PGGB and HQPlayer Discussion

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

I will stop here, but if you zoom in on the difference what you will see is mostly 22.05kHz but it is not stationary, and as a result represents a wider frequency range.

 

[Miska]

1 minute ago, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

I will stop here, but if you zoom in on the difference what you will see is mostly 22.05kHz but it is not stationary, and as a result represents a wider frequency range.

 

 

That's the PGGB's ringing...

 

[kennyb123]

10 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

Busting PGGB in realtime 😂

No, you’ve been busting the straw men you keep inventing to give the impression you are busting PGGB.

https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/straw-man-fallacy/

[Miska]

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

We have crossed into this territory:

 

 

Oh yes, it is 4:34 AM here. 😅

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

16 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

That's the PGGB's ringing...

 

Nope, that is what it would look like, our eyes are not FFTs, the spectrogram says what is really happening, shorter filters simply cannot reconstruct lower frequencies correctly.

 

[Miska]

18 minutes ago, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

Nope, that is what it would look like, our eyes are not FFTs, the spectrogram says what is really happening, shorter filters simply cannot reconstruct lower frequencies correctly.

 

Well, pass it a 20 Hz or 10 Hz tone and compare SINAD. Still the same, if your difference is higher than SINAD of either one, you have done something wrong.

 

Or you have have triggered ringing in PGGB's filter due to change in the low frequency tone, caused by high frequency component. (which you just demonstrated above, but still PGGB shouldn't manage to screw up low frequencies)

 

Or maybe you are using some noise-shaping suspect to noise floor modulation in PGGB?

 

[austinpop]

If only @Miska would stop using words like “wrong” and “screw up” this might be a useful conversation. But no, he can’t help himself.

 

You own this space. Everyone respects you and HQPlayer. How insecure do you have to be to attack a tiny competitor with such language? Why can’t you be more civil, and not act like such a bully?

[LowOrbit]

I have to agree with @austinpop. Everyone here has huge respect for what HQPlayer has brought to our tiny, almost fetishistic corner of audio and the quality on offer with HQPlayer 5 (and PGGB) are testament to the many years of passionate effort @Miska has invested in showing that separating the reconstruction filter from the D-A engineering piece is a beneficial approach to getting quality audio out of digital.

 

Certainly I would think that HQP at this stage in its product cycle is hugely more widely used than PGGB. And probably everyone who has a PGGB license has HQP too. I use it for streaming and replay all the time.

 

The opportunity to discuss and explore the relative benefits of the different approaches without the entrenched and defensive attitude on display by some parties would be illuminating and beneficial to us all (I say "all" but really we are a tiny band of individuals all stuck at the bottom of a conceptual well, seemingly resenting each other for stealing our oxygen!).

 

Hey ho - as Chris' illustration depicts - the internet runs on this misalignment of views.

[semente]

11 hours ago, kennyb123 said:

He’s referring to the academic learnings that have helped influence his design philosophies.  Being equipped with an understanding of how we perceive things such as timbre and pitch seem to me to be concepts that audio designers should understand well, but unfortunately we don’t see many talking about this.  Fortunately there are a few.  ASC the tube trap makers are another who seem to get this as they sound much like Rob when it comes to the importance of us able to perceive of when notes stop and start.  Spectral has also made similar arguments.

 

What’s been interesting to me is that I have yet to see anyone ever attempt to rebut Rob’s actual arguments.  His critics tend to respond with some form of ad hominem that attacks him or how he worded his argument instead.  I will admit that I never tried to confirm that what Rob says is true but I haven’t felt that important as the proof has been in the pudding.

I agree with the end but of your last sentence: the goal is to get whatever sound one prefers.

But believing in Watts’ marketing indoctrination is a matter of personal choice.

[bogi]

If some technical information indicates that something in a product design is or may be incorrect, I hope we don't wish to establish some kind of censorship.

 

When I am buying a new DAC, I'm searching for one, two, three star reviews to learn about possible product flaws in different usage scenarios. Correctly argued critical reviews are the most valuable.

 

Of course, one can use the word 'incorrect' instead of 'wrong'. But the word 'wrong' has still it's place and can be fully appropriate, if the argumentation is well technically backed up.

[bogi]

 

6 hours ago, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

shorter filters simply cannot reconstruct lower frequencies correctly.

 

Different DACs incl. the best ones use longer or shorter filters, but I never heard about such a thing previously. We are of course speaking about short filters of usual lengths, not about some ultra short extreme. One tap "filter" cannot detect any frequency, that's clear.

[Miska]

6 hours ago, austinpop said:

might be a useful conversation.

 

Having this conversation in first place is huge waste of time and energy.

 

[Mista Lova Lova]

1 hour ago, Miska said:

 

Having this conversation in first place is huge waste of time and energy.

 

The kind of pointless discussion that warrants staying up all night for 😉

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

8 hours ago, Miska said:

Or maybe you are using some noise-shaping suspect to noise floor modulation in PGGB?

No, I used dither. I applied -1.5dB gain for both PGGB and the half band filter, so they can easily be compared.

 

Yes of course, I checked to make sure if both retained the original samples below, I plot the difference picking every 16th sample out. They are not zero because of dither. PGGB does not have an option to just truncate, else I would have done that and not used dither.

 

1 hour ago, bogi said:

Different DACs incl. the best ones use longer or shorter filters, but I never heard about such a thing previously. We are of course speaking about short filters of usual lengths, not about some ultra short extreme. One tap "filter" cannot detect any frequency, that's clear.

 

'Correctly' is a relative term. Many believe modern DACs are transparent and are equally good at reconstruction and nothing more is needed. Even the spectrogram I showed indicates the differences are still subtle but exist. One can choose to believe the differences are audible because it is above 20kHz or choose to believe the differences is in the time domain reconstruction in the audible range.

 

Below I plot the FFTs taken with a 1 second window and averaged over the first 20 seconds, you cannot really tell PGGB apart from the halfband filter, because any differences in the time domain have been average out.

 

 

[austinpop]

5 hours ago, Miska said:

 

Having this conversation in first place is huge waste of time and energy.

 

I rest my case. This is pointless. No one wants to read your relentless attacks. You’re not changing minds, just alienating people who used to hold you in high regard.

 

So save your time and energy, and allow us to go back to listening impressions.

[bogi]

@austinpopThe debate which you called "relentless attacks" was technical criticism. I don't see the issue you found here. It looks to me rather that you want to establish here some kind of censorship and extra protection of one product you like.

My personal opinion is that your view is incorrect and that it is you who is attacking here. I see your post as totally inappropriate in regards to Jussi, attempting to push him out of discussion, attempting to restrict discussion and make it annoying for others. This is the reason why I reported your post to Chris as inappropriate.

 

It's OK for me if you are fan of PGGB. But don't act this way to people, who see technical flaws and are expressing them. Nor PGGB, nor any other product does not deserve any special kind of protection against criticism.

Till now I liked this forum from the reason how it is open to express different opinions. I found your post as going against character of this forum which I like so much.

[The Computer Audiophile]

I have to tell you guys, this is one unique situation. I have a bucket full of reported posts, thank you everyone for caring about the topic and the community enough to report posts and provide some reasoning / context. However, we’ve come to a no-win situation that we must turn into a win-win. 
 

For every post, there are reasonable people saying near opposite things to me via the report post function. Seriously. You guys are all fantastic and I wish you were all going to the Munich show so we could chat over a beverage or two. There is no decision I can make about posts and this thread that’ll please everyone. 
 

later today I will probably pause the thread for a bit so people can take a breather. 

[jelt2359]

What I learnt early on is that it is not what you say but the way you say it. What I see is this:

 

ZB posts some charts, admitting that PGGB rings but that he optimises for and has charts about differences in the audible range.

Jussi (without even checking it himself): your samples must be wrong

ZB posts more charts.

Jussi (still not checking it himself): PGGB screwed up so badly, worse than I can ever expect.

ZB posts yet more charts.

Jussi (no independent checking again): PGGB is ringing, ha ha

ZB reminds that it's audible range.

Jussi (no checking, why would he? PGGB must be wrong): pass it a tone. or it's ringing. or noise shaping?

AP: Jussi, be nice.

Jussi: this is a waste of time.

 

Would it not make more sense to use music (not a tone), use the exact filters that ZB compared, post what you find, and first let's see if the charts are similar? If you think that's a waste of time, fine, but this is not helping.

 

The overall sense I get is that Jussi has assumed (not deduced) that ZB is wrong, and is just finding reasons to justify why.

 

I am excited to be educated. Jussi's last post to me is that his longest filter, 2 seconds is enough for a filter. That does sound logical, although it didn't sound like all his recommended filters were 2 seconds long so I'm curious how his shorter filters solve the problem. But now ZB is posting something else- a difference in the audible range- which is being talked upon in a condescending manner. ZB even admits that Jussi is right, PGGB rings above the audible range. Flip it around, I don't think Jussi has ever admitted that ZB is right about anything.

 

But can we now talk about the audible range and what ZB is showing? If we get this back on track, there are other discussions we can have in a civil way, like why @Mista Lova Lova hears a difference between two filters that apparently only differ above the audible range. I too cannot hear like a bat, so I'm curious how and why this would be relevant to me.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Technical criticism are fine but we are going in circles repeating the same thing. I am never going to agree that the differences we hear between upsamplers is because what is beyond the audible range, and I don't think Jussi is going to ever agree that it is because of difference in the time domain reconstruction in the audible range.  I know both of us cannot be correct at the same time, unless someone is willing to do a true scientific test and publish the results, we are not going to settle this on a war of words. I am not going to respond further to such posts and comments.

 

This thread ventured way beyond technical criticisms from questioning intentions, to questioning legality to questioning anonymity and then even accusing me of stealing. I don't think that was within the spirit of this forum either.

 

I have remained polite in my exchanges, I never talk ill of a competing product as I think it is in bad taste (though I admit I may have let emotions come in the way and been harsh a time or two for which I apologize). I would defend what I offer vehemently like any designer would. I don't consider PGGB a competitor to HQPlayer, the amount of time investment one needs to work with PGGB is not for the faint of heart.  I think they serve different purposes. I use HQP everyday myself and I have been using it for several years. I use it as a both as a player with PGGB files and also as an upsampler to listen to streamed audio, when PGGB and HQP can coexist even in my listening room, I just fail to understand all this animosity and trying to figure out which approach is superior. 

 

I am ready to move on and hope to see more impressions.

 

[StreamFidelity]

17 minutes ago, jelt2359 said:

I too cannot hear like a bat, so I'm curious how and why this would be relevant to me.

 

Nobody hears like a bat. But there seem to be side effects as to why ultrasound is indirectly audible. The different opinions have been treated appreciatively in this thread.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

I want to remind that part of the reason this thread exists is because there were many who wanted to play PGGB files through HQP and figure out how to do that best. This is no different from some using Roon for their library and then using HQP for upsampling or some just prefer the NAA of HQP.  Roon coexists with HQP and Roon also has DSP and upsampling options.

 

I have had several DMs requesting support for using PGGB with HQP as they are worried about asking it either on PGGB thread or HQP thread or this thread because that leads to the same line of discussion, which is not good for anyone involved. this happens not only here but across forums (Headfi and Roon).

[Mista Lova Lova]

Well, it was partly due to my curiosity and inquisitive nature that this debate continued until it got so heated, so I do feel some responsibility for making sure that it stays civil.

 

I am not going to comment on what has been said and the way it has been said - I think that it is plain to see and everyone can make up their own mind. I am, however, also concerned that we have reached a stage where, at least for the time being, we are unlikely to make any further progress in relation to establishing the objective data behind what we're hearing. I am certain that both @Zaphod Beeblebrox and @Miska will continue to publish data exhibiting what their products do well (e.g. on their websites) and each of us will be able to see these data, compare them and make up our own mind.

 

I also continue to use both pieces of software and continue to be excited about what's happening in the world of digital audio - just like the introduction of the Gaussian filters at the time helped me enjoy my music in a more non-fatiguing way which I interpreted as being more natural, the new release of PGGB DSD has made me want to listen to each song in my collection once again as I'm discovering things that I never paid attention to before.

 

I would strongly encourage everyone to give PGGD DSD trial a go - there is nothing to lose and in my opinion a lot to gain. I have in the past spent a considerable amount of time comparing different HQP filters, in an attempt to find one that sounds the best to me;  I will post some impressions of how they fare when compared to PGGB DSD (to my ears, on my system and with my music).

[austinpop]

20 minutes ago, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

I am never going to agree that the differences we hear between upsamplers is because what is beyond the audible range, and I don't think Jussi is going to ever agree that it is because of difference in the time domain reconstruction in the audible range.

 

I would say this is precisely the reason to pause the technical discussion, as we really do seem to be going around in circles.

 

@bogi I apologize if my post came across as trying to chill your right to free speech. That is truly not my intention. But hopefully you agree that we are at an impasse?

 

It would be a shame if @The Computer Audiophile was forced to pause the thread. As ZB's DMs indicate, there are clearly folks who would like to participate here, to discuss usage or listening impressions, but are scared to, for fear of sparking further diatribes.

[Apollo]

1 hour ago, austinpop said:

 

I would say this is precisely the reason to pause the technical discussion, as we really do seem to be going around in circles.

 

@bogi I apologize if my post came across as trying to chill your right to free speech. That is truly not my intention. But hopefully you agree that we are at an impasse?

 

It would be a shame if @The Computer Audiophile was forced to pause the thread. As ZB's DMs indicate, there are clearly folks who would like to participate here, to discuss usage or listening impressions, but are scared to, for fear of sparking further diatribes.

 

Why not for everybody's happiness, discuss in the appropriate forum topics, each its own, and not in this 'comparitive' topic?

[kennyb123]

4 minutes ago, Apollo said:

Why not for everybody's happiness, discuss in the appropriate forum topics, each its own, and not in this 'comparitive' topic?

This thread was created because PGGB was getting repeatedly attacked by a competitor in its own thread.  I actually think the best approach would be to have terms of service in place like what can be found on Head-Fi:  "A Member of the Trade may not post subjective assessments or negative comments about the products/services of competitors or other Members of the Trade."  There's little upside in it.  This thread proved that.