Review and Measurements of Totaldac d1-six DAC

[Purité Audio]

Spending $14k on a product you then discover is junk must be vexing.
Keith

 

[amirm]

The test was my listening, as I purchased it to be listened to primarily by me. My ears, my brain, my memory of what I have heard in my 50 years of life. The Totaldac sounds substantially better than the 5 or 6 other converters that I’ve had in my otherwise similar system for the last few years, and everything else before it.

But it doesn't *sound* better based on your faulty testing. For it to sound better, only the sound needed to be judged. Not all the rest you piled on in that evaluation.

As you, if I do the tests sighted, I also fall for the same issues. I easily think one piece of gear sounds better than another when in reality, I was just listening differently. Or biased by looks, price, company that made it, etc.

We all been where you are. Despite all of our knowledge of what can go wrong in listening tests, we can't avoid the pitfalls unless we do controlled testing. Failing that, we use measurements to tell us whether a device truly sounds better, or is distorting what it is being told to produce.

There is sanity in this hobby. And it is what we do here. Anything else walks against the tide of decades of scientific and engineering in audio.

You used an analogy of food and imagery to make your point. How about telling us in which field beside audio, you put aside the entire body of science and go by what you believe? Do you do that when you get sick? Do you search online for what you should take or do you go to your doctor and get medication that is prescribed by blind testing?

 

[sajunky]

The fact is that the totaldac adds an unusually high amount of spurious additions to the clean signal. This is a measured fact.

True under Amir's measurement equipment with strong active ground loops. Amir noticed the fact and changed frequency of PSU to 60Hz, but changing frequency didn't remove ground loops. See my post: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ments-of-totaldac-d1-six-dac.8192/post-218472
We don't know how this DAC would perform wihout ground loops.

 

[Frank Dernie]

True under Amir's measurement equipment with strong active ground loops. Amir noticed the fact and changed frequency of PSU to 60Hz, but changing frequency didn't remove ground loops. See my post: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ments-of-totaldac-d1-six-dac.8192/post-218472
We don't know how this DAC would perform wihout ground loops.

I had read your post already. Nothing done to do with ground loops will make this DAC worth the price, also it has always been my opinion that a properly engineered product won't be sensitive to the source of power.

 

[amirm]

True under Amir's measurement equipment with strong active ground loops. Amir noticed the fact and changed frequency of PSU to 60Hz, but changing frequency didn't remove ground loops. See my post: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ments-of-totaldac-d1-six-dac.8192/post-218472
We don't know how this DAC would perform wihout ground loops.

What strong ground loops? Here is the FFT again:

The mains leakage is below -110 dB. It is the distortion product (and general noise) which dominate the measurements. See for example the third harmonic at -92 dB, some 20 dB higher than mains noise.

My measurement gear input is floating by the way unless I change it otherwise.

Mains leakage could be due to input to output capacitance in the transformer or magnetic coupling to the rest of the circuit.

 

[saturdayboy]

But it doesn't *sound* better based on your faulty testing. For it to sound better, only the sound needed to be judged. Not all the rest you piled on in that evaluation.

As you, if I do the tests sighted, I also fall for the same issues. I easily think one piece of gear sounds better than another when in reality, I was just listening differently. Or biased by looks, price, company that made it, etc.

We all been where you are. Despite all of our knowledge of what can go wrong in listening tests, we can't avoid the pitfalls unless we do controlled testing. Failing that, we use measurements to tell us whether a device truly sounds better, or is distorting what it is being told to produce.

There is sanity in this hobby. And it is what we do here. Anything else walks against the tide of decades of scientific and engineering in audio.

You used an analogy of food and imagery to make your point. How about telling us in which field beside audio, you put aside the entire body of science and go by what you believe? Do you do that when you get sick? Do you search online for what you should take or do you go to your doctor and get medication that is prescribed by blind testing?

None of my personal sensory experiences are subjected to scientific verification, nor am I interested.
I have a similar question for you and the like minded “scientists” on this forum. Are you all atheists, or do some of you believe in a God of some sort? If the answer is yes, what is your scientific justification for that belief?

 

[amirm]

None of my personal sensory experiences are subjected to scientific verification, nor am I interested.

What you are interested in, is not of interest to us. What is of interest to us is your arguments to invalidate ours. There, you need to have provable evidence. Not just "I think so therefore I am right."

 

[amirm]

I have a similar question for you and the like minded “scientists” on this forum. Are you all atheists, or do some of you believe in a God of some sort? If the answer is yes, what is your scientific justification for that belief?

We are not examining validity of beliefs here. We are examining performance of a piece of hardware. No divine intervention changes the performance of your audio gear if that is what you are asking or believing.

 

[graz_lag]

 

[saturdayboy]

We are not examining validity of beliefs here. We are examining performance of a piece of hardware. No divine intervention changes the performance of your audio gear if that is what you are asking or believing.

I am simply stating that what I’m experiencing doesn’t match what your “science” is telling me is true. By the way, are you are that “scientist” have a pretty extensive track record of having their findings debunked since the beginnings of science?

 

[Veri]

I am simply stating that what I’m experiencing doesn’t match what your “science” is telling me is true.

starting to resemble a flat earther retoric. Please don't take this too far science in quotation marks? Really?

 

[saturdayboy]

View attachment 32404

Is “your kind” trying to hurt “my kind’s” feelings?

 

[sajunky]

What strong ground loops? Here is the FFT again:

View attachment 32403

The mains leakage is below -110 dB. It is the distortion product (and general noise) which dominate the measurements. See for example the third harmonic at -92 dB, some 20 dB higher than mains noise.

My measurement gear input is floating by the way unless I change it otherwise.

Mains leakage could be due to input to output capacitance in the transformer or magnetic coupling to the rest of the circuit.

I am sorry, I have to disagree. It is more than 20dB of unwanted energy comparing to the noise floor introduced to the DAC itself, your sensors (or both). We can recognise 50/60Hz, but we don't know how much in-band and out band unwanted energy is being injected.

How you can be sure that mains leakage is originating in the testing equipment? Even if it does, is always the same by definition of ground loops: it is a leak between two or more pieces of the equipment, not a single device alone.

 

[amirm]

I am simply stating that what I’m experiencing doesn’t match what your “science” is telling me is true.

Science absolutely explains your experience. Countless tests have shown that sighted results generate faulty results. And that our listening varies based on other factors than sound. There is nothing inconsistent here.

By the way, are you are that “scientist” have a pretty extensive track record of having their findings debunked since the beginnings of science?

I am not a scientist. Nor am I presenting scientific outcomes. I am running tests which show whether an audio device adds something bad to the sound. In this case it does that. There is nothing to debunk here. Measurement gear ruthlessly shows such things with no emotions or beliefs.

What allows you to experience differently is that audiophiles are notoriously poor at hearing non-linear distortions. As such, they fall in love with the sound of some gear, not realizing another gear at far lower cost would do the same if they just listened to the sound.

Put another way, you don't hear what is really broken with your DAC. And imagine benefits that are not there. Both of these are readily accepted factors in audio science.

 

[Thomas savage]

Bloody Amirm and his "science" ruining music for everyone.

 

[amirm]

I am sorry, I have to disagree. It is more than 20dB of unwanted energy comparing to the noise floor introduced to the DAC itself, your sensors (or both). We can recognise 50/60Hz, but we don't know how much in-band and out band unwanted energy is being injected.

What?

How you can be sure that mains leakage is originating in the testing equipment? Even it does, is always the same by definition of ground loops: it is a leak between two or more pieces of the equipment, not a single device alone.

Whatever it is, it is shown in the measurements as I showed you.

These are balanced interconnects so have high immunity to ground loops anyway.

 

[saturdayboy]

I am sorry, I have to disagree. It is more than 20dB of unwanted energy comparing to the noise floor introduced to the DAC itself, your sensors (or both). We can recognise 50/60Hz, but we don't know how much in-band and out band unwanted energy is being injected.

How you can be sure that mains leakage is originating in the testing equipment? Even if it does, is always the same by definition of ground loops: it is a leak between two or more pieces of the equipment, not a single device alone.

sanjunky, haven’t you realized that disagreeing is not encouraged here?
You should be satisfied with your response of “What?” and keep your mouth shut.

 

[pkane]

sanjunky, haven’t you realized that disagreeing is not encouraged here?
You should be satisfied with your response of “What?” and keep your mouth shut.

It would be nice if your disagreement was based on something more than an opinion. Otherwise, expect to get ‘What?’ in response, at least here. Plenty of other forums out there that will be happy to accept what you think without questions.

 

[SIY]

Bring data. Actual data.

 

[Thomas savage]

Bring data. Actual data.

"Actual data"