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

[Miska]

1 hour ago, Johnseye said:

If the 20 bit recommendation was based on measurements with NS9 or LNS15 then could it be different for PGGB?

 

No, it is based linearity measurement of the DAC. And linearisation performance has been verified with my noise shapers designed for that particular purpose.

 

I don't know if the noise shaper in PGGB can linearise the DAC with any setting, it depends on how it has been designed. That would need to be measured from the DAC output.

 

Without such linearisation, for example with 24-bit TPDF dithered input, you have quite a bit of distortion on low level signals because the R2R ladder is not accurate enough.

 

[Miska]

24 minutes ago, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

Using lesser bits leads to more quantization error, so when recommending 19 bits or 20 bits for a 24 bit DAC, what is happening is the last 4 or 5 bits are zeroed out and not being used to avoid any distortions they may introduce.

 

Even with 16-bit input (which you can do for example from macOS at 1.5M), with suitable noise-shaper the noise floor is flat to >100 kHz. So from 100 kHz bandwidth analog measurement you wouldn't be able to tell if the input is 20 or 16-bit because analog noise dominates.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

10 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

Even with 16-bit input (which you can do for example from macOS at 1.5M), with suitable noise-shaper the noise floor is flat to >100 kHz. So from 100 kHz bandwidth analog measurement you wouldn't be able to tell if the input is 20 or 16-bit because analog noise dominates.

Agreed, PGGB can noise shape to 12bits. 

[Miska]

Just now, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

Agreed, PGGB can noise shape to 12bits. 

 

OK, I support anything from 8 to 32 bits output. But where the analog noise floor boundary is crossed depends on combination of DAC and particular noise shaper. Best way to figure out is to measure.

 

[MarkusBarkus]

57 minutes ago, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

Throughout  the development of PGGB, I have kept an open mind to what someone hears even if it does not tally with my expectation and it could be due to a variety of reasons. It could be personal preference, the playback chain etc., and if it sounds right to someone, then that is what matters.

I can speak to this specifically. My questions and my differing experiences were met with an open mind and a critical approach regarding *why* that might be so. 
 

In my opinion, this development was undertaken with the goal of improving the listening experience...wherever that might lead...whatever that might be. 
 

Is it for everyone? Probably not. I am not even sure yet it's for me. But it is very cool, and a very thoughtful approach to improving the listening and listener's experience. Of that, I am quite sure...

[sledwards]

PGGB Team:

 

In the guide, you warn about not using digital volume control:

 

Software volume control may look innocuous, what possible harm could come from converting to 64 bit doubles and changing the level? PGGB’s noise shaper all but eliminates quantization noise in the audible range. Any sort of processing such as volume control leads to 64 bit conversion and then truncation back to your DAC’s bit depth (16, 24 or 32). This conversion adds quantization noise back into the track that PGGB worked hard to remove.

 

Currently, I am using HQPe to feed upsampled PCM to my HOLO May DAC and am using digital volume control since I have no preamp in the chain.  My question is, have any of you experienced a noticeable degradation in sound quality using PGGB with digital volume control vs a preamp volume control? 

[Miska]

36 minutes ago, sledwards said:

Currently, I am using HQPe to feed upsampled PCM to my HOLO May DAC and am using digital volume control since I have no preamp in the chain.  My question is, have any of you experienced a noticeable degradation in sound quality using PGGB with digital volume control vs a preamp volume control? 

 

Noise-shaping needs to be the last thing before output. So if you use HQPlayer volume, you need to have noise-shaping at HQPlayer side and you are better off doing 64-bit float output from PGGB.

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

55 minutes ago, sledwards said:

PGGB Team:

 

In the guide, you warn about not using digital volume control:

 

Software volume control may look innocuous, what possible harm could come from converting to 64 bit doubles and changing the level? PGGB’s noise shaper all but eliminates quantization noise in the audible range. Any sort of processing such as volume control leads to 64 bit conversion and then truncation back to your DAC’s bit depth (16, 24 or 32). This conversion adds quantization noise back into the track that PGGB worked hard to remove.

 

Currently, I am using HQPe to feed upsampled PCM to my HOLO May DAC and am using digital volume control since I have no preamp in the chain.  My question is, have any of you experienced a noticeable degradation in sound quality using PGGB with digital volume control vs a preamp volume control? 

In addition to what Jussi has said above, which I agree with, if file size is a concern, you could disable noise shaping in PGGB and set the output to 32bits. Then use HQPe as you normally do.

 

 

[Johnseye]

10 minutes ago, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

In addition to what Jussi has said above, which I agree with, if file size is a concern, you could disable noise shaping in PGGB and set the output to 32bits. Then use HQPe as you normally do.

 

 

 

Is this done by turning Adaptive Noise shaping off?  Then does that disable the three preferences: transparency, presentation and HF filter?

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

1 minute ago, Johnseye said:

 

Is this done by turning Adaptive Noise shaping off?  Then does that disable the three preferences: transparency, presentation and HF filter?

 

Yes, it is done by turning the Adaptive Noise Shaping off. No it will not affect the preferences, the rest of the processing is done exactly as before, and you keep all your preferences. The one change is no noise shaping is done in the final step just before the values are written to file.

 

 

[hols]

It's great to learn from all the experts here about the underlying reason of why the May should sound best at 20 bits. As I have also alluded to in my initial post I keep an open mind as to whether my listening tests are accurate or not. There could be bias because the process is not blinded. Maybe when circumstances allow I can get some friends around and arrange a blinded test and see whether others will come to the same conclusion. Of course the test is designed to find out which bit is going to give the best sound but I must admit that it is not that easy to distinguish true bit to bit conversion from dithered signal. And many a times dithering is going to give a more analog feeling to the resultant sound and becomes more appealing to many.  Probably the only one thing for sure is that 32 bits or 64 bit is not going to give you a better SQ in the May probably because of the truncation.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

A friendly reminder for those who are trying PGGB for the first time. Please read the guide. 

If you run into any memory related issues, it is most likely because you have not allocated virtual memory. Please look here: PGGB - Zaphod's Guide (remastero.com)

 

I recommend 100 - 128GB of virtual memory.

[Fourlegs]

@ray-dude and @austinpop independently contacted me towards the end of last year in a state of excitement about a project they were involved in. Knowing their interests in pushing the boundaries of digital sound quality I was pretty sure whatever they were up to it would be interesting.

 

I joined the PGGB beta boys early in January and having paid my licence fee I quickly became the guy in the corner who asks lots of dumb questions. Most related to my total lack of knowledge of Windows having spent the whole of my professional life using Macs starting with the Macintosh II in 1988.

 

On the hardware side of things I use a 2017 iMac Pro with 10 cores upgraded to 256GB RAM (not an operation for the feint hearted on the iMac Pro if like me you do it yourself). This machine runs Windows / Parallels /PGGB  with no issues at all with an allocated 128GB of RAM to Parallels/Windows and this allows PGGB to fly. The processor temperatures hardly flicker at all when processing PGGB files even with the coolings fans on tickover. I did initially try a lesser iMac and the only way to keep that from falling over with high core temperature was to have the fans manually set to maximum. That worked but was too loud to have the processing going on in the background. Now I can let PGGB process in the background without me even noticing it is doing anything whilst I use the same iMac for other work. I needed the iMac Pro for other work so have not had to buy any special machine for processing the PGGB files.

 

For local storage of the processed PGGB files I am fortunate in having an Antipodes K50 which has slots in the rear for user installation of up to three SSD drives. At the moment I have three Samsung 4TB 860 EVO SSD giving 12TB with the possibility of going to 24TB if I use 8TB SSD. I have installed HQPlayer on the K50 and agree with what many have said that the sound quality of HQP + NAA (controlled by the HQPDcontrol v4 app) is superb. Using Roon with HQP instead of the HQPD app is much less clunky but there is a noticeable drop in sound quality. Even so I admit that sometimes when I just want an evening of easy listening I put up with the lesser sound quality to escape the hassle of invisible albums, need for manual library updating etc.

 

My Dave has been modified to have the Sean Jacobs DC4 power supply (one of the best decisions of my hifi life by the way). A pair of Pass Labs XA60.8 amps power the Spendor SP200 speakers.

 

For comparison purposes and also for listening to BBC Radio 3 and other streamed music, Qobuz etc, I retain an Mscaler in the system (powered by a DC4 and connected with my own WAVE Storm dual BNC cables).

 

So far I have resisted processing more than a few albums at a time because I confess that I have yet to finally settle on my preferred settings for PGGB, probably due to having too much choice in the various Beta incarnations. Thanks to @Zaphod Beeblebrox though for reducing the number of user selectable processing options so that the number of choices is hopefully no longer overwhelming. By adopting the process suggested in the support material one should arrive at a preferred group of processing settings in a logical procession of decisions.

 

My current favourite settings are :-

Transparency : NATURAL

Presentation : TRANSPARENT

HF Noise Filter : FULL

 

So, how does PGGB sound? Words such as entrancing, arresting, incredible and simply 'luddy amazing come to mind and I am so pleased that PGGB is now available for others to try so they can also hear this. Rather than me dreaming up superlatives to try to describe the PGGB effect I urge people to try the trial license and hear for themselves.

 

Whilst there are huge upsides to the sound quality and enjoyment to listening to music using PGGB it would be wrong to ignore the big challenges posed by the large size of the processed files. This has impacts on the hardware and also on the player software that can be used. For instance out goes my usual preferred Squeezelite and I have bought HQP instead to deal with the PGGB files and this in itself poses extra frustrations.

 

I will not be selling my Mscaler and that remains my preferred listening for all streamed music and non PGGB processed ripped files but whenever I want a treat for my ears I am getting used to settling down on my comfy chair with the prospect of two or three PGGB processed albums for an evening of being delighted by this new way of listening to my digital collection.

 

Congratulations to Zaphod Beeblebrox and to those who urged him to embark on this journey.

[Johnny Moondog]

Once upon a time...

 

A novel way to massively improve the SQ of computer audio streaming

 

Became a thing.

 

Within that thread I encountered a tremendous learning curve following the research of @austinpop @ray-dude and @romaz. While exploring the landscape of network switches, power supplies, clocks, cards, cables, DACs and NUCs... my audio system evolved to levels of wonderful I’d not experienced before.

 

Flash forward three years to June 2020 and the biggest upgrade I’ve experienced arrives all at the same time! The Chord DAVE, Sean Jacobs DC4, Taiko Audio Extreme, and Omega CAMs. The COVID lockdown was my excuse.

 

A couple of weeks pass by, I contact Roy to praise the musical experience, and the last thing I expect to hear about is some crazy “offline remastering project.” But of course I am all ears, and he kindly offers to process some sample tracks for an audition.

 

The day after I receive those tracks, I send Roy a message with something like... “This is phenomenal! How can I have more?” I immediately compensate the developer to encourage further development, and am thankful for the opportunity to participate in the beta testing group. (background story here)

 

Rajiv has described the benefits so well, that I’ve got nothing to add. As mentioned before, this originated as a Chord DAVE driven project, so it’s likely the ideal DAC for PGGB remastered files. But other DAC owners have experienced benefits too. If you are curious, my suggestion is simply to hear this for yourself. (areas of improvement here)

 

Regarding storage, I am currently using the “jukebox” approach. As a first step, I followed an idea suggested by Emile at Taiko Audio — to scan through the library and quickly divide albums into an “A List” and “B List.” If an album was available on Qobuz, I added it to Favorites, and deleted it from the Extreme’s 8TB of storage. If I knew an album was a high priority for PGGB remastering, I added it to the “A List.” After the scan was complete, I began the process of remastering those “A List” albums. They are stored on the jukebox — a Lacie d2 Professional 16TB drive — and then copied onto the Extreme. (jukebox idea here)

 

Since then my listening process has become similar to the one described by Ray — exploring my music collection again, album by album. It definitely reminds me of those vinyl days, with that stack of albums in heavy rotation close to the turntable, and the wall of albums library off to the side. The end result is that I am discovering new levels of enjoyment with the music I’ve loved my entire life. (Ray’s story here)

 

-Gerry

[bbosler]

 

DAMN YOU GUYS !!!! You just cost me $3500

 

just kidding

 

I just bought a gaming computer with 64G of ram  and an Nvidia 3070 graphics card. I was lusting after one anyway for other reasons and now I had another excuse. Man, graphics cards are like gold these days.. I seriously doubt I end buying a PGGB license for one simple reason. Since getting hooked on streaming I don't own a copy of an awful lot of what I listen to regularly so nothing to process. If it turns out to be what you say I may have to rethink that. I do have a Terminator +  so we'll see. In any case I intend to be flying around the world in Microsoft Flight Simulator. 

 

anybody tried digitizing  vinyl and processing that?

 

One thing I want to try is comparing  upsampled file via  USB >>> Hermes DDC >>> I2S >>> Terminator + which is limited to 16Fs and USB >>> Terminator + which will accept  32Fs

 

Let the games begin !!

 

 

 

 

[austinpop]

@bbosler

 

There’s trial mode (AKA “the first hit is free”), so check it out!

[AudioDoctor]

@austinpop I am continually amazed at your willingness to go to extremes in the pursuit of absolute perfection in playback quality. While I am over here focusing on simplicity and robustness, you're pushing the envelope as far as possible with both hardware and software. Love it.

[austinpop]

13 hours ago, AudioDoctor said:

@austinpop I am continually amazed at your willingness to go to extremes in the pursuit of absolute perfection in playback quality. While I am over here focusing on simplicity and robustness, you're pushing the envelope as far as possible with both hardware and software. Love it.

 

Thanks, what has made this so much fun is to have a like-minded group of tinkerers like @romaz @ray-dude and @Zaphod Beeblebrox. My experiments pale in comparison to some of the wacky things they're trying!

 

I will say that, ironic as it sounds, I really am on a quest towards simplicity! With the Extreme, I no longer have the spaghetti chain of little boxes and cables and power supplies. The network side is still the wild west — some day we will have a true breakthrough. But I have also found that with a music player like HQPlayer or Taiko's TAS, I can cue up an album or playlist, hit play, and just unplug the network. No more "my stack o' switches sounds better than yours!"

 

What about streaming, you say? Well, with PGGB, the gap between PGGB-remastered local content and real-time HQP-upsampled streaming content is now so vast, that I view streaming only as a window shopping experience. I browse, I discover, and what I like, I buy, and I PGGB.

 

All of us here know software is vitally important to SQ. OSes, music players, upsamplers — everything matters. But with my hardware stack as optimized as I could make it (or afford to), this last year has been a fascinating journey of discovery into how much software has an effect on SQ. This journey has been on two tracks. One is this one with PGGB, where I have learned so much about digital filters and noise shaping from @Zaphod Beeblebrox. The other is with Emile Bok of Taiko. Emile is a tinkerer par excellence, and he has enlisted some of us like-minded Extreme-owning tinkerers to "play" in his sandbox. This has given me a glimpse into impact of OS level tunings with the Extreme hardware, along with the nuances of music player design, the importance of USB drivers, and DAC USB-I2S controllers.

 

Since most of the above was embargoed or confidential, I have had little to say publicly over the last several months. While some if still is, I'm delighted I can at least now discuss PGGB in this forum. Although I can unequivocally state PGGB is a game changer on Chord DACs, and the DAVE in particular, I am genuinely curious to learn to what extent it makes an improvement in other DACs. 

 

That's why I encourage folks, especially those with 16FS and 32FS DACs to try it, and report back.

[HeeBroG]

To the early adopters,

 

With PGGB, is there still a need to purchase hi-res files?

 

In other words, would PGGB of 24/192 when available be superior to 16/44?

 

 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

17 hours ago, austinpop said:

What about streaming, you say? Well, with PGGB, the gap between PGGB-remastered local content and real-time HQP-upsampled streaming content is now so vast, that I view streaming only as a window shopping experience. I browse, I discover, and what I like, I buy, and I PGGB.

 

Open parenthesis...

 

I've been in a similar situation in the past, for entirely different reasons (USB key player, nothing to do with PGGB). I use streaming services also to check albums before I purchase them, and listen to the albums I like exclusively with local files. However, even after weeding out my collection by putting aside some albums I had "out of curiosity" and rarely if ever listened to, I was still left with a sizeable collection. Having to copy my music files from one drive to another in order to decide on an evening's playlist was fun at first, but over time grew to be a drag, and I felt like it was limiting.

 

In the case of PGGB, I assume you would keep music files potentially in three places: the original files (CD rips, or downloads), the converted files, on separate drive, and then the files you have available at a given point in time to play on your system.

 

The comparison with the "experience" of using physical media (CDs or LPs) is tempting, but in fact it quicker to pull out a CD or an LP than having to deal with computers to move files between drives (at least for me). Perhaps with some clever system you can ease the process - in which case other users may be interested in the solution you come up with. Anyway, people should consider these aspects carefully.

 

...close parenthesis.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

5 hours ago, HeeBroG said:

To the early adopters,

 

With PGGB, is there still a need to purchase hi-res files?

 

In other words, would PGGB of 24/192 when available be superior to 16/44?

 

 

This is good question. I will leave subjective opinions to others who are using PGGB. My PGGBd library is 60% Redbook 25% Hi-res (including some DXD) and 15% DSD.

 

From a pure information content point of view, the more original information (in this case more samples at the higher rate) you provide PGGB, the more accurately it can reconstruct at a higher rate. The provenance matters more than just the sample rate. As long as the Hires version was not derived from 44.1kHz recording, the Hires version is likely to benefit more compared to redbook.

 

Whether or not one still 'needs' hi-res is a subjective call on whether the SQ bump merits the purchase of Hi-res on your system. 

 

When I moved from mostly streaming to mostly off-line listening, I already had a Qobuz account, I upgraded to sublime so that I could purchase the albums at Hi-res when they were available, else I was happy to settle for the redbook version. When I already had a previously ripped CD, I am  more selective and purchased  hi-res when they are in my favorite collection and on rare occasions I will try to chase down the best version that is available (hi-res/DXD or DSD).

 

[ted_b]

My rue of thumb is this: get the best version of your music, THEN PGGB it (or HQPlayer' it) to your DAC's sweetspot (16fs or 32fs in several cases).  I've heard many hirez "remasters" that are crap, but then again there is something like the DSD of Cowboy Junkies Trinity Sessions, an all-time fave.  That version is laughably (read: when you first hear it you will laugh) better than any of its redbook counterparts.  No PGGB'oing of the redbook versions will do it the justice that the DSD version does.  (So...PGGB that one, if ya want).  So choose wisely.  😎

[austinpop]

12 minutes ago, ted_b said:

get the best version of your music, THEN PGGB it (or HQPlayer' it)

 

+1 to that.

 

5 hours ago, HeeBroG said:

In other words, would PGGB of 24/192 when available be superior to 16/44?

 

In general, my subjective experience is:

• PGGB improves on the original mastering, whether it is 16/44.1 or 24/352.8.
• PGGB's improvement seems greater, the lower the original resolution.
• With that said, there is no inversion: i.e. if the native DXD version sounds better than the native Redbook, then:
  • the PGGBed DXD will still sound better than the PGGBed Redbook version, although
  • the gap between the PGGBed Redbook and PGGBed DXD may be smaller.

One easy way to try it for yourself, is with samples from sites like 2L.no that make sample tracks available of the same recording, mastered to different sample rates. Try PGGBing the 16/44.1, 24/96, and DXD versions of a track and determine what you hear in terms of differences between the original, and between the PGGBed versions.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

17 minutes ago, ted_b said:

No PGGB'oing of the redbook versions will do it the justice that the DSD version does.  (So...PGGB that one, if ya want).  So choose wisely.  😎

PGGB can convert DSD (up to DSD 1024) to PCM rates and yes when the original master is DSD, PGGBd DSD files will sound better than the redbook counter part. I have several hybrid SACDs and when the DSD layer is PGGBd to 16fs it sounded better than the 44.1k layer. As I had mentioned earlier, provenance matters more than the rate and there is a reason why I still have several DSDs in my library. I have also purchased a few DSDs at DSD128 or DSD256 rates when they were direct DSD transfers. I have several older Jazz recordings for which the only version I like is the DSD version PGGBd.

[jabbr]

22 hours ago, austinpop said:

 

I will say that, ironic as it sounds, I really am on a quest towards simplicity! With the Extreme, I no longer have the spaghetti chain of little boxes and cables and power supplies. The network side is still the wild west — some day we will have a true breakthrough. But I have also found that with a music player like HQPlayer or Taiko's TAS, I can cue up an album or playlist, hit play, and just unplug the network. No more "my stack o' switches sounds better than yours!"

 

I totally agree that simplicity is the quest and eliminate boxes!

 

Networks have undergone extreme progress in the last several years and I finally see consolidation! Its called "converged ethernet".

Microsoft has had a huge impact in sponsoring the Azure SONiC https://azure.github.io/SONiC/ network OS ... which is ... ta da ... Linux!

 

One might think that 100Gbe is extreme, but the network has again become the computer and PCIe runs over Ethernet ... the NVMEof NAS puts a cluster of NVME drives on the network, and this needs bandwidth. Also the latest fiber implementations are  multirate.

 

So "someday" is what's happening today. The network is there ... the continued progress will be on the software side and PGGB and HQPlayer are examples.

(I would love to try PGGB but my servers are exclusively Linux ... will have to load a VM someday)

22 hours ago, austinpop said:

 

What about streaming, you say? Well, with PGGB, the gap between PGGB-remastered local content and real-time HQP-upsampled streaming content is now so vast, that I view streaming only as a window shopping experience. I browse, I discover, and what I like, I buy, and I PGGB.

 

Meh, but I have 4 systems in my house and each has different DSP settings, so ther HQPlayer NAA model is so perfect.

 

22 hours ago, austinpop said:

 

All of us here know software is vitally important to SQ. OSes, music players, upsamplers — everything matters. But with my hardware stack as optimized as I could make it (or afford to), this last year has been a fascinating journey of discovery into how much software has an effect on SQ. This journey has been on two tracks. One is this one with PGGB, where I have learned so much about digital filters and noise shaping from @Zaphod Beeblebrox. The other is with Emile Bok of Taiko. Emile is a tinkerer par excellence, and he has enlisted some of us like-minded Extreme-owning tinkerers to "play" in his sandbox. This has given me a glimpse into impact of OS level tunings with the Extreme hardware, along with the nuances of music player design, the importance of USB drivers, and DAC USB-I2S controllers.

 

Another reason why Linux, you can modify the driver, write your own driver, even compile a custom kernel ... AMD has acquired Xilinx which is beyond huge ... same as the NVidia/Mellanox ... keep watching this space ...