[austinpop]

Regardless, I prefer the PGGB versions of tracks while using the Bartok ("16fs", 24bits, P256).

Was 16FS a typo, and you meant 8FS? Because, as you noted, the maximum input rate for a Bartok is 352.8/384 kHz, i.e. 8FS.

 

[llamaluv]

Was 16FS a typo

Yes! Edited, ty.

 

[kennyb123]

Excellent post on PGGB’s sibling, foo-RT: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/gustard-x26-pro-dual-es9038pro-dac.959716/post-17360661

 

[shuttlepod]

I'd like to chime in with some thoughts on on PGGB-256, the latest and greatest version of this program. Folks should know this is more than your standard "update." It is really a profound change in what is possible with off-line "remastering." I just posted the following review on audiophilestyle.com:

Prior to PGGB-256 I had hundreds of albums that I had "blasted" (processed or remastered) at 64, 128, and 192 bits. With the advent of PGGB-256, I have re-blasted many of those albums at 256 and have also listened to many new albums blasted at 256. As part of the group that helped perform listening tests with the new software, I also experienced various technical advances during the process of refining PGGB-256.

The jump in sonic quality from earlier versions of PGGB to the 256 versions is very real. Generally, what I hear is greater precision, truer timbre, and simply more lifelike reproduction. Transparency was already high with earlier versions. Comparing native files to the same files processed with 256, the leap in transparency is astonishing -- the kind of change that hits you in the face.

It is also worth pointing out that 256 is working magic on SACDs and DSD that has been ripped or downloaded. I always considered my Chord DAVE to be a PCM champion and so tended not to listen to much DSD. That has changed. Listening to SACD rips of Kind of Blue, Abraxas, and Ella and Louis has been one of the great surprises and pleasures of 256.

For $1000, the PGGB license is gigantic bang for the buck. The license is very reasonably priced in light of the ability to improve virtually every digital source file, but there are two factors that I know have kept some people on the sidelines: 1) the cost of hardware needed to run PGGB; and 2) the time required to run the program. The good news is that these barriers to entry have become much easier to surmount with 256. You no longer need a server class computer to run PGGB. A wide variety of much less expensive consumer class machines will work. See remastero.com for more details on hardware requirements. Further, processing time is much, much faster now. You can easily process 10-15 albums in a single day -- way more than you'll be able to listen to in the same time frame.

I have zero financial interest in PGGB -- I'm just thankful I have access to this amazing tool.

 

[kennyb123]

For those curious about how much music they can process for a given amount of RAM, the developer of PGGB has posted a table that can help provide an answer. See it here: https://www.remastero.com/guide-256.html#SystemMoreMemory. The length of the track dictates how much memory is required for a given set of processing parameters.

 

[FlikFlac]

Hi, decided to trial PGGB but im getting the following error message which pops up about 10-15s after the processing starts, anyone seen this or know the reason for it? Tried different files but get the same error. Files are flac ripped from CD.

Thanks

 

[llamaluv]

Hi, decided to trial PGGB but im getting the following error message which pops up about 10-15s after the processing starts, anyone seen this or know the reason for it? Tried different files but get the same error. Files are flac ripped from CD.

Thanks

In case either your source or destination directories are on a network drive, I would do a test where both are using a local directory instead, and see if you get the same error.

I had tons of problems when my destination directory was on a network drive, especially using WavPack...

 

[FlikFlac]

In case either your source or destination directories are on a network drive, I would do a test where both are using a local directory instead, and see if you get the same error.

I had tons of problems when my destination directory was on a network drive, especially using WavPack...

Hi, for the trial, both directories are on the local drive…

 

[austinpop]

Hi, decided to trial PGGB but im getting the following error message which pops up about 10-15s after the processing starts, anyone seen this or know the reason for it? Tried different files but get the same error. Files are flac ripped from CD.

Thanks

Reach out to ZB, the developer, for support. Contact: zb.pggb@gmail.com

 

[FlikFlac]

Reach out to ZB, the developer, for support. Contact: zb.pggb@gmail.com

Will do, thanks

 

[FlikFlac]

Will do, thanks

ZB kindly confirmed the file was indeed corrupt. It appears that the act of moving it from my network server to the local drive damaged it some how. Taking the file directly from the server worked a charm so now processing a few files to experiment with.

 

[kennyb123]

It appears that the act of moving it from my network server to the local drive damaged it some how.

That’s disconcerting. As an FYI, PerfectTUNES is an awesome tool to have in one’s toolbox. Details here. It allows one to know of music files are in good shape. For those not using a secure ripper like dbPoweramp, this is helpful in determIning if the rip was not perfect.

 

[FlikFlac]

That’s disconcerting. As an FYI, PerfectTUNES is an awesome tool to have in one’s toolbox. Details here. It allows one to know of music files are in good shape. For those not using a secure ripper like dbPoweramp, this is helpful in determIning if the rip was not perfect.

Thanks will take a look… I used Flacintegritychecker, part of PlayPcmWin which ZB pointed me to…

 

[Progisus]

Another sonic improvement for the Prog minded.

 

[ZappaMan]

Giving pggb a go.
Is the point to resample to 768 and play via src-dx directly to Dave ?
And for poly - can it play 768 wav files ?