Hq player playlist

[Jud]

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 .

 

You bought something advertised as a simple low powered low cost solution that didn't require the user to fool with anything, and you want to use it to run hands on software with lots of user options that needs a high powered computer to take full advantage of its capabilities.

 

Even if you managed to install HQPlayer, which might require a whole different flavor of Linux than is running on your machine, you wouldn't get the best out of it.

 

So yeah, two totally different types of solutions, one low powered and made so the user doesn't have to touch anything so everything is simple as can be, the other high powered and giving you all the options, thus not simple.

[hornytoad]

You bought something advertised as a simple low powered low cost solution that didn't require the user to fool with anything, and you want to use it to run hands on software with lots of user options that needs a high powered computer to take full advantage of its capabilities.

 

Even if you managed to install HQPlayer, which might require a whole different flavor of Linux than is running on your machine, you wouldn't get the best out of it.

 

So yeah, two totally different types of solutions, one low powered and made so the user doesn't have to touch anything so everything is simple as can be, the other high powered and giving you all the options, thus not simple.

 

Just wondering if you could install it . Don't make my question into anything more than that .

[Jud]

Just wondering if you could install it . Don't make my question into anything more than that .

 

Just trying to get you to understand that if you did it would have a good chance of making your Sonic Transporter not work any more, in exchange for an installation of HQP that would most likely not work very well either.

[beerandmusic]

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.

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.

 

 

The thing is with hardware is it's resell-ability.

If i buy a TEAC DAC for $1000, and something better comes along, i can resell the dac in near term....you can't say the same about software so easily. Also with hardware there are manufacturing costs in addition to engineering costs...and many times overhead as well. With software, you can just make available for download with little to no manufacturing or overhead costs and resell-ability. $500 for a player is ludicrous...especially when you can get a much better sounding software for a small fraction. If someone wants to pay $500 for the history on miles davis, then so be it...not this camp. I think price on HQPlayer is "reasonable", but if it had a decent gui, and sold for $99, then you would become rich fast...jmo....

 

Also, not sure you would need to find someone to build a gui from the ground up....team up with someone else already....can't hurt to try to make a few phone calls...The masses don't want to have to deal with 2 programs, regardless if you think it is better or not. I think if you got together with media monkey you could destroy roon (grin).

 

There is also i nothing i would rather see than ROON collapse for their gouging of the market. Makes me think of the idiots that charge $500 for a pill to people that need it to survive.

[beerandmusic]

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.

 

I have been in IT field for over 40 years, so i hear you, and some software is even a LOT higher than what you are talking...(e.g. engineering and manufacturing software)...but never have i heard of a "home" song player costing $500...laughable imho...

I am sure all the other player software authors are bent where they are losing market share to a $500 program, that they will catch up....that or roon will have to come down. It's a competitive world and the masses are not going to jump on a $500 player program...

[beerandmusic]

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).

 

THank you, Thank you....i will buy the program...when will beta be available?

[Miska]

but never have i heard of a "home" song player costing $500...laughable imho...

 

To me, that is much less laughable than a home loudspeaker, amplifier or a DAC (using a COTS DAC chip) and costing over $5000.

 

I am sure all the other player software authors are bent where they are losing market share to a $500 program, that they will catch up....that or roon will have to come down. It's a competitive world and the masses are not going to jump on a $500 player program...

 

Believe me, there are no "masses" in audiophile world, much less in computer audiophile niche. Masses use iTunes, Windows Media Player, Spotify and the likes.

 

To me, the Roon's $500 (I have not checked the prices recently) for "lifetime upgrades" sounds very reasonably priced.

 

HQPlayer is already too cheap, so for 4.x the price will likely go up or move to subscription model with yearly fee. There has been only of inflation correction to the price through the history.

 

I personally don't think or care about "market share". I need HQPlayer myself and I like to make it available for others too. But the ultimate limit is that selling it shouldn't cost more than it makes...

[cmarin]

Miska, you have the patience of a saint! I personally own and thoroughly enjoy HQPlayer. The sound quality it produces in my system is outstanding. Thank you for your creativity and talent, and making such a wonderful piece of software available to us.

[Solstice380]

Miska, you have the patience of a saint! I personally own and thoroughly enjoy HQPlayer. The sound quality it produces in my system is outstanding. Thank you for your creativity and talent, and making such a wonderful piece of software available to us.

 

And at such a reasonable price, IMO!

[firedog]

To me, that is much less laughable than a home loudspeaker, amplifier or a DAC (using a COTS DAC chip) and costing over $5000.

 

 

 

Believe me, there are no "masses" in audiophile world, much less in computer audiophile niche. Masses use iTunes, Windows Media Player, Spotify and the likes.

 

To me, the Roon's $500 (I have not checked the prices recently) for "lifetime upgrades" sounds very reasonably priced.

 

HQPlayer is already too cheap, so for 4.x the price will likely go up or move to subscription model with yearly fee. There has been only of inflation correction to the price through the history.

 

I personally don't think or care about "market share". I need HQPlayer myself and I like to make it available for others too. But the ultimate limit is that selling it shouldn't cost more than it makes...

 

Just be aware that when you raise the price or make a subscription model you will loose beerandmusic as a customer. Not sure how you will survive...

[beerandmusic]

Believe me, there are no "masses" in audiophile world, much less in computer audiophile niche. Masses use iTunes, Windows Media Player, Spotify and the likes.

 

 

granted, the word "masses" is a relative term, but media monkey (not saying they are audiophile), but they boast 10,000 downloads a day...there is market share there that you should have with a pairing with muso or similar...jmo

[Miska]

granted, the word "masses" is a relative term, but media monkey (not saying they are audiophile), but they boast 10,000 downloads a day...there is market share there that you should have with a pairing with muso or similar...jmo

 

Ahh, downloads. I'm not counting those, only GB/day. There are certain countries that have a lot of download traffic but very little sales (-> cost). I'm pretty sure they don't have 10000/day sales for Media Monkey Gold...

 

Muso works with HQPlayer already! But so far, AFAIK, is Windows only. HQPlayer works on Windows, macOS and Linux. I use Linux myself as my primary development platform.

[beerandmusic]

Ahh, downloads. I'm not counting those, only GB/day. There are certain countries that have a lot of download traffic but very little sales (-> cost). I'm pretty sure they don't have 10000/day sales for Media Monkey Gold...

 

Muso works with HQPlayer already! But so far, AFAIK, is Windows only. HQPlayer works on Windows, macOS and Linux. I use Linux myself as my primary development platform.

 

understood...even if only 1% of downloads = sale, it's still decent sales imho.

i now know of muso..didn't 2 days ago, i was suggesting a collaborative effort to make one player possibly...you mentioned possibility of hiring development team for gui (although i am sure you weren't serious), but before taking that on, it just "may" make sense to partner with an interface that already had a gui rather than to start from gournd up. I personally think one player that sported hqplayer and muso would be a decent offering...just a thought...i will bugoff.

[Miska]

understood...even if only 1% of downloads = sale, it's still decent sales imho.

 

Probably closer to 1:1000, especially since they offer free version. Just a wild guess.

 

i was suggesting a collaborative effort to make one player possibly...

 

What is the obsession of having the thing running in the same process?

 

you mentioned possibility of hiring development team for gui (although i am sure you weren't serious)

 

Team? No way I have that kind of money.

 

I don't need to get paid for my work. But if I hire someone, they would actually have to get paid.

 

but before taking that on, it just "may" make sense to partner with an interface that already had a gui rather than to start from gournd up. I personally think one player that sported hqplayer and muso would be a decent offering...just a thought...i will bugoff.

 

Well, for starters it would need to be something that runs on all the three said platforms. Plus bunch of other constraints. Muso was running on top of .NET? That already rules out the possibility based on purely technical aspects.

[beerandmusic]

What is the obsession of having the thing running in the same process?

Mainly for your sake...people in general (not just me), don't want to have to run 2 programs..

 

Any gui interface would love to have your SQ engine....Have you even tried approaching Roon and asked them if they would like to license your SQ engine? And if not, i am sure there are others that would...

Well, for starters it would need to be something that runs on all the three said platforms. Plus bunch of other constraints. Muso was running on top of .NET? That already rules out the possibility based on purely technical aspects.

 

You could start with one OS..don't need to support all 3 gui's at once...right now windows is suffering for a decent DSD player...imho. Apple has audirvana, and others already...

 

As far as .net a non-starter for you, those are technical details you would know, so maybe muso isn't a right partner for you...i was just throwing the idea out there.

 

Again, i am happy to bug off....

I think i am as worn out as anybody (grin)...i only continue to reply as you do.

[lqbe]

Resonic or media monkey or one of the others windows players may support native dsd in future.

Will definitely have it, rather sooner than later. Native DSD via ASIO support is in development right now for Resonic Pro.

[beerandmusic]

^^^ i will keep my eyes out

 

https://resonic.at/pro

[Miska]

Any gui interface would love to have your SQ engine....Have you even tried approaching Roon and asked them if they would like to license your SQ engine? And if not, i am sure there are others that would...

 

No, usually every time someone wants to license something from me for a product they expect it to be almost free and crap their pants when they hear the price.

 

And HQPlayer engine has certain demands and constraints if someone would want to use it.

 

You could start with one OS..don't need to support all 3 gui's at once...right now windows is suffering for a decent DSD player...imho. Apple has audirvana, and others already...

 

Then that would be Linux. Sorry, but I'm not interested on a player that doesn't run on Linux. If it would be Windows only or Mac only I wouldn't be using it much myself.

[Miska]

Will definitely have it, rather sooner than later. Native DSD via ASIO support is in development right now for Resonic Pro.

 

That is in no way comparable to HQPlayer. None of the DSP functionality. And even the GUI is lacking basic search/filtering that is only listed on the roadmap for future development.

 

90+% of development effort of HQPlayer is in the DSP functionality area.

[Jud]

No, usually every time someone wants to license something from me for a product they expect it to be almost free and crap their pants when they hear the price.

 

 

Ah, I should have been in marketing: "HQPlayer - you'll crap your pants!"

 

Then again, maybe not.

[firedog]

I for one, love that Miska makes his product the way he wants it to be, and doesn't care (in a good way) what everyone else does or thinks. He seems mostly just to not want to lose money on the product. He concentrates his effort on the important part (the SQ).

 

Before Roon added the ability to play HQP output, I couldn't see it as my full time player. With Roon, it's like having HQP, but with the world's best UI.

[beerandmusic]

I for one, love that Miska makes his product the way he wants it to be, and doesn't care (in a good way) what everyone else does or thinks. He seems mostly just to not want to lose money on the product. He concentrates his effort on the important part (the SQ).

 

Before Roon added the ability to play HQP output, I couldn't see it as my full time player. With Roon, it's like having HQP, but with the world's best UI.

 

I don't ever see Miska working on a nice gui either, and wouldn't expect him to. I also agree what he does, is best and that he is best to stay in his own lane. All i said is that it would be nice if he teamed with someone else to provide a decent gui without having to run 2 programs. I certainly am capable of running 2 programs, but i just don't see it ever getting to the masses like his product deserves. He should be rich for his work...but if he is content in serving a smaller niche and not dealing with all that other crap, then good for him also. I will always have the utmost respect for him...but i will never stop hoping for HQPlayer with a nice gui either.

[lqbe]

That is in no way comparable to HQPlayer. None of the DSP functionality. And even the GUI is lacking basic search/filtering that is only listed on the roadmap for future development.

 

90+% of development effort of HQPlayer is in the DSP functionality area.

You seem easily offended by competition you don't seem to know much about.

 

The more DSP the worse when it comes to purest possible sound quality anyways.

[Miska]

You seem easily offended by competition you don't seem to know much about.

 

Offended? I don't think so, but since the thread is about HQPlayer, I commented in respect to that. Mostly that it is comparing apples to oranges.

 

The more DSP the worse when it comes to purest possible sound quality anyways.

 

Ahha, OK. I wonder what kind of DAC you have and if you happen to be aware of what kind of DSP stuff is going on inside the DAC chip...

 

You are of course free to hold your opinion. My point is that HQPlayer is all about DSP, doing the things DAC chip would do, but better. Plus other stuff. If you are not interested on that, HQPlayer is anyway wrong product for you.

[Jud]

You seem easily offended by competition you don't seem to know much about.

 

The more DSP the worse when it comes to purest possible sound quality anyways.

 

Interesting post. You say Miska "doesn't know much about" the player because he said it doesn't have the DSP features of HQPlayer, then you agree with him it doesn't have those DSP features, but say that's a good thing. So do you also not know much about the player, or is Miska's comment that it doesn't have HQP's DSP features accurate?

 

With regard to DSP being a bad thing if one wants the "purest possible sound quality," that is certainly true if you enjoy listening to 1s and 0s, i.e., the samples that are digital audio with no DSP. (Hint - it's not pretty.) However, if you like most of us would prefer listening to music, then DSP is necessary to convert the digital samples to analog audio you can hear. It's this necessary DSP that Miska's player does very, very well. It is the player you are defending (Resonic Pro) that offers unnecessary DSP designed to change the sound of the converted file, not simply render it in analog, listenable form (for example pitch changes, 'cause y'know we need more Autotune).