The old, ‘if you can’t hear the difference you have saved yourself a lot of money’ chestnut.
An oldie but still a goodie.
Keith
An oldie but still a goodie.
Keith
-
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
RandomEar
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2022
- Messages
- 970
- Likes
- 2,480
I definitely think that they will sound the same when properly level-matched and using the same filters and EQ settings. However, as you can see in that well written audioXpress article, I have evidence to support my claims. The writer of that article is very experienced in testing audio devices and neither he nor his two younger colleagues could distinguish the two tested DACs in sighted or blind tests. So currently, there's at least three people who listened to the D1 using proper controls who disagree with your impression.
Since you don't mention any proper test protocol or even basic level-matching, I have to assume that you are mistaken or one of your devices is configured differently (e.g. EQ active) or defective. Because if not, clearly, the current evidence suggests that they would sound the same.
I tend to repeat myself here, but without proper controls, any subjective listening impression is pretty much worthless. Your brain plays tricks on you. You can try it for yourself.
The Meitner looks like a well engineered DAC, albeit absurdly expensive for what it is. I would not expect any audible differences to - for example - your RME and can only repeat that claiming again and again how you can definitely hear them and subtly suggesting how much superior your hearing must therefore be will not advance this discussion a single inch. A little more humility and critical thinking on your side definitely would, though.
Hi Jan,
We're achieving a CLE (cross-fade linearity error) of 0.003dB in production, so the review unit may have an issue. Or perhaps the D-1 simply hit the limit of their measurement tools.
This is why we require a "calibration" cycle, to best align the low-path to the high-path. A CLE of 0.003dB is not measurable on our AP 2722 linearity plot.
That said, in our early blind studies of cross-fade error audibility, we found that the worst-case just noticeable difference was a pure tone (1kHz) at 0.9dB. Below 0.9dB, nobody could detect a cross-fade error. But that's just our internal testing with a few engineers. In a larger sampling, results would likely vary a bit. So, even at 0.02dB, that's almost two orders of magnitude below JND.
Should also note that with various kinds of common music program (pop, classical, jazz), our blind CLE JND was somewhere around 2.5dB. There's a FAQ entry which gets into cross-fade calibration. (by the way, thanks again for being the very first writer to cover the D-1 DAC, way back in December 2023! It was a brilliant premier article, over a year before we actually started shipping).
Imersiv D1 Multi-Path Digital-to-Analog Converter Completes 32-bit Audio Chain
Unveiled at the 2023 AES Conference in New York, the new Imersiv D1 Digital-to-Analog Converter is the first product from a new brand created by Millennia founder John La Grou, and the first to introduce to the market his approach to multi-path technology. The results of years of research and...
From the FAQ https://imersiv.com/faq/
Thanks for that. We know of at least two sources using electrostatic speakers who aren't hearing any difference in spatial-depth information between DACs. We don't have any e-stats here to test with. This bit of detail was added to the FAQ some months ago. From the FAQ https://imersiv.com/faq/
Last edited:
Thank you for that.Hi Jan,
We're achieving a CLE (cross-fade linearity error) of 0.003dB in production, so the review unit may have an issue. Or perhaps the D-1 simply hit the limit of their measurement tools.
This is why we require a "calibration" cycle, to best align the low-path to the high-path. A CLE of 0.003dB is not measurable on our AP 2722 linearity plot.
That said, in our early blind studies of cross-fade error audibility, we found that the worst-case just noticeable difference was a pure tone (1kHz) at 0.9dB. Below 0.9dB, nobody could detect a cross-fade error. But that's just our internal testing with a few engineers. In a larger sampling, results would likely vary a bit. So, even at 0.02dB, that's almost two orders of magnitude below JND.
Should also note that with various kinds of common music program (pop, classical, jazz), our blind CLE JND was somewhere around 2.5dB. There's a FAQ entry which gets into cross-fade calibration. (by the way, thanks again for being the very first writer to cover the D-1 DAC, way back in December 2023! It was a brilliant premier article, over a year before we actually started shipping).
Imersiv D1 Multi-Path Digital-to-Analog Converter Completes 32-bit Audio Chain
Unveiled at the 2023 AES Conference in New York, the new Imersiv D1 Digital-to-Analog Converter is the first product from a new brand created by Millennia founder John La Grou, and the first to introduce to the market his approach to multi-path technology. The results of years of research and...audioxpress.com
From the FAQ https://imersiv.com/faq/
View attachment 524452
There is something that surprises me.
Why does the D-1 require a calibration in order to ensure that the high path and the low path combine seamlessly depending on the hardware that are plugged in to the output of the Immersiv D-1? Does that mean that the two paths are not summed internally but through the load that is plugged in to the DAC output ? In other words, the summation node (Σ) on the below drawing does not correspond to some sort of output buffer internal to the Immersiv D-1?
If it is so, are there restrictions to the loads that the Immersiv D-1 is able to drive without compromising the cross-fade process?
Last edited:
My corrections regarding the errors in post #369, which I quote below, remain unchanged.
Condenser microphones require some kind of power because biasing the capsule is essential.
A microphone preamplifier is needed somewhere, and it's possible to power it using AC, battery, or phantom power, but that's a separate topic from the type of microphone.
Excellent observation.
The D-1 paths (low and high) are internally summed passively.
The low-path and high-path output stages are not identical (different source Z, etc.)
Cross-fade linearity (CLE) will be effected by two dynamics: (1) high-path gate open/closed, and (2) downstream LRC characteristics.
In purely resistive terms, an attenuation will form based on the ratio of source to destination impedance. And this attenuation will change based on gate state (open/closed).
Calibration algorithm accounts for these dynamics and makes the necessary adjustments to maintain ideal linearity.
Yes, there are restrictions to the downstream load. IIRC, we specify a minimum load of 5k.
I've noted this in earlier comments, but the AES paper is a great source for engineering details. It's now open-source (free): https://aes.org/publications/elibrary-page/?id=21106
Last edited:
Not really. Dynamic mics dont have built in preamps, codensers do because of the capsules very high output impedance.
RandomEar
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2022
- Messages
- 970
- Likes
- 2,480
Hi. Thanks for clarifying that, however, I have two problems with this distinction:
- The listening tests were done using three pais of speakers + a bass array: Quad ESL 988, JBL 308p mkii, NHT 3.3. Only one of these speaker pairs is electrostatic, the JBL are professional monitors and the NHT are regular passive towers. Not all testers listened using all speakers, but the results for all speakers were "no difference heard".
- With all due respect, but this exception that electrostats wouldn't show the advantage and happen to be precisely the speakers used by some reviewers not supporting your claims is just incredibly convenient. You do see that this argument is in essence the same as the default audiophile argument of "your speakers aren't resolving enough to hear the difference", right?
Let me @signalpath be more blunt.
If you want to continue to claim audibility of the measurable improvements between the D1 and any other well-measuring conventional audio DAC, then it is time to put your money where your mouth is, and prove it by carrying out some verifiable, fully documented, properly controlled, and statistically relevant blind testing - preferably of the ABX forced choice form.
Audio Blind Testing - You Are Doing It Wrong! (Video)
Just uploaded a video on the basics of performing controlled tests in audio. It was motivated by saving myself text in having to write all of this down when telling someone who to do these tests right. And as a counter to a few online personalities to keep saying they do "blind" tests yet when...
www.audiosciencereview.com
Let me @signalpath be more blunt.
If you want to continue to claim audibility of the measurable improvements between the D1 and any other well-measuring conventional audio DAC, then it is time to put your money where your mouth is, and prove it by carrying out some verifiable, fully documented, properly controlled, and statistically relevant blind testing - preferably of the ABX forced choice form.
Audio Blind Testing - You Are Doing It Wrong! (Video)
Just uploaded a video on the basics of performing controlled tests in audio. It was motivated by saving myself text in having to write all of this down when telling someone who to do these tests right. And as a counter to a few online personalities to keep saying they do "blind" tests yet when...
The D-1 was beta-tested by around 50 top professional working engineers, many with 20+ years daily experience recording, editing, listening, mixing, mastering music 8-10-12 hours per day. I personally have engineered/produced over 600 classical music productions, mostly symphony orchestra for N. Calif public radio. We've built and sustained an audio design company on 35 years of blinded A/B circuit listening tests. Strict A/B comparison testing is a large part of why our circuits are the world standard front-end for critical acoustic music recording.
I attended a number of blind A/B DAC sessions at mastering and post studios around the U.S.. The early D-1 beta was A-B compared against a wide range of top-end DACs. In most cases, the spatial differences were not subtle, and around 35 of 50 studios acquired their beta unit, some acquiring multiple D-1 units (for mastering "pitch and catch"). And, yes, the best monitoring environments typically resulted in the greatest A/B differences (room design and speaker quality matters). A few mastering engineers, mostly rock/metal oriented, preferred their existing DAC for the "sound". One country-oriented mastering room used 25-year-old DACs with a distinctive sound which has become a "signature" that their clients want. Some mastering labs preferred the D-1, but simply didn't have budget.
So, yes, a large number of blind A-B comparisons have been completed. It's what mastering studios do on a regular basis. You can read the resulting comments on the imersiv website. We didn't ask for these comments. They were freely and honestly given by a wide range of seasoned professional audio engineers, many Grammy winners. Most of these engineers work in highly resolving monitor environments, where A-B differences are best detected. Scores of additional and similar user comments have been received, but are not printed on the website (PM if you want to read them). Should also mention that every professional D-1 reviewer so far has acquired their review unit (Bob Katz writing for Positive Feedback, Justin Perkins mastering engineer writing for Recording Magazine, Paul Vnuk editor of Recording Magazine, Larry Crane publisher of Tape Op).
So, emphatically yes. Would love to participate in a large-scale ABX trial at some point. Hopefully someone will take the initiative, find a group of critical listeners, gather candidate DACs, etc.. I know of a few top-end mastering studios who would probably be open to hosting the trial. Happy to provide a D-1 for the test. But we, as a company, simply don't have the time / resources. We're 100% busy designing the next paradigm of 170dB audio and reducing THD+N at critical listening levels.
Please read the 30+ pro comments on the imersiv website. If you find them "not credible" I would be curious as to why. These are the most credible ears on the planet. Read the pro media reviews, all of whom work in professional studios. Most of these pro engineers did A/B testing against other DACs. And most listening was done in highly resolvent studios, not a living room. https://imersiv.com/press/
I have found ‘engineers’ to be as every bit prone to subjectivism as anyone else.
Keith
Keith
Uncontrolled and sighted listening. No one is immune to perceptive bias—no matter what gear they are using, their experience, training, or the general golden-ness of their ears. It is how human perceptions work. Let me reiterate: No one is immune. Not One Person.
On the other hand - the more "industry" a person is - the more (it seems) they view their hearing as infallible.
EDIT - I have now followed every link on that page and have not found a single description of any blind test— let alone a well-documented, implemented, and controlled one.
Last edited:
RandomEar
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2022
- Messages
- 970
- Likes
- 2,480
As far as I can see after scanning the linked press material, there are maybe five reports from sighted listening "tests" in there? The most prominent being the one from Bob Katz, which has already been discussed and critiqued in this thread. The rest of the links lead to people reporting from the 2024 AES show about various new devices or magazine articles, all of which pretty much just recite the tech specs and marketing material about the D1.
I could not see anything about proper blind tests apart from the audioXpress article we discussed above. I honestly don't understand why you would imply that reports about tech specs or sighted tests somehow validate claims about audible differences. This just seems like an unforced error to me on a scientific-minded forum.
I also want to repeat that I respect the engineering that went into this DAC. And clearly, it paid off in the sense that it performs on par with the best devices on the market right now and better in some specific aspects. Doesn't mean it sounds different, though
Or to put it differently: I don't criticise the device, I criticize the marketing.
EERecordist
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2024
- Messages
- 1,135
- Likes
- 2,212
I don't think they are marketing to ASR. I think that consumers are buying it is weird, but revenue is revenue. Also I think this thread is becoming unnecessarily heated.
The designer grew up in a pre-ASR world and probably can afford their own Audio Precision. Hope R&S and AP will build high dynamic range test equipment.
Their microphone preamp is based on medium voltage supply rails (some would say high). Voltage in a stage influences performance in relation to the linear operating range on the transistor curve. Do they sound or measure better because of the design in relation to the supply rails? No idea.
From at least B&K days there were HV small diaphragm condenser microphone capsule polarization voltages. They are still available from DPA with 130V polarization and some boutique microphone makers build them. I don't have experience with HV microphones, but some people like them in classical recording. Do they measure better because of the high voltage, no idea.
It is cheap to add bits to a DAW workflow, so that will drive professional DACs whether the difference can be heard.
Their professional customer base is pre-ASR, so the marketing may not be ASR values, but it aligns with the values and decision-making of their professional customers. The company repairs its products, also attracting professional customers. There are plenty of boutique mastering DACs out there, and Millennia is after that market.
As many people have mentioned on ASR, the pro audio world markets their tracking, mixing, and mastering studios on gear lists, and hit musicians. Then the gear makers market based on their customer list. At that level, having this DAC alongside others is not an expensive marketing tool.
Last edited:
I recommend the famous Sengpiel webpage (should be available both in native German and English) to learn about the definition of these terms as well as to use the very helpful conversion tools.
E.g.:
SPL sound level to dB pressure level sound pressure sound intensity unit dB Conversion of sound pressure to sound intensity sound units levels calculating spl sound level calculation air sound units level ratio decibel Pa kPa acoustic energy power co
Sound level SPL conversion sound pressure level SPL to dB intensity unit calculate calculating calculation Conversion of sound pressure to sound intensity sound units pressure intensity dB air sound units level ratio decibel Pa kPa acoustic energy power convert decibels to pascals audio...
It seems to me to be way beyond what human hearing could ever appreciate. It's a drop forge filling in for what a tack hammer could easily handle.
So it’s anecdotes and testimony like cable advertising ?
Funny thing , this complex setup with passive summing ( no buffer ?? ) and need for calibration can potentially be ”different”
if something goes a bit sideways compared to something linear ? Different is not equal to better ?Hello All! This is my first post to ASR.
I’ve owned the imersiv D-1 DAC for about three months. I found this forum only recently when searching for impressions of the D-1. I was intrigued by the comment by aagstn, “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?” So, I purchased the SMSL SU-1 from Amazon for $84.95 plus tax to compare with the D-1. I believe I have an open mind, and I’m always interested in learning.
For my test, I chose the Benchmark HPA4 because it was measured as essentially transparent by Amir. I used Dan Clark Audio Stealth headphones because I have them and they were recommended by Amir. I wanted to carefully listen for any differences in these DACs and chose closed-backed headphones rather than loudspeakers to isolate the sound from my room as best I could. I used a miniDSP EARS headphone measurement rig and REW to match the sound pressure of a 300 Hz sine wave tone as closely as I could between the DACs. The D-1 has only balanced outputs and the SU-1 has only unbalanced outputs. I used the HPA4 to switch between the outputs. I know the manufacturer recommends going straight from the D-1 to a power amp, but I couldn’t figure out how to quickly compare the DACs without using a preamp between them. Roon was used to switch between the USB inputs of the DACs. I adjusted the volume on the HPA4 as I played different music tracks via Roon on my PC and kept a consistent 10 dB difference between them, as calibrated with EARS, for every music track I played. I was able to switch between the DACs in about 7 seconds. I did not conduct a blind test.
This test was harder than I thought it would be. At times I thought I heard differences in more complex music, but I believe I was inadvertently focusing on different aspects of the performance. I went back-and-forth multiple times and played segments less than 2 minutes long to try and better recall what I heard while still listening to a variety of sounds. The comparison was must easier with recordings of single instruments, such as solo acoustic guitar and solo piano in reverberant recording spaces where I could better focus.
I essence, I concluded I heard no difference between the D-1 and the SU-1. Though I did not conduct a blind test, at times I lost track of which DAC was playing and had to check Roon. I really like the imersiv D-1, and I don’t regret purchasing it. I think the D-1 is a very high performing DAC. The SU-1 isn’t much to look at, but I am very impressed by its performance. I’m posting my perceptions not to cause a controversy. I like that I learned how transparent and high performing an inexpensive audio component can be. This experience has taught me to try to better understand why I hear what I hear when auditioning audio components and has motivated me to further investigate the science behind audio. I hope others who may be curious about why a component sounds the way it does will also be curious and investigate why, even with components they already own.
Similar threads
