Do better DACs benefit from upsampling the source (HQPlayer)? Does HQPlayer just change the sound?

caesar · May 25, 2017

Do better DACs need to be fed an upsampled signal from a product such as HQ Player? Or are people - in the constant search for better - just getting something different, and possibly worse?!?

Shouldn't the best DACs be able to upsample internally better than being fed an upsampled signal, or can a product such as HQ Player actually improve things?

And if HQ Player does improve things tremendously, what value to do expensive DACs provide and why spend more money on them?

Kal Rubinson · May 25, 2017

caesar said:
Do better DACs need to be fed an upsampled signal from a product such as HQ Player?

No, they do not need upsampled signals.

Or are people - in the constant search for better - just getting something different, and possibly worse?!?

Could be.

Shouldn't the best DACs be able to upsample internally better than being fed an upsampled signal, or can a product such as HQ Player actually improve things?

The philosophy behind HQPlayer upsampling is that it is easy for a computer to do this with HQPlayer and, thereby, relieve the DAC (with its relatively fixed and puny processing) from doing the upsampling to its "native" sample rate. It is all very DAC-specific and supported by a mind-bending array of resampling options in HQPlayer.

And if HQ Player does improve things tremendously, what value to do expensive DACs provide and why spend more money on them?

I would never make purchase decisions based on an assumption that HQPlayer will make them right.

Believe High Fidelity · May 25, 2017

caesar said:
Do better DACs need to be fed an upsampled signal from a product such as HQ Player? Or are people - in the constant search for better - just getting something different, and possibly worse?!?

Shouldn't the best DACs be able to upsample internally better than being fed an upsampled signal, or can a product such as HQ Player actually improve things?

And if HQ Player does improve things tremendously, what value to do expensive DACs provide and why spend more money on them?

The general direction of the questioning is in line with software being somehow responsible for the entirety of the quality of audio obtained from the music played back through it.

If you were to take into account a single variable outside of software, say the power supply design of a computer vs a dac, you would see the significance of dacs and dac design vs any laptop running hq player. If we are speaking strictly software, without regard to hardware, then you can answer that by trying HQ player and just upsampling any of your own music through your audio system to see what difference upsampling makes. You can also measure the jitter and see if your computers own software performs better at eliminating it without the need for the external dac. Same with noise and other functions that greatly improve the sq with using a DAC.

To me 'upsampling" it is a marketing term attributed to quality, but all it does is change the sound. It doesn't improve it in any implementation I have heard it in. Similar to upsampling a dvd to HD, all it does is shrink the picture to make what you do see higher definition at the tradeoff of less picture real estate. I find that you lose soundstage with upsampling but get better imaging. YMMV.

Legolas · May 25, 2017

caesar said:
Do better DACs need to be fed an upsampled signal from a product such as HQ Player? Or are people - in the constant search for better - just getting something different, and possibly worse?!?

Shouldn't the best DACs be able to upsample internally better than being fed an upsampled signal, or can a product such as HQ Player actually improve things?

And if HQ Player does improve things tremendously, what value to do expensive DACs provide and why spend more money on them?

This is so naive. I would say read some more, try some DACs for yourself. This theory is so basic and we have had 20 years of bull from the industry to feed / confuse us all. My view, forget it and stay on resident rate and R-2R.

Mike Lavigne · May 25, 2017

caesar said:
Do better DACs need to be fed an upsampled signal from a product such as HQ Player? Or are people - in the constant search for better - just getting something different, and possibly worse?!?

Shouldn't the best DACs be able to upsample internally better than being fed an upsampled signal, or can a product such as HQ Player actually improve things?

And if HQ Player does improve things tremendously, what value to do expensive DACs provide and why spend more money on them?

there are no absolutes in ranking digital audio performance. only a series of anecdotal feedback events one can try and take something useful from.

personally I've liked the feedback I've received from Eurodriver; who has traveled the world doing digital comparisons with and without the SGM server. I could not begin to list the dozens and dozens of personal investigations he has talked to me about......including many/most of the various digital products we have all read about or heard. whether we agree or not with his viewpoint, he has done the work to speak about this as much as anyone. and I've spent enough listening time with him in my system to know how he listens.

i also enjoy feedback from others; some of who lean toward the Ethernet approach, and then still others who seem to prefer streaming and MQA.

when we go to invest in a digital direction, to me it's not 'HQ Player' or not?........it's more Ethernet or not. because your hardware should be capable to shifting to whatever software might be best at feeding your dac. today that is likely Windows 10 and HQ Player, but what might it be tomorrow? is your hardware (and supporting company) capable and motivated to be agile enough to move forward when it's proper to do so? because the one thing we can count on is change.

microstrip · May 25, 2017

caesar said:
Do better DACs need to be fed an upsampled signal from a product such as HQ Player? (...)

As far as I have read - but could not get any firm confirmation - HQ player does more than just upsampling. It also applies some proprietary processing to digital data.

Dr Tone · May 25, 2017

The reason for HQPlayer upsampling is to use vast computer power to apply subjectively better filtering to red book digital content. The biproduct of the filtering is upsampled data and it's required in many cases to bypass all the DACs internal filtering.

There is no magic data added. The only factor to be considered when deciding to use HQPlayer is whether HQPlayer's filters sound better than the DACs. The rest of the DAC design besides native format and max input sample rate are irrelevant no matter the price or quality.

opus112 · May 25, 2017

caesar said:
Do better DACs need to be fed an upsampled signal from a product such as HQ Player? Or are people - in the constant search for better - just getting something different, and possibly worse?!?

Isn't HQ Player being used with DACs that have DSD capability only? Or are users of multibit DACs (say Schiit, MSB, Aqua, Metrum, Zanden, AMR....) also using HQ Player?

Shouldn't the best DACs be able to upsample internally better than being fed an upsampled signal, or can a product such as HQ Player actually improve things?

If its merely upsampling that HQ Player's doing then yes most certainly they should.

Steve Williams · May 25, 2017

If its merely upsampling that HQ Player's doing then yes most certainly they should.

Richard, isn't it also the filters HQP brings to the table

opus112 · May 25, 2017

I must confess that I don't know anything about HQP's filters. Are they something particularly special? Upsampling filters aren't particularly computationally heavy - I was under the impression that it was the DSD modulator which took the CPU grunt - particularly as its not well suited to a wide software implementation (being just one-bit).

Dr Tone · May 25, 2017

opus112 said:
I must confess that I don't know anything about HQP's filters. Are they something particularly special? Upsampling filters aren't particularly computationally heavy - I was under the impression that it was the DSD modulator which took the CPU grunt - particularly as its not well suited to a wide software implementation (being just one-bit).

It's the filters and noise shaping first and then his multiple different modulators. PCM or DSD can be the end result, that's dependent on the DACs native domain.

IMO yes the filters are special compared to filtering in any DAC I've owned or tried.

opus112 · May 25, 2017

Do you have a link to the technical details of the filters ? I'm curious about what might make them 'special'.

Dr Tone · May 25, 2017

opus112 said:
Do you have a link to the technical details of the filters ? I'm curious about what might make them 'special'.

Outside what's described in the manual and the odd tidbit of info on the CA site Jussi won't get into to much detail about his filters, noise shapers or modulators unless give up his trade secrets.

opus112 · May 25, 2017

So Jussi himself calls those filters (not referring to the DSD back-end here where Jussi almost certainly has IP) 'special' ?

Dr Tone · May 25, 2017

opus112 said:
So Jussi himself calls those filters (not referring to the DSD back-end here where Jussi almost certainly has IP) 'special' ?

No. The people that try them and use them do.

opus112 · May 25, 2017

Based solely on how they sound?

sbo6 · May 25, 2017

opus112 said:
Do you have a link to the technical details of the filters ? I'm curious about what might make them 'special'.

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/...pling-filter-setup-guide-for-ordinary-person/

See Miska's comments, he's the developer of HQP.

opus112 · May 25, 2017

I see - there's not only upsampling involved even when the output DAC is PCM, he's also making use of noise-shaping to improve the in-band quantisation noise.

sbo6 · May 25, 2017

Do better DACs need to be fed an upsampled signal from a product such as HQ Player? Or are people - in the constant search for better - just getting something different, and possibly worse?!?

Need to, of course not. Does upsampling via HQPlayer make it sound different, yes. For better or worse is likely DAC / system / personal preference dependant. In my experience HQPlayer made a change for the better.

Shouldn't the best DACs be able to upsample internally better than being fed an upsampled signal, or can a product such as HQ Player actually improve things?

If by "best " you mean most expensive, no not all expensive DACs support upsampling.

And if HQ Player does improve things tremendously, what value to do expensive DACs provide and why spend more money on them?

Again not all expensive DACs upsample and just because they do doesn't mean it's the best upsampling solution. Also, the quality of such expensive DACs (or any DAC for that matter) is not contingent on internal upsampling. For example, Redbook can sound fantastic at native resolution.

EuroDriver · May 26, 2017

The list of DAC’s with which we have tested and found that HQ Player significantly improves the sound of Redbook by either upsampling to a higher PCM rate or format conversion for DSD DAC’s has grown considerably since the introduction of Closed From filter and the XTR family of filters over the past year

The list on the PCM side is
- Aqua Formula 384 KHz
- Chord Dave PCM mode 768 KHz
- Metrum Adagio 384 KHz
- Pacific Microsonics Model 2 88.2 KHz
- Total DAC D1-6 and D-12 192 KHz
- Trinity DAC 192 KHz

The DSD DAC list is
- Accuphase DC-37 DSD 128
- ExaSound E20, 22 DSD 256
- Lampi GG, Siebener, Atlantic DSD 512
- Nagra HD DSD 128
- Playback Design MP-3 and MP-5 DSD 128 and 256
- T+A DAC8 DSD, PDP300HV DSD 512
- Wyred 4 Sound DAC 2 SE with ESS Sabre 9038 DSD 512

Not tested yet
- Bryston BDP-3 DSD 256
- ExaSound E32 DSD 256
- Gryphon Calliope DSD 512
- Playback Design Merlot DSD 256
- Playback Design MP-8 DSD 256
- RT Design

Entry level DSD 512, Holospring, Ifi, and LKS benefit enormously from PCM to DSD conversion using HQ Player.

The computing platform you are running HQ Player on also makes a big difference, whether its a laptop, Mac Mini with LPS, or a SGM.

Hardware, OS, OS optimization and CPU speed all make a very audible difference

Do better DACs benefit from upsampling the source (HQPlayer)? Does HQPlayer just change the sound?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

[Industry Expert]

VIP/Donor

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

VIP/Donor

Member

Well-Known Member

Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

VIP/Donor

Well-Known Member

VIP/Donor

Well-Known Member

Similar threads