Sound Galleries SGM 2015

[asiufy]

Yeah I mean, if you engage a tone control and knock down the bass some, for instance, the transient attack will largely remain the same. So a tone control acts more specifically, while an HQplayer configuration setting will alter the sound globally, throughout the band.

 

[microstrip]

Thanks Alex

In the great scheme of things aren't they just tone controls of sort

In principle we should use the designation of "tone control" just for systems that change the frequency response. As far as I can guess these filters do not affect it.

 

[cmarin]

Thanks Alex

In the great scheme of things aren't they just tone controls of sort

Hi Steve,

Agree in the sense of a general tone control as clarified by microstrip. That's the way I would look at it.

No different than setting the parameters of a turntable to better approximate your subjective audio preferences.

The key of the HQPlayer/SGM combo, in my view, is that it gives you the freedom to select your preferences in a package that is sufficiently powerful and transparent to allow you the ability to hear the effects of more filters more clearly

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Looking at it this way they would be more akin to distortion and noise levels.

that's how I would characterize it too. not really a FR type thing, more textures, clarity, microdyamics and degrees of veils removed.

 

[audio.bill]

I don't think it would be correct to view HQPlayer's settings and filtering algorithms as tone controls, which are typically frequency based equalizers. The various algorithms which HQPlayer implements are more advanced ways of filtering the digital signal with respect to maintaining proper phase response and timing issues in the signal by using a powerful PC which is capable of much more advanced processing than most DACs are capable of on their own. Much more detailed technical aspects of HQPlayer's objectives and implementation are available on the related threads at the Computer Audiophile forum where its developer actively participates. Hope this helps!

 

[Steve Williams]

I don't think it would be correct to view HQPlayer's settings and filtering algorithms as tone controls, which are typically frequency based equalizers. The various algorithms which HQPlayer implements are more advanced ways of filtering the digital signal with respect to maintaining proper phase response and timing issues in the signal by using a powerful PC which is capable of much more advanced processing than most DACs are capable of on their own. Much more detailed technical aspects of HQPlayer's objectives and implementation are available on the related threads at the Computer Audiophile forum where its developer actively participates. Hope this helps!

It very much did

Thanks for the explanation. It's just that the signal going in is different than what is coming out

 

[cmarin]

It very much did

Thanks for the explanation. It's just that the signal going in is different than what is coming out

Hi Steve,

Look forward to hearing your first hand account of the results of Edward's visit next week.

Without a doubt the better you understand how HQPlayer works, the better you should be able to play with the settings. But it's not necessary. Edward will help guide you through the process. You're in for a real treat!

 

[Taiko Audio]

It very much did

Thanks for the explanation. It's just that the signal going in is different than what is coming out

Yes however the filtering under discussion is a necessary step in the D to A conversion process, skipping this would result in serious distortion in amplifiers and loudspeakers, would probably even fry your tweeters!

This filtering happens in every D/A converter, the way this is executed has an influence on the resulting sound. A higher quality/performance of these filters comes with a pricetag, this is where companies like MSB, DCS and Chord spend a lot of effort on.

 

[microstrip]

Hi Steve,

Look forward to hearing your first hand account of the results of Edward's visit next week.

Without a doubt the better you understand how HQPlayer works, the better you should be able to play with the settings. But it's not necessary. Edward will help guide you through the process. You're in for a real treat!

I am also looking for Steve's opinion - he has been turned back to digital for a while, perhaps the SGM will change his mind!

It would be great if SGM could give WBF members access to sample files in several formats processed by the HQPlayer with different options. Then we could listen and decide if we really want to make the next step, listening to the SGM server in our systems to evaluate it.

 

[audio.bill]

I am also looking for Steve's opinion - he has been turned back to digital for a while, perhaps the SGM will change his mind!

It would be great if SGM could give WBF members access to sample files in several formats processed by the HQPlayer with different options. Then we could listen and decide if we really want to make the next step, listening to the SGM server in our systems to evaluate it.

It's my understanding that HQPlayer only functions in real time processing during file playback and does not provide an option to save the resulting output file.

 

[Steve Williams]

I am also looking for Steve's opinion - he has been turned back to digital for a while, perhaps the SGM will change his mind!

It would be great if SGM could give WBF members access to sample files in several formats processed by the HQPlayer with different options. Then we could listen and decide if we really want to make the next step, listening to the SGM server in our systems to evaluate it.

I have had to reschedule with Edward for a later date for several reasons. I am having 2 additional CMS Black Diamond shelves made for the units and these were to have already been delivered but such was not the case. Also my new USB X3 box is having a problem with its power supply and feels like there is something loose inside. I spoke to Andreas who asked me to send it back.

Micro...you are correct in your assumption as for me in the past 18 months I have been listing to vinyl and tape over 90% of the time

The biggest thing that I still have problems wrapping my brain around is that last year Mike and many others espoused that the only true way to listen was in native format. I recall countless threads how Native quad DSD sounded so much better than music upsampled to Quad DSD etc. Now we have the SGM where the HQP converts everything to DXD (for the Formula). It seems then that redbook and DSD now all sound the same when played via the Formula regardless of what native format the origin file was recorded in. This is not necessarily a bad thing but to me then there is no value in having a library with DSD, DSD128, DSD 256 etc when everyting becomes DXD

 

[microstrip]

(...) The biggest thing that I still have problems wrapping my brain around is that last year Mike and many others espoused that the only true way to listen was in native format. I recall countless threads how Native quad DSD sounded so much better than music upsampled to Quad DSD etc. Now we have the SGM where the HQP converts everything to DXD (for the Formula). It seems then that redbook and DSD now all sound the same when played via the Formula regardless of what native format the origin file was recorded in. This is not necessarily a bad thing but to me then there is no value in having a library with DSD, DSD128, DSD 256 etc when everyting becomes DXD

I am sure that Mike and others will chime here explaining that in spite of being upsampled to DXD with optimized parameters each original format has its characteristics and limitations - it was my interpretation of their postings.

Concerning the problems wrapping our brains, I (and several others in WBF before me, I must acknowledge) solved them all with the DCS Vivaldi stack. Since day thirty - yes, it needed burn-in - I do not ask questions anymore, I just listen to music. For more than 15 years I always listened to the top DCS's sounding exceptional once properly matched - it reassured me before committing to it. I am curious about the SGM and HQPlayer as they seem to change the bit content and the "noise" of the bits before being delivered to the system. But as soon as I downloaded the HQPlayer manual problems immediately started wrapping my brain ...

 

[Steve Williams]

So are you suggesting that a red book file and a quad DSD file of the same song when played through the SGM and into the Formula will sound different. Isn't DXD is DXD is DXD

 

[microstrip]

It's my understanding that HQPlayer only functions in real time processing during file playback and does not provide an option to save the resulting output file.

Yes, it seems so. I can not understand why these packages do not allow such function - if the objective is minimizing the noise created by a computer, it seems to me that playing just the already processed file from a SDD or memory would be much less noisier process.

 

[microstrip]

So are you suggesting that a red book file and a quad DSD file of the same song when played through the SGM and into the Formula will sound different. Isn't DXD is DXD is DXD

Surely - unless SGM has magic powers! It would be great if all my red book could sound as good as the few great DXD's I own.

 

[Steve Williams]

Thats not what I asked or am I misguided

If both rebook and DSD are converted to DXD via HQP why wouldn't the files of the same song sound the same

And what happened to last year's mantra that listening "native" sounds the best

 

[microstrip]

Thats not what I asked or am I misguided

If both rebook and DSD are converted to DXD via HQP why wouldn't the files of the same song sound the same

The bit contents will not be the same - DXD just means 352.8 kHz/24bit audio signal. The conversion must guess many bits, and since the original bits are not the same, the results will be different.

And what happened to last year's mantra that listening "native" sounds the best

Gone with the wind ... Mantra's are DAC dependent, the current mantra being debated only applies to a few DAC's of the week ...

 

[Steve Williams]

The bit contents will not be the same - DXD just means 352.8 kHz/24bit audio signal. The conversion must guess many bits, and since the original bits are not the same, the results will be different.

That makes sense to me

 

[asiufy]

The way I see it, native is still preferable.
The problem is not all DACs are created equal, and some will sound the best at a given resolution (most likely the highest they support). Thus, the T+A doing DSD512 or the Aqua doing 24/384. Since we don't have that many recordings in DSD512 or 24/384, enter the SGM to upsample everything to those resolutions! While you're upsampling anyway, SGM will also allow all the HQplayer filter settings to come into play, offering great adaptability.
Also, not all recordings at 24/384 sound the same, thus not all upsampled PCM will sound the same either, at least not with the SGM. You have to be one of those DSD haters to imagine that "all DSD sounds the same"... No, it doesn't Mastering still matters, so how good a recording is will largely depend on its mastering, not so much its format.
My reference DAC, the MSB SELECT, is incredible at 16/44. No upsampling. Nothing.


cheers,
alex

 

[Steve Williams]

My reference DAC, the MSB SELECT,

It is the best DAC I have heard as well