HQP fingerprint problems when using Roon as the Server

Support
,
#1

I have got some free time and wanted to play with using Roon as the Server and HQP as the player on my K50. I have previously been using HQP on the K50 server and player and have uploaded my license key to HQP for that and all works fine.

However when selecting Roon Player Special Option on the K50 Player Dashboard and opening HQP from that to set the settings it is showing as a Trial version. Looking at it further it displays a different fingerprint . I haven’t seen any mention of this in the User Guide for using Roon + HQP player. I am assuming I need to contact Jussi for another license key, is this correct?

As it is I can’t get Roon to play with the HQP player on the K50. All seems OK, albeit with HQP having rest itself to be a trail version, but the progress bar in Roon does not move.

Anyone any ideas and do I need an additional license key from Jussi?

IMG_0334
IMG_03341668×2224 230 KB

#2

That option runs HQPlayer on the K50’s Player. It has a different fingerprint because it’s a different CPU board.

Disable that option and then enable HQPlayer on the Server dashboard. When you set HQPlayer to the Player on the Player dashboard, only the NAA will run on the Player, which is the optimal way to run HQPlayer.

Then set Roon to find HQPlayer on the same host as the Core using localhost. This is ideal.

I believe there is a video showing how to configure this.

#3

Kenny. Thanks for that. Are you basically saying that the Antipodes way of playing via Roon and the HQP enabled in the K50 player is sub optimal?

#4

Antipodes gives us two choices. The best choice is to run HQPlayer server on the server. I am not sure why that other option is provided.

Running HQPlayer server on the Player does give it direct access to the USB output. Maybe that’s of benefit in some circumstances. It won’t be as low in noise as when only the NAA is used.

1 Like
#5

Kenny, I have tried your suggestion and had Roon and HQP running at the same time on the K50 Server and did not have the Roon Player Special Option highlighted on the K50 Player Dashboard. My HQP license is on the HQP on the K50 Server.

When configuring HQP within Roon I have ‘localhost’ for the HQP location, ie Roon core and HQP in the same location.

When trying to play music I get this error message and no music.

image
image2689×311 101 KB

Any ideas to help please?

@MarkCole is Kenny right in what he is suggesting or should I be selecting the HQP location as being on the K50 Server rather than using the Roon Player Special Option on the K50 Player dashboard? And if I use the Roon Player Special Option do I need to get an HQP license for that HQP location with its different fingerprint?

Thanks.

#6

Restart HQPlayer when you see that. It was a bug introduced with the last update.

I’ve had this working this way since I got my K30. I’m not sending you down the wrong path. In fact it’s playing that way at this very moment.

image
image1078×1148 95 KB

image
image1029×1217 89 KB

image
image756×940 72.3 KB

#7

When I originally set up Roon/HQP on my K30, I had the fingerprint set to the server but HQP only ran in trial mode. I had the fingerprint changed to that of the player and then HQP correctly ran in full licence mode. Here’s my settings:

image
image1753×1215 147 KB

image
image1176×1155 84.3 KB

I don’t know if this helps or hinders…

#8

It doesn’t hinder. Yes that can work, but it somewhat defeats the purpose of having a separate player. The goal is to keep processing at a minimum on the player since it’s directly connected to the DAC over USB. Processing should ideally be done on the server.

#9

Kenny, excellent advice. I now have it working as per your set up.

I will see if I can get a license as well to run HQP on the K50 player then I can compare the sound.

I am interested to see how these combinations sound after last night where I spent a pleasant evening listening to Roon + Squeezelite. Pleasant that was until I got a nagging feeling that it wasn’t quite in the excellent category. I changed back to Squeeze + Squeezelite and full joy was restored. (I was listening with flac compression turned off in Roon).

1 Like
#10

Interesting, I’ll try your way and compare SQ, alway looking for those marginal gains…

1 Like
#11

All I can say is with all of the unnecessary & superfluous processes turned off, including by far the worst of the lot (that Flac compression setting) Roon sounds absolutely fabulous through my system.

Is my MBL N31 DAC sympathetic to any Roon failings? I really don’t know, other than to say it’s equipped with a Roon endpoint anyway & it’s entirely possible. Even Roon server to the Roon endpoint in my DAC sounds pretty darn good & I actually prefer that to using the K50 as the Roon player.

However, I still prefer using Squeeze player on my K50 with a digital feed to the DAC to the above, but only with the settings as I’ve previously described. That’s rather unfortunate because using the Roon endpoint on the DAC either permanently displays or flashes up full hi-resolution colour artwork, dependent on the set-up (it looks great). It’s just that Roon server/Squeeze player on the K50 & with AES/EBU feeding the N31 & to my ears sounds better.

Comparing Squeeze server/Squeeze player to Roon Server/Squeeze player purely in terms of sound quality & on my system, I’d just about give Squeeze server the edge. However, the difference is pretty negligible & the far superior feature set of Roon server sways things so heavily in its favour that I much prefer to stick with it

By the way I’m not dismissing anyone else’s opinion or preferences, just saying how various combinations sound on my own set-up. Maybe if I listened to Roon server through a different system, then I’d form a different opinion, it’s just that on my own system I’m extremely satisfied with what I’m hearing.

1 Like
#12

Chilli, Don’t me wrong, Roon plus Squeezelite sounds pretty darned good, fabulous even, into my Mscaler and pimped Dave. Roon plus Roon Player is Ok as well. Its just that if there is some icing on the cake to be had then it would be churlish to forego that if it is offered.

As always, the options are there and each owner/user can make their own mind up about the sound quality vs convenience trade off. I might agree that it is only an ‘edge’ that Squeeze + Squeezelite has over Roon + Squeeze player but that is important to me.

1 Like
#13

The edge represents what many audiophiles might easily cough up maybe as much as a grand to achieve.

#14

Let us know what you find. It’s always interesting to hear how theory lines up with practice. The more CPU-intensive the processing done my HQP, the more it should help to move that load from the player to the server engine.

#15

Yes will do. I seem recently to have settled on Roon/Squeeze especially with the flac compression off. My least favourite is Roon/Roon.

HQP the way I was using it was bit perfect so all the filters/dither were set to none, it is close to Roon/Squeeze but not quite there. The server/player change could make all the difference.

The one I can’t gel with though is Squeeze/Squeeze, it is just too forced, it sounds like everything is trying too hard with no headroom to let anything breathe. For me the other combos (except Roon/Roon ) provide a much more natural presentation with a more natural flow.

It’s great to have options to try out, my worry is that if HQP gets to the front of my queue there are hundreds of filter options to start playing with. That could be quite a distraction.

#16

Well I guess we are all different, my experience is the exact opposite of that.

#17

It actually still does processing in that mode. I believe it will try to get the bits to align with the max of one’s DAC. I was advised to not leave noise shaping to none just to make sure that’s done properly. That HQP was purposely designed to NOT be able to simply pass through the music likely explains why it doesn’t sound as good as Squeeze.

1 Like
#18

I only play music that’s been scaled by PGGB when using Squeeze/Squeeze so that may explain why I have a very different impression. This is by far the most natural presentation and flow that I get.

1 Like
#19

For me roon/hqplayer (bit perfect) is preferred over roon/squeeze(no flac). I find squeeze sounds a bit compressed/strained in the upper mids. Ymmv

#20

Indeed, and good job too! If every element of our chain was the same, and the room was the same, and the media was the same, we might have the same view😉

1 Like