Jump to content
IGNORED

The Mola Mola Tambaqui DAC


Recommended Posts

Here’s a description, particularly at the beginning and very end of the video, of the difference between using the Tambaqui directly into your amplifier and using a preamp.  In my experience if you’re seeking the best possible sound and can afford the investment a good preamp will make a big, positive difference.

 

 

Link to comment

Joel Chevassus, who used to contribute to 6moons and now has his own website, reviewed the Tambaqi a year ago  (here, in French:https://audiophile-magazine.com/audiophile-magazine-n1-mars-2020/)  and noted one point which I am very curious about.

 

He states that he was hard pressed to find differences between CD quality (16/44) and higher resolution formats (DSD, or others), concluding "c'est assez incroyable" ("it's pretty amazing").

 

I don't know if he actually compared the same track (with the same mastering) in various formats. But regardless, I was wondering what current users of the Tambaqi have to say about this.

 

Thanks.

Link to comment

Personally, I always prefer DAC direct to my active speakers, of course, as long as the DAC provides a good enough volume control.
I thought Tambaqui provided a decent volume control.

mevdinc.com (My autobiography)
Recently sold my ATC EL 150 Actives!

Link to comment

Has any Tambaqui owner or dealer found a particular "sweet spot" with this dac; meaning, if one uses an upsampling engine like HQPlayer or an offline upsampler (or even serendipitously found a 24/xxx recording) does the Tambaqui seem to like certain sampling rates over others?  If so, maybe Miska's comments (albeit a bit biased as the developer of HQP) about sending this dac the highest PCM you can has some merit?   Same goes for DSD files....thx

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Miska said:

Mola-Mola DACs convert DSD inputs to PCM. So if you use HQPlayer with those, it is best to always send highest possible rate PCM there and never DSD. (similar way as with Chord DACs)

 

Does anyone know to what PCM rate Mola-Mola DACs convert to internally? Thank you! 

Industry disclosure:
https://chicagohifi.com

Dealer for: Taiko Audio, Conrad Johnson, Audio Mirror, and Sean Jacobs

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Nenon said:

 

Does anyone know to what PCM rate Mola-Mola DACs convert to internally? Thank you! 

A very high rate:

 

https://www.mola-mola.nl/dac.php

 

And then much higher even before the final 32 element discrete FIR filter converter.  Let's remember that in the case of Mr. Putzeys, we are dealing with someone who has loads of experience in SD modulator design, and the maths behind it.  This DAC also has more processing power than most, using 3 AD SHARC DSP chips.  Given how good it sounds with native rate files, it makes me wonder if this might be one of a very few DACs which might not benefit from external oversampling via HQPlayer-no matter what the user does, the Tambaqui's ASRC will be active and will be applying its internal SD modulation, volume control, and oversampling.

It would be interesting, if it were possible, to find out what the DAC converter section and output stage alone might sound like, but I doubt there are any owners who might want to hack their Tamabaqui to try this with HQPlayer feeding straight into the converter section! 

SO/ROON/HQPe: DSD 512-Sonore opticalModuleDeluxe-Signature Rendu optical with Well Tempered Clock--DIY DSC-2 DAC with SC Pure Clock--DIY Purifi Amplifier-Focus Audio FS888 speakers-JL E 112 sub-Nordost Tyr USB, DIY EventHorizon AC cables, Iconoclast XLR & speaker cables, Synergistic Purple Fuses, Spacetime system clarifiers.  ISOAcoustics Oreas footers.                                                       

                                                                                           SONORE computer audio

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, matthias said:

Asynchronous upsampling to 3.125MHz/32 bit.

 

Thank you.

 

So it's upsampling internally to 3.125MHz (I guess that's 64fs) but it is accepting only PCM up to 384kHz/32 bits (i.e. 8 fs). 

That is different than the Chord DAVE where we know that by sending 16fs signal we bypass the internal upsampling. That bypassing of the internal upsampling on the DAVE is known to reduce the power consumption on it's digital section power supply (almost) in half and results in much lower noise.

 

It seems like heavy upsampling on the Mola-mola is a major part of its design and cannot be bypassed completely. There is a chance that sending the max 384kHz rate would reduce the processing by a fraction. But in that case we would be trading a fraction of less processing in the DAC for more real time processing on the server side. In other words, hard to predict what would sound better. 

 

Industry disclosure:
https://chicagohifi.com

Dealer for: Taiko Audio, Conrad Johnson, Audio Mirror, and Sean Jacobs

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Nenon said:

But in that case we would be trading a fraction of less processing in the DAC for more real time processing on the server side. In other words, hard to predict what would sound better. 

 

Interesting topic.

Grimm Audio for example claim that all DACs benefit from the upsampling to 176kHz in their server.

 

Matt

"I want to know why the musicians are on stage, not where". (John Farlowe)

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, barrows said:

A very high rate:

 

https://www.mola-mola.nl/dac.php

 

And then much higher even before the final 32 element discrete FIR filter converter.  Let's remember that in the case of Mr. Putzeys, we are dealing with someone who has loads of experience in SD modulator design, and the maths behind it.  This DAC also has more processing power than most, using 3 AD SHARC DSP chips.  Given how good it sounds with native rate files, it makes me wonder if this might be one of a very few DACs which might not benefit from external oversampling via HQPlayer-no matter what the user does, the Tambaqui's ASRC will be active and will be applying its internal SD modulation, volume control, and oversampling.

It would be interesting, if it were possible, to find out what the DAC converter section and output stage alone might sound like, but I doubt there are any owners who might want to hack their Tamabaqui to try this with HQPlayer feeding straight into the converter section! 

 

Sorry to ask a very basic question, that others may be curious about as well, but in layman's terms, what is the theoretical benefit of oversampling? 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I don’t think it’s theoretical. It’s objectively measurable. 

 

Ok, but I am just curious to understand. I'm not trying to challenge anything here,or derail the conversation, which in fact I initiated when mentioning J. Chevassus' comments above. 

Link to comment

Sharing some further experience.
 

I have recently sold my Taiko modified T+A DAC8 DSD which I pitted favourably (when the T+A was fed DSD from HQPlayer) against the Tambaqui.  
 

Reason for the sale?  I have managed to work some magic on a Chord qutest through multiple stages of filtering so that IMO the qutest now sounds better than the T+A and the Tambaqui (please note that I am still awaiting a good passive volume control to go with this, and your source needs to be as good as one of @Nenon server builds to achieve this).

 

I think the comment @ray-dude made - don't let anything get in the way of Chord DAC's otherwise the magic is gone.  This is 100% true.


First config:

JCAT USB XE (Powered by Teddy Pardo) -> Sablon USB -> qutest.  Nothing really amazing to write home about, sounds very good, but I wouldn't part with the T+A based on this as it is a few steps behind and it sounds like a £1000 DAC.

 

My present configuration that resulted in the sale of the T+A is:

 

JCAT USB XE (Powered by Teddy Pardo, 5v @ 3A  - qutest set to 2v output so as not to overload)

1st USB port: Sablon USB -> Matrix Audio x-spdif 2 -> Altas Mavros Optical -> qutest

2nd USB port: 5v power to the qutest via micro-usb cable


Thanks to Ray-Dude for the recommendation of the x-spdif 2.

 

This configuration is really stunning - but it all has to be top class gear otherwise the magic is lost (the only compromise that can be made is the toslink cable - a cheaper glass one would probably be fine).

 

But think about it, you've got a very good linear power supply, then feeding the JCAT which has a further set of LT3045 linear regulators - so effectively the x-spdif 2 and the qutest are now receiving double regulated power which everyone talks about in such high regard.

 

The x-spdif 2 then has further filtering inside it and it also has good clocks.

 

The optical cable also removes any emi/rf from getting into the DAC.

 

These are the same tricks that people are doing with multiple network switches.  In the above case we're getting double regulation and double clocking.

 

How does it sound - noticeably more lifelike and dynamic than the T+A and with more detail retrieval.  Tonal quality is superb.  I also prefer it over the Mola Mola and definately over the DAVE in stock form.  I never thought I would say that. 

 

Would be interesting to try a TT2 or DAVE with this config.  Next step is a pink faun spdif card so if if this can replace/match/beat the aforementioned chain.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, hopkins said:

 

Ok, but I am just curious to understand. I'm not trying to challenge anything here,or derail the conversation, which in fact I initiated when mentioning J. Chevassus' comments above. 


I totally understand your intention :~)

 

from Wikipedia:

 

Oversampling is capable of improving resolutionand signal-to-noise ratio, and can be helpful in avoiding aliasing and phase distortion by relaxing anti-aliasing filter performance requirements.”

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oversampling

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment

To followup, this is sometimes easier to (literally) see if you look at image processing.  There are different ways to upsample an image, all of which have pluses and minuses:

 

https://clouard.users.greyc.fr/Pantheon/experiments/rescaling/index-en.html

 

Same is true with audio.

 

The nasty wrinkle here is that these algorithms work in reverse when down sampling.  When that DXD master file (24 bit 352kHz) gets processed to generation the CD quality file you stream or buy, depending on how that is done, there would be irreversible damage done to the original digital information.  As much care needs to be taken when downsampling as upsampling.  Net net is that upsampling sometimes brings magic, sometimes is "eh", depending on what happened to the digital file WAY before it got to you.  Different filters end up working with different albums because of this.

 

With the above link, it some some image down sampling without various filters.  You can visually see what the filters are doing to the original.

 

Not a perfect analogy, but gives a sense about why all upsampling isn't the same (or all downsampling)

ATT Fiber -> EdgeRouter X SFP -> Taiko Audio Extreme -> Vinnie Rossi L2i-SE w/ Level 2 DAC -> Voxativ 9.87 speakers w/ 4D drivers

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...