[DJJEZ]

Hey there, does anybody know if there is a way to dim or shut down completely the lights on the m-scaler?

You can't turn off all the lights. There will always be 1 light but you can dim them

 

[musickid]

Try direct source to dac omitting the mscaler then compare with the mscaler in the chain. I found the difference to be staggering with hugo2/mscaler vs hugo2 on its own. TT2 solo sounded more 2D and with the mscaler much more 3D with musical energy and sparkle not present before. I look forward to the day when i can add an mscaler to my dave.

 

[damascato]

Try direct source to dac omitting the mscaler then compare with the mscaler in the chain. I found the difference to be staggering with hugo2/mscaler vs hugo2 on its own. TT2 solo sounded more 2D and with the mscaler much more 3D with musical energy and sparkle not present before. I look forward to the day when i can add an mscaler to my dave.

Likely you will be able to hear much less differences than Hugo2 + M-scaler, though.

 

[Progisus]

Try direct source to dac omitting the mscaler then compare with the mscaler in the chain. I found the difference to be staggering with hugo2/mscaler vs hugo2 on its own. TT2 solo sounded more 2D and with the mscaler much more 3D with musical energy and sparkle not present before. I look forward to the day when i can add an mscaler to my dave.

You might like to try some PGGB’d files to your Dave. See remastero.com. They have a trial license. Not for streaming though. As you are a long time mscaler user it would be interesting to hear your reaction.

 

[Rob Watts]

PGGB is not sinc, or like WTA mostly sinc (a sinc function will perfectly reconstruct a bandwidth limited sampled signal), but uses an apodizing filter, so it will not re-construct transients properly. There is absolutely no point in using long tap lengths with an apodizing (more accurately in this case it's a slow roll-off filter) as the algorithm will create transient timing uncertainty, destroying any advantage in using long tap lengths. If you like PGGB then fair enough; but you are simply preferring distortions. I have heard offline true sinc filters, and these sound much more like the M scaler; PGGB on the other hand, sounds nothing like ideal sinc or the M scaler.

 

[kennyb123]

but uses an apodizing filter

No it does not, at least as far as I’ve heard. It may have at a former time as during the beta period there was a lot of experimentation. At one point an option to enable anodizing but it was removed before launch as beta users didn’t like it.

 

[Rob Watts]

No it does not, at least as far as I’ve heard. It may have at a former time as during the beta period there was a lot of experimentation. At one point an option to enable anodizing but it was removed before launch as beta users didn’t like it.

Not according to their website (FAQ page) I quote:

"Does PGGB use Apodizing filters, and why?​

In Audio, the term 'apodizing' refers specifically to removing the artifacts introduced due to a poor downsampling process when creating CD quality audio. This may either be due to the quality of filters used during downsampling or because of the limitation of analog to digital conversion process. As a result, aliasing is introduced near the end of the audible spectrum, which in turn can result in a harsher treble signature and reduced timing precision.

PGGB uses apodizing filters to significantly reduce, if not completely eliminate the above mentioned artifacts. Please note that this is applicable only for CD audio. Hires audio does not require apodizing.

Note: PGGB uses linear filters, and it does not remove pre-ringing like a few implementations of apodizing filter do. "




Moreover, they make great play about their windowing function, which of course converts a sinc function into something that is no longer sinc, and should not be called sinc. A true offline sinc function - appropriately done - would need no windowing function at all, and would be true sinc.

 

[kennyb123]

Not according to their website (FAQ page) I quote:

Well I stand corrected.

 

[Progisus]

PGGB is not sinc, or like WTA mostly sinc (a sinc function will perfectly reconstruct a bandwidth limited sampled signal), but uses an apodizing filter, so it will not re-construct transients properly. There is absolutely no point in using long tap lengths with an apodizing (more accurately in this case it's a slow roll-off filter) as the algorithm will create transient timing uncertainty, destroying any advantage in using long tap lengths. If you like PGGB then fair enough; but you are simply preferring distortions. I have heard offline true sinc filters, and these sound much more like the M scaler; PGGB on the other hand, sounds nothing like ideal sinc or the M scaler.

Thanks for your insight. I find the PGGB files a dramatic change over my previous mscaler and hqplayer experience. Of course an upscaler is still needed for streamed files at this time. If it is distortion I am hearing and prefer then so be it. My music enjoyment also benefitted when I moved the tone controls off centre. The mscaler is a revolutionary product but it is interesting on hearing people’s take on alternate emerging tech.

 

[ecwl]

So I tried PGGB when it’s officially released but only with a few tracks (because of the trial limitation). 44.1kHz upsampling is apodizing and >48kHz is non-apodizing.
For apodizing filter (44.1kHz music), I did hear:
1) PGGB vocals and bass notes did sound like there was more volume and dimensionality to them compared to M-Scaler
BUT
2) PGGB transient timing was a mess even compared to Hugo 2, as hand clapping, bow strikes, guitar plucks, drum strikes, etc. In fact, to me, PGGB apodizing upsampling at 44.1kHz is unlistenable because of the transient timing issue.

For the nonapodizing filter (>=48kHz music), I did hear
1) PGGB sounds slightly better than M-Scaler in terms of transient attack
2) PGGB has slightly better 3-dimensionality to vocal and instrumental volume than M-Scaler and DAVE and more obviously better than Hugo 2.
BUT
3) In all complex musical passages with multiple instruments and vocals, PGGB definitely causes a slight confusion of the sound whereas you can more easily make out each individual instrument or vocal even in the Hugo 2.

I did give my private feedback to the PGGB software designer. But I guess he beta-tested the product with lots of other people who liked the sound he created. So my understanding is that there are currently no plans to re-allow for non-apodizing filter at 44.1kHz (but I presume paid owners can ask for this option?) and I don’t think he intends to address that confusion of sound when there are lots of instruments playing.

For me, I listen to a lot of orchestral music so PGGB is a no-no until this confusion of sound problem is fixed. Let alone the other issue of my 200GB music collection becoming 6.5TB upsampled if left uncompressed. (Although I see there is now a lossless compression option for the final files)

I agree with @Progisus philosophy. He likes the sound so he got PGGB and is enjoying it. I like some improvements in the sound but some sonic deterioration was unacceptable to me so I didn’t pay for PGGB and will stick with my M-Scaler.

 

[LucyWu]

I had the trial PGGB and tested it against Dave/MScaler, using HQP and Audirvana purely as players.

I heard nothing compelling with the software. HQPlayer sounded just as good using Sinc-M and LNS15. MScaler sounds at least as good and I can run streaming through it, I also don't need a datacentre to store my local library upsampled by PGGB.

 

[Progisus]

Good hear other opinions. The streaming issue is a big one. If one has a library of desert island albums then it may be an option especially as storage increases in volume and decreases in size and cost. A pi4 running volumio or mpd, couple 3tb ssd drives and mojo or H2 , your fav iem and you have the highest fidelity portable sound available today.

If one doesn’t hear the improvement then it’s not for you.
Sorry to hijack mscaler thread but just looking for opinions from people who know what to listen for.

Prog on!

 

[kennyb123]

Not according to their website (FAQ page) I quote:

The FAQ has been updated to be more clear about the use of the term “apodizing”: https://www.remastero.com/faq.html#Apodize

Moreover, they make great play about their windowing function, which of course converts a sinc function into something that is no longer sinc, and should not be called sinc. A true offline sinc function - appropriately done - would need no windowing function at all, and would be true sinc.

I think maybe semantics is tripping things up - and it’s all way above my pay grade. You had mentioned windowing with respect to the WTA filter but I have no clue how this might compare to what PGGB is doing. Thankfully I can let my ears figure things out since my brain isn’t big enough for this stuff.

So we can improve on conventional algorithms ability to reconstruct transients correctly - and this led to my WTA interpolation algorithm. It has been optimised to reduce the error, with a finite amount of processing (or taps). Actually, the WTA algorithm has evolved as tap length has increased, and today it is very similar to an ideal sinc function - over half the coefficients are identical to the ideal sinc function. A windowing function is the process that is used to tailor the sinc function from an infinite response into a small finite one, of a size we can actually use.

 

[davide256]

Good hear other opinions. The streaming issue is a big one. If one has a library of desert island albums then it may be an option especially as storage increases in volume and decreases in size and cost. A pi4 running volumio or mpd, couple 3tb ssd drives and mojo or H2 , your fav iem and you have the highest fidelity portable sound available today.

If one doesn’t hear the improvement then it’s not for you.
Sorry to hijack mscaler thread but just looking for opinions from people who know what to listen for.

Prog on!

I didn't find it practical to stream at full conversion limits but you can step PGGB down to FLAC (limited to 384/24) which is what I have done. As long as server and NAS
have the requisite processing power and are on a good GigE switch this works fine. My experience so far is that PGGB has very positive improvements for well recorded material even with an older DAC like Metrum Octave or an inexpensive DSD DAC like Chord Mojo. Since file size increases roughly 8x one does need to add more storage,
will be increasing my NAS storage from 1TB to 12TB. The MScaler is a far more elegant solution but its price point puts it out of reach for most.

 

[Christer]

So I tried PGGB when it’s officially released but only with a few tracks (because of the trial limitation). 44.1kHz upsampling is apodizing and >48kHz is non-apodizing.
For apodizing filter (44.1kHz music), I did hear:
1) PGGB vocals and bass notes did sound like there was more volume and dimensionality to them compared to M-Scaler
BUT
2) PGGB transient timing was a mess even compared to Hugo 2, as hand clapping, bow strikes, guitar plucks, drum strikes, etc. In fact, to me, PGGB apodizing upsampling at 44.1kHz is unlistenable because of the transient timing issue.

For the nonapodizing filter (>=48kHz music), I did hear
1) PGGB sounds slightly better than M-Scaler in terms of transient attack
2) PGGB has slightly better 3-dimensionality to vocal and instrumental volume than M-Scaler and DAVE and more obviously better than Hugo 2.
BUT
3) In all complex musical passages with multiple instruments and vocals, PGGB definitely causes a slight confusion of the sound whereas you can more easily make out each individual instrument or vocal even in the Hugo 2.

I did give my private feedback to the PGGB software designer. But I guess he beta-tested the product with lots of other people who liked the sound he created. So my understanding is that there are currently no plans to re-allow for non-apodizing filter at 44.1kHz (but I presume paid owners can ask for this option?) and I don’t think he intends to address that confusion of sound when there are lots of instruments playing.

For me, I listen to a lot of orchestral music so PGGB is a no-no until this confusion of sound problem is fixed. Let alone the other issue of my 200GB music collection becoming 6.5TB upsampled if left uncompressed. (Although I see there is now a lossless compression option for the final files)

I agree with @Progisus philosophy. He likes the sound so he got PGGB and is enjoying it. I like some improvements in the sound but some sonic deterioration was unacceptable to me so I didn’t pay for PGGB and will stick with my M-Scaler.

Interesting observations compared to the basically ALL positive ones over at CA where there is a thread dedicated to this new software alternative,PGGB.

I have also dipped a toe into this thanks to one member here and another over at CA I have 4 short tracks to evaluate this with so far. But not very scientifically and true A/B comparisons. Pulling cables disconnecting, connecting again ,setting levels and all that involved.

But I can listen to one 16/44.1 PGGB´d track with music I am not familair with before and which contains some amplified instruments, thus not ideal for me personally.
I will have to leave my take on 16/44.1 open compared to Mscaler.
But I am beginning to like the music more and more.
Thanks for broadening my horizon Nick.

But the difference between playing it directly via my Qutest ,I only have a humble Qutest,not a Dave, it sounds better and more refined and effortless and more similar to Mscaled than without in PGGB. Quite easily audible via my MBP usb and Audirvana + both via my electrostatic speakers and both my headphones and two the different headphone amps I have employed today.

My second PGGB´d test track, the third mov. of Sibelius´s 2rd, is something I know much better from my own collection and also several sessions with this label although not this particular recording. But I have Sibelius´ 2nd symphony complete from Bis as 24/96 download and can compare it that way.

At first via speakers I also thought I heard that confusion,or a touch of congestion during very dense and loud passages as you mention with this nonapodizing testfile ie higher native rates than 16/44.1.

But today listening again, via my headphones both HEKV2 and HD800 I did not experience it as much and must say I was quite impressed by what I heard. The PGGB 24/768-255 M sounds very good too.
Very realistic and with this track probably the blackest background ever, I am not sure it did sound "better" than Mscaling the native 24/96 ,but I heard no noise.
The Mscaled version even with Storm seemed not quite as "black" but maybe a bit airier.

The second symphonic track I got today Mahler´s 3rd from Channel Classics the "Bim Bam Bim Bam" choral mov. is from a DXD native file which I do not have and can´t make any direct comparisons with , but it too sounds very good PGGB´d.

The the third track is one I am very familair with having it as both DSD 128 and pcm 24/88.2 download.
The native recording is actually analouge and is about as good an evidence of how GOOD analogue REALLY can sound with acoustic music as I can think of.

It is called Suryodaya and is a track of some 4 minutes of Indian classical music with lots of tabla fingertapping. Very realistic via my electrostatic speakers both Mscaled from DSD 128 and 24/88.2 with 24/88.2 a wee bit better imho.
PGGB´d from a DSD128 file to 32/705 it also sounds very impressive and realistic to my ears.
Thanks a lot Rajiv / austin.pop

All in all and with what little I have heard so far the difference between not upscaled with my Qutest or upscaled via mscaler OR PGGB seem to be of a similar magnitude and quite easily audible in both cases imho.

I know VERY little about the tech and maths involved,but to me this new offline software alternative unlike my very expensive Mscaler, good as it undoubtedly is, can both be upgraded and further improved via software downloadable updates.
And it costs much less than an Mscaler.
500USD against whatever an Mscaler costs in USD currently.

But even if it could compete with both HQP and Mscaler one needs a very powerful computer to do the actual processsing and I don´t have one.

I would have to invest in a new computer to run this myself. But judging from these first impressions I could probably quite easily live with its SQ with hi res material on future travels and leave my Mscaler back home.

Another not so great aspect is the file-size.
About 4 minutes of PGGB´d music with a size of 1,5 gigabyte will need much bigger harddrives for sure.
There is obviously a compatible non lossy compression format called Wavpack simliar to flac I guess?

But one possible advantage with PGGB more than the cost might be that the RF issues with Mscaler could be dodged?

The PGGB heavyweight calculations have already been done and are history,when playing a pre -upscaled file right?
in my case once loaded into ram on my MBP no heavy cpu tasks involved.
Besides Audirvana optimizes and turns my otherwise sometimes a bit noisy laptop into a server right?
When I am online the fan is often on, but not when playing music from ram.
I am not really sure?but I don´t think I will need an Innous Phoenix or similar "usb cleanup toy" if I get this.
With these PGGB testfiles there is virtually no noise via usb and my Qutest.
USB noise especially via streaming has been a problem,but not with this.
For the first time usb seems more quiet than optical via my cd players
That alone is very interesting to me.

But does it come at the expense of some lack of air and a bit dryish end results?
Not really sure yet.

To come to a clearer conclusions I would like to hear some of my own reference masterfiles where I have direct references to the live sound in the hall.
PS I have never auditioned HQP.
But I am very happy with my Mscaler.
Cheers CC