Ayre QB-9 USB DAC

It's not clear which you preferred, the CD or the computer playback.

I tried to compare my Esoteric DV-50 and the QB-9 both connected via XLR to different inputs on my pre-amp. However, the DV-50 was noticeably louder when switching inputs at the same volume setting. Adjusting the volume puts me past the 200-300ms window where I trust my memory. They both sound great to me, so if there are any differences, it doesn't matter to me.

larry

You guys need to get off of that rapid switching thing. It's not the way to evaluate audio gear. IMO, IME of course.

Drubin - To clarify, CD playback went through the Monarchy tube DAC, Computer went through the QB-9. My preference was the QB-9 with computer playback.

I don't do rapid switching, rather, I listen to short passages of music (45 to 60 seconds) and focus on certain qualities or instruments, and then switch to the other source and listen to the same passage. That way, I limit what I need to remember. The first pass, I might compare bass, second vocals, third drums. It is helpful to me to switch without to much transpiring in between.

Maybe you can clarify what you perceive to be the issues with this and let me know what method you consider to be better.

I auditioned the Ayre QB-9, the Bel Canto 1 with bat supply, and Wavelength all on top reference Ayre gear and the Sonus Faber Stradivari Homage loudspeaker.
The Wavelength was best in every regard. The Bel Canto was highly musical and came out of a pitch black noise floor. The Ayre was flat without any width or depth to the soundstage. This was noticed by everyone present, and completely took the QB-9 out of consideration in the shootout.