The Mola Mola Tambaqui DAC

[The Computer Audiophile]

37 minutes ago, Summit said:

All rooms which are not especially made for audio have some issues.

Agree. Even rooms made for audio have issues :~)

 

37 minutes ago, Summit said:

Are you planning to start compensate for room issues by choosing a different DAC 🤩 or what?

 

My only thing is this - how can one be certain they are hearing the DAC, the amp, etc... without knowing the characteristics of the room? More than likely one is hearing the room's effects on the DAC and that doesn't translate to my room, your room, or any other room.

 

It's all good though. This is a fun hobby and as long as we're having fun and enjoying it, that's what counts. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

36 minutes ago, JoeWhip said:

I think you can get a trial of this DAC and if it does not float your boat, can send it back.

This is so important given the current situation and the state of how audio commerce works today. 

[PYP]

40 minutes ago, JoeWhip said:

DACs, like our choices in so many things is very personal. I think you can get a trial of this DAC and if it does not float your boat, can send it back. A friend did just that but I haven’t heard it with COVID. If you can afford it, with the return policy, go for it.

Agree with this approach.  If @fds is in the US, you can get a free demo from the distributor (that is how I proceeded).  Personally, I haven't had a preamp in decades, so didn't do that comparison, but straight to amp sounds much like live music in my system/room.  

 

[barrows]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Agree. Even rooms made for audio have issues :~)

 

 

My only thing is this - how can one be certain they are hearing the DAC, the amp, etc... without knowing the characteristics of the room? More than likely one is hearing the room's effects on the DAC and that doesn't translate to my room, your room, or any other room.

 

It's all good though. This is a fun hobby and as long as we're having fun and enjoying it, that's what counts. 

I would suggest, that in the case of a reviewer making comparisons, the room stays the same and only the DAC(s) change, so the comparison should still be valid as for the difference between the DACs...

In any case, no one shopping for a 5 figure component should rely on third party reports to make a purchase decision, no matter who that third party may be.  I suspect that for most people, a 5 figure component is a considerable investment; one needs to hear the component in question in their own room and system, to have any chance of making a fully informed decision.  DACs at this level are available for in home trials, yes, it might take a little research to find the right dealer for this, but it can be done.

Please do not rely on third party advise when making critical sound quality decisions like this.

[PYP]

14 minutes ago, tarichar said:

The reviewer comments on the sound of this dac vary quite a bit and are all over the map. Some call it transparent, closed down on top, some rich and analogue, etc.  I would take this to mean that it is transparent to the source or sound of your system.

troy

I don't remember reading any comments about being "closed down on top," but I agree that the Tambaqui is transparent (the designer specializes in low distortion/transparent gear) and that differences come down to room/system/ears.

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 minutes ago, barrows said:

I would suggest, that in the case of a reviewer making comparisons, the room stays the same and only the DAC(s) change, so the comparison should still be valid as for the difference between the DACs...

On the surface this sounds like sound logic, however if there are room problems being fed by DAC problems, all bets are off. 

 

Taking it to the extreme, what if I listen to two DACs in my car with the windows down, while driving? Only the DACs change. Yes, this is absurd but what I'm getting at is there's an interaction going on and one can't be certain the causes without knowing the details.  

[PYP]

4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Taking it to the extreme, what if I listen to two DACs in my car with the windows down, while driving? 

Chris,

I think I was driving next to you yesterday.  You were getting some awesome (if somewhat overdone) bass.  

[tarichar]

36 minutes ago, PYP said:

I don't remember reading any comments about being "closed down on top," but I agree that the Tambaqui is transparent (the designer specializes in low distortion/transparent gear) and that differences come down to room/system/ears.

I was over generalizing for the sake of comparison, but here is the review I was thinking of "Like the recently reviewed, and comparatively priced, totaldac d1-tube DAC/Streamer, the Mola Mola reproduced all of the subtle voices on Tom Waits’ “I’m Still Here” from Alice with distinction. Getting back to difference, the totaldac is comparatively more alive sounding, with more sparkle and energy. Pluck has more pluck, strings sing out with more sheen. But the totaldac’s overall presentation is more diffuse as compared to the Tambaqui which is more solid and forceful. That said, the totaldac sounds more spacious, extending further from the speakers in every dimension. I imagine some people might call the totaldac ‘sloppier’ or less precise and I wouldn’t argue the point but I would argue that some people might prefer this kind of presentation." quoted from https://twitteringmachines.com/review-mola-mola-tambaqui-dac/

[PYP]

7 minutes ago, tarichar said:

 Getting back to difference, the totaldac is comparatively more alive sounding, with more sparkle and energy. 

Thanks for the clarification.  That definitely wouldn't be the DAC for my family.  The Tambaqui already has the startle factor (as I think of it) to the point of alarming our crazy kitten.  Not sure what the totaldac would do to him, or us.     

 

All the DACs compared are clearly very, very good.  As we all have said in various ways:  Better is better to you, the listener.  

[tarichar]

16 minutes ago, PYP said:

Thanks for the clarification.  That definitely wouldn't be the DAC for my family.  The Tambaqui already has the startle factor (as I think of it) to the point of alarming our crazy kitten.  Not sure what the totaldac would do to him, or us.     

 

All the DACs compared are clearly very, very good.  As we all have said in various ways:  Better is better to you, the listener.  

Yes, you are right. My only point is that the sound of the Mola is all over the map, suggesting that the dac is transparent and letting the users hear their system and the synergy it creates.  But as another poster said, I wouldn't make my a decision on the dac based on a review, but on how it sounds in my own system.

[Urs]

4 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

On the surface this sounds like sound logic, however if there are room problems being fed by DAC problems, all bets are off. 

 

Taking it to the extreme, what if I listen to two DACs in my car with the windows down, while driving? Only the DACs change. Yes, this is absurd but what I'm getting at is there's an interaction going on and one can't be certain the causes without knowing the details.  

 

This is how I compare DACs or more precisely:
(DAC A + Ethernet Roon Endpoint A) vs. (DAC B + Ethernet Roon Endpoint B)

 

Equipment:

• Benchmark HPA4 Preamp/headphone amp with its remote control
• Sennheiser HD 800S headphones

Preparation:

• create a Roon group, which contains Enpoint A and Endpoint B
• carefully adjust output levels of DAC A and DAC B (if necessary slight usage of the HPA4's input boost function)
• HPA4: activate the two used inputs, deactivate the unused inputs.

Test Procedure:

• Start a test track
• Press "next input" button on HPA4 remote control repeatedly a few times. This loops you through the two active inputs. Purpose is, to blind yourself with regard to the selected input.
• Listen carefully, press next, listen again, decide which sounds better, if you are not sure, press next again, listen, etc. If you have found a preference, check which input is currently active (wich DAC), collect the result.

Repeat above procedure with all tracks on your playlist. 

 

The null hypothesis is:
(DAC A + Ethernet Roon Endpoint A) sounds the same as (DAC B + Ethernet Roon Endpoint B).
The question is, can you reject the null hypothesis? and how significantly?

Of course this is not rocket science, but it helps to avoid biases caused by expectations and room influences. 
 

[fas42]

3 hours ago, tarichar said:

Yes, you are right. My only point is that the sound of the Mola is all over the map, suggesting that the dac is transparent and letting the users hear their system and the synergy it creates.  But as another poster said, I wouldn't make my a decision on the dac based on a review, but on how it sounds in my own system.

 

The sound of a good DAC, and system is "all over the map" - that's because the recording is in control, not the system ... if one wants a uniform layer of makeup over everything, that's fine - but it means that the listening experience is relatively unchanging, recording to recording ... some people prefer to just hear what was captured, 🙂.

[PYP]

21 minutes ago, Urs said:

 

Test Procedure:

• Start a test track
• Press "next input" button on HPA4 remote control repeatedly a few times. This loops you through the two active inputs. Purpose is, to blind yourself with regard to the selected input.
• Listen carefully, press next, listen again, decide which sounds better, if you are not sure, press next again, listen, etc. If you have found a preference, check which input is currently active (wich DAC), collect the result.

Repeat above procedure with all tracks on your playlist. 

 

That is interesting.  My own "method" is to put the new DAC into place and listen for a week.  I'm not saying this practice is better, just that it fits how I listen and evaluate.  If I start to enjoy the new DAC more than my current one, that indicates a positive change.  Since small differences (that is, different, rather than "better") can be attractive in the near term, a week gives me enough time to hear past "different."

[fds]

Still wondering about the use of SMPSs in the Tambaqui (and Chord DAVE). From my understanding, the two-box solution with a sophisticated LPS in a separate housing as offered with the Holo Audio May for example seems to be the much better way to go.

 

Just yesterday I had read the following article:

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/how-to-optimize-digital-streaming-with-optical-fiber/

which again summarizes the issue with SMPSs in the following way:

 

"The dreaded switch-mode power supply (aka SMPS)—the ubiquitous device that powers almost everything from a computer’s internal power supply to streamers, network bridges, routers, NAS’s, external hard drives, switches, fiber media converters, etc.—are very dirty and nasty sources of noise, as they create both low-impedance and high-impedance AC leakage currents, which travel down DC power busses and lines, and ultimately into our DACs. High-impedance leakage currents arising from SMPS are particularly insidious, as they cause increased jitter and clock phase noise."

 

Now what about those hi-impedance leakage currents if the SMPS sits right in the DAC as in the Tambaqui and DAVE. Also dCS seems to use SMPSs in their Bartok. However, measurements, e.g., of the DAVE in Stereophile still look very impressive despite the SMPS sitting directly inside its relatively small case. Any expert opinions on this here?

 

 

 

 

[Matias]

No expert here but your own examples show that implementation matters. A regular SMPS brick for a laptop is very different from one inside a high end DAC such as the ones you mentioned.

[barrows]

6 hours ago, fds said:

Still wondering about the use of SMPSs in the Tambaqui (and Chord DAVE). From my understanding, the two-box solution with a sophisticated LPS in a separate housing as offered with the Holo Audio May for example seems to be the much better way to go.

Look at the measurements for the Tambaqui first:  It is one of the absolute best measuring DACs in the world with no noise on its output.  Then listen to the Tambaqui: it is one of the most effortless, detailed, natural sounding, dynamic, true to timbre DACs you will ever hear.

Your concern regarding the presence of a SMPS is unfounded.  While it is true, that poorly implemented, cheapo wall wart style power supplies can affect sonic performance of audio components negatively (of course so can poorly implemented linear power supplies), with good engineering there is no need to hold onto an irrational fear of SMPS.  When well implemented, SMPS can even offer some advantages over linear power supplies.  And remember the engineer here is Bruno Putzeys, who is a master and designing circuits which are unaffected by high frequency noise (hence his success with class D amplification circuits).

Two of the very best DACs I know of, the Tambaqui and EMM Labs DV2 both use SMPS, and neither suffers any "problems" because of such.  Good engineering solves any inherent SMPS issues in these products.

[yyz]

20 minutes ago, barrows said:

Look at the measurements for the Tambaqui first:  It is one of the absolute best measuring DACs in the world with no noise on its output.  Then listen to the Tambaqui: it is one of the most effortless, detailed, natural sounding, dynamic, true to timbre DACs you will ever hear.

Your concern regarding the presence of a SMPS is unfounded.  While it is true, that poorly implemented, cheapo wall wart style power supplies can affect sonic performance of audio components negatively (of course so can poorly implemented linear power supplies), with good engineering there is no need to hold onto an irrational fear of SMPS.  When well implemented, SMPS can even offer some advantages over linear power supplies.  And remember the engineer here is Bruno Putzeys, who is a master and designing circuits which are unaffected by high frequency noise (hence his success with class D amplification circuits).

Two of the very best DACs I know of, the Tambaqui and EMM Labs DV2 both use SMPS, and neither suffers any "problems" because of such.  Good engineering solves any inherent SMPS issues in these products.

 @Barrows I have the impression you have heard a lot of DACs. Have you heard the Benchmark DAC3 too? If the Tambaqui is a 10/10 in an arbitrary scale where would the DAC3 fit in from your perspective or anyone else who has heard both. 

[barrows]

1 minute ago, yyz said:

 @Barrows I have the impression you have heard a lot of DACs. Have you heard the Benchmark DAC3 too? If the Tambaqui is a 10/10 in an arbitrary scale where would the DAC3 fit in from your perspective or anyone else who has heard both. 

I have not heard the DAC 3.  I have heard the previous Benchmark models and have not been impressed-to me they have sounded like a lot of ESS based DACs: highly resolved with low noise, but lacking in tone and timbral accuracy.  I have also built a number of ESS based DACs, and have experienced that there are ways to get better sound out of them, but few companies (besides Ayre) appear to use the ESS chips in the best ways...

In any case, the Tambaqui is better than any of the ESS based DACs I have heard, including my own DIY efforts.  

 

After many years of listening to a lot of different DACs, and building about a half dozen or so DIY efforts (including a DSC-2, discrete DSD DAC based on Jussi's approach), I have come to the conclusion that there appear to be real advantages to DACs which use discrete conversion methods (as opposed to DAC chips) and DACs which do their conversion to analog on a DSD bit stream (I am not suggesting that such an approach is always the best though...)  DACs like the Tambaqui, EMM labs, Playback Designs, PS audio DS, Holo audio (DSD section), Bricasti (using their discrete DSD section) and others which use a discrete DSD conversion approach often seem to have an advantage to me.  I guess this makes sense from an engineering perspective as well: why use a multi-purpose DAC chip, designed to suit numerous commercial applications, with many unnecessary features (internal DSP), when one can just design a really good, discrete conversion stage, which does exactly what the designer wants it to, without having to adapt one's approach to the various "features" included in the the DAC chips from the major providers (although I do think it may be possible to engineer a really good DSD based DAC using the newish AKM 4499 chip, using its "direct DSD" conversion path, which skips all the onboard DSP of the chip-hopefully the fire at AKM will not cause a shortage of chips for too long).

[yyz]

2 minutes ago, barrows said:

 

Thanks for the info.

 

You should add the non-chip based Rockna (sp?) and AudioByte from the same guys out in Romania.

 

I want to hear the new Luxman DACs (not release yet) that should sound like the new Luxman D-10x SACD player. It has a new chip that is supposed to measure like the Tambaqui and sound like an R2R.

 

The Tambaqui would be incredible in my system since my preamp (Benchmark HPA4)  is even quieter than the this DAC. Need to save some pennies for that. I do not like DAC direct to amp and I also have many sources.

[barrows]

12 minutes ago, yyz said:

You should add the non-chip based Rockna (sp?) and AudioByte from the same guys out in Romania.

Nope, those are PCM DACs, not DSD.  They use multibit R2R conversion schemes which are inherently flawed (although some have learned how to compensate for those flaws adequately in some DACs).

My preference is for conversion stages which operate on single bit streams (DSD) with a discrete conversion approach.

[fas42]

My experience has been that one can extract emotionally satisfying sound out of most finished DAC products, even if their implementation is technically poor - what one has to worry about is surrounding the electrical environment in which they work with a lot of cotton wool, so to speak; pampering the component with absolutely pristine, stable conditions - this minimises all the weaknesses that normally allow the SQ to easily degrade ... of course, the effort to do this may not be worth it; and it will easier and cheaper to simply buy a better engineered unit. However, it's an interesting exercise to prove the point - that in DACs, attention to detail is everything.

[MikeJazz]

19 hours ago, barrows said:

I have not heard the DAC 3.  I have heard the previous Benchmark models and have not been impressed-to me they have sounded like a lot of ESS based DACs: highly resolved with low noise, but lacking in tone and timbral accuracy.  I have also built a number of ESS based DACs, and have experienced that there are ways to get better sound out of them, but few companies (besides Ayre) appear to use the ESS chips in the best ways...

In any case, the Tambaqui is better than any of the ESS based DACs I have heard, including my own DIY efforts.  

 

After many years of listening to a lot of different DACs, and building about a half dozen or so DIY efforts (including a DSC-2, discrete DSD DAC based on Jussi's approach), I have come to the conclusion that there appear to be real advantages to DACs which use discrete conversion methods (as opposed to DAC chips) and DACs which do their conversion to analog on a DSD bit stream (I am not suggesting that such an approach is always the best though...)  DACs like the Tambaqui, EMM labs, Playback Designs, PS audio DS, Holo audio (DSD section), Bricasti (using their discrete DSD section) and others which use a discrete DSD conversion approach often seem to have an advantage to me.  I guess this makes sense from an engineering perspective as well: why use a multi-purpose DAC chip, designed to suit numerous commercial applications, with many unnecessary features (internal DSP), when one can just design a really good, discrete conversion stage, which does exactly what the designer wants it to, without having to adapt one's approach to the various "features" included in the the DAC chips from the major providers (although I do think it may be possible to engineer a really good DSD based DAC using the newish AKM 4499 chip, using its "direct DSD" conversion path, which skips all the onboard DSP of the chip-hopefully the fire at AKM will not cause a shortage of chips for too long).

 

Hi Barrows, how does your DSD-2 compares to the DAC's you mentioned?

Would you say it can get you 80% of the qualities of the other mentioned DSD DAC's or is it much further away?

And is there a clear path to bring a DSD-2 closer, or it just makes sense to go for a complete solution instead of the DIY path?

I agree with you, most ESS implementations sound "accurate" for the first listenings, but lack tone and timbre, and some color "saturation" like the LH Labs dac I have at home (I rarely listen to it).

[fds]

20 hours ago, barrows said:

Look at the measurements for the Tambaqui first:  It is one of the absolute best measuring DACs in the world with no noise on its output.

 

Many thanks, barrows. I have just looked at the Tambaquis measurements which indeed look very impressive. Along with these I have found that the Toping D90 shows measurements that look quite close for less than 1/10 of the price. Maybe it will be worth checking the D90 in the listening room first with PCM->DSD256. Will have to look for a D90 thread now.

[barrows]

2 hours ago, MikeJazz said:

 

Hi Barrows, how does your DSD-2 compares to the DAC's you mentioned?

Would you say it can get you 80% of the qualities of the other mentioned DSD DAC's or is it much further away?

And is there a clear path to bring a DSD-2 closer, or it just makes sense to go for a complete solution instead of the DIY path?

I agree with you, most ESS implementations sound "accurate" for the first listenings, but lack tone and timbre, and some color "saturation" like the LH Labs dac I have at home (I rarely listen to it).

I am not certain as to this comparison right now.  My DSC-2 implementation has never been "perfect", and every implementation is different.  I will say, that the DSC style approach is what I would go with if I were the product development leader on a team trying to produce a new DAC design for commercial purposes.  The question for me is: there are a handful of DSC DAC PCBs available for DIY here and there, but many of them have some "problems", and there are also some measurements for some of these boards, and these measurements also appear to show some "problems" which would really need to be ironed out to make it "perfect".  When one is dealing with DIY, the boards are often developed by hobbyists, who, not being professionals, may not have enough experience and knowledge to produce the best implementation of the DSC concept.  My feeling after listening to a handful of DACs using the DSC style approach, is that this approach may be the one most likely to produce the sound qualities I am looking for, but I am still waiting for a "perfect" implementation to appear for DIY.

So, long story!  My DSC-2 version is still under active development, and does sound really good, but it still has some practical limitations right now, and I am not knowledgable enough on my own to make it "perfect".

 

Right now I am really loving my Bricasti M3...  I use it only via its discrete single bit DSD conversion path, using the M3's onboard analog volume control, and with DSD 256 input only.  I would love to hear a Holo Audio May sometime, but it has no volume control, and does not really have enough output level to use in my system via its DSD path, without a preamp.  I have thoroughly tested the preamp/no preamp situation, and am fully committed to the advantages of going amp direct.  If the May had at least 4 V output with DSD I would give it a shot here with software volume control, but the low output with DSD is just not enough in my system.

[yyz]

1 hour ago, barrows said:

Right now I am really loving my Bricasti M3...  I use it only via its discrete single bit DSD conversion path, using the M3's onboard analog volume control, and with DSD 256 input only.  I would love to hear a Holo Audio May sometime, but it has no volume control, and does not really have enough output level to use in my system via its DSD path, without a preamp.  I have thoroughly tested the preamp/no preamp situation, and am fully committed to the advantages of going amp direct.  If the May had at least 4 V output with DSD I would give it a shot here with software volume control, but the low output with DSD is just not enough in my system.

 

If you get the chance, try the Benchmark LA4 or HPA4 preamp into your chain. They have a 30 day home trial for those people who are curious. I found it was a better sound than direct to amp. It is quiet as the Mola Mola Makua but cost$ 2500. I think it is an incredible component that will help most DACs. It will not make your DAC noisier and likely make you volume control sound better.