Jump to content
IGNORED

HQ Player


Recommended Posts

On 2/1/2021 at 7:37 AM, Miska said:

 

It doesn't! It makes it sound worse because it skips audio blocks every now and then. :D

 

That's the real beauty of audiophilia: it sounds better when you don't actually hear all of it -- otherwise referred to as "selective hearing" -- sort of like tuning out your children...  

 

Sorry, couldn't help it. 

 

I do actually wonder whether a) this was just a joke on us - to see whether we would fall for it, b) falls into the euphonious distortion category -- wrong but some really like it; c) is some form of expectation bias... or d) falls into the realm of "there is more to this than we today understand, i.e. just because we aren't or cannot measure it doesn't mean there isn't a difference. 

🙉  

Synology NAS>i7-6700/32GB/NVIDIA QUADRO P4000 Win10>Qobuz+Tidal>Roon>HQPlayer>DSD512> Fiber Switch>Ultrarendu (NAA)>SMSL M500 DAC> Bryston SP3 pre>Levinson No. 432 amps>Magnepan (MG20.1x2, CCR and MMC2x6)

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ted_b said:

Why would you have reason to doubt us?  

Sorry typo, I meant to say "and I have NO reason to doubt them." In fact, most of you who have noticed the difference are people whose opinion about what sounds great/bad I really trust (you, AustinPop, Audio Doctor, K6Davis).  That is precisely what makes this interesting inasmuch as I also highly respect Miska (Jussi). 

Synology NAS>i7-6700/32GB/NVIDIA QUADRO P4000 Win10>Qobuz+Tidal>Roon>HQPlayer>DSD512> Fiber Switch>Ultrarendu (NAA)>SMSL M500 DAC> Bryston SP3 pre>Levinson No. 432 amps>Magnepan (MG20.1x2, CCR and MMC2x6)

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

If I'm the only one asking for this though, I understand that's not enough incentive for you to add it.

 

Geoff,

 

I know you could do this the way you want through the control API... ;) (hint, hint)

 

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question about handling an input DSD with volume management.
The "direct DSD" does not touch anything and does not allow volume management (eg with an ADI RME).
If we configure HQP in SDM (DSD256, ASDM7EC), a DSD 64 (for example) switches to PCM to switch back to DSD256 with volume management (with heavy cost CPU and incompatible EC.
It is not possible to have the volume management in DSD output without going through a DSD> PCM> DSD step (therefore usable without management on dac or preamp) ?
1 / DSD direct
2 / DSD with volume attenuation (if SDM chosen at output) so not direct but without resampling.
3 / DSD> PCM (if PCM chosen at output).

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, fredg_31 said:

I'm a founder of a software company in France, I know what it does when you do the right things and consumers want more.

 

I don't doubt what people hear. But when request goes beyond logic of computer science, it is very hard to do something about something that is not in the code... Then feature X is requested, there needs to be objective way to verify that feature X is implemented and works.

 

People, and largely same people, were also complaining about the bugs I was fixing, in this very same thread. Such as NAAs crashing.

 

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Zauurx said:

If we configure HQP in SDM (DSD256, ASDM7EC), a DSD 64 (for example) switches to PCM to switch back to DSD256 with volume management (with heavy cost CPU and incompatible EC.
It is not possible to have the volume management in DSD output without going through a DSD> PCM> DSD step (therefore usable without management on dac or preamp) ?
1 / DSD direct
2 / DSD with volume attenuation (if SDM chosen at output) so not direct but without resampling.
3 / DSD> PCM (if PCM chosen at output).

 

No, it doesn't switch to PCM. For (2) it is better to upsample to DSD256 at the same time since it gives you increased headroom. Same way as if you perform volume control for PCM it is better to upsample PCM to higher rate to gain more headroom / precision.

 

Only disadvantage of upsampling in case (2) is that it burns more CPU time. But you win in quality.

 

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

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

 

No, it doesn't switch to PCM. For (2) it is better to upsample to DSD256 at the same time since it gives you increased headroom. Same way as if you perform volume control for PCM it is better to upsample PCM to higher rate to gain more headroom / precision.

 

Only disadvantage of upsampling in case (2) is that it burns more CPU time. But you win in quality.

 

 

Thank you for the clarification.
But that sends me back to a possible option: lower the choice of modulator (ASDM7EC to ASDM7) for an input DSD .. otherwise the processor no longer follows.
A double option for the choice of modulator is possible?
For SDM:
1 / If PCM (or PCM <192)> Modulator 1
2 / If DSD> Modulator 2

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Zauurx said:

Thank you for the clarification.
But that sends me back to a possible option: lower the choice of modulator (ASDM7EC to ASDM7) for an input DSD .. otherwise the processor no longer follows.
A double option for the choice of modulator is possible?
For SDM:
1 / If PCM (or PCM <192)> Modulator 1
2 / If DSD> Modulator 2

 

What kind of CPU do you have? It should work fine with ASDM7EC too. This kind of work is split to separate cores. You can also try with matrix enabled/disabled, it changes the work distribution a bit.

 

Even with IIR3 + narrow combination my development machine plays fine DSD64 -> DSD256 using ASDM7EC. (matrix disabled)

 

Also changing modulator from HQPlayer Client or HQPDcontrol when changing the album to play is pretty quick to do.

 

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

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

 

What kind of CPU do you have? It should work fine with ASDM7EC too. This kind of work is split to separate cores. You can also try with matrix enabled/disabled, it changes the work distribution a bit.

 

Even with IIR3 + narrow combination my development machine plays fine DSD64 -> DSD256 using ASDM7EC. (matrix disabled)

 

Also changing modulator from HQPlayer Client or HQPDcontrol when changing the album to play is pretty quick to do.

 

 I use an i5-8400 as described here :

And I use Roon Radio .. and when there is a blank or a dropout .. a DSD is playing. Too late to change modulator ! 🤪

I also have an HAF convolution via matrix, which consumes a little but with an input as useful as HQP!

 

 

 

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

 

I don't doubt what people hear. But when request goes beyond logic of computer science, it is very hard to do something about something that is not in the code... Then feature X is requested, there needs to be objective way to verify that feature X is implemented and works.

 

People, and largely same people, were also complaining about the bugs I was fixing, in this very same thread. Such as NAAs crashing.

 

 

I totally understand Miska,

 

I tried a few tests on my own to understand the differences between versions 4.9.0 and 4.9.2 and didn't notice something big or visible (CPU/RAM consumption, volume from listening spot, etc.).

 

I don't know if it would help, but on my system, I have noticed for a long time ago, even with other software, that if I play a song and wait a few seconds, stop it and restart the playing of beginning, the second attempt is better, less aggressive, more air, etc.

 

I think this behaviour is due to my system (MacBook or network) or due to Qobuz streaming.

 

With 4.9.0 the differences between first and second playing of the same song are less audible, like if 4.9.0 took extra time to start the playing and simulate my observation on the second playing.

 

Have a nice day!

Fred (Toulouse, France)

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

 

Geoff,

 

I know you could do this the way you want through the control API... ;) (hint, hint)

 

Jussi, wasn't there even a remote app that had already done this (rate tables) a couple years ago when you first published the control API?  I can't remember the name, but I remember a rudimentary Windows-based GUI that had the capability to create rates and filters based on per file/track. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit (too late to edit above): Alchemy is the name of the control app.   It looks from the change log that it hasn't been worked on in a year or so.

http://www.origen.net.au/Alchemy/

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, asdf1000 said:

The man has made his thoughts clear multiple times now.

 

To avoid bugging him more (pun intended) I would suggest the "a novel way to massively improve the SQ of 4.9.2" crowd maybe stop and just use 4.9.0 instead.

 

It's not my thread of course but both sides have expessed their sides to the fullest, multiple times. Time to move on in my opinion 

 

 

Fair enough. That should apply to you as well since you have made several derogatory jabs towards "a novel way to massively improve SQ" crowd. Your feelings are clear on the matter. No need to prattle on about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, brother love said:

you have made several derogatory jabs towards "a novel way to massively improve SQ" crowd. Your feelings are clear on the matter. No need to prattle on about it.

 

That was harmless joking around... sincere apologies if it offended you or anyone else.

 

This is a computer audio forum... And I am a notorious CA tinkerer myself...

 

As @The Computer Audiophile says, "This is a fun hobby. Nobody is saving babies  or killing  puppies [here]."

 

Let's please move on and get back to discussing other things HQPlayer related...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Still in love with multibits dac sounds , i wonder what HQP PCM filter will be near with my HOLO as the 

old Good sounding Digimaster filter of the first generation of Wadia ( 2000/ 9/x64).

non apodizing perhaps?
 

PC audio /Roon + HQPLAYER / HOLO Spring 2 / / DIY AD1 SET tube amp  /  DIY Altec 2 way horn Speaker

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick question on configuration. I am going to move Roon off my HQPlayer Embedded server machine and put it on its own machine.  Right now, my music resides on the HQPlayer machine (4 TB SSD).  For efficiency, should I leave my music on the HQPlayer machine, or move it to the Roon machine where the Roon library resides? My intuition says to leave it on the HQPlayer machine to avoid another trip over the network thru the switch before HQPlayer processes the music file. Or maybe it really doesn't matter.

 

Thanks,

 

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, sledwards said:

My intuition says to leave it on the HQPlayer machine to avoid another trip over the network thru the switch before HQPlayer processes the music file.

 

Exactly for the reasons mentioned I do it like this, see picture. 👍

 

fis-Audio-PC-Musicplayer-Renderer.png?w=

Grigg Audio Solutions Owner

StreamFidelitys Setup

Sonus Faber Amati Futura | T + A M10 | T + A SDV 3100 HV | fis Audio PC | HFX RipNAS Solid V4 | GigaWatt PC2-EVO + | Solidsteel HJ-3 / HY-A

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...