PGGB and HQPlayer Discussion

[Miska]

44 minutes ago, austinpop said:

Are above modulators available in HQP Pro, since that's still on v4?

 

Yes, I think ASDM7ECv2 is there.

 

(I use "v5" Pro for some of my testing, but it is not available)

 

44 minutes ago, austinpop said:

I'm not an expert here, but I believe it does exploit DSD Direct, at least per Vinnie.

 

OK, it could work. But given how many buggy implementations I've seen, I would first confirm with measurements that it actually works correctly. Since the datasheets and chips are buggy, designers need to work around such bugs by using measurements and some trial and error search. ESS is among the worst in terms of both datasheet and chip bugs, only beaten recently by AKM's new AK4191+AK4499EX chip combo.

 

Just in case I would at least stick to DSD256. Because especially DSD512 may not work correctly. (with PCM inputs, the chip runs at DSD256 speed)

 

44 minutes ago, austinpop said:

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.

 

That hidden flag was removed years ago... But I could ask again, why sinc-L/sinc-M/sinc-Mx?

 

44 minutes ago, austinpop said:

Recall that I had reported on PGGB 32/16FS vs. HQP DSD256 upsampling on a T+A DAC-200, which I heard on

 

Technically the discrete DSD section in DAC 200 can clearly beat performance of the chip based PCM section, with over 20 dB lower distortion.

 

For me, the clear winner is running my DAC 200 and HA 200 at DSD256, or DSD512. Same as with T+A DAC8 DSD earlier. Same goes for my Holo Audio DACs, Marantz SA-12SE, TEAC UD-701N, and so on...

 

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

 

 

Even the very latest ESS' ES9039 chip performs better at DSD256 than with any PCM inputs. Even despite the fact that it doesn't have any kind of DSD Direct mode.

 

 

But anyway, I think I have an idea what kind of sonic character you are after and I don't mind your preferences.

 

[copy_of_a]

On 12/21/2023 at 6:13 PM, Miska said:

If you listen to the drumming in Porcupine Tree - Anesthetize track, you get the idea where for example poly-sinc-gauss-short and poly-sinc-gauss shine. Or for example Opeth - Eternal Rains Will Come track. (to list few of my test tracks)

😊 … for „soundchecks“ I also always put Porcupine Tree in my playlist. Mostly from the „In Absentia“ album (drums are left pretty clean on that) and also the track „Cheating the Polygraph“ from the „Nil Recurring“ EP (because it contains quite some aliasing - unlike other Porcupine Tree albums).
Since you seem to have a connection to this kind of music I‘d also recommend an album called „Rain Tree Crow“ (selftitled). It‘s a live studio session recording from the members of the former „Japan“ band (David Sylvian, Steve Jansen, Richard Barbieri, Mick Karn) and as far as transients go this album is definitely one to check out. Appart from being absolutely outstanding musically/creatively. The original Redbook from 1991 is fine, but the 2003 remaster is one of those remasters that actually improve the sound (-balance) IMHO … still very dynamic.

 

„There’s no one-filter-fits-all.“
Poly-Sinc-Gauss! 😊
It really works fine for everything.
A joy to listen to with all kinds of music (through loudspeakers). I love it! It‘s so damn clean!

 

… somewhat off topic, sorry 😉
 

[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.

[Schafheide]

@Mista Lova LovaWhat an absolute intellectual pleasure it is, for me to read your thoughts.  We need more like you, to question our opinions on the many, many variants in this, our chosen love of recorded music.

[Mista Lova Lova]

2 hours ago, Schafheide said:

@Mista Lova LovaWhat an absolute intellectual pleasure it is, for me to read your thoughts.  We need more like you, to question our opinions on the many, many variants in this, our chosen love of recorded music.

 

Thank you very much for your kind words. English isn't my mother tongue so I can only hope that I have been successful at conveying my thoughts to others, and articulating those can be quite tricky in this situation where I have even resorted to analogies/metaphors to try to paint a picture of what I had in mind. 

 

I'm glad that what I'm doing hasn't been misunderstood as trying to convince others that my ears are better than theirs and/or that my way of listening to music is "more correct" than theirs. It's just my inquisitive nature that kicks in when I see strengths, weaknesses and the associated trade-offs and I then feel the need to at least endeavour to understand what the underlying reasons for this are. If it was something that I didn't personally care about, I would have perhaps been more easily satisfied with an answer that "kind of makes sense"; however, because I absolutely love music and the positive impact that it has always had on my life (and I seem to be quite sensitive to various aspects of audio reproduction), what would have otherwise been a bit of a "chore" has suddenly turned into a fascinating journey.

 

Having said that - however fascinating the journey may be, at the end of the day it's all about music enjoyment which is inherently subjective. Experimenting is great and I'll certainly continue to do so; however, overthinking surely leads to the "can't see the wood for the trees" syndrome.

[Mista Lova Lova]

On 1/3/2024 at 11:03 PM, copy_of_a said:

„There’s no one-filter-fits-all.“
Poly-Sinc-Gauss! 😊
It really works fine for everything.
A joy to listen to with all kinds of music (through loudspeakers). I love it! It‘s so damn clean!

I don't usually use that filter, I find the gauss-long more convincing overall (some extra space), but:

 

1. When listening for particular aspects of sound in "isolation" (e.g. transients), I find the -gauss more convincing (in relation to said aspects), so this would yet again seem to prove the correctness of @Miska's observations with regard to the length of the filters and the associated properties thereof (this doesn't change the fact that one person may prefer different approach/trade-offs to another).

 

2. There are tracks that clearly seem to immediately benefit from shorter filters (talking about Red Book).

Check this one out: "My Red Hot Car" by Squarepusher. The transients' snappiness/incisiveness with the -gauss and further with the gauss-short (which I would normally never use) filters is simply phenomenal. I would normally still listen to this track with the -gauss-long filter, but then I'll often re-play it with either of the aforementioned two just to soak up those transients.

 

PS I've not listened to the Porcupine Tree tracks yet, but will do so soon.

[semente]

On 12/21/2023 at 4:31 PM, Mista Lova Lova said:

Why not gauss-short? Very simple answer - it's just rubbish to my ears. Might be good for "snappiness" of transients and for experimenting with filters so as to fine-tune one's hearing by finding out what's missing if we make a filter too short. So absolutely no issues that it exists, it fits perfectly with HQP's philosophy of giving the listener a wide range of filters to choose from. But even going by the manual - this filter only focuses on transients, not timbre or space - and the last two aspects are very lacking indeed. For some specialist usage - yeah, perhaps. For general listening to music and wanting it to sound convincing - no way.

 

The problem with your view is that it is subjective. Unless you are able to statistically prove that most (e.g. 90%) HQPlayer users agree with your opinion.

And there's also a chance that your expectations and assessment have been influenced by what you have read.

[Mista Lova Lova]

1 hour ago, semente said:

The problem with your view is that it is subjective. Unless you are able to statistically prove that most (e.g. 90%) HQPlayer users agree with your opinion.

 

I'm afraid that that's the "problem" (or inherent characteristic of) with every view and you are thus expecting of me what is not only unreasonable but also undoable. I would no doubt be a rich man if I were able to produce "objective views", especially on such person-dependent matters as one's perception and enjoyment of a given digital audio filter.

 

If there was ever any doubt as to my reasons for sharing my highly subjective notes on individual filters, it should have been dispelled by the last sentence of the post quoted by you:

  

On 12/21/2023 at 4:31 PM, Mista Lova Lova said:

I am not arguing that one approach is correct and the other one is not. Just trying to sum things up here the way I see them.

 

-----

 

1 hour ago, semente said:

And there's also a chance that your expectations and assessment have been influenced by what you have read.

 

Indeed, I would say that this chance is quite high, hence my attempts to give myself a break from music and approach things with a fresher perspective. Does that mean that I'm suddenly 100% objective? Of course not. But that's the best that I can do and I think that it's still worth something. One thing I know for sure - my love for music/audio is vastly greater than whatever affinity for a given product and the corresponding philosophy/approach I may have (whether hardware of software). So I'll happily abandon the current one as soon as I've found something better- as has been the case throughout my entire audio journey, during which - especially at the beginning - I found my vocabulary lacking in terms of finding ways to illustrate the differences that I was hearing. My hope is that my posts may assist some in doing exactly that - and those views can then be exchanged and either some consensus reached or at least an appreciation of our differences acknowledged.

 

Note that the above is only possible when we acknowledge and accept that all of our views on what we are hearing are inherently subjective. Attacking one's views on the grounds that they're subjective is pointless.

 

Having said that, there are two creators of two great pieces of software on this forum (HQP and PGGB) who, to the best of my understanding, appear to disagree mainly on the topic of the best way to reconstruct the time domain and transients (among other things, such as noise-shaping etc.). I see this as a fundamental schism, so to speak, in the world of digital audio reconstruction and I'm intrigued by it, especially since it would appear to be that both parties cannot be right at the same time.

Do note, however, that I do not have sufficient knowledge and expertise to offer any arguments and/or pieces of evidence which would support one or the other. The best that I can do is lots of critical listening and then try to draw my own conclusions accordingly.

[Mista Lova Lova]

Since it was me who started this conversation, I feel like it's appropriate to give a wee update (or a wee teaser really, at this point) in light of the upcoming release of the DSD version of PGGB.

 

I will refrain from posting detailed impressions until the product is officially available; however I can say this for now - I have never said "oh wow" so many times whilst listening to music before and the last time I got so emotional with how beautiful music had become was probably when I upgraded from Topping D90 to the Gustard X26 Pro DAC. For the first time since starting this hobby, I have stopped using the word "trade-offs" when thinking about the best description for what I'm hearing. I am literally speechless every time I play a gargle-blasted DSD file on my system and it's like everything I've ever wanted and then cranked up to eleven. Digital audio has never sounded so good before.

 

I am so excited that this product will be widely available very soon. The level of one's appreciation for what it does will probably depend on what gear they're using (I know that my Focal Utopia and Hifiman HE1000se are high-quality headphones, but I'm sure that there's more to be had), however in terms of comparisons vs everything else that I've tried to this point, the verdict is clear - the king has arrived and his throne is at least a level above the competition.

[LowOrbit]

MLL

 

I liked your post (be rude not to) but you're only fueling my impatience to get my hands on the finished release of PGGBDSD. I heard a few test tracks but without the EQ which would have made evaluation quite a bit more useful to Zaphod and to me. 

 

(Good to know there's more than one PGGB fan in the UK too!)

[Miska]

Not related to HQPlayer though... So maybe the PGGB thread would be more appropriate place to talk about that?

 

[Mista Lova Lova]

35 minutes ago, LowOrbit said:

MLL

 

I liked your post (be rude not to) but you're only fueling my impatience to get my hands on the finished release of PGGBDSD. I heard a few test tracks but without the EQ which would have made evaluation quite a bit more useful to Zaphod and to me. 

 

(Good to know there's more than one PGGB fan in the UK too!)

 

I'm quite convinced that the wait will be worth it. Pay attention to the spatial nuances in terms of depth and what happens at the "outskirts" of the soundstage where there's so much more air around particular notes as if a camera lens's zoom has been upgraded to capture the entire picture with the same sharpness. Spectacular.

 

I personally don't use EQ so don't have any thoughts to share on this.

[Mista Lova Lova]

23 minutes ago, Miska said:

Not related to HQPlayer though... So maybe the PGGB thread would be more appropriate place to talk about that?

 

I think that it is very related to this particular thread which was separated from the PGGB thread in the past for this specific reason. I was a long-term HQP fan and I think that it would be interesting to see what other music lovers' impressions will be.

 

I will of course be guided by this forum's moderators as to what discussions are appropriate but personally I can't see anything wrong in exchanging opinions. After all, I used to praise HQP even when compared to PGGB in the past and I don't recall anyone having issues with those posts (except for members who disagreed with my views, but that was just part of the normal discussion, i.e. exchange of views and opinions). I believe that it's only fair to continue to apply the same criteria here.

[Miska]

Or you could start a new "PGGB impressions" thread for non-HQPlayer related things?

 

Although I do understand that you want to specifically target HQPlayer users with your PGGB impressions though. Hence the thread naming.

 

[Mista Lova Lova]

You're ascribing bad intentions to what I'm doing, @Miska, and I don't like that.

 

I'm not "targeting" anyone; I'm merely inviting everyone to have a discussion as I'm curious if my views will be shared by others, and if not - why not.

 

This is what I've been doing from day one, I don't think that you had a problem with this as long as I was stating my preference for HQP or as long as I was still making references to HQP still offering something that PGGB didn't. And it still does - on-the-fly processing, ideal for streaming. But in terms of audio quality - to my ears, that's no longer the case. Just like I was spreading my excitement for HQP in the past, I'm doing the same for PGGB DSD now - not because of my affiliation with the former or latter, but because of how it's elevated my music experience. You may not like that - and that's perfectly understandable. But by posting such comments you're only going to attract more attention to this discussion. So, in a way - thank you, I guess.

 

[Miska]

If you are talking about a Chord DAC, there's no point in doing that in a thread named "Ayre and Chord DACs discussion".

 

I think these would be best kept in product specific threads, unless the posting is specifically addressing both products.

 

But it is up to @The Computer Audiophile to decide how the topics are best organized.

 

Now whenever you post here, I don't know if it's related to HQPlayer or not and I'm just wasting my time reading some unrelated posts.

 

[Mista Lova Lova]

I understand your arguments, however my counter to that would be that the reason why the discussion has always been worth having is that:

 

1. These two products are both software products as opposed to hardware offerings and are widely considered to be the best options available to audiophiles looking for a software upsampling solution.

 

2. As per the numerous previous discussions, there have been serious disagreements between the designers of both products where it appeared to be quite clear that the two approaches were so different that one could see them as mutually exclusive, i.e. either one or the other is right and this should be possible to determine via listening sessions. And this is exactly where the discussion about subjective impressions is the only way to gauge what the general perception of the music lovers such as myself is. If the engineering assumptions behind PGGB are wrong, the sound quality should not be improved, or - more likely - should be degraded. If only some of the assumptions are right - then certain aspects of sound (such as soundstage) should see an improvement and others (such as transients) should suffer in the process.

 

For the above reasons, I would be of the opinion that this discussion should be allowed to be continued. However, let's of course leave it for the moderators to decide.

[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. 

[Mista Lova Lova]

6 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

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. 

I believe that it was the PGGB only thread where I was comparing PGGB to HQP, doing my best to describe the differences that I was hearing and the strengths that I saw in both products. That led to a new topic being created.

 

6 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

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. 

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.

[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

[austinpop]

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

[Mista Lova Lova]

Roger. I'll make sure that I only post comments in here which relate to both products at the same time. I will prepare a longer post gathering all my thoughts and impressions, to keep things neat and tidy and post it once the new version of PGGB has officially been released so that everyone else can make the same comparisons.

[jelt2359]

Any other impressions?