[PhrozenLife]

Getting through it's mediocre UI and it's ridiculous file limitations, this music player sounds really good.
 
I actually prefer it's sound more than foobar but it's usability is a pain and I usually spend minutes configuring the music I want to listen to so I don't use it as much.
 
Another thing that sucks though is that it costs money and the price for this program is... $130!
However you can download and try it free for 30days on their website here.
http://www.signalyst.com/consumer.html
 
Could you guys also share your experiences for this?
I was searching this up on head-fi and haven't found much about what head-fi thinks of this.

 

[kstuart]

Everything you said applies exactly to "cplay" music player, and it is free.   (The guy who wrote cplay, did it in his spare time, and makes too much money in his day job to bother trying to sell cplay for money.)

 

[freesteve]

I have HQ and for my own personal reasons prefer it over all the other players I have used, including J River.  Make sure you optimize your system when using  (livetuner, etc.)   Enjoy.....

 

[kraken2109]

You do realise that all audio playback software should sound identical unless it's colouring the sound, which is bad, right?
 
Foobar even state this in their FAQ...

 

[kstuart]

  You do realise that all audio playback software should sound identical unless it's colouring the sound, which is bad, right?
 
Foobar even state this in their FAQ...

And "they" (he) is wrong.
 
Explained in... Part One:
 
http://www.audiostream.com/content/qa-john-swenson-part-1-what-digital
 
Part Two:
 
http://www.audiostream.com/content/qa-john-swenson-part-2-are-bits-just-bits
 
Good luck trying to get the Foobar developer (or anyone else) to actually read rebuttals to their viewpoint...

 

[kraken2109]

 
And "they" (he) is wrong.
 
Explained in... Part One:
 
http://www.audiostream.com/content/qa-john-swenson-part-1-what-digital
 
Part Two:
 
http://www.audiostream.com/content/qa-john-swenson-part-2-are-bits-just-bits
 
Good luck trying to get the Foobar developer (or anyone else) to actually read rebuttals to their viewpoint...

Those articles appear to be about DACs, not software players. Can you point me to the specific part you want me to see?

 

[kstuart]

The articles cover the fiction of "digital" and why it is actually an analog voltage in an electronics device, and how those voltages can be affected by what goes on in the PC, and how that affects the DAC.
 
Software engineers (such as myself), operate in an abstract world of logic and algorithms, and so do not take into account the fact that audio actually occurs in electronics, and in real time.
 
Double blind studies have shown that running programs at the same time as audio players degrades the sound quality (in a slight, but perceptible way)

 

[kraken2109]

  The articles cover the fiction of "digital" and why it is actually an analog voltage in an electronics device, and how those voltages can be affected by what goes on in the PC, and how that affects the DAC.
 
Software engineers (such as myself), operate in an abstract world of logic and algorithms, and so do not take into account the fact that audio actually occurs in electronics, and in real time.
 
Double blind studies have shown that running programs at the same time as audio players degrades the sound quality (in a slight, but perceptible way)

I've never heard this before, can you show me some articles explaining this?

 

[tedwoods]

I have had the same experience.
Almost everything about its ease of use and library management sucks.
But the sound quality is truly amazing!!!
I have performed extensive tests, even getting my non-audiophile friends involved and the results were unanimous: hq player is definitely better sounding in real terms.
It's more dynamic, has more slam in the bass, calmer in the treble region, seems to have better spacial and timbral information retrieval and somehow seems to be less noisy.while letting you get more involved in the music rather than the gear used.
This happens in all file types, including hi-res and it is not related to whether one uses the up-sampling or the various filter features or the "convolution engine (which I actually don't use).
JRiver (MC20), Foobar and JPlay are markedly inferior sounding, which saddens me really, as I have already invested in JRiver from back in the MC16 days.
It also seems to benefit from running Fidelizer (or vice versa), a bit more clearly than the other players.
I've also briefly tried an Auralic Aries (which I really liked BTW) and honestly it was too close to my tricked out Windows laptop, when running the hq player on it.
While I definitely need more time with the Aries to extract any reliable or even meaningful conclusions, I would also like to try the sotm mini which runs on embedded hq player before settling on a  streamer solution.
The price seems steep indeed and the designer should seriously consider a bare-bones audiophile edition without the convolution engine, optional up-sampling, optional filter section and also the addition of a missing feature: a superior CD ripper (let's not forget that lots of material is still only available on CD).
Then I could propably even live with the sub-standard library integration and the quirky user interface .
I must note that my observations all involve listening through the Lampizator level 4 DAC.
While I don't know if there's some special synergistic mojo happening when the hq player is used in such configuration, I seriously doubt it.

 

[SodaBoy]

Jriver has heavily expanded its feature set over the years, but the team hasn't improved on the core audio DSPs (except convolution) in a long time. Jriver development has been spent on networked media servers, UI, and home theater features. I'm pretty sure Jriver does oversampling through a linear phase filter just like every other mainstream audio player which is why I don't even bother to oversample in Jriver. It's funny how Jriver implemented a video DSP like MadVR and called it "Red October" but won't develop the audio side DSPs like their oversampling filter. I don't even bother telling them to do it, because they will probably tell me its "bit-perfect playback" lol.
 
HQPlayer on the other hand runs some pretty computationally expensive filters that simply could not be run on a typical DAC. However, due to its ****ty UI, limited file formats, and lack of VST support, it's a one trick pony that could be replaced by free alternatives like Bug Head/Infinity Edge.
 
The trend should be to move oversampling to software side with higher quality filters, but we won't see it until developers prioritize audio reproduction over doodads like "lol u can stream directly to ur android phone in ur living roomz lul"

 

[tedwoods]

My thoughts exactly!

 

[A_Man_Eating_Duck]

Double blind studies have shown that running programs at the same time as audio players degrades the sound quality (in a slight, but perceptible way)

I would also love to see some links to these blind tests if you have them handy.

 

[kstuart]

 

Double blind studies have shown that running programs at the same time as audio players degrades the sound quality (in a slight, but perceptible way)

I would also love to see some links to these blind tests if you have them handy.

See
 
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pcaudio/messages/7/70925.html

 

[tgx78]

I've been using HQplayer for about one year now. Up-sample all PCM materials I have to quad rate DSD feeding exasound DAC with amazing results.
 
I have JRiver MC20 but I hardly use it anymore. People should try their 30 days trial.
 
As everyone mentioned, UI sucks big time though.

 

[dmbr]

Can someone explain to me how a player can impact SQ?