Jump to content
IGNORED

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


Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, mikel said:

For some reason, I cannot download the Mac version... Dropbox says file is deleted.

My bad. Please try again and thanks for bringing it to my attention. Should be fixed now.

 

Dropbox lets you browse a archive, making it hard to download zips and packages. To download as zip file, please use the '...' menu 

Direct link: Here

image.thumb.png.abfc122797bd6d2a1841f2f533283db5.png

 

Author of PGGB, remastero

PGGB•IT! Workflow App for Windows (from Audiowise)

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, bbosler said:

so how do you figure how big a file you can process given memory and virtual memory. I have 64G of ram and 460G of virtual memory on an SSD. I get an out of memory error trying to process a 256 DSD to 16FS  file that is 265K.

 

image.thumb.png.062890bbc0d45a79f6528cbea7f1c4c5.png

The way Windows does virtual memory, if you assign max=min=460G, and if you do not have at least 460G of free space, no page file will be created. So makes sure you have enough free space and set the virtual memory accordingly. 128GB will be ample in your case  if you have at least 256G of free space.

 

ps: Email me for further support

Author of PGGB, remastero

PGGB•IT! Workflow App for Windows (from Audiowise)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well - my trusty Lenovo P1 laptop seems to be up to the task. I maxed out the specs and thought it would be overkill but those 32 GB of RAM and 6 cores (with hyperthreading) are coming in handy for PGGB. Probably not the "ideal" machine but it seems to be getting through 5 songs in a rather timely manner.

 

Goal of this test:

To determine if the Yggy can benefit from 4FS PGGB files. (in my system)

 

The Yggy is rated at 21-bits, so, assuming the spec is applicable here I have chosen that bit depth. I will also try 16 bits, since some have measured the Yggy to be linear to that point as well.

 

Here is my starting point. The plan is to try the "Airy" mode for my DSD albums:

image.thumb.png.d12983b27820f3abc8d339fc094e08e2.png

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

Well - my trusty Lenovo P1 laptop seems to be up to the task. I maxed out the specs and thought it would be overkill but those 32 GB of RAM and 6 cores (with hyperthreading) are coming in handy for PGGB. Probably not the "ideal" machine but it seems to be getting through 5 songs in a rather timely manner.

 

Goal of this test:

To determine if the Yggy can benefit from 4FS PGGB files. (in my system)

 

The Yggy is rated at 21-bits, so, assuming the spec is applicable here I have chosen that bit depth. I will also try 16 bits, since some have measured the Yggy to be linear to that point as well.

 

Here is my starting point. The plan is to try the "Airy" mode for my DSD albums:

image.thumb.png.d12983b27820f3abc8d339fc094e08e2.png

I would also also suggest trying 1024M taps, will come in handy for DSD and see how that goes.

Author of PGGB, remastero

PGGB•IT! Workflow App for Windows (from Audiowise)

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I tried it. I processed a variety of files with the default settings in PGGB to 16FS. I played them back using HQplayer with all processing settings set to none , volume at 0dB. 

 

Mac Mini >>> HQP >>> USB >>> Denafrips Hermes DDC >>> I2S >>> Denafrips Terminator Plus set to NOS

 

a little different but definitely not a "game changer." You may think the Mac Mini is the "problem" and maybe you are correct, but as is it sounds fantastic and no way I'll ever invest $25,000 in an Extreme computer to play music.

 

Maybe it is the difference in a Chord DAVE and the T+. If that's the case is it possible you are compensating for inherent deficiencies in the DAVE that the T+ doesn't have? Maybe I just prefer the R2R with no processing versus whatever additional processing the DAVE does. It does strike me as being a bit extreme to use PGGB to upsample to 16FS  and then the DAVE takes that file and upsamples it to 256FS. That said, if it works for you then I'm all for it ... for you. 

 

Not worth the trouble of converting and managing another library of files. Not worth buying all of the albums I really like that are included in my Tidal and Qobuz subscriptions. Not worth switching back and forth from Roon with HQP set to upsample  when I stream to HQP alone and changing settings each time I want to listen to the PGGB files. . Not worth $500... I would rather have 15-20 new records. 

 

Not worth means not worth it to me. I'm glad you guys are enjoying this so much but in case you haven't figured it out ......this isn't for me. 

 

Enjoy, and thanks to Zaphod for helping me get it set up.

 

see my system at Audiogon  https://systems.audiogon.com/systems/768

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bbosler said:

OK, I tried it. I processed a variety of files with the default settings in PGGB to 16FS. I played them back using HQplayer with all processing settings set to none , volume at 0dB. 

 

Mac Mini >>> HQP >>> USB >>> Denafrips Hermes DDC >>> I2S >>> Denafrips Terminator Plus set to NOS

 

a little different but definitely not a "game changer." You may think the Mac Mini is the "problem" and maybe you are correct, but as is it sounds fantastic and no way I'll ever invest $25,000 in an Extreme computer to play music.

 

Maybe it is the difference in a Chord DAVE and the T+. If that's the case is it possible you are compensating for inherent deficiencies in the DAVE that the T+ doesn't have? Maybe I just prefer the R2R with no processing versus whatever additional processing the DAVE does. It does strike me as being a bit extreme to use PGGB to upsample to 16FS  and then the DAVE takes that file and upsamples it to 256FS. That said, if it works for you then I'm all for it ... for you. 

 

Not worth the trouble of converting and managing another library of files. Not worth buying all of the albums I really like that are included in my Tidal and Qobuz subscriptions. Not worth switching back and forth from Roon with HQP set to upsample  when I stream to HQP alone and changing settings each time I want to listen to the PGGB files. . Not worth $500... I would rather have 15-20 new records. 

 

Not worth means not worth it to me. I'm glad you guys are enjoying this so much but this isn't for me. 

 

Enjoy, and thanks to Zaphod for helping me get it set up.

 

Before you give up, do try PGGBing to 32FS, since the T+ does 32FS. Assuming you set output bit depth to something in the 20-24 range?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I did set processing to 20 bits

 

the T+ will do 32FS but the DDC will only do 16. I will try 32FS with USB direct to T+. My expectations are low but I have an open mind. So we all understand each other, I have my system to a point where I am very, very happy. Unless something just jumps out at me AND isn't a ton of $$ AND isn't a lot of effort I'm probably not going to go for it.. but I'll give it a shot. 

 

I'm not real enamored with wav files either due to the inability to encapsulate metadata

 

I did ask Alvin about any plans to take the DDC line to 32FS. He said he preferred to listen at the native rate. No plans at this time.

 

see my system at Audiogon  https://systems.audiogon.com/systems/768

 

 

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

Yes, I did set processing to 20 bits

 

the T+ will do 32FS but the DDC will only do 16. I will try 32FS with USB direct to T+. My expectations are low but I have an open mind. So we all understand each other, I have my system to a point where I am very, very happy. Unless something just jumps out at me AND isn't a ton of $$ AND isn't a lot of effort I'm probably not going to go for it.. but I'll give it a shot. 

 

I'm not real enamored with wav files either due to the inability to encapsulate metadata

 

I did ask Alvin about any plans to take the DDC line to 32FS. He said he preferred to listen at the native rate. No plans at this time.

I very much agree with you, and have always maintained that if an improvement is not immediately obvious with the default recommended settings, it is probably not for your setup/preference. That said, with R2R, higher rate PCM can have a significant impact, so there may be some hope here.

 

Regarding wav files and meta data, PGGB transfers all the metadata information from your FLAC and other files to the wav output. Windows explorer does not show it always but if you use a meta data editor like mp3tag you should see all the tags including embedded image.

 

 

Author of PGGB, remastero

PGGB•IT! Workflow App for Windows (from Audiowise)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just summarizing what I think I've learned reading this thread

1. 32gb RAM advised for PGGB machine with ~200 gb virtual memory

2. file size increases 8x for CD rate so my library needs would go from 1TB to 8TB+

3. PGGB converted files  for CD rate are equivalent to DSD sizes. Which means 100mb port on an Etherregen is too slow... I'd already moved mine

to the 1GB port because of frustration when trying to buffer DSD

 

Also sounds like it would be wise to upgrade NAS to dual Ethernet port, but less choice on the music server end.

Giving this a trial whirl now

Regards,

Dave

 

Audio system

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, davide256 said:

1. 32gb RAM advised for PGGB machine with ~200 gb virtual memory

128GB virtual memory on an internal disk with 200GB free space

 

4 minutes ago, davide256 said:

2. file size increases 8x for CD rate so my library needs would go from 1TB to 8TB+

 That is true for 8FS conversion, if your DAC accepts 16FS 32 bits, expect about double that if you plan to convert every album in your library.

 

7 minutes ago, davide256 said:

. PGGB converted files  for CD rate are equivalent to DSD sizes. Which means 100mb port on an Etherregen is too slow... I'd already moved mine

to the 1GB port because of frustration when trying to buffer DSD

 

Also sounds like it would be wise to upgrade NAS to dual Ethernet port, but less choice on the music server end.

Giving this a trial whirl now

If you can add internal storage for PGGBd files as a Juke box, that may be preferable.

Author of PGGB, remastero

PGGB•IT! Workflow App for Windows (from Audiowise)

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

128GB virtual memory on an internal disk with 200GB free space

 

 That is true for 8FS conversion, if your DAC accepts 16FS 32 bits, expect about double that if you plan to convert every album in your library.

 

If you can add internal storage for PGGBd files as a Juke box, that may be preferable.

To date all direct attached media storage solutions for NUC I've tried have been deficient for SQ compared to NAS, including NVMe. 

 

I have HQPlayer embedded, am using a Denafrips IRIS DDC so actual DAC rate I can do at this point is 768 max dropped to 192 for IRIS output.

Regards,

Dave

 

Audio system

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hols said:

This is a follow up of my earlier post in this thread.

Since I have some spare time this weekend I revisited the issue of which is the sweet spot for my R2R DACs Holo May and Terminator plus again. As it is still difficult to gather some friends around I have to do it all by myself. I have given some thoughts on how I should improve from my previous test and I come to the following points. First I must have been over aggressive last time to compare so many bits from 19 all the way to 64 bits because this cannot give a really good AB testing and also with so many comparisons one tends to go into fatigue and affects one's judgement especially when we are doing critical listening on the many aspects of music. So this time I would only compare 20bit with 24 bit. Second I reviewed the criteria as how to judge what is best SQ or the sweet spot. Last time I could have been too obsessed with details and neglected other aspects like the pureness of tone, sense of being involved with music. Probable reasons for my emphasis on details is because it seems to be the most objective thing that one can detect in the critical comparison whereas musicality seems more subjective feeling so that was regarded as a less important feature. That might have led to result that 24bit is preferred without realizing that the resulting music at 24bit is over-analytical and not musical enough.

 

With these in mind I started my assessment again. First piece is a Mozart sonata for violin and piano. The observation that 24 bit has more detail seems to be still true on first listening. There is more low frequency making the piano seems more grand and the violin having more low frequency harmonics. But on more careful listening these low frequency sound is not as good quality as the main body of the violin or piano. The violin tone in 20bit is also more pure and coherent than in the 24bit. There is a tinge of high frequency harshness in 24bit though not serious. 

The second piece is Beethoven symphony 7. In 24 bit the double bass comes up with better presence though again there is some loss of coherence compared with 20bit. The 20bit sound and image is again more pure and musical.  The remaining pieces basically follow the same pattern. So most probably there may be more sound(but not detail) in 24 bit but some of them are not as high quality as in 20 bit. And these might be related to some low level distortions being added to the resultant sound. And as a whole now I would prefer 20bit instead of 24 bit. So the result this time is more in line with prediction by Jussi and ZB. And it is no surprise too that this applies to both the Holo May and Terminator plus.

 

I must say it is not easy at all to find out the sweet spot of the DAC because it is very difficult to determine which one is more accurate. So this is some good experience that helps you understand your DAC more.

I congratulate you for your humbleness ( I'm humble enough to consider myself part of the system and to admit that some days no gear no nothing can make me consider my system or even the acoustics of a live event perfectly palatable). But at the end of the day, 20 or 24 bits, is it worth having a (or 2) 32 fs capable DAC and mining a 333 Mo CD into a 10 Go file with a 64 Gb machine or are differences within margin of error of appreciation?

HQ Player 4 Mac Mini M1

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, davide256 said:

Also sounds like it would be wise to upgrade NAS to dual Ethernet port, but less choice on the music server end.

 

Just wanted to mention that this won't give you twice the bandwidth.  What two ethernet ports on a NAS will give you is the ability for two clients to get a full gigabit of throughput.  So if your NAS is serving up music while at the same time another device in your home Is also accessing your NAS, both should get a full gigabit throughput.

 

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
Just now, kennyb123 said:

Just wanted to mention that this won't give you twice the bandwidth.  What two ethernet ports on a NAS will give you is the ability for two clients to get a full gigabit of throughput.  So if your NAS is serving up music while at the same time another device in your home Is also accessing your NAS, both should get a full gigabit throughput.

 

Bonded ports do give you 2GbE if the OS supports it. While the distant end may only support 1GbE, bonding helps improve throughput efficiency vs "redlining" a single GbE

port that needs to talk to other things on your network. Used as common practice with the carrier network I worked for prior to 2016 due to the dearth/slow delivery at that time

of 10GbE circuits

Regards,

Dave

 

Audio system

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...