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

[edwardsean]

2 hours ago, ASRMichael said:

You know the feeling when you realise you are dealing with a brainiac! & to top it all he or she is a massive Starwars fan like myself! I’m 43 years old! Being a Starwars fan myself keeps me young! 

 

I went to Axpona every year until the pandemic temporarily closed it. Yet, the last one was different.

 

I walked into the main hall and was startled by how empty it was. This was before Covid existed. I was able to casually stroll through swathes of emptiness like the blackness of outer space itself. When I sat down at a table to try some headphones I was swarmed by seven sales folks who had traveled out from California. It was weird; they were all staring focused on just me, 7 to 1, as I listened. I met some friends who were manning a booth and so I asked them, "What is going on this year?" They looked back at me and said two words: star wars.

 

There was a Star Wars convention in town (Chicago) and all the nerds were there! And, if you take away the nerds from audio who's left? Listen, I too am a nerd, and a huge Star Wars fan–huge–huge but not "massive." I ask this of you all, if forced to choose, must we not choose audio? I know, I know, Star Wars changed my life too! But, I have my priorities straight. 

 

Phones before Clones!

[edwardsean]

PGGB: A Totally Subjective, Pan-Galactic Gargle-Blasted Review

I found out about PGGB yesterday. I just purchased a license today. ZB lets you trial for 30 days, I didn’t want 30 minutes. I wanted to buy it from the first few seconds I heard it 24 hours ago. I mustered restraint by habit of a long hard won audio discipline. We’ve all learned that things are not always as perfect as they first appear.  But, then again, some things are so good you just know from the get go. PGGB is that good.

 

Nevertheless, I waited because psychology challenges the best of our critical listening. This was going to be the only time I was completely free from any influence of, “You better like it, you bought it.” So, I waited and formed my impressions before I was committed, but all the time thinking, c’mon there’s no way I’m not going to buy this. It is that good.

 

Background: XiSRC to AuI to Roon/HQP to HQPPro and the Joys of Going Off-Line

My system is comprised of the usual suspects: Server+Euphony+customized Farad PS > Fibbr optical (LPS1.2) > Innuos Phoenix > Sablon > DAVE+SJ DC3+SynRes Atmosphere Level 3, Mundorf silver/gold cabling, Orange fuses all around.

 

I started using off-line upscaling about three years ago. There are distinct advantages to preprocessing. Firstly, you avoid all the noise of real time upsampling and all the mitigating strategies that go with it, including having to use a separate server and renderer. I think it's an elegant solution that can potentially cut down multiple noisy components and cables and so improve SQ. Secondly, you aren’t limited by compute power in the way you are by real-time processing and its latency. Thirdly, I don’t know if you’ve tried it, but strapping an Mscaler and a car battery to a Hugo2 is not a good portable solution (I haven’t tried it. I’m just saying). With off-line upscaling you could dissolve the process and bake it weightlessly into your tracks. Once the 2Go came around, this strategy made the Hugo2 a formidable portable performer. Lastly, the files could be duplicated for any and all your devices including little DAPs without any real I/O.

 

Unfortunately, at the time, the only notable SW upscaling was in real time from Roon or HQP. There was virtually no preprocessing options, and certainly nothing that could rival an Mscaler. There was a small company called Xivero that had a decent quality upsampler: XiSRC. It’s since shut down, but back then it provided me with my first results that were more improvement than more error. Next came Audio Inventory’s (AuI) more sophisticated algorithms. Much more expensive, but only slightly better. Of course I paid it, but I started hearing that Jussi of HQP was going to release a pre-processing file converter version. I got my hands on the first demos and this was it. He was bringing his prodigious talents to an offline version. Given where I was coming from the results were stunning. So was the price as it was pitched for pro audio not the consumer market.

 

I’ve corresponded with Jussi about offering a consumer version, but he did not feel there was a real advantage to going off-line for HQP users. However, I’ve spent serious sessions comparing HQP live vs HQPP and, to my ears, preprocessing files with HQPP is superior. The algorithms are the same, but using it off-line in the system made a difference. It would be wonderful if PGGB changed Jussi’s mind and he developed his own consumer version without any real-time constraints.

 

So, for the last 24 hours, minus some sleep, I’ve been comparing HQPPro files to PGGB. I do think this is a fairer fight than HQP desktop to PGGB.

 

HQPPro vs. PGGBlaster

It’s been a while since I’ve done such extensive, intensive critical listening of HQPP files. I remembered anew why I was so impressed with HQPP. Especially, rendered off-line, the lower noise floor really allows Jussi’s fine-grained work to shine through. Compare to redbook, it wonderfully increases the resolution of micro-details in both the sonic components and the spatial cues in between. HQPP really brings a healthy slice of Mscaler-like improvements into files you can take anywhere with you.

 

I have to say though, going from HQPP to PGGB is a bigger jump than from redbook to HQPP. The experience went like this. At first I noticed how much more planted vocalists were in front of me. They held center sound-stage in a more definite and confident way. In fact all the performers and instruments gained substance, definiteness. This struck me so immediately that I first thought that the soundstage had closed in. It wasn’t the space that had been reduced but rather that hazy, diffuse quality that can feel like space. PGGB populated the environment with notes of greater solidity. This might feel more cramped except that, as there was more of the players, there was also more of the stage. Once I was immersed into the venue it was a joyous thing to open my eye/ears and see/hear that every dimension had expanded around me. It is one of the great pleasures of upgrading audio to hear both more close-up detail—and—more space simultaneously.

 

It is these kind of “impossible” improvements that prove, at least to me, that I’ve made a genuine upgrade. The picture PGGB creates is both more dense—and—more spacious, more clear—and—more smooth. You can use all sorts of algorithmic tricks to make audio sound more full/smooth, but sonic shortcuts will also reveal muddiness under scrutiny. You can also artificially boost a sense of space but are left with an image stretched thin and hollow. Moreover, distortion/noise can alternatively excite a signal, masquerading as clarity, or it can mask the signal making it sound thicker. In due time, both effects reveal themselves as unnatural through a telltale fatigue.

 

The only way you can create a sound that is truly clearer and denser and smoother and more precise and more spacious is by actually improving SQ. That is what PGGB has done, and why, for my part, I believe it is a real advancement. The most efficient way to describe the results of PGGB is that its improvements are organic and holistic. It improve sound all the way around: staging, texture, timbre, timing, etc. etc. Build a better waveform and the sonic world will beat a path to your door in perfect rhythm.

 

 

The Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything (Or, at least why I like PGGB for, you know, listening to music)

I kept thinking to myself, “This is why people like vinyl,” though I will always prefer the benefits of digital. It brings me back to why I listen to music in the first place. There is an entire academic discipline dedicated to the philosophy of music. What exactly is music and why is it so important to people anyway? The most illuminating answer I’ve found comes from the work of Peter Kivy. He poses something called “contour theory.” Without getting into the weeds, it states that music is able to replicate the “shapes” of life in a tangible manner. A rapturous arpeggio of rapidly ascending notes doesn’t just sound like elevation and release. You feel its contour palpably through sound. The visual arts are just as powerful, but they have no ability to press upon us with volume. I don't mean "volume" as measured by dB, but in the way real things have mass and dimension. Music can reproduce the geometry of our experiences of life in ways that actually move the air around us and is, in turn, able to move us, literally and emotionally.

 

In order to do this you can’t just produce a clear window into music. You have to enter in and sculpt the sound in such a way that gives substance to its shapes. Some designs seek to accomplish this by, what feels like, a sonic thickener spread across the spectrum. PGGB’s success is in how effectively it is able to surgically carve out sonic components. The parts gain weight as the space between them is removed, all the while preserving minor details. The vibrations of voices, reeds, and rosin resonate more viscerally into a space that better conveys their reflections. This is what makes music real, that is, life-like, in the way that Kivy muses that music is like life itself. By addressing the problems of audio, at the waveform level, PGGB better reproduces the contours of music which reproduces the contours of life.

 

To give all credit to where it’s due, ZB is quick to point out how others pioneered the field, but all credit to where it’s due, PGGB is cutting one gorgeous path forward. As someone who gets to journey in these audio trails, I’m grateful to everybody. Since 24 hours ago though, I really want to thank ZB, and Roy, Rajiv, and Ray (or was it 42 hours ago?). Does your name have to start with an ‘R’ to achieve audio greatness? Another of life’s big questions. 

 

Don’t Panic-TL:DR:

PGGB makes everything sound more real, and that is real good.

 

 

 

 

[edwardsean]

6 hours ago, ted_b said:

@edwardsdean, a couple of questions about your marvelous post.

1) As an HQPlayer experienced user did you gargleblast some DSD over the past 24-42 hrs too?  If so, how does it compare to Jussi's DSD modulated playback (given Dave's more than obvious PCM bent)?

2) What player are you now using, now that no post-processing is being done...still Euphony Stylus?  Do player differences matter less now?

 

I am quite taken by all this feedback, especially Edwardsdean's and many of Romaz's and Rajiv's comments.  HOWEVER, I have not heard the head-over-heels feedback from non-Dave users (or more broadly non-Chord users)?  If this makes Dave unique, then what is the overall cost of a Dave-with-Sean-Jacobs dac solution (as I contemplate upgrading my Spring to the May I've been listening to, on loan).  Note: this by no means infers I'm even contemplating walking away from our beloved DSD.   🙂   I have terrabytes upon terrabytes of wonderful multichannel DSD that I will continue to play through my exaSound.   But the simplicity of offline sampling magic is a very tempting siren. 

 

And one final question/thought: if the Chord Dave is indeed the sweetspot for PGGB, then why?  I realize it is the test bed for PGGB, but what about it is so unique, especially given that some of Rob's magic (WTA filter, etc) is bypassed at 32fs anyway.  Right?  Is it his OCD focus in reducing noise floor modulation that is the secret sauce here?

Thx

Ted

 

 

Ted,  I’m so glad that ZB responded, as I don’t think I can be of much help. After I discovered HQP/P I went exclusively DSD as that was Jussi’s strength and I was using a SimAudio Delta Sigma DAC. When I switched to Chord I switched to PCM. As for players, I’m sticking with Stylus but that’s not purely based on SQ. The whole experience of listening to music is important to me and that involves the UX. In that department Roon is in category by itself (though I haven’t tried A+ Studio yet). On the sound quality end I like what I hear when I’m on HQPlayer, but, call me superficial, I just can’t get over UI no matter how hard I try. Euphony/Stylus is the best solution for me in terms of sound and interface. That’s just me. 

 

I was so glad that you raised the question about Dave. I’ve wondered the same myself for a long time now. On the analog side a bunch of us have replaced the power supply, and on the digital side we’ve replaced a signature strength of Dave, namely, WTA1. So what makes Dave Dave? Unfortunately, I don’t know if this is really the thread to properly pursue it.  I would love to hear more engineering perspectives on this somewhere. Aside from what ZB mentioned, I can only conjecture that the whole design of the Dave is something special following Rob Watt’s simplest path principle. The pulse array D/A conversion tapped directly to the output provides a rare quality of transparency that I associate with Chord. I wonder if, on some level, it is this focused approach on “veritas” that positions Dave so powerfully as a platform to build upon. 

 

I know there is a key PGGB user that has found success using a dCS Vivaldi. If I’m allowed to talk about apples via oranges, I tried a bank of HQPP files with a dCS Bartok which I had for a few days. It did not seem to like it and I felt like I was trying to impose an upscaling scheme on machine that had its own idea on the kind of sound it wanted to produce. I’m really over simplifying though. If I gave Bartok the kind of time I gave Dave maybe I would’ve hit on the right recipe. 

 

However, if I keep speaking simplistically (of a truth, that’s actually all I can do), I’ve found this principle to hold in my personal audio pursuits. If I start form a colored source, I can’t find my way to the bracing clarity I crave. I can add whatever I want but I can’t subtract its core character. So, it may be a flavor I love, but because it’s always there, it always reminds me that I’m listening to a reproduction and not the real thing. 

 

On the other hand, If I start from a high quality base of neutrality I can draw out attributes like density, and even romance, while retaining clarity and transparency. After all, I don’t want a cloudy euphoria, but no one wants a sterile neutral either. My goal is to achieve the sonic equivalent of a waking dream and intoxicate myself on reality. Since, 42 hours ago now, my drug of choice has become a cocktail called PGGB. 

[edwardsean]

25 minutes ago, zettelsm said:

In my case when I compared the stock DAVE to the Bartok I much preferred the dCS. And when I compared the DAVE to the Rossini and then Vivaldi it was no contest -- to *my* ears. YMMV obviously.

Thanks for sharing Steve. I completely agree with you. I loved the Bartok, loved it. I would take the stock Bartok over the stock Dave any day of the week, and twice on Sunday. I wrote up an extensive post detailing my experience on Headfi. It is the Dave-based system that I am so enthusiastic about. PGGB seems like another instance where Dave’s fundamental architecture is leveraged to produce some wonderful results. I would love to hear more of how PGGB likewise transforms other platforms like dCS and Denafrips(32fs)!

 

As it is, right now, I have a few hundred files baking in the PGGB oven! 

 

[edwardsean]

I just have to say this. There aren’t just talented, brilliant people here with pristine systems. They are truly good and giving people who, in the end, are really trying to share something wonderful they’ve worked hard for.

 

If you’ve been there, you recognize this internal drive. I’ve said it elsewhere, but, in this world misery loves company but so does happiness. 

[edwardsean]

Just wanted to add that I’ve been using the new version since it was released, and if I’m not mistaken, I am getting faster processing times. 

 

I’m just on a MacBook Pro/Bootcamp 16Gb Ram for PGGB. So, I’ve been tossing about the idea of building a dedicated machine. There were times when the progress bar on PGGB would just stop in place for a couple minutes (probably b/c my low RAM I imagine).

 

I know you shouldn’t watch the progress bar. It’s like watching paint dry or a pot full of water waiting to boil. But, since the new build I happily take glances to see it churning right along. 

 

ZB, is the new build a bit faster, or is the difference just other changes in what I’m processing? If the code has been tightened, can we expect little bumps in processing efficiency over the course of future updates? 

 

Thanks!

[edwardsean]

Okay, the big question:

 

If changes effect my use-case (16fs/24bit from 48K for me) is it worth it to re-gargle-blast my entire library?

[edwardsean]

Okay, after some A/B comparisons, I’m re-converting my library in batches—using 2.1.05. 

 

To my ears, yeah, it’s worth it. It takes the things I love about PGGB that one step further. 

 

I guess I really am going to get used to periodically reconverting my whole library. 

[edwardsean]

Taking 

7 minutes ago, kennyb123 said:

I use both.  HQPlayer is an awesome real time solution.  But for the music I love, paying for extra disc space to store processed files was one of my best moves.  I’m not sure which filters you consider to be “better” in HQPlayer, but I’ve yet find one that comes close to PGGB.
 

Ironically at this moment my computer is slowly copying PGGB files to a micro sd card.  I’ve filled one and plan to purchase a few more later today.  A headphone and headphone cable upgrade has brought new life to my PolyMojo and these files sound amazing.  

 

I find it interesting that you didn’t frame your argument in terms of how much HQPlayer improves the sound of your music.  

 

I know your pain and joy. I transfer PGGB files onto a 1TB sd card and it is painful. But, yes, it is worth every bit of the effort. These files on my Hugo2/2Go shock me every time as to what can be accomplished from portable. 
 

Of course my full Dave system outclasses it in every way, but I know what levels the field to any extent is that both share the same high quality upscaling. 

[edwardsean]

I don’t know if this was addressed before, but do those of you using Dave, engage its HF filter with PGGB 16fs files?

 

I had it turned off as I assumed it wasn’t necessary since PGGB has its own HF filter. However, I’ve been experimenting and enabling it has a positive effect. To my ears, it seems to be cleaning up some out of band noise coming from somewhere. 

[edwardsean]

3 hours ago, muski said:

I’ve also been playing PGGB’ed files on my Mojopoly when traveling. Sounds is superb (sometimes staggeringly so) for such a tiny device. It’s an ideal use case for PGGB. (I’m still mScaler/DAVE at home). Shame Hugo 2/2Go is such a train wreck as I bet that would be an ever more compelling solution with PGGB files from the SD card.

 

I’ve tried a bunch of iOS apps including Glider, but my two favorites are mConnect and MPDluxe. mConnect has a decent UI and support for Qobuz and TIDAL, while the MPDluxe UI is a very clunky. However, from my experiments it seems that mConnect is playing over the network, while MPDluxe is doing local playback. If I kill the mConnect iOS app while music is playing, it stops. Not so with MPDluxe. (To be fair, it’s been a few years since I tried Glider).

 

One cool thing about mConnect is that I can use my Mojopoly as a UPnP media server for my Sonos speakers :)

 

cheers,

muski

Hugo22Go is not nearly as bad as some make it out to be. I use it all the time with PGGB files + convolution + LCDi4 and the sound is just insane. I have a fairly optimized Dave system costing several multiples more, and each time I switch to H22Go I’m startled, and honestly, a bit dismayed.

 

I mean for all the time, money, and work I put into the home setup I keep feeling like the portable should be a huge jump down. Instead, it surprises me with just how much it captures of the full system. I get reminded real quick that both systems are now operating with the same upscaling reconstruction, filtering, and number of taps. 
 

Of course there’s so much more to sound, but PGGB can go far to democratize audio systems. 

[edwardsean]

2 hours ago, muski said:

Seems like some units are better than others. I had one for a while. The wifi drops were annoying enough (and inexcusably bad engineering), but worse, I’d get loud clicks every two or three minutes that were unbearable. I tried a few firmware updates but no luck and I returned it. Shame, as I really wanted it to work and the sound was really enjoyable for ninety seconds at a time :) 

 

Anyway, as you point out, PGGB is a great pairing with Chord portable rigs!

 

I know many have chosen PGGB on sound quality alone, but I do find the H22Go application is another huge benefit.  

 

Whether PGGB or Mscaler has the better sound can be debated, but only one allows for portability. I remember back when the Mscaler came out people were actually asking the question of whether they should buy a Dave or an Mscaler + Hugo2. Now, you have Hugo2 + PGGB + 2Go in this little portable powerhouse packet. As a system it also solves a host of noise issues, by the by, further improving SQ. 

 

When I was going through the effort of converting my entire library, part of the motivation was knowing, at the end, not only will I have these files for my Dave at home, but H22Go on the road. To tell you the truth, even at home, I sometimes slap H22GPGGB onto a pair of Omegas for 2-Channel. I sit back and muse, "Is this the absolute highest ratio of sound quality to cost and size on the planet?" 

 

Whether it is or not, H22GPGGB should be a thing.