totaldac D1 server

[Womaz]

Hello everyone,

I have been in contact with Vincent Brient (from Totaldac) with the intent to buy a d1-server for my soon to arrive Devialet. He has offered me to buy a complete DAC (d1-six) instead and to feed the analog output signal from his DAC into the Devialet. He claims that some Devialet users have found this solution a further improvement compared to d1-server + Devialet.

Have you ever heard or read about this kind of solution ?
Thanks,

Pierre

Yes I have heard of this. As long as you understand that the analog output of the d1-six would go through the AD and DA converters of the Devialet it is OK (i.e. you are not bypassing the Devialet DA-converter by doing this). The AD-DA process in the Devialet is very transparent. If you connect a record player to one of the phono inputs of a Devialet amp the signal will go through the same AD-DA chain.
The best would be if you could try both a d1-reclocker (server) and a d1-six with your amp and then decide what is best for you.

I've seen the notion of putting a 'better' front end DAC into a Devialet before, and while I've no doubts there are many DACs out there that are now better than the Devialet, I really can't get my head around this particular case.

Unless I'm being a total dunce, for an outboard DAC to sound better than the Devialet's internal one - since there's no way to bypass it -  it must mean that the Devialet is better at doing an A>D>A that it is a straight D>A?  Otherwise any superiority in the outboard DAC should be 'removed' by the Devialets internal D>A?  

The only thing I can think of is Devialet doesn't deal with AES/USB digital inputs as well as the totaldac, so even using the totaldac server into the Devialet could mean a poorer output overall, whereas maybe if the Devialet generates it's own digital signal (from its A>D) it can somehow achieve a better result? In this case it would reveal a weakness in Devialets digital inputs and/or filtering/upsampling or whatever?

Otherwise I'm at a loss and would welcome some help understanding….

Yes I would like an explanation of this too. Maybe I am a little cynical but is the second option more expensive I wonder?

[thumb5]

Maybe the argument is over terminology: if you assume that the Devialet's A-to-D and D-to-A chain is accurate, then it will preserve any "character" (meaning: inacccuracy) that might be associated with an outboard DAC. Depending on your taste, that might sound "better" than the original digital signal input directly to a digital input on the Devialet.

[GuillaumeB]

Maybe the argument is over terminology: if you assume that the Devialet's A-to-D and D-to-A chain is accurate, then it will preserve any "character" (meaning: inacccuracy) that might be associated with an outboard DAC.  Depending on your taste, that might sound "better" than the original digital signal input directly to a digital input on the Devialet.

Speaking of which some time ago I had some interesting experiments with a Trinnov Amethyst, which features a pre amp, room correction processor and DAC and UPnP streamer all-in-one.

I connected it to the Devialet master via analogue RCA cables.

The resulting sound - even with room correction disabled - was very pleasant indeed and I found the sound better by some margin. Airier and with a larger soundstage and greater fluidity. I really enjoyed it. I just couldn't justify an additional (large) expensive box in the chain (although it did effectively replace the totaldac d1 server) nor could I get my head around the additional A-to-D conversion, extra cables etc. The Trinnov did include a number of DSP filters which were fun to experiment with, particularly with lesser quality source material, and the room correction bit was very clever indeed, much easier to use than a PC-based solution.

Anyway it just goes to show how versatile the Devialet is, it can be used in so many different ways with good results.

Guillaume

[SwissBear]

Thanks to all of your for your replies.

to ogs : although your proposal makes much sense, it's not very easy for me to compare both solutions at home as I do not live inside the EU and will have to pay for import duty, unless going through very heavy temporary import paper work

to Hifi_swlon : I have asked Vincent the exact same question. His reaction, translated from French is approximately the following : "Yes indeed Devialet seems to be converting the analog input to digital based on what they say, yet some Devialet users tried my external DAC and found it better to listen. In fact it is very common for digitized analog inputs to be better than one digital input that is not good enough. The pros from concert industry know this very well with brands such as BSS or Lab Gruppen or hifi same with Goldmund. It's surprising but very current. Digital does not necessarily mean perfect."

to Womaz : you are perfectly right, the d1-six costs twice the price of the d1-server ; on the other hand, Vincent has a personal reputation of high integrity and good advice...

Thanks to thumb5 and Guillaume to. This is probably a matter of personal choice as you mention. Difficult to judge with the distance. But, even is this underlines the flexibility of Devialet product, both solutions significantly increase the cost of Devialet solution anyway.

[f1eng]

I do some digital recording. I have two recorders and one of them is completely transparent in that the output is identical sounding to the input by ear. I can not tell whether I am listening to the direct microphone feed or the same signal having gone through the A-D and D-A process.
All the people I know that do recording have the same comment.
This was never the case with analogue recorders where the sound was notably different off tape.

A lot of people prefer the sound off tape, ie the distortions and shaping generated by the tape recording process is pleasantly euphonic.
It seems that many of the users of the digital recorder I have use a plugin to emulate the tape saturation distortion of a reel-to-reel recorder since they like the sound generated.

Based on my experience of recording (over 40 years) my opinion is that a properly engineered ADC/DAC pair is completely audibly transparent. The logical (IMHO) conclusion from this is that a properly engineered conventional DAC is nowadays transparent.

I believe that a lot of very expensive DACs have had deliberate euphonic colour engineered into them so they sound different to other products. If they sound preferable to somebody that is fine but deliberate colouration not a "better DAC".

I have a similar experience to Guillaume. I have tried a couple of different DACs (in my case older ones) into the analogue inputs my Devialet and the characteristic sound of each was clear.

So my conclusion is two-fold. Firstly the Devialet ADC/DAC is audibly transparent (and therefore there can not be a more recent better DAC).
If one has a preference for the euphonic sound generated in some of the eccentric and often very expensive DACs on the market the Devialet's non-coloured, transparent digital section will reproduce it perfectly.

[SwissBear]

I do some digital recording. I have two recorders and one of them is completely transparent in that the output is identical sounding to the input by ear. I can not tell whether I am listening to the direct microphone feed or the same signal having gone through the A-D and D-A process.
All the people I know that do recording have the same comment.
This was never the case with analogue recorders where the sound was notably different off tape.

A lot of people prefer the sound off tape, ie the distortions and shaping generated by the tape recording process is pleasantly euphonic.
It seems that many of the users of the digital recorder I have use a plugin to emulate the tape saturation distortion of a reel-to-reel recorder since they like the sound generated.

Based on my experience of recording (over 40 years) my opinion is that a properly engineered ADC/DAC pair is completely audibly transparent. The logical (IMHO) conclusion from this is that a properly engineered conventional DAC is nowadays transparent.

I believe that a lot of very expensive DACs have had deliberate euphonic colour engineered into them so they sound different to other products. If they sound preferable to somebody that is fine but deliberate colouration not a "better DAC".

I have a similar experience to Guillaume. I have tried a couple of different DACs (in my case older ones) into the analogue inputs my Devialet and the characteristic sound of each was clear.

So my conclusion is two-fold. Firstly the Devialet ADC/DAC is audibly transparent (and therefore there can not be a more recent better DAC).
If one has a preference for the euphonic sound generated in some of the eccentric and often very expensive DACs on the market the Devialet's non-coloured, transparent digital section will reproduce it perfectly.

Thank you for your limpid answer. Can I ask you whether you have reached the same conclusion as Guillaume as far as the feeding of music streams to the Devialet is concerned ? Are you using a similar music server as the d1-server, which includes a digital reclocking unit in order to de-jitter the digital flow ?

[f1eng]

I do some digital recording. I have two recorders and one of them is completely transparent in that the output is identical sounding to the input by ear. I can not tell whether I am listening to the direct microphone feed or the same signal having gone through the A-D and D-A process.
All the people I know that do recording have the same comment.
This was never the case with analogue recorders where the sound was notably different off tape.

A lot of people prefer the sound off tape, ie the distortions and shaping generated by the tape recording process is pleasantly euphonic.
It seems that many of the users of the digital recorder I have use a plugin to emulate the tape saturation distortion of a reel-to-reel recorder since they like the sound generated.

Based on my experience of recording (over 40 years) my opinion is that a properly engineered ADC/DAC pair is completely audibly transparent. The logical (IMHO) conclusion from this is that a properly engineered conventional DAC is nowadays transparent.

I believe that a lot of very expensive DACs have had deliberate euphonic colour engineered into them so they sound different to other products. If they sound preferable to somebody that is fine but deliberate colouration not a "better DAC".

I have a similar experience to Guillaume. I have tried a couple of different DACs (in my case older ones) into the analogue inputs my Devialet and the characteristic sound of each was clear.

So my conclusion is two-fold. Firstly the Devialet ADC/DAC is audibly transparent (and therefore there can not be a more recent better DAC).
If one has a preference for the euphonic sound generated in some of the eccentric and often very expensive DACs on the market the Devialet's non-coloured, transparent digital section will reproduce it perfectly.

Thank you for your limpid answer. Can I ask you whether you have reached the same conclusion as Guillaume as far as the feeding of music streams to the Devialet is concerned ? Are you using a similar music server as the d1-server, which includes a digital reclocking unit in order to de-jitter the digital flow ?

Since I have yet to find a streaming software that deals with classical music logically I still mainly listen to CDs and LPs. See my signature.
However good a streaming server is it is moot if it needs 30 minutes re-arranging tags before it plays the works back in the correct order.

The best (least coloured) sound I get is a Goldmund Mimesis 36+ into AES input. I think it uses a FIFO and reclocks the output though Goldmund don't ever give technical details.

For added colour I have 4 different turntables

It is possible to use my digital recorder to output a digital stream of any file and then I can add all sorts of plugins, tape saturation simulation, reverb, valve amplifier colour (4 different ones) and so forth, as much as I like, but I choose not to.

[SwissBear]

A very interesting story narrating the benefits of reclocking : http://tapeop.com/reviews/gear/106/mc-3-smart-clock/
Which could lead to a relatively inexpensive but efficient solution.

I received my Devialet today, and set it up with a Mutec MC-3+ USB to reclock the stream produced by a Mac-Mini with Audirvana. Results are very impressive in terms of sound stage depth and precision. I really enjoyed my afternoon with my new installation  .

[ogs]

A very interesting story narrating the benefits of reclocking : http://tapeop.com/reviews/gear/106/mc-3-smart-clock/
Which could lead to a relatively inexpensive but efficient solution.

I received my Devialet today, and set it up with a Mutec MC-3+ USB to reclock the stream produced by a Mac-Mini with Audirvana. Results are very impressive in terms of sound stage depth and precision. I really enjoyed my afternoon with my new installation  .

Very nice setup! How is the Mutec connected to your Devialet? AES?

[SwissBear]

Thank you :-)
Yes AES works well with standard professional cables (Mogami Gold Series Digital).
No fancy USB cables either (just the very basic one supplied with the Mutec).