Ayre Acoustics QX-5 Twenty – The Digital Hub

[beetlemania]

Regarding streaming, I am wondering how the QX-5 is easier or better than using my PC to send, say, Tidal to my QB-9. Anyone 'splain that to me? Thanks in advance.

[ctsooner]

2 hours ago, beetlemania said:

Regarding streaming, I am wondering how the QX-5 is easier or better than using my PC to send, say, Tidal to my QB-9. Anyone 'splain that to me? Thanks in advance.

Don't have a clue how easy or difficult streaming is for you, but it's a breeze streaming Tidal.  Just find the mcontrol app and choose Ayre on the network and it will open Tidal.  Then it's just Tidal.  That's pretty simple as my family can do it easily.

[beetlemania]

On 3/24/2017 at 4:46 PM, ctsooner said:

Don't have a clue how easy or difficult streaming is for you, but it's a breeze streaming Tidal.  Just find the mcontrol app and choose Ayre on the network and it will open Tidal.  Then it's just Tidal.  That's pretty simple as my family can do it easily.

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

[ctsooner]

12 hours ago, beetlemania said:

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

I didn't think the QB-9 was a streamer.  The QX5/20 is just simple to set up and use the app to stream.  I also feel it sounds better than the Aurender streamer I had in for a couple of days.  Not even close sound wise.  

 

Maybe I don't understand the question  Sorry if i don't.

[beetlemania]

The problem is probably that I don't understand what "streaming" is. I'm pretty sure I can send Tidal "stream" to my QB-9 thru' my PC. How is that different that a QX-5?

[scottsol]

The QX-5 allows you to bypass the computer and simply connect the Ayre to directly to your network. Depending on your setup this may not be important.

 

This is quite secondary to the main reason to replace the QB-9, the QX-5 is much better better sounding. 

[skatbelt]

On 3/26/2017 at 4:56 PM, ctsooner said:

I didn't think the QB-9 was a streamer.  The QX5/20 is just simple to set up and use the app to stream.  I also feel it sounds better than the Aurender streamer I had in for a couple of days.  Not even close sound wise.  

 

Maybe I don't understand the question  Sorry if i don't.

 

I've been reading this whole thread. Why do I get the idea that you are somehow related to Ayre?

[scottsol]

18 hours ago, skatbelt said:

 

I've been reading this whole thread. Why do I get the idea that you are somehow related to Ayre?

Perhaps because you have not read carefully.

 

It would not be unreasonable to call him a fanboy, but he has no relationship with Ayre other than being a happy customer.

[beetlemania]

22 hours ago, scottsol said:

The QX-5 allows you to bypass the computer and simply connect the Ayre to directly to your network. Depending on your setup this may not be important.

 

This is quite secondary to the main reason to replace the QB-9, the QX-5 is much better better sounding. 

Thanks for the reply. I don't do wireless or use a network. I don't think there is an advantage for me other than ditching USB would allow me to use CAT5 of whatever length I need. I'd love to have a QX-5 for SQ but hope to upgrade my AX-7 to AX-5 first.

[ctsooner]

Thanks Scott. Guys, I have no relationship with Ayre or Vandersteen or AQ or Empirical Audio or .....the list goes on.  Do I know folks at these companies?  Yes, I know folks at many audio companies. I know the ones at Ayre, Vandersteen and AQ because I met them at Audio Connection.  Many of you know the same folks, because you met them at your dealer.  I also know folks at other companies I respect and some at companies that I don't like or respect their equipment.  

 

That said, Ayre isn't for everyone.  That's why dealers will carry three or so lines in all price categories.  I know that some folks don't 'get' what a Vandersteen does. I didn't either until a few years ago as I've stated in many threads.  I will say that I heard Ayre at many dealers before I owned any of their gear.  I heard them make speakers I don't like (Wilson and B&W) sound the best I've ever heard them sound.  The same top end speakers have not sounded good to me on  Mac gear or even A&R gear or Dan D's gear (really nice amps btw).  Fan boy or not, I think I am also realistic.  

 

When someone like Michael Lavorgna (yes, know him a little too, lol) of audio stream.com, says the QX5/20 is oooh so close to the TotalDAc for nearly half the price, that's says a TON.  To me the TotalDac may be the best I've heard to date.  I've only heard it once, but it was special.  I also don't feel that it's that much better than the QX5/20 and the Ayre DAC is so much more versatile for my use.  

 

I've had a few friends bring the QX5 into their homes.  Some have been using the 9 and a few have used other top end DAC's.  All of them have already purchased the new Ayre or are saving to do so.  To me, that says a lot.  If seems to appeal to so many different types of listeners from B&W to Wilson to Vandersteen to Legacy to Magico.  That runs the spectrum of different types of sound.  That tells me it's delivering the goods in spades.  Neutral, musical, pace/rhythem and slam with a rich highly detailed sound and coherent.  You name it and for digital, it gives it to you.

 

Not everyone can afford a DAC in this range, but if you can, you really should at least get one in your system to hear what it does. I can nearly promise you that it will end up in the top two for most listeners.  

 

Sorry to get off topic a bit.  Beetlemania, I upgrade from the 7 to the 5/20 and it made a WORLD of difference.  That took my system to a different league.  I would make one suggestion for you though.  IF you can afford the Codex DAC, I'd get one into the system.  They are not easy to find used, because buyers love them.  To me it's one of the best bargains in all of audio. They designed it to be a true 5k DAC and the clock they use in this price range is sick.  If you ever were able to upgrade to the QX5/20, then you'd have no problems selling the Codex and not lose too much money I would think.  Just something to keep on the back burner.  I also bet that your Ayre dealer will do what they can to help you get into the AX5/20 and a Codex running balanced.  Are you running balanced into your AX7?

[beetlemania]

58 minutes ago, ctsooner said:

  Are you running balanced into your AX7?

Oh, yes. I'm running balanced (Ayre/Cardas) from my QB-9 to the AX-7. I'm super happy with my system but I know I can get even better sound with upgrades. I've been saving for an AX-5 (which is in the top 3 of amps I've heard) and might be able to pull the trigger this spring or summer. The QX-5 is an interesting product that has gotten rave reviews. I wish they made a stripped down version. The QB-9 has all the features I need!

[ctsooner]

No way you can strip an amp, lol.  The AX5 used is stripped, but not the same amp at all.  Save and buy when you can.  The QX5 will be waiting for you later on or whatever is out then.  

[Vule]

Hi ctsooner Can you clarify is there Single Diamond-Output stage installed in QX-5? For the new QX-8 is stated Double Diamond-Output stage!

[ctsooner]

Single Diamond?  There is a double diamond is what I was told.  Does their site say single?  

[Vule]

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.

[Vule]

I was very close to place order for the new QX-5 (to replace  Codex) until I read specs for QX-8 and Double Diamond-Output stage. Benefits for SQ after upgrading AX-5 to AX-5 Twenty are significant.

[d_elm]

IMHO circuit design details on Ayre's web site often do not reflect the product being described.  Best to find another source for information. Eg VX-5/20 has double diamond output, web site states diamond, that is the original version and not the Twenty.  No mention anywhere that the Codex uses 5V from the USB cable.

[Vule]

Completely agree. Thought that would be able to source an answer at least from some owner of QX-5.The question is as simply as it is.There is Double Diamond output stage or there is not?! Already sent a mail to Ayre for clarification.

[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

[austinpop]

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:

 

USB: 44.1, 48, 88.2, 96, 176.4, 192, 352.8, 384 kHz
PCM 16, 20, 24 bits
DSD64 and DSD128 (as DoP)

 

Network: 44.1, 48, 88.2, 96, 176.4, 192 kHz
PCM 16, 20, 24 bits
DSD64 (as DoP)

 

Could you explain why the Ethernet input doesn't support DXD (PCM 352.8/284) and DSD128? That seems counterintuitive, if you want to offer people liberation from these imperfect digital inputs!!

 

I may be atypical, but I am actually acquiring a growing library of DXD and DSD128+ content. So is there any evolution plan for the QX-5 to support on Ehternet:

1. DSD natively?
2. DSD beyond 64, ideally up to DSD512?
3. PCM 384 and beyond (768)?

If not, all I can see the QX-5 being is a DAC upgrade to my Codex, rather than a path to liberation from the USB chain.

 

Your thoughts and clarifications are welcome.

[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

[Vule]

Hi Charles,

Thanks for additional inputs and clarification re Diamond stage.

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

[austinpop]

11 hours ago, Charles Hansen said:

 

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.

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

 

Hi Charles,

 

Thanks for your informative reply.

 

11 hours ago, Charles Hansen said:

As we've all discovered, digital is no less sensitive than analog to things that shouldn't make a difference but often do.

 

Absolutely - and this is the world I currently live in. I have a highly tuned - some would call it insane  - path from my Roon Core server to my Codex. Details in my sig. Insane or not, it has raised the SQ of my Codex and the system as a whole to an extent I had never dreamed possible. What is even more fascinating is that with this optimized digital chain, I am finding that the differences between DACs is much smaller. For example, I have compared the Codex to DACs 2-6x the cost, and the differences were rather subtle compared the SQ differences with the various elements in my digital chain.

 

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.

[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