"I don't need to be an expert in designing SDMs..."
I would suggest that before you choose to criticize those who are experts in this area, you at least engage in developing some direct experience of what those experts have created. It is free to download and run HQPlayer in demo mode. To fully experience what it is capable of, I would suggest using a DAC which allows for running without another DSM pass on chip.
Bruno Putzeys, Rob Watts, and Jussi Laasko have all spent a lot of their time (years) developing their own approaches to SDM.
I would suggest that before you choose to criticize those who are experts in this area, you at least engage in developing some direct experience of what those experts have created. It is free to download and run HQPlayer in demo mode. To fully experience what it is capable of, I would suggest using a DAC which allows for running without another DSM pass on chip.
Bruno Putzeys, Rob Watts, and Jussi Laasko have all spent a lot of their time (years) developing their own approaches to SDM.
I believe you missed the point entirely, but thanks. I would have already tested it if I had a setup that played DSD 100% directly. I am unfortunately not all that interested in running some power virus software that pegs a couple CPU cores at 100% to perform a function that is already performed well-enough using 250mW in my DAC.
Last edited:
Then
I would suggest refraining from criticizing something you know nothing about, it makes you appear presumptive at best.
I would suggest refraining from criticizing something you know nothing about, it makes you appear presumptive at best.
Chris, it is so easy.. I have different dacs but let's just say about a Topping D90..
You had spent more time in writing done Your rant, containing a lot of rightful considerations. But. Still.
Two minutes to listen into a D90 in 44,1 Red book signal feed - - or DSD direct (DAC mode) through HQP.
One can switch modes in some seconds. All the setup otherwise is the same.
I sit, listen, and pardon me, but it just comes up naturally, but what the hell this guy (You) is talking about?!!
Ciao, George
You had spent more time in writing done Your rant, containing a lot of rightful considerations. But. Still.
Two minutes to listen into a D90 in 44,1 Red book signal feed - - or DSD direct (DAC mode) through HQP.
One can switch modes in some seconds. All the setup otherwise is the same.
I sit, listen, and pardon me, but it just comes up naturally, but what the hell this guy (You) is talking about?!!
Ciao, George
The whole "I need a 9900k for music playback and it sounds soooo much better" story is absolutely hilarious I must say. Did you already recap the PC powersupply with audiophile capacitors? Otherwise your musical experience will probably be subpar. 
Even if I compare them and don't hear a difference, it'll just be because my DAC is inadequate, my speakers/headphones are inadequate, my PC is noisy, or I can't hear.
This has played out so many times over the past 15 years here. There's always some group pushing their own version of a panacea on everyone. Whether it's the analog-only cult, anti op-amp cult, TDA1543 cult, multibit cult, or now the HQPlayer / DSD9000 cult.
I mentioned that I don't have a DAC that accepts DSD directly at the moment. If or when I do, I'll give it a try since it only takes a few minutes, sure, but I'm not really in a rush.
This has played out so many times over the past 15 years here. There's always some group pushing their own version of a panacea on everyone. Whether it's the analog-only cult, anti op-amp cult, TDA1543 cult, multibit cult, or now the HQPlayer / DSD9000 cult.
I mentioned that I don't have a DAC that accepts DSD directly at the moment. If or when I do, I'll give it a try since it only takes a few minutes, sure, but I'm not really in a rush.
Last edited:
Chord Electronics Hugo M Scaler upsampling digital processor | Stereophile.com
You can always pay $5k for one of these and it doesn't even convert to DSD. Makes a PC + $250 for HQplayer seem good value if digital filter rolling floats your boat.
Now for weapons grade marketing (from the Stereophile review)
You can always pay $5k for one of these and it doesn't even convert to DSD. Makes a PC + $250 for HQplayer seem good value if digital filter rolling floats your boat.
Now for weapons grade marketing (from the Stereophile review)
Sounds about right for Chord marketing BS.
So, an Artix 7 200T is only a mid-sized FPGA and yet he is still able to implement a filter so long that it has 600 ms of latency. All without a 5 GHz 8 core CPU.
I'd rather pay Rob Watts the $5k than turn my computer into a space heater for no good reason 😀.
I assume HQPlayer can write processed files to disk, so that's not such a bad solution if true. Batch processing your entire collection offline is at least reasonable.
So, an Artix 7 200T is only a mid-sized FPGA and yet he is still able to implement a filter so long that it has 600 ms of latency. All without a 5 GHz 8 core CPU.
I'd rather pay Rob Watts the $5k than turn my computer into a space heater for no good reason 😀.
I assume HQPlayer can write processed files to disk, so that's not such a bad solution if true. Batch processing your entire collection offline is at least reasonable.
Last edited:
Pretty much, that's the fall back for those who don't provide any real evidence.
The other fallback position, "you are imagining something that isn't real."
We know where that kind of talk leads by now don't we?
Good of you to admit it. 🙂 Yes it leads to those who want to influence others with dubious claims repeating themselves 😉
The words, "If I compare them and don't hear a difference, it'll just be because my DAC is inadequate, my speakers/headphones are inadequate, my PC is noisy, or I can't hear, " read to me like they could be describing an attempt at troubleshooting advice.
Whereas the words, "you are imagining something that isn't real," read to me like an attempt at personal insult.
I suppose the opposite interpretations may be read into the same words by someone on the other side.
Whereas the words, "you are imagining something that isn't real," read to me like an attempt at personal insult.
I suppose the opposite interpretations may be read into the same words by someone on the other side.
If the exact wording is the issue, how about "The most likely explanation is that you are imagining something that isn't real until you can provide evidence to the contrary" ?
There is no 'proof' offered as to whether or not something is the 'most likely explanation.'
If it were edited to read, "most likely explanation to me," it would be clear the statement is an opinion and not a claim of fact.
Unsupported-claims-of-fact is something we often see people complaining about the other side doing. For their own side its obvious when an opinion is being stated as verses when a fact is being claimed.
And so on. Bias at work.
If it were edited to read, "most likely explanation to me," it would be clear the statement is an opinion and not a claim of fact.
Unsupported-claims-of-fact is something we often see people complaining about the other side doing. For their own side its obvious when an opinion is being stated as verses when a fact is being claimed.
And so on. Bias at work.
I don't think "most likely explanation" needs to be qualified when we are talking about something that supposedly can't be measured.
Anything physical can in principle be measured. When someone says the words, "it can't be measured," they probably mean something like, "AP readings don't necessarily provide useful insight into every little thing that can be audible."
Last edited:
They probably also understand that it's likely that the perception of "the little audible thing" was imagined.