapter provided an audible improvement; now I know why this is the case. Thank you silverlight!

 

david is hear[br]http://www.tuniverse.tv

Link to comment

David - that's great to hear. I'll be doing the same when I get the configuration setup tomorrow. I've put in a request to get a custom Fw800 to Fw400 cable made with the power pin pulled at the computer side (which avoids the extra connector and uses much better cabling) so will see if that also makes an improvement. Happy listening!

 

Link to comment

I guess this sort of fits here, as it involves both the DAC2 and the difficulties inherent in getting a head-to-head comparison between sources.

 

A friend of mine who is technically inclined and has pretty good ears recently set up a comparison in his own system (using both speakers and good headphones) with some DACs he had on hand. Using a custom-built switchbox and careful volume matching (multimeter at the outputs) he evaluated a Bel Canto DAC3, a Weiss DAC2 and a Mytek Stereo96 over a period of several weeks both non-blind and blind (with his wife doing the switching).

 

Non-blind, he marginally preferred the Bel Canto, which he felt had the lowest noise floor. Blind, he simply couldn't tell the difference. He eventually kept the Bel Canto because it was a bit cheaper than the Weiss and the Mytek, though apparently a serious value, is undeniably butt-ugly. :)

 

Link to comment

Switchbox? My experience leads me to believe that any kind of additional component is going to change the sound. I also am not fond of quick A/B testing to determine the differences amongst different (good) DACs, as these differences, though meaningful (to me) are often of a subtle nature. I believe long term listening is more revealing of subtle differences, and I definitely do not believe that blind testing is really helpful at all: IMO all blind testing does is put one in a position that is completely unlike listening for pleasure. By taking an analytical approach, one is removing the emotional response, and I do not listen to music to analyze it, so I do not think testing with an analytical approach is valid. I would find a more valid test would be to spend a few hours with one DAC at a time, listening to music I love, and judge performance by how involved with the music I get. Also I would suggest only trying to compare two components at once: determine the differences amongst two is hard enough, three at a time would seem nearly impossible to me.

 

SO/ROON/HQPe: DSD 512-Sonore opticalModuleDeluxe-Signature Rendu optical with Well Tempered Clock--DIY DSC-2 DAC with SC Pure Clock--DIY Purifi Amplifier-Focus Audio FS888 speakers-JL E 112 sub-Nordost Tyr USB, DIY EventHorizon AC cables, Iconoclast XLR & speaker cables, Synergistic Purple Fuses, Spacetime system clarifiers.  ISOAcoustics Oreas footers.                                                       

                                                                                           SONORE computer audio

Link to comment

Agree completely with both of your comments, Barrows. We do a fair amount of blind testing just to make sure we aren't fooling ourselves. But it does definitely add a stress factor that makes it more difficult to hear differences. It gets down to how our brains work. I've done a fair amount of study in the area of perception and have also practiced different forms of meditation. Between these two things I've been able to improve our testing methodologies.

 

The main improvement is that we usually don't need to listen to something for hours and hours before figuring out which is better. (If we did, it would take years to dial-in the final product!) By using meditation techniques, one can remove the stress factor that normally interferes with quick comparisons.

 

And in my previous paragraph, the "which is better" phrase is absolutely key. As you noted Barrows, if you try to compare more than two things at once, all you do is confuse yourself. Instead, the way to do it is listen to two and pick a "winner". Then the winner is compared to the next change and a new winner is selected and so on. In this way one can easily compare ten different things in only a day or two. Every once in a while it is instructive to go back and take the current "best" (the winner of all of the comparisons) and compare it to one of the early "losers". That way you can double check to make sure you weren't fooling yourself.

 

The other critical thing is to make sure that EVERYTHING else is ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL. Even using different inputs on a preamp will throw things off. The PCB traces on each input need to break in, and due to break-in differences or routing differences, or some other variable, there are ALWAYS slight sonic differences on each input. So instead if we are comparing two different sources we remove the first component from the rack and replace it with the second component and connect it up with the SAME power cord, interconnects, preamp input, and equipment "footers", in the same position on the same rack.

 

And finally, to reduce the problem of variability due to equipment break-in, we always run the sweep tone from the Ayre IBE disc between any change to the system. Assuming that the component is already broken in, just moving it and/or the interconnect cables causes things to "un-break-in" slightly. Normally it would take several hours of play (at least!) to get things back up to snuff. But playing the glide tone gets you 90% of the way there in just five minutes. (The other 10% can be mentally compensated for if you know what to listen for. That just comes with experience.)

 

Charles Hansen

Dumb Analog Hardware Engineer
Former Transducer Designer

Link to comment

That's why I termed it an anecdote, gents. Not trying to establish any first principles or (God forbid) reboot the whole blind/sighted controversy. Just a (moderately interesting?) story about one guy trying to decide what he prefers.

 

Can I ask though, Charles, how you balance the desire to get exact reproduction of the audio signal path with concerns about the persistence of aural memory? I know that some other folks like Sean Olive over at Harman have focused on the ability to swap key components (in their case, speakers) out very quickly -- the Shuffler can allegedly put new ones in and out in 3 seconds or so -- as the key to getting valid and dispassionate listening comparisons.

 

Link to comment

Hi Audiozorro,

 

I don't have a Fit-PC2. I am currently using the Slim. You might want to ask Ryelands at the PC Audio Asylum because he is in the process of building a headless CMP box using a Fit-PC2. As far as I understand, he is having very good results with sound quality. However, he is also having a display hardware or driver problem where the screen real estate under Windows is not usable when a monitor is not attached. He was using Free VNC Server and client to control the PC.

 

Anyway, I'm sure he will give you all sorts of feedback if you look him up on the Asylum. I was thinking of buying a Fit-PC2 as a low energy manner to host my music library on the network, but haven't purchased one yet.

 

Alan

 

Link to comment

If someone switched out your wife with another woman in the night and then you started kissing her in the dark, do you think you couldn't tell unless you had kissed your real wife three seconds prior?

 

Well, depending on the initial impression, I might take a little longer than strictly necessary to make the call. :)

 

Link to comment

"If someone switched out your wife with another woman in the night and then you started kissing her in the dark, do you think you couldn't tell unless you had kissed your real wife three seconds prior?"

 

You are absolutely right. It is easy to tell that my amp is the best when I kiss her. I don't need to kiss any other amp three seconds before. ;)

 

James[br]

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

I would recommend the following configuraion:

 

Go for a Bryston DAC BDA-1 and use its Toslink input to be fed from the MacBook Mini-Tosnlink output. I have done some comparisons with Ayre QB-9, Bryston DAC in my Bryston BP26 preamp Coaxial Inputs (using a Toslink to Coaxial converter). I have auditioned the Weiss Minerva with a Martin Logan Summit X and to be honest the level of detail, imaging, soundstage and quite similar!!!

 

Now I am using a simpler approach because I bought the Bryston external DAC BDA-1 and using the Toslink inputs directly from my Mac Mini Mini-Toslink output, then no conversion to Coaxil needed. All material is Uncompressed AIF coded. 400 CDs in my music server. 10 new CDs per month and counting!!

 

Now I am exploring to add higher resolution material.

 

I would say that any difference using USB, Firewire or mini-Toslink from the Mac Mini (using Ayre's DQ-9, Weiss's Minerva and Bryston's BDA-1) is merely based in personal tastes, cognitive and musical approach to the music.

 

I prefer bryston for simplicity, transparency, matching between preamp and DAC, imaging, soundstage and top to bottom coherence.

 

Best,

 

Jose

 

High End Stereo system: Mac Mini as Music Server, Sonos Wireless Distribution system, Bryston\'s External DAC BDA-1, CD Player BCD-1, Preamplifier BP 26 DAC module. 2x APC H15 power conditioners, 2x Classe\'s CA-M400 amplifiers, B&W 802 Diamond Speakers.[br]Home Theater System: Denon AVR 5308 CI, Jamo D7PEX 7.1 THX Ultra 2 speakers, Oppo BDP 83 Universal Player, Sony PS3, Rotel RMB 1095 and RB 1080. Panamax 5300 power conditioner.

Link to comment
  • 4 weeks later...

Regarding the Transporter I am sorry to hear that you base your decisions upon other peoples opinions. Like relying on your parents to find the right girl to marry ;-))

Always learned ýou schould find out for yourself what works for you.

 

I have a computernetwork at home consisting of two desktops, two laptops, one highend server and one small laptop being used as a remote near the music system. All music is stored on the server. Dvd's and Bluray are also played using the network. Images displayed via hdmi to the giant plasma in the livingroom (next to the office), audio through the Transporter to the set.

The set consist of: highly modified Musical Fidelity KW550, Dynaudio Confidence C4, two (yes 2) Rel Studio III subsystems, cd-player Northstar Sapphire, highly modified Lenco turntable with all the tweeks and goodies available, all cables reference line of Hidiamond from Italy.

I just tell you this so you know I seriously like and listen to music. Large orchestral classic work as well as opera, but also pop, reggae, female vocal, jazz and rock.

 

In this system the Transporter really stands its ground and I hardly use the cd-player anymore. Maybe it's not the best of the best, but what is that anyway. Nothing beats a visit to the the Concertgebouw Orchestra playing Mahler or Bruckner in the Concertgebouw or a live popconcert in the Heineken Music Hall, both in Amsterdam. But here's reality for you: If you are not willing or able to spend money to build a dedicated listeningroom of 300 sqr mtrs with a 6 mtr high ceiling and spending more than a million euros on a custom made musicsystem (like a friend of mine did, because he does have that kind of money) all you create in your listening room is a nice but weak image of reality. Seems you have a nice audioset. Do yourself a favor and try the Transporter.

Btw a friend of mine happens to be the distributor for de Ayre dac and I will try it. The only way to judge if a component works for you is by trying it in your system in your setting. That might mean you have to buy it. Forums will not enlighten you. If you don't like it you can always trade it in with your dealer or sell it in Audiogon.

 

Best regards from Amsterdam - Holland

 

dlw

Link to comment

dl:

 

I am well aware that the Transporter can operate via a hard wired network, sorry if my previous posts may not have addressed this feature. I have heard the Transporter, and also the very good sounding modified version from Dan Wright, but I have only heard these units in systems I was not entirely familiar with.

While I agree that a home audition is the best way to evaluate different products, one must accept the fact that it is not reasonable to audition every product on the market. My approach is to narrow the field as much as possible, and then to audition the products of the narrowed field. I have quite a bit of experience listening to different design topologies, and feel I am able to make relatively good evaluations in general as to the type of designs I am not really interested in auditioning.

I posted this thread in order to discuss the differences between the Ayre QB-9 and the Weiss Minerva/DAC2, not to open up the field to include all the other possible options. Regarding the Transporter in particular, last time I investigated it I found it was limited to 24/96 playback, and could not deal with higher data rates. The Weiss is capable of decoding up to 24/192, and I believe there will be an upgrade available in the not too distant future that will make the Ayre QB-9 also 24/192 capable. I definitely value the ability to deal with files of up to 24/192 data rates.

Regarding reviews and reviewers: I generally do not place a lot of stock in the experiences of most reviewers, but I do read certain online and magazine reviews, and find them helpful in making equipment choices in some cases. One must take reviews with a grain of salt though... It certainly helps if you know the reviewer in question, and have a good body of knowledge about the history of their reviews, and their biases; if you approach reviews this way, and learn to interpret reviews, they can be used to help one decide what they might like to audition. We probably all have had the experience of reading a glowing review of some audio product, where said product has sounded absolutely terrible in our own experience. Some of these differences may just be subjective, or they may be system matching problems: in my experience a specific line of highly popular and well reviewed DACs, while offering apparent high resolution, sound very hard, clinical, and without much musical value: it still mystifies me as to how some people actually use these to listen to music at home.

 

SO/ROON/HQPe: DSD 512-Sonore opticalModuleDeluxe-Signature Rendu optical with Well Tempered Clock--DIY DSC-2 DAC with SC Pure Clock--DIY Purifi Amplifier-Focus Audio FS888 speakers-JL E 112 sub-Nordost Tyr USB, DIY EventHorizon AC cables, Iconoclast XLR & speaker cables, Synergistic Purple Fuses, Spacetime system clarifiers.  ISOAcoustics Oreas footers.                                                       

                                                                                           SONORE computer audio

Link to comment

barrows:

 

Of course you are completely right about the limitations af the Transporter. The software though is very friendly for my family. My kids each have a Squeezebox boom in their rooms and also know how to select music in the living/listeningroom. I am also looking for a better solution, but the transporter, at least in my system, is not as bad a many people say. Most of them haven't heard it themselves or have a mediocre system and are just repeating what they read on the internet. I know very well what music can sound like for I grew up with a grandpiano and a violin and am a regular visitor of the Concertgebouw, which is still regarded being the best acoustical environment in the world together with the Sofien Saal in Vienna. So I am very well aware of the limitations in musical reproduction and I know what real music sounds like. I know enough so called audiophiles who have never visited a real concert. So what the heck do they know about music.

I am definitely going to try the Ayre, but I am waiting for the definitive confirmation that it will be able to handle 24/192 data. The Weiss is on my list and I would also like to try the Berkeley Dac.

If I can have my way I would like to keep the Transporter for its ease of use, but connect it to a really good dac. No idea if that is technically possible, though. Ideas on that?

Thank you for your reply.

d.l whitton

 

dlw

Link to comment

Gosh what a well constructed and reasonable post. It was good to read.

FWIW I have owned a Transporter and didn't care for it. Clinical in it's sound it was. No soul. I'm sure modded with a decent output stage it would sound very good. I preferred the DA10 I had around at the time.

I found it an average transport as well through spdif not bad through AES.

I did like the ease of use though. Nuisance having to have a server running in another room but apart from that it was very easy to use. IMHO etc etc

I have a friend who loves his so there you go - we all like different things.

I'm fairly certain the TP will always be limited to 24/96.

Cheerio

Andrew

 

Best Wishes

Andrew

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...