Ayre DX-5 bluray player - Page 36

Anyone out there having problems with transport noises? When I play certain cd's I hear a VERY annoying clicking sound-other cd's no problem. Any feedback would be appreciated.

I had the same problem. One of the firmware upgrades some time ago reduced this considerably. Also, vibration control devices under the transport helped a bit too. It's not really an issue anymore.

Thanks,
My firmware is up to date. I'll try some vibration pads. btw it's only with certain cd's. SACD, DVD, and Blu-rays play fine.

This one

http://www.audiostream.com/content/ayre-acoustics-qb-9-dsd

appears on the CES 2013. Audiostreams claims it being an upgraded and facelifted QB-9, but it looks like a DX-5 with a DSD logo on the front page...
Any information on a DSD upgrade for the DX-5?

Hello Ingo,

Yes, it appears that they used the wrong photo. Both the DX-5 and the QB-9 will be receiving upgrades soon. The only facelift is the addition of the "DSD" logo below the Ayre Logo.

On the DX-5 we made improvements to both the analog output stage and its power supply. We also replaced the Burr-Brown DAC chip with an ESS Sabre and the clocks with some lower jitter modules. The DSD logo is because we have also added the "DSD over PCM" (DoP) capability so that one can stream downloaded DSD files from your computer to the DX-5-DSD. The sound from the analog outputs is significantly improved, but there are no improvements to any other part of the player. Therefore it only makes sense to purchase the upgrade if you are using the analog outputs. We are going to try one other change to see how much improvement it makes (we didn't have time before CES) and then release the new version by the end of January. The expected US retail price increase will be in the range of 5% to 10%, and older units will be fully upgradable for around the same price.

We will apply many of the same upgrades to the QB-9, to be called the QB-9 DSD. In this case we want to keep the US retail below a certain price point, so we don't know haw many of the changes we will be able to include.That unit should be shipping in mid-February. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best regards,
Charles Hansen
Ayre Acoustics, Inc.
Edited by Charles Hansen - 1/11/13 at 7:57am

Ah, sounds great Charles, thanks for the response. I absolutely like the Performance of the DX-5 via its USB input and the XLR outputs and have built up an iTunes/Pure Music library with over 2700 albums meanwhile. SACD playback via the analog outputs is a little disappointing, lacking bits of power and dynamics but sounding great in midrange and treble. Also the lower output voltage leads to a wide range of volume settings of my preamp for normal listening volumes, it does not really match the output from the PCM sources. Will the new DACs and the improved output stage address this?

I think Mr. Krauspenhaar will get a phone call this spring...
Edited by IngoT - 1/11/13 at 10:23am

With the current DAC chip, there are 4 different DSD playback filters available. The normal one is the best sounding one but is -6 dB in level from the PCM output. There is another filter that is only -1 dB, but it doesn't sound quite as nice. But you can try it. Change one of the DIP witches on the rear panel (I forget which one), either Rsrv A to Rsrv B or else Rsrv C to Rsrv D. It may work better in your system.

I don't know for sure about the Sabre DAC chip. The datasheet doesn't specify, but I think the levels are much more equal from PCM to DSD. We didn't finish the firmware until they had the unit at the show. I'm not sure if they have even tried the DSD yet, Please ask again in a week or two, as the will have the prototype back from the show and we will test it to find out. But remember that your description of the sound of DSD is pretty normal for how DSD sounds in most systems -- very smooth and sweet, but lacking in dynamics and punch. But in any event, even before we changed the DAC chips the other improvements were significant. With the new DAC chip, it was even better. It really performs at a new level now. I'm sure that you will be very happy with it, indeed!

Best regards,
Charles Hansen
Ayre Acoustics, Inc.

Can't wait to hear the upgrade with my DX-5. Hopefully, it arrives in Germany on time! Thank you very much and best regards from Cologne.

Charles,

How does the upgrade improve PCM playback?

Are there any downsides to the upgrade for PCM playback?

Is the Sabre a ladder DAC? I thought you always preferred ladder DACs.

MSB is very critical of the Sabre DAC.

http://www.msbtech.com/support/What_about_32_bit_DACs.php

In particular, they say it is delta-sigma, has a sample rate converter that cannot be disabled, and that its effective resolution is only 6 bits.

Hello Steradian,

Thank you for the interesting questions.

All of the changes improve the PCM playback, except for the ability to accept a "DSD over PCM" signal (DoP) from a computer via the USB input on the rear panel. This last is simply an added feature. All of the other changes are to improve the audible performance of the analog outputs.

None whatsoever.

Our very first digital player, the Ayre D-1 DVD player used ladder DAC chips. In that case we used the Burr-Brown DF1706 digital filter and four PCM1704 DAC chips (required to produce a true balanced output). This worked extremely well, but the problem was that our total cost for those five chips in high quantities was around $110.

Our next digital product was the CX-7. This was designed to be more of an "entry level" product (relatively!) and we could not afford to use the ladder DAC chips in that product. Instead it used a B-B PCM1738, which was one of the first delta-sigma DAC chips to have excellent measured performance. Our cost on that chip in quantity was around $6, or 1/20 of the ladder DAC solution. It provided excellent sonic performance as well, and with two upgrades over the course of ten years, is still rated in "Stereophile" magazine's Class-A Recommended Components, and at least two of their reviewers have purchased them for their own use.

When we designed the C-5xe universal player, the PCM1704 ladder DAC was out of production. Instead we used Burr-Brown's top performing chip at that time, the PCM1792A which costs us $11 in quantity, or 1/10 of the ladder DAC solution.

Next was the QB-9 USB DAC. At this point Burr-Brown (now purchased by TI) had resumed production of the PCM1704 ladder DAC chips, but again the QB-9 was a relatively low-cost device and there was no way that we could even consider using the PCM1704 DAC chips.

After that came the DX-5. We considered using the ladder DAC chips, but there were several problems:

a) By this time, the PCM1704 was the only ladder DAC chip intended for audio left on the market.
b) The future supply seemed uncertain, as they had already stopped production once.
c) It was unclear if the PCM1704 would really provide superior performance. For one thing, its output current is only 1/4 that of the PCM1792A, meaning that the S/N ratio would be 12 dB lower. Now that 24-bit source material is relatively common, this became a significant factor.
d) The ladder DAC chips still cost 10x as much as the delta-sigma PCM1792A.

So we chose to use the PCM1792A.

Yes, they certainly are! All I can say is that just because they print it, doesn't mean that it is true. Almost every claim made by MSB is erroneous.

The first claim is true -- the ESS DAC chips are delta-sigma designs. But both of the other claims are absolutely false. I do not like sample rate converters and would never use one in our products. There is a register (memory setting) in the ESS chip that allows you to enable or disable the SRC. (The default setting is to leave it enabled, so you have to go out of your way to disable it.) The effective resolution is not 6 bits. If you purchase two of their very most expensive DAC chips ($48 each) which has 8 channels and parallel all 8 DAC channels for each stereo channel, it has an A-weighted dynamic range of 135 dB which is equivalent to 22.5 bits of resolution (and just happens to be the same exact number that MSB specifies for their "24-bit" product). This is well beyond the dynamic range of just about any analog circuit running at room temperature. (NB: Please note that we are not doing this in our products, as it would raise the price of both the final product and the upgrade quite significantly for very little benefit, in my opinion.)

I think in this case MSB should be called MBS for "Most BS". I don't know what their problem is, but there is no excuse for lying about a competitor's products. in a vain attempt to make your own product look better.

EDIT:

I find it rather amusing that MSB makes such a big deal about delta-sigma modulators being so terrible. Please go their website and look at their product lineup. They make an A/D converter (Analog-to-Digital converter) also, for use in recording studios. If you navigate to their product page for this unit, you will see that it employs "8 Balanced 6.144Mhz 6bit Delta-Sigma Modulators Per Channel". Which leads to a very interesting question. If delta-sigma modulators are so terrible, why do they use them in their $20,000 A/D converter? (Ayre also now makes a stereo A/D converter, the QA-9, which uses a balanced 6-bit delta-sigma modulator, but running at twice the speed of that in the MSB A/D converter, or 12.288 MHz. It sounds quite good, only costs $3950, and you can read a review from Stereophile magazine by John Atkinson about it at):

http://www.stereophile.com/content/ayre-acoustics-qa-9-usb-ad-converter

END EDIT.

The truth is that regardless of what the measurements tell us, a ladder DAC will (in general) sound better than a comparably spec'ed delta-sigma DAC. (So in that regard, MSB is sort of heading down the right road.) But ESS has done something quite brilliant in my opinion. First of all, they have found some measurements that show the reason for this discrepancy. Now, this is a very difficult thing to do. If it were easy, we could all buy our audio and video equipment purely on the basis of the spec's and not even have to bother to listen to them. As it turns out there are almost NO spec's of any sort that have a correlation with audible performance. But ESS has managed to find one. You can see a video presentation of this at YouTube here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CkyrDIGzOE

Please take the time to watch this. In the past I also believed that there was very little difference in various delta-sigma modulators. After watching this presentation, I felt that ESS were really on to something. So we tried replacing the Burr-Brown delta-sigma DAC with the ESS delta-sigma DAC and it indeed sounded better. Again, this is just one of the many improvements in the "DSD" upgrade to the DX-5 (and soon thereafter to the QB-9 as well). But there is no question in my mind that the ESS DAC chips provide clearly superior audible performance compared to other delta-sigma DAC chips.

Best regards,
Charles Hansen
Ayre Acoustics, Inc.
Edited by Charles Hansen - 1/13/13 at 6:06am

Is HDMI Audio is still recommended for CD/SACD playback?

Thanks!

HDMI was never recommended by anyone knowledgeable for the transfer of audio data. It inherently adds a very high level of jitter to the audio signal just in transferring the signal from one device to another. The only good thing about it is that the average customer can just connect one cable and transmit both video and audio data, for up to 7.1 channels plus a high-def picture. But it has many, many problems:

a) For audio, the jitter performance is terrible.

b) For video, the content protection systems cause long switching delays (at the least) and complete incompatibility (at the worst).

c) The "standard" is constantly changing. Basically this means that the system was introduced before it was complete, and all of the customers have been beta testers for the last five years.

d) The connector is terrible. It does not accommodate large, high-quality cables, it has no locking or latching retention mechanism.

e) The length of cable is relatively limited.

It's really a pretty poor choice, but it has been shoved down our throats and realistically there aren't many other choices still available.

They have tried to apply band-aids to fix some of the problems. For jittery audio, Revision 1.3 introduced Audio Rate Control (not to be confused with Audio Return Channel) that allowed the master audio clock to be in the audio DAC (where it belongs), and a feedback system to adjust the speed of the transport to match. But in the mass market only Sony and Pioneer have adopted it -- BEFORE the standard was released, so they are incompatible with other brands. For high-performance systems, only the Ayre includes ARC, but no DAC complies with it so it doesn't help a bit until some forward-thinking company releases an SSP compatible with it.

EDIT: Last sentence changed "releases a transport" to "releases an SSP". Sorry for the mix-up.

Don't shoot the messenger...
Edited by Charles Hansen - 1/21/13 at 11:02am

Charles,
Thanks for your response and please excuse my denseness, but I don't understand your reply. Currently I run the HDMI A/V signal from the Ayre to an HDMI input in my processor for video playback. I have been using the HDMI Audio out from the Ayre to another HDMI input in my processor for CD/SACD. Is this not the optimal way to configure my system and if not, what is recommended?
Thanks.

Dear Mr. Trautner,

Yes, there is a better way to connect things. If it is at all possible, keep ALL video connections OUT of your SSP and let the display do the switching. This only works if your display has enough inputs to handle all your sources. And it adds complexity to the system, as every time that you want to switch sources, you will need to use two remotes -- one for your display and one for your SSP. (Unless you use a programmable remote or a system controller such as a Crestron.) Running the video signals through the SSP will degrade them, and it also combines the grounds from your video and audio systems together, which is a bad for performance (both video and audio).

If your only video source is the DX-5, run the HDMI A?V output to the display and the HDMI Audio output to the SSP and things will be much better. However, many other video sources won't allow this separation of video and audio outputs. If they do please connect all of the audio connections from your other video sources to your SSP with Toslink cables. This will ensure that the video and audio systems remain totally isolated, improving both picture quality and sound quality. If this is not possible, then the next best solution is to connect all of the other video sources' AC power cables to a switched outlet strip. Then for critical viewing with the DX-5, simply turn off the power to all of the other video sources.

All of this assumes that you want to hear multi-channel sound -- then you have done the best that you can do. The separate HDMI Audio output on the DX-5 has several advantages over any other Blu-ray player:

1) It is completely isolated from the HDMI A/V (main) HDMI output. In fact it is completely isolated from all of the video circuitry and all of the computer circuitry (assuming you have a computer connected to the USB Audio input on the rear panel). This isolation avoids any ground loops or other interference caused by the other equipment.

Another source of high-frequency interference is via cable connections to a cable provider. I strongly recommend to purchase a video isolation transformer from Jensen if you have cable:

http://www.jensen-transformers.com/iso_vid.html

You will want the VRD-1FF at the bottom of the page.

2) The HDMI Audio output has the lowest jitter of any HDMI equipped source. The master audio clock is used to create ALL of the clocks used throughout the player. Then the HDMI signal is re-clocked by the master audio clock to remove any jitter generated by the signal processing (ie, the signal from the disc is picked up by a blue laser and contains all of the video and audio, which must be separated, de--scrambled, et cetera, et cetera).

3) The HDMI Audio output contains ONLY audio information. If you connect a video monitor to that output, you will see a grey screen at 720p. There are no other signals to cause interference with the audio signal.

~~~~~~~~~~

Despite everything that we have done, the HDMI connection itself unavoidably adds jitter as the signal is transferred from the source (DX-5) to the receiver (your SSP). This is simply because the HDMI system was poorly implemented. They literally designed the connector before the system was fully finished, and they were one pin short of being able to create a MUCH better sounding system.

Since the signal received by the SSP will have jitter (although FAR LESS with the DX-5 than any other Blu-ray player on the market), there will be variations in sound quality depending on how well the SSP is designed. One common method for reducing jitter is to use an Asynchronous Sample Rate Converter (ASRC). While this gives good-to-excellent measured performance, the audible performance is not as good as the measurements would suggest. This is because an ASRC literally throws away all of the original audio data and makes up new audio data, based on its best guess of what the data would have been if there had been no jitter on the incoming signal.

A better approach is to use traditional jitter reduction systems, such as double PLL's, PLL's based on VCXO's (Voltage-Controlled Crystal Oscillators), and things like this that have been common in the world of high-performance digital audio products for well over a decade now.

The BEST approach is to use an optional feature that was added in HDMI version 1.3a, called Audio Rate Control (ARC -- not to be confused with Audio Return Channel that was added in version 1.4). Audio Rate Control allows the audio converter in the SSP to act as the master clock for the entire video system by sending a feedback signal upstream to the Blu-ray player, and eliminates ALL jitter in the HDMI interface. The Ayre DX-5 supports ARC. Unfortunately, the only SSP's that I know of that also support ARC are low-cost surround-sound-receivers made by Sony and Pioneer. These are NOT compliant with HDMI version 1.3a, but instead are proprietary versions that only work with matching sources from those respective companies. It is definitely a nice feature of those SSR's but not enough to overcome all of the other compromises made in both the audio and video circuitry of both the players and receivers.

The only thing you can do is demand that your favorite brand of SSP include Audio Rate Control in their new products. The specification is poorly written, and very unclear, but Ayre will be happy to work with any SSP manufacturer to help them implement ARC in any of their products.

~~~~~~~~~

The only other choice (and this is what I do personally) is give up the silly sound effects (eg, subwoofers for explosions and earthquakes, and surround-sound for bullets that whiz past your head) that are only relevant in perhaps 5% of all film titles, and just create an HT2.0 system. This means using just two full-range speakers up front, flanking your display, with no subwoofers and no surround sound speakers. Then you can use the analog outputs from the DX-5, which will easily sound twice as good as the two main channels on any SSP available. But it means giving up special effects that many home theater enthusiasts are so fond of. It's your system, your money, and your choice, so go whichever way is important to you.

It's just unfortunate that HDMI was so poorly implemented with regards to audio. Their main concerns when designing it were to make it easy for the average person to connect EVERYTHING with one single cable and to provide "content protection" for the movie studios. It was never designed for high-quality audio. But it has become by far the dominant standard, and it is what we are stuck with. We put a LOT of lipstick on that pig, and our pig looks MUCH better than anybody else's. But it is still a pig underneath all that lipstick...

Best regards,
Charles Hansen
Ayre Acoustics, inc.

Denon has used ARC for years with DenonLink using firewire. The Denon AVP had it. Now it's version 1.4 using two cables.

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1349373/does-denon-link-really-matter

There is a huge controversy here about jitter and at what level when it becomes audible.

Hello Charles,

Thanks for that very interesting and useful HDMI summary.

I have a rather naive question. When does the signal become HDMI (and HDCP)? I had always assumed that as soon as the signal off the BD is read it becomes HDMI (and HDCP). Hence when a player like the DX-5 uses its internal DACs it is converting an HDMI signal to analog. If true does it still have the large amount of jitter or is the jitter created (more or less like S/PDIF) when the signal is sent over an HDMI cable?

Charles,

is it of importance regarding jitter and overall sound quality, whether I sent a PCM signal of a movie soundtrack via HDMI from the DX5 to the SSP or a bitstream signal? Especially with respect to HiRes Blu Ray formats.

The DenonLink is NOT an HDMI connection if it uses FireWire. Instead, it is a proprietary version of something that Sony and Pioneer used to use for only a few years, called iLink if I recall correctly. It only worked for audio, as FireWire doesn't have sufficient bandwidth for high-def video. HDMI is essentially DVI plus "content protection" plus audio stuffed into the video blanking intervals, all on a different connector. That's why you can purchase HDMI-to-DVI converters that will work with older players that don't require HDMI's "authentication" to make sure that you aren't somehow recording the contents of the disc onto a recorder that does not (and probably never will) exist.

Just to make it more confusing,I believe that both Sony and Pioneer kept the names of their systems the same (eg, HATS for High-quality Audio Transmission System) when the switched them over from FireWire-based audio-only types to HDMI-based audio plus video types. Also the older FireWire based systems from Sony and Pioneer were interchangeable -- you could use a Sony transport with a Pioneer receiver and vice versa. But not so with the newer HDMI-based systems, which are not even compliant with the HDMI 1.3a spec.

As for how much difference it makes, it really depends on what it was replacing. With audio-only systems it would generally be replacing an S/PDIF system (the reason for the replacement being that S/PDIF is limited to two channels). S/PDIF is a pretty wretched system, but it has been around long enough that people have figured out how make it work fairly well, in spite of it's built-in limitations. How much better an inherently better system will sound depends on the level of execution of both the new system and the old system, PLUS the quality of the system and the sensitivity of the listener. If there are half-deaf fools making statements based on theoretical justifications, and they are happy with a poorly executed, poorly designed system, I say let them wallow in their misery. You will note however, that they invariably become VERY ANGRY if you let them know that YOU can hear the difference...

HDMI managed to come up with a system that is FAR WORSE than S/PDIF for audio, so the need for improvement is much more dire. We did everything possible to make it as good as we could, including adding ARC, in the hopes that someday some company that:

a) Had brains instead of rocks in their heads, and:

b) Gave a rip about sound quality

would actually make an SSP that used ARC. As noted before, both Sony and Pioneer have done so, but only in their top-line products, which are still so far from the best that is available makes the point almost moot. However, playing around with one of those would let you get a handle on the level of audio performance that is available from using ARC.

Best regards,,
Charles Hansen
Ayre Acoustics, Inc.

Actually, the signal is converted to HDMI just before transmission. The internal audio (and video, if so equipped, such as the composite video output on the Ayre DX-5) analog outputs have nothing whatsoever to do with HDMI. Essentially the signal is sent down two separate pathways, one going to the HDMI encoding/transmission chip, and the other going to any internal (audio and/or video) converters.

Since Ayre is not a licensee of Blu-ray, DVD, HDMI, nor HDCP, we are not limited by any the artificial restrictions placed upon licensed players. For example analog video outputs are limited to something like 1080i, with the limitation becoming worse in the future. (I think by next year the analog will be restricted to 480p or 480i, but I've stopped keeping track of their nonsense). So there are people that still have incredibly performing CRT projectors that don't have HDMI inputs and they have to go to a lot of work to get a good signal to their display (or as the manufacturers would prefer, simply replace it with a newer one -- an old tactic called "planned obsolescence" invented by the US automakers in Detroit). We considered building a state-of-the-art VIDEO DAC for that unfortunate group of customers but decided that it would be a money-losing venture.

Best regards,
Charles Hansen
Ayre Acoustics, Inc.

Hello Ingo,

That is a good question. From a theoretical perspective, there will be no difference whatsoever. The problem with HDMI is that the audio master clock in the SSP (or SSR) is derived from the VIDEO clock, which is a very stupid way of doing things. The only magazine (in English at least, I'm sure that some of the German magazines also do this) that tests for jitter on HDMI outputs is Hi-Fi News in the UK. Typical jitter levels from an HDMI output are 10x to 100x (or even 1000x!) greater than from S/PDIF.

The compressed signal must be de-compressed to PCM at some point, either in the source or in the receiver. I know of no reason why it would make any difference whatsoever to the performance of the system. In the Ayre, we chose to send ALL audio signals as uncompressed PCM. This allowed one to listen to all of the latest audio formats, even if one's SSP (or SSR) didn't support them, because everything supports PCM. We don't believe in planned obsolescence....

Best regards,
Charles Hansen
Ayre Acoustics, Inc.

This is a follow-up to my previous reply.

Assuming that you want to keep your surround-sound system, then you will want to use the HDMI Audio output for video discs. But since CD is ONLY two channel, you would be better off to use the analog outputs for that (unless your SSP digitizes all of the analog inputs to apply bass-management and fake "surround-sound synthesis".to two-channel sources.) For SACD, it depends on whether you primarily listen to surround-sound discs (use the HDMI-Audio output) or two-channel discs (use the analog outputs).

HOWEVER, if your SSP converts all incoming analog signals to digital for additional processing, the S/PDIF output will sound better than even the HDMI-Audio output (at least until some company makes and SSP with ARC). In this situation you want to send a digital signal to the SSP to avoid two unnecessary conversions, the only limitation being that S/PDIF is limited to two channels and that SACD is converted to 88.2 kHz PCM. The bottom line in this situation is to use S/PDIF for CD, and either S/PDIF or HDMI-Audio for SACD, depending on whether you listen to surround SACD's (use HDMI-Audio) or two-channel SACD's (listen and see which sounds better -- the S/PDIF will have lower jitter, but it will convert the DSD to PCM, so there are tradeoffs that can only be answered by conducting listening tests with your particular SSP).

Thanks as always.

I find it intriguing that JVB offers a $399 mod to the DX-5 that will allow it to output 7.1 lossless PCM (S/PDIF) from four RCA jacks. Apparently they tap in right before the DAC when the audio signal is exposed. I was told nearlly all units today have a sealed integrated pathway and there are very few units you can do this with.

What are your thoughts on the JVB mod?

http://www.jvbdigital.nl/jvb.asp?cur=2&level=sdi&page=title&title=787

Wow! I guess we have hit the "big time" when people make mod kits for our players!

I hope they didn't expend a lot of time or energy into this mod, as I doubt they will sell very many. You see, the DX-5 is probably the best disc spinner ever made. And it is about to get better with the forthcoming upgrade. But it has been a relatively poor selling piece of equipment, and for very silly reasons. When we designed it, we designed it the same way we design all of our products -- as something that we would like to own and enjoy. It is an absolutely first rate universal audio-disc player, perhaps one of the best ever made, PLUS it will play Blu-rays and DVDs with a higher picture quality than any other player in the world.

So for me it is perfect.I can insert into my stereo system and have a completely universal digital source. Not only does it play any optical audio disc format ever made, but it also has a world-class asynchronous USB input for state-of-the-art computer audio playback -- all in one compact box. I primarily listen to music, but if I want to watch movies, I simply hang a flatscreen on the wall between the speakers (I have one of the 7th generation Pioneer Kuro 50" plasma displays, but a nice projector would also work just as well), turn off the lights and have the best picture quality from any player ever made. It is simply an incredible machine. And for videophiles that want surround sound, we put the very best HDMI Audio output on it for the best possible sound quality that can only get even better if an SSP manufacturer makes a good product that supports ARC. For what it does it is an incredible bargain.

BUT, BUT, BUT BUT.....

Sales have been relatively poor.

Why? Because two months after we released it 3D Blu-ray players and titles came out. So no videophile wanted to buy it because they were afraid it was going to be "obsolete". Well everyone knows that 3D has been pretty much of a flop and there are VERY few titles worth watching in 3D. BUT still hardly any videophiles bought them. And apparently most audiophiles don't want to have anything with video in their stereo systems. I don't exactly know why this is. Perhaps they are afraid that the video will somehow degrade the sound quality. Or perhaps they are afraid that their kids will want to watch movies when they want to listen to music. I honestly have no idea.

I don't know the exact sales numbers off the top of my head, but I do know that JVB is NOT going to get rich selling these things -- even if every single owner in the world bought the JVB kit it probably wouldn't pay for the development costs!

But let's ignore all of the numbers for now. Let's just say that you have a DX-5 and want to get better surround sound quality that you can by using the HDMI Audio output. Without the use of Audio Rate Control, S/PDIF (which already pretty much sucks) will still have less jitter on the audio than the HDMI connection.So now what are you going to hook this thing up to? In this day and age I would be willing to bet that almost EVERY single SSP in the world uses ASRC to lower the jitter. And that screws up the sound more than the jitter does. Plus it will screw up the sound whether or not the incoming signal has a lot of jitter or a little bit of jitter. Every single bit of audio data is thrown out the window and replaced by new made up data.

So is there even such a thing as a modern SSP that DOESN'T use ASRC's? You tell me -- I've given up on trying to keep track of all the crap and junk in the video marketplace. Generally it's just a big race to the bottom..."How big of a screen for how low of a price?"....."Quality? What do you mean, 'quality'? Aren't they all just the same? That's what is says in Consumer Reports, and they wouldn't print it if it weren't true! Besides, they don't accept advertising, so I KNOW I can trust them!"

Another choice would to buy four high-quality stereo DACs that don't have ASRC's in them. This will be a much more likely scenario, but how much is that going to cost you? A stereo DAC that sounds as good as what is built-in to the stereo outputs of the DX-5 is probably going to cost at least $5,000 to $10,000. And you need four of them. So your $400 modification is up to somewhere between $20,000 and $40,000. The Oppo platform has rudimentary bass management and time delay capabilities built in, but they are not terribly sophisticated. But it's probably good enough to do the job if you really want your explosions to BOOOOM!!! and your bullets to WHIIZZZZZ!!! past your head. But that still leaves one HUGE problem....

Where are you going to find an 8-channel volume control?

If you wanted to spend $80,000, you could buy four Ayre KX-R preamplifiers. They can be joined together via the AyreLink system to act as one 8-channel preamp. But that is a lot of money.... By early summer we will have a new preamp called the KX-5 that will also be able to be linked via the AyreLink. They will be much less expensive, perhaps 1/3 the price of the KX-R with most of the sound quality. A great bargain, but that is still going to cost at least $25,000 for four of them....

Really, I think the whole video thing has gone is a completely crazy direction. More and more useless features that don't increase your enjoyment of the movie. The last movie I saw was "Lincoln". How much would surround sound and subwoofers add to my enjoyment of that? Zero. Sure the few battle scenes would be more thunderous when the cannons were fired. But would it make you feel any more sorrow for the loss of life on the battlefield? Not for me. And I can't think of a single scene where surround sound would have made ANY difference. Even the use of stereo can be distracting at times.Someone enters the room from the right, so you hear the door opening from the right side of the screen. But one second later they are using a different camera angle and now you are looking at the person entering the room straight-on. So the sound also has to shift so that sound that was on the right suddenly jumps to the center of your screen. I honestly find this to be DISTRACTING. It does not add to my enjoyment of the movie. I would just as soon listen to it in MONO, let alone surround sound. YMMV (and probably does or you wouldn't be reading this forum). At least with mono, both the sound and the picture are always in front of you....

And the other thing is, that as soon as you think you have put together a REALLY GREAT home theater, they are just going to introduce some new junky features that make your REALLY GREAT home theater "obsolete"....Remember when they announced the Levinson No.40 SSP about ten years ago? The first one to have a little display on the front so you could preview what was queued up and so forth. Well between the time they announced and the time it actually shipped (two or three years), it was already obsolete because HDMI had arrived and displaced DVI and analog video! No specialty company can make money introducing new models every year. But that is the only way that the giant companies can survive. And guess who calls the shots?

So you have to decide what is important to you, and how much money you are willing to pay for it. I would FAR rather watch a DVD on our 12-year old D-1xe DVD player with progressive scan on a 30" widescreen CRT direct view display using my home stereo for sound than to watch a Blu-ray disc of the same movie on ANY stock Blu-ray player on ANY modern 50" flatscreen display with ANY modern SSP (regardless of price). I would have to sit closer to get an equivalent angle of viewing, but the old rig would have a FAR better picture and FAR better sound. The entire experience would be more involving, more moving, and more memorable. And I wouldn't miss the explosions or bullets or sound effects, not one little tiny bit.

It's like the old saying goes, "Quality, Features, and Price. Pck two."

Mr. Hansen,
Thanks so much for your encyclopedic response. Since I have multiple video sources and for logistical reasons no access to the back panel of my monitor, I will have to live with video sources switching through the SSP. Most of my audio listening is 2-channel from a computer source (soon to be replaced by an Aurender S10) but I do have a number of multichannel discs that I enjoy hearing that way. And yes, when viewing video I do like to hear bullets whizzing by my head, so it seems that my current configuration is ideal for my needs.

At your recommendation I have ordered the VRD-1FF.

Thanks again and my hat's off to you and the other folks at Ayre for designing and marketing such a killer product.

Hello Mr. Trautner,

I'm glad that you are enjoying your Ayre DX-5. We realize that other people have different priorities than we do, so we tried to make the feature set large enough to appeal the the vast majority of potential users. So if you want the surround sound (whether for effects or for music), we have created the highest quality HDMI audio output available anywhere, even though we personally only use the analog outputs for HT2.0.

BUT, please let me know which SSP you are using. If your SSP has a pure analog path available for analog inputs, then when you use your computer (or soon the Aurender), you should connect that to the USB Audio input on the rear of the Ayre and use the two-channel analog outputs from the DX-5 into your system. And if you don't have a pure analog path, I would seriously recommend going to your local dealer to borrow an Ayre K-5xeMP preamp with a "processor passthrough" mode. I kid you not, the level of two channel sound will take an astonishing leap forward compared to *any* SSP (even one with a pure analog path).

And the main focus of the upcoming upgrade to the DX-5 (to be called the DX-5-DSD, as it will add "DSD over PCM" capability to the USB input) is going to knock your socks off. We don't offer upgrades very often, but when we do, they are WELL worth the money. In fact I will bet you $20 to your favorite charity that the upgrade to the DX-5 will make a larger improvement than replacing your computer with the Aurender. We don't have the exact price for the upgrade yet but it will probably be in the range of $500 to $1000, which is only 5% to 10% of the original purchase price. Where else can you get a product that can be upgraded substantially for such a small amount of money? I've no idea how much the Aurender sells for (it looks like an interesting piece), but I am confident that the "DSD" upgrade for the DX-5 will make a much larger difference in sound quality (with the caveat that it only applies to the analog outputs).

Same is true of the K-5x preamplifier. It was introduced over a decade ago, has had two upgrades (the "e" or "evolution" and the "MP" or "Maximum Performance") and it is the lowest priced preamp to be rated Class A in Stereophile's Recommended Components at $3500 US retail. We like to push the envelope so that our products will remain competitive for a *long* time, usually with an upgrade or two along the way. (All of our products are fully updatable to the latest version.)

When you get the Jensen isolator, let me know the results. I don't have cable -- the only things I watch are rented physical discs -- so I don't have direct experience with the isolator. But I am confident that it will make a nice improvement.

Also, can't you select inputs on the monitor via its remote control? If not, I would still put all of the other video sources on a single switched outlet strip. Then when using the DX-5, simply unpower the strip and all of those switching power supplies will be shut off. (If you want to go ALL the way, unplug the strip so that the ground connections will be disconnected also.) That along with the Jensen isolator should give a "smoother", more "relaxed" picture quality that draws you into the film, but without losing any detail.

Enjoy!
Charles Hansen
Ayre Acoustics, Inc.

Charles,

I cannot believe that you prefer watching old DVDs over new Blu Rays of the same movie (or did I misunderstand you?)! The quality of a Blu Ray is so far superior to a DVD, I haven't even watched one DVD on my projector as well as on my flat screen since I bought my first BD. Several years ago, I owned an CRT projector which would be blown away by the current beamer gear e.g. from Sony or JVC. Today I have a Sony VPL-VW95 2D/3D Beamer on a large screen (fed by the DX-5!) and these machines easily blow away experience in theatres (as I could recently confirm watching THE HOBBIT in 3D HFR in a high-end theatre with mediocre results). Another point is that film to file transfer technologies have improved very much in the last years, if for example you compare the DVD from BEN HUR with the BD based on a new 8K restoration, you won't believe the difference.

But I think you made a good point. The intersection between audiophiles and videophiles is not very large, these appear two different markets with not too much overlaps. Anyway the "3D problem" of the DX-5 can easily be solved by purchasing a cheap but good 3D player in addition. I bought one of these nice Panasonics for 130€ (including an early copy of AVATAR 3D ) and done. Works fine. So the DX-5 handles all my 2D BDs and my current 28 3D BDs are played by the Panasonic.

After having watched the video from the presentation of ESS' CTO, I'm even more curious on the upgrade of the DX-5 (also regarding SACD playback)!! As a biologist, I find it satisfying that companies involve research on physiology and function of the human ear and the entire hearing process into their products and not simply rely on and believe in "conventional" measurements. Very interesting! Is there any time schedule when the upgrade will be available (in Germany..)?

All the best

Ingo
Edited by IngoT - 1/22/13 at 7:43am

I've been very happy with our DX-5. It was a bit of an adjustment going from multichannel to two channel for movies, but I'd never go back. The benefits in sound quality and ergonomics are too great. And my wife and I have no interest in 3D either. The DX-5 is the perfect component for our needs. It's a shame that it hasn't been more popular.

I too would like to know when the upgrade will be available (Canada). I'm excited!

Hello Ingo,

Nice to hear from you. No, you read what I wrote correctly (I know that English is not your native language.) The resolution benefits of Blu-ray only become important when the screen size becomes larger than about 50". I have a Panasonic broadcasting master monitor that was $40,000 new with a 30" direct view CRT screen. Ignoring the size, it has BY FAR the best picture I have ever seen on any display device. They don't make it any more but just the replacement picture tube was $18,000. This monitor was made for the highest level of production viewing that there is. The reason the CRT is so expensive is that the shadow mask is perfectly aligned with the phosphor pattern. The circuitry is all absolutely incredible, as are the power supplies.

The only bad thing about it is that it was made during the transition to high-def in the USA, when the only two standards were 480p and 1080i. Later 720p was added, and I bought the boards to update it to the newer version, but haven't had time to install them yet. Again, IGNORING screen size, it has far better picture quality than any other display I have EVER seen. When this is combined with the D-1xe or DX-5, the video quality is absolutely beyond belief. And if you don't have any other video sources connected (that have switching power supplies and contribute noise even when they are switched "off") the video quality is so smooth and film-like and involving and relaxing that once you turn it on, you simply cannot turn it off.

The extra resolution of Blu-ray is wasted on a 30" screen, and almost all Blu-ray soundtracks are simply upsampled 48 kHz audio, so there is no advantage there. We have a JVC projector at work that is the last one before the 3D was introduced. It is excellent, and the large size creates a strong impact, but it is not better than the $40,000 mastering monitor!

If you watch Blu-ray on a non-Ayre player it is NOT going to be better than DVD on the Ayre player. There may be one or two things that are better (such as resolution on screen that is 50" or larger) but the overall experience will be far less compelling that with the Ayre player I am sure that the scanners used to transfer film to video are improving all the time, and of course more and more feature films are being shot in video anyway, but there is still something special about film in my opinion.

Of course, you will have the best results with an Ayre DX-5 into a state of the art display. (I still have a 7th generation Pioneer Kuro 50" monitor in a box waiting to be set up) but I was referring to an Ayre DVD player versus anybody else's Blul-ray player. Nobody has figured out the tricks that we have to achieve the video quality that we can provide.

Cheers,
Charles Hansen
Ayre Acoustics, Inc.

Hello Tim,

We have just one more test that we want to make to see if we can improve the sound quality a bit more. We should be able to get to that in the next two weeks Then we need to go back and make sure that all of the firmware updates are exactly the way we want them (we are going to try some new digital audio filters that go one more step PAST the minimum-phase filters in the MP upgrade). I think everything will be ready in about a month. The production department is very busy currently, so we will probably be scheduling the US and Canada upgrades fairly slowly -- perhaps two a week or so. You may want to call up Michael at extension 223 and reserve a spot in the queue.

Ingo -- for Germany, Philipp is so good that we can probably just send him the parts. (He knows more about amplifier design than do most professional amplifier designers!) Most countries require that we send complete updated PCB's because otherwise their technicians may not perform the update exactly correct. In that case Philipp could get the update kit very quickly. However he may prefer to get the updated PCB assemblies as it will save him a lot of time.But then it will require some time for us to update the PDB's. Again, we will probably just do two per week for the domestic units and two per week for the overseas units so that we don't slow down production of our new products. I'm sure that Philipp is pretty busy now, too. But please contact Philipp and have him place an order so that they are at the top of the list. Then they will receive their update kits sooner than if they wait to place the order. (It will be first come, first served.)

But if you are using the analog outputs, I think you will be absolutely shocked at the improvement. I know that I was! The only problem is that we don't know the exact price of the update yet. I am sure that it will be somewhere between $550 and $1000 in the US. (Overseas distributors set their own prices for updates, just as they set their own warranty terms.)

Best regards,
Charlie Hansen
Ayre Acoustics, Inc.

Mr. Hansen,
To answer your question, I am using the Classe SSP-800 processor. I am considering creating 2-channel within my MCh system, which I had done previously with a Musical Fidelity piece, but that upgrade is taking a back seat to the Aurender for now. Certainly the K-5xe MP would be at the top of my list when the time comes to do so again. The main selling point of the Aurender for me is the interface, which will make dealing with the whole computer thing so much more seamless and pleasurable, particularly for my family, who glaze over when I describe how to boot up iTunes through Amarra and the like.

I look forward to the DX-5 upgrade and will sign up for it as soon as it is available.

I'll get back to you once I've installed the Jensen. I'll also give further consideration to the power isolation ideas.

Thanks once again.

Rick