Ayre Acoustics QX-5 Twenty – The Digital Hub

[GrubTheHedgehog]

On 10/13/2021 at 4:16 AM, loudog said:

I don’t want to come off as disparaging the qx5/20. I do find it fatiguing with certain recordings and at higher volumes. I also fully get what’s great about it, it’s fast, articulate and has exceptional soundstage. But it’s also fairly often that I find it a bit ruthless. I’ve read every QX5/20 review out there and my experience is not shared by most. I really want it to work for me, but I’m ambivalent about spending more. Here’s my set up:

Roon Nucleus + being fed via Ethernet from a netgear orbi router node

i have both Ethernet and usb to the QX5/20, with usb I use Cardas Clear; Ethernet is BlueJeans cat6

QX5/20 is connected to AX5/20 via Cardas Clear balanced cable

AX5/20 is feeding Harbeth Super HL5+ Anniversary with Cardas Clear speaker cable

Using a Cardas Nautilus power strip

ive tried myrtle blocks as well as isoacoustic oreas underneath and felt the oreas made a positive difference.

 

ive spent about an hour messing around with a high shelf filter in Roon DSP but although it’s somewhat helpful in some ways it definitely hurts the overall sound. 
 

I’m still trying speaker placement and I didn’t feel like reducing toe-in made any substantive improvement.

 

I think the qx20/5 is clearly a well executed product and at times I’m in awe of how good it sounds but there’s a lot of music where I feel like it’s a bit too “in my face.” I do think at low listening levels it’s superlative.

 

I haven’t given up on it but it tires me at times, enough so that I need to find some tweak to help or i need to move on. I feel like it now has adequate burn in. 
 

open to any thoughts/suggestions.

I also have the QX-5 Twenty and AX-5 Twenty. I would strongly recommend Transparent cabling and power cords to wipe out the brightness you are hearing, at Reference level but preferably XL level.

 

The only way to get maximum detail and for it to be smooth simultaneously is to put cables on the system that are as good as the components themselves.

 

It is less about “taming” the tonal balance of the Ayre than keeping noise out of the signal. I am sure the Cardas Clear is plenty good but I have learned through experience that the Ayre will be as laid back or as forward as your associated equipment, and that means cables too.

 

My system:

 

QX-5 Twenty

AX-5 Twenty

Transparent Balanced Reference XL (G5)

Transparent Reference Speaker Cable (MM2)

Transparent Power Isolator Reference

3 x Transparent Reference Powercords

Transparent Premium USB

Transparent Ethernet (Preferred input)

9x PS Audio Noise Harvesters

 

Vicoustics Super Bass Extreme Traps

B&W 802D3 speakers

Roon/Qobuzz

 

I have had the QX-5 since it launched. It can be bright (any source can) but it also can be spectacularly refined and laid back when the whole system is up to par. It took years to build the system around it but the QX sounds better and better with every upgrade/tweak. I would stick with QX and build around it. It seems to have limitless potential IMHO. 

[GrubTheHedgehog]

I will also add that Ethernet is my preferred input for various reasons and I am very curious if the guys at Ayre think that the new USB board is as good or better sounding than Ethernet.

[GrubTheHedgehog]

18 hours ago, loudog said:

thanks for the advice! but, damn those transparent cables are pricey. i'm a little financially hamstrung at the moment and still trying to decide which direction to take. considering a power supply upgrade for the Nucleus+ and getting new speakers or getting rid of everything but the QX5/20 and mostly starting over. i just cant stomach spending mega bucks on cables at the moment. i wonder if my money would be better spent on room treatments or just a speaker change. my sense is that system synergy is poor and my room is a bit on the small size. also, i live in an audiophile deadspace and cant readily audition gear (literally not a single audio shop here) - so i'm a bit frustrated to have as much as i have invested and not in love with the sound. if i switch amps i'm considering Parasound JC5+. speaker-wise i'm considering the new Perlisten S5m or some JBL Synthesis monitors, but again, nothing local that i can demo.

I would definitely continue to break in the Ayre QX as I suspect it will improve over 300 hours. I felt mine continued to improve over months. The other thing is the AX-5 can be a bit ruthless when ice cold and needs like half a day powered on to get to full potential.

 

After 300 hours or so reevaluate speaker place especially width between speakers. Use your ears and move them a bit at a time. It my speakers are off even slightly it can dramatically change the listenability, especially if the room is untreated. Subscribe to ASC’s newsletter they always have good tips for setup.

 

ASC Isothermal Tube Traps in the corners are highly recommended.

 

Lastly, your speaker is limited in the lower frequencies due to its monitor profile and the AX would definitely drive a larger speaker.

 

I’d burn in the QX to 400 hours personally before making any judgments about the unit.

[GrubTheHedgehog]

4 hours ago, ufoerp said:

 

Hi Ryan,

For QX5, RCA and XLR, which one is better?

 

Cheers.

If your pre/amp is fully balanced, XLR is the way to go. Switching from RCA to balanced with QX/AX Twenty was a massive improvement. It fattened up the sound quite a bit. It sounds richer, fuller.

 

If your amp is not balanced, however (like a Pass Labs), you may be better off with a better single ended cable. My understanding is that the components must be designed for balanced operation to get the benefit of using XLR.

 

I am not sure there is an advantage to using xlr if the amp is not balanced. If it is, it is a no brainer to go balanced provided you can obtain a cable that is as good or better than whatever you currently use. For example, a Balanced Ultra cable from Transparent is not necessarily better than a single ended Reference level cable. It is more like a trade off. I had a single ended Reference and had to stay at Reference level when I went balanced to get a top to bottom improvement. I could not drop down a level to Ultra just to go balanced. I am not suggesting you need a cable from Transparent I am simply giving an example. There is a hierachy of cable performance and at each level typically the balanced version is more expensive (sometimes twice the price) of the RCA version. Your question is not as simple as it may seem because it depends on your gear and what cable you plan to use. Just my take.

[GrubTheHedgehog]

3 hours ago, ufoerp said:

Yes, your comment is very helpful!

 

Fully agree that one condition to prefer XLR is that the AMP need be fully balanced. My current AMP is Gryphon Diablo 300 and I remember it is fully balanced. 

 

And also fully agree that the RCA and XLR comparison need be at the similar price range. 

 

I am very happy you mention Transparent. I have just ordered one Transparent USB cable for my QX5 and want to buy one AES cable to for the pair of QX5 and Aurender N10. Any comment for the choice of Transparent Premium AES cable? 

Yes, I use the top of the line Transparent USB and their Ethernet as well.  Before computer audio I used their digital cables as well, although it was RCA SPDIF, not AES. If you are talking about a cable to feed the QX from the Aurender, you want REFERENCE, not Premium. I had a Reference RCA years ago and it was incredible. You can find them used. The 5 series components are really Reference level components, not Premium, in my opinion. Don’t get me wrong I am sure the premium is plenty good but I am sure you were leaving performance on the table and the reference is going to blow it out of the water. If you’re going to buy new you might be able to arrange in audition of the two. If you were just going to make a leap of faith I would just save up for the reference if you were going to use it as your primary connection to your primary source component. For a secondary component the premium is probably good enough but for serious critical listening with QX you’re going to want the Reference.
 

But my understanding is that you can get a job done with ethernet or USB cheaper. This is a part why USB was such a big breakthrough. Transparent USB cables are a lot less money than their AES, But I suspect the performance of their best USB cable Probably matches or exceeds their reference AES. I believe that anytime your device has the ability to connect via asynchronous USB or ethernet that is what you want to use because of the synchronization between the word clock and the two devices. My Understanding is it only USB and ethernet that are asynchronous although I know the QX5 has technology that at least purports to make the AES and RCA digital inputs asynchronous through some kind of re-clocking. But I do not believe, and I could be mistaken, but I do not believe that those inputs are being offered because they are superior to USB or ethernet. My understanding is that those inputs represent an improvement on the deficiencies of AES and RCA so that you can connect up a legacy CD transport and have performance that is more close to the type of performance you get from USB an ethernet. Anyone who has been around for a while knows that there are some very heavy duty (quite literally heavy) Cd transport devices that were built to spin discs and perform at a very high level. I believe what Ayre has done Is create a device that allows you to connect up those legacy spinners that lack a USB or ethernet output with much less compromise. Keep in mind that ethernet and USB solve a major problem with digital audio which is the lack of synchronization between the master clocks of transport device (cd player) feeding the dac and the dac itself. In my personal opinion it really wasn’t until asynchronous USB (The QB-9) that computer audio gave analog sources a run for their money because of the clock synchronization. Prior to the release of the QB-9, I believe only dCS And a few other makers were offering systems that allowed the clocks of the source to be slaved to the deck or an external master clock but that also requires an expensive cable connecting those devices. Asynchronous USB was a game changer because it leveled the playing field For people who couldn’t afford all that gear.
 

Frankly at this stage what I would do with any device they had asynchronous USB capability is get Ayre’s new USB board And get the best USB cable Transparent offers And call it a day. Unless you have every power cord in your system maxed out every power conditioner, a dedicated AC line and reference level interconnects and speaker cable, I seriously doubt that AES or RCA is going to sound materially better or worse than USB and even if it did the improvement probably would not justify the additional cost of a reference AES cable. 

 

keep in mind I don’t have Aurender. My USB source is a giant gaming PC that I built. It is in no way an audiophile device. It may very well be the least audio file device you can imagine. Likewise my ethernet source is just the same computer connected to my router. Not with standing, after re-listening I think USB is the best overall connection it provides the fattest meatiest sound, With the ethernet being a close second sounding a little thinner and airier.

 

another thing I will point out and this is interesting is that until recently I preferred the ethernet connection on the QX. But I recently upgraded my interconnect between my QX and AX to XL level. After doing that I revisited the USB again and determined that the USB is actually the best connection and my preference changed back to USB. The ethernet now sounds ever so slightly anemic in comparison. So there is a question system synergy and personal preference. But perhaps with the better interconnect cable connecting the jack in the amplifier I can know better hear The distinction between the two digital connections and make them more informed decision. This is with the old USB module I do not have the new USB module yet.

 

So I guess my point is you can save yourself a lot of money sticking with USB because the other digital connections to perform at the same level tend to be more expensive. The AES cable maybe twice the price. Frankly I’d rather take that money and get a reference power cord if you don’t have one already and put it on the QX. I hate to sound like a shill for transparent but I’ve been getting absolutely astounding results with their stuff for decades and it works like a charm with the Ayre gear.

 

[GrubTheHedgehog]

2 hours ago, Ryan Berry said:

It looks like this one was pretty well answered already!  As several have already said, we always prefer balanced for the benefits it provides that Charley has listed in the past better than I could today.  If you're going into a single-ended piece with RCA connectors, there's no benefit to running a XLR cable to a XLR-RCA adapter to feed into the piece.  While running into a balanced piece is the ideal in our opinion, even a piece with single-ended internal circuitry is HOPEFULLY using a differential input stage, so running balanced into one should provide the same noise-rejecting benefit to the length of cable between components.  I would say that it's reasonable to run XLR's between any components with XLR connectors for that reason.  I can't say for certain what each manufacturer does inside their designs, but I wouldn't expect many are doing something like just leaving the inverse pin floating on the connector.

 

Yes and no.  As you mentioned, the QX-5 and our QX-8 have a new asynchronous technology on it's S/PDIF inputs that we created for these products that effectively eliminate jitter from the source components.  The S/PDIF inputs are primarily limited in what they can receive (up to 192kHz), but they're really not designed simply to provide compatibility...in fact, that's one reason the QB-9 never had S/PDIF inputs as we were never willing to throw on an input we knew would sound and measure considerably worse unless we could find a way to bring it to the level of our other inputs.  As such, the asynchronous S/PDIF really was the breakthrough we needed.  Not only does it eliminate the jitter element, but it does so in a better way than trying to run external master clocks that then have to transmit a clock signal down a long length of cable to all the components in the system.  You really want your clock sources as close to your DAC as possible, so the only reason I could imagine to do something like this would be to upgrade a piece with a lower quality oscillator inside the unit for a quick upgrade. 

The harder question to answer is which one input sounds better.  The answer to that really is: it depends.  Even with an asynchronous input, be it USB, Ethernet, or S/PDIF and all of the isolation and filtering we can put on the inputs, the fact is that everything in the chain makes a difference at some level.  So what the piece is attached to matters and the only REAL way to determine if one input sounds better than another in your configuration is to compare them.  Fortunately, that means listening to more music!

 

With all that said, I'd tend to agree on a preference to use the USB input.  I really like the USB input when I have a choice to connect to another piece.  It works simply, reliable, and supports any format I'd throw at it.  The Ethernet is handy when walking around the house with background music on as I can use my phone as a volume control, so I will go back and forth between the two.  I also use a pretty big gaming PC with a high-end power supply and found the Operating System made more of a difference than anything when I was changing things up during USB tests with something around 65 different systems.  For the Ethernet,  I learned that a linear power supply on my router was a pretty noticeable improvement to the input and pretty universally recommend that as well. 

 

If you like USB now, you'll really like it once you get the new USB module in the unit.  The improvements really surprised me and Ariel has to keep reminding me all the work he did on the board.  

 

Cheers,

Ryan

Awesome info! I stand corrected on the SPDIF. I am getting the USB module and will report back!
 

I have not put the AES and SPDIF through their paces so I don’t know how they stack against USB/Ethernet.
 

Who makes a good linear power supply for routers?

[GrubTheHedgehog]

This made me laugh:

 

“$2,500 Ethernet Switch Effectively Isolates Audiophiles From Cash”
 

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/ethernet-switch-for-audiophiles?utm_content=tomsguide&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=socialflow&fbclid=IwAR1DM1IqWM3QvDTcq6gw2otfCrJRGMYg-ZTwc-DERIE7ahyO9RMmnSGLtMU

 

Of course no mention of the power supply used.

[GrubTheHedgehog]

I have received and am going to be installing the new USB board this weekend and will be able to give some feedback on it hopefully, using the system in my signature. I plan on comparing it extensively against the ethernet module.

[GrubTheHedgehog]

With the new USB board installed, USB pulls ahead of ethernet in terms of performance, but I find it to be a very nominal difference. The qualities of the respective inputs remain unchanged, with USB yielding a slightly fuller, richer sound with a touch more punch than ethernet. Beyond that, I strain to hear the difference.

 

I suspect the board might be a your mileage may vary type upgrade. It is unclear if having the new, quieter USB board also elevated ethernet performance.

 

I am still testing, however.

 

Happy holidays all! 

[GrubTheHedgehog]

18 hours ago, GrubTheHedgehog said:

With the new USB board installed, USB pulls ahead of ethernet in terms of performance, but I find it to be a very nominal difference. The qualities of the respective inputs remain unchanged, with USB yielding a slightly fuller, richer sound with a touch more punch than ethernet. Beyond that, I strain to hear the difference.

 

I suspect the board might be a your mileage may vary type upgrade. It is unclear if having the new, quieter USB board also elevated ethernet performance.

 

I am still testing, however.

 

Happy holidays all! 

After additional listening to a variety of recordings, I believe the USB 2.0 board is better than the old board, a bit better than ethernet and is now my preferred input. Before the 2.0 board, I just thought the inputs sounded slightly different. Now USB is clearly better. The more I listen, the more I appreciate the new board. The changes are most apparent during serious critical listening and they are, to me, subtle but significant improvements.

 

 

[GrubTheHedgehog]

15 hours ago, ufoerp said:

I am curious for your comparison. 

Based on my feedback above about the current firmware N with USB2.0 board, the ethernet, AES and optical may could not support DSD64, I guess your comparison is on FLAC or WAV only?

It may be very difficult to compare the DSD output on USD with FLAC/WAV on ethernet port. 

Comparison is FLAC and Qobuzz only. No DSD at the moment.

[GrubTheHedgehog]

Looks like the Network 2 board for QX-5 Twenty has been officially announced. Can anyone at Ayre comment on whether this offers audible improvement for source material that does not benefit from the increased sample rate capabilities of the new board, such as 24/192, ect? Or are the audible improvements solely a function of the higher sample rate capabilities?

 

QX-5 Twenty Network2   The team at Ayre Acoustics is pleased to announce our latest upgrade for the QX-5 Twenty with the new Network2 module!  This upgrade introduces a new and improved version of our network interface, providing improved capabilities and superior performance. Here's what is new: PCM Resolution and Rates up to 32-bit / 384kHz (improved from 24-bit / 192kHz) DSD support up to DSD256 Native (up from DSD64 via DoP) Next generation network module design New ultra-low-noise voltage regulation The Network2 upgrade is a part of our continued commitment to ensure your Ayre product improves as the world of digital music evolves.  We are certain that you will enjoy the audible improvements as you discover your favorite songs again. All new QX-5 Twenty units built will have this new module already installed and any existing units can be upgraded.  Please contact your local dealer or calling us at (303) 442-7300 for details. Happy Listening!

[GrubTheHedgehog]

2 hours ago, Nthio said:

I'd like to hear feedback from any other users or @Ryan Berry about the firmware issue with DOP DSD64 ufoerp has brought up in this thread. Anyone else have the same issue? I've been considering the new USB board, maybe even the network board, but wouldn't want to break compatibility on inputs that only support DSD64 via DOP.

 

I do not have the newest USB or network boards, but I am on the current firmware. I currently only use USB and network inputs and have not had any issues with DOP DSD64 on either. @ufoerp, I know you mentioned you have the issue on the AES, BNC, Optical, AND network issues. I can at least confirm that with the old USB and network boards installed, DSD64 via DOP still works via both inputs on current firmware. 

 

I'm not sure if it only becomes an issue when one of the new native DSD capable boards is installed. I certainly wouldn't want to buy the new USB board, but then lose DSD compatibility on my old network input. If anyone can provide additional insight it would help to make an informed decision about upgrading.

 

Edit: My post regarding DSD is moot based on Ryan's update.

 

Regarding the new network module, I would also ask that Ayre examine whether having the new ethernet board installed with its lower voltage/better regulation could impact USB performance for owners who have both modules installed. I mention this because I believe at least one owner who tested the new USB board felt the improvement was more pronounced when the ethernet module was disabled in the service menu, the idea being that it is powered down. As discussed it is impracticable to have power it down automatically when not in use because it has to be on to be woken via the network, ect. However, I have both USB 2 and an original ethernet module. I use USB 2 for critical listening and ethernet for casual listening as I can activate it from my phone and it will switch over. So my question is whether replacing the old ethernet module with the new board has any global benefits to performance from the other inputs, such as USB, in the sense that it draws less power and generates less noise even when ethernet is "idle" and USB is in active use.

 

Obviously there is limited time to test and whether the new board is significantly better than the old board is likely the immediate focus, but I thought maybe it was worth examining after you have done your A/B testing on the new module. Thoughts? 

[GrubTheHedgehog]

3 hours ago, ufoerp said:

 

Frankly speaking, I am surprised to see the comment as “45 seconds and not ideal solution”. Now we are referring to a not cheap DAC of US dollor of Eight to Nine Thousand unit price, so it is not USD90. I guess to most people a nine thousand dollar DAC is one serious purchasing decision.

 

To me, testing DSD playing for all ports is one basic testing for all DAC instead of some exceptional thorough testing. 

 

I have Aurender to play DSD file and also have Roon system to play DSD file. Your not ideal solution makes me either could not play Native DSD via my Aurender (which is my main purpose to upgrade from QB9DSD to QX5) OR could not play DSD via Roon. It is a really tough choice. I will continue to use Aurender and Roon. Maybe to you, such firmware update is very straightforward, however to any user with music file player like Aurender and Roon, it totally doesn't work. And you have also ignored the risk of firmware update (if there is any firmware update issue, i need send back the newly bought QX5 to your factory). 

 

I respect the brand of Ayre but the current experience is really disappointing. 

We get it! They are fixing it! There are now two new upgrades for the unit. A USB board and a network board. Will all due respect I’d like to read about something other than your technical issue.

[GrubTheHedgehog]

13 hours ago, Ryan Berry said:

 

First half of the listening tests are done!  We've compared the original Ethernet to the new module with our improvements added and I'm really trying to be cautious about not overselling what we've heard.  To put it briefly, the differences were very apparent and frankly surprising to all of us listening.  Everything sounds simply better with the new module and I'm back to struggling to pick a favorite input between USB and Ethernet again, with perhaps Ethernet being my favorite, whereas before they were neck and neck before the upgrades.

Not so briefly: when we implemented the USB 2 design, we knew there were some things that SHOULD make it sound better, but after doing listening, we were left with an impression that it probably is better than the original, but not anything that we wanted to make a big deal of market-wise, like calling it "twice as good!" or "amazing improvement!"  We're not always good at bragging here, so we focused on the new capabilities -- in particular, for those that REALLY wanted Native DSD -- and decided to let the module mostly sell itself.  The reports back were surprising, with a lot of users saying the were blown away by how much better the USB sounded to them, and others reporting they were hearing improvements with every input.  The former made sense with the improvements Ariel came up with, and the latter was most likely due to the re-optimization of the code that had the unfortunate byproduct of breaking DSD with the non-USB inputs that is now fixed.

The Ethernet has been an entirely different experience for me.  I'm hearing more background detail in songs than I was noticing before the upgrade, the overall sound feels more balanced, whereas before it felt like tracks were focusing on particular ranges more than others, and a lot of the "digital" characteristics of the sound are much smoother and more acoustic-like.  Like I mentioned, I'm trying to avoid sounding like I'm overselling this upgrade, but to me, it's significant.  More than I had expected, even knowing the changes we've made internally.  I'm hoping anyone that gets the upgrade feels the same.

Next on the list is testing the USB with the Ethernet On and Off with the new vs. the old module.  I should have more on that later.

Cheers,

Ryan

Ryan,

 

Awesome! Looking forward to your additional findings. 👍

[GrubTheHedgehog]

On 6/16/2022 at 3:15 AM, Mercman said:

I ordered my new network board yesterday. 
 

The fun never ends 😜

Please let us know how it turns out! 👍

[GrubTheHedgehog]

So has anyone tested the new network board? Results? Is it worth it? Curious to see how end users are liking it.

[GrubTheHedgehog]

50 minutes ago, Mercman said:

Ayre did a great job with their upgrade kit for the Net2.  The instructions were well written and the entire installation was really easy.

 

 

How does it sound? Can you post your associated equipment/signal chain as well?

[GrubTheHedgehog]

Looks like the link to download firmware P is broken.

[GrubTheHedgehog]

16 minutes ago, Mercman said:

I believe the link for the P Firmware is down because of issues with this version. After installing P, I was unable to play PCM files with Roon without distortion. DSD files were fine. I’m using the USB input.

 

I reinstalled the previous version and all is working again.

 

😃

Sounds like trouble in paradise. 😂

 

I lost WASAPI on my PC and had to go through all kinds of steps to get it back. I also once had to send the unit in for quirky behavior. It is mostly rock solid but it does throw curve balls.

 

Anyone find video mode does not really sync well with the video source? This has been an issue since launch. I use TosLink for video.

 

I still think this DAC is a giant killer for the money, quirks or no quirks.

[GrubTheHedgehog]

Wasn’t there a firmware update that was supposed to improve sound performance for BOTH the old and new ethernet boards. I swear I read something like that somewhere but I might be wrong.

[GrubTheHedgehog]

17 minutes ago, ufoerp said:

any feedback on firmware P for the network port?

Seems to work fine with Roon but I am on the old net board.

[GrubTheHedgehog]

33 minutes ago, Mercman said:

I have been listening to the Net2 board with the latest version of Roon. There have been no issues playing PCM or DSD.  DXD and DSD256 played well with the Net2.

 

The sound quality I am experiencing with the Net2 is the best I have yet heard with my QX-5 including the USB2 board. The boys at Ayre really came through with the new Net2 board. 👍

So you think Net2 is better than USB2? How do you think the Net1 compared to USB2? I liked Net1 until I upgraded to USB 2, and then USB became my go to. Wondering if Net 2 is actually even better than USB2 or just different. 
 

Many thanks.

[GrubTheHedgehog]

8 hours ago, Mercman said:

 

I am hearing what Ryan described sonically for the Net2 board.

 

I feel that this is a significant upgrade for QX-5 owners.

So you think it is a significant upgrade over USB 2?

[GrubTheHedgehog]

 

Does anyone have any long term thoughts on whether the Net2 board is worth the scratch?