Wow, I believe this is the first post I've ever seen that points out a possible downside of HQPlayer. I always wondered how it could be so widely praised with no trade-offs.
Wow, I believe this is the first post I've ever seen that points out a possible downside of HQPlayer. I always wondered how it could be so widely praised with no trade-offs.
The term YMMV applies here as everywhere else. The key thing is not to pander to Confirmation Bias by cherry picking only the answers you like and ignoring the ones you don't. Everyone is at a different stage in their hifi journey and are expecting different things out of their systems - and the same person can get a different reaction to the same component when they are at a different point in their journey.
Other people's opinions can only go so far in telling you what is right for you. It's frustrating that subjective opinions vary so much, but they just do, so we continue on with hopefully an open mind until we can try it out for ourselves.
Having said that, it's also the first time I've read anyone say that HQP sounded significantly worse than a "mainstream" player. The usual trade-off with a specialist player like HQP, that almost everybody agrees upon, is its clunky UI.
The term YMMV applies here as everywhere else. The key thing is not to pander to Confirmation Bias by cherry picking only the answers you like and ignoring the ones you don't. Everyone is at a different stage in their hifi journey and are expecting different things out of their systems - and the same person can get a different reaction to the same component when they are at a different point in their journey.
Other people's opinions can only go so far in telling you what is right for you. It's frustrating that subjective opinions vary so much, but they just do, so we continue on with hopefully an open mind until we can try it out for ourselves.
Having said that, it's also the first time I've read anyone say that HQP sounded significantly worse than a "mainstream" player. The usual trade-off with a specialist player like HQP, that almost everybody agrees upon, is its clunky UI.
I doubt the person making the comment has a paid copy and was using the trial version, which would explain why using Foobar was the preferred choice (not wanting to spend the money on HQPlayer).
I have Foobar and HQPlayer. I would like an example where there's "a ton of more detail and precision" so I can evaluate for myself. Won't hold my breath waiting for a reply....
Back to watching the UK Championship "C'mon John".
Wow, I believe this is the first post I've ever seen that points out a possible downside of HQPlayer. I always wondered how it could be so widely praised with no trade-offs.
The term YMMV applies here as everywhere else. The key thing is not to pander to Confirmation Bias by cherry picking only the answers you like and ignoring the ones you don't. Everyone is at a different stage in their hifi journey and are expecting different things out of their systems - and the same person can get a different reaction to the same component when they are at a different point in their journey.
Other people's opinions can only go so far in telling you what is right for you. It's frustrating that subjective opinions vary so much, but they just do, so we continue on with hopefully an open mind until we can try it out for ourselves.
Having said that, it's also the first time I've read anyone say that HQP sounded significantly worse than a "mainstream" player. The usual trade-off with a specialist player like HQP, that almost everybody agrees upon, is its clunky UI.
Yeah, everyone just needs to listen with their own ears on their own system and make a decision based on that.
For reference, I am only using the onboard DAC of my Alienware M11x R2 laptop, which sounds the same to me as the Schiit Modi 2 and slightly better to me than the DAC in the Creative Sound Blaster E1 DAC/amp. If I was using a different DAC, it's possible that the difference between HQPlayer and foobar2000 would be different than it is now.
On my system, both of them have advantages. In a nutshell, HQPlayer sounds more natural in some ways with some songs, but misses quite a bit of detail that is clearly obvious when switching back to foobar2000. (Sometimes entire instruments deep in the mix!) foobar2000 sounds more mechanical overall and which one I prefer is a toss-up, depending on the recording. I never said it sounded significantly worse; sometimes it sounds better to me; but the differences aren't nearly as significant as headphones.
I doubt the person making the comment has a paid copy and was using the trial version, which would explain why using Foobar was the preferred choice (not wanting to spend the money on HQPlayer).
I have Foobar and HQPlayer. I would like an example where there's "a ton of more detail and precision" so I can evaluate for myself. Won't hold my breath waiting for a reply....
Back to watching the UK Championship "C'mon John".
i have tons of music in digital format and use foobar. plays every format i own/use (flac, ape, wav, 24bit, dsd). have never felt the need or had the desire to search for something else.
I just hope the Computer Audio section doesn't become too much more like the Sound Science section, with seemingly everyone insisting that $100 DACs are as good as it gets and anyone who believes otherwise are imagining the improvements. :angry_face:
LOL Don't be angry, but the quantifiable differences among DACs regardless of price vs. among those who auditions them [humans] is vanishingly low. Human hearing is among the worst in the animal kingdom, but the human brain is where all the "magic" happens, and boy does it ever.
Carry on!
LOL Don't be angry, but the quantifiable differences among DACs regardless of price vs. among those who auditions them [humans] is vanishingly low. Human hearing is among the worst in the animal kingdom, but the human brain is where all the "magic" happens, and boy does it ever.
Anyone who has experience with high-end DACs can tell you that's a lie. Some have experienced even more obvious improvements from DACs than headphones!
Also, it's against the rules to trash equipment you have not heard. (Though apparently this is not enforced much.)
it hasn't changed in probably 20 years by now, is very simple to use where you can either import tracks OR just drag them wherever you want in the playlist which is REALLY good for editing when you drag it the full height of your monitor, (older versions of windows media player used to drive me nuts trying to figure out how to get files on my folders into it, which i never did because of the devious way they hid the feature), has a decent enough EQ and host most visualization software like milkdrop. i love the way you can just grab tracks in a playlist and slide them wherever you want for creating more coherent mixes and then create "standard" playlists that you can import into CD burning or other programs. i hated BOTH of the "media players" in windows 10 between cutting the beginning of tracks off, or infuriatingly losing their effing mind when you try to re-order a playlist and the program would glitch and rename the track just before or after what you edited so you'd have to grab IT just to see what the eff the track ACTUALLY is. seriously... did anyone actually TEST that garbage?!
one ANNOYING thing though is you have to jump through hacker hoops, just like with potplayer, to make winamp your default audio player. windows 10 really seems to have it in for this classic program that used to be THE standard back in the day, and still works just as good and is like a comfortable pair of old shoes. it refuses to recognize it as a media player and let you chose it as your default. it's plenty easy to just open a folder to the left of winamp and drag tracks into the playlist and use the folder navigation "up" button to go to other folders though.
i don't know if winamp works with flac and high res tracks, of which i have none, but for CD tracks, WAVs & mp3s, it's simple, intuitive, has the features that are essential to me, looks fine with the classic interface at 2x size or as it always says the very first time you power it up after downloading it...
you can KEEP your freakin' synching crap players you need to waste hours finding artwork for etc.
By the way...on my computer, foobar2000 stutters even more than HQPlayer. Go figure. So I always load tracks into memory.
Anyone who has experience with high-end DACs can tell you that's a lie. Some have experienced even more obvious improvements from DACs than headphones!
Also, it's against the rules to trash equipment you have not heard. (Though apparently this is not enforced much.)
I'm sure you can point out which equipment I was thrashing so I could stop immediately. As for your "argument"............... well it's hardly anything worth lament upon any further ...
Like I've said you should just carry on[with the OT], I will I promise.
I think there is a huge difference between "trashing" equipment (like a multi kilobuck dac), and pointing out the obvious--both it (the multi kilobuck flavor) and the $100 dac sound the same (as good as it gets).
Anyone who wants to buy a $100k dac which is gold plated and jewel encrusted will probably be getting state of the art sound as will the struggling audiophile who buys a well engineered $100 dac.
I like it a lot because it's super compact and down-to-earth. Reminds me a lot of the old WinAmp v2.81 before it got super bloated.
My XMPlay directory is only 580KB big... and this includes an optional custom skin I am using and also the optional MIDI & WASAPI plugin.
The executable (xmplay.exe) is only 306KB.
And with the WASAPI plugin I can make use of "Exclusive Mode" so when I'm listening to music I don't have stupid auto-play crap on my web browser interrupting my music.
I admit the default XMPlay skin is crap... but I love the one I use, really simple:
I *hate* music players that have stupid complex libraries like iTunes.
I prefer to manage my music on my own in folders on my computer so I just drop-and-drag music into XMPlay or right-click and "Add To XMPlay List."
I like Winamp but the skins could be WAY better... I know this is an option but when I looked for modern minimal designed skins, all I found was someones Anime fantasy and other skins that look like they were made with Crayons in 1992.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
