[Mista Lova Lova]

I would caution you about making assumptions like this. You seem to take generalized explanations about these things as if though are gospel but things are much more complicated than this in the real world. Our ears are far more sensitive to things than would normally seem possible. I’d encourage you to try to follow more of what Rob Watts has posted about his journey developing his WTA filter. He actually conducts listening tests and these often challenge the conventional wisdom that you are espousing. The devil is in the details with this stuff when it comes to playback on high end gear.

What happens around 20 kHz and just above it, despite us not hearing that high, can definitely be audible. I have been a beta tester for PGGB and have heard what just small differences in that can make. Anyone can hear try to hear these for themselves by using the current version and toggling between HF:aggressive and HF:minimal when processing a high res file. Even more confounding is the differences between what is called “deprecated”. One might think they are an expert in such things just by espousing textbook definitions, but the real world has humbled me. I stay away from regurgitating the textbook theories on this stuff because I understand that the real world isn’t that simple. We can’t just hand wave over “making small sacrifices” unless we understand the practical implications of what that will have on the music. Those aren’t accounted for in the boiler plate.

I don't have the technical knowledge to argue with this. The above, as you say, is the conventional wisdom, but so far it has aligned with my listening experience. I don't have any experience with Chord products, though, so cannot comment on them.

All I can say is that none of the brick-wall filters or none of the PGGB settings sound as good as the aforementioned setting I use in terms of reconstruction of depth/stage/layering, and it's not by a small margin. The issue is surely much more complex than I presented it above, but at least when it comes to the number of taps - the (to the best of my knowledge) rather modest (in terms of taps) Gauss filter blows the 100+ million PGGB filter out of the water, so surely that's not what is responsible for the successful reconstruction of depth (I'm constantly referring to depth not just because it's an aspect of sound reproduction that impresses me, but also because, as mentioned above, Rob Watts has suggested using it as a reference point when evaluating filters).

 

[taipan254]

Very respectfully, I do not agree with the below assertation.

the (to the best of my knowledge) rather modest (in terms of taps) Gauss filter blows the 100+ million PGGB filter out of the water

I find the poly sinc gauss filters (with multiple modulators) "fuzzy" and "hazy" compared to Sinc-M (and PGGB). But I'm happy you're happy, @Mista Lova Lova!

 

[Mista Lova Lova]

Very respectfully, I do not agree with the below assertation.



I find the poly sinc gauss filters (with multiple modulators) "fuzzy" and "hazy" compared to Sinc-M (and PGGB). But I'm happy you're happy, @Mista Lova Lova!

I guess we're just hearing things differently, which is nothing new in this hobby Subjectively speaking, there are as many opinions as they are people. I personally don't know how to objectively evaluate a filter in terms of the type of sound it produces, that's why I referenced Rob Watts and going by that criterion (depth), I have not found one that would give me a deeper soundstage yet (which is quite apparent even to non-audiophile friends of mine, so the difference is more than marginal).

I'll keep checking out other options available out there. Something with the depth of the Gauss but the body/tactility of the PGGB with the Full HF Noise Filter could be a step up.

 

[kennyb123]

All I can say is that none of the brick-wall filters or none of the PGGB settings sound as good as the aforementioned setting I use in terms of reconstruction of depth/stage/layering, and it's not by a small margin. The issue is surely much more complex than I presented it above, but at least when it comes to the number of taps - the (to the best of my knowledge) rather modest (in terms of taps) Gauss filter blows the 100+ million PGGB filter out of the water, so surely that's not what is responsible for the successful reconstruction of depth (I'm constantly referring to depth not just because it's an aspect of sound reproduction that impresses me, but also because, as mentioned above, Rob Watts has suggested using it as a reference point when evaluating filters).

Let’s be clear hear that it’s not depth but your perception of depth that you are speaking of. Even more specifically, I believe you are talking about depth as perceived through headphones. Your conclusions should be caveated.

You have been making pronouncements about PGGB based on using a real time plugin that was only put out there to give a taste. Its capabilities were intentionally cut back to get it to be able to run in real time. It is also in need of an update to bring it current. It’s not fair to refer to this as the “PGGB filter”. It would be like picking one of the earliest HQPlayer filters and referring to it as the “HQPlayer filter”. If you haven’t processed a track using PGGB 256 at 265 bit precision you haven’t heard the “PGGB filter”.

When I compared a track that was processed using the latest PGGB at 256 precision to the same track with your HQPlayer settings but at DSD128, what I heard follows. When I use the terms “with PGGB” and “with HQPlayer”, I am referring to these settings.

- comparable time domain performance
- more of the body and fullness of the acoustic guitar with PGGB. HQPlayer made it sound more trebly because it emphasized the attack of the strings at the expense of the rest of the instrument
- the soundstage was wider and deeper with PGGB. This was a live performance and with PGGB the piano more naturally projected out into the room. The natural decay was cut short by HQPlayer thus the room seemed smaller. The entire performance seemed to be constrained to the area between my speakers with HQPlayer. It extended a few feet out beyond my speakers with PGGB. The difference wasn’t subtle.
- Vocals and instruments were more dense with PGGB. The difference wasn’t subtle.
- Voices sounded equally convincing of being real with both. They were thinner with HQPlayer but that wasn’t a bad thing. This was actually a live recording of a worship service at a church and it seemed that the vocalists had their lips right up against the microphones. It was a bit much so thinning them out a bit wasn’t unwelcome.
- The overall loss of space with HQPlayer robbed the me of the sense that I had been transported to an actual worship service. The loss of fullness made the music sound more artificial as if I was listening to a recording and not a live performance.

Ultimately I concluded that your settings will serve me well when I am streaming. They are better than the settings that I previously used with HQPlayer. But they are no substitute for processing my favorite tracks with PGGB 256.

 

[Mista Lova Lova]

Let’s be clear hear that it’s not depth but your perception of depth that you are speaking of. Even more specifically, I believe you are talking about depth as perceived through headphones. Your conclusions should be caveated.

You have been making pronouncements about PGGB based on using a real time plugin that was only put out there to give a taste. Its capabilities were intentionally cut back to get it to be able to run in real time. It is also in need of an update to bring it current. It’s not fair to refer to this as the “PGGB filter”. It would be like picking one of the earliest HQPlayer filters and referring to it as the “HQPlayer filter”. If you haven’t processed a track using PGGB 256 at 265 bit precision you haven’t heard the “PGGB filter”.

When I compared a track that was processed using the latest PGGB at 256 precision to the same track with your HQPlayer settings but at DSD128, what I heard follows. When I use the terms “with PGGB” and “with HQPlayer”, I am referring to these settings.

- comparable time domain performance
- more of the body and fullness of the acoustic guitar with PGGB. HQPlayer made it sound more trebly because it emphasized the attack of the strings at the expense of the rest of the instrument
- the soundstage was wider and deeper with PGGB. This was a live performance and with PGGB the piano more naturally projected out into the room. The natural decay was cut short by HQPlayer thus the room seemed smaller. The entire performance seemed to be constrained to the area between my speakers with HQPlayer. It extended a few feet out beyond my speakers with PGGB. The difference wasn’t subtle.
- Vocals and instruments were more dense with PGGB. The difference wasn’t subtle.
- Voices sounded equally convincing of being real with both. They were thinner with HQPlayer but that wasn’t a bad thing. This was actually a live recording of a worship service at a church and it seemed that the vocalists had their lips right up against the microphones. It was a bit much so thinning them out a bit wasn’t unwelcome.
- The overall loss of space with HQPlayer robbed the me of the sense that I had been transported to an actual worship service. The loss of fullness made the music sound more artificial as if I was listening to a recording and not a live performance.

Ultimately I concluded that your settings will serve me well when I am streaming. They are better than the settings that I previously used with HQPlayer. But they are no substitute for processing my favorite tracks with PGGB 256.

Is there any way to get a free trial of PGGB 256? Otherwise we're comparing different things, as you've pointed out.

As for the comparisons that I've made, the only one that my ears agreed on was (as I've mentioned above) that PGGB sounded fuller. Everything else was the opposite - the HQPlayer gave me more space and depth (to my ears). But, we're using different versions of PGGB as it turns out...

If you're after this "fullness" when streaming music too then I suggest you check out the Sinc-M filter. There have been claims that it sounds virtually identical to the MScaler. I think you might like it more than the setting that I've been using.

 

[kennyb123]

Is there any way to get a free trial of PGGB 256? Otherwise we're comparing different things, as you've pointed out.

I believe the current version allows that now. Check the website: https://www.remastero.com/pggb.html#licensing

If you're after this "fullness" when streaming music too then I suggest you check out the Sinc-M filter. There have been claims that it sounds virtually identical to the MScaler. I think you might like it more than the setting that I've been using

Sinc-m and sinc-l had been my go to choices. They don’t come anywhere close to MScaler but they are closer than the filters built into the x26pro. I will next have to compare your settings to this.

I really don’t enjoy going back and forth on these real time filters. They strike me as a modern day version of tone controls. They just shift the balance more to one’s liking but don’t seem to be transformative in that they don’t seem to move us much in the direction of reconstruction accuracy. I will continue to use HQPlayer for streaming as it does include some choices that get out of the way of the music better than what Gustard provides.

I feel that I have already repeated myself too often so this is going to be my last post on this topic. Let me be clear: I am not after “fullness”. I am after realism. I am after being transported to the live event. You should note that when I mentioned fullness I related it to how that impacted my perception of the live event.

HQPlayer seems to be the ideal tool for those looking to dial in the sound to their liking. It seems to me that you’ve made the right choice for yourself. Thank you again for sharing your observations and settings.

I could be wrong, but I don't recall you ever mentioning anything about instruments or voices themselves or even anything about the music. That's okay as we each have different goals in this hobby. I just point this out to show that you and I don't appear to have the same goals so we should expect that our choices will diverge. I'm going to drop from this conversation now.

 

[Mista Lova Lova]

I believe the current version allows that now. Check the website: https://www.remastero.com/pggb.html#licensing


Sinc-m and sinc-l had been my go to choices. They don’t come anywhere close to MScaler but they are closer than the filters built into the x26pro. I will next have to compare your settings to this.

I really don’t enjoy going back and forth on these real time filters. They strike me as a modern day version of tone controls. They just shift the balance more to one’s liking but don’t seem to be transformative in that they don’t seem to move us much in the direction of reconstruction accuracy. I will continue to use HQPlayer for streaming as it does include some choices that get out of the way of the music better than what Gustard provides.

I feel that I have already repeated myself too often so this is going to be my last post on this topic. Let me be clear: I am not after “fullness”. I am after realism. I am after being transported to the live event. You should note that when I mentioned fullness I related it to how that impacted my perception of the live event.

HQPlayer seems to be the ideal tool for those looking to dial in the sound to their liking. It seems to me that you’ve made the right choice for yourself. Thank you again for sharing your observations and settings.

Thank you for sharing, too.

I am not going to post any further impressions for now because now I'm aware that I've been using a "mini" version of the PGGB which doesn't offer everything that their software brings to the table. Hopefully I can get a trial version of the full product and I'll then have some more listening sessions.

It's interesting what you say about Sinc-M/L not coming anywhere close to MScaler in light of what one of the more trusted reviewers GoldenSound said in the past that Sinc-M and MScaler are so close to each other that he'd basically call them identical. I don't have access to an MScaler so need to rely on other people's (including yours) opinions on this

I take your comments on board. I also don't enjoy switching back and forth between filters because it drives me nuts as I'm not looking to colour the sound, just looking to find a way of making music sound as realistic as possible. If the 256-bit version of PGGB gets me closer to that goal then I'll happily abandon my current setting and start using those. Well, maybe not so "happily" since it would mean I would need to switch from streaming to purchasing albums, hehe. Which I might do if the difference in sound quality is substantial enough.

I'll get my hands on PGGB 256 and will do some longer listening sessions before reaching any conclusions.

 

[kennyb123]

It's interesting what you say about Sinc-M/L not coming anywhere close to MScaler in light of what one of the more trusted reviewers GoldenSound said in the past that Sinc-M and MScaler are so close to each other that he'd basically call them identical. I don't have access to an MScaler so need to rely on other people's (including yours) opinions on this

I believe he is trusted amongst those who value objective measurements but I'm not sure he has earned that trust from those who care about subjective assessments. I couldn't name a single person who I consider a "trusted reviewer". I have friends in whose ears I trust because they have a demonstrated track record of getting it right. But even there I need to consider their aims vs mine. Context is what matters.

 

[Mista Lova Lova]

I believe he is trusted amongst those who value objective measurements but I'm not sure he has earned that trust from those who care about subjective assessments. I couldn't name a single person who I consider a "trusted reviewer". I have friends in whose ears I trust because they have a demonstrated track record of getting it right. But even there I need to consider their aims vs mine. Context is what matters.

OK, I'm partly breaking my promise of staying silent for a while...

Managed to get a trial of PGGB 256. I think that now I'm hearing what you've been hearing.

The texture and full-bodiedness is second to none. I've only converted a few files because it took a long time, but at the moment going back to HQPlayer, regardless of the setting used, feels like going back to a "light/sugar-free" version of the same song.

Fascinating. I'll keep listening and will report back in near future.

 

[kennyb123]

Managed to get a trial of PGGB 256.

Kudos to you for continuing the pursuit!

 

[Mista Lova Lova]

Very respectfully, I do not agree with the below assertation.



I find the poly sinc gauss filters (with multiple modulators) "fuzzy" and "hazy" compared to Sinc-M (and PGGB). But I'm happy you're happy, @Mista Lova Lova!

I've been doing lots of listening in the last 24 hours and I must admit I'm now starting to see what you meant by "fuzzy" and "hazy". I was so focused on this perception of depth which surprised me in the Gauss filter that I perhaps overlooked the price there is to pay for that (it appeared to be of little significance at the time but the recent listening comparisons are making me revise that opinion).

I'm close to reaching some conclusions (which initially made me panic about how I'm gonna listen to music now - but there's a happy ending to this story!) and will be posting them soon.

 

[EMINENT]

So, I just spent the last couple hours comparing newly made files with the recommended settings by Zaphod Beeblebrox.

For context, this is headphones only.
The files were slightly better this time around on Auto as suggested vs. first attempt on manual.
These sounded really good. Very clean. Detailed. Notes were dynamic and crisp with leading edges pretty well defined.

However, my findings remain... the same above applies with HQP but sounds fuller bodied with just an all-encompassing sound unmatched at 1024 rates. There is a distinct epic-like sense of grandness, weight and density to the spatial background that is kinda well.. intoxicating. Bass becomes thick and dense and leads to the musicality and engagement I love. Probably attributed to the Extended Compensation modulator. But, even the non EC modulators still sounded better to me. You could say the gap was closer and similar to comparing PCM to DSD at lower rates. I also tested at equal PCM rate and there was no real difference either way. Just pick your filter if you want a difference in presentation or transients.

Again, this is just based on my setup and headphones. I would say PGGB files are excellent for offline use or a dap where HQP or good PEQ isn't accessible and if PC/gear limited.

Also, if i'm not mistaken even in NOS mode with X26P, you are still going through a filter so having HQP on top of that could be confounding a less than ideal sound compared to a PGGB'd file going through one of the OS filters.

 

[kennyb123]

However, my findings remain... the same above applies with HQP but sounds fuller bodied with just an all-encompassing sound unmatched at 1024 rates.

Just to clarify, the DAC in this case was the May? And would you please share a screenshot of your HQP settings? Thanks.

What is acting as your server for these comparisons?

 

[EMINENT]

Just to clarify, the DAC in this case was the May? And would you please share a screenshot of your HQP settings? Thanks.

What is acting as your server for these comparisons?

Yes. Server is only 13.9k newly built, no gpu yet. 4090 arriving tomorrow to see if I can run ECv2 modulators or any the sinc-M/S/MX etc. filters. Holo Red also inbound soon to see if there's any difference.

 

[kennyb123]

Server is only 13.9k newly built

PGGB does some incredible things as far as pushing noise way outside the audio band. I just wonder what impact having a high power server connected directly to your DAC will have on being able to benefit from that. Of course, HQP would benefit too were you to stream to a low power NAA, so it might be a wash.

Thanks for sharing your settings but unfortunately I have no way to replicate them.