[eddprzz]

Sorry guys I just have to add my two cents but I've been listening to the codex with the auralic taurus 2 amp all I can say is "******* amazing". This is clearly my end of the line. I use it with lcd3 with norne vanquish cable (balanced) and kaiser 10u and it makes both sound just perfect

 

[music_man]

i am just using the dac and to sound like a broken record this can paas for a dac 3+x it's price. i really want the qx-5 but i just want a plain dac. headphone is okay. i do not have room for it here anyways so forget it. i mentioned this is in the middle of six figures of equipment and sounds right at home. it is really something. i kind of imagine the qx-5 is beyond human hearing limits. so maybe don't even hear a difference that qualifies as superior. newer chip better crystals. heh who am i kidding. well, i guess only ayre themselves could make a better one.

 

[Seth Warshavsky]

How does it compare to the Hugo TT or the PS Audio Directstream?

 

[music_man]

i felt is squarely beat the directstream but of course ymmv. it works great in my system but maybe not as well in another. i also wonder if one is using headphones it depends on which ones. this stuff is very subjective. it is not like saying car a runs a faster quarter mile than car b. it is more like do you like a bmw interior better than a mercedes. nonetheless i heard a big difference from the directstream but that is me. the fact that i felt it beat it so solidly at it's price says a lot. to me at least. plus what it does in relation to it's size is really nice.
 
ayre have a few key technologies that really work. it is much more than the dac chip at play. normally i would not want to see a good dac with an off the shelf chip. they obviously worked around that somehow. i have never opened it. i just don't want to. oddly there are no pictures of the guts i know of on the internet as of now. very surprised someone did not tear it open yet but it will not be me this time. i am too happy with it.
 
of course directstream has 10x dsd to pcm but i honestly feel that technology is not working.
 
i compared it to dave and it was different but held it's own. so hugo i have no doubt. that is really impressive quite frankly. i honestly hate to find out what the darn qx-5 twenty does because i cannot fit it.

 

[BlackstoneJD]

I posted on the QX-5. I heard it in what I think was a $60,000+ system. It was redonkulous good. It certainly was not beyond human hearing. Don't listen to it if you like what you have! The analog circuitry and proprietary digital filters make the Ayre magic happen.

Also the headphone output on QX-5 was definitely as good as the main output. It was uncanny how similar it sounded through my cans vs. $16,000 speakers!

 

[music_man]

i figured this. it is not that i cannot buy it. i have no room. that is why finding the codex was very lucky. if i feel it is better than the diamond dac v i guess i could replace that downstairs. i don't mean to be a jerk but $60,000 was not a large system for that store. you can spend obscene money there. the fact it sounded the same in your cans is impressive. most dacs need an outboard amp. i guess someone could just get that as a awesome headphone system then. you know what? i will make room in here screw it. just have to figure out how. the codex is by far the cheapest component here but it is still plenty good.

 

[BlackstoneJD]

I am just estimating on the price. Power conditioning and cabling was first rate I might be underestimating there. The speaker cable I think was $25k? They used the 803D3 because I wanted to hear that speaker. It is a totally new speaker and I was curious what it could do. The 802D3 is even better and of course eventually 800D3. But, I wanted to hear stuff in my price range. Right now I am very interested in the 802D3 and the AX-5 Twenty.

I am going to try and swing a pair of 802s next but wife will probably murder me!

 

[music_man]

see this stuff is so personal. that is why i always say one must listen. especially if it is expensive stuff. i don't like the b&w very much. i think the diamond tweeter is too bright. other people love them of course.
 
oh, if the cables were 25 grand the system was way more than 60 grand i bet. especially if they played wilsons. that's another thing i don't like transparent but many people do as well.
 
just depends what you like. i am sure we can all agree the qx-5 is great even if it is not someones sonic taste. same as i acknowledge the speakers. i don't prefer them but i know they are good.
 
i can say the ax-5 twenty i love. i thought you wanted the qx-5 twenty though?
 
well that would be a good system but i think the ax-5 twenty is a little under powered for those speakers. it will power them but not with the oomph. for me it is an integral part of the best compact system i could get. it would probably be very good with the 805d3 though. it is a great amp it is just not big on output rms. unless you heard it and were satisfied.
 
i really have to hear the qx-5 twenty. i can't go there due to disability so hopefully i can get one sent here eventually. i have no clue where it would fit. the last thing i want to do is box in the speakers. i guess it could replace the cd transport.

 

[bmichels]

It Will be very interesting to hear a comparaison between the qx-5 twenty and the DAVE. Almost same price and booth including a good Headphone amp. (The qx-5 twenty being In additional ROON ready)

 

[music_man]

i compared the codex to dave. dave did not kill it! so i am guessing qx-5 twenty is going to smash dave. of course it is really anyone's opinion but we all know the men from the boys. of course i have not heard the qx-5 twenty but i can only imagine it is 10x the codex.

 

[music_man]

ayre must have shot themself in the foot and then tried to cover it up. although i feel their method of "covering it up" is unfair. since many people may now not see what they need.
 
see, they removed the pc usb driver from all codex pages of theirs. they put a driver for the qx-5 twenty on it's page. lo-and-behold that driver works with the codex. not only that but the sound quality is vastly improved. over an already competent dac. closing the gap betwen the codex and qx-5. obviously they did not want this to happen so their effort was to make it tricky to find the driver. ymmv on this. the qx-5 is still a better dac than the codex no doubt but really only worth it if you require a digital media center/preamp. go try these drivers! uninstall yours first. reboot. if upon it says to unplug your dac please do so. it also upsets me ayre with this expensive gear were to cheap to buy the newest streamlength drivers. that is shameful honestly. the new one works splendid for me. the seperation and soundstage, prat all just tripled. this is obviously why they did not want people to find it. it is the same driver but the install methods are rewritten for higher efficiency. it is sad though that the $9,000 qx-5 is running on a 5 year old driver.
 
alsi i am pretty sure the headphone output on both of them is from the ess dac chip not the rear output of the units. that would explain a similar sound through headphones. the 9018 is 8 years old but it is time tested. obviously the 9038 has better specs but specs do not mean everything.. stlil only supports 2x dsd which in a $9,000 dac would not sell me.
 
anyways i heard it and the diamond dac v with power base is much better at much more money and it is just a dac. sems ayre is jumping on the apple bus. the codex on the other hand with these drivers is a great bargain. watch now they see this and remove the driver entirely. i would snag it while you can. ac has a used debussey which i feel would be a much better choice so long as you do not need an "entertainment center". that is what jriver is for and vastly superior at that. i am not bashing it it was just not the bargain to me the codex is(especially with these drivers) since all i care for is a "dac". it seems companies are forgetting that word. i could care less about headphone jacks, roon, tidal, volume control etc. that is just me though. the qx-5 may be right up someone elses alley. it is a top class dac don't get me wrong. just not my cup of tea. however the codex is and remains so. keep it simple stupid.
 
feel free to disagree. this is my opinion it is fine if anyone elses is different. right now, imo the codex is the king bargain. easily beating many $5k plus dacs. throw in these drivers and i would say it literally doubles the performance.of an already competent dac.
 
 
one thing if you do snag these drivers make sure to use them in wasapi exclusive mode. i would not say wasapi is better than asio it's a tossup but on these specific drivers it is a lot better imo.
 
they just accidentally narrowed the margin and obviously realized it. of course this is only with usb usage. fancy crystals and such also require good software to drive them.
 
also, of course there is science and voodoo. i do not need crystal oscillators from the moon. well, they just did not sell me on this one. the codex is most cetainly the sweet spot. you all should be happy since this a codex thread but i am sure i will get flamed. at least be sure to try out the drivers.

 

[BlackstoneJD]

Music Man have you heard the QX-5?

 

[BlackstoneJD]

Music Man what is the version number? of the Streamlength driver you are talking about?

 

[BlackstoneJD]

  ayre must have shot themself in the foot and then tried to cover it up. although i feel their method of "covering it up" is unfair. since many people may now not see what they need.
 
see, they removed the pc usb driver from all codex pages of theirs. they put a driver for the qx-5 twenty on it's page. lo-and-behold that driver works with the codex. not only that but the sound quality is vastly improved. over an already competent dac. closing the gap betwen the codex and qx-5. obviously they did not want this to happen so their effort was to make it tricky to find the driver. ymmv on this. the qx-5 is still a better dac than the codex no doubt but really only worth it if you require a digital media center/preamp. go try these drivers! uninstall yours first. reboot. if upon it says to unplug your dac please do so. it also upsets me ayre with this expensive gear were to cheap to buy the newest streamlength drivers. that is shameful honestly. the new one works splendid for me. the seperation and soundstage, prat all just tripled. this is obviously why they did not want people to find it. it is the same driver but the install methods are rewritten for higher efficiency. it is sad though that the $9,000 qx-5 is running on a 5 year old driver.
 
alsi i am pretty sure the headphone output on both of them is from the ess dac chip not the rear output of the units. that would explain a similar sound through headphones. the 9018 is 8 years old but it is time tested. obviously the 9038 has better specs but specs do not mean everything.. stlil only supports 2x dsd which in a $9,000 dac would not sell me.
 
anyways i heard it and the diamond dac v with power base is much better at much more money and it is just a dac. sems ayre is jumping on the apple bus. the codex on the other hand with these drivers is a great bargain. watch now they see this and remove the driver entirely. i would snag it while you can. ac has a used debussey which i feel would be a much better choice so long as you do not need an "entertainment center". that is what jriver is for and vastly superior at that. i am not bashing it it was just not the bargain to me the codex is(especially with these drivers) since all i care for is a "dac". it seems companies are forgetting that word. i could care less about headphone jacks, roon, tidal, volume control etc. that is just me though. the qx-5 may be right up someone elses alley. it is a top class dac don't get me wrong. just not my cup of tea. however the codex is and remains so. keep it simple stupid.
 
feel free to disagree. this is my opinion it is fine if anyone elses is different. right now, imo the codex is the king bargain. easily beating many $5k plus dacs. throw in these drivers and i would say it literally doubles the performance.of an already competent dac.
 
 
one thing if you do snag these drivers make sure to use them in wasapi exclusive mode. i would not say wasapi is better than asio it's a tossup but on these specific drivers it is a lot better imo.
 
they just accidentally narrowed the margin and obviously realized it. of course this is only with usb usage. fancy crystals and such also require good software to drive them.
 
also, of course there is science and voodoo. i do not need crystal oscillators from the moon. well, they just did not sell me on this one. the codex is most cetainly the sweet spot. you all should be happy since this a codex thread but i am sure i will get flamed. at least be sure to try out the drivers.

 
You need to identify specifically what drivers you are referring to before making claims like this. Also, what makes you think using this driver "closes the gap" between Codex and QX-5? Wouldn't the use of these drivers on QX-5 also improve its performance?
Further, what you are describing regarding the placement of the drivers on the Ayre web site is not accurate as of today. First of all, the driver presently being offered under the Computer Audio section of the website is the same that has been on offer for years. It does not appear to be specific to QX-5. It is not even a Windows 10 driver. It dates all the back to Windows 8. That is version 1.26 of Streamlength. I have been using it for quite some time. It is also the same version Wavelength offers on their site. It is Gordon Rankin's driver. Further what you are suggesting is nonsensical because you need the driver to run Codex in USB 2.0 mode, I believe, and run at bitrates higher than 96KHz. The way the site is set up now, I agree the driver is not readily accessible from the Codex page, which is a problem because it makes getting USB 2.0 support working at all harder than it should be for Codex users, but this is not a sufficient basis from which one can infer this was done to "cover up" some kind of mistake on the part of Ayre or to prevent Codex users from accessing the driver. Very frankly, I think you are spreading disinformation. Further, unless you have demo'd this unit you are not in position to dismiss the new word clock from Morion as some kind of gimmick. I am calling flame bait on your post and suggest it be dismissed as such. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. 
 
I would say the Ayre site is in a state of disrepair at worst.

 

[music_man]

apparently ayre saw this. as of right now, computer audio is on the bottom of the front page. i do swear the driver under the qx5 page made a sonic difference in the codex. could be placebo i admit. i will have to disassemble the drivers to see if they are the same. they did take it off the codex page which is a fact.
 
call it flame. i am just saying i would personally recommend the qx-5 if you need a preamp and music hub. yes, it is still better. i said closes the gap. i did not say as good. again, could be placebo. not sure yet. i would recommend the codex if you just need a dac. unless it is a very high end system than i would still get the qx-5 regardless. nonetheless i am fine with the codex in an otherwise six figure system. all i am going to say is i did not feel the qx-5 was as good as the diamond dac v. of course that is not entirely fair because the diamond dac v is 8x the price of the codex with the power base. look, there is always better., you can not dispute that. it depends what one has to spend and what they will spend pretty much.
 
the qx-5 is very competent and indeed better than the codex. i never said the codex was better. i said i thought it improved with this driver i know nothing about. i swear it did but again could be placebo. for the record i have heard the qx-5 twenty side by side with the codex. there is no doubt it is better. that is not what i said. flame me if you wish. as you said these are solely my opinions. ymmv. i think that is fair. i never said my thoughts are factual or written in stone. just my personal observations. give me a break please it is just my personal feeling. you are most certainly entitled to your own. again, i never said the codex is under any circumstances as good or better than the qx-5 twenty. I thought snagging the drivers put it closer but i could be entirely wrong as i do not currently have the qx-5 here. i am trying to be honest. i am not just being a jerk here. people should know me better than that around here.