Review and Measurements of Totaldac d1-six DAC

[graz_lag]

Business risk don't justify snake oil.
Prices are outrageous in relation of the objects sold.
Do you think buying a glass of sand for 3k is not outrageuos ?
Even if the sand is taken by 10 virgins strippers in a beach that emerge every 10 years on the island of nowhere.
I don't buy snake oil for an outrageous price only because the seller may risk in business. His business.

Do not panic!
For only 9,900 EUR you can offer yourself with a great gift by buying both DAC & Streamer!
Hurry up, get in touch with seller ASAP!
https://www.leboncoin.fr/image_son/1653629990.htm/
https://www.leboncoin.fr/image_son/1653633107.htm/

 

[Dialectic]

I also love how the "d1-player":
http://www.totaldac.com/D1-player-eng.htm

is a repackaged Euler PC:

https://www.pcvert.fr/par-gamme/445-euler-m-h110.html
Less than 800 euros new.

But re-priced as well:

http://www.totaldac.com/prices.htm

Ok, I thought Mr. Brient was a sincere if not very competent maker of audio equipment, but this is starting to feel more like an outright scam.

 

[diegooo1972]

@Juhazi
This can just be usefull to let people understand on their skin that they don't have special senses as they believe.
It's not only a matter of scientific research here.
This is just a way to avoid unscientific discussions where people believe to hear something that is not there for a man or a woman of whatever age.
Maybe for a dog.
And also to help people make an informed decision buying and chosing audio components.
Also saving a lot of money in many cases.
Science have nothing to domonstrate to subjectivism.
Subjectivism can't belong to technical decision making.
If you wnat to chose that way just remember you are not technical at all. And of course not scientific.

 

[diegooo1972]

I also love how the "d1-player":
http://www.totaldac.com/D1-player-eng.htm

is a repackaged Euler PC:

https://www.pcvert.fr/par-gamme/445-euler-m-h110.html
Less than 800 euros new.

But re-priced as well:

http://www.totaldac.com/prices.htm

This is absolutely crazy. How the hell people pretend to convince us taht there are resons for those prices and objects.
Bah...

 

[KSTR]

Will post a o'scope screen shot when I'm at home, later

This is a 24kHz signal at 48kHz sample rate in NOS mode, a sample sequence of +1,-1,+1, ... (at +13dBu setting, 0dB gain and -3dBFS input stream, so it's actually +0.7, -0.7 and so on). As explained, the very well-damped small overshoot and the limited slope (non-"vertical" rise) is from the the analog filters that cannot be bypassed. This filter is set to about ~120kHz according to the specs and it is probably a second or third order filter set up for a Butterworth response (for a maximally flat passband) and the overshoot is what is to be expected from such a filter. Pretty much a textbook-perfect response for a proper bandlimited square wave (but not bandlimited by the digital filter).
And with any other setting than NOS the output is a perfect sine.

 

[daftcombo]

Note that you still need a streamer afterwards:

The d1-player allows you to store your music files and run Roon core or a UPNP/DLNA media-server.
The main audio output and is sent to a network streamer via the local network via Roon RAAT or UPNP/DLNA.
It is the ideal companion for the Totaldac d1-streamer (or another streamer) and all is controlled by a tablet.

So basically, 8.900€ for a hard drive?

If you wanna add the streamer:

d1-streamer (DSD included): 5990euros incl VAT in Europe, 5500euros excl VAT out of EU

 

[Pluto]

AES is not a serious organization, sorry

That's a matter of opinion if ever there was one. But it is interesting to note that most universities with departments of audio engineering appear to agree with the testing methodologies adopted by the AES, EBU et al.

And again the claim was that ABX it THE research gold standard

Look: I am not a statistician, nor an epistemologist and I possibly use the term “ABX” in error. I cannot vouch for the fact that the tests in which I participated were ABX by any strict definition – merely that they were tests the participants were asked to perform without knowledge of the processes, equipment or methods used; there were two kinds of test – the first being ’is X the same as A or B?’ and the second to rank either three or five sources in order of preference. Most of the participants were senior audio people at their employer's businesses and there were further batches of test subjects who were, presumably, ordinary Joes recruited ‘off the streets’ to serve, I guess, as a control group.

I have no knowledge of the statistical analysis undertaken on the results, nor any indication of how any individual ‘performed’, nor any official knowledge of the purpose of the tests and we were (and remain) under NDA not to discuss aspects of the process beyond general principles. Part of the testing regimen, we were advised, was to test each individual's consistency and reliability in order to assess the worth of their results.

This all seems like gold standard stuff to me.

 

[diegooo1972]

That's actually a myth. Testing methodology is highly complex, and even seasoned scientists will employ specialist experts to properly design tests. Only on forums is ABX- double blind talked about as the generic "gold standard" for testing. It isn't. In professional circles there are lots of testing situations where ABX isn't considered the best method to test a hypothesis. Look it up sometime.

Snake oil high end audio fans don't even think about any kind of test and you suggest more modern and stronger test ?
They are going to fail even a simple double blind test.
That's why no one chose in that way.
That's why no one give proper measurements of equipments.
That's why nobody in the high end audio even talk about informed decision.
They all just chat and sell emotions.
And you discuss about a stronger test ?
Not needed in this high end world.
Just a bandage and the whole high end world fall apart in 1 or 2 years.

 

[bozoc]

We are discussing the testing methods used by professionals in the field of psychoacoustics - and the methods they develop and use can also be utilized by curious non-experts to help eliminate sighted bias in auditory testing. Testing and reporting results by scientists is "the gold standard" and testing by audiophiles is fascinating and fun - and appears to be an eye-opening experience as reported by many here and elsewhere who have tried it.

What if we frame it like this(more accurately so that is does not help you in moving your goal posts) - more like bastardized versions of already shaky methods employed by some scientists which in turn become invalid for any useful comparison. As you have somewhat hinted in your posts, listening tests are multifactorial problems. But all you did is was to appeal to authority(they are scientists, they consult each other...) and rely on rhetoric without providing any meaningful comments on methodologies.

 

[Pluto]

Were the listeners trained? What kind of measures were taken

I think this point is adequately addressed in the latter section of this post.

Why do you always have the need to provide silly conjectures as in X must do Y because they are biased and/or want money

Because I've been around the block once or twice in this life and have learned a thing or two about human nature.

 

[firedog]

When someone posts a comment in an audio forum, I assume that, unless otherwise stated or implied, that they are speaking about audio and psychoacoustics, and not about science generally. Your use of the term "professional circles" in the context of this thread is so general that it appears to be a genuine strawman - intentional or not.

So then, why are you speaking in such general terms? Are you not aware that this is an audio forum? Although you chose to speak in generalities, it seems appropriate to ask you to please elucidate how those poorly defined generalities about scientific testing relate to ABX testing for sonic differences in psychoacoustics?

Also, you seem to be telling us that you don't understand that at least in psychoacoustics, scientists in the field like Dr.Floyd Toole are the experts and do not have to hire others to do ABX testing - because they are the experts? (Of course, I would assume that Floyd consults with his peers and other experts in related fields - all of the many scientists I have worked with or studied under do that. They read, evaluate, and criticize each others work and consult with each other.)

Only on forums??? Give me a break! Another strawman - you seem to be an expert at constructing them. Yes, at this forum - with a good number of references to publications elsewhere that support the efficacy of ABX testing for audio. And it is not a "generic" standard - it is a specific one. Sheesh!

We are discussing the testing methods used by professionals in the field of psychoacoustics - and the methods they develop and use can also be utilized by curious non-experts to help eliminate sighted bias in auditory testing. Testing and reporting results by scientists is "the gold standard" and testing by audiophiles is fascinating and fun - and appears to be an eye-opening experience as reported by many here and elsewhere who have tried it.

Instead of lecturing me, why not go to the quote I reacted to:
"In professional circles, ABX is widely regarded as being the gold standard of test methodologies when you need to compare a new process or method with an established approach. I really do not see why audio amateurs bear such a grudge to this reliable and proven method."

I didn't choose to speak in generalities, I reacted to them. The quote promotes ABX as "the gold standard" for "a new process or method". Is there a more general claim than that?
And yes, professionals acknowledge that fatigue, stress, and inability to remember/differentiate between samples are issues with ABX. It's also acknowledged that the smaller the difference, the less likely an ABX test is to work in revealing it - even if it exists.

Even pros have been found to mess up testing - by including "tells" in testing setup that some listeners notice, or by using source material that is resampled/upsampled/format changed - when testing different format audibility.

 

[diegooo1972]

What if we frame it like this(more accurately so that is does not help you in moving your goal posts) - more like bastardized versions of already shaky methods employed by some scientists which in turn become invalid for any useful comparison. As you have somewhat hinted in your posts, listening tests are multifactorial problems. But all you did is was to appeal to authority(they are scientists, they consult each other...) and relay on rhetoric without providing any meaningful comments on methodologies.

I tell you.
Technically and scientifically we don't need proof of what a man can or cannot hear. We already know that.
The problem is only for the guys that pretend to hear something that is not there.
I already know they can't.
So sometime people ask them to show their superhuman ears power with a simple blind test.
But we don't need that. Is useless. Science already know the answer to this questions.
The probelm is just for Super Guys with super power and super hearing.
And they never will accept any kind of test for a reasonable fear to see their castle of cards falling apart.
I don't need proof.
I maybe like to see them fail miserably.
But sadly that's not going to happen.
They have fear.
And are absolutely right to have it.

 

[BDWoody]

I tell you.
Technically and scientifically we don't need proof of what a man can or cannot hear. We already know that.
The problem is only for the guys that pretend to hear something that is not there.
I already know they can't.
So sometime people ask them to show their superhuman ears power with a simple blind test.
But we don't need that. Is useless. Science already know the answer to this questions.
The probelm is just for Super Guys with super power and super hearing.
And they never will accept any kind of test for a reasonable fear to see their castle of cards falling apart.
I don't need proof.
I maybe like to see them fail miserably.
But sadly that's not going to happen.
They have fear.
And are absolutely right to have it.

I wonder if there are any people on the equivalent video boards who claim to be able to see ultra-violet or infra-red...

Wouldn't the obvious challenge be to ask them to prove it?

 

[daftcombo]

Totaldac has created its own loudspeaker to demo DACs in Totaldac auditorium and in Hifi shows.
This speakers are the result of 20 years of experimentations to give a realistic and natural sound. Now these speakers are also offered to Totaldac customers.

http://www.totaldac.com/d150-speaker-eng.htm

Price:

d150 speaker, a pair, excl shipping: 46000euros incl VAT in Europe, 42000euros excl VAT out of Europe

Someone on Youtube noticed though, that those speakers look very much like "customized Fostex FR (?) drivers in very big JMLC Horns.."

I'm not competent enough to judge. Could some DIYer check these links?
Fostex FR drivers
JMLC horns
And tell me what's the part of inspiration, what's the part of creation, or something else?

 

[diegooo1972]

I wonder if there are any people on the equivalent video boards who claim to be able to see ultra-violet or infra-red...

Wouldn't the obvious challenge be to ask them to prove it?

Indeed.
Now they only have this new capaign to discredit ABX test and every blind test out there saying it's pointless.
Well snake oil hate blind tests.
So if they hate blind tests they probably are snake oil high end audio aficionados.
Otherwise why not ?
To understand better psychoacustic the first thing I did was just to try every kind of blind test I could.
Very revealing. I had nothing to protect so it wasn't a problem for me.
And for you highend audio ?
This is nearly ridiculous.

 

[Soniclife]

I also love how the "d1-player":
http://www.totaldac.com/D1-player-eng.htm

is a repackaged Euler PC:

https://www.pcvert.fr/par-gamme/445-euler-m-h110.html
Less than 800 euros new.

They clearly use the same case, but beyond that how do you know the innards are the same?

 

[PierreV]

I wonder if there are any people on the equivalent video boards who claim to be able to see ultra-violet or infra-red...

Wouldn't the obvious challenge be to ask them to prove it?

Well, they would be correct.

But I get your point.

 

[Jimster480]

Let's see how long before one of the owners pops up here and tells us that measurements don't tell the whole story and this is the best DAC he ever had.

Finding owners I think will be hard. I can't imagine they sell more than 1-2 per year?

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

I was thinking the same thing!

I’ll preface this by saying I like Jude from Head-fi and the enthusiasm he brings to this hobby but I think I remember him saying on one of his Head-fi videos that this specific DAC was the best one he ever heard.

That isn't surprising at all! He is a mega-shill who supports literally anything that someone pays him to support.

Edit: This page has been open for ~5 days... I made my post and there are 50 pages? Dear Lord! I guess all the subjectivists came out of the woodwork again

 

[daftcombo]

They clearly use the same case, but beyond that how do you know the innards are the same?

I don't know what is inside, but Mr Brient is not a computer designer, is he? I hardly doubt he made a computer himself. He is not very talkative, even on his site, about something like that.
8900€ for what is hardly more than a hard drive (you need a streamer after that box) is nothing but a major scam anyway.

 

[Thomas savage]

The only thing missing in this thread is a argument about who was the best singer in the spice girls...

Yea I know it's just a matter of time.