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

[ASRMichael]

6 minutes ago, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

In PGGB, if you leave Noise shaping at 'Auto', and set your output to 24bits, depending on your output rate, PGGB will either noise shape or dither. 

Cheers that’s what I’m converted my library to (again) Was just making sure what I done was correct. I don’t really hear that much off a difference from 32bit & 24bit. lots of space saved mind you. 

[kennyb123]

4 hours ago, R1200CL said:

Seems this one doesn’t charge anything for data traffic.

That looks like a good find.  I doubt though that the Microsoft 365 solution will be though, as it runs on Azure so it won’t undercut the Azure pricing.  

[kennyb123]

(duplicate deleted)

[seeteeyou]

IMHO 4GB of RAM should be a non-starter for PGGB, even their $60 plan would provide just under 30GB of RAM.

 

So we're looking for something with plenty of RAM on top of unmetered + uncapped + unthrottled traffic while the price is right, aren't we asking for too much?

[kennyb123]

19 minutes ago, seeteeyou said:

IMHO 4GB of RAM should be a non-starter for PGGB, even their $60 plan would provide just under 30GB of RAM.

It would have to be one of their premium tier offerings.  

 

https://www.dedixlab.com/virtual-servers-premium.html

[Peti]

I am about to give the trial version a go and just installed the program, however, the "Process" tab is greyed out and I can't choose the input and output folders. Should I contact the dreators with my Hardware-ID and email address? Thanks in advance!

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

18 minutes ago, Peti said:

I am about to give the trial version a go and just installed the program, however, the "Process" tab is greyed out and I can't choose the input and output folders. Should I contact the dreators with my Hardware-ID and email address? Thanks in advance!

Yes please 🙂

[MarcelNL]

On 7/23/2021 at 4:37 PM, ASRMichael said:

I’m still interested in what other users think of PGGB EQ? 
 

I tried a few songs yesterday using PGGB files but no EQ. Although still sounds amazing, you lose the extra layers & depth of music. 
 

Please report back your findings also

I just converted a couple of tracks I am very familiar with, using an R2R DAC to play them.

 

Initially I thought the process did some good for SQ, as it seems to add some detail, but then I realized it does something to the layers and depth of the recording, as if the time coherence between various instruments in space is messed with making the total combination sound less organic (which is a quality in sound I favor)

[MarcelNL]

if the recording is the issue you may want to listen to what FeralA can do....For me it does more of the same, mess with phase/space/time bit on some occasions it did pull off a lot of the veils present in some recordings made by obviously deaf producers catering for a non discerning audience,

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

1 hour ago, MarcelNL said:

if the recording is the issue you may want to listen to what FeralA can do....For me it does more of the same, mess with phase/space/time bit on some occasions it did pull off a lot of the veils present in some recordings made by obviously deaf producers catering for a non discerning audience,

Just to be clear, @ASRMichael was comparing PGGB processed tracks without EQ to PGGB processed tracks with PGGB-EQ, the additional depth and layering he refers to is because of the more controlled bass with EQ. @davide256 Has used Metrum DAC with PGGB, perhaps he can provide the settings that worked for him, do share yours too.

 

[davide256]

3 hours ago, MarcelNL said:

if the recording is the issue you may want to listen to what FeralA can do....For me it does more of the same, mess with phase/space/time bit on some occasions it did pull off a lot of the veils present in some recordings made by obviously deaf producers catering for a non discerning audience,

I was doing a “cheat” with Metrum Octave; use PGGB or HQPlayer to upsample to 768 into Denafrips Iris then let the Iris down convert over SPDIF. This allowed 2 benefits, reduced USB caused treble irritants and allowed better (FEMTO) clocking to the Octave.  But my end conclusion was to move to a 768 supporting DAC as there’s a vagueness of resolution with massed strings at 192 that is greatly diminished at 768 rates, no Iris required

[MarcelNL]

I'm using the PF I2S output into the Metrum, which is a pretty good option!

I'm not very fond of the sound of most DAC's the Metrum and other R2R NOS DACs seem to fit my taste best.

 

I will try some more, yesterday I have also PGGB-ed the same files with different settings (processing took forever on this skimpy laptop), I will compare later today (likely tonight once the grid is cleaner and the town is quieter).

 

First test run I made files using the settings below

Transparency(%)	Filter(kHz)	Cores	Conversion (bits and rate)	Noise shaping
maximally Transparent (Natural)	21	1	16b-44k-to-24b-176	yes

[MarcelNL]

second round:

Maximally Transparent (Natural)

21

1

16b-44k-to-24b-352k

yes

 

[MarcelNL]

just did a quick A-B-C, original WAV, 24bit 176 version and 24 bit 352 version

 

the verdict if this jury:

 

same issue with both 352 and 176, leading AND trailing edges sounds and particularly the overtones are less transparent (even a fraction subdued) and appear smeared, leading to a more mechanical/artificial tone of instruments and voices.

 

For example the piano accompanying Bernarda Fink singing Schubert Lieder appears to have a sort of tiny rattle in the overtones and the attack sounds as someone softened the felt on the hammers in the pggb version, her voice is just more open and organic on the original, the piano also sounds more pointy and organic on the original and the overtones flow more freely. (I know this recording well, and I've heard her sing live)

 

The result may sound great on other systems as what I describe lies deep within the nuance of recordings and playback, my system is capable of detail you hardly hear in most gear as I'm pursuing phase coherence quite while now.

 

Same effect is present on other test tracks that I know well, some of them are the usual 'audio geek' tracks that nobody listens to but to evaluate gear...

 

If I had to guess, eer I have to as I must admit that I have no real detailed clue of what happens under the hood, I'd say that the time relation between fragments of the wave forms are lost.

 

A bit as if you broke your mothers cherished china vase while she was away, but you went to extremes gluing it together and scraping off excess glue -no visible difference, pfew... Then she comes home 'sees something out of whack in the flowers arranged in the vase' she picks it up to correct it and instantly KNOWS something is wrong ..probably just because the sound of the china changed.  it's THAT sort of idea I'm trying to convey.

 

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

5 hours ago, MarcelNL said:

just did a quick A-B-C, original WAV, 24bit 176 version and 24 bit 352 version

 

the verdict if this jury:

 

same issue with both 352 and 176, leading AND trailing edges sounds and particularly the overtones are less transparent (even a fraction subdued) and appear smeared, leading to a more mechanical/artificial tone of instruments and voices.

 

For example the piano accompanying Bernarda Fink singing Schubert Lieder appears to have a sort of tiny rattle in the overtones and the attack sounds as someone softened the felt on the hammers in the pggb version, her voice is just more open and organic on the original, the piano also sounds more pointy and organic on the original and the overtones flow more freely. (I know this recording well, and I've heard her sing live)

 

The result may sound great on other systems as what I describe lies deep within the nuance of recordings and playback, my system is capable of detail you hardly hear in most gear as I'm pursuing phase coherence quite while now.

 

Same effect is present on other test tracks that I know well, some of them are the usual 'audio geek' tracks that nobody listens to but to evaluate gear...

 

If I had to guess, eer I have to as I must admit that I have no real detailed clue of what happens under the hood, I'd say that the time relation between fragments of the wave forms are lost.

 

A bit as if you broke your mothers cherished china vase while she was away, but you went to extremes gluing it together and scraping off excess glue -no visible difference, pfew... Then she comes home 'sees something out of whack in the flowers arranged in the vase' she picks it up to correct it and instantly KNOWS something is wrong ..probably just because the sound of the china changed.  it's THAT sort of idea I'm trying to convey.

 

 

Thanks for feedback, the only suggestion I have is to try a lower bit depth (20 bits) also Presentation set to 'Dense'. The former potentially reduces distortions and the later adds more body. 

[davide256]

8 hours ago, MarcelNL said:

just did a quick A-B-C, original WAV, 24bit 176 version and 24 bit 352 version

 

the verdict if this jury:

 

same issue with both 352 and 176, leading AND trailing edges sounds and particularly the overtones are less transparent (even a fraction subdued) and appear smeared, leading to a more mechanical/artificial tone of instruments and voices.

 

For example the piano accompanying Bernarda Fink singing Schubert Lieder appears to have a sort of tiny rattle in the overtones and the attack sounds as someone softened the felt on the hammers in the pggb version, her voice is just more open and organic on the original, the piano also sounds more pointy and organic on the original and the overtones flow more freely. (I know this recording well, and I've heard her sing live)

 

The result may sound great on other systems as what I describe lies deep within the nuance of recordings and playback, my system is capable of detail you hardly hear in most gear as I'm pursuing phase coherence quite while now.

 

Same effect is present on other test tracks that I know well, some of them are the usual 'audio geek' tracks that nobody listens to but to evaluate gear...

 

If I had to guess, eer I have to as I must admit that I have no real detailed clue of what happens under the hood, I'd say that the time relation between fragments of the wave forms are lost.

 

A bit as if you broke your mothers cherished china vase while she was away, but you went to extremes gluing it together and scraping off excess glue -no visible difference, pfew... Then she comes home 'sees something out of whack in the flowers arranged in the vase' she picks it up to correct it and instantly KNOWS something is wrong ..probably just because the sound of the china changed.  it's THAT sort of idea I'm trying to convey.

 

 

Try something more complicated. Moussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition or any other classical war horse with a lot of instruments playing. Playing a piece

that wouldn't challenge CD rates doesn't show whats going on.

[MarcelNL]

I'll try both, lower bit rate and dense, and I'll throw in a busy work. will report back! Also will do some A-B-C with my best mate next week, he has the most acute hearing of anyone I know. 

[davide256]

4 hours ago, MarcelNL said:

I'll try both, lower bit rate and dense, and I'll throw in a busy work. will report back! Also will do some A-B-C with my best mate next week, he has the most acute hearing of anyone I know. 

Do borrow a Chord DAC to try 768/24 if you can. I really wanted 384/24 to work because of disk space savings but that greater sense of "ease" that came with using 768/24

couldn't be denied. It takes a little time to sink in but after about 5 hours of playing I felt that at lower rates the native rate music sounded congested in complex passages, only

sounded correct when the instrumentation was simple.

[seeteeyou]

Could 4FS via I2S output be a bottleneck of some sort?

 

https://6moons.com/audioreviews2/pinkfaun/1.html

Quote

The associated challenges coincided nicely with Pink Faun's R&D to have Mattijs design an I²S interface for a personal computer. This bridge as Mattijs calls it is a plug-in board built around the CMedia CM8888 multi-channel audio processor.

 

https://www.cmedia.com.tw/products/PCI_PCIe_AUDIO/CM8888

Quote

• Six pairs of I2S serial audio output interfaces (12-ch out)
• Integrated 192K/176.4K/96K/88.2K/48K/44.1K, and 16/24/32-bit S/PDIF transmitter with a 2-source selector/mux (from playback DMA digital mixing, S/PDIF input), including WMA-Pro output support

 

So far most happy campers seemed to be enjoying PGGB with their systems that are capable of reaching 8FS / 16FS / 32FS.

[MarcelNL]

Borrowing a Chord Dave is as easy as it may sound...the majority of my audio buddies are heavy into Vinyl, which in fact I am going to venture into next....16" idler TT is on the wish list, mono and stereo arms the works.

 

Why would I2S be the bottleneck? Much of the post hoc processing of data is IMO cosmetic, which can be fine when applied wisely and sparsely and the Metrum does process data in the FPGA. Can it be that what Metrum does has a better synergy with the R2R ladders they use?

 

If SQ improves, I'm game.... so far ? Not really, I like the original and the sound I'm experiencing from it through that PF I2S card does not leave me wanting.

 

I will experiment a bit more with PGGB.

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

4 minutes ago, MarcelNL said:

Metrum does process data in the FPGA.

Can it be set to pure NOS mode where it just passes the data through without processing?

[davide256]

49 minutes ago, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

Can it be set to pure NOS mode where it just passes the data through without processing?

Checked Amethyst manual online , looks like function is integrated  with R2R circuit board. They call it “forward correction technology“... can't find any under the hood

explanation of what this actually is.

[MarcelNL]

56 minutes ago, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

Can it be set to pure NOS mode where it just passes the data through without processing?

nope what you get is what you see, or something similar....

 

What they di they do good!

 

[MarcelNL]

did another quick A-B, original, PGGB @352.... NO match, the vibrancy is gone in the PGGB version, that eery aura around instruments and voices that is made by overtones interfering with each other is KIA.

 

(added a second 8 Pin EPS cable to the MoBo so had to go back to the previous stage)

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

12 minutes ago, MarcelNL said:

did another quick A-B, original, PGGB @352.... NO match, the vibrancy is gone in the PGGB version, that eery aura around instruments and voices that is made by overtones interfering with each other is KIA.

 

(added a second 8 Pin EPS cable to the MoBo so had to go back to the previous stage)

Thanks for entertaining all our requests. PGGB is not for every DAC and everyone's preference. sometimes this can be the result of additional processing done by the DAC. Looks like PGGB  is not a good fit for your DAC. 

 

Have you ever compared CD and DXD recordings of the same track(s) to see if you preferred one over the other?