HQ Player

[copy_of_a]

great updates in v5.2.0 👍

 

@Miska

If time permits - would it be possible to post a graph/plot of the transition band of the new ps-gauss-halband-s filter?

And maybe also of the ps-gauss-halfband?

Many thanks in advance!

[dericchan1]

Thanks Miska!!!! You made my dream come true !!! No issue with 24/44 and 24/96 Sinc long to dsd512 super!!!

 

I wonder if you can briefly explain scenarios/use case for the fft length settings - default at 512, when should we use shorter or longer length?

 

cheers

 

Deric

[Reg19]

On 9/29/2023 at 10:34 AM, OzarkMtn said:

I am right on the edge of being able to use the EC super modulators @ 48 x512 on my Apple M2 Max Studio.

 

I can use EC light modulators @ 48k x 512 on my M1 Max Studio. I cannot use EC super.

[rjanderjr]

OK, this is too good to be true. HQP 5.2.0 finally gave me everything I want!  Thank you @Miska!  I have an M1 Mac Studio Ultra.  Up until this version I could not play stereo Hires PCM files (192 and 96) at DSD512 48K with ASDM7ECv3 and Poly-Sync-Gauss-xla.  Now I can.  I can play all files at DSD512 using ASDM7ECv3!  This works with integrator FIR2 or IIR2 and conversion XFi.  I am thrilled.

[SPAZ]

On 9/27/2023 at 4:49 PM, Audionumber3 said:

This question is for Miska...

 

Would you say the DAC 200 is more forward sounding then the Spring 3 KTE?

 

I have a Spring 3 KTE which I use with Hqplayer...and so, I was going to upgrade one day to the May, or the DAC 200. But I heard the 200 can sound brighter, and maybe even has less soundstage depth then the May. What is your opinion on the Spring vs 200 in terms of sound characteristics?

 

Thanks

 

For what it's worth I never felt the DAC200 was bright, even when comparing it to my Yggy LIM. It def has nice detail but still holds that realism.

[Miska]

3 hours ago, SPAZ said:

For what it's worth I never felt the DAC200 was bright, even when comparing it to my Yggy LIM. It def has nice detail but still holds that realism.

 

Yeah, compared to for example Marantz it is not particularly bright. So maybe it would be more precise to say it is "maybe brighter than Holo".

 

[dericchan1]

@Miska hi Miska, I wonder what explains this interesting experience -

I use a tube preamp in my speaker system with some new production tubes and the system sounds great with 512 fs Super modulator. Couple of days ago, I swapped in some NOS tubes and all of a sudden the system sound has changed, especially in some of the more complicated tracks -  512 fs Super did not sound as clean/clear as before, some of the vocal/lyric was very difficult for me to hear.

 

I switched to 7ECV3 and for the same tracks, it now sounds much cleaner and I now can catch the vocal/lyrics now.

 

How does that make sense that rolling tubes (which I suppose impacted harmonic distortion) have correlations to choice between sdm modulators?

 

cheers

 

Deric

[Miska]

4 hours ago, dericchan1 said:

How does that make sense that rolling tubes (which I suppose impacted harmonic distortion) have correlations to choice between sdm modulators?

 

Depending on your DAC and amplifier, but changes in what ever there is left ultrasonic noise in the DAC output may affect different tubes in a different way.

 

There are also sonic differences due to some small modulator behavioural changes, but these don't get affected by different tube models. 

 

However, super and v3 don't really have much difference in that sense, but the 512+fs does have. You could try the regular -super at DSD512 instead of 512+fs one. The 512+fs one has increased audio band SNR, but the noise slope starts earlier (still above 100 kHz). While the regular one at DSD512 would have noise slope starting above 200 kHz. This combined with analog post-filters of a particular DAC makes slight difference above 100 kHz (nothing major though).

 

Point of 512+fs modulators is that you don't really need more than a bit over 100 kHz for audio. So instead of 200+ or 400+ (DSD1024) of audio bandwidth, we settle with 100 - 200 kHz and instead use the extra bitrate to focus on increased theoretical SNR in that 100 kHz band. This is especially important when you do mixing, EQ, digital volume and such to DSD512+ outputs.

 

[dericchan1]

2 hours ago, Miska said:

 

Depending on your DAC and amplifier, but changes in what ever there is left ultrasonic noise in the DAC output may affect different tubes in a different way.

 

There are also sonic differences due to some small modulator behavioural changes, but these don't get affected by different tube models. 

 

However, super and v3 don't really have much difference in that sense, but the 512+fs does have. You could try the regular -super at DSD512 instead of 512+fs one. The 512+fs one has increased audio band SNR, but the noise slope starts earlier (still above 100 kHz). While the regular one at DSD512 would have noise slope starting above 200 kHz. This combined with analog post-filters of a particular DAC makes slight difference above 100 kHz (nothing major though).

 

Point of 512+fs modulators is that you don't really need more than a bit over 100 kHz for audio. So instead of 200+ or 400+ (DSD1024) of audio bandwidth, we settle with 100 - 200 kHz and instead use the extra bitrate to focus on increased theoretical SNR in that 100 kHz band. This is especially important when you do mixing, EQ, digital volume and such to DSD512+ outputs.

 

Thanks Miska, much appreciated on the insight. Yes I was noticing the difference between the 7ECV3 and the 512FS super. I will try the regular Super or Light tonight.

 

The dac i use is the ifi pro idsd dac feeding to a tube preamp and a class d power amp. Interesting to note is my speakers are the Monitor Audio platinum PL 200ii that has fr from 35hz upto 100khz so I am wondering if the fact that the tweeter has response upto 100khz might also have an impact on the choice of modulator that perhaps I should use the regular ones that noise sloping begin in 200khz instead of 100khz

[EMINENT]

Just checking in to report that version 5.2.0 now allows 1024x44.1 and poly sinc hires lp filter with 7EC-super 512+fs and 7ECv3 which wasn't possible before with convolution.

 

Nice and welcome update! Thanks!

[semente]

10 hours ago, dericchan1 said:

The dac i use is the ifi pro idsd dac feeding to a tube preamp and a class d power amp. Interesting to note is my speakers are the Monitor Audio platinum PL 200ii that has fr from 35hz upto 100khz so I am wondering if the fact that the tweeter has response upto 100khz might also have an impact on the choice of modulator that perhaps I should use the regular ones that noise sloping begin in 200khz instead of 100khz

 

Not many humans can hear beyond 20kHz, probably no adult male can hear beyond 18-19kHz.

If the MA tweeter were to break-up mightily close to the audio band then it might be possible that this would have audible repercussions but measurements I have seen show no spikes in that range.

The frequency range specified by MA is nothing but marketing bait...

 

[Kalpesh]

Only new halfband I see is s

Not that I lack filters to play with !

TWIMC I'm always outputting SDM now (though with >= 2 fs sources, difference is not always obvious), and these days I go Sinc short medium long depending on genre (pop jazz classical)

I had pleasant time with harpsichord and IIR2 but my take is that it yields swollen bass at the detriment of precision. I appreciate LF precision with sinc short and medium 

As of CPU load with Studio M1 I try to listen to music rather than compare and note these days but ie at the moment with 24/96 Led Zep  I have Sinc short /7EC 512 Light/ 512. Might pull out the original LP though..

 

PS : poly sinc short mp 2s makes the digital more palatable than sinc short but it is one of those instance when I prefer the LP...

[bogi]

1 hour ago, Kalpesh said:

Only new halfband I see is s

 

Look better and find new linear phase halfband filters. :)
I found the xs one to be very interesting. IMO it shows some similarity to xtr-short.

 

1 hour ago, Kalpesh said:

PS : poly sinc short mp 2s makes the digital more palatable than sinc short but it is one of those instance when I prefer the LP...

 

I had similar preferences like you until I improved my chain by adding a galvanic isolator. Then, together with v4 -> v5 update bringing EC-super modulators, I started to prefer short mp filters. Maybe long lp filters were masking some noise effects I was perceiving with short filters before - I perceived 'overdone' transients for example with xtr-short-mp. That cleaned up with better noise treatment.

 

Your case may be of course different and I always respect taste of other people (and want my taste to be respected). Just my personal experience.

[Miska]

53 minutes ago, bogi said:

I found the xs one to be very interesting. IMO it shows some similarity to xtr-short.

 

It is something I actually made because someone asked what would be closest to Mola-Mola filter, and there weren't any. So this one fairly closely matches the one used by Mola-Mola. And it is very similar to most DAC chip filters (ESS etc) in terms of response as well. Relatively slow roll-off and fairly low attenuation.

 

Main difference to Mola-Mola and DAC chip filters though is that these are single stage to final output rate.

 

Since halfband filters are non-apodizing, those are only suitable for content where the Apod counter stays 0 (or close, like under 10).

 

[dericchan1]

31 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

It is something I actually made because someone asked what would be closest to Mola-Mola filter, and there weren't any. So this one fairly closely matches the one used by Mola-Mola. And it is very similar to most DAC chip filters (ESS etc) in terms of response as well. Relatively slow roll-off and fairly low attenuation.

 

Main difference to Mola-Mola and DAC chip filters though is that these are single stage to final output rate.

 

Since halfband filters are non-apodizing, those are only suitable for content where the Apod counter stays 0 (or close, like under 10).

 

Just out of curiosity, is the filter used by Mola Mola also non-apodizing? 

[bogi]

I would expect that all internal filters in DAC chips are not apodizing, so they are preserving existing sample values and only interpolating new values between them. That seems to be easier.

 

In older chips like TI ones oversampling is implemented as cascade of 2x filters (so 3 cascades bring 8x oversampling). I wouldn't expect re-calculation of original samples in such a simplified environment - number of calculations which should fit into 1/target_fs interval would probably increase.

 

But I may be wrong ... Miska knows the correct answer.

[copy_of_a]

9 minutes ago, bogi said:

I would expect that all internal filters in DAC chips are not apodizing

most are. But depending on the DAC Chipset there might be an Apodizing Filter to select from the menu; for instance ES9038Pro chip provides this option.

While these built in filters are apodizing they often also show quite some passband ripple (which might have an detrimental audible effect or not).

[dericchan1]

8 minutes ago, copy_of_a said:

most are. But depending on the DAC Chipset there might be an Apodizing Filter to select from the menu; for instance ES9038Pro chip provides this option.

While these built in filters are apodizing they often also show quite some passband ripple (which might have a detrimental audible effect or not).

Actually my ifi dac has an apodizing filter for pcm only but I have never used my dac for pcm playback …

[Miska]

54 minutes ago, dericchan1 said:

Just out of curiosity, is the filter used by Mola Mola also non-apodizing? 

 

Yes, it is a halfband filter. Such filters are lighter to process as well, which is likely common reason for using those.

 

43 minutes ago, bogi said:

In older chips like TI ones oversampling is implemented as cascade of 2x filters (so 3 cascades bring 8x oversampling).

 

It is still common approach used by many chip vendors also in newest chips.

 

[camott]

After some others with Macs (and PCs) had noted some performance improvements with 5.2.0, I was hopeful my MM M1 16GB could squeeze out a few more demanding filters with ASDM7EC-light @ DSD512. But alas, not seeing any improvement at all on the M1 :( For example, just like 5.1.0, Sinc-MGa works at 44.1k but sputters a bit at 48k, and so can't use it for 1x. Maybe the performance optimizations in 5.2.0 were more relevant with the additional cores in the higher end M1/M2 chips.

[Kalpesh]

4 hours ago, Miska said:

 

It is something I actually made because someone asked what would be closest to Mola-Mola filter, and there weren't any. So this one fairly closely matches the one used by Mola-Mola. And it is very similar to most DAC chip filters (ESS etc) in terms of response as well. Relatively slow roll-off and fairly low attenuation.

 

Main difference to Mola-Mola and DAC chip filters though is that these are single stage to final output rate.

 

Since halfband filters are non-apodizing, those are only suitable for content where the Apod counter stays 0 (or close, like under 10).

 

some say HQP is horribly complex but it's indeed much simpler cooler cheaper than introducing new DACs with potential cable etc questions

Plus, even though they can be beat the base filters (psg long/psg hr lp) are excellent and can be left as is

[copy_of_a]

@Miska

A question re the gauss-hb and gauss-hb-s filters.

The manual says they are "(slightly) leaky around Nyquist but extremely high attenuation".

May I ask how much attentuation they provide?

The new gauss-hb-s is great! :-)

[audiofool]

A Dither Question:

Would there be any advantage or disadvantage to re-dither 44/16 cd source before processing with hqplayer to sdm output?

My thinking is similar to using apodizing filters to fix issues, maybe adding dither is good in some cases? 

 

 

[Schafheide]

1 hour ago, copy_of_a said:

@Miska

A question re the gauss-hb and gauss-hb-s filters.

The manual says they are "(slightly) leaky around Nyquist but extremely high attenuation".

May I ask how much attentuation they provide?

The new gauss-hb-s is great! :-)

I agree - gauss-hb-s is, indeed great - maybe an apodizing version would be useful - if it is possible to produce such a version?.  @Miskahas just dazzled us with all these new filters!

[bogi]

5 hours ago, audiofool said:

Would there be any advantage or disadvantage to re-dither 44/16 cd source before processing with hqplayer to sdm output?

Dithering is useful as last operation on computed sample values when producing PCM output to lower impact of quantization noise, which could otherwise create some unwanted audible pattern. It is not useful at beginning or during processing, because it would change valid audio data, which are part of processing. Therefore it is also not useful to be used at beginning of PCM to DSD conversion.

 

Dithering is not applicable to DSD data, since randomizing values of lowest bit(s) makes sense with multibit binary weighted data presentation like PCM encoded audio is. An equivalent thing to dithering for SDM (DSD) data is noise shaping.