That is still very little compared to what modern fastest CPU + GPU combination can do. Including things like digital room/headphone correction, etc along the way with oversampling filters and modulators.
It would be good to know why that is.
That’s all I need and want; I’m satisfied with my setup, and see little point running the “ fastest CPU + GPU combination” to enjoy music.
But, as I’ve already said, this is neither about me nor showcasing HQP, but the OP, and why there is a difference between Roon and Aavik app.
Then the topic of this thread is misleading.
But I look HQPlayer from objective perspective.
Hmmm I wasn’t aware Hegels and CA offered very flexible convolution engines built-in? For every source input, be it analogue and digital sources.
For speaker DSP crossover and room correction and headphones correction/EQ
Hmmm I have the same question ever after reading that
You are talking about only one part of HQPlayer but I’m talking about the rest of what it can do.
CNXv2 and the likes are like poor man’s HQPlayer, with very limited processing capabilities. Just like DAC chips, to a very low 32-bit 384 kHz format. And they totally lack things like custom delta-sigma modulators.
HQPlayer can upsample to for example to 49.152 MHz 64-bit using much more advanced filters, and this before employing delta-sigma modulators and such. Modulators are as important as the digital oversampling filters, or maybe even more important.
And this is still not including things like digital room or headphone correction you can do along the way.
I have tried many digital hardware solutions from the very inexpensive, to the expensive, as well as pretty much all the popular software solutions both free and paid.
HQPlayer embeded is the gold standard imo. I will not even consider a server unless HQPlayer embedded can be installed. Installing the embedded version is not something for the faint of heart, and Jussy does not provide support for non-professionals installing it outside of comments on forums.
HQPlayer plays extremely well with Roon. Everything Roon does with music (up sampling, volume, etc) HQPlayer does better. Having the choice of filters and dithering methods allows you to really fine tune the sound of your system and allows you to use a filter that plays the best with the reconstruction filter on your DAC. Assuming your PC is very low noise, the HQPlayer volume control is about as good as a digital volume can be, and will be better than most preamps until you get into expensive gear.
Treat the cost as being the cost of a component.
I strongly recommend going all in, and using a dedicated media server with HQPlayer embedded rather than a general duty PC. There are a few commercial offerings, the Sonictransporter is an excellent choice, If you know your way around Linux, you can install the embedded version.
There’s an even simpler option for Embedded.
HQP OS. Burn the image to USB stick and it runs off that. Or you can burn the image to SSD drive.
I think you’ve missed my point. That is, what’s benefit is there in doing these things with HQP is the DAC resamples everything?
Few DACs do that. Usually if you feed a DAC that internally upsamples to 352.8/384k at those rates, it bypasses the upsampling part.
From upsampling point of view, point of HQPlayer is to squeeze best possible performance out of DAC by using the DAC with most optimal input format.
Bit-perfect DACs are the best choice for HQPlayer, such as Holo Audio or T+A through it’s DSD section. Or DACs based in TI/BB DAC chips are always bit-perfect using DSD. Also many AKM chip based DACs support DSD Direct mode of the DAC chip.
DACs that use some DAC chip and don’t have a separate DSP in front (most DACs on the market), we know how the chip in question behave and can choose best strategy for it. ESS chips bypass internal upsampling when input is 705.6k or higher, DSD streams are remodulated without rate conversions.
DACs that use some custom DSP in front, we can choose the strategy. For example Chord DACs bypass WTA1 when running at 705.6k or higher, but should not be fed with DSD.
Many people choose DAC based on what is best match for use with external upsampling such as HQPlayer.
This is still not taking into account all the benefits you get from things like running digital RIAA correction for vinyl sources, digital room/speaker correction, digital headphone correction, headphone cross-feed, dynamic loudness, etc.
And of course in any case you need some kind of player for playing your digital content. HQPlayer works fine as a standalone player, or as DSP playback engine for Roon.
Again, I was giving the OP the heads-up, as the DAC wasn’t specified.
But not always.
Hopefully, the OP has enough information to make an informed choice.
In my view, understanding the current “differences” rather than adding complexity should be the first step.
That is very small minority of the DAC market. Of course, in such cases one can replace the DAC for a better match.
I don’t know what differences you are talking about. Nothing such in the original posting. But the HQPlayer part is easy to understand through digital domain analysis and measurements from the DAC output. Even if the DAC is doing some resampling even for 352.8/384k inputs, unless it is somehow horribly mangled.
Aaviiks own app sounds better than roon…
But that has nothing to do with HQPlayer which is the topic here.
I don’t know what kind of DSP processing some Aaviiks (what is that?) is doing. But in any case it is not relevant here.
It has everything to do with it. It’s the only reason the OP is considering HQP. IMO, helping the OP understand why there is a difference is more important since there should be no difference.
Why there shouldn’t be? Do you know what kind of DSP there was going on in these cases?
Did you even measure there were no differences before making such statement? And what measurements did you perform?
But maybe not the reason why HQPlayer would sound different. So you cannot draw any conclusions regarding HQPlayer from some other comparison.
In any case, easy to test and costs nothing but time and effort to try.
No. That’s the point.
You should read the thread, since you appear to be barking up the wrong tree.
So you cannot either claim that there shouldn’t be any difference.
Or maybe you, because you are trying to conclude something from three unknown things that a third unrelated thing which is topic of this thread is somehow related.
So I feel that you are barking up the wrong tree.