Hq player playlist

[Miska]

is that true in the beta release too? doesn't seem to work for me or i am misunderstanding you?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]29513[/ATTACH]

 

Open the File-menu and select "Library..."

[Miska]

it wouldn't be faster than right clicking the song in library view and select play...i don't understand why you want people to have to "2 step" to play a song...

 

That is two step too and slower, especially with touch pad than double-click + F9.

[beerandmusic]

That is two step too and slower, especially with touch pad than double-click + F9.

 

Inre DESKTOP (not touchpad), what is easiest way to play a different song when you are in middle of one song. This is something many people do regularly, and should be intuitive and easy....most players, you simply double click the song and away they go.

 

I believe, but maybe i am wrong, the only way to do this with "DESKTOP" is to double click the song, go to a totally different pane, look for the song (at bottom, of who knows how long current play list is, so may require scrolling too), and then double-click it in the other pane?

 

Am i mistaken, or is that the simplest way?

 

Don't you agree that is NOT intuitive and not easy as every other player out there, for this very common task?

 

Like i said, i love the SQ, but if you continue to contend your interface is great, you will limit your audience...jmo...trying to help both of us with what i consider reasonable request.

 

If you made just that ONE option, i would become a customer, and I think others may feel the same way...or at least your interface wouldn't scare many away as quickly...it is NOT intuitive.

 

If you "REALLY" think double-clicking a song to add to a playlist is intuitive, then make it an option where people have their choice?

 

Even your best supporters, of which i consider myself one, do not like your interface. You will find me praising the SQ everywhere...but in the same message, saying what others say....

[Miska]

I believe, but maybe i am wrong, the only way to do this with "DESKTOP" is to double click the song, go to a totally different pane, look for the song (at bottom, of who knows how long current play list is, so may require scrolling too), and then double-click it in the other pane?

 

No, single click selects a track. But most likely you are already listening last item on the playlist?

 

But you can script the action, first call "hqp-control localhost -q <new file>" and then call "hqp-control localhost --next".

 

Don't you agree that is NOT intuitive and not easy as every other player out there, for this very common task?

 

I don't know, never needed such. I don't use other players. Last time I used some other player was in the days of Winamp and that was extremely annoying player.

 

I double-click an album, hit play, walk to the listening chair and listen the album through. Or switch to another desktop workspace and do work while listening. I touch or look at the player GUI like roughly once per hour for 30 secs or so.

 

Like i said, i love the SQ, but if you continue to contend your interface is great, you will limit your audience...jmo...trying to help both of us with what i consider reasonable request.

 

I have not yet found a nice way to do what you are asking. I just spent two hours trying different things, but didn't yet find a way that would work.

 

If you "REALLY" think double-clicking a song to add to a playlist is intuitive, then make it an option where people have their choice?

 

How would you add items to the playlist then? I mean adding new items to the list while not disturbing ongoing playback?

 

What you are describing is not using playlist at all, it is more like "single file player".

[Solstice380]

@beerandmusic - dude, you seem to need less beer and more music. If you ask how to do something instead of trying to tell the developer what to do and how to do it, you will get instructions when followed will do pretty much everything you want. I'm just watching this conversation and already would have lost patience. Bless Jussi for trying to explain the thought that went into why HQP works the way it does, not just how to do things. Try to get that out of Apple if you tell them it doesn't work like an Android phone, but should!

[beerandmusic]

No, single click selects a track. But most likely you are already listening last item on the playlist?

 

But you can script the action, first call "hqp-control localhost -q <new file>" and then call "hqp-control localhost --next".

 

 

 

I don't know, never needed such. I don't use other players. Last time I used some other player was in the days of Winamp and that was extremely annoying player.

 

I double-click an album, hit play, walk to the listening chair and listen the album through. Or switch to another desktop workspace and do work while listening. I touch or look at the player GUI like roughly once per hour for 30 secs or so.

 

 

 

I have not yet found a nice way to do what you are asking. I just spent two hours trying different things, but didn't yet find a way that would work.

 

 

 

How would you add items to the playlist then? I mean adding new items to the list while not disturbing ongoing playback?

 

What you are describing is not using playlist at all, it is more like "single file player".

 

i will try a few players and get back with you on what i think the vast majority of people would consider intuitive and user friendly...yours is the only player i have ever tried (and i have tried about 10), that is 'awkward'...none of the others seem awkward...some easier than others, but none awkward.

[beerandmusic]

^^^ seems most players, after reading in library have a pane where you can tree browse and select songs by genre, artist, OR from a playlist.

 

They don't force you into "playlist" mode.

 

Where i understand that may be require a lot of work on your behalf, i would be content just browsing the tree, just so long as it didn't force me into "playlist" mode as a default.

 

Wouldn't that be relatively simple, to just have a checkbox in the settings, where someone could pick "playlist mode" or "player mode" and whichever you selected would determine if you doubleclick a file if it send the file and started playing that song immediately or that it would simply add it to a playlist?

 

I bet if you would make the default be "player mode", that less people would complain about the interface...jmo

 

I, for one, would buy the program as is, today, if it had that simple option. (i think simple, but maybe its more work than i realize).

[beerandmusic]

^^^ Media monkey fits a lot of information on their screen, seems well organized, is fast and intuitive, and doesn't default to a required playlist to play a song. imho it is a very decent interface....

GUI interfaces may not be your thing, but if you could team up with someone, you could create a killer player...jmo...but if you are content with how your player is viewed by most (e.g. great sq with lousy interface), you will likely be lost in the dust in time, if you don't team up with someone...jmo

windows users are in dire need of a decent DSD player without a $500 price tag.

[Miska]

^^^ seems most players, after reading in library have a pane where you can tree browse and select songs by genre, artist, OR from a playlist.

 

They don't force you into "playlist" mode.

 

Sounds strange, how do you edit the playlist/playback queue then?

 

Wouldn't that be relatively simple, to just have a checkbox in the settings, where someone could pick "playlist mode" or "player mode" and whichever you selected would determine if you doubleclick a file if it send the file and started playing that song immediately or that it would simply add it to a playlist?

 

I just fail to understand who wants to use a player that plays a single track and then stops, unless user jumps in every time to select the next track.

[beerandmusic]

Sounds strange, how do you edit the playlist/playback queue then?

 

I just fail to understand who wants to use a player that plays a single track and then stops, unless user jumps in every time to select the next track.

 

I am not going to continue to try to convince you. If you took the time to see how all other players work, you would see that is not the default method...e.g. force the user to create a play list... I know i am not the only one that complains about your interface....maybe i will wait for roon to fix their playing ability, or A+ to make windows version, or maybe even use a aurendar once they get a windows control point...i just know for now I am not a happy camper and will just have to wait for the manufacturers to catch up to customer desirability. Resonic or media monkey or one of the others windows players may support native dsd in future.

[Miska]

I am not going to continue to try to convince you. If you took the time to see how all other players work, you would see that is not the default method...e.g. force the user to create a play list... I know i am not the only one that complains about your interface....maybe i will wait for roon to fix their playing ability, or A+ to make windows version, or maybe even use a aurendar once they get a windows control point...i just know for now I am not a happy camper and will just have to wait for the manufacturers to catch up to customer desirability. Resonic or media monkey or one of the others windows players may support native dsd in future.

 

Seems like you are not happy with any of the players... Problem is that pretty much everyone has different kinds of desires, and sometimes those are even conflicting with each other.

 

How about not using playlist mode, but album transport mode? So instead of expanding the album in library view, double-click the album so it ends up loaded to the transport and then single-click on the track below in the track list view? This is is actually less clicks than expanding those tree nodes and if you have enough display resolution usually all the album tracks are visible at once in the track list (you can of course further adjust the splitter between the two views.

 

Anyway, for the next version I've now changed library view so that single click adds item to playlist and double-click starts playing the item. When the double-clicked item is a track, it will be played (so last item on the track list) and if it is an album it will be played (from first item on the track list).

[firedog]

I am not going to continue to try to convince you. If you took the time to see how all other players work, you would see that is not the default method...e.g. force the user to create a play list... I know i am not the only one that complains about your interface....maybe i will wait for roon to fix their playing ability, or A+ to make windows version, or maybe even use a aurendar once they get a windows control point...i just know for now I am not a happy camper and will just have to wait for the manufacturers to catch up to customer desirability. Resonic or media monkey or one of the others windows players may support native dsd in future.

 

beerandmusic-

 

HQP is basically designed for "album playback mode". That's b/c that's how our friend Miska listens, and that's what he wants to design. You want to listen in another playback mode(s), which don't interest him. His prerogative. He doesn't have to make his player all things to all people if he doesn't want to. His choice, and his decision about whether that costs him sales and even if it does, does he care? Not b/c he's a jerk, but b/c he's one guy and has his player optimized for how he wants it to work and sound.

Some UI changes a given user may want could possibly compromise the sound of the player, be too time consuming for him to want to implement, or just not interest him.

 

If you aren't happy with his choices, you are free not to buy the software. Personally, I also was unhappy with the UI, but bought it anyway because of SQ. I used it as my secondary player, not my main one. Then Roon integration happened. Immediately bought Roon - just for the HQP integration. Otherwise I would have stayed with Jriver/JRemote as my main player. As I said, to me for a relatively small amount of money, I'm now getting the best SQ and best UI on the market. You are free to disagree.

I don't see the point of making a running commentary about how it isn't the way to go and costs too much. You are free to listen how you want, you aren't going to convince other people to agree with you, and I doubt you will convince Miska he isn't developing/selling his product the way that makes the most sense to him.

Lots of us find the HQP/Roon combo compelling and worth the cost. I'd bet sales of both softwares have increased b/c of the integration.

I hope you enjoy waiting for the perfect software at the perfect price. Somehow I get the feeling you will never be satisfied. Maybe you should get into Foobar 2000 and all the component add ons. You can make it do almost anything and look like almost anything you want if you are willing to put time into it. Lots of "free" advice and plugins and UI examples available for download and implementation.

[kilroy]

..

[beerandmusic]

HQP is basically designed for "album playback mode". That's b/c that's how our friend Miska listens, and that's what he wants to design.

AGREE, he designed for his purposes

 

You want to listen in another playback mode(s), which don't interest him. His prerogative. He doesn't have to make his player all things to all people if he doesn't want to. His choice, and his decision about whether that costs him sales and even if it does, does he care? Not b/c he's a jerk, but b/c he's one guy and has his player optimized for how he wants it to work and sound..

Of course it is his perogative, and I never inferred he is a jerk. On the contrary, I have great respect for him and for what he has accomplished. I also do not believe I am a jerk for making a suggestion, that I feel many people would like, including myself.

 

If you aren't happy with his choices, you are free not to buy the software. Personally, I also was unhappy with the UI, but bought it anyway because of SQ. I used it as my secondary player, not my main one.

AGREE, like I have said, even his best supporters, including myself that often praises the SQ in the threads don’t like his GUI. I believe my expectations would be much less than most of the others that complain…I don’t care about all the fancy graphics, lyrics, history, or other visuals…I just want something that is “easy” to use….he has the SQ down already...I have no problems making suggestions in hopes that he will accommodate.

 

If he won’t, I will wait for another product..i know my choices, but it can’t hurt for me to ask for what I believe is a simple software update. How do you think authors of anything make updates….from people making suggestions…I am sorry you have an issue with me making a suggestion.

 

Then Roon integration happened. Immediately bought Roon - just for the HQP integration. Otherwise I would have stayed with Jriver/JRemote as my main player. As I said, to me for a relatively small amount of money, I'm now getting the best SQ and best UI on the market. You are free to disagree.

I know I am free to disagree, and you will probably see me disagreeing in no less than 50 messages on this and other forums, and I will continue to post my disagreements…not on the fact that it is the best UI and best SQ, but that people shouldn’t have to pay $700 for it, and shouldn’t need 2 different programs to do it. Where you may feel the price is “relatively small amount”, I think the vast majority of people will disagree. Very few people “relatively” will consider 2 programs at a cost of $700 is reasonable. (relative to all the professed audiophiles in the world). $500 by itself is crazy high for a player, especially when people know that it has been sold for $350….jmo I think it is also foolish to spend $500 when they can get HQP for a third of the cost that sounds better. Why would anyone spend $500 when they can get better sound for much less….so then, imho, $700 and using 2 programs is the only logical choice for people that have money….i personally will wait, and I hope the other audiophiles will to…we lived this long without it, we can wait a little longer…

 

You are free to listen how you want, you aren't going to convince other people to agree with you, and I doubt you will convince Miska he isn't developing/selling his product the way that makes the most sense to him. Somehow I get the feeling you will never be satisfied.

Agree to disagree, I am sure many will speak out and manufacturers (whether it will be Miska, Roon, or someone else) someone will listen and that a good product is forth coming, that doesn’t cost $700 and doesn’t require 2 programs to do it.

 

I hope you enjoy waiting for the perfect software at the perfect price. Maybe you should get into Foobar 2000 and all the component add ons. You can make it do almost anything and look like almost anything you want if you are willing to put time into it. Lots of "free" advice and plugins and UI examples available for download and implementation

 

I am sorry that you hope I enjoy waiting, or that anyone wishes negativity on anyone.

Foobar is one of SEVERAL players I am using now, while I wait and complain, and will continue to complain.

[beerandmusic]

PS, i think ROON would become much more successful if they licensed HQPLAYER to use within their program (that or got better developers to improve their SQ), and sold the player for half the price or less. Just think if it was a $100 program how many people would jump on, that they won't get now. Trust me, it's just a matter of time where they will face some stiff competition for much less. Do you really think the $500 price tag will stick for what their product does...not a chance, and if they are smart, they will look to "stay" successful.

 

Have i ever been wrong...maybe once or twice...but i am right much more than i am wrong... So many people (probably including yourself) disagreed with me about the longevity of DSD and that DACS and amps would be made to support it.

 

I have been in the technical world for 50 years, and I have seen how things advance. Am i willing to wait..yes...sometimes. I don't always have to be on the leading edge. I waited for CD Recorders to be less than $2K before i bought one.

[hornytoad]

PS, i think ROON would become much more successful if they licensed HQPLAYER to use within their program (that or got better developers to improve their SQ), and sold the player for half the price or less. Just think if it was a $100 program how many people would jump on, that they won't get now. Trust me, it's just a matter of time where they will face some stiff competition for much less. Do you really think the $500 price tag will stick for what their product does...not a chance, and if they are smart, they will look to "stay" successful.

 

Have i ever been wrong...maybe once or twice...but i am right much more than i am wrong... So many people (probably including yourself) disagreed with me about the longevity of DSD and that DACS and amps would be made to support it.

 

I have been in the technical world for 50 years, and I have seen how things advance. Am i willing to wait..yes...sometimes. I don't always have to be on the leading edge. I waited for CD Recorders to be less than $2K before i bought one.

 

I will not buy HQ player unless it gets intergrated somehow in Roon . Maybe this will never happen .

[beerandmusic]

I will not buy HQ player unless it gets intergrated somehow in Roon . Maybe this will never happen .

 

I would buy HQPlayer if Miska made an option for where you could click and play. doesn't need to even be default, just an option. I am not in love with the interface, but everything else pales in comparison to SQ.

 

I certainly won't ever by ROON for $500, when their SQ is inferior to HQPLAYER at 1/3 of the price.

 

I will use audiogate and foobar until HQPlayer supports "click and play" or until something better comes along...

 

Although audiogate sounds very close SQ wise to HQPlayer, and it's interface isn't much better, but at least they allow "click and play", it doesn't support native dsd unless you have a korg dac...but even audiogate at 192K sounds better than foobar or jriver at native dsd. Not sure why....

[Miska]

Where you may feel the price is “relatively small amount”, I think the vast majority of people will disagree. Very few people “relatively” will consider 2 programs at a cost of $700 is reasonable. (relative to all the professed audiophiles in the world). $500 by itself is crazy high for a player, especially when people know that it has been sold for $350….jmo I think it is also foolish to spend $500 when they can get HQP for a third of the cost that sounds better. Why would anyone spend $500 when they can get better sound for much less….so then, imho, $700 and using 2 programs is the only logical choice for people that have money….i personally will wait, and I hope the other audiophiles will to…we lived this long without it, we can wait a little longer…

 

I personally find it depressing when people spend over ten times more on hardware than they spend on software and still think it is the software that is expensive. Audiophile hardware typically has about 10% of the sales price in BOM costs. And the amount of R&D effort spent on the hardware design is much less than HQPlayer's. Even just hosting the HQPlayer web pages / downloads costs money. Signing keys used to sign the binaries costs money and so on...

 

If I could ask enough more and keep the same sales volumes, I could possibly hire someone to work on the GUI while I work on the DSP side.

 

Agree to disagree, I am sure many will speak out and manufacturers (whether it will be Miska, Roon, or someone else) someone will listen and that a good product is forth coming, that doesn’t cost $700 and doesn’t require 2 programs to do it.

 

Some people would say modularity is a good think. Instead of having CD-tuner-amp combo (like Naim Uniti's) separates could be a good thing. From many perspectives. On software side, it is the Unix philosophy.

[Miska]

I will not buy HQ player unless it gets intergrated somehow in Roon . Maybe this will never happen .

 

Extremely unlikely to happen. The current approach is much better. You don't need to run HQPlayer which needs a lot of CPU power in the same machine or room where you run Roon. You could run Roon Server together with HQPlayer though and have the GUI elsewhere though.

 

I'm usually running Roon on my Mac Mini on OS X while HQPlayer is running on my Linux server with Xeon E5 CPU. And now also in the newer server with i7 6950X CPU. And I can easily select from Roon which of the two HQPlayer's I'd like to use. And then audio can be going somewhere else using a NAA.

 

Much more flexible than integrated solution can ever be.

[hornytoad]

Extremely unlikely to happen. The current approach is much better. You don't need to run HQPlayer which needs a lot of CPU power in the same machine or room where you run Roon. You could run Roon Server together with HQPlayer though and have the GUI elsewhere though.

 

I'm usually running Roon on my Mac Mini on OS X while HQPlayer is running on my Linux server with Xeon E5 CPU. And now also in the newer server with i7 6950X CPU. And I can easily select from Roon which of the two HQPlayer's I'd like to use. And then audio can be going somewhere else using a NAA.

 

Much more flexible than integrated solution can ever be.

 

So how do I Run HQ player on a SonicTransporter I5 ?

It is meant to integrate nicely with the microRendu

which has a HQ player output .

 

I have to run a second computer , don't I ?!?!?!

[Miska]

I would buy HQPlayer if Miska made an option for where you could click and play. doesn't need to even be default, just an option. I am not in love with the interface, but everything else pales in comparison to SQ.

 

I already did, will appear in 3.14.1. Not sure if it makes sense, but it is also easy to revert if people dislike it.

 

But as I said you already have it in the current version if you use the transport in album mode instead of playlist mode.

[Miska]

PS, i think ROON would become much more successful if they licensed HQPLAYER to use within their program (that or got better developers to improve their SQ), and sold the player for half the price or less. Just think if it was a $100 program how many people would jump on, that they won't get now. Trust me, it's just a matter of time where they will face some stiff competition for much less. Do you really think the $500 price tag will stick for what their product does...not a chance, and if they are smart, they will look to "stay" successful.

 

I pay over $500 for many software tools, per year, just to get updates.

 

And I know lot of software that costs way over $10k.

[Miska]

So how do I Run HQ player on a SonicTransporter I5 ?

It is meant to integrate nicely with the microRendu

which has a HQ player output .

 

I don't know what that is.

 

I have to run a second computer , don't I ?!?!?!

 

You can choose if you want to run HQPlayer and Roon on the same machine or separate ones. It is up to you. I already have 12 computers around in the house, so I'm not short on computers.

[hornytoad]

I already did, will appear in 3.14.1. Not sure if it makes sense, but it is also easy to revert if people dislike it.

 

But as I said you already have it in the current version if you use the transport in album mode instead of playlist mode.

 

The SonicTransporter is Linux based but I have no idea if I can install HQ player on it .

I don't think you can .

Maybe someone with more technical knowledge can let me know if I'm right on this .

[Miska]

The SonicTransporter is Linux based but I have no idea if I can install HQ player on it .

I don't think you can .

Maybe someone with more technical knowledge can let me know if I'm right on this .

 

It seems to be some kind of "black box", since the vendor is not including HQPlayer then you are probably better not messing with the contents in order to retain warranty.