[Music Alchemist]

  i guess there is hqplayer but it instantly crashes on two machines here.

 
Try storing the programs and files in virtual RAM drives. That may prevent any crashing.

 

[motberg]

  i use jriver. i would use foobar. roon is to expensive. i know that sounds stupid coming from me but i mean i don't see the value. jriver is a great value. i am just using jriver with fidelizer. i guess there is hqplayer but it instantly crashes on two machines here. windows beta versions though. the others might be a big learning curve. i must run windows 10.

If you already know and like JRiver, then you can check with the Audiophile Optimizer author if any known problems with Windows 10 and Audiophile Optimizer and JRiver.
(My guess is this is a fairly common combination due to the JRiver popularity)
I am pretty sure the machine needs to be dedicated to music playback though.
 
I have a HQPlayer license and also an older JRiver license and recently played both on the same Windows Server machine (a Dell i5 laptop).
These 2 player programs had fairly similar sound to me when playing back files in the original format, (but I have read reviews where HQPlayer was generally considered a superior player).
I did not do a very critical analysis though, just some casual playback for a few weeks and I did not notice any big differences.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  I have a HQPlayer license and also an older JRiver license and recently played both on the same Windows Server machine (a Dell i5 laptop).
These 2 player programs had fairly similar sound to me when playing back files in the original format, (but I have read reviews where HQPlayer was generally considered a superior player).
I did not do a very critical analysis though, just some casual playback for a few weeks and I did not notice any big differences.

 
Did you activate the more extreme DSP settings in HQPlayer? That's what makes it sound different.

 

[music_man]

thats dsp though. not the natural sound. if anyone likes it that is fine. is audiophile optimizer better than fidelizer?

 

[Music Alchemist]

  thats dsp though. not the natural sound. if anyone likes it that is fine.

 
It's a common misconception that DSP results in less accurate sound, but this is not always the case. EQ, for example, can make headphones and speakers more accurate. The upsampling type of DSP that HQPlayer and Chord DACs do is related to more precise reproduction of timing for better transients. I actually prefer foobar2000 over HQPlayer myself, but Chord DACs are on another level. (I don't use any external DSP in that case aside from occasional EQ.)

 

[music_man]

i did not know you meant upsampling. i thought you meant like effects. misunderstanding. i do not know if jriver upsamples as well as hqplayer and foobar but i would imagine it does. it has quite extensive upsampling capabilities. if using asio both in the jriver core and the asio plugin. i would imagine the asio plugin is better but i don't know. that all depends how well that particular asio driver is written. i actually have the dave here. you must use the software to force upsampling afaik? i think it is just sending it to the dac to do it's job if you upsample from the asio plugin. however i prefer to play redbook at redbook without upsampling. even on high end dacs i feel it degrades the sound. you cannot magically make what is not there. any upsampling must entail some loss? at least to my ears.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  i did not know you meant upsampling. i thought you meant like effects. misunderstanding. i do not know if jriver upsamples as well as hqplayer and foobar but i would imagine it does. it has quite extensive upsampling capabilities. if using asio both in the jriver core and the asio plugin. i would imagine the asio plugin is better but i don't know. that all depends how well that particular asio driver is written. i actually have the dave here. you must use the software to force upsampling afaik? i think it is just sending it to the dac to do it's job if you upsample from the asio plugin. however i prefer to play redbook at redbook without upsampling. even on high end dacs i feel it degrades the sound. you cannot magically make what is not there. any upsampling must entail some loss? at least to my ears.

 
HQPlayer does more advanced upsampling than other players. But I ended up preferring foobar2000 without any upsampling. In that case, it was all about trade-offs in sound, back when I was using "normal" DACs.
 
You have a Chord DAVE? I only have the Mojo. It's best to use bitperfect output with no software upsampling and let the DAC handle that, yes. (Chord DACs have hundreds of times more processing power than conventional DACs and always do far more advanced upsampling than anything else. I'd be surprised if you bought their flagship DAC without knowing that they do extreme upsampling to more accurately reconstruct the original analog waveform.)

 

[Robert McAdam]

I would suggest XXhighend (Windows) latest version (2.07) running in Ram OS is sonically superior to HQplayer (Windows) and wtfplay (linux) for PCM files.
 
I have compared all three closely and XXhighend is actually well ahead at this point in time. Although a bit tricky to set up once running is easy. 
 
I run upsampling and compared to none, much prefer upsampling even though my Benchmark Dac2 only accepts 24/192 max.
 
My next Dac must accept 32/768. This is appearing in some new Dac's now.
 
You do need a decent computer to run this software and does cost to get Ram OS disc. 
 
Works with any Dac but has been designed to run into NOS dacs(Phasure in particular).

 

[music_man]

it is linux or windows? i hate to go buying a bunch of software just to try it out. hardware at a certain level you obviously go to a dealer and listen first. usually if they even have a trial of these it is badly crippled. ramdisc is too complicated for me. i like jriver because the functionality is close to roon but i think it sounds better. plus roon is expensive. i know that sounds stupid with my gear but i don't just throw out money. does xxhighend just run in windows? getting hqplayer to work is also too difficult. the thing is jriver is on over 20. these other programs are almost betas. that is probably why jriver and foobar run and hqplayer does not. don't know about xxhighend. i like fidelizer with jriver. simple.
 
i had a question. can you make foobar look like a mini player on jriver without 100 plugins?
 
i also find it is best to let the dac do the upsampling. just like alchemist said. with a dac that good i would not rely on software upsampling. in jriver it is through the asio driver. all of the sudden i cannot get foo_asio to work with jriver either now. crash. this machine is stable but some of this stuff is half baked imo.

 

[motberg]

   
Did you activate the more extreme DSP settings in HQPlayer? That's what makes it sound different.

Besides HQPlayer, I have 2 other paid up-sampling programs, I have tried every sensible PCM combinations with all 3 programs, but still find using the native files the best option overall.
I did recently buy a DSD capable DAC as a second source to check up-sampling to DSD, as that is preferred by many HQPlayer users.
 
Note AO is complimentary to Fidelizer, they can be run concurrently on the same machine.

 

[music_man]

motberg, +1. you should play at native resolution. unless you just prefer upsampling. no right or wrong here. however if you have a god dac i would let the dac do the upsampling. not in software.

 

[castleofargh]

all modern DACs convert to analog a signal at sample rates that far exceed 96 or 192khz, for that simple reason, it's usually meaningless to do a small oversampling or upsampling in the computer before sending the signal to those DACs.
now some bad DACs will suck at 16/44. even to this day this is still a possibility(mostly because money), and of course NOS DACs are embodiment of wrong in that respect. for those DACs, running away from 44.1khz by any mean is almost always an improvement. an objective one, not just "I like it so it must be better".  of course I see an amazing irony anytime I think about a guy using a NOS DAC while oversampling his CD tracks, but if I was stuck with a NOS DAC, I'd do just that.
 
the most accepted reason seems to be that the low pass filter can be gentler for band limiting, while still keeping low distortion levels. at 44.1khz a gentle low pass means starting in the audible range and getting audible roll off in the trebles. but starting high enough in frequency to avoid audible change in the signature at 44.1khz comes at the cost of doing a fairly poor band limiting job(and digital audio exists on the concept of good band limiting so there is that). but then if you use a strong low pass, people go crazy because "hermagerd ringingrrr!!!". so somebody somewhere will be unhappy. at higher sample rate, the filter can start outside the audible range and can be very very gentle and do a proper band limiting job. so basically, the crappier your filter at 44.1, the better is ti to have higher sample rate. but good DACs deals with that just fine and should be left alone IMO.
 if we're going full obsessed, there is also the game about async sample rate conversion used in some DACs. ^_^ plenty or reasons not to know what to do while being absolutely mad paranoid.
 
 
in the end if someone is going to change the sample rate on the computer, it makes sense to at least use a good process to do it. windows resampling has never been the best solution. SOX works pretty well, and some stuff like HQplayer allow for way too many settings for the average guy IMO, but does offer great choice to the few who actually know what they're doing.
personally I dealt with this the same way I deal with most audio things, I measure the signal I get using a few different options to at least confirm I'm not once again chasing unicorns, and when I believe that the variations are really not worth the extra CPU/money/efforts, and don't seem to make an obvious change to my ears, I forget about it and move on. in fact as the usual destroyer of fidelity that I am, with headphones I use SOX in foobar to turn the few highres stuff I have to 44.1 because I run some convolution filters at that rate.

we all have our own priorities.

 

[music_man]

the engineer in me agrees with you but not the audiophile remember, you are sound science not audiophile. two different schools. it is like creation vs. evolution. i just let everyone be happy with what they like.
 
personally, i play back files at their native resolution and let the dac do the work. on the other hand i am lucky to have dacs many people do not.

 

[music_man]

i know better that bit perfect is it for digital. i do hear a difference amongst these but bet i would not pass a dbt. you know what i mean. in the mind i would gather but hey, that works too. we are humans not machines so if we are "tricked" what is wrong with that? a lamborghini gives plenty of adrenaline going 30mph too.

 

[sterling1]

  i know better that bit perfect is it for digital. i do hear a difference amongst these but bet i would not pass a dbt. you know what i mean. in the mind i would gather but hey, that works too. we are humans not machines so if we are "tricked" what is wrong with that? a lamborghini gives plenty of adrenaline going 30mph too.

​In audio, as in everything else marketed, it has always been about what folks can be persuaded to believe, not so much about the truth. When the truth gets in the way, then the marketing gurus go to emotional appeals. These appeals defy logic and critical thinking; yet, may win out over the facts when folks are not interested in the details though meaningful. But hey, don't stop believing, capitalists are depending on you to keep the economy going, as well as pay for development of new technology.