HQ Player

[Whitigir]

7 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

Likely computer related and not DAC. If you are upsampling to DSD, then using poly-sinc-xtr-2s gives you lighter weight alternative.

 

 

I think it has to be the Interface of the receiving end.  I can use all kind of filter including closed form fast with Dx200 which is running on battery and XmosU208, the only thing it can not run is poly-sinc-xtr .  Both of my devices even with full desktop design, still using Amanero, both can not do many filters: including closed form fast 

 

how close is the closed form fast filter to WAT2 ? Thanks very much 

[Miska]

1 minute ago, Whitigir said:

how close is the closed form fast filter to WAT2 ? Thanks very much 

 

It is also similar, but just with different processing parameters.

 

[Whitigir]

25 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

It is also similar, but just with different processing parameters.

 

Wow! Then I must be impressed with this little portable DAP, Dx-200

 

thanks for your confirmation Miska 

[jhwalker]

2 hours ago, Miska said:

 

Network problem with the microRendu perhaps?

 

 

Same microRendu receiving from Roon at DSD512 (i.e., same traffic) all day long.  'tis a puzzlement.

 

Wouldn't worry about it, but I still think HQPlayer running poly-sinc-xtr sounds better

[Miska]

1 minute ago, jhwalker said:

Same microRendu receiving from Roon at DSD512 (i.e., same traffic) all day long.  'tis a puzzlement.

 

Wouldn't worry about it, but I still think HQPlayer running poly-sinc-xtr sounds better

 

But with Roon you are using Roon's streaming protocol which is different and has some hacks to work around such network problems...

 

This is a philosophical difference, instead of trying to work around all kinds of problems, I prefer things fixed right where the problem is. This way, in my opinion, the end result is better even though it may require much more effort to reach.

 

[bibo01]

9 hours ago, Miska said:

 

In latest version with addition of "ALBUMARTIST" tag support for FLACs, albums are shown under artist specified under "ALBUMARTIST" (if available). Individual tracks show what is specified under "ARTIST" tag. So in essence only thing that has changed is what is shown for albums if album artist is specified in FLAC, everything else is as before. So sounds like things work as intended.

 

If you really have a "COMPOSER" tag, then you should also have "PERFORMER" tag which would be something used for classical music where composer would be something like "J.S. Bach" and performer would be something like "London Symphony Orchestra". Note that COMPOSER only applied if ARTIST is not specified before it.

 

Sorry, but I do not see how it relates to what I reported.

This is a jazz album, not classical. Furthermore, AlbumArtist tag is empty. As I said, when I scan the album, Artist is correctly identified and inserted in the Library. When I playback, on the desktop Artist shows the content of Composer tag! Is this how you to intend it to work?!  

[Miska]

3 hours ago, bibo01 said:

Sorry, but I do not see how it relates to what I reported.

This is a jazz album, not classical. Furthermore, AlbumArtist tag is empty. As I said, when I scan the album, Artist is correctly identified and inserted in the Library. When I playback, on the desktop Artist shows the content of Composer tag! Is this how you to intend it to work?!  

 

If there is PERFORMER specified for a track, then that is shown on the track listing instead of ARTIST while ARTIST / ALBUMARTIST is shown for the album. So PERFORMER tag has priority over ARTIST tag on the track listing. That's why the column header says "Performer / Artist".

 

[bibo01]

8 minutes ago, Miska said:

If there is PERFORMER specified for a track, then that is shown on the track listing instead of ARTIST while ARTIST / ALBUMARTIST is shown for the album. So PERFORMER tag has priority over ARTIST tag on the track listing. That's why the column header says "Performer / Artist".

OK, I understand this. However, the Performer tag here is empty, only the Composer tag is full. So it seems that HQP is reading that tag.

[Miska]

48 minutes ago, bibo01 said:

OK, I understand this. However, the Performer tag here is empty, only the Composer tag is full. So it seems that HQP is reading that tag.

 

Yes, HQPlayer reads COMPOSER as artist tag if it is specified before ARTIST tag in Vorbis comments. Then the display becomes composer + performer which is more logical for classical music (where people are usually interested on the composer and performer). But then it is also shown for the album if ALBUMARTIST is not specified. If this differs, then MP3Tag is anyway writing out ALBUMARTIST tag with ARTIST as content. Please check what is really in the FLAC's Vorbis comment fields...

 

[Whitigir]

I can confirm that my CPU usage is only 60% with closed form fast filter.  But the Amanero on LkS004 is incapable of playing it, so it stuttered, and so as every other non 2S filter....except Poly Sinc.

 

my Dx200 with Xmos206 can do every non 2S filter, except XTR and or closed form.  So the DSP also plays a huge role for what I am observing 

[MemoryPlayer]

On 8/14/2018 at 4:37 PM, RamUwe said:

I use the same MBP with PCM any rate to DSD512 only with -2s xtr filters, but with any DSD rate to DSD512 xtr non -2s, but only with bootcamp, Windows 10 Pro, Asio driver and blackbird software!

 

Quote

Thanks, Miska. Everything works now as expected. And thanks for the discount. I already bought the license.

 

Maybe a stupid question: I've got a MBP 2017 with i7 3,1GHz. Which upsampling rates (PCM/DSD) are possible with non -2s filters without stuttering? Any experiences? 24bit/96kHz (PCM) runs without any problems.

 

[Whitigir]

Poly-sinc non 2s will be sure to wok

[Whitigir]

Poly-sinc non 2s will be sure to wok

[numlog]

What DSF settings and modulator is everyone using for PCM to DSD conversion?
choosing the right ones can have a dramatic impact IME.

 

Bit rate is 44.1x128.

poly-lin or poly-mp for conversion and slow- lin or fast-mp noise filter worked well...

if you are using a minimum phase oversampling filter try switching to the linear phase variant and use poly-mp for conversion. transients were nicer this way I found

 

Integrator was best left IIR, it was the most natural.

 

having DirectSDM enabled is better I feel, the volume control is disabled but the gain is reduced just enough for PCM, about -3dB. the manual suggests it only applies when the source is DSD, is this really the case?

 

The manual give much info on modulators. The default ASDM7 is a safe choice,  it sounds clean and seems like the most resolving one. I prefer to use DSD5v2, it sounds fuller and more robust ... maybe it is designed for DSD128?

DSD7 tended to sound unpleasant...

 

My favourite combination is poly-lin conversion and slow-lin noise filter with poly-sinc and DSD5v2. Smooth and resolving in a natural way

[Screwdriver]

I see the cost of HQPlayer is for one major version. When a new version is released, is there a discount for current users?

[bibo01]

1 hour ago, Screwdriver said:

I see the cost of HQPlayer is for one major version. When a new version is released, is there a discount for current users?

When we're going to go from v3.xx to v4.xx, perhaps there will be a discount for current users. There was one between v2 and v3. However, Miska has not decided yet either way.

[juanitox]

7 hours ago, numlog said:

What DSF settings and modulator is everyone using for PCM to DSD conversion?
choosing the right ones can have a dramatic impact IME.

 

Bit rate is 44.1x128.

poly-lin or poly-mp for conversion and slow- lin or fast-mp noise filter worked well...

if you are using a minimum phase oversampling filter try switching to the linear phase variant and use poly-mp for conversion. transients were nicer this way I found

 

Integrator was best left IIR, it was the most natural.

 

having DirectSDM enabled is better I feel, the volume control is disabled but the gain is reduced just enough for PCM, about -3dB. the manual suggests it only applies when the source is DSD, is this really the case?

 

The manual give much info on modulators. The default ASDM7 is a safe choice,  it sounds clean and seems like the most resolving one. I prefer to use DSD5v2, it sounds fuller and more robust ... maybe it is designed for DSD128?

DSD7 tended to sound unpleasant...

 

My favourite combination is poly-lin conversion and slow-lin noise filter with poly-sinc and DSD5v2. Smooth and resolving in a natural way

i'm not sure but i thought Miska said that the DSD settings filters only matters for DSD to DSD or DSD to PCM conversion and not PCM to DSD ?

[numlog]

3 hours ago, juanitox said:

i'm not sure but i thought Miska said that the DSD settings filters only matters for DSD to DSD or DSD to PCM conversion and not PCM to DSD ?

it would be surprising if either the conversion method or noise filter setting didnt have an effect but its totally possible, the 'differences' are small enough that it could be psychological.

[Whitigir]

DSD filter definitely effects the PCM to DSD.  I can obviously hear the differences

[Whitigir]

Can HQPlayer does DSD1024 ? Or how do we control the DSD Xrate output ?

[Miska]

18 minutes ago, Whitigir said:

Can HQPlayer does DSD1024 ? Or how do we control the DSD Xrate output ?

 

Yes, DSD1024 is supported. And theoretically anything else too. But it depends on particular backend if it needs minor code modifications or not.

[Whitigir]

12 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

Yes, DSD1024 is supported. And theoretically anything else too. But it depends on particular backend if it needs minor code modifications or not.

Very nice, from which options should I tick to do 1024 ? I may try to swap out Amanero modules and try new Xmos modules that does 1024

[Miska]

5 minutes ago, Whitigir said:

Very nice, from which options should I tick to do 1024 ? I may try to swap out Amanero modules and try new Xmos modules that does 1024

 

You don't need to do anything special. In the rate limit lists and such, DSD1024 is already present. When interface supports DSD1024, it becomes available in HQPlayer too.

 

[rickca]

The new GeForce RTX cards have increased street prices relative to the same class of product from the previous generation. The flagship GeForce RTX 2080 Ti will run gamers nearly $1,200, a boost of $400 over the models launched two years ago. The RTX 2080 and RTX 2070 will run $800 and $600, respectively, a price bump of $200 each.

[Solstice380]

21 hours ago, rickca said:

The new GeForce RTX cards have increased street prices relative to the same class of product from the previous generation. The flagship GeForce RTX 2080 Ti will run gamers nearly $1,200, a boost of $400 over the models launched two years ago. The RTX 2080 and RTX 2070 will run $800 and $600, respectively, a price bump of $200 each.

 

And nVidia is claiming declines in crypto currency mining for lower sales of its GPUs.  Prices should come down on the new cards soon enough, I think.

 

edit:  accidentally found out you can upvote your own post.   why?