HQ Player

[OldBigEars]

Hi Miska, I thought I read in one of your posts that distortion often starts around -10dBFS on many DAC's. (I have a Resonnessence Concero HD) So I set mine at -4dBFS. I tend to upsample X2 using A+. Thanks for your advice.

[fordski]

I believe the latter is what's going on, because I tried dragging to RAMdisk direct from DMG and identical behavior. How should a script create a RAMdisk and tell it to mount in OS X (edit: in OS X El Cap) in order to allow apps to execute?

 

I've been using Geoff Armstrong's Play iTunes through HQPlayer script which puts hqplayer in a RAMdisk and it launches fine from there with Geoff's script. However if I try to launch HQPlayer manually from the RAMdisk I get the same issue reported here. Perhaps there's some clues in Geoff's script that may yield a solution. I'm afraid my Apple scripting skills aren't good enough to explore this.

[KunterK]

One idea is:

Copy the HQPlayer App to Ramdisk

Go to RamDisk and right (two finger) click on HQPlayer

Select "Show Package Contents"

Go to Contents

Go to Mac

and run the Desktop app from there... It works.

 

Cheers

[fordski]

One idea is:

Copy the HQPlayer App to Ramdisk

Go to RamDisk and right (two finger) click on HQPlayer

Select "Show Package Contents"

Go to Contents

Go to Mac

and run the Desktop app from there... It works.

 

Cheers

 

KunterK that's perfect! Thanks for the tip...

[ted_b]

I apologize if this seems to be a slight hijack (question is larger than HQP but first occurred playing HQP/NAA):

As some may know I am testing and reviewing the exaSound Playpoint streamer (minireview coming in next 14 days), which can automatically become a plug and play NAA for HQPlayer (defaults to it if no other service like MPD or UPnP accesses it). I am using it for both stereo and multichannel content. My NAS is a Synology DS1513+ with DX513 add-on.

 

Very hirez multichannel playback has been no issue...until yesterday. Now, all of a sudden I get pauses in the music every 20 seconds or so. After much testing, it is clear that it is my home LAN somewhere (although nothing really changed from successful glitch-free playback prior to yesterday). One clear indication: local USB hard drive playback is glitch-free, even at DSD256 5.1 multichannel. It's not Minimserver (even though it did an update yesterday to its Minimstreamer) because these interruptions occur even when I access the NAS via JRIver and my home office desktop (which doesn't use Minimserver). JRiver shows "buffering" and then the music continues. What a pain!

 

Has anyone experienced sudden LAN bandwidth issues? Does anyone know a troubleshooting process, or even tools to use? Feel free to send me to another thread somewhere....thx

[fheller]

I experienced similar issues some time ago.

I dont use Wlan, and I installed Netgear Prosafe Gigabyte Switches.

That helped.

[Forehaven]

Pardon my lack of knowledge about Minumserver. I went to the webpage, but still don't fully understand it. I too have a Synology NAS, Mac mini server and my MBPro as the client using screenshare.

 

So does Minumserver act as a music library manager on my Mac mini? So does it 'take over' the Mac Mini's 'server' functions?

 

Thanks

Chris

[Miska]

Has anyone experienced sudden LAN bandwidth issues? Does anyone know a troubleshooting process, or even tools to use? Feel free to send me to another thread somewhere....thx

 

Really hard to say. Broken cable/connector, IP conflict, switch gone nuts or something else. It may help checking packet error counters for the ethernet interface...

[ted_b]

It may help checking packet error counters for the ethernet interface...

 

Is this what you are referring to (screen shot of Motorola UVerse gateway web interface)

 

My home office desktop flashed a notice yesterday that I had an IP conflict but don't see one in my IP device list currently (or is that not where I'd see them)

[4est]

Maybe off base, but somehow in my network connection properties, HT mode got disabled and I had very similar problems to yours.

Is this what you are referring to (screen shot of Motorola UVerse gateway web interface)

[ATTACH=CONFIG]22172[/ATTACH]

 

My home office desktop flashed a notice yesterday that I had an IP conflict but don't see one in my IP device list currently (or is that not where I'd see them)

[ted_b]

4est, thanks but isn't HT mode a wireless term? I'm wired (at least all my music related stuff is)

[4est]

Now that you mention it, it would seem so. Sorry for the confusion Ted.

4est, thanks but isn't HT mode a wireless term? I'm wired (at least all my music related stuff is)

[goldsdad]

Hi Goldsdad,

 

What does your statement means in layman terms and what conclusions/ recommendations do you have ??

 

Regards, Andreas

 

Hi Andreas

 

Basically, something that worked in OS X before El Capitan is either broken or disallowed in El Capitan.

 

It doesn't upset me because I see no point in storing apps in a RAM disk in order to try to reduce hard drive activity and thus improve system sound quality.

 

An app's executable code and some resources must be loaded into RAM in order to be run, anyway, regardless of the type of drive which stores the app. It doesn't matter whether the app is stored in a physical hard drive or a virtual RAM disk, running an app requires the app to be loaded from that drive into RAM, and then the content of RAM is processed.

 

If a RAM disk is not used for storage of an app, the app will be loaded into RAM from a physical drive, then processed.

 

If a RAM disk is used for storage of an app, the app will be loaded into RAM from the RAM disk, then processed. So RAM will be used for the running app (same as when no RAM disk) in addition to the separate area of RAM that is used to contain the RAM disk. The greater the demand on RAM, the greater the likelihood of paging, so using a RAM disk can actually increase hard drive activity.

[Jud]

The greater the demand on RAM, the greater the likelihood of paging, so using a RAM disk can actually increase hard drive activity.

 

Aha, so you admit there can be a difference!

[goldsdad]

Aha, so you admit there can be a difference!

 

Ah, but I haven't said that hard drive activity makes a difference to the output of the speakers/headphones. If/when it does, I doubt that increased activity corresponds with improved sound quality unless the listener thinks there is decreased activity and is hearing what they expect to hear.

[wwaldmanfan]

It doesn't upset me because I see no point in storing apps in a RAM disk in order to try to reduce hard drive activity and thus improve system sound quality.

 

An app's executable code and some resources must be loaded into RAM in order to be run, anyway, regardless of the type of drive which stores the app. It doesn't matter whether the app is stored in a physical hard drive or a virtual RAM disk, running an app requires the app to be loaded from that drive into RAM, and then the content of RAM is processed.

 

If a RAM disk is not used for storage of an app, the app will be loaded into RAM from a physical drive, then processed.

 

If a RAM disk is used for storage of an app, the app will be loaded into RAM from the RAM disk, then processed. So RAM will be used for the running app (same as when no RAM disk) in addition to the separate area of RAM that is used to contain the RAM disk. The greater the demand on RAM, the greater the likelihood of paging, so using a RAM disk can actually increase hard drive activity.

 

Good explaination. I never claimed to be smart, but I've been using computers long enough to think that this is just common sense.

[Jud]

Good explaination. I never claimed to be smart, but I've been using computers long enough to think that this is just common sense.

 

I thought I could hear a difference, but since it cost nothing to run the app from the RAMdisk I've never bothered to do any careful listening to either bolster or refute my informal impression.

 

Note at least one software player developer thinks there is an improvement. This doesn't of course mean he's correct; it simply means that if he's wrong, then some familiarity with computers is not a cure.

[goldsdad]

I thought I could hear a difference, but since it cost nothing to run the app from the RAMdisk I've never bothered to do any careful listening to either bolster or refute my informal impression.

 

Note at least one software player developer thinks there is an improvement. This doesn't of course mean he's correct; it simply means that if he's wrong, then some familiarity with computers is not a cure.

 

I believe that PeterSt's software is unique amongst audio player apps in that, throughout playback of a track, it is writing data to the drive from which the app was loaded into RAM.

[Jud]

I believe that PeterSt's software is unique amongst audio player apps in that, throughout playback of a track, it is writing data to the drive from which the app was loaded into RAM.

 

That's not the half of it. I've long run the app from a different RAMdisk than the music playback RAMdisk. And his latest version offers the option to offload the entire OS to RAMdisk.

[Miska]

If a RAM disk is used for storage of an app, the app will be loaded into RAM from the RAM disk, then processed. So RAM will be used for the running app (same as when no RAM disk) in addition to the separate area of RAM that is used to contain the RAM disk. The greater the demand on RAM, the greater the likelihood of paging, so using a RAM disk can actually increase hard drive activity.

 

Even if the app is loaded from HDD or SSD, it is loaded to the RAM once as the code pages are touched and then remains there unless there's memory pressure to discard th pages. If you use some anti-virus software, then most certainly the entire binary is loaded to RAM before it is executed.

 

When it comes to file playback, more there is available unused RAM, more likely OS disk cache will have the entire file loaded to the cache . Duplicating the core OS functionality in the player application is not very likely to end up with better results, competing with the OS rather than playing together with it... I rather co-operate with the OS.

 

With application on a RAM disk, you'll end up having more than 2x RAM usage after about one playback round because you have both the application loaded to the RAM plus the unloaded file system image of the application.

 

On my Linux and Windows system I have paging (swap) disabled. On Macs I didn't bother because I have not seen straightforward way to disable it. Functionally I consider it ancient remnant...

[goldsdad]

That's not the half of it. I've long run the app from a different RAMdisk than the music playback RAMdisk. And his latest version offers the option to offload the entire OS to RAMdisk.

 

Interesting, but I think we're becoming sidetracked. There is a rational explanation (reduced physical drive activity throughout playback) for PeterSt's XXHighEnd player having improved sound quality when his app (and now the OS also) is stored in a RAM disk (and that's assuming sufficient physical RAM to avoid paging), but that explanation doesn't hold in the case of other player apps.

[Jud]

On my Linux and Windows system I have paging (swap) disabled. On Macs I didn't bother because I have not seen straightforward way to disable it. Functionally I consider it ancient remnant...

 

I think I recall reading that swap/paging in OS X is no longer what everyone once understood by that term. I'll see if I can find something about it.

 

Linux or BSD I do the same as you. With Windows I used to but haven't bothered for a while.

[rah50]

Hi All:

 

I just upgraded my NAA with Win 10 Pro, new drivers and NAA 3.11 and also went to HQP 3.11 on my main PC. Can't sem to get anything to work now.

 

3.11 screen shots in next post!

 

 

NAA 3.11

 

[C:\Users\NAA\Downloads\networkaudiod-311\x64\networkaudiod.exe] (4828): connection from 192.168.0.6:59932

[C:\Users\NAA\Downloads\networkaudiod-311\x64\networkaudiod.exe] (4828): Set channels: 2 (2)

[C:\Users\NAA\Downloads\networkaudiod-311\x64\networkaudiod.exe] (4828): ASIO drivers: 1

[C:\Users\NAA\Downloads\networkaudiod-311\x64\networkaudiod.exe] (4828): Found ASIO driver: 'ASIO W4S 32bit 384Khz DSD' (0)

[C:\Users\NAA\Downloads\networkaudiod-311\x64\networkaudiod.exe] (4828): Loaded ASIO driver: ASIO W4S 32bit 384Khz DSD

[C:\Users\NAA\Downloads\networkaudiod-311\x64\networkaudiod.exe] (4828): ASIO format selector not supported, assuming PCM

[rah50]

Never mind!

 

Power supply to Regens was not turned on!

 

All is well, will be trying Closed form filters tomorrow.

[Le Concombre Masqué]

Please report. I have to admit I'm lost...

 

I'm back to SDMing everything, as I should considering the chip inside my DAC, back to poly sinc as well for n48 files (96 192 384) since there's only one crystal, 44 based, in the DAC and I prefer to let HQP do the conversion job.

 

However, for everything n44 would it be PCM or DSD files, I prefer the rate exclusive and new filters.

 

Trouble is : which one ? it seems very file quality dependent. While listening to the gorgeous new rendering of Kind of Blue by MFSL (sacd then ripped) closed form was and is a very obvious choice to my ears. That is also true of i.e. Meddle, another MFSL production, but CD : much better though Closed Form. In almost every other instance I prefer poly sinc ext. poly sinc ext is apodizing while Closed form ; can it be the explanation and the basis of guidelines ?

 

Never mind!

 

Power supply to Regens was not turned on!

 

All is well, will be trying Closed form filters tomorrow.