In proper Audio Bacon fashion, I spent quite a bit of time testing out all 30 filters and 9 dithers HQPlayer had to offer. If you’re looking for measurements and technical details, there are awesome nerds out there that might have more information.
These were my subjective impressions. YMMV.
| IIR | Clean but not very organic |
| FIR | More analog and textured than IIR. Subdued top end with imaging being softer. A relaxed sound. |
| asymFIR | Better than IIR and FIR. A lot more tonal variations and better separation. The dynamics aren’t bad but the soundstage is pretty flat. |
| minPhaseFIR | Poor separation but smooth sounding. Music just is mushed together. |
| FFT | Good tonal balance. Good focus and detail. More gloomy than vibrant. |
| poly-sinc-lp | Clean but some smearing in the low end. Poor layering. |
| poly-sinc-mp | Much more organic in comparison to poly-sinc-lp. Better than all the filters above. |
| poly-sinc-short-lp | Not very colorful but smooth. |
| poly-sinc-short-mp | Warmer than poly-sinc-short-lp but not quite natural yet. |
| poly-sinc-long-lp | HQPlayer would keep crashing when I selected this filter. |
| poly-sinc-long-ip | There’s something jarring about this filter. It feels like the soundstage is stretched both vertically and horizontally around the axis. Focus is good though. |
| poly-sinc-long-mp | Articulate, textured, and tone isn’t too bad. Richer than most of these filters but closed-form-M and sinc-M are probably better choices. Good material and presence. One of the better filters. |
| poly-sinc-hb | Cruncy1 Piano is a bit too bright. Overall a very cold sound. |
| poly-sinc-ext | Elegant and smooth. Softer top end but very liquid sounding. |
| poly-sinc-ext2 | Fantastic grip, instrument separation, gradations, and quiet. Better than the poly-sinc-exts. Decent amount of textural cues as well. Not very warm but not cold either. |
| poly-sinc-mqa-lp | This filter sound very different from the rest. There’s a crisp and heightened quality to it. Reverbs sound a little contrived. |
| poly-sinc-mqa-mp | Tonal balance isn’t bad. The highs and lows coexist wonderfully here. Might still be a bit too “smoothed over”? |
| poly-sinc-xtr-lp | Tonally variant and smooth but flat and unfocused. |
| poly-sinc-xtr-mp | One of the warmer filters. Delineation isn’t great and the soundstage sounds a little hollow. |
| ASRC | Clean, crisp, and light-footed. It’s more elevated and thin. Laidback but not mellow. Fast and quiet. I feel like it’s missing that connective tissue though. |
| polynomial-1 | I heard a few glitches with this filter. Overall more soft and neutral. |
| polynomial-2 | Wide soundstage. Tonally neutral but shapeless. I had a few dropouts here as well. |
| minringFIR-lp | A bit colder than neutral but the metallic shine off cymbals is nice. |
| minringFIR-mp | Not bad. Soundstage is pushed further back. Good tactility on the top end. Precise and weighty. |
| closed-form | Too neutral for my tastes…but overall not a bad filter. |
| closed-form-fast | Tight and punchy low end. You could hear more of the music without being analytical. Still not warm enough for my tastes, but great grip and imaging. |
| closed-form-fast-M | Ok, now we’re in the big leagues. This filter has all the best qualities of the other filters along with beautiful gradations, texture, and visceral expression. |
| sinc-S | Incredible articulation compared to the rest of the filters above. Treble is accurate. More laid back and leaner than sinc-M and sinc-L. Super clean cut sound. But not very inviting as far as tone. Layers out dense tracks with ease. |
| sinc-M | Denser than sinc-S. A soft and grey tone but very full and contoured sound. I feel sinc-S has plenty more textures and air though. it’s a more forward and thick sound. |
| sinc-L | By far the most resolving filter on this list. It digs DEEP but remains very analog sounding. I could start to hear the individual members of the audience. Cymbals and hi-hats have more “clang” and material to them. There’s an organic weight and presence to all instruments and performers. Very transparent and separation is uncanny. Amazing filter if you enjoy an uncolored sound. Personally, I prefer a more warm-blooded tone. |
| NS1 | Pancake flat. Terrible. |
| NS4 | Soft and not a lot of sparkle. Smoother and denser than NS9 but not as textured or tonally true. |
| NS5 | A bit flat…and there’s something off about the transients here. |
| NS9 | Quiet, snappy, and very articulate. It’s not the punchiest, but the tone is very good. LNS15 is fuller and more granular but NS9 has more texture and faithful tone. |
| RPDF | Boring. |
| TPDF | Good crunch and heft. Softer and fuller than NS9 but melodic and smooth. |
| Gauss1 | Nothing tonally overpowering. Great focus and imaging. Dynamics are a bit dull. |
| Shaped | Good energy and very resolving. A little light and thin on tone though. |
| LNS15 | Meaty and engaging. Reverbs are clearly heard. Sounds like an unfuzzy and more solid version of TPDF. LNS15 is more grounded and outlined though. This is the most analog-sounding dither on this list. NS9 has more color and fiber but sounds thinner. |
So obviously I wasn’t a huge fan of most of the linear-phase filters. I suspect those who enjoy those filters are listening to large-scale live performances with minimal vocals. There were definitely a few combinations of filters that caught my ears:
| closed-form-M with NS9 | Tone snobs would prefer this combo. This sounded particularly good with the DAVE – which tends to have a more neutral color across all settings. You’ll be trading a more fleshed-out sound for a more colorful one. |
| closed-form-M with LNS15 | Smoother and darker than with then NS9. It’s a heavier sound. |
| sinc-M with NS9 | This combo is very nice. Good nuance, control, and great depth and layering. A good tradeoff between tone and body. This itself is probably worth the asking price for HQPlayer. Tonality is pretty good too (relative to the other filters). |
| sinc-M with LNS15 | Great shaping and delineation of the music. There’s no sign of digital harshness at all. In comparison to the NS9 variant, it does come off a bit “smoothed over” and untextured. It’s also more of a greyish tone above neutral. It’s not a golden brown, warm color – which is better for vocal recordings IMO. |
One thing to keep in mind is that there’s a huge delay when playing these files with upscaling. It’s about 5+ seconds. And this is on one of the fastest PCs on the planet. So if you’re a reviewer like me, we probably don’t have the patience to wait this long to switch tracks. It’s probably fine if you’re just listening to an entire album all the way through, though. There are also some funky problems with Roon where it wouldn’t play the correct track displayed on the remote. I just had to keep clicking.
So at this point, we haven’t involved Hugo M Scaler at all. These combos will be the “upsampling soldiers” for HQPlayer. At a minimum, these filters first have to sound better than the un-upscaled Roon direct ASIO output to DAVE and TT 2.
As mentioned, the pass-through feature of the HMS isn’t reliable for testing because it actually sounds better than a direct connection. This is presumably due to better noise isolation. USB direct to the DAVE is a larger sound, but the image loosens up and diffuses. Tone and density also diminish. It’s more subtle on the TT 2 (slightly cooler, thinner, more diffused). From what I gather, the TT 2 was developed later and was designed with better isolation.
If you don’t plan to upscale with HQPlayer, direct Roon via ASIO sounds better to my ears. Although there’s more bloom, you’ll get more cohesion, color, and nuance with direct ASIO to TT 2 and DAVE. Music is snappier and more dynamic. Strangely, HQPlayer was a bit more sibilant. Anyway, you’re not buying HQPlayer without using its upscaling feature right?
So against the un-upscaled TT 2, I found that the sinc-M and NS9 combination provided a better tone plus all the benefits you’d expect from a good upscaler. These include much better shaping of the music, quieter background, more tangibility, depth, and spectral separation. It’s tighter, more nuanced, deeper, and layers beautifully. Overall, it sounds better with the HQPlayer upscaled output in comparison to the Roon direct output to the TT 2. Mission accomplished.
With the DAVE, it’s a little different. At a baseline, a direct connection via USB to the DAVE is a sound that is a bit cooler and contains more bloom. It’s not as consolidated or full as a BNC connection from the HMS. In any case, the NS9 dither with either the sinc-M or closed-form-M filters sounded pretty good. In both cases, you’ll get better sound from your DAVE versus Roon direct. Also, LNS15 is smoother and will have higher transient performance and clarity.
Interestingly, the one thing the direct DAC configuration consistently did better was the reproduction of textural cues. The HQPlayer has a “silky” overlay that seems to encompass all filters and shapers.
So can HQPlayer help elevate your sound for only $260? Hell yeah. But up until now, it wasn’t really a fair fight. Let’s connect the Hugo M Scaler.
1 April 2022, Wiltshire, England: Chord Company has applied its 38-year cable expertise to produce truly unique… Read More
From November 25 through December 25, 2021, Danacable will hold a Giving2021 sale on standard headphone products… Read More
ELEVATE YOUR COMPUTER AUDIO TO THE NEXT LEVEL. JCAT INTRODUCES OPTIMO NANO - POWER SUPPLY UPGRADE… Read More
So...I spent the last four months listening to the world's best linear power supplies. If… Read More
AudioWise Inc. announces the launch of PGGB.IO - PGGB PCM Remastering (https://pggb.io), cloud version… Read More
Undoubtedly, your amplifier could be major decider of the sound of your entire system.… Read More
This website uses cookies.
View Comments
Did you try Sinc-L with LNS15, DSD256 with ASDM7EC and DSD512 with Poly-Sinc-MP ?
I'll have to load in some DSD files (as mentioned, I rarely listen to them). But after a quick listen on the TT 2 with sync-L and LNS15 (Cannonball's Spontaneous Combustion), HQPlayer sounds a bit stretched horizontally and vertically (the snaps are further off to the left and the ceiling seems lower). It sounds a bit off. In addition, HMS is far more tonally variant and layers out the performers better. You could actually hear the organics of the finger snap and the finger plucking the bass. There are more reverb and resonance overall to give you an idea of the acoustic space. The dips, curves, and flair of each instrument are clearly in view. But not so much on HQPlayer. It's more bundled together and "gel-ed." Everything has the same tone.
Hi Jay. First, thanks for the time and effort here- great review, especially your perceived differences across the wide range of PCM settings. In response to this specific comment, it looks like you have not tried the DSD settings because you rarely used DSD / have DSD native files? If that is the case, you and your readers might be missing out on a great feature of HQP - which is playing PCM files via the DSD settings, which is how I use it, either redbook rips or my own rips from vinyl at 96/24. In all cases, this was better than any PCM setting (and anecdotally, my preferred settings were the same as yours for PCM). The 'EC' shapers that were added only recently to HQP are a big step, in my opinion, over any PCM setting, and definitely worth trying. Whether this narrows the gap to M-Scaler (or exceeds it) i dont know, but as a chord DAC user myself, I no longer feel a need to add the M-Scaler to my system, and am looking instead at upgrading my AMD PC to a chip that will manage the DSD settings at a higher bitrate than my current limit of 128k
VERY intriguing. I'll give it a shot. Which filter are you using? Seems like most people are using sinc-L? If this PC can't do EC 512...I'd be surprised. lol
I am restricted to the more straightforward filters if I want to use the more CPU-Hungry shapers, and as I think the 7EC is the best for my taste I use poly-sinc-mp for DSD, and Sinc-m for PCM (although I never really use PCM these days). Like you, the linear filters were not so much to my taste. Yes, that's one powerful machine you have there, so 256 would be a breeze and I hope you get 512 as well - very interested in what you think one you get a chance to try it out (set aside a while day- 2 mins to change the filters and the rest to just listen and enjoy :-)
Thanks for the detailed review, Jay. Very useful. Comments: (1) IMHO, the biggest gain of HQP is upscaling to DSD256 using EC Modulators on Delta Sigma DACs (I highly recommend the inexpensive RME ADI-2 DAC FS (Version 2) as that is the one that Jussi, the HQP developer, uses. Don’t forget to enable DSD direct on the DAC (2) There have been quite a few posts online of sellers of MScaler / Dave because they found optimally used HQP to be better (3) A $800 M1 Mac Mini is fantastic host for HQP desktop as with that, I can upscale to DSD256 with ASDM7EC modulator with poly-sinc-ext2 filter without any issues at all on my RME ADI-2 DAC FS. Try it - it might save you a whole lot of money in the long run.
And yes: with the M1 Mac Mini, I don’t get the latency you mentioned before playing tracks.
Great write-up. Would love to see this type of thoughtful assessment of HQ player applied to a "regular"
non-Chord DAC. Since Chord uses a highly unique method of DA conversion its not that surprising that a computer specifically optimized for this process (M-scaler) will beat a non-optimized computer.
Agreed. I'll do more testing once these listening rooms are done.
Fantastic comparative review, and as an HQ Player user I really enjoyed you assessment of the various filters and op[tions, These were incredibly concordant with my impressions as well after months of use, well-done!. I do think you may be a bit unfairly off putting potential HQ Player users with the statement "If I can’t be convinced of what I’m listening to is a piano or saxophone..." as it relates to HQ Player's articulation of instruments. Surely that is hyperbolic and whatever smoothing of tonal variation the software produces is far more subtle and discriminating then would hinder that distinction.
In any case, thank you for this excellent read!
The sound of a hammer hitting a string on a piano and the "brassy" sound of a trumpet or saxophone just wasn't there for me. I don't hear the fiber or the inherent resonances of the bass plucks or drum skin flex. It just sounds like HQPlayer is more heavy-handed. You don't hear how the sound comes out of the instrument with HQPlayer (IMO) - which leaves me unconvinced. But you could feel the mass and strength of that voice or instrument. That's what I meant.
The value proposition laid out in detail that so many of us have been waiting for...
Very nicely done.
You're connecting the PC running Roon Core (ROCK) directly to your DAC with one of the standard USB ports on the PC?
I'm connecting one of the USB 3.2 Gen 2 ports to the Innuos Phoenix USB reclocker (FTA usb cable), then from reclocker to DAC (Danacable TruStream USB). As you probably know, the chosen USB port on a motherboard does matter.
At first, great review!
You said:
sinc-L: By far the most resolving filter on this list. It digs DEEP but remains very analog sounding. I could start to hear the individual members of the audience. Cymbals and hi-hats have more “clang” and material to them. There’s an organic weight and presence to all instruments and performers. Very transparent and separation is uncanny. Amazing filter if you enjoy an uncolored sound. Personally, I prefer a more warm-blooded tone.
Why didn't you test sinc-L with LNS15?
And about DSD options, what is your opinion?
Keep in mind those filter impressions are BEFORE comparison to HMS. Everything is relative.
"I prefer a warm-blooded tone." Just did another test (Alicia Key's Falling and Woman's Worth from Unplugged album) at 4x upscale. The tone on the HMS is far more accurate IMO. You hear more definitions from low-end as well. Cymbals have more metal to it and vocal overlays are sweeter. I still think the HMS performs better overall vs sinc-L and LNS15. The HQPlayer is smoother, zero grain...but doesn't color the voices and instruments properly. It also doesn't breathe into the room like the HMS. Also, the background of the HMS is quieter which helps with separation. I've stood 4 ft away while she was performing a few years back...the HMS reminds me of her stage presence...the HQPlayer does not.
I've replied to your earlier comment. I'll have to test DSD files later.
Thank you so much!
I'm waiting your DSD tests...
There is a lot to unpack and a lot of value in this review. Unfortunately, it has been my experience that HQPlayer has the least to add to the Chord set of DACs because they effectively limit upscaling to PCM input and the TT Scaler is optimized for that. For those with ESS ES9038PRO or AKM AK4490 chipset-based DACs or R-2-R ladder Dacs (Holo Audio or Denafrips) using HQPlayer to upsample to DSD256 or DSD512 seems to offer a greater level of improvement than is possible using it to upsample PCM for Chord. That then begs the question: Is there a HQPlayer/DSD512 non Chord DAC combo that sounds as good or better tban the TTScaler/Dave combination at a similar price?
Which DACs would be good candidates for such an experiment? I'm curious and willing to hear them out.
A Chord TT Scaler/Dave versus Denafrips Terminator II + Gaia + HQPlayer comparison would be pretty interesting. My guess is that the Gaia might add some of the timbre accuracy you noticed in your Terminator review and the right HQP filter at DSD512 would add even more delicacy.
Hi - just saw this as I was writing an earlier post - I suspect you are right about Chord DAC's not being the best fit, as I believe any DSD inut is turned to PCM and then back into DSD (no idea how that is done, but I'm think that is broadly right?). however, with my Chord Qutest I definitely get some benefit of using HQP in DSD mode, and so while its certainly possible that some DACS respond better to this, Chrid still seems to get some of the effect, and as a user who was considering adding an M-Scaler, a review looking at comparing DSD via HQP to the M-Scaler is very much of interest to me (as is whether other DAC's respind better :-))
Can someone confirm whether HQP converts DSD to PCM first? I'll try DSD via HQP the Chord DACs in the meantime.
I've added more info in "The Battle" section. TLDR the HMS is still better to my ears but that specific mode is better than PCM output.
Hi I realize this was a while ago but how are you connecting to your qutest? USB? I find with USB I can't go above 2 or 4X upsampling without getting popping. Are you using the dual bnc inputs?
I no longer have the Denafrips but yeah, that would be interesting. I have not heard the Gaia DDC.
I think you should do a full review of HQPlayer and mscaler with the Schiit Yggdrasil DAC. As many have that DAC and would love to see how it performs under these conditions.
Great write up—really nicely done. Question: did you have the Phoenix USB reclocker in your chain for these tests? If you did, I assume it was before the M Scaler, and for HQ Player, right before the DAVE?
It was between the PC and DAC. FTA Callisto USB from PC to Phoenix and Danacable TruStream from Phoenix to DAC. I love this USB reclocker.
Great review Jay! I was considering using HQP but now not so much, you answered that question quite well... I have an HMS and Dave used via Roon and a couple of questions come to mind: How does the Phoenix USB reclocker with the HMS/Dave combo compare to using something like a Sonore opticalRendu (that's what I use - fed via a SonicTransporter i9 server) which then sources the MScaler going to the Dave with Black Cat Tron BNC cables and a few ferrites. The optical Rendu is way better sounding than USB direct from the server to the HMS. Also, have you experimented with an LPS for Dave? I just got a Sean Jacobs DC4 LPS (it's a kit so easy to install, but not cheap). Not a subtle change to say the least! Hopefully this LPS can be a potential future review by you. Again thanks for your great review!
I'm sure HQP will sell well regardless. For a non-hardware solution, it's pretty nice. I honestly can't tell you because I don't have the opticalRendu or SonicTransporter. Black Cat also didn't want to send in a BNC cable lol. I have not experimented with an LPS with the DAVE but I've heard one (A bespoke by Sean Jacobs). Crazy improvements in transparency, depth, and texture...but I felt like (the one I heard at least) it took away too much warmth. I don't think it's the DC4 LPS but I'll have to check. $7,400 is quite hefty! lol. Maybe he'll send one in for review...........
As for the Innuos Phoenix, once I heard it...it was difficult not to buy it. It wasn't a planned purchase - but damn...it sounds good.
I agree with Nick's comment below that the LPS (in our cases the Sean Jacobs DC4) is a huge improvement and doesn't take way warmth but it doesn't add any either, but in all other respects is crazy good. Perhaps you heard a DC3 Sean Jacobs or some other variant.
I agree with your comment in the review that it would be great if Dave could have a "warm" filter like the TT2 does.
I'll likely be trying Nick's Wave cables soon, perhaps that's the added touch of warmth I'd like.
It would be great if at some point you could review the opticalRendu. It was a 100% positive improvement in my system (and I source the data to the opticalRendu directly from my SonicTransporter i9 server via optical fiber - it never goes out to the ethernet switch at all). Always something to try!
As Mr. Dolezalek notes "For those with ESS ES9038PRO or AKM AK4490 chipset-based DACs or R-2-R ladder Dacs (Holo Audio or Denafrips) using HQPlayer to upsample to DSD256 or DSD512 seems to offer a greater level of improvement". I output HQ Player almost exclusively to DSD with HQPlayer. My modest Win10 PC comfortably runs HQPlayer with FLAC files output to DSD128 9or DSD256 with ASDMEC modulator, Sinc-L filter into a Singxer DDC, then I2S to an ESS-9038 based Matrrix X-Sabre DAC. The sound quality for my preference is far superior to HQ Player's PCM to PCM upsampling, and I agree it would be terrific to hear your impressions of HQPlayer DSD output versus HMS with Chord DAC. Thanks again, Audi Bacon, for helping those of us without HMS to gain insight into it's performance versus HQP Player. Great stuff!
Superior in what way? OK, I'll start doing some DSD output tests. Also, are there any specific top-tier DACs that are popular with HQPlayer's DSD upsampling?
Why not try this newest iFi Diablo DAC/Amp with so many great reviews?
I read a review comparing this $900 ancient Burr-Brown DAC chipset with $8,500 Sony: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t5sO246_Ko and you can test with it PCM768 and DSD512 with HQPlayer!
So far, I'm getting a ton of dropouts with the EC modes. And it takes FOREVER to load lol
sinc-L and EC modulators are PC killers!
There is no capable PC to run sinc-L with EC modes DSD512!
{Think my previous comment did not show up, so I’ll try again here}. First: thanks for the detailed review. (1) Online reports indicate that HQP used OPTIMALLY beats Dave + MScaler. (2) A recommended optimal combo: the inexpensive RME ADI-2 DAC FS (version 2) (Jussi, the HQP developer, uses this too) connected via USB to the $800 M1 Mac Mini (8GB RAM is sufficient) hosting HQP desktop. Upsample to DSD256 using ASDM7EC modulator and poly-sinc-ext2 filter. You should get little to no latency with the M1 Mac Mini. This might save you a bunch of money in the long run and we might find your MScaler / Dave / TT2 in a ‘for sale’ listing online. Performance improves a bit when you use a good NAA in between the HQP and the DAC (like the ultraRendu or the SoTM SMS-200Ultra).
Sorry, meant to specify ASDM5EC modulator above.