Ayre QB-9 Twenty upgrade

[beetlemania]

On 11/11/2019 at 1:28 PM, jma2 said:

One thing I tried was to verify the PCM claims (up to 384kHz). I used the 2L test bench and in particular the first track (the Hoff Ensemble (nice track by the way!)). When I played back the 24bit/352.8kHz version of it, either I ran into problems or the Ayre ran into problems (could somebody verify if this track plays with you? It would be very much appreciated).

 

 

I got my upgraded Twenty back a couple of days ago. Last night, I downloaded that 2L 24/352 Hoff Ensemble (what a great sounding track!) as well as 256 DSD Mozart Violin concerto track. Both played just fine and with the display reading "352". I also noticed, on a particular album, the QB-9 readout at "h 44", presumably HDCD encoded - I didn't know I had any of those 😂

 

The only issue I had was a couple of minutes getting Roon to recognize the upgraded DAC. It seemed that the QB-9 Twenty is "Roon ready" yet it's not a model among the default listings for Ayre.

 

Anyone know the "best" playback option for DSD files? I presume it's the new "convert to PCM 352" rather than the older DoP.

 

I want to let it burn in for at least one week before any critical listening (for sure there was a difference between cold out of the box and one day later) but I am confident it is an upgrade over the DSD version. My initial impression is that it has a more refined, clear sound. The new circuit is supposed to have a lower noise floor, my ears agree. It is also more spatially unbounded - I just melted into some songs last night.  😊

[beetlemania]

@barrowsThanks for the suggestion. That certainly fits with my SOP but I barely have any DSD, only one full album that I paid for and an assortment of tracks from 2L and, maybe, Linn. So, I was lazily looking for the easy answer 😬

[beetlemania]

6 hours ago, Ryan Berry said:

 

Computer audio can be tricky at times when it comes to nailing down what is making the real difference, especially when different players enter the mix.  Testing every combination can become a huge time commitment once you start comparing Windows vs. Apple, vs. Linux, fanless systems, dedicated players vs. general use computers, Roon vs. Decibel vs. Audirvana, etc...it gets overwhelming quick.  Similar to you, I always like to play it as recorded.  It sounds best to me in the tests I've done in the past, but not so much that I would discount the possibility of bias of wanting to keep it simple.

Hi Ryan, thanks for participating here.

 

Yep, I’m a fan of KISS, keep it simple, stupid. Years ago on this forum, I wrote that computer audio combines audiophile nervosa with computer geek obsession. Not a good recipe!

 

When I first got my QB-9 (192 kHz version) I experimented with OS, music players and one or two other computer-side tweaks. Most things made zero audible difference to my ears, in my system. Maybe because of Ayre’s galvanic isolation? And nothing made a significant difference. I *am* able to distinguish  16 and 24 bit files, preferring the latter but I can’t distinguish higher sample rates. DSD sounds fine to me but nothing special over PCM. At this point, I buy 24 bit files when available but otherwise don’t concern myself over such matters, preferring to listen to music rather than formats and esoteric computer tweaks. Maybe that’s why I love the QB-9 - it does one thing and it does it to the nth degree. 

 

The Twenty upgrade is special (although its ability to play 24/352 is pretty much lost on me!). I’m approaching the 100 hour mark and will have more to write about in the coming days/weeks.

[beetlemania]

3 hours ago, CG said:

It was pretty cold here when the QB-9 Twenty arrived.  The cabinet was mighty cold after sitting in a UPS truck all day.  But, I plugged it in to make sure it worked ok.

 

It did.  That is, it made sound when fed digital files through the USB port.  Not really good sound.  That was true even after an hour of stabilizing to room temperature.  I wondered if I'd made a huge mistake.

 

So, I let it run all day and all of the night with a continual feed of various music files.  Including material from The Kinks.

 

Yesterday was the 180 hour mark, or thereabouts.

 

What a difference!

I had mine running within 10 minutes off the cold UPS truck. It sounded as if something was vaguely amiss at that point but it was abundantly apparent that it bested the DSD version in terms of clarity and expansiveness. One day later I thought it still sounded a bit rough in some respects. 
 

I’m now at around 150 hours. To my ears, it clearly bests the DSD version in some important ways and I don’t hear any aspect of performance that has slipped. I want to get past the 200 hour mark before playing my reference tracks. 

[beetlemania]

It's been 2+ years since I've heard a QX-5 (and I've never heard a QX-8) but I think the QB-9 Twenty is good enough that a head-to-head comparison in the same system/room would be needed for any meaningful comparison. The QX-5 *probably* sounds better due to higher quality parts ("better" DAC chip, Morion oscillator, etc) but, as CG wrote, the QB-9 should benefit from it's singular purpose.

 

I have been lusting after a QX-5 but it remained beyond my budget (it also has more features than I would likely ever use). So, I was stoked when I heard about the QB-9 upgrade. I can't say how how close it gets to the QX-5 but it certainly narrowed the gap!

 

@FelipeRolim Did Audio Magazine do a head-to-head of the DX-5 and QB-9? I can tell you this much: the QB-9 DSD version is "notably" better than the 192 kHz version and the Twenty version is "notably" better than the DSD version.

[beetlemania]

11 hours ago, CG said:

 

Just as a point of reference for everybody else, my own observation in our own system is that the QB-9 Twenty tends to sound kinda "thin" and "dry", especially in the midrange, right out of the (cold) box.  This has perhaps 2/3 gone away after a week or so.

 

I plugged mine in within minutes of delivery off the UPS truck in winter conditions. There was a vague character that something was not quite right but your description doesn't reflect my experience. Regardless, that character was gone within a day or two and I otherwise heard a notable increase in overall clarity and an open, unbounded soundstage even after I first got it running. I'm now approaching the 250 hour mark and plan to play my reference tracks this weekend.

[beetlemania]

Approaching the 400 hour mark. I think the sound has stabilized although I haven’t been careful about playing the same songs at varying intervals.

To my ears, in my system and room, the main improvements are 1) improved clarity and resolution and 2) an expanded, almost unbounded, soundstage. The overall sound is refined, pretty much top-shelf albeit it’s been a while since I’ve heard competing contenders. I always considered the DSD version to be excellent but the Twenty is a notable step up. Easier than ever to relax into the music. 

The increased clarity makes it easier to hear individual voices and instruments during complex passages. The added resolution adds a bit more texture all around; performers and instruments are more “fleshy”. This is most obvious in the midrange but I also hear improvement in the bass and, to a lesser extent, the treble. Ayre claims quieter backgrounds and that sounds accurate to me. Well recorded music is more dimensional with an expansive soundstage. I don’t hear any aspect of performance that is a step backwards from the DSD version. 

This is the fourth time I’ve upgraded an Ayre product! Been really happy every time. Thanks Ryan, Ariel, and crew 😊

[beetlemania]

2 hours ago, Sonny Oh said:

Can any QB9 version (non-DSD old) be upgradeable to Twenty? Also at the same cost? How long the waiting list is? 

From the Ayre website, this upgrade is applicable to all versions. I think they change everything except the chassis, display and power supply (although I think the DSD version had a power supply modification from the original version?). 

[beetlemania]

Hmm, I guess I should play my reference tracks again to see if the sound has continued to change 😊

I stopped keeping track but I must be at least 750 hours by now.

 

I have noticed recently how freaking good my system sounds if I sit relative nearfield (~7' instead of ~9') but that probably says more about my speakers and room than the QB-9. But I have sat in that position before and, while it always sounded best "nearfield", I don't remember it sounding *this* scintillating.

[beetlemania]

On 1/23/2020 at 8:56 AM, bsinc said:

Have played my QB 9 Twenty all day, everyday now for almost 90 days. I don’t think 2-300 hrs gets  it to where it is illustrative of the full capability of the unit.  The owners manual for the original specified up to 500 hours.  After two months I felt it was pretty much where it was going to be.... but I was wrong. After another month it continued to show subtle, incremental improvement. Not huge performance leaps but more refinement on the manifested qualities and a continuation of refinement in depth and high frequencies. As we get near the end of the fourth month it hasn’t changed much at all so I’ll call it “done”. It doesn’t surprise me with some new attribute anymore, but it delights me everyday with some sessions lasting 8 hrs. It takes longer than you might think to run it in.

I was a bit skeptical when I read your account. But I played my reference tracks this evening as I have the house to myself. I have to say I don’t recall *this* level of pristine clarity and liquidity. Some say that auditory memory is not reliable. I don’t have a strong opinion either way but I will say this: my system sounds better than I remember  😊

[beetlemania]

@CG what is your subjective experience with your QB-9 as it burns in even more? You earlier reported changes at the 200-300 hour mark but what about now?

 

Regardless, interesting speculation of the reasons burn in could take week and months. 

[beetlemania]

@Mercman Are you still running a QX-5? It would be interesting to get your take on that compared to a QB-9 Twenty. I yearned for a QX-5 but it remained out of my budget. I haven’t heard one for a couple of years but am wondering how close the new QB-9 gets. 
 

Are you still writing for any outlet? Haven’t seen any reviews from you for a while.

[beetlemania]

On 12/5/2020 at 9:17 PM, PrTv said:

For those who upgraded their units before me (e.g. CG or beetlemania), how long does it take till you feel the unit stabilized, and do you see any improvement in high frequency (less harsh and more define)?

Cold out of the box, I heard a vague sense of something not right even though I could also immediately discern the improvements in resolution and clarity. But, otherwise I never heard anything like what you are reporting. IIRC, that character cleared substantially within a couple of days. I thought the sound was mostly stable around the 250 hour mark but later seemed to hear subtle improvements well past the 500 hour mark. I suppose I would characterize that as a more coherent, relaxed, and open sound. So, maybe that is what you're hoping for?

 

First day or two aside, I never felt that the DSD version was better in any way. As I approach retirement years, I’m confident the Twenty version is my final DAC.

[beetlemania]

19 hours ago, barrows said:

Going direct from a commercial computer to a USB dAC is generally a compromise.  You might want to try something like a an UpTone Audio IsoRegen between the computer and the DAC to clean up the noise.

FWIW, I'm going straight from my Roon ROCK to the QB-9. From my reading, the QB-9 has more isolation than most DACs. What say you, Tone Deaf? Have you listened with and without the ISO Regen feeding the QB-9?

[beetlemania]

15 hours ago, Tone Deaf said:

So in my experience, the Twenty version is sensitive to upstream source changes.  I believe@barrows suggestion is a valid one if someone wants to get a bit more performance out of the QB-9, and they are not using a specialized renderer, and possibly even if they are.  Adding one also just might take the "edge" off something about the sound such as @PrTv is experiencing - my guess is he is hearing some type of noise making it thru to the DAC, and an ISO Regen might clean much of that up.  I've also used MBP's with the QB-9 - they were not immune to USB improvements either.

 

 

Thanks for the detailed reply.

 

Shortly after I got my QB-9 (originally a 24/192 version, ie, pre-DSD), I compared the sonics using my CAPS-inspired server to a PC laptop and MBP as the source. I also tried at least 6 music players on my server (JRMC, foobar, et al.). I heard tiny differences and none I felt merited further inve$tment. I know I’m in the minority around here.

But your experience has me wondering about the ISO Regen . . .

[beetlemania]

On 7/11/2021 at 3:47 AM, ufoerp said:

Thanks for important feedback!

Now I am wondering if I will do the 20' upgrade on my QB9DSD or just make a big jump to QX5. I just heard that QX5 twenty version with USB2 board with some new features. 

To my ears, the DSD version was a nice upgrade compared to the original QB-9. But the Twenty version is an even bigger upgrade compared to the DSD version. Truly musical. As I approach retirement, pretty sure this is my last DAC. 
 

I’ve not directly compared the QB-9 Twenty to the QX-5. Probably the QX-5 is sonically superior but, unless you have deep pockets, cost might be an important factor.