# NAD M51 Direct Digital DAC Impressions



## estreeter

I dont know if anyone here has this DAC, but Stereo Net Australia board member lil Caeser seems to have heard most of the current ~$1K front-runners and rates the M51 very highly
  
 Just ignore that stuff about the Lampizator unless you happen to have 5K ......
  
 NAD Product Page - http://nadelectronics.com/products/masters-series/M51-Direct-Digital-DAC
  
 NADs Youtube vid:  
  
 Sadly, the only other review atm seems to be in Dutch - NAD have kindly translated the highlights :  http://nadelectronics.com/articles/HiFidelity-Review-M51-Direct-Digital-DAC
  
 (Google Translate, IME, turns reviews to something resembling the rantings of a madman - YMMV)
  
 I look forward to those impressions for anyone with $1500.


----------



## BournePerfect

This has been on my wishlist for a while, and I may have one in my hands in another month or two. Any owners here? Also, there's one for sale on the FS forums at a pretty decent price.
   
  -Daniel


----------



## estreeter

NAD seem to be kicking a few goals atm, with the Viso 1 and C446 network streamer getting rave reviews from various quarters - sadly, NAD have chosen to highlight the What Hi-Fi reviews, but the less said about that magazine the better. 
   
http://www.techradar.com/reviews/audio-visual/hi-fi-and-audio/audio-systems/nad-c446-989245/review
   
  Interestingly, the C446 seems to have been designed for those of us who insist on pooh-poohing the supposed value of 24/192, at least if the above review is to be believed - for all that, *they like the sound* and  thats what matters to me. Personally, I've tended to prefer Marantz speaker kit to the NAD offerings I've heard, but there's no denying the bang for buck at the lower end of their range. 
   
  The VISO 1 is probably better left for another time and place. I lost interest in iPod docks the day the i-20 was released.


----------



## mmeysarosh

Just received mine today and currently listening to it while its breaking in. What I can say at the moment is that I am hearing quite a good DAC. Its obviously a very unique design and seemingly effective. Its the very first unit that has put my Marantz SA-11S1 SACD player on notice.
   
  This thing is very good indeed.


----------



## sonq

How does it compare with your SA-11S1's built-in DAC?


----------



## mmeysarosh

Just on the basis of using the third filter on the Marantz, they sound more similar than different, but in  a good way.
   
  Upright bass being presented with greater power and richness. It also seems to provide all the transparency and detail of the Marantz, but with a greater sense of ease. Dynamics from percussion instruments also feel a bit more complete. I still need to do bit more listening and the NAD should have a moment to break in as well.
   
  In the past, I had tested and returned two lower cost DAC's on the basis that they fell far short of the Marantz. This is no doubt a very good DAC. How well it would compare to others high end units, I don't know. Maybe I should order different unit to try 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.  Suggestions?
   
  I will report on how further listening goes. As for system I'm using, Pass Labs XP10 mated to an X250.5. The sources are the Marantz and  Mac Mini for computer audio. Both the NAD and Marantz have been using balanced connections.


----------



## sonq

Wow, those are very transparent amps. I find the differences between digital sources very subtle on 1st listen; only becomes apparent after reverting back after awhile


----------



## dura

Very interested in this new technology. I'm keeping an eye on the NAD C390DD, an integrated digital amp described as a DAC with a 150watt output, but first more reviews and some more time for the manufacturer to iron out the mistakes that are always in complex new products.
  Price of this technology will probably go down too, I think this is the future of amps.


----------



## mmeysarosh

My experience with digital sources are a bit different overall. It may very well have to do with the Pass equipment not getting very much in the way. In the past, I had tested out Emotiva's XDA-1 as well as the Teac UD-H01. At the time, computer audio still seemed to be quite early on and I just wanted the Mac Mini to have a balanced connection that didn't sound as poorly as it had. So while both DACs had been an improvement over the Mini analog, both fell short of the Marantz when it fed them via SPDIF.
   
  I came to the conclusion the most of the lower cost options were a step up from integrated, but few would give the Marantz a real run. In my system, the various digital sources all have notable differences that are immediately apparent. This morning I could very clearly hear the advantage the M51 has on percussion over the SA-11S1. On the SA-11S1, they were not presented with the same weight and definition and thus not giving it the same body. Both are highly resolving, but the M51 has a bit more image depth and allows every instrument to be more clearly defined. The bass is not just stronger, its more defined and is adding a nice fullness and richness of sound without any loss of definition.
   
  Other DAC's I have considered was the PS Audio PWD (now in Mark II edition), Bel Canto Series, and others. The M51 was the first unit to provide a solution for digital volume control with very little to nearly no loss and quite a new approach. I can say that the sound is very impressive and is a clear step up from the SA-11S1. Would any of the others go further? I don't know and I would sure like to find out. But with the new PS Audio costing $4,000 list and my cost on the M51 being less then half that, I have doubts it would provide a gain with the cost. In some respects, the PS Audio would be inferior as it provides a digital volume control that doesn't match the solution in the M51. This volume control issue is also true of the Bel Canto.


----------



## eugenius

1500$ australian, 1500 euro in Europe, if I move to Japan will this be 1500 yen?


----------



## Stormfriend

It has perfect functionality for me, looks good, and all the reviews I've found are telling me what I want to hear (body and weight, rather than bright), so I've gone for it.  It's on a 30 day money back trial in case it turns out to be godawful 
   
  Should arrive by the end of the week.


----------



## BournePerfect

Did you purchase from a dealer or online?

  
  -Daniel
   
  Quote: 





stormfriend said:


> It has perfect functionality for me, looks good, and all the reviews I've found are telling me what I want to hear (body and weight, rather than bright), so I've gone for it.  It's on a 30 day money back trial in case it turns out to be godawful
> 
> Should arrive by the end of the week.


----------



## dyl1dyl

Will be auditioning this soon in comparison to the W4S DAC2, Calyx DAC and Audiolab M-DAC. Looking for one of these to be the DAC for my secondary/headphone system.


----------



## mmeysarosh

Just had seen this over on another site and I thought I might let all those interested take a gander.
   
http://www.digitalaudioreview.net.au/index.php/news-blog-and-showcase/john-darkos-blog/item/354-nad-m51-digital-direct-dac-initial-impressions
   
  I'm personally on day 4 with my M51 and you already know that I feel this DAC is really quite good.


----------



## dwk

I picked up an M51 a couple weeks ago, and unfortunately am struggling to find time to really listen due to ongoing reno work in the house.  I originally listened to it via a Stax 3050 set that I picked up, and was relatively impressed; not having heard the Stax with anything else though, it was hard to relate though.  I finally got it set up in a modest but decent speaker rig (M51->balanced into a Class-D-Audio SRS-224 -> ProAc Super Tablettes), where I find it absolutely fantastic. Listening to the type of music that the little Tablettes do well (acoustic/folk/vocal), it sounds wonderful - rich, textured, detailed without being bright. The only aspect on which I'll reserve judgement is on bass weight and dynamics, which can't really be evaluated on mini-monitors particularly well.
   
   Functionally, the M51 is a home-run for me. I have it set up as the control center for the TV rig where it works quite well. Two HDMI inputs to handle the DirectTV box and DVD/B-R player, plus spdif for the Squeezebox (eventually will probably replace the squeezebox with a PC connected via USB).  The fact that it replaces a pre-amp/pre-pro as long as you only need stereo is a big win IMHO.


----------



## estreeter

Quote: 





dwk said:


> Functionally, the M51 is a home-run for me. I have it set up as the control center for the TV rig where it works quite well. Two HDMI inputs to handle the DirectTV box and DVD/B-R player, plus spdif for the Squeezebox (eventually will probably replace the squeezebox with a PC connected via USB).  The fact that it replaces a pre-amp/pre-pro as long as you only need stereo is a big win IMHO.


 

 @dwk, you have hit the nail on the head - not sure how many others want a DAC to do so much 'double duty', but for me something with that level of functionality ticks a lot of boxes. I am considering the Octave for desktop use, but the M51 definitely fits into a broader niche. Also looking at Marantz NA7004 as a 'swiss army knife' - it never ends.


----------



## dyl1dyl

More impressions, sounds good.
  http://www.digitalaudioreview.net.au/index.php/news-blog-and-showcase/john-darkos-blog/item/354-nad-m51-digital-direct-dac-initial-impressions


----------



## Stormfriend

Quote: 





bourneperfect said:


> Did you purchase from a dealer or online?
> 
> -Daniel


 

 From a UK retailer, but I bought it remotely as it gives me 7 days no quibble money back under EU distance selling regs, and then the remaider of the 30 days for which I may have to quibble over a 20% restocking fee (they weren't certain, and that's why I won't recommend them here).  They said they'd deliver it on Friday but I've just realised its bank holiday on Friday and Monday here so that may not happen (I suspect they forgot as well), which means it'll be another week before I can get my hands on it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  I'll call them tomorrow to confirm what's happening.


----------



## BournePerfect

Yeah I figured they might not be available online unfortunately-I have a dealer here in SLC that will hook me up in a month or so when I decide on my dac.
   
  -Daniel


----------



## Stormfriend

Apparently NAD made a boo boo and they can't supply the M51 for several weeks now, so they've agreed to refund me and guarantee there'll be no restocking fee if I do subsequently buy and return it.  Ah well, so close...


----------



## estreeter

@Stormfriend,
   
  You have to give them full marks for customer service - consider the number of Head-Fiers who have just been left dangling after ordering gear ....
   
  I take it that you have decided on another DAC and wont wait for more stock ?


----------



## Stormfriend

Yep, I'm happy to buy from them again, so that's the main thing.  I got the refund to keep my options open and avoid any credit card charges whilst I wait, but I'll probably get the M51 eventually.  They'll let me know as soon as they get them in stock.  The only thing that might get my money instead is the Arcam D33 which I'll try and borrow in the meantime.  It sounded pretty good when I first tried it but it wasn't run in and its looks and functionality are lacking compared to the NAD.  At the end of the day I do have a good passive pre, and I barely notice my Micromega T-DAC, so sound quality is what matters...


----------



## mmeysarosh

Its a shame about the availability and my dealer had mentioned that availability was going to be an issue when I purchased it.
   
  The Arcam D33 had peaked my interests at one point, but I thought they may have out priced themselves a bit. If the performance was something stellar on the other hand, maybe I could look its cost aside. From what I have read thus far, its good, but a bit overpriced.
   
  My M51 so far has performed quite well and I plan give a clear comparison to my Marantz SA-11S1. I'll try out M51 directly connected to the amp and see what differences it brings. The M51 is beyond a shadow of doubt an excellent DAC. It provided greater sound stage width and depth without sounding. Bass and dynamics were increased and really helped bring out pace and rhythmic qualities from the music. Its really hard to clearly understand the improvement in detail as its not in a manner of greater emphasis but the ability to permit every sound to presented with greater without any obscurity from one another.
   
  Truly good stuff!


----------



## obzilla

I may be picking one up tomorrow depending on stock or if they are willing to let the demo model go.
  I will be putting it up against the Wyred 4 Sound DAC2 and a recently acquired Calyx 24/192 DAC.
   
  Fingers crossed for tomorrow.


----------



## LostWeekend

I've had one of these for a tiny while.  I find most of the cds (for that is what I'm using right now) sound better with polarity inverted.  More emotionally involving.


----------



## obzilla

Pulled off a good deal on one, and went for it. Currently digesting,


----------



## mmeysarosh

I decided to try out one more DAC to pit against the NAD M51. The challenger will be in the form of the Wadia 121 DAC. Should be an interesting comparison with the M51 using their innovative Zetex chip in comparison to the Digimaster implementation from Wadia.
   
  What I do about the Wadia is the DAC chip being used is the Sabre32 Reference ESS9018 combined with a new version of the Digimaster and XMOS USB interface. A couple of W4S DAC2 owners, even though using the same exact DAC chip, feel its a better implementation of the chip. ToneAudio recently tweeted about the 121, stating it redefines the class of DACs up tp $1500. I do see some chinks in the armor of the Wadia in comparison to the NAD. First is the digital volume control is 32-bit as compared the M51's 35-bit solution. The Wadia uses a switch mode power supply and does not make mention of using discrete Class A output stages. 
   
  What I do know is that it should be quite an interesting comparo!


----------



## sonq

There isn't any mention of discrete Class A output on their top S7i CDP either. Anyway, what really counts is the sound quality. Look forward to your comparison.


----------



## dyl1dyl

Quote: 





mmeysarosh said:


> I decided to try out one more DAC to pit against the NAD M51. The challenger will be in the form of the Wadia 121 DAC. Should be an interesting comparison with the M51 using their innovative Zetex chip in comparison to the Digimaster implementation from Wadia.
> 
> What I do about the Wadia is the DAC chip being used is the Sabre32 Reference ESS9018 combined with a new version of the Digimaster and XMOS USB interface. A couple of W4S DAC2 owners, even though using the same exact DAC chip, feel its a better implementation of the chip. ToneAudio recently tweeted about the 121, stating it redefines the class of DACs up tp $1500. I do see some chinks in the armor of the Wadia in comparison to the NAD. First is the digital volume control is 32-bit as compared the M51's 35-bit solution. The Wadia uses a switch mode power supply and does not make mention of using discrete Class A output stages.
> 
> What I do know is that it should be quite an interesting comparo!


 


  Cool, looking forward to impressions. I'm about to spring for an M51 but might reconsider if the Wadia really blows you away.


----------



## mmeysarosh

The Wadia 121 is in and breaking in via USB at the moment. I have already adjusted the output to 4V to more closely match my Marantz SA-11S1 and NAD M51. Going to give the Wadia  few hours on repeat before I take a real sit down with these three. The veteran, the champ, and the contender.


----------



## woodcans

I have had an M51 for about two months now and find it a fantastic DAC. But when used as a DAC/pre, it really shines. The volume control is second to none I have ever used. The DAC section I have found to be my favorite so far. I actually sold my Dodd Battery Preamp and Metrum Octave once I listened to the NAD. And I liked the Octave better than my (now sold) Weiss DAC2 and Berkeley Alpha (1st version). Having the HDMI inputs is a great addition.
   
  The USB input is very good, but significantly bettered by my Empirical Off Ramp 4 into the coax of the M51. As a matter of fact, my current digital source (Amarra/MBP/OR4/M51) sounds so good, I sold off all of my vinyl equipment. None of my prior DAC/pre combinations ever reached this level.


----------



## mcullinan

Im so close to pulling the trigger! On a dac anyways... Have you ever heard the Bryston BDA-1? If so how do they compare?
  M
  Well Ive narrowed it down between the
  NAD
  Violectric
  Anedio D2
  Or a used Berkely v1


----------



## yfei

people rate Anedio D2 as same or better than Berkeley Alpha V2
  http://ns1.review33.com/avforum/index.php?topic=36120116101008&page=3
  #65
  but D2 not available for purchase right now
   
   
  Quote: 





mcullinan said:


> Im so close to pulling the trigger! On a dac anyways... Have you ever heard the Bryston BDA-1? If so how do they compare?
> M
> Well Ive narrowed it down between the
> NAD
> ...


----------



## Telstar

It seems Nad with the master series did it again 
  Really curious to hear it!


----------



## mcullinan

I'll wait. Can't hurt. 
M


----------



## mmeysarosh

Well after the first day of break in for the Wadia 121 DAC, it now faced its first session against the NAD M51. I can't heap enough praise on the NAD M51 as it showed a clear and significant step up from the Wadia. Its truly sounding wonderful in my system and I have not even tried it direct to amplifier yet.
   
  The Wadia is really quite laid back and does have any of the air, dynamics, and sounds stage abilities of the M51. While the Wadia plays pleasantly in the background, the NAD is just extremely present, detailed, rich, dynamic, and involving.


----------



## obzilla

I notice something similar vs the Calyx, the M51 is definitely more presenting in many aspects.
  The Calyx is more polite (though it seems better than the Wadia based on what you've written), which bodes better with some phones.
  The NAD is my hands down choice with the LCD2s as they benefit from the extra high end edge and detail rendition and imaging.
  The HD800s are excellent in those categories and they don't need any boost, so it becomes a bit over done, I find it goes much better with the Calyx which warms it up a bit and keeps the highs nice and smooth.
   
  Horses for courses.


----------



## estreeter

*Excellent feedback guys* - one of the most frequent complaints I see in this forum seems to be that we dont compare new sources with other comparable kit - on this page alone we have clear recommendations for the M51 as both DAC and preamp over other desirable kit - subjective opinions, granted, but it all adds to the overall impression I'm getting of the NAD. I havent seen any measurements, but thats a thread best left in Sound Science.


----------



## mmeysarosh

I would be astonished if the M51 didn't achieve exemplary measurements. I'm using the NAD M2 as a reference for measurements and it was given a clean bill of health. The proof is in the pudding, so to speak, and NAD is most certainly delivering.
   
  I will state that all my listening has been done via balanced outputs. I say this as other forum users seem to agree that it sounds best in this manner. I know the unit is now a little challenging to come by in some parts, but I would urge anyone looking for a DAC to put this unit as a must listen.
   
  The next step will be to bypass my Pass XP-10 and try it direct to my X250.5. If it does improve by eliminating the preamp, I wouldn't be shy in saying that it would certainly be one of the best DAC with digital Pre on the market. The unique architecture of the Zetex chip allows for more attenuation without truncation in the digital domain than any other product out there.


----------



## estreeter

Quote: 





mmeysarosh said:


> I would be astonished if the M51 didn't achieve exemplary measurements. I'm using the NAD M2 as a reference for measurements and it was given a clean bill of health. The proof is in the pudding, so to speak, and NAD is most certainly delivering.
> 
> I will state that all my listening has been done via balanced outputs. I say this as other forum users seem to agree that it sounds best in this manner. I know the unit is now a little challenging to come by in some parts, but I would urge anyone looking for a DAC to put this unit as a must listen.
> 
> The next step will be to bypass my Pass XP-10 and try it direct to my X250.5. If it does improve by eliminating the preamp, I wouldn't be shy in saying that it would certainly be one of the best DAC with digital Pre on the market. The unique architecture of the Zetex chip allows for more attenuation without truncation in the digital domain than any other product out there.


 
   
  I think we might need to qualify some of that with 'any other product in a similar price bracket'. I haven''t heard your system, and I havent heard Meridian's Audio Core 200 with their DSP range of active speakers, but those who have seem to say silly things like 'worth every penny'.  Its only when you download Meridian's US price list that the impact of that claim sinks in. If they are all shills for Meridian, it would explain why the company needs to charge so much for everything on their infernal product price list.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  Don't get me wrong - I want the M51 to be a giant killer, but I'm wary of wild claims on Head-Fi, particularly when there is so much competition out there. Even if such comparisons are meaningless, NAD appears to have released another in a long line of screaming audio bargains, and that's a thrill that few Meridian customers will ever know.   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  Just my two cents worth.


----------



## mmeysarosh

I certainly understand and this also is something that is a matter of perspective and preference. I agree with the sentiments that is within a certain price range, but in the case with this NAD, it seems to a significant degree upward. My Marantz SA-11S1 was always regarded as a very good red book player and excellent with SACD. Surpassing this player was already good starting point.
   
  But its also about system synergies as well. A B&W user would be one example in which a laid back sound might be preferential. So while one setup works well with my Kef Ref, the B&W owner gets something else entirely.
   
  But for myself, I am in no doubt listening to a very good product that seems to be more competitive to its price and above then below. The same had been mentioned by other users in various forums. Two professional reviews in foreign countries also gave it  favorable review, echoing the same sentiments.
   
  Now getting your mitts on it for home trial is entirely another matter until next month. The other sweet part of my deal is that I had picked it up at bit below list, which certainly always nice.


----------



## obzilla

Quote: 





mmeysarosh said:


> Now getting your mitts on it for home trial is entirely another matter until next month. The other sweet part of my deal is that I had picked it up at bit below list, which certainly always nice.


 
   
  Not having heard it before, getting it $300 below MSRP certainly helped me in the leap of faith.


----------



## woodcans

Quote: 





mmeysarosh said:


> I would be astonished if the M51 didn't achieve exemplary measurements. I'm using the NAD M2 as a reference for measurements and it was given a clean bill of health. The proof is in the pudding, so to speak, and NAD is most certainly delivering.
> 
> I will state that all my listening has been done via balanced outputs. I say this as other forum users seem to agree that it sounds best in this manner. I know the unit is now a little challenging to come by in some parts, but I would urge anyone looking for a DAC to put this unit as a must listen.
> 
> The next step will be to bypass my Pass XP-10 and try it direct to my X250.5. If it does improve by eliminating the preamp, I wouldn't be shy in saying that it would certainly be one of the best DAC with digital Pre on the market. The unique architecture of the Zetex chip allows for more attenuation without truncation in the digital domain than any other product out there.


 
   
  I am interested to hear your thoughts on using it as a preamp, especially considering what it would be replacing. I am also using the balanced outputs. I am sending the SE outputs to my sub.


----------



## mcullinan

In the US thet are selling online for $1999. What price did you get it at, maybe I can haggle.
  Always looking to save a little $$
  M


----------



## obzilla

Quote: 





mcullinan said:


> In the US thet are selling online for $1999. What price did you get it at, maybe I can haggle.
> Always looking to save a little $$
> M


 
   
  I got mine for $1700CDN


----------



## mcullinan

Wow.. the dollar is less than  canadian. I remember when (I have family in Ontario) Id go to Canada and get like 1.50 for $1.00US.
  Thanks... M


----------



## obzilla

The Canadian and US Dollars float around parity lately. One day one is worth .01 more, they other, the other is up. MSRP here is $2k as well.


----------



## mmeysarosh

I picked up my own for $1760 USD, including shipping.


----------



## woodcans

Full retail for me. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  But, the sound has been worth every penny!


----------



## dyl1dyl

I managed to get my M51 at a very attractive price here in Singapore. Here are some impressions of mine that I posted in another forum.
   
http://www.stereo.net.au/forums/index.php?/topic/40613-nad-m51-listening-impressions/page__st__315
   
  Just look at the long post at the top of the page. Anyway, a quick summary would be that I am extremely impressed with this DAC.


----------



## mcullinan

Nice review!


----------



## MorbidToaster

I'd love to try it but I just got a new DAC and I'm happy with it so there's no reason for me to order one and compare.


----------



## obzilla

Quote: 





morbidtoaster said:


> I'd love to try it but I just got a new DAC and I'm happy with it so there's no reason for me to order one and compare.


 
   
  Well that's certainly very useful.


----------



## MorbidToaster

obzilla said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Oh hush. Posted so I can keep up with the thread (because I am interested).

Edit: Better yet send me yours so I can compare.


----------



## obzilla

Quote: 





morbidtoaster said:


> Edit: Better yet send me yours so I can compare.


 
   
  If it weren't for the border issue, I would have no problem loaning it.
   
  Unfortunately I'm not willing to pay tax on it again when it (presumably) returns.
  Though you are of course welcomed for auditions, you can even sit in my chair.


----------



## ztsen

Quote: 





dyl1dyl said:


> I managed to get my M51 at a very attractive price here in Singapore. Here are some impressions of mine that I posted in another forum.
> 
> http://www.stereo.net.au/forums/index.php?/topic/40613-nad-m51-listening-impressions/page__st__315
> 
> Just look at the long post at the top of the page. Anyway, a quick summary would be that I am extremely impressed with this DAC.


 
   
   where you bought? I enquiry that said only Aug have stock.


----------



## mcullinan

Picked one up... the last one! They said they will be out for months...I wanted to wait for the Anedio, but I have no freaking patience! lol
  Should be here middle of next week. Got it for 1759 USD. Not too bad. Wife is going to chop certain parts off me. I will have a high voice.
  Psyched.
   
  I can compare it to my Bryston BDA-1 DAC which costs more actually.


----------



## woodcans

Quote: 





mcullinan said:


> Picked one up... the last one! They said they will be out for months...I wanted to wait for the Anedio, but I have no freaking patience! lol
> Should be here middle of next week. Got it for 1759 USD. Not too bad. Wife is going to chop certain parts off me. I will have a high voice.
> Psyched.
> 
> I can compare it to my Bryston BDA-1 DAC which costs more actually.


 
   

 Nice! Looking forward to your comparo.


----------



## mcullinan

Ive got a good question... Will the Balanced and unbalanced outputs work at the same time? If I use it on 2.1 and as a preamp instead of just a DAC will both outputs work for speakers and sub.
  M


----------



## woodcans

Yes, both balanced and SE outputs work simultaneously. I am driving my sub via the SE out and my amp balanced.


----------



## mcullinan

Nice. My amps are single ended so I'll just use converters for the balanced. Not sure if it will replace my preamp though. I have a supra trek Sauvignon preamp, made in Australia... Great pre. Amps are Manley Mahi mahis. Speakers are Merlin Vsm mx and a Velodyne sub. Can't wait!


----------



## woodcans

Don't underestimate the quality of the preamp function, at the very least give it a try.


----------



## mcullinan

I will for sure.


----------



## dyl1dyl

ztsen said:


> where you bought? I enquiry that said only Aug have stock.




Lenbrook Sg (the local distributor) told me that it was only coming about June but I managed to get a 2 week old unit from someone who was renovating his house and selling some stuff so that it wouldn't get damaged from the renovation.


----------



## preproman

Have anyone compared the Nad M51 with the Audiolab 8200CD (M-DAC technology)?


----------



## obzilla

If anyone out there with an M51 could check on something for me I would appreciate it.
   
  We have HDMI in, meant for DVD or BluRay (as no DSD decoding in the DAC, SACD would only give us normal redbook PCM), what I am wondering, is if it can accept the I2S format over HDMI? From something like a PS Audio PW Transport, or perhaps the W4S Music Server.
   
  If anyone has an I2S device with HDMI can you give it a spin? I don't see any mention of it in the documentation, but I also don't see it as incompatible.
   
  I've tried connecting the HDMI out of my Mac Mini to the NAD, results were underwhealming. Not because of the sound, it was fine, it just used Apple core audio, crashed any kind of bit perfect app, and also locked up the DAC. I couldn't change sources, or shut it off, I had to cold boot it each time I got the HDMI signal connected.
   
  Again, there was no mention of computer audio over HDMI, but it also doesn't go into any detail, so I gave it a shot. Seems to not be meant for that, I'm wondering the same about I2S over HDMI.
   
  Thanks in advance to anyone with answers.


----------



## speeddeacon

Quote: 





obzilla said:


> I've tried connecting the HDMI out of my Mac Mini to the NAD, results were underwhealming. Not because of the sound, it was fine, it just used Apple core audio, crashed any kind of bit perfect app, and also locked up the DAC. I couldn't change sources, or shut it off, I had to cold boot it each time I got the HDMI signal connected.
> 
> Again, there was no mention of computer audio over HDMI, but it also doesn't go into any detail, so I gave it a shot. Seems to not be meant for that, I'm wondering the same about I2S over HDMI.


 
   
  What do you mean by Apple core audio?
   
  This is concerning to me because that is exactly how I was thinking about using it.  Glad I haven't pulled the trigger just yet.  Perhaps the HDMI is only for video associated audio but that would be disappointing.
   
  Is the MacMini even capable of outputting 24/192 via HDMI?


----------



## obzilla

Quote: 





speeddeacon said:


> What do you mean by Apple core audio?


 
   
  Apple's operating system level audio handler, easily defeated with Bit Perfect / Audrivana / et al.
   
   
   


> This is concerning to me because that is exactly how I was thinking about using it.  Glad I haven't pulled the trigger just yet.  Perhaps the HDMI is only for video associated audio but that would be disappointing.
> 
> Is the MacMini even capable of outputting 24/192 via HDMI?


 
   
  I have no problems with Toslink or USB. It just seems it wasn't designed with PC audio over HDMI in mind, that or something is up with my unit, or I am leaving something important out..
  I'll write NAD and see what the deal is.
   
  There is no reason that it can't put out 24/192 over HDMI, it's well within the specs of the HDMI standard, just a matter of compatibility with the device. Again, I'll write NAD. It just may not be a feature of the M51. I wouldn't let it deter you from buying one.
   
  I did find out that it accepts I2S over HDMI, few devices output this, but it accepts it.


----------



## estreeter

NAD seem keen to push their Modular Design Construction (MDC) philosophy, and I think that's an excellent concept. I guess we'll know how well it works in practice as more M2-derived goodies come down the pike:
   
http://nadelectronics.com/products/hifi-amplifiers/C-390DD-Direct-Digital-Powered-DAC-Amplifier


----------



## speeddeacon

Quote: 





obzilla said:


> Apple's operating system level audio handler, easily defeated with Bit Perfect / Audrivana / et al.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   

 Ok, thanks for the info, keep us posted about the compatibility with the MacMini over HDMI.


----------



## dwk

Quote: 





obzilla said:


> I have no problems with Toslink or USB. It just seems it wasn't designed with PC audio over HDMI in mind, that or something is up with my unit, or I am leaving something important out..
> I'll write NAD and see what the deal is.
> 
> There is no reason that it can't put out 24/192 over HDMI, it's well within the specs of the HDMI standard, just a matter of compatibility with the device. Again, I'll write NAD. It just may not be a feature of the M51. I wouldn't let it deter you from buying one.
> ...


 
  I've had a few lockups with the M51 using HDMI as well. In my case my signal chain is  DirectTV hd box -> wireless HDMI sender -> M51 ->TV.  I believe that my lockups have been when I've power cycled the wireless HDMI sender while the M51 is on and set to the HDMI input. It seems likely that something in the HDMI renegotiation handshake is causing it to lock up, but it doesn't occur 'normally' when the sender is already on and I power up the Direct TV box.  I haven't tried HDMI audio from a PC yet, but sending PCM over HDMI from an Oppo DVD player hasn't run into any problems.
   
  BTW - I think you are most likely mistaken on the I2S over HDMI question. PS Audio simply used the HDMI connector to transmit I2S signals - there is no standard for this, and it's absolutely unrelated in any way to HDMI audio/video.   Where did you get the info that the M51 supports it?


----------



## obzilla

Quote: 





dwk said:


> BTW - I think you are most likely mistaken on the I2S over HDMI question. PS Audio simply used the HDMI connector to transmit I2S signals - there is no standard for this, and it's absolutely unrelated in any way to HDMI audio/video.   Where did you get the info that the M51 supports it?


 
   
  No there is no standard, but PS Audio and Wyred 4 Sound are both taking a similar (and from what I hear, coincidentally compatible) approach with I2S over HDMI. Which is why I am hoping someone out there has access to a PW Transport, or a W4S mini server to test if they are by chance compatible with the NAD. More so the W4S server, if compatible I would snap one up and use it as a dedicated source.
   
  Here is the info I have found by searching around.
   


> _*Next generation connectivity includes I2S inputs via HDMI *and an Asynchronous USB input featuring audio codec 2.0 with 24bit/192 kHz support. There is also an HDMI video pass-through allowing the M51 Direct Digital DAC to strip the 2 channel PCM sound track from Blu-ray and DVD discs while passing unprocessed video to the video display, creating a 2.0 Home Theater experience. Finally, traditional S/PDIF inputs supporting AES/EBU, Coaxial and Optical connections with 24 bit 192 kHz resolution are also provided._


 
   
  It comes from this brochure.
   
  https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpeterhoagland.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F08%2FNR-NAD-M51-Direct-Digital-DAC-1-09-2012.doc&ei=VHCVT5_7B4ay8ATxhcWVBA&usg=AFQjCNE1PciFql8KnwjvFpTw5Rh3wZ-Q7Q
   
  And again here in the NAD official datasheet from their website.
   
  http://nadelectronics.com/download.php?111221101428-NAD_M51_DataSheet.pdf|Data%20Sheet%20-%20M51%20Direct%20Digital%20DAC
   
   
   


> _> Next Generation Connectivity_
> _While the M51 includes the industry standard SPDIF inputs,_
> _including AES/EBU, Optical and Coaxial. The M51 also_
> _includes the latest USB technology fully supporting 192kHz_
> ...


----------



## mcullinan

My NAD M51 arrives in 2 days.... Wife .. not happy... yet... i am. hmm.
)
  M


----------



## estreeter

Look at the upside - you can always find a new partner, but good DACs are somewhat harder to come by.


----------



## mcullinan

Hahahaha ... Funny!


----------



## mcullinan

Received the N51 today! A tentative wow! Huge soundstage, very neutral sounding, actually pretty close to the Bryston. I'm going to let it cook on play for 4 or 5 days, it def needs break in. Hopefully I'll get in some good listening sessions soon. 

Oh and it's a looker.


----------



## obzilla

Quote: 





mcullinan said:


> Received the N51 today! A tentative wow! Huge soundstage, very neutral sounding, actually pretty close to the Bryston. I'm going to let it cook on play for 4 or 5 days, it def needs break in. Hopefully I'll get in some good listening sessions soon.
> Oh and it's a looker.


 
   
  Do me a favor and see how computer audio works for you over HDMI. Mine still locks up with the Mac. I've written NAD and they said they are looking into it, and that it is probably a software issue.
   
  My Marantz universal player works beautifully over HDMI with it, CDs report 44.1k, and interestingly, SACDs report 88.2k, which is odd as the redbook layer should be read, but I won't complain if it's picking up a better sample rate, or even if it just thinks it is.
   
  If you have a PC or Mac with HDMI could you give it a shot for me and tell me what it does ok?
   
  Oh, and congrats!


----------



## mcullinan

I have an old Mac.. Quad G5. No hdmi. You don't mean USB do you? Do new computers have hdmi now? New macs should be out next month.. I hope. Doubt they wil have HDMI though.. But idk. 

Really nice highs on the Nad... Like buttah. Pre is pretty darn good too..l but I'm only burning the Nad in in my second system, so I won't know how it stacks against the supratek.

M
Thanks! For the congrats

Hey I hope they will let us upgrade the Nad so I don't have to lug it in to a dealer every time!


----------



## obzilla

Quote: 





mcullinan said:


> I have an old Mac.. Quad G5. No hdmi. You don't mean USB do you? Do new computers have hdmi now? New macs should be out next month.. I hope. Doubt they wil have HDMI though.. But idk.
> Really nice highs on the Nad... Like buttah. Pre is pretty darn good too..l but I'm only burning the Nad in in my second system, so I won't know how it stacks against the supratek.
> M
> Thanks! For the congrats
> Hey I hope they will let us upgrade the Nad so I don't have to lug it in to a dealer every time!


 
   
  No, I mean HDMI, unless I write USB, then I mean USB 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  Almost all current computers have HDMI. Macs included (mini and pro for sure... macbooks no). USB is fantastic with the NAD so is TOSLINK, I just want to explore other options, since they are there. On the HDMI side with the mac it's a bit of a bust. HDMI from my bluray/SACD player is however great. Sounds like maybe NAD just needs to release a driver (if computer audio over HDMI is something that they want to support)


----------



## mcullinan

Gotcha. I will be running bluray and the food tv through the dec. Probably the best way, then single out to tv? 
  Also I have a desktop mac, I do web design, logo design etc. (See http://www.mentalpixel.com ) so I need the power. I run the Squeezebox server up stairs on that computer hopefully upgraded soon, to a SB Touch --> USB -->NADM51 --> Supratek Sauvignon pre --> Manley Mahi Mahi mono amps --> Merlin VSM MX
   
  Right now the NAD is burning in in my 2nd system. What do you think for burn in, like 4 days?
  Thanks!
  M


----------



## obzilla

Quote: 





mcullinan said:


> Right now the NAD is burning in in my 2nd system. What do you think for burn in, like 4 days?
> Thanks!
> M


 
   
  I didn't really notice any burn in changes. I have on some headphones before, but it was perhaps placebo. This DAC has sounded fantastic from day 1, I recommend just listening to music with it, rather than waiting for something to happen that may or may not.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  If you're a firm believer in burn in, then sure, give it a few days, but I would rather spend those days listening to it.


----------



## mcullinan

Ill run it and switch it into my main system on Friday. I do notice differences, speakers, power cables, etc..
  I have a logitech Harmony remote too, so I have to set that up too, to run the NAD...
  In my second system, I notice a big difference. Big top end airiness, nice decay, attack.
  Detail is really good too.
  This DAC won't improve your bad recordings. Instead of pulling all the recordings to a nice comfy middle place where most music will sound good, your music stays truer to the recording quality. Flat recordings sound flat. At least when using the DAc and pre functions.
   
  M


----------



## obzilla

Quote: 





mcullinan said:


> This DAC won't improve your bad recordings.


 
   
  No it sure won't. It's quite transparent. Good recordings sound phenomenal, bad ones have their worst parts exposed.


----------



## woodcans

Agreed on the DAC exposing both good and bad recordings. I have detected no burn in change with mine. Blu ray sound over HDMI is excellent.


----------



## mcullinan

Do both you guys run it as a preamp too or just a DAC?


----------



## woodcans

I'm running mine as a preamp & DAC. The preamp function sounded so good in my system, I sold my analog preamp (which was pretty nice, btw).


----------



## BoogieWoogie

How do you bypass the preamp ?


----------



## obzilla

Quote: 





boogiewoogie said:


> How do you bypass the preamp ?


 
   
  I don't believe you actually can, so if you are using it, you are using it as a preamp, technically.
  I leave mine at 0db and control my amps volume with it's dial, as it has a nice potentometer / volume pot.


----------



## mcullinan

Well you can set the output to fixed and run everything out to another pre.  Just fix it at 100 or loudest.  or you could use 2 volume knobs. 2 is always better than 1!
  M
   
  Ill see Friday, maybe I will boot my pre too.


----------



## MorbidToaster

I'd like to use my XDA-1 as a pre (which I do now) but if you another analog source you're stuck. Turntables are legit though.


----------



## obzilla

Quote: 





mcullinan said:


> Well you can set the output to fixed and run everything out to another pre.


 
   
  Ah right, you can set it to fixed. Would that be the same as 0db or +10db?


----------



## mmeysarosh

I just started using the M51 without my preamp and it seems to drive everything quite well. I will try a session between the two over the weekend and provide some notes on what I hear.


----------



## mcullinan

you know I'm not sure... can't wait to get home and do more listening.


----------



## woodcans

Quote: 





morbidtoaster said:


> I'd like to use my XDA-1 as a pre (which I do now) but if you another analog source you're stuck. Turntables are legit though.


 
   
  My system with the m51 sounds so good, I sold my turntable and entire vinyl/analog setup.


----------



## dwk

Quote: 





obzilla said:


> No there is no standard, but PS Audio and Wyred 4 Sound are both taking a similar (and from what I hear, coincidentally compatible) approach with I2S over HDMI. Which is why I am hoping someone out there has access to a PW Transport, or a W4S mini server to test if they are by chance compatible with the NAD. More so the W4S server, if compatible I would snap one up and use it as a dedicated source.
> 
> It comes from this brochure.
> 
> ...


 
  Interesting - missed this. I remain a bit skeptical due to the wording and the lack of specific compatibility info, but they are clearly using the term I2S though, so who knows.


----------



## dwk

Quote: 





obzilla said:


> My Marantz universal player works beautifully over HDMI with it, CDs report 44.1k, and interestingly, SACDs report 88.2k, which is odd as the redbook layer should be read, but I won't complain if it's picking up a better sample rate, or even if it just thinks it is.


 
   
  This is how the Oppo players handle SACD as well - as 88k pcm. Assuming the Marantz is an SACD player, maybe this isn't all that surprising.  On the other hand, when I've had my HDMI lockups, I think the display has shown 88.2k despite the original source being 48k, so I guess you can't rule out confusion.
   
  Quote: 





mcullinan said:


> o a SB Touch --> USB -->NADM51 --> Supratek Sauvignon pre --> Manley Mahi Mahi mono amps --> Merlin VSM MX
> 
> Right now the NAD is burning in in my 2nd system. What do you think for burn in, like 4 days?
> Thanks!
> M


 
  When I read the thread over on the squeezebox forums on the EDO app, the only person to mention the M51 was reporting that USB wasn't working. I have a touch, but it'll be some time before I can try USB out to the M51. 192k over spdif did work though according to the report, which would still be a decent signal chain.
   My plan is SBT->M51->NCore->????? (speakers to be decided - Selah Tempestas are in the lead at the moment).  The ability of the M51 to serve as a balanced pre makes this attractively minimalist.


----------



## obzilla

Quote: 





dwk said:


> This is how the Oppo players handle SACD as well - as 88k pcm. Assuming the Marantz is an SACD player, maybe this isn't all that surprising.  On the other hand, when I've had my HDMI lockups, I think the display has shown 88.2k despite the original source being 48k, so I guess you can't rule out confusion.


 
   
  It's a universal Bluray/DVD/SACD player, so I guess that makes sense, Strange to normal redbook come out at 44.1, and the redbook layer of an SACD (since this is not a DSD DAC) come out at 88.2
   
  As far as the HDMI stuff. The Sonore Music Server lists all these as compatible I2S HDMI devices
   
  http://www.sonore.us/Sonore-I2S-Compatibility.html
   
  The M51 is newer to market, and not on the list (yet) but I have a hunch it's using the same pin configuration as these guys (notice the pin settings of the devices that are compatible), we will have another connectivity option. But we can't know until someone tests it, NAD tech support over their website is slow and not very informative, I'll try calling at some point.
   
  https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?hl=en_US&hl=en_US&key=0AgVhKcl_3lHfdFhNT0xWQnNVWTI1QjhTdXVGVThiYnc&output=html


----------



## MorbidToaster

Any word on a possible black unit?


----------



## obzilla

Quote: 





morbidtoaster said:


> Any word on a possible black unit?


 
   
  If you mean the chasis, it's doubtful, All the Master Series products are grey / silver.


----------



## dwk

Quote: 





obzilla said:


> It's a universal Bluray/DVD/SACD player, so I guess that makes sense, Strange to normal redbook come out at 44.1, and the redbook layer of an SACD (since this is not a DSD DAC) come out at 88.2


 
   
  It's not reading the redbook layer - it's reading the DSD layer and doing an on-the-fly conversion to 88.2k PCM.  The redbook layer would in fact come through at 44.1.


----------



## obzilla

Quote: 





dwk said:


> It's not reading the redbook layer - it's reading the DSD layer and doing an on-the-fly conversion to 88.2k PCM.  The redbook layer would in fact come through at 44.1.


 
   
  OK, that makes sense that the player is doing a PCM conversion. I had never used anything other than analog out, or HDMI to a receiver with it before.
  Thanks!


----------



## mcullinan

Pic, on top of a 20+ year old adcom


----------



## obzilla

Looking good! 
   
   
  Have any other owner looked into the M50 Media player? Basically the new master series CD player that connects to USB storage and rips CDs and works as the head of a music server (wifi streaming, ipad/pod library remote etc).
  Kind of like some of the Vortex Box servers out there. It looks fantastic, but it's a bit on the steep side ($2500 if I am not mistaken). I'm checking with my local NAD dealer to see if she has one, or can get one, and if I can get a good price. A more expensive means of removing the computer from the equation, but possibly more elegant.


----------



## mcullinan

This issue I have with rippers or proprietary music servers is are you going to get the support, plugins and ease of use like Squeezebox, since it has a broad audience.


----------



## obzilla

Sorry, I don't see what squeezebox has to do with it?


----------



## mcullinan

I would consider the product the pioneer in that area. They have been working out the user interface for 10 years, were bought up by Logitech. When you look at the Bryston server or M50. How many people do they have devoted to that one product, its niche, where Squeezebox thats all they do? Maybe its easier to create than I think... idk. 
  Just wondering is all.


----------



## obzilla

Yeah, I know what you mean. But a small transparant OS that manages a large library and is controlable by an iDevice for example, isn't exactly rocket science. So there are a lot of options. I'm just not that interested in squeeze box, just looking into more elegant options.
   
  That and I could use a nice CD player. This one would match. I'm looking into all options for this, but this one is attractive.


----------



## woodcans

Quote: 





obzilla said:


> Looking good!
> 
> 
> Have any other owner looked into the M50 Media player? Basically the new master series CD player that connects to USB storage and rips CDs and works as the head of a music server (wifi streaming, ipad/pod library remote etc).
> Kind of like some of the Vortex Box servers out there. It looks fantastic, but it's a bit on the steep side ($2500 if I am not mistaken). I'm checking with my local NAD dealer to see if she has one, or can get one, and if I can get a good price. A more expensive means of removing the computer from the equation, but possibly more elegant.


 
   
  That looks like a nice unit! Keep us posted if you try one out. Do you know what connectivity options it has (out to the dac)?


----------



## obzilla

Quote: 





woodcans said:


> That looks like a nice unit! Keep us posted if you try one out. Do you know what connectivity options it has (out to the dac)?


 
   
  Yeah, I'm eyeing it and the digital vault (m52). Really expensive server once it's all said and done, but I might go all out. Waiting to hear back from my dealer.


----------



## MorbidToaster

I didn't check but I assume the M50 has I2S?
  Quote: 





obzilla said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## obzilla

Quote: 





morbidtoaster said:


> I didn't check but I assume the M50 has I2S?


 
   
  I can't find it in writing. But it does do an HDMI out signal (from attached storage, or CDs / DVDs) to the M51. The M51 states I2S over HDMI compatibility, one would assume this is the method since the 3 are all intended to run together, but currently it's just assumption. 
   

   

   
   
  If my dealer can get me on under retail, and it's available, I'll probably pick it up next week and have more to report. I'm not even sure that they are out yet. The info I can find is from as far back as September and as recent as January, saying it was due in March. It's almost May, so hopefully it's around.
   
  Mac mini would move to the bedroom with the Calyx, and the NAD stack (lol) would be the livingtoom rig. Who knows though, I might chicken out. Nothing is broken with the Mac setup, so I might just be trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. I might just buy another mini and more storage and skip all this expensive nonsense.


----------



## MorbidToaster

I could see myself ending up with 2 completely different rigs similar to where you may end up with the M50. 
   
  The idea of putting the headphone rig in a corner closer to the balcony for 'listening with a view' is appealing. 
   
  Quote: 





obzilla said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## mcullinan

What is the middle NAD piece without the screen? Power supply?


----------



## obzilla

Quote: 





mcullinan said:


> What is the middle NAD piece without the screen? Power supply?


 
   
  Their 3TB RAID 5 "digital media vault", the M52. Hook it up to the M50, it rips to that, and you can of course use it as a networks storage.


----------



## mcullinan

Nice. I'm running a 6tb raid 5 now. Of course that one is prettier.


----------



## mcullinan

Weirdest thing... All the remote buttons work except for the on button. Anyone have any ideas? HAve I travelled into the 4th dimension????


----------



## MorbidToaster

mcullinan said:


> Weirdest thing... All the remote buttons work except for the on button. Anyone have any ideas? HAve I travelled into the 4th dimension????




Not a problem if you never turn it off


----------



## sjay

apparently more stock is due in .au mid next month and all prior units delivered here sold out very very quickly.
   
  i have put my name down for one, pending an audition as i was looking to upgrade from my nfb2 anyway and this looks like a good fit.
   
  the connectivity options may be a little buggy at this time but as they can upgrade the firmware, it will get fixed soon , its the typical "get it out there and get the market share, then we can patch it later on" attitude, very microsoft like lol but also very typical of the software industry.


----------



## mcullinan

Haha!


----------



## mcullinan

So it's in my main system... A couple comparisons to the Bryston.. Bryston is warmer sounding and more laid back. I'd say the Bryston is still a pretty neutral sounding Dac though. The Nad is not forward sounding either. The Nad makes instruments sound far more real, especially piano. The Nad has less bass, more detail and control than the Bryston. I notice great separation between left and right. Mids are nice. I think you notice more because their is less bass bloom. It doesn't sound thin, but is very different in presentation. The Dac is very fast and captures a ridiculous amount of detail, it's still musical though. 
This is just listening to it as a Dac, without the pre function.


----------



## obzilla

Yeah, pretty much in agreement with you Mcullinan. It really digs down deep into those details bringing every last bit to the table. Excellent imaging and separation.
  The bass is not enhanced in any way, so I find it's not as great of a match for brighter/thinner cans (ie HD800) but really brings the darker more laid back cans (ie LCD2) up to a whole new level.


----------



## woodcans

Quote: 





mcullinan said:


> So it's in my main system... A couple comparisons to the Bryston.. Bryston is warmer sounding and more laid back. I'd say the Bryston is still a pretty neutral sounding Dac though. The Nad is not forward sounding either. The Nad makes instruments sound far more real, especially piano. The Nad has less bass, more detail and control than the Bryston. I notice great separation between left and right. Mids are nice. I think you notice more because their is less bass bloom. It doesn't sound thin, but is very different in presentation. The Dac is very fast and captures a ridiculous amount of detail, it's still musical though.
> This is just listening to it as a Dac, without the pre function.


 
   

 These observations are in line with mine. Except that I think the bass is accurate and controlled, not lacking in any way. I have found that these attributes only improve when used as pre.


----------



## woodcans

Quote: 





mcullinan said:


> Weirdest thing... All the remote buttons work except for the on button. Anyone have any ideas? HAve I travelled into the 4th dimension????


 
   

 Mine works, but I never turn it off.


----------



## speeddeacon

Obzilla,

How is the comparo between the M51 and the DAC-2 coming? I'm thinking about those two so I"d like to hear your thoughts since you have them both.


----------



## obzilla

Quote: 





speeddeacon said:


> Obzilla,
> How is the comparo between the M51 and the DAC-2 coming? I'm thinking about those two so I"d like to hear your thoughts since you have them both.


 
   
  I no longer have the W4S. I had 3 DACs for a short period, and while the DAC2 is a great DAC that plays out of it's price range... I wound up preferring the Calyx and NAD. 
   
  If you can spring the extra cash for the M51, I think the difference is worth it. If $1,500 is the top of your budget, I think the W4S will not disappoint you.


----------



## speeddeacon

obzilla said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Thanks for the reply. $500 is no deal breaker at all, I was just interested in the sonic qualities of the two. If the NAD is really superior it's a no brainier. If not I'll stick with the W4S. Thanks again and look forward to hearing more impressions of the M51!


----------



## BournePerfect

Any comparisons to the Eximus DP1?
   
  -Daniel


----------



## obzilla

Quote: 





bourneperfect said:


> Any comparisons to the Eximus DP1?
> 
> -Daniel


 
   
  No comparisons from me anyways, as I haven't heard it. It was on my short list though. I wound up excluding it because of it's price, and the fact that I wanted every penny to go to the DAC and not a combo box. I already have some nice amps so it didn't make sense for me to put money into something with an amp.
   
  I would certainly be interested in hearing comparisons though (DAC vs DAC via a separate amp for both) if anyone has access to both. I've read lots of good things about it.


----------



## woodcans

Quote: 





bourneperfect said:


> Any comparisons to the Eximus DP1?
> 
> -Daniel


 
   

 I have never heard one. Thought about it before buying the NAD. If anyone has heard both, please chime in.


----------



## mcullinan

I'd like to hear some comparisons too. 

Playing 192k files on Nad, screen says 96k. What do you think is it wrong? Going squeezebox touch out coax to Nad?
Thanks!
Mike
Sample rate in sb touch browser says 192/24.


----------



## mcullinan

Btw the Dac is going back on Tuesday. There is something wrong with the remote function. All remote buttons work on startup. Then about a half hour later if you shut it off, the on from remote no longer works. Then about an hour in, all remote functions stop working. It was there last one so I will be waiting to get a new one whenever they come out again. Awesome Dac. Seems to do everything right, except remote. Lol.. Blows away the Bryston.


----------



## BoogieWoogie

Quote: 





mcullinan said:


> I'd like to hear some comparisons too.
> Playing 192k files on Nad, screen says 96k. What do you think is it wrong? Going squeezebox touch out coax to Nad?
> Thanks!
> Mike
> Sample rate in sb touch browser says 192/24.


 
   

 The SB only outputs 24/96k unless you install a plugin.


----------



## mcullinan

I thought the SB Touch outputted 192? Well that could be the reason haha..
What is the plugin called?
M


----------



## BoogieWoogie

Quote: 





mcullinan said:


> I thought the SB Touch outputted 192? Well that could be the reason haha..
> What is the plugin called?
> M


 
   

 Here http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?94512-Announce-Enhanced-Digital-Output-app-USB-Dac-and-192k-Digital-Ouput&highlight=triode+plugin+asyncronous


----------



## mcullinan

Found it. It won't work on the Nad USB. Has anyone gotten it to function?
Thanks!
M


----------



## BoogieWoogie

Quote: 





mcullinan said:


> Found it. It won't work on the Nad USB. Has anyone gotten it to function?
> Thanks!
> M


 
   
  Some one here reported to work over USB a couple posts behind. But weren't you using coax ?


----------



## mcullinan

I have a USB cable lying around. It said 192 on the Nad USB screen, but no sound.


----------



## BoogieWoogie

Quote: 





mcullinan said:


> I have a USB cable lying around. It said 192 on the Nad USB screen, but no sound.


 
   
  With the plugin ?


----------



## mcullinan

Forgot to change output under settings, works fine.


----------



## BoogieWoogie

Quote: 





mcullinan said:


> Forgot to change output under settings, works fine.


 
   
  With usb ? If so you may want to report on the thread for the working list of dacs.


----------



## DaveBSC

Can anyone confirm whether the USB input on the M51 is actually asynchronous, or is it some kind of custom isosynchronous implementation like the ARC DAC8? I'm interested in this DAC and the new Anedio.


----------



## obzilla

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Can anyone confirm whether the USB input on the M51 is actually asynchronous, or is it some kind of custom isosynchronous implementation like the ARC DAC8? I'm interested in this DAC and the new Anedio.


 
   
  It's asynchronous, they claim in the data sheet.
   
  http://nadelectronics.com/products/masters-series/M51-Direct-Digital-DAC
   
  Go down, check manuals and downloads.
   
_[size=7.000000pt]USB Audio Codec 2.0: asynchronous 24/192 support    [/size]_


----------



## DaveBSC

Thanks. Unfortunately it seems that while both are asynchronous, the inputs on both still aren't as good as the upper end converters.


----------



## BoogieWoogie

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Thanks. Unfortunately it seems that while both are asynchronous, the inputs on both still aren't as good as the upper end converters.


 
   
  Does any ? From what I read, every one who tested the dacs usb against those ultra dollar converters found the same. I have my doubts though.


----------



## obzilla

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Thanks. Unfortunately it seems that while both are asynchronous, the inputs on both still aren't as good as the upper end converters.


 
   
  Curious... what do you base this deduction on? What specs or parts are you referring to?


----------



## mcullinan

I still couldn't get sound out of USB. Could be my settings... don't know. Thought it would be fine, since there is a setting under digital out for NAD USB, I have a lot of other plugins which may affect it. So I jumped the gun. The SB restarts and still no sound. I had volume Lock on, took it off. Haven't done testing. Have to box it up tonight and ship it back because of the remote issues 
  M


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





boogiewoogie said:


> Does any ? From what I read, every one who tested the dacs usb against those ultra dollar converters found the same. I have my doubts though.


 
   
  The one I know of that genuinely doesn't need or benefit from a converter is the Empirical Overdrive. The USB input on that is basically the same as the Off-Ramp (one of the best converters on the market), and Steve from Empirical has said that the sound is essentially the same whether driven from the OR4/5 or direct.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





obzilla said:


> Curious... what do you base this deduction on? What specs or parts are you referring to?


 
   
  Only on listening impressions. Some even very expensive DACs like the Meitner don't have galvanic isolation on their USB inputs, so in that case its obvious why the sound would be better from a converter that's isolated from the PC ground. The Anedio's input is just their converter card internally wired to the DAC's digital receiver - so it probably sounds the same as the U2 into the S/Pdif input and many of the other converters.
   
  Others I don't know as much about. The Calyx is supposed to sound significantly better via USB than the coax input, so presumably they did something right there.


----------



## MorbidToaster

This was my finding. I was pretty surprised at what I was hearing. USB implementations are usually pretty poor. 
   
  I know I'd made a good choice when the USB from my computer sounded better than my SA8004 playing Redbook.
   
  Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## mcullinan

Switched out my Nad as it goes back to the dealer. Pulled out my Theta Chroma 396. Oof. Old school Dac that just doesn't. I will miss my nads.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





morbidtoaster said:


> This was my finding. I was pretty surprised at what I was hearing. USB implementations are usually pretty poor.


 
   
  Indeed. Supposedly the Auralic and the Zodiac have well designed USB inputs.


----------



## RichardSantiago

"mcullinan" - What source were you using for USB and what software? The NAD runs on USB 2 and needs a download from NAD unless your source also runs USB2 in which case it will run OK "out of the box"


----------



## mcullinan

hmm... The source is the Squeezebox Touch. Is that USB 2? It seemed to link to the NAD fine. On the NAD it said 192K USB, there was a setting for enhanced digital output (select NAD M51), the SB Touch restarts but no sound came out. My NAD went back (remote issues) and am waiting to get a new one, whenever the next round comes out, middle of May I hope.
   
   
  This is really a spectacular unit, though I haven't heard any of the new top DACs. Sophisticated, transparent, detailed and musical. Very impressed.


----------



## RichardSantiago

Unfortuntately we don't have a Squeezebox here to try it out with - maybe an idea to check with tech support at Logitech. We've sold quite a few M51's and no issues with so far with USB....has worked with whatever has been thrown at it (after software download in some cases) . Is the Squeezebox connected directly to the M51? Are you UK based - if you are reasonably local we might be able to come round with a dem model to test your set-up
   
  Regarding your comments about it being a "spectacular" unit - we sell a wide range of DACS some costing far more than the M51 and for the money it is quite exceptional....currently using one in my home set-up and it's going to be there a long time!
   
  Actually just looked this up, might be helpful: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?94512-Announce-Enhanced-Digital-Output-app-USB-Dac-and-192k-Digital-Ouput


----------



## mcullinan

Thanks! No I am in the US. I will do a fresh install in the future
And see if that does the trick. I will also read a little more on the Squeezebox forum, though I skimmed through most of it. 

If anyone with a Squeezebox gets the nad to work please post your success!


----------



## obzilla

Quote: 





richardsantiago said:


> Unfortuntately we don't have a Squeezebox here to try it out with - maybe an idea to check with tech support at Logitech. We've sold quite a few M51's and no issues with so far with USB....has worked with whatever has been thrown at it (after software download in some cases) . Is the Squeezebox connected directly to the M51? Are you UK based - if you are reasonably local we might be able to come round with a dem model to test your set-up
> 
> Regarding your comments about it being a "spectacular" unit - we sell a wide range of DACS some costing far more than the M51 and for the money it is quite exceptional....currently using one in my home set-up and it's going to be there a long time!
> 
> Actually just looked this up, might be helpful: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?94512-Announce-Enhanced-Digital-Output-app-USB-Dac-and-192k-Digital-Ouput


 
   
  Have you guys attempted to use HDMI via either a Mac or a PC?
  Any success?


----------



## RichardSantiago

Not yet, our Mac Mini has DVI as opposed to HDMI....will see if we can borrow something to test it.


----------



## obzilla

Quote: 





richardsantiago said:


> Not yet, our Mac Mini has DVI as opposed to HDMI....will see if we can borrow something to test it.


 
  That would be great. Any computer audio over hdmi would be great to know the results.
  Mine is hard to get connected and receiving a signal, and once it does the DAC continues playing, but is basically bricked unless I manually shut the power off on the back of the unit.
   
  NAD tech support has been pathetic. The lady answering questions on their website clearly doesn't understand, and her only response is that she thinks "it's a software issue". On the DAC? On the mac? Where what how? None of that, and no responses to specifics.
   
  Unfortunately I only have the mac mini at the moment to test with, so I would love to hear from others.


----------



## mcullinan

Not for nothing.. but I called them about my remote issues.. and they were unhelpful and unwilling to really troubleshoot and I had to go back to the dealer who was way more helpful, though the problem persisted.
   
  Service is key! If you run a business. Its service! And cool tech, but...


----------



## mcullinan

I asked NAD when the next shipment was due. They said that the M51 was to arrive in their warehouses end of May so Dealers will receive early June.


----------



## mmeysarosh

After going through tests between the Wadia 121 DAC and NAD M51 both direct and though preamp, I can quite easily affirm the digital volume control provided by the M51 as the better of two. The gap between the two products actually widened when going direct as the NAD seems to do no harm to high resolution files when attenuated. The Wadia does seem to eventually truncate at an earlier point and doesn't do as well as the volume goes down.


----------



## RichardSantiago

Regarding HDMI out of Mac/PC - have just tried connecting Acer laptop and the M51 locks-up. Works brilliantly with all other HDMI sources, no idea why it would not work with Mac/PC HDMI. I'll be checking it out with NAD tech-support and report back as soon as I hear. Guessing it's a software patch but just seems really odd - would have thought HDMI protocol would be the same for a Mac/PC as for any other source?


----------



## obzilla

Quote: 





richardsantiago said:


> Regarding HDMI out of Mac/PC - have just tried connecting Acer laptop and the M51 locks-up. Works brilliantly with all other HDMI sources, no idea why it would not work with Mac/PC HDMI. I'll be checking it out with NAD tech-support and report back as soon as I hear. Guessing it's a software patch but just seems really odd - would have thought HDMI protocol would be the same for a Mac/PC as for any other source?


 
   
  OK then my unit is fine and either the M51 needs a software fix or they need to release a driver for win/mac. I had the same assumption as you about HDMI. I mean, my HT receiver certainly doesn't descriminate between computers, bluray players and other HDMI devices. And indeed the M51 is brilliant with the blurays and DVDA discs I have thrown at it via HDMI.
   
  Good luck with their tech support, the online implementation at least. From what I can tell it's just a receptionist named Pam that clearly doesn't know the product, or doesn't read the help tickets thoroughly. She tosses canned overly brief responses that have little to do with the question at hand, response time has been about 48-72 hours as well.
  I haven't had a chance to call them, but I am local to their Ontario support center, so perhaps there is someone there in the tech department that isn't just a misplaced HR employee.
   
  I love the unit, sound and feature wise, even if computer HDMI is not part of it's design, no big deal, but I'll have a hard time recommending it if all of their customer support is as abysmal as their online.


----------



## RichardSantiago

I've never had a problem with NAD tech support - they've always been really responsive. I,m sure you'll agree that the M51 is a frighteningly good DAC/Preamp for the money and  and I'm confident there must be fix in the pipeline for Mac/PC - it's still pretty new product and these are just "teething" issues


----------



## obzilla

Quote: 





richardsantiago said:


> I've never had a problem with NAD tech support - they've always been really responsive. I,m sure you'll agree that the M51 is a frighteningly good DAC/Preamp for the money and  and I'm confident there must be fix in the pipeline for Mac/PC - it's still pretty new product and these are just "teething" issues


 
   
  Undoubtedly. If you read my post you see I praise it. The sound is top notch as are the features. This one naggle aboue HDMI audio with macs/PCs is more of an inquiry.
  But that's not the whole ownership experience... responsive informative support is a big factor for me.
   
  If it were a simple, informative to the point answer, which ever way it went_ "can't do it" "can do it, send us your unit" "will be able to do it with a driver release for your mac PC, or software update to the unit"_, it would be fine, but I have received inattentive vague answers from the online support center, at glacial speed.
  HDMI audio via PC/mac is not a maker or breaker for me. I would like it, but I don't need it. Them having the slightest idea what I am talking about as a customer wanting suppirt, certainly weighs heavier with me and my wallet.
   
  Like I said, I will call the old fashion support line, and if I find a real person who knows what I'm talking about, then I will be happy, as I will have the ideal DAC for me, and the support that should go with a $2,000 piece of equipment.


----------



## arnaud

What is the intent behind using HDMI? I read before that it was a miserable interface for carrying HD audio in standard format (PS audio uses it to carry i2s from the drive but this is proprietary use I believe) and that you're much better using a well implemented USB interface. For the connection to a computer, I wouldn't ever bother to try HDMI.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





arnaud said:


> What is the intent behind using HDMI? I read before that it was a miserable interface for carrying HD audio in standard format (PS audio uses it to carry i2s from the drive but this is proprietary use I believe) and that you're much better using a well implemented USB interface. For the connection to a computer, I wouldn't ever bother to try HDMI.


 
   
  The HDMI input allows for high-res stereo support of DVD-A and SACD which won't work via S/Pdif. For a computer though I agree, you''re much better off with asynch USB.


----------



## obzilla

Quote: 





arnaud said:


> What is the intent behind using HDMI? I read before that it was a miserable interface for carrying HD audio in standard format (PS audio uses it to carry i2s from the drive but this is proprietary use I believe) and that you're much better using a well implemented USB interface. For the connection to a computer, I wouldn't ever bother to try HDMI.


 
  The NAD claims it accepts I2S over HDMI as well. The PS is not exactly proprietary, as it's just a certain pin sequence they use. There are many devices that are also compatible, I posted a link a few pages back. It remains a mystery if the NAD is as well.
  http://www.sonore.us/Sonore-I2S-Compatibility.html
   
  The intent is just to have a look see, try it out. I paid for it after all. And if it's a no go, not designed for it, well their tech support should just be able to say so.
   
  I use it with USB via my mac, and it's awesome, but the upcoming M50 / M52 combo have my interest piqued, and it would connect to them via HDMI, so I am interested in experimenting.


----------



## MorbidToaster

W4S, PS Audio and now NAD all have I2S options. 
   
  I have a friend that's very close with a few cable manufactures and he said they have very...passionate opinions about I2S. I think one of them used the term 'Audiophile Scam', but I guess that's more for the listener to decide. It's just now starting to take off so we'll see when more people use it.


----------



## obzilla

Quote: 





morbidtoaster said:


> W4S, PS Audio and now NAD all have I2S options.
> 
> I have a friend that's very close with a few cable manufactures and he said they have very...passionate opinions about I2S. I think one of them used the term 'Audiophile Scam', but I guess that's more for the listener to decide. It's just now starting to take off so we'll see when more people use it.


 
   
  Cable manufacturers talking about audiophile scams? Indeed, the kettle is black!


----------



## MorbidToaster

That was kind of how I felt about it. 
   
  Quote: 





obzilla said:


> Cable manufacturers talking about audiophile scams? Indeed, the kettle is black!


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





morbidtoaster said:


> W4S, PS Audio and now NAD all have I2S options.
> 
> I have a friend that's very close with a few cable manufactures and he said they have very...passionate opinions about I2S. I think one of them used the term 'Audiophile Scam', but I guess that's more for the listener to decide. It's just now starting to take off so we'll see when more people use it.


 
   
  Yes, because transmitting the bit clock, word clock, and data stream all together on one cable is _genius, _and was not in any way done out of laziness/convenience/practicality.
   
  AFAIK when PS created their I2S over HDMI spec, they purposely left it open for others to adopt it, which is what is now happening. There's nothing proprietary about it.


----------



## woodcans

I have an Off-Ramp 5 on order which will offer I2S output via HDMI. I will test it out with the NAD using both the HDMI and coax outputs and report back. My OR4 is clearly superior to the NAD's USB input. OR5 should hopefully be here in a few weeks.


----------



## obzilla

Quote: 





woodcans said:


> I have an Off-Ramp 5 on order which will offer I2S output via HDMI. I will test it out with the NAD using both the HDMI and coax outputs and report back. My OR4 is clearly superior to the NAD's USB input. OR5 should hopefully be here in a few weeks.


 
   
  I would love to hear about the results. Thanks!


----------



## vlach

I have a question for those using the M51 as a preamp an connecting the unit directly into power amps.
   
  My understanding is that the basic role of a traditional (dedicated) preamp, in addition to providing volume control, is to act as a buffer to match impedance differences between sources & amps. In the case of the M51 as a preamp, how is this handled? Thanks.


----------



## Somnambulist

I'm seriously considering getting one of these. It's expensive but I can get it on 10 months 0% finance for £150 a month. Pretty tempted to do this and just ignore DACs forever afterwards lol.


----------



## obzilla

I have paid little to no attention to them since getting mine.


----------



## KongKong

still waiting for a full detailed report of NAD M51 from members here!
   
  I have considering between M51 and Anedio D2.


----------



## estreeter

Quote: 





kongkong said:


> still waiting for a full detailed report of NAD M51 from members here!
> 
> I have considering between M51 and Anedio D2.


 
   
  Hi,
   
  OP here - welcome to Head-Fi. I know things happen very fast in HK, but did you actually read this entire thread ? Did you click on the links to more extensive reviews ?
   
  I'm not really sure you are getting into the spirit of an 'Impressions' thread. NAD has links to reviews on their M51 product page - you might be happier with those, Having written a full-blown product review in the past, I know how much work goes into it. This was never intended to be anything more than quick impressions and feedback on the M51. 
   
  Cheers,
   
  estreeter


----------



## estreeter

Deleted - Sunday night - nuff said.


----------



## Somnambulist

There are quite a few impressions here over 14 pages:
  http://www.stereo.net.au/forums/index.php?/topic/40613-nad-m51-listening-impressions/
   
  I thought about the Anedio D2 as well but the simple fact is they have no distributor for the EU and UK and I infinitely prefer buying things whereby if something goes wrong, I don't have to pay mental shipping costs or wait ages to get it back with the dealer/store/company. I can get the NAD via several online stores in the UK... and with the finance option.


----------



## ecohifi

Quote: 





kongkong said:


> still waiting for a full detailed report of NAD M51 from members here!
> 
> I have considering between M51 and Anedio D2.


 
  Definately go with the M51 has HDMI input and a 35 Bit digital volume potentiometer


----------



## ecohifi

Quote: 





vlach said:


> I have a question for those using the M51 as a preamp an connecting the unit directly into power amps.
> 
> My understanding is that the basic role of a traditional (dedicated) preamp, in addition to providing volume control, is to act as a buffer to match impedance differences between sources & amps. In the case of the M51 as a preamp, how is this handled? Thanks.


 
  I have the M51 and tried using it as a preamp, the o/put of the M51 is typical 2V for a DAC or CDP.  On some power amps and mono blocks this 2V is not enough and I know that it requires more gain for my power amp to work.  You need to keep the pre and give it a go, its a case of suck it and see.  
   
  The M51 has huge channel separation, very detail and the space between instuments in complex passages are well defined.  The voices are more natural than say a Sabre 9018 implementation and the instruments have this real presentation that you can basically say that the tone of each instruments including voices are defined in there own sound DNA/signitures that are so nutural compared to the 9018.
   
  I audition this at a mates place and I decided to buy one myself.
   
  With a digital volume control that has no moving or physical parts and is done in 35bits and truncated at at -66db you have no problems in wear and tear like on normal volume pots.
  M51 is like no other NOS or delta sigma dac it uses a Zetex zxczm800 processing chip that does the PCM>PWM conversion.  The analog signal is passed thru a 2 X LME 49990 in a XLR arrangement that is tap to a TL082 opamp for RCA.  Who says opamps cant sound good?


----------



## vlach

ecohifi said:


> Definately go with the M51 has HDMI input and a 35 Bit digital volume potentiometer





I think the deciding factor is SQ...I like many am waiting for a direct comparison between the M51 & D2.


----------



## nigeljames

Quote: 





ecohifi said:


> I have the M51 and tried using it as a preamp, the o/put of the M51 is typical 2V for a DAC or CDP.  On some power amps and mono blocks this 2V is not enough and I know that it requires more gain for my power amp to work.  You need to keep the pre and give it a go, its a case of suck it and see.
> 
> The M51 has huge channel separation, very detail and the space between instuments in complex passages are well defined. * The voices are more natural than say a Sabre 9018 implementation and the instruments have this real presentation that you can basically say that the tone of each instruments including voices are defined in there own sound DNA/signitures that are so nutural compared to the 9018.*


 
   
  You obviously have not heard the right ES9018 chipped DAC'S


----------



## ecohifi

Quote: 





nigeljames said:


> You obviously have not heard the right ES9018 chipped DAC'S


 
  If you consider a EE mini max dac plus not the correct EE9018 that I own then no I havent heard the correct 9018 dac implementation.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  With the EE I have tried some of the modern opamps available such as ADA 4627-1brz, LME 49720 LME49710 OPA 1611/OPA1612/OPA827/OPA1642.  The valve section is less dynamic and please dont go there!
  So if you think that the Anedio D1 or D2 is the way to go then be my guess and try it. Just remember the Anedio deploys a OPA1611/1612 has digital volume and balance good choice and possible cheaper than the M51.  But I was never happy with the EE minmax dac plus no matter which opamp I have tried.  I am done with Sabre 9018 implementations and have moved on!


----------



## nigeljames

Quote: 





ecohifi said:


> If you consider a EE mini max dac plus not the correct EE9018 that I own then no I havent heard the correct 9018 dac implementation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  You have just proved my point.
  Just because you have heard/had a ES9018 DAC and found certain faults it's not right to dismiss ALL other ES9018 DAC's and that was the point I wanted to make.
  I have heard the Minimax, though only briefly, and it did not seem anything special to me so I know not all ES9018 DAC's are created equally.
   
  I was interested in the Anedio D1 at one point but looking at it's design and the design of the Audio-gd NFB-7, which I currently own, there seemed no comparison and no reason to believe that the D1 could compete with the NFB-7 which does not use opamps.
   
  Anyway this is off topic. I have always liked NAD gear, having had a NAD cassette deck many years ago (now I am showing my age) and always wanted them to go more high end and the M51 is something I would love to hear.


----------



## ecohifi

Quote: 





nigeljames said:


> You have just proved my point.
> Just because you have heard/had a ES9018 DAC and found certain faults it's not right to dismiss ALL other ES9018 DAC's and that was the point I wanted to make.
> I have heard the Minimax, though only briefly, and it did not seem anything special to me so I know not all ES9018 DAC's are created equally.
> 
> ...


 
  I was on my way to purchase a NFB7 but by the time I made that decision King wa had pulled it of the market, then I was on the way to built the TPA implementation but gave up as everytime I tried on there site my internet connection was to slow to secure an order and it gets sold out in seconds.  So the next best thing was the EE mini max dac plus but by this time I was warned on other forums that 9018 had a skeletal sound signiture which is true for the EE mini max dac.  I do envy that you own a NFB7, but I wouldnt discount opamps either as some of those that I have listed will give discrete a run for the dosh aspeacially Audio gd discrete opamps.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  I am not a fan of NAD gear but there recent digital implementation is different than the stock chips and have the latest inputs plus a Hires digital volume control that puts it ahead for value I am sure this will come close if not equal that of the NFB7


----------



## nigeljames

Quote: 





ecohifi said:


> I was on my way to purchase a NFB7 but by the time I made that decision King wa had pulled it of the market, then I was on the way to built the TPA implementation but gave up as everytime I tried on there site my internet connection was to slow to secure an order and it gets sold out in seconds.  So the next best thing was the EE mini max dac plus but by this time I was warned on other forums that 9018 had a skeletal sound signiture which is true for the EE mini max dac.  I do envy that you own a NFB7, but I wouldnt discount opamps either as some of those that I have listed will give discrete a run for the dosh aspeacially Audio gd discrete opamps.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  Yes it p****s me off that Audio-gd change their prodct line so often. A few weeks after I recieved my NFB-7 they discontinued it only to bring it back briefly and only 1 month after I received my Master-6 they did the same!
   
  I will say that the NFB-7 is FAR from being 'skeletal' or 'thin'. In fact this is one of its numerous strengths. It delivers the ES9018 strengths,in a well designed implementation, of speed,detail,clarity,dynamics and deep tight bass (all my priorities) with a smooth full bodied rich, lively and musical sound.
   
  I have nothing against op amps. Its just that when I looked at the design's of the D1 and the NFB-7 there was no area where the D1 looked on papaer better than the NFB-7, especially in the power supply department.


----------



## mcullinan

The Audio God products seem awfully complex. Why is there so much going on inside their products? My experience with the M51 was a glitchy one.  Any owners having weird glitchy issues? I had to send mine back and am worried about the same thing happening again. I also noticed running HDMI from my Bluray player that the voices were definitely out of synch with the picture. Can anyone comment if they have seen the same?
  Thnx


----------



## ecohifi

Quote: 





mcullinan said:


> The Audio God products seem awfully complex. Why is there so much going on inside their products? My experience with the M51 was a glitchy one.  Any owners having weird glitchy issues? I had to send mine back and am worried about the same thing happening again. I also noticed running HDMI from my Bluray player that the voices were definitely out of synch with the picture. Can anyone comment if they have seen the same?
> Thnx


 
  Try lowering the volume for the glitchy issue, the out of sync issue is a HDMI issue and it happens on all HD material.  on HT receivers there is a lip sync adjustment that can be used and I find that helps unfortunately the M51 does not have this feature


----------



## ecohifi

Quote: 





nigeljames said:


> Yes it p****s me off that Audio-gd change their prodct line so often. A few weeks after I recieved my NFB-7 they discontinued it only to bring it back briefly and only 1 month after I received my Master-6 they did the same!
> 
> I will say that the NFB-7 is FAR from being 'skeletal' or 'thin'. In fact this is one of its numerous strengths. It delivers the ES9018 strengths,in a well designed implementation, of speed,detail,clarity,dynamics and deep tight bass (all my priorities) with a smooth full bodied rich, lively and musical sound.
> 
> I have nothing against op amps. Its just that when I looked at the design's of the D1 and the NFB-7 there was no area where the D1 looked on papaer better than the NFB-7, especially in the power supply department.


 
   
   
   I was also considering the D1 but the stock ran out for ages waiting on a new version of USB, the Anedio D1 is no slouch,  it utilises some very well made components, in the analog it uses the OPA 1612 or 1611 this is one of the best Brown Burr audio grade opamp.  I also wanted digital volume control that the D1 had.
  The NFB7 has analog discretes that will give it a non skeletal presentation, Kingwa has a reputation for that.   He also changes his product line due to supply and demand and if you track the orders they are NFB 2 or 3, WM based dacs. a very natural sounding dac I would know because the Sony s470 have WM dacs but are not so resolving as the 9018.  You will also notice that Kingwa has also included stepped volume control in the analog domain, a very nice added implementation.
  If you compare the inside of the NFB7 to the M51, the 5.9kg of the M51 is all panels, it doesnt have a step down isolation transformer, it utilise a switch mode supply.  one single pcb with all SMDs and 4 LSI chips. the built quality is very average chinese very disappointing for a master series but I didnt buy it for that, I bought it for its SQ and value.


----------



## mcullinan

So am I to understand that any HDMI material will be out of synch? Even Verizon Fios (cable box) outputs at 48Hz. Doesn't that defeat the reason to have HDMI?


----------



## ecohifi

I dont use the HDMI or havent used as such as I only have cdp going into the M51 as coax or optical.  I have only had the unit for a wk and plan to utilised the HDMI later during the wk.


----------



## mcullinan

OK.. let me know if you notice the voice being off. Its very slight and I thought I was seeing things.. haha.
  M


----------



## ecohifi

I dont need to know cause I know HDMI have an issue with lip sync,  from the bluray to the Samsung panel it is out, going thru the Yamaha HT with a lip sync calibration brings it close, this is the issue with HD and HDMI, not bad for an interface that was supose to have resolved all the issues of RCA and digital interconnect but brought along some nasties that are unable to fix!
   
  NAD is also having problems with HDMI and also USB issues when running Apple mac mini via lions, the current firmware 1.39 is suposed to resolve some of these issues but loading it creates others. I think this is going to take some time to fix via a few firmware issues.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  Im not using the M51 to do any of this so it doesnt affect me!


----------



## mcullinan

Crazy, I wonder if the Samsung has a way to adjust the audio synch. I'm going to google it. 
M


----------



## dwk

I'm using the M51 in our main TV system with an HDMI feed from our DirecTV box or from an Oppo dvd player. I haven't noticed any sync issues to this point.  I have had lockups and something in the chain - possibly the M51 - doesn't handle lo-def / standard-def resolutions, but at least it appears that sync problems are not an inherent problem.
   
  On the USB front, there was some activity on the Squeezebox forum regarding the EDO for the touch, and it's confirmed for now that NAD is using an extended UAC 2.0 interface descriptor that the alsa system doesn't currently handle. So, it doesn't work for now. I don't know whether this will be a quick/easy fix, or whether it's something that will take some real work.


----------



## ecohifi

Quote: 





mcullinan said:


> Crazy, I wonder if the Samsung has a way to adjust the audio synch. I'm going to google it.
> M


 
  Depends on the model of the panel and the bluray player!  I know none of the earlier models that I have have this.  The late model Yamaha bottom of the range receiver has this feature!  Does a nice job!


----------



## LostWeekend

I would have thought that any lip synch issues were down to the flat panel television have to process the video image as extensively as it does.


----------



## estreeter

*Seeing voices*, eh ? This will definitely excite the folk at NASA - it seems that you've entered a fourth dimension. Smelt any good Springsteen lately ?


----------



## obzilla

Quote: 





estreeter said:


> *Seeing voices*, eh ? This will definitely excite the folk at NASA - it seems that you've entered a fourth dimension. Smelt any good Springsteen lately ?


 
   
  Really. You can just taste the hyperbole in that one!


----------



## mcullinan

I noticed the lip synch on one of the Harry Potter BluRay movies. I couldn't find any audio adjustments on the Samsung player. If I was seeing voices that would be really cool, and the NAD M51 would  maybe be pre dipped in some kind of lysergic acid or maybe someone spilled some mushroom tea on it... by accident.. heh,


----------



## Somnambulist

I've checked and my BDP has audio delay (I gather 120ms adjustment would be enough to sync video/audio) so I'd probably be covered if I had any delay issues. I've decided if I get this DAC (and it's looking likely if I can get it and pay £150 a month for 10 months) I'll use my current BDP (a Sony S760) purely for music DVDs/BDs as a 2.0 system via HDMI, currently with my Focal CMSs and then Linkwitz Plutos (v2.1) when they're finished, as well as obviously connecting to my Mac via optical at first but I'll try USB and maybe look at good USB to S/PDIF or AES/EBU _if_ I feel it's worth it.
   
  For HT, I'm a firm believer that great picture quality on a BDP doesn't cost much to obtain and I'll probably pic up another modern player to connect to a receiver for 5.1, as it seems better to keep 2.0 and 5.1 completely separate. Better buy a Harmony One remote as at this rate I'll have more remotes than fingers, and it would mean no worrying about the rather basic NAD remote failing and being unable to control the thing!
   
  Talked myself into it, really...


----------



## ecohifi

The DAC thats in the S760 is very good, the M51 is a step ahead!  I suggest you do a A/B coparision before you purchase a M51


----------



## Somnambulist

I need a DAC for my desktop set up (I'm DAC-less atm, long story) - the DVD/BD stuff across the room on the TV is a bonus. The pre-amp part of the M51... nothing like it. Bar their M2 anyway. Digital hub and all that.


----------



## ssbkk

I have been following this thread and hoping that those who has both M51 and Wyred 4 Sound DAC2 could share their experiences comparing the two. Thanks.


----------



## obzilla

Quote: 





ssbkk said:


> I have been following this thread and hoping that those who has both M51 and Wyred 4 Sound DAC2 could share their experiences comparing the two. Thanks.


 
   
  I've had them both. I got rid of the W4S.
  It's a great DAC, just the NAD is better in most areas I can tell.
   
  What do you want to know in specific?


----------



## ssbkk

I am trying to get completely into computer audio, so a Dac with digital volume control would be my target. Use it to connect to the mono blocks. As home auditioning is next to impossible, so I rely a lot on those with direct expericence to guide me. I try to get the Dac that I could live with for many years. Thanks for your kind advice. I have the benchmark Dac and found it a little clinical. Wonder if you have compare m51 with the benchmark Dac. Would love to hear your view. Thanks.


----------



## ecohifi

Hi guys,
  to get a comparision as close to the M51 processing I decided to fit the EE min max plus with some LME 49720/LME 49710 and see whether it was worth keeping and or sell off.  To my surprise the EE mini max dac was so hard to distinguish to the M51.  It made me wonder that if I had the LME opamps in place and not the ADA 4610 brz I would have never had bought the M51.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Oh well you live and learn.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  The EE min max dac plus was so close that I had to really close my eyes and do some really critical listening.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  The EE is a lot easier to listen to with  its laid back nature but the microdetails are all there.  Voices are airy and  emphasised but has this glary glassy presentation.  The M51 is not laid back and is very forward in its nature, the microdetails are also there but the voices are wider and more realistic in its presentation.  The mids to low mids are to die for on the M51, cant live without it
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. The EE mini max dac is a little reserve and less detail in the very bottom end, it comes across clear and loud with a lot of warm cuddly feelings. The M51 had the ability to separate sound components and present them in its natural sound signiture even in very complex passages, so the M51 wins.  The EE mini max plus is so close, if I were to walk into the room I believe I couldnt  tell which one is playing, but in an accidental twist I happen to set the setting on the remote and picked that the EE min max was on before I knew the remote was on a non select state. 
  Before this excercise I was planning on letting go the EE min max plus, but after this excersise I decided to keep it, because this dac has thru the hole components unlike the M51 that are all SMD, very hard to modify!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  I reckon if I change some capacitors in the audio signal I can get this dac even closer to SQ compared to the M51
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  I also think that Im done with searching for the perfect dac, when you almost got an identical analog section ( the LME 47910 is very simular to the LME 49990) and things begin to sound that close I dont think that the digital conversion matters any more.  I have the LME 49990 but didnt use them  because they are not as stable as the LME 48720/10,  This will be my next step and I'll report back. 
   
   This post is to share my findings and thoughts and hope it helps on your audiophile journey!


----------



## plin

Quote: 





ecohifi said:


> This post is to share my findings and thoughts and hope it helps on your audiophile journey!


 
  Thank you, very interesting, indeed!


----------



## BoogieWoogie

Quote: 





ecohifi said:


> Hi guys,
> to get a comparision as close to the M51 processing I decided to fit the EE min max plus with some LME 49720/LME 49710 and see whether it was worth keeping and or sell off.  To my surprise the EE mini max dac was so hard to distinguish to the M51.  It made me wonder that if I had the LME opamps in place and not the ADA 4610 brz I would have never had bought the M51.
> 
> 
> ...


 
  Would help more if you told us what gear did you use to compare.


----------



## ecohifi

Quote: 





boogiewoogie said:


> Would help more if you told us what gear did you use to compare.


 
  BW,
   
  most of my gear are not comercially available components, I gave up buying them almost 25yrs, this is the 2nd time I bought a commercially available component because I cant solder SMDs.   The Sabre 9018 and the Zetex chip are no hand solder jobs, they are done on specific machines to place them on PCB. 
   
  The preamp is a Silicon Chip base modified pre which is based on opamps: I built this to evaluate opamps.  Some of the opamps I have tried are OPA2134. OPA 1611/1612, OPA 1641/1642, ADA827, ADA4627-1 Brz.  LT1122, LME 49720/49710/49990.  I am active on Head-Fi opamp thread.  I find this pre to be more reveiling than the discrete I built that was designed for my power amp.  This pre has the feature where 5 inputs are selectable via remote, the inputs are switched via intergrated relays: a very handy feature in doing A/B comparisons

  Sony s470 via coax and optical
   
  The power amp was built and finished in 1994.  Its based on a 240W @ 8ohms mosfet amp called a AEM6000 designed by a guy in Sth Australia named David Tilbrook back in 1985.  This project took me 9yrs to complete due to availability of component.
   
  The Speakers are 6ft ribbon panels that are 1.8 Ohms and I have 4X 10 inch Eton drivers using 1st order cross over.
   
  The Headphones are Stax Lamdba Pro.
   
  Regards
   
  Ecohifi


----------



## mcullinan

Review from HiFi News is out...
  http://nadelectronics.com/articles/Hi-Fi-News-and-Record-Reviews-Highly-Recommend-NAD-M51-Direct-Digital-DAC


----------



## ssbkk

Echohifi, is your minimax has socketed op amp? Or you have to desolder the solder the new opamp in? I look at EE website and they no longer has the normal Dac but only the Dac plus version that has tube output stage. Do you have the chance to audition one?


----------



## mcullinan

Im listening to the EE Minimax plus with Dexa Discrete right now. Very nice! Airy open top end, clean sound. A lot of focus on the air around instruments and sound. A very wide soundstage too. This is with the tube out. I had the M51 for a week, before it broke, and they are different beasts. The NAD is more about the mids. But it also has great extension and a big soundstage. It would come down to preference really. You have to listen to both.
  
 The M51 you are definitely closer to the music, more forward. The EE Plus the music almost emanated from behind the speakers.


The M51 has more inner detail, bass detail. Something that you wouldn't miss if you didnt know.


----------



## ecohifi

Quote: 





ssbkk said:


> Echohifi, is your minimax has socketed op amp? Or you have to desolder the solder the new opamp in? I look at EE website and they no longer has the normal Dac but only the Dac plus version that has tube output stage. Do you have the chance to audition one?


 
   
   
  ssbkk,
   
  I have the EE mini max plus,  it has DIP sockets for the opamps so they can be changed at will.  The stock opamps are NE5532/5534, I swapt the 5532 for the LME 47920 and the 5534 for 49710.


----------



## ecohifi

Quote: 





mcullinan said:


> Im listening to the EE Minimax plus with Dexa Discrete right now. Very nice! Airy open top end, clean sound. A lot of focus on the air around instruments and sound. A very wide soundstage too. This is with the tube out. I had the M51 for a week, before it broke, and they are different beasts. The NAD is more about the mids. But it also has great extension and a big soundstage. It would come down to preference really. You have to listen to both.
> 
> The M51 you are definitely closer to the music, more forward. The EE Plus the music almost emanated from behind the speakers.
> 
> The M51 has more inner detail, bass detail. Something that you wouldn't miss if you didnt know.


 
  Have you tried other opamps apart from the Dexa on the EE mini max dac? 
   
  I do agree, it come down to preference, but I could live with both, it would be interesting if you compared the opamps I have mentioned in a previous post and compared them to the DEXA!


----------



## mcullinan

I only have it temporarily with the one opamp, unfortunately.
M


----------



## orkney

Love my M51 -- easily replaced a far pricier Ayre unit in my setup. In terms of SQ, flexibility and build quality it's a great buy, IMO.
   
  o


----------



## ssbkk

ecohifi said:


> ssbkk,
> 
> I have the EE mini max plus,  it has DIP sockets for the opamps so they can be changed at will.  The stock opamps are NE5532/5534, I swapt the 5532 for the LME 47920 and the 5534 for 49710.






I wonder if the op amps you chose move the sound stage to the front rather than the back of the speakers like mcullinan mentioned. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## doctorcilantro

The Calyx is supposed to be an incredible DAC; I know a dealer who has been raving about it. Let us know.


----------



## dercius

The NAD is very impressive. I managed to hear one in my system and it sadly for me, beat my much more expensive audio research cd5 in overall sound quality.


----------



## gabeg

Quote: 





mcullinan said:


> Review from HiFi News is out...
> http://nadelectronics.com/articles/Hi-Fi-News-and-Record-Reviews-Highly-Recommend-NAD-M51-Direct-Digital-DAC


 

 The jitter measurements are higher than i expected.


----------



## mcullinan

gabeg said:


> The jitter measurements are higher than i expected.



Did they give actual numbers, what are they?
M


----------



## ecohifi

gabeg said:


> The jitter measurements are higher than i expected.




Here's a review on another dac done by the same crowd: http://www.earyoshino.com/HiFi_World_2011_November_EAR-Yoshino_192_DACute.pdf
This dac is £4000 and it is base on the Wolfson WM 8741, check the jitter measurements here, I think the NAD M51 is ahead on jitter! But I like to know how they have derived those figures.


----------



## gabeg

Quotes

 "jitter is low but also low rate and decorrellated from 200ps (spdif) to 300ps (usb)..."


----------



## BoogieWoogie

Quote: 





ecohifi said:


> Here's a review on another dac done by the same crowd: http://www.earyoshino.com/HiFi_World_2011_November_EAR-Yoshino_192_DACute.pdf
> This dac is £4000 and it is base on the Wolfson WM 8741, check the jitter measurements here, I think the NAD M51 is ahead on jitter! But I like to know how they have derived those figures.


 
  There's different kinds of jitter so you taking this jitter measurements too serious to evaluate a dac.


----------



## mcullinan

What numbers are great jitter rates? After listening to the EE Minimax for a few days, I think I actually prefer the NAD.  I want to hear the Aneido D2 still, but I wonder if the EE and Anedio will have a similar sound because they both use the Sabre chip.
  M


----------



## ecohifi

Quote: 





mcullinan said:


> What numbers are great jitter rates? After listening to the EE Minimax for a few days, I think I actually prefer the NAD.  I want to hear the Aneido D2 still, but I wonder if the EE and Anedio will have a similar sound because they both use the Sabre chip.
> M


 
  The Anedio deploys OPA 1611 opamps, Im guessing but judging from my experience with this opamp the OPA 1611 presents a less resolving SQ as say compared with the LME 49990.  You can always audition the D2 and compared the EE mini max plus with OPA 1611/1612 in place.
   
  Good question on the jitter figures, judging from both reviews of different dacs from the same crowd I like some explanation on how they got those figures.


----------



## orkney

Quote: 





gabeg said:


> "jitter is low but also low rate and decorrellated from 200ps (spdif) to 300ps (usb)..."


 
   
  200 ps is plenty low. But here's Stereophile's measurements of the NAD M2, which shares a digital section with the M51:
   
  http://www.stereophile.com/content/nad-m2-direct-digital-integrated-amplifier-measurements
   
  Finally, I tested the M2's rejection of word-clock jitter by feeding a 16-bit version of the diagnostic J-Test tone from the soundcard of my test-lab PC via 15' of plastic TosLink. The resulting narrowband spectrum of the amplifier's output is shown in fig.18. The central spike representing the high-level Fs/4 tone shows very little spectral spreading at its base, and the harmonics of the Fs/192 LSB-level squarewave lie at the residual level. Other than the fact that the noise floor in the right channel (red trace) is a little higher than in the left (blue), this is state-of-the-art performance.





  Fig.18 NAD M2, line output, high-resolution jitter spectrum of analog output signal, 11.025kHz at –6dBFS, sampled at 44.1kHz with LSB toggled at 229Hz, 16-bit data. Center frequency of trace, 11.025kHz; frequency range, ±3.5kHz (left channel blue, right red). It is very satisfying to be able to discuss a component's measured performance without having to scratch my head over some or another idiosyncrasy. The NAD Masters Series M2 Direct Digital amplifier falls readily into that category.—*John Atkinson*
   
  o


----------



## estreeter

I wont settle for anything over *10ps*. 
   
http://www.audiophilleo.com/comparison.aspx
   
  Lift your game, DAC makers. I shouldnt have to buy another expensive box to achieve these numbers. 
   
2.6 ps RMS phase jitter 10 Hz to 100 kHz. 
< 5 ps RMS period jitter.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





estreeter said:


> I wont settle for anything over *10ps*.
> 
> http://www.audiophilleo.com/comparison.aspx
> 
> ...


 

 It would be nice if you could just point at a single jitter spec and say "see, this DAC or converter is better than that one", but it just doesn't work that way. There are a lot of ways to measure, places to measure, and areas where the effects of jitter may be worse than others. The latest Empirical Off-Ramp 5 measures around 170ps P-P at its S/Pdif output. By every account I've seen, it destroys the Audiophilleo in performance.


----------



## Telstar

Quote: 





orkney said:


> 200 ps is plenty low.


 
  200ps is about average for spdif, but it's very high for usb input, where u can get <70ps easily and the best do indeed <10ps.


----------



## estreeter

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> It would be nice if you could just point at a single jitter spec and say "see, this DAC or converter is better than that one", but it just doesn't work that way. There are a lot of ways to measure, places to measure, and areas where the effects of jitter may be worse than others. The latest Empirical Off-Ramp 5 measures around 170ps P-P at its S/Pdif output. By every account I've seen, it destroys the Audiophilleo in performance.


 
   
  Which may bring us back to the uncomfortable possibility that the audiophile obsession with jitter is, to some extent. misplaced. I stand by my earlier point - why should I have to buy another box costing hundreds of dollars when I just bought a *DAC* costing over a thousand ? How is it that John Darko can assemble a bunch of highly regarded DACs and the only one which showed no audible improvement from the addition of the Audiophilleo was *the most expensive*, the PerfectWave DAC ? Whether its jitter or _solar flares_, it should be minimised by the people who are making big claims for the electronics inside their elaborate casework.


----------



## orkney

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> It would be nice if you could just point at a single jitter spec and say "see, this DAC or converter is better than that one", but it just doesn't work that way. There are a lot of ways to measure, places to measure, and areas where the effects of jitter may be worse than others. The latest Empirical Off-Ramp 5 measures around 170ps P-P at its S/Pdif output. By every account I've seen, it destroys the Audiophilleo in performance.


 
   
  Agreed. Too many ways of measuring and specifying jitter for the specs game to be decisive, in my opinion. My recent listening experience with the HiFace 2 and Rega DAC, through two very transparent systems, was that the differences were difficult to impossible for us to pick out unsighted. Others might have noticed them more reliably, and/or found them more consequential. I wouldn't choose a DAC based on the jitter specs unless these were so wildly high as to suggest incompetent design.
   
  o


----------



## ecohifi

Quote: 





estreeter said:


> I wont settle for anything over *10ps*.
> 
> http://www.audiophilleo.com/comparison.aspx
> 
> ...


 
  I agree with you that all DAC and cdp manufacturers should lift there game,  but the Audiophilleo and the Off Ramp are not dacs, they are low jitter buffer devices for connecting USB interface to s/pdif.  Hardly a DAC comparision.  These devices have been known to incease the sound quality on most dacs because of there low jitter rates. 
  Apart from these devices the only chip with low jitter is a BB DIR9001 but this only supports up to 24/96


----------



## ecohifi

Quote: 





telstar said:


> 200ps is about average for spdif, but it's very high for usb input, where u can get <70ps easily and the best do indeed <10ps.


 
  May I ask which USB device on the market that provides < 10ps ????


----------



## ecohifi

Quote: 





estreeter said:


> Which may bring us back to the uncomfortable possibility that the audiophile obsession with jitter is, to some extent. misplaced. I stand by my earlier point - why should I have to buy another box costing hundreds of dollars when I just bought a *DAC* costing over a thousand ? How is it that John Darko can assemble a bunch of highly regarded DACs and the only one which showed no audible improvement from the addition of the Audiophilleo was *the most expensive*, the PerfectWave DAC ? Whether its jitter or _solar flares_, it should be minimised by the people who are making big claims for the electronics inside their elaborate casework.


 
  Agree with you 100%,  but I am in no position to purchase a PerfectWave dac or a Lamp L5as my wallet doesnt carry a lot of dosh!!!!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  And I dont expect you to either!!!!  Check my previous post 188 and the link to that dac that cost over 4000 pound and then check the measured spec there for s/pdif and usb, as far as im concern I am reading it that the M51 has better jitter specs and both are reviewed by the same crowd,
  I didn't buy the M51 on jitter alone and nor did I made the purchase on figures either, if you have a look at the little box in the M51 review it truncates every word lenght to 7bits and then does its PCM to PWM decoding!  I bought it because the SQ was better than the EE mini max plus, it has all the inputs including HDMI, balanced o/put and a very high 35bit volume control, also I found it fasinating that it sound this good and its not an average delta sigma dac, the built quality is average and it doesnt use linear psu and the components are mostly SMDs: hardly an audiophile device.  One look inside the box and some audiophile will throw up!  There is nothing in it and most of the weight is due to the heavy guage metal work!


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





estreeter said:


> Which may bring us back to the uncomfortable possibility that the audiophile obsession with jitter is, to some extent. misplaced. I stand by my earlier point - why should I have to buy another box costing hundreds of dollars when I just bought a *DAC* costing over a thousand ? How is it that John Darko can assemble a bunch of highly regarded DACs and the only one which showed no audible improvement from the addition of the Audiophilleo was *the most expensive*, the PerfectWave DAC ? Whether its jitter or _solar flares_, it should be minimised by the people who are making big claims for the electronics inside their elaborate casework.


 
   
  Well, look at what the OR-5 costs in comparison to most converters. From what I've read, it seems like the USB implementation on the NAD is fairly average. I'm not sure if it has galvanic isolation, that makes a big difference and the $7K Meitner doesn't have it. Then there's also the question of how good the clock/s are, and plenty of other areas that separate decent USB implementations from the best ones.
   
  TAS recently tested the M2Tech Young, and concluded that it needed an Off-Ramp attached in order to match the Eximus DAC with straight USB. That tells me that the Young's USB implementation isn't that great, (not a huge surprise given the generally below average performance of the Hiface and EVO). They did go on to say that the Eximus was further improved with the OR attached, so even for nearly $3K the USB on the April Music DAC isn't all it could be.
   
  Steve's latest Overdrive SE is probably about as good as it gets short of the mega-buck stuff, and has no need for a converter, but of course it costs more than 2X that of the Eximus.


----------



## ecohifi

Steve's overdrive dac starts at $4kUS and it climbs from there depending on the options you want!


----------



## estreeter

Quote: 





ecohifi said:


> I agree with you that all DAC and cdp manufacturers should lift there game,  but the Audiophilleo and the Off Ramp are not dacs, they are low jitter buffer devices for connecting USB interface to s/pdif.  Hardly a DAC comparision.  These devices have been known to incease the sound quality on most dacs because of there low jitter rates.
> Apart from these devices the only chip with low jitter is a BB DIR9001 but this only supports up to 24/96


 
   
  I know what they are - what I don't understand is how DAC makers seem to ignore the fact that reviewers repeatedly rate THEIR products with and without converter XYZ and _usually_ pronounce the end result to be demonstrably better. Not a mild improvement that customers would need to weigh up for themselves, but unreserved recommendations - for the skeptics, its a sales pitch, but all of these converters seem to sell by the truckload. No question that incorporating this technology into a new DAC would push up the price of the end product substantially, but the result would be much cleaner. I dont have the money for the PWD either, but add the cost of a converter to something like Peachtree's DAC,iT  ($500), and its still something in the 1K region pm the shelf - that little DAC is already rated very highly for the price, and it would be interesting to hear it against the 1K+ competition. 
   
http://www.digitalaudionews.net.au/2011/09/19/audiophilleo-1-2-usb-spdif-convertor-review/
   
_Much like the JK MK3, the Audiophilleo is near-mandatory for digital audiophiles looking to get the best from their computer as digital transport. Cut a hole in your DAC budget and factor one in…at least until manufacturers start building this technology into their DACs (which they currently do not). This is one tiny box that ensures that your audio diet is tasty and nourishing. Downright 100% essential._


----------



## orkney

^^^
   
  How relevant is this debate for users who prefer coax/toslink to USB implementations? And how relevant is it to the NAD unit under consideration? I'd like to hear more from owners of the M51, please.
   
  o


----------



## ecohifi

Quote: 





estreeter said:


> I know what they are - what I don't understand is how DAC makers seem to ignore the fact that reviewers repeatedly rate THEIR products with and without converter XYZ and _usually_ pronounce the end result to be demonstrably better. Not a mild improvement that customers would need to weigh up for themselves, but unreserved recommendations - for the skeptics, its a sales pitch, but all of these converters seem to sell by the truckload. No question that incorporating this technology into a new DAC would push up the price of the end product substantially, but the result would be much cleaner. I dont have the money for the PWD either, but add the cost of a converter to something like Peachtree's DAC,iT  ($500), and its still something in the 1K region pm the shelf - that little DAC is already rated very highly for the price, and it would be interesting to hear it against the 1K+ competition.
> 
> http://www.digitalaudionews.net.au/2011/09/19/audiophilleo-1-2-usb-spdif-convertor-review/
> 
> _Much like the JK MK3, the Audiophilleo is near-mandatory for digital audiophiles looking to get the best from their computer as digital transport. Cut a hole in your DAC budget and factor one in…at least until manufacturers start building this technology into their DACs (which they currently do not). This is one tiny box that ensures that your audio diet is tasty and nourishing. Downright 100% essential._


 
  As you can see I havent gone into computer>USB path purely that I am not convinced that 24/192, and the way every company has delivered it is at its best.  I have tried 24/192>Foolbar>Dell E4300> M51 or EE mini max dac plus and found that some 16/44 recording will put most 24/192 to shame.  I am sure even with the AP2 or OR4/5 will improve it to a few more steps but not the the extent to some 16/44 offerings.  Note that I use a humble Sony s470>M51 combo and as a digital interface. 
  2ndly I purchased the M51 because I found the Sabre 9018 of the EE mini max to not deliver on certain quality.  I am basically done with the BS on Sabre implementations and the M51 takes over where the EE mini max sets the bar!
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  If you did an A/B comparision I bet you will choose the M51!


----------



## nigeljames

Quote: 





ecohifi said:


> As you can see I havent gone into computer>USB path purely that I am not convinced that 24/192, and the way every company has delivered it is at its best.  I have tried 24/192>Foolbar>Dell E4300> M51 or EE mini max dac plus and found that some 16/44 recording will put most 24/192 to shame.  I am sure even with the AP2 or OR4/5 will improve it to a few more steps but not the the extent to some 16/44 offerings.  Note that I use a humble Sony s470>M51 combo and as a digital interface.
> 2ndly I purchased the M51 because I found the Sabre 9018 of the EE mini max to not deliver on certain quality.*  I am basically done with the BS on Sabre implementations and the M51 takes over where the EE mini max sets the bar*!
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  The EE is far from setting the bar on Sabre chipped DAC's.


----------



## Telstar

Quote: 





ecohifi said:


> May I ask which USB device on the market that provides < 10ps ????


 
  Any one based on xmos chip or async with custom fpga can achieve this spec from input to their i2s output (which should go straight to the DAC chips but often it doesnt). Then the overall converter jitter depends on the quality of XO and psu and connections (pcb traces and cables alike).
  IIRC Wavelength crimson has a total jitter of about 50ps.
   
  btw deterministic jitter is the most important one.


----------



## Telstar

Quote: 





orkney said:


> How relevant is this debate for users who prefer coax/toslink to USB implementations?


 
   
  Quite relevant since coax nor toslink cannot match today's best usb interfaces.


----------



## woodcans

The OR5 in my system is unquestionably superior to the already good native USB input on my m51.
    
   
  Quote:


orkney said:


> ^^^
> 
> How relevant is this debate for users who prefer coax/toslink to USB implementations? And how relevant is it to the NAD unit under consideration? I'd like to hear more from owners of the M51, please.
> 
> o


----------



## orkney

Quote: 





woodcans said:


> The OR5 in my system is unquestionably superior to the already good native USB input on my m51.


 
   
  Many thanks for the input, Wood. Can you expand a bit on precisely how the OR5 improves on the NAD's implementation? Do you chalk it up to lower jitter? Improved electrical matching?
   
  I ask partly because until recently SPDIF/USB converters seemed to be aimed at the owners of legacy DACs that lacked a USB interface. Now they're about improved SQ, and are being touted as essential bolt-ons for all sorts of DACs, including those with "unoptimized" USB interfaces. I'm interested in how this has come to pass, and whether it is necessarily the case that all serious DAC setups require an OR5 or equivalent -- just as not too long ago all serious speaker setups required biwiring, or all serious HP setups required recabling. As I noted a few posts back, I'm agnostic on this issue -- my own experience with the revised HiFace and Rega DAC was unconvincing, but I'm interested in hearing more.
   
  best,
   
  o


----------



## woodcans

o,
   
  The OR pretty much improves the sound across the board in my system, but in summary, it sounds more realistic, more detailed, entirely non-fatiguing with improved soundstage and better focus. More analog-like. I may have mentioned this earlier, but it sounds so good w/ the OR5 I sold off my TT and vinyl equipment. Without the OR5, I would still have the TT.
   
  My theory is that there is  still lots to learn about digital audio. I think Steve at EA is at the cutting edge of the science right now. Also, since he is basically a one man show, he can put out cutting edge product faster than big companies.
   
  Regards,
   
  w


----------



## ecohifi

Quote: 





woodcans said:


> o,
> 
> The OR pretty much improves the sound across the board in my system, but in summary, it sounds more realistic, more detailed, entirely non-fatiguing with improved soundstage and better focus. More analog-like. I may have mentioned this earlier, but it sounds so good w/ the OR5 I sold off my TT and vinyl equipment. Without the OR5, I would still have the TT.
> 
> ...


 
  Its obvious that the OR4/5 or any Steve's offerings for USB>s/pdif is at the top of the game as has indicated on several sites and other forums.  But this comes at a price!  Some of us including myself would love to have one to try!
  Considering that the OR5 is around $300US approx from a M51 is very much out of my reach!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  I still think that cdp is still the way to go considering the cost


----------



## mcullinan

What about the Audiophelia, there testing shows better results and its a more manageable $595


----------



## ecohifi

Quote: 





mcullinan said:


> What about the Audiophelia, there testing shows better results and its a more manageable $595


 
  Most reports have been that the OR are a better device


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





ecohifi said:


>





> I still think that cdp is still the way to go considering the cost


 
   
  To a point, yes. If you have under $1,000 to spend, I think a quality CD player is likely to outperform whatever USB DAC system you could hobble together for the same amount. There would be just too many compromises on that side. Raise the price to more like $2.5K, and I think the balance shifts in the other direction. That's enough for the NAD, Calyx, or Anedio D2, and an Audiophilleo or JKMK3 if necessary. $5K gets you an Overdrive or Pandora DAC which are likely to stomp on $5K CD players if paired with a dedicated PC server or something like a Mach2Music Mini.


----------



## orkney

Quote: 





woodcans said:


> o,
> 
> The OR pretty much improves the sound across the board in my system, but in summary, it sounds more realistic, more detailed, entirely non-fatiguing with improved soundstage and better focus. More analog-like. I may have mentioned this earlier, but it sounds so good w/ the OR5 I sold off my TT and vinyl equipment. Without the OR5, I would still have the TT.
> 
> ...


 
   
  Thanks for that -- much appreciated.
   
  My experience has been that the M51, fed from a transport or the SB Touch via coax/optical, is a highly transparent and very well-balanced device that seems immune to some familiar digital artifacts -- its tonal quality does not alter with volume and it does not favour one genre or style over another. As a digital preamp it is silent, wideband and has a volume control that is precise and responsive. Used as a preamp into my Luxman L509u's amp stage it is very nearly the equal of the Lux's very refined (and very expensive and overbuilt) front end. It also handily outperforms in that application the Benchmark HDR I had in its place until recently. 
   
  o


----------



## Nick63

Is the NAD C 390DD basically a NAD M51 with an amp included?


----------



## orkney

Quote: 





nick63 said:


> Is the NAD C 390DD basically a NAD M51 with an amp included?


 
   
  Don't think so. Check the specs:
   
  http://nadelectronics.com/products/hifi-amplifiers/C-390DD-Direct-Digital-Powered-DAC-Amplifier
   
  http://nadelectronics.com/products/digital-music/M51-Direct-Digital-DAC
   
  Different USB implementations, different DACs, different analogue output stages, different volume controls and different markets. So it seems, anyway.


----------



## estreeter

Quote: 





nick63 said:


> Is the NAD C 390DD basically a NAD M51 with an amp included?


 
   
  If you read  the subjective reviews, its seen more as 'trickle down' from the flagship M2, and very impressive trickle down at that. Unfortunately, the only way to really know whether that means anything for you personally is to audition the beast - at the RRP here in Oz, I'm afraid I was forced to draw a line through it.


----------



## ecohifi

I can confirmed that the zxczm800 chip is in the M51 that does the PCM to pwm, the M2 has this chip and the complementing zxcm200 which does the f/back for the power amp stages, I'm guessing so don't quote me on it the C390D would incorp the same chipset as this is a partnership that NAD has with Diode Inc


----------



## woodcans

My experience is in line with yours. The M51/OR5 in my system feeding my Luxman m600a is simply sublime. Your description of the volume control is spot on.
   
  Quote: 





orkney said:


> Thanks for that -- much appreciated.
> 
> My experience has been that the M51, fed from a transport or the SB Touch via coax/optical, is a highly transparent and very well-balanced device that seems immune to some familiar digital artifacts -- its tonal quality does not alter with volume and it does not favour one genre or style over another. As a digital preamp it is silent, wideband and has a volume control that is precise and responsive. Used as a preamp into my Luxman L509u's amp stage it is very nearly the equal of the Lux's very refined (and very expensive and overbuilt) front end. It also handily outperforms in that application the Benchmark HDR I had in its place until recently.
> 
> o


----------



## Nick63

The M51 seems to have superior usb abilities, but I wondered if maybe the C 390DD might have better tech in other ways. I could not determine this from the literature.


----------



## estreeter

Its like deja-vu all over again  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f6-dac-digital-analog-conversion/nad-m51-master-series-dac-and-c390dd-direct-digital-amplifier-9561/
   
  There is enough misinformation in that thread to sink the Titanic - again. I agree that there isnt much out there on the 390DD, but gems like this will only cement the bias many hold towards Class D amps:
   
I thought the C390DD and M2 had no need to convert to analog because they somehow drove the speakers "digitally". Apparently, there is always need for an analog stage.
   
Fortunately, these guys seem to have a better grip on the 390:
   
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f6-dac-digital-analog-conversion/nad-c390dd-direct-digital-dac-amplifier-11836/
   
Anyway, back to the discussion of the M51 - apologies for the detour.


----------



## dyl1dyl

Quote: 





nick63 said:


> The M51 seems to have superior usb abilities, but I wondered if maybe the C 390DD might have better tech in other ways. I could not determine this from the literature.


 
   
  My understanding from talking to the local distributor is that the M51 is designed to be the higher end, superior product. However, they also mentioned that if it is not paired well, the 390DD has the potential to sound better. The M51 though taken for just its DAC and pre sections is higher end though, hence the master range allocation


----------



## dercius

Got a chance to put an M51>M3 combo up against the M2 through PSB Synchrony One speakers. It was quite interesting hearing the two NAD systems go up against each other. Both were rather impressive. The M51>M3 combo was a little bit less detailed but seemed to have a slight edge in bass texture and PRAT. Might just be their pairing with the PSB speakers though as I'm not familiar with that particular model.


----------



## Somnambulist

Gonna order mine tomorrow from Audio Affair (had to wait to find out if I was going to lose my job, but I've avoided redundancy haha, phew). Hope they still have a few in stock!


----------



## mcullinan

I think they are all on backorder, at least in the US. They are supposed to be available next week though.


----------



## Somnambulist

Says dispatched within 2-3 days on AudioAffair and a couple of other sites in the UK say they have it in stock.
   
  Anyway, question. I'm looking at this M51 thinking that I feel like I want to try some sort of USB converter, to spdif, to AES, whatever, just to get a nice clean signal to the DAC. Anyway, I remembered that the M51 claims to do I2S via the HDMI input(s). I plan on using a BDP via one input, with the video out going into the TV,  but that 2nd input... what options are there for I2S? I'm guessing some sort of USB to I2S converter.


----------



## Anda

Quote: 





somnambulist said:


> Says dispatched within 2-3 days on AudioAffair and a couple of other sites in the UK say they have it in stock.
> 
> Anyway, question. I'm looking at this M51 thinking that I feel like I want to try some sort of USB converter, to spdif, to AES, whatever, just to get a nice clean signal to the DAC. Anyway, I remembered that the M51 claims to do I2S via the HDMI input(s). I plan on using a BDP via one input, with the video out going into the TV,  but that 2nd input... what options are there for I2S? I'm guessing some sort of USB to I2S converter.


 

 The M51 uses the XMOS USB receiver, which is one of the best ways of getting computer audio via USB.


----------



## Somnambulist

Does it? I couldn't see that anywhere, at least nothing concrete.


----------



## Anda

Quote: 





somnambulist said:


> Does it? I couldn't see that anywhere, at least nothing concrete.


 
   
  List of USB audio class 2 devices (in french):
http://www.forum-audiophile.fr/musique-dematerialisee-f25/les-dac-transport-usb-audio-class-2-t16248.html#p151447


----------



## ecohifi

Yes, I can confirm it has an XMOS chip for USB, but the s/pdif is still streaks ahead of the USB, the USB on the M51 lets it down, thats why an AP2 or OR4/5 will take it to the next step!


----------



## Somnambulist

Yes, that's what I thought - hence the desire for a USB to s/pdif, although as I was musing, taking advantage of that I2S connection would in theory be even better, it's just I can't seem to find a USB to I2S converter that's not super expensive. W4S and indeed NAD have their music server devices which do have the I2S outputs but I'm not paying $2500 USD for a streamer when my set up is computer > DAC > speakers.
   
  There's an HK site/store that sell a Squeezebox Touch modded with an I2S output, but I'd need to read more about how direct the output in, as from what I've read the idea behind I2S is it's a minimal signal path between board and DAC, reducing any muck that can creep in.
   
  At this rate I'll probably just go for USB to s/pdif, although ideally I'd like one with AES/EBU due to it being the best input on the NAD (from what I can see). I know the Stello U3 has that but it doesn't seem to be held in as high regard as the AP, which is pretty expensive and even more so w/PP mod. The OR can do I2S and AES but it's very expensive. Gah.


----------



## arnaud

I believe the latest Audio-Gd Digital Interface can provide I2S output optionally, you need to pay something like 3 cents for the board and plug it in yourself or something like that.


----------



## Somnambulist

Thanks. It looks like it's using an RJ45 connection though, the NAD does I2S over HDMI. Not sure if there's a way to make that work currently. Stupid various I2S standards!


----------



## Telstar

Quote: 





somnambulist said:


> Yes, that's what I thought - hence the desire for a USB to s/pdif, although as I was musing, taking advantage of that I2S connection would in theory be even better, it's just I can't seem to find a USB to I2S converter that's not super expensive.


 
  Google for:
  -xmos reference board
  -waveIO
   
  both under 150$.


----------



## dwk

Quote: 





somnambulist said:


> Yes, that's what I thought - hence the desire for a USB to s/pdif, although as I was musing, taking advantage of that I2S connection would in theory be even better, it's just I can't seem to find a USB to I2S converter that's not super expensive. W4S and indeed NAD have their music server devices which do have the I2S outputs but I'm not paying $2500 USD for a streamer when my set up is computer > DAC > speakers.


 
   
  I'm still in the camp that is dubious that the M51 actually supports I2S-on-hdmi, but Channel Islands has an upcoming USB device that is multi-purpose. It has a built-in Wolfson DAC, spdif out, plus I2S out on either the HDMI connector or via the old Audio Alchemy mini-din. $695 from what was posted over on AudioCircle, and should be available in the reasonably near future.  I'd guess that a diy solution for the hdmi connector might be a bit of a challenge since I think it uses LVDS - not impossible to diy, but not for the newbie.  
   
  What's the deal with the NAD M50 anyway? I can't find the product listing on the NAD site at all - searching for 'm50' doesnt' even return the M51 page despite it being mentioned. Is it an actual product, or is it vaporware? (not that I'm in the market for it, but was curious as to how they present the feature set.)


----------



## RichardSantiago

Sonambulist
   
  We've not tried the M51 with and i2s but can't see how it would work unless they've done something particularly clever - HDMI and i2s look the same but are wired differently, would be very interested if anybody has experience of the M51 with i2s (don't have an i2s source component to play with our demo M51)


----------



## Somnambulist

'Audiophile' music servers make me sad. The M50 is like $2499, with the matching M52 digital valut (i.e. a mirrored RAID array in a nice case) $1499 or something. The full triple Masters stack therefore is well past $5k. Same for W4S's one and a few others I've seen. I think making your own dedicated NAS for music, run by a computer hooked up to a good usb converter into a DAC is less attractive visually but WAY more affordable (even with an Off Ramp or something).
   
  Quote: 





dwk said:


> I'm still in the camp that is dubious that the M51 actually supports I2S-on-hdmi, but Channel Islands has an upcoming USB device that is multi-purpose. It has a built-in Wolfson DAC, spdif out, plus I2S out on either the HDMI connector or via the old Audio Alchemy mini-din. $695 from what was posted over on AudioCircle, and should be available in the reasonably near future.  I'd guess that a diy solution for the hdmi connector might be a bit of a challenge since I think it uses LVDS - not impossible to diy, but not for the newbie.
> 
> What's the deal with the NAD M50 anyway? I can't find the product listing on the NAD site at all - searching for 'm50' doesnt' even return the M51 page despite it being mentioned. Is it an actual product, or is it vaporware? (not that I'm in the market for it, but was curious as to how they present the feature set.)


----------



## Somnambulist

Hmm, their Data sheet for the M51 says the following:
   
   


> [size=9.000000pt]HDMI provides an encrypted HD Audio connection in PCM’s native I2S format up to 24 bit 192kHz. [/size]


 
   
  That's it. Could some people have taken it to mean "does i2S over HDMI" when it's not saying that specifically? Probably. Decent s/pdif converter it may well be then... unless I pay like double the M51's cost for a Perfectwa... ya that's not going to happen.
   
  Quote: 





richardsantiago said:


> Sonambulist
> 
> We've not tried the M51 with and i2s but can't see how it would work unless they've done something particularly clever - HDMI and i2s look the same but are wired differently, would be very interested if anybody has experience of the M51 with i2s (don't have an i2s source component to play with our demo M51)


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





somnambulist said:


> 'Audiophile' music servers make me sad. The M50 is like $2499, with the matching M52 digital valut (i.e. a mirrored RAID array in a nice case) $1499 or something. The full triple Masters stack therefore is well past $5k. Same for W4S's one and a few others I've seen. I think making your own dedicated NAS for music, run by a computer hooked up to a good usb converter into a DAC is less attractive visually but WAY more affordable (even with an Off Ramp or something).


 
   
  I understand the appeal of an Olive or Aurender or Bladelius. You just load your files and go, there's no need to worry about shutting off unnecessary services or whether you're using the right type of output mode. The downside is that they cost 3X as much as a home built PC server, and (at least according to Computer Audiophile) don't sound as good.
   
  A product like the Auraliti PK-90 USB meets the consumer in the middle. The hardware and software work is all done for you, but the value is still there, and you can control it without the need for a monitor as with the expensive one piece servers.


----------



## orkney

Great review of the M51 in July's S'phile, including detailed measurements by JA that seem to confirm the design brief.
   
  o


----------



## Somnambulist

I can understand the appeal, especially for those who do the listening room thing more and want to just sit in a chair well away from their rack. I tend to listen at my desk w/active speakers either side, and as such am happy to control playback via the computer. I wouldn't mind something like computer > squeezebox touch (EDO mod + better PSU) w/a dedicated mirrored array running SB Server > USB to AES/EBU converter > DAC > speaker for myself. It's decoupled from the computer so bypasses the Mac's OS so no need for Amarra etc, can take iTunes playlists and so on.
   
  Think that'd do it for me.
   
  Quote: 





davebsc said:


> I understand the appeal of an Olive or Aurender or Bladelius. You just load your files and go, there's no need to worry about shutting off unnecessary services or whether you're using the right type of output mode. The downside is that they cost 3X as much as a home built PC server, and (at least according to Computer Audiophile) don't sound as good.
> 
> A product like the Auraliti PK-90 USB meets the consumer in the middle. The hardware and software work is all done for you, but the value is still there, and you can control it without the need for a monitor as with the expensive one piece servers.


----------



## dwk

Quote: 





somnambulist said:


> I can understand the appeal, especially for those who do the listening room thing more and want to just sit in a chair well away from their rack. I tend to listen at my desk w/active speakers either side, and as such am happy to control playback via the computer. I wouldn't mind something like computer > squeezebox touch (EDO mod + better PSU) w/a dedicated mirrored array running SB Server > USB to AES/EBU converter > DAC > speaker for myself. It's decoupled from the computer so bypasses the Mac's OS so no need for Amarra etc, can take iTunes playlists and so on.
> 
> Think that'd do it for me.


 
  I tried the 'audiophile desktop' style setup and didn't really like it. I found that with the computer there it was a constant distraction and I ended up dicking around on the computer rather than just listening.  I was hoping that the M51 would be supported by the SB Touch EDO mod, but as it stands it is not - apparently NAD uses an extended descriptor that isn't supported by Linux. So, I'm now deciding between SBTouch via spdif, SBTouch w/ usb->spdif converter, or pc via either usb or usb->spdif.  I'm currently leaning towards the latter since it provides the ability to eq which is beneficial to bring the bottom end of my Stax up a bit.
   Either way though, sitting on the couch with a tablet as the interface/remote is where I'm headed rather than sitting in front of the computer.  Guess we'll see how that works out


----------



## Somnambulist

Heh, as it goes my 'desktop' set up is more a midfield thing now. The Mac Mini and DAC are all in the TV rack and I can just pull the monitor over to my memory foam 'bean' bag if I want to use the computer but am still in an preferable listening position. Can use my iPhone or iPad to control everything via iTunes and there's a SBT remote app as well for the same job. Did this partly so I could relax more when listening, and partly as the Linkwitz speakers I'm building which will replace my Focal CMS's require a bit more listening distance.


----------



## Somnambulist

Well. AudioAffair dropped the price over the weekend to £1300 as part of a special celebratory weekend thing. Kinda bought an M51.


----------



## Stormfriend

Damn, they phoned me up to see if I still wanted the one I'd originally ordered and I said no, not yet as I need to sort out my mains supply first.  They didn't tell me they'd dropped the price, so now I'm wavering and may end up doing both...


----------



## Somnambulist

We have dodgy electricity at home (turn the shower on and the lights dim for a second lol) - thinking myself about what I can do to minimise that kind of thing, more out of concern for my equipment than any SQ improvement. I saw that PS Audio Power Plant but it's craaaaaaaaazy expensive.


----------



## Stormfriend

Well, if you have class A monoblocks driving your shower then the lights dimming is normal!
   
  The power plants are seriously pricy, but balanced mains transformers are a lot cheaper.  I'd just like to know the relative merits of both before buying anything.  I know how they both work, technically, but which will sort out my mains supply in the most effective way and be completely silent in operation?


----------



## DaveBSC

Balanced transformers are not voltage regulators. If your problem is undervoltage, they won't solve that. Furman sells some voltage regulators in their pro line that are fairly reasonably priced, and their home line SPR-20i is still a lot less than entry level P3 power plant. I would strongly advise against the old Power Plant Premier, build quality on those is a joke.


----------



## Somnambulist

Beats me, it's an area I need to look up. I'm mainly an active speakers user (have Focals atm, moving to Linkwitz Plutos although I'd love some Opals) - the pre of the M51 should be epic for them. Need to get a Harmony One+ remote so I can have the NAD, BDP (x2, one for the NAD, one for the receiver), set top box, TV and eventually receiver and PJ. Too many remotes!
   
  Anything I buy will probably be more of a pro-audio or non-esoteric thing, not particularly trusting of boutique stuff when it comes to power lol (remembers the Virtual Dynamics power cables farce).


----------



## Stormfriend

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Balanced transformers are not voltage regulators. If your problem is undervoltage, they won't solve that. Furman sells some voltage regulators in their pro line that are fairly reasonably priced, and their home line SPR-20i is still a lot less than entry level P3 power plant. I would strongly advise against the old Power Plant Premier, build quality on those is a joke.


 
   
  Voltage isn't a problem, or at least I have plenty of it.  My UPS has a constant readout that updates every few seconds and its been telling me I average 246-248, with 244-250 not uncommon.  It has dipped as low as 242 on a couple of brief occasions, but it's never gone above 250.  The RA balanced transformer apparently has a switch to set incoming voltage so that it acts as step down transformer and outputs 230v.  What's holding me back on that is reports of the Airlink balanced transformers humming, and RA agreed theirs could too if voltage swung too wildly.
   
  The PS-Audio stuff I'd have to get on interest free credit and will have difficulty trying before I buy.  I did see the reviews on the Premier and the word 'bargepole' springs to mind   Thanks for the heads-up though.  The P5 and P10 have a much better reputation, but they're about three times the price of the RA balanced transformer and nearly ten times the price of some of the Airlink ones.


----------



## Stormfriend

Quote: 





somnambulist said:


> Beats me, it's an area I need to look up. I'm mainly an active speakers user (have Focals atm, moving to Linkwitz Plutos although I'd love some Opals) - the pre of the M51 should be epic for them. Need to get a Harmony One+ remote so I can have the NAD, BDP (x2, one for the NAD, one for the receiver), set top box, TV and eventually receiver and PJ. Too many remotes!
> 
> Anything I buy will probably be more of a pro-audio or non-esoteric thing, not particularly trusting of boutique stuff when it comes to power lol (remembers the Virtual Dynamics power cables farce).


 
   
  I didn't see the Virtual Dynamics stuff so I assume it was a while ago.  My RA mains cables vary in effect according to what I attach them too.  On the DAC they're good but on the headphone amp they reduce the brightness significantly yet muffle the midrange and bass.  I'm just using my UPS as a conditioner for the amp at the moment, which is working pretty well, but as this is an odd week with all the bank holidays I won't know if it's a solution until next weekend as my mains may just be behaving itself more than usual.
   
  Active speakers are certainly on my long term list, and the M51 would make a beautifully simple system.  I have an Audio Synthesis passive preamp, which is excellent, but it doubles the cost of upgrading interconnects as I need them on both sides.  My power amps are also 20 years old and suck the power station dry - the electricity company got my bill mixed up with the girl who lived upstairs at a previous flat and it reduced her to tears...  The little Dynaudio active speakers look interesting (the pro versions have balanced inputs so I can feed them from the balanced outs on the M51), but until I move house and get thicker walls its headphones only for now.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





stormfriend said:


> Voltage isn't a problem, or at least I have plenty of it.  My UPS has a constant readout that updates every few seconds and its been telling me I average 246-248, with 244-250 not uncommon.  It has dipped as low as 242 on a couple of brief occasions, but it's never gone above 250.  The RA balanced transformer apparently has a switch to set incoming voltage so that it acts as step down transformer and outputs 230v.  What's holding me back on that is reports of the Airlink balanced transformers humming, and RA agreed theirs could too if voltage swung too wildly.
> 
> The PS-Audio stuff I'd have to get on interest free credit and will have difficulty trying before I buy.  I did see the reviews on the Premier and the word 'bargepole' springs to mind   Thanks for the heads-up though.  The P5 and P10 have a much better reputation, but they're about three times the price of the RA balanced transformer and nearly ten times the price of some of the Airlink ones.


 

 Gotcha. I use a Balanced Power Tech BP-1 Signature, which I picked up on Audiogon for $350. Very nice 900Va Plitron balanced transformer, four FIM outlets with Auricaps on each, chassis lined with ERS cloth, and a separate box inside that acts as an EMI absorber. New it would've been closer to $1200, so I got a pretty good deal.


----------



## Stormfriend

That's definitely a good deal!  Does your unit hum at all?


----------



## Somnambulist

Example here. Aside from using bog standard house wire, hose pipe, hot glue and  sandblasting pellets, the biggest concern was both the potential fire hazard and the lack of certification. No wonder they went out of business.
  Quote: 





stormfriend said:


> I didn't see the Virtual Dynamics stuff so I assume it was a while ago.  My RA mains cables vary in effect according to what I attach them too.  On the DAC they're good but on the headphone amp they reduce the brightness significantly yet muffle the midrange and bass.  I'm just using my UPS as a conditioner for the amp at the moment, which is working pretty well, but as this is an odd week with all the bank holidays I won't know if it's a solution until next weekend as my mains may just be behaving itself more than usual.
> 
> Active speakers are certainly on my long term list, and the M51 would make a beautifully simple system.  I have an Audio Synthesis passive preamp, which is excellent, but it doubles the cost of upgrading interconnects as I need them on both sides.  My power amps are also 20 years old and suck the power station dry - the electricity company got my bill mixed up with the girl who lived upstairs at a previous flat and it reduced her to tears...  The little Dynaudio active speakers look interesting (the pro versions have balanced inputs so I can feed them from the balanced outs on the M51), but until I move house and get thicker walls its headphones only for now.


----------



## Stormfriend

Quote: 





somnambulist said:


> Example here. Aside from using bog standard house wire, hose pipe, hot glue and  sandblasting pellets, the biggest concern was both the potential fire hazard and the lack of certification. No wonder they went out of business.


 
   
  Thanks, I enjoyed that 
   
  I don't think it was the cable construction or lack of certification that let them down though, I think it had more to do with human resources!  I still can't believe some of those posts.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





stormfriend said:


> That's definitely a good deal!  Does your unit hum at all?


 

 No, though from what I understand it can if there's some DC present on the line.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





somnambulist said:


> Example here. Aside from using bog standard house wire, hose pipe, hot glue and  sandblasting pellets, the biggest concern was both the potential fire hazard and the lack of certification. No wonder they went out of business.


 

 I remember that post. What really irritated me about that cable wasn't the cheap materials or the markup. Lots of companies charge a lot for cheap materials, and their markup was maybe 4 or 5:1 which is pretty standard in the audio business. No, what bugged me was how cynical it was. It played to all the typical "stupid audiophool" stereotypes. "Cables have to be as thick as your arm, and the harder they are to bend, the better! Thicker = more coppers inside, which is more better! Derp!"
   
  It used a thick tube of heavy wall braided PVC tubing for absolutely no reason other than to make it look much thicker than it otherwise would be.


----------



## Somnambulist

Haha, sorry for the thread derail. Anyway, since I2S seems to be off the menu - the next best input on the M51 seems to be the AES/EBU. I'll be going direct from the Mac Mini, so a USB to S/PDIF converter that has the AES output is what I'd be looking for. Currently off the top of my head and excluding the OR4/5 because they're too expensive there's
   
  Stello U3
  V Link 192
  SOtM dx-USB HD
   
  And probably some others I can't think of. I'd want to get a (non-silly price) linear PSU for it too.


----------



## MorbidToaster

The one I hear about the most (converter) is the Off Ramp 4. It has AES out. It'd probably be my pick if I needed one at the moment.
   
  Quote: 





somnambulist said:


> Haha, sorry for the thread derail. Anyway, since I2S seems to be off the menu - the next best input on the M51 seems to be the AES/EBU. I'll be going direct from the Mac Mini, so a USB to S/PDIF converter that has the AES output is what I'd be looking for. Currently off the top of my head and excluding the OR4/5 because they're too expensive there's
> 
> Stello U3
> V Link 192
> ...


----------



## estreeter

4K (plus shipping, customs and local taxes) and the pain ends. Or so I'm told. Why does the skeptic in me know that they will always find more 'pain' that needs to be be 'treated'  ?
   
   
 http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Just-Finished-Auditioning-Steve-Nugents-New-DAC-Empirical-Audio  “We have had the Weiss, Antelope, several Apogees, the Ayre, Tranquility, the PS Audio DLIII and PWD, and Benchmark. None of these were even close to what your DAC [Overdrive] presented.”


----------



## Somnambulist

The OR's are just too expensive for me. Getting a couple of hundred quid off the NAD knocks it closer to £1k. The speakers I'm building - about £1k I suspect by the time we're done with it all, particularly making them look decent. Do I really want to spend close to another K for a converter? Not really. I'd rather get a good solid, but not uber high-end converter, and spend more on room treatment. I might still get the JK MIII, but only if I was satisfied there's a general agreement on that s/pdif input being just as good as the AES.


----------



## MorbidToaster

Makes sense.
   
  Quote: 





somnambulist said:


> The OR's are just too expensive for me. Getting a couple of hundred quid off the NAD knocks it closer to £1k. The speakers I'm building - about £1k I suspect by the time we're done with it all, particularly making them look decent. *Do I really want to spend close to another K for a converter? Not really.* I'd rather get a good solid, but not uber high-end converter, and spent more on room treatment. I might still get the JK MIII, but only if I was satisfied there's a general agreement on that s/pdif input being just as good as the AES.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





estreeter said:


> 4K (plus shipping, customs and local taxes) and the pain ends. Or so I'm told. Why does the skeptic in me know that they will always find more 'pain' that needs to be be 'treated'  ?
> 
> 
> http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Just-Finished-Auditioning-Steve-Nugents-New-DAC-Empirical-Audio  “We have had the Weiss, Antelope, several Apogees, the Ayre, Tranquility, the PS Audio DLIII and PWD, and Benchmark. None of these were even close to what your DAC [Overdrive] presented.”


 
   
  I spoke to Chris about auditioning the OR4 back when it was new, and I also asked Steve if he could get an OR or Overdrive to Chris for review since I generally like Chris' work. Steve said that Chris has never shown any interest in Empirical or reviewing their products, which is too bad as I think he's missing out. (He also stubbornly refuses to use anything other than JRiver, even though there are clearly better products out there).
   
  A USB DAC is basically two parts, the USB > I2S conversion, and the DAC itself. The reason why I think the Overdrive tends to outperform its rivals, even the $7K+ stuff, is its advantage in the USB conversion stage. It's pretty much generally accepted that the Off-Ramp is the best there is, other than MAYBE the Stahl-tek ABC which is so expensive that it would be pretty silly to buy anyway.
   
  The Overdrive basically uses an internal Off-Ramp as its input, while most of the others are using the XMOS solution. OR > XMOS, so the Overdrive already has a significant advantage before the actual conversion process has even started. I don't think that alone would be enough if the DAC itself was mediocre, but obviously it isn't. The Overdrive DAC seems to be at least as good as anything else in the $5-10K class, combine that with a world class USB input, and you've got a serious machine.
   
  Steve also isn't sitting still. The latest Overdrive version called the SE is a sort of "popular plus" version incorporating most of the upgrades available on the standard version, combined with a new power supply that replaces the old AC adapters with three internal switch mode supplies, which connect directly to the wall with a standard IEC input. Steve says that the new PSU sounds even better than the standard DAC with the Monolith battery supply, which is no small feat.


----------



## ecohifi

Quote: 





somnambulist said:


> The OR's are just too expensive for me. Getting a couple of hundred quid off the NAD knocks it closer to £1k. The speakers I'm building - about £1k I suspect by the time we're done with it all, particularly making them look decent. Do I really want to spend close to another K for a converter? Not really. I'd rather get a good solid, but not uber high-end converter, and spend more on room treatment. I might still get the JK MIII, but only if I was satisfied there's a general agreement on that s/pdif input being just as good as the AES.


 
  If youre looking at speakers, check the Behringer 3031A truths.  They are Active driven by an active power amp 150 & 75 watt amp that hangs on the rear with balance in and RCA.  This is a bargin for $630AUS.  They come with a 3yr warranty   I have had the M51 driving these through  balance and they are amazing for the price.  They have a ribbon tweeter and a kevlar driver, the unit is design for studios and it comes close to the 6ft ribbons and eton drivers that I have purposely built without the grunt and clarity of the bottom end due to there bookshelf size.  They have the clarity and sweetness in the top end that you can only die for that doesnt exist in dome tweeters and units such as Linn Kanns and ProAc tablettes.  I think I have seen then for around the300-400 pounds on the net. 
  My son bought the pair and I had a go at him, by the time we hooked them up the SQ silence me!!!!!!
  I dont think you get a package like this for the money; ribbon tweeter, kevlar driver, active 150 and 75 watt amp that supports RCA and balance for $630AUS retail, my son paid 530!  Great for a 2nd back up pair.


----------



## Somnambulist

I have Focal CMS 50's, I'd like to upgrade to the Event Opals, and I'm building Linkwitz Plutos for fun as well.


----------



## estreeter

Dave, I'm not seeing the Overdrive SE (or the Syncro-Mesh ..) on the Empirical Audio site - what sort of money are we talking for the SE ? Clearly, Steve has realised that the high-end like pretty casework - the original Overdrive looked more like something you would see in server rack than a piece of high-end audio.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





estreeter said:


> Dave, I'm not seeing the Overdrive SE (or the Syncro-Mesh ..) on the Empirical Audio site - what sort of money are we talking for the SE ? Clearly, Steve has realised that the high-end like pretty casework - the original Overdrive looked more like something you would see in server rack than a piece of high-end audio.


 
   
  Yeah it usually takes him awhile to get the site updated. Steve quoted the SE at $6K, which includes the USB and DAC section Hynes regulators, the dual Turboclock upgrade, and the passive heatsink. The price for all of that on the current Overdrive is $5700, so there's $300 for the new AC Substation (which is supposed to outperform the $1200 Monolith) and the new enclosures. Assuming the analog section Hynes regulators and CUTF coupling caps are the same, they would put the price of a "maxxed out" Overdrive SE at $8300.
   
  Steve also has a new USB isolating device called the Short-block, which filters out common mode ground noise from the computer. It breaks the power leg connection entirely though, so it will only work with devices that don't require power from the USB port.


----------



## estreeter

With freight, 30% Customs and 7.5% VAT, that maxxed-out SE would cost me *close to 12K USD* by the time I had it in my hands in Thailand. Somnambulist made an excellent point earlier in relation to the Overdrive and the obvious question is : what would you have to spend to do justice to a source at that level ? No-one spends a total of 5K on the amp/speakers to go with a 12K source - you are suddenly in the realm of a 30K+ system. Granted, some on Head-Fi would have spent more than that on gear, and in the speaker world its not extreme by any means, but its fantasyland for me. I look forward to YOUR impressions !


----------



## orkney

Quote: 





somnambulist said:


> Haha, sorry for the thread derail. Anyway, since I2S seems to be off the menu - the next best input on the M51 seems to be the AES/EBU. I'll be going direct from the Mac Mini, so a USB to S/PDIF converter that has the AES output is what I'd be looking for. Currently off the top of my head and excluding the OR4/5 because they're too expensive there's
> 
> Stello U3
> V Link 192
> ...


 

 Honestly, I'd listen to the M51 before deciding on which, if any, USB/SPDIF converter you need. If sounds very, very good through SPDIF, and the native USB is no slouch.
   
  o


----------



## The Monkey

I've been listening to the NAD M51 (loaner) for a couple of months now, and I am very impressed.  I'll have more impressions at a later date, but I think this is a nice sounding piece of kit that compares well to my PWD.  A very straightforward unit.  In fact, I wish there were more controls on the faceplate (esp volume) but NAD made lots of good decisions in implementation, imo.


----------



## ecohifi

Quote: 





estreeter said:


> 4K (plus shipping, customs and local taxes) and the pain ends. Or so I'm told. Why does the skeptic in me know that they will always find more 'pain' that needs to be be 'treated'  ?
> 
> 
> http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Just-Finished-Auditioning-Steve-Nugents-New-DAC-Empirical-Audio  “We have had the Weiss, Antelope, several Apogees, the Ayre, Tranquility, the PS Audio DLIII and PWD, and Benchmark. None of these were even close to what your DAC [Overdrive] presented.”


 
  This is on my want list, when I win tatts!


----------



## Somnambulist

Quote: 





orkney said:


> Honestly, I'd listen to the M51 before deciding on which, if any, USB/SPDIF converter you need. If sounds very, very good through SPDIF, and the native USB is no slouch.
> 
> o


 
   
  I plan on doing as much (Mac Mini mini-jack to toslink), however, pretty much everything I've read points to the converters making a noticeable difference, cleaning up things coming from the computer-end, so it seems a worthy investment.
   
  Quote: 





the monkey said:


> I've been listening to the NAD M51 (loaner) for a couple of months now, and I am very impressed.  I'll have more impressions at a later date, but I think this is a nice sounding piece of kit that compares well to my PWD.  A very straightforward unit.  In fact, I wish there were more controls on the faceplate (esp volume) but NAD made lots of good decisions in implementation, imo.


 
   
  I'm going to get a Logitech Harmony One+ or some such, can run the NAD off that (as well the other devices in the home theater/hifi rack that have remote control).


----------



## woodcans

My M51 will not work using the hdmi I2S output from my OR5, so I don't think it accepts i2s over hdmi. Sound via OR5 coax is glorious. I can't detect a difference between the OR5 coax and AES outputs into the m51, in my system.




somnambulist said:


> Haha, sorry for the thread derail. Anyway, since I2S seems to be off the menu - the next best input on the M51 seems to be the AES/EBU. I'll be going direct from the Mac Mini, so a USB to S/PDIF converter that has the AES output is what I'd be looking for. Currently off the top of my head and excluding the OR4/5 because they're too expensive there's
> 
> Stello U3
> V Link 192
> ...


----------



## woodcans

How unfortunate that the 'computer audiophile' is uninterested in what is likely the cutting edge of the state of the art of computer audiophilia.




davebsc said:


> I spoke to Chris about auditioning the OR4 back when it was new, and I also asked Steve if he could get an OR or Overdrive to Chris for review since I generally like Chris' work. Steve said that Chris has never shown any interest in Empirical or reviewing their products, which is too bad as I think he's missing out. (He also stubbornly refuses to use anything other than JRiver, even though there are clearly better products out there).


----------



## estreeter

Chris has made it abundantly clear where his DAC loyalties lie, and it would be pretty hard to take a backward step from some of his rhetoric in this review. Dave and Obo are familiar with my obsession with DACs which can act as speaker preamps, and according to Mr Connaker the Alpha does that very well indeed - to my knowledge. the OD does not. 
   
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/244-berkeley-audio-design-alpha-dac-review/
   
At $5,000 the Alpha DAC is a high-end audio bargain. This level of quality and features could honestly sell for twice or three times the price. Every Alpha DAC owner and audiophile I've talked to who has heard the DAC has been very impressed. In a recent DAC shootout for the Bay Area Audio Society the Berkeley Audio Design Alpha DAC took first place hands down. I would not be surprised to see the Alpha DAC ascend to the top of many lists and receive much deserved accolades in the weeks and months ahead. Whether I'm using Mac OS X or Microsoft Windows the Alpha DAC from Berkeley Audio Design is my reference DAC for the foreseeable future.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





estreeter said:


> Chris has made it abundantly clear where his DAC loyalties lie, and it would be pretty hard to take a backward step from some of his rhetoric in this review. Dave and Obo are familiar with my obsession with DACs which can act as speaker preamps, and according to Mr Connaker the Alpha does that very well indeed - to my knowledge. the OD does not.
> 
> http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/244-berkeley-audio-design-alpha-dac-review/
> 
> At $5,000 the Alpha DAC is a high-end audio bargain. This level of quality and features could honestly sell for twice or three times the price. Every Alpha DAC owner and audiophile I've talked to who has heard the DAC has been very impressed. In a recent DAC shootout for the Bay Area Audio Society the Berkeley Audio Design Alpha DAC took first place hands down. I would not be surprised to see the Alpha DAC ascend to the top of many lists and receive much deserved accolades in the weeks and months ahead. Whether I'm using Mac OS X or Microsoft Windows the Alpha DAC from Berkeley Audio Design is my reference DAC for the foreseeable future.


 
   
  There's a couple of ironies in that. First, the guys at Berkeley insist that you can't get the best performance unless you have the USB conversion outside of the DAC itself. Empirical has already proven that wrong, and the fact that the Off-Ramp outperforms the Alpha USB converter (which you would expect, half the Alpha USB is bus powered, after all) proves that Empirical knows a thing or two about USB. Second, at least the Series I Alpha DAC has already been taken down by several rivals like the Weiss and the Meitner, and that's according to Chris. Meanwhile, the Overdrive (depending on its state of tune) seems to be able to match or exceed all comers.
   
  The Overdrive has a preamp function, not only that but Steve believes that it outperforms both analog domain, resistor based controls and digital domain controls. He describes the Overdrive volume control as a hybrid between the two. It works by varying the voltage to the DACs, so there's no loss in resolution as attenuation increases.


----------



## woodcans

In my system, the NAD outperformed the Berkeley series 1.
   
  Quote: 





davebsc said:


> There's a couple of ironies in that. First, the guys at Berkeley insist that you can't get the best performance unless you have the USB conversion outside of the DAC itself. Empirical has already proven that wrong, and the fact that the Off-Ramp outperforms the Alpha USB converter (which you would expect, half the Alpha USB is bus powered, after all) proves that Empirical knows a thing or two about USB. Second, at least the Series I Alpha DAC has already been taken down by several rivals like the Weiss and the Meitner, and that's according to Chris. Meanwhile, the Overdrive (depending on its state of tune) seems to be able to match or exceed all comers.


----------



## grokit

That's messed up that the _Computer Audiophile_ is this closed-minded


----------



## estreeter

Dave, I stand corrected on the preamp issue. Its still very ugly.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  woodcans, if you are serious and speaking from more than a brief audition, then the M51 could well outsell the Bible. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  (I would also point out that the Weiss seems to have a reputation for being 'very Swiss' - enormously gifted technically, but a long way from being the life of the party. The Meitner is a more recent addition to the fray - it would be fantastic to get them all in room with some capable companion kit  and DBT everyone in this thread. Almost as great as landing on a planet populated entirely by beautiful *Amazon women* who want to make me their Emporer, and about as likely .....)


----------



## ecohifi

Quote: 





estreeter said:


> Dave, I stand corrected on the preamp issue. Its still very ugly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  I dont think that NAD had forcast this interest, demand is outstripping supply and they cant keep up, further more there has been 2 other units including mine that has had issues straight out of the box and I know of a C390DD that failed as well, it looks like they have a real QC issue as the PCBs soldering is a little less than desire, extremely ordinary, obviously assembled in a cheap production facility in China,  probably explains why it is packed so well as the M51 come in a double box!


----------



## Somnambulist

Heh, you're using the OR though, I think pretty much every input would sound good!
   
  I think at this point, the JK MIII is something approaching a safe bet for me. Easy to get a non-proprietary 5v linear PSU for it. A fair bit less than the OR or AP, neither of which I can afford, but supposed to sound good. Only dislike would be the way you have to avoid killing the batteries on it.
   
  Quote: 





woodcans said:


> My M51 will not work using the hdmi I2S output from my OR5, so I don't think it accepts i2s over hdmi. Sound via OR5 coax is glorious. I can't detect a difference between the OR5 coax and AES outputs into the m51, in my system.


 
   
  Also yeah, must be v. popular as my order is still 'processing' and I bought it Saturday. Maybe if I ring up and moan (they advertised it as in stock and delivered in 2-3 working days) they'll give me something free lol.


----------



## mcullinan

Mine would overheat and all the remote functionality would stop. I returned it and am now waiting on an Eximus DP1.
It was a really great sounding Dac though!


----------



## vlach

Quote: 





woodcans said:


> In my system, the NAD outperformed the Berkeley series 1.



  
 That's a HUGE statement and quite a compliment to the NAD. Care to offer some comparisons/descriptions in terms of the SQ improvements over the Berkley?
  
 I'm currently debating between the M51 & Anedio D2. So far my only concern with the M51 is the analog output stage which doesn't look very substantial, and then i read your post saying it outperforms the very highly regarded Berkeley which causes me to scratch my head...
  
 Thanks.


----------



## Anaxilus

Quote: 





the monkey said:


> I've been listening to the NAD M51 (loaner) for a couple of months now, and I am very impressed.  I'll have more impressions at a later date, but I think this is a nice sounding piece of kit that compares well to my PWD.  A very straightforward unit.  In fact, I wish there were more controls on the faceplate (esp volume) but NAD made lots of good decisions in implementation, imo.


 
   
  Agree with this 100%.  I had some time a few weeks ago w/ the M51 along w/ Purrin and it did very well versus the PWD during direct A/B using the HD800 and BA.  Warmer mids and about 98% of the detail if I had to throw out a random number which depends on what people are listening for.


----------



## estreeter

Wow - favourable comparisons with both PWD and the Alpha - little wonder NAD are having trouble keeping up. Sad to hear about the quality control issues, but after recent problems with gear from Stax/Aude'ze/Leben and others, I think a new 'verb' is about to enter the vernacular - '*Dude, you've been head-fi'd !*'   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  (note that I'm not excusing any of the above, particularly at the prices the 3 companies mentioned charge for their products)


----------



## Furryman

Hi all,
   
  First post on the site, though I've been reading for a couple of years now.
   
  I'm considering an 'upgrade' from my Stello DA-220 Mk II. The rest of my system is quite forward - SB Touch, NAC202, Naim NAP200, highly modded DIY HiCap, Isol-8 minisub, custom cables, B&W 705. I'm considering the Naim DAC, but have had my interest piqued by the NAD M51. I just wondered if anyone here has had first-hand experience of both and could lend and opinion?
   
  I suspect I'll end up auditioning both, and will happily write a review, though I'm no artist when it comes to words, so I'm not sure I'll be able to convey anywhere near as much as those with more experience in writing reviews, but I'll have a pop!
   
  Best


----------



## mcullinan

The Nad is weird in a way. The presentation is up front but I would not say it is forward sounding. From a sitting position the music is on you, and definitely not laid back. But there is no high end glare or brittleness. Does that help?


----------



## zachchen1996

for dacs is it better to use the coax in or the i2s in? is there any difference between using the two?


----------



## Somnambulist

Technically i2s is supposed to be superior because from what I understand it's a more direct link between source and DAC, but I imagine as long as the coax connection is tidied up via a good USB to s/pdif it can be excellent as well.
   
  Quote: 





zachchen1996 said:


> for dacs is it better to use the coax in or the i2s in? is there any difference between using the two?


----------



## Furryman

Ok. Thanks mcullinan. I've heard various debate over the SB Touch's ability to be a good digital source. I'd consider a streamer like that from Naim, but I really like the music library functionality offered by the SB using iPeng on my phone. Anyone care to offer an opinion on which would sound better: SB Touch + hi-end DAC (e.g. Naim DAC) vs. Naim streamer?
   
  Best
  Furryman


----------



## Somnambulist

From what I've read, getting a linear PSU (no need to spend silly money), loading the Enhanced Digital Output app thingy onto the SBT so you can get USB audio output, and then using a good USB to S/PDIF converter gives you a high level of performance from the Logitech device.
   
  Quote: 





furryman said:


> Ok. Thanks mcullinan. I've heard various debate over the SB Touch's ability to be a good digital source. I'd consider a streamer like that from Naim, but I really like the music library functionality offered by the SB using iPeng on my phone. Anyone care to offer an opinion on which would sound better: SB Touch + hi-end DAC (e.g. Naim DAC) vs. Naim streamer?
> 
> Best
> Furryman


----------



## orkney

Quote: 





furryman said:


> Ok. Thanks mcullinan. I've heard various debate over the SB Touch's ability to be a good digital source. I'd consider a streamer like that from Naim, but I really like the music library functionality offered by the SB using iPeng on my phone. Anyone care to offer an opinion on which would sound better: SB Touch + hi-end DAC (e.g. Naim DAC) vs. Naim streamer?
> 
> Best
> Furryman


 

 No opinion on the Naim -- though I'm sure either option would sound good -- but the SB Touch w/ EDO is great for the $ and matches up beautifully with the NAD M51. Interface is OK rather than top-shelf, and software can be buggy, but it's a fine package.
   
  o


----------



## ecohifi

Quote: 





orkney said:


> No opinion on the Naim -- though I'm sure either option would sound good -- but the SB Touch w/ EDO is great for the $ and matches up beautifully with the NAD M51. Interface is OK rather than top-shelf, and software can be buggy, but it's a fine package.
> 
> o


 
  Been to the Linn/Naim camp 30yrs ago, will never go down that path ever again, there are bigger bang for the dosh that this stuff!
   
  Sorry, cant help you there!


----------



## Furryman

Thanks all.
   
  I've got a linear PSU on the SBT, but hadn't considered S/PDIF to USB, and never heard of EDO app! I'll give those a go and see what that's like. And if/when I do get round to auditioning the NAD and NAIM DACs I'll report back!
   
  Best
  Furryman


----------



## Somnambulist

I think I read that you can't use the EDO app's USB output into the NAD as it's not recognised, but that using that output as your USB to S/PDIF works.
   
  STILL waiting for mine. Audiologica may be used but in Audio Affair's case it's NAD being lame and not delivering any M51s. What man, I want my DAC.


----------



## Mr.Sneis

The DAC game... again!?  I am about 80% sold on this one so far.  Anywhere in the US can I get good price?


----------



## grokit

Best I've seen is Audio Advisor at $2K.


----------



## Mr.Sneis

Wishful thinking I remembered someone mentioning 1.7k


----------



## mcullinan

I got a demo version from Audio Advisor for around 1700, but it ended up being broken, so I sent it back. I think that price is the best you will find (2K) in the US.


----------



## Somnambulist

I should, in theory, have an M51 next week. Here's hoping.
   
  Question for M51 owners. As I'll be connecting my Mac Mini directly, and it'll be a while before I get a decent USB to S/PDIF or AES converter, which is better
  a) carry on using the toslink from the Mac
  b) USB
   
  Answers on a postcard!


----------



## grokit

Quote: 





somnambulist said:


> I should, in theory, have an M51 next week. Here's hoping.
> 
> Question for M51 owners. As I'll be connecting my Mac Mini directly, and it'll be a while before I get a decent USB to S/PDIF or AES converter, which is better
> a) carry on using the toslink from the Mac
> ...


 
  Try them both with cheap cables, and then tell us all about it


----------



## The Monkey

I'd use the toslink, but I'll listen some more to both and report back.


----------



## orkney

Quote: 





somnambulist said:


> I should, in theory, have an M51 next week. Here's hoping.
> 
> Question for M51 owners. As I'll be connecting my Mac Mini directly, and it'll be a while before I get a decent USB to S/PDIF or AES converter, which is better
> a) carry on using the toslink from the Mac
> ...


 
   
  I use the Toslink from my SB Touch w/ EDO and the USB from my MBA (there's a fistful of acronyms). Haven't bothered to extensively A/B the two but can do so from my older Mac. The USB input sounds very good but the optical would be my choice for logistical reasons. With the Rega DAC I strongly preferred SPDIF; with this NAD it's far less clear-cut, thus far in my experience.
   
  o


----------



## Somnambulist

I'll probably just stick with the current cable I have (a Fisual Pearl one since it was the shortest cable I could find at the time). I'll probably get myself a converter sooner rather than later anyway... still no idea what to get though. Having a quick look at what ones are cheaper in America since my parents are going to be holidaying there in a couple of weeks and I always give them a shopping list! Won't be an AP or OR though, just too much moolah.
   
  On a semi-related note, about 95% of the electronics for my Linkwitz Plutos are ready, just waiting for a friend to solder it all up and then we can start the fun and games of making a full speaker out of it. Should be a good match for the M51, especially as the Plutos need a pre to control the volume and the M51's one is supposed to be stellar.


----------



## RichardSantiago

First impressions (assuming it arrived)?


----------



## Somnambulist

Still waiting, sigh. They've offered to give me a special discount on anything else I want to buy (that they have in stock), so I'm thinking about what else I need that I could get. Yes I know you have them in stock  but might as well hold out another few days if I can get a freebie or something.


----------



## MomijiTMO

I want this DAC. Can't stop smiling over the Australian RRP. For once we get a good deal .


----------



## sjay

do not audition this DAC, if you do it will cost you 1500-2000 smackers.
   
  if anyone wants an NFB2 msg me.


----------



## MomijiTMO

Haha guessing you liked it .


----------



## sjay

Quote: 





momijitmo said:


> Haha guessing you liked it
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 yeah you could say that, i have one on loan for a week and its only been one day and I dont want to give it back.
   
  I did a/b testing with my dad last night and he described the NFB2 as " very good" and the NAD as "spectacular"
   
  it really is a very detailed, very musical little piece of kit for the money and a big step up over the NFB2.
   
  its also dead sexy looking and appears quite solid and well made. I am not sure what firmware it is running but it took me under 3 minutes to get it going via my Jkenny MK3 spdif converter. I have not yet tried it without the converter but will get around to it tonight.
   
  One thing I did notice is its kinda merciless on poor quality recordings, dont bother pushing anything under 320k through it and preferably use FLAC or better.


----------



## MomijiTMO

I think I'll wait for few more months before buying one. I like to see if the owners start offloading their other DACs. That's a good indication that it isn't FOTM. It's happened with one guy from SNA.


----------



## sjay

Quote: 





momijitmo said:


> I think I'll wait for few more months before buying one. I like to see if the owners start offloading their other DACs. That's a good indication that it isn't FOTM. It's happened with one guy from SNA.


 

 only 2 or 3 have come up for sale on SNA as far as i am aware since they landed here and keep in mind they were released late last year....i actually have the one  that came up for sale on SNA a few weeks ago playing atm and i picked up the last one i could find in sydney today 
   
  However the sales guy said they are getting another 2 next month but 2 only as NAD appears to having issues meeting demand , i wonder why....
   
  at the very least they are worth testing in your own setup to see if it works for you and worth the effort of saving up.


----------



## MomijiTMO

You aren't helping me you know .
   
  Just kidding.
   
  The fact not many have come up for sale show that they are that good. (Bill sold his Metrum!)


----------



## dwk

Finally got a new source (new Aspire One netbook with a real-ish cpu rather than Atom which makes for a pretty nice poor-mans-ultrabook), and had a chance to try out the USB interface a bit. IMHO JRiver over USB even straight out of the box on an un-optimized PC seems to be an improvement over my SB Touch via optical. Running into a Stax 3050 setup, I'm very happy with the results.  I know that there has been a lot of discussion about the USB interface being substandard, but based on admittedly limited listening so far it's fully capable of very good results. This isn't to say that a very top notch spdif interface might not be better - I don't have one and at the moment have no intent in pursuing that - but I certainly wouldn't discount the USB solution before trying it.


----------



## Somnambulist

I'm probably going to go NAS > SBT + EDO + linear PSU > AP2 w/battery mod or PP > M51, controlled via the iPeng iPad app. There aren't many Linux-compatible converters AFAIK, although I might see what alternatives there are as the AP2 is pretty expensive.


----------



## Mr.Sneis

Anyone have internal pics or links to for the m51?


----------



## BoogieWoogie

Quote: 





momijitmo said:


> You aren't helping me you know .
> 
> Just kidding.
> 
> The fact not many have come up for sale show that they are that good. (Bill sold his Metrum!)


 
  Some one else sold his PWD MkII for the Nad 51 after comparing both.


----------



## dwk

I believe the HiFace2 is xmos based and supports linux.  IMHO I'd try the Touch /w EDO app native to see what you think before introducing an external usb->spdif link. Maybe I'm being cynical, or maybe I'm just not as thrilled by  'the chase of perfection' as I used to be, but I'm suspicious of the growing 'group think' that usb->spdif is suddenly the perfect solution to everything.  
   
   For me, I'm interested in the capability to play around with some convolution experiments which is what led to the PC approach over the SB. My Stax also sound better to me with a bit of a low shelf added as well (restores a bit of the percussive drive in Rodrigo Y Gabriella for example) , which is much easier via PC playback than with the SB. It's a bit disappointing in that I really like the SB and we use them extensively around the house and it would have been more convenient to simply run off the SB.
   
  Oh, well. It required getting another laptop @$350, but I think I now have a setup that's giving me what I expected and I'm likely to just sit down and listen to rather than constantly putzing around with. (well, aside from the convolution experiments that it)


----------



## speeddeacon

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> I understand the appeal of an Olive or Aurender or Bladelius. You just load your files and go, there's no need to worry about shutting off unnecessary services or whether you're using the right type of output mode. The downside is that they cost 3X as much as a home built PC server, and (at least according to Computer Audiophile) don't sound as good.
> 
> A product like the Auraliti PK-90 USB meets the consumer in the middle. The hardware and software work is all done for you, but the value is still there, and you can control it without the need for a monitor as with the expensive one piece servers.


 

 I agree with DaveBSC.  The Auraliti is essentially a dedicated media computer (running Linux) that allows an external drive with the stored media to serve the files to a DAC via USB.  With all other functions removed, it is simply an optimized music server.  At just under $800, plus the cost of an external drive, it is about as cheap as a MacMini or PC that must be optimized.  It does require some sort of controller, such as a tablet with a third party app to view and control the media thus requires a LAN connection and wifi network.  So assuming you are starting from scratch and don't already have an external hard drive or smart device, for $800 plus $400 for a smart device (iPad, etc)  and $120 for a 2Tb USB external hard drive, you have your optimized media server for a touch over $1300.  That's half the price of most of the other dedicated music servers.  I personally like the idea of having an external drive that all I have to do is unplug and replace if it dies rather than have to repair an internal drive, but that's just me.  And you are only limited by how big of an external drive you want to use rather than what the music server offers (typically 1-3 Tb max).
   
  Of course you have to get the data, which have to be bit perfect rips, to the external drive somehow as opposed to the music server doing it for you.  SO, unless you don't already own a computer that you use to rip already, you don't need the more expensive server, IMHO.  The only inconvenience is when adding new music, you will have to manually add it to the external hard drive with the Auraliti.


----------



## Somnambulist

I thought about the Auraliti or other Vortexbox solutions, but ultimately I wanted the high capacity HDDs to be elsewhere in the house for noise reasons, plus something like an UnRAID array is a bit more flexible, offers a bit more protection from disk failure (and can still run Logitech Media Server, iTunes server, or feed a Vortexbox via shares). I'm about to wire everything up with a gigabit switch, so the NAS, SBT, Mac, and all the other gubbins are wired and talking to each other over that rather than wifi so shouldn't have any speed problems.
   
  The SBT + EDO does not work with the M51 directly through USB as the DAC doesn't have Linux drivers yet. I think it may work straight up through coax though. The SBT has all these hardware and PSU upgrades via third parties, but I'd rather just add a reclocker. Im going to be getting the UPSmart AG1500W ReGenerator for all my gear anyway so the idea of paying more than the SBT itself for a little linear PSU for it is laughable.


----------



## sjay

i am running from via usb like so
   
  macbook air >> jkenny mk3 spdif converter >> m51 >> pre >> power >> speakers.
   
  i have not yet tried it without the jkenny as it was already in place and worked out the box via it when i plugged it all in.
   
  also make sure you run firmware 1.39 as thats the latest.
   
  put some high res Nirvana through it last night and i am very happy with the results.


----------



## speeddeacon

Quote: 





somnambulist said:


> I thought about the Auraliti or other Vortexbox solutions, but ultimately I wanted the high capacity HDDs to be elsewhere in the house for noise reasons, plus something like an UnRAID array is a bit more flexible, offers a bit more protection from disk failure (and can still run Logitech Media Server, iTunes server, or feed a Vortexbox via shares). I'm about to wire everything up with a gigabit switch, so the NAS, SBT, Mac, and all the other gubbins are wired and talking to each other over that rather than wifi so shouldn't have any speed problems.


 
  Sounds good sleepwalker.  I am actually doing pretty much just that by using a QNAP 469 Pro NAS in a RAID10 configuration and a PS Audio PWD Mk. II with Bridge.  All of them are wired through Trendnet TPL-402e 500mbs Powerline LAN adapters since my house didn't come wired with CATx.  I'm using eLyric on an old netbook as my music manager and my iPad/Pod to control it.  Before I went with the powerline adapters, my wifi wasn't working well (slow, dropouts, etc.), even with static IPs all around.  But, had the powerline adapters not worked, to take wifi out of the signal mix, I had settled on the Auraliti instead of the Sonore Music server for the reasons mentioned above.  I was going to put the Auraliti in the rack with the external drive behind it so it looked like a normal audio component rather than having a "computer" plugged into my system.
   
  While not completely inaudible, the new HDDs are very quiet.  I have a Seagate Free Agent GoFlex Desk connected to my MacMini at work and I don't even hear it spinning while sitting beside me when the music is not playing unless I really listen for it.  Sitting 12 feet away from my speakers, or listening through my cans, I'd never hear it running.
   
  When I was looking to add a DAC for "computer networked audio" integration 2 months ago, I visited 4 NAD dealers here in the states (2 near me and 2 while I was traveling on vacation).  Even though it was relatively new, none of them, even the Master dealers, had N51 in stock or planned to even get them.  They also weren't interested in ordering one because they would have to order a certain amount of "master series" product to even get one for me.  That left a bit of a sour taste in my mouth because even their dealers weren't interested in the product.  I'm finding more and more that if you live outside of the top 5-6 major metro areas, it's a struggle to find, audition or even buy high end products.  I like to support my brick and mortars but it wasn't going to happen this time.  I could buy from Audio Advisor and that's about all I could find because regular dealers aren't allowed to ship either.  I guess AA, being an authorized internet retailer is allowed to get away with it.  But the PWD with it's bridge flexibility and outstanding sound quality wooed me in and I haven't been disappointed in the least.


----------



## Somnambulist

Heh, I have no house wiring either, I'm just going to drill some holes and use some trunking. I work in a data centre (it's 24/7, hence the username) so there's plenty of Cat5 and Cat6 cable at various lengths - I got a load of cable sleeving as well as somebody doing an install had just chucked the rest of the reel in the bin - finders keepers!
   
  NAD aren't shipping here much either, very much a 'visit the dealer' affair. Luckily mine should be an exception as they've kept me waiting for so long (about 6 weeks and counting), although it's NAD's fault for not getting enough stock in to meet demand.
   
  Decided on the SBT + EDO to converter to M51 (means I don't need the Mac on to listen). Going to see if I can pick up a 2nd hand AP2 or something, there's plenty of BNiB or mint SBTs floating about here - I'm watching one on eBay right now and if I don't get that I'll go for one of the never-opened ones. Been reading the slimdevice forums and wouldn't mind someone rustling me up the JohnSvenson PSU design - seems a cheaper, more reasoned upgraded than your bog-standard SBT PSU upgrades which cost more than the SBT itself!


----------



## Somnambulist

Might look at the Legato now I think about it - Linux compatible after all, good price, great specs, only care about redbook cd rips...


----------



## Anda

Quote: 





somnambulist said:


> The SBT + EDO does not work with the M51 directly through USB as the DAC doesn't have Linux drivers yet.


 
   
  My Hiface 2 with the same XMOS chipset works out of the box. Which kernel version is installed on the SBT?


----------



## dwk

Quote: 





anda said:


> My Hiface 2 with the same XMOS chipset works out of the box. Which kernel version is installed on the SBT?


 
  The M51 apparently uses some form extended descriptor in the driver which isn't currently handled by ALSA. There isn't too much info, but you can dig through the thread on the slimdevices forum if you're interested in more info.  It's disappointing as running from the SBT via USB was my initial hope too. No idea whether this is something that will prove to be a fairly quick fix or not.


----------



## Somnambulist

According to that very same forum, NAD are aware of the issue but will not be looking at it until they've finished with a large project. I believe Triode (of EDO applet fame) can't do much without NAD doing their part of the job, so until the firmware is updated then the M51 won't work. Also, NAD are giving out inconsistent info about firmware updates - some are saying only the dealer can update the firmware (which is dumb, I don't care how much something costs, upgrading software isn't something that should require you to trek back to where you bought something from) and some are saying they will offer it via the website.
   
  Good news for me, the NAD rep should be visiting the store on Friday - I'm no2 on their sales list so guaranteed one of the few M51's that will be coming into the UK, should receive it early next week. NAD are either incompetent at getting supply to meet demand, or they're attempting to create some form of luxury marketing via scarcity/desirability.


----------



## sjay

i do hope they fix that SBT bug as i am sick of changing coax between sources and its only been 3 days, being able to run the sbt into its usb port will be perfect. If i can be bothered i may even plug the xbox into it. bit perfect bf3 
   
  also got some good hours on mine today, and i am still very pleased.
   
  I kept getting dragged away from the proposal i was working on from home by the music, it was rather pleasant the way songs just grabbed me away from my work.


----------



## LeoDuran

Quote: 





somnambulist said:


> The SBT has all these hardware and PSU upgrades via third parties, but ... the idea of paying more than the SBT itself for a little linear PSU for it is laughable.


 
   Agreed!
   
  If you're comfortable with a soldering iron (just enough to solder a couple of wires), you can "roll your own".
   
  I built mine from an "International Power IHB5-3/OVP" - 5VDC, 3A, LINEAR, REGULATED... (Top-notch specs), then housed it in a "project box" (7x5x3") from Radio Shack.
  Power-Supply: ~$42: http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/International-Power/IHB5-3-OVP/?qs=0xCm9DOQnC5QT5HsEntN5g%3d%3d
  Project Box: ~$7: http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2062284
   
  I actually put a scope on the output of the power supply... and it is as clean as advertised (while under load): first-rate build-quality & specs!
  I'm pretty comfortable saying there's no need to spend $250 on a 5VDC supply that may not outperform that little guy.
   
  Good luck.


----------



## LeoDuran

Quote: 





somnambulist said:


> Might look at the Legato now I think about it - Linux compatible after all, good price, great specs, only care about redbook cd rips...


 
  I'm on the "Wait List" for a (new battery-powered) Legato as well... So, it will be: (SBT+EDO)--> USB--> Legato--> S/PDIF-->DAC.
  In this scenario (using the SBT's USB out), there's no need for upgrades/mods for the SBT (the mods help with other outputs, specially if you use the SBT's internal DAC)... In fact, you won't even need a fancy USB cable (just make sure the cable is USB2.0-speed compliant)... With Async USB, the cable is not an issue.
   
  Good luck.


----------



## orkney

Quote:  





> *The SBT + EDO does not work with the M51 directly through USB *as the DAC doesn't have Linux drivers yet. I think it may work straight up through coax though. The SBT has all these hardware and PSU upgrades via third parties, but I'd rather just add a reclocker. Im going to be getting the UPSmart AG1500W ReGenerator for all my gear anyway so the idea of paying more than the SBT itself for a little linear PSU for it is laughable.


 
   
  Uh, it's working fine for me. Via optical and coax as well, which I tend to prefer as I have my SBT fed by a USB drive.
   
  good luck with your unit,
   
  o


----------



## Somnambulist

I was going to get someone to build the John Swenson designed PSU (about $75 worth of parts) because, as I linked to here: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?82648-Linear-Power-Supplies&p=586042&viewfull=1#post586042 he feels that, and we're talking a guy that designs some serious electronics here, the SBT's PSU can be guilty of chucking noise back into the mains, which other things can pick up. The PSU is great for the Touch itself, which wasn't the case with earlier SB devices. The other hardware mods are a no-no now I've looked it all up. Bar the EDO, I'm not too fused about some of the other software mods (like turning off the screen etc) because there doesn't appear to be much evidence it improves things other than the usual "I think..."
  Quote: 





leoduran said:


> Agreed!
> 
> If you're comfortable with a soldering iron (just enough to solder a couple of wires), you can "roll your own".
> 
> ...


 
   
  How much is the battery powered Legato? The original's $500 is pretty good but I read the II would be more... I hope it's not going into AP2 + PP territory - although I may look for a 2nd hand one of those as an alternative (take what I can get).
   
  Quote: 





leoduran said:


> I'm on the "Wait List" for a (new battery-powered) Legato as well... So, it will be: (SBT+EDO)--> USB--> Legato--> S/PDIF-->DAC.
> In this scenario (using the SBT's USB out), there's no need for upgrades/mods for the SBT (the mods help with other outputs, specially if you use the SBT's internal DAC)... In fact, you won't even need a fancy USB cable (just make sure the cable is USB2.0-speed compliant)... With Async USB, the cable is not an issue.
> 
> Good luck.


 
   
  Wait, you're using the SBT + EDO via USB into an NAD M51 DAC and it's working fine? Best contact Triode at the slimdevices forum if I were you, as you'd be the only person yet to report the devices handshaking properly - he'll want to see logs and stuff to see why this is the case.
   
  Quote: 





orkney said:


> Uh, it's working fine for me. Via optical and coax as well, which I tend to prefer as I have my SBT fed by a USB drive.
> 
> good luck with your unit,
> 
> o


----------



## LeoDuran

Quote: 





somnambulist said:


> Wait, you're using the SBT + EDO via USB into an NAD M51 DAC and it's working fine? Best contact Triode at the slimdevices forum if I were you, as you'd be the only person yet to report the devices handshaking properly - he'll want to see logs and stuff to see why this is the case.


 
  Nope. I'm using (SBT+EDO) with the Anedio D2 (which does support the SBT's Linux drivers).


----------



## LeoDuran

Quote: 





somnambulist said:


> How much is the battery powered Legato? The original's $500 is pretty good but I read the II would be more... I hope it's not going into AP2 + PP territory - although I may look for a 2nd hand one of those as an alternative (take what I can get).


 
  It will be more than $500.. But how much more, I don't know for a fact? (I've heard as much as $699, but possibly just $599)... You may inquire directly with ART.


----------



## Somnambulist

See Orkney's post - I'm not sure if he's got the D2 and M51 mixed up though.
   
  Quote: 





leoduran said:


> Nope. I'm using (SBT+EDO) with the Anedio D2 (which does support the SBT's Linux drivers).


 
   
  Just got myself a SBT - BNiB for a bit less than the new cost... that's part of the set up obtained...


----------



## Blackmumba

This DAC is seriously on my to get list, what would be a good rival for this DAC?


----------



## LeoDuran

Quote: 





blackmumba said:


> This DAC is seriously on my to get list, what would be a good rival for this DAC?


 
  Have you considered the Anedio D2? (Anedio offers a 30-day in-home trial)
http://www.head-fi.org/t/568758/anedio-d2-dac-release


----------



## Blackmumba

Quote: 





leoduran said:


> Have you considered the Anedio D2? (Anedio offers a 30-day in-home trial)
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/568758/anedio-d2-dac-release


 
   
  Yes I have seen the Anedio, would it rival the M51?


----------



## LeoDuran

​


blackmumba said:


> Yes I have seen the Anedio, would it rival the M51?



I think the D2 would hold its own with any DAC under $5K. But to be honest, I have not done a head-to-head comparison to the M51... I have a D2, and I'm very impressed with it so far. (I'm drving it with an SBT+EDO combo, over USB... It makes very nice music!)


----------



## woodcans

sjay said:


> yeah you could say that, i have one on loan for a week and its only been one day and I dont want to give it back.
> 
> I did a/b testing with my dad last night and he described the NFB2 as " very good" and the NAD as "spectacular"




Have had mine for many months now and put many 100's of hours on it. This is a phenomal dac for the price and I have been loving every minute with it. I have been loosely monitoring this thread, and for only the second time in my audio journey have I not had upgraditis for an extended period of time. And I still don't, which thankfully for my wallet has kept my head-fi hours low. 

After all these months I still stand by my impression that the USB input is good but not great. With an OR4/5 in the mix, it's stellar. And FWIW, the last time I didn't have upgraditis was after I got a pair of he90's. :-0



momijitmo said:


> The fact not many have come up for sale show that they are that good. (Bill sold his Metrum!)




So did I.


----------



## woodcans

leoduran said:


> ​I think the D2 would hold its own with any DAC under $5K. But to be honest, I have not done a head-to-head comparison to the M51... I have a D2, and I'm very impressed with it so far. (I'm drving it with an SBT+EDO combo, over USB... It makes very nice music!)





Would love to hear a comparison from someone who has heard both.


----------



## Somnambulist

Thank the lawd! Mine is arriving Monday morning. Audio Affair got 15 in today, all but *one* has been sold already. 
   
  He feels that due to supply/demand the M51 will:
  1) be essentially impossible to get for 6 months (at least here in the UK)
  2) the price will be going up to £1800-2000
   
  If you can find one, and want one, don't wait about, get it.


----------



## Mr.Sneis

Really wish I could move some items I have for sale to pick one of these up.  I think my post got lost a few pages back but does anyone have pics of internals?  Thanks


----------



## James3Toe

My new toy arrived today....just a quick peek before I move it into place.
  Very excited about this unit and I was lucky that my dealer was able to get his hands on 2 of them. These are now supposedly backordered till at least 08/15.
   
   

   
  Very plain outer box (although it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to deduce what is inside!!)
   
   

   
  Very securely packed (double box, thick foam, canvas bag, plastic wrap...)
   
   

   
  M51 looks small in comparison to the packaging...
   
  More will be forthcoming, but a date with the Dark Knight is looming this evening.


----------



## hionhifi

Sound quality wise, I wonder how the NAD M51 compares to the excellent and well reviewed Peachtree iDAC?


----------



## Blackmumba

Quote: 





hionhifi said:


> Sound quality wise, I wonder how the NAD M51 compares to the excellent and well reviewed Peachtree iDAC?


 
  This I would like to know also, any reviews from headfier's?


----------



## Jack Fox

Dear All,
   
  My name is Jack Fox, the NAD Product Manager for the UK. Great to hear all the nice things you are saying about the M51.
   
  I can assure you that if you contact your local dealer for the supply of an M51 Direct Digital DAC you will not be having to wait for 6 months to receive one. 
   
  The M51 has been overwhelmingly popular and keeping up with the demand was initially tough however the product is now well stocked and you should have no worries getting your hands on one!
   
  The UK RRP for this product is £1500.
   
  Any questions feel free to give me a shout on here.
   
  Cheers,
  Jack Fox


----------



## Somnambulist

Thanks Jack, good to have a proper NAD presence on here.
   
  Can you give us details regarding firmware updates for the M51, given people have been given conflicting information that they'll either be dealer-only or via the NAD site? 
   
  Btw guys I have mine now! Haven't had a chance to use it yet as I got it Monday morning and I've been working solidly since. I'm going to re-arrange my room this weekend and plug everything in then. I will say this, the build quality of the M51 feels really high-end, looks lovely:


----------



## zenpunk

Quote: 





jack fox said:


> Dear All,
> 
> My name is Jack Fox, the NAD Product Manager for the UK. Great to hear all the nice things you are saying about the M51.
> 
> ...


 
  Hi Jack,
  Any plan to release a black one in the future?


----------



## Blackmumba

Quote: 





zenpunk said:


> Hi Jack,
> Any plan to release a black one in the future?


 
   
  +1


----------



## mick725

Quote: 





blackmumba said:


> +1


 
   
  +2 
   
  - A black version of the M51 would be very intresting.


----------



## The Monkey

or even just a swappable face plate, if possible.


----------



## Jack Fox

Hi All,
   
  Firmware updates for the M51 are straight forward and must be carried out by your dealer. If you contact the dealer where you purchased the M51 regarding firmware updates, they can contact our NAD service department for the latest version and should be able to carry out the update within a matter of minutes when you take the unit to the store.
   
  In terms of finishes, as the M51 is part of our higher end 'masters' series which is silver in its heritage, their are no current plans to release a black version.
   
  Does anyone have any questions about the direct digital PCM/PWM conversion process?
   
  Thanks,
   
  Jack Fox
  NAD Product Manager


----------



## BoogieWoogie

Why aren't users allowed to update it ? Not every one has their hi.fi store near their house and its very uncovenient having to go to the store every time a new update comes.
  Also how can users know there's a new update without having to ask each other what firmware version they have ?


----------



## woodcans

x2 

No dealer near me. Taking it to a dealer for FW update is almost impossible for me.




boogiewoogie said:


> Why aren't users allowed to update it ? Not every one has their hi.fi store near their house and its very uncovenient having to go to the store every time a new update comes.
> Also how can users know there's a new update without having to ask each other what firmware version they have ?


----------



## The Monkey

Firmware updating at the dealer is a massive PITA and will not be received well by most people here, in my opinion.  NAD definitely should reconsider.


----------



## vvs_75

[size=medium]  I do have three dealers around Virginia / Washington DC area. Two dealers are within 20 min from me. Third dealer a bit further but within acceptable distance to drive there.[/size]
  [size=medium] The closest two dealers I called do not have M51 in stock and have no idea what is it, but they claim that if I order one they can have it within few of days.[/size]
  [size=medium] The problem is they do not have a loaner program of any kind and there is no financing ether. The dealers have dozens of show rooms with speakers but you can’t bring your rig and try it there ether. For me can not try = no buy. I wish dealers could represent better their vendors and be more helpful. [/size]


----------



## zenpunk

No black, no NAD ! I will  probably still  get one when they reach Richer Sounds' shelves


----------



## MomijiTMO

Well that's simple. I will not buy the M51 until all the issues get ironed out. I have no idea where my nearest dealer is and was originally going to buy the DAC interstate.


----------



## metrik

Quote: 





momijitmo said:


> Well that's simple. I will not buy the M51 until all the issues get ironed out. I have no idea where my nearest dealer is and was originally going to buy the DAC interstate.


 
  What issues do you have in mind? I have been using the M51 for two months now and I have not encountered any problems. I am feeding the USB input from a Apple Macbook Air with OS X Lion and the AES/EBU input from a Denon professional CD player. I could not be happier with the M51.


----------



## MomijiTMO

Anything new has updates.  There are no specific issues that I know of but when these firmware updates roll out (and they are) I will be left high and dry. I'm better off waiting.


----------



## The Monkey

I've had it for a while.  No issues at all.


----------



## dirtrat

WOW! I was about ready to pull the trigger on this DAC but this is a Deal Breaker for me. I was going to order from Audio Advisor. How would they give me an update when they are several hundred miles away? Seriously can you explain why the end user could not do this? It sounds more like a marketing ploy to get the customer back in the stereo shop. BTW I'm so upset by this that this is what it took for me to make my first post since joining here in early 2010.
   
   
   
  Quote:


jack fox said:


> Hi All,
> 
> Firmware updates for the M51 are straight forward and must be carried out by your dealer. If you contact the dealer where you purchased the M51 regarding firmware updates, they can contact our NAD service department for the latest version and should be able to carry out the update within a matter of minutes when you take the unit to the store.
> 
> ...


----------



## grokit

Perhaps the updating procedure was so poorly implemented that the end user could brick the thing if it's not done exactly right, so NAD is making the dealers do it.


----------



## Vargtass

Hi guys. 
   
  Seriously considering the M51. The only thing I'm "afraid" of is the fact that it's got some bells and whistles I doubt I'm going to use. Should I factor in the price and look for something else that's "purer" and would give better sound? I'm torn between the M51 and the upcoming Schiit Gungnir, really. 
   
  Got my LCD-2's running balanced, awaiting my new Mjolnir from Schiit and need a dac to compliment. Any thoughts on this? Do mind, I can get a good deal on then nad, bringing the price pretty close to what I can get the Gungnir with USB for (even though I've never used USB much before - always optical). 
   
  Any thoughts for what I have to admit is a Dac newbie? Been using my Dacmagic now for AGES - it's time for an upgrade - but what?


----------



## vlach

vargtass said:


> Hi guys.
> 
> Seriously considering the M51. The only thing I'm "afraid" of is the fact that it's got some bells and whistles I doubt I'm going to use. Should I factor in the price and look for something else that's "purer" and would give better sound? I'm torn between the M51 and the upcoming Schiit Gungnir, really.
> 
> ...




I'm on the fence between the M51 & Anedio D2 for similar reasons; I really like the feature set of the M51, but then I wonder if a more hand made "boutique" product from a small company without the overhead, sales, marketing, distribution network, etc. would yield better results at a similar price point...


----------



## metrik

Economies of scale speak in favor of a mass product from a large producer.


----------



## ssbkk

I think NAD might overestimate dealer service in their international network. Is NAD policy allowing dealer to charge consumer for every firmware upgrades? It should be made clear as it could be out of control. I for one will not buy it until it is clearly stated. About to pull the trigger until someone mentioned the upgrade concern, thanks.


----------



## qusp

guys, I would say the FW bootloader is not using USB and likely flashed to the MCU via some internal interface using hardware and possibly software that the end user is unlikely to have. given the custom nature of the dac conversion process I would think the MCU does more than control start/stop sequencing and input switching.
   
  even if it were by USB I think handing over control of a process that could possibly brick the unit if done incorrectly would be a warranty/support nightmare. I understand why its not popular guys, indeed I do, but I can also see why it could be problematic for the company


----------



## Somnambulist

Most dealers will only sell in-store as well. Comes off as a luxury marketing strategy thing tbh.


----------



## grokit

I read earlier in this thread or somewhere that NAD was restricting the M51 to dealer sales and that Audio Advisor was an exception to that policy; I would guess that this update procedure must be a big part of the reason for that restriction.


----------



## Jack Fox

Hi there,
   
  Any sensible manufacturer I'm sure would not leave the upgrading of a sophisticated piece of equipment to the end user. I have no doubt that the majority of end users could perform the update, however in the interest of warranty and the added value of ensuring the update is done successfully the safest method is to get your dealer to do so.
   
  Once again, if you inform your dealer that you wish to get the latest firmware update, we can provide them with the latest update and should be able to do this within a matter of minutes when you take the M51 in.
   
  For the record, we have only issued one update for the M51 thus far. This was to rectify a minor issue with MAC Mini's and compatibility with HDMI which sometimes caused the MAC to jump. If you do not have a MAC Mini, or have a MAC mini and have not experience any such problems, then their is no need whatsoever to update the firmware.
   
  The beauty of a software defined product is that we have the ability to update and improve compatibility with the latest and future source equipment. Our aim is to make this process as easy as possible but at the same time safeguarding your product.
   
  Kind Regards,
  Jack Fox


----------



## Jack Fox

Hi there,
   
  NAD no longer supply to Richer Sounds.
   
  Thanks,
  Jack


----------



## Jack Fox

Quote: 





ssbkk said:


> I think NAD might overestimate dealer service in their international network. Is NAD policy allowing dealer to charge consumer for every firmware upgrades? It should be made clear as it could be out of control. I for one will not buy it until it is clearly stated. About to pull the trigger until someone mentioned the upgrade concern, thanks.


 
  These will be free of charge. I can only speak on behalf of the UK market.


----------



## grokit

Quote: 





jack fox said:


> Hi there,
> 
> Any sensible manufacturer I'm sure would not leave the upgrading of a sophisticated piece of equipment to the end user. I have no doubt that the majority of end users could perform the update, however in the interest of warranty and the added value of ensuring the update is done successfully the safest method is to get your dealer to do so.
> 
> ...


 
   
   
  Thanks for the update, but many manufacturers leave firmware upgrades to the end user. Most Blue-ray players for example (I have experience with Sony, Samsung and Oppo) let you do so with a direct internet connection, or from a USB stick loaded with the update from the manufacturer's website. I'm sure the M51 is a great-sounding piece of gear, but unless you live near a dealer updates to it will be problematic. Hopefully this flaw will be corrected in the M52


----------



## BoogieWoogie

Doesn't need a new Dac to correct that, if they would send you the firmware you could just install it by yourself.


----------



## dirtrat

Quote: 





grokit said:


> I read earlier in this thread or somewhere that NAD was restricting the M51 to dealer sales and that Audio Advisor was an exception to that policy; I would guess that this update procedure must be a big part of the reason for that restriction.


 
   
  I saw that crutchfield is also selling it but they are out of stock.


----------



## MichaelHiFi

Had chime in on this thread. First post. Hi 

I've had the M51 for about 4 weeks now (my second one really).

I've just returned from the Cal audio show as well.

First things first. What is the issue with a firmware update? I performed this with my first unit as it had a remote issue. It's very simple and the NAD support is awesome.

Second. After returning from the audio show and listening to the uber dollar crap (not that this was cheap) I can't be more pleased with this DAC. I've rolled many and nothing comes close. Nothing comes close. Natural. I'll stutter again. Natural. Detailed, dynamic, and seems to bring out the best in whatever 
Gear I've thrown at it. I'm listening to Garbage right now as 
I type. (no the Group!) what's wrong with you people....

Issues. I simply can't use LiTunes with this DAC, or with anything else for that matter, except an IPOD. Library issues and all. Playing through JRiver though is great and using the HDMI I2S bus through my Oppo BDP95 then to Allnic pre, it's awesome.

Just my 2cents. Everyone's mileage is different.

Can't get JRiver to show me that I'm using a direct mode however. Anyone?


----------



## TIMITS

Quote: 





michaelhifi said:


> First things first. What is the issue with a firmware update? I performed this with my first unit as it had a remote issue. It's very simple and the NAD support is awesome.


 
   
  If I understand the discussion so far, the problem is that NAD is insisting that firmware updates can only be done at NAD dealerships, which is not an option for those who purchase over the Internet and inconvenient for those who have to travel.  If you have access to the firmware upgrade online and can freely share the details then I'm many folks will be interested.


----------



## dirtrat

Quote: 





michaelhifi said:


>





> First things first. What is the issue with a firmware update? I performed this with my first unit as it had a remote issue. It's very simple and the NAD support is awesome.
> Second.





> The claim about getting updates only at the dealer were from a UK NAD rep. Direct criticism towards him if it's untrue, not members in this forum.  If you are able to update it yourself, please provide details to others.





> I simply can't use LiTunes with this DAC, or with anything else for that matter, except an IPOD. Library issues and all. Playing through JRiver though is great and using the HDMI I2S bus through my Oppo BDP95 then to Allnic pre, it's awesome.





> I thought I read that this DAC DIDN'T have I2S. Are you confusing I2S with HDMI?





>


----------



## MichaelHiFi

I purchased my NAD from Audio Advisor. Due to the problem I experienced with the remote, they sent me the firmware file and I performed the update. Anyone who'd performed this function via computers or just about any other piece of hardware would feel comfortable performing this duty with the NAD if of course the dealer of NAD authorizes it. My understanding though is that it was a minor "glitch" having to do with the MAC. We were hopeful it would wake up the remote receiver. It didn't thus my second M51.
   
  I2S:
   
  I confirmed this with NAD engineers and with Oppo. They are sending I2S through HDMI. It is an "I2S bus". This is the information I received. Listening between the HDMI input VS the USB input, no contest. HDMI is far superior in my system. I wish this wasn't true. Why?
   
  Using HDMI, it forces me to use the Oppo's interface which is very simple think. The Oppo see's the hard drive and lists your artists or albums. You need to scroll or page through your content which is simply the "name". It sucks but it works. (iTunes should start here")
   
  Running USB from my PC laptop and Jriver gives me the really nice Jriver interface. Really nice! And as well, logical setup and settings well documented and with a endless amount of customization. It so easily deals with your precious libraries and doesn't trash them, then lose them like...never mind. Not to mention the Jriver remote app. That's the bomb. Even my 94 year old alzheimer challenged Dad can scroll and play his music. Gotta love that.
   
  So far with the NAD and Jriver, I don't see the "blue" box verification and, although it sounds really good, when I switch to the HDMI (I2S bus) Oppo path, it's breathtaking. Just a whole other level. We are really connecting with our music, both old and new, challenged recordings and reference, it's taking us there. If I can find a way to connect direct (maybe I am and don't know it) it might be closer.


----------



## Teufelshunde

Quote: 





michaelhifi said:


> ...
> So far with the NAD and Jriver, I don't see the "blue" box verification and, although it sounds really good, when I switch to the HDMI (I2S bus) Oppo path, it's breathtaking. Just a whole other level. We are really connecting with our music, both old and new, challenged recordings and reference, it's taking us there. If I can find a way to connect direct (maybe I am and don't know it) it might be closer.


 
   
  I am getting the "blue" box verification of *'Audio Path: Direct*' using JRMC 17.0.182 on Win7Ult --> USB -> NAD M51.
   
  Can confirm that the NAD M51 is a stellar performer via USB using JRMC on Win7 or FLAC Player on iPad1.


----------



## dirtrat

MichaelHiFi, thanks for the update. That information was very informative.


----------



## Anaxilus

Quote: 





jack fox said:


> Any sensible manufacturer I'm sure would not leave the upgrading of a sophisticated piece of equipment to the end user.


 
   
  I guess PS Audio isn't sensible or most laptop and PC makers.  Apparently NAD allowed users to upgrade in the past?!
  Quote: 





michaelhifi said:


> I've rolled many and nothing comes close.


 
  You missed out on the PWD then it seems.  4 of us had both side by side for a day and your statement is a bit exhuberant.


----------



## grokit

Yeah no exuberance allowed.
   
  This is Head-fi after all, we have our standards.


----------



## MichaelHiFi

Quote: 





anaxilus said:


> I guess PS Audio isn't sensible or most laptop and PC makers.  Apparently NAD allowed users to upgrade in the past?!
> You missed out on the PWD then it seems.  4 of us had both side by side for a day and your statement is a bit exhuberant.


 
  You might be right. I think being an early adopter, I spent more time rebooting and fiddling with the interface than listening to music. It got old. I hope Paul got the software sorted out on your PW Dac to where you could sit back and enjoy.
   
  Peace


----------



## Anaxilus

Quote: 





grokit said:


> Yeah no exuberance allowed.
> 
> This is Head-fi after all, we have our standards.


 
   
  Lol
  ___
   
  Don't get me wrong, the NAD M51 is a great DAC and recommend it.


----------



## zenpunk

Just came across that French site selling the M51 for £800 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
http://www.homecinesolutions.fr/p/9875-convertisseurs-slash-dac-nad-m51-aluminium
   
  The site seems legit and you can get an extra 5% off. Probably too good to be true?


----------



## metrik

Where do you see 800 GBP? They ask for 1999 EUR. That is about 1588 GBP with today's exchange rate.


----------



## zenpunk

My bad..
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  one of my browser extension messing up the conversion.....


----------



## MomijiTMO

Bahahaha

I bet you were disappointed.


----------



## dirtrat

I was really looking forward to reading the July edition of the M51 review in Stereophile magazine. I must say I am a little disappointed in the review Jon Iverson did of this DAC. Nowhere does he even mention that this DAC has no DSD capabilities yet it converts everything to PWM. I would think that a DAC this advanced would have some DSD capabilities. Also nowhere in his review does he mention the I2S capabilities over HDMI. He also compared this DAC with a $1200 and $2500 DAC. I can think of a lot more mainstream DACS that I would have preferred comparisons with maybe the exception of the Benchmark. I sent an EMAIL to Jon Iverson a couple days ago asking him about some of these omissions and his only comment is no DSD and he doesn't know anything about the I2S. It doesn't seem to me that this was a very thorough review and I'm hoping there will be more reviews in the near future. This DAC is on a very short list of DAC's I'm looking to purchase. I had an opportunity to listen to it at T.H.E. Show in Newport beach and am going to the Rocky Mountain Audiofest in October where I hope to hear it again and hopefull to hear some other DAC's in this price range before I make a decision. If this only supported DSD and had a front volume control I would be all over it.


----------



## BoogieWoogie

You  have the HiFi News review.


----------



## dirtrat

Quote: 





boogiewoogie said:


> You  have the HiFi News review.


 
   
  Except I'm not willing to pay $155/year for a magazine.


----------



## BoogieWoogie

Quote: 





dirtrat said:


> Except I'm not willing to pay $155/year for a magazine.


 
  You don't have to: http://nad.nl/downloads/M51_HifiNews_07-2012_EN.pdf  http://nad.nl/downloads/M51_Stereophile_07-2012_EN.pdf


----------



## dirtrat

Quote: 





boogiewoogie said:


> You don't have to: http://nad.nl/downloads/M51_HifiNews_07-2012_EN.pdf  http://nad.nl/downloads/M51_Stereophile_07-2012_EN.pdf


 
   
  GREAT!  Thanks for the links!


----------



## customNuts

Are there any comparisons to the Anedio D2??


----------



## estreeter

Based on the Stereophile review, I wont be seeking out any more of Jon Iverson's reviews. A real eye-opener for those who seem  to delight in bagging Wes Phillips - I'll take Wes' reviews and editorial comment any day of the week.


----------



## orkney

^^^ 
   
  Agreed. That was a review remarkable only for its timidity and pointlessness. Jon Iverson's listening room: where receivers and the DAC 1 reign...
   
  o


----------



## danik97

Hello, guys. I'm interested how M51 in pair with HD800 headphone? There is no too much brightness?


----------



## estreeter

Quote: 





danik97 said:


> Hello, guys. I'm interested how M51 in pair with HD800 headphone? There is no too much brightness?


 
   
  What amp are you using ?


----------



## danik97

estreeter said:


> What amp are you using ?



Meier Audio Corda Classic and Bifrost DAC. But through this gear I have a comfortable sound, there are no any lacks of HD800 for what another people turn down these wonderful headphones.

But I trying to find a "musically" DAC, which have a slightly colored sweetly sound, but not too dark or too much brightly. And as I understand M51 that is what I need


----------



## BoogieWoogie

The M51 has a warm sound to it.


----------



## Cante Ista

Quote: 





danik97 said:


> Meier Audio Corda Classic and Bifrost DAC. But through this gear I have a comfortable sound, there are no any lacks of HD800 for what another people turn down these wonderful headphones.
> But I trying to find a "musically" DAC, which have a slightly colored sweetly sound, but not too dark or too much brightly. And as I understand M51 that is what I need


 
   I am using the HD800 w/ALO Salty-pepper, with DNA Sonett or the Phonitor, and the PS Audio DLIII. The HD800 sound great in that set up. I just placed an order for the M51 to replace the DLIII, but my dealer is out of stock and will ship my DAC at the begining of the next month. I can share my experiance when it arrives, if you are willing to wait that long...


----------



## danik97

Quote: 





cante ista said:


> I am using the HD800 w/ALO Salty-pepper, with DNA Sonett or the Phonitor, and the PS Audio DLIII. The HD800 sound great in that set up. I just placed an order for the M51 to replace the DLIII, but my dealer is out of stock and will ship my DAC at the begining of the next month. I can share my experiance when it arrives, if you are willing to wait that long...


 
  Thank you much, I'll be happy to know you impressions about M51.
   
  Also I'm very-very interested how M51 differs from W4S Dac2 in sounding. I want to add some mood to a neutral HD800.


----------



## stalkerDk

estreeter said:


> What amp are you using ?




consider using a vst EQ if run in 64bit like jriver sound q won't degrade
but you need a good transparent Eq, and spend some time experimenting
done right and you will be surprised


----------



## stalkerDk

danik97 said:


> Hello, guys. I'm interested how M51 in pair with HD800 headphone? There is no too much brightness?




consider using a vst EQ if run in 64bit like jriver sound q won't degrade
but you need a good transparent Eq, and spend some time experimenting
done right and you will be surprised


----------



## danik97

So, I've received a thoughts about comparisons M51 with W4S DAC-2. Here is it:
   
   


> I owned a WFS DAC2 for a long time and now own a M51.  The WFS via its USB was slightly sibilancy, analytic, with a cold top end some uncharitable people described like out of a freezer.  It improves markedly if you use a device like an Audiopellio 2 or Off-Ramp, but still is not to my taste being slightly analytic.  The NAD is much more relaxed and natural sounding being anything but analytic - like the Metrum it has a sound like spring-water - fresh and naturally invigorating.  Its USB, while still improved by devices like the Audiophellio it is not to as great an extent.  Add in the HDMI inputs and to me its a no brainier - get the NAD.


 
            #1089


----------



## .Sup

danik97 said:


> Meier Audio Corda Classic and Bifrost DAC. But through this gear I have a comfortable sound, there are no any lacks of HD800 for what another people turn down these wonderful headphones.
> But I trying to find a "musically" DAC, which have a slightly colored sweetly sound, but not too dark or too much brightly. And as I understand M51 that is what I need



Look into Wolfson 8741 DACs


----------



## Happy Camper

danik97 said:


> Thank you much, I'll be happy to know you impressions about M51.
> 
> Also I'm very-very interested how M51 differs from W4S Dac2 in sounding.* I want to add some mood to a neutral HD800*.




Add a tube somewhere in the lineup.


----------



## danik97

happy camper said:


> Add a tube somewhere in the lineup.



 
 I think about it. Maybe after new DAC I'll take another one tube amp.


----------



## Blackmumba

Almost pulled the trigger, whats holding me back


----------



## MomijiTMO

blackmumba said:


> Almost pulled the trigger, whats holding me back :tongue_smile:




Where are you getting yours from?


----------



## danik97

Guys, buy it in russian online stores 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Costs here is 1500$. (http://avcomfort.ru/good46160.html)


----------



## PeerlessMonster

Hi,
   
  I purchased a M51 unit this saturday and yesterday after running some test I came to the Locking MacMini/HDMI input issue discussed before. I did not realize that this problem existed (before reading this thread) and I contacted the dealer. But as his dealership is stopping, he isn't responsible for the firmware upgrade now. What to do now to get the latest firmware?
   
  Just mail the NAD support with this story and hopefully they provide the latest firmware (which I can sure upgrade, I'm a senior IT specialist)?
  The M51 is a ex-demo unit...
   
  Kind Regards,
  Rens


----------



## customNuts

Quote: 





peerlessmonster said:


> Hi,
> 
> I purchased a M51 unit this saturday and yesterday after running some test I came to the Locking MacMini/HDMI input issue discussed before. I did not realize that this problem existed (before reading this thread) and I contacted the dealer. But as his dealership is stopping, he isn't responsible for the firmware upgrade now. What to do now to get the latest firmware?
> 
> ...


 
  As posted, NAD will give u the firmware to upgrade yourself. You'll be fine. How's it sound??


----------



## PeerlessMonster

I'd already mailed them, so hopefully they help 
   
  It sounds like music!
  I already tried various DAC's, but I like the somewhat warm sound of the NAD and its transparency. Its a bit upfront just like the DACs of my SSP300 of my Classe, but its just a bit more airy. The base is much more defined in a straight forward listening with my Airport Express on the optical 44.1 input in comparison with the Classe pre...
   
  But then: USB in combintion with a straight out of the box MacMini as the source (iTunes)., It's like there's much more music to listen to. And what a beautiful soundstage.
  Its just not like my old Mark Levinson 390S I used to have, which listens in layers. But it is closing in. I read some good things about programs/apps like Bitperfect and the much more expensive Pure Music for the MacMini... Today my wife is going to spend some money for an iTunes card to buy Bitperfect.
   
  I'll let you know how that sounds!


----------



## sjay

Quote: 





peerlessmonster said:


> But then: USB in combintion with a straight out of the box MacMini as the source (iTunes)., It's like there's much more music to listen to. And what a beautiful soundstage.
> Its just not like my old Mark Levinson 390S I used to have, which listens in layers. But it is closing in. I read some good things about programs/apps like Bitperfect and the much more expensive Pure Music for the MacMini... Today my wife is going to spend some money for an iTunes card to buy Bitperfect.
> 
> I'll let you know how that sounds!


 
  its worth testing with the trial version of audivarna and a spdif converter if you can get your hands on one.


----------



## Anaxilus

Quote: 





danik97 said:


> Hello, guys. I'm interested how M51 in pair with HD800 headphone? There is no too much brightness?


 
   
  Nope, mine sounded pretty good from it.  M51 is recommended in my book.


----------



## Vargtass

Pulled the trigger on the M51 a week ago and haven't much looked back. 
   
  Build quality is flawless, and it sits damn good on my desk with the new Schiit Mjolnir on top of it. All good, and designs match pretty good. 
   
  My only issue was a popping sound on both channels for a while, but when I turned the volume on the dac down from 0 to -5 / -4, the issue resolved itself, fortunately. 
   
  I'm currently using USB (I swapped from optical to check if the popping would stop), and in my head I sort of feel I get a bit less "sparkle" from the sound when using USB. Do mind, I haven't done any A/B-testing. I'm assuming I can swap inputs like a madman, and I'm going to check it out tomorrow testing both optical and USB. 
   
  All in all I'm very VERY happy, and I can't see any reason to swap away from this DAC for centuries to come. Was it a tremendous upgrade from my Cambridge Dacmagic? Meeeeh ... I'm pretty sure I have a bigger sound stage, more impact and bass slam and more details, but you'd assume that from that huge price difference. All in all I'm very happy, and can really recommend this DAC. 
   
  My five cents worth


----------



## MomijiTMO

anaxilus said:


> Nope, mine sounded pretty good from it.  M51 is recommended in my book.




Stop stealing my money!!!


----------



## preproman

I got my eyes set on this (M51) the Audio-gd 7.1 or the Calyx.
   
  Are there any comparisons?


----------



## MomijiTMO

There are some Ref 7 and M51 comparisons on my local forum, Stereo.net.au and well they kept the Ref 7. The M51 wasn't as musical. That was it.

Someone else kept the M51 because it was more useful in their HT/stereo system. I get that.


----------



## preproman

How about the Calyx?


----------



## estreeter

Which 'Calyx' are we referring to ? Femto is inching into EMM Labs territory pricewise - hardly a fair fight for the M51.
   
_My brother in London, England just traded in his $11,000 dCS Debussy for a Femto DAC and claims that it delivers significantly superior performance_
   
_http://www.head-fi.org/t/612111/calyx-femto-dac_
   
  If you have that kind of money, you can afford a plane ticket to audition both of these DACs and several others.


----------



## preproman

Heck no, I'm talking about the around $2K.


----------



## MorbidToaster

Obzilla did a few posts comparing the Calyx 24/192, M51, and W4S DAC 2. He kept 2 of them (Calyx and M51) and sold the DAC 2. He did like the M51 better overall though. Not by much, and I'd say either is a good investment. Depending on what kind of unit you're looking for I'd consider the new Cambridge 851C as well. You get even more flexibility than either one, and when I compared the Calyx DAC to the 851C I didn't hear a difference.
   
  Quote: 





preproman said:


> Heck no, I'm talking about the around $2K.


----------



## vlach

morbidtoaster said:


> Obzilla did a few posts comparing the Calyx 24/192, M51, and W4S DAC 2. He kept 2 of them (Calyx and M51) and sold the DAC 2. He did like the M51 better overall though. Not by much, and I'd say either is a good investment. Depending on what kind of unit you're looking for I'd consider the new Cambridge 851C as well. You get even more flexibility than either one, and when I compared the Calyx DAC to the 851C I didn't hear a difference.




Another contender is the Anedio D2.


----------



## sjay

one thing to be wary of with the m51 is if you have a library of music that is sub standard in its recording or mastering as i discovered and as a result of this i have now had to write off a large portion of my own library as it is now unpleasant to listen to due to my systems upgraded transparency from the m51 and spdif converter upgrades.
   
  such is life.
   
  mind you stuff thats well recorded sounds magical now, truly magical


----------



## estreeter

Quote: 





sjay said:


> one thing to be wary of with the m51 is if you have a library of music that is sub standard in its recording or mastering as i discovered and as a result of this i have now had to write off a large portion of my own library as it is now unpleasant to listen to due to my systems upgraded transparency from the m51 and spdif converter upgrades.
> 
> such is life.
> 
> mind you stuff thats well recorded sounds magical now, truly magical


 
   
  Fair enough, but that is a huge slab of popular music unfortunately, often perpetrated at the hands of producers who saw themselves as bigger than the bands they were paid to produce. 
   
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war
   
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Rubin
   
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Californication_(album)
   
The album received criticism for what Tim Anderson of _The Guardian_ called "excessive compression and distortion" in the process of digital mastering.[41] _Stylus Magazine_ labeled it as one of the victims of the loudness war and commented that it suffered from digital clipping so much that "even non-audiophile consumers complained about it".[42] An early, alternately mastered version of the album with a different track listing and mixing, probably a pre-release candidate, has been circulated on the internet.


----------



## MorbidToaster

One of my favorite RHCP albums... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  Quote: 





estreeter said:


> Fair enough, but that is a huge slab of popular music unfortunately, often perpetrated at the hands of producers who saw themselves as bigger than the bands they were paid to produce.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war
> 
> ...


----------



## Somnambulist

If you can er... find a rip of the vinyl versions of RHCP albums they're mastered by different people IIRC and are slightly less offensive to the ears.
   
  Btw haven't commented on my M51 yet because I want to live with it for a while - but one thing that stood out straight away is how good the digital volume control is - seems seamless even at low volume.


----------



## sjay

i have St Elsewhere by Gnarls Barky and its in FLAC but its now unlistenable with my current combo, the mastering is that bad.
   
  My PMC speakers do not help matters


----------



## Cante Ista

So, i got my M51 a little earlier than I initially expected. Fed Ex delivered it on Friday. I saw that my dealer had an open box demo deal, so I cancelled my back order and got this one. I have to agree with every one here who had a great experience with it so far. With the m51 feeding my Sonett and/or the Phonitor my HD800 sound amazing -- my Beyers T70 sound much better (i.e. fuller) than they ever have. Like some of you said previously, the imaging and separation is amazing. I totally agree that "there is more music" to listen to with this DAC. Absolutely stellar. I am so glad I pulled the trigger on it. It is such a huge improvement of the DLIII> 
   
  Having said that, I am having an issue. When I turn up the volume up to *1*dB and above, I am getting serious distortion. At first I thought I blew out my headphones. I sounds kind of like that -- like the drivers are blown. It is associated with lower frequencies. I hear it when the kick drum hits during electronic music tracks. I have ruled out possible issues with other components and I hear it regardless of whether am feeding it my iPod through Onkyo dock via optical or my MacBook Pro via USB. 
   
  I currently have it set to -9dB and and have no issues there. However, I would like to upgrade my speaker system soon enough and use the m51 as a preamp. Perhaps the 0dB threshold is loud enough so that the problem would not rear its hear. Still, I would like to have a fully functional preamp and not take chances. 
   
  I have emailed NAD and my dealer with this issue. I did it on Saturday, so I am not expecting to hear back till sometime next week. I was hoping that some of you more experienced Head Fiers could provide me with some input and suggestions on troubleshooting. Thanks a lot in advance.


----------



## Somnambulist

I think some others had that issue when not using the M51 as a pre and not using any volume reduction (i.e. it was at 0db). I use mine as a pre and couldn't say if I have that problem as I'd be deaf long before I got anywhere near the max volume (and my Focal monitors are only set to about 50% volume as is).


----------



## dwk

Quote: 





cante ista said:


> Having said that, I am having an issue. When I turn up the volume up to *1*dB and above, I am getting serious distortion. At first I thought I blew out my headphones. I sounds kind of like that -- like the drivers are blown. It is associated with lower frequencies. I hear it when the kick drum hits during electronic music tracks. I have ruled out possible issues with other components and I hear it regardless of whether am feeding it my iPod through Onkyo dock via optical or my MacBook Pro via USB.
> 
> I currently have it set to -9dB and and have no issues there. However, I would like to upgrade my speaker system soon enough and use the m51 as a preamp. Perhaps the 0dB threshold is loud enough so that the problem would not rear its hear. Still, I would like to have a fully functional preamp and not take chances.


 
   
  I don't know for certain, but I'd assume that any volume setting above 0dB is going to apply digital gain to the incoming stream, and will result in clipping if the signal is maxed out. A way to test this theory would be to try apply volume control through your playback software on the Mac which would reduce the signal before the M51. If the problem goes away, then it's a good bet that the problem is clipping due to applying gain. If it persists, then it may signify a bug in the M51.
   
  The M51 works very well as a preamp, but only if your downstream gain is sufficient to enable you to run the M51 in attenuating mode.


----------



## Cante Ista

Thank you so much for the reply. The volume setting on my Mac was maxed out initially. The moment I dropped it down a notch, the distortion went away -- even if volume on the m51 was maxed out! If I am interpreting what you said correctly (and pardon me because I am pretty green when it comes to this, and please correct me if I am wrong) the issue is not with the m51. I was worried though because before I read your reply I connected the DAC via optical to my rather budget Onkyo SACD player and (playing a CD) the issue was there as well. However, if I am reading you correctly, the problem is not with my DAC, which makes me happy because i would hate to have to part with it for service or an exchange (this DAC is simply amazing!) Besides, I do not really listen to my music that loud. I only discovered the issue because I like to test the performance limits of my gear. Anyway, thanks again for the input.


----------



## LostWeekend

Every review of the M51 I've read seems to say it starts clipping at 0db, it usually gets listened to at -1db by the reviewers.


----------



## sjay

i cant comment on this bug as anything over -20db will piss the neighbors off using a 60w tube amp, god forbid i try it with my 2 x 250w solid state setup.


----------



## Cante Ista

Just wanted to add that I heard  back from NAD and they said that it is a normal thing, but it may improve a bit with burn-in. I also want to emphasize that 0dB is enough to blow out your ear drums on most systems. Finally, as I am listening to this DAC through my system, I am amazed at the level of detail it is able to present in a holographic 3D layout. I strongly recommend it!


----------



## Agarvaen

Has anyone got a comparison with Vioelectric V800?
   
  I wonder if it is worth going for NAD as  it is 50% more EUR.


----------



## danik97

When I've asked about comparison between V800 and W4$ DAC-2, replied that W4$ is better (transperency and detailed). 
  And here in this thread I received a reply that M51 is better than W4S.
  Hope this helps.


----------



## Agarvaen

1 How is the reliability record of NAD products as it comes only with 2 y warranty?
   
  2 Also as it has HDMI input and output would you say it is better compared to USB when connecting to PC as a source?


----------



## stevie

Quote: 





agarvaen said:


> 1 How is the reliability record of NAD products as it comes only with 2 y warranty?
> 
> 2 Also as it has HDMI input and output would you say it is better compared to USB when connecting to PC as a source?


 

 i think i can help here,ive had m51 for months now with no problems and hdmi seems to be best sounding for me from laptop,i have squeezebox touch which sounds great but hdmi from pc takes m51 to another level,my only complaint is nad wont release firmware updates for customers to update themselves,your expected to take m51 into dealers for them to update for you,not possable for some of us,im on one of first firmwares but managed to get firmware 1.39 today,didnt get instructions on procedure to update though and having problems getting m51 to reconize the hex file,if anyone can help with firmware update instructions i would apreciate the help,the person who gave me update firmware is allowing me to pass it on so if anyone needs it email me and as soon as i have update instructions to go with it i will send it to who ever needs it.


----------



## stevie

Ive now got Nad M51 firmware v1.39 and update instructions if anyone needs to update email me and i will send file to you


----------



## mmeysarosh

The M51 does run a bit above specifications when it comes to output voltage. If the input stages on your preamp do not handle above 2V for single ended or 4V for balanced, it will likely result in  distortion. My M51 has no distortion at any point and I was able to test both outputs in my setup.
   
  Hope this helps.
  Mike


----------



## ecohifi

Quote: 





cante ista said:


> Just wanted to add that I heard  back from NAD and they said that it is a normal thing, but it may improve a bit with burn-in. I also want to emphasize that 0dB is enough to blow out your ear drums on most systems. Finally, as I am listening to this DAC through my system, I am amazed at the level of detail it is able to present in a holographic 3D layout. I strongly recommend it!


 
  I have had mine since April, I didnt think that the M51 improved during burn in!


----------



## ecohifi

Quote: 





momijitmo said:


> There are some Ref 7 and M51 comparisons on my local forum, Stereo.net.au and well they kept the Ref 7. The M51 wasn't as musical. That was it.
> Someone else kept the M51 because it was more useful in their HT/stereo system. I get that.


 
  I didnt compared the M51 directly with the ref 7.1, but agreed with the comments and the person who made these comments.  But we did the following:
   
  We had jplay>jkenny>ref 7.1>Belcanto Evo 4 and the Revel Ultima studio monitors:  extremely organic SQ, now I know why he kept the Ref7.1 and let go the M51
   
  The other system was:  Jplay>jkenny>M51>Behringer 3031A:  not as organic extremely detailed and airy sound, delivered better space and detail in the recording, could equal the above combo in sound stage if we place them at least 4ft high.  A bit more analytical.
   
  Could not place the M51 in the above system as the remote wasnt present and a lack of time.  I can live with the M51 setup for life, those Behringer 3031A  are possible the best value for $630AUD


----------



## orkney

Just an FYI -- the M51 makes it into Class A+ in the latest S'phille Recommended Components. Decent showing for the money.
   
  Still enjoying mine. Simple, elegant and makes beautiful music.
   
  o


----------



## hmouse

Quote: 





orkney said:


> Just an FYI -- the M51 makes it into Class A+ in the latest S'phille Recommended Components. Decent showing for the money.
> 
> Still enjoying mine. Simple, elegant and makes beautiful music.
> 
> o


 
  Not found on Stereophile's page (http://www.stereophile.com/content/2012-recommended-components-digital-processors)?


----------



## customNuts

Does anyone have any kind of comparison between the M51 & the Anedio D2??


----------



## Stormfriend

I've still got my eye on the M51, but demoing it will prove difficult.  How would those of you with one describe it in terms of PRaT?  I have some variation with my current DACs and regardless of their other foibles that makes quite a difference to my enjoyment.


----------



## RedBull

customnuts said:


> Does anyone have any kind of comparison between the M51 & the Anedio D2??




From the description sound like they almost have similar flavor. Looking forward for some impressions as well


----------



## orkney

hmouse said:


> Not found on Stereophile's page (http://www.stereophile.com/content/2012-recommended-components-digital-processors)?




It's in this months RC issue. Doubt it's online yet.

o


----------



## ecohifi

Quote: 





customnuts said:


> Does anyone have any kind of comparison between the M51 & the Anedio D2??


 
  I havent compared to the Anedio D2.  But Stereomojo have a dac shootout and the Anedio D1 was beaten in a blind test by the EE mini max.  I have the EE mini max plus dac that have the same Sabre 9018 chip in it and I can assure you that its day and night.  The EE min max plus is way to skeletal with a wide soundstage, the M51 is more forward and has more microdetail retreval especially in the low end of the curve and has a better musical presentation.
   
  Judging the performance of the Sabre 9018 base dac and there lack of specs available to the public I now refused to buy any dac base on the Sabre 9018.


----------



## vlach

ecohifi said:


> I havent compared to the Anedio D2.  But Stereomojo have a dac shootout and the Anedio D1 was beaten in a blind test by the EE mini max.  I have the EE mini max plus dac that have the same Sabre 9018 chip in it and I can assure you that its day and night.  The EE min max plus is way to skeletal with a wide soundstage, the M51 is more forward and has more microdetail retreval especially in the low end of the curve and has a better musical presentation.
> 
> Judging the performance of the Sabre 9018 base dac and there lack of specs available to the public I now refused to buy any dac base on the Sabre 9018.




I'm a little confused...are you saying you own both the M51 and the EE mini max plus? If so, which one would you describe as more rich, full bodied and smooth?


----------



## nigeljames

Quote: 





ecohifi said:


> I havent compared to the Anedio D2.  But Stereomojo have a dac shootout and the Anedio D1 was beaten in a blind test by the EE mini max.  I have the EE mini max plus dac that have the same Sabre 9018 chip in it and I can assure you that its day and night.  The EE min max plus is way to skeletal with a wide soundstage, the M51 is more forward and has more microdetail retreval especially in the low end of the curve and has a better musical presentation.
> 
> Judging the performance of the Sabre 9018 base dac and there lack of specs available to the public I now refused to buy any dac base on the Sabre 9018.


 
   
  If the EE minimax has a skeletal sound then blame the EE not the Sabre32 chip.
   
  I have the Audio-gd NFB-7 which uses the same Sabre32 9018 chip and its about as far from skeletal as you can get.


----------



## ecohifi

Quote: 





vlach said:


> I'm a little confused...are you saying you own both the M51 and the EE mini max plus? If so, which one would you describe as more rich, full bodied and smooth?


 

   
  To answer your question, definately the M51, and yes I own both.  
   
  The advantage of the M51 is its volume control that eliminates the pre, it can directly plug straight into the power amp taking you to another level of resolution that is hard to beat.  According to some this volume control is the best of its kind, even the volume in jplay or other software that is 64bit doesnt comes close, I agree!
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





   Just be aware that the pcb built quality and psu is yet to be desire.  There are numerous reports and that includes the unit you see in the photo had failed out of the box and could not be replaced due to a lack of quantity, mine was repaired and loaded with the the latest firmware 1.39.
   
  At $1500 AUD this unit is hard to beat, especially when it comes with HDMI input and Balance out!  Yes the Audio gd 7.1 may beat it being slightly organic in SQ in another system but I can comfortably live with this as this is has more micro detail and being a tad analytical through the Behringer 3031A


----------



## vlach

ecohifi said:


> To answer your question, definately the M51, and yes I own both.
> 
> The advantage of the M51 is its volume control that eliminates the pre, it can directly plug straight into the power amp taking you to another level of resolution that is hard to beat.  According to some this volume control is the best of its kind, even the volume in jplay or other software that is 64bit doesnt comes close, I agree!:wink_face:    Just be aware that the pcb built quality and psu is yet to be desire.  There are numerous reports and that includes the unit you see in the photo had failed out of the box and could not be replaced due to a lack of quantity, mine was repaired and loaded with the the latest firmware 1.39.
> 
> At $1500 AUD this unit is hard to beat, especially when it comes with HDMI input and Balance out!  Yes the Audio gd 7.1 may beat it being slightly organic in SQ in another system but I can comfortably live with this as this is has more micro detail and being a tad analytical through the Behringer 3031A:tongue_smile:





Thanks for clarifying echohifi. I like what you have to say about the M51, however i'm not quite ready to dismiss the Anedio D2 just yet, i need more feedback samples from more direct comparisons with the M51, rather than the quote from one individual who happens to prefer the minimax over the D1...


----------



## ecohifi

Quote: 





nigeljames said:


> If the EE minimax has a skeletal sound then blame the EE not the Sabre32 chip.
> 
> I have the Audio-gd NFB-7 which uses the same Sabre32 9018 chip and its about as far from skeletal as you can get.


 
  Hi nigeljames,
   
  It looks like Audio GD, has an NFB-7 update:NFB-7.32: http://www.audio-gd.com/Pro/dac/NFB7.32/NFB7.32EN.htm.  Having had the pleasure of listening to the Ref7.1 I wont be considering the NFB-7.32
  I like to hear your impressions between the NFB-7 to the Ref 7.1,  the last I heard was the NFB-7 was m.ore detail while everything else remains the same????
  It'll be interesting with the NFB-7.32 as this has a sampling rate up to 384


----------



## nigeljames

Quote: 





ecohifi said:


> Hi nigeljames,
> 
> It looks like Audio GD, has an NFB-7 update:NFB-7.32: http://www.audio-gd.com/Pro/dac/NFB7.32/NFB7.32EN.htm.  Having had the pleasure of listening to the Ref7.1 I wont be considering the NFB-7.32
> I like to hear your impressions between the NFB-7 to the Ref 7.1,  the last I heard was the NFB-7 was m.ore detail while everything else remains the same????
> It'll be interesting with the NFB-7.32 as this has a sampling rate up to 384


 
   
  Yes I have seen the update to the NFB-7. When it was updated to the 7.1 Kingwa stated the differences were minimal and did not recommend the upgrade as being worth the cost.
  It seems that one of the biggest differences with the 7.32 is the USB implementation and as I do not use USB its of no real interest.
   
  I have not heard the Ref7.1, however when I was contemplating which DAC to buy I contacted Kingwa and simply asked that given my priorities of speed, detail, clarity, dynamics and deep tight bass which out of the NFB-7 and Ref 7.1 did he recommend. He clealry stated the NFB-7 would be the better choice.
  I am absolutely not saying the Ref 7.1 is bad in those areas, far from it, and the Ref 7.1 probably has its own areas where it is stronger. But if anyone's priorities are the same as mine the NFB should be the better choice (based on advice from Kingwa)


----------



## ecohifi

Quote: 





vlach said:


> I'm a little confused...are you saying you own both the M51 and the EE mini max plus? If so, which one would you describe as more rich, full bodied and smooth?


 
   
   
  The Anedio D2 landed in Australia will cost approx above $2kAUD after customs and GST, so the M51 is a no brainer.  But dont let my posts decide on your decision, make sure you have other input as well before you make that decision.  I think the D2 is the same as the D1 with XLR out.  I would have a look at Johnny Darko's site as he has reviewed the D1 and I am sure he still have it.


----------



## customNuts

There is nothing skeletal about the 9018 dac, only implementations or lack there of. My Yulong D18 is certainly a testament to that, along with D1, D2 nfb7, Invicta & the list goes on.  
  In fact after hearing what this chip can do, my heart is  set on either the D2, nfb7.32 or conversely the M51.
  I recently sold my Ref 7.1 and while it was technically superior to the D18 with more micro detail, extension both ways & neutrality, the D18 was far more musical, holographic & less fatiguing. Another bonus was my 320 rips sound amazing whereas they were almost unlistenable with the ruthless ref 7.1. Guess it depends what your after.
   
  I personally am waiting on a comparison between the m51 & D2 and am quietly considering the new nfb7.32.


----------



## ZorgDK

I listened to the M51 dac yesterday with some big speakers, and thought it sounded great. Words such as liquid/non grainy, high resolution, analogue came to mind. What chip does it use?


----------



## Thailand

Quote: 





customnuts said:


> I personally am waiting on a comparison between the m51 & D2...


 
   
 ​  ​ Me, too!  Wonder when it might appear?​  ​


----------



## sjay

coffee fixed it..question removed


----------



## preproman

Quote: 





customnuts said:


> There is nothing skeletal about the 9018 dac, only implementations or lack there of. My Yulong D18 is certainly a testament to that, along with D1, D2 nfb7, Invicta & the list goes on.
> In fact after hearing what this chip can do, my heart is  set on either the D2, nfb7.32 or conversely the M51.
> I recently sold my Ref 7.1 and while it was technically superior to the D18 with more micro detail, extension both ways & neutrality, the D18 was far more musical, holographic & less fatiguing. Another bonus was my 320 rips sound amazing whereas they were almost unlistenable with the ruthless ref 7.1. Guess it depends what your after.
> 
> I personally am waiting on a comparison between the m51 & D2 and am quietly considering the new nfb7.32.


 
   
   
  That's strange.  
   
  "According to Kingwa, the Sabre is most neutral and revealing while the PCM1704 is the most musical."


----------



## Grev

More impressions and comparisons please!


----------



## No Disc

Quote: 





woodcans said:


> My system with the m51 sounds so good, I sold my turntable and entire vinyl/analog setup.


 
  May I ask what was your vinyl / analog setup?


----------



## woodcans

no disc said:


> May I ask what was your vinyl / analog setup?




VPI Scout with Denon DS-L1 cartridge to Lamm LP 2 Deluxe phono preamp. At the time, used a Dodd battery preamp.

As for long term impressions, I continue to be extremely impressed with the m51. I listen to more music now than ever, and am enjoying my setup more than ever. I may sometime in the future go back to analog, but if the past few months are any indication, I doubt that will ever happen.


----------



## No Disc

The Scout is a good table, I had that before upgrading to the Scoutmaster.  I'll have to put the NAD on my list to audition. There is a dealer local to me that has one and they allow home trials. The only glitch is I don't believe they have any decent USB to S/PDIF converters to trial as well.  Will have to see.  
   
No Disc


----------



## woodcans

no disc said:


> The Scout is a good table, I had that before upgrading to the Scoutmaster.  I'll have to put the NAD on my list to audition. There is a dealer local to me that has one and they allow home trials. The only glitch is I don't believe they have any decent USB to S/PDIF converters to trial as well.  Will have to see.
> 
> No Disc




I love my Scout, and sold it to someone who really appreciates it as well. I hope you get a chance to audition the m51 w a quality usb/spdif converter. I would be really interested to hear your comparison b/n the Scoutmaster and the digital setup. I will say that the NAD is excellent on its own, but without my Empirical Audio usb/spdif converter, I probably would've kept the Scout. The combination of the Empirical and the NAD is fantastic.


----------



## danik97

I compared a NAD's USB input and SPDIF through M2Tech Hiface 2. And conclude that through Hiface sound is simplier and poorer timbre. But I used not too much good a coax cable, maybe this was a reason. Also I compared USB and optical from my iMac 21.5". And found that from optical sound is a bit brighter. But all the same sound is great.


----------



## ecohifi

Quote: 





zorgdk said:


> I listened to the M51 dac yesterday with some big speakers, and thought it sounded great. Words such as liquid/non grainy, high resolution, analogue came to mind. What chip does it use?


 

 The chip is a ZXCZM800, developed by a Diodes Corporation in the UK.  It take a different approach in contrast to the typical DS chips on the market.  It converts everything to PWM.  The best thing is that its the volume control, I have eliminated the preamp totally!


----------



## danik97

Hi. What are you think about Bryston BHA-1 and SPL Phonitor amps for Senns HD800?
Source is NAD M51.


----------



## nbourbaki

There is  a nice review of the M51 over at http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/dacs/dacs-reviews/nad-m51-direct-digital-dac.html


----------



## customNuts

Quote: 





preproman said:


> That's strange.
> 
> "According to Kingwa, the Sabre is most neutral and revealing while the PCM1704 is the most musical."


 
  You obviously didn't read my post properly before posting. I never commented on Audio-gd's sabre dac ie nfb7.32 as I have never heard it. I only said I was considering it. I was comparing my ref 7.1 with a multitude of other sabre offerings, namely my Yulong D18 which again is *far *more musical than the 7.1.
  I was also explaining the fact that a dac chip on it's own does not determine a sound signature or presentation by any means. So many other factors are involved, simply put - implementation.


----------



## nigeljames

Confusion arises when neutral and revealing IS musical


----------



## RedBull

Some say musical is detail, some say musical is speed, some say musical is bass the list goes on and on and on ...


----------



## customNuts

Quote: 





nigeljames said:


> Confusion arises when neutral and revealing IS musical


 
  I hear you, it is rare but I believe you can have all 3 in reasonable amounts. When I got into audio, I stayed far away from anything "neutral' as I took that as boring, flat, bass light and definitely not musical. Turns out that true neutral isn't any of those traits imo. It's simply music portrayed as the artist intended.  I think Audio_gd does this beautifully, especially with the 7.1. The D18 however is north of neutral imo, creating a very musical, holographic presentation.


----------



## vlach

customnuts said:


> I hear you, it is rare but I believe you can have all 3 in reasonable amounts. When I got into audio, I stayed far away from anything "neutral' as I took that as boring, flat, bass light and definitely not musical. Turns out that true neutral isn't any of those traits imo. It's simply music portrayed as the artist intended.  I think Audio_gd does this beautifully, especially with the 7.1. The D18 however is north of neutral imo, creating a very musical, holographic presentation.




I think of musical in terms of audibility, i think of holographic in terms of soundstage & imaging. Two different things.


----------



## customNuts

Quote: 





vlach said:


> I think of musical in terms of audibility, i think of holographic in terms of soundstage & imaging. Two different things.


 
  I never said they were the same thing. But they are certainly related as it all comes down to audibility.


----------



## estreeter

Engaging, compelling, toe-tappin', liquid, lifelike - these all evoke a favorable response from me. 'Musical; is way too broad, IMO.


----------



## RedBull

customnuts said:


> It's simply music portrayed as the artist intended.




Maybe it's only me, but I never get to understand how is it possible to understand how the artist intent their music to be heard.
They are not the one who do the mixing in the studio, first of all, and the mixing engineer is not using headphone, they use cheap xlr cables, likely not using the DAC as ours ... the list goes on. <= this is what is called 'circle of confusion'


----------



## RedBull

customnuts said:


> It's simply music portrayed as the artist intended.




Maybe it's only me, but I never get to understand how is it possible to understand how the artist intent their music to be heard.
They are not the one who do the mixing in the studio, first of all, and the mixing engineer is not using headphone, they use cheap xlr cables, likely not using the DAC as ours ... the list goes on. <= this is what is called 'circle of confusion'


----------



## vlach

redbull said:


> Maybe it's only me, but I never get to understand how is it possible to understand how the artist intent their music to be heard.
> They are not the one who do the mixing in the studio, first of all, and the mixing engineer is not using headphone, they use cheap xlr cables, likely not using the DAC as ours ... the list goes on. <= this is what is called 'circle of confusion'





Excellent point.


----------



## estreeter

Punch the following into Wikipedia:
   
  loudness wars
  Rick Rubin
   
  There are millions of music fans who are underwhelmed by the efforts of a given producer. Not sure how bad it is now, but the Bad Old Days of yore saw many contract disputes when bands rebelled against being thrown into the studio with people their record company saw as 'hitmakers', particularly when the band in question had their credibility at stake. Wouldn't matter to people like Lars from Metallica, but many others were incensed at losing creative control of their own music. That's called 'business'.


----------



## grokit

Hitmakers = well-connected wankers.


----------



## robertsong

Hey, anybody know which USB receiver chip is in the M51? Tenor? XMOS? I haven't been able to find this tidbit of info yet. I own a Stello U3 converter so I guess it shouldn't really matter to me. Still curious though.


----------



## danik97

Quote: 





robertsong said:


> Hey, anybody know which USB receiver chip is in the M51? Tenor? XMOS? I haven't been able to find this tidbit of info yet. I own a Stello U3 converter so I guess it shouldn't really matter to me. Still curious though.


 
   
  Here is internal fotos, maybe it helps - http://doctorhead.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?f=86&t=16469


----------



## Lil' Knight

XMOS.


----------



## Alanaudio

Has anyone compared m51 to reference7?


----------



## danik97

Quote: 





alanaudio said:


> Has anyone compared m51 to reference7?


 
  On Stereo.net.au compared and Reference 7.1 were ahead.


----------



## Kevinloh

Please send me the firmware update.  Thanks alot in advance
kevinloh@msn.com


----------



## The Monkey

ok.


----------



## No Disc

Quote: 





redbull said:


> Maybe it's only me, but I never get to understand how is it possible to understand how the artist intent their music to be heard.
> They are not the one who do the mixing in the studio, first of all, and the mixing engineer is not using headphone, they use cheap xlr cables, likely not using the DAC as ours ... the list goes on. <= this is what is called 'circle of confusion'


 
  I only worked in a studio as an engineer for a short time. Artists that were in the studio during the recording process did participate in listing and in reviewing the mixing process. We didn't use headphones in the studio I worked in.  It would a good question to ask your favorite artist... did they care enough about their own music to participate in the final sound mixing process. I imagine some did, some did not.


----------



## vlach

Has anyone compared the M51 DAC to the Oppo 95?


----------



## grokit

Can the M51 extract digital audio from the iPad HDMI out (via Digital AV Adapter)?


----------



## estreeter

Quote: 





vlach said:


> Has anyone compared the M51 DAC to the Oppo 95?


 
   
  Compared the DAC sections ? No. Hooked the Oppo to the M51 for sonic bliss ? Several.
  
  Here's one I had my manservant type up earlier:
   
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/dacs/dacs-reviews/nad-m51-direct-digital-dac/page-3-in-use.html
   
  There is also a discussion of the Oppo/NAD combination in the early pages of this monster thread and another via Google (BDP-83, from memory).


----------



## vlach

estreeter said:


> Compared the DAC sections ? No. Hooked the Oppo to the M51 for sonic bliss ? Several.
> 
> 
> Here's one I had my manservant type up earlier:
> ...




Yes, the DAC sections. I read the article you linked, but again the Oppo was not compared to the M51 as a DAC. I'm surprised several have the Oppo hooked up to the M51 without testing/ commenting on the DAC section differences?


----------



## estreeter

Technically, they are both 'sources' but the M51 needs a transport - the Oppo doesnt. Commonsense stuff, but for me the obvious comparison would be :
   
  1. NAD M50 Digital Music Player -> M51 DAC
  2. Oppo BDP-95
   
  Same amps/speakers/phones etc and may the best 'combination' win. Bang for buck, its going to be tough for the NAD combo to top the Oppo, although I have seen some complaints re quality control on the older Oppo universal players.


----------



## estreeter

Interesting that Bryston arent straying too far from the 2K mark for their upgrade to the BDA-1:
   
http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/coming-soon-brystons-new-mid-priced-dac/


----------



## vlach

I have a question regarding the HDMI input; if fed a 5.1 dts-HD Master soundtrack from a blu-ray player, will the M51 automatically down mix to stereo for the analog output, and if so will it knock it down to dts core or keep the HD resolution? What about Dolby True-HD?


----------



## grokit

According to What-Hifi, "The inclusion of dual HDMI inputs ... means the M51 can strip the two-channel PCM audio off the signal from a Blu-ray player and pass the picture through, or take a high bitrate feed from a DVD-A or SACD disc."


----------



## paara

Have been browsing on the stereophile website, looking over the measurements for different DACs.
  Got to say that the M51 measurements are amazing. I don't exactly know how important the shape of a recreated 1k sinusoidal wave is, But I would guess that he closer it resemble it look like a perfect wave the better the sound would be, not taking into consideration noise levels.
  Just look at the M51 compared to for example the wavelenght proton (which looks horrible)


----------



## buson160man

Theta chroma I had one of those too way back.It was a pretty good unit at the time.I later moved on to the pro basic lll which was a lot better,especially in balanced operation with the stax pro lamdas with their tube amp.It was pretty dynamic sounding at the time.Thanks that brought back some memories of old.


----------



## MoonUnit

Quote: 





paara said:


> Have been browsing on the stereophile website, looking over the measurements for different DACs.
> Got to say that the M51 measurements are amazing. I don't exactly know how important the shape of a recreated 1k sinusoidal wave is, But I would guess that he closer it resemble it look like a perfect wave the better the sound would be, not taking into consideration noise levels.
> Just look at the M51 compared to for example the wavelenght proton (which looks horrible)


 
   
  You're comparing apples and oranges. The M51 graph is taken at -90dB with 24 bit data, whereas the Proton graph is taken at -90dB with 16 bit data. (The M51 does still look better when compared with 16 bit data, just not quite that much better.) The M51 definitely measures better in nearly all respects, except time domain performance.


----------



## orkney

Trying to run this with a new Mac mini -- can anyone shoot me the firmware update? Not much luck with NAD customer service...
   
  best,
   
  o


----------



## Cante Ista

I am running it with the previous version OS and had no problem. sorry you are having problems. Good luck. Once it works, I think it is amazing.


----------



## jayz

Hi Guys,
   
  Sorry to jump in to the ongoing discussion, I am thinking of getting a M51 as an upgrade to my current setup. Reading through previous posts, I think this thread is where most of M51 expert users are, hence my post.
   
  I had shortlisted W4S DAC2, Benchmark DAC2 and NAD M51 but having read all the posts so far, I am very inclined towards the NAD now.
   
  Currently I have the Logitech Transporter feeding a passive TVC Pre and directly onto my twin monoblocks via balanced connections which I have to admit does sound pretty good but with average recordings, it all sounds a bit too edgy. I am wondering whether the warmth that M51 brings will balance things out but I am finding it difficult to get a dealer to demo the transporter and M51 side-by-side so if anyone out there has done a comparison or has any comments to add, it would really help.
   
  The transporter is extremely transparent, brings out a wide and deep sound stage and the instrument separation is good so I really don't want to take a step back and lose some of these traits when I upgrade so any and all comments will be very welcome.
   
  Thanks


----------



## Cante Ista

sorry. i have only compared ps audio dl iii, onkyo sr tx 806 onboard DAC and the m51. in my system, the m51 is a better almost all around, but i cannot say that it is better with poor recordings. if yu are looking for good imaging and extension m51 is a good choice -- but that  is all i can really say. good luck. and keep us posted,


----------



## Somnambulist

Right, got to concede, I can't really justify the outlay on either the AP2+PP or the Legato, so I need another option that will work in between the SBT + EDO and M51 - thinking of going for a Hiface 2 and AQVOX PSU as that comes in at under £250. I take it the best option is to get the RCA version and just go straight digital coax RCA to RCA? I'd only need a very short coax cable too as the SBT sits on top of the M51 - suggestions (nothing esoteric!) welcome.


----------



## Somnambulist

Quote: 





orkney said:


> Trying to run this with a new Mac mini -- can anyone shoot me the firmware update? Not much luck with NAD customer service...
> 
> best,
> 
> o


 
   
  There's an aussie audio forum where a member has the install file for the newest version available and instructions on how to update it - I think it's Stereo.au or something - just search the NAD M51 thread. I might as the dealer I bought mine from if they can send me the file as I'm not driving half-way up the country just for a firmware update that literally just involves plugging a USB key in with an executable file and pressing a couple of buttons, it's ridiculous.


----------



## orkney

Quote: 





somnambulist said:


> There's an aussie audio forum where a member has the install file for the newest version available and instructions on how to update it - I think it's Stereo.au or something - just search the NAD M51 thread. I might as the dealer I bought mine from if they can send me the file as I'm not driving half-way up the country just for a firmware update that literally just involves plugging a USB key in with an executable file and pressing a couple of buttons, it's ridiculous.


 

 Thanks, S. I'll have a gander at Stereo.au site. It's such a fine DAC -- I don't understand why they don't make the firmware available on their site. Absurd.
   
  best,
   
  s


----------



## breadvan

Can anyone update me on the following:

1. Is it possible to integrate the M51 as a preamp in a multi-channel home theatre system? I like the DAC very much but without any analogue in I cannot figure out a way to integrate it, the HDMI in I understand is for stereo only.

2. Will NAD ever consider adding DSD over HDMI capability to it, or is it a done deal dead end? 

Thanks.


----------



## Herman17

Did anybody compare the NAD M51 with the T+A DAC 8? Both have favorite reviews but I don't see many posts on the T+A. Thanks!


----------



## stevie

hi orkney  send me a pm with your email and i will send firmware with update instructions


----------



## Somnambulist

Might as well join in too, PM'ed.


----------



## The Monkey

What does the new firmware address?


----------



## Loevhagen

Firmware 1.41 is attached - and can be downloaded below.
   
  Disclaimer: Can't understand why the file itself can not be linked directly. Those downloading it, take own responsibility for any use of it. I.e. no "US I'll sue you if it fails, et al.".


----------



## digitalzed

dura said:


> Very interested in this new technology. I'm keeping an eye on the NAD C390DD, an integrated digital amp described as a DAC with a 150watt output, but first more reviews and some more time for the manufacturer to iron out the mistakes that are always in complex new products.
> Price of this technology will probably go down too, I think this is the future of amps.




I agree. In fact, I ordered the DD390 yesterday. Very interested to give it a try in my system.


----------



## danik97

Quote: 





loevhagen said:


> Firmware 1.41 is attached - and can be downloaded below.
> 
> Disclaimer: Can't understand why the file itself can not be linked directly. Those downloading it, take own responsibility for any use of it. I.e. no "US I'll sue you if it fails, et al.".


 
  Thank's for a file. You haven't a changelog?


----------



## Somnambulist

Cheers for that.
   
  Update instructions copy and pasted from Stereo.net.au
http://www.stereo.net.au/forums/index.php?/topic/40613-nad-m51-listening-impressions/page__st__1125#entry759023
   
  Quote: 





> Hold left button when powering up, load hex file onto usb and insert into upgrade usb slot, from off position hold down left button below nad sign and switch m51 on,when u see bootloader message release button and wait for m51 to go to standby,then do a factory reset and thats you,ive sent file with instructions to you Gordik and will help anyone who needs update just drop me an email


 
   
  I read this as:
  1) Turn M51 off
  2) Place USB stick w/hex file on into USB update slot
  3) Turn on M51 holding down left button on front of display
  4) When bootloader message pops up, release button and wait for M51 to go into standby
  5) Perform a factory reset (I take it USB can be removed at any time after this)


----------



## stevie

Hi seems my m51 firmware file is old now 1.39 so will update but if anyone needs nads update instructions i can send them or loevhagen i can send to u if  u want to post with your update file thanks


----------



## stevie

do we know what changes nad have made with firmware for m51 since 1.39 to 1.41 wonder if they have fixed issue with usb edo app from squeezebox touch


----------



## danik97

*srevie*, does you already updated to last v1.41? What difference you are heard?


----------



## orkney

Quote: 





loevhagen said:


> Firmware 1.41 is attached - and can be downloaded below.
> 
> Disclaimer: Can't understand why the file itself can not be linked directly. Those downloading it, take own responsibility for any use of it. I.e. no "US I'll sue you if it fails, et al.".


 
   
  Many thanks for this, and to Somnambulist for the instructions. I've now installed this update and my Mini-based server works beautifully! There also seems to be slightly less bass bloom but I'm guessing that's a warmup thing and not an artifact of the update.
   
  best,
   
  o


----------



## The Monkey

Many thanks for all of this info and for the file.


----------



## stevie

Hi Danik97 ive updated but cant comment on sound improvements as yet as have only listened to two albums and used squeezebox touch as source so havent done any serious listening as yet but will hook up pc to m51 later and have a good listen,would like to see logs of changes made since 1.39 thats two updates we no nothing about,wonder if issue with squeezebox touch edo usb app has been addressed with new firmware,can anyone shed some light on changes please


----------



## Loevhagen

My M51 still runs 1.39. I see no need for upgrading to 1.40+


----------



## HumanMedia

Yes the Squeezebox / EDO / USB compatibility is the big one for me. The connection fails because of bad/lengthy device identifier strings. Hopefully the new firmware fixes.


----------



## shcbris

I upgraded the firmware from 1.39 to 1.41 yesterday and all seems stable.
  Using USB input from PC for music from PC ( FLAC lossless ) via JRiver only so far.


----------



## orkney

Has anyone who upgraded noticed any sonic differences? I seem to find a drier overall tonal balance with less lower bass output than before, but the hoopla of upgrading makes any differences hard to ID reliably -- can anyone shoot me 1.39 (or post it here) for comparative purposes?
   
  o


----------



## HumanMedia

I am finding the same thing with v 1.41.  Lower bass levels - or is it higher, less natural, treble energy?


----------



## olor1n

About to join the ranks. Can any one comment on how the M51 pairs with the HD800? The Mjolnir will be in between. The Gungnir is a good dac for the price but I find it struggles in busy passages and I notice too much distortion (it's subtle, but it translates to a hard digital edge in certain tracks) for a component at this level.


----------



## The Monkey

I think it's an excellent pairing.  The M51 has an ever so slightly warm tilt, to me, or maybe it's that it doesn't splash up top.  Regardless, it complements well the HD800.


----------



## olor1n

^ Thanks for the reassurance. There were some comments earlier in the thread about the M51's neutrality being detrimental for the HD800. I don't find the HD800 inherently grating. It's just unrelenting in exposing deficiencies upstream and I have grounds to suspect the Gungnir as the bottleneck (qualities magnified by my headphone system are heard through active speakers fed directly from the Gungnir).
   
  I'm not after coloration from components to EQ the HD800. From all accounts the M51 presents a very clean signal and that is precisely what this headphone demands imo.


----------



## grokit

.


----------



## preproman

Has this DAC been compared to the Mytek Stereo 192 DSD DAC or the Master 7?
   
  http://mytekdigital.com/hifi


----------



## Cante Ista

Quote: 





olor1n said:


> ^ Thanks for the reassurance. There were some comments earlier in the thread about the M51's neutrality being detrimental for the HD800. I don't find the HD800 inherently grating. It's just unrelenting in exposing deficiencies upstream and I have grounds to suspect the Gungnir as the bottleneck (qualities magnified by my headphone system are heard through active speakers fed directly from the Gungnir).
> 
> I'm not after coloration from components to EQ the HD800. From all accounts the M51 presents a very clean signal and that is precisely what this headphone demands imo.


 
  I think it is a great DAC! It images really well, so when put with the HD800 it is sharp in that area as a samurai sword. But I think it is a DAC that is great with any can. It is clean and precise, which is what I want from my source. I am using it with Amarra, which people say  adds a tinny bit of warmth (barely noticeable in my view). I think you can't go wrong with this DAC whatever HP you are gonna use it with.


----------



## olor1n

Well, The Monkey was right about the slight warm tilt. The NAD on initial listen presents a fuller sound than the Gungnir. The Schiit may have the slight edge in terms of depth, but the M51 is less abrasive overall. The Gungnir has a tendency to spotlight micro details at all times. Exciting at first, tiring and unnatural in the long term. The NAD is just as detailed, but there's better (micro) dynamic range. It's not always in your face, though it can be explosive when called for. The Gungnir has less finesse. It's like a Grado/Alessandro in its presentation.
   
  The other notable improvement is the smoothness of the upper registers. The Gungnir has a slight etch in this region. The M51 has the same extension, without the harshness and without sacrificing any aspect of the SQ.
   
  Some have tried to pin the source of my gripes to the Mjolnir (aggressive/forward) or HD800 (bright/harsh). I've lived with these components for some time now and in different configurations. I suspected that these components were merely presenting the signal as fed from the source. I was right. The M51 wins.


----------



## preproman

What volume level do you guys level the DAC on if using it as a dedicated DAC only?


----------



## kr0gg

i guess everyone uses 0db


----------



## preproman

Quote: 





kr0gg said:


> i guess everyone uses 0db


 
   
   
  Ok so that's instead of +10db.  You don't take the volume all the way up?


----------



## kr0gg

i use it a 0db since i don't want my M51 to mess with the signal and (to digitally amplify it).
  guys on SNA reported some strange issues with m51 clipping on some loud recordings. well, they said that using -1db solves that issue.
  considering this info, i guess it's not a good idea to set higher volume than 0
   
  (personally i didn't have any clipping on M51 yet)


----------



## preproman

Gotcha.  Thanks..


----------



## oogabooga

Quote: 





olor1n said:


> About to join the ranks. Can any one comment on how the M51 pairs with the HD800? The Mjolnir will be in between. The Gungnir is a good dac for the price but I find it struggles in busy passages and I notice too much distortion (it's subtle, but it translates to a hard digital edge in certain tracks) for a component at this level.


 
   
  I spent a couple hours at the local dealer with an M51 today, and tested out their HD800 with it as well (using a Music Hall PH25.2 headphone amp). I found the sound very pleasing, and didn't feel any fatigue my listening.


----------



## oogabooga

Apologies for the double post. Has anyone else searched the recent pricing on the NAD M51? I found one locally (a store demo, but only b/c they were sold out) for $1700 and was wondering if there were better deals to be had, particularly in Canada (Toronto, Vancouver, or Montreal to be specific).
   
  Speaking of which, anyone know of anything I should be wary of with the demo model? It's a DAC so I figure there's not too much to 'burn-out'...


----------



## orkney

1700.00 for a demo unit seems an excellent price -- don't see these being discounted very often. Dealer demos will carry full warranty so you ought to be covered there. Mine was a demo and has been fantastic thus far.
   
  best,
   
  o


----------



## jtinto

I'd like to try an M51
  What would I pay for a used one?
  Anyone thinking about selling ...


----------



## oogabooga

jtinto, seeing as your in Toronto have you dropped by BayBloorRadio? They might have one you could listen to.  
   
  When I went to my local dealer in Montreal, I brought my computer, amp, and headphones - the gave me a space and a couple hours to get a feel for everything.


----------



## jtinto

I'll give BBR a call tomorrow.
  American Sound might have one as well.
  Thanks for the reminder oogabooga


----------



## stevie

Hi all at Head-Fi happy new year,well ive been a very happy owner of Nad M51 for some time now and have to say it made up my mind to go completely digital with my music,squeezebox touch is great but doesn't do m51 justice so ive been on lookout for better source,my prefered imput on m51 is HDMI so needed something with quality that could output HDMI,week before xmas my Oppo 103 arrived and have to say this is one amazing piece of equipment,sound from m51 is another level,well worth investment,plus as far as picture quality goes there has been a massive improvement there also,oppo has hdmi imput also so have youview box been upscaled by oppo and results are exellent,the oppo network features are greatly improved from previous models and work very well,i treated myself to a new nas synology diskstation ds712+ with 6tb of storage to feed my all digital setup and have to say its fantastic all controlled with apps from my nexus 7 very happy and if anyone has any questions about any of the products ive mentioned i will try to answer,thats my wish list for 2012 complete time to get back to work as bank balance has taken a hit this xmas


----------



## oogabooga

I'm in the process of comparing the NAD M51 to my Parasound 1500 (both connected to the same amp/headphones: Stax SRM-006t/404LE).
   
  One place the NAD clearly bests the Parasound is in the very low frequencies (e.g. Phoenix, from Daft Punk) - the NAD makes them sound clearer/cleaner, while the Parasound is 'missing' part of the bass. Otherwise I'm finding it very hard to compare the two. Does anyone know of a good resource to read that can help guide my comparison?
   
  Thanks!


----------



## The Monkey

The Parasound 1500 is a pretty good DAC.  The only suggestion I have is maybe getting a switchbox so you can do some quick A/Bing.  Obviously still a subjective test, but at least you can more quickly switch back and forth between sources.  I use the Manley SkipJack for that and it works well.  Certainly, long term listening tests are also necessary but maybe this will help you isolate some of the nuances.


----------



## zenpunk

Quote: 





oogabooga said:


> I'm in the process of comparing the NAD M51 to my Parasound 1500 (both connected to the same amp/headphones: Stax SRM-006t/404LE).
> 
> One place the NAD clearly bests the Parasound is in the very low frequencies (e.g. Phoenix, from Daft Punk) - the NAD makes them sound clearer/cleaner, while the Parasound is 'missing' part of the bass. Otherwise I'm finding it very hard to compare the two. Does anyone know of a good resource to read that can help guide my comparison?
> 
> Thanks!


 
  Proper level matching is the most important. Can you both feed them the same digital signal by daisy chaining them if one has a SPDIF out, or use a USB to SPDIF box with two outputs?


----------



## jimmyjames8

Late to this party but have had my M51 for a couple 3 months now and it is the most detail resolving dac I have owned or heard.  I owned Mark Levinson 360S dac for many years.  The M51 beats it handily as far as detail retrieval and it bests the Marantz SA11S2 as well in that regard.  The Marantz may become my new headphone rig source as I intend to leave the M51 in my main loudspeaker system.  My source for the 51 is an Oppo 95 via and Ethereal HDMI cable.  The M51 has performed flawlessly with any thing I have thrown at it via the Oppo.  Even SACD's played thru the NAD sound for the most part to my ears better than the same disc on the Marantz even though the Marantz is decoding DSD where as the M51 is decoding 24/88.  I cant say enough about the M51 and it's real selling point is that it is an HDMI dac.  Supposedly some hi rez stereo content on Blu-ray discs will only be available via HDMI.


----------



## oogabooga

Quote: 





the monkey said:


> The Parasound 1500 is a pretty good DAC.  The only suggestion I have is maybe getting a switchbox so you can do some quick A/Bing.  Obviously still a subjective test, but at least you can more quickly switch back and forth between sources.  I use the Manley SkipJack for that and it works well.  Certainly, long term listening tests are also necessary but maybe this will help you isolate some of the nuances.


 
   
  Quote: 





zenpunk said:


> Proper level matching is the most important. Can you both feed them the same digital signal by daisy chaining them if one has a SPDIF out, or use a USB to SPDIF box with two outputs?


 
   
  Thanks Monkey and zenpunk for the replies.  I'm feeding them both from the optical out of my MBP and plugging both into my Stax amp using RCAs, so I just swap the optical cable and select the appropriate source on the amp. I found that with the NAD set to 0 dB, the Parasound was still a bit louder (in fact, setting the NAD to +2 dB would generate the same sound level, but of course I didn't do this in A/Bing for fear of clipping).  So, yes, matching the sound level was a PITA.
   
  It's perhaps worth mentioning for others trying to do this, that I did also try creating "multi-output device", and driving the NAD via USB and the Parasound via optical, so that I needed to only select the correct source on the amp. I found that OSX 10.7 would degrade the audio (it would become very choppy) after 10-15 minutes, so I gave up on that approach.
   
  I'm going to do some more listening over the weekend, but the only difference I can discern is an improvement in the lowest bass, I'll have to decide if that's worth the extra $$.


----------



## Somnambulist

Quote: 





jimmyjames8 said:


> Late to this party but have had my M51 for a couple 3 months now and it is the most detail resolving dac I have owned or heard.  I owned Mark Levinson 360S dac for many years.  The M51 beats it handily as far as detail retrieval and it bests the Marantz SA11S2 as well in that regard.  The Marantz may become my new headphone rig source as I intend to leave the M51 in my main loudspeaker system.  My source for the 51 is an Oppo 95 via and Ethereal HDMI cable.  The M51 has performed flawlessly with any thing I have thrown at it via the Oppo.  Even SACD's played thru the NAD sound for the most part to my ears better than the same disc on the Marantz even though the Marantz is decoding DSD where as the M51 is decoding 24/88.  I cant say enough about the M51 and it's real selling point is that it is an HDMI dac.  Supposedly some hi rez stereo content on Blu-ray discs will only be available via HDMI.


 
   
  Indeed. I'm quite interested in the future in using a CAS (computer as source) - something like an SSD based laptop with an HDMI out and connecting it that way. The spec for HDMI 1.4 is good for audio, supposedly, and many people feel the M51's HDMI input is the best one when used with software which bypasses all the Windows/Mac audio processing/engines (e.g. Audirvana 1.4. on OS X with Direct/Integer mode).


----------



## oogabooga

Quote: 





somnambulist said:


> Indeed. I'm quite interested in the future in using a CAS (computer as source) - something like an SSD based laptop with an HDMI out and connecting it that way. The spec for HDMI 1.4 is good for audio, supposedly, and many people feel the M51's HDMI input is the best one when used with software which bypasses all the Windows/Mac audio processing/engines (e.g. Audirvana 1.4. on OS X with Direct/Integer mode).


 
   
  Seems like an excellent idea - if it's I2S and I understand things correctly, you'll get the clock with the data, so less jitter, no?
   
  On another note, does anyone experience a complete and total failure of the USB connection from time to time? I've had this happen twice now - the music will just stop playing and the device won't appear on my Mac, and I have to turn the NAD off and back on to get it to work 
   
  EDIT: The problem appears to be with Fidelia and its "audio device exclusivity".


----------



## olor1n

^ I have my late 2011 MBP connected to the M51 via a Furutech Formula 2 usb cable. I mainly use BitPerfect + iTunes to play my lossless files in native bit and sample rate. I sometimes utilise Fidelia to play the flac albums I've yet to convert to alac and import into iTunes. No issues whatsoever with usb (which sounds better than optical through my rig). The M51 has not skipped a beat. I have Lion 10.7.5 installed on the MBP and the firmware version loaded on my M51 is 1.39.
   
  Have you tried using another usb port? Or perhaps a different cable?


----------



## kr0gg

Can anyone clarify one thing to me?
  A lot of folks say that m51's HDMI receives i2s audio stream. How can that be possible?
  As far as i know, HDMI transmits audio in PCM (just like a usual SPDIF connection).
   
  What bothers me is that i've read that a lot of users consider m51's HDMI superior to any other digital input on it.
  But come on - we spend TONS of money on good digital sources with high quality clocks and in the end they are bettered by a VIDEO card where the HDMI's audio transmission is a "free" bonus?
   
  (i've got and m51 currently, but don't have an HDMI source to compare. btw, m51's USB input is decent at most - easily outclassed by my Audio-gd DI-v2 DSP)


----------



## Somnambulist

I've read a few people say that via HDMI and with Amarra/Audivana etc it's audibly better than the SBT (w/EDO app) > reclocker > M51. Indeed the distortion figures for the HDMI are incredibly low and although HDMI was jittery in it's infancy, I've read that the newer spec stuff is very good in this regard. 
   
  I'm currently using the SBT style set up but the idea is I'll pair it eventually with a cheaper USB DAC, preferably something Sabre-based so I can use the digital volume control, with my DIY Linkwitz speakers and put that in another room (all my music is on a NAS on the network). The 'eventually' part will happen when I upgrade my Mac Mini to a Retina iMac (hopefully 2013 will grant me my wish!) and use my Mini for the M51.
   
  Quote: 





oogabooga said:


> Seems like an excellent idea - if it's I2S and I understand things correctly, you'll get the clock with the data, so less jitter, no?
> 
> On another note, does anyone experience a complete and total failure of the USB connection from time to time? I've had this happen twice now - the music will just stop playing and the device won't appear on my Mac, and I have to turn the NAD off and back on to get it to work
> 
> EDIT: The problem appears to be with Fidelia and its "audio device exclusivity".


----------



## kr0gg

well, SBT/w EDO and even a linear power supply is still a pretty low-end digital source.
  it's main point is the comfort it gives.
   
  i mean that the praise that m51's HDMI gets looks like it should sound at least on the Audiophilleo level.


----------



## kocl

After reading this long thread and so many good posts along with excellent reviews, i'll try one next week.
  I will connect to my olive 04HD and replace my CA 840CD as dac.
   
  I can get one for 1190 EUR.
   
  There are any plans from NAD to implement DSD over HDMI or USB?


----------



## Somnambulist

That's a great price, jump on it. I'm not sure if DSD is even possible via just a software update - I don't know enough about how that stuff works - but NAD aren't being too helpful with announcing new software or even saying that the updates fix or change. Who knows.


----------



## Kclone

I'm interested in this DAC and the Mytek as well.  After reading this entire thread, one thing confuses me.  There have been several comments on how great this DAC is, good detail, warm, extended, musical ect... but at the same time people are commenting that a lot of their music library is now unlistenable due to the recording quality being exposed by this DAC.  Why would anyone want that?  Why would anyone want a component that makes it so some of your favorite music sounds bad?   Some gear have the ability to breath some air, space, and life into these dull recordings, but it sounds like the NAD M51 is not one of them.  Can anyone clarify?   Thanks.


----------



## DTrewwye

Quote: 





kclone said:


> I'm interested in this DAC and the Mytek as well.  After reading this entire thread, one thing confuses me.  There have been several comments on how great this DAC is, good detail, warm, extended, musical ect... but at the same time people are commenting that a lot of their music library is now unlistenable due to the recording quality being exposed by this DAC.  Why would anyone want that?  Why would anyone want a component that makes it so some of your favorite music sounds bad?   Some gear have the ability to breath some air, space, and life into these dull recordings, but it sounds like the NAD M51 is not one of them.  Can anyone clarify?   Thanks.


 

 It could be that much of the recordings in their library are of the lossy quality?  128kbps etc.  Might mean that a re-rip or audio quality upgrade is in order.
   
  Or if its just the mastering, then no idea.


----------



## Happy Camper

The Hilo Lynx does DSD over USB but has no HDMI ports. It was a software upgrade released in Dec.


----------



## DTrewwye

Looks like I'll be joining the NAD camp in a few weeks time


----------



## orkney

Quote: 





kclone said:


> I'm interested in this DAC and the Mytek as well.  After reading this entire thread, one thing confuses me.  There have been several comments on how great this DAC is, good detail, warm, extended, musical ect... but at the same time people are commenting that a lot of their music library is now unlistenable due to the recording quality being exposed by this DAC.  Why would anyone want that?  Why would anyone want a component that makes it so some of your favorite music sounds bad?   Some gear have the ability to breath some air, space, and life into these dull recordings, but it sounds like the NAD M51 is not one of them.  Can anyone clarify?   Thanks.


 

 I have not experienced anything like this with the M51. It seems to add or subtract very little to a given track. That's how I like it. I can't say it has made any of my music unlistenable, nor should it. YMMV.
   
  o


----------



## oogabooga

Just reporting back - after a week-long in-home demo, I decided not to keep the NAD M51.  
   
  Let me start off by saying this is a great DAC.  The sound is *very *pleasing, with no fatigue whatsoever. The volume control is outstanding, in fact I would have wanted to permanently by-pass the volume pot on my amp if I kept the NAD. 
   
  I realize the following two comparisons are across rather significant price points, however, I can only compare against the DACs I have. I used mostly 320 kbps MP3s or 16/44.1 FLACs, and listened through either a Pico Slim / Shure 535, or through a Stax SRM-006t / 404 LE or 007 Mk1. My notes are all from sighted comparisons.
   
  In comparison to my γ2 (fed and powered by USB), I felt the NAD did a better job all around. The bass on the NAD was much fuller. The NAD also _seemed_ to reproduce musical instruments more naturally (e.g. classical music). However, this was a very slight difference; since this was a 'sighted' test, I could be wrong.
   
  In comparison to my Parasound 1500, using my equipment and ears, the only difference I could reliably and repeatably discern was an improvement in the quality of the lowest of bass notes (e.g. the first few moments of Phoenix by Daft Punk, and a few other tracks on Homework). The NAD M51 was a very nice improvement in this regard, the bass is 'full', whereas on the Parasound those base notes seem 'hollowed out'.  In every other regard, I could not tell a difference between the M51 and 1500. I tried to pick apart how 'faithfully' orchestral instruments were reproduced, how the DACs handled 'congested' passages, and in particular, how they handled the nuances of techno music (low bass, synthesized sounds, etc), but could not discern a difference between the two DACs.
   
  In the end, if I didn't already own the Parasound, I certainly would have kept the M51.


----------



## jtinto

Thanks for posting your impressions oogabooga
  I'm thinking about trying the M51 too
  Did you get any chance to compare the musicality and naturalness of the same recording at 16/44 vs 24/96?
  It may or may not have been different ... but might have shown differences between the M51 and 1500


----------



## oogabooga

Quote: 





jtinto said:


> Thanks for posting your impressions oogabooga
> I'm thinking about trying the M51 too
> Did you get any chance to compare the musicality and naturalness of the same recording at 16/44 vs 24/96?
> It may or may not have been different ... but might have shown differences between the M51 and 1500


 
  I have only one album at 24/96, a binaurally-recorded LP from Ottmar Liebert + Luna Negra. IIRC they claim that minimal mastering was done (e.g. it's much quieter than most albums I have).. I did compare the M51 at 24/96, to the M51 a 16/44.1 (downsampled), and on the Parasound at 16/44.1. I couldn't tell a difference between the three.  Mind you, I only listened to one song, so it's far from a thorough test.


----------



## jtinto

That's cool, thanks
  I was just wondering if differences might show up at higher bit or sampling rates


----------



## AFWannabe

Quote: 





kocl said:


> [...]
> There are any plans from NAD to implement DSD over HDMI or USB?


 
  Have you tried emailing NAD about this?


----------



## preproman

Quote: 





jtinto said:


> That's cool, thanks
> I was just wondering if differences might show up at higher bit or sampling rates


 
  I've noticed with the NAD m51 that it really shines with high res files..  I have the m51 and the PWD2 the NAD comes really really close to the PWD2.  In fact they sound the same on 44k and 48k files It's when I get to 96k and 192k is where the PWD2 starts to pull away, but not by much.
   
  I'm also interested in the Mytek because it has analog, bypass and digital volume controls and the Saber chip.  I want to connect it straight to my amp and use the analog volume control.
   
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CkyrDIGzOE


----------



## olor1n

I thought the M51 was very well regarded as a preamp. Its digital volume control is meant to be very good as its 35bit and there's no truncation of data until -66dB.


----------



## preproman

So at -66dB can we even hear that? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  The Mytek has DSD as well.  No that I'll ever have any DSD files.  It'll be good to play with.


----------



## kocl

Quote: 





afwannabe said:


> Have you tried emailing NAD about this?


 
  Yes, no plans.


----------



## ehlarson

Quote: 





preproman said:


> I've noticed with the NAD m51 that it really shines with high res files..  I have the m51 and the PWD2 the NAD comes really really close to the PWD2.  In fact they sound the same on 44k and 48k files It's when I get to 96k and 192k is where the PWD2 starts to pull away, but not by much.
> 
> I'm also interested in the Mytek because it has analog, bypass and digital volume controls and the Saber chip.  I want to connect it straight to my amp and use the analog volume control.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CkyrDIGzOE


 
   
  The Mytek has a lesser Sabre chip though.


----------



## preproman

Quote: 





ehlarson said:


> The Mytek has a lesser Sabre chip though.


 
   
   
  So what does that mean?


----------



## woodcans

It's extraordinarily well regarded by me as a preamp. The volume control/preamp function is excellent. As a matter of fact, it truly shines when used as dac AND preamp. 



olor1n said:


> I thought the M51 was very well regarded as a preamp. Its digital volume control is meant to be very good as its 35bit and there's no truncation of data until -66dB.


----------



## Kclone

I got mine form the Fed Ex guy.   In the system now.  Question on burn in.  Does the sound change that much with this unit and if so how long before it comes into it's own?  Thanks.


----------



## danik97

Quote: 





kclone said:


> I got mine form the Fed Ex guy.   In the system now.  Question on burn in.  Does the sound change that much with this unit and if so how long before it comes into it's own?  Thanks.


 
  Congrat's.
  Sure, burn-in notable always. After 100-200hrs sound will be more lively.


----------



## The Monkey

Quote: 





kclone said:


> I got mine form the Fed Ex guy.   In the system now.  Question on burn in.  Does the sound change that much with this unit and if so how long before it comes into it's own?  Thanks.


 
   
  No, it doesn't.


----------



## Kclone

Quote: 





the monkey said:


> No, it doesn't.


 
  Oh, so no really change with burn in?  This DAC is good, but I guess I don't see it worth all the praise it has received so far.  That is why I was asking if perhaps there was improvement ahead.  I am playing mine in a two channel speaker system setup.  I am running it from my Wryed4Sound Music server to the NAD and then direct to my power amp.  Speakers are Elac FS 249 Black Edition.  Prior to the NAD I was using a Primare Pre32 preamp with a built in media module (DAC).  The Primare was more lively sounding, more air and space.  Better dynamics too.  The NAD seems to put all the intruments on an even level.  In other words, on songs with multiple guitar tracks, the ones that normally faint in the back ground are more up front in the presentation.  It is interesting to listen to. So the lead guitars are the ones that are normarlly more prominent in the song are not as up front and more balaced with the other guitar lines.  In that sense, details are better with the NAD, you can hear everything better.  Also, the NAD is not offensive, not grating at all, which is a big plus.  I would like to see more space, air, and the vocals could be more up front and airy as well.  I will run the NAD through the Primare Preamp to see if the preamp combined with it can improve things.


----------



## mcullinan

Yah I would use it strictly as a DAC. With the preamp things should improve greatly. It's a great Dac with oodles of detail and its very fast. I felt the bottom end had less bloom which gave way to appreciating the mids more. Which is not necessarily a bad thing. Maybe it's more accurate? But as a pre it's good but not great.


----------



## HumanMedia

kclone said:


> I got mine form the Fed Ex guy.   In the system now.  Question on burn in.  Does the sound change that much with this unit and if so how long before it comes into it's own?  Thanks.




As mine was burning in, I thought there was very little burn-in change compared to some DACs I've had. After about 300 hours I noticed that it was more relaxed and that it had changed character. But again it wasn't as big a change as with other equipment.

I've also found it sounds better through my external tubed preamp than using the built in digital attenuation. (!?)

Also found its susceptible to incoming noise on the USB and spdif inputs (getting rid of electrical noise before it arrives improves it a lot). its also susceptible to noisy power (likes shielded power cords and up front passive filtration).


----------



## zenpunk

Sounds like a poorly designed piece of kit for the price.


----------



## shipsupt

What makes you say that after pages of praises?
  Quote: 





zenpunk said:


> Sounds like a poorly designed piece of kit for the price.


----------



## preproman

Quote: 





humanmedia said:


> As mine was burning in, I thought there was very little burn-in change compared to some DACs I've had. After about 300 hours I noticed that it was more relaxed and that it had changed character. But again it wasn't as big a change as with other equipment.
> 
> I've also found it sounds better through my external tubed preamp than using the built in digital attenuation. (!?)
> 
> *Also found its susceptible to incoming noise on the USB and spdif inputs (getting rid of electrical noise before it arrives improves it a lot). its also susceptible to noisy power (likes shielded power cords and up front passive filtration).*


 
   
  I use a USB converter to AES/EBU so no noise for me.  I also haven't noticed any power related noise.


----------



## zenpunk

Thanks Preproman. I was indeed commenting on the previous post, which sounded to me like pure audiofool BS. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  Measurements on Stereophile actually proved the opposite is true.


----------



## Happy Camper

preproman said:


> I use a USB converter to AES/EBU so no noise for me.  I also haven't noticed any power related noise.  :blink:


Have you experienced the lack of noise for reference to notice? Power isolation transformers are good for digital gear. Removing the RF and other frequencies inducted into power lines lets the DAC power supply do it's job better. Usually relates to a quieter background and better imaging. Apartment living shares a lot of common noise throughout the wiring of the building. If you notice your gear sounding better at night, you could use some power conditioning. IMO


----------



## preproman

Quote: 





happy camper said:


> Have you experienced the lack of noise for reference to notice? Power isolation transformers are good for digital gear. Removing the RF and other frequencies inducted into power lines lets the DAC power supply do it's job better. Usually relates to a quieter background and better imaging. Apartment living shares a lot of common noise throughout the wiring of the building. If you notice your gear sounding better at night, you could use some power conditioning. IMO


 
   
   
  Well HC as you know all I have are the Emotiva Power Cords at the moment.  At this point I hear no noticeable noise.  I'll compare once I get one of those isolation transformers.  As for right now I would have to say to difference will be very subtle.  We'll see.


----------



## Happy Camper

preproman said:


> Well HC as you know all I have are the Emotiva Power Cords at the moment.  At this point I hear no noticeable noise.  I'll compare once I get one of those isolation transformers.  As for right now I would have to say to difference will be very subtle.  We'll see.


:veryevil: the journey continues down the hobbyhole.


----------



## Eddie Q

-1dB


----------



## shipsupt

I've been having some issues with my M51 when feeding my SRM-717 through balanced cables.  The thought at this time is that I'm getting some DC that is tripping the 717 protection.  I have a message into NAD and I plan to try and measure the output to see if I can confirm it.
   
  Outside of that I am very happy with the M51 and hope to resolve this so I can continue to enjoy it!
   
  Chris


----------



## The Monkey

Quote: 





shipsupt said:


> I've been having some issues with my M51 when feeding my SRM-717 through balanced cables.  The thought at this time is that I'm getting some DC that is tripping the 717 protection.  I have a message into NAD and I plan to try and measure the output to see if I can confirm it.
> 
> Outside of that I am very happy with the M51 and hope to resolve this so I can continue to enjoy it!
> 
> Chris


 
   
  Hmm...that's disconcerting.  Consider posting in the Stax thread.  Maybe some help over there.  Please keep us posted.


----------



## shipsupt

Thanks, already tapping into those guys too... A few things to note:

 I never had any issues using the RCA out
 I added some 10db attenuators into the line and I have not had a drop out since, I've played the combo for hours now with no issues, sounds great
 There have been no other issues with my other amps, everything runs fine, sounds great
   
  A few M51 owners pointed out that you need to be careful of the XLR wiring as it can be different in different parts of the world.  I have to admit I did not check this and it could be related.  I need to check the diagrams on the back of the M51 and the 717 to see what differences there are if any on my particular units.  You can can see a little of that discussion here: http://www.head-fi.org/t/223263/the-stax-thread-new/20715#post_9081200


----------



## preproman

Using the NAD M51 as a preamp/DAC for my F1J / HE-6 combo.  Volume is set to -20db for comfortable listing.  I can crank it up to about -12 db before It gets to loud..


----------



## kr0gg

would you kindly compare it to your PWD mk2?


----------



## kocl

OK, NAD is here.
 First impressions, amazing piece.
  Tried all the inputs with same recording, despite i don't use USB in my opinion is the best.
 I connect hdmi CA 751BD throug denon in bypass mode and works fine.
  My friend took his dac, Resonessence  Invicta 4000 USD, to test with nad and the results are very good for nad.
 It cames close to it in every formats.
   
  Note: Resonessence  with DSD input file is simply amazing.
   
  NAD cames to stay.


----------



## drez

Tats good to hear, invicta is an incredible sounding DAC. I'm thiking of buyin m51 and comparing to my nfb7.32 sabre dac. I'm hoping it will be a moderate improvement.


----------



## Yogi-Gersh

Alright, let me first start by saying that I don't speak the "hi-fi language" but I do consider myself to have an excellent ear for accuracy.
   
  The machine sounds awesome, but I must admit that I struggled the first few days to find a connection set-up that did not result in a harsh clipping/screeching noise. I scoured the message boards looking for a fix, but could not find one.... I told myself if/when I find out how to fix this, I would share it on this message board for anyone else that needed help.
   
  The bulk of the discussion on these boards seems to be about it's sound quality, which it definitely fantastic! However, one potential downside that I've found, and I believe I've since fixed, is the set-up:
   
  For example, when I connected HDMI cables from my Direct TV and Apple TV directly into the DAC, and then used the HDMI out to the TV, I consistently had error/sound problems, almost like a sonic boom noise.... by using the DAC remote to switch from Direct TV to Apple TV is NOT the way to go (I also must tell you that my LG TV is about six years old, so that could also have something to do with my problems). .... the fix is when I went HDMI from Apple TV into DAC, with HDMI out from DAC into TV, then used a optical cable from my Direct TV into my DAC, and RCA from DAC straight into TV.... this creates an extra step to switch from back and forth (now you need to use the source button on your TV), but this definitely fixed my sound errors. You still need to change the source on the DAC, obviously, but you should also need to change the source on your TV.... 
   
  Weeks later I hooked up a Wadia docking station into the DAC... which sounds awesome. HOWEVER, if you decide to do this, I found that if I didn't take the ipod/iphone out of the docking station while trying to watching Apple TV, those same booming error noises would occur. If I took the ipod out of the Wadia, then Apple TV sounded perfect.
   
  Bottom line, I LOVE this DAC, but I did go through some big growing pains to get there.... hopefully this post will help anyone else that may be experiencing problems, or if you're about to buy one, to avoid them all together.
   
  I welcome any comments/questions.
   
  Josh


----------



## ecohifi

Hi everyone,

Does anyone have firmware version 1.39, I like to go back to this version, a few posters here have reported different SQ after loading 1.41, I think I have discovered something has been altered as my M51 has lower dynamics. If you can also direct me to the site for the boot loader.


----------



## Loevhagen

.


----------



## ecohifi

Did a quick comparision with firmware 1.39 and 1.41 and it seems like there is a slight dynamic change in SQ. Im going to do some more testing but it seems to me that the 1.39 has more impact than the 1.41


----------



## Boldlygo

somnambulist said:


> Indeed. I'm quite interested in the future in using a CAS (computer as source) - something like an SSD based laptop with an HDMI out and connecting it that way. The spec for HDMI 1.4 is good for audio, supposedly, and many people feel the M51's HDMI input is the best one when used with software which bypasses all the Windows/Mac audio processing/engines (e.g. Audirvana 1.4. on OS X with Direct/Integer mode).




Hi. I'm new to this forum. I currently own a NAD M51 and did extensive listening tests when I bought it last year. The first thing I did was to build a computer (I run my own computer business) running iTunes so I could use my I devices to control my music. I re-ripped my entire library using AIFF. 
We tested all sorts of devices through the NAD including a MAC mini and a laptop using USB, and an iPhone and iPad using Apple's HDMI converter. We then tested using a computer's digital outputs-coax and optical. We found the optical out from the computer sounded the best over everything else we tested. So I proceeded to build my music server using an SSD drive for the OS and a pair of 2 TB drives mirrored for the music library. 
I used the NAD as a pre and ran it in directly into my Lexicon amp (using balanced cables). But I thought something was lacking, so I acquired a used Ayre K-3x pre. I like this setup much better as the NAD was not the best pre. 

Now I'm thinking of adding a Stello U3 in-line after my computer and switching to the AES input on the NAD. I should have the Stello this Thursday to test so I'll try to write back and let you know how it worked out.


----------



## danik97

Boldlygo, Thank;s for your report.
  And also it would be intereseting to know about pair wsith Stello U3. Look at Bel Canto mLink too. There are very nice impressions on it. It is also $400 costs.
  I've ordered a Bel Canto uLink and wait it about after 10 days. Then may to share my experience if it would be interesting for someone.


----------



## Boldlygo

I may be wanting to sell my NAD M51. Is there any interest out there?


----------



## Somnambulist

Quote: 





danik97 said:


> Boldlygo, Thank;s for your report.
> And also it would be intereseting to know about pair wsith Stello U3. Look at Bel Canto mLink too. There are very nice impressions on it. It is also $400 costs.
> I've ordered a Bel Canto uLink and wait it about after 10 days. Then may to share my experience if it would be interesting for someone.


 
   
  U3 is more like £300 here, the uLink £500.
   
  I might bite the bullet and pay up for a Legato 2 (the newest revision) - at least I know it works perfectly with the EDO applet and has good specs. It's like $500 though isn't it? Argh, I wish converters weren't so expensive.
   
  Anyone selling an AP2 w/PP or U3 (I think I can get something to run that off mains rather than USB power)?!?!


----------



## Clemmaster

The Audio-GD DI-V3 might be another valuable option.


----------



## danik97

Quote: 





somnambulist said:


> U3 is more like £300 here, the uLink £500.
> 
> I might bite the bullet and pay up for a Legato 2 (the newest revision) - at least I know it works perfectly with the EDO applet and has good specs. It's like $500 though isn't it? Argh, I wish converters weren't so expensive.
> 
> Anyone selling an AP2 w/PP or U3 (I think I can get something to run that off mains rather than USB power)?!?!


 
  I thought about Art Legato II, but it;s warned me that it already twice was on trade-in forums.
  And AP+PP I dismissed because it has unnatural aggressive and fatiguating sound.    
   
  Quote: 





clemmaster said:


> The Audio-GD DI-V3 might be another valuable option.


 
  Yes A-Gd interesting to try not expensive option.


----------



## Somnambulist

It seems you need a certain firmware version or something to get compatibility. It IS nicely priced, plus you can buy the PSU and an upgraded clock with it. It's hard to gauge the performance of these things because very few people have compared them side by side.
  Quote: 





clemmaster said:


> The Audio-GD DI-V3 might be another valuable option.


----------



## Clemmaster

Quote: 





somnambulist said:


> It seems you need a certain firmware version or something to get compatibility. It IS nicely priced, plus you can buy the PSU and an upgraded clock with it. It's hard to gauge the performance of these things because very few people have compared them side by side.


 
   
  I need the firmware #3 on my NFB-27, the #4 won't work properly, for some reason (with EDO).
   
  IIRC Currawong said he preferred the DI-V3 over the AP+PP with his Calyx DAC, which is quite something already.
   
  The built-in USB-32 module in my NFB-27 is excellent too. It would not be fair comparing it to my Stello U3 though, since the latter is feeding the DAC through coax when the built-in feeds it directly with I²S.


----------



## KongKong

Quote: 





boldlygo said:


> I may be wanting to sell my NAD M51. Is there any interest out there?


 

 Why you want to sell it out?
  anything you don't like it pls share with us.
   
  Ken


----------



## Boldlygo

I like everything about it - but I'm getting a new Bluray player with a DAC built-in that may be almost as good, so why have 2?


----------



## vlach

boldlygo said:


> I like everything about it - but I'm getting a new Bluray player with a DAC built-in that may be almost as good, so why have 2?




Don't you want to compare the DAC performances before selling the M51?


----------



## Boldlygo

That's exactly what I'm planning to do today after I get my new piece. Will let you know!


----------



## Boldlygo

So I've compared the 2 and I will be selling my NAD M51 - I will put an ad in the For Sale section soon. You can also send me a private em.
   
  It's not that I don't like the NAD, I do, but I can't keep both pieces, and my new player's DAC will do me OK.


----------



## Happy Camper

boldlygo said:


> So I've compared the 2 and I will be selling my NAD M51 - I will put an ad in the For Sale section soon. You can also send me a private em.
> 
> It's not that I don't like the NAD, I do, but I can't keep both pieces, and my new player's DAC will do me OK.


Subtle has a cost many choose to refuse as too expensive a value. I respect that.


----------



## Boldlygo

Quote: 





boldlygo said:


> So I've compared the 2 and I will be selling my NAD M51 - I will put an ad in the For Sale section soon. You can also send me a private em.
> 
> It's not that I don't like the NAD, I do, but I can't keep both pieces, and my new player's DAC will do me OK.


 
  I have since sold the NAD.


----------



## woodcans

Just curious, did you ever use your NAD as a preamp?


----------



## Boldlygo

Quote: 





woodcans said:


> Just curious, did you ever use your NAD as a preamp?


 
  Yes I did - when I first got it. Worked OK, but felt something was lacking, so I purchased a used Ayre K-3x 2-channel pre and never used the NAD as a pre again.


----------



## kr0gg

guys!
   
  did anyone try updating the NAD's XMOS firmware to newer version?


----------



## HumanMedia

Quote: 





kr0gg said:


> guys!
> 
> did anyone try updating the NAD's XMOS firmware to newer version?


 
  Which is the newer version? 1.41?
  Yes I did, didnt like the sound and reverted back to 1.39.
   
  I wonder if there is a newer version than 1.41?


----------



## struggles

Quote: 





ecohifi said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> Does anyone have firmware version 1.39, I like to go back to this version, a few posters here have reported different SQ after loading 1.41, I think I have discovered something has been altered as my M51 has lower dynamics. If you can also direct me to the site for the boot loader.


 
   
  Was anyone able to find a source for 1.39?


----------



## danik97

Quote: 





struggles said:


> Was anyone able to find a source for 1.39?


 
  Yes, it is


----------



## struggles

Quote: 





danik97 said:


> Yes, it is


 
  Thank you!


----------



## Loevhagen

Is that the original FW - or is it hoax?


----------



## kr0gg

it's the previous one anyway


----------



## struggles

Quote: 





loevhagen said:


> Is that the original FW - or is it hoax?


 
  Mine came loaded with 1.39 and I went to 1.41 shortly after getting it home. After reading some replies regarding 1.41 I just wanted to take a listen again.


----------



## serg604

there is new driver from december 2012 for m51 on nad homepage


----------



## Danarama

I have been interested in this DAC so i can remove my pre amp out of the equation and control volume through it. Looking to get a second hand one soon. will compare it to my Audio gd i have.


----------



## HumanMedia

Quote: 





serg604 said:


> there is new driver from december 2012 for m51 on nad homepage


 
   
  Any chance of providing a link?
  (I had a look but could not find)


----------



## woodcans

Quote: 





humanmedia said:


> Any chance of providing a link?
> (I had a look but could not find)


 
   
  http://nadelectronics.com/products/dac/M51-Direct-Digital-DAC
   
  Bottom of page under Software. It's USB driver, looks like asio for windows. It does not appear to be a new firmware.


----------



## RedBull

Danarama, interested on the comparison with audio gd as well. Which model of audio gd do you have?


----------



## Somnambulist

If any of the UK guys would like to hear this, I'll probably be taking it to the London meet on April 27th, although as it's part of my speaker rig I need to find someone with a laptop to make a set up out of it.


----------



## Danarama

redbull said:


> Danarama, interested on the comparison with audio gd as well. Which model of audio gd do you have?




I have the audio gd nfb12 should not be in the same league or there is no point in upgrading.


----------



## RedBull

Yes, sure, for nfb-12 is not the same league


----------



## RedBull

Yes, sure, for nfb-12 is not the same league


----------



## Danarama

Quote: 





redbull said:


> Yes, sure, for nfb-12 is not the same league


 

 Im assuming this but am interested in the difference as i have been using the NFB for a while. Just have to find a M51 now


----------



## Danarama

Quote: 





danarama said:


> Im assuming this but am interested in the difference as i have been using the NFB for a while. Just have to find a M51 now


 

 My bad, its a NFB 5


----------



## dwk

Somewhat OT, but for anyone that ordered this over the 'net rather than from a dealer, did it come double-boxed or was it just in the NAD box? I'm having to ship my unit, and while the standard packaging seems solid I'm wondering whether double-boxing would be worthwhile. The main problem being I don't have a box large enough to be the outer box.....


----------



## kr0gg

the NAD box ix HUGE. double-boxing would make it a size of a small fridge.
  i wouldn't worry about the DAC falling from any height while in the original box


----------



## hifimanrookie

Quote: 





somnambulist said:


> If any of the UK guys would like to hear this, I'll probably be taking it to the London meet on April 27th, although as it's part of my speaker rig I need to find someone with a laptop to make a set up out of it.


 
  Am maybe not from uk..but amcoming to the london meet..am considering buying a m51 or a metrum octave ( they are workin on a usb version)..in the next months..so if u would be so kind to take urs with u so i can listen to it? I will be taking my laptop and my he500 with me....with hdmi cable. Pity i cant take my 337 with me as its to heavy...does the m51 pair well with a tube amp? Thanks for bringing the nad along if u will.


----------



## Clemmaster

Where did you get that info about the USB Octave? I've read on SNA forums they were working on a mkII with no other info...

let's hope they come up with a USB class2 device that can run directly off a Squeezebox!


----------



## hifimanrookie

Quote: 





clemmaster said:


> Where did you get that info about the USB Octave? I've read on SNA forums they were working on a mkII with no other info...
> 
> let's hope they come up with a USB class2 device that can run directly off a Squeezebox!


 
  As i am dutch based also i put on my talking shoes and called them..i even got their main man on the phone..i told them iwanted a octave but with usb...we talked for 15 min..he is a very passionate man bout his products and music..and he told me between the lines that they are working on an octave with usb implementation..just like their hex (he told me it will be exceptional)..he also told me..they are trying to keep the upgraded octave under 1000 euro.....it will still take at least 2 months to get it into production because of testing..but he advised me to keep an eye on their site for the coming months...and i will..thats all i know..


----------



## Clemmaster

Quote: 





hifimanrookie said:


> As i am dutch based also i put on my talking shoes and called them..i even got their main man on the phone..i told them iwanted a octave but with usb...we talked for 15 min..he is a very passionate man bout his products and music..and he told me between the lines that they are working on an octave with usb implementation..just like their hex (he told me it will be exceptional)..he also told me..they are trying to keep the upgraded octave under 1000 euro.....it will still take at least 2 months to get it into production because of testing..but he advised me to keep an eye on their site for the coming months...and i will..thats all i know..


 
   
  Thanks for the input 
   
  I'm going to wait too and probably settle with the Quad + DI-V3 for the time being.


----------



## Somnambulist

Quote: 





hifimanrookie said:


> Am maybe not from uk..but amcoming to the london meet..am considering buying a m51 or a metrum octave ( they are workin on a usb version)..in the next months..so if u would be so kind to take urs with u so i can listen to it? I will be taking my laptop and my he500 with me....with hdmi cable. Pity i cant take my 337 with me as its to heavy...does the m51 pair well with a tube amp? Thanks for bringing the nad along if u will.


 
   
  No problem.
   
  No idea about tube amps, I use it with active speakers as it's part of that set up. Headphone (well, IEM) listening is all done on my DX100.


----------



## zenpunk

@hifimanrookie,
  I wouldn't bother with the Octave if I was you as it is incredibly poor value for money. You can get equally good sound with many DACs that have better features for a lot less money.


----------



## Clemmaster

Quote: 





zenpunk said:


> @hifimanrookie,
> I wouldn't bother with the Octave if I was you as it is incredibly poor value for money. You can get equally good sound with many DACs that have better features for a lot less money.


 
   
  How do you actually feed the Octave with S/PDif signal?
   
  With a Stello U3, the Metrum Quad is much more enjoyable than my NFB-27  Technically, it's not quite up par with it (it's more in the league of the Reference 5.32), but the sound is crystal clear, involving and, above all, non-fatiguing.
   
  If you feed it with crapy S/PDif signal, well, yeah, it might suck...


----------



## zenpunk

I used the reclocked/ dejiterred SPDIF out of the MDAC. I thought the Octave sounded superb but not any better than the other DACs. Actually I spent four days trying to hear differences and I couldn't...
  It is just that value wise it just doesn't make sense considering it is featurless and the overall built quality is rather DIYish.
  To make things worse you admit you have to spend more money on a SPDIF converter for it to sound good.


----------



## hifimanrookie

Quote: 





zenpunk said:


> I used the reclocked/ dejiterred SPDIF out of the MDAC. I thought the Octave sounded superb but not any better than the other DACs. Actually I spent four days trying to hear differences and I couldn't...
> It is just that value wise it just doesn't make sense considering it is featurless and the overall built quality is rather DIYish.
> To make things worse you admit you have to spend more money on a SPDIF converter for it to sound good.


 
  They are bringing out a usb version within a couple of weeks..but we are here on the nad m51 apriciation thread..
   
  how does the m51 do if u take into account its even more expensive then a wyred4sound dac or a antelope zodiac? Anyone compared any of them?


----------



## hifimanrookie

Quote: 





clemmaster said:


> How do you actually feed the Octave with S/PDif signal?
> 
> With a Stello U3, the Metrum Quad is much more enjoyable than my NFB-27  Technically, it's not quite up par with it (it's more in the league of the Reference 5.32), but the sound is crystal clear, involving and, above all, non-fatiguing.
> 
> If you feed it with crapy S/PDif signal, well, yeah, it might suck...


 
  Yes i also understand that this dac is very dependent on the source/cables


----------



## Clemmaster

Quote: 





zenpunk said:


> I used the reclocked/ dejiterred SPDIF out of the MDAC. I thought the Octave sounded superb but not any better than the other DACs. Actually I spent four days trying to hear differences and I couldn't...
> It is just that value wise it just doesn't make sense considering it is featurless and the overall built quality is rather DIYish.
> *To make things worse you admit you have to spend more money on a SPDIF converter for it to sound good.
> 
> ...


 
   
  Yes and I also admit that the lower Quad sounds better than my $1500,00 NFB-27 DAC 
  Your M-Dac sync output might not be good enough for the Octave then...


----------



## hifimanrookie

Quote: 





clemmaster said:


> Yes and I also admit that the lower Quad sounds better than my $1500,00 NFB-27 DAC
> Your M-Dac sync output might not be good enough for the Octave then...


 
  Guys..not to go to much offtopic here as we are here for the m51..but metrum is working on an upgraded octave version WITH usb just like his big brother the HEX..they told me personally it will be something special..not just a plug in card..and they told me they want to keep it under 1000 euro also!! am very curious..they told me its scheduled in the next 2-3 months..they told e to check their site regularely..if the octave is as good as clemmaster says and it wont be needing a spdif anymore it could then be a real slayer then..we have to see..and now back on topic for an also outstanding dac i understand..the m51


----------



## zenpunk

Quote: 





clemmaster said:


> Yes and I also admit that the lower Quad sounds better than my $1500,00 NFB-27 DAC
> Your M-Dac sync output might not be good enough for the Octave then...


 
  How did you come to that conclusion? What was your methodology to compare those? Did you volume matched? Where those two DACs fed the same signal and plugged into the same amplifier so you could properly A/B them?
  Anyway, I had planned to replace my MDAC with a M51 but after my experiment my search for a new and better FOTM DAC stopped.


----------



## Clemmaster

Quote: 





zenpunk said:


> How did you come to that conclusion? What was your methodology to compare those? Did you volume matched? Where those two DACs fed the same signal and plugged into the same amplifier so you could properly A/B them?
> Anyway, I had planned to replace my MDAC with a M51 but after my experiment my search for a new and better FOTM DAC stopped.


 
   
  The thing is, I don't need to actually perform A/B testings to tell (nor do I have to match volume). Which means the difference between the 2 is not just subtle and I could never be wrong in a proper A/B test.
  The Metrum sound more natural, never fatiguing and transparent.
  The NFB-27 is more technical (tighter bass - too tight for me even - , wider sound-stage, more "reference" presentation, ...), more dynamic, but hard sometimes, which, in my case, involves fatigue. 
   
  Anyway, back to the M51 (which is out of reach for me 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




).


----------



## hifimanrookie

Quote: 





zenpunk said:


> How did you come to that conclusion? What was your methodology to compare those? Did you volume matched? Where those two DACs fed the same signal and plugged into the same amplifier so you could properly A/B them?
> Anyway, I had planned to replace my MDAC with a M51 but after my experiment my search for a new and better FOTM DAC stopped.


 
  So ur saying a m51 doesnt completely annihilate the mdac soundwise?interesting..


----------



## preproman

Quote: 





zenpunk said:


> How did you come to that conclusion? What was your methodology to compare those? Did you volume matched? Where those two DACs fed the same signal and plugged into the same amplifier so you could properly A/B them?
> Anyway, I had planned to replace my MDAC with a M51 but *after my experiment *my search for a new and better FOTM DAC stopped.


 
   
   
  What experiment was that?  Did it involve the m51?


----------



## hifimanrookie




----------



## zenpunk

Sorry, I have never heard the M51, I was just in the same situation as Hifimanrookie. After reading all the glowing reviews I decided to try the Metrum Octave and I had already planned to get a M51 next.
  But After A/Bing the MDAC, Dacmagic, rDac and Octave, to my surprise I was unable to detect any differences.
   
  @ Clemmaster,
  I went through six DACs in less than a year and every times I was convinced the latest one sounded better than the previous. I even been arguing on here for and against certain units and was also able to describe how different they sounded, but now I am not so sure...


----------



## The Monkey

This thread is becoming a big pile of suck.


----------



## shipsupt

Apologies if I'm heading off topic here... but has anyone had experience putting the M50 and M52 together with the M51?  I've been thinking about getting my music off my PC and considering different options.  While this may not be the most economical solution I find the idea of having the complete line appealing, but I'd want it to perform well...
   
  If this is too far off the original topic I can take it elsewhere.


----------



## Somnambulist

Quote: 





shipsupt said:


> Apologies if I'm heading off topic here... but has anyone had experience putting the M50 and M52 together with the M51?  I've been thinking about getting my music off my PC and considering different options.  While this may not be the most economical solution I find the idea of having the complete line appealing, but I'd want it to perform well...
> 
> If this is too far off the original topic I can take it elsewhere.


 
   
  It's appealing, but ultimately files on a proper NAS seemed more appealing (and cheaper) - I'd rather keep the mechanical drives in another room then be able to access them from any capable device on the network with a bit of redundancy built in should drives fail - plus I didn't like the idea of not using something well-known/proprietary to control it all. Easier to go NAS > laptop/computer w/software or SBT type thing > DAC > speakers and way more cost effective. The M50 and M52 seem very expensive for what they are.


----------



## shipsupt

Thanks for that.  I have to agree that the cost probably makes it a non-starter.  When I consider what I could drop $5k on in my system I find it hard to even consider it, but as I said it has a strange appeal to me still.
   
  The M52 does appear to have raid back-up built in.
   
  I am making the assumption from the reading the specifications that you'd want to connect the M50 to the M51 using HDMI?


----------



## Somnambulist

I'd have to check. The thing is, HDDs make noise, so I'd much rather have the drives/NAS in another room, away from the listening area. I got my NAS for £100 (HP Microserver) as they were doing £100 cashback on it, SBT 2nd hand for like £100 as well, then I just need a USB to S/PDIF converter that plays nice with the SBT's EDO app. That should be a whole lot less than the admittedly nice looking triple NAD stack, and money I could spend on better speakers/headphones etc.


----------



## Baxide

That was a good price on the SBT. You can use a large capacity SSD instead of a traditional HD but they don't come cheap. I had to resort to a SSD after trying, and failing, to get the SBT to play 192KHz WAV files without buffering.


----------



## deluxman

Quote: 





olor1n said:


> Well, The Monkey was right about the slight warm tilt. The NAD on initial listen presents a fuller sound than the Gungnir. The Schiit may have the slight edge in terms of depth, but the M51 is less abrasive overall. The Gungnir has a tendency to spotlight micro details at all times. Exciting at first, tiring and unnatural in the long term. The NAD is just as detailed, but there's better (micro) dynamic range. It's not always in your face, though it can be explosive when called for. The Gungnir has less finesse. It's like a Grado/Alessandro in its presentation.
> 
> The other notable improvement is the smoothness of the upper registers. The Gungnir has a slight etch in this region. The M51 has the same extension, without the harshness and without sacrificing any aspect of the SQ.
> 
> Some have tried to pin the source of my gripes to the Mjolnir (aggressive/forward) or HD800 (bright/harsh). I've lived with these components for some time now and in different configurations. I suspected that these components were merely presenting the signal as fed from the source. I was right. The M51 wins.


 

 Hi  Olor1n,
  I am currently owning the Gungnir and looks like you may have owned one too. I am thinking of getting the M51 and would like to get your opinion if the M51 is significantly better in SQ over the Gungnir. If you are to give an overall total score, how much would you give to the Gungnir vs the M51? Like you said, I find that the Gungnir is not quite full body in its sound quality but it is non-fatiguing to me thus far.


----------



## olor1n

Those were my initial impressions when the M51 first entered the stable. I've lived with the NAD for some time now and the only thing I would retract is the comment on depth. There is nothing the M51 concedes to the Gungnir in terms of SQ. The only thing I wish the M51 had that the Gungnir features is the additional set of RCA outputs. That's it.
   
  Not going to wax lyrical about how much better it is, other than to say the M51 is unobtrusive. I'm not necessarily talking about transparency and neutrality in the absolute sense. Just that there is nothing distracting to my ears about how it presents my music. It gets out of the way and for me that justifies the expense.
   
  Note: In Australia, the Gungnir is a $1k+ DAC, while the M51 can be secured brand new for <$1.4k. In this market the Schiit is overpriced and the M51 is an absolute steal. Perhaps the comparison is an unfair one. Bottom-line for me though is that the Gungnir is a stopgap component if you're going beyond mid-tier cans and you also have considerations like speakers.


----------



## Somnambulist

I'm currently just going to go with a nice glass optical cable for now, as it goes, seeing as it's the galvanically isolated connection, so yeah. I wouldn't mind trying a good USB to S/PDIF reclocker, but I'd rather spend a few hundred quid on room treatment first as this is really going to step the SQ up over everything else. Just looking round at different cables while I'm at work lol.
   
  Quote: 





boldlygo said:


> Hi. I'm new to this forum. I currently own a NAD M51 and did extensive listening tests when I bought it last year. The first thing I did was to build a computer (I run my own computer business) running iTunes so I could use my I devices to control my music. I re-ripped my entire library using AIFF.
> We tested all sorts of devices through the NAD including a MAC mini and a laptop using USB, and an iPhone and iPad using Apple's HDMI converter. We then tested using a computer's digital outputs-coax and optical. We found the optical out from the computer sounded the best over everything else we tested. So I proceeded to build my music server using an SSD drive for the OS and a pair of 2 TB drives mirrored for the music library.


----------



## shipsupt

I just happened to move my box today while doing a little organizing, the M51 is double boxed.  The outer box is set up to be a tight fit around the innerbox, but it is double.  At least mine is...
  Quote: 





dwk said:


> Somewhat OT, but for anyone that ordered this over the 'net rather than from a dealer, did it come double-boxed or was it just in the NAD box? I'm having to ship my unit, and while the standard packaging seems solid I'm wondering whether double-boxing would be worthwhile. The main problem being I don't have a box large enough to be the outer box.....


----------



## ecapsretliab

Just swapped out my Calyx 24/192 for a NAD M51 feeding an Ayre AX-7E.  
   
  The M51 has a unique character.  The Calyx and NAD are very different in my system...I shall keep digesting the pros and cons.


----------



## preproman

Quote: 





ecapsretliab said:


> Just swapped out my Calyx 24/192 for a NAD M51 feeding an Ayre AX-7E.
> 
> The M51 has a unique character.  The Calyx and NAD are very different in my system...I shall keep digesting the pros and cons.


----------



## estreeter

Quote: 





ecapsretliab said:


> Just swapped out my Calyx 24/192 for a NAD M51 feeding an Ayre AX-7E.
> 
> The M51 has a unique character.  The Calyx and NAD are very different in my system...I shall keep digesting the pros and cons.


 
   
  Congratulations - you now have one of the DACs I want to audtion and the amp I _lust after_. Very keen to hear more impressions once the combination has settled in. The Ayre may only be rated at 50W, but I have yet to see an unfavourable listening impression. Ayre seems to be a quiet achiever.


----------



## deluxman

M51 owners....have any of you compared to Mytek 192 DAC?


----------



## ecapsretliab

This only relates to Calyx 24/192 sound character relative to M51. 
   
  win7 > jriver/jplay > jkspdif mk3 > dac > ayre ax-7e > role audio kayak + sub @ very close desktop distance (not using my HE-6's at the moment)
   
*CALYX 24/192*
   
*treble*
  + smooth and relaxed.  (gentle leading edges).  nuanced and clean.   — _might dull a dark system._
*mids*
  + neutral and clean.  (favors transparency above warmth and presence).   — _might lack flesh for some tastes.   _
*bass*
  + tight, clean, and fast.  (grip).
*dynamics*
  + more focus on micro over macro.  always remains smooth and flowing.   — _can lack a little leading edge impact._
*sound-stage*
  + pretty wide.  deep.  laid-back.   — _scales instruments small. _
*imaging*
  + focused, dimensional.  images can float with good speakers.   — _front-stage not the most immediate._
*detail*
  + less forwardness and less presence means > foreground detail doesn't overshadow background detail. 
*character*
  + straight studio sound without edge or aggressiveness.  clean with a somewhat _'digital bent'_.  crystaline.
*synergy*
  + partner with "un-solid-state sounding" lively-organic leaning equipment.  dac won't add extra punch, sparkle, warmth or larger than life scale.   
   
*NAD M51*
   
*treble*
  + sparkles.  breathy.  excellent decay.  sweetness.   — _could still potentially overwhelm a bright forward setup._
*mids*
  + blooming.  warm and full.  vocals in the flesh.  strings sing.   — _congesting of mid-band and forwardness might not suit all.   _
*bass*
  + weighty.   — _sometimes lacking zip (a little thick)._
*dynamics *
  + micro and macro excellent, while sound always flows like silk.
*sound-stage*
  + width very impressive.  (puts you front row).  scales music big.   — _though performers placed on a shallow stage._
*imaging *
  + left to right imaging excellent.   — _front to back separation bunched (2D perspective)._
*detail*
  + very detailed.   — _though the forward syrupy mids and strong-presence have the effect of reduced mid-range transparency._
*character*
  + lush and crisp.  airy highs and very tubey mids.   — _minus strong image depth rendition._
*synergy *
  + system lack luster?  hate digital?  timbre freak?  here's your dac.
   
  **ymmv imho and all the usual bollocks.**  above heavily influenced by my taste, speakers, amp and dumb ears.
   



Spoiler: Some%20musings



 
  The M51 reminds me of my brief encounter with the Spendor SA1.  Warmth, timbre, beauty, air.  But we just didn't get along on my desktop.
   
  I've come to the conclusion that the M51's charm isn't to my taste.  Too forward in the mids and an over exuberant presence, and it doesn't give me image depth.
   
  I favor holographic imaging, and a laid-back sound signature.
   
  Can anyone recommend me a Calyx on steroids?  You see the Calyx is great to my ears, just too polite/distant.  If it scaled the music bigger/potent, added a touch of warmth & treble edge, while maintaining a laid-back-transparent character, I'd be a happy camper.
   
  I hope this comparison was useful to someone.  Sorry I'm not a professional writer or reviewer, but did my best to categorize the two dacs.


----------



## Argo Duck

^ that's very useful. Cheers.


----------



## olor1n

Quote: 





argo duck said:


> ^ that's very useful. Cheers.


 
   
  I haven't heard the Calyx, but the M51 impressions are spot on. That post describes everything I love about the NAD.


----------



## Argo Duck

Thanks olor1n. Haven't heard the Calyx either so that's good to know.


----------



## estreeter

All that stuff on the Calyx and the M51, but _not a single word on the Ayre_, As the nutter who started this thread *months ago*, I demand at least a thousand words on the Ayre.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  (Did I say months ago ? It's almost a year old and still going strong - we should have a cake and everything)


----------



## ecapsretliab

Quote: 





estreeter said:


> All that stuff on the Calyx and the M51, but _not a single word on the Ayre_, As the nutter who started this thread *months ago*, I demand at least a thousand words on the Ayre.


 
  LOL.  of course sorry mate.  Just give me a moment to compose myself and I'll muster my thoughts.  Check back soon. 
   
  The Ayre is pretty hard to describe because as the pro reviews have said, it is pitch black and imparts no character to the sound.  Treble is a paradox, silky smooth but stunning inner detail.  Mids are completely clean and bass is tight and articulate.  Spaciousness is probably my favorite aspect of the Ayre, with the Calyx I got a sound-stage that seemed _almost_ limitless.  I salivate at the prospect of trying a mega buck DAC on this amp.  So it's back to saving for me.  How much are kidneys going for these days?


----------



## roger7

Hi
Some differences between 1.41 and 1.39 firmware I've found.
1.41 has :
- fixed clipping at 0db
- slightly less bass slam/impact IMO.
- added Auto Off option. With Auto Off set to On, DAC goes standby after some time where there's no signal.
 You can it set by pressing Setup (you see Volume Setup), then press down

Roger


----------



## RedBull

Now that I have heard Calyx, its good to hear impression on m51. Thanks.


----------



## estreeter

Quote: 





ecapsretliab said:


> LOL.  of course sorry mate.  Just give me a moment to compose myself and I'll muster my thoughts.  Check back soon.
> 
> The Ayre is pretty hard to describe because as the pro reviews have said, it is pitch black and imparts no character to the sound.  Treble is a paradox, silky smooth but stunning inner detail.  Mids are completely clean and bass is tight and articulate.  Spaciousness is probably my favorite aspect of the Ayre, with the Calyx I got a sound-stage that seemed _almost_ limitless.  I salivate at the prospect of trying a mega buck DAC on this amp.  So it's back to saving for me.  How much are kidneys going for these days?


 
   
  Thanks.


----------



## estreeter

There was a brief mention of the M51's Masters Series siblings, the M50 and M52, earlier. While I agree that the M52 seems pricey over a standard NAS, I hope to audition the M50/M51 combination early next year. No shortage of impressions for the M51 - not so for the M50. Don't know if this was linked to earlier, but I found it interesting reading. Really looking forward to that audition. 
   
  http://www.the-ear.net/review-hardware/nad-m50-m52-streamer-server


----------



## Cante Ista

Quote: 





estreeter said:


> There was a brief mention of the M51's Masters Series siblings, the M50 and M52, earlier. While I agree that the M52 seems pricey over a standard NAS, I hope to audition the M50/M51 combination early next year. No shortage of impressions for the M51 - not so for the M50. Don't know if this was linked to earlier, but I found it interesting reading. Really looking forward to that audition.
> 
> http://www.the-ear.net/review-hardware/nad-m50-m52-streamer-server


 
  thank you!


----------



## Cante Ista

Re M50/M52
   
  Man, that is a hefty price tag! 3.5 K USD?! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I wonder how it stocks up against a Mac with Amarra. I was doing some research on taking my rig in the analogue direction -- i.e. vinyl -- but seeing this actually made me rethink my plan for few seconds. I would love to hook up the M50/52 combo to my m51 but I really doubt it improves on quality so much that the 100%+ price difference over Mac/Amarra set up is worth it (I dont know unlimited funds, unfortunately). Vinyl probably would eventually amount to similar price since I would have to buy records and components, but that I could build incrementally and still enjoy it as I am building. I don't know..... Still, if anyone has heard this set up and can comment, I would love to hear what you have to say. I am willing to change my mind.


----------



## shipsupt

I can almost get myself in the right frame of mind to pay for the M50, but I think I could do a nice NAS cheaper than the NAD storage device.


----------



## Cante Ista

Quote: 





shipsupt said:


> I can almost get myself in the right frame of mind to pay for the M50, but I think I could do a nice NAS cheaper than the NAD storage device.


 

 I hear ya! I guess you can always also plug in some large USB storage and play from there. Then later get the NAD storage. What really jumps at me in that review is the insinuation that this set up is the killer of vinyl. I know these publications tend to exaggerate things, but even so, it is quite an insinuation.


----------



## Somnambulist

You could do both cheaper really, I can't really see the attraction of £££ network players - on the Naim forums for example, many people prefer Windows/Mac based solutions (e.g. a headless SFF device using a USB to S/PDIF converter with isolated power) to Naim's own network devices. Sound wise they don't seem to find much in it, but more importantly it's the software - both in terms of user-friendliness and future-proofing that swing it for them.


----------



## preproman

I use unRAID:  http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php


----------



## Somnambulist

Me too! Well, I will once the price of the WD Red's drops a little more and I can populate my NAS fully...


----------



## estreeter

Quote: 





somnambulist said:


> You could do both cheaper really, I can't really see the attraction of £££ network players - on the Naim forums for example, many people prefer Windows/Mac based solutions (e.g. a headless SFF device using a USB to S/PDIF converter with isolated power) to Naim's own network devices. Sound wise they don't seem to find much in it, but more importantly it's the software - both in terms of user-friendliness and future-proofing that swing it for them.


 
   
  The obvious answer, for me anyway, is that I plan to audition the M51 with the M50 - if the *combination* doesnt blow me away, or the user interface for the M50 doesnt meet my needs, no harm done. Either way, I cant leave it to reviews or forum scuttlebutt - I have to hear that combination for myself. I have more than enough testimonials in this thread to know that the M51 is going to sound good with other sources - its this particular source which currently has my attention.


----------



## Cante Ista

Quote: 





estreeter said:


> The obvious answer, for me anyway, is that I plan to audition the M51 with the M50 - if the *combination* doesnt blow me away, or the user interface for the M50 doesnt meet my needs, no harm done. Either way, I cant leave it to reviews or forum scuttlebutt - I have to hear that combination for myself. I have more than enough testimonials in this thread to know that the M51 is going to sound good with other sources - its this particular source which currently has my attention.


 
  please do share when you audition it. I would love to know whether you have beem smitten by this combo.


----------



## hifimanrookie

Quote: 





cante ista said:


> Re M50/M52
> 
> Man, that is a hefty price tag! 3.5 K USD?!
> 
> ...


 
  Ever tried a product of blue circle audio in canada? They have the most analog sounding components around i understand.


----------



## Somnambulist

The 2011/2012 Mac Minis (not sure about other models) have optical outputs with jitter in the 10-20ps range - i.e. super low) and obviously optical is galvanically isolated, so none of the noise from the PSU is going to carry through. Nice glass cable and you're probably set to be honest. I'm going to get a refurb 2011 MM, up the RAM to 8GB, wack in an SSD and that'll be that I think. My SBT is going to end up in another room with my DIY speakers and the MM will look good with the M51 as they're both clean lines/metal.
   
  The thing with the M50 is I'm not convinced audio companies are great at making computers - a lot of these high end network streamers are just unremarkable mITX/mATX builds running XP and not particularly clean power-wise, and you can't play with different software (e.g. Amarra vs Audivana+ vs JR for Mac), with a 4 figure price tag wacked on. I felt like the M51 could justify it's expense (it was expensive for me, anyway!) but not the computer stuff in the Masters series.
   
  Quote: 





cante ista said:


> Re M50/M52
> 
> Man, that is a hefty price tag! 3.5 K USD?!
> 
> ...


----------



## Cante Ista

Quote: 





somnambulist said:


> The 2011/2012 Mac Minis (not sure about other models) have optical outputs with jitter in the 10-20ps range - i.e. super low) and obviously optical is galvanically isolated, so none of the noise from the PSU is going to carry through. Nice glass cable and you're probably set to be honest. I'm going to get a refurb 2011 MM, up the RAM to 8GB, wack in an SSD and that'll be that I think. My SBT is going to end up in another room with my DIY speakers and the MM will look good with the M51 as they're both clean lines/metal.
> 
> The thing with the M50 is I'm not convinced audio companies are great at making computers - a lot of these high end network streamers are just unremarkable mITX/mATX builds running XP and not particularly clean power-wise, and you can't play with different software (e.g. Amarra vs Audivana+ vs JR for Mac), with a 4 figure price tag wacked on. I felt like the M51 could justify it's expense (it was expensive for me, anyway!) but not the computer stuff in the Masters series.


 
  totally good call on mac mini. I have that one (in fact I think mine is 2011). It was has HDMI which I use to run to my receiver when I have people over and wonna listen on speakers or if I wanna watch HBOgo or anything else online on my big screan TV. If you do not have a receiver you can totally set up 2 channel system and pass HDMI from NAD to our TV. And if you do that I wold recommend Amarra if you are using iTunes as your player. I can hear the difference even though my speaker system which is only mid-fi


----------



## Cante Ista

Quote: 





hifimanrookie said:


> Ever tried a product of blue circle audio in canada? They have the most analog sounding components around i understand.


 
  i have never heard of it. Their site gives an impression a small company.


----------



## hifimanrookie

Quote: 





somnambulist said:


> The 2011/2012 Mac Minis (not sure about other models) have optical outputs with jitter in the 10-20ps range - i.e. super low) and obviously optical is galvanically isolated, so none of the noise from the PSU is going to carry through. Nice glass cable and you're probably set to be honest. I'm going to get a refurb 2011 MM, up the RAM to 8GB, wack in an SSD and that'll be that I think. My SBT is going to end up in another room with my DIY speakers and the MM will look good with the M51 as they're both clean lines/metal.
> 
> The thing with the M50 is I'm not convinced audio companies are great at making computers - a lot of these high end network streamers are just unremarkable mITX/mATX builds running XP and not particularly clean power-wise, and you can't play with different software (e.g. Amarra vs Audivana+ vs JR for Mac), with a 4 figure price tag wacked on. I felt like the M51 could justify it's expense (it was expensive for me, anyway!) but not the computer stuff in the Masters series.


 
  Does the mini has coax out/spdif out? Or only toslink out?


----------



## hifimanrookie

Quote: 





cante ista said:


> i have never heard of it. Their site gives an impression a small company.


 
  I didnt hear of it either before..but the ones who know this company is a gem...just like toxic cables..the owners love what they do and do their work excellent with products who sound very good at reseonable prices..just check google for reviews for the blue audio bc509/507 dac or their other products..
   
  so a small company does not to be bad ( see hifiman, they were small not so long ago) sometimes its even better as they can make WHAT U WANT...


----------



## estreeter

Quote: 





cante ista said:


> i have never heard of it. Their site gives an impression a small company.


 
   
  Most _boutique audio_ IS a 'small company' (often *one person*), and even the larger ones often have crap websites. Annoys me too, but I dont sweat things I cant fix. 
   
  Blue Circle doesnt need to advertise in the magazines - they have a loyal following that swear by their products - but Google will soon tell you that. Another 'small company' you might like to check out is AVA.
   
  http://www.avahifi.com/
   
  Like BC, AVA dont release a new product every 3-6 months, and they dont make anything for the '_iGeneration_' : they just concentrate on what they do best and leave novelty products to the likes of Bose. Long after those Bose SoundShockers are gracing landfill sites, BC and AVA amps will still be doing their job, day in and day out - these guys didn't just pull up in a white van outside Bob's Big Boy. 
   
  I had never heard of_ Decware _until I joined Head-Fi, and I still don't know much about ARC or Plinius. I guess we are all on a journey, but it beats the hell out of whatever's on TV right now


----------



## hifimanrookie

Quote: 





estreeter said:


> Most _boutique audio_ IS a 'small company' (often *one person*), and even the larger ones often have crap websites. Annoys me too, but I dont sweat things I cant fix.
> 
> Blue Circle doesnt need to advertise in the magazines - they have a loyal following that swear by their products - but Google will soon tell you that. Another 'small company' you might like to check out is AVA.
> 
> ...


 
  Well said!! What u say is so true...and i already checked google..thats how i found them..and after some mails i get more interested after every mail.
   
  .i also never ever hear of darkvoice before i by accident stubled upon a review for a he500 on which the reviewer said the 337 was one of the best pairs with the he500..so i had to try one at a friend..and u can see on sig what has happened 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  almost no one knows darkvoice...and ur right..it has a very loyal followers...as their products sound far above their price as they are made with love..not by robots..
   
  so i think i am going to jump on the BC train..to upgrade from my excellent 337..
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  ps..i will be checking audio by van alstine (AVA) also..just out of curiosity.


----------



## Argo Duck

+1. And concerning Plinius, yep it's a great company. I have the extraordinary (and huge)  SA-250 in my speaker rig. I had the opportunity to talk to Plinius' designer Garry Morrison years ago. Much as I've heard about Steve Deckert of Decware, you could not hope to meet anyone more approachable.
  Quote: 





estreeter said:


> Most _boutique audio_ IS a 'small company' (often *one person*), and even the larger ones often have crap websites. Annoys me too, but I dont sweat things I cant fix.
> 
> Blue Circle doesnt need to advertise in the magazines - they have a loyal following that swear by their products - but Google will soon tell you that. Another 'small company' you might like to check out is AVA.
> 
> ...


----------



## Cante Ista

just to make myself clear, I was criticizing the fact that they are a small company. my amps are from first watt, DNA, and I have a headamp coming in soon -- all small companies. I guess I was (very ineffectively) trying to elicit more info on them. Thank you for providing that.


----------



## Somnambulist

The 3mm mini jack (headphone output) doubles as a toslink output. The other options for audio output are USB and HDMI (if you're not using an HDMI monitor or the HDMI to DVI adapter cable for an older monitor) - with USB I'd be tempted to throw in a USB to S/PDIF converter, but then you're adding a lot of extra expense for cleaning up electrical noise and stuff like that. There seem to be people who find HDMI a great connection for audio and others who think it's pants - I haven't tried myself.
  Quote: 





hifimanrookie said:


> Does the mini has coax out/spdif out? Or only toslink out?


----------



## estreeter

Quote: 





cante ista said:


> just to make myself clear, I was *NOT* criticizing the fact that they are a small company. my amps are from first watt, DNA, and I have a headamp coming in soon -- all small companies. I guess I was (very ineffectively) trying to elicit more info on them. Thank you for providing that.


 
   
  I believe I've inserted the 'not' you intended to use in that sentence.


----------



## estreeter

Guys, I've spent a bit of time mulling over the whole 'music server' thing, and wanted to share my priceless (!) thoughts -
   
  - anyone who wants the 'best' homebrew server need only peruse the threads on Computer Audiophile to see just how much time and effort has been thrown at this, from Mac Mini solutions to the latest iteration of the CAPS server. From the basic 'buy this, install this, enjoy' recipes to some serious tweaking, it's all there for anyone who wants to go down that path and has the time to spend experimenting and, in some cases, freaking out when it all goes pear-shaped. No gain without pain, but be wary of one or two who seem to have a new 'Eureka !' moment with every machine they assemble.
   
  - when someone like project86 tells me that his Auraliti does everything he wants from a music server, I take notice. Enough said.
   
  - its easy to look at a commercial amp and say _'Man, that's $300 worth of parts selling for $2K !_', but that's great for folks with 10 years of DiY experience, not so great for those of us who couldn't solder to save ourselves. I see the commercial music servers in the same light. The difference is that many of us have slapped together a PC before - how hard can it be, right ? Even worse for those of us who know our way around the Linux command line and can write code/scripts to automate various things. Suddenly we are the _masters of the universe_, convinced that we know more than the likes of Gordon Rankin and Co. For the tinkerers, this is the only way forward, and the hobby most definitely needs those folks, but for those who arent so keen on endless tinkering, there is something to be said for a small box which:
   
            -  does one job and one job only 
            -  never, and I mean never, requires a keyboard and mouse to be plugged into it
            -  is a 'black box' in the face of idle fingers which may feel duty-bound to upgrade their Linux distro/kernel or whatever on their homebrew solution
   
  Long story short, I'm going to think of the M50 more as a very specialised CD transport than as a 'Linux box'. Just as I wouldnt pop open a CDT and start disassembling the internals, I have no intention of trying to dissect the inner workings of the M50. Anyone who has seen the tiny board inside will know that there isnt a whole lot of hardware - same deal as the sOTM USB board - so clearly I'm paying for whatever hours NAD have put into the software, and this is where the '$300 worth of parts in a 2K case' argument falls down IMO - it makes no allowance for the R&D needed to bring a product to market, particularly when it comes to jitter management. Unlike a CDT, however, many of us could do our own tweaking and build our own music server - choice is good - and ultimately it would be great to be able to audition the M50/W4S Music Server/Auraliti etc alongside a homebrew solution. I am also leery of the past firmware efforts of certain audio companies, but that seems to apply whether you pay $500 or $5000 - _caveat emptor_.  
   
  I've used a Mac Mini previously and it is a great little device,  but I couldnt leave well enough alone and was soon using it for movies and general-purpose computing. Similarly, I started working on a machine that was going to be a dedicated music server, using Linux, then found myself writing Perl scripts to generate Lotto numbers - clearly, someone needs to save me from myself


----------



## Cante Ista

Quote: 





estreeter said:


> I believe I've inserted the 'not' you intended to use in that sentence.


 
  oops! yes, thank you


----------



## Cante Ista

Quote: 





estreeter said:


> Guys, I've spent a bit of time mulling over the whole 'music server' thing, and wanted to share my priceless (!) thoughts -
> 
> - anyone who wants the 'best' homebrew server need only peruse the threads on Computer Audiophile to see just how much time and effort has been thrown at this, from Mac Mini solutions to the latest iteration of the CAPS server. From the basic 'buy this, install this, enjoy' recipes to some serious tweaking, it's all there for anyone who wants to go down that path and has the time to spend experimenting and, in some cases, freaking out when it all goes pear-shaped. No gain without pain, but be wary of one or two who seem to have a new 'Eureka !' moment with every machine they assemble.
> 
> ...


 
  Thank you for your thoughts! That are indeed helpful and put things in perspective (and are thus indeed priceless ). I hear ya on R&D costs. I wonder though, how much someone would have to spend on an analogue gear to get the same performance of the NAD stack playing lossless files. The reviewer brought this up and I think that is quite a statement b/c good turntables can  really deliver but top out much higher than digital gear so I wonder whether we are comparing here in relative terms (within certain price range) or absolute terms.


----------



## estreeter

I doubt that the analog-vs-digital debate will end anytime soon, and I expect that most who have shelled out for the M51 have made their own decision, at least for now. Just as buying a tube amp can mean spending more than the purchase price on tubes to experiment with different combinations, I don't see buying a high-end turntable as the end of that journey either. Cartridges, phono stages, tonearms - it's good business to give your customers so many choices. Plenty of debates on AK as to which turntable to buy at a given price point - choose your poison/religion, but we are fooling ourselves if we think one choice or another will mean we can have an 'end-game' rig, at least IMO,
   
  Perfect world, I'd have one of _everything_, but for now I'll remain in the digital camp. I was there when vinyl was the *only* real media and I see it all through considerably less rosy glasses, having lugged milkcrates full of vinyl from one abode to another. It gets old surprisingly quickly.


----------



## Cante Ista

Quote: 





estreeter said:


> I doubt that the analog-vs-digital debate will end anytime soon, and I expect that most who have shelled out for the M51 have made their own decision, at least for now. Just as buying a tube amp can mean spending more than the purchase price on tubes to experiment with different combinations, I don't see buying a high-end turntable as the end of that journey either. Cartridges, phono stages, tonearms - it's good business to give your customers so many choices. Plenty of debates on AK as to which turntable to buy at a given price point - choose your poison/religion, but we are fooling ourselves if we think one choice or another will mean we can have an 'end-game' rig, at least IMO,
> 
> Perfect world, I'd have one of _everything_, but for now I'll remain in the digital camp. I was there when vinyl was the *only* real media and I see it all through considerably less rosy glasses, having lugged milkcrates full of vinyl from one abode to another. It gets old surprisingly quickly.


 
  glad to hear you say that! wherever I post the question (digi vs analogue) always get the positive towards the analogue. I appreciate a perspective of someone who's been there done that. It was a nice Chill Pill as I have been researching analogue gear. Thanks!


----------



## preproman

I'm in the process now of building the C.A.P.S. v3 (Just for Music).  I also use J. River on other dedicated PCs hooked up to TVs (Just for movies).  I don't think I'll ever go down the road of purchasing a commercial music server.  
   
  I enjoy the building process and hand picking the parts of your choice.  I'm sure commercial devices has their advantages - it just seems like it comes at a much higher cost.  There's really some outrageous prices out there for music servers.  I guess it also comes down to what features you want and are able to get.  So far - J. river can do all the things I need it to do.


----------



## Cante Ista

Quote: 





preproman said:


> I'm in the process now of building the C.A.P.S. v3 (Just for Music).  I also use J. River on other dedicated PCs hooked up to TVs (Just for movies).  I don't think I'll ever go down the road of purchasing a commercial music server.
> 
> I enjoy the building process and hand picking the parts of your choice.  I'm sure commercial devices has their advantages - it just seems like it comes at a much higher cost.  There's really some outrageous prices out there for music servers.  I guess it also comes down to what features you want and are able to get.  So far - J. river can do all the things I need it to do.


 
  That sound cool Preproman!
  I will def pick your brain about this. Unfortunately I have zero understanding about building computers and/or servers. But will def wonna hear about how you go about doing it.


----------



## preproman

Quote: 





cante ista said:


> That sound cool Preproman!
> I will def pick your brain about this. Unfortunately I have zero understanding about building computers and/or servers. But will def wonna hear about how you go about doing it.


 
   
  Like *estreeter *said:  Here's where it started:  http://www.computeraudiophile.com/section/c-p-s-489/  You can pretty much use what ever case you want.  I like these cases as well.
   
  http://atechfabrication.com/


----------



## Cante Ista

Quote: 





preproman said:


> Like *estreeter *said:  Here's where it started:  http://www.computeraudiophile.com/section/c-p-s-489/  You can pretty much use what ever case you want.  I like these cases as well.
> 
> http://atechfabrication.com/


 
  nice! thanks! I have been on that site but my lock of technical knowledge in that area makes me a poor judge of whats good info and what's BS. Still. someday, when I have the time, I will buckle down and get smarter on these things. (fatherhood as flipped my world upside down. Some times I have not time to take a $#!t -- if you'd pardon my latin


----------



## preproman

Quote: 





cante ista said:


> nice! thanks! I have been on that site but my lock of technical knowledge in that area makes me a poor judge of whats good info and what's BS. Still. someday, when I have the time, I will buckle down and get smarter on these things. (fatherhood as flipped my world upside down. Some times I have not time to take a $#!t -- if you'd pardon my latin


 
  Also this:
   
  http://shop.smallgreencomputer.com/Computer-Audiophile-Pocket-Server_c5.htm


----------



## woodcans

estreeter said:


> I doubt that the analog-vs-digital debate will end anytime soon, and I expect that most who have shelled out for the M51 have made their own decision, at least for now. Just as buying a tube amp can mean spending more than the purchase price on tubes to experiment with different combinations, I don't see buying a high-end turntable as the end of that journey either. Cartridges, phono stages, tonearms - it's good business to give your customers so many choices. Plenty of debates on AK as to which turntable to buy at a given price point - choose your poison/religion, but we are fooling ourselves if we think one choice or another will mean we can have an 'end-game' rig, at least IMO,
> 
> Perfect world, I'd have one of _everything_, but for now I'll remain in the digital camp. I was there when vinyl was the *only* real media and I see it all through considerably less rosy glasses, having lugged milkcrates full of vinyl from one abode to another. It gets old surprisingly quickly.




x2 here. And the m51/Off Ramp 5/MBP/Amarra combo is what led me to sell off all of my analog gear. I now listen to music much more often and get much more enjoyiment out of it. I will say, in my younger days when I had free time, probably would have kept them both, but this digital is very, very good. And very musical.


----------



## Cante Ista

Thanks guys! Appreciate the insights


----------



## Uncle00Jesse

do setups including the OR5 or just a high end dac like the m51 show their benefits if the source material is mainly 320k MOG tracks? i do have some better flac recordings, however i do most of my listening with MOG. for the amount of artist swapping that i do while listening, i couldn't imagine having to buy each and every album. streaming services are absolutely amazing for me. i'm just trying to gauge whether moving up the dac pecking order would make a nice upgrade.


----------



## estreeter

Quote: 





cante ista said:


> glad to hear you say that! wherever I post the question (digi vs analogue) always get the positive towards the analogue. I appreciate a perspective of someone who's been there done that. It was a nice Chill Pill as I have been researching analogue gear. Thanks!


 
   
  Yeah - I probably need to be a bit clearer, for the sake of any vinyl junkies out there who may be grinding their teeth. Back in the day, I had a 'record player' - it was a long way from the high-end turntables many of us lust after in 2013. Simply because I owned a lot of vinyl records, _that doesnt make me an authority on analog rigs _- far from it - I was merely commenting on the physical reality of having to cart and store that much plastic. I laugh when I see folk seriously debating whether a terabyte drive is enough to store their music collection, let alone video - I dont know know how many LPs that would equate to, but I can guarantee that you wouldnt want to hear the phrase 'moving day' ever again ...
   
  One of the longtimers at TAS prefaced a review by saying that, in his experience, when you get to the bleeding edge of both analog and digital systems, the 'differences' become so minute that they aren't worth discussing. The problem for those of us who are nowhere near the bleeding edge is simple : _when do I reach the point of diminishing returns with Rig A vs Rig B, and will I *ever* be happy with the sound coming from either rig ? _Plenty of folk will tell you that a good SET amp hooked up to sensitive speakers and a 'decent' turntable from Rega or Thorens is all you will ever need_ -_ these same folk can often be found discussing their latest purchase online, or the merits of tube A over tube B - nothing wrong with any of that as long as people looking to get into analog realise that its highly unlikely that they will be happy with their first, or second, or fifth rig - *its a journey*.
   
  Getting back to the M50/M51 combination - other than a little experimentation with power cords and interconnects, what are you going to do to improve on a combination like that ? A better rack ? Vibrapods ? Rewire your entire house ? I suspect that most folk will simply plug them in, get their music onto the M50 and start listening : spending valuable time wondering whether the end result is better or worse than you would have gotten for the same amount thrown at a turntable+cartridge+phono stage is, IMO, self defeating. When you buy a turntable, it will have a given level of performance - you may improve on that performance by replacing various parts, but none of it is software-upgradeable : NAD and others are offering the prospect of future upgrades for nothing more than the cost of a download. Exactly how that will pan out in reality is anyone's guess - Oppo have certainly had their ups and downs in terms of firmware upgrades, but I can also see some real upsides to the new model of 'buy now, upgrade later, all without ever having to ship the box back to us'.
   
  Finally, if you did buy the M50/M51 combination and it wasnt what you were looking for, would it be especially hard to sell it and move on ? I'm guessing that it would be no more difficult than selling a 3-month old Rega turntable - at least the NAD components have no moving parts, and you dont have to convince prospective buyers that your aftermarket cartridge is a good choice for that particular Rega.


----------



## Cante Ista

Quote: 





estreeter said:


> Yeah - I probably need to be a bit clearer, for the sake of any vinyl junkies out there who may be grinding their teeth. Back in the day, I had a 'record player' - it was a long way from the high-end turntables many of us lust after in 2013. Simply because I owned a lot of vinyl records, _that doesnt make me an authority on analog rigs _- far from it - I was merely commenting on the physical reality of having to cart and store that much plastic. I laugh when I see folk seriously debating whether a terabyte drive is enough to store their music collection, let alone video - I dont know know how many LPs that would equate to, but I can guarantee that you wouldnt want to hear the phrase 'moving day' ever again ...
> 
> One of the longtimers at TAS prefaced a review by saying that, in his experience, when you get to the bleeding edge of both analog and digital systems, the 'differences' become so minute that they aren't worth discussing. The problem for those of us who are nowhere near the bleeding edge is simple : _when do I reach the point of diminishing returns with Rig A vs Rig B, and will I *ever* be happy with the sound coming from either rig ? _Plenty of folk will tell you that a good SET amp hooked up to sensitive speakers and a 'decent' turntable from Rega or Thorens is all you will ever need_ -_ these same folk can often be found discussing their latest purchase online, or the merits of tube A over tube B - nothing wrong with any of that as long as people looking to get into analog realise that its highly unlikely that they will be happy with their first, or second, or fifth rig - *its a journey*.
> 
> ...


 
  I TOTALLY hear ya! That totally makes sense. the NAD stack is my next purchase. Just kidding! but seriously, this really makes sense -- thank you!


----------



## Cante Ista

Quick question, off the top of your head, does anyone know the sampling rate limitation of optical out on the M51. Is the the same as HDMI and USB or is that one more limited? I did a quick look up but I could not find it. I will try some more, but if anyone of you just knows this, please share.
   
  Thanks!


----------



## khaine1711

Quote: 





cante ista said:


> Quick question, off the top of your head, does anyone know the sampling rate limitation of optical out on the M51. Is the the same as HDMI and USB or is that one more limited? I did a quick look up but I could not find it. I will try some more, but if anyone of you just knows this, please share.
> 
> Thanks!


 
  The limit of all Optical (TOSLINK) at the moment is 24 bit/192 hz. Theoretically, TOSLINK can handle HD audio stream like HDMI; but at the moment, the SPDIF specification is capped at 24 bit/192 hz.


----------



## Cante Ista

Quote: 





khaine1711 said:


> The limit of all Optical (TOSLINK) at the moment is 24 bit/192 hz. Theoretically, TOSLINK can handle HD audio stream like HDMI; but at the moment, the SPDIF specification is capped at 24 bit/192 hz.


 

 Thank you very much. I am getting Audioquest Cinnamon optical today to compare to my starlight USB and Cinnamon HDMI. I am pretty much using the HDMI to feed music to NAD and HDMI to my receiver for speakers. Gonna check if optical beats USB


----------



## preproman

Check out locus design cables


----------



## Cante Ista

Quote: 





preproman said:


> Check out locus design cables


 
  already got one, but will def keep that in mind. 
  By the way, while i have not done precise comparison it seem that optical provides better separation, but the final this is far form final assessment. I will let y'll know sometime sunday what the differences are,


----------



## Cante Ista

"I can say you made a very good choice, at a recent meet the M7 was the only dac that pulled ahead of the rest of the midrange dacs pack we had present. The Anedio d2, pwd mk2, and the lynx Hilo were all too close to call at the meet but the m7 proved itself superior. I would love to have one!"
   
THis is a quote from a member on the Audio GD Master 7 thread who proceeds to say, when i asked for comparison to m51: 
The m51 was present as well. It was the only dac that wasn't up to snuff with the rest I felt.
z
   
I would like to know why. I am asking her bc this exchange was in a thread not dedicated to M7 or m51. I happen to like my m51, I cannot tell anything wrong with it, but wonna know if I am in fact missing something. IF anyone has insights please share


----------



## preproman

He really didn't have enough time with it.  I'm letting him hold on to it for a week or so in order for him to do a proper comparison.  This still is a tough group of DACs to go up against.  I'll be getting the D2 and the Hilo myself to do my own comparison.


----------



## Golotripa

Quote: 





preproman said:


> He really didn't have enough time with it.  I'm letting him hold on to it for a week or so in order for him to do a proper comparison.  This still is a tough group of DACs to go up against.  I'll be getting the D2 and the Hilo myself to do my own comparison.


 
  I will literally pay you to compare the M51 and D2


----------



## preproman

Quote: 





golotripa said:


> I will literally pay you to compare the M51 and D2


 
   
  It will get done by three of us.  So it's coming...


----------



## DTrewwye

Quote: 





preproman said:


> It will get done by three of us.  So it's coming...


 
  I look forward to your comparison of the D2 and M51!  Did my own some time back, would love to swop notes


----------



## hifimanrookie

Quote: 





preproman said:


> It will get done by three of us.  So it's coming...


 
  Can anyone compare the m51 with the metrum octave..and especially the new mk2 with usb module and only one box? Just like his bigger brother the HEX


----------



## preproman

Quote: 





hifimanrookie said:


> Can anyone compare the m51 with the metrum octave..and especially the new mk2 with usb module and only one box? Just like his bigger brother the HEX


 
   
   
  I have my eye on the HEX.  So the loser will be getting sold and money going towards the HEX..


----------



## Cante Ista

Quote: 





preproman said:


> He really didn't have enough time with it.  I'm letting him hold on to it for a week or so in order for him to do a proper comparison.  This still is a tough group of DACs to go up against.  I'll be getting the D2 and the Hilo myself to do my own comparison.


 
  thanks Prepromam
   
  I am sure looking forward to your comparisons


----------



## orkney

A quick comment on the M51 as a preamp -- I've been using it recently in this role, splitting my Luxman integrated to use only its power section. My initial impressions were that the Lux "LECUA" preamp stage provided more apparent body and texture (like a fine shampoo) and that I preferred it. But with more revealing speakers the NAD seems more transparent and accurate, and it may be a better preamp overall. This NOT the case, for example, with the McIntosh D100, which sounded brighter and more fatiguing as a preamp in all the systems we used it in.
   
  This is all to say that of the "digital preamps" I've auditioned recently, the M51 had by far the best-sounding preamp stage. It may not be the finest standalone DAC for all systems and tastes, but I reckon it's a very solid solution for those looking for a simplified DAC-to-amp setup. I was frankly surprised by how well the preamp functionality is implemented and by how good it sounds long-term.
   
  best,
   
  o


----------



## Somnambulist

The pre is one of the reasons I opted for the NAD. I use it with active speakers via the XLR outputs and it works great as a single box solution.


----------



## preproman

I'm not a fan of the pre amps / volume control being in my DACs.  I would rather them be build into the amp to take advantage of the superior analog volume control.  Although the NAD has one of the best digital volume control out there.  It's still not better than analog.  
   
  Just my thoughts..


----------



## Cante Ista

Quote: 





preproman said:


> I'm not a fan of the pre amps / volume control being in my DACs.  I would rather them be build into the amp to take advantage of the superior analog volume control.  Although the NAD has one of the best digital volume control out there.  It's still not better than analog.
> 
> Just my thoughts..


 
  what do you gain with analogue volume control? Thanks Prepro..


----------



## preproman

Quote: 





cante ista said:


> what do you gain with analogue volume control? Thanks Prepro..


 
   
   
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYjHKv2_OqQ


----------



## vlach

dtrewwye said:


> I look forward to your comparison of the D2 and M51!  Did my own some time back, would love to swop notes




I would literally pay you to share your impressions of your own comparison...please?


----------



## DTrewwye

It was some time back, lemme check the Anedio D2 thread.
   
  EDIT: You actually saw it before!  here: http://www.head-fi.org/t/568758/anedio-d2-dac-release/1155#post_9000923


----------



## Cante Ista

Quote: 





preproman said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYjHKv2_OqQ


 
  that was great! Thanks Preproman!


----------



## preproman

Quote: 





vlach said:


> I would literally pay you to share your impressions of your own comparison...please?


 
   
  Right now the m51 is with Happy Camper.  He's doing the m51 vs. Lynx Hilo comparison first.  Then the m51 is going to SoupRKnowva so he can do his m51 vs. D2 comparison.  I can tell you this.  SoupRKnowva is not a big fan f the m51.


----------



## preproman

Quote: 





cante ista said:


> that was great! Thanks Preproman!


----------



## Cante Ista

Quote: 





preproman said:


> Right now the m51 is with Happy Camper.  He's doing the m51 vs. Lynx Hilo comparison first.  Then the m51 is going to SoupRKnowva so he can do his m51 vs. D2 comparison.  I can tell you this.  SoupRKnowva is not a big fan f the m51.


----------



## roger7

It would be nice to have an android (or other mobile OSes) application to control the nad 
  I'm thinking of it because I'm lazy and I use smartphone with "squezeebox controller" to control Touch and other logitech players or to shutdown/restart/wake up computer with Logitech Media Server.
  Of course additionally there must be a computer or other hardware (with server part of such application) that can receive commands from mobile and should be equipped with serial port to communicate with nad.
  But it would be very nice


----------



## olor1n

People have reported degraded SQ beyond firmware 1.39. Mine functions perfectly on that version and I love how it sounds. The only thing that would make me consider updating from 1.39 is DSD playback.
   
  edit: I hate when people use edit to completely change their original post (eg the guy above). It distorts the context of the response.


----------



## Happy Camper

Wow. Listening to this level of DAC makes hearing differences very hard. It's a learning experience. Putting the thing on the balanced side has blossomed to it's full sound. So far, pretty evenly matched. I'm learning to listen again so I'll not comment further until a few days of experience between the two have been done.


----------



## olor1n

happy camper said:


> Wow. Listening to this level of DAC makes hearing differences very hard. It's a learning experience. Putting the thing on the balanced side has blossomed to it's full sound. So far, pretty evenly matched. I'm learning to listen again so I'll not comment further until a few days of experience between the two have been done.




Wait. You've been imparting impressions and you've gimped one of the components? Amateur shenanigans. 




preproman said:


> vlach said:
> 
> 
> > I would literally pay you to share your impressions of your own comparison...please?
> ...




I call shenanigans here too.


----------



## preproman

Quote: 





olor1n said:


> I call shenanigans here too.


 
   
  Ha ha ha  - Just where are these so called "shenanigans" specifically?


----------



## Happy Camper

Of all he's heard, prepro has yet to disclose his choices and opinions in confidence. 

Amateur - guilty. 

That's what makes this of some merit. No experience with previous gear of note. Just a relative snapshot of time to a relative noob to this level of DACs (from a CAL Sigma II). 

Prepro has generously offered time with 4) $2k+ DACs and nothing more. No agenda, no profit. Well, other than the listening experience. 

Project 86 warned this would be a hard task and I wouldn't find much difference but slight preferences.


----------



## preproman

Quote: 





happy camper said:


> Of all he's heard, prepro has yet to disclose his choices and opinions in confidence.
> 
> Amateur - guilty.
> 
> ...


 
   
   
  He's right.  Very hard to tell.  Unless you did like Chase did at the meet.  Go hide by your self and listen for a hour or so with each DAC.  It's almost impossible to compare DACs in meet conditions.  
   
  Just make sure both are on the same level playing field.  They let your ears take it from there.
   
  Enjoy:


----------



## vlach

dtrewwye said:


> It was some time back, lemme check the Anedio D2 thread.
> 
> EDIT: You actually saw it before!  here: http://www.head-fi.org/t/568758/anedio-d2-dac-release/1155#post_9000923




DTrewwye - You are so right and thank you for the reminder


----------



## olor1n

Quote: 





happy camper said:


> Of all he's heard, prepro has yet to disclose his choices and opinions in confidence.
> 
> Amateur - guilty.
> 
> ...


 
   
  Just messin' around HC. I trust you'll give an honest appraisal after an extended listen. I'm still curious if the other guy who wasn't impressed with the M51 gave it a fair shake too. His take that it doesn't stack up to the D2 is the first I've read. What firmware does the M51 have in place?


----------



## Happy Camper

I hope prepro will answer the question of firmware. 

I'm listening to it tonight with Zoe Keating's "Into The Trees". The harmonics are insane. The plucked strings and stringed bodies all resonating at the same time is quite a task.


----------



## SoupRKnowva

olor1n said:


> I call shenanigans here too.




Eh, you don't have to listen to what I say. I have no skin in this game, I just posted what I heard, and what I heard is that the NAD didn't compete on the D2 or PWDIIs level. Take it with a pile of salt if you want, but telling me I didn't hear what I heard is kind of rude. I've even sold my D2 at this point to fund other ventures, but I will continue to recommend it to other people, it's an amazing dac for the money.


----------



## olor1n

Quote: 





souprknowva said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  What? I never said that. You're being a tad precious bud.


----------



## hifimanrookie

Quote: 





olor1n said:


> What? I never said that. You're being a tad precious bud.


----------



## Cante Ista

Quote: 





souprknowva said:


> Eh, you don't have to listen to what I say. I have no skin in this game, I just posted what I heard, and what I heard is that the NAD didn't compete on the D2 or PWDIIs level. Take it with a pile of salt if you want, but telling me I didn't hear what I heard is kind of rude. I've even sold my D2 at this point to fund other ventures, but I will continue to recommend it to other people, it's an amazing dac for the money.





>


 
  SoupRKnowva, could you elaborate on what was better on the other DAC So many times we value different things, in addition to hearing things differently. No, hidden agenda here. I am perfectly willing to accept that the m51 has serious competition out there, including dacs that beat it. I just wonna get a better understanding here. And I think it is beneficial to have dissenting voices in threads dedicated to piece gear (where mostly everyone sings its praises), Even if you slam my beloved sac, I appreciate it -- just make it constructive please.


----------



## SoupRKnowva

Quote: 





cante ista said:


> SoupRKnowva, could you elaborate on what was better on the other DAC So many times we value different things, in addition to hearing things differently. No, hidden agenda here. I am perfectly willing to accept that the m51 has serious competition out there, including dacs that beat it. I just wonna get a better understanding here. And I think it is beneficial to have dissenting voices in threads dedicated to piece gear (where mostly everyone sings its praises), Even if you slam my beloved sac, I appreciate it -- just make it constructive please.


 

 As i said in other threads that i posted about the meet. I didnt have a great deal of time with each, and it was in meet conditions. But ill say the thing that stuck out like a sore thumb to me on the M51 was just how narrow the soundstage was in comparison to the rest of the dacs that were present, other than that it was just kind of a gut response, which probably isnt the answer youre looking for, but considering the situation, and a lack of any sort of long term listening comparison, thats all ive got


----------



## Cante Ista

Quote: 





souprknowva said:


> As i said in other threads that i posted about the meet. I didnt have a great deal of time with each, and it was in meet conditions. But ill say the thing that stuck out like a sore thumb to me on the M51 was just how narrow the soundstage was in comparison to the rest of the dacs that were present, other than that it was just kind of a gut response, which probably isnt the answer youre looking for, but considering the situation, and a lack of any sort of long term listening comparison, thats all ive got


 
  That's fair. Thanks!


----------



## hifimanrookie

Quote: 





cante ista said:


> SoupRKnowva, could you elaborate on what was better on the other DAC So many times we value different things, in addition to hearing things differently. No, hidden agenda here. I am perfectly willing to accept that the m51 has serious competition out there, including dacs that beat it. I just wonna get a better understanding here. And I think it is beneficial to have dissenting voices in threads dedicated to piece gear (where mostly everyone sings its praises), Even if you slam my beloved sac, I appreciate it -- just make it constructive please.


 
  Anyone compared the nad to the blue circle bc509 or metrum octave? Both are considered to be masters in 'natural' sounding.


----------



## Cante Ista

Quote: 





hifimanrookie said:


> Anyone compared the nad to the blue circle bc509 or metrum octave? Both are considered to be masters in 'natural' sounding.


 
  I am interested in those comparisons as well.


----------



## woodcans

Quote: 





hifimanrookie said:


> Anyone compared the nad to the blue circle bc509 or metrum octave? Both are considered to be masters in 'natural' sounding.


 
   
  In my system the m51 was a big improvement over the Metrum Octave.


----------



## Cante Ista

Quote: 





woodcans said:


> In my system the m51 was a big improvement over the Metrum Octave.


 

 could you elaborate on that? what improved? Thank you.


----------



## preproman

Quote: 





woodcans said:


> In my system the m51 was a big improvement over the Metrum Octave.


 
   
   
  How do you like that OR5?  How much of an improvement did it bring?


----------



## Cante Ista

Quote: 





preproman said:


> How do you like that OR5?  How much of an improvement did it bring?


 

 +1?


----------



## thathertz

So has anyone compared the M51 with the Anedio D2?
   
  Sorry for my sarcasm


----------



## hifimanrookie

Quote: 





woodcans said:


> In my system the m51 was a big improvement over the Metrum Octave.


 
  There is now an improved octave mkII..now with option of usb input..and in same enclosure and some specs from his bigger brother the hex..
  the original octave mkI is now cheaper with 695euros by the way!


----------



## woodcans

cante ista said:


> could you elaborate on that? what improved? Thank you.




Pretty much it improved everything. Dynamics, detail, naturalness of sound, soundstage, etc. it was one of those moments that once I put it in my system there was no going back. One caveat, I used it as preamp, therefore metrum was used in conjunction with a Dodd battery preamp whereas the m51 was DAC and preamp. Also, it brought new meaning to the term 'black background'.


----------



## woodcans

preproman said:


> How do you like that OR5?  How much of an improvement did it bring?




I consider the OR5 to be an essential component. It really makes my system sound much more realistic and there is no hint of 'digital' sound anymore. Instrument placement is much more precise and the sound is more 'cohesive' as a whole. Sounds a bit over the top, but honestly, the OR5/m51 combo has cured my upgraditis. Going on a year now. As a long time audiophile, this is a first for me.


----------



## auee

Woodcans, which Wireworld USB cable are you using and have you compared it to others? Thanks.


----------



## preproman

Quote: 





auee said:


> Woodcans, which Wireworld USB cable are you using and have you compared it to others? Thanks.


 
  Good point.  I was looking at the locus USB cables..  I think that's the name.


----------



## woodcans

auee said:


> Woodcans, which Wireworld USB cable are you using and have you compared it to others? Thanks.




0.5 m starlight cable. Had a 1 m purple cable and cannot discern a difference between the two.


----------



## Cante Ista

Quote: 





woodcans said:


> 0.5 m starlight cable. Had a 1 m purple cable and cannot discern a difference between the two.


 
  I have read somewhere that having off ramp makes a good USB cable less necessary. Maybe that is why cable upgrade is not as obvious, huh?


----------



## woodcans

cante ista said:


> I have read somewhere that having off ramp makes a good USB cable less necessary. Maybe that is why cable upgrade is not as obvious, huh?




Steve from Empirical says a fancy USB cable isn't necessary for it.


----------



## Cante Ista

Quote: 





woodcans said:


> Steve from Empirical says a fancy USB cable isn't necessary for it.


 

 There you go! Thanks for confirming. I am actually considering OR -- it is one of many options I am looking at for upgrading my source.


----------



## Happy Camper

If I2S is the data off the drive as read from the reader, would there be a difference in say a http://ciaudio.com/products/TransientMKII and the OR?


----------



## woodcans

happy camper said:


> If I2S is the data off the drive as read from the reader, would there be a difference in say a http://ciaudio.com/products/TransientMKII and the OR?




I don't entirely understand the science behind the DD converters. I have tried several in my system(s) and they do all sound different. Ime the OR has been the best, by a significant margin. Even improving the sound with the m51, despite the fact that many are happy with its native USB input. Having said that, I have not heard the CIA device.


----------



## orkney

Quote: 





woodcans said:


> I don't entirely understand the science behind the DD converters. I have tried several in my system(s) and they do all sound different. Ime the OR has been the best, by a significant margin. Even improving the sound with the m51, despite the fact that many are happy with its native USB input. Having said that, I have not heard the CIA device.


 

 Thanks for the report, WC, and glad you're still enjoying the setup -- OT, but how do you find the Lux power amp with the NAD? I'm thinking of moving from my M51>>Luxman integrated to M51>>power amp, and the 600a is on my radar but hard to find.
   
  best,
   
  o


----------



## woodcans

Quote: 





orkney said:


> Thanks for the report, WC, and glad you're still enjoying the setup -- OT, but how do you find the Lux power amp with the NAD? I'm thinking of moving from my M51>>Luxman integrated to M51>>power amp, and the 600a is on my radar but hard to find.
> 
> best,
> 
> o


 
   
  The Lux with the NAD is absolutely sublime. Highly, highly recommended! Oh, and don't take 30wpc too literally. This beast has TONS of power. Grips my Ushers with a death grip.


----------



## Lonely_Rider

Is anyone using M51 with Linux via USB? Does it work? I'm trying to use M51 with Linux Mint without success. The OS simply does not see it. M2TECH Two USB -> SPDIF converter is working OK.
   
  Edit: got answer from NAD support:
   
*This is known issue and we are looking at software fix for the M51 to work with Linux.*


----------



## roger7

That's why nad with edo doesn't work with touch via usb. It's the known problem. Touch system is based on Linux


----------



## roger7

Sorry. Should be touch with edo


----------



## Lonely_Rider

Quote: 





roger7 said:


> That's why nad with edo doesn't work with touch via usb. It's the known problem. Touch system is based on Linux


 
   
  Yeah. At least NAD engineering is trying to find solution. That's good.


----------



## cfcmick

Quote: 





woodcans said:


> x2 here. And the m51/Off Ramp 5/MBP/Amarra combo is what led me to sell off all of my analog gear. I now listen to music much more often and get much more enjoyiment out of it. I will say, in my younger days when I had free time, probably would have kept them both, but this digital is very, very good. And very musical.


 

 What is MBP in your set-up? And do you have the standard OR5, or the OR5 plus some of the options they offer?
   
  Thanks,
  Mick.


----------



## woodcans

Quote: 





cfcmick said:


> What is MBP in your set-up? And do you have the standard OR5, or the OR5 plus some of the options they offer?
> 
> Thanks,
> Mick.


 
   
   

   
  My OR5 has all the options, with the exception of the most recent one Steve just developed. I will be sending it in for that mod soon.


----------



## cfcmick

Quote: 





woodcans said:


> My OR5 has all the options, with the exception of the most recent one Steve just developed. I will be sending it in for that mod soon.


 

 Would that be the OTL option?
   
  Thanks.


----------



## woodcans

cfcmick said:


> Would that be the OTL option?
> 
> Thanks.




Yes


----------



## cfcmick

Quote: 





woodcans said:


> Yes


 

 Thanks for the replies.


----------



## woodcans

cfcmick said:


> Thanks for the replies.




More than happy to. Please Lmk if you have any further questions.


----------



## Somnambulist

Mine and Shipsupt's were at the UK Meet this weekend gone. Seemed to go down very well!


----------



## woodcans

somnambulist said:


> Mine and Shipsupt's were at the UK Meet this weekend gone. Seemed to go down very well!




Impressions?


----------



## shipsupt

Well, mine was set up in my system so folks were not really able to evaluate it on it's own. 
   
  Quote: 





woodcans said:


> Impressions?


 
   
  Quote: 





somnambulist said:


> Mine and Shipsupt's were at the UK Meet this weekend gone. Seemed to go down very well!


----------



## Somnambulist

I can't remember the guy's username (sorry!) but he put my NAD in his system (Macbook Pro Retina and Violetric amp with LCD2s) and was listening to it for about an hour - think he wants to buy one now.


----------



## Sleepaphobic

somnambulist said:


> I can't remember the guy's username (sorry!) but he put my NAD in his system (Macbook Pro Retina and Violetric amp with LCD2s) and was listening to it for about an hour - think he wants to buy one now.



Ya that was me . Thinking about selling a watch to fund it. Only problem is that it's a lot bigger than I thought it was making it a bit tricky to fit it on my desk.


----------



## Somnambulist

Yep, it's your typical 1U rack mount size in terms of hifi/stereo... certainly not aimed at the desktop crowd. I made it work back when I first got it by having my monitor mounted on the wall rather than using a stand, but now it's in a hifi rack with all my full size stuff.


----------



## danik97

stevie said:


> Hi all at Head-Fi happy new year,well ive been a very happy owner of Nad M51 for some time now and have to say it made up my mind to go completely digital with my music,squeezebox touch is great but doesn't do m51 justice so ive been on lookout for better source,my prefered imput on m51 is HDMI so needed something with quality that could output HDMI,week before xmas my Oppo 103 arrived and have to say this is one amazing piece of equipment,sound from m51 is another level,well worth investment,plus as far as picture quality goes there has been a massive improvement there also,oppo has hdmi imput also so have youview box been upscaled by oppo and results are exellent,the oppo network features are greatly improved from previous models and work very well,i treated myself to a new nas synology diskstation ds712+ with 6tb of storage to feed my all digital setup and have to say its fantastic all controlled with apps from my nexus 7 very happy and if anyone has any questions about any of the products ive mentioned i will try to answer,thats my wish list for 2012 complete time to get back to work as bank balance has taken a hit this xmas



Can you compare sound between NAD's USB and OPPO's coaxial output? How OPPO sounding better?


----------



## Jacky5555

Hi,
  I've been with a m51 for a month.
  I'm happy with the sound: open, spacious soundstage, detailed but smooth sound, the timbre is neutral, voice is natural (a little thin), bass is not realy deep but fast and detailed.
  However, I found a problem of the preamp, at the volome > 3db the sound become noisy with pops and cracks,..  noticablly.  Even the input was either usb or hdmi or coaxial (from a oppo 95 or mac mini+ AP2) it happened. At volume <=0db, the sound is still clean with black dead background.
  Then I talked to a dealer of Nad, they explained it a common issue of M51 (they tested many).
  But I don't agree so.
  Anyone here ever try the preamp loud enough (volume>3db) to test the issue?
  Other than this issue, I'm totally satisfied with the sound quality.
  Mine is the latest firmware 1.41.


----------



## Clemmaster

You're amplifying the signal in the digital domain: there's no guarantee you won't clip the signal by doing so.
The same can happen when upsampling the signal (overshoot).

I read some experience issues at 0dB: this, however, is not normal.


----------



## Stormfriend

I believe 1.41 includes a change to avoid clipping at 0db, but anything above that may have issues.  I use the M51 strictly as a passive preamp so I don't use it to boost the signal.  When I first took it out of the box I think it was on +10db or something, which clipped horribly.


----------



## Cante Ista

I had this issue but it went away after a while. I dont know how long it was there bc I dont normally listen that loud. I heard it first day I got it and then did not worry and just listened at my levels. Sometime later I checked it just out of curiosity and it was gone. 
  Quote: 





jacky5555 said:


> Hi,
> I've been with a m51 for a month.
> I'm happy with the sound: open, spacious soundstage, detailed but smooth sound, the timbre is neutral, voice is natural (a little thin), bass is not realy deep but fast and detailed.
> However, I found a problem of the preamp, at the volome > 3db the sound become noisy with pops and cracks,..  noticablly.  Even the input was either usb or hdmi or coaxial (from a oppo 95 or mac mini+ AP2) it happened. At volume <=0db, the sound is still clean with black dead background.
> ...


----------



## woodcans

I can't get near 0dB with system, it would be way too loud. And I like to turn it up. I am still on FW 1.39. Has anyone upgraded and noticed any improvements and/or ill effects?


----------



## olor1n

Yeah, 0dB is too hot. I usually adjust between -24 to -15dB so I have some travel on my amp's volume dial. I read elsewhere that the clipping issue at 0dB was resolved in firmware prior to 1.39. The big thread over at stereo.net.au has a change log. Many there also agree 1.39 is the best firmware in terms of sq.


----------



## Jacky5555

Thank you all, at least now i'm no worry for the deffective issue. -)
So it seems 0db is limit of the m51 up to now.
I had no idea before about the range of m51's volume which is from -90 to 10db, meaning 0db should be too hot.


----------



## Cante Ista

I feel kind of dumb for asking this so please be kind, but 
  1) where do I get updates for my m51?
  2) how do I check what FW/SW my m51 is running? 
   
   
  I am in the US, if that makes a difference. 
   
  Thanks!


----------



## paradoxper

Quote: 





cante ista said:


> I feel kind of dumb for asking this so please be kind, but
> 1) where do I get updates for my m51?
> 2) how do I check what FW/SW my m51 is running?
> 
> ...


 
Link 1.41
   
  As for checking FW, I can only find the guide via basically having you reset your FW.
   
   
  Press and hold front panel [INPUT] button.
  2 Set to ON the rear panel POWER switch while still holding on to [INPUT] button.
  3 VFD illuminates. Release [INPUT] button. VFD will show
   
   
  Within 3 seconds, press front panel Standby button and “RESET” will now flash.
  5 M51 will go to reset mode with the VFD showing “Factory Reset


----------



## woodcans

Quote: 





cante ista said:


> I feel kind of dumb for asking this so please be kind, but
> 1) where do I get updates for my m51?
> 2) how do I check what FW/SW my m51 is running?
> 
> ...


 
   
   I asked the same question and a fellow head-fier emailed me the FW. (PM me if you want it, I have 1.39). NAD might email it to you if you contact them.


----------



## Lonely_Rider

Quote: 





olor1n said:


> Yeah, 0dB is too hot. I usually adjust between -24 to -15dB so I have some travel on my amp's volume dial. I read elsewhere that the clipping issue at 0dB was resolved in firmware prior to 1.39. The big thread over at stereo.net.au has a change log. Many there also agree 1.39 is the best firmware in terms of sq.


 
   
  I asked from NAD customer support about sonical differencies between fw-versions and answer was:
   
*"We cannot disclose the improvements between the M51 firmware versions."*


----------



## The Monkey

I'll see if my contact can shed some light.


----------



## Cante Ista

thank you all for your responses!!! 
   
  @ The Monkey - I would really appreciate you posting your NAD contact response.


----------



## The Monkey

email sent.  I'll let you know if I get some info.


----------



## dleblanc343

Add me to the list for the m51, I'll be getting mine in the next week. My ears have convinced me this is a definite step up over the gungnir.


----------



## The Monkey

Quote: 





the monkey said:


> email sent.  I'll let you know if I get some info.


 
   
  Haven't heard back, but I'm sure everyone's busy/tired post-Munich.


----------



## Cante Ista

Quote: 





the monkey said:


> Haven't heard back, but I'm sure everyone's busy/tired post-Munich.


 
  Thanks for checking in. Do please let us know if/when you hear back. It would be much appreciated.


----------



## Jacky5555

Has anyone tried i2s via HDMI from OR5 to M51?
  I tried but no signal via HDMI.
  From M51 data sheet, it said "HDMI provides an encrypted HD audio connection in PCM's native I2S format up to 24 bit 192khz". The Nad M50 music player also offer I2S output via HDMI to match with M51.
  So why my M51 doesn't take i2s from OR5?


----------



## woodcans

Mine doesn't work over HDMI either with my OR5. I don't think the OR5 supports the m51's HDMI format.


----------



## obzilla

It seems that it is only going to take hdmi from the M50.


----------



## Jacky5555

woodcans said:


> Mine doesn't work over HDMI either with my OR5. I don't think the OR5 supports the m51's HDMI format.




But Nad is saying that the format sent through hdmi of m51 is i2s.


----------



## Jacky5555

obzilla said:


> It seems that it is only going to take hdmi from the M50.




In my system, it takes hdmi from either mac mini or a BDP like oppo 95, which sounds thin and uninvolving compared to usb input.


----------



## orkney

Mine works well with HDMI from my Oppo, MacBook Air and Apple TV2. I have other sources I prefer, but no difficulties using the HDMI inputs.
   
  o


----------



## Cante Ista

no problems here also with HDMI out of my macmini to the NAD m51. Perhaps it is a qualtiy control issue. or maybe something the way OR5 handles the data. Never worked with the OR5 so I cant comment on that.


----------



## grokit

Could the firmware updates, and/or the encryption, have anything to do with these issues


----------



## Cante Ista

unfortunately, it seems that NAD may not stand behind their products like other high end companies do. I am still waiting for the answer to my query that "the Monkey" sent to his contact. (BTW, thank you The Monkey). From what i understand NAD is a company known for finding efficiencies in production process, and everywhere else it can cut the fat off. While that is effective for keeping prices low on the front end, support and quality control can suffer. Consider the PWD MK2 as a comparison. PS Audio MSRP is way higher than the m51 (although it could be had for much less) -- quite a bit higher than you would expect when listening to each side by side. PWD is better I think, just not that much better (and I stress I am just talking MSRP comparisons). However, PS Audio has great costumer service. Although various versions of their FW have been released since initial issue of the DAC, these have now stabilized. Most importantly however, whenever I call their support I get a person I talk to and my issues are  addressed. Now, I think that the m51 is def a quality product. I am listening to it right now and I am thoroughly enjoying it! So I don't think any corners were cut on the production of this DAC vis a vis design. However, from what i have heard and in my limited experience, costumer support and quality control pop up as issues here and there. Bottom line for me though, is that if I had an opportunity to purchase this DAC again for the price I paid for it, I would do it, without a doubt. It is a very good DAC. Just dont expect world class support. You get what you paid for.


----------



## paradoxper

Quote: 





cante ista said:


> unfortunately, it seems that NAD may not stand behind their products like other high end companies do. I am still waiting for the answer to my query that "the Monkey" sent to his contact. (BTW, thank you The Monkey). From what i understand NAD is a company known for finding efficiencies in production process, and everywhere else it can cut the fat off. While that is effective for keeping prices low on the front end, support and quality control can suffer. Consider the PWD MK2 as a comparison. PS Audio MSRP is way higher than the m51 (although it could be had for much less) -- quite a bit higher than you would expect when listening to each side by side. PWD is better I think, just not that much better (and I stress I am just talking MSRP comparisons). However, PS Audio has great costumer service. Although various versions of their FW have been released since initial issue of the DAC, these have now stabilized. Most importantly however, whenever I call their support I get a person I talk to and my issues are  addressed. Now, I think that the m51 is def a quality product. I am listening to it right now and I am thoroughly enjoying it! So I don't think any corners were cut on the production of this DAC vis a vis design. However, from what i have heard and in my limited experience, costumer support and quality control pop up as issues here and there. Bottom line for me though, is that if I had an opportunity to purchase this DAC again for the price I paid for it, I would do it, without a doubt. It is a very good DAC. Just dont expect world class support. You get what you paid for.


 
  Hm. I'd recommend calling in. I've had nothing but stellar experience dealing with NAD directly over the phone.


----------



## Greed

From what I understand, iS2 and HDMI aren't exactly the same thing. They use the same connector type, but the data transfer is different. I don't think the OR5 is compatible with the NAD M51, but don't quote me on that. I would call and confirm, or shoot an email over to Empirical.


----------



## Cante Ista

Quote: 





paradoxper said:


> Hm. I'd recommend calling in. I've had nothing but stellar experience dealing with NAD directly over the phone.


 

 Interesting. Admittedly, I have only tired email. Will call and report back. thanks!


----------



## paradoxper

And BTW:  The PDF for the M51 states:
   
  While the M51 includes the industry standard SPDIF inputs, including AES/EBU, Optical and Coaxial. The M51 also includes the latest USB technology fully supporting 192kHz sample rates, allowing direct connection of a PC or Mac. HDMI provides an encrypted HD Audio connection in PCM’s native I2S format up to 24 bit 192kHz.


----------



## preproman

I know you can't use a regular HDMI cable with the OR5 to the PWD mkII.  Maybe the HDMI cable from PS audio will work.  Who knows?


----------



## paradoxper

Quote: 





preproman said:


> I know you can't use a regular HDMI cable with the OR5 to the PWD mkII.  Maybe the HDMI cable from PS audio will work.  Who knows?


 
  Sucks there isn't a standard.


----------



## woodcans

Quote: 





preproman said:


> I know you can't use a regular HDMI cable with the OR5 to the PWD mkII.  Maybe the HDMI cable from PS audio will work.  Who knows?


 
   
  If a specific cable would work, I'm in.


----------



## jaycalgary

HDMI gives me troubles through the laptop and is noisy from ground issues compared to USB.


----------



## Cante Ista

When the NAD was in my main rig I only used HDMI out from my macmini directly to my Onkyo surround sound (more mid fi system) for watching movies, HBO GO, and other internet offerings, and listened to some music. However, when I wanted to really listen to music, I used USB to NAD and my headphone set up. For a while I tried to use the HDMI in and then out to my Onkyo (so that everything run through HDM) but when the signal got to my TV (from my Onkyo) it was flashing. Maybe if i run the HDMI out directly to my TV that issue would not have been there, but I never tired. It was probably to many chain links that degraded the signal. Sound from HDMI in my system was not better than USB. I was not sure of that for a while, but after some repeated critical comparisons, that was my verdict. I never heard it nosier though, but that could depend on lots of factors that differentiate our systems.


----------



## preproman

Here's a thought.  Get the pin out of the PS Audio HDMI cable and ask Blue Jean Cables if he can make it..


----------



## The Monkey

Still waiting to hear back re firmware release notes.


----------



## Greed

Quote: 





preproman said:


> Here's a thought.  Get the pin out of the PS Audio HDMI cable and ask Blue Jean Cables if he can make it..


 
   
  Smart man.


----------



## jeffreyfranz

Quote: 





somnambulist said:


> I can't remember the guy's username (sorry!) but he put my NAD in his system (Macbook Pro Retina and Violetric amp with LCD2s) and was listening to it for about an hour - think he wants to buy one now.


 
   
  Quote: 





sleepaphobic said:


> Ya that was me
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  Too much! Read the text in both quotes and notice the usernames. Way to harmonize, fellows.


----------



## kr0gg

Quote: 





jacky5555 said:


> But Nad is saying that the format sent through hdmi of m51 is i2s.


 
   
   
  NAD never said that.
  HDMI on m51 receives the SAME spdif signal as the one that goes over it's coax.
  the difference is only in the cables used.


----------



## olor1n

Quote: 





the monkey said:


> Still waiting to hear back re firmware release notes.


 
   
  This was posted at SNA:
   



> Revision History
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> version   v1.39  2012-4-26  Alvin.wang
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...


----------



## The Monkey

awesome, thanks.  sorry i couldn't come through.


----------



## Cante Ista

yes! Thank you. Much obliged...


----------



## Rimbaud

I'm seriously considering a M51 for use as a preamp.  Can anyone give me a sense of how low the volume would have to be before running out of bit headroom (when data is lost)?  Specifically for redbook and 24/96.
   
  I don't have to worry about the high end - there's no way I'll be going above 0 db.


----------



## shipsupt

You should have no bit loss until you drop below -66dB.


----------



## Rimbaud

Hmm... That's a little higher threshold than I was hoping for (but not enough to scare me off the M51).  How did you arrive at that number?


----------



## shipsupt

I'm going completely on media reports.  I've seen NAD quoted on it in several places, such as;
   
_“The extreme headroom afforded by the 35-bit architecture allows for a DSP-based volume control that does not reduce resolution. Even with 24-bit high definition signals, the output can be attenuated by 66dB (very, very quiet) before bit truncation begins.” - _http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2012/04/nad-m51-digital-direct-dac-initial-impressions/


----------



## Rimbaud

Ok thanks for the quote. I realize now that I was thinking about this the wrong way. A 66dB reduction is plenty quiet and allays any concern I had.


----------



## preproman

The M51 has the best pre amp on a DAC that "I've" heard..
   
  The XDA-2 is suppose to have a really good pre amp as well.  I've not heard it thou..


----------



## jayz

[size=1.2em] It has been nearly 4 years since the M51 came out and even longer since the D/A tech became available in the M2, does anyone have any thoughts on when NAD might do the next revisions of these components. [/size]

 [size=1.2em] It would be a real shame if I were to get a new M51 today and hear about a new model soon afterwards. I realise it hurts dealerships with existing stock when this sort of news comes out but from the customer's perspective, it is wiser to go for say the Benchmark DAC-2 which is more recent and compares well with the M51.[/size]

 [size=1.2em]  [/size]

 [size=1.2em] On the same topic, please let me know if anyone has any leads on an ex-dem or used NAD M51 at a good price[/size]


----------



## paradoxper

Quote: 





jayz said:


> [size=1.2em] It has been nearly 4 years since the M51 came out and even longer since the D/A tech became available in the M2, does anyone have any thoughts on when NAD might do the next revisions of these components. [/size]
> 
> [size=1.2em] It would be a real shame if I were to get a new M51 today and hear about a new model soon afterwards. I realise it hurts dealerships with existing stock when this sort of news comes out but from the customer's perspective, it is wiser to go for say the Benchmark DAC-2 which is more recent and compares well with the M51.[/size]
> 
> ...


 
  The M2 and M51 are different pieces of gear. Sure, the M51 uses the same engine as the M2,
  however it's pretty up to spec, that is, unless you're looking for DSD or I2S.
   
  As for worrying about upgrades...try to get an audition with the M51, it's a very good DAC.
  Comparing it to the Benchmark DAC2 is ridiculous. IMO, the DAC2 is well overpriced and mediocre at best.


----------



## tgx78

Have you actually heard benchmark DAC2? I have benchmark Dac2, m51, Gungnir(sold), e20 and i prefer SQ of DAC2 over M51. But then i prefer exaSound e20 over both DAC2 and M51 combined. I a/b them through my magnepan 3.6


----------



## preproman

Quote: 





tgx78 said:


> Have you actually heard benchmark DAC2? I have benchmark Dac2, m51, Gungnir(sold), e20 and i prefer SQ of DAC2 over M51. But then i prefer exaSound e20 over both DAC2 and M51 combined. I a/b them through my magnepan 3.6


 
   
  I'm very interested in the e20.  The mk III is almost $3K
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  Also, I really hate when companies put headphone amps in their DACs.  I know I don't have to use it, I just don't like that extra stuff in my DAC.  Hell I can do without preamps in them as well.  
   
  e20 mkIII vs._Yggdrasil _would be very interesting.  The Yggdrasil already has a leg up on the cost..


----------



## MayaTlab

Quote: 





preproman said:


> Hell I can do without preamps in them as well.


 
   
  Given that we're moving away from analog attenuation in favour of 32 bits digital attenuation I believe you're likely to be disappointed by the future of DACs.


----------



## paradoxper

Quote: 





tgx78 said:


> Have you actually heard benchmark DAC2? I have benchmark Dac2, m51, Gungnir(sold), e20 and i prefer SQ of DAC2 over M51. But then i prefer exaSound e20 over both DAC2 and M51 combined. I a/b them through my magnepan 3.


 
  It wasn't mine but I lived with it a while, I just do not think it's very good. Preference is everything and for me, the DAC2 isn't anywhere near worth its salt.


----------



## sjay

I have had my M51 for about a year now and still love it but I dont use it as a pre-amp because I lose a lot of dynamics when I do, using it as a straight DAC with a SPDIF re-clocker between it and my source (macbook) gets me the best results hands down.


----------



## Fred Bob

anyone compare the m51 to the onkyo p-3000r?


----------



## jayz

Thanks to all those who replied
   
  Can I also ask, has there been a direct comparison of the M51 with the Logitech Transporter's DAC?
   
  I am looking at the M51 as an upgrade to the Transporter which I currently use as the source to drive power amps directly via a passive TVC pre. This setup does sound very good but I am wondering whether the M51 would be less "digital" sounding and more full bodied when running directly to power amp.
   
  Any comments from resident experts ?


----------



## sjay

the m51 sounds far more analog then the transporter.
   
  no question!


----------



## woodcans

Quote: 





jayz said:


> Thanks to all those who replied
> 
> Can I also ask, has there been a direct comparison of the M51 with the Logitech Transporter's DAC?
> 
> ...


 
   
  I had a Transporter for some time. They did not overlap but from memory, the M51 is decisively better. _Especially_ when used as a preamp as well.


----------



## serg604

Now it is possible to download newest firmware directly from NAD:
   
  http://nadelectronics.com/products/dac/M51-Direct-Digital-DAC
  direct link: http://nadelectronics.com/download.php?130705150850-USBM51V141.zip|M51%20software%20upgrade%20V141
   
  Version 1.41 is still newest one, so no fixes/new features in long time, strange...


----------



## jayz

Great feedback, thanks again!


----------



## Lonely_Rider

Hi!
   
  Does anyone know, where to find version 1.39 firmware file? I just updated from 1.39 to 1.41. Version 1.41 sounds somehow brighter, maybe too bright. I may go back to 1.39.
   
  Is it possible to update "backwards" from 1.41 to 1.39?


----------



## The Monkey

Let the firmware burn in a little.


----------



## Lonely_Rider

So "get used to it".


----------



## roger7

Quote: 





lonely_rider said:


> Hi!
> 
> Does anyone know, where to find version 1.39 firmware file? I just updated from 1.39 to 1.41. Version 1.41 sounds somehow brighter, maybe too bright. I may go back to 1.39.
> 
> Is it possible to update "backwards" from 1.41 to 1.39?


 

 Yes, you can downgrade


----------



## woodcans

I have been using 1.39 for 2 years. Any reason to upgrade or to not upgrade??


----------



## Lonely_Rider

If you think, that sound is too soft, you should upgrade. Otherwise the answer is "no", IMHO.


----------



## Lonely_Rider

Quote: 





roger7 said:


> Yes, you can downgrade


 
   
  Thank you for the info. Now I only need to find version 1.39 file somewhere.


----------



## roger7

I've uploaded it here: http://www1.zippyshare.com/v/20355691/file.html


----------



## woodcans

Quote: 





serg604 said:


> Now it is possible to download newest firmware directly from NAD:
> 
> http://nadelectronics.com/products/dac/M51-Direct-Digital-DAC
> direct link: http://nadelectronics.com/download.php?130705150850-USBM51V141.zip|M51%20software%20upgrade%20V141
> ...


 
   
   
  Is their support for this device waning? I would have expected more fw updates/advances than have been released so far. Although I remain completely satisfied with the sound.


----------



## Lonely_Rider

Quote: 





roger7 said:


> I've uploaded it here: http://www1.zippyshare.com/v/20355691/file.html


 
   
  Thanks again!


----------



## Ludique

Quote: 





jayz said:


> [size=1.2em] It has been nearly 4 years since the M51 came out and even longer since the D/A tech became available in the M2, does anyone have any thoughts on when NAD might do the next revisions of these components. [/size]
> 
> [size=1.2em] It would be a real shame if I were to get a new M51 today and hear about a new model soon afterwards. I realise it hurts dealerships with existing stock when this sort of news comes out but from the customer's perspective, it is wiser to go for say the Benchmark DAC-2 which is more recent and compares well with the M51.[/size]
> 
> ...


 
  I thought M51 was introduced in autum 2011 and shipping began in January, doesn't quite make 4 years yet.


----------



## Baxide

Quote: 





woodcans said:


> Is their support for this device waning? I would have expected more fw updates/advances than have been released so far. Although I remain completely satisfied with the sound.


 

 FW updates are there to correct known issues that can be corrected via FW. If there are no more updates then there are no issues to address. It doesn't indicate that support is waning. I happen to be a former drinking buddy and close friend of the designer and I know him well enough to say that he will revisit his design to see what else he can squeeze out of it. It's just that he got promoted to a director so he hasn't got as much time as before to sniff soldering fumes.


----------



## woodcans

baxide said:


> FW updates are there to correct known issues that can be corrected via FW. If there are no more updates then there are no issues to address. It doesn't indicate that support is waning. I happen to be a former drinking buddy and close friend of the designer and I know him well enough to say that he will revisit his design to see what else he can squeeze out of it. It's just that he got promoted to a director so he hasn't got as much time as before to sniff soldering fumes.




Cool! Thanks for sharing.


----------



## purk

Late to the NAD M51 party.  Love the M51 DAC!!  It pairs well with my BHSE+SR009 combo.  Very nice DAC that is considerably better sounding than my W4S DAC-2.  Pretty even par with the April Music Eximus DP-1 with the DP-1 being a tad sweeter over all while the M51 is more neutral and transparent.  Love the M51's bass - very fluid with excellent low levels details.  The brush aluminum faceplate matches my silver BHSE perfectly.  Pictures soon to follow.


----------



## woodcans

Quote: 





purk said:


> Late to the NAD M51 party.  Love the M51 DAC!!  It pairs well with my BHSE+SR009 combo.  Very nice DAC that is considerably better sounding than my W4S DAC-2.  Pretty even par with the April Music Eximus DP-1 with the DP-1 being a tad sweeter over all while the M51 is more neutral and transparent.  Love the M51's bass - very fluid with excellent low levels details.  The brush aluminum faceplate matches my silver BHSE perfectly.  Pictures soon to follow.


 
   
   
  Nice impressions!!! I was tempted for the April. Glad to hear what you think, as I would prefer a more neutral presentation. And not to mention, now that I am used to it, I could not do without a remote volume control.


----------



## Sleepaphobic

So some time after trying out Somnambulist's m51 at the UK meet I finally decided to grab one for myself and I'm loving it. Well worth it's price and dominates the M-DAC it replaces.
   
  Just one question, does anybody know how to check the firmware that is currently on a unit? I've read that you just have to hold the input button while powering on but that doesn't work for me.


----------



## TPSRA

I have a question. I want to use M51's RCA and XLR output at the same time, so I need to make a XLR to RCA converter.
  I know that the positive(+) and ground of the XLR connect directly to RCA's (+)&G, the problem is I am confuse that the negative(-) of XLR is suppose to connect to the ground or should I just leave it intact?
  It seems that if I connect (-) to the ground then the Left&Right XLR(-) would short circuit...


----------



## shipsupt

I'm not sure I follow?  You can use both outputs at the same time.
   
  If you want more than one RCA output why not use a splitter instead of building XLR to RCA?


----------



## TPSRA

I thought of using a splitter before....but it seems to have some negative impact for the circuit and sound, the input impedance would change for instance.


----------



## shipsupt

Minimal, if any impact.  The XLR and RCA connections are most likely connected internally in the DAC anyway, they are not fully seperate outputs. 
   
  A splitter is no different than having a loop out... 
   
  Anyway, you can certainly make adapters.


----------



## van41

Does anyone experience any ringing noise in the background when you set the DAC on sound properties to 24 bit/192khz. The ringing is gone when you set it to 16 bit/44hz.


----------



## roger7

You can't set NAD M51 to 24 bit/192 KHz.
  It's determined by the signal from source component (or from source material).
  And there is no ringing noise then, no other issue.
  Mus be the fault of source or material


----------



## ulnevrgtit

Picked up a M51 recently...simply an awesome device.
  Amazing sound and funcionality.  I love it's ability to take an HDMI from my pc (GTX680) for audio and video.  It allows me to use my tv a fourth monitor and get HQ audio with one cable...sounds even a bit better over HDMI vs usb imo.  Perfect solution for me.  The place I got it from allowed me to exchange my AV receiver (SR6006) for it and gave me full credit twards the M51...there upgrade program is awesome.  Now I just need to get an integrated amp that has two speaker outs (A/B) so I can easily switch between my PC and HT/listening room.


----------



## Fred Bob

Glad you like it.  I wanted to get M51 but couldn't find it cheap enough so I went with Onkyo p3000r DAC, which seems to stack up fairly well against M51.  I'd have tried to find comparisons but no luck.  With the Onkyo, there is no HDMI port and you have download some sort of driver from Onkyo onto your computer to use USB port.  But I like the build quality and it sounds great.


----------



## shipsupt

When you say it stacks up fairly well do you mean comparing sound quality or features?
   
  I really like the analog inputs on that Onkyo.  That's a feature I wish the NAD had.
   
  Quote: 





fred bob said:


> Glad you like it.  I wanted to get M51 but couldn't find it cheap enough so I went with Onkyo p3000r DAC, which seems to stack up fairly well against M51.  I'd have tried to find comparisons but no luck.  With the Onkyo, there is no HDMI port and you have download some sort of driver from Onkyo onto your computer to use USB port.  But I like the build quality and it sounds great.


----------



## Fred Bob

I meant the Onkyo and the NAD have similar features.  Unfortunately, I never found any information on a comparison between the two.  I would guess they are similar in sound quality with the NAD besting the Onkyo to a small degree.  We'll never know.  The analog inputs on the Onkyo do give it a bit more flexibility.  But, it does not have the HDMI inputs.


----------



## vlach

fred bob said:


> I meant the Onkyo and the NAD have similar features.  Unfortunately, I never found any information on a comparison between the two.  I would guess they are similar in sound quality with the NAD besting the Onkyo to a small degree.  We'll never know.  The analog inputs on the Onkyo do give it a bit more flexibility.  But, it does not have the HDMI inputs.




...nor does it have a HT bypass input.


----------



## Zac.R

[size=10.0pt]Hi Guys,[/size]
   
  [size=10pt]Really hoping someone can help me out.[/size]
 
[size=10pt]I have downloaded two DSD 24/192 albums recently; 1. Norah Jones – Come Away With Me, from HD Tracks; and 2. [/size][size=10pt]The Super Audio Collection Volume 5 Sampler [/size][size=10pt]from Linn Records. [/size]   
[size=10.0pt]My setup is;[/size]
   
[size=10.0pt]PC > ASUS Xonar Essence STX (In SPDIF pass through mode [set to 24/192]) > Media Monkey in WASPI Bit perfect mode [set to 24/192]) > Coax cable > NAD M51 > Amp > Speakers[/size]
   
[size=10.0pt]My Question is; am I hearing the DSD track? After reading forums and info for hours, I cannot decipher if the NAD M51 is playing the DSD format or the PWM conversion of the file??? [/size]
   
[size=10.0pt]HELP![/size]


----------



## shipsupt

My understanding is that the M51 does not play DSD files natively, so no, the NAD is not playing the DSD file but your software is likely doing the conversion on the fly.
   
  I have a few DSD files now and I play them using Pure Music or Audirvana.


----------



## roger7

Quote: 





zac.r said:


> [size=10.0pt]Hi Guys,[/size]
> 
> [size=10pt]Really hoping someone can help me out.[/size]
> 
> ...


 

 No, nad m51 does not play dsd


----------



## SearchOfSub

hi a couple questions. I am currently looking to pair up the NAD M51 DAC with the Job 225 Amp and Shelby & Croll reference 1.0 speakers and 1.0 refernce subwoofer.
  
 My question is can I use the NAD 51 DAC to run both the speakers and the sub somehow using Y-adapters?


----------



## woodcans

searchofsub said:


> hi a couple questions. I am currently looking to pair up the NAD M51 DAC with the Job 225 Amp and Shelby & Croll reference 1.0 speakers and 1.0 refernce subwoofer.
> 
> My question is can I use the NAD 51 DAC to run both the speakers and the sub somehow using Y-adapters?




If your amp has balanced inputs, run balanced from your NAD to your amp and single ended to your subs. Works great for me.


----------



## SearchOfSub

Just checked the Amp and it only has unbalanced RCA inputs. Is there any way to get the sub to work with the NAD M51 using its preamp function?


----------



## estreeter

OK - so your amp only has a pair of RCA inputs. I can't find a photo of the rear of that sub anywhere - does it not have speaker binding posts to allow you to use the subwoofer as a 'passthru' device via your amp ? Some of the 'pro' subs have XLR-out for connecting active monitors, but the speaker combination you've specified seems to be aimed at the home user - if possible, can you post a photo of the rear of your sub ? 

estreeter


----------



## SearchOfSub

Sorry dont have the sub purchased. I am planning to get it though in future. How does the HDMI sound through the NAD?


----------



## vanadium

Hi, I use mine M51 as a pre-amp on the M25 when listening music. And for watching movies I use the M15 om the M25, I have a RCA switch and the sound of the M51 for music is so mutch better than the M15. Just installed the latest firmware,1.41. I'm curious if there will be a noticeable difference.


----------



## woodcans

I am trying to update my firmware, but the m51 seems to hang on 'Bootloader V1.21' and doesn't update. Anyone else have this problem or have any suggestions? I can turn it off, remove the usb stick, and go back to using it, but it is with the old firmware.


----------



## Somnambulist

Are you following the update process properly? (Sorry if that's a stupid question!).


----------



## woodcans

Afaik. Holding down standby button while turning on rear power switch.


----------



## Somnambulist

Hmm.
  
 Full process is here (right click and Save As for the PDF) - you have to factory reset after it's updated as well, I think.


----------



## woodcans

somnambulist said:


> Hmm.
> 
> Full process is here (right click and Save As for the PDF) - you have to factory reset after it's updated as well, I think.




I follow that process precisely. But despite holding down the standby button while turning on the power switch, all I get is this. It never gets to the "loading %".


----------



## Somnambulist

Weird. I'd contact NAD or the place you bought it from - maybe there's something wrong with the USB port (the update one) on yours. Have you tried a different memory stick as well?


----------



## woodcans

somnambulist said:


> Weird. I'd contact NAD or the place you bought it from - maybe there's something wrong with the USB port (the update one) on yours. Have you tried a different memory stick as well?




Haven't tried a different USB stick. Good idea. Thanks, will try that and report back.


----------



## seenc

lonely_rider said:


> Yeah. At least NAD engineering is trying to find solution. That's good.


 
  
 Unfortunately nobody trying to find solution. I have received the fresh answer from NAD support.
  
_Currently we don't officially support Linux and there is no plans to include a support version.
The M51 is a USB Audio Class 2 (UAC2) device so it should work with any OS that supports UAC2. For example with recent versions of MacOS the M51 works without having to install a driver.
Some customers have reported success with more recent versions of Linux. For example, the M51 is known to work with Ubuntu 12.04.  _
  
 I have been trying to test on 3.10rt kernel (TINYCORE LINUX) but getting the same error as former kernel versions. 
 What the specific Ubuntu 12.04 option is turned on in kernel building that fix it to work normally?


----------



## drumiha

I've owned the NAD M51 for about 6 months and I agree that it is a very good DAC (neutral, detailed, transparent, huge soundstage) but I've found it a bit lacking when it comes to body and dynamics ; also in the bass region it could use some more power  IMO. 
  
  
  
 Quote:


purk said:


> Late to the NAD M51 party.  Love the M51 DAC!!  It pairs well with my BHSE+SR009 combo.  Very nice DAC that is considerably better sounding than my W4S DAC-2.  Pretty even par with the April Music Eximus DP-1 with the DP-1 being a tad sweeter over all while the M51 is more neutral and transparent.  Love the M51's bass - very fluid with excellent low levels details.  The brush aluminum faceplate matches my silver BHSE perfectly.  Pictures soon to follow.


----------



## drumiha

True the M51 does not play DSD, your software is doing the conversion.
  
  
 Quote:


shipsupt said:


> My understanding is that the M51 does not play DSD files natively, so no, the NAD is not playing the DSD file but your software is likely doing the conversion on the fly.
> 
> I have a few DSD files now and I play them using Pure Music or Audirvana.


----------



## dleblanc343

I got the BDA-2 on loan from my sales rep to stack up against my NAD in the comfort of my home rather than in boutique. I'm anxious to compare them on my system head-to-head.
  
 Physically, the NAD is a much nicer and cleaner built product, plus it has the display and remote over the Bryston. Maybe the BDA-2 can make up for it in sound? I'll let you guys know what I think if you're curious.
  
 Cheers


----------



## woodcans

dleblanc343 said:


> I got the BDA-2 on loan from my sales rep to stack up against my NAD in the comfort of my home rather than in boutique. I'm anxious to compare them on my system head-to-head.
> 
> Physically, the NAD is a much nicer and cleaner built product, plus it has the display and remote over the Bryston. Maybe the BDA-2 can make up for it in sound? I'll let you guys know what I think if you're curious.
> 
> Cheers




I am definitely curious! Please let us know what you think of both units!


----------



## jayz

dleblanc343 said:


> I got the BDA-2 on loan from my sales rep to stack up against my NAD in the comfort of my home rather than in boutique. I'm anxious to compare them on my system head-to-head.
> 
> Physically, the NAD is a much nicer and cleaner built product, plus it has the display and remote over the Bryston. Maybe the BDA-2 can make up for it in sound? I'll let you guys know what I think if you're curious.
> 
> Cheers


 
  
  
 I too would be VERY interested in your findings so pls. let us know.
  
 Also to the tech experts out there... I see the M51 specs say "differential mode", I would like to know what this means in the context of a class A output. Does this mean this is a push-pull sort of configuration with dual output devices biased to class A ? I suppose from a performance perspective what class A would bring is a smoother presentation allowing more detail to pass through. Differential mode could mean better control driving speakers if M51 is connected directly to a differential power amplifier.
  
 I have a general understanding but was wondering whether someone could provide a concise answer.


----------



## dleblanc343

I posted my brief comparison between the NAD M51 and the Bryston BDA2 on the Bryston thread. Slight preference goes to the NAD in my system. Check it out here.


----------



## karmakuma

Hi

I am planning to purchase a new DAC which also has the option to be used as preamp - the M51 seems to be my best option sq/feature/price wise. But there are a few questions still open.

In my setup I would like to use it connected to my Mac Mini via HDMI. This seems to be the best connection in my scenario concerning cabling and usage simplicity (never forget WAF!) vs SQ. Reading literally all the posts about M51 here and over on Computeraudiophile as well as SNA, overall, SQ seems to be about equal via HDMI or USB. So not much lost there. USB would be my second preference. Now my questions, all about handling:

what happens when
- no TV/monitor is connected to the HDMI out? No handshake on the source, so no HDMI audio device on the mac?
- a connected TV/monitor is powered off/in standby? Again no handshake on the source, so no HDMI audio dvice on the mac?

I would really not like to have to power on my TV just to listen to music over the HDMI audio device...

and on USB what happens when
- the source on M51 is switched away from USB (to, say, Coax)? Audio device gets disconnected from the mac? This is what happens with my DSPeaker Anti-Mode Dual Core each time I change the source away from USB. And by doing this The used audio programs like Plex/Xbmc/iTunes etc. lose their default audio device and start playing audio through the macs builtin speaker or stop playing completely. This is quite annoying - specially concerning the WAF! 

If all points decribed stand true on the M51 as well, what other possibilities are there besides using a reclocker like Hiface or OR which present themselfes as an "allways connected" usb device to the source computer?

Hope anybody can answer my questions!


----------



## songmic

I've put up my NAD M51 in MINT condition (used for less than 2 weeks) in the sales forum, in case any one of you is interested.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/685841/mint-nad-m51


----------



## NZheadcase

Oh why? You didn't like it?


----------



## NZheadcase

Just found out the NAD M51 price was raised by quite a bit. Sure glad I got mine when I did.


----------



## dirtrat

Audio Advisor and Crutchfield still have it for the regular price. It wouldn't make sense for them to raise the price now. Too much new competition especially with DSD options. I think they would be shooting themselves in the foot!


----------



## olor1n

The M51 went up in price in Australia. Still cheaper than elsewhere though.


----------



## NZheadcase

olor1n said:


> The M51 went up in price in Australia. Still cheaper than elsewhere though.


 
  
 YEah sorry. Forgot to mention the price increase is in AU and NZ. Yes, still cheaper than other places. 
  
 olor1n, did you manage to sell your mjolnir and NAD M51?


----------



## olor1n

No. Couldn't part with them in the end.


----------



## zackzack

morbidtoaster said:


> Any word on a possible black unit?


 
  
 This is NAD signature color. They have been making amps in whites for their high end line in a long time:
  

  
 S300 is an amp I have been eyeing as long as I can
 remember. By the time I got enough cash to buy it,
 they pull it off the shelf. This sounds incredibly punchy through 
 the most difficult speaker loads you have.


----------



## NZheadcase

Hey there NAD M51 owners!
  
 Is anyone using a Mac Mini and using the HDMI as the main audio out? If yes, what is it being detected as? I can see an HDMI connected but it is somehow limited to 96k. Is that the maximum it will go?
  
 Also, the audio does not seem to want to go through if the HDMI is the main video output. Once I plugged in a mini DV output, the HDMI audio appeared. It is also automatically outputting to two monitors, one via the mini dv and the other to the HDMI that is hooked up to the NAD.


----------



## NZheadcase

Managed to use the HDMI-in and the HDMI-out on the M51 using a PS3 with audio coming through the NAD. Trying to replicate that, but somehow, I'm not making any progress. Any advice is appreciated. Cheers!


----------



## woodcans

It works well in my setup: ps3 to m51 to amp to speakers. Great sound, however, I think one of my HDMI inputs went bad. Have you tried both inputs?


----------



## NZheadcase

Yeah, it works fantastic with my PS3 and the Sony Blu-ray player I use to play CDs. Both port work fine.
  
 It's just when I plug in the MacMini thats the problem. it still works, but a.) I don't get audio if the HDMI is the only video-audio output I use and b.) when I use the miniDV output video, I get HDMI audio but only max 96k. Not that I have a lot of 192k material, but it would be good to know I can get it - if it's possible on HDMI. 
  
 Can't seem to find much info about how it should be on HDMI. The search continues.


----------



## essencez

Just recently upgrade to the NAD M51 from EE Minimax, the low end on the M51 is very impressive. Hope it continues to impress!


----------



## olor1n

Congrats. How's the pairing with the LS50? Those speakers will be my next audio purchase.


----------



## heisoktoday

Hi,
  
 If it is not obvious, I am new to the site. I wanted a Dac with volume control. I have read quite a bit of the thread, and it is your site which convinced me to buy the M51. It sounds great.  I have been using the following configuration:
  
 Sonos ZP80 fixed output  - NAD M51 V1.42 - Audire Forte Amp - Boston Accoustics A400 Speakers
  
 I am currently using the Coaxial output from Sonos. The M51 seemingly randomly in mid sentence goes into standby while playing music or podcasts. The Sonos controller still shows that the source is playing, and when I press the On button, the M51 starts playing again. I have also noticed the issue happened a few times  through an optical cable. Please help.
  
 Has anybody else noticed their unit going into standby while their source is active?
 Is there a way to disable standby mode?
  
 Please let me know.
  
 Thanks.


----------



## woodcans

That does not sound normal. I would contact NAD or your dealer.


----------



## heisoktoday

Thanks Woodcans.
  
 I swapped back to Optical, and the M51 went into standby after several songs. I have not seen V1.42 mentioned here. I decided to use the rar file from the thread and install V1.39. Thanks to the member for providing it! So far the unit has not gone into standby. I will not go so far as to say my issue was V1.42, because of the reset part of the process. Could be I accidently changed something. I should have done a reset before as a test. Oh well, here is hoping my issue is solved.
  
 I still would like to know if I can disable the standby feature?


----------



## woodcans

If you can, I don't know how. Glad it's working!


----------



## essencez

olor1n said:


> Congrats. How's the pairing with the LS50? Those speakers will be my next audio purchase.




LS50 pairs nicely with the M51. Low end so much more refined compared with ushers s520s, seem to fill the room much easier too. Too early to judge as I am still using my basic Cambridge am10 integrated amp. My JOB should be here by Monday, I'll have proper critical listen then.


----------



## heisoktoday

I am going to go out on a limb, and say there is something different with how V1.42 handles the standby mode. It caused a problem when fed by my Sonos ZP80. I have not had any "false" standby switches since putting V1.39 on.
  
 Edit: 12/22 I hope it is ok to add to a post. I downloaded V1.41 from the NAD website. With it installed, there has not been any premature Standby switches. I want to thank NAD for making it easy to update their firmware.


----------



## heisoktoday

Regarding the standby mode in V1.41, they made a change as compared to V1.39. I am now on V1.39, so might test it if I reinstall V1.41. Anybody on V1.42?
  
 This is from another site.
  
 "- added Auto Off option. With Auto Off set to On, DAC goes standby after some time where there's no signal.
    You can set it by pressing Setup (you see Volume Setup), then press down"


----------



## zackzack

Need more feedback on functionality. I am thinking if using this with the HDMI in feature to run a mini cinema 2.0 at my desktop.


----------



## essencez

I love how the M51 as a pre, remembers the volume it was originally on, saved me from blowing up my headphones if I played anything accidentally.
  
 Since the arrival of my JOB amp I have been enjoy two excellent pairings between JOB/LS50s and JOB/HE6s with M51 as DAC/pre.


----------



## Xcalibur255

Have there been any A/B comparisons of the balanced vs. unbalanced outputs by anybody to see if there is any sonic difference?  In theory the only difference should be the small increase in gain, but it's never that simple.  I've done a lot of reading on this subject but there is a lot of contradicting information.
  
 I'm planning to get an M51 to run direct to a pair of monoblock amps and have the option of doing either RCA or XLR.  This is a whole new system so cables will have to be bought either way.
  
 Can I ask which output type other owners are using/favoring?
  
 Thanks.


----------



## zackzack

I wish it is cheaper. If you look at the internal the NAD M51 seems to be devoid of substantial electronics. 
 You should look at the internal Naim DAC or even Audiolab 8200CDQ
  
*NAD M51:*

  
*Audiolab 8200CDQ :*

  
 Audiolab designers seem to favor using capacitors. I mean
 there are rows and rows of them, look at those ! And look
 at the "bare bone" design of the NAD...?
  
  
  
 And this is the internal of *Naim DAC *with the supersize
 torroidal :


----------



## Somnambulist

xcalibur255 said:


> Have there been any A/B comparisons of the balanced vs. unbalanced outputs by anybody to see if there is any sonic difference?  In theory the only difference should be the small increase in gain, but it's never that simple.  I've done a lot of reading on this subject but there is a lot of contradicting information.
> 
> I'm planning to get an M51 to run direct to a pair of monoblock amps and have the option of doing either RCA or XLR.  This is a whole new system so cables will have to be bought either way.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I haven't tried the unbalanced - I have Event Opals connected via XLR to the balanced outputs as I'm just used to using that connection for active monitors (should be better in theory anyway). Actually I have a couple of those XLR attenuators connected between the NAD and the cables because without them I have to cut major dbs on the NAD before the Opals give me a relatively low listening volume for times when I can't blare them out, and even as a very fancy digital volume control, I don't want to have to cut it to like -70db or something.


----------



## Xcalibur255

Yes, too much gain was the other concern.  The tentative plan is to drive a pair of Wyred4Sound mAmps directly off the M51, but their gain and sensitivity combined with XLR might be too much.
  
 In your opinion, Somnambulist, are the line attenuators transparent to SQ?
  
 The other near dealbreaker is the lack of 12V trigger out on the M51, a rather curious omission for something claiming to be a full feature pre-amp.  I find the idea of skipping the pre-amp appealing, both financially and space wise, but some compromises remain.  Still I see no other options out there.  The M51 is the only DAC on the market with enough inputs to serve my purpose.  In fact I would have every single input used the moment I first got it.
  
 I figured somebody would make a little black box that consists of several 12V trigger outs paired to a remote control, but after spending a truly exhausting amount of time looking there literally doesn't seem to be such a thing in existence.  I honestly would have thought there would be substantial demand for such a product myself.


----------



## purk

zackzack said:


> I wish it is cheaper. If you look at the internal the NAD M51 seems to be devoid of substantial electronics.
> You should look at the internal Naim DAC or even Audiolab 8200CDQ


 
 Like you I was initially worried at first but having rows & rows of caps can also smear the sound.  One listening to the M51 and you will understand that this is one really really good sounding DAP.  Heck, I'm using mine as a primary source for my BHSE & SR009 combo.


----------



## Somnambulist

xcalibur255 said:


> Yes, too much gain was the other concern.  The tentative plan is to drive a pair of Wyred4Sound mAmps directly off the M51, but their gain and sensitivity combined with XLR might be too much.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 


Can't say I've noticed any difference - the monitors themselves have some gain adjustment controls but it's only something tiny like +/- 6db - I'm not too paranoid about it!


----------



## jayz

Need some help from the NAD M51 experts here: 
  
 I've just got myself a (used) NAD M51 and I have to say it is beginning to sound spectacular  - I still think there is some way to go in terms of break in.
  
 The issue however is that last night, the remote suddenly stopped working or if I put it in another way, the DAC stopped responding to its remote completely meaning no volume adjustment and no source selection. I replaced batteries on the remote too but no luck. I checked the unit this morning and it is working again but I did power cycle several times last night with no success.
  
 Has this ever happened to anyone here ? And should I be worried ?
  
 Any thoughts, suggestions would be very welcome.


----------



## zackzack

purk said:


> Like you I was initially worried at first but having rows & rows of caps can also smear the sound.  One listening to the M51 and you will understand that this is one really really good sounding DAP.  Heck, I'm using mine as a primary source for my BHSE & SR009 combo.


 
  
 Too bad the ND M51 doesn't have a headphone out. I am looking at McIntosh recently lauded D100. It is a DAC, a preamp, a digital volume controller, and a headphone amp all in one. And it is one of the cheapest McIntosh gears if not the cheapest. The McIntosh functionality is a dream. I have been eyeing the NAD for a long time and now for $500 more you can get your hands on a McIntosh


----------



## Xcalibur255

I've moved my consideration over from the M51 to the D100 for the same reasons.  Only nitpicks are reports that the NAD is actually a bit better sounding when used as a pre-amp (the D100's analog variable output stage seems to leave just a little of something on the table), and the remote control is absurd.  All those buttons on that big remote and exactly 7 of them perform a function on the D100.   A product at this price range should have a remote made specifically for it, not some cheap looking generic piece that also comes with $99 Bluray players from some OEM provider.  Wyred4Sound gets it right with their mPre and mInt.
  
 The headphone jack and 12V trigger out to turn on power amps downstream are major features the M51 lacks as a pre-amp and I think having those features is worth the possibly minor performance difference.


----------



## music_man

does this upsample coax pcm,16/44.1 to 35 844khz or is that only on usb?
 I am also concerned with lack/quality of components,made in china and reported issues for 2 grand. nonetheless if it does the above that is impressive.
  
 edit:i just saw it does upsample. the specs are great but the looks of the guts from china make me weary at this price.


----------



## screwdriver

If anyone has a NAD M51 thay are looking to sell , please PM me as im looking to get one .


----------



## sorue

music_man said:


> does this upsample coax pcm,16/44.1 to 35 844khz or is that only on usb?
> I am also concerned with lack/quality of components,made in china and reported issues for 2 grand. nonetheless if it does the above that is impressive.
> 
> edit:i just saw it does upsample. the specs are great but the looks of the guts from china make me weary at this price.


 

 Fortunately, lack of components doesn't mean lack of quality. Here's the USD7k Weiss DAC202, which looks like a 'lack' of components to most people, but it has a solid reputation.
  

  
 The M51 is not on that level, in terms of build quality, of course. But it has been reviewed, measured and it performs like a champ in every area. So what's the issue here? It's so funny that audio engineers work hard to minimize the amount of unnecessary parts, not always because of cost reduction reasons (Weiss for example). Sound engineering is using just the right amount of parts so that the product works well. Charles Hansen of Ayre once said something like this, they try their best to minimize the amount of parts they use (NOT because of cost reduction), but to reduce the amount of change to the signal, for maximum fidelity. Look at their Ayre AX7 circuit board to see what i mean. I'm not saying a bare pcb is always a good thing, but when the product measures well, sounds good to many people, it must be doing something right.
  
 Besides, the M51 is not a conventional DAC, with a very unique technology. I don't know of any other commercial DACs using this technology. Maybe less than 5 in the whole world. So it's not fair to judge the way the guts looks, as compared to other conventional DACs. It's like comparing tube amps to solid state amps, and saying the tube amp is lousy because the circuit is so simple compared to the solid state. If  you don't trust the way it looks to you, then at least trust the measurements. See the stereophile review of the m51. World-class, by any standards. And yes, i love my M51


----------



## music_man

this is different. the Weiss does not look like all cheap components. the proof is in the pudding though. the nad measures and sounds very good. I choose something else but that is just personal preference. the truth is I can't really insult the topology of the nad because the thing works very good. you are also correct, the 35 bit is really only a handful of dacs. I was just commenting at first glance it looks cheap but you really have to just listen. some very simple things do work wonders. not everything has to be rube Goldberg style. I did not mean to make an idiotic statement but I guess I did.


----------



## orkney

xcalibur255 said:


> I've moved my consideration over from the M51 to the D100 for the same reasons.  Only nitpicks are reports that the NAD is actually a bit better sounding when used as a pre-amp (the D100's analog variable output stage seems to leave just a little of something on the table), and the remote control is absurd.  All those buttons on that big remote and exactly 7 of them perform a function on the D100.   A product at this price range should have a remote made specifically for it, not some cheap looking generic piece that also comes with $99 Bluray players from some OEM provider.  Wyred4Sound gets it right with their mPre and mInt.
> 
> The headphone jack and 12V trigger out to turn on power amps downstream are major features the M51 lacks as a pre-amp and I think having those features is worth the possibly minor performance difference.


 
  
 Listen carefully before you buy the D100 and take some time doing it, if you can. I had one in the house for a week and REALLY wanted to like it, but I found some pretty discouraging operational quirks and ended up sticking with what I have. FWIW, I think the M51 is better-sounding, but the Mac has a good headphone stage and a decent pre. It is lovely too. 
  
 o


----------



## Xcalibur255

orkney said:


> Listen carefully before you buy the D100 and take some time doing it, if you can. I had one in the house for a week and REALLY wanted to like it, but I found some pretty discouraging operational quirks and ended up sticking with what I have. FWIW, I think the M51 is better-sounding, but the Mac has a good headphone stage and a decent pre. It is lovely too.
> 
> o


 
 I appreciate the heads up.  To clarify this is for 2-ch speaker system, not for headphone use.  I've been searching for other options, but everything I find always has at least one deal-breaking detail.  For the M51 it is the lack of both triggers (to turn on monoblock amps downstream) and the headphone out.  I could work around the missing headphone feature, but I really do not want to manually turn on the power amps every single time I use the system.
  
 The D100 is literally the only product on the market I know of that has the quantity of digital inputs I need AND all of the convenience/control features a true pre-amp should have.  I thought I had found a nice "in the meantime" option in the Emotiva Stealth but it lacks the 12V triggers.  Then there is Wyred4sound's mPre but the word is that the DAC section of that unit is its weakest feature and I have only digital sources.  Everything keeps leading me back to the D100. 
  
 Could you elaborate on what operational quirks you experienced?  My greatest fear would be a unit defaulting to fixed out and blasting me with full volume, but the D100 has separate fixed variable outputs so unless the internal processor could somehow "forget" the referencing position for the analog volume circuit I can't see this happening in this design.  With the M51 if anything caused the unit to reset I definitely *could* see such a thing happening because the volume implementation is completely digital.
  
 Opinions and suggestions are very welcome, is there something out there I haven't stumbled across yet?


----------



## shipsupt

This should take care of turning those mono-blocks off and on... Bob's your uncle.
  

  
 Just kidding!  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 I never really wanted my DAC to have a bunch of pre-amp functionality until I had the M51, then I realized how convenient it was... and I started to notice that a few more features would really set it apart.  An analog input would have been a nice addition for my rig.


----------



## Xcalibur255

I've actually considered using the Niles trigger based outlet adapters, but I don't want to risk a sonic bottleneck for the convenience.  Anything that sells itself as a full feature pre-amp really should have 12v trigger out.  That the M51 has a trigger IN but not an out is even more baffling....... why stop halfway, especially since a pre is highly likely to be in front of a separate power amp that needs to be turned on by trigger.
  
 This is an all new setup and the goal is simplicity.  I've even considered active monitors to skip the monoblock amps, but deep down I know it's gotta be a pair of traditional tower speakers.  What bothers me about the D100 is people seem to like it more as a DAC than a pre, and the device seems like it was intended to be a digital pre first and a DAC with fixed level out second so that worries me a bit.


----------



## shipsupt

I speculate that these DACs that are showing off pre-amp functionality are really just the result of the manufacturers realizing how good they are getting with digital volume control.  My dCS is the same, the DAC came first and foremost.  Great digital volume control, but limited pre-amp functionality.  
  
 More of my own speculation, there will be a next generation of DACs that come out far more thought out as pre-amps.


----------



## Xcalibur255

For me unless steps have been taken to completely eliminate bit truncation within the attenuation range, as NAD has done with the M51 by using 35-bit, digital volume will always be a no-no.
  
 Amusingly enough I just found another product that meets every single one of my needs:  the $269 Emotiva XDA-2.  Full pre-amp with analog resister ladder volume control, tons of digital inputs, 12V triggers, and headphone out.  So I have a choice between $2,500 and $269.  I think I can guess which one sounds better, but the Emotiva is really tempting as a stop-gap measure to use for a while until other new DAC/pre products hit the market.  For the price the feature set is insane.


----------



## NinjaHamster

shipsupt said:


> This should take care of turning those mono-blocks off and on... Bob's your uncle.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 If you're happy and you know it, clap your hands ... crap - why does my sound system keep turning off ??


----------



## boatheelmusic

xcalibur255 said:


> For me unless steps have been taken to completely eliminate bit truncation within the attenuation range, as NAD has done with the M51 by using 35-bit, digital volume will always be a no-no.
> 
> Amusingly enough I just found another product that meets every single one of my needs:  the $269 Emotiva XDA-2.  Full pre-amp with analog resister ladder volume control, tons of digital inputs, 12V triggers, and headphone out.  So I have a choice between $2,500 and $269.  I think I can guess which one sounds better, but the Emotiva is really tempting as a stop-gap measure to use for a while until other new DAC/pre products hit the market.  For the price the feature set is insane.




What you really want is the Emotiva DC1 dac/preamp.


----------



## gregjnjarvis

shipsupt said:


> I speculate that these DACs that are showing off pre-amp functionality are really just the result of the manufacturers realizing how good they are getting with digital volume control.  My dCS is the same, the DAC came first and foremost.  Great digital volume control, but limited pre-amp functionality.
> 
> More of my own speculation, there will be a next generation of DACs that come out far more thought out as pre-amps.


 

 Agreed.  I have also been looking for a DAC with quality preamp and 12v trigger out....I hope and suspect that we will see a lot more of these within the next year or two.


----------



## Xcalibur255

boatheelmusic said:


> What you really want is the Emotiva DC1 dac/preamp.


 

 It doesn't have the 12V triggers.  Also fewer inputs.  Considering it uses the same digital engine I've been curious what exactly justifies its higher price actually.


----------



## boatheelmusic

The XDA2 uses one AD 1955 dac chip.

The DC1 uses two, in a differential balanced configuration which lowers noise and distortion very substantially.

These same chips are used in the new Cambridge Audio Dac for $1,650.

Check the specs at the EMO site.


----------



## sigtransduction

i have the xda-2,  the noise is inaudible, so, with twice the parts and nearly twice the cost, you can make the noise twice as inaudible


----------



## boatheelmusic

Whatever suits you.


----------



## skandy

Hi all, another newbie just started out on digital audio. I have had my M51 for about 3 months and I am quite pleased with it. I have a Synology NAS connected to the M51 with a Cardas usb cable and play music via the NAS audio software which is very convenient. But I have gone through a few sites including here and get the general opinion that the usb input of the M51 is only average compared to the spdif input and that the use of a good usb to spdif converter would help to further improve the sound quality of the M51. The OR5 and other high end converters are out of my reach so I ended up trying JK's Ciunas converter. I have it running it for about 2 weeks now and to be honest I can't hear too much difference. Is the M51's usb input chipset of the same level as JK's Ciunas which is why I am not hearing much difference? My M51 firmware version is 1.42 if that helps. It does not seem to be mentioned here.
  
 For those who are still using the M51 with a usb-spdif converter any advice on what I can try or is my hearing going south? I am using an old Audioquest VDM-1 cable from converter to the M51. Would a better grade digital cable help to improve the sound or should I use a laptop with a different player for my files? Thanks.


----------



## Lappy27

skandy said:


> Hi all, another newbie just started out on digital audio. I have had my M51 for about 3 months and I am quite pleased with it. I have a Synology NAS connected to the M51 with a Cardas usb cable and play music via the NAS audio software which is very convenient. But I have gone through a few sites including here and get the general opinion that the usb input of the M51 is only average compared to the spdif input and that the use of a good usb to spdif converter would help to further improve the sound quality of the M51. The OR5 and other high end converters are out of my reach so I ended up trying JK's Ciunas converter. I have it running it for about 2 weeks now and to be honest I can't hear too much difference. Is the M51's usb input chipset of the same level as JK's Ciunas which is why I am not hearing much difference? My M51 firmware version is 1.42 if that helps. It does not seem to be mentioned here.
> 
> For those who are still using the M51 with a usb-spdif converter any advice on what I can try or is my hearing going south? I am using an old Audioquest VDM-1 cable from converter to the M51. Would a better grade digital cable help to improve the sound or should I use a laptop with a different player for my files? Thanks.


 
 Everything matters. Media player, USB to SPDIF converter AND cables. I use Audiophilleo2 with PurePower and Transparent Premium USB. Both items made a huge impact in sound. BTW I run JRiver in Wasapi mode.


----------



## NZheadcase

skandy said:


> Hi all, another newbie just started out on digital audio. I have had my M51 for about 3 months and I am quite pleased with it. I have a Synology NAS connected to the M51 with a Cardas usb cable and play music via the NAS audio software which is very convenient. But I have gone through a few sites including here and get the general opinion that the usb input of the M51 is only average compared to the spdif input and that the use of a good usb to spdif converter would help to further improve the sound quality of the M51. The OR5 and other high end converters are out of my reach so I ended up trying JK's Ciunas converter. I have it running it for about 2 weeks now and to be honest I can't hear too much difference. Is the M51's usb input chipset of the same level as JK's Ciunas which is why I am not hearing much difference? My M51 firmware version is 1.42 if that helps. It does not seem to be mentioned here.
> 
> For those who are still using the M51 with a usb-spdif converter any advice on what I can try or is my hearing going south? I am using an old Audioquest VDM-1 cable from converter to the M51. Would a better grade digital cable help to improve the sound or should I use a laptop with a different player for my files? Thanks.


 
  
 I've run my NAD M51 predominantly on USB, but sometimes venture to use the Coax and the Optical. Sometimes, I think I hear something different in the other inputs, but when I return to USB, it is also there. If there are differences, I would say they are not that much to be of much consequence to your overall enjoyment. 
  
 Whilst I cannot claim to have heard high-end USB to SPDIF converters, I would venture to say perhaps invest initially on different headphones with different sound signatures that you enjoy. Then on a secondary amp to have a point of comparison. If at that time, you still feel the need to fiddle with the chain, then look at cabling and converters. By that time, your experience with different phones and configurations would help you appreciate the difference these latter tweaks will make.
  
 Just my 2 cents of course and YMMV, and LOL, and all that. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 For my part - extremely happy with Mac>Audirvana>NAD M51>USB>Soloist>.


----------



## skandy

lappy27 said:


> Everything matters. Media player, USB to SPDIF converter AND cables. I use Audiophilleo2 with PurePower and Transparent Premium USB. Both items made a huge impact in sound. BTW I run JRiver in Wasapi mode.


 
  
  


nzheadcase said:


> I've run my NAD M51 predominantly on USB, but sometimes venture to use the Coax and the Optical. Sometimes, I think I hear something different in the other inputs, but when I return to USB, it is also there. If there are differences, I would say they are not that much to be of much consequence to your overall enjoyment.
> 
> Whilst I cannot claim to have heard high-end USB to SPDIF converters, I would venture to say perhaps invest initially on different headphones with different sound signatures that you enjoy. Then on a secondary amp to have a point of comparison. If at that time, you still feel the need to fiddle with the chain, then look at cabling and converters. By that time, your experience with different phones and configurations would help you appreciate the difference these latter tweaks will make.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Thanks for your comments. This seems to be the confusing part for me. As already mentioned by many others in this thread, the addition of a quality converter has improved the sound quality of their system. I have only done a short comparison between converter/spdif input vs the usb but with initial impressions I do find the differences to be small. I should also mention that the M51 is feeding a Goldmund 390.2 integrated amp and a pair of B&W 805S. I will try some of the other players mentioned from my PC to see how it compares to the NAS player before looking at cables. The sound from both inputs are by no means poor. I'm just not getting the huge improvement that others have expressed. All part of the learning curve I guess. Thanks!


----------



## Eddie Q

I've had great results by going though a specialty computer to send the files to my NAD via USB:   http://www.computeraudiophile.com/section/c-p-s-489/ 
  
 QNAP -> CAPSv3 Carbon Computer w/Red Wine Audio Black Lightning Power Supply -> Cardas Clear USB -> NAD M51 -> Balanced Kimber KCAG -> spl Auditor -> Beyer T1.
  
  What I get is a setup that copies the music file from NAS to the music server (keeping in RAM), which in turn streams the music to the NAD via a clean, dedicated USB card (SOtM tX-USBexp) using NADs' own ASIO USB driver.  The CAPS computer's audio card is disabled & the audio services are also disabled.
  
 To my ears, I don't need a USB to SPDIF converter.  It's been almost a year since I've completed my setup and still don't feel the need to change a thing, of course YMMV.


----------



## JDOz

Hi guys. New to this forum. Joined because you seem to have the most active NAD M51 thread.
  
 I'm also interested in finding out the best inputs/converters to use on the M51 for optimum SQ.  From my perspective, though, I'll be starting a new music library and distribution from scratch. How best to do that probably covers >5 threads of topics, I know 
 ...but the constant for me is that I already bought the M51; so perhaps I can choose the system that best matches the M51's input "preferences".
  
 e.g. if I go via a Mac Mini, I guess I'd keep open the options of using optical, HDMI, USB or USB-SPDIF converter. My gut feeling is that where you have the direct optical option available, a USB-SPDIF converter is unlikely to be beneficial.  Comments or corrections very welcome...before I invest in the wrong gear.
  
 For my 2c contribution, I've done a lot of comparisons of CDs played from an Oppo 103D to the M51:  I find zero difference between coax and optical. HDMI sounds "different". Still deciding if it's better or worse; difficult because HDMI is louder so initial impression is to favour that. In longer listening, I have a suspicion it might be a tad more fatiguing; a slight loss of distinction between instruments...perhaps.
  
 Cheers


----------



## NZheadcase

jdoz said:


> e.g. if I go via a Mac Mini, I guess I'd keep open the options of using optical, HDMI, USB or USB-SPDIF converter. *My gut feeling is that where you have the direct optical option available, a USB-SPDIF converter is unlikely to be beneficial.*  Comments or corrections very welcome...before I invest in the wrong gear.


 
  
 If you will run a Mac Mini into the NAD, be aware that it will only output 24/96 - although to be honest, it is not really a limitation at this point for me as I only have less than a dozen tracks at higher reso. Plus I've always believed that red book, properly recorded, can sound as good as hi res. It's the music and the skill put into the recording that gives us the goosebumps. 
  
 Although it does seem like it might not be beneficial, I cannot personally vouch that it is or it is not. I will try and find a kiwi owner of a good SPDIF converter at the Auckland meet in a few months, and maybe we can work out a way for me to borrow it and test = Mac Mini USB with converter VS. Mac Mini optical out into the NAD.


----------



## NZheadcase

skandy said:


> *I'm just not getting the huge improvement that others have expressed. All part of the learning curve I guess.* Thanks!


 
  
 Been in this similar situation early into my time in the hobby. There was once upon a time when I considered returning my LCD 2.2's because I could not get the hang of the sound signature and thought that a pair of HD598's are close to it in sound quality.
  
 Time came though - through lots of listening to favorite tracks and new ones - you learn to pick out the differences in soundstage, how the kick drums in specific passages sound, how further away the cello should be in relation to the piano, how much your adams apple wobbles when you get rocked by low notes and the like. It's come to the point where the same song is a totally different experience based on what gear you use. Totally enjoyable with different gear, but a different way of enjoying each time. I guess my long winded point is enjoy the journey and don't rush with fiddling too much that you neglect really listening to your treasured music through your gear. Instead of chasing improvements, chase experiences, then stick with the experiences you love the most. 
  
 Oh and BTW, your gear is really cool. Wouldn't mind seeing a photo here.


----------



## JDOz

nzheadcase said:


> If you will run a Mac Mini into the NAD, be aware that it will only output 24/96 - although to be honest, it is not really a limitation at this point for me as I only have less than a dozen tracks at higher reso. Plus I've always believed that red book, properly recorded, can sound as good as hi res. It's the music and the skill put into the recording that gives us the goosebumps.
> 
> Although it does seem like it might not be beneficial, I cannot personally vouch that it is or it is not. I will try and find a kiwi owner of a good SPDIF converter at the Auckland meet in a few months, and maybe we can work out a way for me to borrow it and test = Mac Mini USB with converter VS. Mac Mini optical out into the NAD.


 
 Cheers for that; very helpful.  Great if you can do the comparison and I was not aware of the 24/96 limitation so that was a very relevant warning.
  
 Do you know if the HDMI on the Mac Mini has the same limitation?
 Also, I'm curious what you are currently using and whether you have you already tried your own comparisons of HDMI vs optical from Mac Mini to M51?
  
 I've read some of the dogma, like; HDMI being generally bad; optical being bad for jitter, USB better for jitter but bad in other ways like noise transfer. I also have no doubt that USB-SPDIF converters improve SQ in many systems. The real question is how this all ranks when using the M51. NAD claim that their digital conversion method overcomes jitter from the source...and I seem to recall one reviewer liking the HDMI connection the most.  Thinking the M51 may not follow typical rules when it comes to input types.
  
 So thanks again for the relevant input. Hope to hear more.


----------



## music_man

earlier I had commented on the parts,or lack thereof in this dac. I did not realize it is a software dac. hence, it is just a little computer doing a dedicated task. it does it pretty nicely in fact. this could be future proof but no doubt nad will abandon it once a new product comes out. I am wondering if a pc/mac running a software upsampler and a good sound card with nice op-amps could actually best this. since we are mainly using this with computers. why not cut out the middle man? I do not know what the results would be. I am also not insinuating a cheaper route. a good soundcard such as rme is at least as much money as the m51. I suppose it depends on the software. I feel much higher end dacs 24/192 with a redbook transport will best all of this new fangled stuff anyways other than that I am sure someone compared this to the 121 and I missed it. I do prefer the idea of a hardware dac but things may be heading this way everywhere. if the hdmi could decode sacd from a transport I would pay much more than 2 grand for this! listening nad?


----------



## olor1n

Huh? How is the NAD just a "software" dac?

What differentiates it from typical dacs is the conversion from PCM to PWM (for precision and jitter reduction) and the 35bit digital volume control that alleviates truncation. It's still a digital to analogue converter, not a cheap processor in a box.


----------



## JDOz

music_man said:


> earlier I had commented on the parts,or lack thereof in this dac. I did not realize it is a software dac. hence, it is just a little computer doing a dedicated task. it does it pretty nicely in fact. this could be future proof but no doubt nad will abandon it once a new product comes out. I am wondering if a pc/mac running a software upsampler and a good sound card with nice op-amps could actually best this. since we are mainly using this with computers. why not cut out the middle man? I do not know what the results would be. I am also not insinuating a cheaper route. a good soundcard such as rme is at least as much money as the m51. I suppose it depends on the software. I feel much higher end dacs 24/192 with a redbook transport will best all of this new fangled stuff anyways other than that I am sure someone compared this to the 121 and I missed it. I do prefer the idea of a hardware dac but things may be heading this way everywhere. if the hdmi could decode sacd from a transport I would pay much more than 2 grand for this! listening nad?


 
 Not sure what you mean by hardware DAC vs software DAC.  The big differences in the M51 is that it converts the PCM input to PWM and this, they claim, removes jitter. Id imagine most DACs are full of expensive circuitry to reduce jitter in other (probably more expensive) ways.  Also the M51 has 35-bit...a lot.  With a digital volume control you effectively lose bits when you turn the volume down and the M51 has bits to spare so they were able to use a digital volume control without losing SQ. Again this provides a cheaper solution (and a more vacant looking inside) compared to the far more extensive analog circuitry needed in most DACs.
  
 In essence, NAD came up with a novel and less expensive way to overcome some of the key "weak links" in DAC design.
  
 As for using a computer DAC;  another huge factor in DAC performance is the way electronic circuitry adds noise to the signal output and degrades its signal. Probably fair to say that when you buy a $5k DAC, about half that money is paying for the expensive components and design put into minimising that noise and degradation.  This is also why audiophiles favour using a separate box for source, transport, DAC, preamp and amp. This physically separates the noise generating circuitry that is not essential to the task in hand.
 Locating your DAC and analog sections within something that generates as much electronic noise as a computer, is like asking a symphony orchestra to play at the speedway


----------



## JDOz

olor1n said:


> Huh? How is the NAD just a "software" dac?
> 
> What differentiates it from typical dacs is the conversion from PCM to PWM (for precision and jitter reduction) and the 35bit digital volume control that alleviates truncation. It's still a digital to analogue converter, not a cheap processor in a box.


 
 Took me ages to say that :-D


----------



## music_man

i could be wrong. my understanding is that the zetex chip(the dac in this case) is a programmable chip running "software code". or in fact it could be a hardware pcm-pwm pulsing chip. what i have read has been unclear. i did not mean anything by this. i meant to ask as i am uncertain. regardless it sounds pretty good. as does their amp which apparently uses the same chip as it's heart.
  
 just noticed they are replacing it now. a lot more expensive though. certainly looks the part. it has been out for a while. if it is in fact software based they could always upgrade it. apparently it also accepts a dsd stream but it converts it to 35/844. which math in my head tells me is actually a wider data path than native dsd. need a calculator for 2x-8x dsd lol. the nice thing about pwm at 35 bit I am guessing is that they are not moving the noise up the ladder either. anyways if you want a m51 now id wait. they might go on sale soon with the new one here. okay, a lot of guesses on my part.
  
 http://www.stereophile.com/content/nad-m12-dacpreamp


----------



## JDOz

C'mon M51 owners.  A bit more discussion would be good 
  
 Downloaded by very first HD (192/24) FLAC music yesterday...along with Audirvana to play it.  Used my Mac Pro with HDMI vs USB (the latter using a super-cheap and nasty USB cable as it's all I had on hand).
  
 First impression...WOW!  Was ready to do an A/B comparison with the original CD from my Oppo 103D but that was not necessary. The FLAC file was way, way better and this was obvious within a few seconds:  Far more bass, more detail and clarity. Can't believe what I've been missing ...and will continue to miss for most of my music that's not available in HD.
  
 I then tested USB vs HDMI from Mac to M51 and detected quite a difference in sound. Not sure I speak audio well enough to describe but...
  
 The USB had more impact when first listening and focussing on vocals; brighter? warmer?. Very pleasant for vocals but a bit fatiguing on the high frequencies from some instrumental sections. The HDMI had better clarity; more controlled. Drums sounded a bit tighter, separation of instruments was a bit better and the high frequencies...that was the biggest difference...Less distortion, I believe. Could have been trimming or de-emphasising the HF I guess but the end result was that I preferred HDMI for extended listening and found that I'd venture louder with HDMI without fatigue.
  
 As mentioned, I only had a cheap USB cable so don't know what impact a better cable may bring to USB.
  
 Would love to hear which M51 inputs the rest of you use.


----------



## The Monkey

I've used them all; they sound good.


----------



## screwdriver

i prefer using the usb over the hdmi 
 i use kernel  type driver with usb


----------



## JDOz

screwdriver said:


> i prefer using the usb over the hdmi
> i use kernel  type driver with usb


 
 Thanks for the input.  Is this from a PC? direct via "standard" USB cable?
  
 Currently difficult for me to tell whether the differences I hear are due to HDMI/USB differences in the Audirvana software, Mac Pro hardware/software, cables or M51.


----------



## screwdriver

jdoz said:


> Thanks for the input.  Is this from a PC? direct via "standard" USB cable?
> 
> Currently difficult for me to tell whether the differences I hear are due to HDMI/USB differences in the Audirvana software, Mac Pro hardware/software, cables or M51.


 
 it is from a pc using wireworld starlight 7 usb cable , i use jriver  player 
 so its pc/jriver --> wireworld starlight usb cable --> nad m51 --> decware csp2+ as preamp --> alo studio six --> toxic silver poison cable , -->LCD x


----------



## screwdriver

btw i might try a ifi iusb and a yellowtec puc2  going to the nad from the PC


----------



## olor1n

I've switched between usb and optical from my MBP for some time. I also run Audirvana+ and fwiw, use a Furutech Formula 2 usb cable and Silflex Glass toslink cable.
  
 Audirvana+ settings have quite an affect on sq, particularly usb. Optimal settings IMO are Mode 1 Integer and priority set to extreme. Software does not change sample rate.
  
 Usb has the warmest signature on my system, with Mode 1 lifting some of the mid range haze evident through Mode 2. Soundstage has width - more so than the other inputs. However the centre image is more compressed, less at arms length in front of the listener and almost in one's head depending on the recording. These two qualities in unison gives the impression of soundstage width that is, at times, exaggerated.
  
 Optical in comparison is more coherent. Width of stage is less diffused and there's more depth front and centre. Imaging is more convincing as a result. The warmth of usb is replaced with seemingly more pronounced treble. This region is actually smoother through optical than usb. The slight grain and etch through usb is somewhat smothered by its weighty bass rendition but these qualities are evident through my chain and lead to fatigue at times. The seemingly more extended and smoother treble rendition of optical gives the impression of better clarity and resolve, though switching back to usb reveals the same details are present. The only concession over usb is that bass has less body.
  
 Hdmi is an option that I've not used until recently. I run a generic mini display to hdmi cable from my MBP to M51 for when I require a secondary screen. The M51 passes video through to my 32" without fuss and allows me to listen to music through my desktop rig simultaneously. This is an awesome feature, but one that probably won't be appreciated until it's utilised.
  
 In terms of sq though, hdmi initially seemed a compromise over optical and usb. Soundstage seemed retracted in all directions and dynamics (micro and macro) more compressed. Overall presentation appeared more foggy, with less space and separation of elements, nuance in details and deftness in dynamic presentation.
  
 Strangely, that is no longer the case. Whether through "burn-in" of the hdmi input components, brain adjustment, or some other inexplicable mystery of the universe - I now find hdmi to present the best aspects of optical and usb. The weight and body of the lower regions (usb) is evident, as is the cohesion of the soundstage (optical) with that balance between width and depth. Hdmi maintains the warmth of usb and is a great match for my HD800. The most positive aspect of hdmi over usb though is the mitigation of that fatigue inducing grain in the upper mid to treble region. Though not as extended or "airy" in the upper registers as optical, there's a smoothness through hdmi that lends to a very fluid, natural and convincing rendition of music.
  
 Now these differences may not be as pronounced for some but for me they are significant enough to anchor the HD800 in the Goldilocks Zone. I was already quite content with the presentation through optical and usb, but the utility and sound quality of hdmi is like introducing a new component in my chain - one that nudges everything into that sweet spot.
  
  
 edit: this should go without saying but I'll qualify just in case - obviously this is IME and IMO, according to my preferences, and YMMV. I'm also uncertain whether these differences are inherent in the M51's inputs or my MBP's outputs. No doubt others will have different views, so it'll likely be the latter.


----------



## skandy

nzheadcase said:


> Been in this similar situation early into my time in the hobby. There was once upon a time when I considered returning my LCD 2.2's because I could not get the hang of the sound signature and thought that a pair of HD598's are close to it in sound quality.
> 
> Time came though - through lots of listening to favorite tracks and new ones - you learn to pick out the differences in soundstage, how the kick drums in specific passages sound, how further away the cello should be in relation to the piano, how much your adams apple wobbles when you get rocked by low notes and the like. It's come to the point where the same song is a totally different experience based on what gear you use. Totally enjoyable with different gear, but a different way of enjoying each time. I guess my long winded point is enjoy the journey and don't rush with fiddling too much that you neglect really listening to your treasured music through your gear. Instead of chasing improvements, chase experiences, then stick with the experiences you love the most.
> 
> Oh and BTW, your gear is really cool. Wouldn't mind seeing a photo here.


 

 Sorry NZheadcase, been a very busy few days. Just has a bit of time last night to get back to some music. I totally agree, enjoying the music is much more important. Back to my issue the Ciunas converter I have came with an attenuator which I plugged in to try some time ago. I removed it to give it another try and in addition the converter has had many hours of burn in. The result is that the high details became much cleaner. A very noticeable difference and good improvement. I will try another spdif cable when I get some time and report back if there are anymore improvements with converter/spdif over usb.


----------



## music_man

I am still wondering if this is a software based device. like the wadia 121 is. I don't mean anything by it I am just wondering. someone must know.
  
 I just read the zetex spec sheet finally. apparently it is not software based. it is something entirely different than so called "dacs". such as ti,ess etc. there is an updatable firmware but the zetex is a pcm to pwm converter. a much different approach than other dac chips. also used in their digital amp. so they have employed a new use for this chip as a dac. I think they are the first to use it in this capacity. I imagine if 1 bit pwm is good 35 bit pwm must be very good. I have heard the m51 and it was good. I did not hear it for long though. I think what they have done is very interesting. I hope someone compares it to the usual suspects in the less than $2,500 range. those that have spent time with it, is it clearly superior to traditional dacs?


----------



## JDOz

olor1n said:


> I've switched between usb and optical from my MBP for some time. I also run Audirvana+ and fwiw, use a Furutech Formula 2 usb cable and Silflex Glass toslink cable.
> 
> Audirvana+ settings have quite an affect on sq, particularly usb. Optimal settings IMO are Mode 1 Integer and priority set to extreme. Software does not change sample rate.
> 
> ...


 
 Excellent review. Thanks muchly for that.
 Yes, with audio it's all very subjective and equipment-dependent..usual disclaimers   
 I also find that what seems "best" during an A/B comparison involving only a few minutes of A vs. B is often not what sounds best for long-term listening.
 You perfectly described what I was hearing in "The most positive aspect of hdmi over usb though is the mitigation of that fatigue inducing grain in the upper mid to treble region"
  
 Sadly I couldn't test optical from MBP because I (stupidly) snapped off the MBP connector part of the cable before I could try.
  
 I use the same settings in Audirvana+ that you described and have been wondering whether selecting HDMI changes anything in what that software is doing?
 Cheers


----------



## olor1n

From my MBP, integer mode is only via usb and hdmi is "limited" to 96/24 max. Not an issue for me as most of my flac library is red book and I don't allow Audirvana to up-sample.


----------



## JDOz

olor1n said:


> From my MBP, integer mode is only via usb and hdmi is "limited" to 96/24 max. Not an issue for me as most of my flac library is red book and I don't allow Audirvana to up-sample.


 
 Just checked my MBP (~1 yr old) and with HDMI, the INT light is not on. I suppose integer mode doesn't work with any HDMI device; or at least any connected to M51.
  
 I do get 192/24 over HDMI, though; and I have "forced upsampling" set to never.
 ...this is the next extension of my quest for better SQ. Seems some people think oversampling helps and others don't.  Those who say it does help, either suggest exact doubling or multiples of 2x. That part makes sense.
 Have you done a comparison with your redbook CD FLACs using Audirvana+ to double vs. no upsampling?


----------



## JDOz

Hope you don't mind me drawing further on your experience. Also wondering if you have noticed any degradation of SQ when integrating A+ to itunes.
  
 Getting some type of remote control (without a 15m cable) is what I'm mainly after.  Assuming itunes integration is the only option for that.
  
 Thanks again.


----------



## olor1n

I don't use iTunes integration anymore. When I did use it I went through the hassle of duplicating my favourite FLACs to ALAC - just so I could have the nice looking iTunes interface on top of the Audirvana engine. Didn't really perceive any difference in sq though. Now I just load my FLACs natively within Audirvana+ to keep the chain simple. The only thing I miss is the ability to control via the remote app from my iPhone. Not a big issue as I'm usually at my desk on the laptop when listening to tunes.
  
 And no, I haven't extensively tested the effects of Audirvana up-sampling. The times I have played with it nothing significant jumped out. The NAD does internal conversion and up-sampling of PCM signal to 844Khz PWM. Software up-sampling before hardware conversion and up-sampling seems a bit redundant to me. I'd prefer to maintain the purity of the source as much as possible.


----------



## JDOz

Cheers.  I'll give the integration a try.  Upsampling tests might have to wait until I start converting all my CDs to FLAC. Not looking forward to that ...and still need to buy a disc drive and select the best program for doing it.  Currently, I have only a few HD FLACs and 30GB of lossy formats.


----------



## screwdriver

im thinking of buying an oppo 105 to integrate it in my system . I can play my music flac files from a external portable HD trhu the oppo  going to the nad m51n using a spdif coax cable  ( a good usb to spdif  converter and cable will cost close to an oppo 105  used ) , then I will also have the option to play native dsd thru the oppo directly to my amp .


----------



## music_man

I am asking a serious question because I don't know and would like to: is the m51 a lot better than the oppo 105? I am just guessing you are going parallel with that but I honestly have no idea.


----------



## screwdriver

am getting the oppo 105 because i wana get the chance to play my sacd discs , if u imagine a lot of people buy expensive usb to spdif converters  costing about $500-$1400 . if i buy the oppo 105 i dont have to buy the converter , and  ill have the chance to play my sacd discs and dvd audio discs , and dvd  thru the nad , and also get the chance to do dsd playback but not thru the nad , but from the oppo itself , its not like an upgrade , its like getting features the nad does not have and integrating it with the sysytem .


----------



## JDOz

Sounds good.  Please let us know how it works out; e.g. does Oppo improve SQ when used as a USB-SPDIF converter to M51 and whether CDs played from Oppo sound better using 105 DAC or M51 DAC.
  
 I'd be keen to learn what you find. I cheaped out and bought the 103D to save money towards my M51.
  
 BTW; there is a 105D just released or coming soon...if you feel having Darbee for video would add value for you.


----------



## boatheelmusic

All,

Just got a new M51 (Black!), and noticed firmware version is 1.43.

Haven't seen that version mentioned here.....

Bill


----------



## screwdriver

mine also has the 1.43 version of the firmware
 are u gonna try out other lower versions?


----------



## dleblanc343

I personally like 1.39 the most


----------



## purk

jdoz said:


> Sounds good.  Please let us know how it works out; e.g. does Oppo improve SQ when used as a USB-SPDIF converter to M51 and whether CDs played from Oppo sound better using 105 DAC or M51 DAC.
> 
> I'd be keen to learn what you find. I cheaped out and bought the 103D to save money towards my M51.
> 
> BTW; there is a 105D just released or coming soon...if you feel having Darbee for video would add value for you.


 
  
 Yes, the M51 is superior in all count to the Oppo sound wise.  The Oppo is an all-in-one great machine though.


----------



## JDOz

boatheelmusic said:


> All,
> 
> Just got a new M51 (Black!), and noticed firmware version is 1.43.
> 
> ...


 
  
  


screwdriver said:


> mine also has the 1.43 version of the firmware
> are u gonna try out other lower versions?


 
  


dleblanc343 said:


> I personally like 1.39 the most


 
 Aha!  Mine is only one month old.  It has v1.42.  I've been reading about sonic benefits of 1.39 and wanted to try...even learn what the updates actually changed.  Anyway, I wrote to NAD and the responder said she'd never heard of 1.42 and that 1.41 was the latest. I've tried writing again. Thing is, I (and probably you) would like to have a copy of 1.42 or 1.43 so we have the option of reverting back if 1.39 is no better.
 Please let me know if you find out anything.


----------



## JDOz

dleblanc343 said:


> I personally like 1.39 the most


 
 Could you tell me more? ...describe the differences.  Was it just more bass with the 1.39 or something more?
  
 Don't suppose you ever listened to 1.42 or 1.43?
  
 Cheers


----------



## music_man

if they add dsd I am on board. on the other hand 35 bit pwm might already be better.


----------



## boatheelmusic

I think this sounds great with V 1.43 in my system, no desire to backtest.
  
 How can you conclude you like 1.39 "best"?  Where did you get 1.42 or 1.43?
  
 BTW, I've recently tested the Oppo 105 as well as the BMC PureDac in my system.  
  
 With their nasty Sabre dacs, just no comparison.
  
 Actually, I like the Emotiva next best (dual AD 1955's) - detailed and smooth, like the M51.
  
 And for the $499 price, loaded with features, a steal.
  
 Bill


----------



## music_man

there is another bargain to be had with four pcm1795's too..... I still find the conversion by the zetex very interesting.
  
 oops, that's two times pcm1795. not four. my bad.


----------



## JDOz

boatheelmusic said:


> I think this sounds great with V 1.43 in my system, no desire to backtest.
> 
> How can you conclude you like 1.39 "best"?  Where did you get 1.42 or 1.43?
> 
> ...


 
 All that I know re FW is:
 When NAD released 1.41 to replace 1.39 and users started updating, more than just a few of people on forums reported that the SQ was not as good after installing 1.41. Many users then reverted to 1.39 or avoided the update.
 Apart from the two of you reporting that your units arrived with 1.43 and me reported that mine arrived with 1.42, I have found no other reference to any FW other than 1.39 and 1.41 even existing; let alone where they can be downloaded or how they sound compared to 1.39 or whether any bugs were fixed.  I have spent many hours searching for this info via web searches and by asking NAD...so far to no avail.
  
 I'd love to hear from anyone with more info or anyone who actually compared 1.39 to 1.41.  I doubt that anyone has compared 1.42 or 1.43 to any other FW (how would they find a copy to do the update?).
 Starting to wonder if 1.41, 1.42 & 1.43 are identical.


----------



## boatheelmusic

A mystery - it would be great if NAD catalogued these versions and changes.....


----------



## JDOz

boatheelmusic said:


> A mystery - it would be great if NAD catalogued these versions and changes.....


 
 Agree wholeheartedly.
  
 For the record, this is what NAD told be about v1.41
  
The M51 firmware upgrade V1.41 made the following changes:

• In compliance with European Eco design regulations, the “Auto Off” feature is added in the Setup menu. When “Auto Off” is set to “On”, the unit will automatically go to standby mode if there is no audio detected for 30 minutes.
• Address intermittent occurrence of audible ticks or clicks at certain volume levels.


----------



## NicoD6

DO NOT DOWNGRADE TO 1.39!!! I bought my M51 this month and i recently sent it back to NAD because the downgrade from 1.43 to 1.39 bricked it. They told me they will try their best to fix it but that there is no guaranty it'll work.


----------



## boatheelmusic

Sorry to hear this, but thanks!

No going backwards for me!

Hope they can fix yours.......can you just return it?


----------



## olor1n

I'm on 1.39 and am quite content with the sq. Consensus elsewhere is that subsequent updates did not sound as good so I've stayed put. I'll remain on 1.39 until there's an overwhelming chorus that it provides the best sq.
  
 Odd that 1.43 isn't available on the NAD site though. I hope they haven't reverted to the policy of only allowing authorised dealers to perform the updates.


----------



## NicoD6

I'm still waiting for them to give me further information. I'll give you updates


----------



## screwdriver

wonder why your update did not work? did u ptetty much follow all instructions and it didn't go well?


----------



## NicoD6

Yes, everything was done properly. They probably changed the internals in the newer models. That would explain why mine has bricked and why 1.42 and 1.43 are not customer accessible (only compatible with these).


----------



## olor1n

^ That's a bit of a leap. Firmware updates can easily go wrong. That's why NAD only made the files available to authorised dealers initially. Besides, how long has 1.43 been out? I recall a delay in new firmware being out in the wild and availability on the web site.


----------



## screwdriver

nicod6 said:


> Yes, everything was done properly. They probably changed the internals in the newer models. That would explain why mine has bricked and why 1.42 and 1.43 are not customer accessible (only compatible with these).


 
 tnx for the heads up man and i hope u get ur nad m51 back soon .


----------



## JDOz

nicod6 said:


> Yes, everything was done properly. They probably changed the internals in the newer models. That would explain why mine has bricked and why 1.42 and 1.43 are not customer accessible (only compatible with these).


 
 +1  Thanks VERY much for the heads-up.  We can share notes on what NAD tell you and what they tell me in response to my question about doing same.
  
 Considering that NAD direct users to the v1.41 download via their website (and in message to me), I hope and expect that there is no backwards incompatibility and they'll sort out your problem.


----------



## herbiehancock00

I got my M51 two nights ago and it sounds amazing. It is not as natural sounding compared to my TeddyDAC but I am hearing much more detail and instrument separation is superb. The M51 has this amazing ability to preserve the natural timbre and color of each instrument.
  
 I test the DAC out last night with HDMI and I am getting even better instrument separation with it. It is great listening to all the familiar songs and being able to follow each part of the band and hearing exactly what they are playing and feeling the timbre of each instrument.
  
 Anyone else have experience with HDMI? I'm using a cheap $5 hdmi cable, does it make sense to upgrade to something higher quality?
  
 Also, for some reason the EQ and Menu button on the remote doesn't do anything when I press on it. And the Dim button only works when I hold onto it for 2-3 seconds. Is that normal?


----------



## JDOz

herbiehancock00 said:


> I got my M51 two nights ago and it sounds amazing. It is not as natural sounding compared to my TeddyDAC but I am hearing much more detail and instrument separation is superb. The M51 has this amazing ability to preserve the natural timbre and color of each instrument.
> 
> I test the DAC out last night with HDMI and I am getting even better instrument separation with it. It is great listening to all the familiar songs and being able to follow each part of the band and hearing exactly what they are playing and feeling the timbre of each instrument.
> 
> ...


 
 Glad you're enjoying it 
 Unless your HDMI cable is very old or damaged, it will be fine. If you're worried, buy a new one from e.g. monoprice.com for $5-20. Don't buy an expensive HDMI cable without testing it first for improvement. HDMI seems less prone to cable quality than other cable types.
  
 A lot of buttons on the remote have no function. It is a combo remote that also has buttons for other NAD kit.


----------



## dleblanc343

herbiehancock00 said:


> I test the DAC out last night with HDMI and I am getting even better instrument separation with it. It is great listening to all the familiar songs and being able to follow each part of the band and hearing exactly what they are playing and feeling the timbre of each instrument.
> 
> Anyone else have experience with HDMI? I'm using a cheap $5 hdmi cable, does it make sense to upgrade to something higher quality?
> 
> Also, for some reason the EQ and Menu button on the remote doesn't do anything when I press on it. And the Dim button only works when I hold onto it for 2-3 seconds. Is that normal?


 
 It's funny, I had a friend over earlier and we were A/B ing USB vs HDMI around the time you made this post. The USB came out a winner with more holography and openess, and overall a bit more transparent. The HDMI had more smoothness, especially in the lower registers. It sounded more musical but also more dull.
  
 Now here's the thing, the USB cable was the Audioquest Diamond whereas the HDMI was an Audioquest HDMI-1. So yes the USB outperformed it audibly, but I kind of get the feeling a matching caliber HDMI cable may edge out the USB.


----------



## JDOz

dleblanc343 said:


> It's funny, I had a friend over earlier and we were A/B ing USB vs HDMI around the time you made this post. The USB came out a winner with more holography and openess, and overall a bit more transparent. The HDMI had more smoothness, especially in the lower registers. It sounded more musical but also more dull.
> 
> Now here's the thing, the USB cable was the Audioquest Diamond whereas the HDMI was an Audioquest HDMI-1. So yes the USB outperformed it audibly, but I kind of get the feeling a matching caliber HDMI cable may edge out the USB.


 
 Thanks for posting your test result.  Seems there is a consensus that the HDMI and USB sound different. This motivates me even more towards making sure I get the optimum set-up in this regard. "More musical but more dull"; that does not sound unlike what I was hearing. USB had some type of enjoyable impact but for me it was too far from smooth.
  
 Cables, yes; top of the list. Note that I was using some disgusting left-over computer freebie USB cable to do my test. I am wanting to try a better one.  Better HDMI; worth a try. I had some audioquest carbon and chocolate HDMI cables on loan and found no noticeable improvement over my generic $10 cables ...but I never tried them from computer. I was testing from an Oppo disc player at the time (and very conscious of the audioquest price tag!).
  
 Other factors are probably the exact source and software. I was using a newish MacBook Pro (that does 192/24 over HDMI) and Audirvana software. What are you using?
 Cheers


----------



## herbiehancock00

I'm using a 2011 Mac Mini with a 24/96 max output and a cheapo HDMI cable. I'm going to try out a Thunderbolt to HDMI adapter to see if it will give any improvements.


----------



## olor1n

dleblanc343 said:


> herbiehancock00 said:
> 
> 
> > I test the DAC out last night with HDMI and I am getting even better instrument separation with it. It is great listening to all the familiar songs and being able to follow each part of the band and hearing exactly what they are playing and feeling the timbre of each instrument.
> ...


 
  
 Interesting. I initially thought the same about hdmi and felt it was the weakest option for my system as well. That's no longer the case.
  
 I agree that there's smoothness and  it is more "musical", but I wouldn't call it dull. If anything, switching back to usb reveals a slight etch and grain that induces fatigue. The hdmi configuration on my system sounds less artificial. Width of soundstage isn't as wide as usb, but overall imaging is more cohesive and believable.


----------



## herbiehancock00

olor1n said:


> Interesting. I initially thought the same about hdmi and felt it was the weakest option for my system as well. That's no longer the case.
> 
> I agree that there's smoothness and  it is more "musical", but I wouldn't call it dull. If anything, switching back to usb reveals a slight etch and grain that induces fatigue. The hdmi configuration on my system sounds less artificial. Width of soundstage isn't as wide as usb, but overall imaging is more cohesive and believable.


 

 I found the same thing when I tested USB vs HDMI, that USB had this graininess to the sound, while HDMI was smoother but brighter but instrument separation was much higher with HDMI. I was listening to a track I was very familiar with on HDMI and suddenly I heard a synth line in the background that I had never realized was there before and that line was very clear and distinct with HDMI. The soundstage just seems more focused under HDMI. I still haven't decided which sound I prefer, but with HDMI I am definitely hearing more and hearing things clearer. I need to sit down some more and do some comparison.


----------



## screwdriver

the only way to know is to try. dam I have to buy some cables again.


----------



## JDOz

Re firmware, fear not, NAD customer service have their best minds  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 on the job. Their response (below) may be too technical for some so here's the google translation:
 "No, dunno, next case."
  

*re: NAD M51 firmware*
 Adding to my unanswered question above; I just found out that other new owners have v1.43 FW installed on their units. Why is NAD not making each new FW and a list of changes available on the web?
 Please find copies of both 1.42 and 1.43 for me.
 Thanks*Pam*
 2014-02-27 08:09*re: re: NAD M51 firmware*
 Hi John,

 We only posted the last released software on the NAD Electronics website for updating.

 The V1.42 and V1.43 could be production only software releases and have slight software changes not applicable to the general features of the unit.

 We will pass along your suggestion to add a list of fixes with each software releases to the NAD engineering team for future consideration.

 Thank you.

 Regards,

 Pam
 (mw)


----------



## herbiehancock00

How can I check what firmware I have? It doesn't seem to be within the setup menu.


----------



## JDOz

herbiehancock00 said:


> How can I check what firmware I have? It doesn't seem to be within the setup menu.


 
 It's kinda explained in the manual. I'll try from memory; no guarantees:
 Turn unit off via front button.
 Reach behind unit to main power switch, turn that off.
 Wait for a seemingly long time until the red light on the front goes out.
 While holding your finger on the front panel "input" button, turn back on the main power switch on back of unit.
 Release input button and watch display. A v1.xx number should appear. That's it.
 Do nothing for several seconds (or you might trigger a reset).
 Seemed I eventually had to press the front panel power button again to get back to normal.
  
 BTW; days after I checked FW the first time, I noticed that my display was showing "unlocked" while music was playing instead of showing me the sample rate; e.g. 192/24.  I could not work out why or what I'm supposed to do do change the display...anyone know?
  
 Anyway, I went through the above procedure for a 2nd time and the display returned to normal.


----------



## Sanlitun

I just received a new M51 today, and it came with 1.43 as well. 
  
 After reading all of these pages I had thought I might flash to 1.39 just to see the difference but I gather that is out of the question now.
  
 One thing I find is that the procedure for doing a factory reset doesn't seem to work. When I do what is described in the manual the display just lights up and the dac does not shut down automatically like they say. Anyone else with 1.43 able to do a reset?
  
 Something else that may be worth mentioning is that their USB driver is just the rebadged XMOS driver, and it seems to be a couple versions behind.


----------



## JDOz

sanlitun said:


> I just received a new M51 today, and it came with 1.43 as well.
> 
> After reading all of these pages I had thought I might flash to 1.39 just to see the difference but I gather that is out of the question now.
> 
> ...


 
 I phoned my local NAD service agent, who said I could revert to 1.39 and if not happy, take my unit to him for reloading 1.42/1.43.  He seemed to think NAD will promptly send him the latest FW (via secure server) but will not allow him to give me a copy.


----------



## Lappy27

jdoz said:


> It's kinda explained in the manual. I'll try from memory; no guarantees:
> Turn unit off via front button.
> Reach behind unit to main power switch, turn that off.
> Wait for a seemingly long time until the red light on the front goes out.
> ...


 
 Just did the verification of my firmware with your instruction and everything went fine and it worked.
  
 The only thing that puzzled me is my version is 1.35??? I checked it twice. I can't find anything about that version on the web.
  
 I will try to contact a NAD dealer to upgrade to 1.39. My unit was bought from a pawn shop! But still, it's sounding fantastic.


----------



## JDOz

lappy27 said:


> Just did the verification of my firmware with your instruction and everything went fine and it worked.
> 
> The only thing that puzzled me is my version is 1.35??? I checked it twice. I can't find anything about that version on the web.
> 
> I will try to contact a NAD dealer to upgrade to 1.39. My unit was bought from a pawn shop! But still, it's sounding fantastic.


 
 You'll be able to download a copy of 1.39 and install it yourself if you're willing and able. Search the web or M51 forums like this or try (I just searched myself)...
 http://www.fileswap.com/dl/BlRT7tfhYl/
  
 I have NOT yet installed it myself so no guarantees.


----------



## screwdriver

Im just reporting back on some findings in my system
 the first i tried is computer playing flac files using jriver -- usb cable /or hdmi -- nad m51 -- decware csp2+ as preamp -- alo studio six -- silver poison -- lcdX
 using usb  is better than hdmi in this configuration ( i was using a wireworld 7 starlight  and a $80 hdmi  cable)
  
 the next configuration i used 
 playing flac files thru oppo 105 -- hdmi / coax cable -- nad m51--decware csp2+ as preamp -- alo studio six --silver poison --lcdx
 the hdmi and coax sounds identical ( using acoustic zen mc2 coax rca and $80 hdmi cable)
  
 now comparing using flac files thru computer /jriver vs flac file using oppo 105 -- using the oppo 105 is much much better 
  
 and the nad is way way better than the oppo dac 
 playing dsd that is downgraded to pcm on the nad m51 is not very good  especially on the computer /jriver 
 it is much better playing fdsd files on the oppo 105
  
  
 i have not tired using the computer  usb to spdif cable .


----------



## Sanlitun

I'm pretty curious as to how others have their M51's connected and in particular their volume settings?
  
 After tinkering around with this DAC for a few days I find the output to be quite hot, and indeed hot enough when set at or approaching 0db to change the sound. As well at 0db I wouldn't be able to turn the volume on my CMA800R amp up past 8 o'clock or so.
  
 Right now I am using the factory default fixed setting of -20db and this seems to give a more resolved and natural sound. I'm wondering if anyone else has noticed sound quality differences related to volume with this DAC?


----------



## boatheelmusic

You shouldn't, given its 35 bit architecture IMO.


----------



## Clemmaster

boatheelmusic said:


> You shouldn't, given its 35 bit architecture IMO.


 
  
 Yes he might because the DAC is performing internal up-sampling *interpolation* (with a high resampling factor) which produces overshoot that can result in clipping in the digital signal when the gain is 0dB.
 If it does not apply a pre-gain before to account for that, of course.
  
 That's the reason why Resonessence drops the output level by 10dB (or so) on the Concero when using their up-sampling filters (pre-gain).
  
 IIRC, some people complained about clipping on the early firmwares and one solution was to set the volume to -1dB instead of 0dB (bug).
  
 The CMA800R could also not like the hot output's level.


----------



## boatheelmusic

OK, but he wants to turn the DAC down, not anywhere near 0.


----------



## Clemmaster

boatheelmusic said:


> OK, but he wants to turn the DAC down, not anywhere near 0.


 
  
 I assumed that the difference in sound he noticed was between -20dB and 0dB, not -20dB and any other volume setting?


----------



## boatheelmusic

My point is if 0db is too hot, gturn the M51 down without penalty!


----------



## Clemmaster

boatheelmusic said:


> My point is if 0db is too hot, gturn the M51 down without penalty!


 
 And my point is that it could well be normal that he actually finds -20dB to sound better than 0dB for the reason I mentioned.


----------



## boatheelmusic

If 0db is too hot, turn it down without deterioration!


----------



## Clemmaster

Am I talking to a wall here? ...


----------



## JDOz

clemmaster said:


> Am I talking to a wall here? ...


 
 Problem with reverberation?  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 Yes, keep below 0 dB.  I've also seen -1 and -3 mentioned.  The graphs of distortion vs digital signal level suggest -10 dB is optimal ...wish I understood if that particular data relates in any way to the volume setting on M51 or only something we can't control, like the recording level.
  
 Any idea whether there is a technical reason (or SQ evidence) to suggest that using a fixed volume setting would be superior to variable?
  
 e.g., even apart from vol. attenuation in preamp vs M51, does fixed volume setting actually bypass any circuitry in M51?


----------



## Sanlitun

clemmaster said:


> The CMA800R could also not like the hot output's level.


 
  
 I think it must be something like the gain just being too high rather than any sort of signal changes caused by the digital volume. I'm curious if anyone else is trying to run it at 0db or if that is too hot for everyone.
  
 Of course I did set it a 0db initially, as I thought that would be best for the digital volume, but the sound is rather fat with a loss of clarity and detail. So I am at -20db with the fixed outputs and the CMA800R set at about 10 o'clock and that sounds spectacular. 
  
 It's been quite a little adventure to get the best sound of this DAC in my setup. One thing I found in a post over in the M51 thread at the Australian HIFI forum is that there is a different opamp setup for XLR and RCA, and yes it does seem the magic really happens with the XLR connection.


----------



## NicoD6

So i just got back my M51 and everything works perfectly. Apparently, they just did a firmware upgrade...


----------



## Sanlitun

nicod6 said:


> So i just got back my M51 and everything works perfectly. Apparently, they just did a firmware upgrade...


 
  
 Did you get it back with 1.43?


----------



## NicoD6

sanlitun said:


> Did you get it back with 1.43?




Yes


----------



## JDOz

nicod6 said:


> Yes


 
 Did the service agent (or anyone) suggest that reverting to 1.39 is impossible or problematic?


----------



## NicoD6

jdoz said:


> Did the service agent (or anyone) suggest that reverting to 1.39 is impossible or problematic?


 
 That's what they told me from the beginning.


----------



## JDOz

nicod6 said:


> That's what they told me from the beginning.


 
 Oh!!!   I was planning to try it this weekend.


----------



## JDOz

It's strange because 1.39 & 1.41 were backwards compatible and any new user that decided to "upgrade" their FW without first checking what version they have would be led by the NAD website to install 1.41 into their 1.43 unit.  If that causes the same problems, the service agents will be making some money.


----------



## jonbee

FWIW- I just bought a used M51 which was on build 1.37. I upgraded to 1.43 (DL'd from the NAD site) w/o any issues I've found so far.
 I really like this component. The DAC is more open and detailed than my Dexa'd EE DAC plus,(not huge but noticeable), and a bit more forward in the mids. Pulling my wonderful, monster Audio-GD C3 preamp out and running the M51 into my Hypex NC400 amp opened it further, for another step up in immediacy. I was worried I would lose some dynamic power and impact by dropping the C3 (those are among its many strong points), but I haven't lost any bass power or anything I can hear, so it seems the M51 is perfectly capable of driving my power amp.
 At this point I see going with the M51 with my all digital sourced SS system is a total winner for me.


----------



## orkney

jonbee said:


> FWIW- I just bought a used M51 which was on build 1.37. I upgraded to 1.43 (DL'd from the NAD site) w/o any issues I've found so far.


 
  
 Glad you're enjoying the M51 -- it's a great piece. Any word on what 1.43 brings to the table in terms of functionality, features or SQ?
  
 best,
  
 o


----------



## ron-zone

New here, hello everybody!
 I tried today update from 1.39 to 1.43 (did not like 1.41) but I got error while update process. So I had to went back to 1.39.
 Anybody can help?
 What is new with 1.43?


----------



## NicoD6

Has anyone compared 1.39 to 1.43 in terms of SQ yet?


----------



## dleblanc343

nicod6 said:


> Has anyone compared 1.39 to 1.43 in terms of SQ yet?


 
 No, but we will! No better opinions can be formed than that 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 rr


----------



## Vargtass

I had 1.36 (I think - the dac was bought just about when it hit the stores and then never updated) and I recently upgraded the firmware. I can't really tell much of a difference - there might be a slightly wider sound stage and possibly some added oomph, but I'm pretty much sure that's placebo. There is NO way for me to be extremely sure, at least. Both my LCD-3's and my HD-800's sound pretty much the same. 
  
 At least I seem to have lost some strange jittery sounds when the DAC was set to 0 volume. I used to run it at -4, and there would be no strange noises. Now I run at -10, so I don't really know if I can hear differences anyways. 
  
 So far so good though - and I'm happy with the DAC. There is just no real reason for me to upgrade. I've tested some more expensive DACs, but I can't really tell them apart enough for them to warrant a 10.000 usd upgrade.


----------



## NicoD6

Does anyone else think the M51 could be a little bit more dynamic? I'm not sure whether the Nad or the rest of my system is to blame.


----------



## Lappy27

nicod6 said:


> Does anyone else think the M51 could be a little bit more dynamic? I'm not sure whether the Nad or the rest of my system is to blame.


 
 Dynamic definitly not a problem with the M51 in my set up.


----------



## JDOz

nicod6 said:


> Does anyone else think the M51 could be a little bit more dynamic? I'm not sure whether the Nad or the rest of my system is to blame.


 
 Not a problem in my system either.  What source and M51 input are you using?


----------



## JDOz

nicod6 said:


> Has anyone compared 1.39 to 1.43 in terms of SQ yet?


 
 I had 1.42 and downgraded to 1.39.  I think 1.39 sounds better.  Haven't tried 1.43.


----------



## screwdriver

i emailed spearit sound where i bought my nad m51 and in turn they forwarded my email to NAD . 
  
 the reply :
  
Your M51 has the latest firmware installed V1.43. We do not recommend rolling the firmware back to an earlier version as this could “brick” your unit rendering in operative.


----------



## screwdriver

nicod6 said:


> Does anyone else think the M51 could be a little bit more dynamic? I'm not sure whether the Nad or the rest of my system is to blame.


 
 my system is crazy good with the NAd M51


----------



## NicoD6

jdoz said:


> Not a problem in my system either.  What source and M51 input are you using?




I'm using a macbook pro retina (with Audirvana) and a generic usb cable.


----------



## NicoD6

The reason i complain about the dynamics is because, when i compared it to the Nuforce Dac-100, it was just not as lively. Every other aspect of the sound was better on the M51 though. It is probably due to the nature of the HD800 wich i'm most probably going to change for a pair of Hifiman HE560.


----------



## olor1n

I have no qualms with the M51's dynamics either. To my ears the M51 is deft and able to show good contrasts of quite and loud.
  
 I upgraded from the Gungnir. That dac is lively and was a fun listen at times. However, I grew tired of its energy. I soon found it too "shouty" and lacking finesse.
  
 I've seen people describe the Gungnir as a dynamic dac. I disagree. To me it's actually dynamically compressed - just tuned to 11 on the dial most of the time. The M51 swings between 2 and 10 on the dynamics dial when called for. It's much more refined than lesser dacs.


----------



## JDOz

nicod6 said:


> I'm using a macbook pro retina (with Audirvana) and a generic usb cable.


 
 Problem must be downstream of the M51. Sounds like you're gonna address that. Hope it helps.
 BTW;  I preferred using the HDMI-out from my MBP (also Audirvana) and I got an extra improvement using thunderbolt to HDMI. Not your main issue though.


----------



## boatheelmusic

I had no such issues with my M51.

I read a review of the NuForce that described it as "very dynamic".

If that's your preference, was it wise to change to a very neutral dac?


----------



## purk

screwdriver said:


> my system is crazy good with the NAd M51


 
 Who recommended the M51 to you again?


----------



## screwdriver

purk said:


> Who recommended the M51 to you again?




some cool guy named purk knocked some sense into me ............


----------



## NicoD6

boatheelmusic said:


> I had no such issues with my M51.
> 
> I read a review of the NuForce that described it as "very dynamic".
> 
> If that's your preference, was it wise to change to a very neutral dac?


 
 I think that matching the HD800 with this dac was not a good idea for me since they are both very neutral and i don't wanna take the tube path for the amp. Right now, i am thinking about changing my whole setup so you guys might see the M51 in the FS thread soon. HD800 is already there.


----------



## boatheelmusic

I like neutral, but in your case you may wish to look at the Grace m903, or if you want DSD the Grace M920.


----------



## purk

nicod6 said:


> I think that matching the HD800 with this dac was not a good idea for me since they are both very neutral and i don't wanna take the tube path for the amp. Right now, i am thinking about changing my whole setup so you guys might see the M51 in the FS thread soon. HD800 is already there.


 
  
 Have you upgrade your HD800 with a good cable or you may need a good amp for them?  I'm running HD800 balanced with the M51 and GS-X MKII and the combo produces spectacular sound.  I'm a big fan of the M51 and found it to be good enough source for my SR009 & BHSE.


----------



## NicoD6

purk said:


> Have you upgrade your HD800 with a good cable or you may need a good amp for them?  I'm running HD800 balanced with the M51 and GS-X MKII and the combo produces spectacular sound.  I'm a big fan of the M51 and found it to be good enough source for my SR009 & BHSE.


 
 No, i did not upgrade the cable. As for the amp, i tried the Questyle CMA800R, which is considered one of the best SS amp for the HD800 and i was REALLY impressed. With this system, there was no flaw IMO (the M51 was not even weak in the chain, which is impressive) excepting that it was still a little too cold sounding for my taste. This is not the only reason i want to sell my system though. I am only 21 and it bothers me to own such high end gear, so i intend to downgrade to the HE-560 with a simple DAC/amp combo unit.


----------



## boatheelmusic

Seriously, the Emotiva DC1 or Dangerous Music Source dac/preamps are great dacs at great prices.


----------



## bdmarion

Has anyone tried the iFi iUSB with the M51?  I'm wondering if it's worth the $200 to add one between my desktop PC and the M51.


----------



## ellevoid

nicod6 said:


> No, i did not upgrade the cable. As for the amp, i tried the Questyle CMA800R, which is considered one of the best SS amp for the HD800 and i was REALLY impressed. With this system, there was no flaw IMO (the M51 was not even weak in the chain, which is impressive) excepting that it was still a little too cold sounding for my taste. This is not the only reason i want to sell my system though. I am only 21 and it bothers me to own such high end gear, so i intend to downgrade to the HE-560 with a simple DAC/amp combo unit.


 
 Have you try HDVA600 or HDVD800? For me I think they are the best SS amp for HD800. 
 Highly recommended if you can find a cheap one (IMHO the retail price is way too high). 
  


bdmarion said:


> Has anyone tried the iFi iUSB with the M51?  I'm wondering if it's worth the $200 to add one between my desktop PC and the M51.


 
 Do you mean iFi iUSBPower? If yes, I think you should go for iPurifier or upgrade your USB cable instead since iUSBPower is designed for DAC that use power from USB port and M51 is already have their own power supply.
  
 Btw I use iUSBPower+Gemini cable with my NAD M51.


----------



## bdmarion

> Originally Posted by *ellevoid* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Do you mean iFi iUSBPower? If yes, I think you should go for iPurifier or upgrade your USB cable instead since iUSBPower is designed for DAC that use power from USB port and M51 is already have their own power supply.
> 
> Btw I use iUSBPower+Gemini cable with my NAD M51.


 
  
 Thanks for the response, that helps...I have been trying to figure out if the M51 uses USB power.  I even called NAD and didn't get a real direct answer to that question.  Out of curiosity, how do you know this to be the case?
  
 So, you've got the iUSB Power and the Gemini on your M51 but recommend going with just the iPurifier instead?  I just want to make sure I'm understanding what you're saying...
  
 Do you think the iPurifier and the Gemini would be beneficial enough to make it worth the money?  FYI, I'm going to be using the M51 with the WA5 and HD800's (and Beyerdynamic T5P's)...
  
 Thanks again.


----------



## ellevoid

bdmarion said:


> Thanks for the response, that helps...I have been trying to figure out if the M51 uses USB power.  I even called NAD and didn't get a real direct answer to that question.  Out of curiosity, how do you know this to be the case?
> 
> So, you've got the iUSB Power and the Gemini on your M51 but recommend going with just the iPurifier instead?  I just want to make sure I'm understanding what you're saying...
> 
> ...


 
  
 I mean, if you are going to buy iUSB Power, you should buy Gemini cable as well.
 Otherwise go for iFi Mercury or other higher grade usb cable + iPurifier instead.
  
 From iFi Audio website, the best setup would be PC -> (iFi Mercury usb cable + iUSB Power + Gemini cable + iPurifier) -> DAC. 
)


----------



## Vargtass

I flashed my firmware a couple of weeks ago and I've noticed that my DAC shuts itself off after idling for a while. Couldn't find any info about it in the firmware read-me. It never shuts off except for when it's idle without input / music playing, so I'm assuming it's a new feature - I just never read anything about it before I suddenly noticed it. 
  
 In other news, I just love my M51 still. Newest firmware, I might even be detecting a slightly bump in detail compared to the extremely old firmware I ran previously (1.36 I think).


----------



## screwdriver

vargtass said:


> I flashed my firmware a couple of weeks ago and I've noticed that my DAC shuts itself off after idling for a while. Couldn't find any info about it in the firmware read-me. It never shuts off except for when it's idle without input / music playing, so I'm assuming it's a new feature - I just never read anything about it before I suddenly noticed it.
> 
> In other news, I just love my M51 still. Newest firmware, I might even be detecting a slightly bump in detail compared to the extremely old firmware I ran previously (1.36 I think).


 
 so u are at 1.43 firmware now?


----------



## Sanlitun

bdmarion said:


> Has anyone tried the iFi iUSB with the M51?  I'm wondering if it's worth the $200 to add one between my desktop PC and the M51.


 
  
 In my case I went with the Audiophilleo 2. It's more expensive but you are isolating your M51 from the PC power and gaining a better sounding USB interface all in one.
  
 If you spend $200+ on the iFi iUSB you are still left with the same onboard XMOS and you may find the improvements to be negligible.


----------



## Vargtass

screwdriver said:


> so u are at 1.43 firmware now?


 
  
 I'm at 1.43 yessir. I'm uncertain why people don't like it. I feel it's better than what I previously had (as said, a very old build, quite possibly the first one that shipped with the DAC seing as I bought it not long after release) but it's a step up for me. Using it paired with a Schiit Mjolnir mainly on my LCD-3's but also my HD-800's.


----------



## screwdriver

sanlitun said:


> In my case I went with the Audiophilleo 2. It's more expensive but you are isolating your M51 from the PC power and gaining a better sounding USB interface all in one.
> 
> If you spend $200+ on the iFi iUSB you are still left with the same onboard XMOS and you may find the improvements to be negligible.


 
 i have a question.
 in this case - instead of buying an audiophelleo2 and power for about $1000 , would it be comparable just to buy a oppo 105 and use its ability where u connect  a portable hard drive and play music - it can be connected by coax or toslink i believe . then u also gaing with the oppo disc playing abilities sacd/cd/dvda and bluray


----------



## Lappy27

screwdriver said:


> i have a question.
> in this case - instead of buying an audiophelleo2 and power for about $1000 , would it be comparable just to buy a oppo 105 and use its ability where u connect  a portable hard drive and play music - it can be connected by coax or toslink i believe . then u also gaing with the oppo disc playing abilities sacd/cd/dvda and bluray


 
 The improvment Audiophilleo2 + PurePower brought to my M51 in comparison of his USB input is simply *stratospheric.*
  
 If you have the means even in a stretch, it's definitly money well spent if you're looking for sublime sound reproduction with *total absence *of noise.
  
 Once paid and at the first listen, you will instantly forget about the money and you will congrats yourself every listening session. To all the people who think the M51 sounds good with his USB input, believe me, you only heard about 50% of the M51 potential. This is an absolute serious statement.


----------



## Lappy27

screwdriver said:


> i have a question.
> in this case - instead of buying an audiophelleo2 and power for about $1000 , would it be comparable just to buy a oppo 105 and use its ability where u connect  a portable hard drive and play music - it can be connected by coax or toslink i believe . then u also gaing with the oppo disc playing abilities sacd/cd/dvda and bluray


 
 The improvment Audiophilleo2 + PurePower brought to my M51 in comparison of his USB input is simply *stratospheric.*
  
 If you have the means even in a stretch, it's definitly money well spent if you're looking for sublime sound reproduction with *total absence *of noise.
  
 Once paid, you will forget about the money and you will congrats yourself every listening session. To all the people who think the M51 sounds good with his USB input, believe me, you only heard about 50% of the M51 potential. This is an absolute serious statement.


----------



## Lappy27

vargtass said:


> I'm at 1.43 yessir. I'm uncertain why people don't like it. I feel it's better than what I previously had (as said, a very old build, quite possibly the first one that shipped with the DAC seing as I bought it not long after release) but it's a step up for me. Using it paired with a Schiit Mjolnir mainly on my LCD-3's but also my HD-800's.


 
 I'm still stuck with 1.35 version. I tried to downloaded 1.39 but the display keep saying NO UPDATE FILE. I'm still waiting from NAD tech support about that. If I can't do it myself, I will bring it to a NAD dealer in Montreal. They gonna charge me about 85$ (including taxes) to do it.


----------



## screwdriver

lappy27 said:


> The improvment Audiophilleo2 + PurePower brought to my M51 in comparison of his USB input is simply *stratospheric.*
> 
> If you have the means even in a stretch, it's definitly money well spent if you're looking for sublime sound reproduction with *total absence *of noise.
> 
> Once paid, you will forget about the money and you will congrats yourself every listening session. To all the people who think the M51 sounds good with his USB input, believe me, you only heard about 50% of the M51 potential. This is an absolute serious statement.


 
 i asked because i have been using an oppo 105 to play flac files and this is leaps and bounds better than using computer usb to nad connection , the oppo is connected via coax cable or hdmi cable so no need for usb connection .


----------



## jaycalgary

I notice a nice improvement with a meaty occc copper power cable.


----------



## philo50

lappy27 said:


> The improvment Audiophilleo2 + PurePower brought to my M51 in comparison of his USB input is simply *stratospheric.*


 
 +1....stratospheric might be a bit much, but the improvement is substantial.....


----------



## bdmarion

I've just spent all of this morning and part of last night trying to figure out a problem with my M51...
  
 This was part of the reason I originally asked about putting the iUSB power between my desktop and my M51--I was thinking I was having loop/rf/dirty power issues from my computer.
  
 However, the more I looked into trying to fix what I was hearing when outputting USB into my M51, the clearer it became that something was really wrong and this was NOT just something that needed a tweak.
  
 The symptom was that whenever I set my audio output on my PC to a high sample rate/bit depth, I would hear this VERY high pitch tone (like a ringing in my ear).  It was dependent on the volume setting of my amp (Woo WA5)--the higher the volume the louder the ringing.
  
 I tried switching out literally ALL involved components and cables--including the computer (tried a laptop on battery) and the amp (I have a WA7 here right now, too).  NOTHING made a difference (when the USB was the input to the dac) so I figured I had bad USB output or noise coming directly from the motherboard.
  
 I just got the M51 from Crutchfield (open box) for $1599 a few days ago.
  
 I called them and they had no idea what the issue was--agreed with me that it might be the motherboard of my pc.
  
 As an aside, Crutchfield has WONDERFUL customer service...can't recommend them enough...
  
 Anyway, I then called NAD directly and they asked me a lot of questions and had me do a lot of things I'd already tried:
 -uninstall and reinstall USB2.0 driver from website
 -update firmware to 1.43
 -try different components (including plugging in a CD player via digital coax--this was clean, no noise)
 -etc.
  
 Nothing worked--they were baffled.  Their only thought was that the power supply / motherboard of my pc was doing something "weird."
  
 Then I told him I had a NAD C390DD upstairs so I brought it down, plugged it in to the system using all previously used components and cables...GUESS WHAT?  NO NOISE--NICE QUIET SIGNAL!!  This made it clear that the problem is inside the M51.
  
 So, it turns out I've got a bad M51.  I called Crutchfield and they, without hesitation, said they'd send me a brand new (not open-box) unit (at the open-box price).
  
 I'll be hoping the new one doesn't have any issues (won't be here for a couple weeks--currently out of stock).
  
 Has anyone else had anything like this happen with their M51?


----------



## ellevoid

Saw this review on M51, I think "Lab Report" part is pretty interesting. 
  
 http://nadelectronics.com/img/Marketing/HFN_NAD-M51.pdf


----------



## screwdriver

Bdmarion.how high sample rate?


----------



## bdmarion

Really, it was present at any sample rate if I turned the amp volume up enough.  But, simply put, the higher the bit depth/sample rate, the worse it got.  By the time I was up to 24/192 (not that I really need to be up there), it was distracting at even low volume levels.


----------



## screwdriver

Bdmarion. Few questions. What player are u using to play music files? Did u have other dacs with drivers installed in the computer? What firmware version do u have?


----------



## bdmarion

screwdriver said:


> Bdmarion. Few questions. What player are u using to play music files? Did u have other dacs with drivers installed in the computer? What firmware version do u have?


 
 ...yeah, these are among the many things I already dealt with (and was subsequently asked about when I talked to NAD).  The M51 came with 141 and I updated to 143, I removed all other dac drivers from my PC (there was only one), I installed the NAD USB 2.0 driver directly from NAD website and not windows update.
  
 For now, at least, I'm using iTunes and pretty much all my tracks are ALAC.  In the future, I plan on changing over to JRiver and will slowly transition into higher res stuff...but for now, iTunes and Apple lossless.
  
 Like I said above, I'm quite confident I just ended up with a bad M51.  When I plugged in my C390DD using identical components, cables, drivers, placement, etc...and there were no issues at all, that pretty much made it clear...


----------



## screwdriver

bdmarion said:


> ...yeah, these are among the many things I already dealt with (and was subsequently asked about when I talked to NAD).  The M51 came with 141 and I updated to 143, I removed all other dac drivers from my PC (there was only one), I installed the NAD USB 2.0 driver directly from NAD website and not windows update.
> 
> For now, at least, I'm using iTunes and pretty much all my tracks are ALAC.  In the future, I plan on changing over to JRiver and will slowly transition into higher res stuff...but for now, iTunes and Apple lossless.
> 
> Like I said above, I'm quite confident I just ended up with a bad M51.  When I plugged in my C390DD using identical components, cables, drivers, placement, etc...and there were no issues at all, that pretty much made it clear...


 
 hope u can get it fixed


----------



## orkney

Word to the wise -- I took the plunge to 1.43 from 1.39, and unlike 1.41, I can't revert. Flashing with 1.39 leaves 1.43 installed. No way back, for my unit anyway, it seems.
  
 So if you're a 1.39 fan take care in upgrading. You may never be able to go home...again.
  
 EDIT: You can get back to 1.39 via 1.41 -- 1.43 >>> 1.41 >>> 1.39. PITA, but it works, and confirms 1.39 as the best-sounding to date, to my ears at least.
  
 best,
  
 o


----------



## olor1n

Thanks for the heads up.

1.39 for life!


----------



## Sanlitun

There is an interesting new addendum to the original Stereophile review where they talk about the v1.39 firmware vs. others:
  
http://www.stereophile.com/content/nad-m51-direct-digital-da-converter-john-atkinson-may-2014


----------



## ellevoid

sanlitun said:


> There is an interesting new addendum to the original Stereophile review where they talk about the v1.39 firmware vs. others:
> 
> http://www.stereophile.com/content/nad-m51-direct-digital-da-converter-john-atkinson-may-2014


 
 Interesting, from footnote if I use 1.41 and increase volume +1 db it should sound as good as 1.39?


----------



## screwdriver

orkney said:


> Word to the wise -- I took the plunge to 1.43 from 1.39, and unlike 1.41, I can't revert. Flashing with 1.39 leaves 1.43 installed. No way back, for my unit anyway, it seems.
> 
> So if you're a 1.39 fan take care in upgrading. You may never be able to go home...again.
> 
> ...


 

 Orkney , what serial number is your nad M51?


----------



## screwdriver

nicod6 said:


> So i just got back my M51 and everything works perfectly. Apparently, they just did a firmware upgrade...


 
 Nico what serial number is your Nad.
  
 im checking as the version 1.39 has a disclaimer that it can be used for nad m51 with serial
  
 anything higher in the recommended serial can make the and inoperable they say .
  

 *Modification applicable for units prior to serial number: *
 *Applies to units before serial number code - H25M51XXXXX *
*i.e. from H24M51XXXXX and below *


----------



## NicoD6

H35M51XXXXX... I noticed the disclaimer after. I assumed it was the same machine but i guess i was wrong.

Here is a picture of my M51 (top, newer) vs my friend's one


You can see that the finish is now improved. It is finer.

Edit: serial is H39M51XXXXX, not H35M51XXXXX


----------



## Sanlitun

Mine is a H39M51XXXXX which came with 1.43. I had thought 1.39 was not a good idea for me and I guess this is the case.
  
 What I really wonder is if there are any physical changes to the circuit boards.


----------



## NicoD6

Actually, i made a mistake. Mine is also H39M51XXXXX.


----------



## wotef

Hey guys, I tried out 1.43 for a few days then went back to 1.39 (with no problems) and the strengths of 1.39 remain - deeper bass and a more meaty sound!


----------



## screwdriver

wotef said:


> Hey guys, I tried out 1.43 for a few days then went back to 1.39 (with no problems) and the strengths of 1.39 remain - deeper bass and a more meaty sound!


 
 what serial number is yours?


----------



## wotef

H29M5102456


----------



## Suopermanni

Hello NAD M51 users,
  
 I have a question. Has anyone got the NAD M51 working on a Windows PC? I don't know how to get the device to output sound through HDMI. I have HDMI outputs on my mobo and graphics cards.


----------



## argentum

Isn't there Digital display Audio choice in your Windows sound options? By the way which graphic card  are you using ?


----------



## wotef

I don't have to do anything other than plug it in for it to work. The laptop autodetects the connection and handshakes with the NAD.
  
 If it makes any difference, I plug in the NAD first, then the laptop, then hit the HDMI input on the remote.


----------



## wotef

You may want to check the device settings in the "Sound" tab of control panel. Set the HDMI/NAD to be default, perhaps?


----------



## Suopermanni

I got it working, guys. It appears that the mobo's HDMI only can be used for display purposes.


----------



## MobyOne

Format your USB stick to Fat32


----------



## pearljam50000

Has anyone compared the M51 to Benchmark DAC2?


----------



## wotef

Yes, I did - here's my blog post


----------



## KmanChu

wotef said:


> Yes, I did - here's my blog post


 
 Nice review!


----------



## pearljam50000

Cool, thanx.
 Since the M51 is an "old" model, is there going to be an updated version with DSD soon?


----------



## KmanChu

pearljam50000 said:


> Cool, thanx.
> Since the M51 is an "old" model, is there going to be an updated version with DSD soon?


 
 I don't think that is likely. The M51 uses a proprietary conversion scheme (they don't choose a Sabre, Wolfson, or Burr-Brown dac chips, they essentially developed their own.)


----------



## KmanChu

The new NAD M12 is starting to hit stores. I wondered what this would mean for the M51. It looks like it just got rebranded as the NAD C510 and gained a volume control on the front.
  
 And the price got knocked down to $1300!!  What a steal it is now.
  
 http://www.audioadvisor.com/NAD-C510-Preamplifier-_-DAC/productinfo/NAC510/#.U-_lR_ldV8E


----------



## SearchOfSub

Wait, so is the C510 and the Nad M51 the same thing?


----------



## SearchOfSub

Where can i order the Nad M12? Do you have a link. Thanks.

Sent from my SM Galaxy Tab using Tapatalk


----------



## gregjnjarvis

Wow, first I've heard of the M12 - I see they've added a phono section, very cool. Wonder if there's any change in the DAC itself? Don't see any mention of DSD....

edit: looks like lots of streaming and wireless options which is nice, and a modular approach, which may help with some level of future proofing.


----------



## gregjnjarvis

searchofsub said:


> Wait, so is the C510 and the Nad M51 the same thing?



Can't quite figure this out either....descriptions are not identical, tough to tell if they just added a volume knob and rebranded, or if there's some internal downgrading.....


----------



## KmanChu

gregjnjarvis said:


> Wow, first I've heard of the M12 - I see they've added a phono section, very cool. Wonder if there's any change in the DAC itself? Don't see any mention of DSD....
> 
> edit: looks like lots of streaming and wireless options which is nice, and a modular approach, which may help with some level of future proofing.


 
 I'm pretty sure the DAC chip itself hasn't changed. They essentially developed their own chip which is a tremendous investment for a company that is only going to use it in their own products. From what I can tell the output buffer stage is supposedly improved. Functionally it looks like they have tried to bring some of the cool features of the C390DD integrated amp to the Master series.
  
 I don't really see DSD. The 35-bit depth and digital volume control and other DSP functions are all impossible with DSD. There would have to be a DSD->PCM conversion.
  
 The streaming is what is interesting to me. I am still considering an M50 streamer to go with my M51. Ever since Logitech killed the Squeezebox I have been hoping for a real alternative that is relaible and easy to use (that is better than Sonos.) It looks like their BluOS ecosystem might finally be what I have been waiting for.


----------



## KmanChu

searchofsub said:


> Where can i order the Nad M12? Do you have a link. Thanks.
> 
> Sent from my SM Galaxy Tab using Tapatalk


 
 http://www.audioadvisor.com/NAD-M12-Master-Series-Stereo-Preamplifier/productinfo/NAM12/#.U_Cs4_ldV8E


----------



## gregjnjarvis

Is it even possible to use a turntable with a M51 using its preamp? Never really thought about it before...not really any way to do that, right? There's nowhere for a phono preamp to connect to it.


----------



## actx

Hello - new hear and looking for some insight. . .I am looking at the two configurations below and not sure which way I should go. . .perhaps you can share some opinions?
  
 Room - 20x25
 Speakers - B&W CM10s
 Usage - 80% music, 20% AppleTV.  Music is the most important by far.  Music listened to is Jazz and Classical.
 Input - all digital.  Either High Def or lossless CD Rips.
  
 Option 1 - NAD 390DD + HDMI cartridge
 Option 2 - NAD M51 + Pioneer Elite SC-63
  
 Cost for both is the same and well under list so these are the two things I am considering.  Specifically, is the SC-63 going to be able to reveal all that the M51 can present?
  
 Thanks


----------



## SearchOfSub

Why reciever? Nad M51 with a good 2 channel amp is better imho.

Sent from my SM Galaxy Tab using Tapatalk


----------



## actx

Pioneer Elite SC-63 is the receiver.


----------



## SearchOfSub

Whats your budget?

Sent from my SM Galaxy Tab using Tapatalk


----------



## KmanChu

actx said:


> Hello - new hear and looking for some insight. . .I am looking at the two configurations below and not sure which way I should go. . .perhaps you can share some opinions?
> 
> Room - 20x25
> Speakers - B&W CM10s
> ...


 
  
 To me the answer is easy, get the C390DD, it is a beast of an amp.  The C390DD has a lot more features than the M51. It has subwoofer crossover and room EQ built in, etc. Also, it will very soon have the option to use a module that adds integrated streaming to it, the BluOS module: http://www.audiostream.com/content/nad-c-390dd-direct-digital-dacamp-wblueos-module  
  
 The only thing that is weird is that the USB input is limited to 96/24 so that might be an issue for you. But either the streaming module or a USB->SPDIF converter gets you to 192khz material.
  
 The NAD direct digital architecture in their amplifiers is really pretty neat. It isn't a DAC in front of a typical preamp and poweramp. The conversion and amplification occurs in one step. It's more like a DAC that is powerful enough to drive speakers.
  
 I admittedly know nothing about that Pioneer receiver, but it looks to me it was built with an entirely difference purpose, for 7.2 surround use, not 2 channel audio.


----------



## SearchOfSub

Yes i ask samething, why reciever...


----------



## playdrv4me

Has anyone compared this with the McIntosh D100 or Oppo HA-1/BDP-105? 
  
 Was stuck between those 3 but then I remembered that this thing existed (and technically the Wadia 321 but it's hard to find used and is basically the same as the D100 anyway) and is probably a better contender to the D100. 
  
 I was thinking the HDMI ins were pretty cool, but I like to have the TV picture from the cable box going with the sound off while I listen to music sometimes, and this would force me to view on the screen whatever source is currently playing I'm sure.


----------



## screwdriver

playdrv4me said:


> Has anyone compared this with the McIntosh D100 or Oppo HA-1/BDP-105?
> 
> Was stuck between those 3 but then I remembered that this thing existed (and technically the Wadia 321 but it's hard to find used and is basically the same as the D100 anyway) and is probably a better contender to the D100.
> 
> I was thinking the HDMI ins were pretty cool, but I like to have the TV picture from the cable box going with the sound off while I listen to music sometimes, and this would force me to view on the screen whatever source is currently playing I'm sure.


 
 ive only compared the nad m51 to the oppo 105 - the nad is so much better  except it cant do dsd  like the oppo 105.


----------



## gregjnjarvis

gregjnjarvis said:


> Is it even possible to use a turntable with a M51 using its preamp? Never really thought about it before...not really any way to do that, right? There's nowhere for a phono preamp to connect to it.


 

 To answer my own question, I guess something like the PS Audio NuWave Phono Converter would solve this problem - you'd run the turntable into the NuWave and then out into the M51 via digital outputs/inputs.  Not a cheap solution, but if you can find a used M51 and NuWave for less than $2500, it's a pretty big discount over the new M12 with its built-in analog/phono modular stage ($3600 or so I hear...? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





).

 Of course, I suppose we'll have to wait until the M12 starts to trickle out to see how good the phono stage is, and whether there are any sound-related upgrades over the M51.


----------



## boatheelmusic

Not sure, but is the phono stage standard on the M12, or does it require an optional back panel plug-in card?

I checked, it is included, so that $3500 is more comparable to dac/preamps costing $2,250 after the phono preamp is considered.

Right in line, IMO, although the C510 looks to be a real bargain at $1,300.


----------



## gregjnjarvis

Yes, I guess that's what I'm getting at - the network streaming, etc. options on the new one look nice, but if the sound quality isn't bumped over the M51, that phono stage will have to be awful good to make it worth the extra dough.  Assuming the new C510 is basically the old M51 repackaged, you could get that excellent NuWave ADC phono stage and still have a large chunk of change left over.

 On that note, I just noticed that the C510 _does_ offer a 12v trigger out, unlike the M51.  No 12v in that I can see, but for a DAC/preamp it is the out that is most important (and why forgetting it on the M51 made absolutely no sense)...that is fantastic.  No 12v out was the only reason I wasn't totally sold on the M51.

 Edit: does have 12v in.  Great.


----------



## pearljam50000

So is the C510 a repackaged M51?


----------



## playdrv4me

screwdriver said:


> ive only compared the nad m51 to the oppo 105 - the nad is so much better  except it cant do dsd  like the oppo 105.


 
 Thank you!


----------



## SearchOfSub

Oppo 105s dont get much hype around here.. most here are strictly music and most know how bad the oppo sounds. Most of the hype for oppo are home theatre guys who just watches movies most of the time. In which for home theatre, since most have 5.1s going around, dont need or care for much soundstaging etc. In tnis respect, oppo and yhe sabre implementation did a fine job of upping mostly dynamics in which when you go home theatre and got 5.1s going around, is prabably most noticeable thing. They also have the darbee which is good with picture..and the spinner. Its really geared towards HT guys..

Sent from my SM Galaxy Tab using Tapatalk


----------



## playdrv4me

searchofsub said:


> Oppo 105s dont get much hype around here.. most here are strictly music and most know how bad the oppo sounds. Most of the hype for oppo are home theatre guys who just watches movies most of the time. In which for home theatre, since most have 5.1s going around, dont need or care for much soundstaging etc. In tnis respect, oppo and yhe sabre implementation did a fine job of upping mostly dynamics in which when you go home theatre and got 5.1s going around, is prabably most noticeable thing. They also have the darbee which is good with picture..and the spinner. Its really geared towards HT guys..
> 
> Sent from my SM Galaxy Tab using Tapatalk


 
  
 The only reason I started looking at the 105 is because the HA-1 is basically all the important audio bits out of the 105 if I understand correctly, but adding a good headphone amp and the HA-1 seems to get excellent reviews for its audio quality. I wouldn't really use the headphone amp, but it seemed like it would still be an excellent DAC. So that's the only reason the 105 was in consideration, since it is full component width and has the spinner for SACD and such. In general I am skeptical about the 105 myself. 
  
 The Bryston BDA-1 is another one that has been brought to my attention reading through this thread, but it doesn't have the preamp functionality.


----------



## boatheelmusic

If you aren't a fan of "Sabre Sheen", look at the Cambridge Audio 851D, or to save $$$, the Emotiva DC-1 or the Dangerous Music Source.
  
 Are you certain you need DSD?  How many DSD recordings do you currently have?


----------



## SearchOfSub

Edit


----------



## screwdriver

the oppo 105 is not bad and i can live with it if it was my main dac- in fact its the one i use for the speaker set up along with a decware csp2+ preamp and it does a great job for the price - and u also eliminate the use of pc and jriver, i play it thru straight from oppo 105 usb where u connect your flac files thru external hard drive , then u connect a monitor to see the folders and such  .


----------



## gregjnjarvis

pearljam50000 said:


> So is the C510 a repackaged M51?


 

 I doubt NAD would admit it anytime soon if true, and the marketing blurbs look a bit different (the C510 does not specifically mentioned the engine processing power or the 800-odd KHz sample rate talked about for the M51, referring only to the 35-bit architecture).  But as the specs and the rear ends look very close to identical, and with a new Masters series DAC replacing the M51, it would seem very smart to just transition the older-but-still-great internals to a cheaper price point. But who knows, it could very well be that the C510 has been downgraded somehow, possibly cheaper components or different power supply (but the listed specs including power consumption are pretty much identical) - we'll probably need to wait until someone gets one and takes it apart in order to confirm.

 But _if_ the C510 is just an M51 in a slightly uglier casing but a volume knob and 12V trigger out added?  For $1300...that is stupid good. 

 (For the record the volume knob certainly makes the new faceplate look less sleek...but at least you can adjust the volume if someone accidentally took your remote to the can, or you forgot to buy new batteries.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





)


----------



## boatheelmusic

I think the big differences among the C510, the M51 and the M12, in addition to those noted are the casework and the face mounted volume control.

I do think NAD has struck a nice balance between PCM and DSD and in that regard has a market.


----------



## gregjnjarvis

Add the 12v trigger...


----------



## ellevoid

On the paper C510 is better than M51.


----------



## Mr.Sneis

Any verified truth to the C510 = M51?  Saw the CAP thread and it seemed to veer way off course.


----------



## MattTCG

subbed...


----------



## KmanChu

I doubt you'll officially be able to get out of NAD that the two are actually the same. The official website shows the C510 and M51 on the same screen. Seems weird to ask that much more for one than the other. But my hunch is the M51 (and maybe even the M2) will go away with the launch of the M12 which is set for September.


----------



## Riffle

I happened to buy an M51 a couple days before I heard about the C510. So I purchased a C510 to compare with it and my Havana. I'm still in my trial period so I can return either one or both. I'm listening to the C510 right now, but I'll reserve judgement for a few days. I have had the M51 for a week and a half and can say I prefer it over my lightly modded Havana. For the C510 it is lighter than the M51 and has white instead of blue text, you can also completely turn the display off which I like. The M51 remote also works with C510.


----------



## screwdriver

riffle said:


> I happened to buy an M51 a couple days before I heard about the C510. So I purchased a C510 to compare with it and my Havana. I'm still in my trial period so I can return either one or both. I'm listening to the C510 right now, but I'll reserve judgement for a few days. I have had the M51 for a week and a half and can say I prefer it over my lightly modded Havana. For the C510 it is lighter than the M51 and has white instead of blue text, you can also completely turn the display off which I like. The M51 remote also works with C510.


 do they sound the same?


----------



## Riffle

Similar but not the same. The M51 is running V1.43 and the C510 says V1.05. I'm going to let the C510 burn in a little more tomorrow before passing final judgement. It's Friday night and I'm going to listen to the M51....


----------



## gregjnjarvis

Fantastic, thanks for being the guinea pig!


----------



## Riffle

Well the C510 went back in the box today. It isn't bad, the M51 is just better. I only wish the M51's display turned off like C510. I paid $1759 for my demo M51 and it is worth the extra $460 over the C510 or easily the $200 for the Spearit Sound refurbs in my opinion. 

I did most of my listening direct to amp using the units as a preamplifier at between -15 and -30 dB. I couldn't tell much of a difference through my entry level headphones, but through the speakers the M51 produced a large stereo image that made the speakers disappear. With the C510 all the detail was there but it was a smaller, less full image that was lacking a little energy in the first octave. The C510's detail seemed to be locked relative to the speaker locations, while the M51's detail was relative to the other details in the wonderful musical space it created. The M51 also had more of the "smooth/analog" sound that I love in the Havana DAC, but with much better detail and soundstage. Having used my Squeezebox Touch for volume control I hadn't realized the compression in dynamic range that was happening below 90 on the Touch volume. On a few familiar recordings it felt like someone was turning up and down the volume on me, so much so I had to pull out my Radio Shack SPL meter to confirm that this new unusual thing was the dynamic range I had been missing. Happy listening.


----------



## screwdriver

riffle said:


> Well the C510 went back in the box today. It isn't bad, the M51 is just better. I only wish the M51's display turned off like C510. I paid $1759 for my demo M51 and it is worth the extra $460 over the C510 or easily the $200 for the Spearit Sound refurbs in my opinion.
> 
> I did most of my listening direct to amp using the units as a preamplifier at between -15 and -30 dB. I couldn't tell much of a difference through my entry level headphones, but through the speakers the M51 produced a large stereo image that made the speakers disappear. With the C510 all the detail was there but it was a smaller, less full image that was lacking a little energy in the first octave. The C510's detail seemed to be locked relative to the speaker locations, while the M51's detail was relative to the other details in the wonderful musical space it created. The M51 also had more of the "smooth/analog" sound that I love in the Havana DAC, but with much better detail and soundstage. Having used my Squeezebox Touch for volume control I hadn't realized the compression in dynamic range that was happening below 90 on the Touch volume. On a few familiar recordings it felt like someone was turning up and down the volume on me, so much so I had to pull out my Radio Shack SPL meter to confirm that this new unusual thing was the dynamic range I had been missing. Happy listening.


 

 tnx ....


----------



## LCfiner

yes, thank you for the comparison. Might have just made up my mind to get a used M51.


----------



## gregjnjarvis

Thanks! Too bad...maybe no trigger out for me!


----------



## Riffle

gregjnjarvis said:


> Thanks! Too bad...maybe no trigger out for me!




I can verify that my NAD M51 has a 12V trigger out over the RS 232 port. I have the new black model, so I can't speak for the silver. It's weird because the quick connect guide and manuals don't show it. I'll try it tomorrow and see if it works.


----------



## Riffle

Just went on the NAD site and the data sheet has been updated to show the 12V trigger out.


----------



## gregjnjarvis

Hah.  Finally.  I wonder when that happened in the model run?


----------



## lin0003

Just got my M51, first impressions are very good indeed.


----------



## SearchOfSub

I'm thinking about picking up the Nad M12.. does anyone know what dac chip is used?


----------



## boatheelmusic

Like the M51, a conventional chip is not used.


----------



## KmanChu

searchofsub said:


> I'm thinking about picking up the Nad M12.. does anyone know what dac chip is used?


 
 Same basic DAC as M51. There actually is a DAC chip, but it is made by a company with the name Zetex Diodes. I am not sure if Lenbrook (NAD parent company) completely bought out that company or not. At any rate, the DAC chip was developed by NAD and Zetex. NAD essentially developed their own proprietary DAC chip based on the functional ideas of the M2 digital amp.
  
 It's also interesting to note that the USB interface for the M12 is on a separate MDC module and not on the main motherboard. I would assume the M12 should have superior performance to the M51 being newer, but it sounds like the improvements might be incremental rather than large. The major advance really seems to be in the cool new features.


----------



## boatheelmusic

When you consider that PSAudio's A/D converter, for vinyl is available for about $1,400, the net cost of the M12 is in line as it includes a similar feature.

And the M51 lists at $2,000.


----------



## KmanChu

The thing that might seal the deal for me with the M12 is the BluOS module. I had been considering an NAD M50 to go with the M51, but the M12 will work with an MDC module that will make it compaitible with the Bluesound eco-system. I have been mourning the loss of Squeezebox and hoping for a higher-end solution that doesn't totally break my bank like Linn or Naim. It looks like NAD/BlueSound are trying to pickup where the Squeezebox left off.


----------



## boatheelmusic

Right, $3,500 is a lot of money but would you buy a dac, a preamp and a phono preamp of this quality for $1,200 each?


----------



## SearchOfSub

I was under the impression that the Nad M12 was a class above nad m51. Isn't this the case?


----------



## lin0003

Pretty sure it isn't considering it is cheaper.


----------



## boatheelmusic

lin0003 said:


> Pretty sure it isn't considering it is cheaper.


 
 This answer doesn't sound right....the M12 is $1,500 over the M51.
  
 I haven't heard or read that the M12 is processing data any differently, but has better casework, more flexibility, comes with a phono preamp and could very well have upgraded power supplies and output stage.
  
 Not that anything at all is lacking in the M51 (well, maybe a front panel volume control and a headphone jack  )  
  
 See Stereophile's review and many others, as well as user testimonials.
  
 Time will tell as the new and user feedback reviews come in.


----------



## lin0003

Oops, must have been thinking about something else.


----------



## songmic

In case anyone's interested, here is an M51 in excellent condition.
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/734087/nad-m51


----------



## ellevoid

Has anyone tried to reverse FW from 1.43 to 1.39? 
 Mine is 1.41 from the factory and updated to 1.43 but wanna try the 1.39 version.


----------



## LCfiner

ellevoid said:


> Has anyone tried to reverse FW from 1.43 to 1.39?
> Mine is 1.41 from the factory and updated to 1.43 but wanna try the 1.39 version.


 

 you need to roll back to 1.41 first, then 1.39 or else the M51 won’t work.


----------



## ellevoid

lcfiner said:


> you need to roll back to 1.41 first, then 1.39 or else the M51 won’t work.


 

 Downgraded successfully. Thank you so much 
  
 very first impression is like everyone said 1.39 has a little fatter bass and more kick, but 1.43 seem to sound less congested/a little better separation.
  
 So for my system (HD800, HE6), I think 1.39 is suits me better.


----------



## YoengJyh

How this NAD M51 vs Audio GD M7?


----------



## ellevoid

I never heard of Audio GD M7, but their products I tried they all have kind of metallic sound.
  
 I found that when I connected NAD M51 to two different amps. One using XLR out and another one use RCA out.
 The RCA out will sound totally suck, bass is gone, high is gone, no dynamic at all.
  
 Is that normal for NAD M51?


----------



## KmanChu

ellevoid said:


> I never heard of Audio GD M7, but their products I tried they all have kind of metallic sound.
> 
> I found that when I connected NAD M51 to two different amps. One using XLR out and another one use RCA out.
> The RCA out will sound totally suck, bass is gone, high is gone, no dynamic at all.
> ...


 
 No. Probably more of a reflection on the amps than the M51. I've used it into both types and found its sound consistent.


----------



## unsleepable

kmanchu said:


> No. Probably more of a reflection on the amps than the M51. I've used it into both types and found its sound consistent.


 

 And can you confirm the sound differences between the inputs that some refer to? Are they still there with updated software? Thanks.


----------



## KmanChu

unsleepable said:


> And can you confirm the sound differences between the inputs that some refer to? Are they still there with updated software? Thanks.


 
 In my personal experience, I still run the original firmware on mine and never updated it because I felt no need. The accounts I from NAD directly was that the firmware changes only ever reduced the volume output by 1dB to prevent digital clipping highly compressed recordings. I honestly haven't looked for improved USB performance by chaning the firmware. That said, I think the inputs are all good, but to me a VERY good SPDIF converter gives better performance over the built in USB. Also, a USB power conditioner like the Schiit Wyred or iFi iUSB Power helps the USB input also. I think that the AES input is the best, this is probably because it is transformer coupled and providers better electrical isolation from the source. But the coax input is also very good when used with something like an Audiophilleo. Don't get me wrong, the USB input is good, especially with a power conditioner. But the addition of a good SPDIF converter, IMHO, takes the performance level to another league.
  


ellevoid said:


> I never heard of Audio GD M7, but their products I tried they all have kind of metallic sound.
> 
> I found that when I connected NAD M51 to two different amps. One using XLR out and another one use RCA out.
> The RCA out will sound totally suck, bass is gone, high is gone, no dynamic at all.
> ...


 
 One reason XLRs can sound "better" is that the level (voltage swing) is much higher balanced than single ended. So if you are not volume matching then the simple higher volume will sound like it has more impact, bigger, etc. All you are really getting is the volume turned up.


----------



## screwdriver

LOL i tried to roll back frmware on my nad M51 . mine is a newer unit and has version 1.43 
 i rolled back to 1.41 and it would not work , had to update it  again back to 1.43 .
 i thought for  a while its going back to nad but it allowed me to go back to 1.43.


----------



## Lev Ahriman

too bad the remote is not backlit
 Q : when i got it on fixed vol it locks at -20 , any way to lock it at -10 or something around that?


----------



## lestuan

ellevoid said:


> I never heard of Audio GD M7, but their products I tried they all have kind of metallic sound.
> 
> I found that when I connected NAD M51 to two different amps. One using XLR out and another one use RCA out.
> The RCA out will sound totally suck, bass is gone, high is gone, no dynamic at all.
> ...


 
 Could you tell me which Audio GDs you tried that have metallic sound ?


----------



## JDOz

ellevoid said:


> I found that when I connected NAD M51 to two different amps. One using XLR out and another one use RCA out.
> The RCA out will sound totally suck, bass is gone, high is gone, no dynamic at all.
> 
> Is that normal for NAD M51?


 
  
 I recall that happening to me when I tried connecting both the XLRs and the RCAs at the same time (to compare 2 different preamps). Should sound fine if you have only one pair connected.


----------



## ellevoid

jdoz said:


> I recall that happening to me when I tried connecting both the XLRs and the RCAs at the same time (to compare 2 different preamps). Should sound fine if you have only one pair connected.


 

 Yes it sound great with just one paired connected. It just I got 2 amps one is solid-state another one is tube and I don't want to reconnect the ICs every time I want to switch between the amp.


----------



## Lev Ahriman

same here
 use an RCA or XLR splitter , works fine for my 2 mono amps from the M51


----------



## lestuan

lev ahriman said:


> same here
> use an RCA or XLR splitter , works fine for my 2 mono amps from the M51


 
 Have you experienced sound degrade when using the splitter ?


----------



## Lev Ahriman

No, not at all.


----------



## ellevoid

Interesting. Can you share which XLR splitter that you use?


----------



## Lev Ahriman

ellevoid said:


> Interesting. Can you share which XLR splitter that you use?


 
  
 Its really not hard to find an XLR or RCA Y splitter, you can also DIY them.


----------



## YoengJyh

Anyone compare to Master 7 before?


----------



## ellevoid

yoengjyh said:


> Anyone compare to Master 7 before?


 

 I never compare to Master 7 but most of Audio-GD products has metallic sound which I don't like.
  
  
 Today when I turn my M51 on the standby light change from orange to blue and then when off completely!!
 But it still working normally, don't know what happen.


----------



## Lev Ahriman

ellevoid said:


> Today when I turn my M51 on the standby light change from orange to blue and then when off completely!!
> But it still working normally, don't know what happen.


 
  
 Sorry to read that but as long as its working it seems that its just a glitch with the LED, usually these LEDs should work for Eons , if the warranty is still on take it to NAD.


----------



## lestuan

ellevoid said:


> I never compare to Master 7 but most of Audio-GD products has metallic sound which I don't like.
> 
> 
> Today when I turn my M51 on the standby light change from orange to blue and then when off completely!!
> But it still working normally, don't know what happen.


 
 Is it still like that ?


----------



## Lev Ahriman

Seems to be new firmware v1.50 available.
 Just installed it , Auto Display is added.


----------



## T.R.A.N.C.E.

I just bought a new M51 for 1 grand on clearance. I'm running newest FW 1.50. I'm about to try revert to FW 1.39. I'm scared schitless that I might brick my unit. For anyone that doesn't know, FW 1.39 has 1dB more gain than the newer firmwares, which is why many people found it to sound more dynamic and lively than newer firmwares. Nad reduced the gain by 1dB due to clipping when run at 0dB volume, but that was easily fixed by running at -1dB volume. So technically the newest firmwares are a better implementation of the hardware as 0dB is bit perfect for the dac and should not have clipping, but to achieve this the dynamics will have taken a hit due to the reduced gain.
  
 Also on a technical level the SPDIF inputs of coaxial and optical should be the most pure representation of your source input, as it takes PCM from the input and gives it straight to the M51 Dac (Zetex DDFA) to convert to 844mhz PWM. While the other inputs go through another chip before going to the Dac,  the Usb input goes through an xmos chip, the Hdmi input goes through an Analog devices chip, the Aes/ebu input goes through an Akm chip. So all these chips introduce their own sound sig onto the input signal, not that its a bad thing as they are all high quality chips, but the SPDIF input will just have a sound that is truer to the source input, I also always favor coaxial over optical in any system.


----------



## T.R.A.N.C.E.

Well I tried flashing FW 1.39, but it soft bricked the unit, wouldn't turn on, even tried flashing 1.41, same thing. I flashed back to current 1.50 and all is well, but sad I don't get to hear 1.39.


----------



## screwdriver

same here , mine is a newer nad m51 and I have 1.43 . I tried to go to 1.41 to get to 1.39 but it would not work - but I was able to revert back to 1.43
 I wonder how people find the version 1.50 compared to other versions


----------



## T.R.A.N.C.E.

^ Mine came with 1.43, I used it for a few days then flashed to 1.50, pretty sure they sound the same, but I have been liking the M51 more and more, so 1.50 is fine by me.


----------



## olor1n

Pretty sure the clipping "issue" was solved in firmware prior to 1.39.


----------



## ellevoid

t.r.a.n.c.e. said:


> I just bought a new M51 for 1 grand on clearance. I'm running newest FW 1.50. I'm about to try revert to FW 1.39. I'm scared schitless that I might brick my unit. For anyone that doesn't know, FW 1.39 has 1dB more gain than the newer firmwares, which is why many people found it to sound more dynamic and lively than newer firmwares. Nad reduced the gain by 1dB due to clipping when run at 0dB volume, but that was easily fixed by running at -1dB volume. So technically the newest firmwares are a better implementation of the hardware as 0dB is bit perfect for the dac and should not have clipping, but to achieve this the dynamics will have taken a hit due to the reduced gain.
> 
> Also on a technical level the SPDIF inputs of coaxial and optical should be the most pure representation of your source input, as it takes PCM from the input and gives it straight to the M51 Dac (Zetex DDFA) to convert to 844mhz PWM. While the other inputs go through another chip before going to the Dac,  the Usb input goes through an xmos chip, the Hdmi input goes through an Analog devices chip, the Aes/ebu input goes through an Akm chip. So all these chips introduce their own sound sig onto the input signal, not that its a bad thing as they are all high quality chips, but the SPDIF input will just have a sound that is truer to the source input, I also always favor coaxial over optical in any system.


 
  
 Thanks for the technical info on each input. I just bought a new music server and it has usb output only.
 Is it gonna be a lot better in sound quality if I bought another usb/spdif converter to use with NAD M51?


----------



## T.R.A.N.C.E.

ellevoid said:


> Thanks for the technical info on each input. I just bought a new music server and it has usb output only.
> Is it gonna be a lot better in sound quality if I bought another usb/spdif converter to use with NAD M51?


 
  
 No there is no point getting a converter imo. The converter will be doing the same thing, using a chip inside to convert the usb signal to spdif, and the M51 chips are already as good as it gets for the most part, so a converter may even reduce sound quality compared to the M51, unless its a high end implementation that betters the M51's. The M51 usb implementation is using xmos, which is much better than your average spdif convertor will be using.
  


olor1n said:


> Pretty sure the clipping "issue" was solved in firmware prior to 1.39.


 
  
 Ok, that may well be, I haven't looked into the previous firmwares. If that's the case then I suppose Nad just wanted a more neutral sound sig, as FW 1.39 and below were said to have noticeably more bass than the newer firmwares, but I'm already getting bucket loads of clean bass on the latest firmware so I can't complain there at all. I personally think a Dac should be as neutral as possible, and any coloration if wanted should be added by the amp and/or speakers, I usually prefer neutral speakers + neutral Dac, and the coloration left to the amp personally. Nad knows what they are doing, and they wouldn't have made their changes without good reason, and judging by what I'm hearing I am happy with what they've accomplished.


----------



## KmanChu

t.r.a.n.c.e. said:


> No there is no point getting a converter imo. The converter will be doing the same thing, using a chip inside to convert the usb signal to spdif, and the M51 chips are already as good as it gets for the most part, so a converter may even reduce sound quality compared to the M51, unless its a high end implementation that betters the M51's. The M51 usb implementation is using xmos, which is much better than your average spdif convertor will be using.
> 
> 
> Ok, that may well be, I haven't looked into the previous firmwares. If that's the case then I suppose Nad just wanted a more neutral sound sig, as FW 1.39 and below were said to have noticeably more bass than the newer firmwares, but I'm already getting bucket loads of clean bass on the latest firmware so I can't complain there at all. I personally think a Dac should be as neutral as possible, and any coloration if wanted should be added by the amp and/or speakers, I usually prefer neutral speakers + neutral Dac, and the coloration left to the amp personally. Nad knows what they are doing, and they wouldn't have made their changes without good reason, and judging by what I'm hearing I am happy with what they've accomplished.


 
  
 The AES input is the superior input on the M51 in my experience (the owner's manual even hints at as much.) I (and several others) found the integrated USB input leaves a lot to be desired. I was not satisfied with its performance through that input. Introducing a power conditioner helps (such as Schiit wyred or iFi iUSB Power) but it's still not great. Introducing a good high quality source like Audiophilleo, NAD's own M50, Berkeley Alpha USB, Yellowtec Puc2, or even the humble iFi iLink provide superior performance to the built-in USB. In my opinion a very high quality source brings the performance level into another league.


----------



## T.R.A.N.C.E.

kmanchu said:


> The AES input is the superior input on the M51 in my experience (the owner's manual even hints at as much.) I (and several others) found the integrated USB input leaves a lot to be desired. I was not satisfied with its performance through that input. Introducing a power conditioner helps (such as Schiit wyred or iFi iUSB Power) but it's still not great. Introducing a good high quality source like Audiophilleo, NAD's own M50, Berkeley Alpha USB, Yellowtec Puc2, or even the humble iFi iLink provide superior performance to the built-in USB. In my opinion a very high quality source brings the performance level into another league.


 
  
 Yeah a high quality source definitely makes a big difference, like running the M51 from the optical out of my TV or through HDMI of PS4 both sound decent, but when I hook it up to a DX90 through coaxial the sound is much better, and I'm sure an even higher end source would result in even greater improvement etc.


----------



## Lappy27

kmanchu said:


> The AES input is the superior input on the M51 in my experience (the owner's manual even hints at as much.) I (and several others) found the integrated USB input leaves a lot to be desired. I was not satisfied with its performance through that input. Introducing a power conditioner helps (such as Schiit wyred or iFi iUSB Power) but it's still not great. Introducing a good high quality source like Audiophilleo, NAD's own M50, Berkeley Alpha USB, Yellowtec Puc2, or even the humble iFi iLink provide superior performance to the built-in USB. In my opinion a very high quality source brings the performance level into another league.


 
 X100
  
 My NAD M51 sound so much better with the Audiophilleo2 + PurePower than from his USB input that it's not even funny. 
  
 Yeah it's not a cheap add on but if you have the chance to compare you will be convinced without a hint of a doubt. Put it simply the sonic difference is like if you are listening to two very distinct component. No jokes or exageration here.
  
 A much cheaper alternative that make a buzz currently on the market of USB to SPDIF converters is the Gustard U12. China made but apparently extremely surprising performance for it's price.


----------



## xxxfbsxxx

lappy27 said:


> X100
> 
> My NAD M51 sound so much better with the Audiophilleo2 + PurePower than from his USB input that it's not even funny.
> 
> ...


 
 i have owned the concero, ap2, ilink and audio-gd di2014 and imo the di2014 bested all others by huge margin. All the others were even equipped with schiit wyrd and linear psu, while the di does not need extra help *.* .
 imo nad51+di2014 = 95% of master7+di2014


----------



## karmanfamily

Here are my 2 cents about the NAD M51...
  
 Last week I received my new (used) M51 and connected it to both my setups with several different inputs and file qualities.
  
 the first setup is my test setup, it has good gear except for the speakers. The used gear is as follows:
 PC with files from MP3 to 24/192 FLAC connected with USB
 Decware CSP2+ tube pre amp
 Bel Canto S300 power amp
 Mission 'something something' cd player connected with digital RCA
 Pioneer SP-BS22 speakers
 PS Audio UPC200 power conditioner
 The cables are generic or basic cables, nothing fancy
  
 The inputs I used were USB and Digital RCA.
 Ouputs used were RCA to the Decware pre amp and XLR directly feeding the S300 power amp.
  
 Songs used:
 Eagles, Hotel California 24/192 FLAC
 Norah Jones, Come Away with me 24/192 FLAC
 Metallica, Nothing Else Matters 24/96 FLAC
 Lenny Kravitz, Are you gonna go my way, crappy MP3
 Red Hot Chili Peppers, Under the Bridge CD
 Smashing Pumpkins, Siamese Dreams entire CD
  
 I compared the M51 with a Musical Fidelity M1DAC (MF). The MF M1DAC is one of the most neutral DACs I have ever heard and will be a good base line.
  
 After playing my test songs on the MF M1DAC and getting used to that sound I connected the M51 and played the same songs and what I heard was both surprising and I was a little disappointed... (the disappointment has more to do with my taste as you'll read later)
  
 The pre-review info will be longer than the actual review...
  
 Biggest surprise was how it handled the crappy MP3, there was a HUGE improvement over the detail heard compared to the MF and it sounded less 'digital'.
  
 The low end sounded good, it was there, it sounded nice and tight, but it was missing some 'oomph'.
 Mid range was great, voices sounded clean and very separated from the instruments, which is a weak point of many DACs that I have heard.
 High range was crisp, but way too clean for my taste, crazy detailed. I heard more little things than I remember hearing with any other DAC.
  
 From an audiophile point of view this DAC is the best I have heard, beating the MF, PS Audio PWD, Bryston BDA-1 and Rega DAC in detail, instrument separation and again.. DETAIL! You will hear little nuances hiding in the music that stayed hidden with most other DACs.
  
 From a music lover point of view this DAC lacks some emotion, some character, warmth. You miss that little raspy sound in a voice, the sound of the fingers touching (plucking) the snares of the guitar. Qualities that the Bryston and Rega definitely have.
  
 This DAC will divide the camp in 2 groups:
 1. the lovers of detail and pure sound quality, that will rave about the M51.
 2. the lovers of a more 'live music' sound that has more warmth and might not sound as perfect.
  
 At that point I was still divided, until.....
  
 I added the M51 to my main setup:
 Oppo 103 as cd transport Optical
 Sonos ZP90 with W4S 96kHz mod Digital RCA
 Primaluna Dialogue 2 with KT120 tubes
 Goldenear Aon 3 speakers
 All audio cables are Anti-Cables
 All Power cables are Wireworld Silver Electra
 API power conditioner
  
 I played the same songs, but all at 16/44.1 (cd) quality.
  
 To compare I used my faithful Bryston BDA-1.
  
 First I played all the songs with the BDA-1 in place and it sounded like perfection (in my ears). Not the greatest detail, but when you close your eyes you are in that 'smokey bar' and the band is there playing in front of you.
  
 Plugging in the M51, letting things warm up and playing the same songs I could not believe what I heard....
 Compared with my other setup and test this sounded so lean, thin, uninteresting and bland... What!
 I disconnected everything, checked again if everything was connected right and working as it should. Played the same songs again and crap.... well.. crap? not crap, but not what I heard in the other setup.
 The bass was almost gone, mid range was still very good and the high end was real sharp. Don't get me wrong, the incredible amount of detail was still there. I was still hearing little details that I did not hear with the BDA-1.
  
 I think that in this setup classical music will shine a whole lot more than what I prefer to listen to. Just from a detail and separation of the instruments point of view.
  
 It may sound like that I am biased and will pick the BDA-1 over about anything, but I am looking for a serious replacement for the BDA-1 and was critically listening to both DACs.
  
 I will keep on playing with the M51 over the next few days and see if things change after more time settling in and if anything changes I will let it know...
  
 I hope it all made sense...


----------



## ellevoid

Interesting review. I never try m51 with optical input but usb, coax and hdmi are sound amazing to me.


----------



## olor1n

"Lean" is the last word I'd associate with the M51.


----------



## karmanfamily

olor1n said:


> "Lean" is the last word I'd associate with the M51.


 

 With the first setup the bass was a lot better, but the bass was gone in the second setup. I have read a lot of reviews and none of them described any leanness of the sound. Maybe the second setup isn't working together as good.


----------



## screwdriver

karmanfamily said:


> Here are my 2 cents about the NAD M51...
> 
> Last week I received my new (used) M51 and connected it to both my setups with several different inputs and file qualities.
> 
> ...


 

 id try to use the oppo 103 to the nad via coaxial  and use a usb external hard dive to the oppo to play music - then use the csp2+ from the nad m51 to your  amplifier as a preamp and adjust the gain  as stated int eh decware site - then post back and tell me if it is lacking anything .


----------



## kazsud

The oppo dac is still in use until you disable something in settings while hooked to tv/monitor.


----------



## boatheelmusic

FWIW, I much prefer the Grace m920 over either the NAD M51 or the PWD II in my highly resolving system.
  
 Detail  without glare, solid bass and great spatial clues.


----------



## karmanfamily

karmanfamily said:


> Here are my 2 cents about the NAD M51...
> 
> Last week I received my new (used) M51 and connected it to both my setups with several different inputs and file qualities.
> 
> ...


 
 A little correction on my review above:
 Last night I replaced the KT120 tubes in my amp with a set of Svetlana 6550C's and the bass improved a lot.
 I guess the KT120's are not really working well for me in my amp. Later I read that the KT120's shine at higher volumes, so that might have been the issue.
 The M51 is starting to look like a keeper.


----------



## Lev Ahriman

karmanfamily said:


> A little correction on my review above:
> Last night I replaced the KT120 tubes in my amp with a set of Svetlana 6550C's and the bass improved a lot.
> I guess the KT120's are not really working well for me in my amp. Later I read that the KT120's shine at higher volumes, so that might have been the issue.
> The M51 is starting to look like a keeper.


 
  
 Very interesting
 Keep us informed after a good long listen to your M51
  
 one question : you wrote (PC with files from MP3 to 24/192 FLAC connected with USB)
 do you mean that you convert mp3 to flac? or I missed something?


----------



## karmanfamily

Lev:
  
 I used several different quality files:
 a few MP3
 a few M4A (or whatever the standard iTunes format is)
 and a few FLAC varying from 16/44.1 to 24/192
  
 just to get an idea how it handles the different qualities.


----------



## Lev Ahriman

I thought you converted mp3 to flac 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 Thanks for clarifying


----------



## Sanlitun

t.r.a.n.c.e. said:


> No there is no point getting a converter imo. The converter will be doing the same thing, using a chip inside to convert the usb signal to spdif, and the M51 chips are already as good as it gets for the most part, so a converter may even reduce sound quality compared to the M51, unless its a high end implementation that betters the M51's. The M51 usb implementation is using xmos, which is much better than your average spdif convertor will be using.


 
  
 In my experience there was no advantage to using an S/PDIF converter as in doing so you add the sound of the converter plus all the impedance and reflection issues associated with using different connectors. The XMOS receiver in the M51 is among the best implementations as it is both isolated from the external USB power source and feeds directly to the internal DSP.
  
 I used the Audiophilleo for a while with the M51 but after some time I began to feel the resolution changes it was providing were an "illusion", and that it seemed to be selectively modifying the signal. At times I felt it was harsh in the treble, whereas there was a sort of even sound quality to the XMOS input. My best results were using the XMOS input and adding the IFI iUSBPower to break the ground from and isolate the computer. 
  
 Anyways I certainly agree that adding an external converter probably just adds the risk of degrading the signal even further.


----------



## unsleepable

Have you tried directly comparing the TOSLINK to the USB port? From a computer, for example. The differences seem to say something about the USB port implementation in the M51.
  
 The XMOS is a great solution, but it needs to be implemented well. And there is also noise isolation, which if not handled property, may lead to this result.


----------



## karmanfamily

Dialing down the volume on the M51 to -2db did the trick!
It really helped with the top end.


----------



## screwdriver

anyone using the latest firmware compared to the 1.43


----------



## T.R.A.N.C.E.

karmanfamily said:


> Dialing down the volume on the M51 to -2db did the trick!
> It really helped with the top end.


 
  
 The higher the volume the brighter the sound is from the M51 (at least perceptually), I like the M51 best at -20db, if I push the volume up it feels like the treble starts slightly overtaking the bass. But it might just be a byproduct of particular pairing of M51 with my amp/speakers though.


----------



## Lev Ahriman

screwdriver said:


> anyone using the latest firmware compared to the 1.43


 

  Yes , here


----------



## Lev Ahriman

t.r.a.n.c.e. said:


> The higher the volume the brighter the sound is from the M51 (at least perceptually), I like the M51 best at -20db, if I push the volume up it feels like the treble starts slightly overtaking the bass. But it might just be a byproduct of particular pairing of M51 with my amp/speakers though.


 
  
 I agree
 After a long time fettling with the M51 I found that -20db is the sweetest spot.


----------



## Behemoth27

Hello all,

I'd like to bypass my preamp and use the NAD directly with my power amp. However, my preamp is also my headphone amp. Therefore, I need the NAD to output to both my preamp (for headphone listening) and power amp via RCA.

I just wanted to make sure that I could use an RCA y-splitter ,from the NAD, to feed the RCA to my preamp as well as my power amp. I know a couple pages ago someone said they're using a y-splitter to feed 2 mono blocks. I'm planning on using only the headphone amp or power amp powered on at one time. Is my situation different?

Also, would it damage anything to have both the preamp and power amp on at the same time? Is it just going to reduce volume from the DAC? Or is it going to put a bad strain on the output section of the NAD and possibly cause damage?

Sorry, I know it's a basic question, but I've always tried to stay clear of splitters and the like for fear of damaging something. I thought there was a possibility the powered off amp could still be acting as a load? Is that incorrect?

Thanks


----------



## boatheelmusic

Assuming the input impedance of your power amps and preamp aren't too unusual, this should be fine.


----------



## boatheelmusic

t.r.a.n.c.e. said:


> The higher the volume the brighter the sound is from the M51 (at least perceptually), I like the M51 best at -20db, if I push the volume up it feels like the treble starts slightly overtaking the bass. But it might just be a byproduct of particular pairing of M51 with my amp/speakers though.


 

 Are you sure that's not distortion from pushing your amps/headphones/speakers too hard?


----------



## Behemoth27

boatheelmusic said:


> Assuming the input impedance of your power amps and preamp aren't too unusual, this should be fine.


 
 The headphone amp's input impedance is 100kOhm, and the power amp's is 47kOhm. Would this be considered fine? Thanks
  
 EDIT: Wait, I just realized I can use an XLR-RCA cable from the output. Would this be better than a y-splitter?


----------



## ellevoid

behemoth27 said:


> The headphone amp's input impedance is 100kOhm, and the power amp's is 47kOhm. Would this be considered fine? Thanks
> 
> EDIT: Wait, I just realized I can use an XLR-RCA cable from the output. Would this be better than a y-splitter?


 
  
  
 Yes better. I use that as well, RCA out to one amp and XLR out to another amp.


----------



## Behemoth27

ellevoid said:


> Yes better. I use that as well, RCA out to one amp and XLR out to another amp.




Are you running NAD xlr output to an xlr input or using an xlr->rca cable. Also, do you have both amps powered on at same time?

I was hoping to use these:
http://www.amazon.com/2-RCA-2-XLR-Female-CablesOnline-XR-A106S/dp/B00D1AGXC0/ref=sr_1_20?ie=UTF8&qid=1422513359&sr=8-20&keywords=Xlr+to+rca


However this website says that connecting balanced to unbalanced is only okay in certain situations. Says it matters whether it is impedance, transformer, or active balanced. I have no idea what the NAD is. 
http://community.avid.com/forums/t/58612.aspx

Thanks


----------



## ellevoid

I use Cardas Male-RCA to Female-XLR adapter and I turn both amps on at the same time. 
 http://www.musicdirect.com/p-6887-cardas-mrca-to-fxlr-adapter-pr.aspx
  
 For best performance I think you should use one amp at the time.


----------



## vc1187

It seems that the volume control on the M51 makes a pretty substantial difference with highly resolving gear like that HD800.
  
 Using USB as my input:
 When I have the M51 between -17dB and -20dB and my Zana Deux roughly in between 2 and 3 o clock on the volume knob, the HD800 has a confused sense of soundstage, lacks punch, and sounds fairly sharp.  Vocals sound a little too forward and unnatural.
  
 On the flip side, when I lower the M51 to somewhere between -27 dB and -30 dB and my Zana Deux maxed out on the volume knob, the HD800 sounds spectacular and is able to overcome every shortcoming that was listed in the previous configuration.  I've had a few of my friends listen to both configurations, and they all vote for configuration #2 as hands down the better sounding configuration.
  
 When I tried the same tests with the HD650 and the HD600, the differences were not so noticeable.  It wasn't a night and day type of difference, but I'll admit that I didn't sit and listen analytically.  The music was enjoyable in either configuration that I stopped trying to pick out which configuration was better.  
  
 Anyone experience anything similar with the M51's digital volume control?  Oh and btw I'm running FW 1.43


----------



## ellevoid

vc1187 said:


> It seems that the volume control on the M51 makes a pretty substantial difference with highly resolving gear like that HD800.
> 
> Using USB as my input:
> When I have the M51 between -17dB and -20dB and my Zana Deux roughly in between 2 and 3 o clock on the volume knob, the HD800 has a confused sense of soundstage, lacks punch, and sounds fairly sharp.  Vocals sound a little too forward and unnatural.
> ...


 
  
 Could you please compare with NAD volume at -5 dB or 0 dB too?


----------



## olor1n

I have 1.39, with the H800 running balanced from a Mjolnir. I normally have the M51's volume set at -21dB.
  
 Listening now with the volume at -30dB, with dial turned up on the MJ to compensate. I can't really perceive a difference.
  
 My chain may be stifled by the Mjolnir, but music is wonderful through this rig - regardless of volume configuration.


----------



## lin0003

I tried the M51 on -30 ad it seems a little faster and more clear and focused than on 0db. 
  
 Pretty cool, but also quite weird. This is with the HD800 and B22.


----------



## Somnambulist

On the latest firmware, can't hear any difference with the Event Opals I use it for.


----------



## vc1187

ellevoid said:


> Could you please compare with NAD volume at -5 dB or 0 dB too?




I tried at both of these volumes and didn't like the HD800 with it. Vocals were not as clear and perceived as shouting rather than music. 

The HD650 didn't change much. If I were to nitpick, it sounded like the soundstage was a little wider with depth and imaging slightly degraded.

Also one interesting thing to note, with the volume all the way maxed on the Zana deux, I can hear a little buzzing through the HD800 when nothing is playing or in a really quiet section of music. On the HD650, no such buzzing can be heard.


----------



## Sanlitun

I run mine fixed at -20 as I had felt it sounded too hot/congested at 0. I've used a few different amps since buying the M51, and this has always been the case.


----------



## KmanChu

Any differences from the NAD in terms of volume are more likely contributed to your downstream gear. An analog volume pot that is mostly closed off will make a far bigger difference than the digital volume control on the M51.  If anything, the M51 should become gradually less resolving as volume is reduced because attenuating the volume digitally reduces the SNR (however this is more likely of technical rather than practical consequence.)


----------



## kn19h7

kmanchu said:


> Any differences from the NAD in terms of volume are more likely contributed to your downstream gear. An analog volume pot that is mostly closed off will make a far bigger difference than the digital volume control on the M51.  If anything, the M51 should become gradually less resolving as volume is reduced because attenuating the volume digitally reduces the SNR (however this is more likely of technical rather than practical consequence.)


 
Nope, its indeed measurable.


----------



## Danny86

Sorry if this has been talked before, is there any consensus on which is the best sounding output ? XLR or RCA ?


----------



## T.R.A.N.C.E.

^ The XLR sound noticeably better to me, I have M51 connected to Fostex studio monitors (inbuilt bi-amplified class AB), which accept both balanced XLR and RCA. The sound from M51 XLR has much better controlled treble that is less splashy and harsh, more detailed yet smoother, and the whole sound spectrum is a bit more cohesive and tight, better imaging. Of course the better sound from M51 XLR output could also be attributed to the amps in my studio monitors playing better with balanced XLR input. I haven't tried M51 XLR converted into single ended RCA to compare like that. But basically, if you have an amp capable of balanced input XLR, then its a no brainer to use M51 XLR outputs.


----------



## Danny86

t.r.a.n.c.e. said:


> ^ The XLR sound noticeably better to me, I have M51 connected to Fostex studio monitors (inbuilt bi-amplified class AB), which accept both balanced XLR and RCA. The sound from M51 XLR has much better controlled treble that is less splashy and harsh, more detailed yet smoother, and the whole sound spectrum is a bit more cohesive and tight, better imaging. Of course the better sound from M51 XLR output could also be attributed to the amps in my studio monitors playing better with balanced XLR input. I haven't tried M51 XLR converted into single ended RCA to compare like that. But basically, if you have an amp capable of balanced input XLR, then its a no brainer to use M51 XLR outputs.


 
 Thank you for the reply, I know its difficult to compare XLR vs RCA with different amps sounding different hence I am gathering input before buying a "serious" interconnect. Unfortunately my Schiit Lyr 2 only takes RCA and the adaptors are stretching the RCA plugs a lot so I'd rather not push my luck


----------



## karmanfamily

Thank god for all the different options of output and volume. The NAD M51 is a magnificent sounding piece of gear, but must definitely be fine-tuned to the other gear to make it sound good.
 Right out of the box without trying different options it might sound just 'blah'.


----------



## vc1187

karmanfamily said:


> Thank god for all the different options of output and volume. The NAD M51 is a magnificent sounding piece of gear, but must definitely be fine-tuned to the other gear to make it sound good.
> Right out of the box without trying different options it might sound just 'blah'.




Couldn't have said it better myself. It explains why some people find it uninvolving/boring and some find it a perfect balance to their systems.


----------



## wink

Sounds perfectly balanced in my system..........


----------



## purk

karmanfamily said:


> Thank god for all the different options of output and volume. The NAD M51 is a magnificent sounding piece of gear, but must definitely be fine-tuned to the other gear to make it sound good.
> Right out of the box without trying different options it might sound just 'blah'.


 
  
  


vc1187 said:


> Couldn't have said it better myself. It explains why some people find it uninvolving/boring and some find it a perfect balance to their systems.


 
 I am still pretty impressed by the NAD after two years of ownership.  It continues to feed my NAD to the Stax SR009 + BHSE system.  Gotta love the perfect volume control.  I think I may be able do better soundwise but I'm going to miss out on its SACD via HDMI feature as well as the perfect digital attenuation.


----------



## Danny86

I feel like contributing to this thread, in my system lowering the volume definitely robes the music of DR and bass slam. 
 I try to keep it at 0 db or lower it as little as possible (Yamaha A-S2100 is quite sensitive as XLR is tuned at 2.8 V).  Perhaps others might leverage this info.


----------



## TPSRA

Does anyone know how to connect Raspberry Pi 2B to M51 via i2s?
  
 I'm thinking of welding HDMI cable to Raspberry Pi's pin, 
  
 Not sure if this will work..


----------



## Danny86

Can anybody recommend a good power chord upgrade for the M51 ?


----------



## Lev Ahriman

What's wrong with the original one and how (in which ways) another one could deliver any improvements?  
 I'm just interested


----------



## Lev Ahriman

Is this still an M 51 thread ?
 If yes then here is mine with its original power cords


----------



## vc1187

lev ahriman said:


> Is this still an M 51 thread ?
> 
> If yes then here is mine with its original power cords :tongue_smile:




Love your setup! Please do tell where you got that awesome winged stand!


----------



## Somnambulist

That Cosmos case is gigantic!


----------



## Lev Ahriman

vc1187 said:


> Love your setup! Please do tell where you got that awesome winged stand!


 
 I bought 2 from a friend who was moving and didn't have the space for them.
 the other one is still in the box I can sell it to you if you want.


----------



## Lev Ahriman

somnambulist said:


> That Cosmos case is gigantic!


 
 My friends call it Darth Vader


----------



## AnakChan

Guys, please stay on topic. If you want to debate about cables please move to the Sound Science section.


----------



## kugino

i'm researching a bunch of mid-level DACs...the m51 is on my list and i like what i've been reading, but just not the $2000 price tag...that's a pretty competitive price range there.  but i just saw that some australian shops are selling the m51 for AUD $999! and with the strong US dollar, it would be a great deal for someone in the states. can i convince someone in australia to pick one up for me and ship it to the states for perhaps a small finder's fee?


----------



## olor1n

kugino said:


> i'm researching a bunch of mid-level DACs...the m51 is on my list and i like what i've been reading, but just not the $2000 price tag...that's a pretty competitive price range there.  but i just saw that some australian shops are selling the m51 for AUD $999! and with the strong US dollar, it would be a great deal for someone in the states. can i convince someone in australia to pick one up for me and ship it to the states for perhaps a small finder's fee?


 

 Check out this listing - http://www.stereo.net.au/forums/index.php?/topic/80215-fs-nad-m51-direct-digital-dac-melbourne-will-ship/
  
 Please note that I do not know that seller, but stereo.net.au is a good forum and the classifieds section there is active. Proceed at your own peril though. Good luck!


----------



## kugino

thanks for the link. I contacted the seller but have not heard back yet. we'll see. I wonder if shops are forbidden to sell outside of Australia...I'd be happy to buy one from a dealer there, but they might not be allowed to do that. 

in any case, any clue why these are being discounted so much in Aus? is there an updated model coming soon?


----------



## olor1n

Not sure but the M51's RRP has always been lower in Australia. I paid $1299AUD when it was initially released. Odd that NAD have priced it so much in other markets. Usually prices are much higher in Australia compared to the rest of the world.


----------



## kugino

yeah, wondering if international resellers will follow suit and start discounting the m51 like they're doing in oz.  lots of good choices these days...the $1K-2K market is pretty competitive...


----------



## pearljam50000

Has anyone compared the M51 to Marantz HD-DAC1?


----------



## wink

Yep
 The Nad is wider and the Marantz is taller.


----------



## pearljam50000

lol
Physically?


----------



## wink

Yes


----------



## pearljam50000

I was talking about the sound, but that's OK too.


----------



## wink

I know, but couldn't help you there....


----------



## argentum

ˇBear in mind that Aussies are on 230 V system.


----------



## karmanfamily

I bought an Australian M51 and I am in the USA on 120v.
  
 It works on 120-240 v


----------



## kugino

karmanfamily said:


> I bought an Australian M51 and I am in the USA on 120v.
> 
> It works on 120-240 v


 

 trying to buy an australian one, too...the one dealer i contacted will sell me one, but says i have to arrange my own shipping...aussies, what's the best post company to use to ship to the states?


----------



## NZheadcase

kugino said:


> trying to buy an australian one, too...the one dealer i contacted will sell me one, but says i have to arrange my own shipping...aussies, what's the best post company to use to ship to the states?


 
  
 Where are you shipping it to? 
  
 Also, please bear in mind the package is heavy and the box is quite big, You would do well to get the package weight and dimensions from the sellter, then and ask whichever shipping company you choose to quote you a volumetric shipping rate. 
  
 I've been burned before by international shipping, where I thought I would save a lot, but actually turned out the same due to shipping and taxes. 
  
 When I ship from AU to NZ, the seller always uses DHL. No issues thus far. You can arrange straight from DHL for them to pick it up from the store, but I think there's extra cost to that.


----------



## T.R.A.N.C.E.

I wanted to buy Chane Arx speakers from the states, but was told I had to arrange my own shipping... americans. Shipping a M51 to the states will be really expensive, I would guestimate around 300.


----------



## kugino

t.r.a.n.c.e. said:


> I wanted to buy Chane Arx speakers from the states, but was told I had to arrange my own shipping... americans. Shipping a M51 to the states will be really expensive, I would guestimate around 300.


 

 was this a dig on americans? hmm, what a difference a comma makes, eh? "aussies, what's..." means i'm asking the aussies a question.


----------



## T.R.A.N.C.E.

^ Wasn't a dig, I was just parroting you for comedic value (and is a true story like yours). I don't see how a comma or period makes it different but whatever, and I tried to provide some info on your question based on my experience with shipping quotes of big heavy stuff from states by UPS.


----------



## karmanfamily

kugino said:


> trying to buy an australian one, too...the one dealer i contacted will sell me one, but says i have to arrange my own shipping...aussies, what's the best post company to use to ship to the states?


 

 USPS was the best for mine, it cost about $150 and I did not pay any customs taxes etc.
 With UPS and FedEx you will pay fees, guaranteed. USP and FedEx charge a hefty fee for that, so they get better from it.


----------



## kleinert86

pearljam50000 said:


> Has anyone compared the M51 to Marantz HD-DAC1?


 
 I had the chance to listen to both of them extensively last weekend. I really liked the build quality of the NAD. Don't get me wrong, the Marantz is very nice, too, but the NAD felt just a bit better. The option to select headphone impedance on the Marantz is really nice, though. Regarding the sound there isn't that much difference IMHO. But I only tried them with Beyerdynamic t70 p


----------



## kugino

karmanfamily said:


> USPS was the best for mine, it cost about $150 and I did not pay any customs taxes etc.
> With UPS and FedEx you will pay fees, guaranteed. USP and FedEx charge a hefty fee for that, so they get better from it.


usps from Aus to the states??


----------



## dukja

I am certainly interested in this M51 and its comparison with Audio-GD Ref7 or similar.  The questions was asked several time, but the answer was lacking.  A quick google comes back some:
 http://www.stereo.net.au/forums/index.php?/topic/40867-nad-m51-vs-audio-gd-ref-71-anyone-compared-them/
  
 It seems they may be in similar level with just these online comments.  So I am still interested in the serious comparison.
  
 BTW, nothing "metallic" ever gets into my mind from my Ref7 for several years....


----------



## Sonic Defender

Just wondering, if I use the M51 only as a DAC, should I set the volume to fixed, or use variable at -1db?


----------



## karmanfamily

I would set the volume at 0dB and play with it up and down until it sounds the best for you.


----------



## T.R.A.N.C.E.

Fixed or variable doesn't make a difference as long as set to the same volume, and 0dB is the bit perfect output, not -1dB. But basically whatever output sounds best to you is the way to go. When I was using single ended output I liked -20dB, but when I used balanced outputs I went with 0dB, but I still use the volume control. I don't think it was the M51 that was causing these discrepancies, but rather the single ended vs balanced inputs on my amp.


----------



## Sonic Defender

Thanks, but wasn't there several people, and NAD even saying at 0db there was significant distortion due to the extra gain? I thought I read in this thread that this was fixed with a firmware update, but I could be wrong. I also seem to remember many people saying that -10db was a sweet spot. Anyway, I will try the 0db and experiment around that point. Cheers.


----------



## T.R.A.N.C.E.

^ That was fixed several updates ago, there is now no distortion at 0dB. As for people saying a specific volume sounds better, as I said before, that is stemming from the pairing with the rest of their system, it's not the M51 itself sounding better at a specific volume.


----------



## Sonic Defender

Cool, now I'll have to go back several pages and find the steps for finding out what firmware version is on my new to me, but used M51 and also what the steps for flashing the firmware are. I'm sure it is all rather basic. My M51 should arrive by Tuesday at the latest so I'll hope this plays out that way.


----------



## karmanfamily

It basically comes down to this: With the volume control of the M51 you can decide yourself if you want the M51 do the most of the 'amplification' or your amplifier.
  
 Personally I started at 0 and went down to -20 and back up, hitting -4 as my sweet spot. Going to the + side didn't help for me.


----------



## Sonic Defender

karmanfamily said:


> It basically comes down to this: With the volume control of the M51 you can decide yourself if you want the M51 do the most of the 'amplification' or your amplifier.
> 
> Personally I started at 0 and went down to -20 and back up, hitting -4 as my sweet spot. Going to the + side didn't help for me.


 

 I would think my amp (NAD M3) should be the amplifier so perhaps I will try a lower volume at first. Now, not to sound ignorant, but doesn't the volume control on the M51 simply attenuate whether or not the full voltage at the output is passed to the amplifier? So in terms of amplifying at the DAC, it is per say simply passing out the analogue signal as neutral as possible at 0db. So yes, my understanding is you would never go over 0db, but you should be able to get right to 0db unless I'm missing something.


----------



## dukja

Since I am using AudioGD Ref 7 -> Aleph 3 -> HE-6 with 24-bit depth and relying on Foobar volume control, the digital volume control in M51 is quite attractive to me.  With hotter volt out of Ref7, I usually needs about -28~-30dB attenuation.  Anybody has tried such approach for digital volume control?  Before I found M51, I was thinking about using audiophilleo 1, which is quite expensive with just digital volume in mind.


----------



## Sonic Defender

dukja said:


> Since I am using AudioGD Ref 7 -> Aleph 3 -> HE-6 with 24-bit depth and relying on Foobar volume control, the digital volume control in M51 is quite attractive to me.  With hotter volt out of Ref7, I usually needs about -28~-30dB attenuation.  Anybody has tried such approach for digital volume control?  Before I found M51, I was thinking about using audiophilleo 1, which is quite expensive with just digital volume in mind.


 

 I know in JRiver I simply disable the internal volume control. Is there a technical reason you require Foobar volume control?


----------



## dukja

Normally you wouldn't need digital volume control (or software vol ctrl in my case) if you are using a headphone amp (i.e. pre+power amp).  HE-6 needs the power of a speaker power amp (with no vol ctrl).  And I have tried several approaches (lightspeed passive attenuator and DCB1 buffer preamp) and in the end I like no-preamp foobar-vol-ctrl sound best.  It seems to confirm that wtih 24-bit dept even -30dB software vol ctrl does not hurt my music (large-scale soundtrack, classical, new age, etc)
  
 Still, I always worry about forgetting turning down foobar volume.  A DAC with digital volume seems make a lot of sense for me.


----------



## Sonic Defender

dukja said:


> Normally you wouldn't need digital volume control (or software vol ctrl in my case) if you are using a headphone amp (i.e. pre+power amp).  HE-6 needs the power of a speaker power amp (with no vol ctrl).  And I have tried several approaches (lightspeed passive attenuator and DCB1 buffer preamp) and in the end I like no-preamp foobar-vol-ctrl sound best.  It seems to confirm that wtih 24-bit dept even -30dB software vol ctrl does not hurt my music (large-scale soundtrack, classical, new age, etc)
> 
> Still, I always worry about forgetting turning down foobar volume.  A DAC with digital volume seems make a lot of sense for me.


 

 Gotcha, I run my HE 560 directly from speaker tap cables, I hear the HE-6 responds extremely well to this technique. Anyway, I run my 560 from a 180watt amp with not a problem, right from the speaker terminals.


----------



## sasbyte

what adapter are you using from speaker amp to he560.


----------



## Sonic Defender

sasbyte said:


> what adapter are you using from speaker amp to he560.


 

 Custom cable made by Norne Audio, worth every penny. Couldn't be happier with it.


----------



## Faultline

That's great news on the distortion fix!
  
 Do you know what version of firmware has the fix (1.50 perhaps)?  I'm running 1.41.  I can't find any release notes on 1.50.
  
 Background:
  
 I got the NAD M51 as an upgrade over an Emotiva XDA-1 DAC and there was a definite improvement so I kept it and sold off the Emotiva.  Unfortunately, I found that in the "Fixed" volume setting driving my Pass Labs XP-20 pre-amp over balanced cables, it was distorting BADLY.  
  
 If I backed off the gain, the distortion would diminish to inaudible levels.  I did not think that was quite right and was worried that the NAD was defective.  Much back and forth with NAD and Pass Labs ensued.  End of the day, I had to "settle" for backing off the gain to -6 (distortion was gone at -5, but I took it down to -6 to avoid distortion which might have cropped up on hotter sources).  
  
 Pass Labs said the XP-20 should not be overdriven based on NAD's published specs for the M51 but it obviously was (either that or the M51 was being overdriven internally before sending signal out).  Running other devices as inputs to the Pass Labs XP-20 preamp over balanced cables caused no distortion.  This included the Emotiva XDA-1, a Musical Fidelity M1 DAC, and a Benchmark DAC1.  
  
 A discovery:
  
 If you are in the market for a $2,000 DAC, you owe it to yourself to hear the Chord QuteHD (now QuteEX).  It's a significant improvement sound-wise over the M51.  (I saw a posting in this thread where somebody preferred the _feel_ of the NAD over a Marantz -- if heft is important to you then the QuteHD is NOT your thing).  Very straightforward A/B testing resulted in immediately obvious, repeatable improvements that everybody who's heard this A/B test has picked up immediately.  The listeners are not told what device they were listening to.  But when the signal path was through the QuteHD, the sound was "clearer", "less veiled", "more present in the room", and "less scratchy and harsh"...  I've been through a lot of DACs and never heard better.  QuteHD leaves the M51 in the dust.  I suspect the current QuteEX is either the same or better.
  
 I've kept both the M51 and the QuteHD.  I use the NAD for exploring music or streaming content via a Google Chromecast Dongle because it outputs over HDMI only.  I also kept the NAD because I use a Pioneer transport to play formats that require HDMI out (SACD).  The NAD has 2xHDMI in and that's the only reason I'm keeping it.  Everything else is played through the QuteHD.


----------



## vlach

faultline said:


> That's great news on the distortion fix!
> 
> Do you know what version of firmware has the fix (1.50 perhaps)?  I'm running 1.41.  I can't find any release notes on 1.50.
> 
> ...




Thanks for sharing...always wondered how the QuteHD performed, that's really good to know!


----------



## Sonic Defender

I'm really enjoying the M51 so far. Significantly different from the Gungnir that is for sure. The M51 seems faster to me, but I think that and other sonic differences I'm noticing can be explained by less bass (but also less congested bass) than the Gungnir. The detail retrieval and instrument separation with the M51 seems quite a bit better.
  
 The NAD also seems to have a strong central placement with more depth to the soundstage, but the central placement strength I suspect is more related to how the album is mastered. So was the M51 a significant upgrade over the Gungnir? For me I would have to say so as I'm now hearing more of everything (except bass quantity). I'm quite willing to trade off some bass quantity for more articulate bass and early on it seems apparent to me that the M51 is the better DAC overall. I loved my Gungnir quite a bit, but now I feel that a little muddiness has been lifted. I worried that losing some softness would be an issue, but so far so good. Not to mention the NAD looks really sexy beside my M3 integrated.
  
 I get what an earlier poster was saying that there is less impact with the M51, but while I hear that, I still like it very much. A very even-handed DAC. The lower bass quantity will slightly lessen the feeling of fullness of sound at quieter volumes as compared to the Gungnir which was prolific at bass. The Gungnir was also very capable of producing quality bass, it wasn't a ham-fisted brute DAC at all, very accomplished in it's own right. I'm sure there will be people who prefer more bass grunt power than the M51 provides, but people who like non-glare detail retrieval will love the M51. I'm surprised at how much I'm noticing now, even as I type so not sitting here listening for differences, almost unattended listening now.


----------



## olor1n

Your impressions of the M51 vs the Gungir match my own experience. Bass was one of my favourite aspects of the Gungir's presentation and whilst I found the M51 to have a touch less in terms of quantity, it more than makes up for it not just in the quality of the lower registers but also in the extra refinement across the board.


----------



## Danny86

sonic defender said:


> I'm really enjoying the M51 so far. Significantly different from the Gungnir that is for sure. The M51 seems faster to me, but I think that and other sonic differences I'm noticing can be explained by less bass (but also less congested bass) than the Gungnir. The detail retrieval and instrument separation with the M51 seems quite a bit better.
> 
> The NAD also seems to have a strong central placement with more depth to the soundstage, but the central placement strength I suspect is more related to how the album is mastered. So was the M51 a significant upgrade over the Gungnir? For me I would have to say so as I'm now hearing more of everything (except bass quantity). I'm quite willing to trade off some bass quantity for more articulate bass and early on it seems apparent to me that the M51 is the better DAC overall. I loved my Gungnir quite a bit, but now I feel that a little muddiness has been lifted. I worried that losing some softness would be an issue, but so far so good. Not to mention the NAD looks really sexy beside my M3 integrated.
> 
> I get what an earlier poster was saying that there is less impact with the M51, but while I hear that, I still like it very much. A very even-handed DAC. The lower bass quantity will slightly lessen the feeling of fullness of sound at quieter volumes as compared to the Gungnir which was prolific at bass. The Gungnir was also very capable of producing quality bass, it wasn't a ham-fisted brute DAC at all, very accomplished in it's own right. I'm sure there will be people who prefer more bass grunt power than the M51 provides, but people who like non-glare detail retrieval will love the M51. I'm surprised at how much I'm noticing now, even as I type so not sitting here listening for differences, almost unattended listening now.


 
 Try the Yellowtec Puc 2 Lite AES>EBU converter, it enables you to use the best input of the M51 (usb is quite average) and increases dynamics and bass quite considerably. 
  
 I am a very happy owner. As AES EBU cable I use DH labs D-110, no need to spend more.


----------



## Sonic Defender

danny86 said:


> Try the Yellowtec Puc 2 Lite AES>EBU converter, it enables you to use the best input of the M51 (usb is quite average) and increases dynamics and bass quite considerably.
> 
> I am a very happy owner. As AES EBU cable I use DH labs D-110, no need to spend more.


 

 I was looking at the Puc 2 Lite just last week. I'm not sure I'm convinced that for that significant cash outlay I would be able to hear the difference. For sure with devices like that I would need to hear from people who have used blind listening tests to demonstrate the difference is audible. I just have a hard time believing that the USB is so challenged that it is missing all kinds of information to the point where entire broad frequency ranges are attenuated. That said, I am also curious to know if it really is true and technically I do not know why these devices couldn't make this kind of improvement. You should have a friend help you do a blind listening test. That would be great and virtually nobody ever does this with any of their gear around here.
  
 Hope that doesn't come off wrong, I do appreciate the suggestion, and I also have an open mind, but as I said, for that kind of money I totally need a little more before I can justify the expense. Cheers.


----------



## olor1n

I'm in the same boat and am curious about the supposed improvements over the M51's usb interface. I'm looking at the Gustard U12 as a cheaper entry point. Has anyone used the U12 with the M51?


----------



## Somnambulist

If you search around a bit on various forums you can find individuals claiming x input sounds better to them than the other ones - be that HDMI, USB, AES, etc. Make of that what you will.


----------



## Sonic Defender

What I'm experiencing is almost like getting off an addiction. Going from the very strong bass of the Gungnir to the leaner bass of the M51 will take an adjustment period. Ultimately I will need to decide what is the more accurate portrayal of bass, the powerful Gungnir depiction, or the tighter more agile M51. I suspect the M51 is the more accurate of the two. Now I may find my headphone selection needs to be tailored to the new sound signature of the M51 meaning perhaps bass heavy headphones such as the TH900 are needed. Man is the M51 a fast sounding DAC! The decay is really fast which ultimately I think helps combat bloat and frequencies bleeding into each other.


----------



## wink

I am very suspicious of any gear that gives plenty of loose bass.  That's not how I hear live bass producing musical instruments.
  
 The looseness of the bass could be caused by the amp not delivering enoiugh instantaneous current to the headphones.


----------



## Sonic Defender

wink said:


> I am very suspicious of any gear that gives plenty of loose bass.  That's not how I hear live bass producing musical instruments.
> 
> The looseness of the bass could be caused by the amp not delivering enoiugh instantaneous current to the headphones.


 

 Are you talking about the Gungnir? My amp is a very solid little NAD powerhouse rock stable at 8 and 4 ohm output so it certainly has nothing to do with the amp. The Gungnir is well known to have very powerful bass. I don't think live is the standard to judge studio music anyway myself, plenty of room effects at play. I have attended many a concert in my day including orchestral, rock, choral in many different size venues. I think live sound should be used to judge live albums, studio albums will not sound like live recordings very often, and with electronic instruments there is no real acoustic/live sound anyway as they require electronic amplification/processing anyway to produce a sound, and that is before the board crew does their thing.


----------



## wink

True, but still, an electronic should emulate a real instrument.
  
 If it doesn't it is defective.
  
 If a bass machine produces wooly bass, then it is either defective or intentional.
  
 If intentional, then the matter becomes the quest to provide the same amount of wooliness, bur Not more.


----------



## Sonic Defender

wink said:


> True, but still, an electronic should emulate a real instrument.
> 
> If it doesn't it is defective.
> 
> ...


 

 I agree certainly to an extent, but for me the problem is that an electric instrument has a rather broad range of sounds it can exhibit, certainly more than an acoustic instrument which can't go through processing as easily. I guess how an electric instrument sounds is more up to the chain of gear. Anyway, I'm curious if you have heard both of these DACs and also experienced this difference? Cheers.


----------



## T.R.A.N.C.E.

I get plenty of bass from my M51, although they are hooked up to dual subs


----------



## olor1n

I love the quality and quantity of bass from the M51. The Gungnir's bass is just a little more upfront. No one is saying the M51 is bass deficient. It's actually better integrated in the overall presentation. The Gungnir's bass is well resolved and fun to listen to, but the overall presentation falls short of what the M51 is able to convey. The M51 is smoother across the spectrum, is more detailed and is more refined in presenting micro and macro dynamics.


----------



## Sonic Defender

olor1n said:


> I love the quality and quantity of bass from the M51. The Gungnir's bass is just a little more upfront. No one is saying the M51 is bass deficient. It's actually better integrated in the overall presentation. The Gungnir's bass is well resolved and fun to listen to, but the overall presentation falls short of what the M51 is able to convey. The M51 is smoother across the spectrum, is more detailed and is more refined in presenting micro and macro dynamics.


 

 Ditto for me. The Gun more fun signature with the M51 being the more accurate in my estimation. It does take some getting used to, but once your brain accepts that there is less bass quantity being presented, you start to hear quite a bit more deeply into the music and indeed there seems to be more macro and micro detail.
  
 Like TRANCE, for my speaker listening I also use dual subs at what I feel is a well balanced way in my system. I have almost a near-field listening environment so I only use two little REL T Zero subs, but they really do help even used in the subtle manner I strive for. I don't want boomy bass, but when using two subs properly, it makes all of the bass range more coherent and accurate sounding for lack of a better description. I'm considering getting a TH900 so bass quantity in my headphone listening will rise quite a bit.
  
 On that subject if I may deviate, I had a D7000 which I really liked, but I found instrument separation to be less than ideal and perhaps the cause of this is that I also found the bass quantity to be too great. Has anybody in this thread had experience with these headphones and if so, would the TH900 be different enough to address these issues?


----------



## KmanChu

The M51 is a very clean and detailed sound. Bass has always sounded (to me) to have good extension and texture. If I have one criticism of the M51 compared to some other dacs it is that it may be a bit polite overall and have slightly less dynamic slam/snap than some others. The bass is there, and I would wager it is more accurate to the source material than the Gunginir. 
  
 BTW, I would put in a plug for the Yellowtec with the M51, although I would think some of the other newer options may be a bit more user friendly for comparable money (Bryston BUC-1.) Also, the Yellowtec works only with Macs and PCs and needs a proprietary driver to work its best. It doesn't like to talk to Linux or premade Linux-based servers such as SOtM, Aurender, Sonore, Squeezebox Touch EDO ...


----------



## Sonic Defender

kmanchu said:


> The M51 is a very clean and detailed sound. Bass has always sounded (to me) to have good extension and texture. If I have one criticism of the M51 compared to some other dacs it is that it may be a bit polite overall and have slightly less dynamic slam/snap than some others. The bass is there, and I would wager it is more accurate to the source material than the Gunginir.
> 
> BTW, I would put in a plug for the Yellowtec with the M51, although I would think some of the other newer options may be a bit more user friendly for comparable money (Bryston BUC-1.) Also, the Yellowtec works only with Macs and PCs and needs a proprietary driver to work its best. It doesn't like to talk to Linux or premade Linux-based servers such as SOtM, Aurender, Sonore, Squeezebox Touch EDO ...


 

 I am looking into a few USB converter options. I looked at the Yellowtec PUC 2, but it did seem pricey. There are a few other well reviewed options. People swear they can make significant differences, but I'm still a little skeptical, but for only a couple of hundred for some of the more modest options I might just try it. Yes, I do think the M51 is polite as you say, but that is okay with me as it is more balanced sounding I think then the Gungnir. Less bass, but more detailed bass and quite a fast sounding DAC. I did buy the TH900 so that will be interesting when it arrives.


----------



## T.R.A.N.C.E.

Also check if your PC has optical out, most desktop PC's have an optical out, then there is no need to even use USB or a USB converter.


----------



## xxxfbsxxx

sonic defender said:


> I am looking into a few USB converter options. I looked at the Yellowtec PUC 2, but it did seem pricey. There are a few other well reviewed options. People swear they can make significant differences, but I'm still a little skeptical, but for only a couple of hundred for some of the more modest options I might just try it. Yes, I do think the M51 is polite as you say, but that is okay with me as it is more balanced sounding I think then the Gungnir. Less bass, but more detailed bass and quite a fast sounding DAC. I did buy the TH900 so that will be interesting when it arrives.



i have tried various converter with nad and found that audiophileo and ifi ilink actually made sound worse than nad usb built in,so sold them all )
the next one was ressonance concero,this should make the nad sound a little bit better,around 20% improvement,quite happy with this
the best one is audio gd di2014,also the cheapest option ),imo it makes the nad sound 2 times better,i have compared nad51 side by side to other totl dac,master7,and they are very very close to each other,with di2014 nad51 is around 95% m7,without di2014.... less than 50% m7 --> sold the master7 and keep nad+di2014  however still have to agree that m7 still has small edge over last few percent of micro detail,weight of note and a bit better in sense of space,this should be a huge improvement for very good record and classical music,for the rest of music gernes i think its impossible to pick up the difference


----------



## Sonic Defender

xxxfbsxxx said:


> i have tried various converter with nad and found that audiophileo and ifi ilink actually made sound worse than nad usb built in,so sold them all
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Thanks, interesting feedback. I was going to get a Master 7, but the size was a problem, plus, if anything goes wrong the only way to get service is sending it all the way to and from China which would be expensive, and time consuming. For the small sonic gains that I might find with the Master 7 just not worth the effort. Plus, it was double the cost of what I paid for my M51 so I think I made the best call for my situation. Still would have liked to hear the Master 7.


----------



## vc1187

I still use the M51 in my speaker setup and it feeds into the Zana Deux as a pre amp. 

By itself, the M51 sounds quite lean in my setup. It's not analytical, but lacks body and excitement. Adding the ZD into the loop makes the magic happen. Bass quantity is there when it's called for and vocals feel more intimate. I swear, even though the ZD is primarily a headphone amp, it functions better as a pre-amp to my ears.

I did have the Gungnir for a short period of time and was able to A/B it in the same system with and without the ZD as a pre. The M51 was a clear winner here because it sounded clearer and provides an all around better soundstage, which when paired with magnepan speakers is very noticeable.


----------



## BleaK

Hey guys! Is a transport needed for the m51 to sound best from a PC, or is the usb good enough?
  
 I have heard good things about the Gustard U12, anyone heard these two together?


----------



## T.R.A.N.C.E.

^ The usb connection of M51 doesn't get very good reviews, but I haven't tried it myself. Technically the best inputs on the M51 are Optical and Coax because they don't get processed and are sent straight to the Dac, but we all know technical best and what sounds good to each individual are two different things lol. Any half decent PC should have Optical output, so that's what I'd use to hook up to M51.


----------



## Danny86

bleak said:


> Hey guys! Is a transport needed for the m51 to sound best from a PC, or is the usb good enough?
> 
> I have heard good things about the Gustard U12, anyone heard these two together?


 
 I was very happy with the Yellowtech Puc 2 Lite when I was using the M51. 
  
 Was happy also straight into PC but the USB implementation is rather mediocre.


----------



## BleaK

danny86 said:


> I was very happy with the Yellowtech Puc 2 Lite when I was using the M51.
> 
> Was happy also straight into PC but the USB implementation is rather mediocre.


 

 So the digital out from PC was also pretty good? The Puc 2 lite looks abit out of my pricerange atm.


----------



## Sanlitun

bleak said:


> Hey guys! Is a transport needed for the m51 to sound best from a PC, or is the usb good enough?
> 
> I have heard good things about the Gustard U12, anyone heard these two together?


 
  
 I think the USB is excellent. I used an Audiophilleo for a while and then went back to using the USB.


----------



## xxxfbsxxx

sanlitun said:


> I think the USB is excellent. I used an Audiophilleo for a while and then went back to using the USB.


 
 i had the same experience when i first bought the ap/ilink to pair with nad, then got the di2014 and it made the nad sound at least 2 times better )
 once you heard it with the di2014 via coaxial port you cant really go back to usb and realize how digital sound it is


----------



## BleaK

sanlitun said:


> I think the USB is excellent. I used an Audiophilleo for a while and then went back to using the USB.


 
  
 Nice, thank you! I already own a Schiit Wyrd so that would perhaps improve it a little.


----------



## KmanChu

bleak said:


> Nice, thank you! I already own a Schiit Wyrd so that would perhaps improve it a little.


 
 The Schiit Wyred will improve it more than a little bit. The M51 responds well to USB power conditioners. That said, I settled on the Puc2 Lite. But I think spending more than a few hundred on the M51 doesn't make sense nowadays as it is growing a bit long in the tooth...


----------



## Sonic Defender

kmanchu said:


> The Schiit Wyred will improve it more than a little bit. The M51 responds well to USB power conditioners. That said, I settled on the Puc2 Lite. But I think spending more than a few hundred on the M51 doesn't make sense nowadays as it is growing a bit long in the tooth...


 

 No it won't, or it shouldn't anyway. I have just confirmed with NAD directly that the XMOS receiver does not use the power from the USB, it gets it directly from the chip. Not sure how a USB power conditioner can change that as the power signal will not be utilized. Here is the message from NAD:
  
 Hello Mark,
 Thank you for contacting the NAD Electronics Support Centre regarding your M51 XMos USB receiver. Please be advised that the USB B port is powered from internal supply so no need for an external supply.
 We hope this information is helpful.


----------



## xxxfbsxxx

sonic defender said:


> No it won't, or it shouldn't anyway. I have just confirmed with NAD directly that the XMOS receiver does not use the power from the USB, it gets it directly from the chip. Not sure how a USB power conditioner can change that as the power signal will not be utilized. Here is the message from NAD:
> 
> Hello Mark,
> Thank you for contacting the NAD Electronics Support Centre regarding your M51 XMos USB receiver. Please be advised that the USB B port is powered from internal supply so no need for an external supply.
> We hope this information is helpful.


 
 wyrd has 2 functions
 one is usb power conditioner which take care of power line ie, +5V
 the other is usb signal buffer via an addition clock, this take care the "signal" line
 hence even if the dac does not draw any power from computer usb port, it still gains benefit from conditioned signal line


----------



## Sonic Defender

kmanchu said:


> The Schiit Wyred will improve it more than a little bit. The M51 responds well to USB power conditioners. That said, I settled on the Puc2 Lite. But I think spending more than a few hundred on the M51 doesn't make sense nowadays as it is growing a bit long in the tooth...


 

 Don't be fooled into thinking there are all these great advances in DAC technology, much of these advances are miniscule differences and a DAC today is far more similar from a DAC that is 20 years old than it is different. There is an active thread here where people who own really nice modern DACs have been buying up 20 year old Theta DACs and finding they prefer the sound, or can't really hear that big a difference.
  
 Do you really think that there has been that much change in DAC technology that has trickled down into affordable consumer products? Perhaps in the very expensive esoteric DAC world there are some significant implementation approach changes, but I'll bet in blind listening tests even those might be hard to spot. There are more flavours due to filter development/tweaking, but the underlying technology is still pretty darn similar, and some of the newer filters are very digital sounding which can be good or bad.
  
 I just don't think a 4 year old DAC qualifies as long in the tooth. Under the hood, they still convert ones and zeros pretty much the same as they have for years.


----------



## Sonic Defender

Does anybody have the instructions for updating the firmware? I have 1.50 on a USB key, but I forget the key combinations I need to do. Any instructions would be appreciated. Currently I'm running 1.41. Cheers.


----------



## Lev Ahriman

sonic defender said:


> Does anybody have the instructions for updating the firmware? I have 1.50 on a USB key, but I forget the key combinations I need to do. Any instructions would be appreciated. Currently I'm running 1.41. Cheers.


 

 Hello Sonic Defender

 The  M51 Firmware update instruction PDF is provided with the update in the same zip file that you download from NAD website.
 and to make it easier for you:

 first you go here and download the update
http://nadelectronics.com/download-agree/141204162109-Software-M51-SB201402-Web.zip%7CM51-software-upgrade-V1_50
  
 by clicking on agree at the end of the page
 1. Download and save the NAD provided zip file to your computer. Unzip the file, extract and store the “xxxxx.hex” file to an empty USB memory stick.   
 2. Connect the USB memory stick (with “xxxxx.hex” file already stored) to the USB input (rear panel UPGRADE input for M51).  With the unit plugged-in to a mains power source, press and hold the front panel Standby button.  While holding down the Standby button, switch ON the rear panel POWER switch. 
 3. Release the Standby button when “Updating” is displayed on the front panel. The unit will automatically go to standby mode after completion of the update.
  
 also if you want to know what update ver you got
  
  HOW TO CHECK SOFTWARE  DETAILS
 1 Press and hold front panel INPUT or the Source Right u(C510) button while switching ON the rear panel   POWER switch.                                                                                 
 2 “SETUP”, “VFD TEST”, “Vx.xx” (software number) and “RESET” will be shown in the display.                                                                                                                                         
 3  Note “V x.xx” for the software number details.
  
 there is a PDF file within the first zip contains the  instructions.
  
 Good luck.


----------



## Sonic Defender

Thanks brother, appreciated. So funny I never looked more carefully at the zip archive.


----------



## Danny86

Perhaps a silly question but has anyone compared the M51 against an integrated streamer such as the Marantz NA-8005 / Pioneer N-70A or even more expensive ones such as Naim NDX / Marantz NA-11S1 ? 
  
 I'm wondering whether M51 + proper transport might not end up being more expensive than an all-in-one solution.


----------



## Sonic Defender

danny86 said:


> Perhaps a silly question but has anyone compared the M51 against an integrated streamer such as the Marantz NA-8005 / Pioneer N-70A or even more expensive ones such as Naim NDX / Marantz NA-11S1 ?
> 
> I'm wondering whether M51 + proper transport might not end up being more expensive than an all-in-one solution.


 

 Perhaps, but then you don't have your eggs all in one basket. Separate components gives you flexibility whereas a single platform product might suffer technology lag easier. You can build/buy a simple PC transport very affordably. Just a thought.


----------



## Lev Ahriman

sonic defender said:


> Thanks brother, appreciated. So funny I never looked more carefully at the zip archive.


 

 No probs =)


----------



## olor1n

I've just upgraded my firmware from 1.39 to 1.50. I haven't heard anything that makes me regret the upgrade. It sounds much the same tbh.
  
 I did have trouble with the process as the upgrade would not initiate when using a 4gb usb stick. NAD recommends a 2gb or less usb drive and I was able to perform the upgrade when I loaded the firmware onto a 1gb drive. All good so far.


----------



## Sonic Defender

olor1n said:


> I've just upgraded my firmware from 1.39 to 1.50. I haven't heard anything that makes me regret the upgrade. It sounds much the same tbh.
> 
> I did have trouble with the process as the upgrade would not initiate when using a 4gb usb stick. NAD recommends a 2gb or less usb drive and I was able to perform the upgrade when I loaded the firmware onto a 1gb drive. All good so far.


 

 Crap, I only have a 16GB stick. WTH? How can anybody find 2GB, a time machine?


----------



## ellevoid

I use 16gb (FAT32) and it works fine.


----------



## Eddie Q

I used a 4 gig flash drive.  Is it formatted fat32?  Also, was the hex file the only file present?


----------



## olor1n

Yes and yes. Doesn't matter now. I was able to complete the upgrade using a 1gb stick.


----------



## Sonic Defender

There is one slightly odd, minor annoyance with the M51 that I'm hoping the firmware update fixes. Not always, but very often, when a song starts the re is an extra half a beat inserted to the very beginning of the song. It is hard to described, but picture a Deadmau5 track that starts with a solid kick drum hit, that song would sound like it starts with a very quick double kick hit. This happens very often, but oddly not always. It happens with all kinds of material. Anyway, it is quite a minor thing that even if it didn't get resolved I would still be very happy with the DAC, but if it goes away, I'll be that much happier!


----------



## T.R.A.N.C.E.

^ I haven't encountered that, I'm using optical, maybe it's a usb related issue?


----------



## Sonic Defender

Well soon that hopefully won't be an issue as I purchased a USB converter (MX-U8) so I will be taking the computer's USB signal through the U8 and then connecting to the M51 via AES so perhaps if USB is the culprit this will be resolved. Anyway, I'm going to flash the firmware today and if that helps I'll report back. Cheers.


----------



## Lev Ahriman

Don't mind the size , Use FAT32 formatted stick .. updates problem free.


----------



## Lev Ahriman

Got an idea about adding a tube pre after the M51 and before the power amp.
 anyone had this config? thankful for any useful input .


----------



## vc1187

lev ahriman said:


> Got an idea about adding a tube pre after the M51 and before the power amp.
> 
> anyone had this config? thankful for any useful input .




I use my ZD as a pre amp after the M51's output and it does wonders for my speakers


----------



## Lev Ahriman

vc1187 said:


> I use my ZD as a pre amp after the M51's output and it does wonders for my speakers


 

 what a ZD?


----------



## Sonic Defender

Zana Duex amp from Eddie Current


----------



## Sonic Defender

Updated software via 16GB flash formatted to Fat32 not an issue at all for me.


----------



## ellevoid

Has anyone use Weiss INT204 as a USB/SPDIF converter with NAD M51?
 Would like to know how good is INT204 comparing to other USB/SPDIF converter.


----------



## Danny86

ellevoid said:


> Has anyone use Weiss INT204 as a USB/SPDIF converter with NAD M51?
> Would like to know how good is INT204 comparing to other USB/SPDIF converter.


 
  
 It looks like the Weiss is more expensive than the current street price of the M51 (1100 EUR locally).
 With that being said, it would perhaps be better to invest the money in a better DAC rather than over invest in the converter ? 
  
 Also with that money you could find a used streamer which typically blows PC away bigtime.


----------



## ellevoid

danny86 said:


> It looks like the Weiss is more expensive than the current street price of the M51 (1100 EUR locally).
> With that being said, it would perhaps be better to invest the money in a better DAC rather than over invest in the converter ?
> 
> Also with that money you could find a used streamer which typically blows PC away bigtime.


 
  
 I already have a very good customized C.A.P.S. (I spent $2000 on it). I also tried other DAC like Auralic Vega, Ayre QB-9, Mytek Manhattan, Invicta Mirus, Weiss DAC202 all of them are better than M51 but for me I don't think it worth to pay $3000, $5000 or $7000 for that gap. 
  
 So I think I'll get a converter and waiting for DAC that really wows me.


----------



## Sonic Defender

danny86 said:


> It looks like the Weiss is more expensive than the current street price of the M51 (1100 EUR locally).
> With that being said, it would perhaps be better to invest the money in a better DAC rather than over invest in the converter ?
> 
> Also with that money you could find a used streamer which typically blows PC away bigtime.


 

 Why would a streamer blow away a PC? I'll bet in blind listening tests nobody could tell them apart.


----------



## xxxfbsxxx

ellevoid said:


> I already have a very good customized C.A.P.S. (I spent $2000 on it). I also tried other DAC like Auralic Vega, Ayre QB-9, Mytek Manhattan, Invicta Mirus, Weiss DAC202 all of them are better than M51 but for me I don't think it worth to pay $3000, $5000 or $7000 for that gap.
> 
> So I think I'll get a converter and waiting for DAC that really wows me.


 
 then get the audio-gd di2014, nad+di combo could probably blow all of your listed dac above 
 and its quite cheap compared to other coverter so if you dont like it you can always sell it with very small lost but i doubt you will once you heard this combo )


----------



## Danny86

sonic defender said:


> Why would a streamer blow away a PC? I'll bet in blind listening tests nobody could tell them apart.


 
 Because streamer is optimized for one thing only, while PC is a not really optimized for audio.
 PC optimization is super expensive.
  
 DAC + streamer is always superior due to the end-to-end sound integration from the manufacturer (Naim 172 XS, Marantz NA-11 S1, etc.). While on paper they are more expensive, when you count all the software, hardware and connection cost they are cheaper vs DAC + PC. 
  
 For instance, the Hegel H160 integrated DAC, streamer and AMP made me sell my NAD m51 + Yellowtec Puc 2 Lite + PC with Totaldac D1 USB, Jplay dual pc etc ($$$$$) for the superior sound. 
  
 I would not like to comment on the blind tests part, there is a non-blind comparison here: http://devialetchat.com/showthread.php?tid=253


----------



## BleaK

Got the NAD M51 yesterday. Just usb (without power line) out of a PC it sounds really great. Some thoughts:
  
 Bass: Strong and goes deep, yet not overwhelming the overall sound.
  
 Mids: Detailed and lifelike. Slight "soft" sound, not any harshness.
  
 Treble: Continuing the non-harness. Extended and present, yet not fatiguing. 
  
 Imaging and soundstage: The strongest point of this dac I feel. Details pops out on black background and the it throws a very nice, layered and large soundstage. 
  
  
 Will continue to listen, but so far this DAC really impressed me. 
  
  
  
 Small addendum:
  
 After some listening and testing with speakers, monitors and headphones, I think this DAC has some kind of synergy with HD800. It might be to early to tell, yet however I feel like the non-harsness pairs really well with the Sennheisers. When listening to not-perfect recordings it somehow takes off the "edge" you might experience with the HD800, while keeping most of the details.
  
 This is just some thoughts after two days of listening. More may come.


----------



## Sonic Defender

danny86 said:


> Because streamer is optimized for one thing only, while PC is a not really optimized for audio.
> PC optimization is super expensive.
> 
> DAC + streamer is always superior due to the end-to-end sound integration from the manufacturer (Naim 172 XS, Marantz NA-11 S1, etc.). While on paper they are more expensive, when you count all the software, hardware and connection cost they are cheaper vs DAC + PC.
> ...


 

 Sorry Danny86, with all due respect the notion that a streamer sounds better really doesn't seem to have any technical merit, that strikes me essentially as a subjective opinion, which is fine of course, but you do need to be aware that making such a strong claim with zero evidence isn't really a useful exercise. I can't imagine for the life of me why even a basic PC can't sound every bit as good as a dedicated streamer. All of this electrical noise etc really has never been demonstrated scientifically to be audible anyway. Just because a machine can measure a difference, doesn't mean that our brain will be able to detect the difference.
  
 Sighted listening tests are fine, but they are not evidence per say. That doesn't mean they can't be correct, it just means we can't have any confidence that they are correct. I'm not saying there is no chance a streamer is better, just that I have not seen any evidence that demonstrates that a streamer is better.


----------



## Danny86

sonic defender said:


> Sorry Danny86, with all due respect the notion that a streamer sounds better really doesn't *seem *to have any technical merit, that *strikes *me essentially as a subjective opinion, which is fine of course, but you do need to be aware that making such a strong claim with zero evidence isn't really a useful exercise. I can't *imagine *for the life of me why even a basic PC can't sound every bit as good as a dedicated streamer. All of this electrical noise etc really has never been demonstrated scientifically to be audible anyway. Just because a machine can measure a difference, doesn't mean that our brain will be able to detect the difference.
> 
> Sighted listening tests are fine, but they are not evidence per say. That doesn't mean they can't be correct, it just means we can't have any confidence that they are correct. I'm not saying there is no chance a streamer is better, just that I have not seen any evidence that demonstrates that a streamer is better.


 
 Well we would agree to disagree. The main difference is that I listened to both while you are simply speculating. 
 I am trying to pass on my knowledge to the community and you are dismissing my experience based on your assumptions. 
  
 Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with users spending thousands on USB cables, USB converters and Linear Power Sources and software if this is what they desire. After all, I went through the same exercise and saw PC sound improve.
  
 With that being said, I don't think that speculative phrases dismissing statements collected from personal experience is something that helps the community grow their knowledge on the matter.


----------



## Sonic Defender

danny86 said:


> Well we would agree to disagree. The main difference is that I listened to both while you are simply speculating.
> I am trying to pass on my knowledge to the community and you are dismissing my experience based on your assumptions.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with users spending thousands on USB cables, USB converters and Linear Power Sources and software if this is what they desire. After all, I went through the same exercise and saw PC sound improve.
> ...


 

 Actually what I'm doing does help the community. If people make really bold claims like a music streamer kills a PC in sound quality they need to tell us why that would be the case. You may not like it or agree, but in the world of science, a sighted listening test is no proof at all. If you really want to prove this claim to be true you need to set-up blind listening, multiple trials and see if your views are correct. Personally I doubt they will be, but as I haven't done the testing I can't say you are incorrect, but you can't make claims like that either.
  
 Now had you said personally I think my music streamer sounds better than the computer based systems I have heard nobody would care, but you didn't put any reasonable limitations on your claim you said streamers are better period. I'm sorry if you feel like you're being attacked, but contrary to what you said, this is exactly the type of claim that needs to be challenged openly and respectfully here in the forums.


----------



## vc1187

You two are essentially disagreeing over each other's definition of "better", which in itself is a purely subjective word anyway... Hence not worth arguing over. 

Here on head-fi, we hear a bunch of different things that we categorize as 'better'. For example, I think the M51 sounds better than the Schiit Gungnir, but others may disagree. Scientific reasoning or not, the opinion stands and will likely not change because someone else tells me it's not better. 

Another example, some people prefer a more accurate reproduction of audio while some prefer a less accurate, colored reproduction that is seemingly more easy on their ears. Telling someone that something is better because of ones personal preference is strictly based on that individual's opinion.

We choose to believe or be skeptical about what we want, so just let head-fi be head-fi. In the end, your ears are the only absolute truth anyway.


----------



## wink

Instead of arguing here, they could be listening to some cool jazz......


----------



## Sonic Defender

That isn't arguing, to me that is exchanging perspectives respectfully.


----------



## wink

I never argue, I just debate heatedly and emotionally .....


----------



## Sonic Defender

wink said:


> I never argue, I just debate heatedly and emotionally .....


 

 I'm down with that brother!


----------



## olor1n

olor1n said:


> I've just upgraded my firmware from 1.39 to 1.50. I haven't heard anything that makes me regret the upgrade. It sounds much the same tbh.


 
  
 Anyone know where I can get firmware 1.39?
  
 Been listening to 1.50 for about a week now and of late have had the nagging feeling that bass presence and slam is somewhat curtailed in this firmware version. I am aware of NAD's claim (as mentioned in stereophile's update) that firmware post 1.39 merely adjusts output by -1dB, and that there is no tweak to the signature. If that were the case, the bass slam that I seem to be missing should be reintroduced by simply adjusting the M51's volume. That is not the case. What I'm hearing with 1.50 is perhaps a more even presentation across the spectrum but I preferred the dynamics and energy of 1.39.


----------



## olor1n

Reverted from 1.50 back to 1.39.
  
 Yeah, this is the M51 I know and love.


----------



## Sonic Defender

olor1n said:


> Reverted from 1.50 back to 1.39.
> 
> Yeah, this is the M51 I know and love.


 

 Man you're lucky. I thought there were a few who went back and had that scramble the M51 up bad. I never heard 1.39 as I started at 1.41 before going to 1.50. Personally I certainly couldn't hear a difference between those firmware revisions. I'm assuming a great deal of the revisions is to solve smaller niche problems that arise as NAD gathers users feedback more than sound quality, but certainly I don't know for sure.


----------



## ellevoid

olor1n said:


> Reverted from 1.50 back to 1.39.
> 
> Yeah, this is the M51 I know and love.


 
  
 Hello olor1n,
  
 How did you revert it? Did you revert from 1.50 directly to 1.39 or 1.50 > 1.43 > 1.41 > 1.39?
  
 Thanks


----------



## olor1n

sonic defender said:


> olor1n said:
> 
> 
> > Reverted from 1.50 back to 1.39.
> ...


 
  
 The documentation for 1.39 states that it is only recommended for units prior to s/n H25M51XXXXX. I've had my M51 for some years ( s/n H29M51XXXXX) and it came with 1.39 installed, so I knew (hoped) I wouldn't have trouble reverting back from 1.50.
  
 I haven't heard the other firmware updates. I stayed on 1.39 for a long time as I was very content with the SQ and reports online that others also preferred 1.39 gave me no cause to upgrade. Stereophile did quote NAD as stating that there is no tweak to the M51's signature in firmware post 1.39 - other than a -1dB adjustment.
  
 Initially, I did not regret the upgrade. In terms of voicing, nothing really jumped out as drastically different to what I was used to. After some time with 1.50 though, I noticed a slight lack of energy. The M51 seemed more polite and less engaging, and in the background, it became obvious that the lower regions were a touch less dynamic, affecting the presence and impact of bass and percussion instruments.
  
Increasing the M51's volume +1dB did not seem re-balance 1.50's signature to what I was used to hearing from 1.39, as that adjustment also raised the volume of the upper frequencies. This initially gave the impression that the presentation was perhaps a touch more neutral in this firmware, with a little more detail in the upper registers, but after reverting back to 1.39 it is evident that the M51 is not blunted in those regions.
  
 After reverting back to 1.39 I played the same albums that I had just listened to and had found to be a touch flat and somewhat polite on 1.50. With my amp's stepped volume control set to the same setting and the M51's volume set -1dB less than where I had it - to accommodate for the documented difference between firmware revisions - I once again heard the same musically engaging character I was used to hearing from the M51.
  
  


ellevoid said:


> olor1n said:
> 
> 
> > Reverted from 1.50 back to 1.39.
> ...


 
  
 I went from 1.39 (the original firmware on my unit) straight to 1.50. I managed to revert straight back. I've had no other firmware installed on this unit.
  
  
  
 ______________________________
  
 edit: Firmware 1.39 is found in this post - http://www.head-fi.org/t/602771/nad-m51-direct-digital-dac-impressions/660#post_9140977. Proceed at your own risk.


----------



## bimalh

Does both the balanced and unbalanced outs have signal at the same time. I am thinking of buying one but I need two pairs of outs active at the same time. Thank You.


----------



## T.R.A.N.C.E.

^ Yes, I have two subs connected to single ended outputs and my monitors to the balanced outputs.


----------



## jeffreyw311

Where can I find firmware 1.39?  All file hosting links are dead and I can't find an archive on NAD's website.


----------



## T.R.A.N.C.E.

^ Just know that if your M51 came with firmware later than 1.42 then you can't even load 1.39.


----------



## jeffreyw311

t.r.a.n.c.e. said:


> ^ Just know that if your M51 came with firmware later than 1.42 then you can't even load 1.39.


 
 I read about that but I think I'm fine if that's the case since mine is running 1.41.
  
 Edit: Just found the firmware in the post above arrrgggh.


----------



## WDitters

Mine came with 1.42 and I had already upgraded to 1.50 by the time I read this. I went back to 1.39 just for comparison sake and I have to agree with previous poster. 1.39 is more musically engaging for me due to fuller and more rounded lows ... I definitely intend to stay on this version for a while ...


----------



## Sonic Defender

I have never heard 1.39 so I think I'll avoid it as I don't want to know if it sounds better! I must admit I didn't hear any difference when going from 1.41 to 1.50. You guys sure have good audio memory, mine isn't that good for sure. Sad for me.


----------



## WDitters

sonic defender said:


> You guys sure have good audio memory, mine isn't that good for sure. Sad for me.


. 

Since an AB comparison is a bit hard with only one M51 I evaluated 1.39 versus 1.50 by comparing them to the built-in DAC of my Musical Fidelity A1008 amplifier (quality level XDAC v8)

I connected the M50 player via AES/EBU to the M51 and via SPDIF to the A1008 amplifier. The M51 itself sat connected via RCA to the A1008 amplifier... Both digital cables are DH labs Silversonic D-750 and D-110. RCA cables are Harmonic Technology Pro Silway II. 

Upon comparing both revisions to the A1008 DAC I found the difference between the 1.39 and the A1008 simply staggering. The difference between 1.50 and the A1008 DAC was still there albeit less pronounced and in distinctly different areas. Mind you, even then the difference is big, but for me I preferred the more rounded sound of 1.39 to the more detailed but slightly more clinical 1.50... 1.39 also appeared to have a slightly wider soundstage... So I will hang on to 1.39 for now, until the next release


----------



## Sonic Defender

wditters said:


> .
> 
> Since an AB comparison is a bit hard with only one M51 I evaluated 1.39 versus 1.50 by comparing them to the built-in DAC of my Musical Fidelity A1008 amplifier (quality level XDAC v8)
> 
> ...


 

 Cool that you did this, but isn't audio memory still at play here? Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but I believe you were still needing to do the firmware upgrade which takes time is that correct? Maybe I need to try installing 1.39, but I am worried about panning my M51 by going backwards which I have heard happens.


----------



## KmanChu

wditters said:


> .
> 
> Since an AB comparison is a bit hard with only one M51 I evaluated 1.39 versus 1.50 by comparing them to the built-in DAC of my Musical Fidelity A1008 amplifier (quality level XDAC v8)
> 
> ...


 
  
 How do you like the M50 player? I have been itching to try one but wonder about the functionality of the BluOS. Do you find it to work well?


----------



## dreambass

Seen this for £899 can anyone give me a comparison to the chord Hugo or Qute, also I'm using the fostex HP-A8 as dac and it's been my best dac, don't need an amp.


----------



## WDitters

> How do you like the M50 player? I have been itching to try one but wonder about the functionality of the BluOS. Do you find it to work well?




The M50 is awesome, and by its OS immensely flexible. Of course its quality depends on the DAC it's paired with, but aside from that you can't go wrong with it. Currently supporting Deezer Qobuz Tidal and Spotify it will ultimately also support Apple Music and DSD streaming... For me this currently represents everything I always wanted from a high end streamer


----------



## Spark85

Hello all from Spain.
  
  I found this post to seek information related to the DAC M51, that I have very recently.

  Specifically I was looking for the firmware 1.39, but Link's I've seen about it, are fallen ¿Would I could help get it?
 Currently I have version 1.50 and my NAD M51 have the serial number H48M51XXXX
 ¿ You believe that I could get into trouble, if I upgrade to such an ancient version with my DAC?
  
 Thank you for help.


----------



## Sonic Defender

spark85 said:


> Hello all from Spain.
> 
> I found this post to seek information related to the DAC M51, that I have very recently.
> 
> ...


 

 There were a few posts from M51 owners who had a technical issue with their DAC after down-grading the firmware version. I'm not sure I would take the chance myself. Sure, you may hear from 10 people here who have downgraded and it wasn't a problem, but a few did have an issue. I guess it depends how lucky you feel and whether or not you have confidence that the reports of 1.39 sounding substantially better are completely accurate. It is possible that inaccurate audio memory might explain some of the perceived differences and in the absence of controlled, blind listening testing you can't rule that out as an explanation. I am not saying it is a fact, but you should at least consider that it is possible.


----------



## T.R.A.N.C.E.

^ If your M51 came with 1.43, or 1.5 then you can not use 1.39, it soft bricks the M51. Mine came with 1.43 and I tried flashing 1.39, it soft bricked, but was still able to flash back and unbrick.


----------



## Spark85

Thank´s Sonic Defender and T.R.A.N.C.E. for your answers and advice. It is a difficult decision. Mine did not have the versions 1.43 or 1.50 Factory. It is likely then that does not have problems and so compare ¿Can you tell me, where I could download the version 1.39?
  
 Thank you.


----------



## screwdriver

I think it depends on how new your dac is , the latest ones does not allow the upgrade , I tries to update mine but it wont update from 1.41 to 1.39, there was one report they bricked his dac and had to send it in


----------



## Spark85

Hello screwdriver.
  
 ¿It was finally repaired? ¿That serial number is yours? Mine is H48M51xxxx.
  
 It´s posible that may be the cause. The first models have a Zetex ZXCZM800 DAC and mine, have a CSRA6601 DAC. I hope that is not the cause of the failure to update the firmware or be of lower quality than the first model of the manufacturer Zetex.


----------



## T.R.A.N.C.E.

^ Might have something to do with it, your serial number is a recent one so you probably can't use 1.39. My serial number is weird, it is H3ZM51T04756, it has H3Z instead of a double digit number like most others. Mine is probably of the recent variety with CSRA6601.
  
 Actually the replacement model of the M51, the C510 also uses the CSRA6601. I looked at the data sheets for both chips and they are completely identical, I believe they are in fact the exact same chip just manufactured by different companies.


----------



## WDitters

If my memory serves me right, Zetex was simply acquired by CSR, and the Zetex ZXCZM800 simply was rebadged into CSRA6601. However there probably may have been some slight modifications inside the chip in order to support that rebadging such as hardware insertion of the new chipname/brand.
  
 So while the two DACs in fact are 100% identical, the rebranding may have taken place somewhere around OS version 1.42 and the result of that may have been that older firmwares were Zetex only while newer versions probably were specifically coded to support both brand versions.
  
 Hence the fact that older OS versions soft-brick the CSR chips. There probably is some kind of if-then-else routine inside the OS firmware revision that checks for the presence of the DAC model and halts when it cannot find it. The older firmwares may simply not have been instructed to look for CSR chips, only for Zetex ones. And recompiling those older firmware revisions to add the new CSR brand may simply have been judged to be a waste of time/money.
  
 Of course this is an assumption, but at least one that is supported by a fair bit of industry and technical knowledge ...


----------



## WDitters

t.r.a.n.c.e. said:


> Actually the replacement model of the M51, the C510 also uses the CSRA6601. I looked at the data sheets for both chips and they are completely identical, I believe they are in fact the exact same chip just manufactured by different companies.


 
  
 Rumour has it that while the C 510 shares the same DAC with the M51 , there are some modifications that definitely seem to make the C 510 the lower range (and more cost efficient) DAC. According to some of the reviews I read the M51 sounds better.


----------



## Spark85

Hello. Comments are welcome.
  
 It could confirm the thoughts.I could not install the update 1.39. Apparently it makes loading and installed, but later don´t restarted. The blue light turns on, but the screen is black. I tried it twice and finally,  I reinstalled the latest 1.50. I hope these latest versions have not lost quality, but do not stay quiet when there are so many people, who think that sounds better version 1.39.
  
 The M12 have a DAC CSR brand too, but do not know the specific model. It is likely to be the same, and the differences between them is a story in their specific implementation.
  
 I've also seen the XMOS USB interface, the model is SK1415L2, There is not much information about it.Any reference to a similar model if ever.
  
 I have a Gustard U12 interface, If anyone knows, with an apparently well advanced XMOS model ¿Do you think you might be convenient to use with the M51?
  
 A greeting.


----------



## Sonic Defender

spark85 said:


> Hello. Comments are welcome.
> 
> 
> I have a Gustard U12 interface, If anyone knows, with an apparently well advanced XMOS model ¿Do you think you might be convenient to use with the M51?
> ...


 
 I went with the Melodius MX-U8 myself, and while it sounds great, I'm not sure that it actually sounds better than the USB built into the M51. It might sound better, but it is difficult to compare. For what it is worth many people seem to like the Gustard U12 and swear that it sounds better than the USB built into their DACs.


----------



## Spark85

Thank´s for reply Sonic Defender.
  
 Yet I have little time with the M51 to make a comparison. For now, the USB interface M51 I appreciate good sound. I would just try the U12 via AES / EBU.
  
 Regards.


----------



## Spark85

Sonic Defender. One question please.
    
 Were you able to test the HDMI NAD M51 connection, with the I2S of the MX-U8?

 I have not been able to test the I2S output of U12. It syncs, but I get no audio.

 ¿As a general rule, as could turn the NAD M51 to HDMI video output of a PC? Is that possible?
  
 Thank you.


----------



## Sonic Defender

spark85 said:


> Sonic Defender. One question please.
> 
> Were you able to test the HDMI NAD M51 connection, with the I2S of the MX-U8?
> 
> ...


 

 I wish I could help you, but I went with AES myself. AES seems to be the majority consensus interface and I have had no issues at all and I feel the system sounds great. I purchased a reasonably priced AES cable ($35) and am very pleased.


----------



## Spark85

Ok, Thanks anyway.
  
 I also soon buy the AES / EBU corresponding cable and also, I will try to add a volume knob or buttons on the front panel of the M51. At the moment I use it just to listen with headphones and I would be more comfortable and practical to control the volume locally.

 And I will comment if I get it.
  
 I've been a few days with him and I really like their sound. Very Smooth and detailed. Better sound than my previous DAC, the Gustard X-10 with the Sabre 9018 DAC.

 A greeting.


----------



## WDitters

Between DH-Labs D-110 AES/EBU and Harmonic Technology Magic Link II AES/EBU after auditioning I settled for the Harmonic Technology ...


----------



## Sonic Defender

wditters said:


> Between DH-Labs D-110 AES/EBU and Harmonic Technology Magic Link II AES/EBU after auditioning I settled for the Harmonic Technology ...


 

 Did you do any blind listening tests to see if un-sighted you could actually hear any difference? Just curious.


----------



## WDitters

sonic defender said:


> wditters said:
> 
> 
> > Between DH-Labs D-110 AES/EBU and Harmonic Technology Magic Link II AES/EBU after auditioning I settled for the Harmonic Technology ...
> ...




Yes I always do that.. To rule out any subconscious desire to pick a cable because it's more expensive or because it uses different materials


----------



## Aeolus Kratos

Hi guys,
  
 I just bought a NAD M51 here. And I have a question:
  
 As far as I've read, the M51 has 2 volume settings: fixed and variable. I initially thought that the fixed volume can be enabled in ALL volume steps available (i.e -10, -9, -8db...). But when I set my M51 to fixed setting, the volume automatically turned into -6db and the volume setting on the remote was disabled.
  
 Is my M51 normal (i.e the fixed volume setting = -6db volume)? Or my M51 has some problems?
  
 Thanks in advance,
 Kratos.


----------



## wink

If it's fixed, it doesn't need fixing..........


----------



## Sonic Defender

wink said:


> If it's fixed, it doesn't need fixing..........


 

 I will have to look, but I believe my volume has been set to fixed at 0db. Maybe I'm remembering this incorrectly?


----------



## Gibalok

Did anybody have a chance to compare M51 with new wadia 122? Wha are another options of dac with pre in this budget?


----------



## WDitters

aeolus kratos said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> I just bought a NAD M51 here. And I have a question:
> 
> ...




The fixed volume can also be configured.. The setup button on the remote and then go to volume setup and fixed. There you can set as you please


----------



## Sonic Defender

wditters said:


> The fixed volume can also be configured.. The setup button on the remote and then go to volume setup and fixed. There you can set as you please


 

 Yes, thanks I had forgotten to reply, but as WDitters said, the fixed volume can still be set. Mine as mentioned is at 0db and I opted for that setting as the higher gain configuration problem at 0db had been fixed several firmware revisions back so it is fine.


----------



## karmanfamily

aeolus kratos said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> I just bought a NAD M51 here. And I have a question:
> 
> ...


 
  
 What a lot of us (M51 owners) do is play with the volume until it sounds the best through your amp and speakers.
 Once you find that sweet spot, you leave it there.
 Mine was between -4db and -6db. At 0db my M51 sounded real lean in my setup and at -4db to -6db it was perfect. Some people go all the way down to -20db even.


----------



## Sonic Defender

karmanfamily said:


> What a lot of us (M51 owners) do is play with the volume until it sounds the best through your amp and speakers.
> Once you find that sweet spot, you leave it there.
> Mine was between -4db and -6db. At 0db my M51 sounded real lean in my setup and at -4db to -6db it was perfect. Some people go all the way down to -20db even.


 

 So funny, as you know I now own your M51 and although I simply updated the firmware version and left it at 0db without comparison to other settings it has never felt lean. That might be due to system synergy in that my NAD M3 is slightly warm and I would also suggest that my speakers are also toward warm so perhaps that accounts for our differing approach?


----------



## karmanfamily

sonic defender said:


> So funny, as you know I now own your M51 and although I simply updated the firmware version and left it at 0db without comparison to other settings it has never felt lean. That might be due to system synergy in that my NAD M3 is slightly warm and I would also suggest that my speakers are also toward warm so perhaps that accounts for our differing approach?


 

 It all depends on how the other parts work together. Throughout the thread you will see different opinions as to what the best volume setting is for the best sound. In your case it is 0db, for me it is -4 to -6db, depending on what music I play and it goes all the way down to -20db for some.
 One thing is clear, after I sold my M51 to you and trying a few other DACs, there is not better DAC in that price range. Ton loads of detail, but so easy to listen to for hours. That is why I just bought one back....
  
 Once you go M51, you'll never like an other one...


----------



## boatheelmusic

Until you try the Grace m920......


----------



## Aeolus Kratos

karmanfamily said:


> What a lot of us (M51 owners) do is play with the volume until it sounds the best through your amp and speakers.
> Once you find that sweet spot, you leave it there.
> Mine was between -4db and -6db. At 0db my M51 sounded real lean in my setup and at -4db to -6db it was perfect. Some people go all the way down to -20db even.


 
 Hi karmanfamily,
  
 Thanks for your reply. I figured how to configure the volume setting in fixed mode. It was much easier than I initially thought.
  
 BTW, I also have some questions which I couldn't find the answers:
  
 - Is there any way to know which firmware version M51s are using?
  
 - I'm using an external USB - S/PDIF converter feeding my M51 via coaxial input (I don't plan to use USB input of the M51 as from what I've read, the USB input is likely inferior to the coaxial input). So upgrading firmware affects the sound quality of the M51 only by using the USB input or also all other inputs? If I upgrade firmware for my M51 and use my USB - S/PDIF converter connecting to my M51 via coaxial, do my M51 produce different sound quality?
  
 Thanks in advance,
 Kratos.


----------



## Behemoth27

Hey guys, 

This question is aimed at those of you that use streaming services like Tidal. I was looking for a little advice on what sources you use. I had been using my Mac mini as a temporary option. I don't want to upgrade it, nor build anything (don't have the time right now). I would prefer something I can control off an ipad.

I was looking at the Auralic Aries. Been waiting on a used unit to show up. I got a Bryston BDP-1 to try out and while it sounds amazing with external drives, it's streaming service is still in beta and somewhat unreliable. (Will likely post to classifieds very soon-let me know if anyone is interested)

I'm having trouble finding other comparable units, but would greatly appreciate your feedback as it could be in reference to the synergism with the NAD.

Thanks


----------



## Sonic Defender

behemoth27 said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> This question is aimed at those of you that use streaming services like Tidal. I was looking for a little advice on what sources you use. I had been using my Mac mini as a temporary option. I don't want to upgrade it, nor build anything (don't have the time right now). I would prefer something I can control off an ipad.
> 
> ...


 

 I'm not sure what if anything will improve the SQ of Tidal. I use Tidal quite a bit and even at 320 it sounds pretty darn good (and I was paying for lossless, but I couldn't really hear a difference). Heck just get JRiver and install the WDM driver. At least on a PC it sounds great and when you play Tidal, it comes through JRiver where if you must you can use DSP if you like. I'm not sure of the true fidelity of the solution, but it really does sound quite good. I'm actually very surprised how good Tidal sounds and I find I rarely use my lossless ripped collection as streaming Tidal is very satisfying. Maybe if I worked at it and wanted to find flaws I could, but frankly nothing seems obviously wrong to me so I say even Tidal right from the browser seems darn good.


----------



## Sonic Defender

aeolus kratos said:


> Hi karmanfamily,
> 
> Thanks for your reply. I figured how to configure the volume setting in fixed mode. It was much easier than I initially thought.
> 
> ...


 

 Where did you hear the USB input is inferior? Sounds dubious to me. I used the USB on my M51 and recently moved to using the Melodius MX U8 and feed the M51 via AES now, but I can't hear a difference. Now it is very hard to go back and forth between the two inputs so perhaps in blind testing I could hear the difference, but I doubt it. In my experience all of these claims of various sound quality improvements via differing inputs are always non-blind tests so you need to be very careful with those claims. Test it yourself, get a friend to come over and switch between inputs when you are out of the room and when blindfolded see if out of 10 trials 8 out of 10 times you pick the SPDIF as sounding better. If you can, you might have something. I'm not saying there isn't a difference, but the USB section in the M51 is quite good.
  
 If you do the blind tests make sure your friend is very careful not to give hints. Tell us if you can reliably pick out the SPDIF input. I admit I tried out of curiosity and frankly as the MX U8 wasn't very expensive so not exactly a big risk. The MX U8 is supposed to be a decent entry level SPDIF converter so I figured why not try? No regrets, it certainly didn't degrade the sound quality, but I can't say it sounds better either.


----------



## Sonic Defender

karmanfamily said:


> It all depends on how the other parts work together. Throughout the thread you will see different opinions as to what the best volume setting is for the best sound. In your case it is 0db, for me it is -4 to -6db, depending on what music I play and it goes all the way down to -20db for some.
> One thing is clear, after I sold my M51 to you and trying a few other DACs, there is not better DAC in that price range. Ton loads of detail, but so easy to listen to for hours. That is why I just bought one back....
> 
> Once you go M51, you'll never like an other one...


 

 Interesting that you change the gain, can you tell me in what circumstances the various gains yield differing results for you? I might try this and see. Typically I'm a set it and forget it kind of guy. Thanks.


----------



## karmanfamily

From 0 to -4 it sounded more balanced. The high, mid and bass were all equal, without any of them standing out. Going to -6 it became a tad on the warm side. I think it is because the amp has to do a little more work and determines the sound more.
I haven't tried it with the updated software yet though.


----------



## Behemoth27

sonic defender said:


> I'm not sure what if anything will improve the SQ of Tidal. I use Tidal quite a bit and even at 320 it sounds pretty darn good (and I was paying for lossless, but I couldn't really hear a difference). Heck just get JRiver and install the WDM driver. At least on a PC it sounds great and when you play Tidal, it comes through JRiver where if you must you can use DSP if you like. I'm not sure of the true fidelity of the solution, but it really does sound quite good. I'm actually very surprised how good Tidal sounds and I find I rarely use my lossless ripped collection as streaming Tidal is very satisfying. Maybe if I worked at it and wanted to find flaws I could, but frankly nothing seems obviously wrong to me so I say even Tidal right from the browser seems darn good.




Thanks for your reply. I should clarify though. I'm not so much interested in improving the SQ of Tidal, as finding a convenient solution to streaming lossless. To be specific, my Mac mini is probably faulty and I wanted to replace it with a dedicated unit. There's something wrong with the power being supplied to the back panel. For example if I plug in two USB and an Ethernet, at least one of the connections will not work. It's very odd. (I am using a USB powered screen for convenience that I could plop on my couch and therefore control the Mac mini from my sitting position.) Also music will studder for a second whenever I open/close windows. (Probably because it's relaying data from the USB screen, but maybe the CPU isn't pulling its weight either) I was considering buying a new Mac mini but would prefer something that's built for audio and I don't have to have a computer monitor to control. (I have tried airdisplay and similar apps to create a headless Mac that I control from iPad, but found them to be unreliable)

Other than that you're right. The SQ from Tidal is rather impressive. I just want to find a reliable solution that preferably has audio centered components and design.


----------



## Aeolus Kratos

sonic defender said:


> Where did you hear the USB input is inferior? Sounds dubious to me. I used the USB on my M51 and recently moved to using the Melodius MX U8 and feed the M51 via AES now, but I can't hear a difference. Now it is very hard to go back and forth between the two inputs so perhaps in blind testing I could hear the difference, but I doubt it. In my experience all of these claims of various sound quality improvements via differing inputs are always non-blind tests so you need to be very careful with those claims. Test it yourself, get a friend to come over and switch between inputs when you are out of the room and when blindfolded see if out of 10 trials 8 out of 10 times you pick the SPDIF as sounding better. If you can, you might have something. I'm not saying there isn't a difference, but the USB section in the M51 is quite good.
> 
> If you do the blind tests make sure your friend is very careful not to give hints. Tell us if you can reliably pick out the SPDIF input. I admit I tried out of curiosity and frankly as the MX U8 wasn't very expensive so not exactly a big risk. The MX U8 is supposed to be a decent entry level SPDIF converter so I figured why not try? No regrets, it certainly didn't degrade the sound quality, but I can't say it sounds better either.


 

 Hi Sonic Defender,
  
 Thanks for your reply. You really got a point here.
  
 As for the USB input, I actually did an A/B test for myself, with my own system, my own music - which I'm very familiar with. And I found out the differences between using the USB input and Coaxial input were pretty noticeable. The biggest "improvement" IMHO was when I use my USB - S/PDIF converter feeding my M51, the "egde" and some "digital harsh" were reduced, the sound was much smoother and relaxing. And I really do think the differences are big enough for me not to call a friend come over and help me do a blind test, this is not just my imagination.
  
 I'm not saying the M51's USB input is bad, it's just not as good as the coaxial input, with my setup, with my music. So I think the experience varies on your SPDIF converter, your cables, your music...
  
 My setup is: Audio GD DI2014 - NAD M51 - Bottlehead Crack - Sennheiser HD650.
  
 Cheers,
 Kratos.


----------



## Sonic Defender

behemoth27 said:


> Other than that you're right. The SQ from Tidal is rather impressive. I just want to find a reliable solution that preferably has audio centered components and design.


 
 I got you, makes sense. I should have clued in as Mac Mini's are older designs. My friend loves Macs, but I'm a simple PC guy as that is what I first learned back in 1998 and have just kept with it. I have heard good things about dedicated streaming devices, but sadly have no direct experience with them. The M51 is really a nice DAC so I'm sure whatever route you go, it will sound great. Let us know what you do and what your impressions are.


----------



## Sonic Defender

aeolus kratos said:


> Hi Sonic Defender,
> 
> Thanks for your reply. You really got a point here.
> 
> ...


 

 Cool, but do be aware that doing sighted A/B testing does not eliminate expectation bias so you still need to be careful there. Again, I can't say the difference you hear isn't real, but I can say without blind testing you need to be skeptical to a degree. Ultimately enjoying your rig is what matters and brother, if what you are doing floats your boat I say more power to you. I hear that the DI2014 is excellent. I met an audio engineer here in Ottawa who knows Kingwa from Audio GD personally and this person has built amps for companies that sell for tens of thousands of dollars. He told me he was astounded by how good the Master 7 sounded.


----------



## xxxfbsxxx

sonic defender said:


> Cool, but do be aware that doing sighted A/B testing does not eliminate expectation bias so you still need to be careful there. Again, I can't say the difference you hear isn't real, but I can say without blind testing you need to be skeptical to a degree. Ultimately enjoying your rig is what matters and brother, if what you are doing floats your boat I say more power to you. I hear that the DI2014 is excellent. I met an audio engineer here in Ottawa who knows Kingwa from Audio GD personally and this person has built amps for companies that sell for tens of thousands of dollars. He told me he was astounded by how good the Master 7 sounded.


 
 actually the usb implementation in Nad is really good, i have tried various popular converters, namely audiophileo, ifi inlink, concero and the built in Nad USB dusted them in most cases. However the DI2014 is a special exception, i tested it on my friend M51 and for some reason there was magical synergy between Nad and DI. The combo sounded almost identical to my master 7 at that time, then i sold my master 7 and bought my self a M51 since i could not justify the small difference between M7 and Nad+Di combo.


----------



## Sonic Defender

xxxfbsxxx said:


> actually the usb implementation in Nad is really good, i have tried various popular converters, namely audiophileo, ifi inlink, concero and the built in Nad USB dusted them in most cases. However the DI2014 is a special exception, i tested it on my friend M51 and for some reason there was magical synergy between Nad and DI. The combo sounded almost identical to my master 7 at that time, then i sold my master 7 and bought my self a M51 since i could not justify the small difference between M7 and Nad+Di combo.


 

 Good decision, as good as the M7 is, it is huge and if there is ever any technical issue requiring repair, you need to send it to China which is time consuming and expensive. Before getting my M51 I almost bought a Master 7, but didn't for the reasons I just mentioned. I am quite glad I picked up the M51 as it is from the same Master Series as my M3 so they look nice together, and more importantly they synergize together well.


----------



## xxxfbsxxx

sonic defender said:


> Good decision, as good as the M7 is, it is huge and if there is ever any technical issue requiring repair, you need to send it to China which is time consuming and expensive. Before getting my M51 I almost bought a Master 7, but didn't for the reasons I just mentioned. I am quite glad I picked up the M51 as it is from the same Master Series as my M3 so they look nice together, and more importantly they synergize together well.


 
 actually not as good as m7 in all situation, without the di, nad is no where near m7 ballpark, even with the di, the combo still a bit behind m7 when it comes to really good recording and complex music, however im not classical fan so should be ok with nad+di as end game solution


----------



## vc1187

I think you misread his post. He meant that even though the m7 is fantastic, it is huge.


----------



## alekseev

the usb implementation in Nad - the best that I heard


----------



## alekseev

used with Beta22.


----------



## karmanfamily

There is one thing that I am missing.... a 2nd RCA S/PDIF input...


----------



## Hubird

sonic defender said:


> There is one slightly odd, minor annoyance with the M51 that I'm hoping the firmware update fixes. Not always, but very often, when a song starts the re is an extra half a beat inserted to the very beginning of the song. It is hard to described, but picture a Deadmau5 track that starts with a solid kick drum hit, that song would sound like it starts with a very quick double kick hit. This happens very often, but oddly not always. It happens with all kinds of material. Anyway, it is quite a minor thing that even if it didn't get resolved I would still be very happy with the DAC, but if it goes away, I'll be that much happier!


 
  
 I have encountered this issue too.
  
 Are you using JRiver by any chance?
  
 See http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=98787.msg683559#msg683559


----------



## Sonic Defender

hubird said:


> I have encountered this issue too.
> 
> Are you using JRiver by any chance?
> 
> See http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=98787.msg683559#msg683559


 

 Yes, I do use JRiver. I'll read the link. Thanks for it.


----------



## Eddie Q

Heads up, everyone.
  
 If you're using the NAD USB driver for Windows, do not update the OS to Windows 10.  Please read response below:
  
  
  
*Jackie* (NAD Electronics) 

Jul 28, 17:55 

Hello _______, 

Thank you for contacting the NAD Electronics Support Centre regarding your NAD M51 and Windows 10. Please be advised that at the present time the drivers are not compatible. 

We hope this information is helpful. 


Kind regards,
 Jackie


----------



## Lev Ahriman

eddie q said:


> Heads up, everyone.
> 
> If you're using the NAD USB driver for Windows, do not update the OS to Windows 10.  Please read response below:
> 
> ...


 
 Wrong!
 just updated to win 10 and the NAD M51 USB drive worked right away. no problems what so ever.


----------



## Eddie Q

Just finished installing Windows 10, and yes, the driver can be installed using compatibility mode.  Thanks


----------



## Eddie Q

lev ahriman said:


> Wrong!
> just updated to win 10 and the NAD M51 USB drive worked right away. no problems what so ever.


 
 Confirmed...the NAD rep is wrong.  Install using compatibility mode.


----------



## Lev Ahriman

eddie q said:


> Confirmed...the NAD rep is wrong.  Install using compatibility mode.


 


 Compatibility mode was not needed in the final ver of win 10 64-bit.
 the M51 driver worked right away.


----------



## JamesBr

eddie q said:


> Heads up, everyone.
> 
> If you're using the NAD USB driver for Windows, do not update the OS to Windows 10.  Please read response below:
> 
> ...


 
 Wow! Excellent! Good to know!


----------



## Eddie Q

jamesbr said:


> Wow! Excellent! Good to know!


if you are running the 32 bit version of Windows 8.1 it will give an error message, but will allow you to install in compatibility mode. I should know, because I upgraded to 10. I'm using a CAPS V.3 carbon


----------



## WDitters

As an alternative to connecting a PC to the M51 via USB, there is the possibility to connect a Miracast adapter to the HDMI1 or 2 input and then connect the PC (or any Smarphone that supports Micracast for that matter) wirelessly. Disadvantage might be that one has lower sampling rates (My Galaxy S6 connects @48k) but the advantage is that you have a stable wireless HDMI connection that anyone can use without having to install any drivers


----------



## BleaK

Nvm, found it!


----------



## Sonic Defender

wditters said:


> As an alternative to connecting a PC to the M51 via USB, there is the possibility to connect a Miracast adapter to the HDMI1 or 2 input and then connect the PC (or any Smarphone that supports Micracast for that matter) wirelessly. Disadvantage might be that one has lower sampling rates (My Galaxy S6 connects @48k) but the advantage is that you have a stable wireless HDMI connection that anyone can use without having to install any drivers


 

 That is interesting, good tip for sure.


----------



## Dreaming Of A Better ... (Jun 19, 2020)

...


----------



## ardilla

Anyone know if one can use a digital RCA to XLR cable on the m51?
  
 I would like to have one more coax input and know by direct experience that this can be done with Lavry DA11 and Violectric V800. 
  
 Thanks


----------



## JamesBr

eddie q said:


> Heads up, everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Thanks, I really thought I ****ed up on that one


----------



## Sonic Defender

jamesbr said:


> Thanks, I really thought I ****ed up on that one


 

  A very reasonable little device to consider is the Melodius MX-U8 SPDIF converter. I'm not sure if I could claim it makes an improvement in sound quality, but many highly experienced users feel it does. The driver for the MX-U8 works under Windows 10 without an issue. I now take the USB out from the computer to the MX-U8 then use an AES cable to the M51. Very affordable combination and at least it is Win 10 able. I'm sure in a few weeks NAD will provide an updated driver anyway.


----------



## zenpmd

Can anyone tell me what the point of a 12v out is?


----------



## Clemmaster

zenpmd said:


> Can anyone tell me what the point of a 12v out is?


 
 Isn't that the trigger output (used to turn on/off another device - with trigger input, e.g. an amp - together with the M51)?


----------



## WDitters

clemmaster said:


> zenpmd said:
> 
> 
> > Can anyone tell me what the point of a 12v out is?
> ...




Correct 

Sent from my SM-G928F using Tapatalk


----------



## LNeilB

Hello all. I'm a recent M51 convert and just finished reading every comment in this thread. I chose to roll back to firmware version 1.39 and even reducing volume by 1 db to account for the fix did not mask the difference - it was clearly audible. So if you can, do.

 And thanks to all for the education!


----------



## tbm

FW 1.39 is only possible for S/N before H25M51XXXXX accordig to NAD Support.
  
 Cheers,
 Tom


----------



## LNeilB

Fortunately that is not the case - I checked with them because my serial number is 33M51xxxx. They said it would be fine. It's more a matter of what firmware you are running. If you are at 1.43 or higher you may have to roll back through prior versions to get to 1.39.


----------



## WDitters

lneilb said:


> Fortunately that is not the case - I checked with them because my serial number is 33M51xxxx. They said it would be fine. It's more a matter of what firmware you are running. If you are at 1.43 or higher you may have to roll back through prior versions to get to 1.39.




In fact it seems to be the series with the older Zetex DDFA chip that can be downgraded. The newer production runs have a newer model DDFA that cannot use the older versions

Sent from my SM-G928F using Tapatalk


----------



## Freets

Looking to jump into the m51 fray. Curious if current owners adjust the fixed volume settings according to the headphone you utilize. E.g HD800 vs LCD2.2F (the two i would use with it)...and if anyone has thoughts on synergy with a Luxman P1u or Bryston BHA-1?

Any feedback, as always, is appreciated.


----------



## Lev Ahriman

Question:

 No hdmi signal pass through if the unit in standby?


----------



## WDitters

Aside from the fact that there is only video pass-through on the M51, you are indeed correct in your assumption. When in standby there is no pass-through at all. 

Sent from my SM-G928F using Tapatalk


----------



## thomascrown

lev ahriman said:


> Question:
> 
> 
> No hdmi signal pass through if the unit in standby?



That and even when your m51 is on, but you have selected another source


----------



## olor1n

I'm selling my NAD M51. PM me if you're interested in this fine DAC.


----------



## WDitters

Same applies for the M12 + HDMI-1 MDC board (I just upgraded) 

Sent from my SM-G928F using Tapatalk


----------



## NRogers

Hi , Yep there is interest. Well,.. you will have a definite buyer here.
 It exactly suits my needs, HDMI inputs + co-ax+usb and  the colour matches my integrated valve hybrid amp.
 I'm in South Africa, will pay shipping, prob about 140 USD.
 Thanks
 Neal
 nrogers@iafrica.com


----------



## barid

New NAD M51 addition to the mix this week.  This is an interesting DAC.  Definitely laid back, vocals sounds a bit soft.  Edges seem blunted/rounded.  Might take me some getting used to coming from the Benchmark


----------



## Eddie Q

barid said:


> New NAD M51 addition to the mix this week.  This is an interesting DAC.  Definitely laid back, vocals sounds a bit soft.  Edges seem blunted/rounded.  Might take me some getting used to coming from the Benchmark


----------



## Eddie Q

Just wondering, since you have it set for fixed volume, is it fixed at 0dB or -20?


----------



## olor1n

Y'all should hear the M51 with the UpTone usb REGEN in place. Didn't think the M51 could be improved upon and that I'd quickly sell the REGEN off to recoup the cost. I was wrong. Very wrong.


----------



## olor1n

barid said:


> New NAD M51 addition to the mix this week.  This is an interesting DAC.  Definitely laid back, vocals sounds a bit soft.  Edges seem blunted/rounded.  Might take me some getting used to coming from the Benchmark


 

 That's a nice looking stack. Give it time for yours ears to adjust. You could very well find that the sound you were previously accustomed to is thin and abrasive compared to the M51's presentation. Happy listening.


----------



## thomascrown

eddie q said:


> Just wondering, since you have it set for fixed volume, is it fixed at 0dB or -20?


 
 After the factory reset, my fixed volume went down from -10 to -20db , If I want to match my gumby volume I stay at -1/0 db (guesstimated by ear not using any meter)


----------



## freemand

Hi, I am new to this site and forum and wanted to introduce myself and pass some past experience with you guys.
  
 I have owned my m 51 for over 2 years and that had the older zetex chip. Recently I had an issue with it and ended up getting a new one from crutchfield and was told to send the old one back to them after receiving the new one. After inspection of the new dac it had the newer CSRA6601 chip in it.
  
 Of course, I was excited to compare the two! For the comparison I put them side by side and just swapped the interconnects from one another leading to my Pass Labs xa30.5. While the older zetex chip dac has over 2 years on it and did not even burn it the brand new  CSRA6601 dac and had basically no burn in.
  
 The results where interesting. It was very clear that the new dac with the CSRA6601 chip was a far superior chip. Better clarity and detail where quite obvious and it did not even have any burn it time on it.
  
 So it seems clear to my ears they did put a better chip in it when the made the change. So those looking for a used one may want to consider the one with the newer chip in it.


----------



## olor1n

Were both dacs using the same firmware?


----------



## freemand

I believe the older dac was 1.42. I know it was not 1.39 as I hoped it did when I checked. The new one I thought would have 1.50 being it was so new but it was a quite old firmware. I will have to check it again but it may be the firmware that was put out after the older dacs 1.42. Perhaps 1.43 or so.
  
 Sounds like from reading this forum all the firmware in the 1.40's all sound similar. If my memory serves me 1.39 is the main firmware that has the best sound.


----------



## Alexxander

Hello guys I'm new to this forum,
 I could use some help,
 I've reset the M51 to factory settings but I can't get the volume to go above +10db. where-as it goes to -90db ?
 I want to test the pre-amp driving my Roksan Caspian M2 power amp.
 I'll be very grateful for a pointer
 apologies if this has been covered before
 Cheers
 Alex


----------



## Eddie Q

The NAD M51 is not supposed to be driven beyond 0dB.  If you're using this as a preamp, then it seems that the power amp needs more than 2 volts rms to drive it at full volume.


----------



## Eddie Q

Forgot to ask, have you hooked up the amp to the m51?  If not, first drop the volume to -40dB before playing music.  Only afterward should you turn up the volume.
  
 If all the gear is working optimally ramping the volume up closer to 0 outta give you full power from the amp.


----------



## Alexxander

eddie q said:


> Forgot to ask, have you hooked up the amp to the m51?  If not, first drop the volume to -40dB before playing music.  Only afterward should you turn up the volume.
> 
> If all the gear is working optimally ramping the volume up closer to 0 outta give you full power from the amp.


 

 Yes I had the amp hooked up to the M51
 I'll try taking your advice and drop it to -40db before switching the power amp on
 Is it just me or what other kind of digital pre-amp behaves like this LOL
 Thanks


----------



## Eddie Q

alexxander said:


> eddie q said:
> 
> 
> > Forgot to ask, have you hooked up the amp to the m51?  If not, first drop the volume to -40dB before playing music.  Only afterward should you turn up the volume.
> ...


 
 Short answer:  The use of negative values denote attenuation.  In an ideal world of dBFS (Decibel Full-Scale), 0dB would be considered Unity.  That's where the signal is not amplified nor attenuated.  Positive values denote amplification from unity and negative numbers denote attenuation.
  
 In a more fun way of seeing it, max loudness will be a "10" (0dbFS), and pushing it to "11" would be a positive value in the dBFS scale.
  
 The dBFS scale This method is widely used in broadcast television and video editing (the field I'm familiar with).
  
 Hope this helps


----------



## Alexxander

eddie q said:


> Short answer:  The use of negative values denote attenuation.  In an ideal world of dBFS (Decibel Full-Scale), 0dB would be considered Unity.  That's where the signal is not amplified nor attenuated.  Positive values denote amplification from unity and negative numbers denote attenuation.
> 
> In a more fun way of seeing it, max loudness will be a "10" (0dbFS), and pushing it to "11" would be a positive value in the dBFS scale.
> 
> ...


 

 mmm .... sorry not getting it, it'll take a wee while to sink in lol
 I'm an old guy and a bit slow on the up take.
 please explain why at 0db i hear nothing through my old floorstanders (Definitive tech. Mythos1) and at 10db it's still only barely audible?
 thanks


----------



## roger7

alexxander said:


> mmm .... sorry not getting it, it'll take a wee while to sink in lol
> I'm an old guy and a bit slow on the up take.
> please explain why at 0db i hear nothing through my old floorstanders (Definitive tech. Mythos1) and at 10db it's still only barely audible?
> thanks


 
  
 Because all preamps act as attenuator between power amplifiers and sources (for example CD player). At 0 db (no attenuation) it is supposed to play at full power (maximum loud level). So preamp is needed to lower the volume.
 If you hear nothing at 0db (set in NAD) and only silent sound at +10 db then you probably messed something up. Maybe you do not have power amplifier but integrated amplifier with its own preamp that is set to low volume and you connected NAD to "line in" (pre amp input) and not to "main in" (power amp input) in your roksan...


----------



## tonet64

Roksan M2 power amp has inputs and outputs on both RCA and XLR connectors.
 Did you plug the interconnect cables in the input connectors of the amp?
 There's a switch between the XLRs and RCAs to select which type of inputs you want to use.
 Check if the right one is selected.


----------



## Alexxander

tonet64 said:


> Roksan M2 power amp has inputs and outputs on both RCA and XLR connectors.
> Did you plug the interconnect cables in the input connectors of the amp?
> There's a switch between the XLRs and RCAs to select which type of inputs you want to use.
> Check if the right one is selected


 
 AAAARG your right DUH!
 I cant test again untill Saturday, i'll let you know
 Thanks mate
 Alex


----------



## Alexxander

tonet64 said:


> Roksan M2 power amp has inputs and outputs on both RCA and XLR connectors.
> Did you plug the interconnect cables in the input connectors of the amp?
> There's a switch between the XLRs and RCAs to select which type of inputs you want to use.
> Check if the right one is selected.


 

 hello again,
 having selected the correct switch to balanced outputs everything is tickity boo,
 thanks for all of your help guys
 now driving my Hifiman He-6's from the speaker taps off the Roksan M2 fed with the M51 from my laptop through coaxial Audiophellio2
 very pleased with what i'm hearing.
 One question though can the NAD M51 not be configured so that the digital display reads from 0 upwards it's pretty weird going from -40db and going down to -20db which is where I generally find my volume comfort level. If that were on a regular dial It'd probably be at 2 or 3 o'clock (I listen loud)


----------



## roger7

alexxander said:


> hello again,
> having selected the correct switch to balanced outputs everything is tickity boo,
> thanks for all of your help guys
> now driving my Hifiman He-6's from the speaker taps off the Roksan M2 fed with the M51 from my laptop through coaxial Audiophellio2
> ...


 
  
 I don't get what you want.
 0 db means maximum loudness. Everything below is quieter and thus has negative scale.
 This is what every preamp does - attenuate and not amplify.


----------



## Eddie Q

roger7 said:


> alexxander said:
> 
> 
> > hello again,
> ...


 
 Correct...
  
 Displaying negative values is the correct way to denote attenuation.  If the preamp was amplifying the source signal, then it will/should display positive values.


----------



## ardilla

*XLR-RCA adapter cable for the NAD m51*
  
 Don't know if this is covered in this thread by now - but some might find it interesting that NAD says you can use the XLR(AES/EBU)-input from an RCA spdif source, with the use of a RCA-XLR cable.
 Here is the wiring according to the NAD tech I asked. 
  


> Thank you for contacting the NAD Support Center regarding the M51 digital RCA to XLR cable wiring layout.
> 
> The wiring configuration is as follows:
> XLR + to CD's RCA +
> ...


 
  
 Since I suddenly sold my M51, I never got to try it for myself, though. Maybe someone else have tried this?


----------



## Arcee

I've just purchased my NAD M51, it's coming all the way from Austria so I guess I'll have it not before next week. 

I'm replacing my Nuforce AVP-18 preamp with it, as I give up on multichannel audio and want to go back to Hifi stereo. The Nuforce goes for sale, together with my Sony TA-N220 power amp which I used for rear and center speakers.

The NAD M51 will be driving my two loyal Quad 405 power amps. I have two, because I am bi-amping my speakers. Here comes my question. The Quad's only have RCA inputs. I need two RCA outputs per channel. The M51 only has one.

I see two options:
a/ using y-splitters connected to the M51's RCA outputs
b/ using an XLR to RCA plug on the M51

My preference is solution B, using a plug like this:
http://www.bax-shop.nl/xlr-rca/procab-clp101-xlr-female-rca-female-adapter#specificaties

My question is, will that give the same output voltage and attenuation level on both the outputs (RCA and XLR to RCA) so that my sound is equal on both channels when using the same amps?




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Arcee

Two other questions:
1/ Can the M51 pass through 4K video signals coming in through HDMI?
2/ Does the M51 have the possibility to receive audio from the HDMI output (this is called ARC)?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## WDitters

arcee said:


> Two other questions:
> 1/ Can the M51 pass through 4K video signals coming in through HDMI?
> 2/ Does the M51 have the possibility to receive audio from the HDMI output (this is called ARC)?
> 
> ...




1/ no idea
2/ yes. I had my M50 connected via HDMI to my M51 prior to upgrading to M12. Easily the best quality connection due to i2s advantage

Sent from my SM-G928F using Tapatalk


----------



## tonet64

Hi Arcee,
  
 Solution B will work for you.
 In Stereophile test JA measured the ouput voltage of both XLR and RCA outputs and found that the XLR output voltage is exactly the double of the RCA's.
 Since you will use only the positive phase of the balanced output with the XLR-RCA adapter you will get absolutely the same level in same phase as on the RCAs.
  
 Best,
 Toni


----------



## Rony Carlos

There's a +12v trigger in. What is it used for?
 Is it a DC input from ext LPSU?


----------



## roger7

rony carlos said:


> There's a +12v trigger in. What is it used for?
> Is it a DC input from ext LPSU?


 
 No, it's not for the ext LPS.
  
 It's normal trigger in function like in many other audio gears:
 power on, power off the device from another device with trigger out function like preamp, player etc.


----------



## Arcee

tonet64 said:


> Hi Arcee,
> 
> Solution B will work for you.
> In Stereophile test JA measured the ouput voltage of both XLR and RCA outputs and found that the XLR output voltage is exactly the double of the RCA's.
> ...




Thanks so much Toni for your advice. I've hooked up both Quads with one channel (the highs) to the XLR/RCA adapter and the other to RCA and like this I am bi-amping both channels. Works like a charm and the sound is better than when using Y splitters. Indeed the same level in the same phase comes out. Exactly the solution I was hoping for!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## m8o

We need an NAD M12 thread...  Seriously considering that. If I treat myself and buy one, maybe I'll start one. But not until then.

An alternative is get the M51 coupled with an Emotiva XSP-1 Gen 2 preamp. Cost savings aside there are a few things that would buy me in the analog domain. Main thing I'd give up from the M12 in the digital domain is the spdif passthru that I could make use of.

In both cases, I'm struggling with the $ cost of either NAD devices and forgoing DSD support. Why I want it is that is the format that gives best fidelity from my TASCAM recorder, when digitizing albumns. 

Tell me. As buyers of the M51, how do you reconcile lack of DSD support in this day and age?


----------



## barid

m8o said:


> Tell me. As buyers of the M51, how do you reconcile lack of DSD support in this day and age?


 
  
 Well, I don't own any DSD material or have any plans to, so that's how I reconcile it.  But I get your point.


----------



## m8o

So me, prospective buyer again...

What attracts me most to this is the stereophile measurement's undithered sinewave is so pristine. Most dacs have a dozen or two small zigzags riding the sine wave. Which to me denotes that 'digital sheen' sound. 

Is the M51 as 'analog sounding' as that sinewave graph implies it should be? Thanx.


----------



## m8o

lev ahriman said:


> Question:
> No hdmi signal pass through if the unit in standby?





wditters said:


> Aside from the fact that there is only video pass-through on the M51, you are indeed correct in your assumption. When in standby there is no pass-through at all.





thomascrown said:


> That and even when your m51 is on, but you have selected another source




I know this discussion is like a year old now. But just an FYI that while I know there are countless HDMI splitters, I HIGHLY recommend the "HD Fury 4k Integral" not only to split or switch HDMI but also to dial in whatever feature, encoding and HDCP encryption capability I want between source and destination. I own 3. 

With it you don't need to rely on HDMI passthru. You can run the dac in parallel to the next device with full audio/video going to both. And you can use a smartphone app to tweek the video and/or audio signal, like force 2-channel or 5.1-channel audio from the source, and oodles of other stuff.

Seems the Amazon seller I bought mine from is out of them. There was a legal action against the manufacturer over the HDCP overriding it can force; not sure if there is an injunction over its sale now. If you can find it sold somewhere, get it.


----------



## phonyx

m8o said:


> So me, prospective buyer again...
> 
> What attracts me most to this is the stereophile measurement's undithered sinewave is so pristine. Most dacs have a dozen or two small zigzags riding the sine wave. Which to me denotes that 'digital sheen' sound.
> 
> Is the M51 as 'analog sounding' as that sinewave graph implies it should be? Thanx.


 
  
 Personally yes, I really like this DAC. Get it in front of a good pre/power combo and feed it high res files and I think it punches way above it's price point, to be cliched. I feed mine with the NAD Masters series M50/M52 combo, and the DAC feeds my Pass Labs X2.5 pre and X250.5 power amp. I run a Chord Hugo TT head-fi setup and I have tried the TT in place of the M51 in my lounge - the M51 comes pretty close, IMO, and looks far more like a HiFi item than the TT while doing so (not bashing the TT, I know what it was designed for and I use it as such). 
  
 Great DAC for the money the M51. Very transparent, which is what I am into.


----------



## m8o

Thanks for the reassuring words. I decided to buy one from another headfi'er last week and it should be here shortly; so th price was far better than new. I'll be using it to drive my McIntosh MHA-100 and Rane HC6S via split balanced and other amps via unbalanced.

The only curiosity I'm left with is why they exchange hands so often. I'll be the fourth owner (or more, if it exchanged hands before I had visibility to its provenance). This forum, audiogon, others, are filled with sales of this. Seemingly at a greater rate than its A+ stereophile rating would suggest it should have.


----------



## barid

m8o said:


> The only curiosity I'm left with is why they exchange hands so often. I'll be the fourth owner (or more, if it exchanged hands before I had visibility to its provenance). This forum, audiogon, others, are filled with sales of this. Seemingly at a greater rate than its A+ stereophile rating would suggest it should have.


 
  
 Just the never ending quest to try new gear


----------



## m8o

barid said:


> Just the never ending quest to try new gear



Well I know about you  ; have read you say that. But that stands for most? 

Only saying that rhetorically. No way to answer without a large number of sellers chiming in I guess.

I guess I have a hard time relating. I just buy stuff and never part with it; just stop using it and it sits.


----------



## phonyx

People tend to use DAC's to flavour the sound. Smooth it out, add some energy, etc. DAC tech is also advancing at a rapid rate and so something new comes out with new buzzwords and special design terminology and people jump ship. There's a lot of M51's out there because they're very good for their price. They do not however add much of anything to the sound signature, which is personally why I like it, and why I like the Chord DAC's. 
  
 Sound is more than measurements, but it's measured performance is truly stellar. Look at that 24 bit noise floor approaching -160db and the sine wave it generated on stereophile. 
  
 Don't sweat it. You've got one at a great price, just check which firmware you're on when it arrives and judge with your ears.


----------



## m8o

Thank for that. I get you point. I do indeed understand 'musicality' thru ownership of my mha-100 amp compared other amps I've owned.

After all this time, is revision 1.39 still the firmware preferred?


----------



## phonyx

I like 1.41. It's what mine shipped with. 1.39 is just 1db louder at the same volume setting, nothing more. If you volume match them I was unable to hear a difference. That said 1.41 auto powers off after i think 45mins of no signal which annoys me sometimes as it's the only item in my NAD stack which does this. YMMV


----------



## Spark85

Hello All.

    
 I have made changes in the power of a headphone amplifier with good results and I would like to do the same with the power of the NAD M51 I have ¿Could anyone tell me about the possible results and with what voltage is the board fed?

 Thank you.


----------



## m8o

I spent a few hour with the new arrival. This is indeed an incredibly good dac.

 It's 2:19am so forgive me for not elaborating; like any regular readers need me to say a word anyhoo. It would be more for the late comers like me anyway. No buyer remorse is the important take away.

Streaming SACD over hdmi from my Arcam DV139 as source, and the M51 is displaying the expected 176.4k of a un-re-sampled dsd to pcm converted stream. So that apeases a concern I had when reading early thread posts saying folks saw 88.2K. But I only read about 10% of this thread so I probably missed updates saying that's all better now.


----------



## m8o

There are a whole lot of positive things that can be (and have been) said about this DAC. But what perhaps stands out most to me is ... 

The M51 handles CDs that are victims of "the loudness wars" as adeptly as it does CDs from every year going back to the beginning of CD pressings! (I still own the first gen Magnavox CD player that was ever sold when Philips & Sony released the first ones, and CDs to match)

Notable example... I've known of Sia from her downtempo Zero 7 days. But it was only after her recent resurgence that I decided to buy all her solo work (I already had some zero 7 work). Music stylings aside, on a purely technical basis, I couldn't help but think what a shame it is her recent stuff had been marred by over compressed boosted hi transients chopped production; I found I would not listen to it often due to that. That stands both for recent CDs and higher bit rate stuff from HDTracks.

 Enter the M51. No more 'crunchiness' of the play back marring the enjoyment. But that is in no way thru rolling off the top end or from slow transients. Quite the opposite. The Dacs ability to be so fast, give every note it's space regardless of instrument layering, and here is the key, not get congested and confused by the complex waveform pushed up to and sustained at or near the msb and still reproducing all the detail near lsb ... is what it's ALL about! I reread Stereophile's review and was reminded of NAD's claim that their conversion and digital filter in this were free of any jitter and ringing respectively. I think I just witnessed the reality of that claim in action.

 Msb: most significant bit
 Lsb: least significant bit

 This dac musically exposes every nuance in the music, completely unflappable while doing so. Serious props has to be given to its class-a analog output stage for keeping up with its digital stage.

Same story for every newer CD that exhibits similar 'loudness war' negatives. In the past I would defend the dac built-in to my McIntosh MHA-100 amp. But no more. I shouldn't say that. I do not think it's all that bad. But I'll agree now it's in another tier lower if not a few when compared to this dac.


----------



## thomascrown

phonyx said:


> I like 1.41. It's what mine shipped with. 1.39 is just 1db louder at the same volume setting, nothing more. If you volume match them I was unable to hear a difference. That said 1.41 auto powers off after i think 45mins of no signal which annoys me sometimes as it's the only item in my NAD stack which does this. YMMV


 
 Hi, 
  
 I've tried with mine but it stayed on the whole night with no signal, don't remember if there is an option for the power management. (1.41)


----------



## m8o

More M51 love triggers...

That time when you realize that for the first minute in a song you've heard countless times, you hear and realize for the first time the pecussionist is periodically sliding a wooden ratchet or rasp instument in a sound space way in the back on the right.

Or similarly in another song you've heard countless times you hear the singer way down in the mix in what sounds like magnetic pickup from the other side of the tape, but there is no primary singing only the musical playout of the song (and tape was probably not used) so you know it was placed there on purpose ... but you never had equipment before that resolved it so clearly so that it stood out and was completely intelligible. 

I don't look for these "never heard that" moments. But revel in them when the equipment is so good they make themselves evident. 

My chain for these two above is: 

> Opus #1 DAP playing hi-rez tracks purchased from HDTRACKS 
> TOSLINK out 
> short 1ft optical cable 
> NAD M51 
> Balanced Out 
> 2 or 3 ft litz weaved individually insulated silver coated copper (dunno it's fullspecs) 
> McIntosh MHA-100 as an amp only (of course) 
> speaker tap output 
> my custom banana plug to female 1/4 inch plug to male 1/4 inch plugs to 4-pin XLR adapters 
> HiFiMan HE-1000 using the stock cable (that needs fix'n one day to eak out that little bit more).


----------



## phonyx

I still do really love this DAC. I've heard a lot of DAC's since I bought it and I prefer it to everything except some stupid money DAC's I could never afford and my Hugo TT. For the money it's fantastic value. 

I still don't know how it works on a hardware level. Is it R2R or DS or neither? 

Weird that yours isn't powering off after 45 mins of no signal. Maybe optical works differently as it's always receiving light? I run AES/EBU in from my source.


----------



## thomascrown

phonyx said:


> I still do really love this DAC. I've heard a lot of DAC's since I bought it and I prefer it to everything except some stupid money DAC's I could never afford and my Hugo TT. For the money it's fantastic value.
> 
> I still don't know how it works on a hardware level. Is it R2R or DS or neither?
> 
> Weird that yours isn't powering off after 45 mins of no signal. Maybe optical works differently as it's always receiving light? I run AES/EBU in from my source.





From the manuals, page 10:

AUTO STANDBY The M51 has automatic standby mode feature that can be turned ON or OFF. On: M51 will automatically go to standby mode if there are no user interface interaction and no active source within 30 minutes. Off: M51 will not go to standby mode at any time unless directly initiated by pressing front panel Standby button or remote control’s [OFF] button. The default setting of Auto Standby is “Off”.


----------



## m8o

phonyx said:


> I still don't know how it works on a hardware level. Is it R2R or DS or neither?



If you have the time you may want to search the patent office. My guess is they patented the process. So if you know the technical implementations of those techniques mentioned, you may be able to draw similarities or differences to how NAD describes they do it in these PWM devices.


----------



## thomascrown

Does anyone know the code of the remote? I'm trying to use a universal one but with no success

Thanks


----------



## PanzerIV

Hi guys and everyone who also own a NAD M51, I've got an important question for you! I've been having mine for almost 3 weeks, connected trhough USB on my computer. I've got the XLR to my Rotel's power amp, and thought about using the RCA's output for my headphone so I could quickly switch between the speakers and that in a matter of second without having to unplug cables and swap them everytime.
  
  
*Question:*
 Now the weird thing I've noticed... it's that when I connect my 250Ohm headphone "see signature" directly into a small (RCA to Female 3.5mm) adapter directly behind the NAD, I can get pleeeenty enough of volume even if it's only a DAC + Pre-Amp, and that it isn't suppose to have any power-amp section anywhere inside. I do know from the specs that for the RCA the line-level is 2.38v and it's output impedence is 141Ohm. I don't know if my math are then wrong cause I went on a (Ohm Law's Calculator) and with these numbers it gives 0.04W or 40mW only, yet I can confortably listen loud enough around -15dB and the highest I've been able to go is 0dB which was right perfect with a high dynamic "low volume" recording. If you guys wonder, the T90 are 250Ohm at 125dB/V so quite sensitive already.

 So yes, first I did not understand why I had so much power already without an amp, while simply having my headphone connected directly to the NAD, then I've connected it to my (Fiio E12) and my new (Fiio A5) since 2 days ago, kept it on Low Gain, raised the volume knob on it's maximum and the volume was exactly the same let's say at -15dB on the NAD, wether or not I was bypassing my portable amplifier or not. What?! O_o
  
 That whole confusion now makes me wonder why the heck would I buy an external desktop headphone amplifier which would be easily 200-350$CAD, just to have the same volume output even on 250Ohm headphones?! I then though that okay no change for the volume but maybe I'd get improved bass, clearer highs, etc... but it wasn't apparent enough to be noticeable by the time I unplug the headphone cord from the amp to connect it directly to the NAD. It's harder to compare when you gotta pause the sound for 5 seconds between each tests but then that means IF there is a difference, it must be insignefiant right? :/


----------



## m8o

Anyone else recently install the M51 driver and encounter a Virus alert by their endpoint protection of the form:

Filename: uninstall.exe
Threat name: Trojan.Gen
Full Path: c:\program files\nad\usbaudiodriver\uninstall.exe

____________________________

____________________________


On computers as of 
6/9/2017 at 2:30:37 PM

Last Used 
6/9/2017 at 2:30:37 PM

Startup Item 
No

Launched 
No

Threat type: Virus. Programs that infect other programs, files, or areas of a computer by inserting themselves or attaching themselves to that medium.


____________________________


uninstall.exe Threat name: Trojan.Gen
Locate


Few Users
Hundreds of users in the Norton Community have used this file.

Mature
This file was released 6 months ago.

High
This file risk is high.


____________________________


Source: External Media


____________________________

File Actions

File: c:\program files\nad\usbaudiodriver\ uninstall.exe Blocked
____________________________


File Thumbprint - SHA:
Not available
File Thumbprint - MD5:
Not available


----------



## rafals

Has someone tried to use M51 with SOtM SMS-200? I've just bought SMS-200 and can't make it work with my NAD (my SMS-200 works with OPPO without any problems). Both devices have the latest firmware.


----------



## Vladio

struggles said:


> Quote:
> 
> Thank you!


Hello,

I am very new to this forum and would want to ask whether anyone still has the 1.39 firmware, as I could not find a single file anywhere.


Thank you,
Vladio


----------



## Seegs108

Vladio said:


> Hello,
> 
> I am very new to this forum and would want to ask whether anyone still has the 1.39 firmware, as I could not find a single file anywhere.
> 
> ...



I was hoping to find this firmware as well. If anyone has the file could they email it to me at Seegs108@yahoo.com

Thanks!


----------



## Vladio

Hello, you cannot get it over here, reach to nad support on their website, they will get back to you fast.

Vladio


----------



## Seegs108

Vladio said:


> Hello, you cannot get it over here, reach to nad support on their website, they will get back to you fast.
> 
> Vladio



I sent them a message and their response says otherwise:



> Thank you for contacting the NAD Electronics Support Center regarding your NAD M51 Firmware.  Please be advised that all available firmware can be found on our product page under the downloads section.
> 
> https://nadelectronics.com/product/m51-direct-digital-dac/
> 
> ...



So I'll  ask again. Does anyone have version firmware 1.39 they could share with me?

Thanks


----------



## VideoVareZ

Seegs108 said:


> So I'll  ask again. Does anyone have version firmware 1.39 they could share with me?
> 
> Thanks



Email sent to you!
Take in mind that only old M51's accept firmware v1.39. Mine does not accept it because is s/n: H48xxxx.
Personally I think it sound fantastic with firmware v1.50. Could be a mite that v1.39 sound better in old M51's?
I would like to see someone making a side to side comparisons.

Best regards


----------



## Les V

Hello everybody,
I desperately need to go back to v 1.43 or any earlier than 1.50 after an upgrade I don't like.
Has anybody got the .hex file? PLEASE.

My s/n H29M510xxxx

Les


----------



## Les V

Sorted out 
Thank you


----------



## m8o (Dec 23, 2017)

I have an early revision of the M51, with newer firmware.  While happy, I wouldn't mind trying 1.39, to see what all the fuss is about.  Anyone know of a link to a shared online folder having the firmware?

Edit: thank you to everyone that DM'ed me.


----------



## VideoVareZ

m8o said:


> I have an early revision of the M51, with newer firmware.  While happy, I wouldn't mind trying 1.39, to see what all the fuss is about.  Anyone know of a link to a shared online folder having the firmware?



I attached 1.39 and 1.41.

Is there somewhere with the 1.43?


----------



## VideoVareZ

Better send a pm with the email, attached files are not displayed.

If someone have the 1.43, I would send a pm with the email.

Thanks​


----------



## wotef (Dec 28, 2017)

I've uploaded the 1.39 firmware and installation instructions PDF here


----------



## Ajward549

Good morning everyone!

I am new here, and am considering the M 51 to replace my Maverick D2 with a NOS Tesla tube in the tube buffer stage. I really like the Maverick and think it was a great deal for the $, but I am attracted by the M51.The prices on Crutchfield right now are pretty great, and comparing on NAD's site, there is essentially no difference between the M51 and the C510. My amp is a NAD 356BEE and my CD player is C516BEE... I like NAD products! I play a lot of vinyl, but am enjoying streaming more and more. 

So, I haven't had any experience with DACs other than the Maverick D2. Number 1, and I assume I know the answer to this, will the M51 be a significant upgrade from the Maverick? If so, how? Number 2, Is this an antiquated DAC at this point, or still relevant? Keep in mind, I am just dipping my toe into the digital realm, and will continue to spin vinyl as long as I can listen to music! Finally, number 3, has anyone had experience comparing these two DACs directly?


----------



## m8o

$1k USD brand new?!  Holy cow!  Wish I could justify buying a second.

No experience with the Maverick D2.  But for me, it was a slightly noticible upgrade from the dac built in to the McIntosh MHA-100 amp, and a dramatic upgrade from a Cambridge Audio DacMagic Plus. 

 I used the latter for sound from tv and dvr; usually those singing competitions, or performances on late night tv.  I have this one recording of the 2nd performance of the 1976's on SNL.  A really fantastic recording and mix of a very energetic performance.  Once I switched to using HDMI to feed my M51, I was floored by how much better it sounded.  How musical, yet precise everything was, with every instrument having separation from every other one, vs. the 'blend' the DacMagic Plus was giving me. 

The up sampling tech used is quite unique, and not outdated IMO.  And music from dual HDMI in is another feather in its cap to 'future proof it.  I'm using both.  At $1k new, I can't recommend it enough.


----------



## Ajward549

m8o said:


> $1k USD brand new?!  Holy cow!  Wish I could justify buying a second.
> 
> No experience with the Maverick D2.  But for me, it was a slightly noticible upgrade from the dac built in to the McIntosh MHA-100 amp, and a dramatic upgrade from a Cambridge Audio DacMagic Plus.
> 
> ...




Thank you for this, very helpful!


----------



## jeenam

Just picked up a M51 and it has firmware v1.41 installed. I have copies of the 1.39 and 1.50 firmware. Can someone please send me the 1.41 firmware so I can flash my unit back to this version after testing 1.39 and 1.50? TIA

BTW, this replaced an Arcam irDAC. I've only listened for about an hour but the M51 is smoother in the high end, and more dynamic in the low end. I paid $650 for the DAC and am happy with the purchase overall. Thanks to all on this thread who have posted their experiences with the unit.

NAD M51 --> Doge 8 (4x Genalex 12AT7) --> Van Alstine 350EXR (2x Sylvania 12AT7WA) --> PMC OB1


----------



## VideoVareZ

jeenam said:


> Just picked up a M51 and it has firmware v1.41 installed. I have copies of the 1.39 and 1.50 firmware. Can someone please send me the 1.41 firmware so I can flash my unit back to this version after testing 1.39 and 1.50? TIA
> 
> BTW, this replaced an Arcam irDAC. I've only listened for about an hour but the M51 is smoother in the high end, and more dynamic in the low end. I paid $650 for the DAC and am happy with the purchase overall. Thanks to all on this thread who have posted their experiences with the unit.
> 
> NAD M51 --> Doge 8 (4x Genalex 12AT7) --> Van Alstine 350EXR (2x Sylvania 12AT7WA) --> PMC OB1



Hello,

Here you have the NAD M51 firmwares I have available (1.39, 1.41, 1.43, 1.50), the 1.39 is only valid with old M51's with different motherboard, but I think you can flash another version if M51 does not start after 1.39, at least I did this with my M51 (currently I use 1.50 and sounds fantastic, beside I can not compare 1.39 with old M51's):

https://mega.nz/#F!K4AkxLoZ!G3zsDcfkLV6zWMXI56KFRg

I have also an Arcam irDAC for a second setup, M51 is playing in another league, with the correct amplifier and speakers you will not think to buy another DAC.

My digital setup is NAD M50 -> NAD M51 -> Audio Research REF 3 -> Pass Labs XA30.5 -> ProAc D48R -> Sub REL Stentor III


----------



## dillpixels

Like most of the posts in this thread, I too would like to try the latest version of the firmware (1.50) to see first hand whether or not it sounds better on my system.

But I’d prefer to know that I can revert back to version 1.39 just in case.  The support staff at NAD would not provide a copy of the 1.39 firmware. They said they don’t keep older versions once new firmware is available...  Seriously!?

My M51 is currently using version 1.39 and there doesn’t seem to be any way of making a backup of it before I update to 1.50.

Can anyone please provide me with 1.39, and possibly the other versions as well?

Thanks in advance,
Derek


----------



## VideoVareZ (Mar 19, 2018)

dillpixels said:


> Like most of the posts in this thread, I too would like to try the latest version of the firmware (1.50) to see first hand whether or not it sounds better on my system.
> 
> But I’d prefer to know that I can revert back to version 1.39 just in case.  The support staff at NAD would not provide a copy of the 1.39 firmware. They said they don’t keep older versions once new firmware is available...  Seriously!?
> 
> ...



Hello,

In the previous post you have a link with the firmwares

https://mega.nz/#F!K4AkxLoZ!G3zsDcfkLV6zWMXI56KFRg

Best regards


----------



## ToroFiestaSol (Apr 23, 2018)

Hey there, just a little question to NAD M51/C510 owners:

I see that it has two HDMI audio inputs (not talking about the video one)...what's the correct way to use them with a computer?
For example:
- only one of the HDMI inputs connected to the motherboard's HDMI?
- the two at the same time, connected to a dual HDMI graphics card?
- only one, connected to a special I2S PCIE card, like the Pink Faun I2S bridge?

Would be glad if someone can clear this a bit, I've been searching but couldn't find a good answer.


----------



## pontusj

Hi!
having had the M51 for a number of years, i just stumbled into an issue together with my Mac Mini (macmini6,2 late 2012). latest Mac os X. The mac reports the NAD draws to much power via the USB, and then shuts the USB down (other USB seems to be working fine, can charge my Iphone X, read usb thumbnails etc). ive done the SMC reset that is recommended when USB fails, it worked once and the NAD was up again, but a few hours same issue and havent been able to resolve it since. i have been using the M51 together with the Mac mini all the time, i did replace the USB cable from Wireworld 7 to the Silver one, tried the old USB cable, no difference.
Connected it also to my sony vaio laptop and an error came up for a second about drawing to much power, but everything worked. and connecting it once again there was no message.

anyone had USB issues like these with the NAD M51? any suggestions?


----------



## Walderstorn

Nope, windows or mac, everything works here but the mac the gf had was 2013 i think.


----------



## simonsheng

Did there has any new firmware later than v1.5? Thank you.


----------



## Walderstorn

simonsheng said:


> Did there has any new firmware later than v1.5? Thank you.



No


----------



## VideoVareZ

pontusj said:


> Hi!
> having had the M51 for a number of years, i just stumbled into an issue together with my Mac Mini (macmini6,2 late 2012). latest Mac os X. The mac reports the NAD draws to much power via the USB, and then shuts the USB down (other USB seems to be working fine, can charge my Iphone X, read usb thumbnails etc). ive done the SMC reset that is recommended when USB fails, it worked once and the NAD was up again, but a few hours same issue and havent been able to resolve it since. i have been using the M51 together with the Mac mini all the time, i did replace the USB cable from Wireworld 7 to the Silver one, tried the old USB cable, no difference.
> Connected it also to my sony vaio laptop and an error came up for a second about drawing to much power, but everything worked. and connecting it once again there was no message.
> 
> anyone had USB issues like these with the NAD M51? any suggestions?



I had issues with the USB port and have to service the M51 because the USB port stopped to work no matter which computer you used. They changed the motherboard and said that it is not common the USB to fail.

I am not sure if this have to do with your issue. I had using the USB regen when USB fails and I do not know if this device could influence on the problem. Currently I use an Audioquest Carbon USB cable direct from laptop to DAC.
Anyway the M50 through the AES/EBU digital input sounds much better than a Laptop via USB.
Regards


----------



## Walderstorn

Wirth the exception of schiit Eitr, at least for me, i perceive no audio difference.


----------



## m8o (May 24, 2018)

pontusj said:


> Hi!
> having had the M51 for a number of years, i just stumbled into an issue together with my Mac Mini (macmini6,2 late 2012). latest Mac os X. The mac reports the NAD draws to much power via the USB, and then shuts the USB down ...



I think  Schiit Wyrd in the USB path would address this.


----------



## UntilThen

jeenam said:


> Just picked up a M51 and it has firmware v1.41 installed. I have copies of the 1.39 and 1.50 firmware. Can someone please send me the 1.41 firmware so I can flash my unit back to this version after testing 1.39 and 1.50? TIA
> 
> BTW, this replaced an Arcam irDAC. I've only listened for about an hour but the M51 is smoother in the high end, and more dynamic in the low end. I paid $650 for the DAC and am happy with the purchase overall. Thanks to all on this thread who have posted their experiences with the unit.
> 
> NAD M51 --> Doge 8 (4x Genalex 12AT7) --> Van Alstine 350EXR (2x Sylvania 12AT7WA) --> PMC OB1



Glad to see this thread still having a little activity because I just pick up a M51. I have stereo and head-fi system but just Yggdrasil at the moment. So I needed another dac without having to move Yggy to and fro between the study and the lounge. The M51 will have firmware 1.51 according to the previous owner.

I also have a Auralic Aries Le incoming so I will be using M51 as follows:-

Auralic Aries Le > NAD M51 > Redgum RGi120ENR > Axis LS88 or Axis Voicebox S

Auralic Aries Le > NAD M51 > Glenn Super 9 OTL amp > Sennheiser HD800 or Audeze LCD-2F.

I'm naturally curious as to how it compares with Yggdrasil. Will report back when I have some time with it.


----------



## armymanhaha

I just realized that my NAD M51 is still here in my system after all these years. I've changed headphones, speakers, and amps but this DAC is still here to stay. I guess its transparency is all I needed from a DAC. Of course I have been tempted to replace it with a Hugo TT or something else but I never came around to it because I know the difference in upgrading DACs is very minimal. I honestly think its here to stay for at least 2 more years.


----------



## UntilThen

Having live with Yggdrasil for 9 months, I'm quite shocked at how good sounding the M51 is. I'm actually enjoying it a lot with both speakers and headphones. It's right up there with Yggy for details and clarity.

Here I have it fed by Auralic Aries Le via AES/EBU and feeding Glenn OTL amp. Listening on HD800 and I can't help smiling that I paid only AUD$730 for a mint used unit for this dac.


----------



## m8o

UntilThen said:


> Having live with Yggdrasil for 9 months, I'm quite shocked at how good sounding the M51 is. I'm actually enjoying it a lot with both speakers and headphones. It's right up there with Yggy for details and clarity.
> 
> Here I have it fed by Auralic Aries Le via AES/EBU and feeding Glenn OTL amp. Listening on HD800 and I can't help smiling that I paid only AUD$730 for a mint used unit for this dac.



Shhhh...  you divulged the secret!  (I want to buy another one, maybe two  )


----------



## UntilThen

m8o said:


> Shhhh...  you divulged the secret!  (I want to buy another one, maybe two  )



Haha ok I shall not divulge too much now but omg this dac sounds awesome.


----------



## Walderstorn

I like gumby and yggi more but I am not critically listening to schiit usually so those details that I lose don't bother me, at all. On the other hand losing the quality/remote would be a much bigger loss.

 I do really enjoy gumby the most of all 3 but when it comes down to it, give me the m51.


----------



## arftech

I’m looking at the M51 but wanted to know how does it compare to Benchmark DAC2 and PS Audio Perfectwave MK2 sound wise?  The plan is to purchase one of these.

Thanks,

Al


----------



## pinoyman

following


----------



## webegrubbin

Does anyone know if its possible to use a phone such as Samsung S9 as a source and connect it to the M51 using a USB-C to HDMI cable (i.e. https://www.amazon.com/uni-Thunderbolt-Compatible-MacBook-Pixelbook/dp/B075V5JK36/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1548703759&sr=8-3&keywords=usb+c+hdmi+uni) ?  or even a USB-C to USB-B cable?


----------



## m8o

webegrubbin said:


> Does anyone know if its possible to use a phone such as Samsung S9 as a source and connect it to the M51 using a USB-C to HDMI cable (i.e. https://www.amazon.com/uni-Thunderbolt-Compatible-MacBook-Pixelbook/dp/B075V5JK36/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1548703759&sr=8-3&keywords=usb+c+hdmi+uni) ?  or even a USB-C to USB-B cable?


I purchased this one ...
https://smile.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B06XNS7W63
... but didnt have the curiosity to think of trying this.  I won't be back in the home with my M51 for a few weeks.  But can try it then.

USB  C to B adapter, yes.  That works (did it with other dacs tho, not the M51).


----------



## webegrubbin

I just got a M51 and was going to get a MicroRendu or UltraRendu as a source to feed into the M51 (using DLNA/BubbleUPNP).  Then I stumbled upon this page which says there is a known issue with connecting the MicroRendu to the M51: http://docs.sonore.us/microrendu/microRendu Known Issues.html.  Does anyone know if this issue has been resolved?  Is anyone here using the MicroRendu or UltraRendu with the M51?  Any info would be appreciated!


----------



## vlach (Oct 7, 2021)

Deleted.


----------



## Lvivske

Does this DAC hold up in 2022? Anyone still using it in their setups?


----------



## jeenam

I'm still using my M51. I tried out the RME ADI-2 FS and found it to be more detailed, but too bright using the filter that has highest treble attenuation . The ADI-2 FS does have an EQ that can be used to reduce the high frequencies, but what's the point if I have to reduce the high frequencies to the level I enjoy from the M51?

IMHO, the M51 is a bargain on the used market if you can get one for $600 or less.


----------



## UntilThen

M51 is my spare dac to Yggdrasil and is as relevant today as when it was first released. I much prefer it to Bifrost 2 which I also owned.


----------



## jeenam

To be clear, the Yggy is in a completely different league and price point compared to the M51.


----------



## UntilThen

I've owned Yggy for 5 years since new so consider me a fan.  However I've bought and sold M51 and I'm on my 2nd unit so consider me a fan too.


----------



## Lvivske

Cool sounds like it's in good company still. Thankfully I'm still skeptical of Yggy's price bracket ><


----------



## jeenam

You get what you pay for. The Yggy is in another league. There's no need for skepticism there.


----------



## Lvivske

jeenam said:


> You get what you pay for. The Yggy is in another league. There's no need for skepticism there.



See now, I'm skeptical of that, so I'm scoping the used market for cool looking rigs like the M51


----------



## jeenam

Surely @UntilThen can verify the sound quality of the Yggdrasil for you. I've never seen a review that didn't rave about the Yggdrasil.


----------



## UntilThen

To everything there is a price point. At the moment, you can buy a used M51 for really cheap and they are usually in very good condition. I spend equal time in 2 accommodations so having 2 dacs is convenient for me. M51 is a very good spare dac for the price.

I'm not here to talk about Yggdrasil but I regard it as Schiit's best product. Ever since getting this dac I've never seen the need to upgrade dac again. I've even had Terminator loan to me for comparison and naturally Yggdrasil stays.


----------



## vlach

I use the M51 in my secondary/desktop set up. I like it for what it does well; clean, clear, articulate with a good amount of space around instruments and smooth sounding overall. Great feature set and variable output level.
That said, i urge anyone looking to buy a used M51 to consider the Bryston BDA-1 which sells used for approx the same. The BDA-1 is full bodied with better bass.


----------



## Lvivske

jeenam said:


> To be clear, the Yggy is in a completely different league and price point compared to the M51.



Technically they're the same price point by release MSRP 



vlach said:


> I use the M51 in my secondary/desktop set up. I like it for what it does well; clean, clear, articulate with a good amount of space around instruments and smooth sounding overall. Great feature set and variable output level.
> That said, i urge anyone looking to buy a used M51 to consider the Bryston BDA-1 which sells used for approx the same. The BDA-1 is full bodied with better bass.



If only the looks were on par, but added it to my maybe list regardless. I was looking at this for my secondary setup and had a brushed aluminum theme going. Looks first, "is it any good?" second lol


----------



## UntilThen

In Australia, you can get a used good condition M51 for AUD$750. A used BDA-1 will cost much more.


----------



## Lvivske

UntilThen said:


> In Australia, you can get a used good condition M51 for AUD$750. A used BDA-1 will cost much more.



Here I can get a used BDA for 600 CAD but M51 for 900 (though I'm sure I can haggle it down, saw one go for 600 USD recently)


----------



## Lvivske

Ended up getting one under 600, which is as low as possible right now, aftermarket is 700-800, and a rare ebay auction just went for 630

Anyway, have some findings so far

I've been using it with my AppleTV as source, trying out both the HDMI and Optical inputs. I was hoping the HDMI would have less jitter or perform better than the optical out, but I can say finally that the optical wins hands down. Vocals are cleaner and there's more separation. Toggling inputs sounds like changing modes, despite it being the same digital source. I cant say whether the AppleTV HDMI out is to blame, or the HDMI in, but I'll be sticking with optical.

Tried checking the firmware and while it shows up as the latest, the mode that displays those options only shows up for like 2 seconds before the whole screen goes blue. Likewise, when trying to update the firmware it just hangs on the "Bootloader 1.21" message. It was mentioned earlier in this thread but no follow up - anyone else have this issue? I guess it doesn't matter if I'm on the latest firmware already...

Finally, I compared this with my Topping E50. AppleTV HDMI out went to the NAD, and the optical to the Topping, and each output to a different RCA input on my amp, and A/B tested the sound. At first they sounded identical, but after a bit I started to notice the differences. The NAD has a slightly more expanded sound, more range...I can hear it at the top of my ear lobe (Darwins Tubercle) and once I pinpointed it going back to the Topping kinda sucked, like it was filtering out some frequencies (like a micro hi-filter). Everything else sounds great on it, but that vocal clarity is something else.

On the flip side, I cranked the volume on my amp and listened to both, and the NAD makes much, much more noise. While the Topping is quiet, the NAD has some white noise that comes through with enough volume, and every 2 seconds or so there's a consistent 'blip' sound, like a metronome. I'd never hear this stuff in listening, but it does kinda suck that the $300 DAC is winning here. That said, the NAD clearly sounds better for music, and that's what matters.


----------



## vlach

Lvivske said:


> Ended up getting one under 600, which is as low as possible right now, aftermarket is 700-800, and a rare ebay auction just went for 630
> 
> Anyway, have some findings so far
> 
> ...


Is the M51 set to 0dB? If so try -3dB to see if the noise goes away, it won't impact SQ.
Also make sure to test the polarity settings, i get slightly more bass on neg polarity.


----------



## Lvivske (Oct 25, 2022)

vlach said:


> Is the M51 set to 0dB? If so try -3dB to see if the noise goes away, it won't impact SQ.
> Also make sure to test the polarity settings, i get slightly more bass on neg polarity.



Same on mute, so not a volume thing, just the noise floor, regardless of input. (once it finishes the start-up sequence where it says "NAD M51" to operating it begins)

I'll be sure to check out the polarity again, I know I like it inverted on my Bifrost

edit update: Polarity has a different impact at times but I usually keep it standard. The noise floor is still there, but again, we're talking massive gain to make it audible. Gain that makes the mute button audible (yes, hitting mute makes a beeping sound if you have it loud enough).

I also changed out the big chinese capacitor on the power board with an audio grade Nichicon. Did it improve anything? Eh, I'll pretend

ps: NAD are assholes for gluing that cap in place, but thankfully these boards are super easy to remove and easy to work on


----------



## UntilThen

M51 is a no brainer at the price now. It's my 2nd dac next to Yggdrasil.


----------



## Lvivske (Nov 6, 2022)

Question about the outputs: if I use the XLR out into an RCA input, is that any sort of improvement? Ive seen adapters mentioned in this thread but most talking about preferring balanced were into an XLR input

or are both outputs on the M51 identical in quality

update: okay went and bought an XLR-RCA cable to test it into the same amp and yeah, sounds identical on a quick pass


----------



## gonzfi

Could someone clever advise why the 2go/2yu doesn't play nicely with a NAD M51 dac? Sound is muffled and scratchy through USB and through coax. Both units work fine in other scenarios so I dont think anything is faulty.


----------



## vlach

gonzfi said:


> Could someone clever advise why the 2go/2yu doesn't play nicely with a NAD M51 dac? Sound is muffled and scratchy through USB and through coax. Both units work fine in other scenarios so I dont think anything is faulty.


Are you running the M51 at 0dB? If so try reducing the output to -3dB or -6dB.


----------



## gonzfi

Ggood shout. I think I'm running it at +10!!


----------



## gonzfi

vlach said:


> Are you running the M51 at 0dB? If so try reducing the output to -3dB or -6dB.


This solution solved the issue. Many thanks.


----------



## vlach

gonzfi said:


> This solution solved the issue. Many thanks.


Glad i could help 😊


----------



## vlach (Nov 6, 2022)

gonzfi said:


> This solution solved the issue. Many thanks.


While you're at it, check the polarity setting, in my case i get slightly more bass impact with the reverse setting selected.

Edit: ^This could vary depending which firmware you're running. I'm on 1.39


----------



## Lvivske

I didnt get that, the opposite, but I find that it changes the direction the bass is coming from (ie, for me it moved more off to the sides, albeit slightly less impactful), but perhaps depending on what you're playing it through, changing the polarity puts it in a 'stronger' spot in your personal frequency response


----------

