HQPlayer upsampling making me rethink need for hi-res Tidal/Qobuz streaming

When both hi-res and CD-quality Tidal/Qobuz streams get upsampled using HQPlayer, I can’t honestly say that the hi-res versions sound any better. Like, if I’m using HQPlayer to upsample to 386k, what difference does it make whether one starts with 44.1k or 192k?

Might be my system simply isn’t resolving enough. It’s good, but it’s not an esoteric audiophile situation. Using mac mini + NAA as endpoint, going through a Parasound HINT6 into Magnepan .7i speakers.

So I’ve started to specify within Roon to only stream the CD-quality versions from Tidal/Qobuz.

(One other reason I started doing this is that occasionally the Hi-res version of an album on T/Q will have tracks that appear to be “unavailable” in Roon. Not sure why. I’ll check the 16/44.1 version, and I can then play the track.)

Anyway, anyone else experience this? That 16/44.1 + HQPlayer sounds just as good as Hi-Res + HQPlayer?

1 Like

Well, I think that HQP’s filters can be fantastic, so, it wouldn’t surprise me that the difference between streamed CD/Hi Res sources can sound minimal.

I find that the Hi-Rez offer just a bit more body/mid-bass to the music. It is however recording sensitive.


Agrees whole heartedly

If one as a listener often tends to play older music, my guess is that the technique to create HiRes re-issues is not far from HQP upsampling. So just the tiny step I upsample from 16/44.1 to max input on my JBL mix and master monitors; 24/96, the sonic up-lift is mindblowing. My friend who has a sperate DAC can upsample to DSD256 and of course that is a huge step, but I wonder if not just the possibility to double the sample rate and the consequental filter properties have the largest impact. So much noise is removed by this tiny step.
So there is no doubt in my mind, that replacing a library of music from CD to HiRes of som sort is not worth it when HQP does the splendid job.