Ayre Acoustics QX-5 Twenty – The Digital Hub

[ufoerp]

On 11/9/2021 at 1:11 AM, Ryan Berry said:

 

 

Hi Ryan,

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

 

Cheers.

[Axiom05]

4 hours ago, ufoerp said:

 

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

I'm not Ryan but I do know that given the choice, Ayre will always recommend balanced connections.

[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.

[beetlemania]

4 hours ago, GrubTheHedgehog said:

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.

That’s probably close to what Charles Hansen would have said. Ayre would not bother making balanced circuits if they didn’t think they sounded best. But an XLR input on your amp or pre is no guarantee that it has a truly balanced circuit. So, it depends. 
 

Regardless of your pre or amp, it shouldn’t hurt to use the XLR connection but the benefits might not be audible unless the pre or amp is truly balanced.

[ufoerp]

18 hours ago, Axiom05 said:

I'm not Ryan but I do know that given the choice, Ayre will always recommend balanced connections.

yes, thanks. I also read articls that Ayre recommends XLR by all means. 

[ufoerp]

17 hours ago, GrubTheHedgehog said:

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.

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? 

[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.

 

[Ryan Berry]

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.

 

6 hours ago, GrubTheHedgehog said:

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.

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

[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?

[ufoerp]

13 hours ago, GrubTheHedgehog said:

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.

 

thanks so much for your detail comment and this is super helpful. Currently as Transaprent only provides one USB cable, my choice is quite easy to have it. 

 

However for the choice of transparent AES cable, as the QX5 is about $9000 pricie, i think i am ok to reach the AES premium cable about 10% of QX5. If go to reference level, it will be about 20-25% of the QX5 price. 

 

Why I choose AES and USB cable together, as my Aurender N10 is good at AES (from market comment, even better than its USB part), i will keep both USB and AES in my linkage with QX5. AES for better sound and USB for higher DSD bit rate music.

 

Cheers.

[Ryan Berry]

On 12/3/2021 at 7:35 PM, GrubTheHedgehog said:

Who makes a good linear power supply for routers?

 

None really official that I've seen.  We have parts, so I threw one together with those.  They're not too complex...maybe something to do more listening testing with and offer if we can get them affordably.

[ufoerp]

I just received my QX5 with USB2 yesterday and the sound is wonderful.

 

i assume the firmware is the newest.

[Axiom05]

4 hours ago, ufoerp said:

i assume the firmware is the newest.

AFAIK there is only one firmware version that works with the USB2 board (Version N). Therefore, if it works then it is the latest.

[ufoerp]

3 hours ago, Axiom05 said:

AFAIK there is only one firmware version that works with the USB2 board (Version N). Therefore, if it works then it is the latest.

Thanks. It is N.

[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.

[ufoerp]

seek guidance for one question about my new QX5 USB2 version. 

 

When I use QX5 with my Aurender N10 with AES and Optical line, when use DSD64 DOP mode, the QX5 could not play the file and QX5 display flicker; when using AES and opcital line for PCM file, it plays well. (when using USB for QX5 and N10 for DSD file, it also plays well. 

 

The only issue is to play DSD64 (dop) with AES and optical. 

 

Any solution? Thanks.

[ufoerp]

with my QX5 with firmware version. N (USB2), there seems an issue that AES and optial could not play DSD64 via DOP mode. 

Please check and help. 

[beetlemania]

On 12/15/2021 at 3:00 PM, GrubTheHedgehog said:

This made me laugh:

 

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

That is funny but I noticed the author didn’t bother to listen. Also thinks it’s possible to measure SQ 😂 Must be auditioning for Stereophile editor?
 

Back to the topic, curious to read more reports regarding sonics of new QX-5 board.

[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.

[Axiom05]

3 hours ago, ufoerp said:

with my QX5 with firmware version. N (USB2), there seems an issue that AES and optial could not play DSD64 via DOP mode. 

Make sure that you adjust your streaming source to output DOP, it may be trying to send native DSD which is not supported on AES/SPDIF.

[ufoerp]

6 hours ago, Axiom05 said:

Make sure that you adjust your streaming source to output DOP, it may be trying to send native DSD which is not supported on AES/SPDIF.

Yes, already setup as DSD dop mode. And I attach one short video and seems like my unit of QX5 AES could not correctly lock or identify DSD64 dop. And i have tried optical, result is the same. 

 

[Ryan Berry]

Hi Ufoerp,

 

We received an email about this on Friday as well and are looking into the issue.  It looks like some of the optimization we did with the latest firmware may have caused a problem with DoP coming into the S/PDIF inputs.  We're looking into the cause now and anticipate having a new version of the firmware released as soon as we've identified the cause.  Meanwhile, I'd recommend using the USB input on the QX-5.  While it may be recommended to use AES from Aurrender, I suspect you'll find the USB performing at least as well if not better when connected to an Ayre piece.

 

Best Regards,

Ryan Berry

[ufoerp]

@Ryan Berry

Hi Ryan,

I may want to report another issue here: on the firmware N, USB2 version QX5, the Roon could not identify the QX5 with DSD64 dop capability. When I play DSD64 music file on Roon via network cable connection on QX5, it has clear background noise. Could you look into this too?

When I play wav file with same method, it is quite ok without any background noise. 

 

Cheers,

Jeff

[ufoerp]

not sure if I am the only USB2 version QX5 user here?

 

Currently i find on USB2 QX5, the network port could not play DSD64 file correctly on Roon and it will be with clear background noise. When I play tidal or wav/flac file, it is ok without any noise. The issue is with DSD64 via network port. 

 

Thanks for any feedback from other users of USB2 QX5.

[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!