![dacs that are better than hqplayer dacs that are better than hqplayer](https://s3.manualzz.com/store/data/027000620_1-341561f0230f9d266ebc72ea7e232273.png)
So, only there those in-software filtering algorithms can fully exploit themselves. The results of this are quite unpredictable though because it can also backfire on you because of how the DAC works. to undermine what happens poorly in a DAC. So, that is what we both are about (and no other as far as I know). What you (and everybody) must try to understand is that all *is* about this filtering, which normally happens in-DAC and which is always a poor implementation of something which just *is* necessary (well, for redbook it is). Btw, this is why I put "upsampling" between quotes, because it really is about filtering.ītw, both Miska from HQPlayer and me are on this "filtering" path and we sure agree about what to do when and where and why. It a one of its kind interpolation algorithm, actually made for the NOS1 DAC, but about everybody uses it because it sounds better, and eliminates the "bad" in-DAC normal filtering. AP is from another leage because it is no general "upsampling" means at all. It is slow either (because all happens in advance). You can do what you want of course but I say/state (!) that it won't be better. It must be Anti Imaging (AI).Īdvice : never use any upsampling means ever, unless it is Arc Prediction (AP). Now, if you activate that "96/192 Only" you can upsample from 44.1 to 96 or 192, but you can't use Arc Prediction anymore. If you now want to "upsample" from 44.1 you'll have a problem, because the normal "upsampling" goes in even factors.
#Dacs that are better than hqplayer driver#
Well, they sure will be able to (once they can do 96 - 192), but the driver won't allow it. This is for the few DACs around which cannot play 88.2 and 176.4. Of course a 32/192 DAC also needs 32, but this is obvious. But don't get confused : All those 24/192 DACs just "need" 32 or otherwise they can't work. Only choose this when you find 32 not working and be careful about static (when 24 is applied to a DAC which wants 32, you'll have just that).ģ2 is most often the case. Altmann for example.Ģ4 is unexpectedly also not often in order, but more and more DACs exist which can only accept 24 bits. Although more rare, DACs with a higher than 48KHz sample rates but 16 bits only, exist. In that case it is clear : it can't do more than 16 bits. But, this may be a little confusing and not always clear ġ6 is not so much in order, unless at "DAC Is" you chose a 16 bit DAC. "DAC Needs" is about whether it needs 16, 24 or 32 bits to play. Now, with "DAC Is" you denote what your DAC can do for its maximum capabilities. Your DAC can't do what you think it can. If it won't play, this (eithet or both) can be the matter : What plays is what you tell it to, and nothing else. It just won't, can't - and that is for the good cause. One thing to keep in mind : XXHighEnd can only play "bit perfect", to the sense of it not resampling to any other rate than you denote. Still it is the most easy because of that logic. This is a bit strange maybe, because unexpected and not working like that in other players. The sample rate stuff is setup such that you only need to apply your logic. If you haven't got running 90% of XXHighEnd yet, how can you compare the SQ with any other player ? I don't think that is possible. Will start saving money.įirst a small remark (which looks like a question :)).
![dacs that are better than hqplayer dacs that are better than hqplayer](https://roon-community-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/original/3X/d/6/d6859efeb94fc6ad57a0efe88a153ca967797c0b.jpg)
I do love PeterST's NOS DAC project I think that's the future. I had read through every topic Peter wrote for dummies and newbies, but still am not enlightened.īoth players clicks between tracks, hqplayer less so. same error message when I tried to play 96K tracks I had to redefine DAC to be 96K/24. I specified dac requires 192/24 but keep getting error when I tried to 4x upsample redbook CD to 88.2K. The relationship between upsampling target and DAC requirement is very confusing. The xxhiend UI is better but not by much. Effect of changing volume is also longer in xxhiend, this is dangerous because I over cranked the volume a couple of times. I believe thats true from the latency time which also depends on whether it is 44.1KHz or 192K. I understand from PeterSt's write up that he fully processes the whole track before playing. HDplayer is much faster in putting a track into play. I like every respect of HQ sound over that of xxhiend: details, sound stage, imaging, space, dynamics, bass extension and on and on. I switched to xxhiend again earlier today and could not wait to return to HQPlayer. HQplayer sounds much better in my system. Both are very good, truly heads and shoulders above foobar, winamp etc. I have been listening to these two players for days now.