Any one using HQ Player

[blackraven]

I have been using JRiver since I just got into computer audio. I was not happy with the way music sounded upconverted to resolutions above 192 including DSD. A friend told me about HQ player and how it sounds better than JR for upconverting music. I downloaded the trial version and I am truly impressed. The improvement in sound was instantly noticeable. There is more texture and detail. Bass does not drop off at higher rez like it does with JR. The over all sound is tighter and blacker and it has more depth and resolution.

The down side is that the user interface is not as good and there is no remote app. It also have a steep learning curve if you want to customize the many filters that it has. Although you can use the default settings and get great sound.

It is my go to player now except when I want to stay planted on my sofa. Then I will use JR.

If any one is interested in it, there is a good description of the filters and what they do on an Italian forum here which is easily translated to english-

HQPlayer: Introduzione e Indice argomenti (http://www.nexthardware.com/forum/cmp2-cmp-cplay/81480-hqplayer-introduzione-e-indice-argomenti.html)

The guy that wrote this is also on the CA forum.

[frenchmon]

I have had two trial versions of HQ Player. I wrote about it on one of the conversations on one of your threads in the past.

HQP sounds a lot better, but I will not be purchasing something that's really not worth $150. No way. Its got no remote, unless you use a remote desk top like spash top to rig it. The gui is prehistoric for crying out loud. And therer is a click in my right speaker that comes and goes. You cant store DSD files, and those are just a few of the problems with HGP. I know a ton of guys at computeraudiophile.com as well as head-fi who have HQP and I know a ton who wont purchase some thing thats not complete. And when they are done working out the bugs and problems of HQP they are going to charge double for it. So no way....I wont be a party to that foolishness. I know every one doesnt share the same sentiment as I do, but that a shame for them to charge $150 for that. Yes I want my stuff to sound great, but it has to work. Shoot, My TT makes me get off my couch to turn over the album....Digital aint suppose to be that hard. And every thing I've said aint nothing new. Most audiophiles know about these issues and get emotional about the sound and dont think about the other problems and decide to live with them....im not one of them. It sound s great, but is poor in everything else. Its not worth $150 to me.

It does sound better than Jriver, but JRive doesnt sound bad at all. Its that HQP is a few steps above in sound quality....but its still in the beginning stages. Jriver has just come out with a new version...I've not heard the reviews yet, but I hope they step up the game a little...if they do step up in sound quality, that will kill HQP with that antient gui and no remote and with all the bugs in it...its not worth $150 in my book.

Sorry Raven...this isnt a hit on you, its a hit on HQP. If you ask me, its worth no more than the price of Jriver...its a trade off....Jriver while not sounding bad, has a better set up all around...but HQP sounds 3 times as good when it works properly but the gui sucks and no remote unless you rig one. The pop was the last straw for me....every time it changes to the next tract, there is a pop. Naw...I'll wait till they improve HQP and then it may be double the price.

[blackraven]

Frenchmon, I agree with every thing that you say. I can get HQ player for 86 Euro's which is better than the $150 price. For me the sound quality is stellar. One of the guys on CA helped me out with some settings and it sounds even better. It makes JR sound midfi in comparison in my system. I will still use JR when I want to keep my butt glued to the sofa. But with JR, when I go up in rez above 192, bass gets weaker as I go up the ladder. I don't even like DSD though JR. DSD though HQ is lightyears better. Now I am talking about upconverted files as I have only one native DSD file from Blue Coast. I have a few 192K and 96K files. For me HQ player has more texture, depth, wider sound stage, blacker background, smoother sound with more detail, better sounding cymbals and tighter bass.

The way I listen is set and forget. I like to listen to a whole album so HQ player works for me. If I want to jump around albums then I will use JR. JR definitely has its benefits with ease of use, its library and remote ability. I have already paid for JR MC21 which is available.

I don't have too much problems using HQ player. I have a high end I-3 cpu that runs at 2.5ghz, much faster than the newer I-5's that they are putting in the lower end laptops. I have 4 gigs DDR3 at 1600mHz soon to be upgraded to 8 gigs at 1800mHz although this won't help with HQ player which is CPU dependent. I turn off my antivirus and run Fidelizer which I am not convinced that it helps with sound quality as I have not heard a difference. By the way there is a beta version of the 3.8 HQ player coming out.

I am using a borrowed $600 Wire World Starlight Platinum usb cable that sounds great ( I have the new Straight Wire Level 3 USBF 2.0 cable on order) and I plan on getting a Regen unless it does not improve the sound with my new cable which has filters on each end. My friend is going to lend me his Regen which makes a nice difference in my friends system. I got to hear it myself.

[frenchmon]

Frenchmon, I agree with every thing that you say. I can get HQ player for 86 Euro's which is better than the $150 price. For me the sound quality is stellar. One of the guys on CA helped me out with some settings and it sounds even better. It makes JR sound midfi in comparison in my system. I will still use JR when I want to keep my butt glued to the sofa. But with JR, when I go up in rez above 192, bass gets weaker as I go up the ladder. I don't even like DSD though JR. DSD though HQ is lightyears better. Now I am talking about upconverted files as I have only one native DSD file from Blue Coast. I have a few 192K and 96K files. For me HQ player has more texture, depth, wider sound stage, blacker background, smoother sound with more detail, better sounding cymbals and tighter bass.

The way I listen is set and forget. I like to listen to a whole album so HQ player works for me. If I want to jump around albums then I will use JR. JR definitely has its benefits with ease of use, its library and remote ability. I have already paid for JR MC21 which is available.

I don't have too much problems using HQ player. I have a high end I-3 cpu that runs at 2.5ghz, much faster than the newer I-5's that they are putting in the lower end laptops. I have 4 gigs DDR3 at 1600mHz soon to be upgraded to 8 gigs at 1800mHz although this won't help with HQ player which is CPU dependent. I turn off my antivirus and run Fidelizer which I am not convinced that it helps with sound quality as I have not heard a difference. By the way there is a beta version of the 3.8 HQ player coming out.

I am using a borrowed $600 Wire World Starlight Platinum usb cable that sounds great ( I have the new Straight Wire Level 3 USBF 2.0 cable on order) and I plan on getting a Regen unless it does not improve the sound with my new cable which has filters on each end. My friend is going to lend me his Regen which makes a nice difference in my friends system. I got to hear it myself.

Hi Raven....great that you can get it cheaper. I listen to entire albums as well. But I do like using the random play on JRiver as well. Did you know there is a random play with HQP as well? You should also looking into a remote desk top option for the HQP. That way you can use it as a remote. And you can also do some streaming with HQP as well.

I agree whole heartly that HQP is heads and shoulders above Jriver in sound quality. The engine in HQP is like a v8. It takes a lot of horse power to get it to run at its best.

I have a i5 4 cores running at 3.3ghz on a mini Desk top. Also, by turning off antivirus will lend more horse power to the CPU. I use Fidelizer and have a darker background because of it.

Ravin...the i3 has the lowest amount of cores. The more cores, the more task can be spread out over those cores. So less strain on the CPU. All i3's are only 2 cores, where as all i5' processors sold in the United States are 4 cores. there is no i3 that can out run an i5. The more up to date i3's run at 2.9ghz. So a i3 with 2 cores running at 2.9 ghz cant compete with an i5 with quad running at a higher ghz. And all i5 and i7 processors have something that the i3 does not have. And that is whats call turbo boost 2.0. but i3 and i7 does have hyper thinking which the i5 does not have.

Also..i3's have only 3mb or 4mb of cache. i5 have either 4mb or 6mb of cache. i7 has 7mb or 8mb. thats why the i7 is faster than the i5 and the i5 is faster than the i3. Cache is sorta like RAM but unlike RAM, cache is built into the processor with mean it wont interact with RAM as much...the more cache the faster processing will be because it doesnt have to call on RAM as much.

I've been talking to two other buddy's who just purchased the Regen. ANd they both told me something about the Regen and USB cables. They said with the Regen, all USB cables pretty much sound the same. One buddy did an experiment with a usb cable that came with a printer and a very expensive audiophile cable and he said the Regen makes them sound about the same....but I must tell you....I think those Wireworld cables add great tone and texture to the sound of audio rigs....I love them.

Have a great sunday, Raven.