Jump to content
IGNORED

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


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Jean Paul D said:

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?

There is only one way to find the answer to that question ...

 

It is hard to predict if PGGB is worth the while for someone. Using PGGB does not mean one has to abandon streaming. If it brings enough of an improvement,  a hybrid approach can be used where a subset of albums can be remastered.

Author of PGGB, remastero

PGGB.IO (Another way to audition PGGB, with credits towards PGGB purchase)

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

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

There is only one way to find the answer to that question ...

 

It is hard to predict if PGGB is worth the while for someone. Using PGGB does not mean one has to abandon streaming. If it brings enough of an improvement,  a hybrid approach can be used where a subset of albums can be remastered.

I like what I'm hearing with Redbook across a 1 GbE wired ethernet LAN, buffering ~8GB is reasonably fast. But one would to have to shell out more money

for NUC RAM with Euphony.. opera recordings would likely require the max of 32GB RAM for playback buffering.

Regards,

Dave

 

Audio system

Link to post
Share on other sites

So far at 32 bit default settings

John Williams HDCD "Rosewood" sounded great, smoother, more detailed, better bass

Alan Silvestri 96/24 "Ready Player One" toss up, no real improvements

Howard Shore 44/24, "The Hobbit" sounds better at native rate, PGGB creates irritating artifacts

 

A Puzzle, perhaps DAC/server limitations? will try 24 bit next

Regards,

Dave

 

Audio system

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

So far at 32 bit default settings

John Williams HDCD "Rosewood" sounded great, smoother, more detailed, better bass

Alan Silvestri 96/24 "Ready Player One" toss up, no real improvements

Howard Shore 44/24, "The Hobbit" sounds better at native rate, PGGB creates irritating artifacts

 

A Puzzle, perhaps DAC/server limitations? will try 24 bit next

Before I can suggest the bit rate, what is the highest  sample rate supported by your DAC, is it 192kHz 24 bits? If that is the case, you should use PGGB to output at 4FS rate and it is likely a R2R DAC and start with bit depth of 19 bits or 20 bits.

Author of PGGB, remastero

PGGB.IO (Another way to audition PGGB, with credits towards PGGB purchase)

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

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

One of the reasons PGGB outputs WAV is because the 32-bit, 16FS files needed for the DAVE cannot be stored in FLAC containers, since FLAC is limited to 8FS (352.8/384 kHz). WAV offers the ultimate flexibility, since it can accommodate higher sample rates like 16FS and 32FS, as well as integer and floating point samples. Once we discovered that WAV files can contain sufficient metadata tags to be useful, we just went with it.

I'm curious - if a 24 bit FLAC is available (instead of 32 bit 16FS for Dave), how much difference would there be (if any) between a 24 bit and a 32 bit version of the PGGB 16FS upsample? Seems to me there's not much relevant data beyond the 24 bits (once the 32 bit upsampling has happened and then truncated to 24 bits)? 

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

There is only one way to find the answer to that question ...

 

It is hard to predict if PGGB is worth the while for someone. Using PGGB does not mean one has to abandon streaming. If it brings enough of an improvement,  a hybrid approach can be used where a subset of albums can be remastered.

I don't have the machine to create the files and my DAC is 8FS limited Sigma Delta BB 1795 based that I currently use exclusively SDM fed by educated choice/preference, but I reissue my call to try a file if someone is willing to send me one. In exemple I think I own about every mastering of Kind of Blue, starting with the first CD, including original SACD, Mofi's, long format Mastersound Gold etc etc, so I guess at least one PGGB proponent has a copy I have too for comparison.

 

BTW, I thought of an alternative to KOB : G Gould 1981 Goldberg as another CD "everybody" has. But it's famous for heavy editing, splicing : I greatly appreciate and want to congratulate and thank you you for the FAQ page but before I can audition, before I can even audition on a more suitable DAC than mine, I'm under impression that only unedited live recordings are safe bets to get full benefits from PGGB's capability of a complete look forward and backward in time at any moment of the reconstruction process and that the remastering tool it is should be better handed by mastering engineers with better knowledge of the history of the recording than our guesses.

HQ Player 4 Mac Mini M1

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jean Paul D said:

BTW, I thought of an alternative to KOB : G Gould 1981 Goldberg as another CD "everybody" has. But it's famous for heavy editing, splicing : I greatly appreciate and want to congratulate and thank you you for the FAQ page but before I can audition, before I can even audition on a more suitable DAC than mine, I'm under impression that only unedited live recordings are safe bets to get full benefits from PGGB's capability of a complete look forward and backward in time at any moment of the reconstruction process and that the remastering tool it is should be better handed by mastering engineers with better knowledge of the history of the recording than our guesses.

For the best results, the main requirement is the track itself being one continuous recording to make most use of the long reconstruction filters and in general better recordings will benifit more. Knowledge of provenance and how the track was recorded is helpful if one wishes to combine multiple tracks.

Author of PGGB, remastero

PGGB.IO (Another way to audition PGGB, with credits towards PGGB purchase)

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, happybob said:

I'm curious - if a 24 bit FLAC is available (instead of 32 bit 16FS for Dave), how much difference would there be (if any) between a 24 bit and a 32 bit version of the PGGB 16FS upsample? Seems to me there's not much relevant data beyond the 24 bits (once the 32 bit upsampling has happened and then truncated to 24 bits)? 

When a bit depth of 32bits is set the requantization with noise shaping takes 64bit doubles down to 32 bit integers. So 16FS at 32 bits will have information in all of the 32 bits. So yes there is benifit in making use of all the 32bits vs 16FS 24bits. When experimenting with 16FS 32bits/24bits/16bits going into DAVE, we found 32bits sounded the best. But there is a one caveat here. this assumes USB going directly to DAVE.

 

 

 

Author of PGGB, remastero

PGGB.IO (Another way to audition PGGB, with credits towards PGGB purchase)

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

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

Thanks, I thought no one will ask :)

 

The Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster is an alcoholic beverage invented by ex-President of the Galaxy Zaphod Beeblebrox, considered by the Guide to be the "Best Drink in Existence."[1] Its effects are similar to "having your brains smashed out by a slice of lemon wrapped round a large gold brick."

 

Translation: PGGB is a very carefully mixed cocktail whose main ingredient is your music track, and intended to produce otherworldly effect when consumed through your ears. Please consume responsibly at safe levels.

 

 

That explains why the software is so good! You’ve got 2 heads & 3 arms! 😂

 

 

8DF85401-A026-403C-B6D3-EDD3294F8C41.png

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

For the best results, the main requirement is the track itself being one continuous recording to make most use of the long reconstruction filters and in general better recordings will benifit more. Knowledge of provenance and how the track was recorded is helpful if one wishes to combine multiple tracks.

From your own FAQ : "What if a song is composed of many 30 second recordings that all got digitized and mixed together? Any tap length more than 30 seconds would be using bad information. "

 

Not to mention an artist (ie Bjork) recording her voice in her bedroom and then completing the track in 3 different studios, even a classical movement is more often than the other way round made of splices of different takes. Seems to me that without knowledge there's a risk of doing serious harm in many cases with modern digital productions. 

 

Of course, analog tapes digitized in one effort escape that risk.

 

A question : I would be thankful to know how you define short length in the following (reference to HQP filters would help me digging ) "For the above reason, for short lengths, minimum phase have a significant advantage over linear phase filters. " 

HQ Player 4 Mac Mini M1

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Jean Paul D said:

From your own FAQ : "What if a song is composed of many 30 second recordings that all got digitized and mixed together? Any tap length more than 30 seconds would be using bad information. "

 

Not to mention an artist (ie Bjork) recording her voice in her bedroom and then completing the track in 3 different studios, even a classical movement is more often than the other way round made of splices of different takes. Seems to me that without knowledge there's a risk of doing serious harm in many cases with modern digital productions. 

The above was an example to make a point. Yes there will be tracks that have been spliced together, but I don't think that is the norm. I do not think lack of full knowledge of a recording should stop one from processing. Yes there will be some outliers, but in my experience (a library of about 300 albums) with a mix of jazz, classical and classic rock, I have not come across tracks where I felt they sounded worse than the original (I may be a bit biased, so other can chime in ).  The extent to which a track benefits may vary though.

 

There may be other genres like modern digital recordings with lot of cuts and editing,  where this may not be the case (like the example you mentioned) and I cannot comment on those as I have not tried them and they may benifit from setting a shorter filter lengths.  

 

33 minutes ago, Jean Paul D said:

A question : I would be thankful to know how you define short length in the following (reference to HQP filters would help me digging ) "For the above reason, for short lengths, minimum phase have a significant advantage over linear phase filters. " 

The point I was trying to make here was when you have a minimum phase filter and linear phase filter of exactly the same lengths, and if the goal is for the best attenuation of out of band signals, the minimum-phase filter will come out on top. I cannot comment on other implementations, and it is hard to attach a specific number as it depends on the output sample rate and the quality of the filter design, if I had to put some sort of number, let me say few thousand taps at Redbook rate.

Author of PGGB, remastero

PGGB.IO (Another way to audition PGGB, with credits towards PGGB purchase)

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

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

Before I can suggest the bit rate, what is the highest  sample rate supported by your DAC, is it 192kHz 24 bits? If that is the case, you should use PGGB to output at 4FS rate and it is likely a R2R DAC and start with bit depth of 19 bits or 20 bits.

DDC = Denafrips IRIS which supports 768/24bits in over USB. Output is coax, max for IRIS is 192/24 PCM or DSD64 DOP

DAC's are Metrum Octave (192/24bits) or Chord Mojo (768/32bits). I prefer the Metrum for mid range integrity but the Mojo has better dynamics.

 

Didn't realize until reading the manual the IRIS only supported 24 bits so should have started there. which might also matter

for my HQPlayer configuration. Duhh.

 

If an option for flac conversion allowed sizable benefits retention  and and keep meta tagging that would be hugely important. I originally had my NAS library as wav

then gave up because of the challenges with meta tagging wav for player needs.

 

Regards,

Dave

 

Audio system

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

DDC = Denafrips IRIS which supports 768/24bits in over USB. Output is coax, max for IRIS is 192/24 PCM or DSD64 DOP

DAC's are Metrum Octave (192/24bits) or Chord Mojo (768/32bits). I prefer the Metrum for mid range integrity but the Mojo has better dynamics.

 

Didn't realize until reading the manual the IRIS only supported 24 bits so should have started there. which might also matter

for my HQPlayer configuration. Duhh.

 

If an option for flac conversion allowed sizable benefits retention  and and keep meta tagging that would be hugely important. I originally had my NAS library as wav

then gave up because of the challenges with meta tagging wav for player needs.

 

For your Metrum DAC going through IRIS, you do not want to do any sort of conversion and it is best to output 4FS/20bits direct to Metrum or via IRIS.

 

For your Mojo 16FS/32bits

Author of PGGB, remastero

PGGB.IO (Another way to audition PGGB, with credits towards PGGB purchase)

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

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

DDC = Denafrips IRIS which supports 768/24bits in over USB. Output is coax, max for IRIS is 192/24 PCM or DSD64 DOP

DAC's are Metrum Octave (192/24bits) or Chord Mojo (768/32bits). I prefer the Metrum for mid range integrity but the Mojo has better dynamics.

 

Are you feeding the Mojo through the DDC, or only the Metrum? I didn't think so, but just want to clarify: to get the benefit of PGGB on the Mojo, you'll want to process files to 32/16fs as ZB said, and pass them directly to the Mojo via USB.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone

 

Just wondering whether anybody has tried PGGB with a Lampi DAC?  I have a Baltic 3 with Lampi's Engine#53 which, according to  the manual, accepts 768KHz PCM at 32 bits.  So I guess in theory it should just work.

 

At the moment, I use Roon, then HQP upsampling to DSD256 & ADSM7, routed to the DAC via a clocked EtherRegen & then an UltraRendu.  Any gotchas there?

 

I would be curious to know what bit rates folks would choose with the Lampi please?

 

Thx

 

Nikko

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, austinpop said:

 

Are you feeding the Mojo through the DDC, or only the Metrum? I didn't think so, but just want to clarify: to get the benefit of PGGB on the Mojo, you'll want to process files to 32/16fs as ZB said, and pass them directly to the Mojo via USB.

I'll try both. I eventually plan to upgrade to a Denafrips Pontus so that I can use I2S/768 from the IRIS. The Mojo really doesn't gain much from the IRIS

Regards,

Dave

 

Audio system

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, dmance said:

ZB…PGGB has to be integrated into playback software (please!) for automatic conversion and file management. In the interim, I will work on my own workflow components for my continued testing.

 

Combining both PGGB and Taiko Audio Server should be a marriage made in heaven

 

https://www.facebook.com/SuncoastAudio/posts/3961771397212542

 

However, Taiko Audio might be an Extreme-exclusive unless they're changing their mind at some point.

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

I'll try both. I eventually plan to upgrade to a Denafrips Pontus so that I can use I2S/768 from the IRIS. The Mojo really doesn't gain much from the IRIS

 

Just keep in mind that you're trying to offload the digital filtering in your DAC to PGGB. With the Mojo (and Chord DACs in general), this means your goal is to bypass the WTA1 stage in the DAC. To do so, you have to present the DAC with a 16FS signal, which you can only do through USB or DBNC (not sure Mojo supports this? H2, TT2, DAVE all do).

 

Inserting a DDC that can only output 4FS (176.4/192) in the path will defeat this. So for PGGB evaluation on the Mojo, you really do NOT want the Iris in the path!

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, austinpop said:

 

Just keep in mind that you're trying to offload the digital filtering in your DAC to PGGB. With the Mojo (and Chord DACs in general), this means your goal is to bypass the WTA1 stage in the DAC. To do so, you have to present the DAC with a 16FS signal, which you can only do through USB or DBNC (not sure Mojo supports this? H2, TT2, DAVE all do).

 

Inserting a DDC that can only output 4FS (176.4/192) in the path will defeat this. So for PGGB evaluation, you really do NOT want the Iris in the path!

Doesn't defeat it completely since a well mastered HDCD (44/20) recording improved.

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...