HQPLAYER and High-Rate DSD Playback

[Carlos269]

Lately there have been a number of posts once again reigniting the endless debates of analog versus digital. There was also a new crop of digital devices that debuted at the Munich show this year. All those topics are subjects for debates. But what I don’t believe can be debated, but we shall see, is that high-rate DSD512x48 and DSD1024x48 with HQPLAYER 5 is the current cutting edge of digital playback. If someone wants to know how good digital playback can be at this time, and in the foreseeable future, one must look no further than HQPLAYER 5 outputting DSD512x48 or DSD1024x48 to a chipless DSD digital to analog converter. It gets no better than this, the issue is that very few have heard it or had a chance to compare it.

I would venture to say that very few people on this forum have heard HQPLAYER outputting DSD512x48 or DSD1024x48 to a chipless DSD digital to analog converter.

Who on this forum, other than myself, has heard HQPLAYER outputting DSD512x48 or DSD1024x48 to a chipless DSD digital to analog converter?

The Halo May counts but more interesting would be comments from those that have heard it the T+A DAC200 or T+A SD 3100 HV Reference streaming DAC.

I currently have four DAC’s that can process native DSD512x48 or higher rates from HQPLAYER, which has allowed me to form this opinion.

Welcome any comments from those who have heard HQPLAYER outputting DSD512x48 or DSD1024x48 to a chipless DSD digital to analog converter, and how it compares to the WADAX, dCS, MSB and Aries Cerat playback quality. These dacs I believe are all limited to DSD256. The LampizatOr Horizon can playback DSD512 but it is my understanding that details for the off the shelf dac IC chip solution used have not been disclosed or any details to refute the use of an off the shelf IC chip dac have not been forthcoming.

 

[Carlos269]

Lately there have been a number of posts once again reigniting the endless debates of analog versus digital. There was also a new crop of digital devices that debuted at the Munich show this year. All those topics are subjects for debates. But what I don’t believe can be debated, but we shall see, is that high-rate DSD512x48 and DSD1024x48 with HQPLAYER 5 is the current cutting edge of digital playback. If someone wants to know how good digital playback can be at this time, and in the foreseeable future, one must look no further than HQPLAYER 5 outputting DSD512x48 or DSD1024x48 to a chipless DSD digital to analog converter. It gets no better than this, the issue is that very few have heard it or had a chance to compare it.

I would venture to say that very few people on this forum have heard HQPLAYER outputting DSD512x48 or DSD1024x48 to a chipless DSD digital to analog converter.

Who on this forum, other than myself, has heard HQPLAYER outputting DSD512x48 or DSD1024x48 to a chipless DSD digital to analog converter?

The Halo May counts but more interesting would be comments from those that have heard it the T+A DAC200 or T+A SD 3100 HV Reference streaming DAC.

I currently have four DAC’s that can process native DSD512x48 or higher rates from HQPLAYER, which has allowed me to form this opinion.

Welcome any comments from those who have heard HQPLAYER outputting DSD512x48 or DSD1024x48 to a chipless DSD digital to analog converter, and how it compares to the WADAX, dCS, MSB and Aries Cerat playback quality. These dacs I believe are all limited to DSD256. The LampizatOr Horizon can playback DSD512 but it is my understanding that details for the off the shelf dac IC chip solution used have not been disclosed or any details to refute the use of an off the shelf IC chip dac have not been forthcoming.

In case anyone is wondering why the “chipless dac” requirement is crucial, it is because it avoids or eliminates any further digital processing of the data stream after HQPLAYER has processed and optimized it. Any digital processing of the data stream following HQPLAYER is detrimental to the resulting sound quality.

I know that @StreamFidelity on this forum listens to this HQPLAYER setup and it would be interesting to read his commentary and to see if he has done any direct or indirect comparisons with the Taiko sever & some of the favorite dacs on this forum to see how they compare sound wise to an optimal HQPLAYER digital playback system.

@StreamFidelity also lives in Germany and it would be interesting to hear if he heard any digital or analog systems at the Munich show that approach the level of resolution and detail that an optimized HQPLAYER based digital playback system can offer.

 

[Alrainbow]

Can you explain chip less
I understand native and Lampi had or does have chip less
I had it and owned a newer trp too
now the chip less still used chips it just did not use a pre made processor like most
I can say this on dsd compared to pcm red book
red book when the Dac has the right filters always had more dynamics more upfront
msb has the best filters for red book
but things have.
No matter what I built and uses HQ player I still liked
Red book and to me the best red book is from a transport
dsd 64 to 128 showed me we need dsd 128
256 I felt lost a bit and and 512 got some back and had more presence
But no dsd had the attack of pcm.
hq player clearly is the best playback software
but im not a fan of up sample
it shouted if on the fly
now up sample off line yes better

 

[Alrainbow]

I have a few ss dacs that do 512 and one for 1040
Not sure if native

 

[Carlos269]

Can you explain chip less
I understand native and Lampi had or does have chip less
I had it and owned a newer trp too
now the chip less still used chips it just did not use a pre made processor like most
I can say this on dsd compared to pcm red book
red book when the Dac has the right filters always had more dynamics more upfront
msb has the best filters for red book
but things have.
No matter what I built and uses HQ player I still liked
Red book and to me the best red book is from a transport
dsd 64 to 128 showed me we need dsd 128
256 I felt lost a bit and and 512 got some back and had more presence
But no dsd had the attack of pcm.
hq player clearly is the best playback software
but im not a fan of up sample
it shouted if on the fly
now up sample off line yes better

Al, commercial off-the-shelf dac IC chips such as ESS, AKM, TI/Burr-Brown, Wolfson and others have internal digital processing, such filters modulators, that cannot be bypassed. AKM dacs have a “Direct DSD” that reduces internal digital processing but in general any additional digital processing after HQPLAYER is detrimental as it undoes the filtering and data optimization that HQPLAYER has done.

Discrete architecture digital converters do not use an off the shelf dac IC chip and therefore do not do any digital processing to the HQPLAYER data stream. These “chipless” dacs are only responsible for the conversion, reconstruction and output stages, so they maintain all the benefits of HQPLAYER in place all through the digital stage.

 

[MarkusBarkus]

...you might want to look into PGGB off-line processing of DSD files for another perspective.

PGGB and HQPlayer Discussion

I've had a wee break from music recently due to personal circumstances and I think that it's done me some good as I'm returning with a fresh pair of ears. First of all - @Zaphod Beeblebrox and @Miska - thank you so much for both of these wonderful pieces of software. Thanks to being able to use d...

audiophilestyle.com

 

[Carlos269]

I have a few ss dacs that do 512 and one for 1040
Not sure if native

Are any of these chipless dacs or do these use ESS Sabre, AKM or other off-the-shelf IC DAC chips?

 

[Carlos269]

...you might want to look into PGGB off-line processing of DSD files for another perspective.

PGGB and HQPlayer Discussion

I've had a wee break from music recently due to personal circumstances and I think that it's done me some good as I'm returning with a fresh pair of ears. First of all - @Zaphod Beeblebrox and @Miska - thank you so much for both of these wonderful pieces of software. Thanks to being able to use d...

audiophilestyle.com

I’m familiar with it. Jussi warns about any pre-processing in front of HQPLAYER, such as the ROON DSP engine because it process the data in a way that HQPLAYER can no longer fully optimize.

PGGB is away to get around the HQPLAYER processing requirements issues that most encounter, so from that standpoint could be beneficial, to some extend.

 

[Carlos269]

...you might want to look into PGGB off-line processing of DSD files for another perspective.

PGGB and HQPlayer Discussion

I've had a wee break from music recently due to personal circumstances and I think that it's done me some good as I'm returning with a fresh pair of ears. First of all - @Zaphod Beeblebrox and @Miska - thank you so much for both of these wonderful pieces of software. Thanks to being able to use d...

audiophilestyle.com

Thanks for alerting and pointing me to this thread. I was not aware of it. I just read through all 11 pages and found some interesting information. I find the PGGB may offer an offline alternative to the expensive HQPLAYER Pro that may provide some benefits for some that don’t have the processing power for the HQPLAYER real-time processing. I personally have not listened to PGGB but that thread has peeked my curiosity, but it does seem that there is nothing that HQPLAYER doesn’t already offer. Jussi Laako’s technical explanations in that thread are also educational for those not familiar with HQPLAYER. Thanks again for referencing that thread.

 

[MarkusBarkus]

...yes, they disagree on some technical matters with filters, etc. but ZB is a very clever fellow offering an alternative flavor on this type of processing. And BTW: one can "demo" it on a trial basis. For those who may have tried earlier PCM versions, the DSD version has upped the game.

 

[Alrainbow]

Carlos what dacs do Chip less as stated
I am interested in this.
as very little files are available I assume you up sample
Is this done offline or on the fly ?

 

[Carlos269]

Carlos what dacs do Chip less as stated
I am interested in this.
as very little files are available I assume you up sample
Is this done offline or on the fly ?

Al, the T+A DAC200 or T+A SD 3100 HV Reference streaming DAC are “chipless” dacs, capable of DSD1024x48 playback, and are ideal for use with HQPLAYER.

I transcode everything to DSD512x48 or DSD1024x48 real-time, or on the fly, using HQPLAYER 5 Desktop.

You can use HQPLAYER Pro or PGGB—DSD to upsample or transcode to high-rate DSD (512 or 1024) offline. Offline upsampling or transcoding will result in huge files so be mindful of storage space for the created files.

 

[StreamFidelity]

I know that @StreamFidelity on this forum listens to this HQPLAYER setup and it would be interesting to read his commentary and to see if he has done any direct or indirect comparisons with the Taiko sever & some of the favorite dacs on this forum to see how they compare sound wise to an optimal HQPLAYER digital playback system.

Thank you for linking my nickname. I haven't followed this thread before.

I am happy to share some of my experiences. Knowing full well that there are other ways and concepts for enjoying music.
As my nickname suggests, I only consume music digitally.

Before I talk about the HQPlayer, it is important to understand that most DACs work with delta-sigma chips. This means that every signal is inevitably converted to DSD, even if it was previously in PCM format. The algorithms for oversampling are limited due to the low computing power in the DAC.

This is where the HQPlayer comes into play. The HQPlayer is ideally operated in an audio PC with high computing power and can make the DAC's work easier. The concept works best in the so-called NOS mode (Non Oversampling). In the picture below, DSD is fed to the DAC by bypassing its internal oversampling. The DAC then only performs the conversion from digital to analogue.

I sell the fis Audio PC and ask for your understanding that I do not make comparisons with other competitors. Comparisons are always subjective and linked to your own listening preferences. The fis Audio PC is the result of a DIY project and I encourage everyone to build their own. All components are disclosed. Other than that, I'm holding back on self-promotion and instead want to share my knowledge with the community.

 

[RCanelas]

Our experience with it is limited, but could be relevant for some.

In the course of designing our DACs and DDCs we experimented with direct dsd dac implementations and beefy DDCs that ran HQPlayer in several flavors to feed the dac. The results are not linear, and there lies the issue with this methodology.

HQPlayer is fantastic, it employs a lot of cool ideas, some SOTA, about filtering in general. From upsampling, noise shaping, low level detail extraction, spectral manipulation, you name it, it has it all, and it has the ability to make something sound meaningfully different. It is a high quality swiss knife of digital audio.

In our case, we found it doesn't align with the experience we like to have with music. If you want a universal experience, you only use simple filtering and limited advanced options. Our PCM based approach was sounding better at this point. If you want to go all in, you'll spend more time adjusting filters and trying out configs than listening to music. The same set of filters that sounds genuinely impressive with MJs Bad sounds overdone on Pink Floyd Animals and disastrous on Fischer-Dieskau/Moore Schubert Lieders.

In the end, we lifted some cool ideas on sampling and filtering, modified and implemented them on our own fpga and went with a very different architecture overall.

 

[Carlos269]

In our case, we found it doesn't align with the experience we like to have with music. If you want a universal experience, you only use simple filtering and limited advanced options. Our PCM based approach was sounding better at this point. If you want to go all in, you'll spend more time adjusting filters and trying out configs than listening to music. The same set of filters that sounds genuinely impressive with MJs Bad sounds overdone on Pink Floyd Animals and disastrous on Fischer-Dieskau/Moore Schubert Lieders.

I’m not sure when this experience was with HQPLAYER . As you state there many choices, the permutations are currently numerous. If one doesn’t understand the filter types, then things get quickly overwhelming for the end user. Experienced user have narrow down certain filter, modulator, etc. combinations that work extremely well across all music genres. To achieve this does take a level of understanding and empirical experience.

One thing I thing that we can all agree on, I’m pretty sure on this one, is that we all have our own unique preferences. HQPLAYER gives the users choices nd this is the beauty of HQPLAYER, as it allows you to get things “right”, for yourself, at the source material. If it is not prominent in the source material, then it becomes nearly impossible to extract those details downstream, without very specialized tools.

A number of Digital To Analog converter use FPGA’s and some are excellent. Depending on their implementation, HQPLAYER can also work well with them, such is the case with my Digital Audio Denmark AX24 Raw-DSD dac.

Yes, HQPLAYER is extremely powerful and can be used to greatly alter the sound of the recordings, but used wisely, it allows you to extract both low-level and inner-detail like no other tool in audio.

I like to be in control of my sound choices. I like to experiment with different settings rather than with different equipment. I like for some of my choices to be selectable and be-disabled at the click of of a mouse. I like to hear high resolution, low-level & inner-detail. And these are some of the reasons why I use HQPLAYER.

The PCM versus DSD thing is a different matter. PCM gives the music a sharper/crispier sound, while DSD is softer and more nuanced, kind of like film and digital in movies and in photography. HQPLAYER gives you both options at the highest level,.

The bottom line is that with HQPLAYER the choices are yours, and not the dac’s designers, with the right type of DAC.

 

[RCanelas]

The bottom line is that with HQPLAYER the choices are yours, and not the dac designer’s, with the right type of DAC.

Very much so. And this is both the strength and the weakness of this type of MO.

Not everyone cooks their own food to Michelin star chef levels every day. It implies they can (they studied, experimented, invested in the hardware and ingredients required) and want to. Not everyone produces their own wine. They don't have the decades of knowledge of experience needed, the dedication, the terroir or the resources.

Some people go to the restaurant and place themselves in the hands of the chef. It's part of the experience and relation they prefer to have with their eating habits. And they know there are other chefs, better something, somewhere, but for today all that is noise and they just surrender to the specific experience they choose.

I'm not tempted to call out audiophiles that just want to listen to the music, any more than calling out a a foodie going to a nice restaurant and asking for a curated meal experience, or me going into a wine cellar and getting a nice bottle of viognier, instead of growing the grapes myself.

I don't think it is realistic to expect this workflow to be acceptable to anyone expect an incredibly small number of people. It requires a lot, as you said, and it doesn't guarantee anything, objectively. And that's why a bottle from an extraordinary wine maker is what it is. I expect about the same proportion of wine drinkers to people barreling wine in their under the stairs storage after they harvested the grapes from their backyard, to normal melomaniacs and people investing in the current way this MO proposes they listen to music.

 

[Carlos269]

Very much so. And this is both the strength and the weakness of this type of MO.

Not everyone cooks their own food to Michelin star chef levels every day. It implies they can (they studied, experimented, invested in the hardware and ingredients required) and want to. Not everyone produces their own wine. They don't have the decades of knowledge of experience needed, the dedication, the terroir or the resources.

Some people go to the restaurant and place themselves in the hands of the chef. It's part of the experience and relation they prefer to have with their eating habits. And they know there are other chefs, better something, somewhere, but for today all that is noise and they just surrender to the specific experience they choose.

I'm not tempted to call out audiophiles that just want to listen to the music, any more than calling out a a foodie going to a nice restaurant and asking for a curated meal experience, or me going into a wine cellar and getting a nice bottle of viognier, instead of growing the grapes myself.

I don't think it is realistic to expect this workflow to be acceptable to anyone expect an incredibly small number of people. It requires a lot, as you said, and it doesn't guarantee anything, objectively. And that's why a bottle from an extraordinary wine maker is what it is. I expect about the same proportion of wine drinkers to people barreling wine in their under the stairs storage after they harvested the grapes from their backyard, to normal melomaniacs and people investing in the current way this MO proposes they listen to music.

Just as you used in your analogy, audio is like a bottle of wine. There is a subjective quality that overrides apparently all objective reasoning, therefore, there is no one size fits all. Hence the need for HQPLAYER for knowledge and experienced users.

 

[RCanelas]

Just as you used in your analogy, audio is like a bottle of wine. There is a subjective quality that overrides apparently all objective reasoning, therefore, there is no one size fits all. Hence the need for HQPLAYER for knowledge and experienced users.

Difference is well illustrated in this analogy, indeed.

When faced with something that stimulates their subjective preferences, most wine afficionados don't go and buy a vineyard and start making their own wine(s), trying to have dozens so they can perfectly pair with the meals. They go on the hunt for what they like out in the world, and enjoy great stories (and different wine) in the process.

Again, I expect the ratio to hold pretty well, although rounding error might be a real issue in this case.

 

[Carlos269]

They go on the hunt for what they like out in the world, and enjoy great stories (and different wine) in the process.

This is the endless component churn mentality that fuels the industry and empties the pockets of those less knowledgeable. Not for me any more, I know how to make my own wine to my liking and with HQPLAYER others can too.

 

[Alrainbow]

Carlos do you use roon ?
Do you use two pc Boards ?
I’ve had two pc main board systems for many years
your comment of pcm and dsd is I think spot on
and do prefer pcm for this reason
roon kills music in many ways but has gotten better
what is your pc server setup ?
what kind of PSU used ?