The Mola Mola Tambaqui DAC

[matthias]

20 minutes ago, barrows said:

Yeah, not really, there is an important distinction here, the MM DACs are not oversampling by an even multiple of any known sample rate (1x, 2x, 4x, 8x... or 64x), the relationship is entirely asynchronous to the incoming sample rate, so no matter what rate one feeds the MM DAC, there is going to be some fairly laborious maths going on, hence reducing the processing done is not going to happen by much. 

 

And DSD128 and higher gets downsampled (from a sampling rate perspective) to the mentioned lower rate (but PCM 32bit), so there should not be much SQ difference (if any) between PCM and DSD signals feeding the Tambaqui.

 

Matt

[happybob]

1 hour ago, ray-dude said:

There is a whole field of Information Theory devoted to this subject.  See for example:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whittaker–Shannon_interpolation_formula

 

Directly germane to audio, with sinc-based filters used to interpolate values in upsampled music (for example, as used in Chord DACs).  The impact on time-domain accuracy/reproduction is profound.

 

It is not the upsampling that intrinsically improves SQ, but the algorithms and filters used in upsampling that improve SQ.  A high resolution file can sound worse than redbook, or it can sound like the original studio master before it got processed down to redbook.  With the later, things can be magical.

Great clarification you make Ray-dude! And to add to that, here's a great paper/article referenced by Rob Watts on the Chord site that clarifies just why upsampling done correctly is the key to accurate digital to analog restoration of the originally sampled analog signal - and also why it requires a lot of computing power to do (especially in realtime) https://chordelectronics.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/The-theory-behind-M-Scaler-technology.pdf

 

I suspect in a few years, there will be more realtime solutions (based on faster hardware and better software) for doing upsampling correctly/accurately and of course there are already solutions for non-realtime upsampling as your beta software does - even better than the MScaler. 

[barrows]

18 minutes ago, matthias said:

 

And DSD128 and higher gets downsampled (from a sampling rate perspective) to the mentioned lower rate (but PCM 32bit), so there should not be much SQ difference (if any) between PCM and DSD signals feeding the Tambaqui.

 

Matt

Yeah, with the possible exception of true native DSD recordings.  Note that a true native DSD recording does not require an anti alias filter at the input to the A/D converter, and as such avoids all the ringing artifacts that these filters embed into lower rate PCM recordings.  Admittedly these are going to be very small differences, perhaps often inaudible, but they might matter sometimes. 

[Miska]

13 hours ago, Nenon said:

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. 

 

First step up is the one that makes biggest audible difference. So if you get started with 44.1k and output 384k, then the next step from there on has much less audible impact on the sound. One big benefit in the first step comes from use of apodizing filters which allows to fix up some problems caused by downsampling in the original source material.

 

Of course this is still different than doing let's say upsampling from 44.1 kHz to 11.2896 MHz like you would typically do in HQPlayer. Not to mention effect of different modulators. But it is not black and white.

 

[Miska]

14 hours ago, barrows said:

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

 

It depends if you like the digital filter it has or not, I don't know how many different filter options MM DACs offer. For example lot of Chord users still use HQPlayer upsampling.

 

I'm usually changing filter based on type of source material, because I know certain material sounds better with certain filters.

 

[LowOrbit]

13 hours ago, Nenon said:

 

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.

 

 

In regard to the Dave (and other current Chord desktop dacs) feeding in a 16fs signal bypasses the first WTA filter process, but there is further upsampling to a higher rate (11.2mhz), before the data hits the noise shaper which runs at 104mhz. It's not entirely clear to me what bit width is used for these internal stages, but the output is a 5bit format at (logically) 104mhz.

 

 

[skatbelt]

16 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

It depends if you like the digital filter it has or not, I don't know how many different filter options MM DACs offer. For example lot of Chord users still use HQPlayer upsampling.

 

 

I am not one of them. Everything I tried (including HQPlayer and even with redbook material) led to suboptimal results. My suspicion is that if Chord DAC users prefer upsampling before their DAC, it is because they have some kind of phase problem elsewhere in their system that gets somewhat masked with upsampling. Or that they simply prefer a more smeared and rounded sound signature.

[fheller]

I re-verified HQPlayer into MolaMola tambaqui this morning. I sent PCM 384 into the Tamabaqui.

There are simply no improvements I could detect with my ears.

I use HQP since 2015. I still use it with my headphone station DAC. A Teac UD505. Here HQP, together with an external masterclock, is responsible to keep the 505 on the height of other, more modern DACs.

The MolaMola Tambaqui is in my opinion best left alone from upsamplers.

[Miska]

41 minutes ago, skatbelt said:

I am not one of them. Everything I tried (including HQPlayer and even with redbook material) led to suboptimal results. My suspicion is that if Chord DAC users prefer upsampling before their DAC, it is because they have some kind of phase problem elsewhere in their system that gets somewhat masked with upsampling. Or that they simply prefer a more smeared and rounded sound signature.

 

Suboptimal in objective or subjective sense? I mean by measurement results or by listening?

 

I don't think there's a technical way for upsampling to mask phase problems. Most of them use sinc-M filter which is apodizing, but technically takes you beyond the M-Scaler.

 

Or they don't like the trashy messy exaggerated highs that you get with most modern RedBook content without apodizing filters...

 

[skatbelt]

19 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

Suboptimal in objective or subjective sense? I mean by measurement results or by listening?

 

 

In the sense that spatial clues, perceived depth or very small details (for example on stringed instruments) disappear or become less apparent. But yes, to my ears and taste, not by measurements. What I can say objectively is that you have a double hat on in these kinds of discussions.... :)

[Miska]

11 minutes ago, skatbelt said:

What I can say objectively is that you have a double hat on in these kinds of discussions.... :)

 

Sure, it is not a secret and clear to most people reading. I just want to make things clear objective vs subjective. 

 

Digital filters can be categorized in various ways. From objective point of view each have their own properties. There are certain categories of technical problems in lot of RedBook source content that can be fixed with apodizing filters. Digital filter in Chord DAVE is non-apodizing and thus it reproduces the errors/problems in the source content.

 

15 minutes ago, skatbelt said:

In the sense that spatial clues, perceived depth or very small details (for example on stringed instruments) disappear or become less apparent.

 

Now the next question is which musical genres you listen. With classical music you are less exposed to the digital filter effects I'm talking about than with rock/pop or even jazz/blues. Musical genres you listen influence the digital filter preferences, because same filter is not necessarily optimal for all genres.

 

In the sense how clean is for example a cymbal snap, does it have artificial "sheen" around it that makes it sound brighter but more messy? Someone could mistake such for "more detail". These are caused by error components in the source data that are caused by poor decimation filters at the production side and shouldn't be there since they are not in the original analog signal, but instead digital artefacts. Once you learn how the errors sound, you can detect those pretty easily with suitable material.

 

Question is also not so much how good some good recording can sound. But instead how good you can make a bad recording sound. Because latter one is more difficult case.

 

 

Of course everyone has their own preferences regarding digital filters. Different people are sensitive to different aspects of the sound, etc. Nothing wrong with that. Some may even like MQA's upsampling filters... ;)

 

It doesn't mean though that we couldn't also discuss technical aspects.

 

[fheller]

And this is the MolaMola Tambaqui thread.

There are so many HQP threads, that I dont think it is necessary to invade this one here.

[Superdad]

2 hours ago, Miska said:

Question is also not so much how good some good recording can sound. But instead how good you can make a bad recording sound. Because latter one is more difficult case.

+10! 

[barrows]

3 hours ago, Miska said:

In the sense how clean is for example a cymbal snap, does it have artificial "sheen" around it that makes it sound brighter but more messy? Someone could mistake such for "more detail". These are caused by error components in the source data that are caused by poor decimation filters at the production side and shouldn't be there since they are not in the original analog signal, but instead digital artefacts. Once you learn how the errors sound, you can detect those pretty easily with suitable material.

Yes, I find the above spot on...

 

BTW, the digital filter used by Mola Mola is a linear phase filter, with a slightly slow roll off, so if one wants to avoid some aliasing, oversampling in HQPlayer with a sharper filter in software could help...

 

 

[all300b]

Nice. Barrows - can you comment on the sound of the Mola Mola versus the Bricasti M3? Same general league or is mola mola in its own universe? Thanks! I have the Bricasti on my radar. 

[barrows]

7 minutes ago, all300b said:

Nice. Barrows - can you comment on the sound of the Mola Mola versus the Bricasti M3? Same general league or is mola mola in its own universe? Thanks! I have the Bricasti on my radar. 

I have not directly compared these two, so cannot reliably comment except to say that I do not think Mola Mola is in it's own universe...  Keep in mind, I only use my M3 with DSD 256 input from HQPlayer as well, so it is benefitting from very high quality oversampling in software.

[Matias]

Has anyone compared the Mola Mola DAC to the higher end models from dCS like Rossini and Vivaldi (with or without clocks, upsamplings, etc)? Same ballpark, or is one of them in its own universe too?

[all300b]

Would it be possible to message you directly? Wanted to ask about Rendu and Bricasti - thinking of making a new purchase. The Rendu line is a bit complicated to figure out.

 

[barrows]

1 hour ago, all300b said:

Would it be possible to message you directly? Wanted to ask about Rendu and Bricasti - thinking of making a new purchase. The Rendu line is a bit complicated to figure out.

 

Sure, I am happy to respond to questions via PM here, or for questions directly related to Sonore products you can e-mail me at my work e-mail: [email protected]

[edwardsean]

Can anyone shed some more light on the quality of the integrated headphone amp?

 

I am looking at the Tambaqui but I would be using it primarily with headphones, and so the Bartók is also in the mix. 
 

Also, can the Tambaqui play files directly from a USB drive?

[PYP]

5 hours ago, edwardsean said:

Can anyone shed some more light on the quality of the integrated headphone amp?

 

I am looking at the Tambaqui but I would be using it primarily with headphones, and so the Bartók is also in the mix. 
 

Also, can the Tambaqui play files directly from a USB drive?

review using headphones:  https://www.audiokeyreviews.com/summary-blog/mola-mola-tambaqui

 

[Matias]

New review by hifi-advice:

https://www.hifi-advice.com/blog/review/digital-reviews/network-player-reviews/mola-mola-tambaqui/

[PYP]

3 hours ago, Matias said:

New review by hifi-advice:

https://www.hifi-advice.com/blog/review/digital-reviews/network-player-reviews/mola-mola-tambaqui/

Very clearly written review.  I would just add that if you are connecting a Tambaqui directly to Mola Mola Kalugas, the 6v output level is fine and the other choices don't change the sound, just require a higher (that is, less attenuation) volume level.  

 

Also, if you aren't using a streamer before the Tambaqui (and perhaps even if you do), the UpTone etherREGEN cleans up the signal and therefore improves the sound.  I've been experimenting with the eR and have found, as many others, that adding an external clock (with its own quality LPS) makes a significant, positive difference.  In my setup, adding a second eR made an even greater contribution, especially to density/solidity as well as an ease that just places you in the venue.   Perhaps an excellent preamp provides the same qualities.  

 

I've never heard the Aqua, and don't doubt the reviewer, but if it is has greater PRAT than the Tambaqui that must be a truly lively sound!

 

[edwardsean]

I currently have a fairly well sorted upscaling Dave-based system: custom server running Euphony, optical to Innuos Phoenix, Sablon USB, SynRes Atmosphere L3 power cable, all top-tier LPS including Sean Jacobs retrofitted into the Dave. But, of course, I still have, the itch. 

 

I've been looking for a head on comparison between a good Dave+MS system and the Tambaqui esp. in relation to headphone output. I'm finding the information sparse. I would count on Darko, but he went to Tambaqui vs. Bartok, somewhat dismissing the Dave from entry. 

 

I'm not looking to start a war (not exactly true), but anyone with some experience of both care to comment?

[PYP]

17 minutes ago, edwardsean said:

I've been looking for a head on comparison between a good Dave+MS system and the Tambaqui esp. in relation to headphone output. I'm finding the information sparse. I would count on Darko, but he went to Tambaqui vs. Bartok, somewhat dismissing the Dave from entry. 

Why not get an in-home demo and decide for yourself? contact Bill Parish:   https://gttaudio.com/