Ayre Acoustics QX-5 Twenty – The Digital Hub

[Charles Hansen]

On 3/25/2017 at 8:12 PM, beetlemania said:

Let me rephrase . . . in what way is a QX-5 better than a QB-9 for streaming?

 

Good question, Beetlemania!

As you've likely found out, when it comes to computer audio (which is still basically in its early years) almost everything that shouldn't make a difference in sound quality actually does make a difference in sound quality. This explains the existence of hundreds of different USB cables, USB re-clockers, USB filters, various music player applications that have differing sound quality, and on and on and on.

 

The reason why behind all of this is that there is no such thing as digital audio. It is all an abstract concept based on an abstract concept (mathematics). Instead what we call "digital audio signals" are really high speed analog signal (usually square waves) that have various methods of determining if the signal is supposed to represent a one or a zero. In other words, all of the problems with digital audio are actually analog problems.

 

Let's jump from this broad overview into your specific question about streaming. It turns out that to receive an Ethernet signal and extract the relevant audio data from the stream and send it to the DAC chip in a form that the DAC chip can understand requires a computer (microprocessor). As you correctly point out, almost any computer with an internet connection and a USB connection can perform all of the required steps to do exactly that. So from a strictly functional standpoint there isn't really much difference. However, there are at least two major advantages of the Ayre QX-5 compared to a computer + QB-9 when it comes to streaming:

 

1) One thing that has become apparent over the years is that when the computer handling the audio data has to do a lot of other work, it somehow affects the integrity (waveform) of the audio signal sent to the DAC. That's why there are many arguments about which OS is best for audio (OS-X, Window, Linux), what hardware sounds best (eg, SSDs vs. spinning disks) and things like that. With the QX-5 the "computer" is a small ARM-based chip running Linux. Linux is an open-source OS that is extremely modular. In the case of a streamer, about the only OS modules needed are one to connect to Ethernet, plus some miscellaneous "apps" that allow the "computer" to talk to the various streaming service and understand their protocols.

Unlike a laptop computer, there is no need to talk to hard-disk drives, keyboards, mice, displays, audio "engines" (eg, CoreAudio in OS-X and ALSA in Linux). In both Apple and Windows machines there is a way to look at all of the "background" processes and services. As I am typing this on my Win7 computer, I see that I currently have 35 programs running, 44 processes running, and 167 services running. It is an Intel i7 quad-core processor with 16 GB of RAM, so it can do all of these things and even stream music at the same time. And as you might imagine, the sound quality of a small, dedicated, low-power processor running just a few processes and powered by an ultra-low noise linear power supply is going to sound noticeably better than what I would get from my laptop.

 

2) The other advantage is that you do not need to have a computer in your listening room simply to run your audio system. You can use virtually any network-attached device to control the unit, select streaming services, choose music, create playlists, and so forth. No need to have a keyboard, mouse, and display next to your listening chair/couch - just a small device with a touchscreen. Most commonly this is done by plugging a Wi-Fi antenna dongle (supplied) into the back of the unit and using a smart phone or tablet to run the stereo system.

NB: This method requires that you have a Wi-Fi network in your house. There are two things to keep in mind. First is that sending the audio data across a wireless connection degrades the sound quality of any device noticeably. The second is that the long-term health effects of microwave radiation are not well understood but all signs point towards potential health risks.

The other way to control the QX-5 is with any device connected to your home network. Unfortunately this can be a bit of a challenge for modern smart phones and tablets, as they universally lack wired Ethernet connections. That brings you back to either using a laptop, or seeking out a smart phone or tablet that will accept a USB-to-Ethernet adapter and using (say) the tablet as a wired remote control. This is my preferred solution - the QX-5 can access audio data from any device that is running on your network (NAS drives, computers, streaming services) and then the tablet sits on an end table next to my listening couch/chair.

 

Hope this helps,

Charles Hansen

[Charles Hansen]

On 6/9/2017 at 6:15 AM, Vule said:

On the site they mentioned in Lit for QX-5 :Diamond Output stage. For the QX-8 is clearly written Double Diamond-Output stage. For the Integrated AX-5 as well Double Diamond-Output stage.Personally upgraded my AX-5 to Twenty and sonic difference has been obvious. You know well what in upgrade process has been included.

 

Ayre's proprietary version of a "diamond buffer" can supply plenty of current to run any line-level output, and even headphones. To get enough power from the Ayre Diamond output stage to run loudspeakers requires enough extra current in the circuit to make a power amplifier run noticeably warmer than is common. To solve this Ayre developed what is called the Double Diamond output stage for use in power amplifiers. (This was one of the changes between the original AX-5/VX-5 and the later Twenty versions of the same products - upgrades available.)

 

The info on the website is simply a typo. Current Ayre integrated amplifiers and power amplifiers all use the Double Diamond output stage, while the line-level devices (preamps and DACs) use the simpler Diamond output stage.

 

Hope this helps,

Charles Hansen

[Charles Hansen]

1 hour ago, austinpop said:

Hi @Charles Hansen

 

As a current Codex owner, the QX-5 certainly looks like a very attractive, if aspirationally priced, upgrade option. I would love to have a Roon-Ready ethernet DAC that can outperform my current USB network streamer/USB chain. However, I notice the QX-5 is more limited on the Ethernet input compared to USB as follows:

 

Hello AustinPop,

 

Yes you are correct that the Ethernet input on the QX-5 is limited ot half of the bandwidth of the USB port. This is due to the ARM processor used in the ConversDigital module used. While there are no specific plans at this time to change this, like all Ayre products, the QX-5 is designed to be as future-proof as possible. Not only is the small plug-in daughterboard from ConversDigital easily replaceable, but even the "support" mini-motherboard that supplies clocks and power to the daughterboard is replaceable.

 

I would imagine that it is just a matter of time before ConversDigital makes a new daughterboard module with a more powerful processor. If it turns out that a new "support" board is required (say with different clock speeds and/or voltages), then that board can also be easily replaced. This even allows Ayre to switch to a different Ethernet solution altogether if necessary.

 

And yes, I think you are in a very small minority of users in having a large number of DSD-128 and DXD files. In the meantime they work just fine with the USB input, just as they do on the Codex. Variations is sound quality between the two will largely depend on your external equipment. As we've all discovered, digital is no less sensitive than analog to things that shouldn't make a difference but often do. At the factory Ayre is currently using a Melco server into the QX-5's USB input and find it sounds better than using the Ethernet output of the Melco into the Ethernet input of the QX-5. That may simply be due to the fact that that is the general network for the entire facility, and not a dedicated audio network with audio-grade cables and audio-grade switches. But we are talking about pretty small differences here. I wouldn't kick either one out of bed. 

 

Hope this helps,

Charles Hansen

[Charles Hansen]

7 hours ago, Vule said:

Hi Charles,

Thanks for additional inputs and clarification re Diamond stage.

Expecting mine (QX-5/20/BLACK) to arrive next week.

 

Hi Vule,

 

No problem - our website could definitely be clearer about the various technologies Ayre has invented. Since nearly everything Ayre builds is based on a new technology, there is no other place to learn more about what is involved. In the meantime I will try to engage more on these forums.

 

Congratulations on the new digital hub. It's much more than a DAC, as it has 10 inputs (including both Ethernet and USB), has a 32-bit volume control that retains a full 24 bits of resolution all the way down to a level of -60 dB for use as a digital preamp, and has world-class headphone amplifiers with both balanced and single-ended outputs.

 

As with all products (especially Ayre) it requires some break-in time. Feel free to keep us posted on the journey and your comments.

 

Cheers,

Charles Hansen

[Charles Hansen]

3 hours ago, austinpop said:

But - entertaining as all the above is for tweakers like me - ultimately most people want simplicity, and if Ayre can deliver a DAC that sounds its best on the Ethernet input, and beats out digital transport chains like mine, that would be a compelling product.

 

Hi Austinpop,

 

There are three basic methods of transferring digital audio data - S/PDIF and variants (AES/EBU, Toslink, etc.), USB, and Ethernet. Modern implementations of the latter two are "asynchronous", whereby the master clock is in the receiver (DAC) and not the transmitter (transport or server). (This is not to be confused with "Asynchronous Sample Rate Conversion - ASRC - that always degrades the sound in my experience).

 

Asynchronous operation yields a marked improvement in sound quality due to markedly reduced jitter levels. You may recall that Ayre assisted Gordon Rankin of Wavelength Audio in developing asynchronous USB, and both companies co-launched the first products of those types many years ago, effectively jump-starting the PC audio revolution. Now Ayre has a patent-pending method to create an asynchronous S/PDIF input stage that works with any audio transport and doesn't require a proprietary system with an extra clock signal. The goal was to boost the performance levels of all three types of inputs such that they could all provide equally high sonic results.

 

With the clocking (jitter) problem solved, about the only thing that separates the sound of inputs is the associated equipment. Much of the differences in both Ethernet and USB inputs can be traced down to the implementation of the computers used - as you have so clearly found. At the factory we have had better results with a highly-tuned USB source than a sloppily executed Ethernet source. The new Stereophile that just came out today reached the opposite conclusion - likely due to the quality of the external computer connections.

 

If you don't mind selecting discs and inserting them one-at-a-time by hand into a transport, I've found that an S/PDIF variant provides the simplest route to the best sound of all. The only microprocessors built into CD players are small ones (4 bits in the earliest models!) to control the laser servos and the display. By using a TosLink connection one can achieve total galvanic isolation from the CD player and achieve superb results with very little fuss.

 

Of course then one no longer has access to playlists, metadata, Roon, direct downloads, streaming, and so forth - but it is the easiest way to achieve top-flight sound quality. With any computer setup, one needs to take great care to achieve the best sonic results.

 

Hope this helps,

Charles Hansen

 

[Charles Hansen]

18 minutes ago, d_elm said:

Hello Mr. Hansen,

    A number of people have found improved sound quality with a ethernet input when fibre media converts have been placed in the line right before the renderer and the very best power source used for the downstream FMC.  I am assuming this is about noise reduction on the wired ethernet into the renderer.  The downstream FMC does inject some noise into the stream as the ones I have use switching regulators.  Would it make any sense for the renderer to accept optical ethernet rather than wired and do away with the downstream FMC ?  I am thinking DAC sound is improved by all the methods to reduce input noise.

 

Hello Mr. Elm,

 

I also am thinking that DAC sound is improved by all the methods to reduce input noise. The problem with optical ethernet is that the input device is about 20x more expensive for optical than electrical (the last time I checked), plus it draws a considerable amount of power and would require a dedicated regulator and larger power transformers. That means adding a fairly expensive input on an already-crowded rear panel that perhaps one person in a thousand would use in today's world.

 

I would guess that in another 5 years or so such things will become more commonplace. In the meantime the best Ethernet performance would likely be attained by what you are doing - having a sub-network dedicated to audio data that utilizes fiber-optic isolation and is powered by linear supplies. Or as noted above, do a similar thing with a manual disc player and Toslink - and lose all the advantages of computer audio.

 

Hope this helps,

Charles Hansen

[Charles Hansen]

On 8/13/2017 at 4:59 PM, infonut said:

Hi @Charles Hansen:

 

When streaming Tidal through the QX5 would you expect better sound quality using your PC/Mac and Roon to control Tidal in the ethernet input?   Or would the sound quality be better keeping your PC/Mac out of the loop and stream directly from your router to the ethernet input and using the Mconnect as a controller?

 

Hi Infonut,

 

Good question, but I don't know the answer. I would suggest trying it both ways. The second scenario can't be simplified much, but the first scenario has plenty of room for "hot-rodding" the network to improve sound quality as noted by Austinpop. If you try it, please report back and let us know what you think.

 

Cheers,

Charles Hansen

[Charles Hansen]

On 8/13/2017 at 5:32 PM, Tecnik1 said:

I would like to thank Mr. Hansen for taking the time to contribute to the forum.

 

Im surprised to hear that Arye is using USB, I have spoken to Michael at Arye several times regarding my QX 5 and he said Arye uses Ethernet because it sounds better then USB and is one of the reason along with the great threads on this forum regarding optical ethernet isolation why I have gone this route. My whole ethernet is isolated , both FMC run off batteries which has improved the sound stage depth and tonal balance vs just the FMC closest to my Melcro/Dac. 

 

A side note the Melcro is vastly improved with it grounded to the Entreq via the USB 3.0. I did not detect any improvement on the Melcro using the chassis ground.

 

Hi Tecnik1,

 

I'm surprised that Michael said that the QX-5 uses Ethernet "because it sounds better than USB" - he may have heard that from other people's experiences but that is not why it was included. It was included simply because with regards to features, USB excels at certain things while Ethernet excels at completely different things. At this point I believe there are simply too many variables for anyone to flatly say either interface is definitely superior sounding to the other interface. Ayre has done everything possible to maximize the performance of all three families of interfaces.

 

I suspect that with an "average" set up, it is easier to get higher sound quality from the Ethernet input as all Ethernet ports have an isolation transformer right at the input. In contrast USB cannot be transformer isolated, so the Ayre products have the USB input board on its own isolated subsystem with isolated power supplies that connect to the rest of the circuitry via opto-isolators.

 

However there are many, many ways to improve the performance of both inputs. The USB output on the Melco far outperforms the USB output on any Mac or Windows computer I've heard. And it may be that a highly tricked-out, opto-isolated Ethernet source with linear power supplies on everything sounds even better still. As noted, my favorite sound comes from a disc spinner via one of the S/PDF variant inputs - but then one loses all of the advantages of computer audio.

 

But these are the kinds of problems that are nice to have - do I want it to sound really, really, really, really good or do I want it to sound really, really really really, really good? And don't forget about tweaking the rest of your system as well... 

[Charles Hansen]

On 8/13/2017 at 5:41 PM, Tecnik1 said:

A follow up question Mr. Hansen, you state at the factory you have obtained better results with a highly tuned USB vs sloppy executed ethernet, why hasn't Arye spent the same time developing a highly tuned ethernet ?

 

Hi Tecnkik1,

 

The Ethernet input is made to the highest possible performance level currently available. The Ethernet system at the factory is designed to connect 20 or so computers to the server and internet router. We don't currently have the need to evaluate the "world's best" network implementation at this time. The broad-band router is ~200' from the audio system. I don't listen to streaming personally, and the state-of-the art peripheries for both Ethernet and USB are still changing at a rapid pace.

 

Plus often it doesn't matter. In many cases the installation of the system in your home will determine whether USB or Ethernet will even work in your application. Then you gotta dance with what ya' brung. 

 

Hope this helps,

Charles Hansen

[Charles Hansen]

On 8/15/2017 at 6:19 PM, Ultrarunner said:

I prefer the USB input on our QX-5, but only because I have an ultraRendu connected to it with a short USB cable.  I was planning to eliminate it and just use the Ethernet input, but in this system the Ethernet connection doesn't sound as good.  I'm using Roon and Spotify Connect, on the ultraRendu.  Perhaps if I had a better quality server and optical Ethernet, the differences would be reduced.

 

Hi Ultrarunner (don't want to give away your real name),

 

Yes, it is impossible to make absolute judgments, as there are so many variables. JA preferred the Ethernet, yet you and I preferred the USB. I'm pretty sure it all comes down to what Austinpop says:

 

2 hours ago, austinpop said:

1. For those that are interested, have a look. But the key point is this - even with DACs of very high quality, and even when using the so-called asynchronous USB connection, everything still matters! 

 

As crazy as it sounds, I've found almost nothing that doesn't make a sonic difference (to a trained listener with a good system listening to music they are familiar with). There are times when the differences are so small that it may not be worth worrying about. Then there are other times when a dozen tiny differences add up to a significant overall difference.

 

As I said, I'm unsure as to what the ultimate limits are with either Ethernet or USB. The only thing I can say is that Ayre has a patent-pending asynchronous circuit on the S/PDIF (and variant) inputs that makes it virtually immune to everything - especially if you use Toslink and have complete optical isolation of the source. That is worth having just as a reference (naturally it is then no longer a computer audio system!). In the system at work the Melco into the USB is very, very close to the S/PDIF - but not quite there yet. I'm sure that some of the hot-rod tricks AustinPop would bring it closer. Would it ever get all the way there? Would the Ethernet ever get all the way there, even all tricked out?

 

I honestly have no idea, but as noted it's nice to have a simple reference in the form of a CD player with an SPDIF out (or just a transport). We tried several different players with several different connection methods and all of them were much closer to each other than the changed heard simply by changed music player programs or file formats. If you want to get a taste of how good your computer audio source is, try comparing it to a CD transport/player connected with Toslink. (Be sure to disconnect all of the computer gear from both the system and the AC to ensure there is no noise injection when listening to the S/PDIF, and conversely to disconnect the CD player/transport from the system and the AC when listening to the computer source. Otherwise you may just be hearing the effects of other noise injection mechanisms - even though Ayre does everything possible to minimize their effects.)

 

I haven't finalized my plans for RMAF, but typically am only there one or two days for a few hours at most. There is some rumblings of a panel discussion, but you never know... 

 

Cheers,

Charles Hansen

[Charles Hansen]

11 hours ago, ctsooner said:

Wow, just so much great info.  Is there anyway to do a cliff note to set up?

 

Ayre tried to do this with USB when the QB-9 asynchronous USB DAC was introduced. It was thorough enough that some other manufacturers of async USB DACs actually made links from their website to our website. The problem is the rate of change.

 

Within a year, changes had been made to operating systems and music player programs so that the screen shots were not representative of what would be seen by a current user. We've updated it a few times, but those two parts alone almost make up a full-time job. By the time you start adding in things like filters (eg, AQ's JitterBug), reclockers (eg, UpTone's Regen), optical isolation (which we addressed at one point for USB, but the company that make optical USB adapters - designed primarily for extending the range past 3 meters electrical limit - has changed their models since), it would become a full-time job to stay abreast of all the things out there.

 

Many "upgrades" turn out to be fads - like the green pen for CDs. (Yes, it helped most CD transports slightly, but the trouble-to-audible gain ratio was not even close to make it worth recommending.) The only thing I can say with some degree of confidence is that electrical noise appears to be the single biggest problem. (As I've said many times before - all of the problems with digital audio are actually analog problems.)

 

At Ayre we do everything we can to make our products as immune to noise as possible from all input ports (which includes the AC power line). Our engineering team does everything possible - use opto-isolators , filter whenever possible (it can have adverse sonic effects, especially when overdone) pay very close attention to ground return currents during PCB layout, and many other things including trying to run everything in the entire unit from the digital audio master clock.

 

In the latter case there are times when it is much easier to run the master control microprocessor from its own asynchronous clock located a few mm away from the chip rather than run the master audio clock halfway across the unit. But whenever we do that we put the micro to "sleep" (turning off its clock) when it is not being used (to change inputs, change volume levels, and things like that).

 

But there are other cases when some things are simply unavoidable. One is for USB the fundamental operating frequency is 12MHz (or a multiple thereof). That frequency has essentially no relationship to any CD-based source (44.1kHz and multiples) although it does to a video based source (48kHz and multiples). Then there is Ethernet, which is based on a a 25MHz clock (or multiples thereof) which has essentially no relationship to any digital audio frequency.

 

As with the main system microprocessor Ayre tries to shut down any unused clock to avoid problems with internally-generated RFI. Layout and shielding helps a lot - the main digital PCB in the QX-5 Twenty is an 8-layer design. That is the minimum number of layers one can use and still attain top-quality signal integrity and still maintain a large degree of freedom in the "ease of layout" department. It is possible to use 4 or 6 layers on very simple layouts, but only if one spends a lot of time trying to juggle opposing design constraints. By the time one gets into BGA (Ball Grid Array) packages - almost mandatory for modern high powered FPGAs, DSPs and microprocessors. 8 layers is something of a minimum, and 12 or more layers are not uncommon. I've seen digital audio PCBs for multi-channel digital audio (professional mixers and the like) that have as many as 20 layers.

 

It all boils down to the age-old rule: Performance, features, price. Pick two.

 

Back to your original question, Austinpop linked a thread that should be very helpful for optimizing Ethernet-based solutions. Also there is a wonderful website run by a gentleman in Switzerland (I believe) that is an invaluable source of information on almost everything related to computer audio:  http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/

 

Even it he doesn't have all the answers, he keeps up with all the trends and gives links to additional sources of information.

[Charles Hansen]

3 hours ago, ctsooner said:

<=Blown away.  Thanks for sharing. I understood isolation and layout, but that's about it. I'm sure others get it all.  Just amazing and very cool.  I listen to a ton of gear as Alex knew.  I'm constantly out listening and have been blessed to be able to get a nice system that I never thought I'd be able to afford.  I chose your gear because of how it sounded and not because I liked my dealer (I have bought from two different Ayre dealers) and felt I should buy from him only as many will do.  I guess I should ask, if the QX already has optical isolation built in, is an external isolation needed? It seems like it wouldn't hurt it at all and it's not the most expensive thing.  

 

As for USB, I"m using a simple AQ Diamond cable and it sounds great.  What are the tweeks some are doing with USB and why?    I guess that's for the board too.  I'm trying to understand all the Regen and Sotm gear and why folks are doing it.  Pete 

 

Hi CT,

 

Inside the unit it is difficult to create total isolation, as just the physical proximity of the components creates some small amount of stray capacitance. For example two bare parallel copper wires, 1/10" apart and 4" long with no insulation (best case scenario) will have about 1 picoarad of capacitance. (A picofarad is a million times smaller than a microfarad, so it is a very small amount of capacitance indeed.  But at high frequencies (as found in modern digital audio) even teensy-tiny capacitances can couple unwanted noise. For example the master audio clock in the QX-5 runs at approximately 100 MHz. Since it is a square wave, it will have strong harmonics out to the GHz range. At 1GHz even our example short wires space fairly far apart will couple with an impedance of only 160 ohms - enough to let in some noise. If you have Wi-Fi running at 2.4 GHz (the exact same frequency as your microwave oven - what genius came up with that idea?) then 1pF of coupling will only provide 66 ohms of isolation.

 

That's why its nice to have external optical isolation. There's simply more room to physically separate the devices to be isolated and the isolation can be much more effective. It's kind of like turning back the clock 50 years when it was easier to get more performance from "separates" than a receiver. In those days a receiver had a phono stage (lower gain as low output moving coil cartridges  were extremely rare, but still typically 54dB at low frequencies, power amps had massive power transformers to deliver 50 or 100 watts per channel, and built-in AM/FM tuners created internal sources of RFI - they had RF oscillators running at around 90 MHz to beat with the incoming FM signal to create a 10.7MHz "intermediate frequency". Putting all of the various noise sources (some RFI, some stray magnetic fields at the power line frequency) allowed for better overall performance.

 

Modern "all-in-ones" often have lower performance for many of the same reasons. Adding digital anything (whether DACs or displays) to an otherwise analog box is putting a source of RFI right inside the unit itself. Big power amps still require big transformers which create stray magnetic fields that contaminate low-level phono circuits - but many of them hide it by using switching power supplies. Now the "hum" is at hundreds of kHz where it cannot be heard directly - but may still cause audible degradation.

 

As always the old rule: "Performance, features, price. Pick two." still applies.

 

As far as USB cables go, I'v always been a fan of the Cardas Clear. I've not heard it, but am told the the Clear Ultra (at twice the price) is actually worth it. Either way I would give it a shot. I think you work with John at Audio Connection and he should be able to get you one to try out.

 

Cheeers,

Charles Hansen

[Charles Hansen]

6 hours ago, ctsooner said:

I also am going to be ordering some of your footers.  Is there a special place to place them under each component?  Sorry, don't mean to hijack the thread, but often times the dealers don't fully know about set up for accessories.  Thanks.

 

Hi CT,

 

I've tried all kinds of footers over the decades. The first common ones were the Mod Squad Tip-Toes - conical aluminum things. When they first came out in the mid-80s, I honestly couldn't hear any difference, but my then-partner at Avalon Acoustics, Neil Patel could correctly identify brass versus aluminum cones - blind. I was trying to trick him and I couldn't. After about 10 tries with perfect guesses, I said, "Let me try something." I went an grabbed a machinist's 123 block which is a piece of steel exactly 1.000" x 2.000" x 3.000". The cones I were using were also 1" high so I could substitute a steel rectangle.

 

Then  I really thought I would trick him. I used two brass cones and would move all of the cones and blocks each time so he couldn't tell by the sound. The third footer was the steel block and the test device was a one-box CD player. I started out by putting the steel block underneath the transport of the unit. My partner said, "That's really weird, what did you do?" I wouldn't tell him but he said it kind of sounded like the brass cones but something else had changed in the sound stage. Then I shuffled them all around again and put the steel block underneath the power transformer.  He said, "That sounds completely different than anything else you've done." The bass got much more powerful.". Finally I shuffled them and ended up with the steel block underneath the section of the player that had the analog circuitry. He said, "That is completely messed up. It sounds like the sound stage is twisted and and everything is bent out of shape."

 

No matter what I did, the guy could hear it. It took me another 5 years of listening to get to where I could hear those same kinds of differences. Nowadays, my go-to footers for everything except speakers are wood blocks. Cardas makes some for Ayre - plain for under components, large notched ones for under power cords and speaker cables, and small double-notched ones for interconnect pairs. I always put three under every single component I have. It's best if the block goes between the shelf and the metal bottom of the unit so that the stock feet are hanging in the air. I've never tried optimizing the location (don't have the patience) but always make a triangle with two of the blocks along the heaviest edge. If any of your equipment is on carpet, I always put down a sharp spiked cone (my favorites are stainless steel) and then put a wood block on top of that (except for loudspeakers - then I just use stainless cones alone.

 

But just as important is to get your cables (interconnect, power, and speaker) off the floor - especially if your floor is carpeted, but it even helps with hardwood floors (don't ask me why). The difference between a fully blocked system (including all cables) and an unblocked system is scarily obvious. If you don't want to spend money experimenting, just buy the kid's game called Jenga. You get 50 blocks for $20 new, and I've bought 50 used ones in a bag for $2 at a garage sale. They don't sound quite as good as the golden ratio myrtle wood blocks, but they are at least 3/4 of the way there. The biggest pain is the cables. Without the notches it can be really hard to make the cables stay on top without sliding off. But it's a super cheap and easy way to see if you like them.

 

Compared to Jengas they are expensive, but compared to other footers they are silly inexpensive. If you don't like the Jengas, just give them to the neighbor's kids. Either way, feel free to report your findings.

 

Cheers,

Charles Hansen

[Charles Hansen]

On 8/18/2017 at 10:53 PM, ctsooner said:

great reply.  It's funny as I told Johnny to order a bunch for me, but I work with wood on my good days and when my buddy Al is over (I won't use power equipment anymore without full supervision, lol).  I will just cut up some 8/4 maple I have and make enough blocks for all my components and then cool risers for the speaker cables and power cables.  I don't have any interconnects on the ground, so I should  be set there.  

 

I stil have some mod squads down with my Krell Steath DAC from the 90's, lol.  I just sold my mod squad passive preamp also. I assume they were the same company.  I forget, lol.  

 

If you want to make DIY wood blocks, the dimension we use are 5/8" x 1" x 1-5/8" (all golden ratio). The wood species used has a significant effect on the sound quality - just as it does on musical instruments. (I know this all sounds like mumbo-jumbo, and I don't blame people for being skeptical, but I am giving away free information , so take it or leave it - this all comes from many scores of man hours and listening tests.) If you want to complain, please do me a favor first and buy (or borrow) some Jenga blocks and try them out as noted above before posting opinions based on nothing but theory.

 

The harder species (eg, maple, ebony, rosewood) will tend to sound to sound brighter and clearer. The softer species (eg, mahogany (true Honduran mahogony, "Philippines mahogany"- which is not even in the same family and is correctly called "lauan", alder) will sound softer and warmer. Jenga blocks are made in China (surprise!) and are usually elm - it depends on what they have on hand that day (if I recall correctly - I contacted the company some 15 years ago to find out). My best recommendations are:

 

1) Myrtle - it has a very complex grain structure much like a burl that seems to distribute the resonances and sound the most even from the lowest frequencies to the highest frequencies.

2) Honduras  mahogany - it is overly warm and rich, but better that than maple (yes I know there are several sub-species of maple) that tends to sound lean and bright - to the point of hardness.

3) Hickory - is used in many applications where a combination of stiffness and vibration absorption is required (eg, baseball bats). It sounds spectacularly good in the short term, but after a few days one tends to tire of this. Perhaps the best choice to show what a difference wood blocks can make.

 

Cutting the "V" notches to hold the cables on tiny pieces of wood can be tricky! Be careful and don't lose any digits - it's definitely not worth it.

 

Have fun,

Charles Hansen

 

PS - Yes that was the same Mod Squad. Steve McCormack started it with his wife Joyce Fleming and at first they made accessories and modified equipment. After many years of modifying gear he decided to build power amplifiers. At some point he hired Dave Reich (originally of Classe, hence the DR-3 and DR-6) to help with design. The whole thing imploded when Steve and Joyce divorced as there wasn't enough money left after the divorce to continue the business. Dave Reich then went to Theta Digital, taking over the amplifier designs I had created for them (the Dreadnaught, with all subsequent variants based on my design but Neil Sinclair refusing to pay even partial royalties on those. ATI purchased Theta Digital many years ago and I believe Dave still works there.

[Charles Hansen]

7 hours ago, ctsooner said:

Cool story.  I only knew of your background going back to Avalon.  I didn't realize you started out with Theta. Not surprised as I liked their great a lot and I loved Avalon (couldn't afford it). I used to listen to their stuff when I had work in Pasadena as a great store down Colorado Ave I think it was. That was in the early 90's so my memory isn't the best. lol.

 

As for wood, I greatly appreciate that info. I would have asked Johnny to make the measurement for me as I realize how important that is.  I took up woodworking about 7 years ago, after the Transverse Myelitis/MS.  I have been blessed to have some great instructors including Mike Peckovich who's the art director at Fine Woodworking magazine.  I have a full shop with a SawStop cabinet table saw etc...  I have a nice V groove router bit that I may use.  I'll just ask my wood guys if they can get the Myrtle wood and if not, I have plenty of the Honduras Mahogany in the shop.  I also have a close friend who is always in the shop when I'm using power tools as safety is always first and foremost! 

 

Thanks so much for sharing.  I promise you won't find MY blocks anywhere, but in MY system.  First though, I"m designing and building a new headphone stand for my new ZMF Ori's (with Bocote cups) that are stunning in sound as well as looks, lol.  

 

I have heard your ref gear with and without your blocks and have heard the difference.  Very subtle, but very noticeable all around.  

 

Hi CT,

 

Just to clarify I never worked at Theta. In the late '90s when home theater was getting big, they realized they could make a lot of money with power amps, as they already had the world's best sounding surround-sound processor. All HT customers like to get all of the equipment from one manufacturer, so Theta had a readyy-made market. They just didn't have someone who could design it for them. They were planning to use James Bongiorno and run an ad "What does Theta know about building power amps? Nothing - that's why we hired a legend."

 

The problem was he was a year behind schedule, 50% over the target budget, and they weren't happy with the sound of the prototype. I told them I could do the job on budget and deliver a prototype in 90 days. I did it, they loved the sound, but it took them about 9 months to release it. When they did it was a hit, receiving rave reviews an spawning a whole series of amps based on that circuit.

 

Have fun building the wood blocks. Don't forget to finish them as that also affects the sound quality. I like plain tung oil.

 

Cheers,

Charles Hansen

[Charles Hansen]

7 hours ago, ctsooner said:

Here are pics of a knife rack I did, a Japanese Kimiko toped box and a Sidney Barnsley, hayrake table and matching chairs I made out of quarter sawn  white oak.  I promise you that I won't lose any digits :)....I do thank you for mentioning that though as way too many folks try to do intricate work with wood and injure themselves.  I've seen it with many older craftsmen who rush. No such thing as too careful when using power equipment.

 

WOW! Gorgeous work. I used to make lots of things out of wood, but never any "fine woodworking" like that. The closest was Avalon, but that was all just veneer. Chairs are one of the hardest things, so hats off to you!

 

Cheers,

Charles Hansen

[Charles Hansen]

1 hour ago, Gyp48 said:

Apologize for going in a totally different direction here.  Can anyone tell me if the headphone amp section of the QX-5 will adequately drive more demanding headphones, e.g. the Abyss and LCD 4?  Thanks in advance any help.

 

Hi Gyp,

 

It looks like CT was able to answer the subjective part. From a technical standpoint, he is correct that we went all out on the headphone amp. It has both balanced and single-ended outputs, uses a class A Diamond stage with a very low output impedance for good current delivery, yet also enough voltage swing to drive insensitive and/or high impedance studio cans. I've often joked that it would likely be a good way to drive some full-range horn loudspeakers.  (Probably not the best way, but it would be an interesting test!) There is a switch on the front panel that selects between the line outs and the headphone outs.

 

Hope this helps,

Charles Hansen

 

EDIT: Oops, I forgot to mention zero feedback, just like everything Ayre makes. Also true DC coupled - no servos or anything.

[Charles Hansen]

14 minutes ago, Gyp48 said:

Thanks CT and Charles for the great info.  I have been following forums and reviews for many months now, and the QX-5 seems to be exactly what I am looking for.  State of the art DAC, great streamer with Roon endpoint being a major plus, and now I now it has a very strong headphone amp as well.  I believed it is exactly what I have been looking for.

 

While this newbie to digital audio has your attention, can you comment on the merits of the Music Vault line of servers for the QX-5?

 

Thanks so much!

 

 

Hi Gyp,

 

Thanks for the kind words. There is so much more versatility with the QX-5 than just a "digital to analog converter" that we chose to call it a digital hub. For people with headphones, it is the only component you need. It can stream music from Qobuz, Tidal, Deezer, and Spotify. It can play back any music files on your network, whether on a NAS or another computer. You can plug a thumb drive into the back with music files. (Not a USB hard drive yet - the files structure is more complex.) Ten inputs digital inputs, a volume control that maintains 24 bits of resolution down to -60dB, Roon ready, streaming, and a top-of-the line headphone amp means it is about the source component needed for a digital system.

 

As far as servers, the only ones I have experience with are the Melcos. I have heard a lot of good things about Small Green Computers, and there should be another company making an announcement at the upcoming CEDIA. Sorry I can't be of more help - it is a field that is changing so quickly that the forums are probably the best place to get information - I sure can't keep up with everything.

 

Hope this helps,

Charles Hansen

 

 

[Charles Hansen]

2 hours ago, jabbr said:

Optical ethernet uses an SGMII input and if there is a high speed input on an FPGA, the SFP cage can be hung directly off the LVDS input ... assuming there is room on the FPGA for the logic modules. The SFP cage can accept either a copper or fiber input module. Yes they are more expensive but really cheap on ebay and older 1Gbe modules aren't that bad new.

 

Actually they draw less power than copper Ethernet typically.

 

I use the Clearfog Base as an NAA -- direct fiber in and USB out and its ~100 or so.

 

Hi Jabbr,

 

Thanks for the great information. I've been looking at optical Ethernet for a long time (for obvious reasons) but had no idea that there was much demand for that from customers. Linn and Naim have made Ethernet more or less the standard in Europe, but the rest of the world has pretty much standardized on asynchronous USB for a long time. I didn't want to release a DAC until we could include Ethernet as in the long term I think it will be a more flexible solution for most situations, but Ayre doesn't have the capabilities to develop a Linux-based Ethernet system in-house. The first thrird-party to offer a solution that made sense to us was ConversDigital and is distributed in the US by the ESS distributor.

 

I still think that USB is the ideal solution for adding high quality music playback to the computer where you do your work. Just plug in a Codex and a pair of headphones or desktop speakers. Your control point is at your fingertips and there is no need for anything more complex or flexible. Streaming is built into the computer, plus you can watch DVDs and streamed movies with killer sound. But Ethernet can do multi-room and whole house, plus make for a cleaner install in the listening room - just don't use Wi-Fi for the audio data or the sound quality will degrade.

 

Ayre will keep looking at the optical Ethernet and see how to migrate to that in the future.

Thanks,

Charles Hansen

 

[Charles Hansen]

10 minutes ago, Gyp48 said:

Thanks Charles,

To ensure I understand correctly:  With the QX-5 being a Roon endpoint I would be able to use Roon with a Melco so long as I had Roon Core on a machine somewhere on my network?  Thanks for helping the beginner here.

 

Sorry Gyp, the Melco servers don't work with Roon. You can use almost any UPnP app, and apparently the best one for Melco is one recommended in a recent Hi-Fi News, and Melco owners get a 20% discount $40 instead of $50 but I can't remember the name of it. Bubble UPnP is free but the version I saw was only good for tablets (not smart-phones) as you ideally want a larger screen to look at two columns of information while choosing songs. I just went to the Melco website and they are updating their products too frequently for me to keep track of. First was the in version 3.0 you could just plug a USB CD-ROM drive in the back and rip directly to the Melco and it would even add meta-data. Now it looks like there are ways  to use the Melco with streaming services (I'm unsure if that is only the 2nd generation units.)

 

You do need a Roon Core somewhere on your network to use Roon. It is a powerful application and requires a 64-bit OS, like Win 7 or later, OS-X after 10.4 (very old!),  or 64-bit Linux - a few NAS drives are like this with Roon Core already built in.

 

Hope this helps,

Charles Hansen

[Charles Hansen]

7 minutes ago, ctsooner said:

I was told by someone who has a Melco that yes you can put the Roon core server on the network and use it with the Melco.  I am not sure how to do that, but he said it was easy and even put a graphic on the post.  I forget which site that was.

 

There ya' go - I told you it was hard for me to keep up with everything! It appears that you can use Roon with the Melco. I'm not sure if this is a Roon update or a Melco update or both. I would check out the Roon forums and do a search. For Melco the US importer is The Sound Organization, and they have outstanding support. They have a lot of lines and the Melco expert lives in the San Francisco Bay Area, David Carr.

 

Thanks,

Charles Hansen

[Charles Hansen]

5 hours ago, bluebeat said:

Now you can custom order the QX-5 Twenty to perfectly fit the needs of your system and save money! We now have four options for you to choose from. All of these options include the ability to use the QX-5 as an 8 input digital preamp

 

Sorry, there is a typo in the press release here. The base model has 8 inputs. Each of the computer based inputs obviously adds another input, for a maximum of 10 inputs.

 

1 hour ago, barrows said:

It is great that Ayre is offering these options!  I get it that the USB input is probably a daughter board to the ("standard") SPDIF/AES input board, but when I first saw the QX-5 I was wishing for a USB only version (like the QB-9).  Maybe there would not be enough demand to justify developing a single USB input PCB though...  I always suspect input switching of digital signals is a potential point of loss and prefer KISS, I loved the QB-9's elegant approach, but I also realized Ayre lost sales because of its single input.

 

Actually the way that the digital input switching is handled results in zero loss of audio quality. Ayre is extremely careful about things like that. The only reason that the base version includes the S/PDIF (and variant) inputs is simply the way the PCB is laid out. All of those inputs require a ton of panel space, and the rest of the circuitry needs that size of a PCB. The original reason to make the Ethernet and USB inputs as separate daughterboards was simply the same reason that we did on the QB-9 - we could see the potential of improvements on the horizon and didn't want to have to replace the entire digital PCB to upgrade one small part.

 

In the case of the QB-9, when we introduced it we knew that 192/24 was just a matter of time. About a year later it arrived and we were able to upgrade for a reasonable price. It just took us a while to realize that we could sell the QX-5 in different configurations.

 

29 minutes ago, beetlemania said:

This is an interesting development from Ayre (and I wonder if this says anything about the 8 series products that were announced in May but haven't been launched). I agree the KISS QB-9 is a good approach - still enjoying mine, it sounds fantastic. The only downside has been that I have to keep the PC close to my integrated amp. In my case, 1 m each USB and interconnect.

 

That is one of the disadvantages of USB - the computer needs to be near the listening system. On the other hand with Ethernet, you need 3 separate small computers to make it work. One is built into the Ethernet input, one is built into (say) a NAS drive, and the third is built into your smartphone or tablet or very tiny laptop near your listening postion. You can combine the storage and the control point into one computer, but then the main advantage over USB is that the computer can be further away from the DAC (but obviously still needs to be accessible from your listening position.

 

I'm unsure as to which will give better sound quality. I think it depends on the quality of all of the components connected. The best sound is to not use computers - but then it's not computer audio and you need to use physical discs for everything. Otherwise you get into the land of USB regenerators and filters, or optically-isolated Ethernet routers, and things like that. All part of the fun, I suppose.

 

Cheers,

Charles Hansen

[Charles Hansen]

On 9/16/2017 at 0:56 PM, d_elm said:

IMHO the best way to use USB into the QX-5 is with a renderer, such as microRendu, connected by a USPCB.  To generalize, use a network solution.

 

Hello Mr. Elm,

 

Any particular reason to choose this route over simply purchasing the Ethernet module for the QX-5? I believe the overall cost would be roughly the same and you would have at least 1 less box in your system (2 fewer boxes if there is an outboard power supply for the renderer). The Ethernet module in the QX-5 is a Roon ready renderer. When introduced it suupported Tidal, Deezer, and Spotify Connect. Recently Qobuz was added. It is fairly easy to add support for almost any particular service, which Ayre does when there is sufficient demand.

 

Thanks,

Charles Hansen

[Charles Hansen]

2 hours ago, d_elm said:

Hello Mr. Hansen,

    I have not heard a QX-5 as my Ayre dealer in Calgary does not have one.  This makes it difficult for me to make a decision but I am thinking about taking delivery of a QX-5 USB in early 2018 and the reasons for the USB rather than FULL or NET are as follows.

 

1) I have a microRendu (1.3) with LPS-1 and will soon upgrade to 1.4 board.  Again I do not have experience with QX-5 ethernet vs microrendu nor the renderer OS being used in the QX-5.

 

2) I suspect the renderers in a DAC box or external to the DAC will see constant tweaking and I am not sure which companies can best react to that so I prefer to spend less in that direction right now.  I know these things are pocket change for many and at the right time of year they are for me also, but not right now.

 

I've only seen one review that compared the micro-Rendu to the built-in Ethernet decoder, and I believe the reviewer preferred the sound of the built-in one - but I've no idea which version micro-Rendu that was nor what power supply was being used.

 

EDIT: I would recommend requesting that your dealer get one in to demonstrate. They typically respond to customer demand much more than the do to "badgering" from manufacturers. A dealer demo unit will typically be a "full monty" unit. Then you could bring your micro-Rendu in and compare for yourself. I've no idea of the resale or trade-in value of the micro-Rendu. Is it still in production? When it is discontinued the resale value typically drops sharply, which is one reason Ayre prefers to offer upgrades to our customers. It's not as if there have been huge advances in chassis or transformers (for example) in the past several decades.

 

59 minutes ago, Audio said:

 

Hi Charles,

 

Please consider LC fiber optic connection on multimode or better still, let us choose by allowing the user to pick their preferred SFP transceiver.  Thanks!

 

(Audio)

 

To both,

 

Ayre does not believe in the "upgrade of the month" model. When we have enough new features and/or performance improvements, we will typically introduce an update. This normally takes several years, both for the competition to catch up and for us to do the required R&D. The exception is firmware. The QX-5 was specifically designed to allow simple firmware updates by the customer. The Ethernet module firmware can be upgraded simply with the push of a button when connected to the internet. The main unit's firmware requires downloading to a thumb drive:

 

http://www.ayre.com/qx5_support.htm

 

I've at least two ideas for how to improve the Ethernet module with hardware changes, but it would require a significant investment in development resources, plus it's only been out for one year. Do you really want to be upgrading just one component in your system more often than once a year? Where else could you gain improvements for a similar amount of money? Many sonic improvements are either free or ridiculously cheap to implement. One good place to start is Jim Smith's book and CD/DVD called "Get Better Sound".

 

Hope this helps,

Charles Hansen

[Charles Hansen]

10 hours ago, Audio said:

Dear Charles,

 

I do understand the Ayre policy as I have been an Ayre fan for a couple of years.  Do I expect Ayre to provide a optical fiber input on the QX-5?   No, because this would mean you  would need to drill a hole at the back.   

 

From my perspective, I am talking about the long awaited QX-R.  

 

(Audio)

 

Hi Audio,

 

We have done things that require drilling a hole in the back before. It just requires a jig that references other holes to put it in the right spot. Not ideal for overseas units, as then we have to make dozens of jigs and send dozens of inch sized drill bits. As far as a QX-R, it may happen someday (we don't like to announce product plans), but I wouldn't hold my breath. Lots of other things in the works to keep us busy for quite a while. I  do love pulling out all the stops, though!

 

Cheers,

Charles Hansen