Jump to content
IGNORED

HQ Player


Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, Em2016 said:

Is this 24 seconds only initialisation time?

 

If so, as long as people are made aware and are happy dealing with this, it should be ok and should never be any complaints?

 

Can I make a feature request for PCM sinc-16M filter.... 

 

No, there's increase in processing delay (latency). Up to about one second it is OK. But very long delay starts making user interfaces feel really awkward. 16M out of about 12M samples per second for DSD256 or about 24M samples per second for DSD512 is not that bad.

 

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to comment
6 hours ago, 57gold said:

Miska, what are my best choices for a NAA to use with my quad core Mini?

 

These are from my web page... Inexpensive solution for my bootable NAA OS image is UP gateway. Then there's Sonore's Rendu and SOtM sMS-200, assuming these have both included driver support for the B+ but I think they have.

 

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Yviena said:

Hmm  i feel that sending dsd256 with dsd5v2, and poly-sinc-xtr gives me a larger soundstage compared to usampling pcm only to 352/384khz on the dac1541.

 

My assumption is that because then the DAC is actually converting things down instead of converting anything up. Then HQPlayer runs digital filters up to 11.3/12.3M  and modulator, to be converted down.

 

But in addition to that, as a side-effect you get noise shaped dither when it gets converted down.

 

So the gap between this, and running input with 17-bit NS5 or NS9 noise shaper should be relatively smaller given otherwise same HQPlayer upsampling filter. Then it is DSD noise shaper vs PCM noise shaper in HQPlayer and FIR2 upsampling vs down-conversion in the DAC. So you are nicely narrowing down what is the specific technical thing that makes the difference for you.

 

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Miska said:

 

My assumption is that because then the DAC is actually converting things down instead of converting anything up. Then HQPlayer runs digital filters up to 11.3/12.3M  and modulator, to be converted down.

 

But in addition to that, as a side-effect you get noise shaped dither when it gets converted down.

 

So the gap between this, and running input with 17-bit NS5 or NS9 noise shaper should be relatively smaller given otherwise same HQPlayer upsampling filter. Then it is DSD noise shaper vs PCM noise shaper in HQPlayer and FIR2 upsampling vs down-conversion in the DAC. So you are nicely narrowing down what is the specific technical thing that makes the difference for you.

 

Yeah I kinda like the presentation now, the inbuilt filter i flashed lacks the bass rumble i get from hqplayer filters, I'm starting to wonder if the internal filter maybe adds a little artifical reverb to make it sound like it's larger than it actually is.

Link to comment

@Miska I am still having an issue getting my buddies Gustard u16 and LKS 004 dac to upsample to DSD512.  So far we uninstalled HQP 3.25.1, rebooted and installed HQP 3.25.3 and then tried moving Gustard U16 usb cable to various USB ports on Gigabyte MB.  No luck getting HQP to upsample to DSD, only PCM even with mode on main page set to SDM.  Back when 3.25.1 was on his PC I was able to get Roon to upsample to DSD512, but HQP reused to switch over to DSD mode and only upsample to PCM.  The after last team viewer session when I put 3.25.3 on PC now neither Roon nor HQP upsample to DSD.

 

I ran some log files in HQP and I am not great at reading them, but these lines caught my eye. ASIO device Supports DSD, ASIO device Supports PCM, ASIO default format is PCM, ASIO failed to change format to DSD, ASIO buffer size is in bits.  It looks like you have stated before that the driver is not switching over to DSD.  Why I have no idea.  Other folks on the Gustard u16 forum use LKS dac and HQP and upsample to DSD512 so the driver is certainly capable.  I can send you the complete log file if you like, maybe it sheds some light on the cause.

 

So glad my T+A is rock stable and I have zero issues with its driver (same as LKS USB driver) and dac at 512.  Be well

 

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Quadman said:

So glad my T+A is rock stable and I have zero issues with its driver (same as LKS USB driver) and dac at 512.

 

So LKS is Amanero?

 

Because then I'd suspect the reason for ASIO driver not switching to DSD mode could be because the Amanero may have been flashed with one of the Linux-compatible firmware versions. Meaning that it won't work correctly with the Windows driver...

 

But overall, I don't think logs tell much more that what you said. If the driver doesn't switch to DSD mode it is sort of black box why it happens.

 

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to comment

I've been comparing my two favorite filters, ext2 and xtr-mp. To me, ext2 sounds more clear, more crisp while xtr-mp sounds more smooth and mellow in comparison.  The best analogy I have is ext2 is like a very good solid state system and xtr-mp is like a having a tube pre-amp.  Can anyone please explain the technical differences between these two filters?  I'm trying to understand the reason why I am hearing what I do.

12TB NAS >> i7-6700 Server/Control PC >> i3-5015u NAA >> Singxer SU-1 DDC (modded) >> Holo Spring L3 DAC >> Accustic Arts Power 1 int amp >> Sonus Faber Guaneri Evolution speakers + REL T/5i sub (x2)

 

Other components:

UpTone Audio LPS1.2/IsoRegen, Fiber Switch and FMC, Windows Server 2016 OS, Audiophile Optimizer 3.0, Fidelizer Pro 6, HQ Player, Roonserver, PS Audio P3 AC regenerator, HDPlex 400W ATX & 200W Linear PSU, Light Harmonic Lightspeed Split USB cable, Synergistic Research Tungsten AC power cords, Tara Labs The One speaker cables, Tara Labs The Two Extended with HFX Station IC, Oyaide R1 outlets, Stillpoints Ultra Mini footers, Hi-Fi Tuning fuses, Vicoustic/RealTraps/GIK room treatments

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, tboooe said:

I've been comparing my two favorite filters, ext2 and xtr-mp

 

Pretty much agree with you, I ran XTR MP 2s for past year and a half 99% of the time, then read Jussi liked ext2 so tried that and really liked it a lot, then I tried Closed form 16M, which requires Cuda off load to run on most CPU's and I like that even better then ext2.  I think 16M was intended to roughly equal what chord Dave does internally, am I right Miska?

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, Quadman said:

Pretty much agree with you, I ran XTR MP 2s for past year and a half 99% of the time, then read Jussi liked ext2 so tried that and really liked it a lot, then I tried Closed form 16M, which requires Cuda off load to run on most CPU's and I like that even better then ext2.  I think 16M was intended to roughly equal what chord Dave does internally, am I right Miska?

 

IIRC, Dave is around 256k-taps. And M-scaler is one million taps.

 

The one-million tap versions (closed-form-M and sinc-M) were sort of answer to Chord. Chord runs those to 705.6/768k, so a bit over one second. You get that with PCM output on HQPlayer as well. But OK, why stop there? So 16M gives a similar, a bit over one second at DSD256 instead. There's both closed-form and sinc-M that give high but fixed number of taps. Length of the filters is not as much limited by processing power, but about other practical aspects.

 

My quest is more like how to make a filter as short as possible in time domain while keeping good frequency domain performance at the same time.

 

So far, I have not been touting so much about number of taps because they depend on particular conversion ratio, and HQPlayer is not limited to any particular conversion from rate X to rate Y. So in a way X and Y can be something between 1 Hz and 4 GHz. And it can be either up-, or down-conversion. So it is harder to com up with single number N that would tell anything meaningful.

 

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to comment
44 minutes ago, tboooe said:

I've been comparing my two favorite filters, ext2 and xtr-mp. To me, ext2 sounds more clear, more crisp while xtr-mp sounds more smooth and mellow in comparison.  The best analogy I have is ext2 is like a very good solid state system and xtr-mp is like a having a tube pre-amp.  Can anyone please explain the technical differences between these two filters?  I'm trying to understand the reason why I am hearing what I do.

 

ext2 is linear-phase while xtr-mp is minimum-phase. I would say this is one of the biggest differences between the two. If you compare ext2 and xtr-lp (on Desktop it is just without -mp) the two are already closer to each other.

 

Other than that, as can be seen from the pictures I posted earlier, xtr filter cuts in at somewhat higher frequency and then more aggressively (steeper) than ext2. If you'd think about the roll-off curve, ext2 is first smoother and gets progressively faster, while xtr is the opposite with first steep and then smooths out later.

 

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

ext2 is linear-phase while xtr-mp is minimum-phase. I would say this is one of the biggest differences between the two. If you compare ext2 and xtr-lp (on Desktop it is just without -mp) the two are already closer to each other.

 

Other than that, as can be seen from the pictures I posted earlier, xtr filter cuts in at somewhat higher frequency and then more aggressively (steeper) than ext2. If you'd think about the roll-off curve, ext2 is first smoother and gets progressively faster, while xtr is the opposite with first steep and then smooths out later.

 

Thank you!  Though to be frank I have no idea what anything you wrote means in terms of impact on sound.  I guess I need to read up more on filters...😀

12TB NAS >> i7-6700 Server/Control PC >> i3-5015u NAA >> Singxer SU-1 DDC (modded) >> Holo Spring L3 DAC >> Accustic Arts Power 1 int amp >> Sonus Faber Guaneri Evolution speakers + REL T/5i sub (x2)

 

Other components:

UpTone Audio LPS1.2/IsoRegen, Fiber Switch and FMC, Windows Server 2016 OS, Audiophile Optimizer 3.0, Fidelizer Pro 6, HQ Player, Roonserver, PS Audio P3 AC regenerator, HDPlex 400W ATX & 200W Linear PSU, Light Harmonic Lightspeed Split USB cable, Synergistic Research Tungsten AC power cords, Tara Labs The One speaker cables, Tara Labs The Two Extended with HFX Station IC, Oyaide R1 outlets, Stillpoints Ultra Mini footers, Hi-Fi Tuning fuses, Vicoustic/RealTraps/GIK room treatments

Link to comment
36 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

ext2 is linear-phase while xtr-mp is minimum-phase. I would say this is one of the biggest differences between the two. If you compare ext2 and xtr-lp (on Desktop it is just without -mp) the two are already closer to each other.

 

Other than that, as can be seen from the pictures I posted earlier, xtr filter cuts in at somewhat higher frequency and then more aggressively (steeper) than ext2. If you'd think about the roll-off curve, ext2 is first smoother and gets progressively faster, while xtr is the opposite with first steep and then smooths out later.

 

 

Hi Jussi

 

How does sinc-M fit in with the above? In terms of steepness and roll-off, compared with ext2 and xtr-lp?

 

It has the highest steepness? And the fastest roll-off (vertical line) across all frequencies ?

 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Em2016 said:

How does sinc-M fit in with the above? In terms of steepness and roll-off, compared with ext2 and xtr-lp?

 

I believe it has the highest steepness? And the fastest roll-off (vertical line) all the way?

 

It is most similar to ext2... Since it has fixed number of taps, it also depends on the particular conversion ratio in question.

 

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to comment

So is closed form 16M or M a linear type or mp type filter or none of the above.  I found in my years as HQP user I generally gravitated to the MP filters over the linear versions.  Now ext2 (linear) which I like a lot and closed form 16M (?) I really like a lot.

Link to comment
39 minutes ago, Quadman said:

So is closed form 16M or M a linear type or mp type filter or none of the above.  I found in my years as HQP user I generally gravitated to the MP filters over the linear versions.  Now ext2 (linear) which I like a lot and closed form 16M (?) I really like a lot.

 

closed-form and sinc-M are both linear phase types.

 

Overall, this is very interesting topic. For shorter filters, I'd say minimum-phase types sound better because they don't have unnatural pre-ringing. For linear-phase, the longest ones sound better. This may be because for long/steep linear-phase most of the ringing with high magnitude is very condensed around the transient/step. Longer and more aggressive it becomes, closer to the transient it is constrained (with even longer tails around though). But there are interesting tweaks that can be done about the longer ones!

 

Another aspect I think is very important is how the filter rolls off. IMO. this also has quite significant effect on how things sound.

 

But more importantly, for example closed-form is completely non-apodizing. So whatever behavior there is in the source content is reflected exactly to the output. While for example ext2 is apodizing type, so it is supposed to deliver more consistent performance regardless of how the source data came to be. From this perspective (to me at least), it will be interesting to see how many productions will deliver something created with HQPlayer Pro...

 

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to comment

So is combining Closed Form 16M (non-apodizing filter) with an apodizing modulator a good thing or better to stay away from apodizing modulators with closed form and by relation sinc-M filters.  I haven't experimented with these options yet and just noticed I have been using DSD5v2 with closed form 16m and had been using your preferred (I think) ASDM7 with ext2.  DSD5v2 was my favorite modulator with XTR-MP-2s, although Modulators have much less effect on sound signature than Filters do, at least to my ears.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Quadman said:

So is combining Closed Form 16M (non-apodizing filter) with an apodizing modulator a good thing or better to stay away from apodizing modulators with closed form and by relation sinc-M filters.  I haven't experimented with these options yet and just noticed I have been using DSD5v2 with closed form 16m and had been using your preferred (I think) ASDM7 with ext2.  DSD5v2 was my favorite modulator with XTR-MP-2s, although Modulators have much less effect on sound signature than Filters do, at least to my ears.

 

That's the thing!  Filters have their own impact, some are apodizing and some are not (now documented at least in HQPE help).. While modulators are a separate aspect. We are just different with different musical tastes and we are sensitive to different aspects in the sound. So there's no one "correct" answer. So if you find filters to have more impact, I'd keep one modulator and check out different filters to find out which one you prefer with most of the material (it is sometimes dependent on source content). And then check out which modulator you like best.

 

Overall, filter may depend on source content to some extent, but modulator choice is more static and not dependent on source content. So once you've established you prefer some modulator, you can stick to that one and possibly just switch the filter depending on content.

 

Most notably regarding filters, there's difference between multi-track studio mixes (rock/pop) and minimal miking recordings in a real acoustics. Typical rock/pop recording can be a stereo mix of 32 channels multi-track recording with various eq/compressor/whatever on each track. While some classical recordings may have been made with just two mics with almost no editing. There's massive difference between the two...

 

 

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Miska said:

 

My quest is more like how to make a filter as short as possible in time domain while keeping good frequency domain performance at the same time.

 

This is way beyond my expertise but I do wonder if perhaps the xtr and ext2 filters already have 'good enough' time domain performance in practise (our ear/brain system), even if they don't have the best theoretical time domain performance? 

 

And many people are more sensitive to the better frequency response performances of xtr and ext2, and this is why these filters are so popular?

 

I don't want to generalise though - just seeing popularity of these two filters on various forums, this may be a small sample size of total HQP users.

 

 

Link to comment

Hi Miska. I'm an addicted user of a DSC2.5.2 dac (the son of your DSC1)...

My setup has BeagleBoneBlack as NAA with botic Kernel, so BBB receives the stream from ethernet (as usual) and then drive the reclocker and then the dac via I2S (no USB).

 

My current settings for 44.1 to DSD are:

DAC bits = default

PCM Defaults: filter>closed-form, dither>shaped, sample rate> 44.1

SDM: Oversampling: closed-form, Modulator: ASDM7, Bit rate: 44.1x 256

 

Do you have any suggested setup to try for CD>DSD256 and DSD64>DSD256?

 

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, sig8 said:

Which is a good choice of processor and motherboard for up sampling in HQPe running on AudioLinux at this time? 

There is also a thread on best cpu for hqplayer.

 

I think that most users of hqp use an intel cpu. I can't rephrase Miska's exact explanation made somewhere before,  but intel is more efficient per clock cycle. Anyway, amd cpu's have more cach memory which should also be beneficial for SQ. 

 

Choice may also depend on the max tdp that your chassis can cool. 

 

I chose an amd ryzen 1600 (65 w tdp) with a asus rog strix x470 gaming-f. Waiting for the new amd 3000 series at 7nm. 

Link to comment

Regular crash with version 3.25.3 of HQPlayer-desktop.exe

I'm not sure if this had been reported before.
But I couldn't find anything about the following problem.

 

I use HQPlayer-desktop.exe on a Win7 PC since 1 1/2 year.
And I use the hqp-control.exe on a regularly basis.
I need hqp-control.exe with --configuation-load for applying different settings.
Everything was OK with the version 3.20.2 ( I know, it's a bit older ).
Now I updated to version 3.25.3 and I get very regularly a crash (Code c0000005) of HQPlayer-desktop.exe.
The crash did not appear every time when sending a --configuration-load ( very strange ! ).
But when a reboot the PC / starting HQP and calling hqp-control.exe -> I get a crash everytime !

Sometimes HQP also crashes when I go to File -> Settings -> Clicking on the OK Button.

I also tested this on a second PC. It's the same. Also a crash.
Once again. It only happens in the new version 3.25.3.
Because my 2nd newest version is 3.20.2 I can't say with which version this problem appeared.

The Logfiles of a successful --configuation-load and a not successful --configuation-load are identical.

 

At the end a switched back to version 3.20.2.

For me it seems atm that this might be a bug within HQP-itself ?

Or are there any ideas what I can do ?

 

Here ist the exact errortext from the crash. The Text is in german. Hope this is OK. But it doesn't not matter because the data is important.

 

##### start errortext #####
Problemsignatur:
  Problemereignisname:    APPCRASH
  Anwendungsname:    HQPlayer-desktop.exe
  Anwendungsversion:    0.0.0.0
  Anwendungszeitstempel:    5c6092c4
  Fehlermodulname:    HQPlayer-desktop.exe
  Fehlermodulversion:    0.0.0.0
  Fehlermodulzeitstempel:    5c6092c4
  Ausnahmecode:    c0000005
  Ausnahmeoffset:    000000000021559b
  Betriebsystemversion:    6.1.7601.2.1.0.256.48
  Gebietsschema-ID:    1031
  Zusatzinformation 1:    0c0c
  Zusatzinformation 2:    0c0cb54c83894599fb138185ba6cb31f
  Zusatzinformation 3:    cd4e
  Zusatzinformation 4:    cd4e4b92edca0e08fa2c07a9d9db4a8c
 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...