Now for the real test. Does the $260 HQPlayer upscaling performance compete with a $5,000 Hugo M Scaler?
For setup simplification, I’m using a straight BNC connection from the HMS to the DACs. If you want better isolation, check out the Audiowise OPTO-DX.
With the DAVE I did dual-BNC connections with maximum upscale to 768 kHz on both the HMS and HQPlayer. For the TT 2, I used a single BNC connection for a 384 kHz maximum. The beauty of the TT 2 is the built-in filters (I use 3 and 4). This is something I hope Chord Electronics includes in the next DAVE.
As some of you know, I think 4x upsampling is a good balance between tone and transparency. The more upscaling you do, the more of that warm-blooded sound you lose. This is the case for all upscalers I’ve heard so far. In fact, many HMS owners I know keep it to 4-8X max (blue and white in single BNC mode). Classical listeners tend to max it out to 16X, however. Personal preference.
So after extensive listening sessions, it was obvious the strengths and weaknesses of both upscalers. With the TT 2 and DAVE, the HQPlayer presented a full-bodied and analog-smooth sound. With the LNS15 shaper, it’s almost to a fault. You’ll get more variations in tonality from the NS9 dither but you’ll lose depth and body.
On the DAVE, the DSPlayer with sinc-M provides more heft in the low end and a more congealed midrange. Everything is shaped in more defined boundaries. So with a thicker phantom center, there’s more of an impression of mass with performers. It actually kind of reminds me of what the WAVE High Fidelity STORM cables do. With the HMS, the boundaries aren’t as “rounded off” but offer more insight instead. One thing I noticed is that the HMS takes away the “warmness” quicker as you step up the upscaling tree. It didn’t make much difference in the end but it was interesting to note.
The fact a ($260) piece of software upscaler could improve sound quality in this way is incredibly impressive. Also, the ability for the user to adjust filters to taste is invaluable. After hours of listening, I feel the sinc-M/NS9 combination is fantastic for both DACs.
Unfortunately (for my wallet), I still feel the Hugo M Scaler is still the better-sounding upscaler. The main reasons are depth, tone, and texture. Across both the TT 2 and DAVE with the HMS, there’s just more “music going on.” Holistically, there’s more rhythm and pacing. Although HQPlayer’s implementation does sound slicker and more “analog”, it comes at the price of having many of the lower-level details being masked.
“Smoothed over” was a descriptor that I used many times in my notes. This is especially the case with LNS15. These are the textural cues that tell our ears that the voice or instrument is coming from something organic. How those gradations are presented contributes to accurate timbre. There’s more acoustic material (wood, metal, string). With HQPlayer it’s more difficult to hear these distinctions in timbre. I can’t hear the chest and throat nearly as clearly as I do with the HMS. In comparison, HQPlayer is a bit more glazed and colorless. It paints the music with a thicker and broader brush – with a few colors. In comparison, HMS works with the entire palette.
In addition, with HQPlayer, I found myself switching between NS9 and LNS15 to gain tonality and smoothness respectively. This urge doesn’t exist with the HMS. What’s interesting is that if I use pass-through on the HMS attached to DAVE while using NS9 + sinc-M, the tone is actually better (at the expense of body and resolution). But it goes away when I connect directly to the DAVE…so the HMS has to be in the chain anyway. Which kind of defeats the purpose.
To be frank, the Hugo M Scaler has a much more faithful reproduction of vocal and instrumental timbre. This is especially the case with the push and release of piano keys or mechanical valves of a trumpet. With organs, the HQPlayer had grunt, but not the proper color. It seems to coats all voices and instruments with this thick and smooth blanket. There’s not a whole lot of tonal variation – or texture. In a way, it does make lyrics more intelligible and gravitational, however.
On top of that, the Hugo M Scalar layers and separates more granularly. HQPlayer articulates in a more “generic” way. It’s more relaxed, calm, and mellow. If I can’t be convinced of what I’m listening to is a piano or saxophone, it doesn’t matter how smooth, “analog,” or clean it sounds. On the other hand, the HMS unconsciously reminds me of listening to live music. There’s just more lifelike variation in the sound.
Aside from tone and delineation, I still feel there are more transparency and energy with the HMS. It consistently presents a larger and more rhythmically aligned sound. There’s more air, drama, and emotion. HQPlayer plays more in front of you – as if you’re sitting towards the middle of the concert hall. HMS is more intimate and seems to project the entire distance without hitting a wall.
But yes, we’re talking about $260 versus over $5,000 here. But for a reference system, I prioritize tonality…and so the law of diminishing returns is mostly irrelevant. It doesn’t matter how cheap something is if it’s not what you’re looking for. As much as I wanted an ultra-affordable replacement, I feel like the HQPlayer’s upscaling is missing too much of that musical fabric – especially when it came to vocal and acoustic performances. But for a non-reference system…it’s a no-brainer. It still significantly elevates the performance of a DAC for not a lot of money.
Bottomline: Take HQPlayer’s upscaler, add a bit more depth, image size, tone, and texture and you have a Hugo M Scaler.
Some of you have mentioned in the comments the superior DSD output of HQPlayer. Since I’m a curious soul I gave some of those filters and shapers a shot. In short, it was a bit of a pain. Some would take more than 30 seconds to play, some would crash HQP, and I’d experience dropouts. This is Audio Bacon, not Beta Tester Bacon. One time I actually had to reboot my PC.
This could be specific to the DACs I’m using or my PC but none of the “EC” modes worked without hiccups or dropouts. All sinc-L combos with x512 didn’t work. Maybe I’m missing something here (maybe I should RTFM). As mentioned, this is a $5,000+ very high-performance PC.
HQPlayer is supposedly better with specific DS or R2R DACs with specific inputs. But I could only speak on Chord Electronic DACs. Once I get more DACs in for the listening room, I’ll revisit.
Many of you raving about the sinc-L filter with either AMSDM7 512 +fs or ASDM7. You guys must be saints because it takes 26-30 seconds to play tracks on this beefy system. Bruh, it’s 2021. I ain’t waiting 30 seconds to listen to a single track. Also, it only works (at least for me) in 44.1k x256 and not x512. Interestingly enough, the sinc-M filters play in less than 2 seconds (which is faster than PCM output).
I think the sinc-M ASDM7 (x512) combo sounded better than both the sinc-L ones (and all PCM outputs). This takes up about 8% CPU and 25-50% GPU (which is pretty crazy). Better tone and detail.
Cutting to the chase, in comparison to the TT 2 in dual-BNC mode at 16x, the HMS + TT 2 combo still sounded better (to me). And for the same reasons above. There are more “twang and clang” with percussive instruments. You could hear more between and within the notes. The underlying bass resonances also have more presence. In addition, the room is just more energized and filled with music. And of course, tone and texture are much better represented.
The thing HQPlayer with DSD output does better is solidifying and giving mass to the sound. It’s a really tight but broad image. It rounds off and defines the 3D boundaries very clearly. A “grounded” and weighted sound – but not refined or colorful.
From my experience, this type of sound will typically tradeoff texture and tone. It might be one of those “law of the land” types of things. To this day, I have not heard a full-bodied, perfectly contoured sound, with perfect texture and tonal color. That would be the holy grail.
So, once again…personal preference. Do you want the illusion of colorless, smooth 3D objects performing in front of you or do you prefer a bright OLED screen with 36-bit color and 3D glasses that refresh at 240 Hz? From my listening so far (on these DACs), if diversification and variation in the tonal color matter to you, the HQPlayer won’t give you that.
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), a cloud version… Read More
Undoubtedly, your amplifier could be a major decider of the sound of your entire system.… Read More
In my opinion, these are the world's best-sounding loudspeakers so far. I'll mention the specific… 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 :-)
Agree 1000%. far too often people review HQPlayer based on THEIR abilities to play filters. IF you have a full blown gaming rig (I use RYZEN 5950x, GeForce 4080, 64gb ram on m.2 drives), PCM vs DSD is not even close. Knowing that, this review is good for PCM only. Yes, you need the horsepower for DSD, but if you got it there really no contest. Not sure how as a reviewer, you aren't aware of this and just discount it so easily. You owe it to yourself to use the CUDA cores and do DSD 1024, as someone mentioned ASDM7EC, you definitely don't know what you are missing good sir. Below is a fantastic write up on the filters, from both angles. Best info on HQPlayer out there, it is in German. Translate it, you'll instantly be better at HQPlayer.
https://griggaudio.de/audio-pc-grundlagen/audio-pc-hqplayer-modulatoren/
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.