Classic SIY, shame he no longer posts here.Now the most important results for our subjective rebels: The reviewer and three "musically inclined" students in their 20s could not detect any audible differences to an RME ADI 2 DAC FS, neither in sighted nor in blind testing (both level-matched). Nada. Nothing. Quelle surprise!The reviewer also challenged imersiv to provide evidence for their claim of passing blind tests "ten times out of ten".
-
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
jan.didden
Member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2018
- Messages
- 68
- Likes
- 118
Which improvement? The elephant in the room is the innocent-looking statement 'The level switching between the low and the high path is implemented well with less than 0.02 dB of error on the worst channel. '. That alone kills the monotonicity of the DAC. 0.02dB is like a huge bump or spike in linearity. Which, technically, was an absolutely expected fault. You cannot cut a <1nV resolution DAC in half and then splice the halves together again in analog fashion and still retain that 1nV step monotonicity.
I am pretty sure John LaGrue is aware of that, but he would also be aware that it would absolutely kill his business case.
As SIY used to comment: "If I had no scruples, I'd be filthy rich".
Jan
That lowering noise to be more inaudible improves the sound.
On the 0.02dB error they can play both sides and say it's not audible, which is in line with the listening test in the article.
jan.didden
Member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2018
- Messages
- 68
- Likes
- 118
If that 0.02dB is inaudible, then why bother with all the rigmarole in the first place?
What benefit does it bring if it lowers errors/noise below 'below audible' that good DACs already give, and that an error this process introduces is also inaudible (they say).
I understand the rationale for a good story to sell very expensive stuff, but we see through that, right?
We can see the emperors nude body.
Jan
What benefit does it bring if it lowers errors/noise below 'below audible' that good DACs already give, and that an error this process introduces is also inaudible (they say).
I understand the rationale for a good story to sell very expensive stuff, but we see through that, right?
We can see the emperors nude body.
Jan
So we are trading a defect ( small probaly inaudible ) at around -40dB ( or what was it ) when the "switch" occur for inaudible improvement around at very low levels beyond what the AP can measure ? and anyone can hear ?
We can already see that normal DAC's are trouble free in the realm where the AP can measure them ? Otherwise the problems would be visible there too for all to see ?
We can already see that normal DAC's are trouble free in the realm where the AP can measure them ? Otherwise the problems would be visible there too for all to see ?
It will be fun to see how they address this.
EERecordist
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2024
- Messages
- 1,203
- Likes
- 2,349
What a fun discussion. I am not a mastering engineer. I believe this product has a place in mastering. I agree few consumers have a need, other than bragging rights.
Most mastering is digital in, digital out today, unless you are releasing to vinyl, with an about 75dB dynamic range, or tape - cassette or reel-to-reel. There have been 24 bit release formats to the consumer end listener, standardized as High-Res Audio, since the late 1990s.
Today there are higher than 24bit digital audio workstations. 32 bit workflows are possible. ProTools and many others have it.
A high end mastering studio, for instance the one run by Bob Katz, a beta customer for the product, will be building more isolated studios and turning off their HVAC to reduce the room noise as needed. They may be listening to peaks at high volumes, or quiet parts, for short periods. So this 28 bit DAC can play through a good amplifier and speakers to make mastering decisions. The mastering engineer is going to be using it to evaluate the settings on their 32 bit plugins and DAW.
This DAC is really not that expensive compared to exotic "mastering engineer-phile" DACs and mastering studios can afford to add it to their kit. Recording studios, mix studios, and mastering studios market themselves based on equipment lists, right or wrong. That is getting harder with the expanding universe of plugins.
Another place where high dynamic range is useful is in theatrical release cinema which does not go through the loudness wars process of pop music. Some cinemas are well sound conditioned for the quietest effects and capable of reproducing loud passages. It will be more important in the movie soundtrack mixing studios who have the budget for sound isolation and gear. Millennia can sell them many channels of DAC for ATMOS and they can afford it.
Someone had to take the first step towards greater than 24 bit music ecosystems. Hopefully the professional industry will learn by doing and we will see quieter microphones, preamps, and analog-to-digital converters. I'm waiting for cryonic systems!
Most mastering is digital in, digital out today, unless you are releasing to vinyl, with an about 75dB dynamic range, or tape - cassette or reel-to-reel. There have been 24 bit release formats to the consumer end listener, standardized as High-Res Audio, since the late 1990s.
Today there are higher than 24bit digital audio workstations. 32 bit workflows are possible. ProTools and many others have it.
A high end mastering studio, for instance the one run by Bob Katz, a beta customer for the product, will be building more isolated studios and turning off their HVAC to reduce the room noise as needed. They may be listening to peaks at high volumes, or quiet parts, for short periods. So this 28 bit DAC can play through a good amplifier and speakers to make mastering decisions. The mastering engineer is going to be using it to evaluate the settings on their 32 bit plugins and DAW.
This DAC is really not that expensive compared to exotic "mastering engineer-phile" DACs and mastering studios can afford to add it to their kit. Recording studios, mix studios, and mastering studios market themselves based on equipment lists, right or wrong. That is getting harder with the expanding universe of plugins.
Another place where high dynamic range is useful is in theatrical release cinema which does not go through the loudness wars process of pop music. Some cinemas are well sound conditioned for the quietest effects and capable of reproducing loud passages. It will be more important in the movie soundtrack mixing studios who have the budget for sound isolation and gear. Millennia can sell them many channels of DAC for ATMOS and they can afford it.
Someone had to take the first step towards greater than 24 bit music ecosystems. Hopefully the professional industry will learn by doing and we will see quieter microphones, preamps, and analog-to-digital converters. I'm waiting for cryonic systems!
- Thread Starter
- #348
One day, when I win the lottery and can make audio gear for fun, I am going to implement a software defined burn-in into my DSP to throw everyone off. Everyone will be able to measure differences and I’ll delete this post before I launch…
IPunchCholla
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2022
- Messages
- 1,465
- Likes
- 2,057
I’m not a mastering engineer either, but I do record, mix and master my own music as a hobby. My workflow is capable of 32 bits, but I never use it. The 144dB peaks 24 bit is capable of seems like plenty though, especially as it would be 160dB if I wanted to not have things masked by the noise floor. I’ve always assumed that the 32bit spaces were for particularly heavy computational workflows where having that sort of precision might make sense, though I’m not actually sure what those would be since, again I’m a hobbiest. I always thought 32 bit was analogous to recording at 96kHz in order to fill sample buckets faster, reducing latency, which is why I use it as opposed to getting those sweet sounds from 24 kHz to 48kHz.
RandomEar
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2022
- Messages
- 1,149
- Likes
- 2,998
The reason they're using 32 bit floating point is to avoid rounding errors from repeated DSP and filtering steps. They want to avoid degrading the source material as best as they can. Floating point also offers a big advantage when recording since you are not limited by the dynamic range of your format anymore, just by that of your hardware. 32 bit floating point won't clip in the digital domain.
This is just useless speculation. Bob Katz wont bend physics. If they handle real recorded music, their material will still be limited by the performance of their ADCs, which will be around 105 - 115 dB of dynamic range (DR, ~18 bits) [1, 2, 3]. Their amps will likely perform worse than that, but even if they had the best amps on the market, they would be limited to around 130 dB (~22 bits) of DR at full power [4, 5] - which nobody will realistically use for listening/mixing, because it is past the threshold of pain.
Maybe they should have started with the recording side of things, because that will likely be significantly harder to achieve. For my part, I have never had a situation where the CD audio / Red Book dynamic range of around 96 dB was a limiting factor. I could imagine situations where that would be the case, so 20-22 bits of real source-to-speaker dynamic range still seem useful to me. Anything more is unlikely to yield any practical benefit.
I also cannot see the mixing or mastering benefit of a theoretically better DAC, with the possible exception where mastering is done in the analogue domain, if that still happens. But I've only heard of that being done when the engineer wants to use a load of old gear to manipulate the sound, and the combined noise floor of that kit won't be low. So I don't get it.
This tech applied to an ADC would be a whole different thing.
StageTec (a top-tier pro audio company from Berlin, Germany) has been offering an 4-path ADC / MicPre with 158dB dynamic range for many years now. Do a web search for "StageTec TrueMatch".
Agree. In the analog domain theres no amplifier (opamp cct) that even comes close to 24 bit dynamics so again theres no point. So the bottle neck of this DAC is the analog circuit and your not going to get even 24bit performance.
And whats the dynamic range of the mics plus there preamps?
There is no additional preamp. The TrueMatch modules are self-contained. The idea is that the preamp/ADC under no circumstances whatsoever compromises the recording. No more issues from gain settings wrongly estimated and then ending up being too hot (clipping/limiting) or too cold (more hiss from the preamp/ADC than from the mic). That's a huge benefit in large-scale applications.
Despite the somewhat cheesy company name which sounds like cheap far-east entry levels stuff, StageTec is one of the most professional audio companies in the world, for decades (founded 1993 by a number of former Neumann engineers).
IVX
Major Contributor
If they are not stupid people, they may delay the gain switching up to the zero-crossing sample to minimize audible artifacts. However, the same artifacts with the Cirrus $2 DAC are well audible, and users prefer to Off that fake dynamic range "enhancer". "130db(A)" rated DAC become 120db(A) but sounds better. BTW, after I asked about what DAC chips are used in D1, that topic looked abandoned for half the year. Why do they hesitate to tell us? Is there $2 Cirrus inside?
IVX
Major Contributor
Really? I didn't see, and what is it, AK4493? I remember D1 has mediocre THD+N, it would be CS43198/43131 or AK4490/4493.
IVX
Major Contributor
I found one pic https://imersiv.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/D-1-Product-Page-Close-Up-4.png
Still can't see the DAC chip, I agree, I'm stupid. Could you please call the part number?
Still can't see the DAC chip, I agree, I'm stupid. Could you please call the part number?
Similar threads
