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

[kennyb123]

13 minutes ago, davide256 said:

Any other steps one should take for the most efficient conversion of an existing library?

One of my favorite PGGB features is the ability to have it read a list of folders from a file called pggb_to_process.txt stored in the input folder.  I usually create my batches by pasting the paths to the folders into this folder.  My last batch was only a single folder but the effort to do that was pretty easy. 

 

 

[Jean Paul D]

4 hours ago, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

I respect Rob Watts and can see how the word 'Apodizing' can be misleading and lead to his comments. I have updated the FAQ to clarify this: PGGB - FAQ (remastero.com)

 

But... does "the algorithm (will) create transient timing uncertainty ?

BTW some Hires increment HQP apodizing counter like crazy ie latest Robert Plant. And besides a minority of acoustic jazz and classical DDD so do most 44.1 . So whats worse?

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

45 minutes ago, Jean Paul D said:

But... does "the algorithm (will) create transient timing uncertainty ?

BTW some Hires increment HQP apodizing counter like crazy ie latest Robert Plant. And besides a minority of acoustic jazz and classical DDD so do most 44.1 . So whats worse?

 

Hmm. lets see:

Aliasing introduces transient timing uncertainty, in a visual sense, aliasing is akin to moiré  effect in image/video. This is already present in many CD recordings near the end of audible spectrum (i.e near 20kHz)

the reason being, the filters or A/D conversion process do not use steep enough filters to prevent aliasing fully.

 

There are two choices

1. Be pedantic about it and retain every bit of information and use that for reconstruction (non-apodizing in the context of PGGB). This would mean retain and reconstruct moiré  effect in a grand scale.
2. Throw away possible aliased part of the music and reconstruct what is 'good'.

At some point I provided an option (I still can if there is a need for it) to turn off apodizing option but no one (among the betas) cared for it.

Then one may ask, 'What if my CD is well mastered and there is absolutely no chance it has any aliasing'. Will you miss anything because of apodizing? The answer is, unless you are a teenager, it is very unlikely.  This is a very different question than asking will I hear a difference between apodizing and non apodizing, on that yes you will very likely hear a difference.

 

ps: I am not a teenager, I am middle-aged and I cannot hear past 15kHz.

 

(Image source: Aliasing - Wikipedia)

I do not know how HQP computes the apodizing counter, I could only speculate that it looks for the energy content near 22.5kHz. Also with Hires, provenance matters. If it was derived/upsampled from a CD quality recording, then all bets are off.

[MarkusBarkus]

@Zaphod Beeblebrox your kung-fu is very powerful. 

[davide256]

22 hours ago, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

why not feed Chord Mojo with 705kHz direct from PGGB?

I'm there now. Was listening to some converted Richard Strauss, lots of high frequency violin, very irritating with Metrum Octave or Mojo fed through the IRIS, just fine

USB direct to the Mojo. Looks like the IRIS stays shelved until I can use its I2S connection to get full data rate with another DAC.

[Jean Paul D]

7 hours ago, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

Hmm. lets see:

Aliasing introduces transient timing uncertainty, in a visual sense, aliasing is akin to moiré  effect in image/video. This is already present in many CD recordings near the end of audible spectrum (i.e near 20kHz)

the reason being, the filters or A/D conversion process do not use steep enough filters to prevent aliasing fully.

 

There are two choices

1. Be pedantic about it and retain every bit of information and use that for reconstruction (non-apodizing in the context of PGGB). This would mean retain and reconstruct moiré  effect in a grand scale.
2. Throw away possible aliased part of the music and reconstruct what is 'good'.

At some point I provided an option (I still can if there is a need for it) to turn off apodizing option but no one (among the betas) cared for it.

Then one may ask, 'What if my CD is well mastered and there is absolutely no chance it has any aliasing'. Will you miss anything because of apodizing? The answer is, unless you are a teenager, it is very unlikely.  This is a very different question than asking will I hear a difference between apodizing and non apodizing, on that yes you will very likely hear a difference.

 

ps: I am not a teenager, I am middle-aged and I cannot hear past 15kHz.

 

(Image source: Aliasing - Wikipedia)

I do not know how HQP computes the apodizing counter, I could only speculate that it looks for the energy content near 22.5kHz. Also with Hires, provenance matters. If it was derived/upsampled from a CD quality recording, then all bets are off.

Thank you, I'm not a teenager either, even doubt anyone my age aligns 15 KHz ; nevertheless I played with high shelves this weekend. Without correction above 350 Hz, my in-room response follows nicely the 2 lowest references at right hand till 10 KHz and is 2 dB lower at 15 KHz and growing. The 1 per L and R Hi shelves aimed at gaining 2 dB @ 10K and 4 above 15 to follow Floyd Toole's idealised Steady State, compensating for distance and absorption while still respecting my loudspeakers. It sure makes the kick drum (or contrabasses in a classical ensemble) shines. Maybe it's thanks to the 1dB gained @ 8K rather than the 4 @15 but I don't readily buy the can't hear above argument

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

4 hours ago, Jean Paul D said:

Thank you, I'm not a teenager either, even doubt anyone my age aligns 15 KHz ; nevertheless I played with high shelves this weekend. Without correction above 350 Hz, my in-room response follows nicely the 2 lowest references at right hand till 10 KHz and is 2 dB lower at 15 KHz and growing. The 1 per L and R Hi shelves aimed at gaining 2 dB @ 10K and 4 above 15 to follow Floyd Toole's idealised Steady State, compensating for distance and absorption while still respecting my loudspeakers. It sure makes the kick drum (or contrabasses in a classical ensemble) shines. Maybe it's thanks to the 1dB gained @ 8K rather than the 4 @15 but I don't readily buy the can't hear above argument

Perhaps I should have kept. my age out of it, it detracts from the point I was trying to make, which is aliasing present in CD audio.

To be clear, I was not trying to start a war by claiming only teenagers can hear past 15kHz. What I was trying to say here is the risk of distortion introduced due to aliasing in CDs is far higher than the risk of missing  information at the very edge of audible spectrum  near 20kHz (not 15kHz).

[davide256]

Having some difficulties with FLAC conversion of downloads from Music Society of Sound, about 4 tracks so far across a dozen

albums have given this error. Track below plays fine. Thoughts?

 

"Error Message:
File could not be read due to an unexpected error. Reason: File contains data in an unknown format.
While processing: \\?\D:\Music\MusicSociety of Sound\Apparatjik\Square Peg in a Round Hole Draft 7-FLAC24\01. Time Police.flac
Total time to process file: 0.071282 secs"

 

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

13 minutes ago, davide256 said:

Having some difficulties with FLAC conversion of downloads from Music Society of Sound, about 4 tracks so far across a dozen

albums have given this error. Track below plays fine. Thoughts?

 

"Error Message:
File could not be read due to an unexpected error. Reason: File contains data in an unknown format.
While processing: \\?\D:\Music\MusicSociety of Sound\Apparatjik\Square Peg in a Round Hole Draft 7-FLAC24\01. Time Police.flac
Total time to process file: 0.071282 secs"

 

 

Please check your email for further debugging.

[chrille]

On 5/24/2021 at 3:10 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

Please check your email for further debugging.

Hello again, I am beginning to look for a second hand  iMac to be able to process ALL  PGGB supported formats from 16/44.1 up to DSD 512 and DXD.

But I don´t want to spend more than needed to get the job done. I already have three macs, two mbps and an iMac neither capable of PGGB  processing but capable of playing back PGGB files with very good results.

I would very much appreciate specific advice on  ALL specs needed to get the job done without having to buy the latest most expensive new models.

Here in Sweden a new mbp that might just be capable enough would set me back about as much as an Mscaler and with new more powerful mbp ´s possibly coming later this year I would currently  just like to get what´s needed to do the  full processing no more.

Cheers Chrille

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

1 hour ago, chrille said:

Hello again, I am beginning to look for a second hand  iMac to be able to process ALL  PGGB supported formats from 16/44.1 up to DSD 512 and DXD.

But I don´t want to spend more than needed to get the job done. I already have three macs, two mbps and an iMac neither capable of PGGB  processing but capable of playing back PGGB files with very good results.

I would very much appreciate specific advice on  ALL specs needed to get the job done without having to buy the latest most expensive new models.

Here in Sweden a new mbp that might just be capable enough would set me back about as much as an Mscaler and with new more powerful mbp ´s possibly coming later this year I would currently  just like to get what´s needed to do the  full processing no more.

Cheers Chrille

I would suggest Mac Pro over iMac. When you gargle-blast DSD you need cooling. Get A 2010 or newer Mac Pro that can run Mojave or newer (though Big Sur would be nice for future proofing), upgrade RAM to 128GB. @kennyb123 or @Fourlegs  or @ray-dude may be able to provide further advice as they are using high powered Macs. Of course if you are open to using a PC, you can custom build one for cheaper. You will be able to go up to 4Billion taps on some DSDs.

 

Though a word of caution on DSD512, I do not know if there are any that are being offered that were truly recorded at DSD512. If the original source is DSD256, then it is better to go for DSD256. I have gargle-blasted a few DSD256 recordings from NativeDSD that I was quite happy with.

 

 

[davide256]

Have had to add to my list of items for PGGB library conversion, a FLAC library error checking solution. See thread started below. Finding/fixing errors before you

start conversion reduces exasperation

 

 

 

[taipan254]

On 5/22/2021 at 10:01 PM, davide256 said:

Doesn't sound as tight and defined as using the IRIS. Part of the problem is finding a micro USB cable as good as Lush 2.

I have to agree on this. I got the iris ddc and tried my pggb test files with my lps powered 2qute. I hear more of pggb's magic via an optical cable from iris ddc downspampled to 192k than hardwired usb at full sample rate.

 

I think the source still matters depite pggb magic (dell laptop vs. Iris ddc)! Will experiment more in the next few weeks. 

[Progisus]

3 hours ago, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

I would suggest Mac Pro over iMac. When you gargle-blast DSD you need cooling. Get A 2010 or newer Mac Pro that can run Mojave or newer (though Big Sur would be nice for future proofing), upgrade RAM to 128GB. @kennyb123 or @Fourlegs  or @ray-dude may be able to provide further advice as they are using high powered Macs. Of course if you are open to using a PC, you can custom build one for cheaper. You will be able to go up to 4Billion taps on some DSDs.

 

Though a word of caution on DSD512, I do not know if there are any that are being offered that were truly recorded at DSD512. If the original source is DSD256, then it is better to go for DSD256. I have gargle-blasted a few DSD256 recordings from NativeDSD that I was quite happy with.

 

 

The iMac 27" has upgradeable ram. That is what I purchased my license for and upgraded the ram to 40gb. 8gb original, added 32gb. My 2014 and 2018 MacbookPro are not upgradeable on the ram (at least by the layman).

[davide256]

5 minutes ago, taipan254 said:

I have to agree on this. I got the iris ddc and tried my pggb test files with my lps powered 2qute. I hear more of pggb's magic via an optical cable from iris ddc downspampled to 192k than hardwired usb at full sample rate.

 

I think the source still matters depite pggb magic (dell laptop vs. Iris ddc)! Will experiment more in the next few weeks. 

Kind of a trade off for me so far... using 384/24 PGGB conversion, if the content is largely below 8khz the IRIS output is more detailed and dynamic. But if there is a lot of

content at 8khz and above the treble becomes irritating vs going USB direct to Chord Mojo. Strangely enough, using HQPlayer with upsampling disabled, TPDF noise filter

enabled mitigates the treble irritation from the IRIS but thats just too many layers of alteration for me to trust.

[austinpop]

A few PGGB findings on DSD albums and provenance in general

 

In my experience, and as many of you have discovered, PGGB really makes a fantastic effort (it can only do so much) recovering the transient accuracy of DSD albums in your library. This has proved invaluable for recordings for which the only available native formats were DSD or inferior-sounding Redbook masterings. In my collection, a prime example of this is Kaplan's Mahler 2nd.

 

However, for others, the choice is not so clear. Many SACD/DSD releases are:

1. Recorded in DSD or PCM
2. Converted to PCM (to rates up to 352.8kHz)
3. Mixed and Edited in PCM
4. Mastered to various DSD and PCM release formats.

Step no. 3 is critical. Once you've brought the data into the PCM domain, and given PGGB is designed to output PCM data, it's just logical to expect a PCM release to sound better than a DSD release, which has to undergo another conversion:

• DXD to DSDn, where n = (64, 128, 256, 512).

And indeed, I am usually finding — I say usually, as there may always be the odd exception to your ears – that it's preferable to buy (and then PGGB) the best possible PCM mastering. Here's an example:

 

When I bought this at nativedsd.com, I got both the DSD128 and DXD versions. While PGGBing the DSD128 results in an impressive no. of taps, it is the PGGBed DXD version that sounds the best (accurate, transparent) to my ears.

 

Pay attention to provenance, and for DSD albums, be on the lookout for those casual references to "edited and mixed in DXD." That's a hugely important factor!!

 

There are indeed some albums that were recorded, mixed, edited, and mastered all in the DSD domain. But they are few, and none of these have found their way into my "albums I love and must own" list.

 

What I'm doing

 

While the above may be good to know for future purchases, what to do with your existing collection? Like many, I have hundreds of ripped SACDs. For some that are my most treasured, I've tried to dig into provenance, and buy PCM masterings instead. For example, Michael Tilson Thomas' Mahler cycle with the San Francisco Symphony released on SFSMedia. I can't find a lot of provenance info on these recordings. However, they are now available at Qobuz in Hi-Res PCM formats ranging from 24/44.1 to 24/96. I ended up buying all of these in hi-res PCM, as they are notably better PGGBed than the ripped DSD64 versions from SACD.

 

How far you take this is up to you, but I'm looking at my entire library with a clearer eye, and making strategic decisions as I go along, especially for recordings that I particularly treasure.

[chrille]

2 hours ago, Progisus said:

The iMac 27" has upgradeable ram. That is what I purchased my license for and upgraded the ram to 40gb. 8gb original, added 32gb. My 2014 and 2018 MacbookPro are not upgradeable on the ram (at least by the layman).

Thanks for the info but which model of iMac 27" are you referring to?

There are quite a few of those.

I already have  a 2011 iMac 27" but it does not support Mojave. And according to what I have been told or even better Big Sur is what is needed to  do processing?

Could you give me more details of yours, year model and which processor it has and can you process hi res 24/96 and 24/192 and DSD 64 and DSD 128 files.

I do not care if it takes a while to process as long as it does not go up in flames!

Another option for me could be to get a Mac Mini with 64 gigabyte ram.

But the ones I have seen for sale second hand or refurbished mostly have i3 processors onboard and I don´t know if that is enough?

 

I do not intend to buy a  MAC PRO just to do PGGB processing.

 

I want something that does the job but at as LOW a price as possible.

I may upgrade from my old mbp 17" when the new  M2 ones materialize.

But that may not happen soon.

The only real need for anything faster or better than what I already have is for PGGB.

No other reason really.

My ancient mbp  takes16 gigabyte ram so it is good enough for RAM  memory playback .

My old mbp 2011 sounds very good indeed via Audirvana + or Pure Music player  Qutest/Mscaler  directly via usb and PGGB tesfiles.

Actually the usb cable that came with my Mscaler nothing more fancy.

Virtually noisefree via usb.  Quite amazing and even a bit addictive.

I have already played the files I got from Rajiv about 30 times each and all three sound very good indeed played this way both via speakers and headphones.

No super-expensive Server or other extras involved.

But I can say that this is perhaps the closest I have heard from my systems to how mic-feed at recording sessions can sound.

My reference point for digital consumer HI FI used to be Dave/Mscaler but now I am not so sure any longer, with my little Qutest sounding like a "mini Dave" all on its own when fed PGGB´d hi res files.

Dave /PGGB maybe ?

 

 

Cheers Chrille

 

 

[chrille]

1 hour ago, austinpop said:

A few PGGB findings on DSD albums and provenance in general

 

In my experience, and as many of you have discovered, PGGB really makes a fantastic effort (it can only do so much) recovering the transient accuracy of DSD albums in your library. This has proved invaluable for recordings for which the only available native formats were DSD or inferior-sounding Redbook masterings. In my collection, a prime example of this is Kaplan's Mahler 2nd.

 

However, for others, the choice is not so clear. Many SACD/DSD releases are:

1. Recorded in DSD or PCM
2. Converted to PCM (to rates up to 352.8kHz)
3. Mixed and Edited in PCM
4. Mastered to various DSD and PCM release formats.

Step no. 3 is critical. Once you've brought the data into the PCM domain, and given PGGB is designed to output PCM data, it's just logical to expect a PCM release to sound better than a DSD release, which has to undergo another conversion:

• DXD to DSDn, where n = (64, 128, 256, 512).

And indeed, I am usually finding — I say usually, as there may always be the odd exception to your ears – that it's preferable to buy (and then PGGB) the best possible PCM mastering. Here's an example:

 

When I bought this at nativedsd.com, I got both the DSD128 and DXD versions. While PGGBing the DSD128 results in an impressive no. of taps, it is the PGGBed DXD version that sounds the best (accurate, transparent) to my ears.

 

Pay attention to provenance, and for DSD albums, be on the lookout for those casual references to "edited and mixed in DXD." That's a hugely important factor!!

 

There are indeed some albums that were recorded, mixed, edited, and mastered all in the DSD domain. But they are few, and none of these have found their way into my "albums I love and must own" list.

 

What I'm doing

 

While the above may be good to know for future purchases, what to do with your existing collection? Like many, I have hundreds of ripped SACDs. For some that are my most treasured, I've tried to dig into provenance, and buy PCM masterings instead. For example, Michael Tilson Thomas' Mahler cycle with the San Francisco Symphony released on SFSMedia. I can't find a lot of provenance info on these recordings. However, they are now available at Qobuz in Hi-Res PCM formats ranging from 24/44.1 to 24/96. I ended up buying all of these in hi-res PCM, as they are notably better PGGBed than the ripped DSD64 versions from SACD.

 

How far you take this is up to you, but I'm looking at my entire library with a clearer eye, and making strategic decisions as I go along, especially for recordings that I particularly treasure.

Hello , The Mahler 2 from DGG is definitely a native 24/96 pcm recording released on SACD.

Like many other labels DGG never released anything recorded in DSD. All their SACDs are either 24/44.1 or 24/96  pcm masters.

The commercial release on Channel Classics of Mahler´s 3rd originates from a DSD 64 recording mastered in DXD.

And it sounds very good indeed PGGB´d from the DXD file.

Very clean clear and virtually free of any audible noise.

That very last lingering note of the Bim Bam movement is amazing in its clarity.

There was also a test recording made at those sessions with a Merging converter recording in DSD 256.

I could have been there for those sessions too but other obligations stopped me from going.

The SFS Mahler series is a mix of DSD 64 and pcm recordings. Some DSD some pcm.

 I also downloaded the 24/96 versions and compared to my SACD of the 7th and came to the same conclusion as you.

Cheers  and thanks a lot for your help, Chrille

[Progisus]

2 hours ago, chrille said:

Thanks for the info but which model of iMac 27" are you referring to?

There are quite a few of those.

I already have  a 2011 iMac 27" but it does not support Mojave. And according to what I have been told or even better Big Sur is what is needed to  do processing?

Could you give me more details of yours, year model and which processor it has and can you process hi res 24/96 and 24/192 and DSD 64 and DSD 128 files.

I do not care if it takes a while to process as long as it does not go up in flames!

Another option for me could be to get a Mac Mini with 64 gigabyte ram.

But the ones I have seen for sale second hand or refurbished mostly have i3 processors onboard and I don´t know if that is enough?

 

I do not intend to buy a  MAC PRO just to do PGGB processing.

 

I want something that does the job but at as LOW a price as possible.

I may upgrade from my old mbp 17" when the new  M2 ones materialize.

But that may not happen soon.

The only real need for anything faster or better than what I already have is for PGGB.

No other reason really.

My ancient mbp  takes16 gigabyte ram so it is good enough for RAM  memory playback .

My old mbp 2011 sounds very good indeed via Audirvana + or Pure Music player  Qutest/Mscaler  directly via usb and PGGB tesfiles.

Actually the usb cable that came with my Mscaler nothing more fancy.

Virtually noisefree via usb.  Quite amazing and even a bit addictive.

I have already played the files I got from Rajiv about 30 times each and all three sound very good indeed played this way both via speakers and headphones.

No super-expensive Server or other extras involved.

But I can say that this is perhaps the closest I have heard from my systems to how mic-feed at recording sessions can sound.

My reference point for digital consumer HI FI used to be Dave/Mscaler but now I am not so sure any longer, with my little Qutest sounding like a "mini Dave" all on its own when fed PGGB´d hi res files.

Dave /PGGB maybe ?

 

 

Cheers Chrille

 

 

Here is my iMac. So far there have been no hiccups remastering.

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Wrong post

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

@chrille I tend to overspec what PGGB needs and I have been wrong many times. Taking a conservative approach is a good idea, just make sure your Mac will let you add more RAM later, starting with something like 40GB and then later go up to 64GB. If you are only going to do DSD64 and occasional DSD128. I am happy with 64GB of RAM on my workstation and I have done the occasional DSD128 and DSD256 but a significant portion of my library is older Jazz recordings for which DSD64 is my best option, very few cross 2B taps.

[ted_b]

35 minutes ago, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

but a significant portion of my library is older Jazz recordings for which DSD64 is my best option, very few cross 2B taps.

Zaphod, what did you mean by this?  You are not converting TO DSD, right?  So in what way is DSD64 your best option?  I'm clearly confused.  🙂

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

3 minutes ago, ted_b said:

Zaphod, what did you mean by this?  You are not converting TO DSD, right?  So in what way is DSD64 your best option?  I'm clearly confused.  🙂

Sorry for the confusion. I meant a significant part of my library are DSD ripped mostly from SACD and I do not have a PCM version of these albums that are 96kHz or 192kHz or DXD so I am quite happy with remastering these DSD albums to PCM.

[ted_b]

27 minutes ago, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

Sorry for the confusion. I meant a significant part of my library are DSD ripped mostly from SACD and I do not have a PCM version of these albums that are 96kHz or 192kHz or DXD so I am quite happy with remastering these DSD albums to PCM.

Got it.  Now I shouldn't be asking this, what with my NativeDSD affiliation and all...😎...but what are the settings you use to gargle blast DSD64 to, say, a May (20 bit) 32fs?  And what are the size multipliers?

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

7 minutes ago, ted_b said:

Got it.  Now I shouldn't be asking this, what with my NativeDSD affiliation and all...😎...but what are the settings you use to gargle blast DSD64 to, say, a May (20 bit) 32fs?

My settings are the same be it DSD -> PCM or PCM -> PCM remastering. If I had a May DAC, this is the setting I would use to remaster gargle blast DSD64