PGGB and HQPlayer Discussion

[austinpop]

May I suggest people stay on topic, and post HQP discussion on the relevant HQP thread?

 

As for this "HQP vs. PGGB" discussion, it also does not belong here. If you want to have that discussion, feel free to create a thread of your own and have at it there.

 

@The Computer Audiophile FYI.

[austinpop]

@Mista Lova Lova

 

At some point, you just have to go with what sounds right to your ears. It appears you have found what works best in your setup with your ears. You should just enjoy it.

 

I also consider it admirable that you took the time and effort to compare the various approaches thoughtfully and with an open mind. I am a big proponent of this approach. I do encourage everyone who has the patience to do your own experiments. After all, both products give you the ability to do trials, so don't rely solely on other reports — it has to sound better to you.

 

For my part, HQP was an integral part of my comparative journey, that I've chronicled in articles and in the early posts on the PGGB thread, that eventually led to PGGB on my then-DAC, the DAVE. I have since moved to the Vinnie Rossi L2 DAC in the L2i SE amp, driving T+A SolP and Meze Elite headphones. Very importantly, while this DAC uses AKM AK4497EQ chips, it does have a switchable Oversampling Filter (OSF)-bypass mode, and here again I found PGGB to be a game changer.

 

One thing we forget in these comparisons is that we really are comparing apples (HQP real-time) with oranges (PGGB offline upsampling). This becomes important for people like me, who use a server where the music player plays a big role in the sound quality. The Taiko Extreme is not ideal for real-time HQP, and sounds best with the Taiko XDMS player, which does not support HQP. So how does one compare?

 

As an experiment, I recently had a friend with an HQP Pro license upsample offline a few hi-res test tracks for me to DSD512 using:

• poly-sinc-gauss-hires-lp
• AMSDM7EC-512+fs

I then played both sets of files (PGGB 32/16FS wav and HQP Pro DSD512 dsf) using XDMS on my Extreme, feeding the Vinnie Rossi L2 DAC. This takes the upstream chain completely out of the equation, and focuses completely on the differences between the input files.

 

Let me first say, I found much to like about the DSD512 HQP Pro files. Compared to the native originals, they had a more expansive soundstage. There was also excellent heft, what I would call meat on the bone. However, for my ears, on my system, I still found the PGGB 16FS files to have better transient attack, longer decays, more micro-details, and better instrument placement and separation, especially in dense passages. BTW — one of the tracks was Game of Love from Daft Punk's Random Access Memories, in 24/88.2.

 

Again, this is with my DAC in my system listening with my ears. 

 

TLDR? Don't take anything at face value. Try both approaches in your system and do your own listening tests. Go with what you like. 

[austinpop]

1 hour ago, Miska said:

 

Why this and not one of the recommended ones? For example ASDM7ECv2, ASDM7EC-light/super, or something like that?

 

 

Not sure, I will have to go back to see if perhaps that was recommended at some point. Are above modulators available in HQP Pro, since that's still on v4?

 

1 hour ago, Miska said:

You probably mean AK4497?

 

 

Yes, apologies, typo. Will try to fix.

 

1 hour ago, Miska said:

With AKM chips (apart from the AK4191+AK4499EX combo), doing input at 352.8k or higher anyway bypasses the on-chip digital filter which operates only up to 352.8 or 384k output rate. And then enters the digital volume control stage. Thus for higher input rates such selection doesn't have effect.

 

OK good, so the OSF bypass is implicit too. Point being, it has OSF bypass.

 

1 hour ago, Miska said:

Is this DAC bit-perfect for DSD? IOW, does it support the DSD Direct mode of AK4497? Has this been verified through measurements?

 

I'm not an expert here, but I believe it does exploit DSD Direct, at least per Vinnie. See https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/34665-lio-dac-20-statement-level-dac-in-production/?do=findComment&comment=695852

 

 

1 hour ago, Miska said:

Why not use same output format for both? And the Pro version used was probably pretty old compared to for example current v5 range...

 

If you mean: why didn't I compare with one of the PCM filters in HQP, that comparison has been ongoing. Over the years, I've tried the original sinc_L/sinc-M, then with the hidden flag to go up to 16M taps, then the newer Sinc-Mx etc. I have not tried the latest ones in v5, but that is a closed chapter for me.

 

What I had not heard properly was HQP-upsampled DSD512. on my system, which is what this experiment was about.

 

Recall that I had reported on PGGB 32/16FS vs. HQP DSD256 upsampling on a T+A DAC-200, which I heard on @The Computer Audiophile's amazing system in this article: https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/bits-and-bytes/my-visit-to-audiophile-style-hq-—-another-take-on-immersive-vs-2ch-audio-r1186/ Scroll down to the sections entitled DSD Upsampling with HQPlayer and PCM Upsampling to 32/16FS with PGGB-256. However, that comparison was done in the course of a single listening session, so I wanted to repeat that in a setting where I was not time-constrained, and could go back and forth.

 

Ultimately, I  don't wish to argue the point. I urge everyone to just try for yourself and decide.

 

[austinpop]

2 hours ago, Miska said:

 

My HA 200 + Solitaire P combo is on one of my primary algorithm development systems I use the most.

Hey, at least we share the same taste in headphones! 😅 The Sol P are superb. 

[austinpop]

2 hours ago, Mista Lova Lova said:

And yet you still preferred PGGB. I don't think that I've quite been able to enjoy the PCM results on my system to that extent, past the initial impressions which again didn't stand the test of time.

 

And that's OK. To each his own.

[austinpop]

Makes sense. PGGB-only posts in the PGGB thread. Ditto HQP. Only posts covering both should go here.

[austinpop]

5 hours ago, Mista Lova Lova said:

A very interesting exchange of arguments (and some sarcastic comments).

 

The most interesting part to me was @Miska's claim that his focus is on restoring the signal the way it was before it entered an ADC, thus to my understanding criticising PGGB's approach as being inherently flawed in that no matter how close to perfection its reconstruction may be, it will inevitably contain and amplify the errors contained within the ADC-processed signal (if my understanding of what's been said is correct).

 

Prior to the release of PGGB DSD I found the above explanation convincing as the Gaussian filters did to my ears offer a more natural/smooth sound than the other HQP filters (albeit not as full-bodied as say Sinc-Mx). I used to always refer to my choice of filter as "my preferred trade-off", which implied a slight disappointment that I couldn't have it all at once. This has changed now as PGGB has better transparency than Sinc-L, similar or better tactility than Sinc-Mx and it manages to be very smooth, as in natural, without needing to give up any of the full-bodiedness in the process, like the Gaussian filters would do. And all of this happens at the same time which I've never encountered before.

 

Which makes me wonder if PGGB's new reconstruction/upsampling approach simply escapes the previous definitions and allows for minimal trade-offs to be made at the cost of a huge amount of processing being required per track.

 

It's also occurred to me that both @Miska and @Zaphod Beeblebrox could perhaps be right at the same time, to some extent anyway, in that there are perhaps inherent flaws in any signal that's been put through an ADC but not as much of it is audible/relevant as @Miska's approach would suggest. Perhaps a ringing analogy would be adequate here - if in fact ringing is mostly a non-issue, is it worth creating shorter filters which reconstruct a smaller portion of the frequency spectrum in order to prevent potential ringing where in reality, on average, we may be throwing away more than we're gaining? Same with apodising errors - perhaps they are audible in an irritating way in certain songs, but there's also a loss of transparency involved when switching from Sinc-MG to Sinc-MG(a). Are we doing more good or more damage in this process?

 

It seems to be hard to find an answer here that would convince everyone, so the topic is definitely complex. But it's my personal opinion that circumstances have now changed as PGGB DSD's sound quality is so outstanding that it can defend itself against otherwise purely theoretical claims.

 

Which gives @Zaphod Beeblebrox a very strong argument; not a theoretical one but a very practical one - the results are simply fantastic. This may change the conversation from "What is likely to give us a better result" to "What are the actual limits of digital audio reconstruction and how far can we push it".

 

You raise some good points, MLL.

 

These seem to be fundamentally different approaches, one (HQP) based on correction/repair of ADC and very recently, DAC imperfections, while the other (PGGB) focusses on near-perfect reconstruction using Shannon-Whittaker. This does not even get into the other fundamental difference of real-time vs. ahead-of-time.

 

The problem that seems to keep erupting is when folks want to ascribe "right' or "wrong" to these approaches. This makes for some -- entertaining for a few, uncomfortable for everyone else -- exchange of posts, after which no minds are really changed.

 

Folks, this is audio. This is a field where almost every component type has competing vendors who all claim theirs is the right path. Speakers, amps, DACs, servers, switches, power supplies, clocks, you name it. I gave up a long time ago about worrying too much about which approach is the "correct" one, and just used my ears.

 

The fact of the matter is that most, if not all, PGGB users have tried other upsampling methods before. I suspect I am typical in moving from being an upsampling skeptic to a fan of the Chord M-Scaler, then HQPlayer, and finally PGGB.

 

If current HQP users don't even want to try PGGB because Jussi says it's incorrect, rings all over the place, blurs transients, they are giving up their own agency and going by faith alone.

 

Listen before judging.

[austinpop]

21 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Hi guys, I’m unsure why we are all wasting time on this, “you’re wrong, no, you’re wrong” style of discussion. 
 

It makes NOBODY look good or smart or more worthy of a consumer’s hard earned money. You now what checks all those boxes for me? Humility, confidence in one’s product, and end result that increases my enjoyment of music. Thats just me though, and I’d never force my views onto others. 
 

Both @Zaphod Beeblebrox and @Miska are valuable members of this community and have created products that people love. Continuing this line of back and forth is like two amp manufacturers arguing about using feedback vs zero feedback. Both designs have fans, and both have people who say the other is absolutely wrong. The bottom line is how consumers enjoy the results of the product. Seriously that’s it. 
 

All this technical discussion is neat, but doesn’t really matter to 99% of people. If one app is technically correct but doesn’t produce the audible results people want, it matters not. Plus, nobody is keeping score of points made by anyone. We all use the products, like what we like, and move on. Arguing can only sour this experience. 
 

For the record, I like both HQP and PGGB. The technical discussion is way beyond my ability to understand it. I’m left with only the music, and use that to decide. No babies or puppies are harmed, so I have no desire to see a continued argument. 

I could not have said this better myself!

 

No minds are being changed here. I would like to go back to listening impressions, which at least all of us can relate to.

 

By all means, those who want to continue this “I’m right, you’re wrong” debate should move to the Objective sub-forum.

 

The rest of us will thank you.

[austinpop]

1 minute ago, bogi said:

That's where you and Miska disagree ... :)

And at this point, can we just say: the proof of the pudding is in the eating (listening)?

 

Listen to both (both allow you to try before you buy) and decide for yourself.

[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?

[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.

[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.