A friend of mine has the Tambaqui and it sounded bright to me in both his system and mine. Definitely didn't sound more analog compared to my Ayon Skylla 2 DAC or Aries Cerat DACs.
Problems with believability in audio
- Thread starter morricab
- Start date
Too bad. Full-bodied, with tonal weight, as baseline in my system. People who have heard it in my system can attest if they want to.
In any case, Tom Martin makes that point in the video I posted, starting at 9:05. He points out improvement of instrumental body and richness compared to many other DACs ("chip-based DACs" are his words), as opposed to tonal thinness. He is not the only reviewer who has that opinion.
How can you be believable as an audio industry if you use arm thick cables with " golden" connectors.
Its a total Joke , its all about machining / looks carbon what ever , ultra reference blah blah blah
Its a total Joke , its all about machining / looks carbon what ever , ultra reference blah blah blah
Apparently there are plenty of suckers out there..How can you be believable as an audio industry if you use arm thick cables with " golden" connectors.
Its a total Joke , its all about machining / looks carbon what ever , ultra reference blah blah blah
Chip based DACs in his parlance are almost certainly Sigma/delta chips like ESS or AKM.
Maybe. As I said tonal balance and density are comparable to my R2R DAC, if not better perhaps. In my system context, that is (in another system where I have heard both, as well).
Digital distortions are impossible to measure. Your approach is prefectly valid.
To illustrate, the manufacturer of my DAC/amp recently discovered that a resistance was wrong in my early production model (just my batch) due tu a mislabled part (supplier's error). I returned it to have it fixed. The resistance only affected the conversion of the least significant bit of each digital sample. The error in the resulting analog signal was undetectable through any measurements, and theoretically below hearing level. Yet the difference in sound quality was obvious....
I only heard the Tambaqui once, briefly, in Joel Chevassus' system. It was slightly better than another "high end" DAC he was comparing it to at the time, but to my ears, there was no substantial difference. He felt there was (maybe his hearing is much better than mine):
Then again I believe he only listens to digital
On the other hand, i was recently reading on a French forum about an audiophile who listens to both (analog and digital) and has a serious vinyl rig. He was talking about how a network cable (so calied - Direct Attached Cable - there's a topic about it here on WBF) had "floored" him and had practically bridged the gap berween analog and digital...spurring a buying frenzy on that French forum. Since I have not heard his sytem, it's impossible to know what his starting point was (maybe his digital system without that cable really sucked...in spite of its high price tag). I can bet that in 6 months time, someone else is going to come up with another tweak that once again makes digital sound so much closer to analog.
The key in this hobby is to remain calm (and have a healthy dose of skepticism).
Last edited:
Having just heard Esa-Pekka Salonen conduct the San Francisco Symphony in Stravinsky's The Firebird ballet this past Friday, I can safely say that in my 35+year experience, no home system can match a symphony orchestra playing full tilt in a great hall. This piece was scored for a huge orchestra, with a massive percussion section (some of whom were arrayed throughout rear of the orchestra, giving a surround sound aspect). Even though I was in a side box, fairly close to the left side of the orchestra, not a great location for "imaging" or "sound staging", I enjoyed the concert just as much as I would have had I sat in the middle. I've never once thought of silly things like imaging in a live concert. It's just not something that occurs to you, as I never once think about bass, treble, or any of the hundreds of audiophile terms used to characterize sound. Live unamplified sound is just that: as Harry Pearson rightly said, it is the "absolute sound". You don't characterize it because it simply is what it is. Of course, every orchestra sounds different, just as every hall sounds different, and conductors tune their orchestras in different ways. Live sound doesn't mean the sound is the same. It just means it is the most direct way for music to reach your ears without any electronic processing that inevitably ruins recorded sound (at least for me).
It's not just the dynamics, although that was certainly notable -- the quiet pieces were just as dramatic. The Firebird begins with softly with the double basses growling to indicate the strange world that the ballet is all about. You could hear all the nuances, although the sound was very soft. At the other extreme, when the orchestra is playing full tilt, with the absolutely heart-stopping bass drum dynamics, you could still hear the three harps (yes, Stravinsky used three harps in this score!) playing as well. Generally, no matter analog or digital, most recordings blur out such intricate details that for me at least separate live and recorded sound.
But I don't think I want to hear The Firebird in my listening room at the levels I heard it at Davies Hall. I'd like to hang on to my hearing a bit longer, and having enjoyed high end audio for almost 40 years, my hearing is remarkably good because I have through the years exercised great restraint in how loudly I play my home system. I never attend rock concerts, discotheques, or any amplified musical concerts. I always plug my ears when ambulances or crazy folks blast their car stereos as they pass by. If you want to preserve your hearing, don't play your system loudly. You have only one pair of ears, and you can't "upgrade" your hearing at your favorite audiophile store. Human hearing is a miracle of biology. Respect it.
It's not just the dynamics, although that was certainly notable -- the quiet pieces were just as dramatic. The Firebird begins with softly with the double basses growling to indicate the strange world that the ballet is all about. You could hear all the nuances, although the sound was very soft. At the other extreme, when the orchestra is playing full tilt, with the absolutely heart-stopping bass drum dynamics, you could still hear the three harps (yes, Stravinsky used three harps in this score!) playing as well. Generally, no matter analog or digital, most recordings blur out such intricate details that for me at least separate live and recorded sound.
But I don't think I want to hear The Firebird in my listening room at the levels I heard it at Davies Hall. I'd like to hang on to my hearing a bit longer, and having enjoyed high end audio for almost 40 years, my hearing is remarkably good because I have through the years exercised great restraint in how loudly I play my home system. I never attend rock concerts, discotheques, or any amplified musical concerts. I always plug my ears when ambulances or crazy folks blast their car stereos as they pass by. If you want to preserve your hearing, don't play your system loudly. You have only one pair of ears, and you can't "upgrade" your hearing at your favorite audiophile store. Human hearing is a miracle of biology. Respect it.
I only heard the Tambaqui once, briefly, in Joel Chevassus' system. It was slightly better than another "high end" DAC he was comparing it to at the time, but to my ears, there was no substantial difference. He felt there was (maybe his hearing is much better than mine):
On initial comparisons the Tambaqui didn't make such an impression on me either. But when I had a friend's Tambaqui in my own system I immediately knew (after a night's warmup) it was special, sounding so clean and pure, and without digital gremlins. There was no going back; I didn't even have to directly compare with my old DAC, the improvement in sound was obvious. When finally after two weeks I put my old DAC back the difference was even larger than I had anticipated. And my old DAC was a very good DAC that was well liked by visitors as well.
What Tom Martin says in the video that I linked to is pretty spot on.
Last night was devoted to the great Georgian pianist Elizabeth Leonskaja. I've heard her play quite a few times and she has a Schubert festival coming up in a few weeks. She plays in the Neuhaus Russian style - think Richter, her mentor, close friend and occasional collaborator. I listened to her recordings of the Chopin Nocturnes and the first 6 Mozart sonatas. Her style is highly articulate and gives the impression of being technically faultless. It was incredibly believable. I could visualise in front of me and the timbre and decay as she struck the keys was tangible. I recently sold my Holo May DAC and am using the chip-based internal DAC of my Gryphon 300, circa 2015. I sold the Holo May because the older internal DAC just sounds more real.
On the other hand, I've been to hundreds if not thousands of ballets, opera and dance shows and almost never listen to its at home. Without the visual elements, it makes no sense to me as music alone.
On the other hand, I've been to hundreds if not thousands of ballets, opera and dance shows and almost never listen to its at home. Without the visual elements, it makes no sense to me as music alone.
Morricab, Thanks for your post- a comprehensive and structured thought provocation.
One fundamental element of life music reproduction, particularly large scale classical, is wide dynamic range. This element has been alluded to in various thread responses but not specifically included in the list of important characteristics in the quest for realistic two channel home music playback.
You guys can debate whether digital can get there or analog is the only way. I only want to bring up the topic for your always thoughtful consideration.
One fundamental element of life music reproduction, particularly large scale classical, is wide dynamic range. This element has been alluded to in various thread responses but not specifically included in the list of important characteristics in the quest for realistic two channel home music playback.
You guys can debate whether digital can get there or analog is the only way. I only want to bring up the topic for your always thoughtful consideration.
That sounds like a great experience! Yes, piano can sound believable on a good system.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |