[TheR0v3r]

Listening to ”Hurt” with Johnny Cash is just unreal.

I’ve heard this song so many times but never understood the effect they were going for with the distortion but now it makes sense. Believe it or not, the song actually distorts differently with the MMT. Amazing.

 

[TheR0v3r]

Listening to ”Hurt” with Johnny Cash is just unreal.

I’ve heard this song so many times but never understood the effect they were going for with the distortion but now it makes sense. Believe it or not, the song actually distorts differently with the MMT. Amazing.

Here I have the Gustard X18 and the MMT. These are two very well measuring DAC’s. On this song the MMT clearly is more resolving than the X18 (which still is excellent).

How can this be? It seems totally unreasonable that the measured performance deviates this much from the actual performance.

 

[ardbeg1975]

How can this be? It seems totally unreasonable that the measured performance deviates this much from the actual performance.

Our currently chosen tools of measurement do not yet encompass the complexity of human auditory processing and perception, perhaps.

 

[TheR0v3r]

The only thing I right now feel that the MMT could potentially do just a little better is transient response. That initial hit or strike of a instrument is not as ”crisp” as with some other DAC’s I’ve heard. Otherwise brilliant.

 

[TheR0v3r]

Pretty fantastic, I could listen to this for hours. And I have!

The MMT somehow manages to combine things that I’ve liked with my previous DAC’s (and the many DAC’s I’ve auditioned) without any of the negatives. I’ve always been able to nitpick and find something that could be improved, but here I’m struggling.

Having switched between the different output voltages I prefer 6v even though I have to use ”Line” to lower the volume -3 dB because of the headphone amp. Btw, I consider my Pathos InPol Ear with upgraded tubes the perfect headphone amp. And I don’t care what other people say about that!

The different ”audiophile cables” have been of limited use, instead basic studio stuff has worked really well (Canare, Mogami and Supra). It doesn’t either seem to make a difference which input I’m using: AES, Coaxial and Optical sound the same to me. I’ve come to dislike USB and my streamer, an Innuos Pulse, has fantastic AES and SPDIF outputs so I’m sticking with those. Finally, I haven’t fiddled with power cords so don’t know if that makes any difference.

Before I go any further, my two main headphones are a compromise but a compromise I understand. They are a very well known quantity to me. They do many things surprisingly well and switching between them exposes alot of stuff. And you’d be surprised how well they do with just minor adjustments with EQ. With that said, there are two areas where they combined come up a little short: resolution and soundstage. The soundstage depth and resolution of the Utopia just isn’t there or the bass of the LCD-4’s. To counter that I use the same test tracks that I’ve always used so I think I’ve learned to hear if it’s the DAC or the headphones coming up short. I hope.

Anyway, to the sound. I see no point in mentioning different tracks, what I heard etc. This is one of the two best DAC’s I’ve ever heard. The other being the MSB Reference. Having heard both in the same speaker setup I remember the MSB as being ”grander”, as in having a larger soundstage, but the MMT giving the music a clearer ”presence”. From my point of view the two companies seem to have slightly different aims. MSB going for ”analog digital” and Mola Mola seems to go for ”alive”. If this makes any sense at all.

My conclusion? The Mola Mola Tambaqui is the challenge of digital-to-analog conversion solved.

 

[TheR0v3r]

This weekend I’ll be auditioning the MMT in my system. I’ll be sure to try it going directly from Roon with Ethernet and from streamer with SPDIF.

So I’ve tried going directly from Roon (core on Apple iMac) with Ethernet and from streamer (Innuos Pulse) with SPDIF + USB.

Caveat, this feels like a comparison where I’m worried that my mind is playing tricks on me because I just recently bought a new streamer after several auditions. Am I subconsciously going to validate my own decisions? You know where this is heading… My impression is still that the MMT sounds its best with the other inputs. It’s not that the Ethernet input isn’t good (because it is!) it’s just that there is something that seems lost when I switch from the other inputs to ”Network”.

And about those other inputs. Surprise, surprise, maybe the best input on the MMT is USB!? Despite my general misgivings about the USB interface and previous negative experiences I decided to give it a go. And lo and behold, it sounded great. It actually sounded really great!!!

I switched between ”Optical” and ”USB” several times. My impressions is that ”Optical” is very correct, matter of fact but that USB has more ”muscle” and better sense of flow. Oddly enough it’s was exactly USB lacking sense of ease and flow that made me give up on it in the first place. (I could for example never really gel with my recently departed Aqua La Scala MkII Optologic when using USB despite even using a reclocker. And before that my Chord’s just never worked with USB. And so on.)

 

[TheR0v3r]

Follow up and ending with some fun
First of all, this was a mistake:

The only thing I right now feel that the MMT could potentially do just a little better is transient response. That initial hit or strike of a instrument is not as ”crisp” as with some other DAC’s I’ve heard. Otherwise brilliant.

Started off by using the Belden 1800F as AES cable. That just never seems to work for me because it messes up both the tonal balance and timing. I should’ve known better (note to myself: remember to use it only as a XLR cable).

To end on a positive note, I thought I’d share some great songs I used when listening to the MMT (alphabetical order):

• ”Little Person”, Michael Wollny
• ”Moving On and Getting Over”, John Mayer
• ”No Hassle”, Tosca
• ”The Last of the Mohicans”, Luca Stricagnoli
• ”Tomorrow”, Esther Abrami

Here is hoping that these songs makes you a smile when listening with the wonderful Mola Mola Tambaqui.

 

[ardbeg1975]

When I iw

So I’ve tried going directly from Roon (core on Apple iMac) with Ethernet and from streamer (Innuos Pulse) with SPDIF + USB.

Caveat, this feels like a comparison where I’m worried that my mind is playing tricks on me because I just recently bought a new streamer after several auditions. Am I subconsciously going to validate my own decisions? You know where this is heading… My impression is still that the MMT sounds its best with the other inputs. It’s not that the Ethernet input isn’t good (because it is!) it’s just that there is something that seems lost when I switch from the other inputs to ”Network”.

And about those other inputs. Surprise, surprise, maybe the best input on the MMT is USB!? Despite my general misgivings about the USB interface and previous negative experiences I decided to give it a go. And lo and behold, it sounded great. It actually sounded really great!!!

I switched between ”Optical” and ”USB” several times. My impressions is that ”Optical” is very correct, matter of fact but that USB has more ”muscle” and better sense of flow. Oddly enough it’s was exactly USB lacking sense of ease and flow that made me give up on it in the first place. (I could for example never really gel with my recently departed Aqua La Scala MkII Optologic when using USB despite even using a reclocker. And before that my Chord’s just never worked with USB. And so on.)

Caveats in my prior post that it might been have placebo but when I owned the Lumin U2 mini I preferred USB followed by AES into the MMT.

 

[koso]

Hello to all. I just unpacked my MMT at home, sending a photo of my current rack. They go together, don't they?
I haven't had much time to test it, but damn... really good!
Have one question. Do you leave the device on all the time?

 

[ardbeg1975]

Hello to all. I just unpacked my MMT at home, sending a photo of my current rack. They go together, don't they?
I haven't had much time to test it, but damn... really good!
Have one question. Do you leave the device on all the time?

I do.

 

[technomagus]

I leave mine on all the time - it uses an OCXO which apparently runs at 75ºC, so takes a while to stabilise if it's coming from cold. Pulls about 22w

 

[coldbru]

Agreed — and I’ve found it takes the MMT several hours to achieve best SQ from a cold start.

 

[MrHaelscheir]

Here I have the Gustard X18 and the MMT. These are two very well measuring DAC’s. On this song the MMT clearly is more resolving than the X18 (which still is excellent).

How can this be? It seems totally unreasonable that the measured performance deviates this much from the actual performance.

At the minimum, as you may or may not have heard, try using a multimeter to check that the Vrms measured for a 1 kHz signal out of both DAC and amp chains is as close as possible (you would need some adapter for exposing the stereo leads of your amp for contact with the probes of a multimeter; for me, a headphone cable with 3.5 mm terminations does the trick); keeping the volume differences below 0.1 dB is what I have heard quoted. I have personally fooled myself into hearing slightly improved bass detail out of an RME ADI-2/4 Pro SE compared to my FiiO K9 Pro ESS when relying on imprecise subjective volume matching, whereby after using a multimeter, the detail perception even shortly reversed. Different DACs can have different voltage output levels/scales for the same digital input, which can of course have the same amp playing at different volumes which can of course incur audible differences.

Otherwise, if the differences you hear remain after a precise volume match, all power to you.

Our currently chosen tools of measurement do not yet encompass the complexity of human auditory processing and perception, perhaps.

I am not here to debate, but I will seed the thought that if measurements or null tests must incorporate the details of human perception in order to detect perceived differences, then an admission is being made that the sonic differences are not necessarily within the electronic or acoustic signals themselves or depend on an extra-sonic mechanism (including visual or social) for influencing the individual's perception. If work must be done beyond merely showing whether the electrical outputs of two equipment chains for the same signal differ by less than -90 dB, then we are rather asking manufacturers to become masters of weaving psychoacoustic experiences.

 

[OnlySoMany]

At the minimum, as you may or may not have heard, try using a multimeter to check that the Vrms measured for a 1 kHz signal out of both DAC and amp chains is as close as possible (you would need some adapter for exposing the stereo leads of your amp for contact with the probes of a multimeter; for me, a headphone cable with 3.5 mm terminations does the trick); keeping the volume differences below 0.1 dB is what I have heard quoted. I have personally fooled myself into hearing slightly improved bass detail out of an RME ADI-2/4 Pro SE compared to my FiiO K9 Pro ESS when relying on imprecise subjective volume matching, whereby after using a multimeter, the detail perception even shortly reversed. Different DACs can have different voltage output levels/scales for the same digital input, which can of course have the same amp playing at different volumes which can of course incur audible differences.

Otherwise, if the differences you hear remain after a precise volume match, all power to you.

This is one of those explanations I'd rather watch a YouTube video of

 

[jikson26]

I just ordered an MMT. Excited as hell after reading this thread.