[preproman]

This whole dedicated music server (source as it's call) re-clocker business has got me thinking pretty hard.  Just how much of an improvement can be had?   I shared a PM with Roy about this.
 
Aurender vs. C.A.P.S vs. Mac Mini and so on....
 
I'm trying to understand how "logically" one of these servers (Aurender) can be any better than a dedicated PC when these servers are just PCs them selves.  Of course not any old PC.  Not talking about laptops or big switching PSUs or huge gaming rigs.  I'm talking about dedicated PC with a dedicated made for Audio USB card with dedicated LPSU music servers.
 
To keep this in the proper perspective.  I have a modified C.A.P.S PC (stripped down version of Win 8.1 with J.River 21).  No fans (fan less), no switching PSU.  
 
 

 

 

 
I have a custom 3 output TeraDAK LPSU above, that powers the following below:
 
A dedicated USB card (JCAT)  Just switched from SOtM tx-USB exp to the JCAT card.
A fan less PC (with a SSD drive) http://www.atechfabrication.com/products/HeatSync_2800HP_Mini-Client.htm
A fan less storage station http://www.atechfabrication.com/products/mass_storage_2500.htm.
An iFi iPurifier. 
A Regen with a dedicated TeraLink  X2 LPSU  for it as well in the chain.  http://www.teradak.com/products/46.html
To the DAC
 
So as you can see every thing is powered separately by a couple of pretty good LPSUs and an iPurifier.  So there should be no EMI/RFI transmissions to be found - or little to none.  In others words the power going through the USB is clean.
 
Now as I said - I have the Regen in the chain.  I also compared the $150 Regen to the $3500 Total DAC re clocker and could not tell the difference at all from the Regen to the re clocker.  That told me the signal coming from the USB was as good as it could get. My theory anyway.  As much as I liked the D1-Dual and heard many differences between it and the Yggdrasil and it and the Bracasit M1 (I preferred the TotalDAC D1-Dual over both), I found the re clocker showed no improvement "at all". So I returned the TotalDAC re clocker and kept the Regen. 
 

 
 
So my question is how is possible for the N10 / N20 to be any better than a well put together Audio PC with a Regan or Re clocker in the chain.  
 
I understand the N10 / N20 has a pretty good OCXO clock but so does the Regen and the Re clocker.  I keep saying "with a Regen / Re clocker in the chain" because the Regen / Re clocker takes what ever signal it's given, discards it so to speak and regenerates / creates a new one.  
 
If this is the case, as long as the USB signal is coming from a "clean" source it really doesn't matter if it's a C.A.P.S or a Aurender or a TotalDAC server, the Regen / Re clocker is make a new signal anyway. So logically how can one sound any better than the other.
 
Now I do understand if the Regen / TotalDAC Re clocker is not in the chain, different results should be had.
 
This is another reason I say headphones "does not scale high enough"  to tell the difference in "some" very high end equipment.  For instance.  I could not tell the difference at all between amps (Pass Labs INT30A and Pass Labs INT150) using the HE-6 or the HD800s.  It wasn't until I moved both amps to my speaker rig was I able to hear a difference between the two amps.  The headphones was not able to scale high enough to accomplish what my speaker could.

 

[a1uc]

http://spl.info/en/products/headphone-amplifier/phonitor-2/overview.html

Thinking of adding this to the d1 dual

 

[preproman]

http://spl.info/en/products/headphone-amplifier/phonitor-2/overview.html

Thinking of adding this to the d1 dual

 
For headphone use?

 

[Beolab]

This is a good question because we all like to look at hard numbers when we assess equipment but there is also a lot of misunderstanding about what these numbers mean.  There is absolute resolution and some will use ENOB (effective number of bits) as a measure of this and then there are the things that muddy resolution (ie distortion, noise floor, time smearing due to jitter, skew and drift in the sampling rate, etc).  The better DACs handle the latter well and many will argue that overcoming these timing and noise issues are what defines the best DACs.  As for bit depth, I'll let you decide how important this number is.  

When it comes to bit depth, MSB is supposed to be the best and they tout this frequently.  The TotalDac utilizes Vishay Foil resistors that many consider among the best resistor there is and Vincent uses the more expensive variety with a minimal tolerance of 0.01%.  While his R2R is a 24 bit ladder, the Vishay Foil 0.01% resistor is limited to only 14 bits.  Many vendors are not honest when they report this but this is the ENOB of the TotalDac, only 14 bits.  The Schiit Yggy reports 21 bit capability.  Most delta sigma DACs including the $150 AQ Dragonfly and my Bricasti M1 claim to be 24 bit DACs.  The MSB Diamond DAC is supposed to be the best at 27 bits of resolution.  Based on this figure, you would think the TotalDac is not a very resolving DAC.  In fact, if you use this as your guide, the $150 Audioquest Dragonfly which uses a 24 bit ESS Sabre chip should resolve better than even the $30,000 TotalDac d1-twelve but our ears will tell us there is more to resolution than bit depth.

I will try my best to explain although I also shared this on the Nagra thread. Resolution is important only as far as what a human brain/ear can discern and this is quantified in a variety of ways and not just with bit depth.  One way is a measure called time resolution.  The human brain/ear has the ability to discern variations in sound if it occurs over a time span of 7 microseconds or more.  What this means is if variations of sound (such as 2 instruments playing) occur over a time span <7 microseconds, our ear will not be able to discern or resolve it.  At >7 microseconds, we will know if something is missing.  With Redbook (PCM), sampling occurs at 44kHz which equates to an auditory time resolution of 20.8 microseconds according to studies performed by Meridian, meaning that our ears can clearly tell that information is missing when you listen to a CD.  Those of us who have compared CD to vinyl, for example, know very well this is true.  At 96 kHz sampling, the auditory time resolution improves to 10.4 seconds which is much better but compared to vinyl, our ears will still be able to tell that vinyl is superior. It is only when you boost the sampling rate to 192 kHz that you bring down this auditory time resolution to 5.2 microseconds, finally below the 7 microsecond threshold.    At this sampling rate, your ear should be UNABLE to discern between vinyl and digital when it comes to time resolution.

As for bit depth, for music this actually relates more to dynamic range and not true resolution but it will have some bearing on what we perceive as low level resolution.  Dynamic range is the range in volume between the noise floor and maximum volume.  Each bit of data represents 6 dB of dynamic range.  Redbook is recorded in 16 bits = 96 dB.  Analog (vinyl) is recorded at 20 bits = 120 dB.  This is not a linear scale and 16 bits to 20 bits represents a 16x increase in dynamic range.  Again, this is why vinyl can sound more dynamic than CD.  At 24 bits, however, you get a dynamic range of 144 dB and so finally, at this bit level, digital should surpass vinyl when it comes to dynamic range.  

Well, if you look at published dynamic range figures, you will see just how well bit depth correlates with actual dynamic range.  The most practical way to measure and compare dynamic range figures is the S/N (signal to noise) ratio even though DR and SNR are not exactly the same thing.  Some companies will report dynamic range numbers (absolute peak values) but more companies will report S/N ratio (average peak values) and most believe this to be the more helpful number.  The $150 AQ Dragonfly DAC which has a 24-bit Sabre chip has a measured S/N ratio of 113 dB while playing a 24 bit digital file.  Remember, at 24 bits you should have a S/N ratio of 144 dB.  The Schiit Yggy with its 21 bit DAC reports a higher S/N ratio of >117 dB.  The MSB Analog reports an impressive S/N ratio of 140 dB.  The much more expensive MSB Diamond DAC V at 27 bits somehow resolves no better than the Analog with a S/N ratio of 140 dB.  Clearly, something is preventing these high-bit DACs from reaching their theoretical potential.  So how does the TotalDac measure?  From the d1-single all the way up to the d1-twelve, the quality of the resistors are the same and so each TotalDac has a lowly bit depth of only 14 bits yet Vincent's most basic d1-single has a S/N ratio of close to 150 dB meaning even the entry level TotalDac d1-single has greater dynamic measurements than the MSB Diamond DAC V.  The TotalDac monoblocs have a S/N ratio that approaches 160 dB.  With the d1-twelve, the noise floor is so low it is literally unmeasurable by Vincent's equipment and so a S/N ratio cannot be calculated.  Read another way, the d1-twelve is almost pure signal with no noise.  If this is how you wish to measure resolution as MSB would have you believe, then the d1-twelve may well be the highest resolving DAC in the world and the entire TotalDac line outresolves all of the MSB DACs.

What is the practical meaning of all of this?  Well, it's not what most people think.  No one really needs to hear any sound that is more than 120dB.  My comfortable listening levels don't often go beyond 90dB because I value my hearing.   In fact, sound levels of >160dB are known to be lethal.  What is important are the dynamic contrasts of an undistorted signal compared to the noise floor.  Because the noise floor of the TotalDac is so black, the color contrasts are deeper and sharper.  The tone is richer and fuller.  With the TotalDac, you feel like you get punched in the gut from a sound that comes from nowhere.  This to me is the sound signature of all TotalDacs.  From the d1-single to the d1-twelve, it becomes a matter of degree.

@Rob Watts

This is the spec of Chord Dave:

S/N 127db = 21 bit ??
DR 127db

Maximum output voltage: 6 volts RMS
THD and noise at 2.5 volts: RMS 0.000015 %
THD and noise at 2.5 volts: 127dBA Awt (124dBA into 33 ohms)
Dynamic range at -60 dBFS 1kHz -127 dBA A wt

 

[castleofargh]

   

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

  I have been reading a lot of great comments in regards to tonality, staging, backgound blackness etc. My main concern with the TotalDAC DACs are the resolution figures. I have only read speculation in regards to the ENOB and that was from a while ago. Did anyone speak with Vincent meanwhile, or has some more information?

 
This is a good question because we all like to look at hard numbers when we assess equipment but there is also a lot of misunderstanding about what these numbers mean.  There is absolute resolution and some will use ENOB (effective number of bits) as a measure of this and then there are the things that muddy resolution (ie distortion, noise floor, time smearing due to jitter, skew and drift in the sampling rate, etc).  The better DACs handle the latter well and many will argue that overcoming these timing and noise issues are what defines the best DACs.  As for bit depth, I'll let you decide how important this number is.  
 
When it comes to bit depth, MSB is supposed to be the best and they tout this frequently.  The TotalDac utilizes Vishay Foil resistors that many consider among the best resistor there is and Vincent uses the more expensive variety with a minimal tolerance of 0.01%.  While his R2R is a 24 bit ladder, the Vishay Foil 0.01% resistor is limited to only 14 bits.  Many vendors are not honest when they report this but this is the ENOB of the TotalDac, only 14 bits.  The Schiit Yggy reports 21 bit capability.  Most delta sigma DACs including the $150 AQ Dragonfly and my Bricasti M1 claim to be 24 bit DACs.  The MSB Diamond DAC is supposed to be the best at 27 bits of resolution.  Based on this figure, you would think the TotalDac is not a very resolving DAC.  In fact, if you use this as your guide, the $150 Audioquest Dragonfly which uses a 24 bit ESS Sabre chip should resolve better than even the $30,000 TotalDac d1-twelve but our ears will tell us there is more to resolution than bit depth.
 
I will try my best to explain although I also shared this on the Nagra thread. Resolution is important only as far as what a human brain/ear can discern and this is quantified in a variety of ways and not just with bit depth.  One way is a measure called time resolution.  The human brain/ear has the ability to discern variations in sound if it occurs over a time span of 7 microseconds or more.  What this means is if variations of sound (such as 2 instruments playing) occur over a time span <7 microseconds, our ear will not be able to discern or resolve it.  At >7 microseconds, we will know if something is missing.  With Redbook (PCM), sampling occurs at 44kHz which equates to an auditory time resolution of 20.8 microseconds according to studies performed by Meridian, meaning that our ears can clearly tell that information is missing when you listen to a CD.  Those of us who have compared CD to vinyl, for example, know very well this is true.  At 96 kHz sampling, the auditory time resolution improves to 10.4 seconds which is much better but compared to vinyl, our ears will still be able to tell that vinyl is superior. It is only when you boost the sampling rate to 192 kHz that you bring down this auditory time resolution to 5.2 microseconds, finally below the 7 microsecond threshold.    At this sampling rate, your ear should be UNABLE to discern between vinyl and digital when it comes to time resolution.
 
As for bit depth, for music this actually relates more to dynamic range and not true resolution but it will have some bearing on what we perceive as low level resolution.  Dynamic range is the range in volume between the noise floor and maximum volume.  Each bit of data represents 6 dB of dynamic range.  Redbook is recorded in 16 bits = 96 dB.  Analog (vinyl) is recorded at 20 bits = 120 dB.  This is not a linear scale and 16 bits to 20 bits represents a 16x increase in dynamic range.  Again, this is why vinyl can sound more dynamic than CD.  At 24 bits, however, you get a dynamic range of 144 dB and so finally, at this bit level, digital should surpass vinyl when it comes to dynamic range.  
 
Well, if you look at published dynamic range figures, you will see just how well bit depth correlates with actual dynamic range.  The most practical way to measure and compare dynamic range figures is the S/N (signal to noise) ratio even though DR and SNR are not exactly the same thing.  Some companies will report dynamic range numbers (absolute peak values) but more companies will report S/N ratio (average peak values) and most believe this to be the more helpful number.  The $150 AQ Dragonfly DAC which has a 24-bit Sabre chip has a measured S/N ratio of 113 dB while playing a 24 bit digital file.  Remember, at 24 bits you should have a S/N ratio of 144 dB.  The Schiit Yggy with its 21 bit DAC reports a higher S/N ratio of >117 dB.  The MSB Analog reports an impressive S/N ratio of 140 dB.  The much more expensive MSB Diamond DAC V at 27 bits somehow resolves no better than the Analog with a S/N ratio of 140 dB.  Clearly, something is preventing these high-bit DACs from reaching their theoretical potential.  So how does the TotalDac measure?  From the d1-single all the way up to the d1-twelve, the quality of the resistors are the same and so each TotalDac has a lowly bit depth of only 14 bits yet Vincent's most basic d1-single has a S/N ratio of close to 150 dB meaning even the entry level TotalDac d1-single has greater dynamic measurements than the MSB Diamond DAC V.  The TotalDac monoblocs have a S/N ratio that approaches 160 dB.  With the d1-twelve, the noise floor is so low it is literally unmeasurable by Vincent's equipment and so a S/N ratio cannot be calculated.  Read another way, the d1-twelve is almost pure signal with no noise.  If this is how you wish to measure resolution as MSB would have you believe, then the d1-twelve may well be the highest resolving DAC in the world and the entire TotalDac line outresolves all of the MSB DACs.
 
What is the practical meaning of all of this?  Well, it's not what most people think.  No one really needs to hear any sound that is more than 120dB.  My comfortable listening levels don't often go beyond 90dB because I value my hearing.   In fact, sound levels of >160dB are known to be lethal.  What is important are the dynamic contrasts of an undistorted signal compared to the noise floor.  Because the noise floor of the TotalDac is so black, the color contrasts are deeper and sharper.  The tone is richer and fuller.  With the TotalDac, you feel like you get punched in the gut from a sound that comes from nowhere.  This to me is the sound signature of all TotalDacs.  From the d1-single to the d1-twelve, it becomes a matter of degree.

 

if the main point was to say that having 500bits of dynamic from a DAC chip written on the side of a box wasn't relevant to audio quality, then this post does it fine. but you make a few statements that are out of context or down right false.
 
 
about the time resolution,  just to give a sense of what something like 7µs can mean, 50µs is the period of a 20khz frequency, so of course a 16/44 format that cuts everything past 22khz wouldn't bother to collect information about waves that are faster than 22khz. now music still happens to be made of waves and not squarewaves, so a significant change in amplitude that would be as fast as 7µS, that would create an ultrasonic content in the music, not some fancy transient on the first impact of a cymbal that would feel like speed. such ultrasonic content is indeed filtered out in 16/44 so that the audible range is recreated correctly.
so the way you explain the "need for speed 192" (soon in your theater), and using the meridian lolz numbers, is making amalgams as good as saying you can hear 140khz or something like that(7µs period).
because you can't talk about speed as frequence resolution only when it's convenient to show how highres is better, I believe we should not do that at all, but if we do we must do it all the way. on a side note, I believe you must have misplaced something. 20.8µS just so happens to be the period of a 48khz frequency, not 44khz.
 with that said, because you wouldn't filter 40khz content when playing a 96khz file, you do get some faster content on the track, it is true. just like it's true that content is ultrasonic and poor guy castleofargh can't hear past 16.5khz(and going down with the years).
 
192khz to equate time resolution of a vinyl? aren't you conveniently forgetting wow and flutter? ^_^
 
about vinyls recorded at 20bit and how that's why vinyl can sound more dynamic, how about the effective resolution of using a vinyl? as in the sound going out of a turntable and the funny SNR and distortions it gives? no more 20bit out there I tell you that. or simply mention how most masters on vinyls must be limited in dynamic as to avoid having the needle jumping out of the groove on too big amplitudes at certain frequencies. 
it is false in so many ways to say that a vinyl has more dynamic or effective bits than a CD. it could be true if we stopped at pressing a perfect vinyl and then looked at it with an optical gear instead of a needle. in practice the vinyl that feels more dynamic will most likely have a master of about 30 or 35db of actual dynamic. CDs rarelly go over 60/65db even on the most dynamic albums, but it's a mastering choice, not a medium's restriction.
you're clearly mistaking different masters and different supports here, or maybe feeling of dynamic(colored engaging signature) with actual dynamic.
 
 I'll leave your subjective impressions out for others to interpret as they please. I don't know the DACs and feelings are personal. but the science part clearly had some problems.

 

[a1uc]

For headphone use?

Yes and preamp

 

[yellowblue]

http://spl.info/en/products/headphone-amplifier/phonitor-2/overview.html

Thinking of adding this to the d1 dual

I think there are better options for your purpose with the D1 Dual (in combination with HD800) as EC Balancing Act or Audio-GD Master 9. And yes, I know the Phonitor 2.

 

[a1uc]

  I think there are better options for your purpose with the D1 Dual (in combination with HD800) as EC Balancing Act or Audio-GD Master 9. And yes, I know the Phonitor 2.

I have a WA22 Woo with upgraded tubes and jupiter cap upgrade also , here is the issue I want to to have my mono blocks and my headphones using the D1 XLR's , so I will need to have a preamp in the mix 
 
I was just going to use my WA22 and my Sony HAP for head phones and leave the D1 for 2 ch direct to my mono blocks

 

[Articnoise]

 

 

Can you provide some source to the 120 dB on vinyl?

 

I have learned that vinyl (LP) has the equivalent of max 14 bits resolution, but that the bits aren’t equally spread out across the frequency spectrum as in digital. In digital, if I have not misunderstood it, they are equally divided from sub bass to high treble and on vinyl there is more resolution in the midrange their circa 80 % of the music information are to be fund. If this is correct vinyl can in reality, then playing music, be more resolving even if the bits and dynamic numbers then looking strictly at measurements doesn’t show it.     

 

[romaz]

Excellent debate!  Hopefully, it leads to discovery of truth for each of us.
 
Quote:

 

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

 

 
about the time resolution,  just to give a sense of what something like 7µs can mean, 50µs is the period of a 20khz frequency, so of course a 16/44 format that cuts everything past 22khz wouldn't bother to collect information about waves that are faster than 22khz...but the science part clearly had some problems.

 
Sorry, it's hard to completely understand what you've said but I believe you misunderstand what auditory time resolution is because it has nothing to do with our auditory frequency spectrum (20-20k Hz) or anything beyond 20kHz.  It merely describes the time interval by which we can discern 2 sounds.  If 2 sounds occur 10 µs apart, our ears can probably discern it.  If 2 sounds occur 5 µs apart, our ears probably won't be able to discern the 2 sounds.  That's it.
 
 

 

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

 

so the way you explain the "need for speed 192" (soon in your theater), and using the meridian lolz numbers, is making amalgams as good as saying you can hear 140khz or something like that(7µs period).
 
because you can't talk about speed as frequence resolution only when it's convenient to show how highres is better, I believe we should not do that at all, but if we do we must do it all the way. on a side note, I believe you must have misplaced something. 20.8µS just so happens to be the period of a 48khz frequency, not 44khz.
 

 
You misunderstand the practical significance of oversampling.  Yes, it increases bandwidth beyond 20kHz which serves us no purpose as we cannot hear any sound beyond 20kHz but oversampling also serves to increase time resolution and this is why oversampling is done.  At 44.1 kHz (CD quality), a sample is taken every 22.7 µs.  I had quoted a value of 20.8 µs and you are astute to have realized that this is the sampling frequency for 48 kHz and so thank you for the correction.  At 96 kHz, the sampling time is 10.4 µs as I previously stated.  At 192 kHz, the sampling time improves to 5.2 µs.  Our auditory system can react very quickly to frequency changes, in the order of 5-10 µs although the literature frequently cites 7µs.  192 kHz was never an arbitrary target but a very strategic one based on this information.  What is a curiosity to me is the DXD standard which oversamples at a rate of 384 kHz.  Someone has to explain the logic of this one to me.
 

 

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

 

music still happens to be made of waves and not squarewaves, so a significant change in amplitude that would be as fast as 7µS, that would create an ultrasonic content in the music, not some fancy transient on the first impact of a cymbal that would feel like speed. 

 
Again, I believe you misunderstand the practical significance of time resolution based on this statement.  The amplitude of a sound wave results in volume and the frequency of a sound wave is what determines pitch.  The rate of change of both the amplitude and frequency is time resolution.  If a cymbal is hit, the leading edge of that sound hits our ear first and the signal that follows helps us to determine the direction and distance of the sound.  It is this 3D quality that oversampling hopes to achieve.
 
 

 

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

 

 
192khz to equate time resolution of a vinyl? aren't you conveniently forgetting wow and flutter? ^_^
 
 

 
You're right.  Analog media has its issues including wow and flutter in the same way that digital systems have to deal with jitter but this doesn't impact time resolution.  Again, you are misunderstanding what time resolution is.  There is no need to oversample a record because it has no gaps of information.  With digital, you oversample to fill in the gaps.
 

 

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

 

 
about vinyls recorded at 20bit and how that's why vinyl can sound more dynamic, how about the effective resolution of using a vinyl? as in the sound going out of a turntable and the funny SNR and distortions it gives? no more 20bit out there I tell you that. or simply mention how most masters on vinyls must be limited in dynamic as to avoid having the needle jumping out of the groove on too big amplitudes at certain frequencies. 

 
Sure, I agree with you here and these are the most valid points in your entire response. I am not trying to make any statement about which format is superior, only to say that analog is often a reference point of comparison.  Since the 1970s, most vinyl mastering has been done with digital delay lines instead of analog delays on the signal going to the lathe that cuts the spiral groove so even if the recording, mixing and mastering was done using analog gear, at some point, A/D conversion has to take place and most A/D converters are 20 bit.  That is where the 20-bit figure is derived.  What happens after that is dependent on many factors including the quality of the turntable, tonearm, etc. just as you've stated and yes, the effective dynamic range is likely to be less than 20 bit.  However, I have heard implementations where digital has been compared side by side to analog using a 16/44 file against the identical track on vinyl and to all in the room, the vinyl presentation was considerably more dynamic.
 
 

 

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

 

poor guy castleofargh can't hear past 16.5khz(and going down with the years.
 

 
Don't feel bad about this one, you just have to look at it from a different perspective.  If you look at it from the standpoint of octaves, 20-20,000 Hz represents 10 octaves.  From 10,000-20,000 Hz is 1 octave.  At 16.5 Khz, you stil can hear 96.5% of the audible frequency spectrum.  That's not so bad 

.
 

 

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

 

 
 I'll leave your subjective impressions out for others to interpret as they please. I don't know the DACs and feelings are personal. but the science part clearly had some problems.

 
Sorry, but my statements above are not subjective but I agree with you, selecting a DAC or any piece of audio equipment is personal.

 

[romaz]

   
I have been looking for the correlation between resolution and DR. Based on the below indeed it appears the resolution is actually directly related to both DR and noise.
 
This is for an ADC circuit: 
Effective resolution = log2 [full-scale input voltage range/ADC RMS noise]
(https://www.maximintegrated.com/en/app-notes/index.mvp/id/5384)
 
If we extrapolate to a DAC then the variables are full-output voltage range (DR) and noise. It is at least interesting how TotalDAC gets those DR figures as shouldn't then the ENOB figure be flying through the roof? This is where things become quite unclear to me in regards to TotalDACs: how is it possible to have 155-160dBfs DR and 14 bits at the same time? Is there something else we should know.
 
As in your example: Analog (vinyl) is recorded at 20 bits = 120 dB (the theoretical/ideal maximum). That is the same formula, which gives: 1 bit = 6dB. The D1 should have 26 bits of resolution. Why is the ENOB so low then (or how can the DR be so high)?
 
Regardless. At budgets exceeding 10K, I would expect excellent performance in all respects (for the respective budget): both great objectively measured performance AND to sound really great. As I couldn't more useful info than that one graph on the Total DAC website - have any reviewers (like Stereophile) or independent ones actually measured their DACs?

 
You are right and I was questioning this myself as I was writing my response to you.  It is understandable that inefficiencies will often lead to an imperfect yield and so for 24-bit not to exactly yield 144 dB is not completely surprising.  My comment on the Vishay Foil resistor at 0.01% tolerance being limited to 14 bits of resolution is based on information from the internet and did not come from Vincent.  Apparently, I took this information out of context and the TotalDac is not a 14-bit DAC.  Here is Vincent's response from earlier today:
 
"0.01% giving 14bit dynamic is simply completely wrong. Ok maybe it limits one maximum amplitude sine wave to 14 bit resolution, so a bit under 0.01% distorsion, which is lower than any speaker and microphone, but dynamic is competely different.
Dynamic is the ability to make high signal with low distorsion (like 0.01%) as well as much lower amplitude signals still with low distorsion. The DAC is completely able to do that, the measurements prove it too.
The dynamic being limited to 14 bit is 100% wrong, else how could it produce a -100dBFs signal with a low noise and distorsion. A 14bit DAC would be completly unable to do that."
 
I aksed Vincent in follow up what the actual bit-depth of the TotalDac is although I have not received a response yet.  As for the accuracy of his measurements, he stands by them and here is the response from his website:
 

Guarantee by noise floor measurement publication

The noise floor measurement is given in the web site. The measurement can be done again with the customer in Totaldac lab, you can also bring another DAC for a direct comparison.
The noise floor measurement is not so often shown by high end DAC manufacturers.
 
This guarantee statement is consistent with what I know about Vincent, that he is a person of integrity.  As I have the monobloc in my possession for evaluation, my impression remains that this is the quietest DAC I have ever heard and I am not alone.  If you look at Steve Plaskin's review of the TotalDac d1-monobloc on  AudioStream from 20-May-2014, he writes:  
 
"The d1-monobloc is, by far, the quietest DAC I have ever heard. I have spoken of DACs with exceptional black backgrounds, but the d1-monobloc goes beyond that. It allows transient detail to emerge from a black-velvet background with stunning reproduction of micro dynamic detail.
 
The Totaldac d1-monobloc with server is no doubt, the finest DAC I have yet had the good fortune to experience."

 

[romaz]

 
I am no EE engineer but I think this is all about what figures you're looking at. These SNR plots are time averaged, aren't they? If so, with a 24 bit ladder array and proper noise shaping / dithering, I don't see what is so funky about the figures Vincent is getting.
 
That is unless this degree in Harward I am missing is preventing me to understand the facts 

 

 
Some CD players have measured dynamic ranges of 120 dB (even though in theory they should be limited to 96 dB) and this is because of dithering techniques.  Is that how the TotalDac does it, I'm not sure and I don't think so?  I am still awaiting Vincent's response regarding the true bit depth of his DAC but if his S/N ratio measurements are accurate (and as his website states, you're welcome to come to his shop and see for yourself and even compare your own DAC), then we already know the effective bitrate of his DACs, it is at least 27 bits for the monobloc.

 

[romaz]

A little ot but how do you guys think the MSB Analog holding up against the Total DAC Balanced , if you have heard them both?

Im only interested in the SQ.

Further to this, Steve Plaskin, reviewer for AudioStream, uses the MSB Analog with Analog Base as his current reference DAC and so he knows it very well.  His only experience with TotalDac products is with the monoblocs, however.  He had indicated in his review on 20-May-2014 that the Totaldac monobloc was the best DAC he had reviewed to date.  Since then, he has reviewed many other fine DACs including the $20k Wavelength Audio Crimson and the $20k Light Harmonic Davinci.  I e-mailed Steve on 30-Sep-2015 to see if his opinion on the TotalDac d1-monobloc as the best DAC he has ever heard has changed.  Here is his response from 1-Oct-2015:
 

1. Steven Plaskin <splaskin@ymail.com>​
2.  
3.  
4. Oct 1 at 5:40 PM

To

1. xxxxxxxxxxxxx​

Hi Roy,   Yes, I still think the TotalDac d1-Mono is pretty amazing and probably the best DAC I have heard to date. This is one huge setup and just as impressive sonically.   Thanks for reading my reviews. Greatly appreciated!   Best regards,   Steve Plaskin

 

[romaz]

  This whole dedicated music server (source as it's call) re-clocker business has got me thinking pretty hard.  Just how much of an improvement can be had?   

 
I share your curiosity about this, Darryl.  I have no explanation for how some of these players exceed both yours and my highly tweaked, purpose-built PC.  All I can say is the proof is in the listening. With the Aurender N10, for example, you will hear it in the first 30 seconds.  If you don't, then your baseline setup is better than mine.
 
With the USB Regen, I believe this is only useful for fixing issues related to the USB signal.  It will not, for example, make a 96k mp3 file sound like anything more than it is but I know that you know this.  I believe there is so much molestation occurring to a file within the PC chassis that something like a USB Regen amounts to nothing more than a band-aid rather than a proper fix.  I have the USB Regen on my TotalDac + Server as we speak and I am barely hearing a difference.  With the Aries on my Bricasti, the difference was significant.
 
The best I can tell you is to call Brian and setup an audition.  I told him you would probably be contacting him.

 

[romaz]

   

Can you provide some source to the 120 dB on vinyl?

 

I have learned that vinyl (LP) has the equivalent of max 14 bits resolution, but that the bits aren’t equally spread out across the frequency spectrum as in digital. In digital, if I have not misunderstood it, they are equally divided from sub bass to high treble and on vinyl there is more resolution in the midrange their circa 80 % of the music information are to be fund. If this is correct vinyl can in reality, then playing music, be more resolving even if the bits and dynamic numbers then looking strictly at measurements doesn’t show it.     

Yes, please read my response to castleofargh.