|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.5.147.73
In Reply to: RE: Roon Questions - and some pics posted by AbeCollins on June 13, 2016 at 22:11:20
I am currently on a trial of HQ Player with Roon. I am upsampling all PCM to 192. I am not applying any processing to DSD. I have an Auralic Vega DAC.
I think it sounds better than ROON alone.
Follow Ups:
Very cool. Thanks for posting. Is that Signal Path display part of HQPlayer when integrated with Roon? I may have to buy HQPlayer AND Roon. If I can get at least on par with Audirvana Plus in terms of sonics, I'll be happy since the Roon interface is also to my liking.
BTW, I'm an EC fan and also have The Breeze: An Appreciation of J.J. Cale. Love that album too.
I run Roon, HQplayer and Acourate Convolver on a fairly low end PC (NUC style, fanless, celeron). Using HQP to upsample to 192khz, the data is then passed to Acourate Convolver to perform room correction. I know that you can use the exact same filters in HQP but I find Acourate Convolver sounds better (and I am not the only one who finds this).
Typically this uses about 40-50% cpu
I have heard this comment before on the difference between the two convolvers, but it always came down to an incorrect setup on the HQP side.
However, if you are happy with your present setup, all is fine.
I agree. A convolver is a convolver and there is simply no reason one would sound different from another. I said that over at CA as well. Uli doesn't have any special magic in his convolver, and it is also expensive for what it does as well as being Win-platform specific. All of which are no bueno. But people still think marigo dots do more for their system than a well-implemented RC filter, so apparently Peter Belt won.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: