Ayre QB-9 USB DAC

My understanding is that this DAC only plays at 16 bit resolution and downsamples 24 bit material to 16 bit. My experience with hi-res recordings is that the bit depth (24 bit) is more important than the sampling rate (48 vs 96). I also prefer balanced out since my system is balanced throughout.

Also, I don't think this is an asynchronous USB interface. Just too many technical shortcomings for me in this day and age. It would make more sense to look at a Wyred4Sound. Maybe it is the old-school sound that is appealing!

Yes the Tranquility is 16 bit, but it is not old school sounding. It sounds musically right to me. I play the classical guitar and it is one of the few DACs out there that gets the timbre of the different musical instruments correct. Also the sound staging and imaging is correct to these ears. As I have said before if you get caught up on the bit depth, ansynchroneous USB, etc you are really missing out on a very special DAC. I have heard USB DACs, most of which didn't do the things tranquility does. I'm on the look out for a high rez DAC that can surpass this and all of the ones ve like at are $8000+.

Asynchronousity...? The QB-9 vs. the SE

I had an interesting experience recently. I had a chance to pick up a slightly used Ayre QB-9 DAC at a very fair price. Having read many positive reviews on the Ayre and the "obvious" benefits of asynchronous technology, I bought the QB-9 so I could compare it head-to-head with my Tranquility SE. After about 8 weeks of A/B comparison, the Tranquility SE emerged the clear winner.

We (my wife and I) would be hard pressed to single out any aspect of the QB-9's presentation that we preferred over the SE. I don't know, perhaps the bass was a tiny bit more articulate? But we preferred the SE in every respect. Overall, we both felt that the SE had a far more organic nature. I don't know how else to explain it. My wife said the Ayre, while very good, very accurate, sounded like a "computer"; too clinical. I could not disagree.

To be honest, I bought the QB-9 expecting that I would prefer it to the SE, which is why I held on to it for 2 months! I actually wanted to prefer the QB-9. I felt that the Ayre's ability to handle hi-rez files and the fact that it was an asynchronous DAC would surely make it the better choice. But every time I placed the SE back in the rack it was an effort to listen critically. I found that I'd tend to end the analysis and start enjoying the music. The SE exhibited more air in its presentation, better imaging, cleaner and clearer highs and that fabled Tranquility mid-range. It is both liquid and detailed in nature. Note that the SE took 100's of hours to get to this point. I've never experienced a longer break-in or more profound metamorphosis in any piece of equipment I've owned.

When I finally decided it was time to part with the Ayre, I received the usual "why are you selling" inquiries from interested parties. Whereby I would explain my impressions and experience with the Ayre vs. the Tranquility, HiFace, modded HiFace and a CA 840C I used to own. It's interesting that the gentleman who bought my QB-9 could not fathom the idea that any DAC lacking asynchronous technology could possibly sound better than an asynchronous unit!

But then again... that was me... roughly 2 months ago. Logged

Cdm, if it doesn't divert the thread too much, how did the 840C hold up against this interesting set of comparisons?

Tony,

As you know, everything is so system dependent... but I was very happy with the 840C (DAC input) for quite some time. I used it with the HiFace, modded HiFace and Halide Bridge, and the 840C was very responsive and revealing during each phase.

That said, the Tranquility DAC removed the digititis, or etchy top end that always seemed to plague the 840C. The Tranquility is just in a completely different league. I also prefered the QB-9 to the 840C, by a wide margin. The Ayre is a great DAC, but the Tranquility SE took my system to another level. I'm spending WAY more time listening these days!