I pretty much agree with the assessment.
Learning how HQPlayer works isn’t simple or well documented. A few moments reading the support tells you, it is done by an engineer, none of the touchy feely that usually is support is needed.
It works, and has for 14 years . . . took me 4 months (and I had to ask here) to figure out the naa application at the bottom of the page is to run on endpoints, then use HQPlayer to point to each as needed. I think that was your ask, that wasn’t addressed. Until I figured that out I ran a full HQPlayer install at each spot. I now have NUCs everywhere I’m using as simple endpoints.
I stuck with it and it is fun to play with.
I’m not sure if I’ll upgrade. I keep trying to figure out which machine will run everything offered, and that’s just not a simple ask I guess.
As a non DIY type, using SonicTransporter with HQ Player embedded, I find it very close to plug and play. There are simple solutions if one takes the time to look for them.
Right, I’m a bit confused by the OP’s 8000 word essay stating why he won’t buy it. Clearly HQP is a unique piece of software and DOES require investment in ones time to understand the in’s and out’s. If after you have spent the time understanding the pros and cons, proper configuration etc…and it’s not to your liking move on.
HQP is a one man show and he spends a ton of time on the forums assisting people. If one has technical issues clearly state them in a respectful tone in the existing forums and more then likely, you will get assistance from the many users or the developer. I will say, there are specific use cases and hrdwr requirements that fit the HQP “environment” best or better then others IMHO
Before making all of these proclamations on why it doesn’t work, it’s best to thoroughly understand the software first. Again its not for everyone, and won’t fit every use case, but the OP’s approach seems a bit off IMHO. No reason to try and convince him otherwise as well.
I don’t want to speak for the designer so my response to you is really about the industry / software confusion I see throughout your post. I will start off by saying though, HQP is an example of software designed by engineers for engineers. Intended or not, this has been common in the industry for a long time. It’s also why UI/UX teams are now highly valued and necessary for larger projects. The interesting thing about your comments though is they are in reference to HPQ Embedded which is completely designed to be used by embedded software engineers so it should be no surprise that it meets a minimum stability and interface to be used that way. But, lets get into it…
The biggest value of HQP for a lot of people is its resampling precision. Some of the filters / modulators work on a fixed time scale. It needs X amount of music before it can do its thing and output Y. This fixed delay may be what you’re hearing depending on the settings you were using. If the delay is unacceptable use a different filter / modulator. I’ll also point out that a “hardware” solution would apply the same delay. Again, these are fixed as that’s just the way it works.
As much as the Raspberry Pi foundation has convinced the industry that a Pi 4 is a desktop computer replacement I can assure you it is not. It’s a Single Board Computer made to hit a price point. When using an SBC one should have a deep understanding of the limitations of the compute, memory, bus speeds, etc. and make sure their intended use of the SBC meets the requirement. Experimenting with software, that can consume the full utilization on the latest Intel CPUs, by using a Pi isn’t a good idea. Get more compute, identify exactly what configuration you’ll be using, then identify if a SBC has the horsepower to meet the requirement. This is the world of embedded computing.
How did you make this determination? It clearly states on the page where you found this version that it was intended for “custom” and building " building Linux-based music playback devices and digital audio processors". That alone tells me this isn’t a shrink wrapped off the self software package I’m going to to “just use”. The language on the Desktop version is really what you’re after. Especially as a trial / experiment.
And, this is not unique to HQP. It used to be that embedded software was only used by manufacturers. Source code was only used by those who knew how to read / compile it. Opensource was only used by Linux hackers. All those walls have come down. There is even a thriving community of public FPGA software now. But, just because you can has never meant you should.
This can’t be answered actually. I’m sure if you were working towards an embedded application the developer could help you based on your target form factor and budget. But starting an embedded project with no design goals your question cannot be answered. This is when Desktop version is the right answer.
This is actually pretty common way of licensing software for embedded systems. It’s not elegant but its simple and it works.
I believe others have already explained the NAA part of HQP. The part that confused me, and here I’ll recommend the website gets updated, the NAA images are not linked from the embedded page.
Perfect example of an Engineer building software for Engineers. However, in the case of embedded, this should be expected. I actually find the UI perfectly usable and precision set for the use case. It’s actually not gruesome its utilitarian.
I think I’ll here with one more thing… If you want to reset your expectations of HQP I suggest you do so but stay on the Desktop part of the website. This is going to be much closer to the shrink wrapped off the shelf packaged software you were looking for.
As stated earlier above, if you want HQP embedded (as opppsed to Desktop) so that you can run Roon and HQP on the same machine in a ‘pain-free’ way, buy a Sonictransporter from Small Green Conputer (USA) or Audiostore (UK distributor).
Use Desktop as a ‘try before you buy’ option of course, and please don’t expect a RP4i to crunch the numbers to get you upsampled DSD if you are counting on using it not just as the NAA. You DO need a capable machine if you want to sample the breadth of HQP’s true capabilities (although upsampling to high rate PCM can be done on most modestly specced machines). Having said that, the latest M1 Mac Mini can handle the onerous (processing intensive) EC ‘DSD’ modulators, and that isn’t breaking the bank.
As for ‘no computers in my hifi’, when all’s said and done, what is a server if not a computer??
If you are paranoid about processing noise, locate the Roon/HQPe machine in another room on the same network as your listening room and stream to the NAA feeding your DAC.
£220 is expensive is it?
Compare that to the price of hardware that looks to achieve the same thing, namely the Chord Hugo M-Scaler, then tell me it’s expensive! Even if you also factor in the cost of a Sonictransporter i5 or an M1 Mac Mini, you’d be left with plenty of change.
I can categorically say that it is worthwhile persevering. I started out with Desktop, then jumped to Roon, but as I missed the SQ of HQP, I opted for a Sonictransporter i7 with Roon and HQPe. No regrets whatsoever.
Feel the same. Purchased a STi5 and Ultra Rendu. I was going to have to purchase a dedicated laptop anyway, so why not the STi5? Roon and HQ Player on the same machine and it’s been relatively simple. The best I’m doing is DSD 128 with ec modulators and that’s been more than satisfactory. The technical stuff I read on the HQ forums is well beyond my expertise but I don’t really need to be concerned with it with my current setup.
Exactly. I’m no Linux wizard, so I coughed up for a turnkey solution and it’s been sublime really. Furthermore, it’s ever-improving thanks to the constant stream of updates introducing new HQP filters. I can’t understand the bleating about the one-off cost of the software.
This was an entertaining thread. OP is trying to use HQPlayer not as intended. HQP should be on a more powerful computer, with the pi as an end point. Only one license is needed, not one per device. Thats the whole issue here, OP is trying to run HQPlayer on each end point and select them as zones in roon.
Few posts above has great answers to OP’s questions.
I had exact poor customer service experience with Jussi/HQP. He seems to be bother by my questions and when he smelled I’m new,he gave up on me.Just poor experience all around.
I’d give up Roon (purchased a lifetime license) before I would give up HQPlayer. Heck, I have HQPlayer Embedded license I am not using because I decided use an M1 Mac mini instead of the sonicTransporter I had been using. I did not hesitate to buy HQPlayer Desktop. The software is certainly worth its price to me!
Is the HQPlayer support experience perfect? No. But it is better than Roon’s and a lot of other software out there. If you are patient and are not overly rude, you will get the support needed. I’ve been using HQPlayer for over 4 years and have never not had a question answered or a problem solved.
May I ask what was your experience with sonicTransport? I had for a while I5 and could not keep up with playing DSD256…just playing not upsampling.
128DSD was fine
Did you had any performance issues playing DSD256 ?
I got drops which I never had with my ROCK/NUC
My experience with the sonicTransporter (both the i5 and i9) was generally good. At the end, I had some issues with HQPlayer Embedded and Roon Server interaction that SGC did nothing to help with other than point me at Signalyst and Roon. I also did not like having to wait for SGC to update HQPlayer Embedded when a new version came out.
As far as performance is concerned, the M1 Mac mini is just as capable as any sonicTransporter. When you look at the price, it was a no brainer for me.