HQ Player

[bogi]

ecwl has good point regarding your digital amp. My answer does not consider that point.

43 minutes ago, SwissBear said:

Thanks bogi.

I understand that HQPlayer is upsampling in one tap. My question was probably not well formulated. I meant: if upsampling from 16/44 to DSD 512 is a 100 segment, how big are the 16/44 to 24/192 resp. 24/192 to DSD512 sub-segments ?

Are we talking 50/50, which would mean to I am contemplating a further considerable improvement compared to what I have, or 80/20 or even 95/5 in which last case I should not consider this further investment.

I'm not sure I can give you such numbers. But the point is: the higher the target sample rate is, the bigger the benefit. It doesn't depend so much on source sample rate (see my next paragraph). My experience is that 384k is benefit against 192k. And yet more benefit brings DSD128 against DSD64. DSD128 is the lowest DSD rate where the PCM to DSD upsampling brings clear audible benefit (I'm considering DSD capable DAC which does not convert DSD to low rate PCM).

About source sample rate: If you start with 44.1k/16bit file, this file has lower resolution than 192k/24bit file. Because of lower resolution (the lowest bit has bigger 'grain') it stores less information. Upsampling cannot add information which wasn't present in the original file. Upsampling can improve dynamic range, apodizing filters can smooth the sound by removing original ringing, but with high quality hires source file you typically get better result - it was never reduced to 44.1/16 and therefore contains more low level detail. So the resulting sound quality is affected by the original recording sample rate and bit depth.

Hopefully makes sense for you.

[SwissBear]

5 minutes ago, bogi said:

Hopefully makes sense for you.

Yes it does. Thank you very much for your time

[Le Concombre Masqué]

10 minutes ago, bogi said:

ecwl has good point regarding your digital amp. My answer does not consider that point.

I'm not sure I can give you such numbers. But the point is: the higher the target sample rate is, the bigger the benefit. It doesn't depend so much on source sample rate (see my next paragraph). My experience is that 384k is benefit against 192k. And yet more benefit brings DSD128 against DSD64. DSD128 is the lowest DSD rate where the PCM to DSD upsampling brings clear audible benefit (I'm considering DSD capable DAC which does not convert DSD to low rate PCM).

About source sample rate: If you start with 44.1k/16bit file, this file has lower resolution than 192k/24bit file. Because of lower resolution (the lowest bit has bigger 'grain') it stores less information. Upsampling cannot add information which wasn't present in the original file. Upsampling can improve dynamic range, apodizing filters can smooth the sound by removing original ringing, but with high quality hires source file you typically get better result - it was never reduced to 44.1/16 and therefore contains more low level detail. So the resulting sound quality is affected by the original recording sample rate and bit depth.

Hopefully makes sense for you.

Funny how it meets my concern : poly sinc xtr 2s via 3.16 on optimized W2012 works so well that this week-end experience met the shocking (especially when you spent as much as I did) theory : 16/44 might be the ideal

@Miska : which format should we feed HQP with ? Is there any benefit in feeding HQP with 24 something? DSD ?

[SwissBear]

54 minutes ago, ecwl said:

My understanding is that the analog signal would be converted back to 24/192 by Devialet's ADC and then reconverted back by its DAC for playback. I maybe mistaken on this point. But if I'm right, you're really getting no benefits from the DSD512.

Just a short complement to my previous answer: the Devialet is not a digital amplifier but a hybrid one. I will not develop further as this is not the topic here, but if you are interested, you can have a look at the technology here: https://vimeo.com/93141227

[richard kimber]

Since upgrading to 3.16 (Linux) I've been experiencing a problem that I didn't have with previous versions, namely that if I play a CD upsampled to DSD128, at the end of the entire CD I get a fairly loud click and the clipping lights on my AHB2 flash. I find that the T+A DAC 8 DSD has been reset to PCM 384 (which I rarely use). Anyone else experience anything like this?

 

- Richard.

[bogi]

29 minutes ago, Le Concombre Masqué said:

Funny how it meets my concern : poly sinc xtr 2s via 3.16 on optimized W2012 works so well that this week-end experience met the shocking (especially when you spent as much as I did) theory : 16/44 might be the ideal

I agree that xtr filters are doing really great work on Redbook recordings. I agree that I never found them so well sounding as with xtr filters and upsampling to DSD. But ... I still don't think that 16/44 might be the ideal. The low level detail is generally better preserved in good quality hires recording. Another point for higher rate source file is less processor load caused by HQPlayer to get the target sample rate.

With xtr filters I get very similar sound quality when I upsample PCM 96k or 192k versus when I upsample ripped SACD (DSD64). Previously I typically got better sound quality from DSD recordings.

Some months I am already using matrix pipeline with impulse response WAVs to perform stereo to binaural processing. It's correction DSP like for example room equalization but for headphones. HQPlayer performs this correction DSP easier in PCM domain - it leads to less processor load. This point speaks more for PCM recordings.

[giordy60]

I find the filter poly-sinc xtr -2s with the modulator DSD7 256 + fs a solution that satisfies my listening, a DSD with a bit of detail that I think is good. the quality of Departure file is critical.

hqp 3.16

[Le Concombre Masqué]

27 minutes ago, bogi said:

I agree that xtr filters are doing really great work on Redbook recordings. I agree that I never found them so well sounding as with xtr filters and upsampling to DSD. But ... I still don't think that 16/44 might be the ideal. The low level detail is generally better preserved in good quality hires recording. Another point for higher rate source file is less processor load caused by HQPlayer to get the target sample rate.

With xtr filters I get very similar sound quality when I upsample PCM 96k or 192k versus when I upsample ripped SACD (DSD64). Previously I typically got better sound quality from DSD recordings.

Some months I am already using matrix pipeline with impulse response WAVs to perform stereo to binaural processing. It's correction DSP like for example room equalization but for headphones. HQPlayer performs this correction DSP easier in PCM domain - it leads to less processor load. This point speaks more for PCM recordings.

comparing pcm layer of MOFI's Barber's Smash to the sacd layer I heard differences and could make a case for sacd (soundstage, speed...) but the "analog" like, 0 harshness, 100% no brainer was the 16/44. Taking Barry Diament's files to compare pcm resolutions, the best impression was made by the first file, 16/44. Maybe I'd pick and pay a few cents more the 24/96, heard beefier bass with the 192( that doesn't really make sense, does it ?) at the expense of soundstage and delineation but this was all in the confines of comparing filters or judgement errors.

Now comes the issue of your "generally better preserved in good quality hires recording"

I trust Analogue Productions and MOFI not to master for iphone or car stereo and would not like to call for a bashing and respect the call for a premium ; question is : is sacd necessary or a liability though it looks like paying for mastering quality is masked by paying for tech

idem for some 24/192 downloads that are gorgeous (Blue Notes, Verve as great in hires as it was often loosy on vinyls (sometimes very expensive such as Velvet Underground)

If HQP is so great that there's no more any justification for a hires first step to start with, how are we going to nurture an audiophile market and identify trust worthy sources (great departure files)?

@Miska: is there a resolution dependent preference for feeding HQP based on quantization errors, quantization noise, and non-linearity, what have you??

 

[bogi]

11 minutes ago, Le Concombre Masqué said:

comparing pcm layer of MOFI's Barber's Smash to the sacd layer I heard differences and could make a case for sacd (soundstage, speed...) but the "analog" like, 0 harshness, 100% no brainer was the 16/44. Taking Barry Diament's files to compare pcm resolutions, the best impression was made by the first file, 16/44. Maybe I'd pick and pay a few cents more the 24/96, heard beefier bass with the 192( that doesn't really make sense, does it ?) at the expense of soundstage and delineation but this was all in the confines of comparing filters or judgement errors.

It's hard to do format comparisons because of different mastering for target media/format. Many hires recordings may sound better because of better mastering. But I also have many ripped CDs which sound very well with HQPlayer. Generally, I will continue to prefer highres.

[ecwl]

2 hours ago, SwissBear said:

Just a short complement to my previous answer: the Devialet is not a digital amplifier but a hybrid one. 

Except the Devialet doesn't use analog volume control, it controls the volume digitally. This is the reason why all analog signals through the Devialet has to be converted via the ADC into 24/192 first and then apply volume attenuation digitally and then put through the internal DAC to feed the hybrid ADH amplifier. I concur that this is off-topic. Moreover, as SwissBear pointed out, some people liked putting TotalDAC through the Devialet so SwissBear may like putting the T+A DAC through Devialet. As long as you enjoy the sound and don't mind spending the money, it's all good!!!

[SwissBear]

17 minutes ago, ecwl said:

Except the Devialet doesn't use analog volume control, it controls the volume digitally. This is the reason why all analog signals through the Devialet has to be converted via the ADC into 24/192 first and then apply volume attenuation digitally and then put through the internal DAC to feed the hybrid ADH amplifier. I concur that this is off-topic. 

Checked the configurator and it seems you are right. Thanks for the heads-up. The video is misleading  

[DSD256]

8 hours ago, bogi said:

It's hard to do format comparisons because of different mastering for target media/format. Many hires recordings may sound better because of better mastering. But I also have many ripped CDs which sound very well with HQPlayer. Generally, I will continue to prefer highres.

I think the differences you are hearing are not only due to better mastering. Some sacd feature a complete new multitrack mixing that makes the big difference.

However If i compare the identically rebook layer and sacd layer i'm not able to tell differences when blind listening. We did a really nice blind listening journey with a few music lovers. In the end, the Sacd was more rarely chosen as better sounding. We used ripped SACD's in dsf format.

 

 

 

[DSD256]

Since the arrival of the Schiit Yggdrasil things have changed. Before the Yggdrasil i thought HQplayer sounded best in my chain with up sampling to DSD256.

Now with Yggdrasil my preference has changed to audirvana a lot. In my chain now audirvana sounds more natural with better soundstage. The overall listening experience is a lot better. HQplayer with none/none configured sounds now covered, closely unnatural. No comparison.

Is this due to the fact that hqplayer is optimized to delta sigma? IMO Yggdrasil sounds best with its closed filter.

 

[louisxiawei]

28 minutes ago, DSD256 said:

Since the arrival of the Schiit Yggdrasil things have changed. Before the Yggdrasil i thought HQplayer sounded best in my chain with up sampling to DSD256.

Now with Yggdrasil my preference has changed to audirvana a lot. In my chain now audirvana sounds more natural with better soundstage. The overall listening experience is a lot better. HQplayer with none/none configured sounds now covered, closely unnatural. No comparison.

Is this due to the fact that hqplayer is optimized to delta sigma? IMO Yggdrasil sounds best with its closed filter.

 

 

 

9

Multi-bit ladder DAC using HQplayer to DSD256? I doubt it will improve the SQ like the SDM dac. 

Check this link below as Jussi made some comment before regarding your ygg.

https://community.roonlabs.com/t/why-do-audiophiles-like-hq-player/6210/64

 

 

[louisxiawei]

55 minutes ago, DSD256 said:

I think the differences you are hearing are not only due to better mastering. Some sacd feature a complete new multitrack mixing that makes the big difference.

However If i compare the identically rebook layer and sacd layer i'm not able to tell differences when blind listening. We did a really nice blind listening journey with a few music lovers. In the end, the Sacd was more rarely chosen as better sounding. We used ripped SACD's in dsf format.

 

8

 

 

My experience is totally different. Which dac you are using? Maybe your dac is not good at DSD playback?
I did a comparison of different format file of the same recording. I have "Sessions from the 17th Ward" from Amber Rubarth.

I have three different formats of this album: native DSD128 (dsf from HDtrack ),  24/96 flac (flac from HDtrack), and 44.1/16bit (streamed from Tidal). By using HQplayer upsampling all these three formats to DSD512 sent to my T+A DAC8 DSD. 

The difference is very obvious. DSD128 upsampled to DSD512 sounds the best. Period.

I also have lots of SACD ripped files (from iso to DSF in dual channel mode), compared to CD quality 44.1, sacd files sounds more analogue, natural without doubt. Don't even need lots of blind-test since it's so obvious.

[Miska]

12 hours ago, Le Concombre Masqué said:

@Miska : which format should we feed HQP with ? Is there any benefit in feeding HQP with 24 something? DSD ?

It is best to use the format used for the original recording, when possible. When it is not possible, using something as close as possible is preferable.

In any case, HQPlayer has been designed to deliver best possible sound from any source format to any kind of DAC.

[Miska]

2 hours ago, DSD256 said:

Is this due to the fact that hqplayer is optimized to delta sigma? IMO Yggdrasil sounds best with its closed filter.

HQPlayer is optimized to all kinds of DACs. Some DACs allow more bypassing of internal DSP while others allow less.

If you like Yggdrasil with it's filters then use that.

I prefer to buy DACs that allow me to use them as plain DACs, without forced DSP or at least as little as possible. I prefer to keep DSP and DAC separate, it increases flexibility. That also means that I don't have to pay for DSP stuff I don't need or want. More money then goes to the critical D/A conversion stage.

[blue2]

13 hours ago, bogi said:

Quote

... Upsampling cannot add information which wasn't present in the original file. Upsampling can improve dynamic range, apodizing filters can smooth the sound by removing original ringing, but with high quality hires source file you typically get better result - it was never reduced to 44.1/16 and therefore contains more low level detail. So the resulting sound quality is affected by the original recording sample rate and bit depth.

NIce summary. One other potential benefit is that by upsampling in HQPlayer you can take out the filters in your DAC and feed a native rate into the converter i.e. DSD512 into T+A DAC 8 DSD.

When a new version of HQPlayer comes out do you have any favourite tracks you use to check SQ? Can you point out any particular sections you listen for?

Thanks

 

[DSD256]

3 hours ago, louisxiawei said:

Multi-bit ladder DAC using HQplayer to DSD256? I doubt it will improve the SQ like the SDM dac. 

Check this link below as Jussi made some comment before regarding your ygg.

https://community.roonlabs.com/t/why-do-audiophiles-like-hq-player/6210/64

Thanks for the link.

Miska:"Those multi-bit ladders don't achieve the price/performance of delta-sigma DACs though. And even best ones don't come close to best delta-sigma DACs in terms of performance."

Miska@ Does the RME Adi-2 Pro from your point of view play among the best Sigma Delta converters? ...a lot of praise in some forums .Which are the best Delta sigma DAC's to those the best ladder DACs don't come close? Yo have had the Yggdrasil at home?

 

 

[1markr]

On 3/17/2017 at 3:23 PM, 1markr said:

I installed 3.16 earlier today, and had to revert back to 3.15.1.

 

With 3.16 and Roon, I cannot fast forward to another track without HQP failing and needing to be restarted. In 3.15.1, I can jump from Roon track to Roon track as many times as I'd like with no problem. From 3.14 thru 3.15, I can get by track jumping thru a few tracks (maybe 5, 6, or 7 tracks) before HQP fails on me.

 

Anyone know what's going on here? I wish 3.16 worked like 3.15.1. I was happy to see the stability in 3.15.1, and now it's gone again.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

Reposting, since this may have gotten lost just prior to CA being taken down for the upgrade...

[Miska]

8 hours ago, DSD256 said:

Miska@ Does the RME Adi-2 Pro from your point of view play among the best Sigma Delta converters? ...a lot of praise in some forums .Which are the best Delta sigma DAC's to those the best ladder DACs don't come close? Yo have had the Yggdrasil at home?

I have commented about the ADI-2 Pro in the corresponding thread on this forum.

I'm not going to spend money on Yggdrasil because it's input is limited to 192k PCM, it's DSP is not bypassable and it has cross-over distortion problems, pretty high correlated jitter, etc. You can check the Stereophile's measurements...

[westside]

Hi everyone,

I have an issue with the lastest version of HQPLAYER.

The last version doesn't work with JPLAY for me.

In fact as soon as play a song with JPLAY then HQPlayer shut down.

I never have this issue with the previous version of HQPlayer ( 3.13 i think)

Can you help me please ?

 

Thanks by advance.

Regards,

Aurelien.

[Miska]

3 minutes ago, westside said:

In fact as soon as play a song with JPLAY then HQPlayer shut down.

Can you help me please ?

Yes, just don't use JPlay, or don't use HQPlayer.

[DSD256]

29 minutes ago, Miska said:

I have commented about the ADI-2 Pro in the corresponding thread on this forum.

I'm not going to spend money on Yggdrasil because it's input is limited to 192k PCM, it's DSP is not bypassable and it has cross-over distortion problems, pretty high correlated jitter, etc. You can check the Stereophile's measurements...

OK, that makes things clear. I know those measurements.

Why not give the Yggdrasil a chance and give it a listen instead on relying on measurements. If very good measurements were necessarily accompanied by a great sound, the RME Adi-2 Pro would be the world's best DAC. 

I have had the RME-Adi-2 Pro, Gustard X20 Pro and the Yggdrasil side by side at home for auditing. The Yggdrasil stays at home and is the real deal by far. RME ADI-2 Pro sounds in comparison to the Yggdrasil like an entry DAC, period. Even the X20 sounds better than the RME.

Measurements will not tell you the whole story. Mike Moffat did a replay on the alleged problems:

"Please excuse my delay in addressing criticism of my design choices and philosophy with respect to the Yggy. At the time they initially came off, I was in a pre hospitalization mode where I could barely walk. I then went in for some fairly major neck rebuild surgery and just now can function well – much better! I am still wearing a medieval torture device neck collar which prevents me from looking down, and for that reason may leave some typos in this missive. So now that I am healthy, please allow this retort:

1. Audio vs. Industrial DACs. Forty years ago, I designed and built the first no feedback, passive RIAA equalized, and 6DJ8 exclusively tubed audio preamplifier. At the time, the audio tubes in use were the 12A_7 family which indeed were designed to be for audio use. They were proper and inexpensive enough to be designed into the cheapest of phonographs. Although embarrassingly cheap, they were used in the finest preamps of the late first tube era, MacIntosh and Marantz. The 6DJ8 was a lower noise, far more inherently linear, and much wider audio through RF bandwidth device. Those capable of qualitative differentiation realized that the 12A_7 was a subset of the 6DJ8 – the latter featured much lower noise and much better distortion as a bonus. A total freebie was the much wider bandwidth which enabled much higher slewing rates. At the time, I was savaged by an engineering troglodyte of the day who called me out for not using audio parts and high amounts of feedback. Well, here we are 40 years later as the second tube era enters maturity. It seems the 6DJ8/6922/etc tube family has been well established – screw all of you Luddites.

Fast forward to today. We have audio DACs (largely used by engineering insophisticates or troglodytes). We also have industrial DACs which are faster, and far more accurate. Accurate you say? You bet. There are two specs that inexpensively designed audio DACs leave unspecified. DNL and INL. I don't want to turn this into a tech wiki, but those specs are less than 1LSB on both the AD5791. DACs unspecified thusly are prone to errors much higher than -110 db, possibly as high as -6db according to which code is problematical. This is why cheaply designed audio DACs are totally unsuited for weapons (missile can hit the orphanage instead of the real target) or medical imaging (Doc is going to think cancer is metastasized when it isn't or in the wrong place). Industrial DACs are just like 6DJ8s – you get faster conversions and far more accuracy. THERE IS NO INHERENT ADVANTAGE IN USING AN AUDIO DAC FOR AUDIO EXCEPT COST – PERIOD. Again, I am savaged by trogs and Luddies on using industrial DACs for all of the wrong reasons – see immediately below.

2. The alleged Yggy AD5791 glitch problem. A repro of Atomic Bob's Yggy -90db sine wave was presented characterizing the glitch as massive. A number of posters there become fully erect and piled on to the incorrect notion that the AD5791 has a glitching problem.  It is unfortunate that those accusations are not only based in bullschiit, but the accusers are so lame they are not even aware they are wrong.

The glitch referred to on the AD5791 data sheet occurs once per conversion – that's once every 2.5 to 2.8 microseconds or so. The glitch displayed on the other forum occurs every 500 microseconds. It seems these geniuses have not enough fingers and toes to count. Either that or they really cannot read sophisticated DAC data sheets.

The glitch pointed out (and agreed to by me as glitch before my surgery) is DAC glitch proper to multibit DACs driven by 2s compliment math at zero crossings, already pointed out by one poster, but ignored by many on this thread in their haste to condemn the DAC. This glitch worsens with lowering decoded output on any mb DAC.

The rest of the world deals with this zero crossing phenomenon is by adding dither, which is random noise just above the level of the glitch. This can either be done on purpose digitally or accidentally with an overly noisy analog section.

It is ordinary to employ dither. For the record, there is no dither employed in the Yggy. Then again, the Yggy in not an ordinary DAC. As of yet, I am not convinced that dither is the best to do. That is why the zero crossing is so obvious. If this changes, it is a trivial software upgrade.

I'm done. Perhaps my accusers may study 2s compliment math, dither, and R2R zero crossing glitches, and sophisticated DACs in particular before they jump on me again."

.............

Found an interesting article comparing a ladder DAC Yggdrasil ($2299) & the delta-sigma Antelope Audio Zodiac Platinum DSD DAC-Voltikus Power Supply-10M Rubidium Atomic Clock ($13.000).

Bob Katz and the reviewer could not tell any big differences..."We both did the test today. Initially we spent time switching between the two sighted; then we did a couple of passes blind as trial runs; and then set out to do the scored tests. Results...50-50."

Interesting results, eh? Who can doubt the ears of Bob Katz?

[mirekti]

@Miska Could you comment on NVIDA Quadro P series, please?
My plan was to add P2000 or P4000, and use them for CUDA offload for i7-7700 when upsampling to DSD512 and non -2 filters. Are these cards good candidates, any comparison to GTX in terms of CUDA?