Roon and HQ Player

[Steve Williams]

Guys I give up. No piece of software sold for public use should be this frustrating. I refuse to inlist in my local college to attain a masters in computer science to operate this. Jussi will need to get his $145.00 from another naive chump.

Marty

I feel your pain as I had a similar problem when Apple did an OS update and my Playback Designs USB X box stopped working and we all had to wait for Andreas to design the new USB X box. Lesson to be learned is never to be an early adapter in OS upgrades as invariably something will go down

 

[nc42acc]

Steve I have tried all afternoon uninstalling then installing the latest update of HQ Player. I have tried all the settings that worked before. I have tried settings given by others that supposedly work. I have set HQ Player as the highest priority in Windows. Anyone care to offer up a suggestion please?

 

[Steve Williams]

When mine went down I had my son come in and uninstall the newest Apple OS and revert to the one which worked.

When he did that I had no problems at all but I guess it is very difficult to uninstall the newest versuion and revert to an older one

Perhaps go back to the last Windows version you had

 

[microstrip]

Try the latest HQPlayer update 3.16.4. The latest Windows update has broken many other software programs, so I wouldn't blame HQPlayer for these problems -- they appear to be caused by Microsoft's latest Windows version.

It is one of the reasons I got the Vivaldi CD player - it is independent of any operating system upgrade!

People will decline responsibilities, but the facts are there - people must upgrade the operating system because of safety issues and due to the intrinsic structure of Windows programs wanting to go deep in the system to optimize data flow can be sensitive to changes between versions. The consequence is surely people loosing their time and patience and angry users. Some of my home computers still have Office 2007 giving me all I need for my usual office tasks - computer audio has new releases every six months.

 

[sbo6]

First - If your machine is dedicated for audio I would disable any Windows updates. Second - I would email Signalist to see if they are aware of the problem, they likely are and may even have a planned revision to rectify coming out soon. Third - if you wanted to get back to a working SW config you could go to Control Panel -> Programs -> Uninstall a Program -> uninstall the latest MSFT update.

 

[amirm]

My level of frustration with HQ Player has reached new heights! One day no issues, upsamples with ease to full DSD512. Next day after a windows update and NOTHING!!!! Will not even muster DSD256 without major breakup and dropouts. Mind you there have been no changes to my settings. I am starting to believe that HQ Player is only for the masses who would prefer to tinker for 6 hours and listen to music for 30 minutes. Pulling my hair out in frustration!!

I installed the trial last year and it was a disaster. Kept getting a cryptic error message when I tried to play. At the end I figured it out and it was very poor user interface design. Was so disgusted that I did not go back to it.

 

[pkane]

I installed the trial last year and it was a disaster. Kept getting a cryptic error message when I tried to play. At the end I figured it out and it was very poor user interface design. Was so disgusted that I did not go back to it.

I installed it this year on three Macs and two PCs, and have yet to have a single issue with any of the installs. UI really is rudimentary, but functional. I'm probably going to write my own library manager for it that supports mobile remote control when I get a chance.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I installed the trial last year and it was a disaster. Kept getting a cryptic error message when I tried to play. At the end I figured it out and it was very poor user interface design. Was so disgusted that I did not go back to it.

The UI is minimal and not suitable for library management. That's why folks use it as a back-end to ROON (or MUSO).

 

[nc42acc]

If we were installing HQ Player on a blank Windows PC of the exact same configuration all things in life would be peachy. This is not the case, every PC has its own configuration of hardware and software. My personal opinion is HQ Player is not written in a way to be universally compliant. It is super resource dependent and very stressful on even modern hardware. You get all the stars aligned and you can have audio bliss, be off slightly and have hemorrhoid inducing mental strain.

I am hoping the crazy Windows update created a restore point so that is my first plan is to do a roll back. Wish me luck guys........

Side note from last nights adventures.....No setting changes and now HQ Player will not upsample any DSD files. Just passes through whatever the native resolution is. Any ideas?

 

[Al M.]

It is one of the reasons I got the Vivaldi CD player - it is independent of any operating system upgrade!

People will decline responsibilities, but the facts are there - people must upgrade the operating system because of safety issues and due to the intrinsic structure of Windows programs wanting to go deep in the system to optimize data flow can be sensitive to changes between versions. The consequence is surely people loosing their time and patience and angry users. Some of my home computers still have Office 2007 giving me all I need for my usual office tasks - computer audio has new releases every six months.

Good points here. Also, given the recent discussions of computer audio related problems on the Vivaldi thread, with drama that I really don't want to stomach (Roon sounds veiled -- no it doesn't -- it depends), my resolve only becomes greater by the day to avoid computer audio altogether.

Let people call me a dinosaur, a carefree life as much as possible is too important to me. Of course, I already hear the file fundamentalists whisper in the background "oh no, it's so easy!". Yeah right, no thanks -- thank you very, very much.

Gimme a good CD transport, a good AES/EBU cable, and I'm good to go. -- But 'hi-res' is so important! No, it ain't. It just ain't. There are much bigger fish to fry, when it comes to system improvements, than to agonize over formats.


PS: I perfectly understand when people want the convenience of computer audio (choose the file on your tablet, rather than digging through CDs). Yet I would submit that this convenience must be weighed against the inconvenience that computer audio constantly seems to cause. For me personally, it's no contest in favor of the disc.

 

[microstrip]

First - If your machine is dedicated for audio I would disable any Windows updates. Second - I would email Signalist to see if they are aware of the problem, they likely are and may even have a planned revision to rectify coming out soon. Third - if you wanted to get back to a working SW config you could go to Control Panel -> Programs -> Uninstall a Program -> uninstall the latest MSFT update.

Then you should be prepared to pay ranconware to get your music files back...

And yes, 2. and 3. are just the type of situations I want to avoid.

 

[pkane]

No setting changes and now HQ Player will not upsample any DSD files. Just passes through whatever the native resolution is. Any ideas?

Turn off Auto Rate family option in settings. Then go to DSDIFF/DFS Settings menu and turn off DirectSDM. Then you should be able to pick any DSD rate from the main screen drop-down list.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Let people call me a dinosaur, a carefree life as much as possible is too important to me. Of course, I already hear the file fundamentalists whisper in the background "oh no, it's so easy!". Yeah right, no thanks -- thank you very, very much.

I hear you and carefree convenience is important to me, too.

PS: I perfectly understand when people want the convenience of computer audio (choose the file on your tablet, rather than digging through CDs). Yet I would submit that this convenience must be weighed against the inconvenience that computer audio constantly seems to cause. For me personally, it's no contest in favor of the disc.

But my life style or, rather, life configuration leads me to the opposite choice. I had discs all over the place and, more importantly, distributed according to inconsistent and shifting principles among two homes and my office. Going to computer-based audio has enhanced my life. It is stable unless I choose to introduce new stuff which, of course, I often do.

 

[amirm]

PS: I perfectly understand when people want the convenience of computer audio (choose the file on your tablet, rather than digging through CDs). Yet I would submit that this convenience must be weighed against the inconvenience that computer audio constantly seems to cause. For me personally, it's no contest in favor of the disc.

Al, there is no inconvenience whatsoever in computer audio. I built my server, installed Roon, Dirac EQ and have been in business ever since. Everyday, every hour sometimes, it puts a smile on my face as I queue up music someone suggests in forums and I melt in my chair.

Please don't confuse that with infatuation people have with screwing around with computer software. If this hobby is about enjoying music, nothing, nothing replaces access to 20 million tracks of music together with your CD and high-res library, ready to be listened to at any moment. We do serious damage to the reputation of computer music with these ill conceived attempts to make it sound better.

 

[FrantzM]

Al, there is no inconvenience whatsoever in computer audio. I built my server, installed Roon, Dirac EQ and have been in business ever since. Everyday, every hour sometimes, it puts a smile on my face as I queue up music someone suggests in forums and I melt in my chair.

Please don't confuse that with infatuation people have with screwing around with computer software. If this hobby is about enjoying music, nothing, nothing replaces access to 20 million tracks of music together with your CD and high-res library, ready to be listened to at any moment. We do serious damage to the reputation of computer music with these ill conceived attempts to make it sound better.

I second that. I have been using a PC for the purpose for many years. I started timidly, read Computer Audiophile a lot and invested in one of their iterative "designs" even used for a while an Apple laptop, no fan of iTunes as music player, went back to windows and used for a while foobar... I discovered in the meantime Gary L. Koh's Music server, bought a laptop, optimized Windows some and used it with foobar... That laptop crapped out after perhaps 4 years of service. I repurposed a Lenovo Server with SSD in RAID 1 for the OS , use a Synology NAS in RAID 1 for my music files, discovered Roon and Tidal and have been listening music as I have never done it before with a level of convenience that CD cannot match. If music is what one is after, ROON is almost a necessity. Add Tidal to it and you may never buy a CD again. used to buy close to $200 of (used) CDs a month and was quite proud of the ever growing size of my music collection ... With Tidal at > 30 Millions titles , Spotify in the same range and thinking about lossless streaming, Qobuz, Deutsche Gramphon, etc... there is no going back: Streaming is here to stay... as for Sound Quality. I will sidestepped the debate of CD sounding better than files... perhaps I no longer care even if it were the case ... which it is not

 

[Rodney Gold]

Roon/tidal is a killer combo.. apart from anything else , roon has a great DSP engine ..I replaced my DIRAC box with roon software .. I have a lifetime membership..worth every penny.. and the paltry $9.99 (special price over here for the full monty service) a month for tidal is amazing value for what you get. I too havent bought music for the last few years..I have the worlds musical smorgasbord at my fingertips..musical life has never been better for me.
Now and then I cant find something on tidal ....so I just move on..happens rarely


Ive fiddled a bit with upsampling and filters .. you tend to gain sq in some areas and lose in another
In general , my findings on upsampling is a smoother sound , but this often comes at the expense of drive and raw energy .. I don't think any DSP is inconsequential so prefer to do as little as possible

 

[rblnr]

I've been streaming for more than 12 years now going back to a bunch of Squeezeboxes around the house -- Logitech Media Server was painful for awhile but became stable late last decade. I concur with all of the above posts about the ease and reliability of streaming now.

After a/bing lots of expensive and inexpensive servers over the years and not hearing any worthwhile differences, I've settled on running everything off a Mac laptop (super easy vs NAS) w/an SSD and Roon. As Kal says, it's totally reliable unless I change stuff and experiment with something.

Outside of SQ, what I love about Roon is the way it can associate music within your collection for 'rediscovery' and the ease and quality with which it presents both artist and technical information.

 

[pkane]

All good points. I'm not advocating using laptops for DSD512, I'm just reporting that I can with mine and that it sounds really good. I've built quite a few computers in my life, and have one that I built last year that has four NVIDIA GPUs with CUDA support, so perhaps I should use that one to run HQP Then again, I think Jussi did say that HQP does not support multiple GPUs yet.

Thought I'd give an update on this since this was part of a discussion of what computer build to use. I was able to free up this older PC to test with HQPlayer. It's an old build from last year, and was designed as a multi-GPU system for CUDA. For this test, I left it with a single Gigabyte 780ti. The rest of the build is pretty standard: Asus motherboard, I7 4790K four core CPU, 16GB of RAM, and a 1GB SSD.

HQPlayer seems to be quite happy at quad DSD, poly-sinc-xtr-mp-2s/ASDM7. I have CUDA offload enabled, Multi-core set to grey, and using Convolution and upscaling 44/24 content to 44.1x512 DSD. Here's what the CPU utilization looks like:



19%-21% overall utilization, with all cores but one under 30%, and most under 20%. CPU temperature at 45deg C, fans on lowest setting. Unlike the Macbook Pro with the same settings, this PC makes zero fan noise that I can hear from my listening position

Interestingly, if I disable CUDA offload in HQP, the CPU utilization doesn't go up by much (hovers around 24-25%), so I don't think the CUDA offload is all that effective in this setup. I do see the load on the GPU when it is enabled, so I know it's working, but the reduction of the load on the CPU is only a few percent, so it's probably not worth using the GPU.

 

[asiufy]

Guys,

Easy on the blame game here... HQPlayer is *NOT* user-friendly, and AFAIK, it doesn't pretend to be.
If you just want to stream with quality, there are a ton of options out there that are likely easier/more robust than HQPlayer.

 

[bibo01]

Thought I'd give an update on this since this was part of a discussion of what computer build to use. I was able to free up this older PC to test with HQPlayer. It's an old build from last year, and was designed as a multi-GPU system for CUDA. For this test, I left it with a single Gigabyte 780ti. The rest of the build is pretty standard: Asus motherboard, I7 4790K four core CPU, 16GB of RAM, and a 1GB SSD.

HQPlayer seems to be quite happy at quad DSD, poly-sinc-xtr-mp-2s/ASDM7. I have CUDA offload enabled, Multi-core set to grey, and using Convolution and upscaling 44/24 content to 44.1x512 DSD. Here's what the CPU utilization looks like:

...

19%-21% overall utilization, with all cores but one under 30%, and most under 20%. CPU temperature at 45deg C, fans on lowest setting. Unlike the Macbook Pro with the same settings, this PC makes zero fan noise that I can hear from my listening position

Interestingly, if I disable CUDA offload in HQP, the CPU utilization doesn't go up by much (hovers around 24-25%), so I don't think the CUDA offload is all that effective in this setup. I do see the load on the GPU when it is enabled, so I know it's working, but the reduction of the load on the CPU is only a few percent, so it's probably not worth using the GPU.

Pretty good numbers you have there.
In terms of CUDA I think one must have a top quality, very fast GPU card otherwise could even be detrimental, especially with fast CPU.