HQ Player

[dericchan1]

Does anyone have any success with the new qobuz feature? I long clicked “queue” or “play” in the detailed album view of the client app, it does not seem to do anything…

[Miska]

6 hours ago, dericchan1 said:

Does anyone have any success with the new qobuz feature? I long clicked “queue” or “play” in the detailed album view of the client app, it does not seem to do anything…

 

You should get bunch of tracks appear on your playback queue when you do that for some Qobuz content.

 

[rouge sphinx]

@Miska The autoplay is checked in the HQPlayer client but the Qobuz autoplay feature its not working, any ideas how to make that work?  

I specifically upgraded today for that feature and to be honest I'm disillusioned & bombed because I've also noticed random digital noises on 5. Everything is setup exactly the same as 4 and I've quadruple checked everything.

I put off the upgrade because my setup is very straight forward and I do not need all those new filters-modulators but I do use the HQPlayer native streaming a lot. I know the solution might be to use Room but I rather not because I do not see that point just for streaming since HQplayer native streaming works well.

 

I appreciate your comments and suggestions, thank you!

 

[dericchan1]

6 hours ago, Miska said:

 

You should get bunch of tracks appear on your playback queue when you do that for some Qobuz content.

 

Hi Miska, it didn't. Also I enabled the autoplay in client but nothing plays after my selected album finished.

[ripples]

On 9/11/2023 at 5:01 AM, dericchan1 said:

Does anyone have any success with the new qobuz feature? I long clicked “queue” or “play” in the detailed album view of the client app, it does not seem to do anything…

 

works great , press and hold ,

[fgribas]

@Miska latest reply from the RME rep regarding driver fix:

 

Quote

RME says they have already been contacted about this by HQplayer, they have this in the pipeline and he said they hope to resolve this soon.

 

It seems that your request was heard after all 🙂

 

[Audionumber3]

Question for everyone...

 

Does anyone else find Sinc-MGa to sound smoother and perhaps less detailed then Sinc-Mx?

 

I'm asking because I'm really enjoying Mx, and even though it seems MGa might be the next step up....it sounds overly smooth in my system. 

 

Does this line up with anyone else?

[tedacura1]

On 9/11/2023 at 11:50 AM, dericchan1 said:

Hi Miska, it didn't. Also I enabled the autoplay in client but nothing plays after my selected album finished.

Once I restarted my HQPlayer Desktop and Client it started working. It is a great new feature really enjoying it.

[dericchan1]

53 minutes ago, tedacura1 said:

Once I restarted my HQPlayer Desktop and Client it started working. It is a great new feature really enjoying it.

I just clear all data in hqplayer and reinstalled it and it’s still a hit or miss. I hit on an Avenge Sevenfold album and it will play some ironmaiden and temple of the dog tracks which is great. 
 

I then tried a pop album and just nothing shows up…

[Miska]

2 hours ago, dericchan1 said:

I just clear all data in hqplayer and reinstalled it and it’s still a hit or miss. I hit on an Avenge Sevenfold album and it will play some ironmaiden and temple of the dog tracks which is great. 
 

I then tried a pop album and just nothing shows up…

 

Auto-play or the "play content like this" feature? Auto-play is based on listened tracks since last library action, IOW, the tracks you've played before end of the queue.

 

[fgribas]

11 hours ago, Audionumber3 said:

Question for everyone...

 

Does anyone else find Sinc-MGa to sound smoother and perhaps less detailed then Sinc-Mx?

 

I'm asking because I'm really enjoying Mx, and even though it seems MGa might be the next step up....it sounds overly smooth in my system. 

 

Does this line up with anyone else?

 

Same impression from me. sinc-Mx and sinc-long are still my prefered ones. But poly-sinc-gauss-long comes after, and is much lighter

[Miska]

12 hours ago, Audionumber3 said:

Does anyone else find Sinc-MGa to sound smoother and perhaps less detailed then Sinc-Mx?

 

I'm asking because I'm really enjoying Mx, and even though it seems MGa might be the next step up....it sounds overly smooth in my system. 

 

Does this line up with anyone else?

 

Those extremely long filters always have a bit of transient smear ("blur" in MQA terms) effect. Although the length can also make it sound artificially brighter. You may have better time domain definition with much shorter ones, with less glare/sheen.

 

You could go one step shorter to gauss-xla or even further to gauss-long, gauss, or gauss-short. Many times, something around the middle grounds is good balance. But always depends on the source material and one's sonic sensitivity areas.

 

[dericchan1]

@Miska so I read the T+A dac 200 thread your comments about the polynomial filters in hqplayer. I went on to read the description on the hqplayer manual and noted it has a very slow hf roll off and poor stopband rejection resulting in leakage to ultrasonic noise and is not recommended.

 

Is there any problems/concerns using these filters or it is not recommended because of sound quality/fidelity?

 

thanks

 

Deric

 

 

[Miska]

3 minutes ago, dericchan1 said:

Is there any problems/concerns using these filters or it is not recommended because of sound quality/fidelity?

 

Those are just slightly better than running no oversampling at all. So the issues are similar. Up to everyone's own decision if they'd like to use such. Just want to make sure it is informed choice.

 

[cpcat]

42 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

Those extremely long filters always have a bit of transient smear ("blur" in MQA terms) effect. Although the length can also make it sound artificially brighter. You may have better time domain definition with much shorter ones, with less glare/sheen.

 

You could go one step shorter to gauss-xla or even further to gauss-long, gauss, or gauss-short. Many times, something around the middle grounds is good balance. But always depends on the source material and one's sonic sensitivity areas.

 

Does this also apply to poly-sinc and poly- sinc long ie are they considered “long” filters?

[Miska]

1 hour ago, cpcat said:

Does this also apply to poly-sinc and poly- sinc long ie are they considered “long” filters?

 

If it says "long", it is relatively long. But typically much shorter than for example sinc-Mx. So "long" is "reasonably long". sinc-Mx is about 1.4 seconds long in time.

 

"poly-sinc" and "poly-sinc-gauss" are medium length. And then there are "short" ones.

 

[Audionumber3]

8 hours ago, Miska said:

 

Those extremely long filters always have a bit of transient smear ("blur" in MQA terms) effect. Although the length can also make it sound artificially brighter. You may have better time domain definition with much shorter ones, with less glare/sheen.

 

You could go one step shorter to gauss-xla or even further to gauss-long, gauss, or gauss-short. Many times, something around the middle grounds is good balance. But always depends on the source material and one's sonic sensitivity areas.

 

I've tried those other filters, and I find I just don't like them as much as Mx. I was using poly-sinc-long filters for a while, but then when I switched over to Mx, It became so much more dimensional... Soundstage just became super convincing. I don't get that effect with those other filters you suggested.

 

I do use a convolution filter. Not sure if that's a factor. Maybe that's better suited for filters with higher taps? Totally just guessing.

[Audionumber3]

Actually....gauss-xla sounds great too. Maybe I'll just keep it on this one for a bit. Thanks Miska 👍

[bogi]

I preferred long filters with HQP v4 and until I bought galvanic isolator. I felt missing fullness, lack of  instrument body with short filters. With xtr-short, transients sounded me 'overdone'. After switching to v5 EC5-super 512+ modulator and adding galvanic isolator I started to prefer short to middle filters simply as a result of more clean sound. I also switched from mostly lp to mostly mp filters. Transients of short filters are now ok and with long filters I experience some kind of smear, loss of detail in comparison with short or middle ones. Therefore currently I prefer poly-sinc-xtr-mp(-2s), poly-sinc-xtr-short-mp, poly-sinc-gauss, poly-sinc-gauss-short, poly-sinc-short-mp.

 

Advantage of short to middle filters is that are much easier to process. They don't require so high amount of RAM like the extra long ones. But for example poly-sinc-xtr-mp is not so light to CPU/GPU like the short one so I am using -2s variant with it.

 

Filter choice is of course influenced by your taste - what kind of sound you like, what kind of music content you listen to. I wanted to point you to my experience. Change in my listening chain led me to change my filter preferences.

[Miska]

5 hours ago, Audionumber3 said:

Actually....gauss-xla sounds great too. Maybe I'll just keep it on this one for a bit. Thanks Miska 👍

 

If you like sinc-Mx, then poly-sinc-ext3 is closest somewhat shorter one. While poly-sinc-gauss-xla is closest to MGa (and poly-sinc-gauss-xl to sinc-MG).

 

Yes, longer filters give you more "space". While shorter give you more "attack". So it depends on the source material and one's preferences. In a dry studio rock recording for example, you don't have much "space", but you have more "attack". While for a violin concerto it's the opposite.

 

[Audionumber3]

5 hours ago, bogi said:

I preferred long filters with HQP v4 and until I bought galvanic isolator. I felt missing fullness, lack of  instrument body with short filters. With xtr-short, transients sounded me 'overdone'. After switching to v5 EC5-super 512+ modulator and adding galvanic isolator I started to prefer short to middle filters simply as a result of more clean sound. I also switched from mostly lp to mostly mp filters. Transients of short filters are now ok and with long filters I experience some kind of smear, loss of detail in comparison with short or middle ones. Therefore currently I prefer poly-sinc-xtr-mp(-2s), poly-sinc-xtr-short-mp, poly-sinc-gauss, poly-sinc-gauss-short, poly-sinc-short-mp.

 

Advantage of short to middle filters is that are much easier to process. They don't require so high amount of RAM like the extra long ones. But for example poly-sinc-xtr-mp is not so light to CPU/GPU like the short one so I am using -2s variant with it.

 

Filter choice is of course influenced by your taste - what kind of sound you like, what kind of music content you listen to. I wanted to point you to my experience. Change in my listening chain led me to change my filter preferences.

Thanks Bogi

 

I actually preferred MP filters for a while too. Top choice was poly-sinc-long-mp for 1x, and hires-mp for Nx. Then I purchased Audiolense to create convolution, whereas previously I had been using REW. 

 

With Audiolense, MP filters still sound great, but not outright "the best" like they did with REW. Now I'm noticing more trade-offs with the filters. I do think like Miska was saying, striking a balance is a very smart idea.

 

But it can be tough because, certain genres do seem to sound better with certain filters. I'm trying to find filters I can just leave it on..... Set and forget. But that's easier said than done...LOL.

[Audionumber3]

2 hours ago, Miska said:

 

If you like sinc-Mx, then poly-sinc-ext3 is closest somewhat shorter one. While poly-sinc-gauss-xla is closest to MGa (and poly-sinc-gauss-xl to sinc-MG).

 

Yes, longer filters give you more "space". While shorter give you more "attack". So it depends on the source material and one's preferences. In a dry studio rock recording for example, you don't have much "space", but you have more "attack". While for a violin concerto it's the opposite.

 

Thanks again Miska

 

You know what would be really cool.... If in the manual or something, If beside each filter it mentioned the filter length in time. That way it would give everyone a standardized indication of how these filters compare to each other. 

[cpcat]

I like the filter discussion.

 

So longer=more “space”

lp=more “space”

shorter=“better transients “

mp=“better transients”

 

correct?

 

How does poly-Sinc vs Sinc fit in to this?

And where does gauss fall?

 

 

[dericchan1]

Agreed. I like to see perhaps some kinda chart/list comparison included in the manual that gives indication of which filter is longer, which one has the highest tap counts...... so we can see how each filter fits on that spectrum.

[bogi]

3 hours ago, Audionumber3 said:

I'm trying to find filters I can just leave it on..... Set and forget. But that's easier said than done...LOL.

 

That's probably not going to be the case. But you can accustom to a smaller collection of your favorite filters and you can try to remember for which kind of music/sound you liked which one and why.