Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower


  • Member Title
    Sophomore Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hmm I guess I did miss your point a bit, but since you mentioned that you do work with live classical music recordings I thought you might want to use as reference point how close to live PGGB or any other upsampling or recording method can get rather than using an LP as starting point and adding yet another ADC into the equation? To me your test reminds me a bit of " crossing the brook to fetch water". I am of course ,like you fully aware that the sound varies a LOT depending on both where you are and how you record things: But at the end of the day and in my book the goal of HIFI should be to get as close as possible to how real acoustic unamplifed instruments and the human voice generally/normally sound in a good hall. Lots of variables involved absolutely, but still a violin should ideally sound as close to a real violin as possible shouldn´t it? Ok different violins sound different depending on a lot of things, make, player, steel or gut strings,repertoire hall and what not, and some modern composers even seem to compose against the instrument instead of for it! "Qoute Isabelle Faust" but they also all sound like violins not violas or cellos. Until SACD and hi res digital entered the scene digital often made it difficult to distinguish between them in densely scored passages. Regarding LP versus digital, violin is certainly one of the instruments digital has struggled most to reproduce close to how it really sounds under shall we say reasonably natural live circumstances is the violin imho. And yes although Mscaler and now PGGB have improved things considerably compared to cd ,I can sometimes also feel that a good old LP played on a good system captures violin sound maybe even better in some respects than our digital toys can. No sampling rates or bit numbers involved, no added digital artifacts or digital filtering, just what a good tape recorder or even better imho, a direct cut LP captured. PS Sorry for asking once again but what LP did you use in your comparison ? I am genuinely curious. Finally when you mention that the LP sounded better than BOTH digital versions I still assume your reference point, when saying so relates to how as a "trained listener" you consciously or not, know live instruments sound compared to recorded? Or what else could make you prefer the LP? Mit Freundlichen Grüssen Chrille
  2. Very interesting review and thanks for alerting me to Kivy. It seems he has even dared to write a book titled "De Gustibus" among many other interesting titles. I´ll definitely have to find some of his works once my nearest Univerity library is fully open again. Meanwhile I carry within two quotes from Beethoven: "Vom Herzen möge es wieder zu Herzen gehen" and, "Musik ist höhere Offenbahrung als alle Weisheit und Philosophie." Cheers Chrille
  3. Hmm, I suspect you still consider LP a better reference point than the actual live sound in the hall? What recording did you use? If it was a classical LP, there is a chance I may have it in my still over 10 shelf meters LP collection now mainly collecting dust since I got my Mscaler. Cheers Chrille
  4. Hi I agree regarding macrodynamics, very loud big dynamic peaks are not what electrostats thrive at. And yes I too used to own a pair of huge HORN coffins which could play much louder than my current electrostats can. But like all horns I have heard including the truly big Avantgarde Trios,they are just a bit too colored for my "acoustic music only please" ears. One of the best speakers I have heard with really large scale acoustic music where the Gryphon Pendragons,but they are way beyond both my wallet and room capacities. My compromise electrostats both economically and dynamically sound quite nice with PGGB and I can play my PGGB test tracks a bit louder than normal hi res. And at 1 metre 85 centimetres, taller than me I can stand at my listening position and conduct along without having to be a "couch potato" all day. Cheers Chrille
  5. Thanks for your input Nick, the problem I have experienced with the only over 4GB track split into two parts is occuring seemingly at random, and it is not because I have not engaged gapless play. As a mainly classical music listener that was one of the first things I did years ago with both players on my MBP. I have now also figured out how to play both 24/705 and 32/768 PGGB via Pure Music. But I can´t figure out why that player insists on playing PGGB from disk instead of memory/ram as Audirvana does. My normal hi re files load into ram. Both my players are early versions but I have kept them for one reason, both allow me to load only proxy files not the full file size in my iTunes library. Audirvana dropped that VERY smart and useful function long ago, a very stupid move on their part imho. With only Proxy files in iTunes I can keep most of my hi res files on two 2TB each portable harddrives and play those files loaded into ram without having my internal harddrive filled. Cheers Chrille
  6. Thanks again, while I do wish the answer was 42! if we are still "talking cents" here, I am happy to hear that there is not an 11 minute time limit involved. And if you could work out a reasonable cost alternative that sounds even better to me for the time being that would be great. But the random weird glitches with the only bigger than 4 gig limit testfile I have are still a problem with my players. Why does there have to be a 4 GB track limit with PGGB? And if so, could you recommend a player/solution that works around this problem with my current music players still using my old MBP. I definitely want to be able to listen through a whole symphonic movement without any such glitches disturbing my musical enjoyment. Cheers Chrille
  7. Hello Romaz, just a quick question after all these discussion around digital room correction . Why did you sell your elctrostatics and go for speakers with 4? problematic crossover points over just one crossover point? The only real problem I heard with the 15s you had was the built-in class D bass- amp and the crossover point there. With classical music I prefer electrostatic panels line-source over most conventional speakers I have heard even the most expensive. Ok if someone would give me a pair of Gryphon Pendragons or similar giants for free, I would not say no, but I might prefer ML XL Art elctrotats with a good subwoofer for the deep underworld Bach organpoints or Zarathustra 33khs bass even over those? Cheers Chrille
  8. Hello again ZB, I have some questions about the PGGGB IO you have started. First of all why only 11 minutes per track? And how much would those 11 minutes actually cost to process? Please do the actual calculation for me. As a classical music listener I have big problems finding classical music tracks THAT SHORT! I normally listen to whole works,not short snippets. Snippets and intros only, are "me" at the piano. With real competent musicians at the helm, I want the full Monty! Most symphonies consist of at least four movements each lasting at least 12-15 minutes, and even if one movement is shorter like in Sibelius´2nd where the 3rd movement is relatively short the last movement is supposed to be played attacca ie without any break. But the M5 Austinpop kindly helped me with the first movement lasting 12.48 minutes was split in two with the last 27 seconds ending up as a separate PGGB file which I can only play via one of my music players without a very annoying glitch. To be able to play whole symphonies without such annoying problems it seems I will need to upgrade ram in my mbp to its max capacity 16GB at least! But what happens if 16GB ram is not even enough with really long symphonic works played from ram? Happy Bob and other classical music listeners please also chime in. Cheers Chrille
  9. Like you obviously I also used to have problems with classical and digital and classical muisc both Western and Eastern is the music I truly love but Mscaler improved things quite considerably for me even to the point of enjoying many cds, which I could not do before Mscaler. So far I have only one cd rip/ PGGBd but it takes cd one noticable notch higher than even Mscaler in my humble Qutest /Mscaler based digital systems. But I have only compared Mscaler/PGGB via usb so far and would like to hear from another classical music listener if the SRC-DX might be the way to go? I am a bit puzzled how going from 32 bits to 24 bits can improve things, but I keep an open mind.
  10. Hello Hans, a couple of things I have wanted to ask you are why you would want to involve analogue tape and now record LPs? when comparing Mscaler with PGGB? In your post you mentioned that you are a trained listener also doing video work with classical music. Did you upload music where you have direct reference to how the music played and recorded actually sounded to you live in the hall? If so I would say that is a MUCH BETTER reference point in real HIFI terms than involving tape or LPs in the comparison. Like you I am also a photographer who has worked with some classical labels as photographer and thanks to Austinpop here I can now compare Mscaler and PGGB with the first movement of Mahler´s 5th as recorded by Jared Sacks in DSD 64 in Budapest a few years ago. I can play this recording in various ways both via headphones and electrostatic speakers, and my pecking order in my systems, would on a rising scale be : cd via a normal cd player not very good. No ordinary cd player or direct cd rip even via expensive Steamers like Innous did this recording justice imho. And the same applied to playing via ROON, which turnedinto quite a muddy a mess out via an otherwise VERY competent system in one of the best showroooms I know. In my own system,SACD disc via my SACD player better than plain cd, but cd layer of the same SACD disc and Mscaler/Qutest clearly better than SACD disc and much better than plain cd. Next up DSD dff via my mbp/usb Mscaler close to cdlayer upscaled with /Mscaler. And finally Qutest direct via usb and PGGBd even more enjoyable and the closest to how I actually heard things live in the hall and a couple of times in the control room during a week of sessions. Not big differences I guess many would not hear most of them unless they where actually in the hall, luckily I WAS and all week. And there are some very telling moments in this recording where PGGB seems to pick up very, very low level details in the scoring a bit better than even Mscaler. Around the 3,5 minutes to 4,25 minutes marks there are some cymbal brushes soooo low in level that they are partly hidden in noise on many systems I have heard this recording via, and trust me they are many ranging from DAPS and headphones to huge MEGABUCK systems. Regarding the perceived brightness you mention I have to say that via headphones I prefer the PGGB version via my old battered HD800 headphones over my HEKV2 via both of my headphone amps.My most neutral headphone amp being the Benchmark DAC2 HGC headphone amp which I bought after hearing it together with HD800 as monitoring tools at some other recording sessions for another label But I suspect the reason HEKV2 makes it sound a bit overbright is not a fault of PGGB but possibly that PGGB makes a certain presence lift in those headphones more audible than my damped HD800 does. Via my electrostatic speakers the PGGB version also sounds a little bit cleaner and more enjoyable and than Mscaled too. To hear my humble Qutest DAC sound this good on its own ,without an Mscaler is a nice surprise. Cheers Chrille
  11. Hello Roy, nice to see a post from you again here,and having seen your very nice and clean looking living room with the comment "I am not allowed..." I just could not resist attaching a close up shot of the equipment end of my own dedicated "Man-cave" living and music room. Warts and all! Sorry about the crappy shot, but this is the way it looks most of the time I am single now, but several of my girlfriends have had to cope with living rooms like this and even worse ones, for many years. One of them used to comment to visiting friends of hers "Oh those two BIG black coffins in the corners are not housing our dead parents, they are my boyfriend´s Horn Speakers". Like you I also wish I had a room like the one Magico has, but better furnished than theirs. I would not like to be seated on those wooden chairs behind or even the old armchair. I have a nice comfy recliner armchair to control things from. One of the best listening rooms I know of and quite similar to Magico´s is AV Intelligence´s very nice room at the Adelphi in Singapore. But in my "Man-cave" living room I also have both a fireplace like you, and a piano. My speakers are positioned about 4 metres apart along the short wall so I can listen to Mahler at full blast from about 5 metres away in my listening chair or even standing when I feel like really conducting along. Both one side wall and the bookshelves behind me are full of LPs, books and more cds. The other wall houses my big fireplace If you are allowed to? You might experiment with placing your speakers at the windowed short wall end of your room. I am sure your wife would not appreciate to have to squeeze into her lviening room with a speaker blocking her way? BUT Bass needs space to breathe. You seem to be quite close to your speakers from that sofa? I tried having mine on either side of my fireplace too, almost identical to yours but I got much better more balanced SQ the other way. Cheers Chrille
  12. Thanks again, I am not sure I understand all of it theoretically, and it seems there is a bit of guessing and no firm facts regarding 24 bits or 32 bits? I am also a bit puzzled why some of you seem to prefer 24/bits and a usb to BNC converter over 32 bits directly via usb with your Chord dacs? Personally I wonder why digital audio has not yet fully employed 64 bit recording? As a Pro Photographer even my old Adobe Photoshop 5 works with 64 bits color with raw files on my old mbp. And one of my music players on my mbp, Pure Music Player, can be set to upsample to 64 bits at its Maximum Fidelity setting. Why does PGGB not upsample to 64 bits? Would it not theoretically push noise even lower than 32 bits? Anyway, as far as my early trials with PGGB go, I can easily hear the benefits of the lowered noise floor,with the test tracks I have. I have only tried usb direct and I am surprised how clean and noise free usb sounds with these files. And even compared with Mscaler it is becoming a bit addictive to get audibly closer to mic feed where digital quantization noise has not yet entered the equation. So if maximizing both taps and bits are the best ways to keep the dreaded digital hiss down while still keeping everything within the audible range audible, I would want the best possible result. But how would/or does PGGB maximise the number of taps in a symphony with 4-5 movements each of different lengths, one only 4-5 minutes others 20- 25 minutes? Will they each get a different number of taps or what? And how could I maximise the number of taps with an Opera recording that has got maybe 50-60 different "tracks" some lasting only 20-30 seconds and others 20 minutes or more and the complete work lasting 2-3 hours or even 3-4 hours as in some Wagner Operas? Is PGGG capable of processing such long works as Operas and still maximise taps? Cheers Chrille
  13. Please explain exactly how and to what extent , this version avoids memory issues with macs. Does it mean 16GB ram will be enough to process even long symphonic works with many taps even on a mac? And if so how many taps? Regarding the number of taps I am still a bit confused how important they really are. The best SQ from the three symphonic classical music tracks Rajiv very kindly helped me with, as far as low level but very resolved and realistic cymbals M3 from a DXD master has fewer than 200M taps but sounds very very good indeed in my systems. Possibly the most realistic soft Mahler cymbal brush I have heard reproduced in my system about half way through the Bim Bam mov. M5 with 2017 M taps from a DSD 64 master if I remember correctly is also good, but I can not say that it sounds any better than the fewer than 200M taps DXD M3. But yes the really busy loud percussions parts sound better than ever before So how important are taps? Do taps above the theoretical 24 bit 256M level make any real audible difference at all? Please chime in those who have experimented with these things and with complex densely scored large scale symphonic material if possible. Cheers Chrille
  14. Hi again, do these new versions ,patches also make it easier to process long, really long symphonic movements with slower macs or not? The posts about a recent quite loaded new mac stalling on memory made me a bit wary of what to get. How can one mac owner with only 16 GB ram process a DSD album and another more capable mac not? Has that problem been solved? No new 64GB ram mbps expected in the near future have led me to look at second hand2014-2015 mac minis with 64GB ram again. They seem like my best and still reasonably affordable options. Those and some mbps fro mthe same period,where the most customer friendly products from mac until Apple realised that those where just too good and too easily upgradable I guess in the mid 2014- or so when they started "welding" ram and harddrives and superglued whatever they could do to stop people from upgrading and using a perfectly good computer for years instead of buying a new one every time Apple decideded to make a small upgrade available at a VERY high cost. But will such a mac Mini with Mojave or Big Sur and an i5 processor and 64 gb ram and a 512 or 1TB SSD be enough with DSD 64 files? I really want to hear the rest of my Channel Classics Mahler 5 PGGB´d. The PGGB´d 1st movement sounds closer to how I heard it in the hall than ever before in my systems. Both via speakers and headphones and the last bars ,very soft ppp bass-drum rythm finally rises above the noise floor it formerly partly submerged in. Could someone on the mac platform please advice how to proceed without having to buy a PC just for PGGB. PS Are other PGGB licence payment methods than Paypal also available? Cheers Chrille
  15. Thanks , "not to worry",no plans to "throw away",my Wave Storm I use them on a daily basis with my Mscaler and I have no plans to dump Mscaler either. PGGB would be a complement and more travel friendly option for me. And I would of course be interested to hear how going from 32 bits to 24 via BNC instead might improve SQ. Even lower noise floor? One of the first things I noted with PGGB over Mscaler was a drop in noise. A bit like going from Chord stock BNC cables to Stream in lowered noise. And then a bit lower again with Storm. And also a bit fuller and warmer too, with Storm over Stream. And my PGGB test tracks, with my humble Qutest and usb has lifted yet another digital veil even over Mscaler. On the other hand I am also aware that veils can be lifted by walking up Chord´s dac ladder. I know both TT2 and especially Dave sound better than Qutest with my reference material and who knows? Maybe a dac capable of upscaling even higher than 24/768 will yield even better results? One limiting factor as far as noise is concerned could also be SNR. In my case my headphone amp measures 126dB and Qutest 124dB. Even at full throttle and no music playing or music stopped it is free of noise. Dave I think measures 127dB? But there are others that at least officially boast SNR levels down to 140dB, aren´t there? My initial impressions are also that PGGB makes massed strings sound a bit closer to live strings and my overall impressions are positive enough to want to do PGGB conversion, upscaling myself. String sound has always been a bit of an Achilles Heel with digital imho. I just need to find a suitable computer first. I may wait for the new mbps or get an iMac. Cheers Chrille
  • Create New...