HQPlayer Impressions and Settings Rolling Thread

[Rayon]

Ok, here's some comparison between AHM7EL5 and ASDM7ECv3. Setup: May,Bliss,1266 TC. Filter is gauss-xla (which seems to work best for both IMO). Everything listened @ DSD1024x44.1.

First listening to psytrance

• Imaging: This is the very first thing that becomes obvious. ECv3 remains supreme here. It's imaging is just crazy and it can extract more image information from sound. I have sounds floating in front of me in the air and I go to this world of sounds. With AHM I can easily spot different sounds, but they are not in front of me, but rather filling the space with their presence.
• Bass: AHM7EL5's bass is a bit less accurate, but there is more quantity and slam. ECv3's bass is snappier, accurate and more clearly placed in space.
• Soundstage: The size is similar, but they use that space very differently. AHM maybe feels a bit more closed in, but it feels like a very natural side effect of the way it represents music.

Then more freely worded: ECv3 like sitting where I am with VR glasses. It's clearly more analytical, but never boring. It's also in some very specific way more engaging because all the information is "in your face". Switching to AHM is then like going to a club. It's also more engaging, but in a very different way. AHM somehow makes me nod my head and feel like I'm having a good time in general. Music is in a way less "fidelity" because the imaging is not as precise, but at the same time I kind of get lost in the music better. While ECv3 makes me smile with it's capabilities, AHM makes me feel like I want to do some crazy.

Overall I feel like AHM is very sneaky. It's very enjoyable, but it's super hard to put my finger on anything. It's just enjoyable, while with ECv3 it's much more obvious what's causing the effects.

Then switching to metal (things like Lorna Shore - ...And I Return to Nothingness and Aborted - Infinite Terror)

Here it's very obvious how much faster ECv3 is. Music is simply more aggressive and there is no sign of busyness. All the hits even at very high bpm are clearly in line. AHM isn't at home with this and TC just can't show what it's made of. Experience is super enjoyable even with AHM, but after hearing ECv3 with all that detail the experience leaves me wanting.

Then some random pics

• U2 - Where The Streets Have No Name: AHM is clearly better here. ECv3 is simply boring, but AHM just makes me listen to the music the way I used to listen to this.
• Ozzy Osbourne - No Mo Tears: Here much closer as the detail of ECv3 does impress me at some points, but with AHM it's more about the musical piece, not just beauty of sound at certain points.
• Pentatonix - Little Drummer Boy: Ooh AHM is nice. Just... Mmm... Switching to ECv3 it's wow, but I lost a lot of that emotional connection. With this kind of music I'll pick AHM any day.
• Lang Lang et al. - Beauty and the Beast: ECv3 and piano is just beautiful with very detailed decay on every single note. Switching to AHM I start to think about the movie, the story and what love can overcome.

Summary

While ECv3 represents the ultimate accuracy, technical capability and pinnacle of what a modulator can extract from music, AHM has more emotional capability. AHM can make you dream and cry, ECv3 can make you smile and appreciate. They seem to represent two different schools: exploration of music and exploration of feelings.

 

[plumpudding2]

Ok, here's some comparison between AHM7EL5 and ASDM7ECv3. Setup: May,Bliss,1266 TC. Filter is gauss-xla (which seems to work best for both IMO). Everything listened @ DSD1024x44.1.

First listening to psytrance

• Imaging: This is the very first thing that becomes obvious. ECv3 remains supreme here. It's imaging is just crazy and it can extract more image information from sound. I have sounds floating in front of me in the air and I go to this world of sounds. With AHM I can easily spot different sounds, but they are not in front of me, but rather filling the space with their presence.
• Bass: AHM7EL5's bass is a bit less accurate, but there is more quantity and slam. ECv3's bass is snappier, accurate and more clearly placed in space.
• Soundstage: The size is similar, but they use that space very differently. AHM maybe feels a bit more closed in, but it feels like a very natural side effect of the way it represents music.

Then more freely worded: ECv3 like sitting where I am with VR glasses. It's clearly more analytical, but never boring. It's also in some very specific way more engaging because all the information is "in your face". Switching to AHM is then like going to a club. It's also more engaging, but in a very different way. AHM somehow makes me nod my head and feel like I'm having a good time in general. Music is in a way less "fidelity" because the imaging is not as precise, but at the same time I kind of get lost in the music better. While ECv3 makes me smile with it's capabilities, AHM makes me feel like I want to do some crazy.

Overall I feel like AHM is very sneaky. It's very enjoyable, but it's super hard to put my finger on anything. It's just enjoyable, while with ECv3 it's much more obvious what's causing the effects.

Then switching to metal (things like Lorna Shore - ...And I Return to Nothingness and Aborted - Infinite Terror)

Here it's very obvious how much faster ECv3 is. Music is simply more aggressive and there is no sign of busyness. All the hits even at very high bpm are clearly in line. AHM isn't at home with this and TC just can't show what it's made of. Experience is super enjoyable even with AHM, but after hearing ECv3 with all that detail the experience leaves me wanting.

Then some random pics

• U2 - Where The Streets Have No Name: AHM is clearly better here. ECv3 is simply boring, but AHM just makes me listen to the music the way I used to listen to this.
• Ozzy Osbourne - No Mo Tears: Here much closer as the detail of ECv3 does impress me at some points, but with AHM it's more about the musical piece, not just beauty of sound at certain points.
• Pentatonix - Little Drummer Boy: Ooh AHM is nice. Just... Mmm... Switching to ECv3 it's wow, but I lost a lot of that emotional connection. With this kind of music I'll pick AHM any day.
• Lang Lang et al. - Beauty and the Beast: ECv3 and piano is just beautiful with very detailed decay on every single note. Switching to AHM I start to think about the movie, the story and what love can overcome.

Summary

While ECv3 represents the ultimate accuracy, technical capability and pinnacle of what a modulator can extract from music, AHM has more emotional capability. AHM can make you dream and cry, ECv3 can make you smile and appreciate. They seem to represent two different schools: exploration of music and exploration of feelings.

Thanks so much for a detailed comparison! I was secretly hoping AHM was up to par so I wouldn't have to upgrade my PC. From your account it's the tube amp among modulators. A nice experience but I'd like to hear that ECv3 detail at some point too and by the sounds of it the ideal modulator changes on a song by song basis.
I was wondering how you settled on Gauss xla, I usually stick with Gauss-long and if I want a longer filter go for MGa and then xla is kind of the forgotten in-between.

 

[Rayon]

From your account it's the tube amp among modulators.

I was thinking the same comparison in my head, but I thought that the associations could had been a bit misleading if I would had used that analogy It doesn't sound tube, but it has similar effects, which surprised me. Can't wait to try it with Freya in between of May and Bliss. May be too much of a good thing too, or it could be amazing as well. I haven't had those impressions from music since I sold my Euforia, which synergized with MDR-Z1R super well. It wasn't the most refined experience, but it was somehow magical. Euforia + Z1R was also the only time when my wife said "wow". Freya in between got me quite far, but not quite there yet. It has the same presentation, but the emotional magic hasn't been there. AHM may be the missing piece in the puzzle.

A nice experience but I'd like to hear that ECv3 detail at some point too and by the sounds of it the ideal modulator changes on a song by song basis. Thanks so much for a detailed comparison! I was secretly hoping AHM was up to par so I wouldn't have to upgrade my PC.

This pretty much. I wouldn't want to not experience ECv3 and have it in my tool belt. Sorry for your wallet. Said that, time will tell which will become my daily driver (excluding moments when I want to listen to metal or really to look into what records hold inside).

I was wondering how you settled on Gauss xla, I usually stick with Gauss-long and if I want a longer filter go for MGa and then xla is kind of the forgotten in-between.

I very first want to comment that to me filter choice is also a bit headphone dependent. With Utopia I clearly preferred xtr-short-lp. With those gauss-xla felt like having 20 inch monitor and three A4 pdfs open at the same time. It was just too much information in small space. xtr-short-lp moved the focus from everything that happens to macro elements and it represented those very beautifully. However with Sus and TC it turns upside down. Their massive soundstages really benefit from all the details that longest filters provide.

Then between xl(a) vs MGa, xla just somehow feels more natural and effortless. Also the soundstage is wider with xla vs MGa. Switching from xla to MGa, MGa feels congested and spiky to me. Between xla vs gauss-long, it's more about soundstage. gauss-long feels too forward to me, while xla does everything "just right". I did a lot of filter hopping in the beginning of my HQPlayer journey, but after some 6m or so, I just settled with xl(a) and never looked back. I've occasionally tried some other filters for fun, but they are often very short sessions. I could now live with just gauss-xl(a). I have done more modulator hopping between ECv3 and EC-super than filters. Now AHM will join that good company.

P.S. One thing that I still need to do at some point is comparison between AHM vs. super. There are a lot of similarities between the two and I can see a real possibility that AHM will actually replace super as a long term complement for ECv3.

I have a feeling that presentation will flow from ECv3 to super through AHM roughly like:

"The refined" ->	"Emotion" and "meat around the bones", "just music" ->	"AHM representation + the space trick" (some direct connection to the music is exchanged to kind of massive hall-like representation)
ECv3	AHM	super

And I'm not sure how much I actually want to listen to that hall like presentation of super. It was really nice in the beginning, but it has it's downsides and that's why I've more or less settled to ECv3 in the long run. AHM kind of has that little more... "musical" presentation, keeping the connection to the music still more direct.

 

[Psilonaught]

Can I ask a noob HQP question, is it possible to run Room Rock and HQP on one powerful PC?

I just built a gaming pc for one of my kids so I can easily build another.

I don't fancy needing two PCs however!

My intention is to use my Rose RS130 as a Roon endpoint.

 

[GoldenSound]

Can I ask a noob HQP question, is it possible to run Room Rock and HQP on one powerful PC?

I just built a gaming pc for one of my kids so I can easily build another.

I don't fancy needing two PCs however!

My intention is to use my Rose RS130 as a Roon endpoint.

Not roon rock no, but if you have a powerful PC you don't need roon rock anyway, can just run normal roon core.
Roon rock is aimed at NUC PCs where you need to optimise all the compute power you have. If you have a normal decent laptop/desktop PC (or even a more powerful NUC) then you can run roon core + HQP on the same machine on windows

 

[Rayon]

Can I ask a noob HQP question, is it possible to run Room Rock and HQP on one powerful PC?

I just built a gaming pc for one of my kids so I can easily build another.

I don't fancy needing two PCs however!

My intention is to use my Rose RS130 as a Roon endpoint.

I have installed Ubuntu in a dedicated machine and running both Roon and HQPlayer there, so definitely possible on same machine.

In case you decide to build one: Ubuntu is the preferred OS for HQP. I also noticed that it's much more stable to run HQP and Roon on same machine. I used to have dropouts due to networking when they were on different machines even if they were connected via Ethernet.

Then as a pro tip: remember to double check that you have avx2 enabled from bios (I didn't have that for some reason even though I have motherboard meant for overclocking) and that you use avx2 version of HQP (https://www.signalyst.eu/bins/hqplayerd/jammy/hqplayerd_5.3.2-9avx2_amd64.deb). Difference in performance is huge (which doesn't matter if you use only PCM, but with DSD it does). I figured all this out only when emailing with Jussi (HQP dev).

Also, if you decide to use HQP, remember not to use Roon endpoint, but NAA endpoint. It's HQPlayer's equivalent and free. Then Roon sends data bit perfect to HQP and HQPlayer will take care of everything from that point.

 

[Psilonaught]

I have installed Ubuntu in a dedicated machine and running both Roon and HQPlayer there, so definitely possible on same machine.

In case you decide to build one: Ubuntu is the preferred OS for HQP. I also noticed that it's much more stable to run HQP and Roon on same machine. I used to have dropouts due to networking when they were on different machines even if they were connected via Ethernet.

Then as a pro tip: remember to double check that you have avx2 enabled from bios (I didn't have that for some reason even though I have motherboard meant for overclocking) and that you use avx2 version of HQP (https://www.signalyst.eu/bins/hqplayerd/jammy/hqplayerd_5.3.2-9avx2_amd64.deb). Difference in performance is huge (which doesn't matter if you use only PCM, but with DSD it does). I figured all this out only when emailing with Jussi (HQP dev).

Also, if you decide to use HQP, remember not to use Roon endpoint, but NAA endpoint. It's HQPlayer's equivalent and free. Then Roon sends data bit perfect to HQP and HQPlayer will take care of everything from that point.

Thanks

And I assume I need roon core and not rock is that correct?

 

[Psilonaught]

Not roon rock no, but if you have a powerful PC you don't need roon rock anyway, can just run normal roon core.
Roon rock is aimed at NUC PCs where you need to optimise all the compute power you have. If you have a normal decent laptop/desktop PC (or even a more powerful NUC) then you can run roon core + HQP on the same machine on windows

Ok thanks

 

[Psilonaught]

Would a 10 core AMD Ryzen be a good chip for HQP?

My soekris based DAC only does DSD512 afaik

 

[Rayon]

Would a 10 core AMD Ryzen be a good chip for HQP?

My soekris based DAC only does DSD512 afaik

Intel chips have better single core speed. DSD modulators don't benefit from multiple cores, so something like 14600k (or 14900k if you want to to all in) will serve you better (assuming 2 channel setup, ie. headphones).

I also have A4000 GPU so that I can offload filter calculation for that and reserve whole CPU for modulators. You don't necessarily need that with DSD512 though. Also it depends on modulators. Some modulators are significantly heavier to calculate than others.

 

[Psilonaught]

I didn't realise that HQP uses the GPU, how much does/can it rely on it, and does the GPU need to be Nvidia or is AMD ok?

I think I will test install Core + HQP on my daughter's gaming pc as it is on the same network and try that first, she won't care!

I could buy a newer Nvidia GPU if necessary.

The machine uses Ryzen 3100 and Radeon RX580 on Windows 11.

 

[bogi]

I didn't realise that HQP uses the GPU, how much does/can it rely on it, and does the GPU need to be Nvidia or is AMD ok?

Only nVidia. https://www.signalyst.com/consumer.html

System requirements, CUDA offload:​

• NVIDIA GPU
• Minimum Compute Capability level 5.2
• Latest NVIDIA drivers

 

[Rayon]

I didn't realise that HQP uses the GPU, how much does/can it rely on it, and does the GPU need to be Nvidia or is AMD ok?

I think I will test install Core + HQP on my daughter's gaming pc as it is on the same network and try that first, she won't care!

I could buy a newer Nvidia GPU if necessary.

The machine uses Ryzen 3100 and Radeon RX580 on Windows 11.

You can basically offload your filters to GPU fully and it helps a lot. However, GPU needs to be good enough. I understood that with mid level GPU the results may be so-so as distributing the load also has its "cost" for the system. But a good card puts your HQP capabilities to next level.

Modern processors overclock themselves automatically based on temperature and amount of cores in use. When filter calculation is out of the equation, you get higher clocks as you have less cores in use and also cpu can hold those overclocks up better as cpu doesn't warm up so fast.

Btw regarding to GPU, I can warmly recommend used A4000. I can do almost any filter @ DSD1024, only excluding things like sinc-L etc. It can even do gauss-xla cross-family from 48k to DSD1024x44.1k. Quadro cards run very efficiently and use very little electricity. They are meant for scientific calculations are ideal for those floating point operations. I bought mine used for 600€ last year. Considering the price of high level GPUs these days, it's really good bang for buck for this use case. Basically it's on par with RTX 3080, but much more efficient. Nvidia artifically limit the 64bit floating point calculationg power for those gaming cards (like RTX 3080 etc) as it's not needed in gaming and then they can sell more expensive Quadro cards for professionals... The result in HQP usage is that gaming cards run unnecessarily hot and loud.

Anyway, the thing you are interest in with GPU is 64 bit floating point calculation speed. 16gb ram is sufficient for 90% of the filters, excluding those rare cases like sinc-L (which takes like 30 seconds before song starts anyway). Also with DSD512 requirements are half of those @ DSD1024, so you really don't need to go further than A4000.

 

[Rayon]

I was thinking the same comparison in my head, but I thought that the associations could had been a bit misleading if I would had used that analogy It doesn't sound tube, but it has similar effects, which surprised me. Can't wait to try it with Freya in between of May and Bliss. May be too much of a good thing too, or it could be amazing as well. I haven't had those impressions from music since I sold my Euforia, which synergized with MDR-Z1R super well. It wasn't the most refined experience, but it was somehow magical. Euforia + Z1R was also the only time when my wife said "wow". Freya in between got me quite far, but not quite there yet. It has the same presentation, but the emotional magic hasn't been there. AHM may be the missing piece in the puzzle.

This pretty much. I wouldn't want to not experience ECv3 and have it in my tool belt. Sorry for your wallet. Said that, time will tell which will become my daily driver (excluding moments when I want to listen to metal or really to look into what records hold inside).

I very first want to comment that to me filter choice is also a bit headphone dependent. With Utopia I clearly preferred xtr-short-lp. With those gauss-xla felt like having 20 inch monitor and three A4 pdfs open at the same time. It was just too much information in small space. xtr-short-lp moved the focus from everything that happens to macro elements and it represented those very beautifully. However with Sus and TC it turns upside down. Their massive soundstages really benefit from all the details that longest filters provide.

Then between xl(a) vs MGa, xla just somehow feels more natural and effortless. Also the soundstage is wider with xla vs MGa. Switching from xla to MGa, MGa feels congested and spiky to me. Between xla vs gauss-long, it's more about soundstage. gauss-long feels too forward to me, while xla does everything "just right". I did a lot of filter hopping in the beginning of my HQPlayer journey, but after some 6m or so, I just settled with xl(a) and never looked back. I've occasionally tried some other filters for fun, but they are often very short sessions. I could now live with just gauss-xl(a). I have done more modulator hopping between ECv3 and EC-super than filters. Now AHM will join that good company.

P.S. One thing that I still need to do at some point is comparison between AHM vs. super. There are a lot of similarities between the two and I can see a real possibility that AHM will actually replace super as a long term complement for ECv3.

I have a feeling that presentation will flow from ECv3 to super through AHM roughly like:

"The refined" ->	"Emotion" and "meat around the bones", "just music" ->	"AHM representation + the space trick" (some direct connection to the music is exchanged to kind of massive hall-like representation)
ECv3	AHM	super

And I'm not sure how much I actually want to listen to that hall like presentation of super. It was really nice in the beginning, but it has it's downsides and that's why I've more or less settled to ECv3 in the long run. AHM kind of has that little more... "musical" presentation, keeping the connection to the music still more direct.

I want to give an update now after spending a bit more time on this. I'm starting to lean back towards ECv3 more and more. My sessions with AHM are getting shorter and shorter as there is just so much information I'm missing with it. With some less revealing setup it would be less of a problem, but both with Susvara and TC it's clearly becoming a bottleneck. Where I it matters most to me: bass loses it's impact and notes lose their decay. Music kind of loses it's liveliness too much.

I can see myself using it on some niche use cases (like if I want to listen to some emotional vocals), but it's not the best all-rounder for me unfortunately.

 

[briantrinh86]

Ok, here's some comparison between AHM7EL5 and ASDM7ECv3. Setup: May,Bliss,1266 TC. Filter is gauss-xla (which seems to work best for both IMO). Everything listened @ DSD1024x44.1.

First listening to psytrance

• Imaging: This is the very first thing that becomes obvious. ECv3 remains supreme here. It's imaging is just crazy and it can extract more image information from sound. I have sounds floating in front of me in the air and I go to this world of sounds. With AHM I can easily spot different sounds, but they are not in front of me, but rather filling the space with their presence.
• Bass: AHM7EL5's bass is a bit less accurate, but there is more quantity and slam. ECv3's bass is snappier, accurate and more clearly placed in space.
• Soundstage: The size is similar, but they use that space very differently. AHM maybe feels a bit more closed in, but it feels like a very natural side effect of the way it represents music.

Then more freely worded: ECv3 like sitting where I am with VR glasses. It's clearly more analytical, but never boring. It's also in some very specific way more engaging because all the information is "in your face". Switching to AHM is then like going to a club. It's also more engaging, but in a very different way. AHM somehow makes me nod my head and feel like I'm having a good time in general. Music is in a way less "fidelity" because the imaging is not as precise, but at the same time I kind of get lost in the music better. While ECv3 makes me smile with it's capabilities, AHM makes me feel like I want to do some crazy.

Overall I feel like AHM is very sneaky. It's very enjoyable, but it's super hard to put my finger on anything. It's just enjoyable, while with ECv3 it's much more obvious what's causing the effects.

Then switching to metal (things like Lorna Shore - ...And I Return to Nothingness and Aborted - Infinite Terror)

Here it's very obvious how much faster ECv3 is. Music is simply more aggressive and there is no sign of busyness. All the hits even at very high bpm are clearly in line. AHM isn't at home with this and TC just can't show what it's made of. Experience is super enjoyable even with AHM, but after hearing ECv3 with all that detail the experience leaves me wanting.

Then some random pics

• U2 - Where The Streets Have No Name: AHM is clearly better here. ECv3 is simply boring, but AHM just makes me listen to the music the way I used to listen to this.
• Ozzy Osbourne - No Mo Tears: Here much closer as the detail of ECv3 does impress me at some points, but with AHM it's more about the musical piece, not just beauty of sound at certain points.
• Pentatonix - Little Drummer Boy: Ooh AHM is nice. Just... Mmm... Switching to ECv3 it's wow, but I lost a lot of that emotional connection. With this kind of music I'll pick AHM any day.
• Lang Lang et al. - Beauty and the Beast: ECv3 and piano is just beautiful with very detailed decay on every single note. Switching to AHM I start to think about the movie, the story and what love can overcome.

Summary

While ECv3 represents the ultimate accuracy, technical capability and pinnacle of what a modulator can extract from music, AHM has more emotional capability. AHM can make you dream and cry, ECv3 can make you smile and appreciate. They seem to represent two different schools: exploration of music and exploration of feelings.

Thanks for sharing I really like the combo poly sync gauss xla with ecv3 with tc too