![]() A two-tiers subscription model, where you can pay more if you need web-based services, but you can also pay less, if you don’t need them. A wishlist website where customers who support the business can submit requests, vote for them, see the upcoming new features ahead of time. A decent permanent license software that works. ![]() I am sorry to say that for me to be willing to commit to a subscription-based model, the bar should be raised higher: no way to parse all metadata, only the main ones. It plays only the selected track and then it stops, I can hardly believe it works this way. Poor display of metadata, with inline scrolling and poor usage of screen estate. no way to jump backward/fwd in playback using arrow keys, which is the minimum I’d expect from a music player. Search by name is broken, you select one album in the search results, and it still takes you to a list that includes all albums, so you have to choose again. Those like me who supported Audirvana+ over the years are now left with two choices: pay a high monthly fee for a service they don’t need, or keep using Audirvana+, aware of the fact that it’s not going to get any support and improve over time. A large portion of the UI in Audirvana studio is dedicated to streaming services that I am not interested in (considering the poor quality of masters you are going to get on those services), but you still have to deal with a UI and monthly-based subscription model that forces you into the online steaming model. I'm not trying to be contrary, just suggesting it seems quite odd to insist the developer make something that he does not recommend convenient for you.Audirvana founder Damien may have done a fantastic job at developing the best music player on the market, but sadly, the software is plagued by usability issues and generally speaking, a mediocre user experience. Certainly no one can argue with your preference, but then your preference is not for this software. So you know more about upsampling than the developer, and on that basis his software is inconvenient for you. So to sum it up, the Roon integration does not allow me to optimize the use of upsampling with HQP because every time I have to change upsampling rates and filters, Roon will loose the connection plus I find it simply inconvenient given the price of HQP. ![]() Usability stands right beside SQ in my mind. The point is that Demian does all of this a lot better than you IMHO but HQP sounds better - nothing else. You might argue, well, then use Audirvana, which I do and which I also have licensed. So even if HQP is all about upsampling as you say in fact it is with limitations, because otherwise it would allow me to set different upsampling rates per original sample rate just as Audirvana does. When I try both, most of my 44,1 material sounds better at 88,2 than at 192. I have read through hundreds of opinions about HQP on this forum, many people suggest to upsample from 44,1 to 88,2 but not from 44,1 to 192. If you only need to do one or two things, like process and serve music files, you can strip down the OS, removing many unnecessary processes, increasing the accuracy and speed of the one or two. You don't, just leave it output 192k 24-bit all the time. In a sense, applications like Amarra, Audirvana Plus, and Pure Music hot-wire the computer, bypassing certain parts of the OS to create better sound. Now, you are suggesting not to touch the HQP GUI because then Roon would loose the connection, but how do I manually change the target sample rate for the 176,4 files without touching your GUI?Īre you planning to implement a selective up sampling feature such as in Audirvana with one of the next versions? In HQP I cannot do that, it is either all to 192 or all at the original rate, which makes all 176,4 files silent. In Audirvana I can select a particular bit-rate and only upsample that /176,4 to 192. I basically do not want to upsample but in case of 176,4 I have to as my DACs chip does not play that format. Now with my licensed version of HQP I might qualify for another issue / question: Because macOS also verifies all component signatures at startup time, it really has to go and load everything to do that.Įxzellent, thanks. It shouldn't make any difference, because all the components are loaded to RAM anyway when HQPlayer is started. ![]() Probably everybody is right and it just depends on the overall system. Some people say HQPlayer sounds better alone, some say vice versa. Not really, it should be largely the same. Note that if you touch HQPlayer GUI while Roon is connected, Roon will disconnect to avoid fighting with you on HQPlayer control. But generally things should work fairly well and I haven't been seeing problems recently. It was manifesting itself more clearly with HQPlayer Embedded 4.x which has different control stack implementation so we were able to locate it. There's at least one occasional communication problem that is fixed in upcoming Roon 1.3. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |