Boogeyman software

What happened to checks and balances, the executive branch has way too much power. How do you figure? The fraudulent election that got him elected is still in place. I am amazed at how many people know Xiden cheated but believe JBE was voted in by the voters.

Replies 4. Normally i would agree Thank you for supporting our sponsors Posted by Site Sponsor to Everyone. LSUvet72 Member since Sep posts. But lets talk where there were possible stolen votes in St. Tammany possibly from Trump to Biden.

The weather will change each night, lights will break, toys will come alive, things will go bump in the night. Learn the hiding places, and sounds of the Boogeyman to stay ahead. Watch them carefully. Conserve as much power or risk going under the bed for more. Rain will drown out noise, lightening will give you quick glimpses of the room in full light, snow blizzards will make it impossible to hear much at all. See all. View all. Click here to see them.

Customer reviews. Overall Reviews:. Recent Reviews:. Review Type. All Positive Negative All Steam Purchasers Other All Languages Your Languages Customize. Date Range. To view reviews within a date range, please click and drag a selection on a graph above or click on a specific bar. Look under the Elements menu on the left and click on Logo Elements.

Scroll down till you see Sad Duck or what ever you named your folder Click on that and you should see the Boogeyman folder. Click on that and you will see the images in the menu below the folder. Ready to use. We should not experience significant frequency response changes for example. Likewise, we should not hear changes to the dynamic range of the music unless we actually think the software expands dynamic range somehow this would not be faithful to the source, right?

So, the bottom line is that unless we're saying that the DAC has very poor digital filtering to begin with, logically, it would be wise to caution again unrealistic expectations of massive improvements using PGGB. In other words, it's probably best to avoid the word "magic". Some might call this "closed minded", but I see it as simply being realistic before we examine anything, especially if we're thinking of spending money. Open minded enough to give it a chance with testing and listening, but not so open minded as to have our brains spill over to embrace fantasy as per this.

While I agree that ultimately, it's about "how something sounds", I have always felt that subjective descriptions are not that useful most of the time unless I'm sitting in the room with a friend and we can both "compare notes" having heard the same sound.

This is even more important for evaluation of something like this in that the software touts all kinds of technical claims like mega-tap filtering, huge levels of precision, "accuracy", etc.

I started by downloading the software but did not activate it just to see what it offered and how to proceed screenshots are of activated trial from my friend's computer. Notice in that picture, the Yosi Horikawa track is being processed using M taps - that's a big number!

My friend is using a core Intel iX with 32GB of RAM and claims the conversion did not take too long, something like 5 minutes to convert around 20 minutes of audio by his estimate. I'm sure this fluctuates depending on the complexity of the filters the program chooses to use. That's still likely a faster CPU than what most people have though! The program provides some settings to supposedly fine-tune the sound. I'm not sure how "Natural" varies from "Front Row", and I can't say what "Transparent" is or what "Dense" sound means if both are aiming for "accurate".

The guide doesn't provide clear technical explanations for these vague subjective terms either. As you can see, the input audio signal is being upsampled to " You can see the amount of physical memory, logical cores and max threads not sure why the limited number of threads available on the machine.

As described on the website, indeed very long tap-length sinc filtering has been applied. The converted impulse response file says 11M-taps specifically for the above signal. Notice morphologically that it's a typical linear phase filter for both settings with the expected long symmetrical pre- and post-impulse ringing. So how well do these filters function in the frequency domain?

Note that the difference here is that I will derive these in Adobe Audition using a 65k-point FFT and there's no "Digital Silence" plot which I normally show in my measurements since this is done digitally and silence would be "infinitely" quiet:. We see the result of that very high tap-length digital filter.

I tried to keep the scaling the same for both graphs. Notice that the "ALT" setting shows lower dynamic range from signal peak to noise floor. I'm not sure which of the settings caused this and didn't try to specifically chase this down "Dense" presentation maybe?

I noticed a couple of other interesting findings on the DFC. Let's zoom into the "brick wall" sharp corner up around 20kHz:. Also, the levels of the wideband noise signals have been automatically shifted so they're closer than the intended original 4dB delta. This is simply because the FFT remained at 65k-points for both Okay, so the PGGB filter does have some effect, but does this matter to the sound quality of music?

There is one way to find out that's quite easy to do objectively Nice one Mans , Thanks for the heads up and a good reference for Rob Watts and others. You really should add articles like that to the Troll Audio site which would be an excellent place for accessing the info Way too easy to get lost in message threads! Just to reiterate an important point in your post: A tap low-pass filter with a cut-off frequency of 21kHz is adequate for dB stopband rejection. I think that's a pretty nice "landmark" tap number for audiophiles to keep in mind so as not to go ga-ga over MEGA.

Of course, even that tap setting is more than enough. However, this must be balanced by introducing actual audible noise: vinyl playback artifacts, tube-noise especially via the ever-desirable SET amplifier, ported speaker chuffing, and the coming audiophile Renaissance of eight-track tape.

Some noises are more equal than others. LOL Terry , good one That's a very astute observation! Actually, I would suggest that the software above probably increases noise as well by virtue of the amount of USB data transfer and running the DAC at those 8fs and 16fs type speeds as the RightMark results show. Something that proponents don't talk about in favour of impressing us with those big numbers!

Thanks again for discarding more nonsense. As for the reduction of real acoustic noise, I have recently replaced the ageing and noisy desktop computer in my home office that is also used for streaming music while I am at work. It saves me quite a bit on my electricity bill, and the complete silence is so wonderful. It took a long time for fanless computers to become powerful enough for almost anythng, but that time has now come.

Absolutely Willem , I remember the days of brutally noisy machines that sounded like hair dryers and one had to go out of the way to get massive heatsinks and such just to achieve a little bit of tranquility. Much much better and welcomed improvement these days where even the supplied stock CPU fans sound not too bad in a decent case! Forgive another naive question from a recovering subjectivist, but is there any reason why software implemented taps PGGB would be any better, or worse, or different, from hardware implemented taps Chord?

Hey Don , I suppose there could be differences in the precision of the mathematics doing the job in the various implementations. PGGB is doing the calculations independent of playback so has all the time in the world to get the job done with precision.

Something like the hardware M-Scaler needs to get the 1M-tap work done in realtime. HQPlayer will do the processing during playback as well so you'll need to balance your computer speed with the settings used.

Quite often folks need hefty machines and even offload processing to the GPU. Obviously, I think this is in general audiophile esoterica Fun to play with I suppose as "icing on the cake" to "perfect" the audio system ;-. Stereo Lab is another program that does upsampling, though that's the least of its interesting capabilities.

I'd be interested to know what you think of it. Cool looking software Jonathan! Time permitting will have a look I notice that it's Mac software. I typically am a Windows guy so will need to make a special effort to get this running ;-. This is scientific level, it is beyond me why you don't charge for reading this. Greetings El O , Nah, no need to take anyone's money!