Jump to content
IGNORED

HQPlayer - Favorite settings?


miguelito

Recommended Posts

I apologize if this has already been asked and answered, but can someone please explain to me the technical benefits of converting PCM source material to DSD using HQPlayer?

 

I'd be especially interested to know how it would benefit a DAC which uses the ESS Sabre ES 9018.

 

Thanks...

 

Yes, it has been asked and answered over and over in various threads here on CA. Rather than trying to mix those discussions into this thread, it would be worth your while to just do a Google search on the ESS Sabre ES 9018 plus DSD, SDM and PCM. I think what you'll find (with exceptions for exactly how certain DACs are implemented) is that the 9018 can benefit from upsampling all content to DSD128 or DSD256 in HQPlayer. As long as your DAC accepts these inputs, the benefits are a result of a) moving hard processing work away from the DAC and into your computer, b) reducing noise that such upsampling might introduce in the DAC, c) allowing you to benefit from Jussi/Miska's great filters, and d) feeding the final step in the D/A process what it naturally processes anyway. Others have answered this in a much more technically detailed fashion, but as someone who uses HQPlayer with a ESS Sabre ES 9018-based DAC, I can tell you the benefits to me were very audible.

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

Link to comment
I apologize if this has already been asked and answered, but can someone please explain to me the technical benefits of converting PCM source material to DSD using HQPlayer?

 

I'd be especially interested to know how it would benefit a DAC which uses the ESS Sabre ES 9018.

 

Thanks...

 

The short version: if you feed your ESS chip PCM, it upsamples it 1-4 times to 352 or 384k sample rates, then converts it to DSD, and then to analog. In ESS DACs, if you feed the chip DSD you skip these steps. You also get the benefit of the HQP filters and modulators, which many consider superior to those inside the DAC chip.

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment
I apologize if this has already been asked and answered, but can someone please explain to me the technical benefits of converting PCM source material to DSD using HQPlayer?

 

...

 

Why would someone want to convert PCM source to DSD?

 

It's simply yet another potential source of degradation of original source material; best to keep PCM as PCM and DSD as DSD to avoid that.

 

I see the point of converting PCM to DSD for SA-CD physical media, as that's a major requirement for the medium. We're beyond that restriction now, however.

Link to comment

It would be great if @Miska or others can chime in. Are there any benefits or cons for converting DSD64 -> DXD through HQplayer when using Chord Hugo or TT as it will bypass the decimation (DoP decoding process) of the Spartan FPGA, versus PDSD64 ->

DSD128 which will be decimated by Hugo.

 

Hugo_bloc_diagram.jpg

Desktop: AMD Server(AL Roon Core/ HQP NAA)  >>  Fiber >> DAVE >> (2 x HFC Trinity Helix) >> LCD-5/(KGSSHV Carbon CC + CRBN)/ Omega CAMs [Everything plugged into Sound Applications TT7]

 

Link to comment

Folks, be careful re the ESS chips. They'll still benefit from Miska's filters and modulators. But the ESS chips further upsample even higher rate DSD to around 40+MHz levels internally, so you won't completely bypass the DAC's internal processing.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
Why would someone want to convert PCM source to DSD?

 

It's simply yet another potential source of degradation of original source material; best to keep PCM as PCM and DSD as DSD to avoid that.

 

I see the point of converting PCM to DSD for SA-CD physical media, as that's a major requirement for the medium. We're beyond that restriction now, however.

 

The short explanation is that your DAC almost certainly performs the same conversion internally. The object is to do it better in computer software than inside the chip in your DAC.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment

Here is a good explanation that Miska posted in the Roon Labs Community Forum, but is very applicable to this discussion:

 

Just to explain some major differences between how typical DAC chips work vs how HQPlayer processes signal...

 

When RedBook content is played, typical DAC chip processing path looks like this:

[2x 63-tap FIR] -> [2x 31-tap FIR] -> [2x 15-tap FIR] -> [16x sample&hold] -> [3rd order sigma-delta modulator]

 

So after first stage rate is 88.2k, after second stage 176.4k and after third stage 352.8k. After that point, every sample is repeated 16 times (sample&hold aka zero-order-hold) reaching 5.6 MHz rate before entering the modulator. Samples are either 24-bit integer in older/inexpensive chips and 32-bit integer in modern more expensive chips. This processing means there are some notable rounding errors involved. There are also mirror images of the signal around every multiple of 352.8k rate. Each FIR stage has about half the taps, because it has half the number of master clock cycles to spend vs sample period. All processing is run synchronously to the sampling rate.

 

If you input at "2x" rate of 88.2/96, the first FIR stage is dropped out, if you input at "4x" rate of 176.4/192, the first and second FIR stages are dropped out. If you can input at "8x" rate of 352./384, all the FIR sections are dropped and only remaining S&H and SDM are in use.

 

What you can do with HQPlayer is alternatively:

[128x polyphase or closed-form] -> [7th order sigma-delta modulator]

for DSD output. Or alternatively:

[8x polyphase or closed-form]

for PCM output straight into S&H stage or a ladder DAC (like Metrum for example).

 

Samples are 64-bit floating point (with 80-bit used where necessary). There are significantly more clock cycles per sample available due to higher clock speed - 4 GHz CPU clock vs 25 or 50 MHz DAC clock. Processing is also asynchronous, so when necessary, the processing can decide to go back in time and recalculate things if it thinks that some adjustments need to be made, availability of large RAM enables this in practice.

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

Link to comment
Folks, be careful re the ESS chips. They'll still benefit from Miska's filters and modulators. But the ESS chips further upsample even higher rate DSD to around 40+MHz levels internally, so you won't completely bypass the DAC's internal processing.

 

What I read is that DSD is in ES9018 further processed, but no decimation occurs during that processing. So it is not like converting to PCM. Advantage is possibility to use volume control.

 

I could compare the level of improvement when sending PCM tracks as DSD to some ESS9018 based DACs (my Gustard DAC-X10, Oppo HA-1 and Yulong DA8, but also the small Geek Out 450) and to iFi Nano iDSD and Denon DA-300 USB, which allow to bypass digital processing of DSD signal completely. IMO improvement was on the same level. Sound quality of these DACs was IMO more affected by other things, like USB implementation or final analog stage between DAC chip and analog output.

i7 11850H + RTX A2000 Win11 HQPlayer ► Topping HS02 ► 2x iFi iSilencer ► SMSL D300 ► DIY headamp DHA1 ► HiFiMan HE-500
Link to comment
It would be great if @Miska or others can chime in. Are there any benefits or cons for converting DSD64 -> DXD through HQplayer when using Chord Hugo or TT as it will bypass the decimation (DoP decoding process) of the Spartan FPGA, versus PDSD64 ->

DSD128 which will be decimated by Hugo.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]23866[/ATTACH]

 

For these DACs it is probably better result to output at maximum PCM rate supported by the DAC, since the SDM is not preserved and is decimated to lower rate. Hugo and such support up to 384k PCM. The new Mojo supports up to 768k PCM.

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to comment
Why would someone want to convert PCM source to DSD?

 

It's simply yet another potential source of degradation of original source material; best to keep PCM as PCM and DSD as DSD to avoid that.

 

I see the point of converting PCM to DSD for SA-CD physical media, as that's a major requirement for the medium. We're beyond that restriction now, however.

 

Iain, very simplified explanation from firedog appears just above your post.

It contains the point you are asking for.

 

I thought the previous post to which you're referring, addressed that specific issue quite well. However, my post was intended as a more general query of PCM v DSD preferences.

 

There seems to be a preoccupation in this thread with DSD that seems quite odd. If you have a well-mastered source of enjoyable music, what possible difference could the transfer protocol (PCM/DSD) make?

 

Frankly, I can't tell any difference in sound quality between > 24/176.4 PCM or 64fs DSD.

Link to comment
I thought the previous post to which you're referring, addressed that specific issue quite well. However, my post was intended as a more general query of PCM v DSD preferences.

 

There seems to be a preoccupation in this thread with DSD that seems quite odd. If you have a well-mastered source of enjoyable music, what possible difference could the transfer protocol (PCM/DSD) make?

 

Frankly, I can't tell any difference in sound quality between > 24/176.4 PCM or 64fs DSD.

 

I think you're missing the point. The idea is to bypass the DAC's internal processing, and the final step is conversion from PCM > SDM / DSD. So if you're still sending PCM, you're not *completely* bypassing the DAC's own processing.

 

As Jussi points out above, for some DACs this is not true; i.e., they decimate even DSD upon receipt - in which case, it's better just to send the highest rate PCM the DAC will accept.

John Walker - IT Executive

Headphone - SonicTransporter i9 running Roon Server > Netgear Orbi > Blue Jeans Cable Ethernet > mRendu Roon endpoint > Topping D90 > Topping A90d > Dan Clark Expanse / HiFiMan H6SE v2 / HiFiman Arya Stealth

Home Theater / Music -SonicTransporter i9 running Roon Server > Netgear Orbi > Blue Jeans Cable HDMI > Denon X3700h > Anthem Amp for front channels > Revel F208-based 5.2.4 Atmos speaker system

Link to comment

Iain, when our goal is the best sound quality, it is better to take a bigger picture than some transport protocol between computer and DAC. As briefly explained in the previous posts (and in many forum threads in previous years), with HQPlayer type of solution we rather look at the complete digital processing starting in SW player and ending in D/A stage of the DAC.

 

Current delta-sigma DAC chips do much digital processing when PCM signal is coming to their input. As more explained few posts before, upsampling and delta-sigma modulation is performed. That's not conversion of digital to analog, that's digital data pre-processing in DAC chip - it is done yet before digital data is sent to final D/A stage of DAC chip. Quality of this pre-processing is determined by resolution, power and computing capabilities of DAC chip itself.

 

It is possible to perform the same or similar type of digital pre-processing in computer - in SW players like HQPlayer, Foobar2000 with suitable plugins, or JRiver. Doing so in SW player by converting PCM to DSD has the effect of none or less digital processing in DAC chip. That's the point. Then the sonic result - which solution is better - depends on quality comparison of these two digital processing solutions - HW solution in DAC chip or SW solution in our computer. Processing power and resolution of our computers is higher than of DAC chips, therefore SW solution has the ability to provide higher quality result when using high quality algorithms.

 

Hopefully helps ... Try to use forum search for some terms used in previous posts. Using more sources of information can help you to easier understand the topic.

i7 11850H + RTX A2000 Win11 HQPlayer ► Topping HS02 ► 2x iFi iSilencer ► SMSL D300 ► DIY headamp DHA1 ► HiFiMan HE-500
Link to comment
Iain, when our goal is the best sound quality, it is better to take a bigger picture than some transport protocol between computer and DAC. As briefly explained in the previous posts (and in many forum threads in previous years), with HQPlayer type of solution we rather look at the complete digital processing starting in SW player and ending in D/A stage of the DAC.

 

Current delta-sigma DAC chips do much digital processing when PCM signal is coming to their input. As more explained few posts before, upsampling and delta-sigma modulation is performed. That's not conversion of digital to analog, that's digital data pre-processing in DAC chip - it is done yet before digital data is sent to final D/A stage of DAC chip. Quality of this pre-processing is determined by resolution, power and computing capabilities of DAC chip itself.

 

It is possible to perform the same or similar type of digital pre-processing in computer - in SW players like HQPlayer, Foobar2000 with suitable plugins, or JRiver. Doing so in SW player by converting PCM to DSD has the effect of none or less digital processing in DAC chip. That's the point. Then the sonic result - which solution is better - depends on quality comparison of these two digital processing solutions - HW solution in DAC chip or SW solution in our computer. Processing power and resolution of our computers is higher than of DAC chips, therefore SW solution has the ability to provide higher quality result when using high quality algorithms.

 

Hopefully helps ... Try to use forum search for some terms used in previous posts. Using more sources of information can help you to easier understand the topic.

 

I understand the problem quite well, which is why I don't use external DAC's. I simply send the data over my LAN to my Denon AVR-3313 and let it sort it.

 

You should try that approach. Works quite well and retains the original transfer protocol characteristics.

 

BTW, my Denon AVR isn't cheap rubbish. It's a quality bit of kit.

Link to comment

Your Denon AVR doesn't contain a DAC chip? :) Where the conversion of digital to analog occurs in your case? Do you mean the DAC chip of your A/V receiver is something better than one in our external DACs? Do you mean that what we wrote about digital processing in DAC chip is not relevant to DAC of your A/V receiver?

 

If you want to discuss digital transports and difference between dedicated external DAC and A/V receiver, please start a new thread. What happened is that this thread is hijacked by your question and our reaction.

i7 11850H + RTX A2000 Win11 HQPlayer ► Topping HS02 ► 2x iFi iSilencer ► SMSL D300 ► DIY headamp DHA1 ► HiFiMan HE-500
Link to comment
Here is a good explanation that Miska posted in the Roon Labs Community Forum, but is very applicable to this discussion:

 

Sdolezalek, thank you, I hadn't seen that particular very nice explanation from Miska.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
What I read is that DSD is in ES9018 further processed, but no decimation occurs during that processing. So it is not like converting to PCM. Advantage is possibility to use volume control.

 

I could compare the level of improvement when sending PCM tracks as DSD to some ESS9018 based DACs (my Gustard DAC-X10, Oppo HA-1 and Yulong DA8, but also the small Geek Out 450) and to iFi Nano iDSD and Denon DA-300 USB, which allow to bypass digital processing of DSD signal completely. IMO improvement was on the same level. Sound quality of these DACs was IMO more affected by other things, like USB implementation or final analog stage between DAC chip and analog output.

 

Bogi, of course there is no decimation, which is *down*sampling. There is interpolation, which is also a lossy process (and thus the possibility that people like Miska can do it better than a DAC chip)..

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
Bogi, of course there is no decimation, which is *down*sampling. There is interpolation, which is also a lossy process (and thus the possibility that people like Miska can do it better than a DAC chip)..

 

Jud, I understand your point. But still, sending PCM as DSD to my DAC brings me sound quality I am not able to reach otherwise with PCM recordings. Nobody can say how a Sabre DAC would sound if it would be possible to avoid that rest of digital processing ... only then we would know how much is really lost. My personal conclusion after my few listening comparisons is that the improvement level is comparable with PCM179* type of DAC chips. This wouldn't be a decision point for me if I would wish to buy a new DAC.

i7 11850H + RTX A2000 Win11 HQPlayer ► Topping HS02 ► 2x iFi iSilencer ► SMSL D300 ► DIY headamp DHA1 ► HiFiMan HE-500
Link to comment

I really appreciate everyone who answered my original question about the technical advantages of software PCM>DSD conversion for ES9018 DACs.

 

A follow up question: converting PCM to DSD 128 with HQPlayer using my mid-2010 Mac Mini (2.4 core 2 Duo) seems to max out the CPU usage on my Mac. The Activity Monitor meters top out and the CPU percentage shows as more than 100%.

 

I'm guessing that this is to be avoided, and I need to convert to DSD 64? If this is indeed the case, am I still reaping the advantages outlined by the posts above? Or in this case would I be better off converting to the highest PCM rate supported by my DAC (384).

 

Thanks again for the help and apologies for the thread diversion (I do know how to use search, honest I do).

Link to comment
I really appreciate everyone who answered my original question about the technical advantages of software PCM>DSD conversion for ES9018 DACs.

 

A follow up question: converting PCM to DSD 128 with HQPlayer using my mid-2010 Mac Mini (2.4 core 2 Duo) seems to max out the CPU usage on my Mac. The Activity Monitor meters top out and the CPU percentage shows as more than 100%.

 

I'm guessing that this is to be avoided, and I need to convert to DSD 64? If this is indeed the case, am I still reaping the advantages outlined by the posts above? Or in this case would I be better off converting to the highest PCM rate supported by my DAC (384).

 

Thanks again for the help and apologies for the thread diversion (I do know how to use search, honest I do).

 

 

If your Mac is still able to upsample to DSD128 without dropouts, I would use it that way. Sound quality is our main goal.

 

In the case you cannot do PCM to DSD128 (I think at least with closed form and 2s filters it could be possible), then I would use DSD64 as the 2nd option. But make your own listening comparisons, that's IMO more important for you than my opinion.

i7 11850H + RTX A2000 Win11 HQPlayer ► Topping HS02 ► 2x iFi iSilencer ► SMSL D300 ► DIY headamp DHA1 ► HiFiMan HE-500
Link to comment
A follow up question: converting PCM to DSD 128 with HQPlayer using my mid-2010 Mac Mini (2.4 core 2 Duo) seems to max out the CPU usage on my Mac. The Activity Monitor meters top out and the CPU percentage shows as more than 100%.

 

Note, for those meters that can go over 100%, the 100% scale is per CPU core. So the maximum load for a quad-core CPU would be 400% in that case...

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to comment
For these DACs it is probably better result to output at maximum PCM rate supported by the DAC, since the SDM is not preserved and is decimated to lower rate. Hugo and such support up to 384k PCM. The new Mojo supports up to 768k PCM.

 

@Miska, thank you for confirming my thoughts. PCM 384K, NS5, Poly-sinc-shrt-mp seems to give me the best results for Hugo TT for both PCM and DSD material. the CPU usage is very low (65%) without pipelining or CUDA.

 

I wish you had not mentioned Mojo does 768k... I have been happy with iDSD as portable DAC, Tidal->DSD256, poly-sinc-shrt-mp, ADSM7 works so well on my MBP without the fan coming on and without CUDA or pipelining (CPU 125%), a perfect setup when I am traveling.

 

Now I got to to try Mojo...

Desktop: AMD Server(AL Roon Core/ HQP NAA)  >>  Fiber >> DAVE >> (2 x HFC Trinity Helix) >> LCD-5/(KGSSHV Carbon CC + CRBN)/ Omega CAMs [Everything plugged into Sound Applications TT7]

 

Link to comment
@Miska, thank you for confirming my thoughts. PCM 384K, NS5, Poly-sinc-shrt-mp seems to give me the best results for Hugo TT for both PCM and DSD material. the CPU usage is very low (65%) without pipelining or CUDA.

 

I wish you had not mentioned Mojo does 768k... I have been happy with iDSD as portable DAC, Tidal->DSD256, poly-sinc-shrt-mp, ADSM7 works so well on my MBP without the fan coming on and without CUDA or pipelining (CPU 125%), a perfect setup when I am traveling.

 

Now I got to to try Mojo...

 

My settings for the Hugo are the same and seem to be optimal as well.

PS Audio P5 Power Plant>HQ Player Mac Book Pro BootCamp Win10>NAA Mac Mini BootCamp Win 10>REGEN Green>REGEN Amber>IFI iDSD Micro>BHSE>Stax SR-009

Link to comment
  • 2 years later...
  • 2 weeks later...

May I know what is 

 

Poly Sinc Shrt mp 2s ?

 

I am loving it so much from my PC built and feeding directly into AudioGD R2R7.  The craziest thing is that this amanero384 is noisy when switch to other DSD512, and I observed the sever effects from Jriver.  Audirvana 3.2 can’t do anything DSD512 to this DAC in Windows 10/64 bits.  Foobar...I am not sure that it is working correctly LoL ?

 

HQplayer somehow minimizes this scheeching noises when track changing in DSD512.  Then completely disappear when song is playing, with superbly different sound quality between filters.  I have been trying different filters now, some will have stuttering like it isn’t doing something correctly, but that above is my favorite so far.

 

my build is I7-8700, and no Cuda.  Should I look into a Cuda ? Lol

Link to comment

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...