HQ Player

[tobes]

@Miska what makes the Closed Form Fast filter different to the other Closed Form filters? - I know it supposedly has less precision/CPU load, though honestly load doesn't seem much different (very low, I only do PCM upsampling - using 2.3Ghz i7 Mac Mini).

What I find odd is that the less precise 'Fast' filter sounds better to me - it has a clarity and naturalness that I don't find in the other Closed Form variants, or the poly-sinc etc filters either.

Predominately using this with a Benchmark DAC3 (Sabre 9028 based).

I recently acquired the Chord Qutest, but so far the DAC3 (with HQP/closed form fast) has the edge in clarity.

[tobes]

Thanks for the reply @Miska.

Yes, the CPU advantage with 'Fast' for PCM upsampling is irrelevant - I was curious because I have found myself preferring it to standard closed form, so wondered what it was doing differently.

What filter from the poly sinc series does the closed form fast most resemble?

[tobes]

Thanks for the reply @Miska.

Yes, the CPU advantage with 'Fast' for PCM upsampling is irrelevant - I was curious because I have found myself preferring it to standard closed form, so wondered what it was doing differently.

What filter from the poly sinc series does the closed form fast most resemble?

 

EDIT: Actually as I listen now the standard Closed Form has a more natural sound on (some) acoustic music, the 'Fast' variant has a touch more etch (not the right word because it maintains good dimensionality) - not objectionable - more often that not providing an engaging presence.

[tobes]

I've been using HQP3 for over 2 years just as a PCM upsampler.

For some reason I've found it to sound better as a stand alone application than when used in conjunction with Roon - which is very frustrating. 

Computer is a 2012 i7 Mac Mini (Mojave 10.14.4) with Roon 1.6 and HQP 3.25.3 (closed form/NS9) upsampling x4 > iFi usb3 > Benchmark DAC3. Since I'm only doing PCM upsampling the CPU usage is very low ~2%.  

 

Why would it sound worse with Roon doing the control?

Would moving Roon onto a separate computer allow HQP to sound the same as it does in stand alone mode - or is this something to do with how Roon fetches the music file and passes to HQP vs how HQP fetches/plays the file in stand alone?

[tobes]

I've got all Roon DSP disabled - unless there is something I'm missing?

[tobes]

11 hours ago, shadowlight said:

 

Make sure to delete the filters, just disabling the filters is not enough.  No sure why Roon still runs filters when disabled.

 

I tried deleting the (disabled) filters in Roon but this made no difference to the deficit in SQ I get when using Roon as a front end to HQP .

In standalone mode, playing locally stored music files, HQP sounds more transparent with more precise/distinct layering and more realistic textural detail. Not a subtle difference at all.

Are others getting this difference in SQ per above? Any idea what may be causing it?

This is with HQP3. HQP4 is the same but the separation of the player client with HQP4 is just a PITA to use in comparison to HQP3, so don't think I'll be going down that path. 

If the HQP4 client had Tidal integration that would be worthwhile - I could then ditch Roon and enjoy the full SQ of HQP.

[tobes]

3 hours ago, Miska said:

 

That is only practical difference. HQPlayer uses a very certain way of dealing with files when it is playing from a file. When you play from Roon, it happens through a different way. Only by trying one would know if it is more related to Roon running in the same computer or because of how HQPlayer deals with files. How much difference it makes is likely very system dependent.

 

 

Thanks for the reply @Miska I probably won't move to two computers unless there is a strong likelihood Roon/HQP playback matches standalone HQP (I realise this may be some anomaly with my system causing the gap in SQ).

For now I'll just continue using HQP3 for locally stored content and Roon for streaming content - though using the latter for everything would obviously be vastly superior in terms of ergonomics, interface and features. 

[tobes]

@MiskaI've just bought a licence for HQP4 (decided there's some things I prefer to HQP3) and using on my Mac running Mojave 10.14.4.

For some reason I continually get the pop-up asking me to allow incoming network connections - even though I've allowed this in my firewall settings. I've tried removing it from the firewall list and re-adding, but still get the nag pop-up. Any idea why?

 

I googled the problem and found this:

"Some apps check their own integrity when they are opened without using code signing. If the firewall recognizes such an app it doesn't sign it. Instead, it the "Allow or Deny" dialog appears every time the app is opened. This can be avoided by upgrading to a version of the app that is signed by its developer."

 

BTW the nag pop-up is happening for both the client and player apps.

[tobes]

5 hours ago, Miska said:

I don't know, the macOS firewall seems to be a bit dummy and get confused when application is listening on dynamic ports instead of static ones. I have firewall turned off and get no nagging complaints from macOS. Only about access for microphone (related to audio inputs), but that happens only once.

 

Yes turning the Firewall off will stop the notifications, but not sure that is a valid solution. No other apps appear to have this problem.

[tobes]

I don't require any fancy library sorting functions - I checked out that Swinsian app and just seems cluttered to me -  but there is an annoyance with the HQP sorting that is carried over from HQP3. Albums are sorted by composer (desirable for classical listeners?) rather than artist meaning artist albums can be spread all over the place.

For example these listings for Alt-j are in 3 places:

 

or this Patricia Barber album is under Sonny Bono:

 

None of my other player library managers have this issue.

[tobes]

Don't know if this has been mentioned but the 'long press' on album tiles pop up in the Client does not bring up the functionality described in the manual - i.e. the ability to play immediately or add to the queue like below (from manual):

 

I get only this - no buttons for play or queue (at least with OSX 10.14.4):

 

[tobes]

2 minutes ago, Miska said:

I just don't know what I could do about it. As usual, Apple's things are a black box and not very well documented if at all. I guess most other apps don't use multicast discovery mechanisms with dynamic ports. If they do they use Apple's Bonjour which is probably special white-listed on the firewall and cannot even controlled by the user?

 

I haven't got any idea....just asking.

I did turn the firewall off and of course no pop-ups when I start the HQP apps. I checked at the 'Shields up' site to see if this exposes me to web scanners - but ip is coming up in full stealth mode on all ports, so my router firewall seems to be sufficient. 

[tobes]

 

10 hours ago, shadowlight said:

For folks who are looking for better front end for desktop and do not mind using Android as a remote control, look into HQPDControl.  The developer for the software is active on this thread.

 

 

 

I've found HQPDControl to work flawlessly from my Android phone - though in my case I prefer the screen 'real estate' offered by my Mac system.

 

3 hours ago, DancingSea said:

I can live without the Roon bling.  My sense of value suggests HQPlayer desktop would benefit from a better library system, a Jussi created iPad remote, and Quboz/ Tidal integration. 

 

Yes, I think HQP would be far more appealing to many more users if it offered Tidal/Qobuz integration on the Client.

I have a lifetime Roon subscription but still prefer the SQ with HQP4/Client when playing back local files.

[tobes]

52 minutes ago, shadowlight said:

@Ales Prochazka, might update HQPDControl to add support for Qobuz and Tidal if there is enough demand.

 

That would be a great addition and a functionality I'd be happy to pay for (Tidal in my case). 

[tobes]

@Miska I know this was mentioned somewhere above, but what was the reason HQP4 no longer passes through native PCM/DSD formats but has to be changed manually?

I mainly listen to PCM and don't have much DSD music, but this is a PITA.

HQP3 handled this seamlessly when set to auto - i.e. I could upsample PCM to PCM using filter of choice, and pass native DSD through to the DAC.

[tobes]

On 5/16/2019 at 4:33 PM, Miska said:

 

OK, strange, rendering those SVG buttons is failing for some reason... I'll check it out if I can reproduce the problem.

 

 

Those buttons (long press on album tiles in Client) are now fixed for me with 4.03 under OSX Mojave - thanks @Miska.

Nice feature too!

[tobes]

@Miska the auto switching between PCM and DSD material with the 'source' setting now works fine with HQP4 - thanks!

Just a niggle.

When looking in the Client the 'Mode' correctly says 'source' but the Filter and Shaper settings are blank.

 

In the Player app these are listed properly - and 'Mode' shows whether PCM or DSD (rather than source) which is ok.

Would be nice if the Filter/Shaper settings were copied across to the Client. Mac OSX Mojave in my case. 

 

[tobes]

7 hours ago, Miska said:

 

Use of "[source]" is a bit unusual curiosity and generally not recommended. But it should show the active settings there. It has been showing to me during my testing, but it could have some timing issue with messages, I'll look into this.

 

 

Yes, I realise most are using powerful computers and converting everything to high rate DSD - but that doesn't suit my equipment. 

My Benchmark DAC3 only does DSD64 and I prefer the clarity and SQ of the DAC3 with just upscaled PCM and native DSD64.

My 2012 i7 Mac mini can do DSD128/256 - which I've tried with a low cost Topping D50 DAC - but I prefer the SQ of the Benchmark (maybe that's due to having balanced outs and the gain structure of the DAC3 matching my Benchmark amp setup). In any case the fan on the Mini kicks in at higher DSD rates - which I don't like, so would probably need to change my whole setup to go down that path. 

But everything is sounding great so not much motivation.

I don't think conversion to DSD is a panacea - call me crazy, but I don't find anything wrong with good PCM.😉

   

[tobes]

10 hours ago, Miska said:

 

Use of "[source]" is a bit unusual curiosity and generally not recommended. But it should show the active settings there. It has been showing to me during my testing, but it could have some timing issue with messages, I'll look into this.

 

 

BTW, it's the same for PCM source material.

It's not a big deal for me, since I can see the settings in the player app anyway.

I'm just happy the auto source switching is working.👍

[tobes]

11 minutes ago, Le Concombre Masqué said:

(nowadays) I don't like mp filters

 

+1, mp filters sound fake to me, like using over sharpening on a video screen.

 

[tobes]

For a long time I just used the poly-sinc filter, then there were some things I liked about the xtr variant. I thought ext sounded good too.

At the moment, in my setup, I have a clear preference for the closed-form. Sounds natural without obvious artefacts and maintains good focus, layering and wide staging. Seems to sound good with all material (to me) and with both my speaker and headphone setups.

All systems/ears are different though.😉

[tobes]

On 4/30/2020 at 1:08 PM, itguy61 said:

Does anyone have any suggestions for filters that work good with a more revealing DAC?  By more revealing I mean a DAC which is not warm and sweet sounding but more neutral and maybe almost clinical.   I upsample to DSD 256 and use poly-synch ext2 currently.     I just replaced an ifs micro idsd with a Topping D50s.   The Topping sounds very detailed but I a bit revealing on some recordings.  I will listen to it more and see what I think but it is definitely not as sweet sounding as the ifi was.   Any info is appreciated!

 

Thanks!

My primary DAC is the Benchmark DAC3, which is certainly in the neutral/transparent camp.

FWIW I also own the Topping D50 and previously owned the Topping D70. While the Topping DAC's are good value I don't find them to offer the same degree of transparency as the Benchmark.

My system also includes the Benchmark HPA4 preamp and ATC SCM100's, so its fair to say I'm pursuing an 'as is' approach to reproduction.

I use HQP for PCM upsampling only. The DAC3 only offers DSD64 and I haven't been sold on the superiority of DSD with other DAC's I've used. 

Anyway, the filter I'm using is: poly-sinc-long-LP with TPDF dither. I think it sounds superb with my setup. Very natural with great image specificity and depth layering. Realistic transients without hardness, edge or weird 'over sharpening' artefacts. Excellent with voice and acoustic instruments - indicating its fundamentally 'right' (to me).

[tobes]

@Miska- or anyone else - I've been trying all the Sinc filters and have a preference for Sinc-L, LNS15, 1.536Mhz PCM (Holo May).

The only annoying thing is the time this filter takes to start playing on my M1 mini (~10s). 

Of course this is no issue when listening to albums or playlists - as the delay only happens at the start. But if I want to skip a track or multiple tracks its a PITA. 

I could just stick to one of the shorter filters, but I was wondering if a Mac Studio M1 Max would speed up the processing in this instance - extra CPU grunt and much greater memory bandwidth? Anyone have any idea by how much? 

CPU load is not an issue with the M1 mini - only about 9-10% with the above settings for PCM.

[tobes]

37 minutes ago, genefruit said:

I just tested on my Mac Studio M1 Max at it was just under 8 seconds.

 

14 minutes ago, sworksone said:

i just tried on an M1 MacBook Air and was also under 8 seconds.

Oh, I thought it would be faster.

Guess I just have to use a different filter when browsing.☹️

[tobes]

27 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

 

Does this mean that it's using a single core, and more cores don't really matter?

Looks like its using multiple Cores, but most of the work is being done by the 4 efficiency Cores on the Mac Mini, very little by the 4 performance cores.

Surprised the memory bandwidth of the M1 Max did nothing.