Jump to content
IGNORED

HQ Player


Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, rikirk said:

@Miska I have to post here since I did not received a reply via the official support. Please let me know if you have a solution, otherwise I would kindly ask for a refund for the license of v. 4 and I will revert back to v. 3. As mentioned and shown in the original email there is no way to find a log.

All the best.

 

(…)

All the sudden, or maybe since I purchased the 4.0 license, I am having issues with the LHLabs Vi DAC connected directly into the PC via USB.
 
To my understanding after few minutes playing the lock is discontinued and HQPlayer is not able to communicate with the DAC to relock at the proper sample rate both using PCM and direct SDM and both via WASAPI and ASIO.
 
At the beginning it was random, and I start blaming HQ Player settings, the PC (last WIN10 now) audio settings, the USB cable, the DAC itself, but all works fine if I use JRiver only.
 
I also tried with or without a library in place with the same result.
 
Now it's getting more than annoying, because I cannot listen for any longer that 3 or 4 minutes before I am disconnected and I need to reboot DAC (with tubes!) and HQPlayer only to get the same result few minutes later.
 
I use this DAC with your software for a very long time, so it reasonable to think there is a bug somewhere and that's why I am reporting the issue.
(…)

 

I don't have much to say about such. Are you running the DAC same way, at same output format (sample rate and word length) from JRiver and HQPlayer? Have you tried some other DAC, or even just the motherboard's built-in audio device?

 

What you describe sounds typical to audiophile USB cables and USB isolation / "denoising" products. So please try with a standard USB HiSpeed Certified cable straight to the motherboard USB3 port.

 

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to post
Share on other sites

Appreciate taking the time.

 

The issue is with this specific DAC only since HQP v4. As mentioned I tried them all before reaching out including cables, port is dedicated gigabyte AMP-UP, same rate available from DAC: JRiver works, HQP get out of sync in a matter of few minutes.

 

Since there's nothing you can do, will manage myself in an other way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, rikirk said:

Appreciate taking the time.

 

The issue is with this specific DAC only since HQP v4. As mentioned I tried them all before reaching out including cables, port is dedicated gigabyte AMP-UP, same rate available from DAC: JRiver works, HQP get out of sync in a matter of few minutes.

 

Since there's nothing you can do, will manage myself in an other way.

 

I've been using different versions of HQ Player desktop for many years. In general, v4 is more stable, fast and easy than almost all previous versions, including v3. Considering, of course, constant changes in the equipment, settings, filter choice,  etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/4/2020 at 12:05 AM, mfalcon said:

I tried Sinc-L tonight.  It’s different than XTR-LP which I’ve been using often.  I compared using a Mary Halvorson quartet track.  I found with Sinc-L the cymbals sounded better and more natural but TBH I don’t think they sound bad on XTR-LP.  Just Better with Sinc L.  Also I feel like the image was cleaner.  I am going to keep listening but it was a small but worthwhile improvement for me.  I am using an RTX 2080Ti and it handled it without stuttering but it does use a lot of memory.  Like 8gb according to NVTOP.

I do want to say this.  Sinc-L is not very forgiving on the top end with mediocre recordings.  I think it exposes flaws more than any of the other filters I regularly use, which can be good or bad Depending on the quality of the music you like.

i listened to 2 different masterings of Zappa’s Hot Rats.  The 80s mastering I grew up is unlistenable with Sinc-L.  The newer mastering is good but sounds better with XTR.  The opposite is true of a Mary Halvorson album I listened to earlier which shined with Sinc-L.  
Sinc-L is for the fancy listening and XTR is for the everyday I think.

keep up the good work Jussi.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sync S /M / L are really different beast,   with my I7 6700K without GPU with ESDM5EC  i can play  L at x64    S at xx128 and M at x256   these filters are very addictive  , can't return to my beloved PolysyncLP yet , very good job Jussi  each time you bring new filters it's litke changing our dacs 😀

PC audio /Roon + HQPLAYER / INTONA /T+A DSD8 dac / /  VFET NEMESIS amp / EMS field coil speaker

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mfalcon said:

I do want to say this.  Sinc-L is not very forgiving on the top end with mediocre recordings.  I think it exposes flaws more than any of the other filters I regularly use, which can be good or bad Depending on the quality of the music you like.

i listened to 2 different masterings of Zappa’s Hot Rats.  The 80s mastering I grew up is unlistenable with Sinc-L.  The newer mastering is good but sounds better with XTR.  The opposite is true of a Mary Halvorson album I listened to earlier which shined with Sinc-L.  
Sinc-L is for the fancy listening and XTR is for the everyday I think.

keep up the good work Jussi.

 

The remastered old albums may not really sound very good with Sink-L, agree. But in quality new recordings of serious music Sink-L shines, imo.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

The remastered old albums may not really sound very good with Sink-L, agree. But in quality new recordings of serious music Sink-L shines, imo.

This is a more succinct version of what I was trying to convey.  I’m known for being long winded. ;) 

The next step is for Jussi to create an AI that learns what music would be best with what music ;)

But seriously with the right music Sinc-L is masterful.

 

i have a Spring 1 so 48k rate family has to be converted.  Not a problem with my machine and XTR but 24/96 took 2 minutes to load.  My long run solution is to get a May but I’m trying to avoid big expenses in uncertain times.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear @Miska,

 

Considering the above posts, I just wanted to ask you more background info and your opinion on the following:

 

I'm using a Devialet 220pro. As such, it uses TI PCM 1792 chips. I can send to it either PCM192 or DSD64 (so actually I could just choose "Source" in HQP), but have decided to fix as output PCM 176/192 as most of my music is in PCM, and due to my actual HQP computer being old (2012 MBP i7, 16Gb RAM) and needing to apply HAF filters I cannot do DSD64 without stuttering. I'm using closed-form-M and NS9. I tried Sinc-L and found the following: Sinc-L has something in the way it sounds that's very appealing to me, but I cannot point my finger exactly on what it is. Comparing closed-form-M to Sinc-L I find closed-form-M  to have better transients, a better, wider soundstage, and it seems to sound very close to Sinc-L, but still, as I said before, find something in the way Sinc-L sounds that's more appealing than closed-form-M. This, of course, mith my system, my room, my ears, isn't, YMMV.

 

So, then, my questions would be: what, if any, is the difference between closed-form-M and Sinc-L? Considering my system (DAC) and the like, would there be a wiser choice to explore?

 

Thanks!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jussi

 

OMG - just taken your new Sinc-L filter for a first outing and what a smile it has brought to my face.  I found that it stutters on my setup at DSD128 so I've had to drop down to x64 to make things play.  But so much more "presence" than my previous fav, ext2.  It's addictive, as others have pointed out.

 

Thank you so much!

 

N

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Miska said:

I can actually create detection whether apodizing filter would be needed or not, and no AI required for that

If it is something "easy" to implement I believe most users will welcome that, either some sort of indicator (which I don't know how will that work with Roon+HQP) or maybe a "third filter option" allowing only to select apodizing filters to be used in case of?

I mean after your comments it is just safe (for me at least) to keep using ext2 as I am doing currently, but choices are always good I think

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lbameule said:

So, then, my questions would be: what, if any, is the difference between closed-form-M and Sinc-L? Considering my system (DAC) and the like, would there be a wiser choice to explore?

Both are non-apodizing and "some recordings" like Miska mentioned above will show its deficiencies. Of course is up to him to provide more details on these.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, luisma said:

If it is something "easy" to implement I believe most users will welcome that, either some sort of indicator (which I don't know how will that work with Roon+HQP) or maybe a "third filter option" allowing only to select apodizing filters to be used in case of?

I mean after your comments it is just safe (for me at least) to keep using ext2 as I am doing currently, but choices are always good I think

 

 

I would use it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Miska said:

 

This is because sinc-L is non-apodizing. So it won't correct typical problems of many ADC's (or mediocre production rate converters). Age of the mastering alone doesn't define which one needs apodizing filter for fixing faults. It depends on the tools used for production. This is much less emphasized difference for hires compared to RedBook.

 

For example many early Pink Floyd CD releases (like DSOTM) don't need apodizing filter, while the newest remasters do need.

 

XTR is apodizing only to limited extent, while ext2 is somewhat similar but "properly" apodizing.

 

 

I can actually create detection whether apodizing filter would be needed or not, and no AI required for that. Just not sure whether it is good/useful idea to have such or not. It is sort of asymmetric, there is no down side using apodizing filter for a recording that doesn't need one. But there is downside of not using apodizing filter for a recording that would need such.

 

I would certainly use it and think it would be a valuable addition. 
 

I’m fascinated to know a bit about how the detection would work. Miska, is it possible to explain a bit about that ( in terms a layman like myself might understand)?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/28/2020 at 3:07 AM, Miska said:

Note about the new sinc-L filter (in HQPlayer Desktop 4.6.0); to use this one especially to higher DSD rates you'll likely need a GPU. To DSD256 it requires about 8.3 GB of GPU RAM, so my RTX2080 runs out of memory and thus doesn't play. However, on RTX2080Ti plays fine to DSD256 with a bit over 10% GPU load. For DSD512 (not tested) you'll likely need TITAN RTX with it's 24 GB of RAM should be enough for the ~16 GB needed.

 

Memory bandwidth is biggest bottleneck for massive filter on CPU because it doesn't fit in the cache anymore.

 

At DSD256 number of taps is about 32M and at DSD512 64M. DSD128 with 16M taps works on GPUs with less RAM.

 

With 16x ratio to 705.6/768k PCM it is not so bad with 2M taps.

 

P.S. The filter is totally different kind of design from sinc-S/sinc-M although named similarly.

 

Hi Jussi (or anyone else that may know)

 

Regarding your comments on the sinc-L filter, are you able to say whether it would be possible to use the 7EC modulator, dsd256 output using i9-9900k with all cores clocked to 5ghz and 16gb ram? If not, would adding a GTX1080Ti with 11gb vid ram make it work?

 

Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/8/2020 at 9:36 PM, Lbameule said:

I'm using a Devialet 220pro. As such, it uses TI PCM 1792 chips. I can send to it either PCM192 or DSD64 (so actually I could just choose "Source" in HQP), but have decided to fix as output PCM 176/192 as most of my music is in PCM, and due to my actual HQP computer being old (2012 MBP i7, 16Gb RAM) and needing to apply HAF filters I cannot do DSD64 without stuttering.

 

As far as I know, due to the way Devialet operates, they convert all DSD inputs to PCM. So your best option is to always send 192k PCM there.

 

On 6/8/2020 at 9:36 PM, Lbameule said:

So, then, my questions would be: what, if any, is the difference between closed-form-M and Sinc-L? Considering my system (DAC) and the like, would there be a wiser choice to explore?

 

They operate in a very different way. I would say it is up to your ears to decide which one you consider better. From technical perspective it is not easy to recommend one over the other.

 

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, pdg540 said:

 

Hi Jussi (or anyone else that may know)

 

Regarding your comments on the sinc-L filter, are you able to say whether it would be possible to use the 7EC modulator, dsd256 output using i9-9900k with all cores clocked to 5ghz and 16gb ram? If not, would adding a GTX1080Ti with 11gb vid ram make it work?

 

Thanks!

With the GTX2080TI it definitely works if you are not converting 48->44.1.  Even then it will work but with a longer initialization.  I’m assuming the OS isn’t too taking.  I use Ubuntu LTS.

i think it might work with 1080 but not sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

@Miska, what is the process HQPlayer goes through when using it's volume control and sending a file that is already at the max bit rate?

 

It is the same as in all other cases too, there is actually no difference at all in such case to any other case.

 

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

It is the same as in all other cases too, there is actually no difference at all in such case to any other case.

 

 

So, it upsamples the file, applies volume control, and resamples it to the original bit/sample rate?

No electron left behind...

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Miska said:

 

As far as I know, due to the way Devialet operates, they convert all DSD inputs to PCM. So your best option is to always send 192k PCM there.

 

 

They operate in a very different way. I would say it is up to your ears to decide which one you consider better. From technical perspective it is not easy to recommend one over the other.

 

OK, thanks a lot! Rgds!

 

L

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, AudioDoctor said:

So, it upsamples the file, applies volume control, and resamples it to the original bit/sample rate?

 

No, rate conversion can be up, down or 1:1 through the selected filter. Dither / noise-shaper or modulator is applied as per selection. Output depends on the output device, there is no point in going back to original format.

 

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to post
Share on other sites

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...