[edwardsean]

I wasn’t planning to. I thought I’d found the grail, then a chap on audiogon who does a bit of beta testing for us who has a very high end system inc the may and a mojo audio dac, said he’d heard this new Chinese dac with an amazing power management set up. My business partner spoke to musetec and ordered one. I took my mola mola down to compare it, confidently expecting the Tambaqui in a different league. I took all of one a-b comparison to realise it out performed the MM in pretty much all areas of performance. The MM’s stand out feature for me was layer separation and staging and the 005 made it sound flat and congested. Overall clarity of tone and detail is just up a level making the MM sound veiled by comparison. Front to back depth is a show stealer.

The systems we compared it on:

2 Channel:

Our network set up > 3D Lab streamer > musetec or Tambaqui > Benchmark hpa4 preamp >

This really goes to reinforce the old, old rule: It's all about the implementation.

Not saying that your conclusions are right or wrong, but your assessment really challenges a prejudice I've been holding. I believe so strongly that it's all about implementation, but somewhere in my mind is the thought that an off-the-shelf DAC chip cannot compete with R2R or FPGA (really: FPGA > R2R > Delta-Sigma).

The implementation principle came into play when comparing something like a Sony DMP-Z1 against a Hugo2. I thought when you've reached an execution at the level of the Mola, a 9038 based DAC just wouldn't be able to perform at that level regardless of how you designed the rest of the system.

Thank you for sharing. I'm going to keep a more open mind as I go forward.

 

[BassicScience]

This really goes to reinforce the old, old rule: It's all about the implementation.

Not saying that your conclusions are right or wrong, but your assessment really challenges a prejudice I've been holding. I believe so strongly that it's all about implementation, but somewhere in my mind is the thought that an off-the-shelf DAC chip cannot compete with R2R or FPGA (really: FPGA > R2R > Delta-Sigma).

The implementation principle came into play when comparing something like a Sony DMP-Z1 against a Hugo2. I thought when you've reached an execution at the level of the Mola, a 9038 based DAC just wouldn't be able to perform at that level regardless of how you designed the rest of the system.

Thank you for sharing. I'm going to keep a more open mind as I go forward.

Technically, no DAC chip does perform at the level of the Tambaqui, regardless of implementation. You can't fix the chip's shortcomings (vs. the Tambaqui) via ancillary components in the circuit. What's in play here is one listener's subjective preference for the DAC chip solution. This is not surprising because:

1) The technical differences between the best DAC chips and the Tambaqui are at a level that is near or even below the threshold of human perception; and
2) Often, technically inferior components are preferred by a given listener.

 

[teknorob23]

This really goes to reinforce the old, old rule: It's all about the implementation.

Not saying that your conclusions are right or wrong, but your assessment really challenges a prejudice I've been holding. I believe so strongly that it's all about implementation, but somewhere in my mind is the thought that an off-the-shelf DAC chip cannot compete with R2R or FPGA (really: FPGA > R2R > Delta-Sigma).

The implementation principle came into play when comparing something like a Sony DMP-Z1 against a Hugo2. I thought when you've reached an execution at the level of the Mola, a 9038 based DAC just wouldn't be able to perform at that level regardless of how you designed the rest of the system.

Thank you for sharing. I'm going to keep a more open mind as I go forward.

Trust me, even though i should no better, i held and probably still hold a whole handful of similar prejudices, i mean sabre chips come on?? but the one prejudice that this epiphany did re-inforce, is that 9/10 times in hifi the biggest influence on performance is how the power is supplied and managed. Its not as pretty as the MM and it really needs a a good pre or headamp as the digital volume is nothing special. And although its got some serious heft it cant hold light to the MM's good looks, but on sound quality it's just better than anything i've heard and i really recommend having a listen if you can and of course theres the price.

 

[BassicScience]

Trust me, even though i should no better, i held and probably still hold a whole handful of similar prejudices, i mean sabre chips come on?? but the one prejudice that this epiphany did re-inforce, is that 9/10 times in hifi the biggest influence on performance is how the power is supplied and managed. Its not as pretty as the MM and it really needs a a good pre or headamp as the digital volume is nothing special. And although its got some serious heft it cant hold light to the MM's good looks, but on sound quality it's just better than anything i've heard and i really recommend having a listen if you can and of course theres the price.

I'm not arguing that the DAC in question doesn't sound better to you. I'm merely stating the objective fact that the Tambaqui measures better at the DACs' respective outputs. I'm not really sure what "how the power is supplied and managed" means. Cheers.

 

[teknorob23]

I'm not arguing that the DAC in question doesn't sound better to you. I'm merely stating the objective fact that the Tambaqui measures better at the DACs' respective outputs. I'm not really sure what "how the power is supplied and managed" means. Cheers.

thats fair enough i dont think i'm arguing with you either. My reference to power was regarding the way the power supply is designed in this DAC and its influence on the performance on its performance. I can only really comment on the in what i heard but i was sat in a room with 2 other people, both audio engineers, each with very different preferences in music to my own and we all agreed after one song, that in simple terms stage shrunk when we switched back to the MM and clarity of tone and detail had dropped back noticeably.

 

[Roasty]

I wasn’t planning to. I thought I’d found the grail, then a chap on audiogon who does a bit of beta testing for us who has a very high end system inc the may and a mojo audio dac, said he’d heard this new Chinese dac with an amazing power management set up. My business partner spoke to musetec and ordered one. I took my mola mola down to compare it, confidently expecting the Tambaqui in a different league. I took all of one a-b comparison to realise it out performed the MM in pretty much all areas of performance. The MM’s stand out feature for me was layer separation and staging and the 005 made it sound flat and congested. Overall clarity of tone and detail is just up a level making the MM sound veiled by comparison. Front to back depth is a show stealer.

The systems we compared it on:

2 Channel:

Our network set up > 3D Lab streamer > musetec or Tambaqui > Benchmark hpa4 preamp >

That's interesting man. I read about that dac on Agon forum as well; someone compared it to the Holo May.

So far, the MM clarity, detail and airiness seem to be it's standout features. But the May sounds more balanced overall. I'll make some more notes and pen down my thoughts this coming week.

 

[edwardsean]

Technically, no DAC chip does perform at the level of the Tambaqui, regardless of implementation. You can't fix the chip's shortcomings (vs. the Tambaqui) via ancillary components in the circuit. What's in play here is one listener's subjective preference for the DAC chip solution. This is not surprising because:

1) The technical differences between the best DAC chips and the Tambaqui are at a level that is near or even below the threshold of human perception; and
2) Often, technically inferior components are preferred by a given listener.

Mm,,, technical measurements "below the threshold of human perception" don't matter to me, because, you know, I'm a human. At least I pass those captcha tests.

Kidding aside, I think that without discussing technical measurements we are working blind; not good. But, without discussing our listening we are working deaf, not possible. So, to my mind, at the beginning of the day, I wanna see the numbers, but at the end of day, it's all about the musical notes right? I've never heard a DS chip, or a gate array, or a resistor ladder. No human has. We've all only heard them in the context of their system components, and we've all realized those components (e.g., power supplies) make massive differences to what we hear.

So for me I count on the subjective impressions of–experienced listeners–as something more than just a matter of personal preference. I parse out impressions of taste ("blew my mind") from impressions of performance. The A/B impressions of the Mola v. Musetec were citing better soundstage dimensions, layering, clarity, detail (not easy to quantify). Truly, I very well may hear it differently, but I note it. If other ears I trust start saying the same thing, for me, I have to investigate whether I'm putting too much on Tambaqui's technical merits.

 

[teknorob23]

That's interesting man. I read about that dac on Agon forum as well; someone compared it to the Holo May.

So far, the MM clarity, detail and airiness seem to be it's standout features. But the May sounds more balanced overall. I'll make some more notes and pen down my thoughts this coming week.

Really interesting and how does the Rokna fair? I have listened to the May a while but didnt get an opportunity to compare it to anything else. i'm hoping to borrow one over the christmas break to see how it compares to the musetec. Looking forward to hearing more

 

[veloaudio]

Anyone compare the Tambaqui to higher price alternatives like the Esoteric n01XD, Lampi Pacific, Lumin X1, etc.?

Bumping this question as I have it too. Anyone compare to the N01xd?

 

[worknprogress]

Anyone compare the Tambaqui to higher price alternatives like the Esoteric n01XD, Lampi Pacific, Lumin X1, etc.?

I have the Makua with DAC module as well as Lumin X1 and very much like both of them. I use an Antipodes K50 as Server and as Player for Makua when using AES/EBU or USB inputs to the Makua. With the Lumin X1, I use Roon and also use the Lumin App. When using ethernet Roon Ready with the Makua, I use the Directstream ethernet output from the K50 to the Makua. For the Lumin X1, I am using fiber for internet connection.

There are differences in presentation, but my experience has been that cables (including ethernet), vibration isolation, and network equipment and upstream sources all contribute to differences. My Makua was preowned while I purchased the X1 new. The X1 really took considerable run time, more than 200 hours and 400+ to really shine. I have experimented running direct to my active crossover with Leedh Processing, which I find is quite good. I also have used it with preamps, and currently use the Makua volume control instead of Leedh with it. I have not heard the Tambaqui, but would expect a great deal of similarity with the Makua. I do find the Makua preamp to be very good, and its volume control "may" be advantageous over Tambaqui volume control, but that is based on speculation from postings I have read where others posed that possibility. I suspect there could be differences of opinion if both were trialed.

I have not found the Makua to be a congested presentation, but Roon is a bit warmer and more rounded to me than Squeeze from the K50. I have just started experimenting with added isolation feet instead of the rail sides on both Makua and Tambaqui. Using the rails, the presentation to me is more dense. I am experimenting with 3 vs 4 IsoAcoustics Orea Indigo feet under the Makua. There appears to be more distinct presentation, but still not sure I prefer over the rails.

I use AV Room Service EVPs under the X1 and under the Lumin power supply. With all these differences, my setup and system seems to give more of a live concert middle distance to further distance feel with the X1, while the Makua has been more intimate and more of a they are here room presentation for me.

Later last year a gentleman reached out to me to communicate my thoughts on Tambaqui vs X1. He had a DAVE and M Scaler. He wanted to downsize from all the boxes and cables, if possible, while still achieving excellent sound. He was able to work with 2 dealers to have both a Tambaqui and X1 in his home for extended evaluations--both dealers knew he was a very serious potential buyer and that both units would be evaluated. He took considerable efforts to utilize same cabling for both and match volume levels. It was very interesting to read his impressions. I continued to advise making sure he had several hundred playing hours on the Lumin X1. He seemed to lean towards the Tambaqui for some time, but at the end chose the X1. It could have gone either way and someone else may have chosen differently. Prices offered for both units was very close, so was not a price issue. I truly like both of these units. With these two, I also have a PS Audio DirectStream, a Luxman DA-06 and just recently sold another very enjoyable preamp and DAC. The sensible thing for me to do is wean down to 1 DAC, but participation in this audio hobby can lead to decisions that are not always sensible.

There are some fine quality alternatives offered in this thread, but what is best for one may not be best for you with your system.

 

[TangoMan]

Interesting observation about the digital volume control in Cristiaan Punters review in HFA:

"

Output Voltage​

On the subject of the Tambaqui sounding dry in certain combinations (and when used without a preamp), it is good to know that this can be altered by selecting a lower output level. Going from 6V to 2V made a big and entirely beneficial difference while a further reduction from 2V to 0,6V added an extra dose of fluidity but also reduced transient attack and the overall liveliness. Overall, I preferred the 2V setting when using the DAC with its volume control.

Ultimately, I think that in many situations the Tambaqui will sound its best when used with a high-quality analog preamp. With its volume control disabled and its output level set to 6V, and used with the affordable but truly great Audio-GD Master 1, the Tambaqui gains fluidity, richness, and natural flow while retaining all of its precision and transparency. I have no doubt that the Mola-Mola Makua preamp will do the same while further upping the performance."

I have played with using the Tambaqui as a preamp on lower voltage and as Christiaan says, it does help, but it still strangulates the capabilities of the Tambaqui, it is still great with this combi, but it excels when used with a preamp.

https://www.hifi-advice.com/blog/review/digital-reviews/network-player-reviews/mola-mola-tambaqui/3/

 

[barbz127]

Can anyone offer any comment.on how the dac stage of the Tambaqui compares to the TT2/HMS in dac mode?

I'd be using an external headphone amp/preamp into a power; all for headphones still.

Thankyou

 

[teknorob23]

Can anyone offer any comment.on how the dac stage of the Tambaqui compares to the TT2/HMS in dac mode?

I'd be using an external headphone amp/preamp into a power; all for headphones still.

Thankyou

Yes, it’s better, better separation, more space and generally and more easy and natural sounding. Resolution-wise it edges it and is more on a par with Dave/hms. I spent months going back and fourth between dave/hms, bartok and tamaqui. Plumped for the mola
Mola purely for the dac, Only to have my business partner play me his new musetec mh-da005, which he had bought after being tipped off by one of our beta testers on audiogon. I only had to Ab the mm with it for about 4 songs before being forced to eat my words of skepticism and realising the tambaqui was a gonna. The musetec is simply better in all areas making it sound veiled and a bit sluggish by comparison. This doesn’t suddenly make the MM a bad DAC just IMO one that’s just not good value for money, especially if you don’t need the the streamer and amp.

 

[barbz127]

Would anyone be able.to comment on the roon streaming performance when fed direct via Ethernet to been fed by via a lumin u1 mini?

 

[Miller]

Would anyone be able.to comment on the roon streaming performance when fed direct via Ethernet to been fed by via a lumin u1 mini?

You can’t feed the Tambaqui from a Lumin via Ethernet, either you do stream direct from Roon to the Tambaqui at to the Lumin and forward via USB or AES/BNC/etc.