[cygnusx]

I may need to sacrifice my kids college fund but I'm convinced I need to go all Ayre. I've listened to many amps both tubes and SS and I haven't heard anything more resolving and engaging than the combo of a Ayre 20 amp with either with a Codex or QB-9. I think it will be my end all equipment. I also love the Leben CS600, it's a fantastic integrated tube amp. May pick one those in the used market at some point. Not many come out into the used market a testament to the sound it produces. Thanks for all your comments guys.

 

[yage]

I may need to sacrifice my kids college fund

but I'm convinced I need to go all Ayre. I've listened to many amps both tubes and SS and I haven't heard anything more resolving and engaging than the combo of a Ayre 20 amp with either with a Codex or QB-9. I think it will be my end all equipment. I also love the Leben CS600, it's a fantastic integrated tube amp. May pick one those in the used market at some point. Not many come out into the used market a testament to the sound it produces. Thanks for all your comments guys.

 
I have an AX-5 Twenty in my system and while it was back in Boulder getting the Twenty update, my dealer lent me his demo AX-7e. Let me tell you, that little amp can sing. It didn't throw as big or deep of a soundstage as the AX-5, but it really held its own in terms of dynamics and tone. This was on music and movies. I was very impressed.

 

[music_man]

i honestly think the codex is great with the ax-5 twenty. using it right now. depends on your speakers. of course some that get the ax-5 twenty may feel the qx-5 twenty is the complimentary component.only if you really need the streaming services but it is somewhat better than the codex. there is always better. to me size was a big factor.
 
one bit of good advice. do not overextend yourself to buy these things. it is totally not worth ruining your life. honestly any material goods are of rather little importance in anyone's life. some can get it, some cannot. however those that cannot get it are no worse off.

 

[cygnusx]

@yage, if you don't mine me asking how much did you pay for the upgrade from AX-5 to the AX-5 Twenty?   Also, what would you guys say would be a good price for a new AX-5 Twenty.  

Btw, don't worry @music_man, I was kidding about the college fund.  I'm taking out a second mortgage on the house.  Kidding a side, thanks for the advise, but if I couldn't afford it, I wouldn't even be playing around with Ayre equipment.  My thing is, I want a good deal and I'm ok with the used market.  

 

[yage]

@cygnusx - I paid the difference in cost between the AX-5 Twenty and AX-5, which at the time was $3k.

 

[music_man]

new ayre equipment is the same price at every authorized dealer. used i have no idea.

 

[ToddRaymond]

Previously I had a K-3x and V-5xe, which I enjoyed immensely. Now I have a V-1xe, but haven't been able to afford a second hand K-1xe (or a new KX-5 Twenty, which would also do just fine). In the meantime I'm using a Lyr 2 with some good, overlooked Russian 6N3P-Es as a preamp. Anyhow, the used V-1xe cost me less than half of what a new VX-5 Twenty would have. Would be interesting to compare the two, but I'm sure I'll be content for a while.

 

[music_man]

the codex takes some "support" to really be killer but trust me it wil be worth it. it wil narrow the gap betwen it and dacs 4x it's price including the qx-5. it will never reach the qx-5 but it will get scary close. which to people that need compact is a huge deal. i can put any dac in here except for size. i have the msb diamond select here but i cannot use it in this system. wish i could because the rest of this system is very nice. on that note don't kid yourselves. the msb smokes both the codex and qx-5. the vivaldi interestingly is not so fantastic in my book and neither is the dave. i know these "should" be in a different stratosphere but really only the msb walks on all comers imo. still, i cannot fit it here so discussing it is pointless. in that regard due to it's size the codex is really something if you set it up right. i do highly recommend to use it with the ax-5 twenty. maybe you guys can get a used one. see this stuff is amazing. my speakers shall need much more power but it is fine. you can build a small reference class system.

 

[music_man]

I said this before but i find it very odd that there is no picture of the inside of the codex on the internet that i know of. it is understandable how they fit it though. most full size dacs have a lot of empty space inside. you figure take every bit of space out od dave or hugoi tt and it would fit in the codex case maybe. since the size is not too far off already. how hot it gets is a big issue if they did not adress it but i am sure they did. they need to have compensation circuitry. otherwise that heat will eventually throw it way out of spec. however dacs themselves do perform better hot. that is why some high end dacs have an "oven". perhaps they are so smart it hapens to be just the right temperature and they do not require compensation circuitry. i am not worried though. since by the time it dies there will be much better dac technology. dacs are like computers. well they pretty much are computers. so every six months, year there will be better technology. you could honestly have this be end game if you want though. i mean there is always better but this qualifies as reference quality imo. i just really want to see what is in it but i do not wish to take mine apart. i was fully capable but my health has severely degraded and i could easily break it. i would like to try to replace the xmos bus powered chip with a non powered one but i can no longer do it myself. if you use independent power from the pc it is fine though. that, actually makes a big difference as does balanced operation. with those two things in place you would be hard pressed to find anything under $5k-$8k that will absolutely beat it. the qx-5 beats it but not by even close to a mile. so long as it is set up as i say. i think it is easily better than the qb-9 dsd. which is why i really want to see the inside of it. obviously why ayre discontinued it. right now they would be hard pressed to make anything with an ess chip, even 9038pro that walks all over it. don't worry it will come shortly i am sure. the big problem is dumping noise into it but that is very easily overcome. if someone is looking at this and odes not have it already. if you are not going to run good balanced cables and provide external usb power i would honestly forget this dac. if you are going to do those things i do not think you can touch it at the price. just really want to see the inside. is anyone willing to open theirs?
 
edit:
well this is very interesting. i was only playing flac files from jriver in native format with no dsp. i just hooked up the meridian 808v6 with a nordost white lightning. the sound is considerably better than the computer! i totally did not expect that. the codex was solidly high end equipment. this proves there is no reason not to use this in a $$$ system if you have limited space or whatever. i mean the sound was actually approaching the msb select and perhaps even besting ayre's own qx-5 twenty. i figure they do not want this to be known if they even know. absolutely amazing! now, i downgraded to a sony 999es modwright which is no slouch and it was not as good. so what you put in is obviously what you get out. just as a totl dac should be. i was really floored at this. oh, i was also using a prime carbon fiber cd mat which i swear by with any mechanical transport. just like a turntable clamp is a must. jriver on a pc is much more convenient but now that i heard this i will have to labor lol. i imagine this may hold true not using the qx-5 as a music server and with a transport as well. i can test it. i was sure the computer was better than a transport but no way. this was very surprising indeed. i guess software is just no replacement for the sound quality of a dedicated redbook transport. obviously having thousands of titles at the press of a button is much nicer. i am torn what to do now. jriver sounded very good with it and had i not known about this i still would have maintained that the codex competes with some #5k-$8k dacs. now hearing this the gap has narrowed even between the best of the best. i am guessing the qx-5 will follow suit used in this manner but do not know yet as i have not tested it but i am about to. i have to brink it upstairs first. all i can say is ayre really has their circuitry down. the issue is with using software to render the music i guess and i really thought it would be the other way around.

 

[BlackstoneJD]

The difference in functionality between a disc spinner and a computer audio solution is so massive that to some extent it is irrelevant. I can't imagine ever going back to a spinner. it is simply unfathomable and probably is also unnecessary because of the dedicated server devices that have appeared on the market in recent years.

it is really hard to find a reference point to use in figuring out what your PC-based solution should sound like. in my personal experience recently trying to re-create the sound of a reference system that included the QX5 in my own house, I have come to the conclusion that everything matters, including the USB cable that you use to connect the device to your computer and the software you are running. alternatively as far as the QX5 being a transport, my understanding is that The ethernet cable that you use and the quality of your network infrastructure, and how well suited it is for audio is also likely a factor. ironically when I recently changed cables from a good USB to a great USB the best way I can describe the change in the sound is to say that it made my PC sound more like a dedicated transport. It also made The sound more consistently good regardless of what the PC was doing. I think cabling and power conditioning is a big factor in getting a PC-based solution sounding up to par. but it is impossible to say whether a PC can ever sound as good as a transport because every single PC is different.

theoretically and I say theoretically because I haven't had a chance to test it, the best solution is not a PC using JRiver, but rather a dedicated device like a Melco that was designed for audio reproduction with the same attention to detail as a dedicated CD.

perhaps by switching to a dedicated CD transport what you are hearing is the codex simply sounding more like a reference system because it is more like a reference system or maybe you addressed some specific deficiency in your PC that the QX5 was better able to mitigate. or maybe you would find that the QX5 gets as much improvement from a dedicated device as the codex.

The only thing I think you can safely conclude from your experiment is that you can get more performance out of the codex by improving your source. The fact that you seem to think that it makes it sound more like the QX5 suggests that whatever you did brought you closer to your ideal sound and probably was a step in the right direction.

if you do happen to make a comparison between your PC and a dedicated CD transport or a dedicated server device pleased to report your findings because there are a lot of people out there I think, myself included, who are investigating making that investment in a dedicated source.

 

[music_man]

i completely agree with you. i am torn. jriver is way fancier than any disc spinner or even music server for that matter. to be honest i had also listened to the pc on the qx5 wiith flac files. still compressed if that even matters. i thought the built in stuff on the qx-5 uses compresion too? i could try an ethernet cable to it because ethernet is way higher quality for audio than usb. i have on my pc what i feel is the best usb cable. two in fact. one comes out of the pc via an aq jiterbug to a dedicated linear +5v usb psu then the other half goes to the dcodex. do not need to do that with the qx5.  my pc is powered strictly by battery via an "online" ups and the stereo by another online ups. i feel they are better than the finest power conditioners, the issue with them would be if you have 1000 watt mcintosh monobloks. i have an ax-5 twenty so it works. i really do not know. the sound went from impressing me for the price to like out of this world. like what i heard when i tried the qx-5 in the store with a spinner. yes, that was also with a spinner. when i got the qx-5 home initially it was much better than the codex i think but i had to run down 3 sets of stairs to a different system. i worked on what i was feeding the codex and it improved a lot. that must be the thing. the codex at least seems to be very icky about what you feed it. even when i went from a $15,000 spinner to a $5,000 spinner there was a big difference. i hope for our sake a dedicated music server will be as good as a spinner. i totally agree today a spinner is a pita. i think that is the thing though, the codex is very particular of the source. a pc is known to be a lousy source regardless of cable. i did not test all this with the qx-5 yet. to say the least though this was a really amazing exercise. also as i said ayre may not even be aware of this. i mean the sound of the pc to the meridian was night and day. i had actually been putting off bringing upstairs some spinners since i got the codex. it is unfortunate though because obviously i would much rather at least use jriver if not a dedicated music server. i will have to bring the aurender upstairs as well. the thing is these items have to temporarily go on the floor on an amp stand. that is why the qx-5 is not up here. i am very lucky for the codex because i have no more room on this table. for that matter this system is highly bastardized. if this system was set up properly it would be world class independent of the dac. the ax-5 is a little underpowered but fine these speakers are amongst the best "mini" speakers in the world. i did not try headphones but i could. i have a number of balanced headphones. including the hd800 and ps1k. of course you cannot plug the sr009 into it. i too hope more people do report. the thing is though you are probably going to need a darn high end spinner. which is what i think  made all the difference. it is just a better source than the pc. a $500 spinner may not even be as good as the pc. i don't know.
 
oh, blackstone i am glad to see you got the qx-5. btw, are you an attorney? i just figured the "jd". don't worry i don't need an attorney lol.

 

[BlackstoneJD]

Yes I also have the QX-5 and AX-5. I am feeding 802D speakers which are not mini by any stretch of the imagination. It is heavenly sounding.
 
My original demo of QX-5 was with 803D3 where the QX was fed by a Melco server via USB, all Transparent cabling, AX-5 Twenty, and I thought it was one of the best sounding systems ever heard period. 
 
I got a LOT closer to that sound with room treatments (this turned out to be the biggest tweak of all), better Transparent USB cable.
 
I have a big custom built PC with monster specs for gaming. Not good for audio, theoretically, but it works great. I will eventually, down the road, audition a Melco like device, but honestly there is no need at this stage it just sounds so good. Once I got the room under control, the need to upgrade quieted a bit and I can just enjoy the music. Having said that, at some point I will get bored and at that stage the Melco will get tested. I can't speak to how the Melco compares to the Aurender, but people whose opinions I value have told me that the Melco is the best sounding solution. I would check it out if I were you.
 
As for USB v. Ethernet, not even recent videos by Charles Hansen himself explaining all about the QX-5's development were enlightening on that point but people I know who have experimented have told me that you really want some device in between your network router and your dAC, and then a really good ethernet cable like a Transparent from that device to the DAC, but it is unclear what exact device one would use. Lots of discussion on the subject on Computeraudiophile.com right now. The computer audio stuff is turning out to be a lot more interesting than I thought.

 

[music_man]

treatments make a huge difference. unfortunately in here the system is just a freaken mess. i took 85 grand speakers and put them to shame. might as well have bose. i just knew there was only one chance to get those so i figured i could do better later.so far nothing has changed. i do not know about filtering usb. i do know even a stock rj45 cable is better than many $600 usb cables. it is just a better "format". i thought the computer sounded good too. even with the codex. computers that are used for gaming are a rotten source. i just proved this with the spinner. the difference was night and day. that was just with the codex. i did not even try the qx-5 yet. the qx-5 is better than the codex at computer audio. you have to understand we cannot take monster gaming machines as audio servers for the best sound. it is good. however you, like myself are putting $$$ equipment to shame. i do not know about the malco or even aurender but the spinner was a difference that floored me. the other thing that was interesting was the difference between a $5,000 spinner and a $15,000 one. a system is only as good as it's source. unfortunately a general usage pc is a terrible source. the 802 and 803 are much bigger speakers than i have up here in size. i have totl wilsons downstairs. i use some transparent cables but honestly at the absolute high end i prefer brands such as crystal cable. anyways the point here which i just proved but is well known is that a pc is a rotten source. unless it is dedicated to audio usage. which takes modifications that only a skilled technician can apply. i do not know about an audio server yet. i would certainly run uncomprssed files. not even flac. we can argue that but my ears do not lie. i promise you i could pick all this out in a dbt. it is night and day. on another note i had the 805d3 before i went crazy with my speaker purchase in this room. the b&w are good enough speakers for almost anyone. I highly recommend them. of course everyone has different tastes.

 

[BlackstoneJD]

I don't doubt at all what you are saying about PC. I think relatively speaking there are probably much better sources but I would not call my PC a rotten source. It doesn't sound rotten. The Melco is probably a big step up. From what I have heard it beats even the most meticulously crafted audio purpose built PCs. It runs on an ARM processor--its the opposite of a monster gaming PC. And it can output USB or ethernet. I heard it with the Sennheiser HE-1 system when they demo'd it in Chicago (I got a great five minutes with those cans!) and a lot of QX5 demos use the Melco. It is like a server that is built like a spinner.

Also a few ASC tower traps did wonders to my room. Midbass absorbtion and midrange diffusion. One trap in the corner behind each speaker. It was a jaw dropping change.

 

[music_man]

treatment makes a big difference but my system in the bedroom is so compromised it hardly matters. it is like you said though. it still sounds very good. if you take b&w's with an ax-5 twenty or ps1k it is still going to sound very good no matter what. the issue is you may have no idea how much better they can get! as far as sources go a multi purpose pc really is at the bottom. i want to hear the he. have to call there and see if i can listen. they know what i will spend so i am sure they will. the thing is i am hard pressed to buy those but after i hear them you never know. i have the he90/hev90. when i was listening to those i actually used a custom amp though. i don't doubt, uncompressed the melco is as good or beter than a spinner. the issue is it still does not have all the functionality of jriver. like two way communication with my urc remote. to be honest i prefer a spinner anyways. then i got lazy after jriver. completely forgot vinyl now. i do not know what the melco costs but you can build something like it for about $1,000usd. well, maybe not. depends on the quality of their usb traces and stuff.  i completely understand why people would want music servers. i got interested too. the problem is it is a tossup between the functionality of jriver and the sound quality of a spinner. even the built in stuff on the qx-5 i thought did not sound nearly as good as just using it as a dac. the codex is certainly the better value but outright the qx-5 is better. if someone is not going to use the built in stuff i would say get the codex. you probably have no idea how good your system actually sounds though. for me i can accept everything being on a table because i have another system in a dedicated listening room. i just imagine what it could sound like. even with the way it is the expensive spinner made a huge difference over the pc. i could run the melco with a usb cable to the codex. i do not have room for the qx-5 in here. if i go there i am just guessing i will probably buy the melco but maybe not the he headphones.