A toast to PGGB, a heady brew of math and magic

[seeteeyou]

FYI - a fairly interesting (transportable) option for running Windows 11 PE + foobar-RT with dual M.2 slots

 

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/morefine-m6-ultra-thin-pocket-size-4k-mini-pc

https://www.cnx-software.com/2022/01/23/morefine-m6-ultra-thin-jasper-lake-mini-pc/

https://liliputing.com/2022/01/morefine-m6-is-a-phone-sized-mini-pc-with-celeron-n5105-crowdfunding.html

 

BTW, Chord Mojo 2 should be announced in a few days

 

https://www.facebook.com/chordelectronics/posts/4214792991954023

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/chord-mojo-2-speculation-thread.885405/

https://www.whathifi.com/news/chord-releases-tantalising-teaser-image-of-brand-new-product-launching-on-31st-jan

[seeteeyou]

Totally fantastic news, way to go

 

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/chord-mojo-2-speculation-thread.885405/page-73#post-16786562

Quote

Of course one cannot judge by taps alone. But if everything else is kept constant, doubling taps will result in a more lifelike sound. It will be more revealing too, which isn't always a good thing based on the other components in the chain and one's musical preferences.

Really fascinating to me was to hear the difference between 2 billion and 3 billion taps when using PGGB. You would think that 2 billion would be enough and there couldn't be further improvements beyond that, but that turned out to not be the case. It wasn't difficult to hear the improvements.

I believe the theory tells us that we need an infinite number of taps to perfectly reconstruct the signal. So as long as everything else is kept equal, increasing the number of taps will always take us in the direction of better reconstructing the signal.

 

---

 

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/chord-mojo-2-speculation-thread.885405/page-75#post-16786923

Quote

Mojo 2 is reviewed in the latest issue of Hi-Fi World, which isn’t officially available until January 31st, but my local shop had a copy. They list the price as £449.00.

 

Quote

I haven’t finished reading yet, but it’s described as outstanding

 

Quote

I’ve just got in from work. Here’s the summary at the bottom of the HFW review.

[mcewan71]

Hi

 

Has anybody noticed any issues with the onboarding? I'm not sure if Marvin is unwell...

 

Following the instructions in the guide, I have set my in and out folders, but following through the process, even at the first stage it seems to be overwriting the initital files (i.e. one file at natural transparency setting is being overwritten by the version being produced at front row setting). I can't see the suffixed folders or files in my output folder. I noticed that, of its own accord, the mode options on the 'process' page are switching automatically from 'create new' to 'overwrite' after the first version of each track is made. Should I attach the debug log here?

 

Perhaps @Zaphod Beeblebrox can advise - I can't see I've made any obvious errors in the settings, is it maybe a bug?

 

Thanks!

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

On 1/29/2022 at 10:03 AM, mcewan71 said:

Hi

 

Has anybody noticed any issues with the onboarding? I'm not sure if Marvin is unwell...

 

Following the instructions in the guide, I have set my in and out folders, but following through the process, even at the first stage it seems to be overwriting the initital files (i.e. one file at natural transparency setting is being overwritten by the version being produced at front row setting). I can't see the suffixed folders or files in my output folder. I noticed that, of its own accord, the mode options on the 'process' page are switching automatically from 'create new' to 'overwrite' after the first version of each track is made. Should I attach the debug log here?

 

Perhaps @Zaphod Beeblebrox can advise - I can't see I've made any obvious errors in the settings, is it maybe a bug?

 

Thanks!

Yes, please email me the logs along with screenshot of the process and onboarding tabs

[seeteeyou]

FYI

 

https://audiowise-canada.myshopify.com/products/foo-pggb-rt

Quote

Winter Sale Now On! 10% Discount Applied at Checkout

[GryphonGuy]

 

In the "Configure" tab of the PGGB program, in the preferences area there are two buttons in the HF NOISE FILTER selection marked with an asterisk. The asterisk is explained to mean "*Effective only when original track is 88.2kHz or above". The default setting is the Moderate button and so because it is ineffective against the 44.1kHz ripped CD tracks (by asterisk definition), I didn't change it.

 

However, after reading that @austinpop uses the "Minimal" or "more airy" button, I decided to try it.

 

Woh! very effective on 44.1kHz material even only upsampled to 176.4kHz.

 

I have two systems here, Chord DAVE and commercial Avid MTRX (max 192kHz capable). With moderate noise filter setting, the MTRX was a darker presentation than DAVE but otherwise both very listenable. With the Minimal button used, both systems sound incredibly similar (so close that I cannot call one as superior, just slightly different). Minimal means that I can better hear low level sounds in the mix and the staging seems more consistent as well; with depth being the main winner.

 

So is that comment about being ineffective on less than 88.2kHz material a left-over from the heady development days and now after revisions the HF Noise Filter is effective at all original track sample rates?

 

Anyway, I am off to recreate those CD upsamples with Minimal noise filter setting now.

 

Regards
GG

[austinpop]

49 minutes ago, GryphonGuy said:

However, after reading that @austinpop uses the "Minimal" or "more airy" button, I decided to try it.

 

Woh! very effective on 44.1kHz material even only upsampled to 176.4kHz.

 

So is that comment about being ineffective on less than 88.2kHz material a left-over from the heady development days and now after revisions the HF Noise Filter is effective at all original track sample rates?

 

GG,

 

Based on my understanding - defer to @Zaphod Beeblebrox for a definitive answer - there should be no effect of the HF Noise Filter setting for 44.1 tracks. So I don't know why you're hearing a difference.

 

Did you change anything else at the same time as you switched from Moderate to Minimal? PGGB versions, for example?

 

For the record, here is my current preferred configuration:

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

15 hours ago, austinpop said:

there should be no effect of the HF Noise Filter setting for 44.1 tracks. So I don't know why you're hearing a difference.

 

Did you change anything else at the same time as you switched from Moderate to Minimal? PGGB versions, for example?

@GryphonGuy I agree with the above.

[GryphonGuy]

22 hours ago, austinpop said:

 

GG,

 

Based on my understanding - defer to @Zaphod Beeblebrox for a definitive answer - there should be no effect of the HF Noise Filter setting for 44.1 tracks. So I don't know why you're hearing a difference.

 

Did you change anything else at the same time as you switched from Moderate to Minimal? PGGB versions, for example?

 

For the record, here is my current preferred configuration:

 

The only difference in my setup now is that I use "Auto(2048)" maximum taps (Million).

 

Roon is my transport (no DSP, just straight delivery) via ASIO driver to SRC-DX.

 

I should add that I am using PGGB version 2.1.05 from 08-08-2021.

[GryphonGuy]

6 hours ago, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

@GryphonGuy I agree with the above.

 

OK well I can hear more top-end in the Avid MTRX presentation that now closely matches the DAVE's presentation. The DAVE is slightly larger soundstage but it is the quiet (low level) sounds that benefit the most to my ears.

 

This is no big deal and something I consider a bonus. So nothing wrong, I was just curious.

 

Maybe my computer was less noisy electrically this time around using PGGB. If PGGB does not do anything, then I agree that something else made that enhancement happen. But happen it did.

 

Regards

GG

[austinpop]

5 hours ago, GryphonGuy said:

The only difference in my setup now is that I use "Auto(2048)" maximum taps (Million).

 

It must be something else, but would be good to get to solve the mystery.

 

What was it before you set it to 2048?

 

If you have a specific track on which you hear this improvement, can you post the full file name of the "before" and "after" tracks? 

[GryphonGuy]

On 2/4/2022 at 1:51 PM, austinpop said:

 

It must be something else, but would be good to get to solve the mystery.

 

What was it before you set it to 2048?

 

If you have a specific track on which you hear this improvement, can you post the full file name of the "before" and "after" tracks? 

 

Superfluous word "now" sorry. I cannot remember changing it from Auto (2048).

 

Both file names are "02 Justice (16_44_24_705 PGGB 220M).wav" and both files are the same size in explorer terms 1,352,383 KB.

 

After a couple of days I still think there is still a difference in the top-end sound but it might be expectation bias. Certainly not as the eureka moment I posted about. I may have also been "tired and emotional" as it was late in the night here.

 

Regards

GG

 

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

14 hours ago, GryphonGuy said:

 

Superfluous word "now" sorry. I cannot remember changing it from Auto (2048).

 

Both file names are "02 Justice (16_44_24_705 PGGB 220M).wav" and both files are the same size in explorer terms 1,352,383 KB.

 

After a couple of days I still think there is still a difference in the top-end sound but it might be expectation bias. Certainly not as the eureka moment I posted about. I may have also been "tired and emotional" as it was late in the night here.

 

Regards

GG

 

 

You can share the links to both the files via PM and I will be happy to confirm if there is any difference.

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

On 1/29/2022 at 10:03 AM, mcewan71 said:

Hi

 

Has anybody noticed any issues with the onboarding? I'm not sure if Marvin is unwell...

 

Following the instructions in the guide, I have set my in and out folders, but following through the process, even at the first stage it seems to be overwriting the initital files (i.e. one file at natural transparency setting is being overwritten by the version being produced at front row setting). I can't see the suffixed folders or files in my output folder. I noticed that, of its own accord, the mode options on the 'process' page are switching automatically from 'create new' to 'overwrite' after the first version of each track is made. Should I attach the debug log here?

 

Perhaps @Zaphod Beeblebrox can advise - I can't see I've made any obvious errors in the settings, is it maybe a bug?

 

Thanks!

I looked at some more (I have not tested this feature in a long time) it is important to put your test tracks in a folder and provide the parent folder as input. Then you will see the expected results with the setting names prefix.

 

For example Put you tracks in a folder:

 ..\blah\blah blah\Input\Onboard test\

In PGGB as your input folder choose the parent folder:

 ..\blah\blah blah\Input

 

Do not choose full path ..\blah\blah blah\Input\Onboard test\

 

Please let me know if it resolves your issue and so I do not have to send Marvin to the infirmary :)

[mcewan71]

On 2/7/2022 at 12:21 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

I looked at some more (I have not tested this feature in a long time) it is important to put your test tracks in a folder and provide the parent folder as input. Then you will see the expected results with the setting names prefix.

 

For example Put you tracks in a folder:

 ..\blah\blah blah\Input\Onboard test\

In PGGB as your input folder choose the parent folder:

 ..\blah\blah blah\Input

 

Do not choose full path ..\blah\blah blah\Input\Onboard test\

 

Please let me know if it resolves your issue and so I do not have to send Marvin to the infirmary :)

 

Hi @Zaphod Beeblebrox, thanks - that works! Much appreciate you looking into this. Marvin is hereby spared further medical investigation!

[Progisus]

Pretty quiet here.

 

If someone is looking for a portable PGGB player I cannot recommend highly enough the Chord Poly/Mojo 2. A 1tb sd card can hold a decent amount of files and the sound with a totl iem or headphone is very impressive. It can hold it’s own with my desktop Antipodes/Chord TT2 system. I am playing 16fs 24b files but I think 32b will work as well. I was previously using the mojo 1 and the mojo 2 is a significant sonic upgrade. Should your iem need a bit of EQ, Rob’s dsp function is brilliant.

 

[seeteeyou]

I've been enjoying this R2R-based DAP as a portable PGGB player (one-piece Android device with display) thanks to its NOS mode

 

https://npaudio.boards.net/thread/213/hiby-rs6-copper-chassis-architecture

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/hiby-rs6-next-generation-hi-res-android-music-player.958878/page-133#post-16848864

Quote

I've been comparing the Mojo 2 to the RS6 (sound quality wise); yeah the RS6 steps all over it.

Mojo 2 sound distinctly more digital and slightly brittle in the treble. The RS6 sound larger, wider, more direct and engaging and without any of the digital etch.

The Mojo 2 however seems to have a very good discrete amplifier even for difficult to drive headphones.

 

(However, those impressions didn't seem to have anything to do with PGGB at all and as always YMMV.)

 

So glad that PGGB really narrowed the gap between a desktop rig and a portable setup, while 1TB microSDXC cards cost only 130 bucks these days.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

I have been considering Mojo2/Poly as a portable rig myself.

[CNoblet]

Zaphod, 

Have you already a Mojo (1)?  If you do obtain a Mojo2, I would be interested in differences you note w/regard to PGGB.  At this point, my spending has been on disk drives, with perhaps another 15TB to go before I complete converting my collection.  I wonder how much improvement there may be over the earlier model when the 32/7xx PGGB files may make moot the slight increase in the Mojo2’s number of taps.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

10 hours ago, CNoblet said:

Zaphod, 

Have you already a Mojo (1)?  If you do obtain a Mojo2, I would be interested in differences you note w/regard to PGGB.  At this point, my spending has been on disk drives, with perhaps another 15TB to go before I complete converting my collection.  I wonder how much improvement there may be over the earlier model when the 32/7xx PGGB files may make moot the slight increase in the Mojo2’s number of taps.

I used to own Mojo (1) but do not have it anymore. You are right that if using PGGB the increase in taps should not matter much but Mojo2 has few new tricks up it's sleaves that could help improve transparency. I do not know if they do but simply going by what they have stated such as the digital DC servo to improve LF, improved noise shaper and pulse array. Better battery charging and USBC for input also interests me. I do not care for crossfeed and the new EQ features but that may interest those who are looking to use them.

[davide256]

Is there a difference between what PGGB and HQP do for bit up scaling (16==>24)? Am finding that I prefer keeping native bit depth with PGGB 44.1 FLAC ==> 353 wav conversions and letting HQP do the bit depth conversion.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

1 hour ago, davide256 said:

Is there a difference between what PGGB and HQP do for bit up scaling (16==>24)? Am finding that I prefer keeping native bit depth with PGGB 44.1 FLAC ==> 353 wav conversions and letting HQP do the bit depth conversion.

When you go from 44.1 => 352.8, what setting do you use in PGGB for dither/noise shaping? Have you tried both Noise shaping and Dither only options? 

 

When going from 44.1k -> 352.8k, the 16bit input is converted to 64bit first and all the processing is done, then converted back to 24 bit or the output bit depth you desire (16 bit in your case). To reduce and/or decorrelate noise during this conversion from 64bits back to 24 bits, you apply dither or noise shaping. The lesser the output bit depth, the more the noise. By choosing to keep the initial bit dept out of PGGB at 16 bit, you are increasing the noise (vs say 24 or 32 bit).

 

By doing this in two steps (by adding one more step of dither/noise shaping to a higher bit depth) you are at risk of adding even more noise and /or distortion depending on the settings you chose at the second step.

 

While there is nothing wrong in liking a specific sound signature, you may want to try:

• Try setting the output to 64bits in PGGB and then use HQP for dithering/noise shaping
• Try using 16bit output bit depth for PGGB and set HQP to pass through or (i.e no dither) and set output to 24bits

[davide256]

14 hours ago, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

When you go from 44.1 => 352.8, what setting do you use in PGGB for dither/noise shaping? Have you tried both Noise shaping and Dither only options? 

 

When going from 44.1k -> 352.8k, the 16bit input is converted to 64bit first and all the processing is done, then converted back to 24 bit or the output bit depth you desire (16 bit in your case). To reduce and/or decorrelate noise during this conversion from 64bits back to 24 bits, you apply dither or noise shaping. The lesser the output bit depth, the more the noise. By choosing to keep the initial bit dept out of PGGB at 16 bit, you are increasing the noise (vs say 24 or 32 bit).

 

By doing this in two steps (by adding one more step of dither/noise shaping to a higher bit depth) you are at risk of adding even more noise and /or distortion depending on the settings you chose at the second step.

 

While there is nothing wrong in liking a specific sound signature, you may want to try:

• Try setting the output to 64bits in PGGB and then use HQP for dithering/noise shaping
• Try using 16bit output bit depth for PGGB and set HQP to pass through or (i.e no dither) and set output to 24bits

I'm not completely sure what HQP is doing but its not user configured dither. I use HQP under Euphony environment, HQP embedded to NAA to SRC-DX DDC, up sampling

and filters disabled, SRC-DX configured as a 24 bit device in HQP. If I use SRC-DX connected locally to HQP embedded, bit depth doesn't change  but when streamed to NAA

bit depth gets converted to match NAA device configuration.

 

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

14 minutes ago, davide256 said:

I'm not completely sure what HQP is doing but its not user configured dither. I use HQP under Euphony environment, HQP embedded to NAA to SRC-DX DDC, up sampling

and filters disabled, SRC-DX configured as a 24 bit device in HQP. If I use SRC-DX connected locally to HQP embedded, bit depth doesn't change  but when streamed to NAA

bit depth gets converted to match NAA device configuration.

 

 

If you have set dither = None on HQP Embedded, then all this is doing is zero padding and what you are hearing is the original 16bit output from PGGB and you likely prefer 16bits to 24bits.

[davide256]

8 hours ago, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

If you have set dither = None on HQP Embedded, then all this is doing is zero padding and what you are hearing is the original 16bit output from PGGB and you likely prefer 16bits to 24bits.

Makes sense. Prefer original harmonic balance to be preserved and up converting bit depth with PGGB changes the balance with my DAC.