QB9纯听感集中贴

frui

交易区新帖推荐

又带出一坨闪亮的泥，号称史上最强USB数字输出接口，比OFF RAMP加ULTRALOCK还强。
真是漂亮啊。

And now onto the meat of the meal… the USB Diverter from Sonicweld. Just so you know, this is not going to be a full review, just an intro of sorts about the newest USB/SPDIF converter on the block. I am going to make the Diverter a continuation (along with the Empirical Off-Ramp 3 as I get more converters in house). The Diverter is the child of Josh Heiner of Sonicweld with much prodding by Lee Weiland of Locus Design and in many ways bucks the trend in how to get things done.
Josh is a fanatic at engineering things right, and by right I mean right in terms of what will work best in a specific situation with no shortcuts or tradeoffs when it comes to the choice of the right parts, for the right design, and the overall right implementation of it all to do exactly what it needs to do… with no concessions to popular trends or whatever.
For example Josh choose to power the Diverter by the USB from the computer… what you say, that is simply audio blasphemy! USB power is crap… you got to an outboard power supply or at the very least batteries! Its crap I tell you… it won't work… and yet it does quite nicely. Actually, very wonderfully satisfactorily indeed. How so?
(BTW, here are two links where Josh gets into why he went that route, so check them out: http://www.head-fi.org/forums/6049287-post100.html and http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f46/usb-24-192khz-m2tech-hiface-446375/index9.html). After reading this it is clear that going the way he did makes sense on all counts.

Well, when compared to an Empirical Off-Ramp 3 with the Ultraclock upgrade which is being powered by a Paul Hynes regulated power supply which is then tethered by an Audience 'e' powerChord to the Audio Magic Transcendence AC conditioner, well the two sound so similar to each other—warm, liquid, musical, naturally resolving, detailed, dynamic, dimensional, etc.—that I could live quite happily with either, except the Diverter just seems to dig a bit deeper in all the areas I so desire. That is the music has just a touch more dimensional realness to it along with a coherence and liquidity that makes vocals and whatnot sound more like what I think they should sound like. The Diverter presents music as being smoother and yet more resolving, with a touch more there-ness to it. The best way to put this is that the Empirical compared to the Diverter reminds me of the differences heard with the Hynes PSU and the BPT battery PSU. The Empirical has more of the qualities heard from using the battery PSU and the Diverter has those more representative of the regulated Hynes PSU. The Empirical is a bit fuller, softer, and rounder with less delineation in the bass while being a bit warmer and less resolving overall. The Diverter is a bit more viscerally incisive or better yet, incisively detailed with a more delineated bass and relevant dynamics and slam. Along with all that, the Diverter has more musical punch with a presence that extends further out into the room. It propels the music with more control and decay than the Off-Ramp does with tracks featuring well-recorded bass and drums.
Very cool and at $1295 when compared to the Off-Ramp 3 set up as I have here ($699 for the basic Off-Ramp 3 plus $800 for the Ultraclock, around $500 for the Hynes SR3-12, and $650 for the Audience 'e' powerChord… making that a total of $2650) the Diverter is a steal. Both handle 24/96 and require no drivers to be installed to work, nor have I have had any glitches with either.

Of course there are few advantages to the Off-Ramp 3 set-up: 1) it allows for either AES/EBU or RCA S/PDIF connections; and 2) you can really tune or voice it with different AC cords and power supplies. Meaning for the greatest flexibility the Off-Ramp 3 is number 1.
On the other hand, the Diverter only has a single BNC connection (meaning you either need a cable terminated as such or an adaptor; the adaptor is included free of charge) and what you see is not really all that you get; that it is not just another black box but a gorgeous hunk of milled 6061-T6 solid billet aluminum alloy combined with stainless steel constrained layer damping plates and that there is more to the Diverter than just this pretty exterior… like a custom silver-plated six layer circuit board with multiple ground and power planes populated with the best non-microphonic bypass film types caps, extremely short signal paths (all signal paths), low-ESR bulk capacitance attached directly to power and ground planes, multiple, aggressive stages of filtering, three separate supplies using the lowest-noise regulators on the market, and three, large multi-element, computer-optimized bypass networks that connect directly across the power and ground planes, and a low-jitter master oscillator with ultra-short clock delivery path that Josh suggests makes the USB input choice to be rather irrelevant as long as the jitter at the output is excellent (Josh is more into "what kind of jitter is present and not simply the amount of it" sort of designer and so apparently the output of the Diverter is very, very good in terms of jitter measurements—Josh promises to have something for me in Part 1. But is it as good as the Empirical Off-Ramp 3 which has addressing jitter clearly in its cross-hairs? Got me, but both sound quite good regardless of how they deal with jitter or how the USB input is dealt with.)
I used the Diverter with the Locus Design Core BNC/RCA digital cable($749 for up to 3FT, $75/FT thereafter) and the Cynosure USB cable ($2849 for up to 3FT, $320/ft thereafter)—both as good as I have heard. To make things as equal as possible, I used an AES/EBU Core digital cable so I was comparing apples to apples. All I needed to do is hit pause in iTunes (9.0.2) or Amarra (3189), swap the USB cable from to the one to the other, then change the input on the Playback Designs MPS-5, and back and forth we went. If I didn't mention this above then let me say it now, any differences between the two are rather nil in terms of overall tonality and getting the music across to the listener. Where the Diverter stood out was in overall smoothness (a lack of grain and grit—it just sounded that much cleaner especially with respect to vocals), and presenting the music more righter in terms of dimensionality, overall definition (clarity and presence), and cohesiveness. It is just that much more engaging than the wonderfully sounding Off-Ramp 3 set-up (as I have it configured here) in how it presented the music overall. But either USB converter is a clear winner and no doubt in a different system the results will be, well… different.

frui

这个设计者的眼光令人赞叹。
他是看准了高烧人士对USB的矛盾心理：一方面想弃暗投明，另一方面又对USB鄙视不已。
所以他设计了这么个四射的USB转盘，做的就是这个群体的生意。
所以不光是技术，包括市场意识和心理学都非常赞。

xinxin1009

真好看
四个圈有啥实际用途么。。

frui

四个圈有点悲剧，三个圈就完美了

frui

那边的吵架贴才好玩呢。
Diverter的设计者兼老板和OFF RAMP的设计者和老板又吵起来了，不过也很容易理解，因为这是两个最直接竞争的产品。
完全是三国大战：
http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f7 ... 445553/index16.html

xinxin1009

老板和老板对磕还行 真掉价

Tinza

4个圈早就关注了- -
可惜买不起...

frui

18. dCS Upsampler vs Ayre QB-9
http://www.my-hiend.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=1672&page=40

在michael99的幫忙下，今天也可以到Eton家中體驗一下，家訪的部份michael99已經寫得很清楚了，所以我不再多介紹，就我的部份直接描述。

Mac mini server是Eton剛剛購入，也在昨天才將歌曲灌進去，其跟Eton原本使用的Macbook究竟誰聲音比較好，當然是最令人關心的關鍵，在A、B test後，個人比較偏號Macbook的聲音，mini server聲音很乾淨沒錯，但Macbook的力道與暫態反應明顯好上許多，Eton表示目前計劃將mini server的電源強化後，再來看看。

另外也比較了50cm跟500cm USB線的聲音，50cm的聲音解析、速度、聚焦更為清楚，500cm則是方便將Macbook放在聆聽位操控，為了方便性，妥協一點點聲音，基本上是OK的。

接著將Ayre QB-9與dCS upsampler + Elgar +992 相比

QB-9的輸出比較大、泛音多，高音也比較多、音場寬大，dCS則是定位、深度、低頻的層次好些，兩者聲音走向各有不同，QB-9輕鬆，dCS嚴謹，QB-9活生、dCS乾淨線條明確

[ 本帖最后由 frui 于 2009-11-24 12:10 编辑 ]

ricepig

原帖由 linuslv 于 2009-11-24 12:15 发表 哪两个ID是他们？这页没看到阿><看到这个图片。。。额。。。窘

乍一眼看还以为是办公用品世界

frui

19. 迄今为止对QB-9最严厉的批评来了。
来自法国最权威的音响杂志"Revue du Son et du Home Cinema"，他们建议艺雅重新设计，因为声音粗糙，结像错误，整体不平衡。他们推荐BENCHMARK DAC1是最好性价比选择。
The french review " Revue du Son et du Home Cinema" which is the reference in France for high end HiFi and HT just destroyed this unit in a comparative Dac test.
They tested the MBL power dac Gold 4, the CI Audio VDA-2 + VAC-1, the Benchmark Dac 1 HDR, the Cambridge Audio Dac Magic, the Music Hall Dac 25.2, The PS Audio Digital Link III, the 3D lab Dac Master MK2, and the Ayre QB_9 USB of course.
Usually they love Ayre electronics so I was a bit ( 20 bit ? ) surprised to read that thay found the Ayre had a problem and they recommend to Ayre to go back to work to make a better product !
They found it harsh, with an unprecise stereo image. A global lack of sonic coherence. Overall score was 3 on a 5 scale, which is very bad in this review.
http://audioaficionado.org/ayre/1140-ayre-qb-9-usb-dac-2.html

[ 本帖最后由 frui 于 2009-11-26 19:45 编辑 ]

takase

"结像错误"？

看來等等有空得仔細讀讀
其實我不是很明白何謂 "結像錯誤"

結像不夠精確我懂，音場狹窄變形我也懂
但是結像會有正確或錯誤之分我就不懂了

frui

对不起，这是我的翻译粗糙。
应该是“不准确的立体声像”

原帖由 takase 于 2009-11-26 19:48 发表
"结像错误"？

看來等等有空得仔細讀讀
其實我不是很明白何謂 "結像錯誤"

結像不夠精確我懂，音場狹窄變形我也懂
但是結像會有正確或錯誤之分我就不懂了

takase

不好意思，我有看討論了
很可惜的沒有更詳細的內容....不過這倒是值得注意

Ayre目前的參考喇叭是TAD R1，最近可能會換成
Wilson audio的sasha.....照理說QB9不應該出現這種問題....

frui

20. 与几个价格接近的产品的比较：
Bryston BDA-1 DAC’s ($2000), Halo ULN-2 ($1700), Sonic Studio Amarra 4 ($5200)
Amarra最好（废话），极为清澈纯净，相比之下BDA-1和ULN-2模糊浑浊。
QB-9在清澈纯净上保持了Amarra相当程度上的水平。特别是中频与AMARRA相当。低频不如AMARRA结实。高频有的时候甚至比AMARRA还要甜美。
他认为BDA-1其实也不差，比Lavry DA-10, Benchmark和Bel Canto DAC-3要好很多（much superior to the Lavry DA-10, Benchmark, and Bel Canto DAC-3），但是与AMARRA和QB-9一比就显得不如了。
http://www.computeraudiophile.co ... -ULN-8-Ayre-Bryston

Dan and I both concluded that the Amarra 4 is the best DAC we’ve heard in our respective home systems. (But neither of us has heard the Weiss and Berkeley DAC’s at home, not to mention the upcoming Antelope Zodiac ...) The outstanding characteristic of the Amarra 4 compared with the ULN-2 and Bryston was extreme purity and clarity. The latter two DAC’s were hashy/fuzzy and congested in comparison. The Ayre had much of the purity and clarity of the Amarra and is discussed below.

Early in my listening I decided that the ULN-2 had none of the special purity of the Amarra 4, and that it had no marked advantage over the Bryston, so I soon dropped the ULN-2 from the comparison and concentrated on the Amarra 4, Ayre and Bryston.

The purity, clarity and delicacy of the Amarra 4 made the timbres of different instruments more colorful, beautiful and engaging. Subtle details of phrasing and tone production were more apparent and captivating. Interestingly, this was true on both smooth, modern recordings (e.g., Mahler 10th by Litton on Delos) and bright 1980’s recordings (Mahler 6th by Bernstein on DG).

Piano was especially impressive on the Amarra 4: pure, solid, and subtle. Attacked bass notes are amazing, and you can hear subtle details like the resonance of the strings and the release of the felt. (Download from 2L a free high-res sample of the first movement of Beethoven’s last piano sonata -- an incredible recording and interesting interpretation.)

Initially I felt the Amarra 4 had a bit of mid-treble brightness that was annoying with massed violins and on dramatic peaks of male operatic voices. However, the Amarra 4 was so consistent in its purity and freedom from hash or fuzz that I suspect that the Amarra 4 probably was accurate, and that I was hearing the brightness of my Thiel 3.7 loudspeakers and room (which has a degree of slap echo). However, without auditioning the Amarra 4 in other systems and auditioning other equally expensive DAC’s in my system, I cannot dismiss the possibility that this brightness is a characteristic of the Amarra 4.

The Ayre was very impressive for less than half the price of the Amarra 4, but I only had a few hours with it. In the midrange it equalled the Amarra 4 in purity and subtlety, which is a huge accomplishment. However, the Ayre lacked the wonderful solid bass of the Amarra. (John Atkinson measured 60 & 120 Hz jitter components in the Ayre, so perhaps that’s a factor in its less solid bass.) I’m guessing that the purity of both DAC’s is a consequence of their async Firewire (Amarra 4) and async USB (Ayre) designs that allow them to use stable, fixed-frequency internal clocks that do not have to track the clock rate of the source.

The Ayre had some character that I had trouble pinning down, especially since I heard it only for a few hours. One was a relaxed, gentle quality that sometimes seemed unnatural, as if a bit of liveliness or dynamic contrast was sacrificed.

The other Ayre characteristic was a treble that peculiarly seemed to display different character at different times. On Nielsen sym #4 (Schonwandt, 3rd mvmt), high massed violins had realistic body with the Ayre, while the Amarra 4 was thin. Sometimes the Ayre treble seemed sweeter than the Amarra 4, and other times it had a bit of lower treble glare, even in different parts of the same recording. My preference between Measure and Listen depended on the recording, but this is a rear panel DIP switch that’s not suitable for regular use.

Please do not interpret my praise of the Ayre and Amarra 4 as a condemnation of Bryston. Dan and I both consider our Bryston’s much superior to the Lavry DA-10, Benchmark, and Bel Canto DAC-3 previously owned by one or the other of us. I had considered the Bryston well above those other DAC’s in purity and clarity until auditioning the Amarra 4 and Ayre QB-9.

[ 本帖最后由 frui 于 2009-11-26 20:53 编辑 ]

小白

我觉得这些评论，从好，很好，到不好，有一个满重要的不确定因素是前端。QB9肯定是在电脑前端上评价的，而电脑前端的软硬件情况，设置，工作状态，都是会影响QB9表现的。这不像以前评价一台解码器是可以标准化地用某一台优质CD转盘——那样的话至少前端要稳定和可靠得多，没有那么多变数。