Mola Mola Kula, anyone?

Kindly ask for the impression on how kula compare to boulder 866?
I'm also searching for those all in one boxes for my floorstanding.

I really think it’s a matter of preference between the two. I’ve only had the Kula for a few days, but here’s my initial impressions. As previously stated, I think they are more alike than different. They are both pretty neutral, highly detailed, and very well balanced and extended top to bottom, with superb separation and depth. Comparing both using the dCS Network Bridge + Paganini, the most apparent difference in my system is that the Boulder presents substantially taller images which are a bit more recessed while imaging with the Kula is shorter and more anchored. I believe it was the Stereophile review that with the 866 the images appear to float in space, and I get this sense too. The Boulder is sweeter, a tad darker and warmer, and more relaxed than the Kula, with more extended decay and a bit more body. The Kula is maybe a bit more transparent and a little more crisp and effervescent. I get the sense that everything is a little tighter, faster, and well controlled with the Kula while the Boulder has a greater sense of ease and flow. The Kula controls the bottom end better with more authority. I suspect most would say the Boulder is a little more musical and analog sounding. I keep saying "a little" and "a bit" because . I don’t want to give the impression that the Boulder is at all soft and tubby sounding overall or that the Kula is clinical and edgy, because the truth is that the Kula is absolutely musical and can deliver a sweet, emotional performance and the 866 is very transparent and incisive as well. They both play with ease, precision, and are a joy to listen to for hours. I kind of think of them as standing close to each other on opposite sides of a line that represents a theoretical dead neutral. The Boulder is more of a cozy blanket while the Kula is more a breath of fresh air, neither done to a fault. Using their built-in DACs is where they diverge further. The Tambaqui DAC in the Kula gives it even more clarity, transparency, and precision over the dCS while the Boulder DAC is warmer, a little less dynamic, and provides a more diffuse presentation than the dCS. The Boulder DAC is very, very good, however, and I can see how one could ditch a $10k DAC for it.

Bottom line is that I feel they are in the same league and it comes down to preference. In terms of value, Boulder wins hands down with the DAC. If analog only, it’s more of a toss up.

Thanks bro, that's really precise and detail impression sharing ~~

Hello,

i am in the exact same spot, except i do not have any of these but i am tempted by the same devices.

I want to simplify my system to get something working flawlessly and with less surface to be touched by the little hands coming into our life next month!

So for listening to bowie lullabye, @Eugene, do you have more insight since you spent mor etime with both? I am not living in a country where i can listen to them, so i have to make up my mind on paper... or going to another direction like integrated hegel with a dac, or a spec corp M99 with their own dac, audionet Watt+dac, indeed T+A PA3100 HV +dac (which also has great reviews) etc.

So sorry that i can not add any info... but just more questions :-)

AUDIONET WATT + TAMBAQUI!!!  Both amazing.

Gives you flexibility:

 

DAC is separate so you could change either (but you won't!)

Could add amps later if wanted...Watt is world class preamp.

 

I have heard this combo.  I have not heard the spec corp or T+A