HQ Player

[Hammer]

1 hour ago, Miska said:

 

This bug was in 4.0.3 when Direct SDM was enabled, but it has been fixed on 4.0.4 (hopefully). Please check that you are really running 4.0.4...

 

Yes, I'm running 4.0.4

[Miska]

2 hours ago, Hammer said:

Yes, I'm running 4.0.4

 

Ok, you can get rid of the problem by unchecking Direct SDM in "DSD Sources" dialog.... By the way, what does the volume level text below the knob say?

 

[cat6man]

On 5/11/2019 at 6:40 PM, Le Concombre Masqué said:

THe HDD with my ripped SACD files wouldn't show via my network this afternoon so I only had PCM files at hand and went playing with filters...

short-lp came out as probably the safest bet for whatever resolution and content. But I'm globally very puzzled :

 

when playing, ie, 44.1/16 Cure that was another story : I can't understand how some of us here don't hear any difference or claim 3 is almost as good etc : to my ears 3 and 4 sound mighty different with the same short-lp (or any other) filter. With 3, ie,  the song Object is quite obscure with loads of Low End quite pleasant but not very delineated ; with 4 everything is much clearer, with snare drum impact etc rather than the kick drum + bass line indiscernible but pleasant of 3. So, most often I  have NOT very much enjoyed listening to PCM files with 4.

 

 

i don't have any explanation for you but would like to suggest a test.

could you try your pcm files again, with no filter, dither or upsampling.............nada

it would be good to confirm the basic hqp==>NAA sounds the same v3 to v4

[cat6man]

On 5/26/2019 at 5:22 PM, Miska said:

I've done some fixes about NAA discovery, and bunch of other things. So I will make some new releases soon. I'll try to include some new code that is less allergic to order of powering things up when NAA is involved...

 

 

bravo

[Superdad]

2 hours ago, cat6man said:

it would be good to confirm the basic hqp==>NAA sounds the same v3 to v4

 

Well I can say with certainty that—with HQP Desktop (macOS) > tuned AudioLinux/NUC as NAA—v4.x.x sounds quite different that V3.x.x. (all settings the same, direct DSD).

[AnotherSpin]

1 hour ago, Superdad said:

 

Well I can say with certainty that—with HQP Desktop (macOS) > tuned AudioLinux/NUC as NAA—v4.x.x sounds quite different that V3.x.x. (all settings the same, direct DSD).

 

Could you describe this difference, please?)

[Account Closed]

Jussi, 

 

Since 4.0.4 I have been having problems with playback suddenly stopping. I know that 4.0.4 includes some NAA changes but I don't know if this is the cause. It has become very sensitive to the buffer setting. Too high or low and playback won't start. At 50ms it does work but will still stop without apparent reason.

 

I have both Roon and HQP together on a Win 10/1903 machine. This machine has a Z370i MB (Turbo and Performance Modes engaged), i5 8400 6 Cores (clocked to 3.8Ghz) and 16GB RAM.

 

Are there any Ethernet settings that could be involved such as TX and RX buffers?

 

I am hoping this will be resolved with 4.0.5. I did not have an issue with 4.0.3.

 

Thanks,

 

Bob

[Miska]

3 hours ago, bobflood said:

Since 4.0.4 I have been having problems with playback suddenly stopping. I know that 4.0.4 includes some NAA changes but I don't know if this is the cause. It has become very sensitive to the buffer setting. Too high or low and playback won't start. At 50ms it does work but will still stop without apparent reason.

 

I have both Roon and HQP together on a Win 10/1903 machine. This machine has a Z370i MB (Turbo and Performance Modes engaged), i5 8400 6 Cores (clocked to 3.8Ghz) and 16GB RAM.

 

There's really no changes in the streaming code, only changes are for discovering and connecting to a NAA. If you can email me a HQPlayer log (and maybe NAA side too). Could help figuring out what goes wrong.

 

Practically always setting buffer time to "Default" should work fine with NAA. At Windows side, you can adjust ASIO driver buffer parameters if necessary, but largest/safest setting should be best.

 

3 hours ago, bobflood said:

Are there any Ethernet settings that could be involved such as TX and RX buffers?

 

Only thing is to check that 802.3x flow control is enabled. But it usually is on NIC drivers.

 

[cat6man]

@superdad

 

thanks

 

any chance you could try that with native PCM passing through (all processing not just the same but turned off)?

 

cheers

[Hammer]

22 hours ago, Miska said:

 

Ok, you can get rid of the problem by unchecking Direct SDM in "DSD Sources" dialog.... By the way, what does the volume level text below the knob say?

 

it says -3 dbFS[+]

[Yviena]

WOW just tried MinringFIR with HQplayer 3.xx i tried 4v but i dont' hear a difference with that version, i don't think miska has changed anything with the filters/dither/modulator, but the MinringFIR has so much detail, excellent transient response, tight punchy bass, i actually hear more detail, and stuff vs the poly sinc-shrt/poly-lp family.

[freesteve]

which MinringFIR, the re are two?  Thanks.

[Yviena]

1 hour ago, freesteve said:

which MinringFIR, the re are two?  Thanks.

The minringFIR-lp one i see no point in minimum phase when the ringing is so short already with this filter,

[freesteve]

thank you.

[Miska]

6 hours ago, Hammer said:

it says -3 dbFS[+]

 

Hmmh, that comes from the engine, so it should be valid. I've tried to reproduce the problem here, but not able to with 4.0.4. If you could email me a log file.

 

[anroj]

Hi all,

 

I just downloaded and installed HQPlayer 4.0.4 Desktop last night using the exact settings as the previous version, which played fine at DSD256 and DSD512. When I tried playing back at DSD512, I got a loud shrieking sound that I thought would blow my speakers. I went into HQP and changed the modulator and filters, but that does not change anything. I then changed bitrate to 48k x 256 and that worked, except now my CPU is maxed out. Did something change that I'm not aware of and that I need to change in my settings?

[DancingSea]

On 6/4/2019 at 5:48 AM, AnotherSpin said:

 

Could you describe this difference, please?)

 

+1

[Yviena]

@Miska how important would you say DSD direct is compared to DAC/USB implementation, and DSD512 support, sabre VS AKM etc.

[Miska]

14 minutes ago, Yviena said:

@Miska how important would you say DSD direct is compared to DAC/USB implementation, and DSD512 support, sabre VS AKM etc.

 

I would say it is pretty important. For DSD, I prefer new AKM chips in DSD Direct mode over ESS. I still don't have the new DSD512 capable AKM models, but at least the DSD256 ones seem to be very good.

 

Implementation is always important regardless of the DAC chip.

 

[Yviena]

8 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

I would say it is pretty important. For DSD, I prefer new AKM chips in DSD Direct mode over ESS. I still don't have the new DSD512 capable AKM models, but at least the DSD256 ones seem to be very good.

 

Implementation is always important regardless of the DAC chip.

 

Hmm I see I've been looking at the new matrix sabre pro DAC , there's not been many comparisons yet to rme adi 2 especially in DSD direct mode, I wonder if dsd256/dsd512 on the matrix will actually be better or just "different" as I'm looking for reference/neutral studio monitoring type of sound lately.

[Miska]

23 minutes ago, Yviena said:

Hmm I see I've been looking at the new matrix sabre pro DAC , there's not been many comparisons yet to rme adi 2 especially in DSD direct mode, I wonder if dsd256/dsd512 on the matrix will actually be better or just "different" as I'm looking for reference/neutral studio monitoring type of sound lately.

 

I doubt it is better, so more like "different" category.

 

[LoryWiv]

7 hours ago, Yviena said:

Hmm I see I've been looking at the new matrix sabre pro DAC , there's not been many comparisons yet to rme adi 2 especially in DSD direct mode, I wonder if dsd256/dsd512 on the matrix will actually be better or just "different" as I'm looking for reference/neutral studio monitoring type of sound lately.

I have the older (non-MQA) matrix sabre pro DAC (ES9038PRO) and enjoy it very much with both DSD Direct and upsampling DSD64 to DSD256. I would describe the sound as neutral, transparent but not sterile...good detail retrieval but still musical and euphonic. From memory, when I auditioned AKM chip based DACS they sounded a bit warmer, even lush, but lost some of the micro-detail. As Miska noted, however, I am sure this varies depending on chip implementation and synergy with the other equipment one's chain.

[Miska]

1 hour ago, LoryWiv said:

I have the older (non-MQA) matrix sabre pro DAC (ES9038PRO) and enjoy it very much with both DSD Direct and upsampling DSD64 to DSD256. I would describe the sound as neutral, transparent but not sterile...good detail retrieval but still musical and euphonic. From memory, when I auditioned AKM chip based DACS they sounded a bit warmer, even lush, but lost some of the micro-detail. As Miska noted, however, I am sure this varies depending on chip implementation and synergy with the other equipment one's chain.

 

We are talking about different thing here... None of the ESS models have DSD Direct -type support. TI/BB chips do that always, while some Cirrus Logic chips have "Direct DSD" mode to do the same. DSD Direct is a mode in AKM DAC chips that passes DSD data straight to the D/A conversion section without DSP processing. On RME ADI-2 this is switchable with implication that volume control disappears and output level becomes fixed at -3.5 dB level (and for safety reasons corresponding headphone output is muted). On TEAC UD-503/NT-503 the DSD Direct mode is always enabled and volume control is available since it is implemented separately in analog domain.

 

Direct SDM in HQPlayer is similar functionality, but earlier stage.

 

I would put TI/BB chips in the "warm" category, AKM in the middle and ESS&CirrusLogic to "cold" category. But when you can run chips in direct mode, the difference becomes smaller.

 

[Yviena]

6 hours ago, LoryWiv said:

I have the older (non-MQA) matrix sabre pro DAC (ES9038PRO) and enjoy it very much with both DSD Direct and upsampling DSD64 to DSD256. I would describe the sound as neutral, transparent but not sterile...good detail retrieval but still musical and euphonic. From memory, when I auditioned AKM chip based DACS they sounded a bit warmer, even lush, but lost some of the micro-detail. As Miska noted, however, I am sure this varies depending on chip implementation and synergy with the other equipment one's chain.

Yeah that's the same model I was looking at, do you find a big difference with sending 768khz PCM vs DSD256/512 with hqplayer?

[Yviena]

@Miska Continuing from my previous questions, regarding non DSD direct chips though , does the influence of the inbuilt modulator greatly reduce when sending DSD512/256 or will it still greatly influence the sound?