HQ Player

[Jud]

Good evening gents

 

i am quite new to HQ player and find myself in the trial period of 30 days.

 

ihave been reading the manual and several setup guides but still have a question regarding the Noise shaper setup.

 

i have a 24 bit DAC with 192 khz, so I am only on the PCM track.

 

When feeding HQ with redbook material and having poly sinc selected, the player automatically upsamples to 192 kHz, the highest rate it can get.

TPDF would be the standard shaper.

In a recommendation by Miska it was said that for sample rates of 192 kHz NS9 was the preferred setting.

The manual however says

Ninth order noise-shaping. Very aggressive noise-shaping designedespecially for 4x rates (176.4/192 kHz) and recommended for theserates. (Especially good for older 16-bit 4x rate capable multibit-DACslike TDA154x etc.)

 

In other words: Not suitable for my case, since it is a 24 bit dac and the sampling ratio is not 4, right.

 

So which would be the suitable noise shaping setting in my case?

 

There is still another thing:

 

i have been reading several times now that linear phase filters are to be preferred in case of rendition of classical music in a "natural environment " like a concert hall. In this context a minimum microphoning condition is mentioned. At first I would doubt that a classical recording even in a concert hall is accomplished on the basis of minimum microphoning, instead poly microphoning has moved in for almost 40 years now, in other words: Almost each musician has his own microphone. Furthermore I am interested in the relationship between the number of mics and filter choice. Is the negative side effect of the dispersive mp Filter more likely to occur when the number of mics increase?

 

best regards

 

Sascha

 

Dispersive effect might even be less with more mics (sound doesn't have as far to travel to each mic and each instrument is less smeared into others) or it could be worse, I don't know. Easy to overthink, maybe easier just to listen.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[Jud]

Hi Jud,

 

in the above mentioned video they have recorded a drum kid with 8 mics. One of those mics was located near the top side, obviously near the cymbal area, weilst an other was more on the botten side, where a dominance of lower frequencies is expected. When focusing on these two mics and mixing them together, you certainly get a different sound than listening to each mic individually. If you now start phase inversion of one of the mics and mixing together you hear a quite audible effect of the phase shift. This gives agood example how polymicrophoning might effect filtering outcome.

I thought that Mika's view of minimum mic environment might have something to do with that phenomen, but I am not sure.

 

On the other hand I am exclusively listening through headphones, which might also have an effect. ARCHIMGO, who made a blind test in 2015 seems to confirm that headphone listeners react differently from people, who hear with speakers.

 

We were discussing on the thread a little while ago that min phase may not work well with Vandersteen speakers in particular (which have time aligned drivers and linear phase crossovers), but headphones are a completely different story.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[Jud]

Headphones being single wide-band element don't have any cross-overs or multiple drivers and thus are completely time/phase coherent by definition.

 

 

I'm thinking at least some IEMs have multiple drivers. Special case?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[Jud]

I know there are some multi-driver headphones too, but majority is single driver. There are not many hifi-IEMs anyway.

 

For example the Sennheiser IE 800 is specified as linear phase single driver.

 

I was at a demo at a hi fi shop where a Focal person took the beryllium diaphragm used in their tweeters and their top of the line headphones and dropped it.

 

Beryllium is very light, so the air pressure acting on the diaphragm was sufficient to float it slowly and gently to earth. Very cool!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[Jud]

IMO, expensive with not so great performance vs price. I wouldn't rush to switch my Sennheiser HD800's to those ones...

 

But maybe once they've practiced it for 10 - 20 years...

 

 

Or longer. I bought these for either $12 or $19 (don't remember which, it was 1974 or '75) at the grand opening of an audio store, and they'd been making them for 7 or 8 years at that point:

 

 

 

 

Sennheiser started making these in 1967.

[Jud]

Just that at 32-bit there's no advantage anymore in using noise shaping (NS9 etc) and you are fine with TPDF.

 

To get this straight in my own mind, this is with a 32-bit DAC, irrespective of the word length in the musical file (24 or 16-bit)?

[Jud]

Stuttering wise I didn't find any disadvantage in using NAA via LAN cable.

 

But why not to try the difference ...

 

It was the same for me as you, bogi (behavior on the host computer alone was the same as behavior with NAA). But for some people there has been a difference (something in the connection with the NAA), so as you say, why not try it?

 

Edit: I see Marcin is running direct anyway.

[Jud]

Hi,

 

HQPlayer and Network Audio Daemon can run on Windows, Linux and macOS, but I wonder if there is a preferred OS for running them. If there is any potential advantage on running them on any of these OS.

 

The reason for this question is that some DAC manufacturers claim that their DACs support only Windows and/or macOS, but they don't say anything about Linux, neither if it is supported or unsupported. An example could be the Teac devices. Would it be an issue running HQPlayer (or Network Audio Daemon) over Linux on a device attached to a Teac DAC?

 

I don't know if this question has already been answered in this thread. I have been looking for it but I have not found it. If this is an already answered question, I apologize.

 

Thanks!!

 

Yes, it has been discussed. My understanding (someone please correct me if I am wrong):

 

 

I believe with the Teac devices Windows may allow conversion to higher rate DSD due to Windows ASIO drivers permitting this versus the Linux drivers. Also, people who run their DACs direct to amplifiers without a hardware volume control (preamp, etc.) have reported "thumps" at a level that might be damaging when using Linux. I believe this is being worked on for the Linux driver.

 

 

I am happily running HQPlayer and an NAA on Linux with an iFi micro-iDSD DAC and a pre-amplifier and have none of these problems. They are specific to certain DACs and to systems that don't use analog volume control.

[Jud]

You're a mine of useful information!

 

Funny how that works.

[Jud]

 

Yes, best is to forget stupid USB and use Ethernet instead. Like I said, bake NAA straight into the DAC and use bare I2S/DSD data wires from there.

 

 

DSC2?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[Jud]

Understood the principle and makes perfect sense if the chip automatically bypasses it's internal filters when receiving DSD which I wasn't sure was happening since the dac doesn't have any transcoding/upsampling feature itself or any way to defeat the filters manually.

 

It bypasses internal filters at least to some extent, but AFAIU, still upsamples (non-bypassably) from there to some very high sample rate.

[Jud]

You mean the 2nd upsampling stage where user has no choices. The user selectable PCM upsampling choices rah50 mentioned are AFAIK bypassed by feeding DSD signal to DAC.

 

Yep, exactly.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[Jud]

is sample rate family as important (do 48k-based stuff to 384k even if it requires lighter filters than instead doing 352k for everything)? I know the answer should include listening impressions, but asking anyway, given several factors that are not easily changed on the spot (the biggest one being compute horsepower).

 

 

Miska has said there really is not more computer horsepower involved in conversion to non-integer multiples than to integer multiples.

[Jud]

I'm pretty sure he has said the opposite.

 

"Upsampling 44.1k to 12.3M (or 48k to 11.3M) with poly-sinc is very heavy operation. You can ease up the load significantly for that case by using poly-sinc-2s instead."

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

 

See http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f6-dac-digital-analog-conversion/are-sampling-dacs-bad-thing-13909/#post186086

 

The point is that it is not more resource intensive to use 44.1k-based sample rates with 48k-based sources, or vice versa.

[Jud]

Can a HQPlayer license be transferred to a different system or a new OS install?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Computer Audiophile

 

 

 

OSes: Mac and Linux are one license. Windows is a different one. However, if you contact Miska, I believe he may provide some consideration for the purchase you've already made if you want to switch from Mac or Linux to Windows, or vice versa.

 

Different system, I don't recall the answer. I have run HQP on both Mac and Linux computers at home, though not simultaneously.

[Jud]

Sorry Jud, I don't get your point. No doubt my fault. But I thought Ted's question was essentially about whether it's better to strive to upsample everything to 48k based rates, and I thought you were contradicting the idea that it is more resource intensive to upsample 44.1k files to 48k based rates, or 48k files to 44.1 based rates. So I provided a quote from Miska confirming that that is indeed the case - and of course it is the reason for Miska providing the autorate family in HQPlayer. So how does that relate to the post that you link? What am I failing to see?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

 

I could certainly be wrong. It just seemed to me Miska was commenting "purely" about converting between 44.1k and 48k-based sample rates in the post I linked, and mixing in -2s and non-2s filters in the post you quoted. But it could also be that Miska was commenting at my link on an operation that wasn't very resource intensive in the first place, and in your quote about one that was, where converting between 44.1k and 48k-based rates might possibly matter. So I don't know the answer.

 

I can say that for me it doesn't make a practical difference, since my 2010-vintage computer will do either 44.1k-based or 48k-based rates at DSD256 with the -2s filters, but won't do either with the non-2s filters, and won't get to DSD512 even using -2s.

[Jud]

21 minutes ago, DSD256 said:

 

Now, after Miska does not want to answer, I must be clear....

 

 

It is fine for you to disagree with Miska about the sound of the Yggdrasil, but I would suggest that since this is a thread about Miska's software it would be more appropriate to post further comments about Yggdrasil in a thread where the sound of that DAC is more on topic.

[Jud]

 

3 minutes ago, DSD256 said:

An opinion is not believing..its about knowing.

 

Very good.  Then in a thread relevant to the topic (not this one, please, which is dedicated to discussion of Miska's software), it would be good for you to discuss what you know about Yggdrasil.

[Jud]

18 minutes ago, DSD256 said:

I'm pulling out of here now ...

 

Thank you.  This was extensively off-topic.

 

18 minutes ago, DSD256 said:

it happens what was to be expected: who criticizes the Guru here ...

 

Of course this has nothing to do with any "guru."  As Bob just put it quite well, Miska simply described, in terms of measurements and design characteristics - things that are simply factual - why the Yggdrasil does not appeal to him. 

 

I have heard Yggy and liked it; I owned DACs Mike Moffat designed for more than 20 years, so I would guess I have been listening to his designs for considerably longer than you have.  I think he is obviously a very smart man, and I have spoken with him personally at length and like him.  Miska is also obviously very knowledgeable. 

 

Therefore I take what Mike says at Head-Fi and what Miska says here and try to learn from both.  I suggest you try to do the same.  I think you will be rewarded with increased understanding and enjoyment of our hobby.

 

Of course Mike and Miska disagree on some things.  Have all the people you ever learned from always agreed with each other?  If you try to learn from each of them, I don't think this is a problem.

[Jud]

29 minutes ago, Hazard said:

Ummmm - this is a HQPlayer thread.  What did you expect to find here?

 

Can we please stop abetting the OT?

[Jud]

36 minutes ago, DSD256 said:

 

Thanks for finally commenting on topic.

You think the measurements are accurate? A quick googling brought me to different measurements,

which obtained for example significantly better jitter measurements than John Atkinson. http://superbestaudiofriends.org/index.php?threads/schiit-yggdrasil-stereophile-review-measurements.3762/

http://www.superbestaudiofriends.org/index.php?threads/schiit-yggdrasil-measurements.413/

Of course, all reviews are subjective, yours, mine. There is no objectivity here. 

Some reviewers, on the other hand, want to give their reviews some sort of objectivity by taking measurements.

By the way, John Atkinson comes to significantly worse measurements when measuring other DACs (MSB Analog DAC, NAD's M51), but then evaluates them significantly better and finds the measurements still optimal.

JA:  "a pleasure to measure such a good performing product ... so well thought out and so well engineered" and "almost beyond reproach. Color me impressed." "NAD's M51 Direct Digital DAC offers measured performance that is almost beyond reproach. Color me impressed." Further reading: http://superbestaudiofriends.org/index.php?threads/schiit-yggdrasil-stereophile-review-measurements.3762/

 

So i give a s... on those measurements. What counts is how it sounds. According to the exellent measurements, the RME ADI-2 Pro must be the worlds best Dac.  

 

Miska:"The reasons why R2R ladders cannot be very precise are purely based on physics an manufacturing tolerances.  I've explained the behaviors here on this site multiple times and not going to repeat the same over and over again."

Mike Moffat, however, comes with the Yggdrasil diametrically to another result. Miska, so your truth is not THE truth, but your opinion and that's fine. You can always repeat it, but it remains always your opinion, not more. 

Regarding the combination Yggy and HQplayer, I also think that there is better sounding software esspecialy for the Yggy. Probably lies the real strength of the HQplayer, in the ability to curb the sharpness of the delta-sigma DACs design. Ich

 

To me Audirvana sound much better with the Yggy. With the delta-sigma DACs i have had, to me HQplayer sounded best.

 

In conclusion, I am in no way to lift the Yggdrasil into the light. There are lots of great good-sounding DAC's.

My main criticism remains:

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."

This statement is nonsense.

If I proceed in the sense of a metacritic, the probability is very high that a product is really good at many positive reviews. If i look at different reviews, multibit DAC's are always on the top of the game.

 

What I think you are saying is that measurements are nonsense, and that a lot of positive reviews are a better guide to ensuring something is good.  Am I understanding you correctly?

[Jud]

2 minutes ago, louisxiawei said:

@DSD256 Really impressed by your stubbornness and imagination.

 

The imagination of other reviews and regard them as your argument points.

 

A few simple questions for you:

 

Which dac you are using right now? Is it ygg? Is ygg the only dac you own? Have you own other ladder dacs like Metrum? Have you own a SDM dac? Have you seriously compare them at the similar price tag?

 

Since your username is quite ironic: DSD256, another few questions for you to see whether you are well-educated in terms of DSD:

 

Do you believe DSD is superior to PCM in terms of format, dac design? Do you know ladder DAC is capable of DSD or PCM? Are you mixing multi-bit ladder with multi-bit SDM dac?

 

Lastly

 

Please define top-of-the-game DAC. Are you referring the extravagant MSB dac? Have you listened to them by yourself or assume it to be better based on the postive review? 

 

If you don't believe Miska's DIY hardware, no problem. Try T+A  DAC8 DSD with HQplayer and compared it with your mighty YGG, its one-bit SDM converter is similar to DSC1's. I believe DAC8 DSD's performance/price can tell you very much about what Miska means.

 

If  DAC8 DSD's price tag doesn't fit your top-of-the-game definition. Then try T+A flagship HV PDP300 SACD dac. 

 

Otherwise, please stop embarrassing yourself and make ridiculous comment. 

 

 

I think it's fine - everyone is free to like what they want.  (Including Miska  .)

[Jud]

3 minutes ago, louisxiawei said:

 

One more thing, as your previous post mentioned: you use HQplayer upsampled to DSD256 sent it to Ygg.

 

I doubt whether you use the correct HQplayer setup for your Ygg. It doesn't make any sense to me. Ygg doesn't support DSD for god's sake.

 

There are two DSP settings in HQplayer. PCM and SDM. For Ygg as multi-bit ladder dac, I have no idea why you use SDM one instead of PCM DSP in the HQplayer.

 

louis, you or the forum software made it seem as if I said something I didn't.

[Jud]

15 minutes ago, louisxiawei said:

Nah, this reply is not off-topic. It's quite related to HQplayer's setting for certain dac. I doubted @DSD256 a while ago for using SDM dsp in HQ for his Ygg.

 

Other than that, I agree with your previous comment. Everyone is free to like what they want. 

 

louis - See who appears to be quoted saying there is better software for Yggy in one of your comments a little while ago.  It isn't who actually said what you are quoting.

[Jud]

1 minute ago, louisxiawei said:

omg, I quoted the wrong post. My apology to you. I meant to quote DSD256. 

Still need to get used to the new CA user interface. 

 

 

NP, we're all getting accustomed to the differences.