HQplayer - do I need it?

[BDWoody]

I’ve used HQPlayer for years and have found it to hugely improve the sound of my system.

I compared two use cases, the first is a bunch of roon + hq player, and the second is hq player in himself mode, and so, hq player without roon, the sound is better,

If anyone could ever provide any evidence whatsoever that there is an actual improvement in the perceived sound quality, it might get more traction around here.

Try this with basic sight and level controls and I'll bet you can't tell which is which. In fact, many would take that bet.

 

[haen]

yes, of course, a blind test will help, I'll do it for a free period for now

Did you manage to do them?

 

[Igor Gaich]

If anyone could ever provide any evidence whatsoever that there is an actual improvement in the perceived sound quality, it might get more traction around here.

Try this with basic sight and level controls and I'll bet you can't tell which is which. In fact, many would take that bet.

yes, I agree with you, without measurements, my words are just words. But I just urge you to try such experiments in my system as mine. Unfortunately, I won’t be able to measure myself. But what can I add, I have a HF fountek neo cd 2.0 and are powered by a separate ultra-linear amplifier from 2.5 kHz they are very sensitive to what is fed to them ..... If you think critically, I admit that maybe my dac reproduces dsd content better ....

 

[Igor Gaich]

Did you manage to do them?

 

[Igor Gaich]

yes, besides me, two more people noticed this .... But I repeat the difference is how small, barely perceptible, mainly in the HF range ....

 

[Ron Texas]

In a word, no.

 

[BDWoody]

yes, I agree with you, without measurements, my words are just words.

We don't need more measurements, we need a properly done controlled listening test. There are none I'm aware of that support the claims. No need to try it, since apparently no one can provide that missing piece.

 

[thon]

Since no other software contains the same filters and modulators HQPlayer provides (since exactly these are Signalysts authorship & intellectual property) you really can only compare oranges to apples. The only valid A/B test here is to play back PCM bitperfect through HQPlayer and to play back the same PCM transcoded to DSD through HQPlayer - to check whether or not you prefer HQPlayers processing over the DACs internal processing (in case of Sigma Delta DACs).

I for one found and am still finding all my Sigma Delta DACs sound "better" when I feed them with DSD through HQPlayer (I upsample everything to high rate DSD).
For me it really has nothing to do with file formats and recordings available anywhere (PCM, DSD edited or unedited) but solely with the "format" we are listening to anyway when using a certain DAC (almost always Sigma Delta - so "DSD").

 

[Jimbob54]

Since no other software contains the same filters and modulators HQPlayer provides (since exactly these are Signalysts authorship & intellectual property) you really can only compare oranges to apples. The only valid A/B test here is to play back PCM bitperfect through HQPlayer and to play back the same PCM transcoded to DSD through HQPlayer - to check whether or not you prefer HQPlayers processing over the DACs internal processing (in case of Sigma Delta DACs).

I for one found and am still finding all my Sigma Delta DACs sound "better" when I feed them with DSD through HQPlayer (I upsample everything to high rate DSD).
For me it really has nothing to do with file formats and recordings available anywhere (PCM, DSD edited or unedited) but solely with the "format" we are listening to anyway when using a certain DAC (almost always Sigma Delta - so "DSD").

So, a preference test where either outcome means you stick with /pay for HQ player?

I can see why at least one person would like that approach.

 

[thon]

So, a preference test where either outcome means you stick with /pay for HQ player?

I can see why at least one person would like that approach.

Maybe my post was a bit misleading. Actually I wanted to say that there is no useful way to do such a blind A/B comparison.
What you can compare, however, is whether you prefer processing in software (to override or at leat minimize the DACs internal processing) or the processing of the DAC.
You can just as well use JRiver or other playback softwares for this kind of comparision. Personally I prefer HQPlayer for upsamling to high rate DSD but I also think there is nothing to argue when someone else prefers a different software or prefers to playback everything bit perfect.

 

[Igor Gaich]

in my experience it turned out to be interesting in general, I bought gustard x26 pro just because of its advanced input part, but it turned out that I did this processing to the program .... (almost all, there is no direct dsd there if I'm not mistaken)

 

[shoto]

We don't need more measurements, we need a properly done controlled listening test. There are none I'm aware of that support the claims. No need to try it, since apparently no one can provide that missing piece.

more people would test this if there was an easy way to do it, there isnt.

here is john yang test on dac filters, 8/10: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-filters-and-ccif-imd.7436/page-3#post-172232

 

[BDWoody]

Actually I wanted to say that there is no useful way to do such a blind A/B comparison.

No useful way or no easy way? Set up two inputs on a preamp and switch between them. Match the levels. Switch without knowing which is which. I don't care what filters or processing or whatever are different, if no one can identify one vs the other when they aren't looking, let alone show a consistent preference, why would I believe it will help me, or want to spend time on it?

more people would test this if there was an easy way to do it, there isnt.

Maybe they count on this. It not being easy isn't a reason to spend money on something that has not, to my knowledge, been demonstrated to be preferred once there are level and sight controls on the evaluation. Lots of people claim they hear a difference, but no evidence so far. Claims are easy.

 

[shoto]

john yang says he hears differences on filter in Topping dx3 pro,

2 and 4 and he says are the best sounding and measuring filters, with a recording of the filters which says is even harder to tell them apart he gets 8/10 test result.

Are filters in DX3 pro badly designed? no, it is standard filters found in most DACs. Could john yang tell apart hq player from DX3 pro filter? from this result it is possible I think.

 

[thon]

Switch without knowing which is which. I don't care what filters or processing or whatever are different, if no one can identify one vs the other when they aren't looking, let alone show a consistent preference, why would I believe it will help me, or want to spend time on it?

ah, this kind of test!
ok. I‘ve done it some day, kind of.
I‘ve recorded the DAC output of the same songs PCM upsampled to DSD through 3 different softwares (level matched) and could reliably tell them appart. But of course it wan‘t published anywhere

 

[shoto]

I found an easy way to test filtering, PGGB IT is software that allows file to be upsampled into a hi res format.

PGGB IT adds attenuation to files from upsampling, you have add attention to original file to match for a test. the level shows in dB (0.xxxxx) in the log, the number in the log is not dB.
I used foobar DR to measure peak to find real amount of attenuation on the upsampled fule and compared in audacity, DR appears to reliable for finding attenuation level of the upsampled file.


ABX foobar would make the test easy but it is useless... clear delay is heard in the test switching between different files but for not for the same files.

I hear little to no difference from the files anyway.

 

[BDWoody]

john yang says he hears differences on filter in Topping dx3 pro,

2 and 4 and he says are the best sounding and measuring filters, with a recording of the filters which says is even harder to tell them apart he gets 8/10 test result.

Are filters in DX3 pro badly designed? no, it is standard filters found in most DACs. Could john yang tell apart hq player from DX3 pro filter? from this result it is possible I think.

I'm not saying people can't tell a difference between filters as you suggest. I'm suggesting that before thinking DSD by it's nature somehow improves things over PCM, I'd need to see evidence. Many seem to believe that the more it is upsampled the better, and/or that DSD is just an inherently better sounding format, and I don't.

 

[shoto]

I'm not saying people can't tell a difference between filters as you suggest. I'm suggesting that before thinking DSD by it's nature somehow improves things over PCM, I'd need to see evidence. Many seem to believe that the more it is upsampled the better, and/or that DSD is just an inherently better sounding format, and I don't.

I dont follow you, how are you not saying it?

Set up two inputs on a preamp and switch between them. Match the levels. Switch without knowing which is which. I don't care what filters or processing or whatever are different, if no one can identify one vs the other when they aren't looking, let alone show a consistent preference, why would I believe it will help me, or want to spend time on it?



Maybe they count on this. It not being easy isn't a reason to spend money on something that has not, to my knowledge, been demonstrated to be preferred once there are level and sight controls on the evaluation. Lots of people claim they hear a difference, but no evidence so far. Claims are easy.

PCM and DSD have different filters, like the filter in john yangs test.
If you want evidence DSD and PCM are the same, the filter response must be the same, because people have shown to hear a difference between the filters already. but you dont ask for this and I think this would really be very hard or impossible test to make without measuring tools to make sure the filter response is the same.

 

[thon]

Many seem to believe that the more it is upsampled the better, and/or that DSD is just an inherently better sounding format, and I don't.

I don't.
At least I don't care.
When playing back PCM we all (except the few who use a R2R ladder DAC) are listening essentially to "DSD" since any Sigma Delta DAC by design internally resamples and transcodes to high rate "DSD". Which, of course, is a redundant remark.
Doing the filtering and modulation on the computer side in software overrides the often pretty weak (mediocre at best) PCM reconstruction filters built into DACS as well as their SDM modulators. Buy doing that the music is ideally sent directly to the D/A conversion stage of the DAC so that the DAC can run in idle mode. This goes for TI and AKM chips in "direct" mode and obviously also for the RHOM chip. ESS is apparently a bit different (?), although also ESS chips at least do not resample when they receive DSD as input.
So the question for me is not about the file format. The question (with Sigma Delta DACs) is where do you want the inevitable transformation to "DSD" happen - leave it to the DAC "as is" or do it in software on the computer side (which includes the possibility to customize the processing WRT filters, modulators, final sample rate).

 

[pkane]

more people would test this if there was an easy way to do it, there isnt.

here is john yang test on dac filters, 8/10: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-filters-and-ccif-imd.7436/page-3#post-172232

About 4 years ago I’ve done a number of blind test on various HQPlayer filters when I was considering what player software I wanted to use - I just wrote a script that switched filters randomly and recorded which one was in effect without me knowing it so I could later match it up with my preferences. I was sure I could tell the difference between them before the blind test. My result? I couldn’t reliably tell the difference driving Holo Spring DAC. Subjectively, preferred PCM to DSD. Objectively, still couldn't tell the difference reliably.