Roon/HQplayer vs Hqplayercontrol for SQ

[cpcat]

I am currently doing a trial of Roon .  I have been happily using hqplayercontrol as well as Daphile /LMS .   See my signature for setup. 

 

I feel hqplayercontrol is better SQ (subtly) but still have Daphile as a utility mainly

because I have used it for so long --and also for streaming spotify, tidal, qobuz,

 

My priority is sound quality.  Roon seems to be very popular and @Miska uses it -or has.  Hqplayercontrol provides a direct /native connection to hqplayer/hqpe and there is a theoretical

advantage.

 

For SQ only, what are thoughts/impressions of either Roon/Hqplayer or Hqplayercontrol?

 

Also, if using Roon, does it make a difference if your library is local to hqplayer or on NAS, network, other PC?

 

 

[Miska]

5 hours ago, cpcat said:

My priority is sound quality.  Roon seems to be very popular and @Miska uses it -or has.  Hqplayercontrol provides a direct /native connection to hqplayer/hqpe and there is a theoretical

advantage.

 

I use HQPlayer Client (the official control application) mostly, since I also use Qobuz quite a lot. I do have Roon and HQPDcontrol too, but I don't use those as much. If I want to listen Tidal, now I can also use mConnect Player more, since there is more pure non-MQA content available again. Roon is useful in combination with Tidal, since it can decode MQA before passing it to HQPlayer.

 

5 hours ago, cpcat said:

For SQ only, what are thoughts/impressions of either Roon/Hqplayer or Hqplayercontrol?

 

With HQPlayer Client and HQPDcontrol, HQPlayer server has direct optimized access to the content and the control applications just do control. With Roon, also all content data passes through Roon. In some cases this may make the difference.

 

5 hours ago, cpcat said:

Also, if using Roon, does it make a difference if your library is local to hqplayer or on NAS, network, other PC?

 

Depends more on how the content is relative to Roon server, and how Roon server is relative to HQPlayer.

 

For example in my case, Roon Server is running on headless Debian 12 server with it's own local copy of library content. And HQPlayer server is running on some other machine, thus the Roon server machine is running only Roon and nothing else. HQPlayer Embedded servers are running only HQPlayer Embedded and nothing else. While my HQPlayer Desktop instances are usually on computers I use for many other things as well, except one single Windows based installation which is Windows 11 Pro with only HQPlayer Desktop and nothing else.

 

[cpcat]

Thanks @Miska.  That makes sense for what I am hearing, at least with several hours worth.  I have Roon core (trial) on the NAS, Hqplayer embedded on another PC, and copies of libraries on both.  I was surprised to hear that Roon actually sounded BETTER with the library on NAS vs using the library on the HQPe PC.

 

However, HQplayercontrol sounds superior to either of above.  It sounds like it is just more “ in the room” and more present/natural.  The comparison is reminiscent of LP vs tape back when I had both in my system.

 

Would you consider HQplayercontrol equivalent to HQplayer client in regards to SQ?  It would seem so, but I don’t use client much.

 

The other question that arises is , from reading your response describing your setups:

When using HQplayercontrol (or client) and HQPlayer embedded, do you prefer the library local to the HQPlayer embedded  PC, or elsewhere?

 

Thanks

Charles

[Miska]

4 minutes ago, cpcat said:

BETTER with the library on NAS vs using the library on the HQPe PC (both via Roon).

 

Which way you use library on HQPlayer Embedded if not through Client or HQPDcontrol? The web interface? But from playback perspective all the three ways are the same, playback itself happens the same way. Regardless where/how you control the playback, when source is HQPlayer's library (which is the case for HQPlayer Client or HQPDcontrol).

 

4 minutes ago, cpcat said:

Would you consider HQplayercontrol equivalent to HQplayer client in regards to SQ?  It would seem so, but I don’t use client much.

 

Since both use the control API same way, there's no difference.

 

4 minutes ago, cpcat said:

The other question that arises is , from reading your response describing your setups:

When using HQplayercontrol (or client) and HQPlayer embedded, do you prefer the library local to the HQPlayer embedded  PC, or elsewhere?

 

Except for one server, I have the library mounted as SMB share from "NAS" which is Intel Xeon based server running Ubuntu 22.04 LTS. I just have too many servers to bother maintaining that many copies of the library.

 

[bogi]

3 minutes ago, cpcat said:

 I was surprised to hear that Roon actually sounded BETTER with the library on NAS vs using the library on the HQPe PC (both via Roon).

Maybe local access to file produces more noise than network access. Our you simply like more the network access noise influence than the other one.

 

4 minutes ago, cpcat said:

However, HQplayercontrol sounds superior to either of above.

You didn't write where are you running HQPlayer Client. Both HQPDcontrol and HQPlayer Client are using the same API. If they would be running on for example computer and tablet using the same kind of network connection then everything needs to be the same since they both are invoking the same API commands. So the difference can come from where you are running HQPlayer Client or in different kind of network connection you are using for Client and HQPDcontrol. If such a difference exists, you can attribute it to noise influence to your HQPlayer Embedded computer (I don't know where you have your DAC connected).

 

People invest into noise isolation solutions, that's the reason ...

[cpcat]

2 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

Which way you use library on HQPlayer Embedded if not through Client or HQPDcontrol? The web interface? But from playback perspective all the three ways are the same, playback itself happens the same way. Regardless where/how you control the playback, when source is HQPlayer's library (which is the case for HQPlayer Client or HQPDcontrol).

 

 

I was referring to the library added in Roon.  I have Roon on the NAS and also a copy of the library on the same NAS.   HQPe/Ubuntu is on a separate PC, also with a copy of the library on that PC (the library that Embedded uses for HQplayercontrol).

 

in Roon settings, I added both, so I then can toggle between the two libraries- and to me, it sounds better using the library local to Roon on the NAS.

[cpcat]

15 minutes ago, bogi said:

Maybe local access to file produces more noise than network access. Our you simply like more the network access noise influence than the other one.

 

You didn't write where are you running HQPlayer Client. Both HQPDcontrol and HQPlayer Client are using the same API. If they would be running on for example computer and tablet using the same kind of network connection then everything needs to be the same since they both are invoking the same API commands. So the difference can come from where you are running HQPlayer Client or in different kind of network connection you are using for Client and HQPDcontrol. If such a difference exists, you can attribute it to noise influence to your HQPlayer Embedded computer (I don't know where you have your DAC connected).

 

People invest into noise isolation solutions, that's the reason ...

I wasn’t saying HQplayercontrol sounds better than client.  I was saying HQplayercontrol/HQPe sounds better than Roon/HQPe, and with Roon the local library to Roon sounds better.
 

I rarely use client.  I use HQplayercontrol on iPad or Daphile/LMS normally.

[bogi]

5 minutes ago, cpcat said:

I wasn’t saying HQplayercontrol sounds better than client.  I was saying HQplayercontrol/HQPe sounds better than Roon/HQPe.

Since i'm not using Roon I don't know how Roon and HQPlayer are connected but I know it i a specific implementation. I expect Roon sending decoded raw PCM or DSD stream to HQPlayer. That's not how Client and HPDcontrol is working. If so, then you have the technical difference. The reason of audible difference is usually different kind of noise profile coming from different use cases.

[b0bb]

On 12/21/2023 at 11:54 PM, cpcat said:

... with Roon the local library to Roon sounds better.
 

This is my observation  as well, using Roon for about 5 years.

 

Roon makes heavy use of metadata processing to provide automated playlist data for features like Roon radio. This relies on acoustic fingerprinting of the tracks done in the background while playing. This is one of the main reasons I switched over Roon, was using LMS previously.

 

Keeping the library local helps with this, I keep Roon on my NAS, separated from the HQPe machine.

 

[cpcat]

On 12/22/2023 at 3:05 AM, bogi said:

Since i'm not using Roon I don't know how Roon and HQPlayer are connected but I know it i a specific implementation. I expect Roon sending decoded raw PCM or DSD stream to HQPlayer. That's not how Client and HPDcontrol is working. If so, then you have the technical difference. The reason of audible difference is usually different kind of noise profile coming from different use cases.

As usual it appears you are correct - the HQPe log when using Roon indicates “stream.raw”.

 

Roon, HQPDcontrol. and Client are all referred to as “control “ in the log.

 

Jplay and Daphile /LMS just indicate play from URI.

Not saying any of this means anything for SQ.   Still evaluating …It’s good to have choices ! 

[cpcat]

5 hours ago, b0bb said:

This is my observation  as well, using Roon for about 5 years.

 

Roon makes heavy use of metadata processing to provide automated playlist data for features like Roon radio. This relies on acoustic fingerprinting of the tracks done in the background while playing. This is one of the main reasons I switched over Roon, was using LMS previously.

 

Keeping the library local helps with this, I keep Roon on my NAS, separated from the HQPe machine.

 

Agree re: Roon.   I am currently also evaluating HQPe/HQPDcontrol with local library vs NAS.

 

I was finally able to figure out how to add an NAS library directly to HQPe.