Want to purchase HQPlayer, but about it's more robust features?

[biosailor]

24 minutes ago, vvcv said:

 

 

Oh, yeah, i see what you refer to. No, it didn't have a question mark, but it was more a question in trying to understand if that was indeed what the poster above was speaking of. Anyway, it seems it's not the case with all DACs. And, unfortunately, as far as a Benchmark rep knows, it will resample HQPs filter(s). But they suggested to ask the players developer due to them not knowing HQ at all, but I suspect they know enough about their hardware to have a definitive answer. 

 

Too bad my other DACs were on loan to audio pals during my HQP trial period. But, they're not NOS, though are Native DSD. 

Well, I guess, as you say, it really depends on the DAC. That’s why one just has to try. HQPlayer does a very good job in my system, I much prefer its SQ over Roon‘s.

[StreamFidelity]

5 hours ago, vvcv said:

So, if your original file is PCM, and not listening to upsampled PCM, do the HQP filters make any alterations to the music signal?

 

No, as far as I know, the HQPlayer does not change the music signal. In digital streams, the aim is to generate an analog amplitude from 0 and 1. In my opinion, the DAC (Digital Analog Converter) can do this better if it doesn't have to perform any filters and no upsampling (NOS). That is why it is not the output format (PCM or DSD) that matters. Important is only the format that is available shortly before the conversion.

 

To my ears, DSD is more organic and less digital. Some manufacturers automatically convert all signals to DSD, for example PS Audio DirectStream DAC and EMM Labs DA2.

 

These DACs are not for me because I prefer to do the DSD conversion with a powerful Audio PC and HQPlayer. See also:

 

[vvcv]

38 minutes ago, StreamFidelity said:

 

Thanks 🙂

 

The number of bits depends on the DAC. My Denafrips Terminator can do 24bits / 44.1, 48, 88.2, 96, 176.4, 192KHz on all input and
1.536kHz on USB & I²S input. It doesn't matter for DSD, DSD is always 1 bit.

 

Here is a list with DACs bypass digital filtering:

 

Which DACs bypass digital filtering?

 

Thanks for the list StreamFidelity. Here's a quick list I found earlier: https://www.audiostream.com/content/non-oversampling-nos-dacs-list

 

 

I've been very curious about r2r  DACs and how it all works. I'd love to make one someday, but i'm sure the Youtube videos make it all seem easier then it would be, maybe some day soon. How do you like the Terminators sound?

[Solstice380]

@vvcv   I should explain a little more... there are filters in a DAC chip, or in HQP, that shape the Digital signal going to the d to a conversion step and then to the output of the chip through into the signal sent out to a preamp or amp.   There are always hardware (reconstruction) filters in a DAC component.  The digital filters are what HQP does so if you upsample to the max rate your DAC can take they usually bypass their own filters.  My dCS will upsample everything to DSD128 before converting to analog, but if you send DSD128 it doesn’t use its internal upsampling filters.  Hope that helps!

[vvcv]

2 hours ago, Solstice380 said:

@vvcv   I should explain a little more... there are filters in a DAC chip, or in HQP, that shape the Digital signal going to the d to a conversion step and then to the output of the chip through into the signal sent out to a preamp or amp.   There are always hardware (reconstruction) filters in a DAC component.  The digital filters are what HQP does so if you upsample to the max rate your DAC can take they usually bypass their own filters.  My dCS will upsample everything to DSD128 before converting to analog, but if you send DSD128 it doesn’t use its internal upsampling filters.  Hope that helps!

Thanks again Solstice380. It may have been one of your first posts, but during reading everything on this thread I called Benchmark. The contact I always speak with when I need something technical taken care of, he is the one that gets me up and running, though he is a sales manager and not an engineer. But, he's fairly certain that the Benchmark would indeed see the DSD64 signal (DACs max rate) and still apply it's own hardware filters. I trust he would know just by the knowledge which he speaks regarding their DACs. 

 

Given how much I've learned today, I think it would be great community knowledge if someone with more background in this area could call Benchmark to get a reason as to why their DACs may do this re-filtering. This information could then possibly be used to help others in choosing DACs when they have decided to add HQPs filters as an option in their audio systems --without any hardware mucking up HQP sound. Just a thought, because the question I posted today seems to be a fairly common misunderstanding for a lot of high fidelity/music fans out there who are now just beginning to learn what software can bring to their end game sound quality pursuits. 

[jabbr]

6 hours ago, vvcv said:

Before I asked posted the original question i had no idea about NOS DACs. But, the more i'm reading about them and they do sound interesting. Especially one that AudioNote makes...a kit I think. 

 

Just pick any DAC which has DSD256 or DSD512 input and try HQPlayer out with both PCM and DSD files e.g. CD is PCM64 and SACD is DSD64. There are very few if any DACs which can realtime filter a DSD256 or 512 stream, so if the DAC accepts these as input it will go into "NOS" mode.

 

A cost effective DAC which works great with HQPlayer is the Pro-ject S2D, for example.

[4est]

1 hour ago, vvcv said:

Thanks again Solstice380. It may have been one of your first posts, but during reading everything on this thread I called Benchmark. The contact I always speak with when I need something technical taken care of, he is the one that gets me up and running, though he is a sales manager and not an engineer. But, he's fairly certain that the Benchmark would indeed see the DSD64 signal (DACs max rate) and still apply it's own hardware filters. I trust he would know just by the knowledge which he speaks regarding their DACs. 

 

Given how much I've learned today, I think it would be great community knowledge if someone with more background in this area could call Benchmark to get a reason as to why their DACs may do this re-filtering. This information could then possibly be used to help others in choosing DACs when they have decided to add HQPs filters as an option in their audio systems --without any hardware mucking up HQP sound. Just a thought, because the question I posted today seems to be a fairly common misunderstanding for a lot of high fidelity/music fans out there who are now just beginning to learn what software can bring to their end game sound quality pursuits. 

If the DAC2s are like the originals, they do what is called resampling or ASRC whereby all of the inputs are reclocked internally by the Benchmark in an attempt to reduce jitter. They view it as an advantage. It generally negates the input quality and puts its own mark on for better or worse. You likely won't get much traction with HQPlayer on it. I'd try one of your AKM DACs to begin with.

[StreamFidelity]

13 hours ago, vvcv said:

How do you like the Terminators sound?

 

Before I answer the question, a short story. A good friend visited me and brought two DACs:

 

- Matrix Audio DAC X-SABRE Pro 
- Gustard A20H DAC

 

Purpose of the visit: I wanted to prove to him that the source (Audio PC) is more important than the DAC. The DAC should of course be able to convert without errors. According to the Forum Audiosciencereview, both the Matrix DAC and the Gustard DAC (an other model DAC-X26) have excellent measured values.

 

We first heard with the Denafrips Terminator: high resolution, precise, excellent space and still no digital sharpening. Very analog sound with a lot of body and bass foundation.

 

Then we heard the Gustard DAC: musty, imprecise, no space. We connected the Matrix DAC. Better but a bit annoying in the high range, digital sharpening.

 

Our results:

 

- Good measurements do not mean good sound (but in my opinion, good measurements are an important basic).
- The weakest link determines the sound.
- Music can be heard very well with the Gustard DAC and the Matrix DAC. But compared to the Denafrips Terminator, they were disappointing. There is always an improvement on DACs possible. 😁

[Solstice380]

@vvcv  Keep the "digital filter" and analog filter separate.  All DACs have an analog filter that the signal must pass through on it's way to the outputs.  HQP is intended to replace the DAC chip's ASRC (usally) or Digital Processing.  I wasn't able to tell exactly from the Benchmark "technology" tab on the webpage (mostly marketing speak) exactly whether or not it's internal DSP would be bypassed when sent a max rate signal.  It may still do some processing either way.  Many DACs bypass that when fed a max rate signal.

[jabbr]

17 hours ago, StreamFidelity said:

No, as far as I know, the HQPlayer does not change the music signal. In digital streams, the aim is to generate an analog amplitude from 0 and 1. In my opinion, the DAC (Digital Analog Converter) can do this better if it doesn't have to perform any filters and no upsampling (NOS). That is why it is not the output format (PCM or DSD) that matters. Important is only the format that is available shortly before the conversion.

Do you use HQPlayer because I’m confused about what you are saying here?

 

1) Of course HQPlayer “changes the music signal” when it upsamples and converts from PCM to DSD

2) HQPlayer has a large collection of “filters” to do this 

3) you can isolate the high powered server   computer using a network to a low powered NAA which attaches to the DAC.

 

These are a few HQP basics.

[StreamFidelity]

3 hours ago, jabbr said:

Do you use HQPlayer because I’m confused about what you are saying here?

 

Yes, I use HQPlayer with great enthusiasm. What do you mean by changing the music signal? Changing the frequency response is a change for me. For example, by folding for room correction. Or through the loudness switch or bass control, etc.

 

In my opinion, the great filters, oversampling algorithms, dither and DSD modulators from HQPlayer pursue a single goal: to get as close as possible to the original analog music signal on a digital level. Is this a change in the original music signal? I'm not sure. 😉

[Miska]

On 3/27/2020 at 11:59 AM, vvcv said:

Even on board ESS chip filters have simple enough explanations, I'm not asking for a book here. 

 

HQPlayer comes with a manual with similar descriptions about the filters etc and some recommendations. I would recommend to get started with the manual.

 

[Miska]

On 3/27/2020 at 2:44 PM, vvcv said:

So, if your original file is PCM, and not listening to upsampled PCM, do the HQP filters make any alterations to the music signal?

 

Apodizing filters yes, because they are designed to remove problems caused by decimation filters in ADC when the music has been recorded. So not altering the music signal in a negative way, but removing adverse alterations to it caused by earlier production stages, thus in a positive way.

 

On 3/27/2020 at 2:44 PM, vvcv said:

Shouldn't your DACs filters be all that is needed when listening to a straight file?

 

Digital filters in DACs are very resource constrained, idea of HQPlayer is to replace as much as possible DSP functionality of a DAC with something that is designed to be completely quality driven without compromises for price/computing resources.

 

On 3/27/2020 at 2:44 PM, vvcv said:

And this all brings up another question, can I resample some PCM files to DSD w/o filters in HQP?

 

No, by definition DSD is heavily oversampled to make it operational in first place. Same goes with all modern delta-sigma converters. Proper oversampling requires proper digital filters.

 

[Account Closed]

Sorry, but in my opinion, there is something about this thread that makes it look like trolling bait to me. Maybe I am wrong and maybe it is just a language issue but after reading most of it something just does not seem right.

[jamesg11]

A certain studied naivety in the questioning ...?

[Account Closed]

15 minutes ago, jamesg11 said:

A certain studied naivety in the questioning ...?

A good way to put it, yes.

[jabbr]

7 hours ago, jamesg11 said:

A certain studied naivety in the questioning ...?

Because the algos and filters are what makes HQP special and there’s no interest in that 😂