[RCC HD Sound]

Bpcans:
but in the meantime, I must try to listen as well as possible with my current equipment.
Thank you

 

[Gadget67]

Bpcans:
but in the meantime, I must try to listen as well as possible with my current equipment.
Thank you

I’m taking my time researching streaming with a dedicated device. I’m very pleased with my current chain so I’m in no hurry.

 

[Pashmeister]

Has anyone tried PGGB by Remastero? It is offline PCM upsampling made available just a few weeks ago. There’s a free 30-day trial where you can upsample as many files as you want. Can only do 5 tracks per batch, then have to restart the program to upsample 5 more.

I understand that the developers are fans of the Chord DACs and created it primarily from a Chord DAC and PCM standpoint. I am on my trial period now and I’ve upsampled 3 albums that I listen to using my Abyss TC (haven’t used other headphones on the upsampled files yet, but I will). This program can upsample up to more than a BILLION taps. I haven’t tried a billion, maybe I’ll try on one song. But I’ve set my max tap count at 512 million taps, at 32 bit, max 768khz (PGGB can upsample higher if you DAC can support). I need more storage space and my unused external drive has finally found new purpose. My upsampled songs are at 2GB each on average.

It’s a free trial, I recommend you try it out. I have used the HMS in the past, and I am an HQPlayer user. Listening to PGGB offline sampled files is quite a ride.

https://www.remastero.com/index.html

 

[N Quarter]

Not tried it yet, but I just finished reading Ray-dudes entire thread on Audiophile style about it. I need to upgrade my Laptop from windows 7 to 10 first, then I might give it a try.

 

[mammal]

This program can upsample up to more than a BILLION taps. I haven’t tried a billion, maybe I’ll try on one song. But I’ve set my max tap count at 512 million taps, at 32 bit, max 768khz (PGGB can upsample higher if you DAC can support).

Can you help me understand how it works? Can I feed my DAC with upsampled PCM (384kHz max) that used billion taps, or is the number of taps proportional to the kHz? Thanks

 

[andrewd01]

Can you help me understand how it works? Can I feed my DAC with upsampled PCM (384kHz max) that used billion taps, or is the number of taps proportional to the kHz? Thanks

The number of taps is limited by the length of the track and the output sample rate. The number of taps cannot be any more than the number of samples in the track, so for a four minute track thats 240 seconds at 384,000 samples per second, that’s 92.16 million taps.

I have tested a PGGB file upsampled to 705.6 kHz 32-bit using a 265M tap filter. The results are superb. I would buy the software if I had a computer powerful enough.

 

[Rob Watts]

Has anyone tried PGGB by Remastero? It is offline PCM upsampling made available just a few weeks ago. There’s a free 30-day trial where you can upsample as many files as you want. Can only do 5 tracks per batch, then have to restart the program to upsample 5 more.

I understand that the developers are fans of the Chord DACs and created it primarily from a Chord DAC and PCM standpoint. I am on my trial period now and I’ve upsampled 3 albums that I listen to using my Abyss TC (haven’t used other headphones on the upsampled files yet, but I will). This program can upsample up to more than a BILLION taps. I haven’t tried a billion, maybe I’ll try on one song. But I’ve set my max tap count at 512 million taps, at 32 bit, max 768khz (PGGB can upsample higher if you DAC can support). I need more storage space and my unused external drive has finally found new purpose. My upsampled songs are at 2GB each on average.

It’s a free trial, I recommend you try it out. I have used the HMS in the past, and I am an HQPlayer user. Listening to PGGB offline sampled files is quite a ride.

https://www.remastero.com/index.html

PGGB uses a slow roll-off filter (they call it apodizing filter) for 44.1k NOT a sinc or sinc like (WTA) and so it cannot reconstruct the timing of transients accurately, so a huge number of taps is irrelevant, as it will be limited by the filter algorithm. I was sent some samples in December, and they sounded typically like apodizing filters - flatter in depth, poor instrument separation and clarity. Sounded softer in the bass; with a hard edge too. These are typical effects of poor transient timing reconstruction. I have heard true sinc function offline filters (sinc will perfectly reconstruct the original signal before sampling) and PGGB sounds nothing like that.

 

[andrewd01]

This is what they say on their web site:

“Staying true to Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem, PGGB's algorithms use extremely long windowed Sinc filters (i.e., millions or billions of taps), with filter lengths only limited by your processing hardware and the length of the track that you are remastering.”

 

[Rob Watts]

From their website (FAQ page):

"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."

An apodizing or slow roll off filter will certainly not perfectly reconstruct the original bandwidth limited signal. Moreover, from my own (thousands upon thousands) listening tests, implementing a slow roll-off filter in the interpolation filter very seriously degrades transient timing accuracy making it pointless to use long tap lengths.

 

[Progisus]

PGGB has given my system (TT2) the effect I was hoping the mscaler (previously owned) would have provided. It is not for streaming though. I have found the best effect when remastered to 705/768 24b and fed through a SRC-DX to the dual bnc inputs of the TT2 or H2. The player can be Roon, HQPlayer (set for no upsampling), MPD, Audirvana etc. Many mscaler owners are using pggb for their local library and mscaler for streamed files. Best of both worlds.

 

[ZappaMan]

Part of me feels a bit weary to have this further potential thing, I’m not sure why, why aren’t I more excited to try this pggb, maybe I just feel like I’m time poor and maybe not a great audiophile lol.

 

[Tanalasta]

Has anyone discovered a readily available case for the Hugo TT 2?

On another note, I just want to thank Rob Watts for the amazing engineering that went into the Hugo TT 2. I am listening to the TT 2 with the Oriolus Trailii for the first time tonight having just registered my new unit. And it is truly one of those in love smile moments

 

[andrewd01]

From their website (FAQ page):

"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."

An apodizing or slow roll off filter will certainly not perfectly reconstruct the original bandwidth limited signal. Moreover, from my own (thousands upon thousands) listening tests, implementing a slow roll-off filter in the interpolation filter very seriously degrades transient timing accuracy making it pointless to use long tap lengths.

Rob,
The section of the FAQ quoted below adds more information that seems to contradict the statement above that it is a slow roll-off filter. They state that it is a windowed sinc function. Obviously the only way to know for sure would be to process the file with a known windowed sinc filter and compare the results to a PGGB processed file at the sample level.

“Does PGGB use Apodizing filters, and why?​

Apodization in Greek means cutting off the foot. It has different technical meaningsdepending on the application. In Signal processing, it just means using a windowing function to reduce ringing artifacts due to the abrupt truncation at the beginning and end of a sample window. In digital-audio, the term has been used and also misused. In digital-audio, more often than not 'apodizing' is used to mean it is a non-brick-wall filter which has reduced or no 'pre-ringing'. It is implemented as a slow-roll off filter. PGGB's filters do not fall under this category.

The problem is getting hung-up on the terminology and forgetting what we are trying to achieve. With apodizing filters used in PGGB, you should forget everything else you may find online about apodizing filters. We used the term 'apodizing' because it is immediately understood to mean it has something to do with improving CD audio. It is not a slow roll off filter, it is not minium-phase. It uses a windowed sinc filter. We could call it something else, but we do not want to add to the list of myriad jargons. It is apodizing in the frequency domain in the sense that it 'cut-off' aliasing artifacts introduced during CD creation and in our humble opinion, it is the only meaningful thing one can do to alleviate if not reverse the damage done to CD audio.”

 

[Christer]

From their website (FAQ page):

"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."

An apodizing or slow roll off filter will certainly not perfectly reconstruct the original bandwidth limited signal. Moreover, from my own (thousands upon thousands) listening tests, implementing a slow roll-off filter in the interpolation filter very seriously degrades transient timing accuracy making it pointless to use long tap lengths.

Hello Rob ,But what about 24/96 and other,not bandwidth limited signals,hi res formats?

I am still a bit puzzled why for example a cymbal crash or a triangle in a real live situation contains overtones up to 100khz , but bandwidth limiting cuts those out around 20khz as I guess it also does with aliazing artifacts.
But what if even if we ,can´t hear those supersonic harmonics ,overtones , they may still be an integral part of an instrument´s orginal timbre?

If PGGB does not use apodizing filters with hi res and apply many millions more taps than even Mscaler with no such slow roll off filter would that not in theory make it possible to get even closer to the real sound of acoustic instruments?

A violin reaches above 30khz in natural harmonics does it not?

During your lecture in Singapore a few years ago you mentioned that to perfectly recover a 24/96 signal as Mscaler recovers a bandwidth limited 16/44.1 one would need 256M taps?

What if this new software has actually achieved that goal with 24 bit signals?

And if it hasn´t, but you can achieve that goal with your new computer and software code instead of FPGA based I guess that would be very welcome.

I suspect you would personally make even more income from offering such a product as download,to music lovers directly at a similar price PGGB sells for than from the relatively few who can afford hardware based upscaling as in Mscaler.

I think millions more music lovers would be interested to get as good as ,or better than current mscaling ,for 500USD instead of paying 5000-10000USD.


Sorry if my questions are amateurish again,but I am as always, genuinely interested in both the tech facts involved and in getting as close as possible to what I have heard from direct mic-feed at classical recording sessions.
PS. My Mscaler sounds fantastic with both rbcd and hi res, but I would much rather travel with two or three 4tb portable harddrives and pre-upscaled music,than having to worry about leaving my expensive Mscaler in a hotel room again.

Cheers CC

 

[Progisus]

Part of me feels a bit weary to have this further potential thing, I’m not sure why, why aren’t I more excited to try this pggb, maybe I just feel like I’m time poor and maybe not a great audiophile lol.

I understand this sentiment completely. If it wasn't for Covid lockdown still in my area I would probably revert to my DAP, iem and a few good tunes.