HQ Player

[Theobetley]

 Can you please tell me your

settings? 

[AnotherSpin]

3 minutes ago, Theobetley said:

 Can you please tell me your

settings? 

In fact, I never had a problem with dsf and dff with each and different setting in both 3x and 4x... Probably it would be more appropriate, if you'll describe your setting and preferences, or post a screen shot. Maybe Miska or somebody here will see what causes such a problem.

 

[Le Concombre Masqué]

1 hour ago, R1200CL said:

 

Very strange findings, as my understanding is that both versions has the exact same filters. 

 

Do you use same REW in both setups ?

Same USB cable and same USB port ?

 

so what ? once I perceived ext2 as smearing and blurring in 4 I sensed that in 3 too but have to acknowledge that in the less revealing 3 I have liked the "everything sounds just fine" of ext2 for quite a while. The strange finding is that Miska had adopted ext2 in 3 too while he obviously has not optimised 4 around ext2. At the moment I enjoy DSD sourced files with 4 and I don't feel like trying now every filter at every resolution and with various contents but I'm convinced that we all need to reassess our favorite settings in the context of 4 to get the best of 4. You can do a very simple test : pick 3 or 4 filters and see if they rank alike if you vary another factor, ie the modulator ; bet you will dig how a very same filter design might be at best or not depending on the context.

 

 

yes same same same

[Le Concombre Masqué]

36 minutes ago, warrior-kid said:

OK, first tests are in based on Steve Howe, Anthology.

 

HQP V3 plays using PCM or DSD output with little clicks and small gaps.

HQP V4 plays using PCM with little clicks. Overall sounds nice, don't know if it is better in any way than V3. DSD output fails with a horrible popping sound and then silence.

Audirvana V3 plays natively, no clicks, no gaps, all clean and the best sound overall.

bet the limited counter is red hot. Volume should be -3dB at most, not 100%

[Le Concombre Masqué]

14 minutes ago, Theobetley said:

 Can you please tell me your

settings? 

once in a while dff2dsf converter is useful but should be once in a while only

[Theobetley]

Here are my settings

[AnotherSpin]

5 minutes ago, Theobetley said:

Here are my settings

 

You may want to select output device and turn volume knob up.

[chriss0212]

6 minutes ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

You may want to select output device and turn volume knob up.

And disable the input device!

[chriss0212]

On 5/10/2019 at 1:25 PM, Bob Stern said:

 

Your screenshot shows 88.2 in the playlist, which is the only part that matters.  You must have selected 88.2 in the dropdown at some point, which caused it to appear in the playlist.  Apparently, you subsequently selected 44.1 in the dropdown, but HQP ignored the second selection.  Sometimes HQP ignores the dropdown selection unless you subsequently press the Return key.

Perfect... Thx, I think, this is the reason!

 

Greetings

 

 Christian 

[AnotherSpin]

1 hour ago, warrior-kid said:

OK, first tests are in based on Steve Howe, Anthology.

 

HQP V3 plays using PCM or DSD output with little clicks and small gaps.

HQP V4 plays using PCM with little clicks. Overall sounds nice, don't know if it is better in any way than V3. DSD output fails with a horrible popping sound and then silence.

Audirvana V3 plays natively, no clicks, no gaps, all clean and the best sound overall.

 

When I first heard about HQP 4 upgrade cost my first thought was: "oh... this is too much". Second: "maybe I would stay with 3x". Third: "what about kissing HQP good-bye and turning to other products?" I was early adopter of Audirvana, before it became A+ and when it was free yet. I also used Amarra in various incarnations for years, plus Fidelia, plus something else. Ok, I downloaded HQP 4, and current Audirvana, Amarra and Roon for trial and comparison. Amarra was easy go away, so I started comparing HQP4, Audirvana and Roon. The easiest and cheapest choice was to keep HQP3 and to add Audirvana with discount upgrade cost, because I own A+ 2 license. I did thorough comparison for about ten days. Roon sounds pretty good, but I do not use streaming, I like drag and drop, etc. Audirvana has its immediate appeal, but I was feeling tired and pushed after long listening sessions. Each product has its merits and its unique advantages. Considering all pros and cons I bought HQP 4 upgrade. 

 

Good thing is everyone has a choice according to one's preferences.

[AnotherSpin]

1 hour ago, Le Concombre Masqué said:

so what ? once I perceived ext2 as smearing and blurring in 4 I sensed that in 3 too but have to acknowledge that in the less revealing 3 I have liked the "everything sounds just fine" of ext2 for quite a while. The strange finding is that Miska had adopted ext2 in 3 too while he obviously has not optimised 4 around ext2. At the moment I enjoy DSD sourced files with 4 and I don't feel like trying now every filter at every resolution and with various contents but I'm convinced that we all need to reassess our favorite settings in the context of 4 to get the best of 4. You can do a very simple test : pick 3 or 4 filters and see if they rank alike if you vary another factor, ie the modulator ; bet you will dig how a very same filter design might be at best or not depending on the context.

 

 

yes same same same

 

It may sound strange, but... I was doing a massive rearrangement in listening room today. Speakers and listening position have their new place, etc. I also changed some isolation of components. Bottom line: the way I percept certain filters changed...

[lucretius]

8 hours ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

Extra zero - that's close to what I paid for Amarra with all its "upgrades" and "additions" during some years, and I am not using Amarra anymore, even deleted it from computer. Quality of experience is more important here than price, imho.

 

Amarra Luxe is $USD 100.  I have to say, the Windows version is very clunky,  mangles bits (even with the bypass set), and converts DSD to PCM (no choice here). Also, each time I startup the program, I have to reset the audio connection and relogin to Tidal (maybe this is because it is an evaluation version?). The interface with Tidal is the worst I've seen (JRiver MC does not have Tidal).

 

The best players for Windows are (in this order):

Roon

JRiver Media Center

Audirvana Plus for Windows

[warrior-kid]

The correct volume for all these players when playing through pre-amplifiers is 100%.

[ted_b]

17 minutes ago, warrior-kid said:

The correct volume for all these players when playing through pre-amplifiers is 100%.

That may be your rule, but it's not universal.  As Jussi has made clear 100 times keeping HQP volume at 100% (i.e 0db) is dangerously on the edge of incurring limiting, especially when the output is SDM.  I keep things at -3db (and I use an external pre for volume) and my limit counter seldom moves.  So, when offering advice it's best to specify all the caveats.

[AnotherSpin]

25 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

Amarra Luxe is $USD 100.  I have to say, the Windows version is very clunky,  mangles bits (even with the bypass set), and converts DSD to PCM (no choice here). Also, each time I startup the program, I have to reset the audio connection and relogin to Tidal (maybe this is because it is an evaluation version?). The interface with Tidal is the worst I've seen (JRiver MC does not have Tidal).

 

The best players for Windows are (in this order):

Roon

JRiver Media Center

Audirvana Plus for Windows

 

Amarra Symphony was around $700 back then... Plus room correction module, plus upgrades. I guess I paid more than thousand altogether. The irony is I never used it for a long time. Couple of years maximum. Guess when It was over? When I first tried strange and quite difficult to understand piece of software called HQ Player...) Although years passed I can recall what I was listening first in 30 minutes trial and was converted almost instantly, it was Billie Holiday' Body And Soul.

[warrior-kid]

23 minutes ago, ted_b said:

That may be your rule, but it's not universal.  As Jussi has made clear 100 times keeping HQP volume at 100% (i.e 0db) is dangerously on the edge of incurring limiting, especially when the output is SDM.  I keep things at -3db (and I use an external pre for volume) and my limit counter seldom moves.  So, when offering advice it's best to specify all the caveats.

OK, I may be incorrect here, but where is the limiting occurring then? The correct setting for all the devices in my chain are at 100%, which means switching off their own volume control and passing on the signal exactly as it is.

 

Comparing to Audirvana+, for example, I get exactly the same volume on HQP V3 and Audirvana+ if I set, for example, the Ayre pre-amplifier volume to 33. I have never observed anything approaching clipping of any kind. I could set the volume setting to something like 45 that will probably start blowing the windows out, but no clipping or distortion for sure.

 

Happy to be corrected if I'm mistaken in any way?

[lucretius]

19 minutes ago, warrior-kid said:

OK, I may be incorrect here, but where is the limiting occurring then? The correct setting for all the devices in my chain are at 100%, which means switching off their own volume control and passing on the signal exactly as it is.

 

Comparing to Audirvana+, for example, I get exactly the same volume on HQP V3 and Audirvana+ if I set, for example, the Ayre pre-amplifier volume to 33. I have never observed anything approaching clipping of any kind. I could set the volume setting to something like 45 that will probably start blowing the windows out, but no clipping or distortion for sure.

 

Happy to be corrected if I'm mistaken in any way?

 

The digital "volume" setting here must be set before upsampling in HQPlayer -- if you set the Volume Max at 0.0 dBFS and the peak is at or very near 0.0 dBFS, then upon upsampling, there will be some clipping (the color of the volume knob will change from blue to red or yellow) -- you need to leave some headroom.

 

 

 

[ted_b]

14 minutes ago, warrior-kid said:

Happy to be corrected if I'm mistaken in any way?

 

[Jud]

14 hours ago, DancingSea said:

 

Goodness, what an odd response!  I’m far from the only one who feels the price hike is extreme.  And of course, there are plenty who find it fair.  There is room for a variety of opinions.   If you think HQP is worth $2500, then a level of delusion has crept into the frozen tundra!

 

In my opinion, and you are welcome to disagree, in this consumer market we have, for instance,  Audirvana at $74 with $40 upgrades - sounds good and has a functional library with Tidal & Quboz.  HQP at $240 with 200% major upgrade fees has an excellent sound engine, but is otherwise undeveloped.  The GUI and library system is antiquated at best.  You’ve been receiving feedback on this for years yet totally ignore it.  For me, its difficult to reconcile your pricing given the undeveloped state of your entire package. 

 

I’m not sure the pricing is a wise business move for you.  You are clearly very talented. If you were either willing or able to create a modern interface and a well thought through and functional library management system, including Tidal and Quboz, and price it at $100 or so, you’d possibly dominate this entire market rather than be a niche product.   

 

It can be short sighted to think that raising your price is going to make you more money. The exact opposite could be true. 

 

I could have predicted the "odd" response. 🙂

 

I'm sure Miska did not make this decision without considerable thought.  He is aware of factors going into the decision that we are not: What his time is worth to him, how much of it he wants to spare on HQP, the amount of hassle the separate licenses created for him, what the decision regarding the new architecture allows him to do in future development, and a host of others, I'm sure.

 

Against this you have the arguments that this seems like too much money to you, and others may feel the same.  But if you are arguing with the developer, you know whose decision counts in the end. So it is probably not a good use of time.

 

And for anyone who likes HQP and doesn't have the upgrade in their current budget, there is 3.x that still works just fine and AFAIK uses the same filters and modulators.

[jimdukey]

People at AV complain about Library Management all the time.

I'm a dragger and dropper.

No Problems at all.

[warrior-kid]

1 hour ago, lucretius said:

 

The digital "volume" setting here must be set before upsampling in HQPlayer -- if you set the Volume Max at 0.0 dBFS and the peak is at or very near 0.0 dBFS, then upon upsampling, there will be some clipping (the color of the volume knob will change from blue to red or yellow) -- you need to leave some headroom.

 

 

 

I see, yes, this does make sense. Thing is I never use any upsampling in Audirvana!

 

I will try to lower the volume then and see what happens in HQP because it is all about upsampling in HQP, isn't it. Maybe my bad results with upsampling were due to precisely the excessive volume. Thanks for this advice. 

[Geoffrey Armstrong]

I agree with Jud on the pricing question. Miska is the only person here who can possibly know how much development effort has gone into HQPlayer (not to mention the amount of time he spends here on support questions).

 

I would only add that if Miska suggests the current price of HQP4 is a bargain, I tend to believe him. Although it may have certain features missing when compared with other software, in a similar category, it is also unique in what it provides.

 

I also agree with the previous poster who feels this forum should concentrate on discussions as to how those of us who love HQPlayer (and are willing to pay the price) can get the best out of it.

[JTS]

I have a HQP/DAC question. Up until about a month ago, I had been happily using a Denafrips ARES with HQP in my suite at the studio (video). DSD 256 with the polysinc series of filters provided me with a solid year of great listening. I had a late night of listening with a recording engineer colleague and he pointed out the noisiness of the ARES in DSD.

 

After he pointed out the noisiness (the top end sounded a bit hashy), I played with a lot of settings but could not stop hearing the hashiness. I did not get this in PCM, but preferred the sense of space and staging in DSD. Long story short, I sold the ARES and picked up an RME ADI-2 DAC fs. I have a love/hate relationship with it and think I am going to sell it. While it is laser-beam sharp, precise, and accurate - I find it uninvolving, VERY unkind to shitty recordings (I'm and omnivore and love the high and low brow), and less fluid than the ARES.

 

I am looking into replacing the RME with something more like, but better than, the ARES. I have a Holo Spring in my home setup, which I adore.

 

My chain is W10 ROON>HQP>DSD Upsample>USB>INTONA>USB>DAC>BAL>SCHIIT FREYA (passive for work, tubes for fun)>BAL>NEUMANN KH120a.

 

I am curious what dacs you are using with HQ Player and how you like them. The Holo Spring would be ideal for me but it is too massive for the desk. Good and accurate-ish PCM sound is must for work and I am wondering about moving to a more PCM-centric chain with the Soekris 1521 or the Holo CYAN PCM. Ideally, though, it would be great to have a DAC the has good PCM and DSD abilities.

 

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

[jimdukey]

I have Never heard Any DSD Noise, on any Dac, ever.

Did you try DSD Direct on the RME?

Jussi recommends upsampling everything to DSD 256 ( in the case of the RME/Mac ),

skipping PCM Playback altogether.

That's what I've been doing, it's great, IMO!

I just have Mytek 192/DSD, Lampi Euforia, Mac D 150, all fine in DSD 128, with HQ.

Noise? Nope.

[Sigi]

Hi,

I Wanstes to update from Version 3 to 4. When I submitted my xml key I didn’t got a code for buying the version 4, it just showed exception

what will cost an update from 3 to 4 and how can I get the key?