CuteStudio
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2017
- Messages
- 163
- Likes
- 95
Oh I don't know, I'd love a lower noise floor...
... currently they are digging up the road outside...
-
Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
New 28-bit DAC coming out.
- Thread starter GXAlan
- Start date
... currently they are digging up the road outside...
KSTR
Major Contributor
For those who have read the paper, it is important to emphasize how much effort is required to realize the all-import analog switch that disconnects the high-path once the signal level is low enough, plus the DSP pre-processing, including a feedback means to measure and compensate the individual gain and offsets errors of the paths, for a glitch-free and seamless transition.
This is the main difference compared to a multipath ADC where all that delicate stuff is in the digital domain, much easier to handle. The analog section only has to make sure that the high-gain path is actively (soft-)clipped with instant recovery before entering the ADC chip.
This is the main difference compared to a multipath ADC where all that delicate stuff is in the digital domain, much easier to handle. The analog section only has to make sure that the high-gain path is actively (soft-)clipped with instant recovery before entering the ADC chip.
I've no doubt it is an amazing achievement.
Just utterly pointless for audio reproduction purposes.
It's my dream to see HDR-A architecture applied to every element in the audio signal path: microphone, preamp, ADC, (32-bit-perfect DAW), DAC, and power amplifier. This will improve today's best audio capture and delivery by 40dB. You are right -- for common home / consumer audio it may be "utterly pointless." That's another conversation (which I believe I would convince you otherwise, but for another time -- see THD+N graph about 20 comments ago, an objective, measured, perceptual improvement via HDR-A).
In pro audio, noise build-up is still a problem, especially now that most people are listening on some kind of headphone. Headphones can attenuate room noise by 30-35dB, or even more. Which brings our real-world listening experience back to absolute threshold of hearing (-8dB SPL @ 4kHz). That's my baseline, and HDR-A architecture takes us to this baseline -- or very close. For professional engineers, this is a welcome improvement. On the other side -- the loud side -- recording engineers put microphones on snare drums and trumpets every day. Very common. These instruments (and others) can exhibit peaks in the 155dB SPL range. Today, we attenuate these signals before the micamp, to not overload the front-end or signal path. But with HDR-A, there is no need for attenuators. In fact, with HDR-A, there's no need to set gain levels. The systemic dynamic range meets or exceeds -8dBSPL to +155dBSPL (163dB or 27 bits).
I will predict that, one day in the far future, most professional audio engineering will adopt multi-path HDR-A architecture. Like all tech growth, I think it's inevitable. But like most new tech-paradigm shifts, it starts slow (expensive), followed by an adoption curve (the "S" curve), with a rapid ascent after some slow initial phase. For HDR-A, that "initial, expensive phase" is due to discrete realization -- i.e., it takes a LOT of components to achieve this architecture. The D-1 DAC has something like 1,500 components. But here's the thing -- all of these HDR-A sub-functions (DSP, gating, attenuation, calibration, feedback networks, offset control, etc.) can ALL be realized in silicon. At some point, this entire architecture will be realized in an IC, or perhaps a chip set, which reduces a DAC component count from (say) 1,500 to 150, and a massive cost reduction.
It's at these cost-performance inflection points that design engineers then have a choice --- do I design with IC's that give me 120dB dynamic range, or IC's that give me 160dB systemic dynamic range, when both devices are essentially the same price? The choice is obvious, and signals the beginning of a new design paradigm. You might enjoy a keynote lecture I gave at the 2013 AES Conference on this topic. It was picked up and made into a feature article by Stereophile. https://www.stereophile.com/content/audio-engineering-next-40-years
Last edited:
Digital_Thor
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Had 10Vrms in my Pre-amp for years. Combined with a lower gain amplifier, it does seem to lower hiss in my active system compared to 2Vrms from for example minidsp.
I think it's definitely an idea to focus on specific user cases, rather than on specific details.
I think it's definitely an idea to focus on specific user cases, rather than on specific details.
I can understand why - it would be *very* profitable.
(just a little fun - I'm sure that's not your only motivation)"Measured", I agree. "Measured perceptual" you seem to be lacking some evidence for.
I can accept you might have a market in music production. But music production has been managing well for decades to produce music with noise below audibility with current 20 to 24 bit capable gear (in reality - even with 16 bit reproduction). And even in older recordings, if noise is just barely audible when cranking the volume - is is not sufficient to have any impact on enjoyment of the music. (That is opinion - I have no more hard evidence for that statement than you do for yours)
You might be right But if so I suspect it will be more due to ease of use (eg not having to compress incoming signals prior to digitisation etc) than delivered dynamic range in the finished product, for which current 24 or 32 bit DACs with 20+ bit output dynamic range is more than sufficient for human perception.
Unless the technology is pushed at end users on the basis of "FUD/FOMO" marketing that is so prevalent in the audio world. See (the thankfully dying on its knees) MQA - and thousands of other pointless 'products' in the audio reproduction world. I'm sure you'll forgive my scepticism.
Last edited:
That can work as long as your pre-amp noise/dB is lower than your amp noise/dB
KSTR
Major Contributor
Multipath (Mic-)Preamp + ADC is already a long established reality in the pro world. German pro audio company StageTec in Berlin (founded 1993 by ex Neumann engineers) sort of pioneered (and patented) multipath MicPre+ADC under the moniker TrueMatch XMIC+
Also quite a few field recorders use multipath ADC, and even guitar pedals etc, solving the headroom vs. noise issues, notably for live recording.
I am convinced multipath DACs will eventually take over once the implementation is cost- and space-effective (single chip solution, in the end).
For many applications in the near future, intelligent paralleling will remain the more effective way of increasing SNR. Take one excellent DAC chip to start with (say, ES9039q2m) and parallel 16 of them, get 12dB more SNR. Intelligent means all the DAC channels get slightly different input data (gain & offset) so that all the D/S modulators are decoupled and hence any systematic/correlated noise and artifacts average out as well. For consumer / end-user application this certainly covers all grounds (if not already covered).
In audio production (or for measurement gear) even more SNR will be welcomed, if only for convenience (don't care about level range switching anymore).
My amateur opinion if made cheaply into a multichannel IC it would appear in home theater products where you throw away massive amounts of SNR to accommodate speaker level adjustments and multichannel EQ etc . And for convenience/sloppy programming the software is quite wasteful with levels it seems .
In my desktop setup I "waste" -3dB for clipping protection and the EQ itself another 6-8 dB as most is bass boost and thus the midrange is relatively lower in level.
But i think ordinary products handle this consumer use case good enough for all humans .
Listening to reverb tails on a DAW with 32 or 64 bit floating point source material in the studio , another use case .
I can apricate that the levels are all over the place in a studio before producing to a coherent mix
We consumer are stuck with 16 or 24 bit source material ( practically something else almost nothing is true 24 bit in practice the low bits are all random noise ).
Are not consumer source material already pre conceived with the same "problem" as this architecture solves .
Are not my mundane DS DAC's already better at -40dB than the actual CD's or files i want to play ? Meaning that my current DAC's are already transparent visavi the source material itself ? And even if I burden the system with a 10dB SNR loss due to room EQ etc.
In my desktop setup I "waste" -3dB for clipping protection and the EQ itself another 6-8 dB as most is bass boost and thus the midrange is relatively lower in level.
But i think ordinary products handle this consumer use case good enough for all humans .
Listening to reverb tails on a DAW with 32 or 64 bit floating point source material in the studio , another use case .
I can apricate that the levels are all over the place in a studio before producing to a coherent mix
We consumer are stuck with 16 or 24 bit source material ( practically something else almost nothing is true 24 bit in practice the low bits are all random noise ).
Are not consumer source material already pre conceived with the same "problem" as this architecture solves .
Are not my mundane DS DAC's already better at -40dB than the actual CD's or files i want to play ? Meaning that my current DAC's are already transparent visavi the source material itself ? And even if I burden the system with a 10dB SNR loss due to room EQ etc.
It sounds like next iteration of the PRO chip from SABRE.
KSTR
Major Contributor
More like 2+ generations, I feel. A more feasible solution could be a dedicated chipset of two or more chips because the whole system isn't just a DAC, it is DAC + ADC + DSP + precision analog circuitry and the latter is where the integration problems will manifest.
kelesh
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2021
- Messages
- 192
- Likes
- 232
And the obligatory nod to the early days of computing, in the form of those ubiquitous gray ribbon IDE/ATA/floppy cables.
EERecordist
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2024
- Messages
- 1,104
- Likes
- 2,154
I did not work in display industry research, but I had many friends doing that, I went to conferences, and followed the literature. Their AES is SID, the Society for Information Display. We have an active local chapter with regular presentations on information display and the visual system. One of our guests was Brightside Technologies, a spinout from UBC in Vancouver, Canada. They were bought by Dolby Laboratories as an ingredient for Dolby Vision. I knew several engineers in research at Sharp Labs when Japan's Sharp did research for their TVs, projectors, industrial displays, and medical displays. The most critical displays are in medicine, primarily radiology, and in color management for movies. Several of the Sharp Labs people I know went to Dolby. Dolby is also a great resume data point for friends in the brand advertising world too, with a 90% gross margin, you can afford to spend on brand. I used and continue to use for archiving their A-system, DBX tried to get into the pro world, but not very successfully. No comment necessary, just an observation. Add, let's hope Audio Precision and Rohde and Schwarz, and other test equipment vendors have multipath roadmaps.
I used my Benchmark HPA4 preamp with the Imersiv D-1 and it seemed to restrict the sound. I sold the HPA4 and I now go direct into 1 of 3 amps with the D-1. I have 3 systems. I am going to buy a passive preamp switchbox that Requisite Audio is building for the D-1. I purchased the D-1 from them. Imersiv has something called SBB that allows other sources, but I do not think it will be as good as the passive that Requisite Audio is building. I have heard the prototype on my system, it still needs work, but it does not make the D-1 sound worse, like the HPA4.
Sans the preamp, the D-1 is glorious. The best my system has ever sounded. I have owned the Benchmark DAC1, DAC2, and DAC3 and these are not even close to the sound I am hearing out of the D-1. I am a huge fan of the LA4 + HPA4 preamps. I have owned one for more than 10 years. However, the D-1 is the first source that got worse after adding a Benchmark preamp. That was a bit shocking.
Since I have no money, I sold 7 pieces of audio gear to buy the D-1. At this point I am thinking this thing is rather cheap for what I am hearing.
I listen to my 3 systems at home from 10-18 hours a day while I work. I now have a lot of hours with the D-1. I also have a RME DAC that I have not hooked up for weeks since I got the D-1. I sold the following 2 DACs (out of the 7 items), Schiit Yggi+ OG and the Schiit Yggi+ MIB. I loved the sound of the OG but the D-1 made that DAC expendable.
Last edited:
knownothing
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2022
- Messages
- 175
- Likes
- 41
I have been aware of the Imersiv D1 DAC for a number of months, but my curiosity peaked last week reading a report online about the device from a satisfied owner. Investigating the design and purported advances in digital signal processing and noise floor lowering I immediately thought to come here to see what kind of discussion it had spawned on ASR.
This for me has been one of the more satisfying reads on ASR, in part because the posts by the DAC’s designer and a competing manufacturer’s rebuttal of criticism of single path DACs, and in part because the subject matter zeros in on the assumption that any DAC measuring below a certain threshold for noise and THD is “perfect” and any “performance” improvements beyond that threshold are interesting but irrelevant for the end listener.
It also seems that the unique hardware implementation described here is really an engineering exercise, or at most an applied science exercise, and the real “science” or unknowns regarding this and other discussions of this kind on ASR involve exploring the assumption that end listeners can’t in theory hear differences that nevertheless end users, in this case of this thread, music recording and engineering professionals, are reported to be hearing. There are also mounting subjective reports on Internet forums that the Imersiv D1 sounds superior to DACs audio enthusiasts were using previously.
For all the chatter here about multi-subject ABX testing, there are few if any members partnering with people who are experts in demonstrating audio equipment to listeners and potential buyers (IE people who know how to set up whole systems and rooms for demonstration purposes) and experts in psychology and human subjects tests who can set up a statistically valid test.
The reason for this? Because it is relatively easy for one individual to sit at their computer or analyzer armed with audio engineering best practices and current theory and paradigms regarding human hearing and reject on first principles claims of audible improvements on the edges of engineering practice. The alternative is complicated, expensive, and therefore apparently prohibitively difficult.
Now that the Imersiv D1 is on the market and available for end users to test in their studios and homes, the real “science” is in why they might be hearing differences compared to previous state of the art equipment and designs.
kn
This for me has been one of the more satisfying reads on ASR, in part because the posts by the DAC’s designer and a competing manufacturer’s rebuttal of criticism of single path DACs, and in part because the subject matter zeros in on the assumption that any DAC measuring below a certain threshold for noise and THD is “perfect” and any “performance” improvements beyond that threshold are interesting but irrelevant for the end listener.
It also seems that the unique hardware implementation described here is really an engineering exercise, or at most an applied science exercise, and the real “science” or unknowns regarding this and other discussions of this kind on ASR involve exploring the assumption that end listeners can’t in theory hear differences that nevertheless end users, in this case of this thread, music recording and engineering professionals, are reported to be hearing. There are also mounting subjective reports on Internet forums that the Imersiv D1 sounds superior to DACs audio enthusiasts were using previously.
For all the chatter here about multi-subject ABX testing, there are few if any members partnering with people who are experts in demonstrating audio equipment to listeners and potential buyers (IE people who know how to set up whole systems and rooms for demonstration purposes) and experts in psychology and human subjects tests who can set up a statistically valid test.
The reason for this? Because it is relatively easy for one individual to sit at their computer or analyzer armed with audio engineering best practices and current theory and paradigms regarding human hearing and reject on first principles claims of audible improvements on the edges of engineering practice. The alternative is complicated, expensive, and therefore apparently prohibitively difficult.
Now that the Imersiv D1 is on the market and available for end users to test in their studios and homes, the real “science” is in why they might be hearing differences compared to previous state of the art equipment and designs.
kn
It takes only 1 song (from a nicely burned in D-1 unit) to hear the incredible resolution compared to DACs like the Benchmark DAC3B. However, the D-1 is not hot on top like the DAC3B and does not give you fatigue. It is super detailed but not fatiguing. I sold the DAC3B the next day after hearing the D-1. I have owned the D-1 since Nov 2025. I have done side-by-side comparisons with DACs from $12k to $26k and to my ears the D-1 is easily in another league, though that does not mean everyone will like it.
I did not like the DAC at first and had to use a feature on the DAC called 2nd Order Harmonic Distortion (2HD) and that warmed up the DAC. It was fatiguing at that early stage. After about 100 hours I turned off the 2HD and went naked. I had the same experience with 2 brand new units that had 0 hours on it. A friend of mine sells the DAC and the first unit I had is the one he is sending out for demo.
There is a thread on Head-fi and Audiogon about this DAC.
There is also this review.
twitteringmachines.com
BTW - this DAC needs to be used with XLR out. RCA out on my DAC does not even work on my system. This is expected behaviour.
I did not like the DAC at first and had to use a feature on the DAC called 2nd Order Harmonic Distortion (2HD) and that warmed up the DAC. It was fatiguing at that early stage. After about 100 hours I turned off the 2HD and went naked. I had the same experience with 2 brand new units that had 0 hours on it. A friend of mine sells the DAC and the first unit I had is the one he is sending out for demo.
There is a thread on Head-fi and Audiogon about this DAC.
There is also this review.
Review: Imersiv D-1 DAC - Twittering Machines
Michael Lavorgna's Twittering Machines: HiFi with a twist
twitteringmachines.com
BTW - this DAC needs to be used with XLR out. RCA out on my DAC does not even work on my system. This is expected behaviour.
Real science has to be done in a controlled way to be meaningful. If you are at home testing DACs and not doing it in a proper double blind, volume output matched way the results you are getting are worthless and not scientific. This "do you own research" thing people throw around is only meaningful when the research is done correctly. I would love to see the results of proper double blind testing on this DAC or any others people claim are worth their higher price or more complicated design.
The D1 review posted states the DAC has "unshakable sense of completely unobstructed transparency." So does the SMSL SU-1 for $70. If this $12000 DAC is truly transparent as is claimed, how can it sound different from a $70 DAC that is also tested and proven to be transparent? The D1 is either transparent or it is coloring the sound. It can't be both.
Last edited:
Post in thread 'New 28-bit DAC coming out.'
www.audiosciencereview.com
Looking forward reading the results of the "blind, large-sample ABX trial" as announced by the manufacturer @signalpath !
New 28-bit DAC coming out.
Especially when the recent CS43131 thread showed us some DACs respond differently to music than they do test tones Well, CS43131/43198 realizes the same idea as D1 i.e. switching of the DAC's gain. However, from an engineering point of view, Cirrus doesn't look clumsy at all, they made 3x3mm...
www.audiosciencereview.com
Looking forward reading the results of the "blind, large-sample ABX trial" as announced by the manufacturer @signalpath !
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2020
- Messages
- 1,166
- Likes
- 1,031
The D1 has some nice features which were laid out in the "review", but with no measuments and as noted some of the company's measurements are calculated not measured as it goes beyond what test gear can provide. I'm also curious as to the market for some of those features and does it have PEQ, I missed it if does?It takes only 1 song (from a nicely burned in D-1 unit) to hear the incredible resolution compared to DACs like the Benchmark DAC3B. However, the D-1 is not hot on top like the DAC3B and does not give you fatigue. It is super detailed but not fatiguing. I sold the DAC3B the next day after hearing the D-1. I have owned the D-1 since Nov 2025. I have done side-by-side comparisons with DACs from $12k to $26k and to my ears the D-1 is easily in another league, though that does not mean everyone will like it.
I did not like the DAC at first and had to use a feature on the DAC called 2nd Order Harmonic Distortion (2HD) and that warmed up the DAC. It was fatiguing at that early stage. After about 100 hours I turned off the 2HD and went naked. I had the same experience with 2 brand new units that had 0 hours on it. A friend of mine sells the DAC and the first unit I had is the one he is sending out for demo.
There is a thread on Head-fi and Audiogon about this DAC.
There is also this review.
Review: Imersiv D-1 DAC - Twittering Machines
Michael Lavorgna's Twittering Machines: HiFi with a twist
BTW - this DAC needs to be used with XLR out. RCA out on my DAC does not even work on my system. This is expected behaviour.
Doing comparisons with DACs with uber pricing and not using much less expensive ones too doesn't tell us much. Also testing the DACs sighted and not blind and level matched is purely subjective and biased. Doing a proper double blind would be fun for you and some friends.
Also, would you be interested in sending the unit to Amir for testing? Obviously not all the features would be tested but the important measurements that manufacturer lists would be?
Similar threads
