Jump to content
IGNORED

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


Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, austinpop said:

 

Interesting. What are some examples of dual-AES sources for the Terminator? And what is the max rate the Terminator can accept in dual-AES mode?

 

I thought these dual data modes were proprietary, like the dCS example Steve Z mentioned above. I'm pretty sure Chord MScaler also only works with Chord DACs in dual-data mode.

There is ofc the DDC's Gaia and Hermes that has dual outputs, but I am not sure really otherwise. The manuals don't mention a whole lot about them and nothing about their limitations. Someone in a thread here said they don't offer higher rates, but that they were left and right channels. I can't test it since I only have an Allo digione signature running picore.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Fourlegs said:

I also retain the mscaler (with a dedicated DC4) in my system for streaming but i much prefer 32bit PGGB files to go direct to DC4 Dave by usb rather than to take them through the mscaler. I do not find ‘pass through’ on the mscaler to be transparent.
 

It is only when using the SRC-DX that i then prefer 24bit PGGB files going to the DC4 Dave via dual bnc.

 

 

Do you have M-scaler and SRC-DX connected to the 2 sets of BNC inputs on DAVE and switch between the 2 accordingly?

Does that mean your server needs to have 2 USB drivers; one for Chord ASIO(for M-scaler) and the other for the CommTrue(SRC-DX)?

PH SR7 > MacMini+Uptone MMK Mod > Audirvana 3.2 > re-clocked D-LInk switch/LPS1.1 > sMS-200Ultra/LPS1.2 > tX-USBUltra/PH SR7 > Chord BluDave > Focal Utopia(Norne Silver) or Voxativ 9.87/ Stereo REL G1 Mk II

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/12/2021 at 1:23 AM, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

I released another  patch just now v1.2.07, further improvement to stability while remastering DSD.

Hi again, do these new versions ,patches also make it easier to process long, really long symphonic movements with slower macs or not?

The posts about a recent quite loaded new mac stalling on memory made me a bit wary of what to get.

 

How can one mac owner with only 16 GB ram process a DSD album and another  more capable mac not?

Has that problem been solved?

 

No new 64GB ram mbps expected in the near future have led me to look at second hand2014-2015  mac minis with 64GB ram again.

 

They seem like my best and still  reasonably affordable options.  Those and some mbps  fro mthe same period,where the most customer friendly products from mac until Apple realised that those where just too good and too easily upgradable I guess in the mid  2014- or so when they started "welding" ram and harddrives and superglued  whatever they could do to stop people from upgrading and using a perfectly good computer for years instead of buying a new one every time Apple decideded to make a small upgrade available at a VERY high cost.

 

But will such  a mac Mini with Mojave or Big Sur and an i5 processor and 64 gb ram and a 512 or 1TB SSD  be enough with DSD 64 files?

 

I really want to hear the rest of my Channel Classics Mahler 5 PGGB´d.

The PGGB´d 1st movement sounds closer to how I heard it in the hall than ever before in my systems.

Both via speakers and headphones and the last bars ,very soft ppp bass-drum rythm  finally rises above the noise floor it formerly partly submerged in.

 

 

Could someone on the mac platform please advice how to proceed without having to buy a PC just for PGGB.


 

PS Are other PGGB licence payment methods than Paypal also  available?

Cheers Chrille

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, chrille said:

Hi again, do these new versions ,patches also make it easier to process long, really long symphonic movements with slower macs or not?

The processor speed is not the issue,  memory is. I had optimized memory usage to where instead of relying on virtual memory, PGGB will detect you are running a mac and cache some variables to disk to avoid Macs from using more virtual memory. This helps but we are still at the mercy of the Mac OS to continue providing more memory.

 

From what I have seen, on M1 Macs running Big Sur, 256M taps seems to be the limit for 16GB, extrapolating from there, for 64GB, 1024M taps would be the limit, I am not yet 100% sure if it is a Big Sur limit or if it is because of M1. I think it is Big Sur as there is one person who reported here that their iMac 2020 running intel and 64GB of RAM  and 4TB of SSD was not able to do 2048M taps for DSD even with the v.2.07  of PGGB. On windows, for the same RAM you can go 2048M taps at 64GB or 512M taps for 16GB (so double the taps).

 

It is not a question of whether or not you will be able to do long DSDs for a given amount of RAM, it is more a question of how much Taps you will be able to use. More taps increases the memory pressure and this relation is linear and at some point the Mac would not allow any more memory to be used. On a mac with 64GB RAM, you should be able to set the Taps to (one billion) 1024M  and process even long DSDs.

 

Another data point, @kennyb123 was able to get to double the number of taps similar to windows on his Mac running Mohave, so it is possible that Mohave is a bit less restrictive on virtual memory usage. It would be nice to have more data points and I hope more of those who are using Macs with 64GB or lesser memory can chime in here. 

 

33 minutes ago, chrille said:

PS Are other PGGB licence payment methods than Paypal also  available?

Sorry, currently only Paypal. But, I believe even if you don't have a Paypal account, Paypal lets you use Credit or Debit cards.

Author of PGGB, remastero

New: PGGB-RT for foobar2000 (foo-RT) has been released!

Tip: Turn PGGB-RT into an offline remastering tool using PGGB.IT! V2.2

☁️PGGB.IO (Another way to audition PGGB, with credits towards PGGB purchase)

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

It would be nice to have more data points and I hope more of those who are using Macs with 64GB or lesser memory can chime in here. 

I can try this on a MacBook Pro with Intel running Big Sur and maybe also Catalina.  I’ll hit you up later for trial licenses.

Digital:  Sonore opticalModule > Uptone EtherRegen > Shunyata Sigma Ethernet > Antipodes K30 > Shunyata Omega USB > Chord Hugo TT2 

Amp & Speakers:  Spectral DMA-150mk2 > Aerial 10T

Foundation: Stillpoints Ultra, Shunyata Denali power conditioner, Shunyata Alpha and Delta power cords, Shunyata Alpha interconnect, Shunyata Sigma Ethernet, MIT Matrix HD60 speaker cables, ASC isothermal tube traps

Link to post
Share on other sites

@chrilleAn alternate option if you would be OK with running Windows under either Parallels or VMware Fusion, you could get a Mac with 64GB of RAM and then run PGGB inside a Windows VM. Because Windows does not have a limit related to virtual memory, you should be able to process your long DSDs just fine with 2B taps instead of 1B taps under Mac. 

 

To assign more than 8GB of memory to a VM you would need Parallels Pro which is yearly subscription and may not be worth doing just for PGGB. Vmware Fusion on the other had is free for home use and does not have such restrictions, you will have to get the previous version (11.5.5) of VMware to be able to run on Mojave.

Author of PGGB, remastero

New: PGGB-RT for foobar2000 (foo-RT) has been released!

Tip: Turn PGGB-RT into an offline remastering tool using PGGB.IT! V2.2

☁️PGGB.IO (Another way to audition PGGB, with credits towards PGGB purchase)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kennyb123 said:

I can try this on a MacBook Pro with Intel running Big Sur and maybe also Catalina.  I’ll hit you up later for trial licenses.

@Zaphod Beeblebrox my wifes 2014 intel iMac has 64GB of RAM and runs Big Sur (she gets my ‘cast off hand me down’ computers!). Happy to see if that maxes out on the number of taps it will process if it will help. If so let me know.

Innuos Zenith + Antipodes K50 + PhoenixNET + PhoenixUSB,

Sablon 2020 USB to Mscaler, WAVE Storm BNC to DAVE (Sean Jacobs external DC4 power)

Pass Labs XA60.8 power amps + Spendor SP200 speakers, ATC150 actives.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Fourlegs said:

@Zaphod Beeblebrox my wifes 2014 intel iMac has 64GB of RAM and runs Big Sur (she gets my ‘cast off hand me down’ computers!). Happy to see if that maxes out on the number of taps it will process if it will help. If so let me know.

That will be worth trying to see if it is repeatable, as 2020 Mac running Big Sur is not able to do 2B taps.

Author of PGGB, remastero

New: PGGB-RT for foobar2000 (foo-RT) has been released!

Tip: Turn PGGB-RT into an offline remastering tool using PGGB.IT! V2.2

☁️PGGB.IO (Another way to audition PGGB, with credits towards PGGB purchase)

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Zaphod Beeblebrox When HQPlayer was released in the native version of code for the M1 processor of Apple (arm64 version), I noticed a very significant improvement in speed over the Rosetta II version. Do you have any clue when the native version of Mathlab will be released on order to allow same significant improvement to be brought to PGGB running on the this M1 Mac architecture ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Before I discovered PGGB, I was contemplating upgrading my DAC to a Tambaqui. I asked some friends who are equipped with a Tambaqui to test the PGGB files and they did not report any improvement which is not very surprising knowing that this DAC operates an internal upsampling to 3.125MHz/32 bits.

But I am so impressed with the results I have today with PGGB files on my Gustard x26-Pro that I am tempted to challenge my previous decision.

Has anyone had the opportunity to compare a Dave fed with PGGB files with a Tambaqui ?

Thanks in advance

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SwissBear said:

@Zaphod Beeblebrox When HQPlayer was released in the native version of code for the M1 processor of Apple (arm64 version), I noticed a very significant improvement in speed over the Rosetta II version. Do you have any clue when the native version of Mathlab will be released on order to allow same significant improvement to be brought to PGGB running on the this M1 Mac architecture ?

No, though they have said there will be a native version, they have not provided a timeline. That said, for PGGB the bottleneck is memory and not CPU. More RAM and faster SSD will do more to processing speed for PGGB.

Author of PGGB, remastero

New: PGGB-RT for foobar2000 (foo-RT) has been released!

Tip: Turn PGGB-RT into an offline remastering tool using PGGB.IT! V2.2

☁️PGGB.IO (Another way to audition PGGB, with credits towards PGGB purchase)

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SwissBear said:

Before I discovered PGGB, I was contemplating upgrading my DAC to a Tambaqui. I asked some friends who are equipped with a Tambaqui to test the PGGB files and they did not report any improvement which is not very surprising knowing that this DAC operates an internal upsampling to 3.125MHz/32 bits.

But I am so impressed with the results I have today with PGGB files on my Gustard x26-Pro that I am tempted to challenge my previous decision.

Has anyone had the opportunity to compare a Dave fed with PGGB files with a Tambaqui ?

Thanks in advance

I do not expect much improvement with Tambaqui as it internally upsamples all inputs to 64FS. The most benifit you can get is the equivalent of CD vs 32 bit DXD, it would be nice if it would accept higher rate PCM. 

Author of PGGB, remastero

New: PGGB-RT for foobar2000 (foo-RT) has been released!

Tip: Turn PGGB-RT into an offline remastering tool using PGGB.IT! V2.2

☁️PGGB.IO (Another way to audition PGGB, with credits towards PGGB purchase)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on Macs with different memory configurations, I have changed the heuristics for default tap settings on Macs. I have released an updated version here: v21.2.08. The new settings allow  PGGB to avoid memory issues on Macs.

Author of PGGB, remastero

New: PGGB-RT for foobar2000 (foo-RT) has been released!

Tip: Turn PGGB-RT into an offline remastering tool using PGGB.IT! V2.2

☁️PGGB.IO (Another way to audition PGGB, with credits towards PGGB purchase)

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

Based on Macs with different memory configurations, I have changed the heuristics for default tap settings on Macs. I have released an updated version here: v21.2.08. The new settings allow  PGGB to avoid memory issues on Macs.

Please explain exactly how and to what extent , this version avoids memory issues with macs.

Does it mean 16GB ram will be enough to process even long symphonic works with  many taps even on a mac?

And if so how many taps?

Regarding the number of taps I am still a bit confused how important they really are.

The best SQ from the three symphonic classical music tracks Rajiv very kindly helped me with, as far as low level but very resolved and realistic cymbals M3 from a DXD master has fewer than 200M taps but sounds very very good indeed in my systems.

Possibly the most realistic soft Mahler cymbal brush I have heard reproduced in my system about half way through the Bim Bam mov.

M5 with 2017 M taps from a DSD 64 master if I remember correctly is also good, but I can not say that it sounds any better than the fewer than 200M taps DXD M3.

But yes the really busy  loud percussions parts sound better than ever before

So how important are taps?

Do taps above the theoretical 24 bit 256M level  make any real audible difference at all?

Please chime in those who have experimented with these things and with complex  densely scored  large scale symphonic material if possible.

 

Cheers Chrille

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

ZB, I know you've explained this before but I can't find the reference... Why does PGGB convert a DSD track to 705K PCM when I have PGGB set to 705K/768K (16FS) output? It's not a problem, I'm just wondering why 705K and not 768K??

 

Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

Previously, I had over estimated the number of Taps macs can handle, this version sets it correctly. On a Mac, for every 16GB of memory, you can can do 256M taps, so for 32GB, you get 512M taps and 1B taps at 64GB. The main limitation here is Macs not allowing the swap/paging file to grow to make up for insufficient RAM.

 

The number of taps is determined by the length of tracks and output rate. AT 16FS output rate, every 6 minutes of PCM track length needs 256M taps for the best results PGGB is capable of, so 24 minutes of PCM track will require 1B taps and on a Mac you will need 64GB of RAM. Of course if you had only 32GB of RAM, yo can still process with 512M and it would still sound good, and how much better is 1B taps, that is hard for me to quantify other than saying it is easy to spot. On a PC or if you run Windows within a virtual machine on a Mac, then you instantly double the number of taps if you can allocate more paging file for windows. For example, with 400GB allocated for virtual memory on my Windows PC, I can do 4B taps.

For DSDs the equation changes quite a bit and DSD64 uses 4x more taps than PCM at 16FS, every 1.5 minutes of DSD64 will need 256M taps, so tracks 6 minutes long can use 1B taps.

 

Just because DSDs use more taps, it does not mean it is going to sound better, it depends on the original recording format. For example, consider  DSD64 or DSD128 track derived from a DXD (352.6kHz) source, gargle-blasting the DSD64 or DSD 128 track will use a lot more taps than gargle-blasting DXD but the gargle blasted DXD will still sound better in spite of using lesser taps.

 

Both based on listening, and loosely based on math, I feel the subjective limit on the number of taps is one that is equal to the length of the track.  So yes, it is very easy to exceed 256M taps and continue to hear audible improvement into 1B , 2B taps as long as the number of taps match the length of the track, so with longer tracks, there is potential to continue hearing benefits of more taps.

 

While the relation between 1M taps and 16bit accuracy or 256M taps leading to 24 bit accuracy may be true, I feel it may be misleading at the same time.  Two questions arise:

1. Wether we can or cannot hear a difference between 24 bit or 32 bit inputs, (which I will come back to late)

2. Can a 24bit DAC benefit from  32bits of accuracy or can a 32bit DAC benifit from 64bits of accuracy? 

 

Regarding 2 above:  One can argue that a 24bit DAC could not possibly benefit from 32bit accuracy of processing  with more than 256M taps(BTW 32bit is 64B taps! extending the logic of taps vs bits). However that is true only if one assumes, the quantization noise in the audible range (i.e below 20kHz) is equivalent to a signal using 24 bits. Which would be about -144dB, so this will still be true if the DAC's internal processing cannot do better than 24bit accuracy.

 

But that is not always true. For example, In the case of R2R DACs in NOS mode there is no internal processing, so the only limit is the inherent noise in the implementation. Since you use a Chord DAC, With reference to Chord, Rob Wats has stated that the noise shaper  used by DAVE have a noise floor way below -300dB in the audible range. Which would mean, you could potentially take advantage of 50bit accuracy or even more. So if the above statement about -300dB or lower noise floor were true, Chord DACs could benefit from greater than 24bits of accuracy.

 

Getting back to your questions, Is the difference beyond 24bits audible?  Assuming the DAC's processing will preserve the signal in the audible range, once noise shaped, 16bit, 24 bits or 32bit signals do not have the typical higher noise floors of -96dB, -144dB or -192dB associated with them, they are no longer 16bit/24bit/32bit in audible range, instead the. noise floor drops to a way lower level depending on the quality of noise shaper used in creating the 16 bit, 24 bit or 32bit upsampled signals and since the noise floor can now drop down to as low as -300dB or lower, you could benefit from more taps in terms of accuracy.

 

A drop in noise floor from -200dB down to -250dB , -300db even below -350dB in our subjective listening tests continue to be audible and the lower noise floor even though insanely low is still preferred. I cannot fully explain why this is other than saying the only evidence I have is empirical based on listening tests (not just my own but by many others).

Thanks again, I am not sure I understand all of it theoretically, and it seems there is a bit of guessing and no firm facts regarding 24 bits or 32 bits?

 

I am also a bit puzzled why some of you seem to  prefer 24/bits and a usb to  BNC converter over 32 bits directly via usb with your Chord dacs?

 

Personally I wonder why digital audio has not yet fully employed  64 bit recording?

As a Pro Photographer even my old Adobe Photoshop 5 works with 64 bits color with raw files on my old mbp.

 

And one of my music players on my mbp, Pure Music Player, can be set to upsample to 64 bits at its Maximum Fidelity setting.

Why does  PGGB not upsample to 64 bits? 

Would it not theoretically push noise even lower than 32 bits?

 

 Anyway, as far as my early trials with PGGB go, I can easily hear the benefits of  the lowered noise floor,with the test tracks I have.

I have only tried usb direct and I am surprised how clean and noise free usb sounds with these files.

 

And even compared with Mscaler it is  becoming a bit addictive to get audibly closer to mic feed where digital quantization noise has not yet entered the equation.

 

So if  maximizing both taps and bits are the best ways to keep the dreaded digital hiss down while still keeping everything within the audible range audible, I would  want the best possible result.

 

But how would/or does  PGGB  maximise the number of taps in a symphony with  4-5 movements each of different lengths, one only 4-5 minutes others 20- 25 minutes?

Will they each get a different number of taps or what?

 

And how could I maximise the number of taps with  an Opera recording that has got maybe 50-60 different "tracks" some lasting only 20-30 seconds and others 20 minutes or more and the complete work lasting 2-3 hours or even  3-4 hours as in some Wagner Operas?

Is PGGG capable of processing such long works as Operas and still maximise taps?

Cheers Chrille

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, happybob said:

ZB, I know you've explained this before but I can't find the reference... Why does PGGB convert a DSD track to 705K PCM when I have PGGB set to 705K/768K (16FS) output? It's not a problem, I'm just wondering why 705K and not 768K??

 

Thanks!

That is because PGGB only does integer rate conversion, DSD64 is 64 x 44.1kHz and it is converted to 705.6kHz which is 16 x 44.1kHz. This allows PGGB to use a single stage windowed Sinc based filters and keep reconstruction error to a minimum. 

Author of PGGB, remastero

New: PGGB-RT for foobar2000 (foo-RT) has been released!

Tip: Turn PGGB-RT into an offline remastering tool using PGGB.IT! V2.2

☁️PGGB.IO (Another way to audition PGGB, with credits towards PGGB purchase)

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, chrille said:

And how could I maximise the number of taps with  an Opera recording that has got maybe 50-60 different "tracks" some lasting only 20-30 seconds and others 20 minutes or more and the complete work lasting 2-3 hours or even  3-4 hours as in some Wagner Operas?

Is PGGG capable of processing such long works as Operas and still maximise taps?

 

Chrille,

 

Many choral pieces are indexed in this way, even though the music is essentially continuous. IF this is the case, and you are willing to give up (or at least forego) this fine-grained indexing, there is a way in PGGB (look for combine.json in the manual) to combine multiple short tracks into one longer track that can get the benefit of a longer filter.

 

I have posted about this previously here: https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/62699-a-toast-to-pggb-a-heady-brew-of-math-and-magic/?do=findComment&comment=1132878

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, romaz said:

PGGB - EQ / Room Correction Edition

 

Here is the listening room I wish I had:

 

No photo description available.

 

This is the Magico listening room in Hayward, California.  This room reportedly cost $250,000 to build.  It measures 33' x 22' x 13'.  It is a room within a room.  The outside walls are 5" thick Quiet Rock.  The inside walls are composed of 2 layers of sheet rock.  The floor floats meaning it has no interaction with the rest of the room.  The room was designed to have minimum gain and a noise floor of only 24dB.  According to Alon Wolf, Magico's founder, "It's very easy to measure a speaker above 800Hz, regardless of the room it's in. Below that, it gets tricky. Hence, the environment in which you listen to and test your loudspeakers is crucial...So I've taken the room out of the equation. In this room, you hear the bass from the speaker alone, not from the interaction of the speaker with the room. This helps us voice loudspeakers more accurately."  I have enjoyed listening to music in this room on a few occasions and regardless of the speakers and the electronics that were in the room that day, each time, I came away feeling deeply envious.  If I could use one word to describe it, it would be "balanced."  Not too lively and not too dead and everything sounds natural.  Ambience, imaging, clarity, natural decay, this room portrayed it all.  It has been said that your room is your most important component.  After listening to music in this room, I've become a believer.

 

Here are photos of my actual listening room:

 

image.thumb.png.ebe509fdc217c95e41eb5f160618800d.png

 

image.thumb.png.38d25252b8a3d4f0082ae6b057f55ec9.png

 

image.thumb.png.d642850b2e3cce33784f69ee0d32c892.png

 

Yes, I know, lots of problems.  As you can see, it's not a dedicated listening room.  Aside from my Wilson Alexia Series 2 speakers, I'm not allowed to have any audio electronics showing.  I've tried various room treatments from bass traps to various diffusers and absorbers but they kill the look of the room and so with a few exceptions (Synergistic Black Box and a few HFTs and other resonators), I live with the speaker placement restrictions that I have and the natural resonances of this room.  Fortunately, despite my limitations, at my listening position, my room measures pretty smoothly with no horrendous peaks and valleys and listening to music in this room has been very enjoyable.  

 

But each time I experience a really good sounding room (like the Magico or the Taiko Audio listening room), I can't help but want to make improvements and so on more than a few occasions, I've dabbled in room correction or DSP.  I've tried products from Denon (Audyssey), Lyngdorf, and DEQX.  I've brought in speakers that incorporated DSP like the Kii Three.  These solutions did not work for me.  I had my room measured and I enlisted the services of highly respected people like Uli Brueggemann and Mitch Barnett.  I can't say enough good things about these individuals and the services they provide.  They clearly know their craft and were very pleasant and enjoyable to interact with.  I learned a lot about minimum and linear phase filters from Mitch and after much trial and error, I settled on a group of mixed phase filters that I felt were generally to my liking.  The problem with these filters, ultimately, was transparency.  They did some good things but also did some not so good things and so there was always some tradeoff.  I also found that some filters sounded good with some tracks and horrible with other tracks and so this bothered me.  For example, my preferred mixed phase filter did a nice job smoothing the bass with a certain bass-heavy track from Fink or Daft Punk but with Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture, as the cannons go off at the end, instead of an explosion, all you hear is a compression.  A dud.  Ugh.  Simply horrible.  With time, I found myself not using any of my room correction filters because implementing them for some tracks and removing them for others was more trouble than it was worth.  I figured that room correction technology, while good for movies and certain types of amplified music was not so great for the natural expression of unamplified acoustical instruments and this is what I listen to the most.  What was especially missing were natural extension, depth, and decay.  

 

For some time, I've been aware of @Zaphod Beeblebrox's background and interest in EQ and room correction.  On several occasions, he's encouraged me to give it another try because he felt he could more properly implement it within PGGB.  Based on my disappointment with previous experiences, I didn't prioritize it very highly but eventually I got around to giving it a try.  Because of how much more transparent sounding PGGB made my library sound, I was cautiously hopeful this transparency would extend to room correction and so I provided ZB with my room measurements.

 

With the first two attempts, I was immediately impressed by the transparency in the bass.  The cannons on 1812 Overture exploded with full extension.  I sensed zero compression in the lower octaves.  I also sensed no truncation of depth which seemed to be the other failing of room correction in the past.  On these 2 counts, this was a big win but I found the midrange and treble to sound too smooth and homogenized.  It became clear that I enjoyed the natural resonances of my room in the higher octaves and he wasn't surprised because he felt the mids and highs were well behaved in my room and so on the third try, he limited room correction to below 250Hz.  Here are the before and after measurements:

 

image.thumb.png.e4790d009b42e9b3e3c6b48a476070ba.png

 

The bright red and blue tracings at the top are the "before" measurements of my left and right channels, respectively, and you can see a fairly prominent dip in the bass below 50Hz in the left channel with respect to the right channel.  If you look at the photos of my room, you can clearly understand why.  There is also a moderate peak at 60Hz with the left channel.   With the "after" measurements, you can see how he boosted the left channel below 50Hz and cut the peak at 60Hz to match the right channel.  He used purely linear phase correction.  He left >250Hz alone.  To allow for easy A/B, he also boosted the overall gain to level match what I was getting with no filter applied.  

 

With this 3rd EQ filter, the results that I got were nothing short of AMAZING.  Bass was extended, full, powerful, clear, defined, controlled, and TRANSPARENT!  I once brought in a pair of REL 212SE subwoofers into this room but I could never quite get them to blend seamlessly enough and at no time did adding those subwoofers ever sound this good with these Wilsons.  Because my D'Agostino Momentum HD preamp and Block Audio SE class A monoblocks are capable of generating tremendous amounts of bass by themselves, bass quantity has never really the issue but never have I experienced this level of bass quality with no apparent compromises in my room before.  What is just as satisfying is that while room correction extends only to about 250Hz, it's apparent that my smeared bass was masking midrange detail because my midrange clarity has also very noticeably improved.  Vocals have taken on a new level of clarity and audibility.

 

This is a remarkable level of transparency that I had not experienced before with room correction.  Room correction with PGGB takes place after upsampling but before noise shaping.  Whether the order matters or not in the re-mastering process is not clear and so I will leave it to ZB to discuss the technical aspects of what he has done to the extent that he feels comfortable but clearly, he has accomplished something very right.  There is also the option of time domain correction but with further analysis, he did not feel my room would significantly benefit.  I am now in the process of re-mastering my entire library once again, this time with this room correction filter in place because unlike in the past, regardless of the track I have applied it to, this room correction this far has improved everything.  If I were to gauge the level of impact, in my listening room, I would say it is at least equivalent to every other quality PGGB offers.  

image.jpeg

Fantastic write up. You’re post timing is interesting to me. Just as you posted this I just sent off full range of filters from Mitch & Uli to Zaphod to do his magic. Like you I’ll be converting my library again for the next 4 days. Hopefully all in place by the weekend. Icing on the cake stuff! 
 

I also much prefer your leather seating than their chairs! 👍
 

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

I might just be stating a known fact, but to my ears PGGBd DSD files with 64GB RAM (2048M available taps) sound better than 32GB RAM PGGBd files (limited to 512M taps). My sample tracks were 3-5 minutes long DSD64 originals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello everyone!

 

With great interest I read about the PGGB project - especially after use of Mscaler plus DAVE transformed my listening experience - and am a bit confused about the different given tuning options in PGGB. Logically speaking shouldn't there be only one correct setting? 

 

A little "proof of concept" experiment could be interesting. Something like digitizing an analogue tape and then comparing the tape master with the PGGB file. If the experiment is done carefully there should be only one PGGB-setting, which sounds absolutely identical to the tape. And furthermore, if PGGB is doing what it is expected to do, the same file played through Mscaler + DAVE should sound ever so slightly different to the tape.

 

Rob Watts recently wrote about PGGB: "If it is a windowed sinc function it is no longer true sinc following Whittaker-Shannon". I will not pretend to have any deeper understanding of these things. I just thought, an experiment done by these extraordinary minds and ears of yours could be intriguing. Personally I am not even able, to reliably discern a difference between USB and optical input to Mscaler. 

 

Cheers 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...