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

[Kalpesh]

Actually, I think the Holo May should be SDM fed in the vast majority of cases

 

+ I have to admit I got rapidly bored to trial with a 8Gb machine : it takes forever to go 1.4 from 44 with eQ

 

However I have tested with quite a success the theory that PGGB could be a nice pre-stage from 44 to 352 64 bits f, no apodizing, before feeding HQP that does the eQ and the last mile up to 1.4M

 

But it seems to be only worth it with circa 1985 +-3 years CDs, thus presumably pre sigma delta.

 

I have found that PGGB pre stage to work ie with Marsialis's Black code of the underground, Shirley Horne's You won't forget me, Willie Deville's Miracle, and the bunch of digital recordings Arrau Richter and Serkin made in those times

 

Has anybody else found similar results, suggestions of CDs to try?

 

[austinpop]

2 hours ago, Kalpesh said:

However I have tested with quite a success the theory that PGGB could be a nice pre-stage from 44 to 352 64 bits f, no apodizing, before feeding HQP that does the eQ and the last mile up to 1.4M

 

May I ask: what DAC are these findings on? My experience is nothing like yours, but then we may be on totally different DACs. I'm on a Chord DAVE.

[Kalpesh]

47 minutes ago, austinpop said:

 

May I ask: what DAC are these findings on? My experience is nothing like yours, but then we may be on totally different DACs. I'm on a Chord DAVE.

Holo May

[davide256]

So puzzling over two things now that I have an SRC DX feeding a Chord Mojo at 3xx/24

 

1) similar to the Denafrips Iris, a PGGB up-sampled file at 7xx sounds better than a 3xx/24 PGGB file even though both are feed to the Mojo at 3xx/24. Don't know

   how to explain this?

   The 3xx file does sound better than without the SRC-DX, but 7xx/24 down sampled is still better

 

2) using the SRC-DX with Mojo improves timbre for native rate files so much so that it can be a trade off listening to  some up-sampled less than perfect recordings,

helps bring the mid-range closer  to what an Ares II provided. Again puzzled, thought the WTA filter for Chord affected all rates below 7xx regardless of input?

 

 

[mcewan71]

I did a trial of PGGB last Spring but didn’t follow through with a licence purchase. I can’t completely remember my reasons for this, but recently I rediscovered the remastered files and really enjoyed them. I recalled that some trial and error, mainly with the ‘onboarding process’, did determine whether or not it gave me what I was hoping for. So I basically just didn’t have enough time in the trial, and now am contemplating buying a license. I have a couple of thoughts, and wondered if anyone would help me out a bit with this. I am going to sound a bit daft here so please bear with me: 

 

1. So I get how this works in theory with the taps etc. I am just wondering how this actually happens - it’s kind of ‘breaking apart’ the PCM file then restructuring it from the pieces, right? I guess I have the experience of understanding that with digital audio files, you cannot put in what was not there in the first place (e.g. creating a lossless file from a lossy one would be a simple example). So - without reference to the information on the website (I know where to find it, and I think I understand the technical basics), could someone please humour me and translate this into layman’s terms? I guess I need to completely get my head round how I can feed in a PCM file of whatever bit depth and sample rate - and get a much better sounding file the other end. 
 

2. It’s probably fair to say I am definitely along the budget end of the scale when it comes to the DACs I have. Of course, this will change over time and circumstances, but my budget DACs max out at 24/96 just now. As much as I would love to buy a Dave or even a modest step up from what I have now, it’s not within my reach currently. For my listening rooms, I use iFi Zen DACs and for headphone listening I use Audioquest Dragonflies, both red and cobalt (told you they were budget!). Point is, I enjoyed what I heard with the PGGB files using these means. As I said, I will invest in higher spec equipment over time. I just read of what seems like insane sample rates folks’ DACs handle in here, and find myself wondering if it would be pointless getting a license given my current limitations? 
 

Thanks for any thoughts on these points! 

[Kalpesh]

9 hours ago, mcewan71 said:

I did a trial of PGGB last Spring but didn’t follow through with a licence purchase. I can’t completely remember my reasons for this, but recently I rediscovered the remastered files and really enjoyed them. I recalled that some trial and error, mainly with the ‘onboarding process’, did determine whether or not it gave me what I was hoping for. So I basically just didn’t have enough time in the trial, and now am contemplating buying a license. I have a couple of thoughts, and wondered if anyone would help me out a bit with this. I am going to sound a bit daft here so please bear with me: 

 

1. So I get how this works in theory with the taps etc. I am just wondering how this actually happens - it’s kind of ‘breaking apart’ the PCM file then restructuring it from the pieces, right? I guess I have the experience of understanding that with digital audio files, you cannot put in what was not there in the first place (e.g. creating a lossless file from a lossy one would be a simple example). So - without reference to the information on the website (I know where to find it, and I think I understand the technical basics), could someone please humour me and translate this into layman’s terms? I guess I need to completely get my head round how I can feed in a PCM file of whatever bit depth and sample rate - and get a much better sounding file the other end. 
 

2. It’s probably fair to say I am definitely along the budget end of the scale when it comes to the DACs I have. Of course, this will change over time and circumstances, but my budget DACs max out at 24/96 just now. As much as I would love to buy a Dave or even a modest step up from what I have now, it’s not within my reach currently. For my listening rooms, I use iFi Zen DACs and for headphone listening I use Audioquest Dragonflies, both red and cobalt (told you they were budget!). Point is, I enjoyed what I heard with the PGGB files using these means. As I said, I will invest in higher spec equipment over time. I just read of what seems like insane sample rates folks’ DACs handle in here, and find myself wondering if it would be pointless getting a license given my current limitations? 
 

Thanks for any thoughts on these points! 

 

 

I'm now biased by @Miska 's claims that PGGB is messing with transients, and nobody has endorsed my idea of remastering old digital recordings to 352.8 via PGGB... We're supposed to prepare the files to the max of the DAC's capabilities and with my 8 Gb of RAM computer I have not processed many files and they had to be short. Yet, I'm under the impression that eQing in PGGB brings an extra bass push that might be very seductive and overcome any shortcomings of PGGB. But the paradox of PGGB to my ears is that while it seems to extract more details, the sense of space and of group of instruments in orchestras is lost

 

Yet, I have found a handful of early digital recordings that sound best first PGGBed 352.8 then sent to my Holo 1.4 M PCM thanks to HQP (Fagen's Nightfly, Cooder's Bop till you drop, Glenn Gould's 1983 Brahms (much better PGGBed than the 24/44 remaster), Harnoncourt's Mozart Idomeneo....). Maybe that's a trick of my brain and there's no rational... It might pertain to the way I get tuned to a track, this detail here, that extra bass energy there, sometimes even the impression of a voice "an octave" (figure of speech) lower buys me in. But the vast majority are very very early, as soon as 1979, digital recordiangs

 

Any suggestion of album to PGGB with great success is welcome. But to me my Holo works much better SDM fed in the vast majority of instances : so suggestions IMO should be rather old digital, pre SDM, justifying the PCM route in Holo + low transients in the sense of @Miska : limited bandwidth, no attack that trails in the very high frequencies...

 

I think anyone who can afford Chord Dave + Terabytes of storage of PGGBed files+ 128 GB RAM ultra powerful PGGB processing PCs and would not consider a DAC implementing, at least as a route, Sigma Delta Modulation as in the vast majority of ADCs since the 90's, should support @Zaphod Beeblebrox accomplishment and support by acquiring a license.

 

You.... ? I'd rather save for another DAC + HQP

[austinpop]

21 hours ago, mcewan71 said:

1. So I get how this works in theory with the taps etc. I am just wondering how this actually happens - it’s kind of ‘breaking apart’ the PCM file then restructuring it from the pieces, right? I guess I have the experience of understanding that with digital audio files, you cannot put in what was not there in the first place (e.g. creating a lossless file from a lossy one would be a simple example). So - without reference to the information on the website (I know where to find it, and I think I understand the technical basics), could someone please humour me and translate this into layman’s terms? I guess I need to completely get my head round how I can feed in a PCM file of whatever bit depth and sample rate - and get a much better sounding file the other end. 

 

Wow, that's a tough question to answer. On the scale of "what is the answer to life, the universe, and everything?" 🙂 Short answer: 42. Longer answer: you really should look at @Zaphod Beeblebrox's FAQ at https://www.remastero.com/faq.html It's an easy read, not very long, and meant for laypeople, as you asked. At a minimum, please look at the section titled: What are 'Taps' and how many are too many?

 

21 hours ago, mcewan71 said:

2. It’s probably fair to say I am definitely along the budget end of the scale when it comes to the DACs I have. Of course, this will change over time and circumstances, but my budget DACs max out at 24/96 just now. As much as I would love to buy a Dave or even a modest step up from what I have now, it’s not within my reach currently. For my listening rooms, I use iFi Zen DACs and for headphone listening I use Audioquest Dragonflies, both red and cobalt (told you they were budget!). Point is, I enjoyed what I heard with the PGGB files using these means. As I said, I will invest in higher spec equipment over time. I just read of what seems like insane sample rates folks’ DACs handle in here, and find myself wondering if it would be pointless getting a license given my current limitations? 

 

I would suspect the benefit of upsampling from 44.1/48 kHz to 88.2/96 kHz (a factor of 2) to match your DAC would be modest. However, there's no substitute for experimentation, and that's what the free trial is for. If you like the uplift in SQ with your current DAC, and you have a plan to upgrade DACs over time, then a license could make sense for you. You should listen and decide for yourself.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

12 hours ago, Kalpesh said:

 

 

I'm now biased by @Miska 's claims that PGGB is messing with transients, and nobody has endorsed my idea of remastering old digital recordings to 352.8 via PGGB... We're supposed to prepare the files to the max of the DAC's capabilities and with my 8 Gb of RAM computer I have not processed many files and they had to be short. Yet, I'm under the impression that eQing in PGGB brings an extra bass push that might be very seductive and overcome any shortcomings of PGGB. But the paradox of PGGB to my ears is that while it seems to extract more details, the sense of space and of group of instruments in orchestras is lost

 

Yet, I have found a handful of early digital recordings that sound best first PGGBed 352.8 then sent to my Holo 1.4 M PCM thanks to HQP (Fagen's Nightfly, Cooder's Bop till you drop, Glenn Gould's 1983 Brahms (much better PGGBed than the 24/44 remaster), Harnoncourt's Mozart Idomeneo....). Maybe that's a trick of my brain and there's no rational... It might pertain to the way I get tuned to a track, this detail here, that extra bass energy there, sometimes even the impression of a voice "an octave" (figure of speech) lower buys me in. But the vast majority are very very early, as soon as 1979, digital recordiangs

 

Any suggestion of album to PGGB with great success is welcome. But to me my Holo works much better SDM fed in the vast majority of instances : so suggestions IMO should be rather old digital, pre SDM, justifying the PCM route in Holo + low transients in the sense of @Miska : limited bandwidth, no attack that trails in the very high frequencies...

 

I think anyone who can afford Chord Dave + Terabytes of storage of PGGBed files+ 128 GB RAM ultra powerful PGGB processing PCs and would not consider a DAC implementing, at least as a route, Sigma Delta Modulation as in the vast majority of ADCs since the 90's, should support @Zaphod Beeblebrox accomplishment and support by acquiring a license.

 

You.... ? I'd rather save for another DAC + HQP

 

HQP and PGGB approaches upsampling quite differently, PGGB does PCM using very long linear windowed Sinc filters. The question of truncated transients have come up before with very long filters, the answer is quite simple, if one is worried about transients being truncated and possible negative effect of the same, it is very easy to set shorter taps line 1M, 2M etc in PGGB. Listen with lower number of taps, then increase the number of taps and judge for yourself. Almost everyone using PGGB goes for the longest taps the track could accommodate. PGGB is being use not just with Chord DACs, but also with sigma delta (iFi, Gustard Pro, Vinnie Rossi L2) and R2R DACs. However, the rest of the chain and the source material will also make a difference. The search for the best musical experience is a journey and I don't think there is one right answer.

 

[musicjunkie917]

HQPlayer is just so much more flexible with more and better filters and manages DSD as well. Plus, I don’t have to worry about owning stock in a storage company….

[CNoblet]

14 hours ago, Kalpesh said:

I think anyone who can afford Chord Dave + Terabytes of storage of PGGBed files+ 128 GB RAM ultra powerful PGGB processing PCs and would not consider a DAC implementing, at least as a route, Sigma Delta Modulation as in the vast majority of ADCs since the 90's, should support @Zaphod Beeblebrox accomplishment and support by acquiring a license.

 

You.... ? I'd rather save for another DAC + HQP

 

I processed my files to PGGB with a quad-core i7 using 16 GB of RAM with no hiccups whatsoever.  

 

The sound in my main system via a Chord Mojo (by a good distance the least expensive/cheapest digital music device I've used in that system) is simply wonderful, to the point where my only upgrade to consider would be a Mojo2 with selectable WTA2 filters.  

 

HQ Player via Roon/Qobuz is fine for streaming upsampled to 7XX rates.

 

SDM upgrades: been there, done that.  I prefer to direct my limited play money to music, musical instruments and adequate backup storage for my delightful and insightful PGGB files,. 

[kennyb123]

15 hours ago, Kalpesh said:

I'm now biased by @Miska 's claims that PGGB is messing with transients

Not good to allow oneself to be biased by other’s claims - especially if the claims are theoretical in nature.

 

15 hours ago, Kalpesh said:

and nobody has endorsed my idea of remastering old digital recordings to 352.8 via PGGB...

Why do you need an endorsement?  Can’t you just use your own ears to decide whether this is right for you?

 

15 hours ago, Kalpesh said:

We're supposed to prepare the files to the max of the DAC's capabilities and with my 8 Gb of RAM computer I have not processed many files and they had to be short.

This is available for folks in your situation:  https://pggb.io.  I have on several occasions shared processed files to folks who were interested in hearing PGGB for themselves.  But what each of them had in common was a demonstrated enthusiasm to give it a fair shot.  Your tone throughout your post is quite the opposite.  You seem to trying to find ways to find fault in PGGB.

 

15 hours ago, Kalpesh said:

Yet, I'm under the impression that eQing in PGGB brings an extra bass push that might be very seductive and overcome any shortcomings of PGGB. 

EQing aims to address the shortcomings of your room.  It operates based on actual measurements one takes of their room.  I don’t know how you arrived at your impression but it is very uninformed.

 

15 hours ago, Kalpesh said:

But the paradox of PGGB to my ears is that while it seems to extract more details, the sense of space and of group of instruments in orchestras is lost

It seems as if the only comments that that stuck in your mind about PGGB were the few outliers that weren’t positive.  If you were to balance these remarks against the many positive remarks and your own observations you would be better able to identify why a few didn’t favor it.  It is true that PGGB delights for a small subset of all the available DACs out there.  On that subset, it brings only positive benefits.  Common sense would dictate that one figures out if their DAC is in that subset and if it’s not just move on.  Painting with a broad brush doesn’t make sense given the realities of what makes PGGB special.

[kennyb123]

25 minutes ago, musicjunkie917 said:

HQPlayer is just so much more flexible with more and better filters and manages DSD as well. Plus, I don’t have to worry about owning stock in a storage company….

I use both.  HQPlayer is an awesome real time solution.  But for the music I love, paying for extra disc space to store processed files was one of my best moves.  I’m not sure which filters you consider to be “better” in HQPlayer, but I’ve yet find one that comes close to PGGB.
 

Ironically at this moment my computer is slowly copying PGGB files to a micro sd card.  I’ve filled one and plan to purchase a few more later today.  A headphone and headphone cable upgrade has brought new life to my PolyMojo and these files sound amazing.  

 

I find it interesting that you didn’t frame your argument in terms of how much HQPlayer improves the sound of your music.  

[edwardsean]

Taking 

7 minutes ago, kennyb123 said:

I use both.  HQPlayer is an awesome real time solution.  But for the music I love, paying for extra disc space to store processed files was one of my best moves.  I’m not sure which filters you consider to be “better” in HQPlayer, but I’ve yet find one that comes close to PGGB.
 

Ironically at this moment my computer is slowly copying PGGB files to a micro sd card.  I’ve filled one and plan to purchase a few more later today.  A headphone and headphone cable upgrade has brought new life to my PolyMojo and these files sound amazing.  

 

I find it interesting that you didn’t frame your argument in terms of how much HQPlayer improves the sound of your music.  

 

I know your pain and joy. I transfer PGGB files onto a 1TB sd card and it is painful. But, yes, it is worth every bit of the effort. These files on my Hugo2/2Go shock me every time as to what can be accomplished from portable. 
 

Of course my full Dave system outclasses it in every way, but I know what levels the field to any extent is that both share the same high quality upscaling. 

[kennyb123]

2 minutes ago, edwardsean said:

 

I know your pain and joy. I transfer PGGB files onto a 1TB sd card and it is painful. But, yes, it is worth every bit of the effort. These files on my Hugo2/2Go shock me every time as to what can be accomplished from portable. 

I dragged two folders over last night and my Mac estimated an hour to copy them.  This was a shock as it had been a very long time since I used these cards.   But yeah, it’s worth every bit of effort.  
 

I see they now make 512 GB micro sd cards.  I envy your ability to use 1TB sd cards.

 

I wish the Poly supported faster WiFi.  I can start playback of 16FS files stored on my K30 but these suffer bad dropouts.  

[davide256]

49 minutes ago, CNoblet said:

 

I processed my files to PGGB with a quad-core i7 using 16 GB of RAM with no hiccups whatsoever.  

 

The sound in my main system via a Chord Mojo (by a good distance the least expensive/cheapest digital music device I've used in that system) is simply wonderful, to the point where my only upgrade to consider would be a Mojo2 with selectable WTA2 filters.  

 

HQ Player via Roon/Qobuz is fine for streaming upsampled to 7XX rates.

 

SDM upgrades: been there, done that.  I prefer to direct my limited play money to music, musical instruments and adequate backup storage for my delightful and insightful PGGB files,. 

was using a Mojo myself for PGGB with HQPlayer pass through only for Roon or Stylus...  its quite a bargain. Adding an SRC-DX made it even better but adds some

quirks (7xx to 3xx down sampling on single BNC/coax, DSD limited to 128 via DoP). I had Denafrips Iris DDC, before, didn't really help the Mojo so sold it but the SRC-DX will likely stay with me to use with whatever DAC upgrade finally displaces the Mojo.

[Kalpesh]

5 hours ago, kennyb123 said:

Not good to allow oneself to be biased by other’s claims - especially if the claims are theoretical in nature.

 

Why do you need an endorsement?  Can’t you just use your own ears to decide whether this is right for you?

 

This is available for folks in your situation:  https://pggb.io.  I have on several occasions shared processed files to folks who were interested in hearing PGGB for themselves.  But what each of them had in common was a demonstrated enthusiasm to give it a fair shot.  Your tone throughout your post is quite the opposite.  You seem to trying to find ways to find fault in PGGB.

 

EQing aims to address the shortcomings of your room.  It operates based on actual measurements one takes of their room.  I don’t know how you arrived at your impression but it is very uninformed.

 

It seems as if the only comments that that stuck in your mind about PGGB were the few outliers that weren’t positive.  If you were to balance these remarks against the many positive remarks and your own observations you would be better able to identify why a few didn’t favor it.  It is true that PGGB delights for a small subset of all the available DACs out there.  On that subset, it brings only positive benefits.  Common sense would dictate that one figures out if their DAC is in that subset and if it’s not just move on.  Painting with a broad brush doesn’t make sense given the realities of what makes PGGB special.

I don't consider being able to acknowledge and be conscious of one's biases as weakness or faulty, quite the contrary.

 

Then, inside the subset of Holo May owners, I'm under the impression that I belong to a minority that feeds them SDM ; and it's sooo much better that way in the vast majority of cases IMNSHO : YMMV can we say to each other, even with same DACs

 

Last but not least, my approach to PGGB is positive though I don't concur it delights for Holo and IMO, Holo owners should not privilege PGGB at all and , yes, I recommend  @mcewan71 should stay away from a chain of process delighting because of the idiosyncrasies of Chord DACs ; however, whatever PGGB's shortcomings might be if they are, such as transient truncating, I found it to shine sometimes and it's when the extra details extraction transforms porridge into something with sufficiently more cues and clues for me to be pleased, in the attached list, it works for me with the Madonna, the Fagen, the Hildegard, Arrau's Schubert, Wozzeck. The Farmer and the PIL are very early digital PCM Denon while Arrau's Schubert is 1990, so though it is true the millions number of sinc coefficients rather benefit to early digital, there are exceptions in both directions. Piano and vocals are good targets. But the main reason I attach the list is that gain is sometimes changed and should be checked when doing comparisons. In some instances, 1/2 a dB more for the non PGGBed file and details pop up and I don't see the point to store 20 GB for a CD... I found extremely difficult to compare when eQ is done inside PGGB; there's much more bass in the Craig Armstrong eQed in PGGB : it's better to match levels in dBA and appreciate, or not, if the extra bass is worth transients truncating

 

Bottom line : PGGB is an accomplishment beyond addressing some DACs oddities or idiosyncrasies and I totally respect it, however I can not recommend @mcewan71 to start by the SW, then upgrade his DAC to suit the SW choice

pggb_album_analysis_v5.csv

[kennyb123]

On 1/2/2022 at 2:46 PM, mcewan71 said:

So - without reference to the information on the website (I know where to find it, and I think I understand the technical basics), could someone please humour me and translate this into layman’s terms?

I think a great place to start is Rob Watt's introductory slide deck to his M-Scaler that's found here.  His WTA filter isn't the same filter as what's found in PGGB, but they are both influenced by the same sampling theories.  Both aim to reconstruct digital back into the original source.

 

On 1/2/2022 at 2:46 PM, mcewan71 said:

As I said, I will invest in higher spec equipment over time. I just read of what seems like insane sample rates folks’ DACs handle in here, and find myself wondering if it would be pointless getting a license given my current limitations? 

I wouldn't buy a license unless your ears fall in love with what you hear from it.  We each have different listening preferences and we each hear differently.  Figure out what appeals to your tastes and then build towards that.

 

As a drummer, for me it's always been about getting the sound of drums and percussion right.  What came as surprise to me was  how much more fell into place as I aimed for improved timing.  

 

[Miska]

9 hours ago, kennyb123 said:

Not good to allow oneself to be biased by other’s claims - especially if the claims are theoretical in nature.

 

Math of this stuff is pretty clear. And I did run test to confirm what I already knew.

 

[kennyb123]

9 hours ago, Miska said:

 

Math of this stuff is pretty clear. And I did run test to confirm what I already knew.

 

My bad I should have used a different word than “theoretical”.  My argument was aimed more at biasing oneself.  What ultimately matters is how one’s ear responds to that.  And and as ZB mentioned above, one can always lower the number of taps.  Thus the blanket statement “PGGB truncates transients” may overstate things.  It should at least be caveated to state that this is based on the math.

[semente]

On 1/3/2022 at 9:19 AM, Kalpesh said:

We're supposed to prepare the files to the max of the DAC's capabilities

 

Why waste time and electricity and storage space when you can have music playback software do it on the fly?

And you won't have to repeat the waste of time and electricity when a new and higher performance version of the software comes out.

[auricgoldfinger]

Why do HQP advocates feel a need to throw shade on PGGB on this thread?  Are people going on the HQP threads calling it inferior to PGGB?

[kennyb123]

7 hours ago, semente said:

 

Why waste time and electricity and storage space when you can have music playback software do it on the fly?

And you won't have to repeat the waste of time and electricity when a new and higher performance version of the software comes out.

The answer couldn’t be more obvious.  That some would go to such lengths to do this speaks volumes about how much more they appreciate the sound quality it brings over the real time solutions.

 

Many of us who have licensed PGGB have also licensed HQPlayer.  This week I spent far more time streaming so HQPlayer got a great workout.   I’m very happy to have both products.
 

The argument about electricity is pretty absurd I must say.  Both scaling processes place higher demands on a CPU.  Taking that hit entirely up front just once might in the long run be better than having to take a smaller hit every time you sit down to listen.

[Kalpesh]

15 hours ago, semente said:

 

Why waste time and electricity and storage space when you can have music playback software do it on the fly?

And you won't have to repeat the waste of time and electricity when a new and higher performance version of the software comes out.

If you try by yourself as you should :

 

I doubt your RME would benefit from full file conditioning as Chord DACs do (and though I soon unchecked apodizing systematically, I do not concur with Chord's Rob Watts that apodizing in PGGB is a liability)

 

There are good chances you would dig what Jussi means by transients truncation if you listen to music with real drums

 

BUT

 

Maybe if you have eQ you will be seduced by eQ imprinted in PGGB, I think deep bass are deeper and more impactlull (but then there's a trade off with drums transients and I ended up fiddling with HQP filters to obtain a besting compromise)

 

And if you have early digital recordings that sound congested with a lack of resolution that feels like harshness, ie  on vocals, you can use PGGB as I did : as a remastering tool upsampling 44.1 into 352.8, no apodizing, no dither, 64 bits f output maximum transparency. You can even further upsample those 352.8 PCM into DSD 256. I found circa 1979 recorded operas to benefit, providing a more relaxed listening experience and enhanced sense of venue acoustics : Wagner/Boulez Ring, Wozzeck with Anja Silja, Mozart/Harnoncourt/Idomeneo. I also much prefer my PGGG remaster of Gould's Brahms over the official 24/44.1 remaster. Several early digital piano recordings benefitted too from the tiny bit of extra resolution thanks to reconstruction with millions of sinc coefficients

 

 

 

[kennyb123]

40 minutes ago, Kalpesh said:

There are good chances you would dig what Jussi means by transients truncation if you listen to music with real drums

Have you actually heard this yourself?  If so what were you listening to and specifically what did you find truncated with it?  

 

A great track to try is "Dances on one Foot" from Charles Lloyd's "Sangam" album.  This features Zakir Hussain on tabla and Eric Harland on drums.  What I hear from my system when playing the 16FS version is the most realistic reproduction of the rise and fall times of drums, tabla, and percussion that I ever heard from any non-PGGB processed track (even if it's scaled with HQPlayer).  I get that the math says that some truncation is happening - but if that's what it takes to bring drums and percussion to life, I could care less.  The goal of my system isn't to excel at math.  It's to deliver sound that suspends disbelief.  PGGB helps me get closer to achieving that goal.

[Kalpesh]

49 minutes ago, kennyb123 said:

Have you actually heard this yourself?  If so what were you listening to and specifically what did you find truncated with it?  

 

A great track to try is "Dances on one Foot" from Charles Lloyd's "Sangam" album.  This features Zakir Hussain on tabla and Eric Harland on drums.  What I hear from my system when playing the 16FS version is the most realistic reproduction of the rise and fall times of drums, tabla, and percussion that I ever heard from any non-PGGB processed track (even if it's scaled with HQPlayer).  I get that the math says that some truncation is happening - but if that's what it takes to bring drums and percussion to life, I could care less.  The goal of my system isn't to excel at math.  It's to deliver sound that suspends disbelief.  PGGB helps me get closer to achieving that goal.

since you're a drummer and your system is no slough that sure is food for thought...

 

to answer your question : I first dug what I understood of Jussi's claim with the first drum hit of W Marsialis' Black codes of the underground : shyer PGGBed and played the PCM route of the Holo, could almost go unnoticed while it's a beautiful statement that catches my attention up to the reverb with native via DSD 256.

 

Seems that what you laud is the sense of rythm, that is different (or is it not ?) from how high in the bandwidth the harmonics of a hit, a strike, go, that is how fast and transients they are : you might both be right with different focus which makes your wording "what were you listening to and specifically what did you find truncated with it" perfectly sound

 

I don't own** Sangam (beautiful recording, the tabla at the beginning is a treat then Lloyd, on that one, bores* me a little) so can not PGGB it but what I can say after streaming it from Qobuz via HQP is that it sounds much better via Holo's SDM route than via the PCM : thus, from my trials there's no chance PGGB would change the verdict with my DAC. Better refers to realism and physicality of the placement in the soundstage

 

*edit : his first solo ; the coltranesque one after the drum solo is beautiful !

** edit : that's also quite something to have in mind ; remember @mcewan71 is on a budget and so would I consider myself when it comes to purchase albums PGGB them with powerful machines and store TB vs streaming Qobuz via HQP