Considering ROCK

About twice

If the flac would end up twice it’s size and then the wav being twice that size, then this could really fill up fast.

–MD

I meant that FLAC achieves approximately 50% compression on average compared to WAV, so whatever the FLAC size is after the upsampling, the equivalent WAV size will be approximately twice that

Understood.

But the flac would probally double in size after upsampling. Maybe more.

–MD

Sure. But I commented on your “imagine how big it would be with WAV”, and the answer is “twice as big as whatever the FLAC size is”

That is the known. Now I wonder how much the flac would grow in size.

–MD

AJ

Cute. :rofl:

–MD

Easy to calculate. Multiply the bits per sample and the sample rate.

One minute of CD quality, 16 bits with 44.1 kHz:
16 x 44100 x 2 (stereo) x 60 seconds = 84,672,000 bits

Let’s say he upsamples to 24/192, that’s 552,960,000 bits.

So about 6.5 times larger. Above numbers are for WAV size, but the factor will apply to FLAC just as well.

(Obviously the conversion to per minute was not necessary)

That is a lot. But that is only going up to 24/192.

Earlier in this thread was a reference of 705.6/768.

–MD

It was one example. If you are interested in other sample sizes and sample rates, multiply accordingly

1 Like

PGGB is a PCM remastering tool for upsampling or downsampling PCM audio files with an optimal choice of linear filters. Similar in concept the process used in Chord Electronics M Scaler.

PGGB stays true to Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem, PGGB’s algorithms use extremely long windowed Sinc filters, with filter lengths only limited to processing hardware and track length. The longer the filter, the higher the reconstruction accuracy and the more transparent the sound. To my ears this means better depth and layering, improved resolution, a cleaner leading edge, and more accurate timbre.

I’m not here to try win anyone over to PGGB but there’s a thread on Audiophile Style named “A toast to PGGB, a heady brew of math and magic”, if anyone is interested in reading other peoples experience with PGGB.

And yes, it does come at a cost of processing hardware and storage space. But after over 20 years in the digital domain it has been personally worth it to me. We all approach music playback differently and it’s a good thing to have options with differing levels of granularity for equipment, methods and outcomes. Like anything, an open mind and a sense of curiosity leads to growth.

1 Like

When setting up processing within PGGB, output bit depth is user selected up to 32 bits and output sample rate maxes out at 705.6/768KHz depending on source sample rate.

Hello, I started with Roon like this. NUC / Rock (Prime Mini) Fanless, first i3 then i7, not for performance but out of curiosity. Then, because I didn’t want a second additional device, I moved the core to my Synologie NAS (DS 420+), expanded the RAM and swapped the HDD for an SSD. My library is only 4TB (Flac, 24-bit, DSD), I play in a maximum of 4 rooms and use DSP to a limited extent. I could not detect any differences in sound or performance between the individual devices during use. Only the exchange from HDD to SSD brought some speed in the use of the HDD.

Thanks @Thorsten_Heinrich for your reply. This is very useful info for me. Much appreciated!

1 Like

@NWLanding
Appreciate your reasoning.

Again I’m curious,

On average - What is file size of one of your songs along with bit rate and resolution?

What file format do you prefer for this?

Thanks
–MD

Less than 0.5 gigabyte per file on average. Based on my original FLAC library (~36k files), all my PGGB output files couldn’t convert to FLAC (at the currently supported PGGB version), and only converted to wave or wave pack. Unfortunately, Roon doesn’t support wave pack (currently). It would certainly help to improve disk storage! Dan Mance of AudioWise is developing a real time (or just in time) tool(s) based on the PGGB algorithms. Check in out. Oh yeah, RE: preferred file type, wav or wv depending on your playback choice.

Wow, that is a hugh file. Thank you for that info. I was really curious about this.

I’m guessing that you have the NAS configured in Raid. As you probably already know that Raid 5 or higher would benefit you with transfer performance gains.

As some have stated and concurred with, you would be better off staying with the NAS versus a NUC.

Since your are considering ROCK, then maybe a full fledged Linux server with Raid. This would be faster than the NAS and the NUC. Linux really shines serving up.

Btw, there are many on this forum with lots of knowledge on a Linux setup that can help quite a bit.

–MD

1 Like

Thanks! Yes I’m using RAID 6 for better fault tolerance in the event 2 drives fail. Certainly don’t want to be in a position of remastering my music again!

My consideration of using my NUC was mainly academic and to satisfy my tinkering interests!

Glad you made this post and the type file system was brought up. Did not realize that it existed.

Was aware of HQ Player.

In a few years I’m hoping to have a lot more tinkering time on my hands and I will definately take a closer look at this type of rip at least to see what it is about.

–MD