ajm Posted May 14, 2021 Share Posted May 14, 2021 Would be interested in trying PGGB but I don't currently own a suitable PC to run it as I use low powered audiolinux server & endpoint with Mscaler & DAVE. I am hesitant to purchase a new high powered PC just for this purpose as I may not find the results to my liking. Are there any test files for processed audio? Link to comment
ajm Posted May 15, 2021 Share Posted May 15, 2021 Dear Nick, That's really kind and as a member of the WAVE Storm fraternity, I will be pleased to take you up on this for a couple of tracks. From what I have learned, it seems as though some older Red Book recordings might be the ones to try. I suppose, things that have seemed much improved with MScaler (although I haven't done much testing with and without because the early impression was so beneficial - I'm amazed at some of the comments on HeadFi). I'm mainly a classical listener so the sort of things I wondered about are Vaughan Williams Tallis fantasia, Silvestri version Ending of Mahler 8, Solti CSO I also found that in some cases of Cochereau and Dupre organ recordings, these were transformed from something painful to an enjoyable experience by DAVE/ MScaler. Conscious of the fact that with a test of this sort, one may not readily hit on a revelatory example, I don't know whether anyone would comment on whether these are sensible! Andrew Link to comment
ajm Posted May 15, 2021 Share Posted May 15, 2021 Many thanks. I had thought PGGB'd files were only intended for playing direct to DAC but perhaps some of the original users may comment on this. Link to comment
Popular Post ajm Posted May 18, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted May 18, 2021 Also with the kind support of @austinpop and @fourlegs, I have now had opportunity to listen to some PGGB'd versions of 3 tracks I selected and all three were very good. In particular, the Solti Mahler 8 brought a sensation closer to presence in the concert hall and improved the representation of distorting high notes, cymbal clashes and better clarity of bass and detail generally. I have tried playing audiolinux HQPe/NAA direct to DAVE and using passthrough. Direct to DAVE version is better to my ear but, of course, changing the USB connection for different recordings is rather a nuisance (I have not had the opportunity to try different PGGB output formats). I can say without much doubt that these PGGB'd versions would, in principle, enable me to dispense with MScaler if not wishing to upscale other sources but I have also grown very attached to my MScaler for video sound, etc. So I will probably get new PC and make further experiments with PGGB when I have time for the project. To PGGB the lot, I will also need to upgrade my NAS storage and tidy the library! Fourlegs and austinpop 2 Link to comment
ajm Posted June 7, 2021 Share Posted June 7, 2021 In an earlier post, Rajiv @austinpop, you mentioned that 256GB RAM might be beneficial for PGGB. As most PC's are not upgradable beyond 128GB, is it possible to hint what 256GB might be needed for (is it just very long tracks?) Could @Zaphod Beeblebrox perhaps also comment on whether any future developments of PGGB are likely to further increase the RAM requirements above 128GB. If one is purchasing a new PC largely for the purpose of PGGB activity, it would be particularly frustrating to find in due course that the chosen machine was actually inadequate because the RAM could not be expanded sufficiently. In addition, machines suitable for more than 128GB RAM are generally in a significantly higher price bracket. Link to comment
ajm Posted June 7, 2021 Share Posted June 7, 2021 Many thanks to @austinpop for the detailed reply about RAM requirements - very helpful Link to comment
Popular Post ajm Posted March 29, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted March 29, 2023 Using PGGB with Dave and comparison with M-Scaler does bring up quite a lot of complexity in configurations. A further point concerns the addition of SRC-DX which I personally find much preferable to direct USB connection and in this case, 24 bit PGGB files are appropriate because this is a limitation of SRC-DX. In my own case, I tried PGGB over a year ago with the kind assistance of others who processed some files for me. I was initially impressed but did not have time or inclination to undergo the processes required to adopt PGGB routinely. On retrying the files occasionally I was less convinced but the recent introduction of 256 bit processing, my own possession of a suitable PC and more time available led to a further foray. I tried PGGB for a few weeks using 256 bit processing and feeding the files via M-Scaler to DAVE. I found only very marginal effects which would not have made the purchase worthwhile. However (and particularly in view of my respect for the ears of austinpop and raydude), I finally tried excluding M-scaler entirely and using 24 bit PGGB files played via SRC-DX direct to DAVE. In my system, the effect of this is remarkable and many recordings sound an order of magnitude better than the M-scaled versions. I am very largely a classical listener and I have found that the use of PGGB 256 with dither only (no noise shaping) produces the best results. I have wondered about some of the issues raised about track length and combination so welcome the current discussion. @Zaphod BeeblebroxI have observed that in the progress area of the display, the system seems to report 'using optimal settings' whatever I may have chosen in the config screen and wonder whether this needs adjusting. Zaphod Beeblebrox and kennyb123 1 1 Link to comment
ajm Posted March 30, 2023 Share Posted March 30, 2023 7 hours ago, Zaphod Beeblebrox said: Did you do the processing in 64, 128 or 256bit precision? What was it that you liked about dither vs the noise shaped version? All this was done with 256 bit processing and I found that, in particular, choral and piano renderings sounded more tonally natural/ realistic with dither only. With noise shaping, I had a feeling that something had been shaved from the sound. With extended noise shaping, this was yet more marked. There may well be more to learn from further comparisons as @austinpopsuggests and I have so far worked on only a small fraction of my library but of course experiments comparing the range of options are quite time consuming with some discs taking up to 24 hours to process even with this 8 core i7 device and 64gb RAM. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now