[J Mirra]

I recommend using the HighRes-lp filter (will double-check the name, not sure if I got it right) for the second stage of oversampling (the selection right below the first one on HQPlayer). This combo is pure gold.

Please, a screen shot of your settings would be ace if you don't mind.
I would like to try them all out thank you.

 

[taipan254]

I agree about us reaching different conclusions. Having said that, some of these filters are objectively better than others. These have the potential to give us higher reconstruction accuracy - and would help to get us closer to the sound quality that the microphones captured originally. Certainly the ideal Whittaker-Shannon should get us there, but like you said that’s impossible to achieve that in the real world. I do think though that the closer we get to being able to approximate this, the closer we will get to being able to hear what the analog signal sounded like before it entered the A/D converter. It’s less about subjectivity at that point, though of course many of us will still want to season the sound to get it to better align with our desired preferences. There is no right or wrong answer if the goal is our musical enjoyment.

Public service announcement: those testing these filters should check to make sure they’re enabled NOS mode. I inadvertently made that mistake once or twice when piddling around.

Agreed wholeheartedly.

I will be trying to read up in the public domain on these gaussian filters. I'll share some findings if they're interesting / worth sharing.

 

[kennyb123]

Please, a screen shot of your settings would be ace if you don't mind.
I would like to try them all out thank you.

Yeah me too

 

[kennyb123]

I will be trying to read up in the public domain on these gaussian filters. I'll share some findings if they're interesting / worth sharing.

I look forward to hearing what you learn. I do wonder if maybe headphone listening has something to do with favoring a filter that offers improved depth and layering. I'm sure I'd appreciate more of that with my headphone setup. With my speaker setup, those qualities have tended to come along with other improvements, but those aren't amongst the qualities that give me goosebumps or cause my eyes to tear up.

 

[Mista Lova Lova]

Please, a screen shot of your settings would be ace if you don't mind.
I would like to try them all out thank you.

Sure, that's the first setting that I've been so happy with that I've stopped testing others.

Of course, for any particular genre or even a particular song, it's always possible to find a different setting that will suit it best. And this will, of course, largely depend on one's preferences. I think that if one is after sound that is as "full" as possible and is prepared to give up some of the depth, then the Sinc filters might be a better choice. I was initially a big fan of the Sinc-L but every time I use it now I just know how much of space/depth I'm missing and end up going back to the above.

It must be taken into account that both my headphones are known for their spatial presentations (the Utopia - its depth, the HEKse - overall stage size) and this effect might not be that pronounced on other gear.

The fact that Jussi, the HQPlayer's designer, chooses this filter as the best option and that Rob Watts has always said that if in doubt, the filter with more depth is the more "correct" one - makes me think that this filter is not only subjectively awesome but actually the best way of making 1s and 0s music again, currently known to us.

But as far as technical knowledge is concerned, my understanding of it is limited so I'm also looking forward to hearing more about your findings, @taipan254 I think that overall it's a trade-off between perfect frequency response (high frequencies attenuation) and time-domain response. It seems that upsampling to very high frequencies allows for filters to be less of a trade-off and getting us closer to the original sound (even correcting the A->D conversion error via apodising). I have enjoyed experimenting with different filters, from Roon's internal upsampling to Sinc-M, Sinc-L etc. but the settings shown in the attached photo are the only ones that make me go "OK, this is a clear step-up in quality".

And regardless of what filter I use, my DAC always benefits from being fed DSD instead of PCM. Surely, it's nothing to do with the format as such - it'll be due to how those bits are processed inside the DAC when it's fed single-bit data as opposed to 16-bit blocks of data. The situation would surely be different in an R2R DAC which is designed with PCM in mind.

And of course the DAC is always in "NOS" mode I can hear a big difference when this mode is off, even when the DAC is fed externally-upsampled signal. I think that this means that the DAC is still applying its own filters on top of everything else, which of course defeats the purpose.

I'll do some more listening using PGGB as I've not gone back to it yet. I so wish it also did DSD so that I could get the full benefit of it.

 

[Mista Lova Lova]

I'm using PGGB today again, this time on the HEKse, and I am liking it much more on this headphone. The HEKse doesn't have the depth of the Utopia so it will not be capable of portraying the differences in depth in the same way.

On the other hand, the HEKse is leaner/gentler-sounding than the Utopia and PGGB has this "fuller" sound that I've mentioned before which works well with the HEKse.

So...
1. The journey continues.
2. It always seems to come down to this - synergy

 

[kennyb123]

I so wish it also did DSD so that I could get the full benefit of it.

The full benefit of PGGB comes from it not being DSD.

I think what impresses me most about PGGB is how it rescues my DSD64 tracks. My reference though is the sound of voices and instruments.

The experts you mentioned are in complete disagreement on much of this but Rob has more than delivered on the musical gains he claimed one would hear, so I am much more intent on hearing what he has to say. I actually think both of them have different aims. Rob aims to design the best sounding digital gear he knows how to make at a given price point. Jussi aims to make the most flexible realtime DSP engine he can make. His preference for DSD, as I understand it, is that it allows him more control of the outcome. Rob’s preference for PCM is because he flat out thinks it sounds better. Just because the design of the ESS chip might allows DSD to have less additional processing done to it may be more correct from a technical perspective it does not necessarily mean that it will be the best sounding.

 

[Mista Lova Lova]

The full benefit of PGGB comes from it not being DSD.

I think what impresses me most about PGGB is how it rescues my DSD64 tracks. My reference though is the sound of voices and instruments.

The experts you mentioned are in complete disagreement on much of this but Rob has more than delivered on the musical gains he claimed one would hear, so I am much more intent on hearing what he has to say. I actually think both of them have different aims. Rob aims to design the best sounding digital gear he knows how to make at a given price point. Jussi aims to make the most flexible realtime DSP engine he can make. His preference for DSD, as I understand it, is that it allows him more control of the outcome. Rob’s preference for PCM is because he flat out thinks it sounds better. Just because the design of the ESS chip might allows DSD to have less additional processing done to it may be more correct from a technical perspective it does not necessarily mean that it will be the best sounding.

Hm, OK, keeping the files in PCM is definitely a benefit because it saves having to convert them into DSD and of course any unnecessary conversion should be avoided (I guess there's always potential for errors to occur).

I've just been working on the understanding that this benefit can only be truly felt in the case of R2R DACs and that my Gus will always have a preference for DSD (as least within the HQPlayer itself there's always been a difference when switching to DSD).

Where I'm at at the moment is... I've increased the HF Noise Filter to "Full" and my first impression is that this is giving me possibly the fullest, most full-bodied and lively sound I've ever heard. Can't even focus on the depth just now because I'm enjoying this "energy"

 

[J Mirra]

Sure, that's the first setting that I've been so happy with that I've stopped testing others.

Thank you.
Classic recordings sounding great and it is even making new modern highly compressed recordings sound deeper and less compressed.
Happy days. It is great when things like this make your system sound brand new.
Cheers.

 

[Mista Lova Lova]

Thank you.
Classic recordings sounding great and it is even making new modern highly compressed recordings sound deeper and less compressed.
Happy days. It is great when things like this make your system sound brand new.
Cheers.

Awesome mate, so glad you're enjoying it.

If you have any FLACs on your PC I suggest you check out PGGB as well, in the "Full" setting of the "HF Noise Filter" it sounds very full and punchy, it'll be good for modern recordings.

 

[kennyb123]

2. It always seems to come down to this - synergy

Pursuing synergy is certainly a path one can choose. I’ve had better success by pursuing the “get the heck out of the way of the music” approach and just accepting the truth that it reveals. Pursuing synergy can cause one to have to make suboptimal choices just to retain that synergy. I recently swapped in QSA Lanedri cables, which get the heck out of the way of the music far better than any other cables I’ve tried. Combined with PGGB 256 my system has advanced further in terms of realism than I could have possibly imagined.

that my Gus will always have a preference for DSD (as least within the HQPlayer itself there's always been a difference when switching to DSD).

I have thus far only tried DSD256 upscaling with the Gustard. I just don’t like what it does with the leading edge of transients. Cymbals lose the realism in terms how they are struck and how the sound radiates from them.

Recently I compared an album that was direct from analog to DSD256. This sounded excellent. Processing it with PGGB only brought subtle differences when using HQPlayer to play them both back. The much bigger difference came from playing back the PGGB version with Squeeze (Squeeze can’t play DSD256 or higher). Squeeze is more transparent so that certainly tips the advantage off to PGGB-processed files. I should have mentioned that previously as it’s likely a big contributor to my preferences. I likewise don’t involve Roon in any form in any of these comparisons. That PGGB frees me from having to use HQPlayer to play my music is a big plus as Squeeze does a much better job of getting the heck out of the way of the music.

 

[kennyb123]

Where I'm at at the moment is... I've increased the HF Noise Filter to "Full" and my first impression is that this is giving me possibly the fullest, most full-bodied and lively sound I've ever heard. Can't even focus on the depth just now because I'm enjoying this "energy"

Which version of PGGB are you using?

 

[Mista Lova Lova]

Which version of PGGB are you using?

Sorry, just shut down my PC so can't give you the exact name - the one that does the on-the-go upscaling on Foobar. Using max taps available (trial version, so cuts out after 90 seconds). This makes Foobar balloon to almost 5GB of ram usage when a song is playing (and much more whilst the conversion is taking place).

 

[Mista Lova Lova]

Pursuing synergy is certainly a path one can choose. I’ve had better success by pursuing the “get the heck out of the way of the music” approach and just accepting the truth that it reveals. Pursuing synergy can cause one to have to make suboptimal choices just to retain that synergy. I recently swapped in QSA Lanedri cables, which get the heck out of the way of the music far better than any other cables I’ve tried. Combined with PGGB 256 my system has advanced further in terms of realism than I could have possibly imagined.


I have thus far only tried DSD256 upscaling with the Gustard. I just don’t like what it does with the leading edge of transients. Cymbals lose the realism in terms how they are struck and how the sound radiates from them.

Recently I compared an album that was direct from analog to DSD256. This sounded excellent. Processing it with PGGB only brought subtle differences when using HQPlayer to play them both back. The much bigger difference came from playing back the PGGB version with Squeeze (Squeeze can’t play DSD256 or higher). Squeeze is more transparent so that certainly tips the advantage off to PGGB-processed files. I should have mentioned that previously as it’s likely a big contributor to my preferences. I likewise don’t involve Roon in any form in any of these comparisons. That PGGB frees me from having to use HQPlayer to play my music is a big plus as Squeeze does a much better job of getting the heck out of the way of the music.

I absolutely get what you're saying. And that is precisely the reason why I stick with the Gauss filter even though I know that certain songs might benefit from a more in-your-face filter (e.g. certain hip hop songs would hit/punch harder on a Sinc filter). However, having said that, whatever we do is we're finding a solution that works for our ears and makes what we're hearing more believable to us. Depth and layering seem to be more important to me than they are to you, for instance, and that's perfectly fine. I wouldn't want them at the cost of something else, though, but my ears don't perceive any obvious trade-offs on this particular setting (unlike virtually any other filter I've ever tried) and that's what makes me happy.

But then there are so many variables inside our gear that there is probably no such thing as fully getting out of the way of music. Even my Burson amp, being so much better than the A90 - it still contains op-amps inside which can be swapped for others, implying that it's giving me a particular flavour of musical experience (albeit a delightful one). Certain things can be mathematically shown to be more accurate/precise than others (which has got its limitations - if this weren't the case, then the D90 and X26 Pro should pretty much sound identical, and boy oh boy they do not), but I'd think that overall each of us is pursuing our own definition of what music should be like and we make individual choices that bring us closer to how we'd like to hear our music.

It just takes time and experience to figure out what it is that we're after. When I look back at when I started in this hobby at the beginning of 2020, I had a very basic idea of what sound consisted of. And I'm so glad that I progressed gradually because I don't think I would have been able to fully appreciate what my gear is capable of if I hadn't spent all those hours comparing different headphones and pieces of gear and in the process training my ears to be able to detect all those nuances, instead of experiencing a sensory overload which can easily happen with this level of detail being thrown at the listener

 

[kennyb123]

Sorry, just shut down my PC so can't give you the exact name - the one that does the on-the-go upscaling on Foobar. Using max taps available (trial version, so cuts out after 90 seconds). This makes Foobar balloon to almost 5GB of ram usage when a song is playing (and much more whilst the conversion is taking place).

Ah ok. When I am commenting on PGGB, I am referring to PGGB-256. Please see this note here about the foo version. You may want to hold off for the time being and wait for that to arrive.