The Mola Mola Tambaqui DAC

[firedog]

1 hour ago, mevdinc said:

I am aware of Makua with internal DAC option but I'd rather it is the other way around i.e a fully pledged DAC with a builtin preamp and streamer; an all-in-one DAC.  I just need a decent volume control and one analog input with the preamp.
Plus from Chris's reaction, Linn's new in-house DAC chip maybe much better, that's why it would be interesting to compare the two systems. Maybe Chris will do it. :)

I think you are making a false distinction here. The Tambaqui is a DAC with a volume control. It's a digital volume control for the DAC board. 

The Makua is more of a traditional preamp which also functions as a DAC by incorporating the same DAC board as the Tambaqui.

I don't see how one is a "fully fledged DAC" and the other isn't. In DAC terms they are the same. In terms of type of volume control they aren't. In terms of ins and outs the Makua is far advanced. 

[barrows]

31 minutes ago, hopkins said:

 

This reasoning could be applied to the Tambaqi as well. Get a 2000$ DAC and spend the 10000 $ on speakers instead... 

 

I respectfully disagree:  the Tambaqui (yes I have listened to it) offers a sound quality that is miles beyond that which is available at $2K.  These discrete solutions, when paired with a good output stage and oversampling code, offer s sound quality that chip based DACs cannot seem to approach.  The difference is enough that I would term it a paradigm shift.  Now one DAC which I have not heard, which is a bit more affordable, and which I suspect would be in the same league, is the new T+A 200 series DAC-that gets one into the 4 figure realm and saves even more cash for speaker upgrades.  

[mevdinc]

1 hour ago, barrows said:

ummm, what would make you think that?  The new Linn uses a very similar approach as the Tambaqui for its conversion stage: Discrete multi element high speed switches converting a highly oversampled data stream.  This approach is also very similar to the DSD converters in the Holo DACs and the T+A DACs.  In the Tambaqui and Linn the DACs use powerful DSP chips (an FPGA for Linn and multiple AD SHARC processors in the Tambaqui) to oversample all incoming data rates to very high MHZ rates for the conversion stage.  Essentially, the conversion approaches are very close in these two DACs, and the differences will be more about which one has the better oversampling and modulation approaches and output stage design.  Notably the Tambaqui uses a fully discrete output stage, where the Linn uses IC opamps for its output stage.  Bruno Putzeys (Tambaqui designer) has proven in the past that he is capable of designing discrete analog stages which outperform IC opamp based versions.

Your speculation that the Linn "maybe much better" is based on nothing?  To my knowledge Chris has had no significant experience with the Tambaqui.

To be clear-there is no really "new" tech in the Linn, as it uses an approach already well known-it is just new to Linn, who used to rely solely on integrated circuit DAC chips until now.

I expect the Linn sounds fantastic, I have not heard it yet, I know the Tambaqui is fantastic, and I have heard other DACs which use similar approaches (I have a DSC-2 DAC here which is a 32 element single bit discrete converter for use with HQPlayer oversampling as opposed to having an oversampling engine built into the DAC).  Of course at nearly 3x the price of the Tambaqui, the question remains whether it would be worth that much money to most users?  Personally, I expect the better value proposition would be the Tambaqui (or Makua for those who might want an analog input) and then spend the savings over the Linn on that much better loudspeakers; +$20K will get one some much better speakers!

I did say 'maybe much better', obviously Tambaqui is a great DAC no doubt but I don't understand people's reactions to my reasonable comments. I did also state that Linn DAC was much more expensive, which of course, doesn't make it better sounding.
Still, it's a simple thing I wished for, which is a comparison between two great DACs.

[mevdinc]

43 minutes ago, PYP said:

According to Mola-Mola website, the Tambaqui has a "lossless digital volume control" and in the Makua "The relay-based volume control directly controls the gain of the output stage."

I don't understand why everyone's defending Tambaqui, I am not even saying anything negative against it, on the contrary, I believe it's a great DAC and I did consider purchasing it myself.. I didn't even say anything against its digital lossless volume control either, I just said it lacks analog input ( Added: that's why I am now also considering T+A DAC-200).
I simply wished that @ted_bcould compare the two DACs, that's it.
 

[barrows]

5 minutes ago, mevdinc said:

I simply wished that @ted_bcould compare the two DACs, that's it.

Agreed that it would be an interesting comparison.  My main point was to make sure readers understood that the actual technology used for the conversion stage with these two DACs is very, very similar: a discrete multi element converter with a very highly oversampled input.  Hence my feeling that it is a bit of a reach to speculate that the Linn could be "maybe much better".  In fact, having listened to the Tambaqui, I highly doubt that any DAC could be "much better" regardless of price or implementation.

[PYP]

56 minutes ago, mevdinc said:

I don't understand why everyone's defending Tambaqui, I am not even saying anything negative against it, on the contrary, I believe it's a great DAC and I did consider purchasing it myself.. I didn't even say anything against its digital lossless volume control either, I just said it lacks analog input ( Added: that's why I am now also considering T+A DAC-200).
I simply wished that @ted_bcould compare the two DACs, that's it.
 

I was a bit unclear.  My only point was that the kinds of volume controls are different in the Tambaqui and Makua and that you might want to consider that when you consider what you need and want.  @firedog says it more clearly above.  

 

Folks like what they like, which is fine with me.  That is what this hobby is about.  I think reactions begin when we talk about "better."  The better one is the one you prefer and can afford, therefore comparisons that someone else has done hasn't been helpful to me in my choice of equipment.  I need to get the gear into my own system and have a while to listen.  The exception is a reviewer who hears it the way you do.  If they review something you already own and what they write resonates with you, you might want to pay attention to their other reviews.  Same applies to non-professional reviewers (some posters on this site) or friends.    

[ted_b]

6 hours ago, PYP said:

I need to get the gear into my own system and have a while to listen.  The exception is a reviewer who hears it the way you do.  If they review something you already own and what they write resonates with you, you might want to pay attention to their other reviews.  Same applies to non-professional reviewers (some posters on this site) or friends.    

+1    And the opposite can be true, that is, to find a reviewer who loves stuff that you've heard and can't believe anyone would like, regardless of price. 

 

I try not to tell readers what is best, or what they should choose, I only tell them what I think is best.  But this quest for musical enjoyment not only follows different roads, even the same roads offer different challenges to each of us.  So all I can do is compare what is in my own perspective.  And that's all I want from others' experiences, too.

 

Back on topic for a minute, the Tambaqui is a wonderful component if, for no other reason, than it never fails to impress night after night.  There seems to be no normalizing when one hears great music.  👍

[craighartley]

2 hours ago, ted_b said:

 

Back on topic for a minute, the Tambaqui is a wonderful component if, for no other reason, than it never fails to impress night after night.  👍

Except with DXD files. I know you’ve touched on this in a previous post, but I’ve bought 146 DXD downloads, at considerable expense, and the DAC is tripped up by at least 10% of them, so it seems to me that a rider always has to be added when discussing its performance.
It impresses immensely on other formats. 

[barrows]

@craighartley, have you addressed this issue to Mola Mola?  Does this issue occur via USB and Ethernet inputs?  In either case, it is likely that Mola Mola could address this issue via a firmware update.  It is curious that it does not happen with all files at that rate, makes me suspect that something might be unusual in terms of file formatting with the files which do not play properly.

[ted_b]

4 minutes ago, barrows said:

@craighartley, have you addressed this issue to Mola Mola?  Does this issue occur via USB and Ethernet inputs?  In either case, it is likely that Mola Mola could address this issue via a firmware update.  It is curious that it does not happen with all files at that rate, makes me suspect that something might be unusual in terms of file formatting with the files which do not play properly.

Although I am not Craig I confirmed this noise with a few of his files.  Craig says Mola Mola techs are aware, can replicate, see the noise and planned to do a firmware update, but it's been awhile.  I was not aware that it's anything close to 10% though. 

[ecwl]

17 hours ago, barrows said:

Agreed that it would be an interesting comparison.  My main point was to make sure readers understood that the actual technology used for the conversion stage with these two DACs is very, very similar: a discrete multi element converter with a very highly oversampled input.  Hence my feeling that it is a bit of a reach to speculate that the Linn could be "maybe much better".  In fact, having listened to the Tambaqui, I highly doubt that any DAC could be "much better" regardless of price or implementation.

I am slightly confused by this comment. I thought the only DAC that has a similar architecture as Mola Mola is the new Linn Kilmax Organik. Both use 32 discrete element PWM with analogue moving average filter with a master clock frequency of about 100MHz so with 32 cycles, it’s upsampling to 3MHz.

T&A and most other brands are using multi-element multi-bit delta-sigma DAC chips with their own upsampling algorithms but the DAC chip still uses thermometer code to dynamically select the elements (DEM).

I believe the advantage of the analog moving average filter is that you do get less glitch energy with each flip-flop switching compared to a DAC chip with dynamically selected elements, as during the moving of the discrete elements, one element would switch on while another would switch off to balance the glitch but it’ll still be a big glitch issue when the noise shaper goes from 0 to 32. And then there is the issues of substrate noise from DAC chips that you don’t get from discrete element DACs.

I do understand that there may be a limit to what the multi-element converters can do, especially given the computational power for upsampling and noise shaping in the DAC. As to how much that’ll cause DACs to sound similar, I would prefer to take a listen before making a final judgment. 

[ted_b]

24 minutes ago, ecwl said:

I am slightly confused by this comment. I thought the only DAC that has a similar architecture as Mola Mola is the new Linn Kilmax Organik.

??  You are referencing the SAME dac as Barrows (Klimax, not Kilmax, btw).  At least according to Chris, the Klimax DSM has the Organic dac as its foundation.   Continue to violently agree.  🙂

[ecwl]

4 minutes ago, ted_b said:

??  You are referencing the SAME dac as Barrows (Klimax, not Kilmax, btw).  At least according to Chris, the Klimax DSM has the Organic dac as its foundation.   Continue to violently agree.  🙂

Oops. I didn’t read back far enough. I thought barrows was comparing T&A and Mola Mola. But you’re right, he and I were talking about the same thing. Yes Mola Mola & new Linn has essentially the same architecture. That said, I’d like to listen to both to see if I hear what I like and if I hear a difference. Sorry about my random rant. 

[barrows]

41 minutes ago, ecwl said:

T&A and most other brands

T+A uses a multi element discrete converter specifically for the DSD conversion engine in their DACs, not an IC DAC chip (T+A does appear to use an IC DAC chip for PCM conversion-but of course one could use external oversampling to high rate DSD via HQPlayer to avoid that, as many do).  Other DACs using variations on this approach are Holo Audio, Denafrips, and I just found out that Esoteric is also using this approach.  All of these DACs use the multi element, discrete high speed switch, approach, and all are variations on the same design as Jussi's DSC-1 approach.  Of course these DACs differ in the exact approach of the oversampling engine, and the rate at which the final conversion stage operates, but they all have the very similar (discrete/multi element) conversion stage. 

 

Playback Designs and Meitner/EMM use a discrete conversion stage operating on a highly oversampled data stream as well, but it is not clear to me the details of their conversion stages.  Bricasti and PS Audio also use discrete conversion stages using high speed switches, but these are of a different design (Bricasti's discrete conversion stage is only for DSD input).

[ted_b]

According to Craig, the Mola Mola tech said that the DXD noise in question is something that most other dacs filter out but not (currently) the Tambaqui.  I hope that a firmware update to include that filter does not ruin the magic.  Maybe that lack of filtration is something special?

[craighartley]

1 hour ago, ted_b said:

According to Craig, the Mola Mola tech said that the DXD noise in question is something that most other dacs filter out but not (currently) the Tambaqui.  I hope that a firmware update to include that filter does not ruin the magic.  Maybe that lack of filtration is something special?

Maybe that is why the update is taking so long: they won’t do it until they find a way of not ruining the magic.

But NB Miska’s response that it was more likely the modulator that is tripped up by the noise rather than anything to do with filtration. Bear in mind that I only heard the response of the Mola Mola engineer through the UK importer and the message may have become “simplified”. 

[coldbru]

On 2/6/2022 at 5:45 PM, ted_b said:

Before I get to describing last night's listen (and before I delve into Craig's troublesome DXD files today) I simply need to say that, in my setup, the Tambaqui's LAN input is significantly clearer and yet just as musical (if not more so) than it's USB input.  That revelation took almost 10 seconds.  :)

 

I didn't find this to be the case while the Tambaqui has spent time in my system.. I got the best sound from the MTT from Antipodes CX > EtherRegen1 > optical > ER2 > EX > Innuos Phoenix > Antipodes P2 reclocker > AQ Firebird HDMI > MTT. In that chain I am using either HQPlayer (with minimal or no upsampling) or SqueezeServer/Player on the CX/EX -- NOT Roon Ready. I would not normally throw the the confounding variable of playback protocols into this debate, but MTT invokes it because the ethernet input is limited to Roon Ready. As such I prefer the ethernet for simple setups, playing all the formats with no fuss, fewer boxes for sure, and a slightly warmer / less detailed sound. (Slightly! calm down lol) This ethernet chain includes two ERs, 1 LPS 1.5, and an AQ Vodka ethernet cable connected to the MTT. 

The problem with the HDMI input is that it is limited to 24/192. The Mola Mola tech support people said "The limitation of 24/192PCM and no DSD over HDMI, is cause a limit in the hardware clock frequency." That's an issue for me just because my best input chain (and transport) sounds best over HDMI. Of course we can all use USB but I just dislike the cable sensitivity of the format. USB through CX > ER1 > optical > ER2 > EX > Innuos Phoenix > Curious Cable USB was a close second to HDMI, and preserves DSD the higher bitrate formats. 

 

Sound Quality (in my system, YMMV): 

1 - HDMI from PS Audio PST transport (limited to PCM up to 24/192, or DSD64/128 from files burned to a DVD. The PST transport can transmit SACD through HDMI but only if the receiving DAC supports the handshake; MMT doesn't.)

2 - HDMI from CX/ER/EX/Innuos/P2 chain above

3 - USB through the same chain (ex P2)

4 - ethernet direct, through 2 ERs, second with a LPS 1.5

 

 

On 2/6/2022 at 5:45 PM, ted_b said:

Last night was another lost-in-music set of hours that went on much longer than I would have ever anticipated.   ...  I'll also spend more time on DSD sources to see if these are rendered with the same care and precision of the May at DSD256 EC7V2.  Most of my DSD listening will be multichannel (although I have a lot of 2 channel DSD) so Tambaqui's resampling of DSD is not a deal breaker, assuming it is not the giant leap that PCM is.  It's clearly has less gain, so I have to pump up the volume, but I'm used to that with the May anyway,

 

Stay tuned.

 

 

 

Back to the OP: How much better is the MMT than the May DAC with DSD 512/1024? I am considering the May as an alternative to the inevitable MMT purchase. I'm upgrading from a modded PS Audio DirectStream (I've done the transformer mod and going to do the remaining mods incl external LPS for the analog board). Given what I paid for my DS years and years ago, plus <$150 for the transformer upgrades, which are a big improvement in body and dynamics, it's a screaming value. So while I absolutely see the value in the MMT, it's a chunk of change obv, and given that ethernet is my least preferred input, I can't necessarily just sell my other stack of expensive digital source crap to get it.   : ) 

 

.... If you add up $5k for a May DAC and then whatever $5k for a server (or a bit less if I build a PC myself ig) that will do DSD512/1024 upsampling, plus I would need a new streamer which also supports those formats, you're not far off a Tambaqui anyway. Thoughts? 

[firedog]

2 hours ago, barrows said:

T+A uses a multi element discrete converter specifically for the DSD conversion engine in their DACs, not an IC DAC chip (T+A does appear to use an IC DAC chip for PCM conversion-but of course one could use external oversampling to high rate DSD via HQPlayer to avoid that, as many do).  Other DACs using variations on this approach are Holo Audio, Denafrips, and I just found out that Esoteric is also using this approach.  All of these DACs use the multi element, discrete high speed switch, approach, and all are variations on the same design as Jussi's DSC-1 approach.  Of course these DACs differ in the exact approach of the oversampling engine, and the rate at which the final conversion stage operates, but they all have the very similar (discrete/multi element) conversion stage. 

 

Playback Designs and Meitner/EMM use a discrete conversion stage operating on a highly oversampled data stream as well, but it is not clear to me the details of their conversion stages.  Bricasti and PS Audio also use discrete conversion stages using high speed switches, but these are of a different design (Bricasti's discrete conversion stage is only for DSD input).

I believe Kii and Grimm LS audio systems use a similar DAC setup as the Mola Mola. Also Bruno designs. 

[barrows]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

I believe Kii and Grimm LS audio systems use a similar DAC setup as the Mola Mola. Also Bruno designs. 

I do not know about the Grimms, but am almost certain that the Kiis actually use regular IC DAC chips (I believe originally AKM, so with the problems, maybe they have made a change...).

[PYP]

1 hour ago, barrows said:

I do not know about the Grimms

Don't know if this answers that question, but given your technical knowledge this white paper about the design of the Grimm speakers might be of interest to you.  

 

 You will see that it is "signed" by both Bruno and Eelco Grimm.  

Grimm speakers.pdf

[firedog]

4 hours ago, barrows said:

I do not know about the Grimms, but am almost certain that the Kiis actually use regular IC DAC chips (I believe originally AKM, so with the problems, maybe they have made a change...).

Pretty sure you are wrong. The Kiis are using the same 93.75 internal sample rate and 40 bit processing as Bruno's other designs. 

[matthias]

From the Kii Audio HP

 

"Naturally, this means that the performance of the AD/DA conversion has to match that of the amps. This task fell to Bart van der Laan who has a long track record designing DSP and converter boards for high-end professional audio equipment. Kii Audio’s implementation is a runaway success: a complete pass through the AD/DA circuitry of the THREE’s signal processing board is entirely inaudible, a feat not duplicated by the most expensive audiophile standalone units."

 

So this parts seem not be designed by Bruno.

 

Matt

[firedog]

6 hours ago, matthias said:

From the Kii Audio HP

 

"Naturally, this means that the performance of the AD/DA conversion has to match that of the amps. This task fell to Bart van der Laan who has a long track record designing DSP and converter boards for high-end professional audio equipment. Kii Audio’s implementation is a runaway success: a complete pass through the AD/DA circuitry of the THREE’s signal processing board is entirely inaudible, a feat not duplicated by the most expensive audiophile standalone units."

 

So this parts seem not be designed by Bruno.

 

Matt

I'm well aware of that quote. Bart is the DSP specialist who worked with Bruno on the Kii. No one claimed that Bruno personally designed every bit of the Kii Three technology. Bart's design works with the process Bruno uses elsewhere: 93.75 internal sample rate and 40 bit. I'm pretty sure he also had a hand in previous designs like the Mola Mola and the Grimm. 

 

Here's the bio from the Kii Web Site:

Quote

Bart's extensive knowledge and experience in embedded software development and digital signal processing allow Kii to swiftly embrace and master the latest technologies. All Kii technologies are designed in-house and rely on the synergy between Bruno and Bart, a combination that proved itself successful for over a decade in several other companies. Audio and technology have always been part of his life. In 2011 he started his own company offering design services for manufacturers of electronics. A growing interest in the business side drove the decision to co-found Kii and take charge of the trajectory between hardcore engineering and sales. Every Kii product will grow up and leave the factory under Bart's supervision in his role as COO.

 

[matthias]

36 minutes ago, firedog said:

I'm well aware of that quote. Bart is the DSP specialist who worked with Bruno on the Kii. No one claimed that Bruno personally designed every bit of the Kii Three technology. Bart's design works with the process Bruno uses elsewhere: 93.75 internal sample rate and 40 bit. I'm pretty sure he also had a hand in previous designs like the Mola Mola and the Grimm. 

 

OK, maybe Bruno was involved with the AD/DSP/DA design of Kii and Grimm as well but I didn't come across so far of any evidence that the DAC design of these DSP speakers is similar or identical to the Mola Mola DACs. 

 

Matt

[firedog]

2 hours ago, matthias said:

 

OK, maybe Bruno was involved with the AD/DSP/DA design of Kii and Grimm as well but I didn't come across so far of any evidence that the DAC design of these DSP speakers is similar or identical to the Mola Mola DACs. 

 

Matt

Never said identical. The evidence we  have that it's similar is that they are using the same internal sample rate and then following with upsampling to extremely high rates as in Mola Mola. Bruno has talked about it in interviews. I don't know for sure how they are doing the actual AD/DA conversion. I've never seen anywhere a reference to a DAC chip in the Kii. It could of course, be that they are doing the DSP/resampling/upsampling  in software and then the actual conversion with a chip -  what Mola Mola does with FPGA (proprietary programming on a programmable chip). That would seem like sort of a weird way to design it, though.