Jump to content
IGNORED

Subjective comparison of Software Music Player


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

However, it is off the original topic , and there are more suitable threads to discuss the niche upsampling of all music to DSD such as https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/19715-hq-player/, or another thread can be started on this subject.

 

 

Your argument would be more compelling if your own posts to this thread had followed this rule.

Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby
Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley
Through the middle of my skull

Link to comment
7 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

Your argument would be more compelling if your own posts to this thread had followed this rule.

Agreed, and the ability to upsample and convert is not unique to one player program.

Forrest:

Win10 i9 9900KS/GTX1060 HQPlayer4>Win10 NAA

DSD>Pavel's DSC2.6>Bent Audio TAP>

Parasound JC1>"Naked" Quad ESL63/Tannoy PS350B subs<100Hz

Link to comment
13 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

Whether you choose to do that is your choice, just as whether to use a particular cable or power supply or really any pice of equipment.

 

The fact that the software is paid or not should not be of concern — do you expect the ISO Regen to be free, or a particular cable? 
 

Do you even use Linux or Windows? 
 

I use Linux extensively and support its use in audio. Comparing Linux audio distributions such as Audiolinux, wtfplayer, Sonic orbiter and a handful of others including NAA could be a reasonable comparison of similar functions.
 

 

There is no benefit to the typical consumer in doing anything we do here. The software is a bargain that actually does something as opposed to other things we spend our money on. 
 

In any case you ought not criticize something you admit you haven’t done and have no experience with.

 

Any frankly HQPlayer is not the only software package that upsample, for example XXHE, Roon etc ...

I refrained from adding the full comparison of hqplayer only because my pc was incapable of using it. I would really love to know your opinions and experiences on the same.

 

I was only comparing on the basis of system level timing/scheduling/noise in my post. That is one aspect of sound and I am confident that hqplayer is equal to winyl on that front.

 

Regarding filtering, not only am I interested in the filters inside hqplayer, I am also interested in custom coding filters using AI (in fact I do a few linear filters in matlab with my audio) and non linear filters like, compressors etc. On a side note I would also love to try different hardware upsampler implementations.

 

Hope that cleared it off. Hqplayer discussion is not off topic but the actual filter comparison can be made in their specific thread. I definitely agree the aberrations are different and cannot be compared oranges to oranges. Wtfplay dev is working on SOX so we could get a more comparable ground between wtfplay and hqplayer in some time.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, jabbr said:

HQPlayer is more of a system than simply a player per se. It would be a project to fully employ its capabilities:

 

Which is exactly my point. Neither are my system or Teresa's system for that matter, capable of doing this .
 Most people do not need, or want, the added complexity and cost of implementing this kind of thing with numerous settings in Software , with no setting that appears to give a universally accepted best quality. This is exactly why I originally rejected Peter's generous offer of a free copy of XXHE some years ago, with numerous program updates.


 However, if the more technically adventurous wish to go this route , then that is there choice, however as Rexp said :

Quote

 

  • OP is correct, why bother with DSD upsampling when only .001% of the population use or will ever use it. 

 

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

Which is exactly my point. Neither are my system or Teresa's system for that matter, capable of doing this .

 

 

Most folks here have no interest in nor the capability to do the DIY tweaks you do but this doesn't stop you from mentioning them.

Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby
Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley
Through the middle of my skull

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Most folks here have no interest in nor the capability to do the DIY tweaks you do but this doesn't stop you from mentioning them.

That's absolute garbage.

 Many members do far greater and WAY  more expensive tweaks than I do.

 

https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/30376-a-novel-way-to-massively-improve-the-sq-of-computer-audio-streaming/#comments

There are now 654 pages in that thread alone, let alone the Uptone area etc.

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, sandyk said:

That's absolute garbage.

 Many members do far greater and WAY  more expensive tweaks than I do.

 

https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/30376-a-novel-way-to-massively-improve-the-sq-of-computer-audio-streaming/#comments

 

 

We all see what we want to see.

 

What percentage of registered users do you think are actively participating in that thread?

 

I'm guessing it's way south of 5%. Probably closer to 1%.

Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby
Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley
Through the middle of my skull

Link to comment
1 hour ago, sandyk said:

Neither are my system or Teresa's system for that matter, capable of doing this .

 

You ought not speak for @Teresa, she is very articulate and has spoken well for herself. I believe she has spoken of an affinity for SACD for example. No one need do what I personally do and if cost constraints are an issue I have often posted of cost effective approaches including Raspberry Pi. In other cases simplicity is paramount. To each his or her own. 

1 hour ago, sandyk said:


 Most people do not need, or want, the added complexity and cost of implementing this kind of thing with numerous settings in Software , with no setting that appears to give a universally accepted best quality. This is exactly why I originally rejected Peter's generous offer of a free copy of XXHE some years ago, with numerous program updates.


Yes I get the point that you have an active distaste for software and the use of software under any circumstances—and networks. You have endlessly posted about the evils done both by software and networks to your precious bits. 

Custom room treatments for headphone users.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

We all see what we want to see.

 

What percentage of registered users do you think are actively participating in that thread?

 

I'm guessing it's way south of 5%. Probably closer to 1%.

We all see what we want to see.

 

What percentage of registered users do you think are actively participating in ALL threads?

 

I'm guessing it's way south of 5%. Probably closer to 1%. :P

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
On 5/3/2020 at 7:58 PM, The Computer Audiophile said:

Wow! Someone still using Media Monkey!

 

No complaints from me, just hadn’t heard anyone discuss it for about a decade. 

Sorry I’m late to this party. I ranked MM 5th in my front end software comparison AS article back in October 2019.  It does a lot of things very well and sounds great. But as I recall, it doesn’t do DSD.  

Link to comment
On 5/11/2020 at 7:40 AM, manueljenkin said:

I refrained from adding the full comparison of hqplayer only because my pc was incapable of using it

If your PC is incapable of using it, I don't understand how you made these observations:

 

"Hqplayer - it's as good as winyl in equivalent settings. But it's a lot more feature rich. Lets you try custom upsampling PCM or DSD conversion options and can help get a better stream to your dac than the internal digital filters which can sometimes be low fidelity in the DACs. Also lets you try high precision fir filter convolution for a usable high precision eq."

Link to comment
2 hours ago, bluesman said:

If your PC is incapable of using it, I don't understand how you made these observations:

 

"Hqplayer - it's as good as winyl in equivalent settings. But it's a lot more feature rich. Lets you try custom upsampling PCM or DSD conversion options and can help get a better stream to your dac than the internal digital filters which can sometimes be low fidelity in the DACs. Also lets you try high precision fir filter convolution for a usable high precision eq."

Well I meant that I was only able to use the lower precision filters without issues on my pc. Since the analysis is incomplete without the higher precision ones I refrained from commenting on that aspect though I am welcome to anyone else's opinion after they have covered like @jabbr. Comparison to winyl is easy "under equivalent settings" which is no upsampling or any processing. I have tried FIR filter convolutions both on hqplayer and on MATLAB.

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, manueljenkin said:

Well I meant that I was only able to use the lower precision filters without issues on my pc.

It might help us understand more about your observations and conclusions if we knew the equipment you used to make them. I may have missed it, but I don't see any description of your computer(s) and audio system(s) at all.  Could you please share some detail with us?

Link to comment

Umm I did mention every detail of my chain in the original post.

 

"Gear used - surface book 2015, apogee groove, supra usb cable, burson fun, sparkos ss3601 opamps, shure srh1540, OnePlus 3. Few other headphones, dac and amp were also used to ensure coverage on other parameters, and they fit well with the same descriptions."

 

I had missed out uptone uspcb cable, so you can add that too.

Link to comment

You don’t identify some key pieces, and I’m a bit surprised that you heard such a broad spectrum of sound quality with the named products on that list.  Because the list is vague and incomplete, I hoped that identifying the unspecified pieces might shed some light on it.  
 

Sparks op amps are nice little $39 units, but they’re just discrete chips that don’t do anything by themselves.  What are they doing in your system - did you use them in the Fun?  
 

You don’t tell us what those “few other DACs and amps” are, and the Apogee DAC you do identify is limited to 24/192 - so you couldn’t get the most from many of the players you included without using a more sophisticated DAC.  And while the Apogee is very nice, it has enough 2nd harmonic product to be audible as added warmth despite a very flat measured frequency response (per multiple reviews- see Ken Rockwell’s measurements for confirmation). Your Shure ‘phones also add some bottom and mid bass, which combines with the Apogee’s SQ to be quite noticeable.  This combination will definitely color whatever it’s playing.
 

The Apogee only has an analog output designed for driving headphones, so I assume you didn’t run its output into the line input on the Fun.   So with what did you drive the Fun, which only has an analog input?

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...