Jump to content
IGNORED

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


Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, hanshopf said:

Thank you all for your replys. You may be right, even though I tend to doubt the notion, a battery driven source into galvanically isolated USB input of DAVE or noise shaping from 32 to 24 bit inside DAVE should be the reason for the PGGB files to aquire the perceived unnatural brightness. But I will try again, next time a step further, recording a LP and then compare it with the files through the same headphone amp. Let‘s see which of them

sounds more similar to the vinyl. 
 

Hello Hans, a couple of things I have wanted to ask you are why you would want to involve analogue tape and now record LPs? when comparing Mscaler with PGGB?

In your post you mentioned that you are a trained listener also  doing video work with classical music.

Did you upload music where you have direct reference to how the music played and recorded actually sounded to you live in the hall?

If so I would say that is a MUCH BETTER reference point in real HIFI terms than involving tape or LPs in the comparison.

 

Like you I am also a photographer who has worked with  some classical labels as photographer and thanks to Austinpop here I can now compare Mscaler and PGGB with the first movement of Mahler´s 5th as recorded by Jared Sacks in DSD 64 in Budapest a few years ago.

I can play this recording in various ways both via headphones and electrostatic speakers, and my pecking order in my systems, would on a rising scale be : cd via a normal cd player not very good.

No ordinary cd player or direct cd rip even via expensive Steamers like Innous did this recording justice imho.

And the same applied to playing via ROON, which turnedinto  quite a muddy a mess out via an otherwise VERY competent system in one of the best showroooms I know. 

  In my own system,SACD disc via my SACD player better than plain cd, but cd layer of the same SACD disc and Mscaler/Qutest clearly better than SACD disc and much better than plain cd.

Next up DSD dff via my mbp/usb Mscaler  close to cdlayer upscaled with /Mscaler.

And finally Qutest direct via usb and PGGBd even more enjoyable and  the closest to how I actually heard things live in the hall and a couple of times in the control room during a week of sessions.

Not  big differences I guess many would not hear most of  them unless they where actually in the hall, luckily I WAS and all week. And there are some very telling moments in this recording where PGGB seems to pick up very, very low level details in the scoring  a bit better than even Mscaler. Around the 3,5 minutes to 4,25 minutes marks there are some cymbal brushes soooo low in level that they are partly  hidden in noise on many systems I have heard this recording via, and trust me they are many ranging from DAPS and headphones to  huge MEGABUCK systems.

Regarding  the  perceived brightness you mention I have to say that via headphones I prefer the PGGB version via my old battered HD800 headphones over my HEKV2 via both of my headphone amps.My most neutral headphone amp being the Benchmark DAC2 HGC  headphone amp which I bought after hearing it together with HD800 as monitoring tools at some other recording sessions for another label  But I suspect the reason HEKV2 makes it sound a bit overbright is not a fault of PGGB but possibly that PGGB makes a certain presence lift in those headphones more audible than my damped HD800 does.

Via my electrostatic speakers the  PGGB version also sounds a little bit cleaner and more enjoyable and than Mscaled too.

To hear my humble Qutest DAC sound this good  on its own ,without an Mscaler is a nice surprise.

Cheers Chrille   

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

PGGB has changed my whole way of listening to music. I was typically streaming Qobuz, now I buy the music (much but not all of it via Qobuz download) I really want to listen to and then PGGB upsample it and listen via my Dave and Sean Jacobs DC4 based system. I also just bought a SRC-DX but don’t have it yet, not much need for my MScaler anymore! (except for my now much more limited streaming listening).

 

One particular challenging form of music I had a very hard time listening to via digital is classical music (most other types of music are more forgiving to my ear via just "very good but not excellent" digital-sourced playback. I am a musician and have an intimate knowledge of what classical music "really" sounds like and digital wasn't cutting it for me - that is until I got my Sean Jacobs DC4 for Dave (and some cable and other upgrades) and then processed good recordings with PGGB. The combination has been transformative for me in a very good way and I'm now listening to a lot of classical music again.

 

Thanks again to Zaphod and to all the other folks like Nenon, Romaz, RayDude, Austinpop and others who were part of bringing this to reality and to generally further extending the limits of what good audio reproduction can be! 

Like you obviously I also used to have problems with classical and digital and classical muisc both Western and Eastern is the music I truly love but Mscaler improved things quite considerably for me even to the point of enjoying many  cds, which I could not do before Mscaler.

So far I have only one cd rip/ PGGBd but it takes cd one noticable notch higher than even Mscaler in my humble Qutest /Mscaler based digital systems.

But I have only compared Mscaler/PGGB via usb so far and would like to hear from another classical music listener if the SRC-DX  might be the way to go?

I am a bit puzzled how going from 32 bits to 24 bits can improve things, but I keep an open mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/21/2021 at 4:14 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

Hilarious 🤣  " and the pictures next to the coffins are not our parents or grandparents either " 😁

Hello again ZB,

I have some questions about the PGGGB IO you have started. First of all why only 11 minutes per track?

And how much would those 11 minutes actually cost to process?

Please do the actual calculation for me.

 

As a classical music listener I have big problems finding classical music tracks THAT SHORT!

 

I  normally listen to whole works,not short snippets.

Snippets and intros only, are  "me" at the piano.

With real competent musicians at the helm, I want the full Monty!

 

Most symphonies consist of at least four movements each lasting at least 12-15 minutes, and even if one movement is shorter like in Sibelius´2nd where the 3rd movement is relatively short the last movement is supposed to be played attacca ie without any break.

But the M5 Austinpop kindly helped me with the first movement lasting 12.48 minutes was split in two with the last 27 seconds ending up as a separate PGGB  file which I can only play via one of my  music players without a very annoying glitch.

To be able to play whole symphonies without such annoying problems it seems I will need to upgrade ram in my mbp to its max capacity 16GB at least!

But what happens if 16GB ram is not even enough with really long symphonic works played from ram?

 

Happy Bob and other classical music listeners please also chime in.

Cheers Chrille

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/20/2021 at 11:37 PM, 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 thus far has improved everything I've tried it on.  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.  

 

Hello Romaz, just a quick question after all these discussion around digital  room correction . Why did you sell your elctrostatics and go for speakers with 4? problematic crossover points over just one crossover point?

The only real  problem I heard with the 15s you had was the built-in class D bass-

amp and the crossover point there.

With classical music I prefer electrostatic panels line-source over most conventional speakers I have heard even the most expensive.

Ok if someone would give me a pair of Gryphon Pendragons or similar giants for free, I would not say no, but I might prefer ML XL Art elctrotats with a good subwoofer for the deep underworld Bach organpoints or Zarathustra 33khs bass  even over those?

Cheers Chrille

 

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

Hello again ZB,

I have some questions about the PGGGB IO you have started. First of all why only 11 minutes per track?

Our bad, the wording will be corrected!11 minutes is not a limit, we love our classical music fans.

4 hours ago, chrille said:

And how much would those 11 minutes actually cost to process?

The answer is is certainly not 42 :)  The truth is, we don't know that yet! We will know when Amazon sends us a bill. The cost is compute plus transfer plus persistent storage plus Paypal fees. We are learning, and figuring out as we go. Running a instance in the cloud capable of running PGGB with its RAM requirements and storage and high bandwidth required to upload and download gigabyte of data can quickly add up. The main purpose of PGGB.IO is to allow those who do not have a capable PC to audition PGGB  with their own tracks without having to depend on others. Our hope is ultimately we may be able to figure out the right model where this will truly become a white-glove service capable of remastering your whole library at reasonable cost and become a true alternative to PGGB desktop.

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
4 hours ago, chrille said:

Most symphonies consist of at least four movements each lasting at least 12-15 minutes, and even if one movement is shorter like in Sibelius´2nd where the 3rd movement is relatively short the last movement is supposed to be played attacca ie without any break.

But the M5 Austinpop kindly helped me with the first movement lasting 12.48 minutes was split in two with the last 27 seconds ending up as a separate PGGB  file which I can only play via one of my  music players without a very annoying glitch.

To be able to play whole symphonies without such annoying problems it seems I will need to upgrade ram in my mbp to its max capacity 16GB at least!

But what happens if 16GB ram is not even enough with really long symphonic works played from ram?

 

Happy Bob and other classical music listeners please also chime in.

As a rule of thumb, every 11 minutes  25 seconds of your track at 16FS 32 bits will occupy 4GB, so you can fit 35 minute track in your RAM and still have 4G of RAM left. I don't think the issue is your RAM, the player needs to handle gapless playback at the relatively modest 12.48 minute track length.

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
21 minutes ago, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

As a rule of thumb, every 11 minutes  25 seconds of your track at 16FS 32 bits will occupy 4GB, so you can fit 35 minute track in your RAM and still have 4G of RAM left. I don't think the issue is your RAM, the player needs to handle gapless playback at the relatively modest 12.48 minute track length.


and sometimes players can handle gapless playback but it requires to be enabled in the settings. For instance I use MPD and it was giving a two second or so gap between the parts and then I realised I had simply not enabled gapless playback in the settings menu.

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
26 minutes ago, hanshopf said:

Hello everyone!

 

So today I did the proof-of-concept experiment I recently suggested for PGGB - and the result was not at all what I expected!

 

Let me report directly and present the technical details afterwards: 

 

I recorded a track from Vinyl to digital in 16/44.1 and then had the file transferred to 24bit PGGB. The file was then played through Mscaler plus DAVE (hereby bypassing Mscalers upsampling stage) and compared to the 16bit file, upsampled by Mscaler. 

 

DAVE was connected to Phonitor2, as was the phono amp. Both files this way could be compared directly to the master, which obviously was the LP. 

 

After my initial scepticism towards PGGB, I was surprised to find, that the PGGB file sounded more similar to the LP than the file, which had been upsampled by Mscaler. To be more precise: the space and air around the instruments, which on the PGGB file was much better defined than through "Mscaling", was really there on the LP and not artificially added by PGGB. But what I also found was, that timbre seemed to be slightly more similar to the LP on Mscaler. I perceive a slight added brightness on PGGB, not present on the LP and through Mscaler. I have got no idea, where this could possibly come from. There may be several reasons for this. Is it possible, that the computer, on which the upsampling is done, can be of any influence in this case? 

 

Anyway, against my recent bias, I must conclude, that PGGB ist doing what it is supposed to do - concept proven, at least to my ears! To bullet proof my findings I recorded the track from vinyl as well in 24/192 and compared this file upsampled through Mscaler with the 16/44.1 file upsampled by PGGB. The absolutely stunning finding was: PGGB from 16bit source sounded still more similar to the LP master than the 24/192 file upsampled through Mscaler.

 

The only suggestion for further improvement I can see is in timbre. Mscaler seems to be more genuine to the source in this aspect. Maybe others could make similar experiments in order to either confirm or refute these findings. 

 

In the end the LP still sounded better than its digital copies. But this I think has mainly to do with the non-professional A/D converter I used. Or at least I hope this is the reason, because otherwise this would mean that digital is still not able to make lossless copies from analogue... .

 

 

Technicals:

 

The LP was played on a Technics 1200GR with SME IV arm plus Oyaide BR-12 platter mat and Audio Technica AT750SH cartridge. The signal was sent via XLR to Pro ject Phono Box RS. From here it was sent via XLR to Apogee Duet 2 A/D converter and recorded in CD-format for obvious reasons (and for those to whom it is not obvious: think about it :)).

 

The file was then upsampled to 24/705 in the PGGB cloud and played through Audirvana on a battery driven Macbook Air 2018. The 16/44.1 file was as well played with Audirvana. Both files were sent via USB to a battery driven Mscaler, the PGGB file hereby bypassing Mscalers upsampling stage. 

 

Mscaler was obviously connected to DAVE. I used the latters XLR outs to connect to Phonitor 2, because this amp has got two XLR inputs, so that the Phono Stage could be connected with the same cable to the Amp as DAVE. 

 

I listened through Focal Utopia headphones. 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks very much for your report, reports such as these provide a lot of context and help us understand what you are hearing. 

 

I assume this latest test was also via PGGB.IO? (thanks for trying it)

 

The difference you are hearing in timbre is not because of where the file was processed, but it could be because of other reasons and it is a matter of tuning PGGB to suit your preference or in this case get closer to how LP sounds. PGGB.IO is designed to be simple, so it just uses the default settings. 

 

If you are able to download and try PGGB, there are a few settings I can suggest you to try. If that is not feasible,   you can email me the track (share a link via Dropbox or wetransfer) and I will be happy to provide you the same file with 4 different settings to see what you think.

 

Edit: Only other thing I can suggest is (as a way to fully bypass Mscaler), try SRC-DX if you are able to do so.  

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, hanshopf said:

Hello everyone!

 

So today I did the proof-of-concept experiment I recently suggested for PGGB - and the result was not at all what I expected!

 

Let me report directly and present the technical details afterwards: 

 

I recorded a track from Vinyl to digital in 16/44.1 and then had the file transferred to 24bit PGGB. The file was then played through Mscaler plus DAVE (hereby bypassing Mscalers upsampling stage) and compared to the 16bit file, upsampled by Mscaler. 

 

DAVE was connected to Phonitor2, as was the phono amp. Both files this way could be compared directly to the master, which obviously was the LP. 

 

After my initial scepticism towards PGGB, I was surprised to find, that the PGGB file sounded more similar to the LP than the file, which had been upsampled by Mscaler. To be more precise: the space and air around the instruments, which on the PGGB file was much better defined than through "Mscaling", was really there on the LP and not artificially added by PGGB. But what I also found was, that timbre seemed to be slightly more similar to the LP on Mscaler. I perceive a slight added brightness on PGGB, not present on the LP and through Mscaler. I have got no idea, where this could possibly come from. There may be several reasons for this. Is it possible, that the computer, on which the upsampling is done, can be of any influence in this case? 

 

Anyway, against my recent bias, I must conclude, that PGGB ist doing what it is supposed to do - concept proven, at least to my ears! To bullet proof my findings I recorded the track from vinyl as well in 24/192 and compared this file upsampled through Mscaler with the 16/44.1 file upsampled by PGGB. The absolutely stunning finding was: PGGB from 16bit source sounded still more similar to the LP master than the 24/192 file upsampled through Mscaler.

 

The only suggestion for further improvement I can see is in timbre. Mscaler seems to be more genuine to the source in this aspect. Maybe others could make similar experiments in order to either confirm or refute these findings. 

 

In the end the LP still sounded better than its digital copies. But this I think has mainly to do with the non-professional A/D converter I used. Or at least I hope this is the reason, because otherwise this would mean that digital is still not able to make lossless copies from analogue... .

 

 

Technicals:

 

The LP was played on a Technics 1200GR with SME IV arm plus Oyaide BR-12 platter mat and Audio Technica AT750SH cartridge. The signal was sent via XLR to Pro ject Phono Box RS. From here it was sent via XLR to Apogee Duet 2 A/D converter and recorded in CD-format for obvious reasons (and for those to whom it is not obvious: think about it :)).

 

The file was then upsampled to 24/705 in the PGGB cloud and played through Audirvana on a battery driven Macbook Air 2018. The 16/44.1 file was as well played with Audirvana. Both files were sent via USB to a battery driven Mscaler, the PGGB file hereby bypassing Mscalers upsampling stage. 

 

Mscaler was obviously connected to DAVE. I used the latters XLR outs to connect to Phonitor 2, because this amp has got two XLR inputs, so that the Phono Stage could be connected with the same cable to the Amp as DAVE. 

 

I listened through Focal Utopia headphones. 

 

 

 

 

 

 
It is interesting to read of your further experiments. The biggest flaw I can see in your method is that you were playing files through the MScaler on the so called pass through setting. Unfortunately the MScaler is still processing the signal on pass through, to a greater or lesser extent, and this will be altering the sound of the pggb file. Although it is not upscaling it is still reprocessing the signal and possibly it is also noise shaping. In other words it is not a bypass feature. Anyway, whatever the reason I have done many listening tests and MScaler on pass through does not sound the same as not having the MScaler in the system. So your comparison of MScaler upscaling and pggb upscaling will have degraded the pggb playback to some extent. Having played many pggb files through the MScaler on pass through I think it is a significant degrading of the pggb sound to play it through the MScaler on pass through. 

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
2 minutes ago, Fourlegs said:

 
It is interesting to read of your further experiments. The biggest flaw I can see in your method is that you were playing files through the MScaler on the so called pass through setting. Unfortunately the MScaler is still processing the signal on pass through, to a greater or lesser extent, and this will be altering the sound of the pggb file. Although it is not upscaling it is still reprocessing the signal and possibly it is also noise shaping. In other words it is not a bypass feature. Anyway, whatever the reason I have done many listening tests and MScaler on pass through does not sound the same as not having the MScaler in the system. So your comparison of MScaler upscaling and pggb upscaling will have degraded the pggb playback to some extent. Having played many pggb files through the MScaler on pass through I think it is a significant degrading of the pggb sound to play it through the MScaler on pass through. 

I agree about the change in sound when played via Mscaler. But it should not be noise shaping a 24bit 16FS signal, I am not very sure of this though. Is there a change in level when played via Mscaler in pass through mode? if yes that is indicator of noise shaping and will explain slight hardening of sound.

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
Quote
17 minutes ago, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

I assume this latest test was also via PGGB.IO? (thanks for trying it)

 

 

Yes, indeed, because I currently have not enough computing power at hand to do it myself.

 

 

17 minutes ago, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

If you are able to download and try PGGB, there are a few settings I can suggest you to try. If that is not feasible,   you can email me the track (share a link via Dropbox or wetransfer) and I will be happy to provide you the same file with 4 different settings to see what you think.

 

Very much appreciated. I will send you the file tomorrow!

 

 

17 minutes ago, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

Edit: Only other thing I can suggest is (as a way to fully bypass Mscaler), try SRC-DX if you are able to do so.  

 

Ok, maybe. This is unfortunately a rather expensive device for a relatively simple function. 

 

 

15 minutes ago, Fourlegs said:

The biggest flaw I can see in your method is that you were playing files through the MScaler on the so called pass through setting.

 

When I recently played them via USB directly into DAVE I was critizised for hereby not doing an apple to apple comparison. So I had to pass them trough Mscaler.

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

I agree about the change in sound when played via Mscaler. But it should not be noise shaping a 24bit 16FS signal, I am not very sure of this though. Is there a change in level when played via Mscaler in pass through mode? if yes that is indicator of noise shaping and will explain slight hardening of sound.

Yes the output level on pass through is dropped by the same amount as when it is MScaling. 

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
6 minutes ago, hanshopf said:

When I recently played them via USB directly into DAVE I was critizised for hereby not doing an apple to apple comparison. So I had to pass them trough Mscaler.

I understand why you did it but unfortunately it is still not an apple to apple comparison and is interfering with your assessment of pggb. 

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
6 minutes ago, Fourlegs said:

Yes the output level on pass through is dropped by the same amount as when it is MScaling. 

Oh... then it is being noise shaped again, and explains what  @hanshopf observed.

 

@hanshopf Once you provide me the sample, I will create a version without any noise shaping at 32 bits. This will likely improve timbre,  but hard to predict if it will match.

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
39 minutes ago, hanshopf said:

Ok, maybe. This is unfortunately a rather expensive device for a relatively simple function. 

 

It's a relatively simple function but the degree of SQ improvement, to my ears, is worth the asking price of the SRC-DX.  If you don't like what you hear, you can always return the product but this product fixes what I consider to be a fundamental flaw of the DAVE.

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

Hello Romaz, just a quick question after all these discussion around digital  room correction . Why did you sell your elctrostatics and go for speakers with 4? problematic crossover points over just one crossover point?

The only real  problem I heard with the 15s you had was the built-in class D bass-

amp and the crossover point there.

With classical music I prefer electrostatic panels line-source over most conventional speakers I have heard even the most expensive.

Ok if someone would give me a pair of Gryphon Pendragons or similar giants for free, I would not say no, but I might prefer ML XL Art elctrotats with a good subwoofer for the deep underworld Bach organpoints or Zarathustra 33khs bass  even over those?

Cheers Chrille

 

 

Line array speakers definitely have their appeal but I struggle with the soft transients and what I consider to be the exaggerated imaging of large panel line array speakers like the large Martin Logan electrostatic speakers I used to own.  Same thing with my brother's large Magnepans or the big Alysox panels I heard in Munich.  Just not my taste overall.   I think I would enjoy small panel electrostats like Quads better but they lack the dynamics of my Wilsons.  

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

Like you obviously I also used to have problems with classical and digital and classical muisc both Western and Eastern is the music I truly love but Mscaler improved things quite considerably for me even to the point of enjoying many  cds, which I could not do before Mscaler.

So far I have only one cd rip/ PGGBd but it takes cd one noticable notch higher than even Mscaler in my humble Qutest /Mscaler based digital systems.

But I have only compared Mscaler/PGGB via usb so far and would like to hear from another classical music listener if the SRC-DX  might be the way to go?

I am a bit puzzled how going from 32 bits to 24 bits can improve things, but I keep an open mind.

As to 24 bits vs 32 bits, basically per the folks who've done a lot of testing about this with the Chord Dave DAC: Dave's USB implementation is fundamentally flawed by its chipset (too much latency, etc.) and so it's best NOT to connect directly to Dave via USB because of this, hence using SPDIF inputs. BTW, not all DACs have this problem and so they can get 32 bit data directly via USB in many cases and that's best, depends on the DAC. That said, what's risen to the top so far for SPDIF source is the SRC-DX, but this SRC-DX does not accept 32 bit source data. So then the issue becomes: is the SRC-DX (even with it's constraint requiring a downgrade from 32 bits to 24 bits) more of an improvement than the benefit of using 32 bit data via Dave's USB input? The consensus so far seems to be with using the SRC-DX for better sound. 

Now this is interesting because the Chord MScaler does bypass the problem somewhat by sending the data to Dave via SPDIF, but then the issues of internal noise shaping of the MScaler (apparently not able to be bypassed even if the MScaler is sent 7xxK content) becomes relevant. If not for that, we could use 32 bit data and then send it through the MScaler, but per Zaphod, this is not optimal since the MScaler does it's own thing in the noise shaping realm and it's less damaging to send even the MScaler 24bit data (even though the MScaler can accept 32 bit data). 

 

I've got an SRC-DX coming soon so will have more to day about this from direct experience....

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

Hello Romaz, just a quick question after all these discussion around digital  room correction . Why did you sell your elctrostatics and go for speakers with 4? problematic crossover points over just one crossover point?

The only real  problem I heard with the 15s you had was the built-in class D bass-

amp and the crossover point there.

With classical music I prefer electrostatic panels line-source over most conventional speakers I have heard even the most expensive.

Ok if someone would give me a pair of Gryphon Pendragons or similar giants for free, I would not say no, but I might prefer ML XL Art elctrotats with a good subwoofer for the deep underworld Bach organpoints or Zarathustra 33khs bass  even over those?

Cheers Chrille

 

I can't speak for Romaz, but in my experience (and over the years I've owned and/or heard many of the very top implementations), I've never yet heard a set of panel speakers (electrostatics, ribbons, etc.) that could match the micro or macro dynamics of a really good horn or traditional woofer/tweeter/etc. set of speakers - even if the panels had subwoofers added. Yes, the panels can cast an amazing image, but there's always been an element missing for me. I'm not saying I don't like the sound of the really great panel speakers, just that I always seem to gravitate to the really good woofer/tweeter speakers even given their crossover limitations. Maybe the only exception I've found to this is with the MBL Extreme speakers that or sort of a hybrid but pretty amazing when done right in the right room...

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

When I recently played them via USB directly into DAVE I was critizised for hereby not doing an apple to apple comparison. So I had to pass them trough Mscaler.

I approached it more as PGGB direct via USB vs M-Scaler via BNCs.  Not apples to apples but an assessment of which path I would ultimately take.  The evaluation didn’t take long for me with PGGB being the clear winner.  I did try to see if I could continue to hang onto the HMS for streaming but even with it set to pass through I thought it robbed some magic from PGGB.

 

I haven’t purchased a SRC-DX doohickey (yet).  I think it’s a testament to how happy I am with PGGB that I feel no need to change anything.

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

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...