Better SQ from R.O.C.K. forward to HQPlayer Embedded desired

Now, this may seem utterly provocative … but the recent days (blaming the announced price increase from you) I just had to experiment with how to maintain SQ, but sorry-to-say divorce from my long partner Roon R.O.C.K. installed on a desktop PC. Playing with no extra, every DSP functionality is off. In this state, I feed my other desktop PC using the Roon IP address output to HQP. Excellent network conditions, completely shielded, with proper grounding and no shield or signal noise using quality networking devices and QoS warrants a far better oscillator and buffer to minimize jitter problems.

But, what I have found is three things, 1) Roon R.O.C.K. is so nice to operate and is good locking, intuitive and overall a very good user experience, 2) but now getting a bit too expensive if you ask me. The third issue is the most troublesome, if I am to continue with Roon. The SQ. Using the built in (but not intuitive, dull and no features like Roon what so ever, HQPlayer Emb. sounds, not a little, but clearly better. I work in the HiFi industry, as well as we at our company site have our own in-house studio, so I am very much into SQ. I am used to experience differences in SQ from software to software, and between hardwares, but the giant leap just floored me.

So, now I cannot really do anything but charing this experience with you guys and for me there will not be any new subscription of the Roon software, irrespective of all the good features that have come lately. The other side of the coin, is higher prices, increasing numbers of updates, disturbing the listening experience, like having a commercial OS based Roon Core. I did choose not to use Windows or MacOS in the music playback because of just those perpetual updates, setting me back good moments from listening. Not to mention the lower SQ, that came as a big surprise to me while evaluating the necessity of an extended subscription.

1 Like

A cheerful wave and don’t look back is all that’s needed, you had some good times, but now you need to move on.

If you could just leave your key and maybe send me back the scarf and jacket that you borrowed on the day that it snowed.

I can’t promise that I won’t be sad, but it will only be for a little while and then I’ll move on too.

5 Likes

Roon → HQP → DAC

This is the solution you’re looking for. Best of all worlds. Things always get more expensive as time goes on. Buy lifetime and be done with your Roon bills.

To address the “roon sound quality” part. It’s bit-perfect. How that “sounds” across any individual set-up can be very different. More so than many other playback chains because Roon is, at times, painfully, transparent. I’ve got a great sound playback chain. At times I’ve preferred Audirvania. I currently enjoy HQP for specific types of music. But… I’m not “unhappy” with Roon either.

Also, this makes no sense. Happy to dive into a technical discussion but you’re confusing packet / frame jitter and network ring buffers with something like jitter of SPDIF which can’t be compared or correlated. It’s like trying to compare oranges and rocket ships.

HQP local source vs. HQP Roon source should sound the same (as long as HQP is configured the same). Maybe move this to the HQP area… I’d like to better understand why this sounds different in your set-up. It’s feels like an issue somewhere other than an expectation this would be different.

Right you are … :slight_smile:

The jitter in the network and SPDIF should not be the same, SPDIF does not provide handshake protocol as the network does, but strangely enough there are things that definitely should not sound any different through an enitire network. An example is in the far end of my local network, I replaced my NAS two years ago. Just another network storage in my mind. Suddenly it altered the sound reproduction. Yeah right, everyone thinks, for good reasons I suspect. What is a curse and a blessing is my autism. I can remember note by note in my referenslist of music exactly how they plays and if there is only a minute difference I will detect it. This is so easy to disregard for many people, but close friend I have, know that my attention to those details is highly frustrating and at the same time very useful when they ask for help with tuning of the rig.

Having said this, I know small changes in the network play a large role in transmission. Can’t say anything about what might affect the binary code. I am not a computer guy, thank God, I might add, because I am still capable of seeing the electrical problems in any circuit, digital or analogue. I do know that a buffer stage suitable for digital signal is many times a night mare for distribution of analogue noise, as the bandwidth in such amps does not limit to 100k like an analogue but goes far beyond. Further the cable shields from digital interfaces that now becomes standard in audio, is developed for computer, but is a disaster in audio circuitry. cables with shielding in both ends soldered to the various MB’s ground planes instead of being supplied with a flange and screwed to the chassis ground. In a computer of ATX standards you at least have the port shields connected to chassis ground via the IO-plate, but some I know do not mount them, or simply does not connect to grounded wall sockets, cuz there is none in some older homes in Sweden.

The term bit-perfect is so worn down, it makes me sick. There are no other computer related area as audio that suffer from alterations in the digital signal. Just take the DSP. It is a mathematical treatment of the digital binary code. Roon got one, I have this shut-off at every point I can find. HQPe got a highly capable (probably the most capable existing) DSP. Roon plays bit-perfect and HQPe player part, do the same, but then Jussis magic simply “lifts of the received mastering” and allows you to IRL define a new master for DAC. Passing by the DSP section in the RME, going straight to the buffert/clock and to the DAC as HQPe remastered is the only time I can fully apprciate a Zildjian cymbal delicate ring as analogue perfect. The strange thing is that there is a difference in Roon bit-perfect compared to HQPe bit-perfect. And it is not even subtle (to my ears).

And when it comes to where to place this thread, Roon or HQPe, I think about who is responsible for stuff. The sender, or the receiver. A receiver cannot do anything better that what is received, if the sender does not go the extra mile securing the signal integrity. If the HQPe own player does a better job, the the binary code from Roon must differ and to my ears is inferior. Strangely I am very immune to psykoacoustics. There are no things that really impress me in that sense I would imagine a bias. High-end stuff with excellent test results in a magazine, means nothing to me, nor the price. On the contrary in many case. So I have really access to my ears with a different posture compared to many others I have met through time. I simply does not “have to achieve a certain result” when I listen. Not even the things I design myself. I often find myself ■■■■■■ of and wondering where my intuition went bananas, but luckily I work without the normal budget restrictions other designers suffer, so I can play very much, measure and listen. Roon playback plays different compared to HQPe, even if all other things after the player are exactly the same, HQPe take over the sampling, ALSA output to RME DAC and further. How, I don’t know, but it is and also better.

Interesting :slight_smile:

Roon is bit-perfect. HQP is not bit-perfect. Let’s quickly defined the accepted, or I should say majority, accepted definition of bit-perfect.

Bit-perfect is taking the source PCM or DSD bit-stream and handing it to the DAC unaltered. This requires no DSP, no volume (amplitude adjustment, no up / down-sampling. The whole point of HQP is to not hand the “bit-perfect” bit-stream to the DAC but alter it in ways that influence the way the DAC works… generally to assist in providing a more pleasing output of the DAC to the listener.

This is not true. Every DAC has filters and internally up-samples. Few DACs are NOS or allow for NOS mode. Why do DACs change the bit-stream ahead of the actual D/A operation? To improve the output.

The bit-stream itself is not changed. That is, the 1’s and 0’s in a specific order is not changed. Depending on the streamer, the output might differ slightly influening what you hear at the DAC but if you’re running this through HQP then the bit-stream is altered by HQP so you’re no longer “hearing” what Roon is sending; you’re simply hearing the output of HQP (which is no longer bit-perfect to the source).

No one is immune to this.

This is your bias. You can have a bias for and / or against. The fact you mention price and “high-end” at all means you’re aware of things in your evaluation.

You didn’t describe exactly what your sources and playback chain is when making this statement. Maybe if you described exactly the chain in your listening tests the community can assist in helping you understand why you hear a difference.

7 Likes

How would I achieve this when ROCK is running on a NUC? I would need another PC on the network? Thanks

Answers italic above

You may install Linux version of Roon and HQP overlay on Linux OS. If you use the HQPlayer Embedded, that is fused together in one part/image and with the right skills in Linux perhaps you can add ROCK to the HQPe image, or vice versa, but I run them on separate PC’s. Roon make this easy, just type the HQPe computer IP-address and voila, they talk to eachother …

1 Like

Yes. If the Core is running on a PC, you can install HQP on the same PC. But you can’t install anything on ROCK, so HQP needs to be installed elsewhere. Then you go to the Roon settings for your ROCK and tell it where to find HQP:

After you click that Add button:

Also see

2 Likes

@Lars-Goran_Andersson

And your expertese in that area is?

It’s the generally established view based on overwhelming evidence. I don’t know about your specific condition, obviously, but I have one autistic work colleague and he is most definitely not immune to biases.

Great thanks. And if this is worthwhile I have to try for myself?! I guess so, maybe next year. How much is a HQP license?

Nobody will be able to tell you if it’s worthwhile to you. There are lots of posts on the forum about different filter settings.
Prices are on the HQPlayer website, I don’t know

1 Like

Last time I checked a license is 300 bucks. You can try it out for free it will play 30 minutes of audio for you to listen too.

1 Like

It is worthwhile, any day of the week. Me, my friends and acquaints have concluded a few fundamental facts that need attention prior to determine the potentential of the HQPlayer.

  1. is your posture to HiFi creating a transparent rig? When making the audition at several places in my hood, it has been some local differences depending on the rig itself. The least impact was at a place with the most tube valve amps in DAC, pre-amp and power amp. The signature of that rig was the sort that make all albums sound the same.

  2. the level of computer management interest. It is a bit of work to integrate HQPlayer. The are a few options; You will have to decide to use either one, two or possibly three computers for playback. It is for a computer n00b messy. I took me a good while to get acquainted to this architecture and HQPlayer. I must admit is not the most intuitive software I have encountered. But without question the best.

  3. The basic structure is to have one computer as a player and server; ie organizer of the local library, possible integrated CD-player and/or external internet streaming services. The second will be a very potent re- and up-sampler. It is possible to integrate these to one computer. The third computer is called a NAA (network audio adapter) a provider of bitstream to the DAC if you want the Roon/HQPlayer computer/s to be in an other room due to noise or styling. Some persue the third computer as the better choice for SQ, but there are other ways to achieve the same goal.

If I descripe my playback chain, it is with Qobuz from internet and a NAS with ripped music content, with mostly wave files and some flac. The difference is questionable if one is better than the other, but there are some advantages in tagging, where wave can be a bit more tricky. I have one PC with Roon R.O.C.K. (for now, but probably will end after subscription runs out) and I find this version of Roon to be the best since it is an image and overlay on Linux, in my opinion the best OS base for this purpose. Then a network IP-address to the next PC with HQPlayer Embedded. This is the simplest form of HQplayer, just an image with HQP integrated in a thin Linux client (again). Very rudimentary. No sex appeal at all. No graphics available, have to call the client through your local ethernet using the IP to get a web UI. More lavish PC Windows, PC Linux (Ubuntu distribution) and MacOS available adding the extra flair to the appearence. Here you do the heavy computing. It is hard to actually describe what HQP is, but my interpretation is that it “realeases” the album/track master and leave then over to you to decide what to do with the content. Myself, I have a RME DAC who is possible to bypass the onboard DSP by selecting the choice Direct DSD. This make it possible for me to upsample to the DAC max levels which is DSD256 over PCM (DoP). It means that the source code will be transformed to the DSD256 over PCM with bitdepth of 32 bits and max 12.228.000 samples. In addition it allows you to select stuff that the studio engineer do for us, a new (re-)master and filtering. Jussi Lakko leaves all this open for us to play with, some recommendations you will find in the rudimentary users guide, but it is very much up to you to decide. Be prepared to spend a lot of time in the beginning reading the HQP section of the community. But Jussi and many others are very helpful (thank God!). There is a steep threshold until you start to get the grip of things.

The result when you start to find your path, is that you will no longer believe that some productions are poorly made. Suddenly almost all albums are quite enjoyable, many exquisite, even though you earlier did not think of them that way. Here comes the question about transparency in, if your rig is not colorful in itself, you will be completely in charge of how you wish playback should be. There are choices of very transient rich hard hitting dynamics at the expense of some other properties, or the opposite, calm, controlled with no edges at all. If your rig allows for it, you will hear the digital black really become digital black. A completely inaudible pitch black backdrop. Every tiny note at its place and easy to pin point in grand scale classical compositions. Or Trash Metal at full throttle with no sibilance or harschness ripping your ears to pieces. If I was to beleive in mysticism, I would have thought this was magic, but I know it is just math on a grand scale demanding heavy pc performance at the level of modulator and filter I use, and a brilliant engineer called Jussi Lakko doing the code.

2 Likes

One point I think is very important to make WRT HQP - trialing HQP on the various platforms is fine. Gives one a taste and time to experiment etc…

However, if one is to invest in a HQP “ecosystem”, setting it up properly is really important (obviously) Meaning, this goes beyond the typical basic setup / user per se as well as addtl costs

IMHO:

  • Run core / server on its own dedicated device / computer (NUC, small form factor, not a NAS). Place in utility room
  • Purchase the HQP embedded image and run it on its own dedicated powerful wkst, full stop. Burn the embedded image to the internal M.2 or I believe one can run it from a USB stick on boot up. Place in utility room
  • Invest in one of the various NAA endpoints (from a $100 pi to high end $$$) which resides in audio rack then to DAC.
  • Running the core and HQPe on their dedicated computers can each be done fan-less (to reside in audio rack) but with the HQPe wkst, that takes on a fairly significant custom build and $$ which one would then go DAC direct (presumably so no NAA). This of course comes down to personal pref (endpoint or DAC direct) and only through first hand experience can you determine which works best.
2 Likes

There is an option to the NAA, that I find worth trying because you will have to do the work anyway. This is maybe a condition for having the HQPe PC reasonably close to the media rig.
Matrix Audio is making a very good USB card called Element H. It is galvanically isolated from the noisy MB of the PC. It may be powered by the PC PSU, but I recommend the linear external PSU instead, which anyway have to be done for the computer serving as a NAA, wat ever that might be, they are usually powered by a SMPSU. Further it is shielded from the airborn noise inside the PC from the various semiconductors and stray radio fields and thats a feature I have not seen on any of the others, n.b. more expensive cards. Its aim is the same as the NAA, and do not need anything more than a decent linear external psu. Further you may optionally cut the 5 V/DC line in the USB cable to further silence the USB input port in the e.g. DAC, if not needed for DAC to operate.

I attach the link if anyone’s interested: element H | Hi-Fi USB 3.0 Interface
No strings attached to Matrix I should add!

The reason for NAA is the real difficulty in managing thermals passively with HQP. Most people are trying to achieve DSD256 or greater. That requires power and power generates heat and that heat needs to go somewhere. Actively cooling a system is noisy and that system really needs to be in another room or the noise floor of your room isn’t conducive to hifi. All that money in room treatments and transparent amps, etc. out the window when your noise floor is above 50 db in your room.

NAA can run on a silent device easy. HQP not so much.

1 Like

I must first shut down the managed ventilation in my apartment, to be able to go down low enough in the first place. Unfortunatly the house and my apartment is not self-aspirated, but fan controlled. Sounds like a storm. Not to mention the mains ripple and airborne RFI due to high powered thyristor fan speed management.

When that is done, I cannot hear my PC anyway, unless brought out from its shelf and I pop the bonnet. I can only detect a short moment of fan blowing when starting the PC. Then it drops fan speeds down to below audible level, think it is around 12 dB. I use against better judgement the I9-10900 CPU, so the sources at 24-192 is not possible to play without core stuttering. I need the K-version, looking actively for it and from there I have to make a new consideration how to manage my PC’s noise-wise. Have another PC with a huge cooler. I am in the process of checking how to route airflow around the cooler, by just running 2 x chassis fans @ 700 rpm (Noctua). Very silent, but still moves some air. Highly interesting challange to build computers compact, silent and yet powerful… This hobby does not ever run out of challanges … luckily. Like a Kinder-egg, challanging engineering and pleasure of exquisite music :sweat_smile: Hard to build those toys together, you know … :joy: and chocolate really tastes … bad :rofl:

2 Likes

Thanks all. Now I understand better the prerequisites for running HQP. Atm I have a NUC running ROCK in a separate room. Connected via Ethernet to my listening place to an Auralic Aries streamer, then Chord Dave Dac etc.
I understood that I wound have to buy another PC to run the HQP software on. Is another NUC powerful enough?
And I am not sure if the Auralic streamer can be the NAA? Probably not, so I would need another streamer? Any suggestions?
Seems like major investment. Thanks.