[music_man]

just an fyi. codex in fact does not use +5vusb power as i had thought. just as ayre says. i am not sure why jriver had crashed before. just removed and reapplied +5vusb several times with no issue.
so my vaunix brick is a waste other than my cable is not long enough. not sure if the brick even has any derogatory affect on the sound then. i figure with the brick i should leave the powewr plugged in though as it has active circuitry.

 

[BlackstoneJD]

As I mentioned above, I ordered a QX-5. The QX-5 Twenty does have digital volume control. Dealer said the product is designed to be sent directly to a power amp. Also it should be noted that some reviews of Codex have lauded how good it sounds straight into an amp. Of course a really, really good line level pre would probably be a plus, but the expectation is this is going to be a killer DAC straight into the amp. Worse case scenario, it becomes their best DAC but you still need a pre or headphone amp. I doubt that will be the case, because I suspect that the preamp or headphone amplifier that would best it would be fantastically expensive.
 
The question becomes, to the put the question in Ayre terms, if you have a QX-5 Twenty, does it make more sense to pair it with an AX-5 Twenty and use the DAC in DAC only mode, or does it make more sense to feed it directly into a VX-5 Twenty (Power Amp). It would be nice to have that choice, and there is a possibility that for owners of the QX-5 Twenty, the AX-5 Twenty becomes unnecessary and you only need a good power amp.  
 
The QX-5 appears to implement an entirely new crystal oscillator for the clock. From my experience improvements to the clock or adding an external word clock can be a massive improvement in and of itself. They are also using an entirely new DAC chip. The ethernet functionality might also be a step up in sound quality from async USB. A lot of things might come together to make this unit really killer. Or, it could only end up being marginally better than QB-9 and Codex...but that is unlikely. 
 
QX-5 will be an end game DAC for me because you probably need such good speakers, amps, headphones, cables and room treatments to get the most out of it that by the time I get the rest of the system up to par, I will be old and deaf.
 
I find it hard to believe that they are going to put out anything with the "Twenty" moniker that is not going to sound stupendous. They seemed to obsessed with making stuff that sounds good.
 
At that price it should perform on par or better with a dCS Debussy.
 
I suppose it is possible they will replace QB-9 DSD with something new and improved at the $3,000 price point but perhaps not if the new paradigm includes multiple inputs and volume control.

 

[yage]

 
The question becomes, to the put the question in Ayre terms, if you have a QX-5 Twenty, does it make more sense to pair it with an AX-5 Twenty and use the DAC in DAC only mode, or does it make more sense to feed it directly into a VX-5 Twenty (Power Amp). It would be nice to have that choice, and there is a possibility that for owners of the QX-5 Twenty, the AX-5 Twenty becomes unnecessary and you only need a good power amp. 

 
I think it makes sense if your setup is pure digital to pair the QX-5 Twenty with the VX-5 Twenty. The only reason to have a line-level preamp, IMO, is to accommodate sources that don't have a digital output. Otherwise you're just adding unnecessary noise to the signal path and spending beaucoup bucks to do it.
 
I'm definitely interested in a head-to-head between my C-5 and the QX-5. I know the C-5 is long in the tooth, but every time I listen to it, I can't really imagine a source sounding better. Of course, I said the same thing when I bought my AX-5 and then the Twenty update came out...

 

[KmanChu]

   
 
I suppose it is possible they will replace QB-9 DSD with something new and improved at the $3,000 price point but perhaps not if the new paradigm includes multiple inputs and volume control.

 
My dealer said that his expectation was for the QB-9 to be discontinued and essentially replaced by the Codex at their lower end.

 

[yage]

I believe the words my dealer used were "the QB-9 is not long for this world."

 

[BlackstoneJD]

  I believe the words my dealer used were "the QB-9 is not long for this world."

It is true. The Codex, from everything I have heard is better. Sigh. That is called progress. I can't complain. If they can make an $1,800 dac with headphone amplifier that is better than the QB-9 DSD as a straight DAC, that is progress. That is a company that is not holding its technology for ransom. They learned a lot since QB-9 launched, obviously, and they incorporated it into the Codex. A used QB-9 is probably a great deal, but if you are in the market for a new DAC, Codex is where it is at. My dealer said it is more than a bit better than the QB-9 DSD, it is a lot better than QB-9 and basically Ayre said they wouldn't be selling a lot of QB-9s going forward. It might not make sense to upgrade from QB-9 DSD to Codex, but my understanding is that dealer's position and I think Ayre's position is that QB-9 DSD is not as good a DAC as Codex as as straight DAC.
 
But you don't buy a DAC as an investment. DACs are not a good place to park your money. A DAC is about the most discretionary purchase you can imagine. The formats change, the inputs change, you can't anticipate it. The analog components, speakers and phones are more future proof. A good line level pre, power amp or headphone amp never really becomes obsolete.
 
QB-9 DSD is GOOD, however. It has no vices. I can't say that there is ANY aspect of its performance whatsoever that I find lacking in any way. It absolutely meets expectations. It lacks some modern functionality but it is a wicked good sounding DAC. I think it is astoundingly good. It just does not reflect the current state of the art. I suspect Codex is underrated as a DAC.

 

[jhljhl]

  It is true. The Codex, from everything I have heard is better. Sigh. That is called progress. I can't complain. If they can make an $1,800 dac with headphone amplifier that is better than the QB-9 DSD as a straight DAC, that is progress. That is a company that is not holding its technology for ransom. They learned a lot since QB-9 launched, obviously, and they incorporated it into the Codex. A used QB-9 is probably a great deal, but if you are in the market for a new DAC, Codex is where it is at. My dealer said it is more than a bit better than the QB-9 DSD, it is a lot better than QB-9 and basically Ayre said they wouldn't be selling a lot of QB-9s going forward. It might not make sense to upgrade from QB-9 DSD to Codex, but my understanding is that dealer's position and I think Ayre's position is that QB-9 DSD is not as good a DAC as Codex as as straight DAC.
 
But you don't buy a DAC as an investment. DACs are not a good place to park your money. A DAC is about the most discretionary purchase you can imagine. The formats change, the inputs change, you can't anticipate it. The analog components, speakers and phones are more future proof. A good line level pre, power amp or headphone amp never really becomes obsolete.
 
QB-9 DSD is GOOD, however. It has no vices. I can't say that there is ANY aspect of its performance whatsoever that I find lacking in any way. It absolutely meets expectations. It lacks some modern functionality but it is a wicked good sounding DAC. I think it is astoundingly good. It just does not reflect the current state of the art. I suspect Codex is underrated as a DAC.

 
I think QB-9 dsd is good for classical. Codex is good for rock/pop music. Codex is more warm and has more PRAT for rock etc. But it is on par not sure if better just different. But Codex is better value overall costs almost half the QB-9 dsd.

 

[music_man]

jhi, I fully agree. I listen to easy listening/pop/progressive jazz. I hate to say their, the codex nails the qb-9 dsd. I am so glad they are not holding their technology for ransom like say apple or Samsung. they always release the best they have when they have it. on this alone I applaud ayre.
 
I am not sure the voltage on the xlr is correct for going into a power amp? the nice thing about pro gear like the benchmark dac1 which we still use is you can adjust the xlr voltage. I honestly would find it a waste to put rca into an ayre power amp. however the voltage does not matter there. cables are very important to extract the best sound or to your liking. cables are like adjustments as you all know.
 
I put my codex into the ax-5 twenty preamp in. I assume that is going into a preamp as the ax5-twenty is an integrated amplifier and not a power amp in.
 
to the Debussy I don't know. I kind of doubt it beats the diamond dac v. that is not fair but if it does holy moly.
 
I am not sure what their clock is but I am sure it is proprietary to them. otherwise a femto clock is tops.
 
I have no qualms about the codex in this very high end but very compact system. the thing is I did not have room for something larger. this not only fit the bill for size but the sound is what I would consider a high end dac. I feel this easily beats the likes of the bda-3 etc. some may disagree but for my neds it is end game in this system until something vastly superior comes out also in a likewise form factor. that would be a tall order but come two years I do not doubt they pull it off.
 
I just wish it had more in's out's. standard bnc aes/ebu extra set balanced extra set xlr. the qx did not go in the direction I required and it's form factor is too large for me. I do not need to play from a thumb drive, have Ethernet etc. I would be guesing it is a better dac than the codex however.
 
I hardly listen to headphones anymore but I have 5 or so very high end headphone amps. so I would not even consider using the mini jacks on the codex. not just the mini jacks because my phones have 1/4 or din if planar but because I doubt it can compete. maybe I would be surprised. I am just lucky I already have the amps and do not even use them now.i would guess it is a great dac with a headphone amp tacked on. likewise with most dacs that have a headphone amp. unles they are first a headphone amp and second a dac like the sennheiser. I could be completely wrong though. I just picked up a pair of cheap phones with a 1/8" to make sure it was working. that was the extent of my listening to it. bottom line ib wil not be using it so that was not a selling point to me. at this level I do not think it should be to anyone.
 
technology in this field certainly does increase. for $1,800 they built a dac that could be considered end game for some and it is better than the $3,000 qb-9. it is like computers. you just cannot feel ba dif you bought last years model unless you are planning on trading it in.
 
it humors me that in the teac 503 thread everyone things it is amazing. not even close to the codex of course. I do understand people have budgets though. so I do not fault anyone for that. at least they are listending to music and honestly that thing is a lot og bang for the buck. the codex is pull no stops however. it is not really an entry level product save for the ayre name. they knocked it out of the park. in fact I doubt the qx slaughters it. with the better clock I am not sure though. clock is very important in a dac.
 
it is interesting the qx has a digital volume control. well, not really. fully digital products should imo.i have a feeling in the future all their products will. a shalco has limited longevity is very expensive and doe snot measure as good., in fact with the digital controls out now they even have closer channel matching. classe, mark levinson,krell,sim,,bryston etc. al ditched their shalco's of yesteryear for digital. I think the qx is a start of a trend by ayre. could be wrong their too. still, I love the ax-5 twenty. the volume control is a sight to behold. even if digital controls fair better. it is funny cheap Cambridge called theirs "silicon gate" to differentiate themselves to the unknowing. after their fiasco with a cheap ladder relay made in china. that brings me to the ayre all of it is mad ein usa. for now. at least. my only qualm about the codex is how hot it gets. I know there is a reason for that. I would just worry about capacitors drying up and such. it is certainly in an "oven" lol. I keep mine on 24/7. oh. a remote would be welcome. the button to switch everything is a bit cumbersome too but they had to fit all this in a tiny package. I am not sure if the form factor is on purpose or just happened. worked perfect for me though. just happened to be exactly what I was looking for when I wa sin the market. agreed, a dac is not an investment. I figure this will stick around for a while though. right now it would be hard to top it without going to something like the diamond dc v which cannot even be a comparison due to price alone. it is honestly that good. if I switch to the diamond dac v I really have to listen to pick it out. simply amazing..not only did it fit it far surpassed my expectations for such a small box. oh, one last thing do yourselves a favor and put it on still points or at least sorbothane. made a nice difference than hard shelf. it is on it's side too. yes that little room.......well that's it for today. had  a lot to say a si am elated with this thing. sorry for such a long post.

 

[yage]

 
I am not sure the voltage on the xlr is correct for going into a power amp?

SoundStage Hi-Fi had some measurements done on the VX-5 (link here) and found a voltage gain of 17.5 / 24.9 dB for both balanced and unbalanced inputs. At 8 ohms, you'd need ~2.3 V rms from the preamp to achieve its full power output. At 4 ohms, the voltage level required drops to ~1.93 V rms. You can easily achieve that with the Codex in preamp mode, connected with either the balanced or single-ended outputs.

 

[music_man]

do you know what the output vrms is? I was just wondering. it would actually be nice if it is a little hot. since of course as people were wishing it would be an actual preamp.

 

[mink70]

 
In terms of sound quality, for those who may own both, is the Codex essentially a desktop-based Pono?

 
I, too, started with the Pono, which I continue to love. It's beguiling musicality is in my experience unique among portable devices. In general, I think one of the challenges in this hobby is making meaningful distinctions between sound and music, and one of the interesting things about Charlie Hansen is that he has thought a lot about making stuff that plays music, not just reproduces sound.
 
Having said that, for me the Codex is just as engaging as the Pono, but offers a lot more sound quality, power, dynamics and detail. It is absolutely not a desktop Pono. As a DAC, it is really astonishingly good, and one of the outstanding values in audio right now. For me, at $1800 it was not a casual purchase, but I cannot imagine a better way to spend that money on enjoying music. Honestly, I cannot imagine a DAC sounding much better, and have been getting more mileage by focusing on the transport side of the equation—the computer, software, USB cable, USB filtering devices, etc.
 
My record player is a Garrard 301/SME 3012/Ortofon SPU, and I own 3000 LPs, and this is the first time I'm listening to computer files as often as to my records. With the Codex, they sound nearly as engaging and fun.

 

[yage]

  do you know what the output vrms is? I was just wondering. it would actually be nice if it is a little hot. since of course as people were wishing it would be an actual preamp.

 
These are numbers from Stereophile's latest issue (not available yet online): with volume set to 100 in preamp mode, output level is 7.14 V balanced and 3.545 V single-ended, both slightly hotter than specified by Ayre.

 

[music_man]

holy smokes! that is very hot. enough to cause distortion on anything I would think. I totally forgot it is variable. that is terrific. I would say most power amps like 2.0 to 2.7 for full output. 7.14 wow. the benchmark cannot come close to that with the front knob or the rear pots. I just always mention the benchmark dac1 because it is still a workhorse in our studios. we do not need cutting edge dacs to record music. some studios do but those are those $60 gold cd's. we still have a rack of 20 of them. just good for studio work but long surpassed in hifi.
 
as was said a dac is not an investment. if you love yours so be it. the technology will keep going forward and in 3 years we will completely have forgotten the codex and qx. I bet on that. like old ml digital was 20 grand now it is 1,500 bucks. not even worth that imo. it is useless now.
 
the codex is not a desktop pono! there is no comparison. the codex will blow away the pono. I still like the pono when out and about. like it better than hifiman or whatever. ayre is just a great company. so is ps audio. interestingly both located in the same city! the real reason I like them so much is not solely the sound. you can pick up the phone and speak with a design engineer. practically no other companies allow that.

 

[oneway23]

   
I, too, started with the Pono, which I continue to love. It's beguiling musicality is in my experience unique among portable devices. In general, I think one of the challenges in this hobby is making meaningful distinctions between sound and music, and one of the interesting things about Charlie Hansen is that he has thought a lot about making stuff that plays music, not just reproduces sound.
 
Having said that, for me the Codex is just as engaging as the Pono, but offers a lot more sound quality, power, dynamics and detail. It is absolutely not a desktop Pono. As a DAC, it is really astonishingly good, and one of the outstanding values in audio right now. For me, at $1800 it was not a casual purchase, but I cannot imagine a better way to spend that money on enjoying music. Honestly, I cannot imagine a DAC sounding much better, and have been getting more mileage by focusing on the transport side of the equation—the computer, software, USB cable, USB filtering devices, etc.
 
My record player is a Garrard 301/SME 3012/Ortofon SPU, and I own 3000 LPs, and this is the first time I'm listening to computer files as often as to my records. With the Codex, they sound nearly as engaging and fun.

 
This is really fantastic input and I appreciate it very much, thank you...I'm still oscillating between the Codex and the Schiit Gungnir at the moment, but it sounds as though I'd be extremely fortunate in either case...Both are considered blow away in terms of their performance for the price, and neither one would be an insignificant expense for me...The multi-functional Codex certainly sounds like a great value proposition. 

 

[yage]

   
This is really fantastic input and I appreciate it very much, thank you...I'm still oscillating between the Codex and the Schiit Gungnir at the moment, but it sounds as though I'd be extremely fortunate in either case...Both are considered blow away in terms of their performance for the price, and neither one would be an insignificant expense for me...The multi-functional Codex certainly sounds like a great value proposition. 

 
@sheldaze has both (Gungnir Multibit) so he can offer up his thoughts. When I first heard the Yggdrasil (Yggy) and the Gungnir Multibit (Gumby) side by side, I thought the Codex would match up well against the Gumby. After I heard the Codex and Gumby side by side in my own system, I think the more fair comparison is between the Codex and the Yggy.