PGGB and HQPlayer Discussion

[The Computer Audiophile]

8 minutes ago, austinpop said:

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.

Thanks Rajiv. I've split some posts into this new topic. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

I just arrived in Chicago for Axpona and see there’s a question about what’s appropriate for this thread. If I’m not mistaken, this thread was initially split off from an HQP only thread or from a PGGB only thread, in order to facilitate a discussion about both products. 
 

A further discussion about PGGB DSD is ok, if it discusses it in relation to HQP or in that neighborhood. If solely a discussion about PGGB DSD, then a new thread about that topic is appropriate. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

41 minutes ago, Mista Lova Lova said:

 

 

My intention is to do some comparisons between PGGB DSD and each of the HQP filters which I previously used to describe my impressions and hopefully compare it with other people's.

Ok

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just a note about anonymity. I know and have personally met @Zaphod Beeblebrox. His anonymity is no different from @Archimago who I know and have personally met. 
 

Let’s not fall down the MQA-esque anonymity trap, knowingly or unknowingly. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

I cleaned up the sideshow. Back to the actual apps. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

12 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

You deleted the posts without addressing the legal aspects?

 

An audio site isn’t the best place to discuss international business law. Similar topics arise every so often. Given the number of jurisdictions, cultural customs, etc… it’s always a dead end discussion. 
 

For example, as a US based company I ignore GDPR just like I ignore Sharia law. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 hours ago, StreamFidelity said:

If someone wants to remain anonymous, I respect that. But it makes it more difficult to believe what they write. Do we agree on this?

This is the argument that MQA used against me during the RMAF debacle. When it comes to objective data, the identity of someone is far less important because the conclusions and data can be dis/proven by anyone with the right skills. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

What would be reason for you to try stay anonymous?

 

MQA was trying to bundle a lossy DRM protected delivery format with 16fs oversampling filters. Delivered in FLAC, but that encryption ruined FLAC's native compression.

 

IMO, one would want to buy lossless content in standard container without DRM. Just like you buy CD's or such. And then you use what ever playback means you like, This may change over time, the but the content is a separate entity. Not something like SACD, DVD-A, HD-DVD or Blu-ray. Like the HD-DVD's I have, which are not pretty much useless...

 

People have many reasons for retaining their anonymity. I don’t judge them, but I’ll judge the product or opinions. 
 

MQA, the company tried to say Archimago’s work exposing MQA was invalid because he was anonymous. I think we all agree that’s senseless. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

10 hours ago, Miska said:

 

IMO, it would be rather fair to do with that with your own face publicly. Like I did. Mostly those were leveraging other people's work anonymously. So I would say it would be fair to state your sources and present that publicly without anonymity, with your own face. That way you show you are personally standing behind what you are saying.

 

And I personally value such things as Microsoft AuthentiCode signatures and notarized and signed macOS applications. I generally don't install anything unsigned elsewhere than sandboxed test environments. Not least given current world situation. It is damn about $200/year for Windows and $100/year for macOS to have your proper cryptographic signature on the software! Cannot be too much to ask.

 

The great thing is that we as consumers can decide what to purchase or not and evaluate risk/reward pros/cons. Fairness and what should be done is in the eyes of the beholders.

 

There shouldn’t be unnecessary gatekeepers for audio software. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

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. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, semente said:

I don’t think that Archimago sells anything.

 

I do agree that a lot of audiophile-related stuff is made in the kitchen or shed and many consumers couldn’t care less, but when people are discussing digital audio science and technology beyond personal opinion participants should provide name and credentials/expertise in my view.

 

Thanks for sharing your view. I respect that, even though I don’t know your name (only joking about that last part and added it for humor in this overly serious discussion). 🙂

[The Computer Audiophile]

22 minutes ago, copy_of_a said:

I certainly won't install or otherwise try PGGB.

Way too much hassle to deal with such big files.

Way too expensive for what if offers.

I am totally f*cked up by the "audiophile" marketing blabla and don't want to support such an enterprise

Wow, who peed in your breakfast this morning?

 

We are talking about audio, a fun hobby, without the requirement to participate in any of this, yet you’re talking like there’s a government mandate to pay an upsampling tax. It looks like the absolute most you can spend on pggb is $1,050. That isn’t even as much as the sales tax on some usb cables. 
 

If you don’t like something just move on. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, copy_of_a said:

I am super relaxed!

Said with an exclamation 🙂

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, Mista Lova Lova said:

 

Thanks for sharing this. I've just played it using both PGGB (DSD512) and HQP (gauss-hires-lp and 7EC-Super modulator).

 

I must say this first - this sounds poor on both, just not a good recording/copy. I can see that the file is 192kHz, so perhaps it's already been upsampled and hence the not-so-great quality.

 

HQP seemingly has more energy because the soundstage collapses a little and is brought more forward, as in my experience always happens with any of the filters that don't go all the way up to Nyquist.

 

PGGB restores the depth and space. Transients are therefore a bit further away from me, but if I raise the volume to bring them closer, I can't hear any smearing. Otherwise it's hard to compare because I'm comparing a big, 3D presentation to something more in-my-face.

 

Have a listen to Tool - Chocolate Chip Factory, especially the drums, on both PGGB and HQP and see what you think.

Stuff like this is way more interesting to me. HQP and PGGB produce different results, like chocolate and vanilla. Whichever one is your taste, that’s fine with me. Even cooler, perhaps use one for certain albums and the other for the rest. Options are fantastic!

[The Computer Audiophile]

We have crossed into this territory:

 

[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. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

I’m hopping on a flight to Munich and pausing this thread temporarily. Everyone take a breather, listen to some tunes, and come back in a bit (or browse some other topics).