QB-9 Upgrade

[ChrisAZ]

Originally Posted by doggiehowser

I know Hansen may have a reputation of being a straight shooter but wow

Ayre wants $1.5K for DSD'ed QB-9 - Page 13

I'm curious why he would want anyone to pay him $1,500 to prove the customer is wrong? Could it be an issue with his implementation of DSD using Sabre32 and his DSP when dCS, EMM and Playback have demonstrated how well a native DSD built ground up can work? Even Esoteric does an amazing job with SACD/DSD using an off the shelf DAC chip.

Well that was certainly confusing. I was under the impression that the upgrade would be a few hundred dollars, not $1500 (as suggested by your post), but there will be a potential year long wait (from Mr. Hanson's own words on the Computer Audiophile site)! If you read the beginning of that string the discussion of the price was speculation on one poster's part and not an official statement by Ayre. Hanson later says the price of a new QB-9 DSD will go up by $500, so I sincerely doubt the $1500 speculation.

However, there's not much discussion in that string (if any) of the sonic improvements for non-DSD recordings, and Hanson's dissing of DSD recordings suggests that I should think long and hard about upgrading my QB-9. I think I'll wait for a full professional review.

The long back and forth at the Computer Audiophile site got pretty heated, and Mr. Hanson's sarcasm was in full bloom - so please correct me if I misunderstood the takeaway from what was said there.

[Glisse]

I think it is important to read the entire thread that was referenced. Hansen is notoriously short fused (for good reasons) and I am amazed how long he kept going!

Many of the points he makes are entirely valid. As many manufacturers are jumping on DSD streaming as the latest marketing tool trying to sell new equipment, I actually applaud Hansen's more pragmatic take rather than overselling something that has, and will have, extremely limited application.

His negativity relates to DSD limitations in the recording process, continued use of PCM with brick wall filtering in the recording process, misinformation spread by Sony relating to quantization noise. And his most fundamental complaint - there is hardly any decent music available in a pure DSD form.

Mind you, the amount of music recorded using his favourite ADC, his own QA-9, is even lower

I have not read any comment, from any source, that suggests the new version of the Ayre DAC has a substandard performance on DSD - except for the last 2 posts here.

It was also clear from the thread that the upgrade charge was much lower than the $1500 quoted in the thread title, now repeated here. But I did get the feeling that Hansen would prefer that most existing owners do not take up the offer as they can't cope with a high demand.

He did make it clear that he felt the change to the clock crystals and DAC chip elevated the PCM performance of the QB-9, regardless of DSD.

[doggiehowser]

I have no quibbles over the $1.5k price tag if it really is 1.5k. Like I said, the Wyred4Sound upgrades to the DAC2 to bring it to DSD and SE spec will cost even more.

What I meant was why would you expect your customers to pay you 1.5k to be proven wrong based on his implementation of DSD?

FWIW, I was a very stingy fellow when it came to spending on DACs, the most expensive DAC I had was a Bel Canto DAC3.5VB which I subsequently upgraded to Mk II specs so I could not imagine why people would spend so much on a CDP!?

Then I heard the EMM Labs XDS1 and later the Playback MPS5 and I was sold. There's something pretty amazing about these DACs that have been designed not using off the shelf parts that does DSD superbly well. And I ended up with both. I gather dCS' even pricier boxes sound even better.

[ChrisAZ]

Originally Posted by Glisse

Hansen is notoriously short fused (for good reasons) and I am amazed how long he kept going!

I have not read any comment, from any source, that suggests the new version of the Ayre DAC has a substandard performance on DSD - except for the last 2 posts here.

He did make it clear that he felt the change to the clock crystals and DAC chip elevated the PCM performance of the QB-9, regardless of DSD.

Charles Hanson was certainly baited by the self-styled "experts" in the Computer Audiophile string, and despite his authority on the subject I just wish he hadn't undercut his own responses by including ad hominem attacks on his critics (no matter how provoked). I love Ayre products (in addition to the QB9 I have an Ayre Integrated now being used by my son) and his prickly response doesn't help the brand much. While he might be known to have a short fuse, if I was thinking of buying an Ayre product for the first time I'd sure be put off by his response.

Also, please let me clarify that I did not suggest in my post that the "the new version of the Ayre DAC has a substandard performance on DSD". I would have no reason to do so (since I am no expert on the subject and haven't heard the new QB9-DSD). It was Hanson himself that suggested that it was DSD itself that was not the latest and greatest technology. I will say, however, that SACDs using the DSD technology sound superior to Redbook CDs, at least to my ears.

As for my comment regarding sonic upgrades in the new QB9-DSD for those of us not otherwise able to send a DSD signal to the DAC (which neither my MCD500 or Mac Mini will allow me to do, unless I download one of the very few hi-rez DSD downloads that are available), changing from one chip or one board to another is not sufficient to get me to upgrade unless there is a confirmed independent sonic improvement on other types of signals that I actually use given the long upgrade wait times (I'm less concerned about the cost). I must admit, however, that I am developing some concern about continuing to dump money into a DAC that has such limited connectivity (USB only). But I speak for no one but me.

[mgbaron]

Originally Posted by doggiehowser

What I meant was why would you expect your customers to pay you 1.5k to be proven wrong based on his implementation of DSD?

As several others have mentioned:

1. The new QB9-DSD includes many other upgrades aside from a DSD capable chip such as better clocks and better USB power isolation. When I spoke with them, they told me it was basically entirely new on the inside and called it a "2x" improvement to their ears. Obviously we'll all have to wait for more objective reviews and to hear it ourselves.
2. The price will not be $1500. My guess would be somewhere around $500 with a discount for those who recently purchased (discount confirmed by my dealer)

Personally, I don't think anyone would be too excited about DSD alone unless they own a large library of SACDs and a first gen PS3 to rip them with. However, the other improvements sound very promising.

[doggiehowser]

Kinda odd marketing it with a DSD moniker if that's the least important.

[Glisse]

Originally Posted by doggiehowser

Kinda odd marketing it with a DSD moniker if that's the least important.

I don't think Charles is allowed to do the marketing, LOL!

[Glisse]

Originally Posted by ChrisAZ

Charles Hanson was certainly baited by the self-styled "experts" in the Computer Audiophile string, and despite his authority on the subject I just wish he hadn't undercut his own responses by including ad hominem attacks on his critics (no matter how provoked). I love Ayre products (in addition to the QB9 I have an Ayre Integrated now being used by my son) and his prickly response doesn't help the brand much. While he might be known to have a short fuse, if I was thinking of buying an Ayre product for the first time I'd sure be put off by his response.

He changed quite a lot after his horrific motor cycle accident that left him paralysed. As he has said himself, the pain meds create some mood swings. But he can be his own worst enemy - which I think he knows himself!

I don't think he was being facetious when he kept stating that he was "only" an analog engineer. Digital is pretty specialised, and not what he has experience in. On the other hand, power supplies and output stages are something he knows much better than any of the armchair experts that were trying to take him on at CA. And these are, at the very least, just as important as the chip and software.

Also, please let me clarify that I did not suggest in my post that the "the new version of the Ayre DAC has a substandard performance on DSD". I would have no reason to do so (since I am no expert on the subject and haven't heard the new QB9-DSD). It was Hanson himself that suggested that it was DSD itself that was not the latest and greatest technology. I will say, however, that SACDs using the DSD technology sound superior to Redbook CDs, at least to my ears.

But that is effectively comparing a hi-rez format to a lower rez. But I have some SACDs that sound excellent, and some that sound ordinary. The DSD thing is a can of worms. Worth reading up on, as Hansen's comments are essentially correct. Some DSD files can sound extremely good, but then so can some PCM files. Some DACs can sound fantastic with DSD, but merely good with PCM. And vice versa. Bruce Brown, who mixes at Puget Sound Studios, uses a Playback Designs DAC for DSD output monitoring, and an MSB Platinum IV for PCM. Even though both will do either format.

As for my comment regarding sonic upgrades in the new QB9-DSD for those of us not otherwise able to send a DSD signal to the DAC (which neither my MCD500 or Mac Mini will allow me to do, unless I download one of the very few hi-rez DSD downloads that are available), changing from one chip or one board to another is not sufficient to get me to upgrade unless there is a confirmed independent sonic improvement on other types of signals that I actually use given the long upgrade wait times (I'm less concerned about the cost). I must admit, however, that I am developing some concern about continuing to dump money into a DAC that has such limited connectivity (USB only). But I speak for no one but me.

I took the gist of Hansen's posts to wash out that the scarcity of material makes the performance issue, if there is any, an irrelevancy. And I think he was right to point out that the major studios who hold the bulk of historic material are not going to bother to re-rip their analog masters to DSD, because it would be an expensive and time consuming exercise with no payback potential from the mass market. Likewise, for new material, recording and editing in DSD would hold no appeal to the big studios either. But the people on CA ignored all that, and preferred to argue about technical issues.

I have downloaded a few DSD files, and some of them sound very good. But I also have some PCM files that sound very good too. Now I have tried it, I will go back to listening to the music I love, of which 95% is only via PCM (or records!)

I completely understand your concern re. a single input. You can blame Gordon Rankin for that, Hansen's digital muse. Rankin firmly believes adding additional inputs compromises the performance, and only has a single input on his own Wavelength DACs.

Best of luck with the upgrade, or not, decision

[ChrisAZ]

Thanks for your thoughtful response Glisse.

Originally Posted by Glisse

But that is effectively comparing a hi-rez format to a lower rez. But I have some SACDs that sound excellent, and some that sound ordinary. The DSD thing is a can of worms. Worth reading up on, as Hansen's comments are essentially correct. Some DSD files can sound extremely good, but then so can some PCM files. Some DACs can sound fantastic with DSD, but merely good with PCM. And vice versa. Bruce Brown, who mixes at Puget Sound Studios, uses a Playback Designs DAC for DSD output monitoring, and an MSB Platinum IV for PCM. Even though both will do either format.

I agree that there are no universal truths here as to technology or equipment when it comes to whether or not a recording will sound good or not. Whatever the technology or equipment, the biggest factor is how the artist, producer and engineer of a recording decide to record - some care very much, some couldn't care less. Some use lots of digital effects and compression, some do not. Some are masters of their craft, others are incompetent. If you watch the documentary and then listen to the soundtrack of Soundcity I think it illustrates the point. There we had basically the same studio and same recording equipment, with many of the same producers/engineers involved, and yet the quality and sound of the recording can vary greatly from track to track. It's not a digital or analog thing, or a DSD vs PCM thing, it's whatever the creators of the recording deem important (which all too rarely is what appeals to audiophiles).

Originally Posted by Glisse

I took the gist of Hansen's posts to wash out that the scarcity of material makes the performance issue, if there is any, an irrelevancy. And I think he was right to point out that the major studios who hold the bulk of historic material are not going to bother to re-rip their analog masters to DSD, because it would be an expensive and time consuming exercise with no payback potential from the mass market. Likewise, for new material, recording and editing in DSD would hold no appeal to the big studios either. But the people on CA ignored all that, and preferred to argue about technical issues.

I think the failures of Betamax (vs VHS), Mini Discs (vs cassettes), SACD (vs Redbook CD), et al, in the marketplace illustrate Hanson's argument about DSD. They may in fact be better or much better technologies than what ultimately won out, but if the market doesn't care about them enough to allow the studios to sell sufficient copies to recover their nut plus a reasonable profit, the technology is going to die on the vine and become irrelevant as insufficient content will be produced in that format.

Originally Posted by Glisse

I completely understand your concern re. a single input. You can blame Gordon Rankin for that, Hansen's digital muse. Rankin firmly believes adding additional inputs compromises the performance, and only has a single input on his own Wavelength DACs.

Problem is, that neither Hanson nor Rankin (as talented and gifted as they are) have the foresight to understand that in the end it may not be the personal computer that wins out in digital music wars (and it is unlikely they will because they're too complicated and scary for most users), but that another form of equipment (Bryston BDP2, for example) may do so that doesn't use a USB port. When I'm spending thousands of dollars I'd like to have some flexibility. And by the way, last I looked the Esoteric and DCS equipment have multiple inputs in addition to USB and that doesn't seem to hurt how they perform. To guote that trite old line, "sometimes the perfect can be the enemy of the good."

[Glisse]

I think the failures of Betamax (vs VHS), Mini Discs (vs cassettes), SACD (vs Redbook CD), et al, in the marketplace illustrate Hanson's argument about DSD. They may in fact be better or much better technologies than what ultimately won out, but if the market doesn't care about them enough to allow the studios to sell sufficient copies to recover their nut plus a reasonable profit, the technology is going to die on the vine and become irrelevant as insufficient content will be produced in that format.

The interesting point here is that all of these failed formats are Sony. And in each case they were trying for closed systems with the objective of securing maximum royalties, although they always couch this as protecting copyright. Of course, it did work for them with CD, but that party is now over.

It is ironic that the only easy way to extract DSD from an SACD, short of buying a $100k Sonoma workstation, is via a Sony PS3