I’m sorry, the fact that you can hear a difference is not a valid argument. Some days I think my whole setup sounds better than on other days; some days I think my HiFiMans sounds better than my Meze headphones for the same track, then the next day I’ll think the opposite. It has been proven that a voltage output difference of a few decimals between two DACs can lead folks to proclaim that the slightly louder one sounds better. Our ears simply cannot be trusted on this.
If you had worded this as, to your ears the HQPlayer sounds better to you, I’d say that’s terrific, because nothing makes me happier than when I hear that folks are enjoying their music.
But given how much audiophile wares can cost, and given what the science tells us on the objective “differences” that exist in the rarified air of high resolution digital reproduction (where the evidence suggests that it is physically impossible to discern differences at these sampling frequencies and bit rates), then I think it can be at least reckless to promise veils lifted as an absolute fact to others.
Nobody likes to hear that the best options they could afford are inferior to those who have bigger budgets to work with, so I think our recommendations should be held to rigorous account. That’s why I do admire Sygnalist for at least offering a try-before-you-buy option, so folks can let their own ears guide their choices. But even then I think it’s essential for all of us to be cognizant of cognitive bias and to offer all of our recommendations with some restraint.
As someone who has been ripped off more times than I care to think about, at great detriments to my own wallet, that’s just what I believe anyway. I am glad that you’re happy with your choice!
I do not feel that. Yes I want the best gear for my wallet. I’m never going to own a big house on the expensive neighbourhood of downtown. I really do not get the bragging or the frustrations when gear turns in to $$. And yes I do enter hi fi shops and get that attitude, like you cannot afford real gear.
I think the example you offered is very different . As an average audiophile we do not hyperfocus on our other senses anywhere near the extent we do our ears.
I consider myself a pretty discriminating buyer when it comes to technological gear, and I put a lot of thought and research into buying a TV. But once I’ve made my decision, it goes on my wall and I forget about it for a few years without any obsessive FOMO. Somebody might describe a candle lusciously, but if I pick it up and it smells like a sweat sock I put it back. I know after a wash or two if my sheets are as soft as advertised. And if I pay $100 bucks for a meal that tastes nothing like the photo suggested, I’m p****d!
I don’t doubt my judgment over any of these other sensory experiences. But even if I absolutely love a pair of headphones at purchase, after enduring the agonizing wait of shipping times, and I don’t feel a bit of buyer’s remorse at the time I go over budget, before long I’m back to headphone reviews wondering if there’s something better out there. I even keep coming back to rave reviews about the ones I bought seeking validation that I made the right choice!
This is what cognitive bias is all about—it doesn’t sound right, and it doesn’t make any sense. We can definitely be seduced by how much we invested in our gear, and we can easily fall into the trap of feeling lousy about our choices when we hear someone else raving about the choice they made that costs more.
And it’s been shown countless times in studies that we tend to defend our high dollar purchases over the cheaper ones we didn’t invest nearly as much in. Our ears are just not trustworthy when it comes differences in sound “quality”—especially among those of us who are so passionate about music.
Holo Spring / May can be very advanced delta sigma DAC when running through it’s DSD conversion section. You just run the delta-sigma modulator outside of the box. This is how I use my Holo Audio DACs. I don’t use the R2R part, just the (separate) DSD converter section.
I also run my T+A DACs through their separate bit-perfect DSD D/A section.
My T+A DAC200 running at DSD256 certainly measures better than my D90SE.
And Topping E30, SMSL D-6 and RME ADI-2 (with AKM chip) also measure better when running at DSD256 in DSD Direct mode. Digital filters and delta-sigma modulators externalized.
I just use headphone correction DSP for the headphones I have, and I’m pretty happy with the performance improvement that brings. Of course that is just one of the many things I do with HQPlayer.
Dude, I’ve given your HQPlayer a lot of props on here. I even bought it! Again, you designed a terrific and innovative software solution that I admire. Can we let it go please?
This is the key problem in what you are replying to. The objectivist cult fixates on a small set of measurements they received from higher authority without any critical knowledge or insight. I spent enough time back in the day in discussions about measurement with Bell Labs colleagues who co-invented much of modern audio coding to know that the objectivist audiophile’s measurement toolbox is really impoverished relative to the complexity of the processes being evaluated. “Industry standard measurements” are those that are convenient to the dominant players in any industry, not those that are most revealing.
This is true of analog audio reproduction. Digital audio is computational and it can for certain be quite readily analyzed and measured to ascertain whether it is accurately reconstructing the analog master that was subsequently sampled into a digital file.
I think the biggest mistake people make in these rooms is applying analog terms to digital audio files. DACs don’t have a “sound” other than the original master that was sampled. We can put up a waveform analysis of an analog audio recording and compare it with the result of a converted digital file and see how accurately they match. If the DAC’s output is adding or subtracting anything else, it isn’t doing its job properly.
In this digital realm, there simply is no other “data” our ears are picking up that can’t be measured on the bench. Digital audio is not sound, it doesn’t have “warmth”, “soundstage” or “timbre”, and it isn’t music. It is science, full stop.
Isn’t it obvious that I’m writing about my own experience? Just like you do and all of us do. We are just sharing our opinions and experience here and I have zero obligation to prove anything to anyone. I do this for my own enjoyment and like to share my experience with fellow audiophiles. I do appreciate measurements of audio gear but if it goes against my own experience and auditions, I choose my own experience 10/10 in this hobby. I know perfectly well what should and what should not make difference in sound quality and yet, many of the things which shouldn’t matter, actually matter. Some more, some less. And please don’t patronize me about volume leveling and all the basic stuff what goes into comparing audio gear. I KNOW.
Yes but the digital data came from an original source and the job of a DAC is to get it back, not make it “better”. We can use our DSPs, amplifiers and headphones to color the sound to our liking, but that isn’t the job of a DAC.
Please re-read what I just posted up there. Do you really disagree with that principle?
Except that the reconstruction problem is under-determined for several reasons including that band limitation is a (convenient mathematical) fiction, and quantization error.
Hey hey now, as I said I’m very happy that you had a great experience with HQPlayer in Roon and that you’re enjoying your music. Where did “ASR’s agenda” come from? Besides celebrating this hobby with others, I’m sometimes about calling out unfounded claims that incur questionable expense on corporate-funded forums where folks can be easily exploited. I didn’t intend to accuse you of that, and if I came across that way I sincerely apologize.
In defense of myself however, I most certainly have an open mind, I’m constantly still learning from others on here and elsewhere, and I have plenty more to enjoy in the pursuit of this hobby. I’ll re-read what I replied to you and look for how I might have worded it differently to avoid inadvertently sounding condescending or contentious to you, but please don’t dismiss me with any more ad hominem attacks, ok? Peace, truly!
Yes, it was once analog, then it went through imperfect ADC conversion. Likely bunch of analog or digital production gear. The data you begin with typically contains errors from the source ADC.
For PCM sources, your average delta-sigma DAC contains four major parts:
Digital oversampling filter
Delta-Sigma modulator
D/A conversion section
Analog reconstruction filter
HQPlayer is designed to replace (1) and (2) with better algorithms. Of course it also a standalone music player, or player engine for Roon, practically unlimited convolution/EQ/headphone-cross-feed/dynamic-loudness DSP processor.
For example for (1), ESS can do max 8x normal filter and even that is very very limited, fairly slow roll-off so always somewhat leaky. And at most 120 dB attenuation. While HQPlayer can do up to 2048x normal filter and over 300 dB attenuation.
I’m not using DSP to add colorations to headphones, I’m using DSP to correct the colorations those headphones and loudspeakers have due to physical limitations.
3 Likes
Bill_Janssen
(Wigwam wool socks now on asymmetrical isolation feet!)
79
I’m reading this, and it seems to me everybody is talking past each other.
Jussi: You’ve built an amazing piece of software, which can do all kinds of interesting things to a digital signal. Yet Roon can also do some of those things, to some extent, and various DACs can also do some of them, so there’s a possibility that for some people – like me, someone who would never listen to DSD files – it may not provide added functionality over just Roon and some DAC.
patouskii: Yes, you make it clear that you are talking about your own experience. But then you write things like this:
You mean, of course, “seem to actually matter, to me.” But it doesn’t read that way.
Steven: I’m of the opinion that you’re right about the maturation of DAC technology and the price-gouging of expensive DAC manufacturers. But really, is there any need to belabor that point in a thread about HQ Player? Which, I’m sure, can in fact “improve the audio performance of [some people’s] system”, because there are a lot of edge cases out there in the audio world.
Original point of HQPlayer was to replace the resource constrained DSP inside DACs with algorithms that are not constrained by computational capacity. Since computer is anyway used for the playback, why not use the processing capacity to improve overall system performance?
Cool, no hard feelings. To each their own and we should let everyone enjoy this hobby as they please. We all learn new things on the way.
Yes didn’t I just start the post with telling how I’m here sharing my experience and opinions? If I state something controversial as a fact, I’ll mention it. It would feel stupid to start every sentence with IMO or IME. You probably understand what I mean.
I really only came here because I purchased HQPlayer based on the recommendations here and did not find it to be a justifiable expense over what I’m already paying for in Roon. That doesn’t mean I don’t find it to be a worthwhile expense as a stand-alone solution for those who are seeking a more customizable streaming option.
But this convo has gone way off into a didactic argument that is getting far more intense than what I was looking for, and to whatever extent I contributed to that I’d like to offer an apology. My deep respect to Sygnalist and to all those who are enjoying it. Humbly bowing out now…
. As an average audiophile we do not hyperfocus on our other senses anywhere near the extent we do our ears.
