[Rayon]

Sound wise if I would need to use just one word, that would be clarity. Need to do further experimentation as this would mean quite big changes to my setup.

PGGB-IT's folder naming setup seems really nice. When doing batch, especially in headless setup, it's nice if it can organize itself. At least when demoing, plain PGGB seems to put files directly under the given output folder instead of creating subfolders.

 

[kennyb123]

PGGB seems to put files directly under the given output folder instead of creating subfolders

I believe it attempts to mirror the input folder structure. Subfolders will get created if the source files themselves are in subfolders.

 

[Rayon]

I believe it attempts to mirror the input folder structure. Subfolders will get created if the source files themselves are in subfolders.

Yup, just noticed that. In some pictures those input folders are listed separately by album, but it's instead better to just have one input folder and albums under it.

 

[kennyb123]

but it's instead better to just have one input folder and albums under it.

Or, even better, with PGGB you can just place a text file named pggb_to_process.txt in the input folder and then just have it list the path(s) to the folder(s) you want to process.

I processed a single album last night. This was the path to the folder on my iMac. Usually I do batches and just paste a number of paths into this file.

 

[Rayon]

If I'm going to add crossfeed either in Roon or HQPlayer when playing back PGGB files, what would be the most optimal strategy regarding to noise shaping selection? Should I lave it to "Auto" or select "Dither only"? I'm also going to use these files with Mojo 2 + Poly and I'm using crossfeed quite often there as well.

Guide mentions:

Software volume control may look innocuous, what possible harm could come from converting to 64 bit doubles and changing the level? PGGB’s noise shaper all but eliminates quantization noise in the audible range. Any sort of processing such as volume control leads to 64 bit conversion and then truncation back to your DAC’s bit depth (16, 24 or 32). This conversion adds quantization noise back into the track that PGGB worked hard to remove.

I'm just thinking if modifying already noise shaped result just makes things worse and then it would instead be better not to noise shape in the first place.

EDIT: Actually after some A/B I prefer the results of "Dither only" (more emotional connection to music) so that makes things quite easy

 

[Atriya]

If I'm going to add crossfeed either in Roon or HQPlayer when playing back PGGB files, what would be the most optimal strategy regarding to noise shaping selection? Should I lave it to "Auto" or select "Dither only"? I'm also going to use these files with Mojo 2 + Poly and I'm using crossfeed quite often there as well.

Guide mentions:

Software volume control may look innocuous, what possible harm could come from converting to 64 bit doubles and changing the level? PGGB’s noise shaper all but eliminates quantization noise in the audible range. Any sort of processing such as volume control leads to 64 bit conversion and then truncation back to your DAC’s bit depth (16, 24 or 32). This conversion adds quantization noise back into the track that PGGB worked hard to remove.

I'm just thinking if modifying already noise shaped result just makes things worse and then it would instead be better not to noise shape in the first place.

Yes, I believe that generally NS is best avoided if further processing is done to PGGB files.

Perhaps partly for this reason, it may be best NOT to perform any further processing. Crossfeed, for example, can be done BEFORE PGGB. I have done this with a DAW (Reaper) and a VST3 crossfeed plugin (CanOpener). After crossfeed, export as a 64-bit floating point file, then apply PGGB.

 

[Rayon]

Hmm, is it possible to batch process folders conveniently there? I have used Reaper in the past for mixing, so in general the tool is familiar.

Of course, one downside of this would be that then the streamed content would behave differently.

 

[Atriya]

Hmm, is it possible to batch process folders conveniently there? I have used Reaper in the past for mixing, so in general the tool is familiar.

Of course, one downside of this would be that then the streamed content would behave differently.

Yes, I've done batch processing, though I wouldn't call it convenient. qobuz-dl works for Qobuz. There's something similar for Tidal.

 

[Patraputt]

My current setup:

Foobar (mmcss pro audio, priority 7, 50ms buffer, 64bit ASIO high priority) + PGGB-RT (8fS, Extended, Speed, gain disabled) + Bit-perfect/ Fabfilter Pro MB (Dynamic, 2x oversampling, -3dB output trim) DSP + IFI Zen DAC V2. (256 samples at 44.1) + High quality cables + Dual JBL 305p mkii (no DSP) = magic!

 

[Rayon]

I've been fiddling with PGGB with few days. So far the best setup for May has been:

PGGB 256 (64bit float, 768) -> HQP (crossfeed + NS5 + optional further upsampling to 1536) -> May

I may test adding crossfeed prior to processing at some point, but this setup gives the benefit of being able to change crossfeed settings and use these files nicely as an input for DSD. It was an interesting finding to see how much it affected sound quality if I used 32bit as a middle step. There is so much more depth in sound with f64. The downside is that then Roon can't really be used as a player as it doesn't support f64, but f64 is kind of must have if one wants PGGB's magic to shine through.

Another finding was that 32fs is a real memory hog. 64gb RAM is an absolute must.

 

[Patraputt]

I've been fiddling with PGGB with few days. So far the best setup for May has been:

PGGB 256 (64bit float, 768) -> HQP (crossfeed + NS5 + optional further upsampling to 1536) -> May

HQP filter?

 

[Rayon]

HQP filter?

I've been trying different things, but no favourite yet for PGGB files. Tested sinc-L, FIR, FFT, closed-form-M, gauss-xl(a). All sounded ok, but it depends on genre. With classical/jazz I tend to prefer no further upsampling. FFT seemed to work well with those as well, will investigate it further. Other genres are less picky and filter can be used to add flavor, but adding HQP filter to the mix does trade some... clarity(?) for effects they bring.

 

[Patraputt]

I tend to prefer no further upsampling.

That's it. PGGB files doesn't need further upsampling.

 

[Rayon]

That's it. PGGB files doesn't need further upsampling.

They wouldn't if 1) I had enough ram to process 1536 and 2) those 1536 files @ f64 wouldn't be so huge that they split to multiple files. If PGGB had crossfeed support, that would solve the problem as then I could noise shape them directly to 24/20 bit. Of course I would need to buy more ram, but that is a solvable problem

It's just that once you've heard the difference between 1536 and 768 with May, it's really hard to go back.

 

[Patraputt]

They wouldn't if 1) I had enough ram to process 1536 and 2) those 1536 files @ f64 wouldn't be so huge that they split to multiple files. If PGGB had crossfeed support, that would solve the problem as then I could noise shape them directly to 24/20 bit. Of course I would need to buy more ram, but that is a solvable problem

It's just that once you've heard the difference between 1536 and 768 with May, it's really hard to go back.

Did you hear any loss of warmth when processing with PGGB at 1536/ 768?

If I opt HQP for PCM to DSD upsampling, which filter and modulator would be appropriate to compete with PGGB?