[Dobrescu George]

Is it an i5 mobile processor or desktop?

EDIT: I have an AMD FX-6300 in my rig.

i5  first generation on a laptop. 

 

[DonutDeflector]

i5  first generation on a laptop. 

Ok, thank you. It would probably work on my desktop fine but not my brother's laptop. (The slowness.)

 

[Dobrescu George]

Ok, thank you. It would probably work on my desktop fine but not my brother's laptop. (The slowness.)

it works fine for playing music, it takes a while to load the playlist and to start playing. it plays very fine.
 
now, where do i get a free copy of it, or how can i use it for free?...
 
or what else does add fir or iir taps for free?

 

[DonutDeflector]

it works fine for playing music, it takes a while to load the playlist and to start playing. it plays very fine.

now, where do i get a free copy of it, or how can i use it for free?...

or what else does add fir or iir taps for free?

Ok, thanks.

Does Music Alchemist know any free alternatives?

 

[Dobrescu George]

Ok, thanks.

Does @Music Alchemist know any free alternatives?

found it in foobar, with multi resampler.
 
now i have to fiind fir tap enabling technology for free.
 
...
 
nope, i feel like there are very little differences between foobar and hqplayer.
 
on second thought the differences i thought i heared were not there. resampling in foobar made more sense, as i was able to play with the settings more, and add more stages of resampling. much better resoults.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  the ones you own, mdr-7506 are known the be very good studio monitors.
 
i have nothing against DSP processing, but do you know what kind of dsp processing is donw within hqplayer? software speaking, it should sound the same as foobar and others, if it does not it does dsp, with which i agree, but i am afraid that i might like how it sounds, and might want to keep it after trial ends.
 
EDIT2:::
 
tested hq player. it sounds interesting. it does heavy dsp processing, but sounds really good. i still cannot put my finger on what dsp it does.
 
EDIT3:::
 
amazing music player... this makes me wonder, what music player sounds the best? this one works very very slow, and the resampling algorytmhs are hard on both processors, and the system, and i cannot simply play something else, it takes control of audio output.
 
this is why i liked foobar, it was simpler, but as this sounds better, i might want to test it deeper.

 
The MDR-7506 has nasty peaks in the frequency response that are not accurate at all, so I don't know how it could be trusted in studio applications. I guess if you're just trying to enhance the treble and hear things that stand out, it could work, but not when you want the accuracy of studio monitor speakers, which is what real studios rely on. Anyway, EQ can fix the peaks in the headphone.
 
I think it just upsamples the audio before it is sent to your DAC, but does it in a certain way.
 
Which DAC are you using?
 
By the way, here are some settings I got from the person who introduced me to the software.
 

  Regarding hqplayer, after playing with it a lot i understood what it does. it adds fir and iir taps.
 
this is the same thing as hugo does.
 
practically it is DSP processing, but it is not for the worse, it makes music more fluid. i thought that one would not be able to do this on a normal computer processor. 
 
on my i5 processor it works pretty slow, and the program looks buggy, but sounds heavens, it improves music in the same way as hugo, but it is still not able to transform a computer into a chord hugo.

 
Could you explain what these taps are exactly?
 
If you use the settings I provided above, or experiment with your own settings, you may be able to get it to work better on your computer.
 

  it works fine for playing music, it takes a while to load the playlist and to start playing. it plays very fine.
 
now, where do i get a free copy of it, or how can i use it for free?...
 
or what else does add fir or iir taps for free?

 
You are using the free 30 day trial right now. If you get it for free to keep elsewhere, you are stealing it.
 

Ok, thanks.

Does @Music Alchemist know any free alternatives?

 
Nope, HQPlayer is the only player I have found that makes a total night and day difference that is immediately obvious.
 

  found it in foobar, with multi resampler.
 
now i have to fiind fir tap enabling technology for free.
 
...
 
nope, i feel like there are very little differences between foobar and hqplayer.
 
on second thought the differences i thought i heared were not there. resampling in foobar made more sense, as i was able to play with the settings more, and add more stages of resampling. much better resoults.

 
Oh, that's interesting. So you figured out how to resample in foobar2000. Tutorial please?
 
So you made foobar2000 sound better than HQPlayer by tweaking the settings? We definitely want a step by step tutorial for that!

 

[Dobrescu George]

I tried many settings with hqplayer, and ultimately un-installed it because it was very un-friendly with foobar and testing it against foobar took a while, and it was not working for me as well.
 
taps are basically the FIR finite impulse response units, of which hugo uses lots of to improove music. hqplayer uses one. polysinc function is equivalent to a few more fir taps, but not even close to what hugo does.
 
on the other hand, the resampling hqplayer did did hold it's own advantages, like polysinc was pretty much without cut-offs, but added some ultrasonic distortion, more because it should have been used with high playrates.
 
i am using fiio x5 as a DAC, but all the stuff hqplayer does are done withing DSP, so nothing done in the DAC, only some pre-processing done in computer's processor.
 
to be straight, with foobar i had to play a lot to get to a conclusion, because i was not impressed with resampling done within foobar. 
 
-PPHS resampler is not good. it does not modify the SQ by much.
-SoX resampler is awfull, it tames the treble.
-multi resampler does more than hq player or anything i had tried, but it is very tricky to set.
 
imagine that foobat can use a chain of DSPs top is done first, bottom last.
 
If you use Eq, or anything, put it first.
 
then you add multisampler. one or many. every multisampler added modifies the sound, by a very little, depending on the algorythm. Cubic, sinc and linear are awesome, the rest add distortion besides resampling. 
 
also, i would advice strongly to resample at a rate [from the list] not at a high rate, because every re-sampling algorythm creates artefacts in ultrasonics if used at a too high rate.
 
you really have to experiment with them, i had at certain points 30Xsinc at from the list rate active at the same time. they seem to make music more quiet this way... at least seem to.
 
 
 
 
.
.
.
.
.
 
 
It seems that SoX is better sounding re-sampler, but harder to set settings in it, i am still playing with it
 
setting it seems to work best with the lowest phase response, 95%passband, best quality, and samplerate as you like.
 
remember that you cannot have in a chain two instances of Sox that have the same samplerate. you would have to have different sample rates between them, and it would be prefferable for the first to have higher sample rates, as the first are the first done in the chain.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  I tried many settings with hqplayer, and ultimately un-installed it because it was very un-friendly with foobar and testing it against foobar took a while, and it was not working for me as well.
 
taps are basically the FIR finite impulse response units, of which hugo uses lots of to improove music. hqplayer uses one. polysinc function is equivalent to a few more fir taps, but not even close to what hugo does.
 
on the other hand, the resampling hqplayer did did hold it's own advantages, like polysinc was pretty much without cut-offs, but added some ultrasonic distortion, more because it should have been used with high playrates.
 
i am using fiio x5 as a DAC, but all the stuff hqplayer does are done withing DSP, so nothing done in the DAC, only some pre-processing done in computer's processor.
 
to be straight, with foobar i had to play a lot to get to a conclusion, because i was not impressed with resampling done within foobar. 
 
-PPHS resampler is not good. it does not modify the SQ by much.
-SoX resampler is awfull, it tames the treble.
-multi resampler does more than hq player or anything i had tried, but it is very tricky to set.
 
imagine that foobat can use a chain of DSPs top is done first, bottom last.
 
If you use Eq, or anything, put it first.
 
then you add multisampler. one or many. every multisampler added modifies the sound, by a very little, depending on the algorythm. Cubic, sinc and linear are awesome, the rest add distortion besides resampling. 
 
also, i would advice strongly to resample at a rate [from the list] not at a high rate, because every re-sampling algorythm creates artefacts in ultrasonics if used at a too high rate.
 
you really have to experiment with them, i had at certain points 30Xsinc at from the list rate active at the same time. they seem to make music more quiet this way... at least seem to.
 
 
 
 
.
.
.
.
.
 
 
It seems that SoX is better sounding re-sampler, but harder to set settings in it, i am still playing with it
 
setting it seems to work best with the lowest phase response, 95%passband, best quality, and samplerate as you like.
 
remember that you cannot have in a chain two instances of Sox that have the same samplerate. you would have to have different sample rates between them, and it would be prefferable for the first to have higher sample rates, as the first are the first done in the chain.

 
What are "FIR finite impulse response units"? Explain it in a way that anyone can understand.
 
Ultrasonics are not audible. That's why they're called ultrasonics. So when you talk about ultrasonics affected the sound, I'm assuming you mean things indirectly related to ultrasonics affecting the sound.

 

[Dobrescu George]

   
What are "FIR finite impulse response units"? Explain it in a way that anyone can understand.
 
Ultrasonics are not audible. That's why they're called ultrasonics. So when you talk about ultrasonics affected the sound, I'm assuming you mean things indirectly related to ultrasonics affecting the sound.

let's take it this way,
 
ultrasonics are bad for hearing and health, for more than one reason, they will be created by an algorythm that has aliasing when resampling.
 
in a matemathical question, if you use linear interpolation, the resoult grows in x and y. practically, if you up-sample to 192khz, you get something like this normal
 
M
W
M
W-this is the original data, the rest expands above it in ultrasonics. you cannot hear it, but it can affect both equipment and hearing.
 
fir is a basic up-sampling and interpolation algorythm, it takes two different samples, and interpolates them to make what is a step wave into something closer to a sine wave. It works exactly like anti aliasing works in games.
 
imagine a image, with pixels, applying a FIR interpolation you smooth the edges, and image becomes much more smoother. something similar. music is ideally made only of smooth waves, but in digital domain, it is made only of step waves; Every DAC in the world has a FIR filter for interpolation.
 
a TAP in a FIR filter is the number of times it interpolates two samples. 5 taps, mean that between two steps in a step wave, the filter will put 5 new smaller steps, the wave becomes closer to ideal, which is perfectly smooth, without any step
 
ideally, the best FIR filter is infinite, situation in which it makes the WAVE perfectly analogue, without any step wave. No DAC can do this, at the moment, no matter the price.
 
Hugo is the strongest in this aspect, it has around 20.000 taps. imagine that between two samples, two steps in a step wave, it creates based on mathemathics 20000 new samples. the sound is very very closer to natural and totally analogue.
 
This is what the sinc function on hq player does, it adds a single TAP digitally. one, and it makes day/night difference. imagine 20.000. 
 
ideally most DACs already add a few taps, some around 30-50, depending on DAC and implementation, the hq player doubles the number you DAC already did, or adds one tap in DSD, then your dac adds 50 before the new sample and 50 after the new sample, depending on DAC implementation.
 
on my x5, it was not worth it, x5 alone sounded better. on my on-board laptop soundcard, it made the headphone output of the laptop sound close to my fiio x5... mind opening. Cheap soundcards do not add even one tap, and adding one makes a world of a difference.
 
everything i tried in foobar was similar, but you can add more up-sampling dsps. until a limit where program crushes. 
 
best ideea is to not employ this technology, but get a DAC which adds taps, you are better off, there is a reason for which this thing is not stabe in computer processor, 
 
chord company build DAC only solutions cheaper than hugo that have the same properties, qute if i remember right, the new one has exactly the hugo sound, but no amp built in, and it is not usable as a portable, but costs half of hugo price.
 
 
 
 
Do not understand me wrong, all DACs would be capable of outputing a perfect smooth wave, they just cannot create it because it was not recorded like this.
 
 
DSD files are trying to reduce the step size, acting like there is a FIR filter around there. it works some times, and some times not, you need very high quality dsd for this to work, it does the exact same thing as hugo, but emplying another technology.
 
 
 
 
please tell me if you cannot understand, i will try to explain even in more detail if i will be able to.

 

[Music Alchemist]

 
Thanks for the detailed explanation. I'm too lazy to even try to understand, so don't worry about it. XD

 

[JuanseAmador]

YKYAAW the best part about chopping down your afro is that headphones fit perfectly and no hair gets inside the cups. It improves the experience by miles.

 

[PalJoey]

YKYAAW the best part about chopping down your afro is that headphones fit perfectly and no hair gets inside the cups. It improves the experience by miles.

You could have just shaved a strip from ear to ear, I suppose...

 

[drgajet]

You could have just shaved a strip from ear to ear, I suppose...

If you do, take a picture I want to see it.

 

[taffy2207]

YKYAAW Someone sets a budget on Head-fi and you type "If you can stretch your budget to..."

 

[JuanseAmador]

YKYAAW the best part about chopping down your afro is that headphones fit perfectly and no hair gets inside the cups. It improves the experience by miles.

You could have just shaved a strip from ear to ear, I suppose...