tobes

Thanks for the input. To be clear, When I said play graphic I meant the little animated graphic next to the track. The main play progress bar is delayed with the audio. I might try Sinc-L with x16 rates instead of x32 and see if there is any audible preference to Sinc-Mx @ x32. Same number of taps but the filter descriptions are different (Sinc-L non apodizing for starters).

Will try when I get home from work.

Interesting. Wonder if using the null output is spoofing the result? I'm also using Roon, so wonder if that is adding delay, though I doubt it. In Roon the playing graphic beside the track starts pretty quick but actual audio output is delayed. The delay is consistent with number of taps - delay is halved with Sinc-Mx at the same x32 rate, Sinc-M quicker again.

Looks like its using multiple Cores, but most of the work is being done by the 4 efficiency Cores on the Mac Mini, very little by the 4 performance cores. Surprised the memory bandwidth of the M1 Max did nothing.

Oh, I thought it would be faster. Guess I just have to use a different filter when browsing.☹️

@Miska- or anyone else - I've been trying all the Sinc filters and have a preference for Sinc-L, LNS15, 1.536Mhz PCM (Holo May). The only annoying thing is the time this filter takes to start playing on my M1 mini (~10s). Of course this is no issue when listening to albums or playlists - as the delay only happens at the start. But if I want to skip a track or multiple tracks its a PITA. I could just stick to one of the shorter filters, but I was wondering if a Mac Studio M1 Max would speed up the processing in this instance - extra CPU grunt and much greater memory bandwidth? Anyone have any idea by how much? CPU load is not an issue with the M1 mini - only about 9-10% with the above settings for PCM.

My primary DAC is the Benchmark DAC3, which is certainly in the neutral/transparent camp. FWIW I also own the Topping D50 and previously owned the Topping D70. While the Topping DAC's are good value I don't find them to offer the same degree of transparency as the Benchmark. My system also includes the Benchmark HPA4 preamp and ATC SCM100's, so its fair to say I'm pursuing an 'as is' approach to reproduction. I use HQP for PCM upsampling only. The DAC3 only offers DSD64 and I haven't been sold on the superiority of DSD with other DAC's I've used. Anyway, the filter I'm using is: poly-sinc-long-LP with TPDF dither. I think it sounds superb with my setup. Very natural with great image specificity and depth layering. Realistic transients without hardness, edge or weird 'over sharpening' artefacts. Excellent with voice and acoustic instruments - indicating its fundamentally 'right' (to me).

Matt, I couldn't comment on UPnP to renderer but I wouldn't call the SQ differences 'huge' in any case. While I do prefer the SQ of Roon 1.7 to Audirvana I think the main benefit is the superior GUI and organisation of music data. I do use stored music and find the application of Roon data to my stored collection valuable as well. For me the price of Roon was worth it and the investment small compared to my hardware expenditure. YMMV.

Value wise Audirvana is hard to beat. However while I liked some of the changes with A+ 3.5, I couldn't get comfortable with the new GUI, which was less readable and wasteful of space IMO. IMO Roon is aesthetically and functionally far better than A+ - as well it should be given the cost. Importantly Roon 1.7, at least in my system, sounds better than the latest version of Audirvana. I also have a current licence for HQPlayer, which can use Roon as a front end, but frankly I prefer the SQ of Roon by itself - at least when utilising PCM upsampling (I don't upsample to DSD).

For a long time I just used the poly-sinc filter, then there were some things I liked about the xtr variant. I thought ext sounded good too. At the moment, in my setup, I have a clear preference for the closed-form. Sounds natural without obvious artefacts and maintains good focus, layering and wide staging. Seems to sound good with all material (to me) and with both my speaker and headphone setups. All systems/ears are different though.😉

+1, mp filters sound fake to me, like using over sharpening on a video screen.

BTW, it's the same for PCM source material. It's not a big deal for me, since I can see the settings in the player app anyway. I'm just happy the auto source switching is working.👍

Yes, I realise most are using powerful computers and converting everything to high rate DSD - but that doesn't suit my equipment. My Benchmark DAC3 only does DSD64 and I prefer the clarity and SQ of the DAC3 with just upscaled PCM and native DSD64. My 2012 i7 Mac mini can do DSD128/256 - which I've tried with a low cost Topping D50 DAC - but I prefer the SQ of the Benchmark (maybe that's due to having balanced outs and the gain structure of the DAC3 matching my Benchmark amp setup). In any case the fan on the Mini kicks in at higher DSD rates - which I don't like, so would probably need to change my whole setup to go down that path. But everything is sounding great so not much motivation. I don't think conversion to DSD is a panacea - call me crazy, but I don't find anything wrong with good PCM.😉

@Miska the auto switching between PCM and DSD material with the 'source' setting now works fine with HQP4 - thanks! Just a niggle. When looking in the Client the 'Mode' correctly says 'source' but the Filter and Shaper settings are blank. In the Player app these are listed properly - and 'Mode' shows whether PCM or DSD (rather than source) which is ok. Would be nice if the Filter/Shaper settings were copied across to the Client. Mac OSX Mojave in my case.

Those buttons (long press on album tiles in Client) are now fixed for me with 4.03 under OSX Mojave - thanks @Miska. Nice feature too!