Review and Measurements of Totaldac d1-six DAC

[bozoc]

If you hear it differently, please present the statistical analysis of the level matched (better than 0.1dB please) ABX double blind listening tests that you have done so that we can be sure you are not biased because; you own one, you paid a lot of money for it, you like the way it looks, the designer is a friend, you like the review, etc etc.

I do not see how this poor bare-bone approach to double blind ABX is to bring anything to our understanding of subject matter. To prevent false positives and false negatives listeners need to be trained. It is also very useful to add detailed impressions of testes that lends itself to statistical analysis. And that is just the start...
To shorten to story double blind ABX is not some magical tool witch cometh from science to banish subjectivits, it is far more involved than that. Nor is it the only reliable test.

Bias is everywhere, all of us are biased - being human means being biased - and the only way to overcome it is to rely on measurements, and properly controlled double blind tests.

Yes, every human is biased. And we need to do the tests right so we can get useful information. Do you uncritically accept there there is a possibility of a person not being able to hear the differences(for whatever that might be the reason) between DUTs or that your response my be nocebo response just as easily as some might be affected by placebo effect? Do you uncritically accept that your methodology poor methodology is not junk science(the very thing you are accusing people of)?

As someone else said recently either in this thread or another, the medical research community got this right a long time ago because the consequences are measured in mortality. Applying the same rules to audio evidence is just good practice. I am happy that you like your DAC, but please do not tell me that Amirm or the tests are wrong unless you have equally rigorous proof, and casual listening is not proof of anything.

This conjecture is not relevant, therefore it does not help you much with your point. Blindly adhering to rules without understanding the problem will get you nowhere, specially when dealing with complex problems like these.
Best regards.

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

The thread went and did exactly what it was supposed to, it reviewed the DAC without bias or prejudice and presented the results. Some people have an emotional response to that and cannot accept the results and insist that a) they were flawed [they were not] or b) it sounds better than it measures [maybe].

To be even handed, there was also a lot of quite uncivilised glee at how poorly the dac measured.
Very uncouth

 

[BillG]

Very uncouth

The comedy of errors that is this $13K DAC brought out the best in some of us...

 

[PaulD]

I do not see how this poor bare-bone approach to double blind ABX is to bring anything to our understanding of subject matter. To prevent false positives and false negatives listeners need to be trained. It is also very useful to add detailed impressions of testes that lends itself to statistical analysis. And that is just the start...
To shorten to story double blind ABX is not some magical tool witch cometh from science to banish subjectivits, it is far more involved than that. Nor is it the only reliable test.

Describing the test as poor would suggest that you do not agree with it for some reason. I never said it was a test without trained listeners.

Yes, every human is biased. And we need to do the tests right so we can get useful information. Do you uncritically accept there there is a possibility of a person not being able to hear the differences(for whatever that might be the reason) between DUTs or that your response my be nocebo response just as easily as some might be affected by placebo effect? Do you uncritically accept that your methodology poor methodology is not junk science(the very thing you are accusing people of)?

I do not know why you say this "methodology poor", when all I have said is that properly controlled listening tests (ie ABX etc) are needed for a valid listening assessment. Everything that can be heard in a properly controlled ABX test can be found in the measurements. Any uncontrolled test is not worth much as a comparative result because it is uncontrolled, personal, in another space, for your ears and of course biased in a number of ways. There is (I think from memory) a good paper on the AES on how the size of the speaker under test influenced opinions of how they sounded - it may have even been by the Harman team (thank you Floyd Toole!). It is not "junk science" (yes there is plenty), it's the sort of science that got us to the moon, and developed the M2 et al speakers, it's based on demonstrable and repeatable evidence.

This conjecture is not relevant, therefore it does not help you much with your point. Blindly adhering to rules without understanding the problem will get you nowhere, specially when dealing with complex problems like these.
Best regards.

No one is blindly adhering to rules, just pointing out that uncontrolled listening tests are personal and not useful for comparisons.

 

[firedog]

The conclusion is certain: audiophiles like you state love to think they have great ears. But when it comes to non-linear artifacts (as opposed to simple frequency response changes and such), they have no better ability than the general public. Which is to say, their ability is quite poor compared to trained listeners.

Fact is that people buy flawed audio products because they are totally deaf to their artifacts. This proves their inability to be critical listeners.

Faced with above, the convenient counter is: "oh, I prefer the distortions." Who says? If you can't hear the distortions, you certainly can't prefer them. What's more this theory has never been proven to be true using controlled tests. I have tested countless flawed products and as I observe in this review, the defects are hard to hear. But if you do hear them, they are unpleasant.

So please, don't try to fight facts and science with just word arguments. I have the data and science on my side plus decades of testing hypothesis like yours. There is no there there. Audiophiles need to wake up and get out of their illusions of audio. Reality is a cold, hard place for them to be sure. But it is also liberating when you can prove something, than claim it!

Wow, Amir , you really need to take a reading comprehension course. You consistently put words in my mouth - things I didn't say or imply. Your preconceived notions apparently prevent you from reading a simple text and understanding it.
Where did I claim I have great ears? I didn't. Where did I say audiophiles are by definition trained listeners? Didn't.

Here's a FACT: "Not all trained listeners agree on their EVALUTION of what they hear. Different people can hear the same thing and react differently to it. There are trained listeners (who've passed tests such as the ones by Philips or Harman) that don't all prefer the same speakers. And yes, Harman showed that most trained listeners prefer a rolled off speaker response (in room) and perceive that as flat. Doesn't mean ALL trained listeners do. Even trained listeners have individual taste.

I'm not denigrating your work. But there is this odd assumption here that "oh, we measured component X and now that we've shown it doesn't have great measurements, audiophiles will understand not to buy it".
Get out of your bubble. It will never happen. The fans of this forum will be convinced, the others won't. They won't accept your "proof" and they aren't actually interested. They will continue to buy what they like.

 

[Andreas007]

Hi Amirm!
IMO this thread must be put back on track (by you). Responding to "Mark Levinson" posts will not help.
We are here because of your measurements. If there are doubts or misunderstandings about your measurements I think it's best to explain again (and again) how you do it and why you choose certain measurement parameters - and why not others. This may be tedious, however, could also calm down the discussion.

 

[JJB70]

The remarkable thing is that despite the measurements this DAC is probably perfectly acceptable in audible terms. Of all the parts of the audio chain the DAC is probably the least problematic despite its critical importance for digital music. However, my experience is that most devices have perfectly acceptable DACs in audible terms and unless you are unfortunate enough to have one of the badly implemented ones I really don't see a necessity to buy a separate DAC. There are plenty of low-is cost integrated amplifiers with DACs and cheap speakers with DACs, I am not sure whether I have ever seen the DAC identified as an issue in any of these products and I suspect that the DACs used cost closer to cents than hundreds of dollars. Which begs the question why a DAC, even one with stellar performance (not this one) would ever be worth 13000 euros? I am a sucker for fine build and premium materials and would pay more for brilliant industrial design but in this case you do not get that. And March Audio are able to offer a very nice case and great industrial design and excellent measurements for a tiny fraction of the price.
There are three things that determine the listening experience (assuming it is something you want to listen to) , the quality of the recording, speakers and speaker set up/room interactions. With good material and speakers well set up then you are there.
If people do want to make a statement and own a DAC which brings a warm glow of pleasure of ownership then companies like Benchmark, Chord and RME do it far better and for a lot less.

 

[amirm]

Wow, Amir , you really need to take a reading comprehension course. You consistently put words in my mouth - things I didn't say or imply. Your preconceived notions apparently prevent you from reading a simple text and understanding it.
Where did I claim I have great ears? I didn't. Where did I say audiophiles are by definition trained listeners? Didn't.

I said nothing about you. I responded to this from you: "Some of those audiophiles can hear those distortions just like you - and they like what they hear. "

I explained and showed evidence of audiophiles NOT being able to hear distortions like me. Not just you, but high-end audiophiles in general.

 

[amirm]

I'm not denigrating your work. But there is this odd assumption here that "oh, we measured component X and now that we've shown it doesn't have great measurements, audiophiles will understand not to buy it".

Of course you denigrated it. That is why I responded. That aside, I am not in control of who does what with the information. All I can do is bring objective, reliable data to the table. In this case, I provided not only measurements but level controlled blind listening test.

I know a lot of audiophiles including yourself live in a world where none of this has value to them. I am assuming they don't hang around here, nor read our posts.

Where you are going wrong is that you think no one who is a customer of this product cares. Clearly the owner cares or he would not spend hundreds of dollars and risk of shipping this unit transatlantic to know how it really performs. We have a lot of testimonials on this forum of people whose ideas about audio have been transformed. Data and scientific research matters. Give more credit to people than you seem to be giving.

 

[amirm]

Hi Amirm!
IMO this thread must be put back on track (by you). Responding to "Mark Levinson" posts will not help.
We are here because of your measurements. If there are doubts or misunderstandings about your measurements I think it's best to explain again (and again) how you do it and why you choose certain measurement parameters - and why not others. This may be tedious, however, could also calm down the discussion.

There is an entire FAQ on my measurements: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/understanding-audio-measurements.2351/

I have also written a much more extensive and updated version that uses my new analyzer. It was for publication in Widescreen Review Magazine. Once that is out in print, I will format it for the web and publish it here.

Outside of that, I am moving on to testing other products and shipping this unit back to its owner. If you have doubts about my measurements after 200+ tests of audio products, I don't know what else to say to satisfy you.

As I said at the outset, the only way to make progress is for the company to provide its own measurements. Then we can see what is in conflict. As it is, seems like he was successful in creating FUD in your mind, without producing any such data. That is a shame....

 

[Azeia]

To be even handed, there was also a lot of quite uncivilised glee at how poorly the dac measured.
Very uncouth

I can't tell whether you're joking or not.. for a product that costs over 14,000 US dollars (after VAT or import taxes) and measures like garbage, I think we, the common people, are permitted the luxury of being as "uncouth" as we want towards the folks getting wealthy through the sale of snake oil.

Also, before someone responds with some subjectivist talking points, keep in mind that the defenses here for this product haven't been "I accept the results, but I still like the product"; rather, it's the usual criticism of the test methodology and denial of reality itself, and appeals to magical phenomena ("my ears can hear things that testing equipment can't pick up!"). Give me a break.

 

[Patatorz]

A Gigafilter USB might be included in the price of 5.990€ with the re-clocker & box, I'm not sure.

The gigafilter is not included. For this price you have the remote, the reclocker and the cubox. The gigafilter is between the cubox and reclocker and you need an aes or spdif to go to any DAC. You also have different inputs for the reclocker.

 

[KSTR]

I have to assume that you have some affinity or interest in NOS DACs to come up with such strong jabs. Do you?

Personally, like and buy well engineered and documented products with competent and innovative design, that's why I have an Adi-2 Pro now and in general I do prefer pro audio products.
I would never buy a product like the TotalDAC or any other audio item above 3...4k$. And I wouldn't probably buy any filterless NOS DAC regardless of price.

I'm generally interested in audio measurement techniques, and how measurements relate to actual perceived performance (yes, DBT and all). What I wanted to point out is that measuring a filterless NOS DAC and interpreting the results is a challenge and there were a least two plots in your review that are incorrect or misleading.

The incorrect one was the amplitude frequency response measurement (which by definition should only factor in the amplitude of the frequency and not just measure total level). You've corrected this.

The misleading one is the THD+N vs. frequency plot. While technically correct, it makes less knowledgable readers think "it distorts like hell!" which it doesn't. It has very high out-of-band non-harmonic content which makes the "N" part of the sum extremely dominant even though this has little consequence in practice if rest of the signal chain isn't distorting too much. It would have been nice if you had commented the plot this way, rather that stating "I don't think we have ever seen anything as broken as this. Distortion is directly proportional to frequency" which is not correct as you have mistook noise for distortion. Harmonic Distortion is not brilliant but not disastrous either, at levels of -90dB, as is IMD.

 

[Deleted member 2348]

@amirm, @totaldac
A NOS DAC will have a jaggy sinus by definition (simply because it isn't smoothing the curve, but plays the input signal).

This is not true. "NOS" (= no over sampling) does not automatically imply "no reconstruction filter". Most of the first CD players were NOS (e.g. Sony CDP 101), but they had an analog reconstruction filter and a filter to compensate for the aperture effect of the DAC (sinc curve).

These CD players certainly did not have a "jaggy sinus".

 

[Sparky]

Add a few buttons and some more lights this unit would fit right at home in Darth Vader's HiFi system.

Yeah, if Vader had spent more on repairing that big hole in the side of his death star than on this, things would be very different..... Boooooom.

 

[VintageFlanker]

You are very bad in translation sorry.

Et vous, incroyablement mauvais en communication, je regrette.

@totaldac, I don't think you're aware of the "media" impact of this review. This thread has been viewed 33K times in 5 days (and will become soon the most popular thread on ASR, I guess). I was really glad to see you subscribing and responding... Until I saw your answers. I'm sorry, but none are relevant, neither here or on HCFR. You missed a real chance to defend your product as many manufacturers here did before.

Like @FredYves said, this thread is going nowhere, now. I (we?) don't want to see an "audiophile drama" between you and @amirm. The only thing I'm still hoping is some technical discussion between gentlemen. For that, I see no solution but:

- 1) Publish measurents
OR
- 2) Go silent and hope people (potential customers?) will forget this review within 1 or 2 years...

Cordialement.

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

I can't tell whether you're joking or not.. for a product that costs over 14,000 US dollars (after VAT or import taxes) and measures like garbage, I think we, the common people, are permitted the luxury of being as "uncouth" as we want towards the folks getting wealthy through the sale of snake oil.

I’m being perfectly serious.

It’s not just this thread. The glee with which some people seem to sink the boot is just a bit rude.

(Can’t believe an Aussie has to pull people up for being impolite. What is the world coming to )

 

[FredYves]

The gigafilter is not included. For this price you have the remote, the reclocker and the cubox. Etc.

Mr Patatorz, would you have a personal fight with Mr Brient? Are you the one owning patatorz.com?

I am then very surprised to find on your website a lot of comparison by yourself of different « audiophile internet switches » with specific focus on « linear power supply » and test protocol taking into account the « running-in » time of these products, as well as « high-end ethernet cables ». These switches costing between USD 1000 to 2000, linear power supply an additional USD1000, and the internet cables USD199 for 1.2 meter. You share your experience on how well all that improves S/N. But no measurements shared in a domain where it’s a norm. Snake Oil?

(Moderator, please take this sentence to mean ' shoot in the foot' clearly a language barrier issue no one's advocating anyone killed themselves.)
Mr Brient killed himself well enough. Is it possible that with that background you do not contribute to the killing?

 

[daftcombo]

@amirm , on the french site, the totaldac guy insists again that you should :
- run a sweep at 96kHz
- optimize your ground loops
- try RCA.

I don't know if he advises that also to his customers, but for 13.500$, such phoney guidelines are a bit ouf-of-place IMHO.

Finally, he wrote that he already asked you to do those three things but you didn't because "you are lazy".
From someone who didn't even post here the 1kHz tone 20Hz-20kHz graph we've been asking for a while, this is something!

 

[diegooo1972]

This is completely illogical if not crazy.
Are we talking about audio fidelity or audio enhancements ?
From a DAC I expect audio fidelity and no audio enhancements at all.
The fidelity consist in recreating the original digital wave in analog domain.
A wave that must be equal to the original without artefacts. It's not totally possible but that's the goal of a DAC.
This is audio fidelity in a DAC.
If someone introduce taste engineering a DAC automatically introduce audio enhancements and leave fidelity.
Nothing more and nothing less.
Come on it's unbelievable we debate that.