HQPlayer + Computer vs DSP architecture

[john61ct]

Look with plug in suport any player can become DSP, there are plug in's containing whole DAW (in single one).

Sorry I barely know what a DAW is, have no interest in mixing, as in creating? music

But I'm building up a "to be parsed" list of links to come back to in future, TBH I have a very hard time deciphering your writing style, just thought I'd mention FFR

 

[john61ct]

any player can become DSP

My point is I do not want any DSP in any player.

I want my DSP to be built into the downstream signal chain, so it is independent of source devices before "the preamp"

 

[Mnyb]

Certai

Very simple. Misplaced priorities. I wouldn't say that HQP is at the same level as snake oil since it actually does do something, and there are measurable differences. But as for audible differences, it may as well be snake oil.

its very fine software with a lot of features that’s useful. But a fav fringe use case seems to be very resource consuming resampling to some insane DSD rate or something else and a lot of folklore about filter sounds , sometimes self fulfilling as you can ofcourse do audible different filters via very badly constructed parameters again gleaned from folklore ? All this to actually make use of badly designed R2R NOS or other audiophile exotica , this is also self fulfilling as the only way to decent performance with such products is HQP or similar software.

The real solution is buy a ” normal ” DAC or streamer with the desired feature set and don’t worry and be happy

 

[ZolaIII]

@john61ct then buy a self stand one as Mini DSP and UMIK and learn to do it yourself or let it do it self for what I care (to Dirac Live limitations).
MiniDSP Flex line has suport for up to 2048 taps FIR: suport per input chenel, and you can learn to cook one (two actually or one stereo) all inclusive (convolution kernel).
I will do it much more taps and that's about it.

 

[john61ct]

miniDSP is way too pricey for me, given a large number of channels and speakers. Especially if I need to worry about "counting taps".

I'm not opposed to automation but the reduced flexibility and (again) high hardware costs are barriers.

I like the idea of designing filters in a tool that can do import / export, files compatible with different tools, especially convolvers.

rPi or PC-based convolving so far seems the way for me to go, also REW as a given for measurement.

 

[ZolaIII]

Sorry I barely know what a DAW is, have no interest in mixing, as in creating? music

But I'm building up a "to be parsed" list of links to come back to in future, TBH I have a very hard time deciphering your writing style, just thought I'd mention FFR

Try to imagine VTS as virtual rack where you can have vintage pasive preamp or whatever you're imagination can produce. I know of such historical greatly virtualsed ones, and you can play with lamps for what I care or without them. Has limiting authenders, bandwidth and so on. DSP is much more when you stop looking at it traditionally. Isn't worth having sometime like that if it doesn't cost you anything as a software?
This particular one whose so good they are stil hardware cloned (can be bought) it (with semi costume PEQ to your wish) but you won't find good lamps anymore (very hard) even they lasted long in such (only cuple mV gain whose all they did).

 

[ZolaIII]

miniDSP is way too pricey for me, given a large number of channels and speakers. Especially if I need to worry about "counting taps".

I'm not opposed to automation but the reduced flexibility and (again) high hardware costs are barriers.

I like the idea of designing filters in a tool that can do import / export, files compatible with different tools, especially convolvers.

rPi or PC-based convolving so far seems the way for me to go, also REW as a given for measurement.

How much chenels do you have and for what? Can you use balanced to all inputs?

 

[john61ct]

I would prefer to not need any computers involved, no DSP at all unless strictly necessary to improve the performance of my speakers. If I can do all my crossovers with analog, varying placement, I would prefer that.

Using DSP to minimize harmful influence of room acoustics, only to the extent necessary.

If I want to use a vintage preamp, that is to get features at a cheap price, the goal is straight wire transparency, not any coloration.

And no matter what, I do not want any such functions up in my SOURCES - much less just one player out of a dozen I and my family might be using.

 

[john61ct]

How much chenels do you have and for what? Can you use balanced to all inputs?

A lot of these decisions will be made as I go - based on measurements and experimentation

Yes I prefer balanced XLR inputs for each amp, but not a slave to that for short distances.

80% music, no AVP/AVR, likely no proprietary video codecs, just synthetic upmixing from standard PCM stereo.

Option to easily disable that upmixing, fall back to fewer channels on a per album or even per-track basis.

...

At least one mono trueSub, get down to as deep and loud as possible within ~1 cuft

FR front center and two surrounds, likely rear.

Main pair LR for above say 200Hz only, a pair of co-located bass couplers for reinforcement to match in between, down to ~80Hz

Maybe also small stereo subs to go a bit lower than that - but IMO more likely multiple trueSub monos, for placement flexibility. LCR mono worth a try.

Even the various mono subs possibly to have separate bandpass frequencies, so need multiple channels.

 

[SuicideSquid]

I would prefer to not need any computers involved, no DSP at all unless strictly necessary to improve the performance of my speakers. If I can do all my crossovers with analog, varying placement, I would prefer that.

Why, though?

 

[ZolaIII]

I would prefer to not need any computers involved, no DSP at all unless strictly necessary to improve the performance of my speakers. If I can do all my crossovers with analog, varying placement, I would prefer that.

Using DSP to minimize harmful influence of room acoustics, only to the extent necessary.

If I want to use a vintage preamp, that is to get features at a cheap price, the goal is straight wire transparency, not any coloration.

And no matter what, I do not want any such functions up in my SOURCES - much less just one player out of a dozen I and my family might be using.

Enlighten me what's a difference between data and information?
You need I/O to your needs and at least PEQ and digital one for the sake of room fundamental and crossover filters and I would still recommend digital when ever posible regarding input simply you ain't getting good ADC if you ain't paying for it (there where exceptions I can remember again on PC side but it's long gone now; certain EVGA audio cards).
Balanced sub/sub's?
If yes a higher tire MOTU interface with enough I/O. Catch input proces It somewhere else and send it to amps or cascade of what ever you might end up in stereo.
If you need mixed balanced/unbalanced analog I/O MiniDSP Flex HTx is only thing I can think of, sorry.

 

[LGD_]

I admit to not reading this whole thread, so apolgies if already covered...

To the OP...
You do realize that you can put your room eq filters into HQPlayer, right ?
Then you will have the ultimate player, and also your room correction - best of both scenarios.
That's what I'm doing, and very satisfied with the results.

 

[john61ct]

Why, though?

I prefer to stick to Simple and Analog at least to start, see how far that gets me. In some use contexts off grid, using a PC must be optional.

Costs are also a big factor.

Enlighten me what's a difference between data and information?

No idea what you are getting at.

I don't even know what questions you think you are answering. I already answered your miniDSP suggestion.

I already have computers.

I have no issues paying for high quality audio interfaces for I/O with lots of channels, choose between balanced / SE as needed.

It is my choice what functions I want to run on that PC if it turns out I do "need" DSP.

 

[klettermann]

I admit to not reading this whole thread, so apolgies if already covered...

To the OP...
You do realize that you can put your room eq filters into HQPlayer, right ?
Then you will have the ultimate player, and also your room correction - best of both scenarios.
That's what I'm doing, and very satisfied with the results.

Right, i know that stuff. The point wasn't about either somehow improving my system with HQP and all that that entails. I'm happy with it and get happier all the time. It was understanding the HQP/computer/upsampling approach used by some. @Keith_W was able to explain it very well. Cheers,