My impression is exactly the opposite of yours. I’ve been quite blown away by the transient timing of my PGGB-processed 44.1k. So much so that my M-Scaler has been sitting unused.
Earlier today I listened to Sangam by Charles Lloyd. This features Zakir Hussain on tabla. Drums and tabla come closest I’ve heard to sounding like the real thing - particularly in the area of rise and fall time. M-Scaler worked wonders with this track but PGGB as configured takes it to another level entirely.
A key point here is that PGGB is configurable. It is possible to aim for a more dense presentation. This can alter the perceived time domain performance - similar to the filter settings provided by Chord with their DACs.
There very well could be shortcomings with PGGB, but transient response is not one of them. It’s actually its greatest strength IMHO - and profoundly so with 44.1k. I’m a drummer so lifelike reproduction of drums and percussion has always been the most important area of musical reproduction to me. It’s exactly what lead me to Chord DACs and ultimately the M-Scaler. I think time domain performance is something Chord owners have come to feel is essential to making music sound real. That we would suddenly abandon this to jump on PGGB (while still retaining our Chord DACs) seems preposterous.
Where PGGB is truly a miracle-worker is with DSD. A billion taps can actually restore timing - at least to my ears.
Thanks ,I just listened to the YT version of Sangam and have to say :THAT is an album I just HAVE to buy on cd asap.
Amazing music and performance!
Great recommendation!
And YT also suggested another interesting album with Ahmad Jamal .Do you feel the same about PGGB with piano as well?
The only test tracks with percussion ,non classical, I have so far, are the 16/44.1 Jim Byrnes track Nick sent me and the original analogue PGGB´d from DSD 128 first track on the album Suryodaya which also has got some amazing and VERY realistic tabla sounds both Mscaled and PGGB´d or "Gargleblasted" as some prefer to say.
I can´t say I hear much of a difference between Mscaled and PGGB with those two, BUT both sound CLEARLY better and more realistic than played natively via my humble Qutest.
My impression of PGGB so far with only 4 short test tracks, is that there isn´t ,or rather, I can´t really hear any BIG difference between my Mscaler and PGGB. But it has been very interesting to hear my Qutest sound THAT good without the Mscaler connected.
My guess and hope is that most future development and improvements in digital SQ will happen in software alternatives rather than via VERY expensive non upgradable FPGA paths.
I have GREAT respect for the results Rob is getting and has delivered with Mscaler.
Mscaler basically changed my opinion of digital.
But I wish he would offer his expertise not only to those few who can afford the imho VERY expensive FPGA based hardware only option he has presented.
If more than 1M taps do matter for SQ with hi res or even with 16/44.1? and judging from PGGB they may very well do so, my Mscaler will eventually become another very expensive, redundant Chord product like my old Hugo 1.
I would really like to hear what Rob can do with software based pre-upscaled over locked in hardware,as well.
The fact that my old 17" MBP from 2011 can play both Mscaled and PGGB with quite similar results is very promising for me.
I may even buy a cheap but capable PC just to do PGGB processing as an option to buying yet another also very expensive MBP.
I hate the fact that one always has to pay much more to get the same performance as with pc´s just because someone has taken "a bite at the apple"?
But both my old MBP´s have also been my work-horses as a photographer so they have more than earned their keep, and also been great with Mscaler and now also work with, the newest kid on the block, PGGB.
Cheers CC
go figure...
