HQ Player

[MemoryPlayer]

6 hours ago, MemoryPlayer said:

Why my God, 4.90 sounds so better than 4.92?

Try this one and let me know: 

https://www.highresaudio.com/de/album/view/qvcs3s/philharmonia-orchestra-edward-downes-lloyd-symphonies-nos-4-5-8

[glitchesbrew]

Hi, I finally got my Mac Mini M1 today so I could finally listen to the EC modulator.

I'm using HQPlayer 4.9.2, upsampling everything to DSD256 with the ASDM7EC modulator.

 

I tried with success several filters including:

poly-sinc-ext2

closed-form-16M

sinc-s

sinc-m

 

I try sinc-l I got audio interruption every few seconds but I guess that is to be expected.

What is weird to me is that if I select poly-sinc-xtr-mp when I press play I get no sound and HQPlayer Desktop stop responding.

If I try to open the settings I got a spinning wheel of death and I have to force quit it.

 

Is this a bug? Am I asking my mini M1 too much? Shouldn't the player handle it more "gracefully"?

 

Thanks :)

[Theobetley]

I did not try Lloyd disc but I just switched back to 4.9 and wow this is the one...upper midrange is divine. I dont how many old timers are here from the famous cics cply/cmp days but once cics made the comment that sq was affected by the way (order) the source code was compiled. So Jussi maybe we have that situation here.

[AudioDoctor]

The difference 4.9.0 makes to all other versions of HQPlayer I have used is akin to the difference the Degritter makes on a vinyl record I thought was clean.

[ted_b]

2 hours ago, Nenon said:

There is small group of people including me, @austinpop, @ray-dude, and a few others who are really interested to narrow down what exactly made v.4.90 so good.

I think that group is getting larger all the time.  😀

[austinpop]

Having worked in software development, I do understand the not-necessarily positive feeling when your code produces a side effect you don't understand, or didn't intend, even if the outcome was positive. This appears to have been the case with HQP 4.90.

 

However it happened, any SQ improvement of this magnitude (i.e. HQP 4.90) is precious, and deserves to be understood and harnessed. Otherwise, it can dissipate with the next update, as we saw in 4.91 and 4.92.

[AudioDoctor]

13 minutes ago, ted_b said:

I think that group is getting larger all the time.  😀

 

It started larger than that...

[Account Closed]

4.9 must have had a sprinkle of pixie dust. :)

 

Seriously, I agree that we should encourage Jussi to get to the heart of this one. I have spent the last three days comparing the three 4.9 releases and it is so in your face clear that 4.90 is very special. I have been doing this computer based audio thing since the beginning and have used almost every scheme imaginable and this is the very best one can do right now. The closet thing in the past was the two PC JPLAY set-up, that is if you could get it to work for more than a few minutes without the connection breaking.

 

I will be very hesitant to move on from 4.90 unless the next version is at least as good. As Rajiv said, archive 4.90 so you don't miss it in the future.

[k6davis]

"'Curiouser and curiouser!' said Alice...

 

I have licenses for both HQP Desktop and HQP Embedded. Embedded has been my daily driver for a few years now. I like that HQP OS is free, ultra lightweight and optimized by Jussi just for running HQP. But I had to try the recent Desktop versions to hear for myself what you guys are talking about.  

 

I have 4.9.0, 4.9.2 and Embedded 4.21.1, which was released earlier today. I didn't download 4.9.1, so I can't compare it to the others. I boot HQP OS with HQP Embedded from a USB stick, and Windows Server 2019 with the HQP Desktop is installed on the internal SSD, which makes it easy to switch back and forth. 

 

I've been listening all day and I can report that I also hear the superiority of 4.9.0 over 4.9.2. But I can also report that, at least over here, Embedded 4.21.1 sounds even better than Desktop 4.9.0! Even more surprising is that the difference between all three versions (in audiophile terms, LOL) is pretty significant. In other words, the latest HQP OS/Embedded is so good that I can't "downgrade" to Desktop 4.9.0!

 

I ran out of superlatives for HQP years ago, thinking that there's no way the sound could improve further, but Jussi keeps proving me wrong. These new versions are a leap forward. All of the things you're all saying about 4.9.0, like "secret sauce", "magic", "pixie dust", "delicacy", etc... I hear them even more so in the Embedded version. If you had blindfolded me and told me that this was EC DSD512 (somehow), I would have believed it. It's got me wanting to play everything I can think of to hear how it sounds now, through this latest HQP update. 

 

Anyway, it's obvious that Jussi has done something here. Even if it was a happy accident, we all get to benefit from it!

[seeteeyou]

16 hours ago, seeteeyou said:

FYI - everything with the potential "secret sauce" was archived as shown below, including HQPlayer4Desktop-x64-490.dmg

 

https://pastebin.com/raw/sPjKLz9k

 

Embedded 4.21.1 was added (January 29, 2021)

 

https://pastebin.com/raw/skiGx6Hf

 

---

 

Arch Linux

 

https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/commit/?h=hqplayer4&id=e4bc0f569c987d21775d0a78caf7c28fbda1b9eb

Quote

Update to version 4.9.0

 

https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/commit/?h=hqplayer-embedded&id=766ea5f8ab0d87acc9df51dfb732f748bef6acb9

Quote

Update to version 4.21.0

 

https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/commit/?h=hqplayer-embedded&id=03fa53e02b20f82b7226d2fcce2e0e04bd573e08

Quote

Update to version 4.21.1

 

[toddrhodes]

Boy it's hard for me to explain how, but I'm hearing the difference in 4.9 vs 4.9.2 as well. 

 

The way I rigged up my test was to basically just install 4.9.2 next to 4.9.0, by giving it a different path to install at. I made shortcuts to each EXE on my HQP Win10 desktop, and just stop one instance, play a track; stop the track and quit that instance, then start the other version of HQP and replay the track or whatever I was listening to.

 

It's almost like 4.9.2 sounds a little more congested? It doesn't seem to layer as well, it doesn't seem to just hang in the room as if no speakers really exist. Meanwhile, 4.9.0 plays a masterful disappearing act. There are some tonality differences as well.

On Jesse Cook - Rattle and Burn, I could hear the vibrato of his strings and a little feedback from that, clear as a bell on 4.9.0. I initially listened to this track on 4.9.2 and didn't hear that. But then when I went back and listened to it again on 4.9.2 - I can tell the vibration is there, but it's because I know what to listen for.

 

On Lee Rittenour - Daddy Longlicks (6 String Theory), there's a section where I think he's palming the guitar and on 4.92 it certainly makes sound and is discernible but it just blends in with everything else he's doing. On 4.9.0 it's its own distinct sound in its own distinct space in between the speakers. It's a striking difference and not hard to discern.

 

The last track that really stood out was Dave Grusin - Gershwin Connection - Fascinating Rhythm. This is where I keep coming back to the word "cohesive" when thinking why 4.9.0 is better than 4.9.2 Neither sound bad, not by any means. But 4.9.0 sounds like a collective whole; 4.9.2 sounds like a bunch of stuff happening in the same space. This is where it's really hard to describe a sound - like getting a mechanic to diagnose an engine issue over the phone - but 4.9.0 is like when you have a really nicely calibrated TV and all looks right, you don't see Red/Green/Blue, you see a picture. The HDR is tuned right so the proper things pop and the blacks are dark as night and the colors are vivid without exaggeration. 4.9.2 is like seeing the same TV in a retail display. It certainly looks fine and if you had no calibrated set to judge from, you'd happily take it home and be happy. 

 

4.9.0 seems like everything just works in harmony. It's really effing strange - because I'm not one to get too caught up in software code changes, outside of specific filtering and sampling updates, impacting what I hear. I just did this for fun, and I can say I'll just stick with 4.9.0, even if it does have the occasional issue. 

[fredg_31]

Hello,

 

Same observations here, 4.9.0 is better to my ears. 
A good change was made within 4.8.1 version for my taste, and 4.9.0 was going a little bit further.

With 4.9.2, it’s like if I was going back to a prior version to 4.8.1.

My setup is only pcm, poly-sinc-short-lp or ext2 and ns9. 

 

Sounds like a CPU affinity problem.

[Confused]

A question to those of you reporting that 4.9.0 has superior sound quality, (or indeed those who do not find this to be the case) what is your use case for HQPlayer?  That is, are you upsampling PCM or performing PCM to DSD conversion?  Similarly, do you have a PC + endpoint scenario or a "one box" system?

 

I guess I am just thinking aloud here, but I am just wondering if there is any correlation between those finding (or not finding) 4.9.0 to be superior and how HQPlayer is being implemented.

[asdf1000]

Any measurable differences @Miska 😁 ?

[ted_b]

5 hours ago, Confused said:

A question to those of you reporting that 4.9.0 has superior sound quality, (or indeed those who do not find this to be the case) what is your use case for HQPlayer?  That is, are you upsampling PCM or performing PCM to DSD conversion?  Similarly, do you have a PC + endpoint scenario or a "one box" system?

 

I guess I am just thinking aloud here, but I am just wondering if there is any correlation between those finding (or not finding) 4.9.0 to be superior and how HQPlayer is being implemented.

Win10 to SU-1 to Holo Spring I2S.  PCM to 384k (ext2), DSD to DSD256 (ASDM7EC, wide).  I will test direct USB when new USB module arrives, and will test NAA soon after.

[toddrhodes]

6 hours ago, Confused said:

A question to those of you reporting that 4.9.0 has superior sound quality, (or indeed those who do not find this to be the case) what is your use case for HQPlayer?  That is, are you upsampling PCM or performing PCM to DSD conversion?  Similarly, do you have a PC + endpoint scenario or a "one box" system?

 

I guess I am just thinking aloud here, but I am just wondering if there is any correlation between those finding (or not finding) 4.9.0 to be superior and how HQPlayer is being implemented.

 

Good question.

 

My chain is:

Roon core on Win10 PC

HQPlayer on separate Win10 PC, Intel i9900KF CPU

Pi4 NAA using 4212 NAA image

USB out from Pi4 to DF Venus II DAC

upsampling all to DSD256, ASDM7EC, EXT2 filter

[k6davis]

5 hours ago, Confused said:

A question to those of you reporting that 4.9.0 has superior sound quality, (or indeed those who do not find this to be the case) what is your use case for HQPlayer?  That is, are you upsampling PCM or performing PCM to DSD conversion?  Similarly, do you have a PC + endpoint scenario or a "one box" system?

 

I upsample everything to DSD5EC DSD256 with poly-sinc-ext2 or sinc-S, using an NAA. The details are in my signature.

 

Jussi's release notes on the main page for the recent versions mention various "NAA streaming optimizations", so I thought that might be the reason for the great sound. But @ted_b just posted that he's getting the "magic" even though he hasn't tried 4.9.0 with an NAA yet. 

[ted_b]

4 minutes ago, k6davis said:

Jussi's release notes on the main page for the recent versions mention various "NAA streaming optimizations", so I thought that might be the reason for the great sound. But @ted_b just posted that he's getting the "magic" even though he hasn't tried 4.9.0 with an NAA yet. 

Yes, and 4.9.0 is not recommended with an NAA cuz Jussi says it's broken (hence the 4.9.x fixes) so I am very pleased it's magic is available direct. 😎

[jamesg11]

1 hour ago, ted_b said:

Yes, and 4.9.0 is not recommended with an NAA cuz Jussi says it's broken (hence the 4.9.x fixes) so I am very pleased it's magic is available direct. 😎

‘broken’ means ...? Seem to be NAA users among the 4.9.0 admirers.

[ted_b]

7 minutes ago, jamesg11 said:

‘broken’ means ...? Seem to be NAA users among the 4.9.0 admirers.

The reason folks are saying "I'll go back to 4.9 and live with the (broken) faults" is that Jussi posted this Monday:

 

[k6davis]

@ted_b sent me a private message asking for some guidance on setting up HQP OS/HQP Embedded. I wrote a detailed reply for him and figured that I'd share it here in case anyone else is interested. 

 

It's easy to set up, but it's definitely not obvious how to go about it. Once you get your head around it, it's very easy to use, works extremely well and of course, sounds great!

 

Here's how to get HQP OS/HQP Embedded running with Roon. This will require at least 2 computers: 1 for Roon and another for HQP Embedded. You can try it out without making any changes to your current server.

• Download the HQP OS/HQP Embedded image file https://www.signalyst.eu/bins/hqplayerd/images
• Download an HQP NAA image file if you're going to use an NAA (which I recommend): https://www.signalyst.eu/bins/naa/images/
• Write the image(s) to a USB drive using this utility: https://sourceforge.net/projects/win32diskimager/
• Set your server's BIOS to boot from the USB drive(s)
• The server(s) should be available on your network with the names "hqplayer" and "naa"
• From a command prompt on another computer on the network, ping both machines: "ping naa -4" and "ping hqplayer -4". This will confirm that both servers are running and available and will give you the local IP address for the hqplayer machine.
• In Roon, go to Settings | Setup | Add HQPlayer and enter the HQP server's IP address. This will make the HQP Embedded server available as a new Roon zone. 
• In Roon, go to Settings | Audio and scroll to the HQPlayer section. Give the new zone a name.
• From any web browser on the network, enter "hqplayer" in the address bar to configure HQP Embedded. The web interface is straightforward and all of the options should be familiar if you've used HQP Desktop. The "Settings" are in a link called "Configuration".
• If you're using an NAA, connect the DAC directly and get that running first and then switch to the NAA.
• If you would like to monitor the resource usage on the HQP server (similar to Task Manager in Windows), just type "root" at the login prompt and then enter the command "htop". 

Once the setup is complete, there's no need to interact with the servers directly. You control the music with Roon and the HQP settings from a web browser. 

[ted_b]

Thanks!  I sent him a PM cuz I was embarrassed that I am the OP for the HQPerd thread four years ago, yet I forgot everything since then (running Windows since).   And a lot has changed!!   👍

[ted_b]

Speaking of forgetting things, this is a somehwta ignorant question from someone who has used HQplayer for such a long time but:

* when one up-modulates DSD to DSD (say DSD64 to DSD256 using ASDM7EC) what, if any, settable filters/settings are being used?  I assume the "wide" (versus narrow) is being used, as I can see it in the HQPlayer desktop GUI, and it makes sense.  But what of the "SDM Integrator" settings like IIR, IIR2, IIR3, etc?  Are those only used when DSD is converted to PCM?

[arglebargle]

18 hours ago, k6davis said:

. All of the things you're all saying about 4.9.0, like "secret sauce", "magic", "pixie dust", "delicacy", etc... I hear them even more so in the Embedded version.

Indeed. IMHO anyone who is all in on HQPlayer, to the point they are comparing point releases and archiving executables, owes it to themselves to audition Embedded. If it’s been a while, try it again. It’s so easy to set up at this point with the HQPlayer OS image! 
 

[ray-dude]

1 hour ago, k6davis said:

Here's how to get HQP OS/HQP Embedded running with Roon. This will require at least 2 computers: 1 for Roon and another for HQP Embedded. You can try it out without making any changes to your current server.

 

Great recipe!

 

To pile on here, if you are able to try this (2 computers etc), you most definitely should.  Booting off a USB stick makes it a very experiment to do (then undo).  Delightful how many problems and annoyances simply go away when you have a stripped down end point that is optimized for one thing and one thing only.