Mista Lova Lova

Hey man, with this kind of shrewdness you could even pull off running a "Casino" 😉

I used the previously-linked album on Qobuz: https://open.qobuz.com/track/1751139

Did you get to listen to the new Susvara Unveiled? It'd be very interesting to hear your impression as someone who's spent so much with the OG Susvara and has heard it from so many amplifiers.

Hehe, I just wanted to find out what your impressions were as you had previously posted that you would be sharing them at some point. I was genuinely curious due to this particular track having been mentioned which I wasn't familiar with and I was wondering if there is perhaps something about this particular piece of music that I'm failing to distinguish properly and whether my perception of things was different from others'. I totally see where you're coming from, though, and I appreciate you sharing your impressions regardless. And I totally agree about discovering Rain Tree Crow being the main positive outcome of this listening session 😀 Since there doesn't seem to be much activity in this thread anymore, I would perhaps suggest to the moderators ( @The Computer Audiophile ) that this thread be permanently closed so that future listening impressions of both HQP and PGGB can be posted in their respective threads. I have greatly enjoyed the discussion and the "clash of the titans" but at the same time I appreciate that not everyone will feel comfortable participating in such an adversarial type of exchange and that this type of debate can lead to a significant amount of off-topic content which doesn't move things forward. I sincerely believed that the debate would be worth having due to there being mutually exclusive philosophies behind the two approaches which led me to believe that with enough pairs of ears we would be able to arrive at conclusions which would move us forward in terms of the theory underpinning digital audio reconstruction (said theory then guiding practical choices made when designing audio software). FWIW, my initial impressions re PGGB DSD have stood the test of time for me and I couldn't be happier. I also couldn't be happier that there are so many options available so that everyone can find the kind of sound that convinces them the most / brings them the most joy. Thanks, everyone.

@austinpop I'm wondering if you've had a chance to do your listening test also and what your findings and/or personal preferences are.

Sorry for the delay in doing the promised testing (some personal circumstances got in the way), I have finally managed to get round to it. I used the aforementioned settings on HQP and a PGGB DSD512 (the original file was a FLAC copy of the 2003 remastered version of the song). I mostly focused on the 03m00s-05m00s part of the song as I felt that it gave a good representation of different elements of it. I went back and forth a significant number of times as it's almost always the case with me that whilst some things become apparent right away, others only do so once my ears get used to the track. And the headphones too, as I often switch between my pairs; for this comparison I used the Focal Utopia (OG). I have made sure to adjust the headroom accordingly so as to ensure that differences in volume are not affecting my impressions (-1.73dBFS for both). So, as we are comparing the two different approaches here my impressions will be in reference to each other (i.e. not in absolute terms, only as compared to the other option). What I hear when listening to the PGGB version: clarity, no "veil"; incisiveness, as in crispness (not "harshness") of leading edges; very clear separation of individual sounds; expansive soundstage, not in-your-face; great depth and a very clear perception of the "air" between the sounds, i.e. clear presence of clues that make it easy for me to tell how much space there is between individual instruments; both the sounds in the foreground and in the background are crystal clear and so is the space around them (i.e. interaction/reverb with the surrounding space can be heard and is clearly distinct from the sounds themselves) What I hear when listening to the HQP version, in light of the above: I'm reluctant to go as far as to use the word "veil" but there is some smoothness applied to the sound that makes for a potentially pleasant listen but prevents all the clarity and crispness from getting through. A headphone analogy - as if some mesh was placed on the inside of the headphones' earpads in order to tame the energy of the soundwaves slightly. Or what Meze seem to aim for with at least some of their headphones - a "layer of warmth" that can be very pleasant to some but annoying to others. If PGGB's clarity came at the cost of sounding sharp or clinical then (as I used to do in the past) I would be listing the arguments for and against both approaches, but to my ears it doesn't and and is simply superior here without any caveats; Due to the above, the leading edges are not quite as energetic and clean here; Separation is seemingly quite good on its own, however when doing a direct comparison it quickly became obvious that it was a bit "blurry" compared to PGGB (reminds me of what the Denafrips Ares II sounded like to my ears) and the biggest differences here for me were: 1. sounds in the background - so much more clearly defined by PGGB, with the much easier perception of air and distance adding to the perception of enhanced separation; 2. busier bits like (if I'm not mistaken) at the 4m24s mark where things get a bit busy for a few seconds - on HQP is sounds a bit unpleasant, messy and too "glued together", whereas PGGB handles things without any issues here (to be fair, I don't think that the mastering on this bit is great in the first place, but the differences were obvious regardless). A more in-your-face soundstage with there being less space between me and the music. The depth was good, but far from what PGGB offered; in my opinion this may not necessarily be due to there being more soundstage and more depth as such, but quite likely due to the ease with which I can pinpoint each source of sound and tell how much distance there is between it and the one closest to me. And PGGB was very clearly superior in the latter aspect. Much less "air" around instruments, especially the ones in the background - not only were they presented in a way where subjectively I experienced a slight loss of resolution (may be due to this "smoothing over" effect), but those sounds also existed kind of "somewhere over there" whereas with PGGB they were getting the same level of attention as the sounds close to me in terms of both the instruments themselves and their surroundings (reverb of the room/booth they were recorded in) being presented with the utmost clarity. This added tremendously not just to the overall perception of detail, but most importantly - realism. It is probably needless to say at this point that I found PGGB to be vastly superior in this comparison. The last question would be - is there anything that HQP potentially does better than PGGB on this track? Yes, potentially, at least to some listeners. Perhaps somewhat similar to tube amplifiers, HQP, to my ears, offers a smoother and slightly warmer sound which I can imagine could be the preference of those who are either sensitive to detail or who simply enjoy very long listening sessions and their number one priority is that their ears don't get tired (kind of like the people who wouldn't watch HDR movies because they don't care about the extra contrast, they just want a predictable, smooth experience). Again, similar to tube amplifiers - in my view, this is in no way a technically better reproduction of sound (quite the opposite, I believe) but it may be subjectively preferable to some, whether it be due to their individual sensitivities or perhaps some issues with their gear which this "smoothing over" can help to mask (albeit, at the cost of masking some other things, too). When it comes to my personal preference, this audio journey has always had one common denominator along the way for me - once I've heard something that was clearly better, I wouldn't be able to forget about it and go back to the old way of listening to music. So knowing how the PGGB DSD512 version of this track sounds, I would struggle to find a reason to listen to it using the above HQP settings.

Thanks for sharing your impressions. I'm intrigued about this piece and curious about how wooden sticks and cymbals sound on both filters. Would it be possible for you to share the cut which you've upsampled or point me in the direction of the name of the artist, album and song so that I can try to find it myself?

Well, it was partly due to my curiosity and inquisitive nature that this debate continued until it got so heated, so I do feel some responsibility for making sure that it stays civil. I am not going to comment on what has been said and the way it has been said - I think that it is plain to see and everyone can make up their own mind. I am, however, also concerned that we have reached a stage where, at least for the time being, we are unlikely to make any further progress in relation to establishing the objective data behind what we're hearing. I am certain that both @Zaphod Beeblebrox and @Miska will continue to publish data exhibiting what their products do well (e.g. on their websites) and each of us will be able to see these data, compare them and make up our own mind. I also continue to use both pieces of software and continue to be excited about what's happening in the world of digital audio - just like the introduction of the Gaussian filters at the time helped me enjoy my music in a more non-fatiguing way which I interpreted as being more natural, the new release of PGGB DSD has made me want to listen to each song in my collection once again as I'm discovering things that I never paid attention to before. I would strongly encourage everyone to give PGGD DSD trial a go - there is nothing to lose and in my opinion a lot to gain. I have in the past spent a considerable amount of time comparing different HQP filters, in an attempt to find one that sounds the best to me; I will post some impressions of how they fare when compared to PGGB DSD (to my ears, on my system and with my music).

The kind of pointless discussion that warrants staying up all night for 😉

So it's clearly nothing to do with content above 20kHz (no surprises there as I don't have a bat's hearing). The resultant changes must be having an effect within the audible range. It's very easy to hear significant differences between the two filters and I'm certain that it's not just my experience.

Mea culpa then, I thought that Sinc-S was a short Sinc filter. So both S and M(x) go all the way up to Nyquist? What's the difference between them, they sound very different to my ears. I believed that theory until I heard PGGB DSD. There is nothing that any of the HQP filters do better (to my ears), regardless of their length. Even short filters have less clean and less snappy transients than PGGB.

My guess is that the proportion of the frequency range being reconstructed is simply indicative of how accurate the filter is. It's very easy for me to hear this difference between Sinc-S and Sinc-M(x), where the former sounds thinner and less tactile than the latter. And the differences continue to appear even after the entirety of the frequency range is reconstructed - after all, many of HQP's filters go all the way up to Nyquist but to my ears they are nowhere near PGGB's realism of individual notes (how clean and tactile they sound) and depth (how easily the spatial relationship between different sounds can be identified). So there's clearly more going on here than simply the reconstruction of very high frequencies; I'd think that it's all to do with accurate timing.

For clarification - by transients I understand short bursts of energy at the start of every sound; I like @Miska's description - "leading edges" of sound. To be honest, I'm still learning about how much they matter and PGGB has really opened my eyes in relation to how much impact on soundstage (depth) and snappiness (starting and stopping of notes) a more accurate reconstruction of the time domain has (since PGGB is not the only product that can reconstruct the frequency range all the way up to Nyquist, I surmise that the extra processing goes towards an as-accurate-as-possible reconstruction of the time domain which in turn has an effect on transients). As for pitch and timbre - I'm not sure. The most immediate change in timbre that I perceive is from the portion of the frequency domain being reconstructed - a filter which goes up to, say, 20kHz sounds to me less full-bodied and less tactile than a filter that reconstructs the entirety of the frequency domain. However, as we've seen from the above discussions, so many things take place during reconstruction that are not captured on a simple frequency graph that I'd say that the safest guess would be that all of the factors that we know about have some impact on the final result, with said result often being more than the sum of its parts (incremental changes until at some point it starts sounding "right", like with PGGB DSD - then things become transcendent). It sounds like a fascinating topic to me: how our ears perceive depth, or should I say - how our brains recreate depth from the information our ears take in. It sounds perfectly logical to me that timing will have a lot to do with this - a seemingly tiny inaccuracy in the timing difference between two sounds might result in them being perceived as being closer to each other (on the Z axis) than intended.

What is your favourite filter to use with the 1971 version of the San Tropez track? I'll see if I can get a hold of it; I'd play it with this setting to see if I can hear the same benefits that you can hear.

OK, I get what you're saying, but again - to a smaller degree the same change in spatial presentation does also occur between gauss, gauss-long and gauss-xl, with the first one being "flat", the middle one having some decent space and the third one getting quite close to Sinc-MG. And as such positioning of certain sounds (especially in terms of depth) does also change depending on which filter I go for. You seemed to agree with me that more space does in fact get created (although you see it as a trade-off between transients and space) between those filters, I simply add to this that PGGB does this also, simply to a larger degree, i.e. spatial cues between instruments and depth become even more apparent. EDIT If we agree that more space get reconstructed, at what point does space become "space that wasn't in the recording"? I infer from your previous posts that a possible indication would be when transients start getting smeared. But, as I've said, PGGB to my ears shows that phenomenal depth can be recreated and transients can still be clean and snappy.