PSA - how to directly connect NAA to HQP without bridging in Windows

[Sevenfeet]

3 hours ago, simonklp said:

In fact, my network between HQPlayer and NAA was connected via fibre and fibre switch before direct connection via fibre is possible, i.e. eliminated the use of fibre switch via direct connection. Since I have been using the fibre network, I don’t think the improvement in SQ via direct connection relates to galvanic isolation or shielding of noise, because I believe I had already achieved it even with the fibre switch.

 

However, I still maintain my feeling that direct fibre connection gives a clearer or more definitive SQ than via the fibre switch. In this case, I would suspect or speculate whether it relates to the elimination of latency induced at the switch. But, again, I believe that it is another controversial topic!

 

Are you reducing latency?  Maybe...probably.  Does it matter?  No.

 

In this context, latency is an issue only if you are having problems keeping the data buffers fed.  The most likely scenario we see this is when we choose a non-2S filter in HQPlayer and then in many cases, HQPlayer can't keep up with the real time buffer demands for the DAC.  You end up hearing pops, ticks, pauses or nothing at all.  But if HQPlayer is not having a problem filling the buffer, then eliminating a switch isn't going to improve anything.  And if HQPlayer is having problems filling a buffer, I'd best next week's pay that eliminating the latency of a switch (especially on a fiber connection) isn't going to improve the situation at all given HQPlayer's extreme CPU demands.

[Miska]

Latency of a switch is practically fixed amount, so it really doesn't matter in the typical switch figures. It could be 100x higher and still wouldn't have impact. In most cases, NAA would work fine over 4G/LTE internet connection too (given enough average bandwidth).

 

[Allan F]

On 6/10/2018 at 10:15 AM, Sevenfeet said:

Look, if there were truly data discrepancies in the transport layer of networking or USB that could affect sound like that, then all of the data on your hard drive, SSD and the very website you are reading for now would be completely corrupted...

 

But the transport layer must work, or it doesn't... Don't waste your precious time, energy and especially money on this when there are plenty of legitimate things in our hobby that you can worry about.

 

In your narrowly focused opinion, to which you are of course entitled. I enjoy music and evaluate my system by what I hear, not by instruments or technical dogma. I am not saying that USB cables invariably do not sound the same. Some produce not insignificant audible differences while others do not. I don't know what the technical explanation for these differences may be and, frankly, I don't care if the result is greater enjoyment of the music. I do know from extensive and repeated listening, however, that it is not expectation bias, the term almost always offered by those who share your objectivist views.

 

You do not have to do a very extensive search of CA to find a great many posts in a number of threads by serious members of our audiophile community describing the differences that they hear between various USB cables. They aren't all deluding themselves. 

 

In the final analysis I trust my ears, and I have no worries about wasting either my time or my money in doing so.

[elcorso]

Subscribed

[Sevenfeet]

13 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

In your narrowly focused opinion, to which you are of course entitled. I enjoy music and evaluate my system by what I hear, not by instruments or technical dogma. I am not saying that USB cables invariably do not sound the same. Some produce not insignificant audible differences while others do not. I don't know what the technical explanation for these differences may be and, frankly, I don't care if the result is greater enjoyment of the music. I do know from extensive and repeated listening, however, that it is not expectation bias, the term almost always offered by those who share your objectivist views.

 

You do not have to do a very extensive search of CA to find a great many posts in a number of threads by serious members of our audiophile community describing the differences that they hear between various USB cables. They aren't all deluding themselves. 

 

In the final analysis I trust my ears, and I have no worries about wasting either my time or my money in doing so.

 

It isn't narrowly focused; the was my entire point.  Data is data is data.  If you put a packet sniffer on the network or USB cables, you'd see the same data every time hit the DAC.  It's a fact, period.  And yes, everyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves.  Sorry to be the harbinger of things like facts.  Just because "serious members" of this community made the mistake of channeling the long held traditions of finding that extra special change of the audio path in the analog world to the digital world doesn't make them any less wrong.

 

I love this hobby as my father did way back when I was a kid.  And there have been plenty of people who have helped me along the way including those on this forum.  But I draw the line at things I know to be untrue based on my training.  And yes, I call it out when I see it just as I would hope someone would do for me if I had an opinion about something that was clearly wrong with actual facts.  This website is called Computeraudiophile.com for a reason.  And things here are different than the traditional audiophile ways.  You have to embrace what the digital world provides and not waste time on things it doesn't do.

[tboooe]

8 minutes ago, Sevenfeet said:

Data is data is data.  If you put a packet sniffer on the network or USB cables, you'd see the same data every time hit the DAC.  It's a fact, period.  

I dont know the answer but I wonder if there is something else happening with the USB cable (and other aspects of audio) that could affect the sound?  We only detect what we are measuring for so perhaps there is some other phenomena happening that we dont quite understand yet that could impact the sound?

 

 

[Sevenfeet]

12 minutes ago, tboooe said:

I dont know the answer but I wonder if there is something else happening with the USB cable (and other aspects of audio) that could affect the sound?  We only detect what we are measuring for so perhaps there is some other phenomena happening that we dont quite understand yet that could impact the sound?

 

 

 

Not on the data transport layer.  My point is that if the USB cable is good enough for your external hard drive or other USB device, or if the network cable is good enough to use on your network, then it's good enough for an audiophile application.  And good enough = data perfect.  Data transformation is impossible with packet switched transmission.  If it didn't work, then you wouldn't get any data.

 

If you think there are clearly audible discrepancies, then you have to look elsewhere.  And there is usually plenty of other places in the analog path to investigate.  Or you can look at how the data is transformed before it gets to the DAC...with programs like HQPlayer, Roon or Audirvana, or the DAC itself.

[Allan F]

38 minutes ago, Sevenfeet said:

But I draw the line at things I know to be untrue based on my training.

 

And therein lies the problem. It assumes that you know everything there is to know. Hence the quote in my signature that Albert Einstein would share with his students. Bye.

 

[Sevenfeet]

2 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

And therein lies the problem. It assumes that you know everything there is to know, something no true scientist ever does. Bye.

 

Not everything to know.  But I'm very comfortable in my knowledge of the past 40 years of data transport technology.  My customers (very large well known pharma companies) depend on it.

 

Your move.

[tboooe]

2 minutes ago, Sevenfeet said:

very large well known pharma companies

Off topic...but I am also in the pharma/biotech space!  Small world.  One of these days I am going to get into a very low tech industry like selling plungers where I am not interacting with PHd and scientists all day long!  It can be exhausting.  

[Allan F]

12 minutes ago, Sevenfeet said:

But I'm very comfortable in my knowledge of the past 40 years of data transport technology.

 

And therein lies the problem. The subject is audio and the enjoyment of music. I'm done.

[Sevenfeet]

1 minute ago, Allan F said:

 

And therein lies the problem. The subject is audio and the enjoyment of music. I'm done.

 

And this is "Computeraudiophile", not just "audiophile".  Enjoy wasting your time, sir.

[Sevenfeet]

6 minutes ago, tboooe said:

Off topic...but I am also in the pharma/biotech space!  Small world.  One of these days I am going to get into a very low tech industry like selling plungers where I am not interacting with PHd and scientists all day long!  It can be exhausting.  

 

LOL!  Some days I feel the same way.  But tech always brings me back.

[simonklp]

On 5/23/2018 at 7:18 AM, tboooe said:

Like many, I believe a direct connection between HQP and NAA to sound better than having to use a switch.  To me the sound is more dynamic, energetic, and clear.  To achieve this, I had to establish a Bridge between my two NICs in my HQP pc.  I used this configuration for a while before upgrading to Server 2016 from Server 2012 R2.  Unfortunately, with Server 2016 there is no minimal server mode so I had to pick between installing the full GUI or use core mode.  In core mode, bridging of NICs is not possible so I had to reintroduce my Cisco SG300 SFP switch back into my system.  I kept trying to find a solution that would allow a direct connection and thanks to @Miska and @AudioPhil I've been able to do it.  Another benefit of this direct connection solution is that you dont have to go through the hassle of bridging your NICs.  The drawback of course is that you cannot remote desktop into the NAA to troubleshoot since its no longer on the local network.  No big deal, when I need to remote desktop into the NAA I just plug it back into my switch.

 

Anyway, here is the solution....

On both the HQP and NAA pc, enable IPv6*

IPv4 can be enabled as well

Use Task Manager to ensure the NICs on both pcs are receiving IPv6 addresses

Connect the NAA to the second HQP NIC

Restart both computers**

Go into HQP settings and select IPv6 as the backend.  Your NAA should show up in the drop down.

High five yourself, thank Miska and bask in the glorious sounds made possible by this direct connection!

 

*since I run in core mode, there is no GUI so I go into the registry to enable IPv6.  For some reason the Powershell and netsh commands to enable IPv6 wouldnt work for me.  The registry key is DisabledComponents found at HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip6\Parameters\.  Set it to 0 to enable IPv6 and 255 to disable it. (please be very careful when editing the registry, perform a backup first, I am not responsible, blah blah blah)

**I would check to make sure IPv6 is still enabled after a restart

 

Let me know if you have any questions.

 

Hi @tboooe, thank you very much for your great advice on how to achieve the direct connection between HQP and NAA on WS 2016 Core. I have been enjoying this direct connection since then. After longer listening time, I increasingly agree with you on the observation that the sound is more clear, dynamic and energetic. Although some of the improvement may be due to the version upgrade of HQPlayer to 3.21.0, I am pretty sure that the improvement in SQ is also contributed by the direct connection after some switching back and forth between direct connection and network switch connection.

 

But there is an issue for me to use this direct connection, which is the disabling the use of the HQPDcontrol App in this case, even though I had changed the IP address accordingly. Do you have this experience? Is there any solution to it? Appreciate to your and/or others advice. Thanks!

[tboooe]

9 minutes ago, simonklp said:

 

Hi @tboooe, thank you very much for your great advice on how to achieve the direct connection between HQP and NAA on WS 2016 Core. I have been enjoying this direct connection since then. After longer listening time, I increasingly agree with you on the observation that the sound is more clear, dynamic and energetic. Although some of the improvement may be due to the version upgrade of HQPlayer to 3.21.0, I am pretty sure that the improvement in SQ is also contributed by the direct connection after some switching back and forth between direct connection and network switch connection.

 

But there is an issue for me to use this direct connection, which is the disabling the use of the HQPDcontrol App in this case, even though I had changed the IP address accordingly. Do you have this experience? Is there any solution to it? Appreciate to your and/or others advice. Thanks!

I just tried HQPD and it works fine for me.  I assume you enabled remote network control in HQP?

[simonklp]

12 minutes ago, tboooe said:

I just tried HQPD and it works fine for me.  I assume you enabled remote network control in HQP?

I have enabled it. I just have no idea why it doesn't work. Let me try again later on. Thanks for your reply anyway.

[simonklp]

On Sunday, July 01, 2018 at 2:14 PM, tboooe said:

I just tried HQPD and it works fine for me.  I assume you enabled remote network control in HQP?

Hi @tboooe, I had found out what had gone wrong. My Gigabytes Gaming 7 motherboard did not recognize the two onboard LAN ports. I had asked the technical support of Gigabytes on how to solve the problem. They told me that this motherboard does not support Windows Server 2016!

 

Eventually, I managed to install the driver of one of the two LAN ports by myself, and is able to use it for HQPDControl now. Cheers!

[tboooe]

19 minutes ago, simonklp said:

Hi @tboooe, I had found out what had gone wrong. My Gigabytes Gaming 7 motherboard did not recognize the two onboard LAN ports. I had asked the technical support of Gigabytes on how to solve the problem. They told me that this motherboard does not support Windows Server 2016!

 

Eventually, I managed to install the driver of one of the two LAN ports by myself, and is able to use it for HQPDControl now. Cheers!

I also have a Gigabyte Gaming Mobo.  Does your have the Killer NIC?  If so, you can manually install the .inf file from the driver files.

[simonklp]

5 minutes ago, tboooe said:

I also have a Gigabyte Gaming Mobo.  Does your have the Killer NIC?  If so, you can manually install the .inf file from the driver files.

Hi @tboooe, one of the two onboard LAN ports is Killer LAN port instead of Killer NIC. I had already managed to install the .inf file for its driver, and using this port for HQPDControl without any problem last week.

 

Thank you for your kind attention and advice in any case.

[RubenV]

On 5/23/2018 at 1:18 AM, tboooe said:

Anyway, here is the solution....

On both the HQP and NAA pc, enable IPv6*

IPv4 can be enabled as well

Use Task Manager to ensure the NICs on both pcs are receiving IPv6 addresses

Connect the NAA to the second HQP NIC

Restart both computers**

Go into HQP settings and select IPv6 as the backend.  Your NAA should show up in the drop down.

High five yourself, thank Miska and bask in the glorious sounds made possible by this direct connection!

 

*since I run in core mode, there is no GUI so I go into the registry to enable IPv6.  For some reason the Powershell and netsh commands to enable IPv6 wouldnt work for me.  The registry key is DisabledComponents found at HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip6\Parameters\.  Set it to 0 to enable IPv6 and 255 to disable it. (please be very careful when editing the registry, perform a backup first, I am not responsible, blah blah blah)

**I would check to make sure IPv6 is still enabled after a restart

 

Let me know if you have any questions.

 

Hi Tboooe,

 

After rearming my license for ws2016 I could not directly connect the HQP to the NAA. I just did a complete new install of the HQP machine with ws2019, and enabled IPv6 on both machines.

Unfortunately I can't get this to work. Once I detach the direct cable and connect the NAA to my router, I can select my dac in HQP. I have double checked that IPv6 is working on the NAA and rebooting this not sort it out. Could you please recommend other stept I could take or things I could try?

[tboooe]

On 8/24/2019 at 8:00 AM, RubenV said:

 

Hi Tboooe,

 

After rearming my license for ws2016 I could not directly connect the HQP to the NAA. I just did a complete new install of the HQP machine with ws2019, and enabled IPv6 on both machines.

Unfortunately I can't get this to work. Once I detach the direct cable and connect the NAA to my router, I can select my dac in HQP. I have double checked that IPv6 is working on the NAA and rebooting this not sort it out. Could you please recommend other stept I could take or things I could try?

I apologize for the late reply.  I just saw this post.  When you run the command ipconfig on both HQP and NAA pc do you see an IPV6 address?

[RubenV]

Hi tbooe,

 

No need to apologize since I just came back from a long holiday. Right now I purchased AO 3.00 and am ready to run ws2019 on both pc's. Could I run the audio pc still in core mode just like ws2016?

 

And before this migration I had no direct ethernet connection between the machines because I could not set it up. However, it did work in the past so I am missing something...