Jump to content

NAD M51 & C390DD Owners & Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

I've read your opening post and apologise as it does cover off my second question although I did assume it was specific to using it with power amps rather than my integrated amp.

And my first question isn't about reclockers, it's whether coax is better than optical or USB. I still can't see anything that draws any conclusions on this comparison.

As to the whole single box idea, I still would posit that various people get close but it is always just out of reach. I also don't understand why it's not a reasonable line of discussion or are we only allowed to talk separates?

And I probably did overreact to your post but the previous post that DAC can't possibly be discussed in the same sentence as Ethernet was pretty condescending and plain wrong. That got me off on the wrong foot...

Anyway I wasted enough of everyone's time including my own so will leave you to it.

I think the reaction you got was based on the fact that you were resisting what IS in favour of what could be. NAD has their Corp. strategy and at the moment it does not jive with your combo box theory. perhaps it will in the future. In the meantime, the folks here are discussing what IS and how to get the best our of it.

Your suggestion was not wrong, but if it got no traction, just move on. Interest waxes and wanes here from time to time.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



"And my first question isn't about reclockers, it's whether coax is better than optical or USB. I still can't see anything that draws any conclusions on this comparison"

Glockers ... I think the consensus on this forum is that going via a USB/SPDIF converter into the coax port of the M51 produces the best result, followed by a straight USB connection. Either is superior to optical which is limited to 96/24 anyway.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are U talking about??? Lil Caesar is one of the most helpful and pleasant posters around...gentleman and a scholar!

My response including the quote I was responding to which questioned whether it was "that time of month", nothing to do with Lil Caesars posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get that but what's the problem with suggesting that it's time someone took a big jump forward and try and come up with a single solution to the digital music pathway. ...

Somebody already has, it's called Kaleidescape. A one-box solution to networked digital music (and video) front end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name=:) al' timestamp='1338461142' post='712138]

its not a media player. want acess to nas etc, grab a media player for $100 or upwards.

Having had a high-end DAC in my system that has built-in ethernet and a media renderer I couldn't go back to something that doesn't. However at it's price point I'm not complaining about lack of ethernet support in M51. What I am saying is in todays networked environment NAD should have embedded these features into it and upped the price by $500.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



"Ethernet" support is too vague a concept in digital audio. There are so many different implementations of that I applaud NAD for sticking to the core thing they could do well, maximising the flexibility of their box and minimising the cost.

Remember too, this is a Masters Series product and they do have a network streaming companion box in the works, complete with an Ethernet port. M50. Google it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the reaction you got was based on the fact that you were resisting what IS in favour of what could be. NAD has their Corp. strategy and at the moment it does not jive with your combo box theory. perhaps it will in the future. In the meantime, the folks here are discussing what IS and how to get the best our of it.

Your suggestion was not wrong, but if it got no traction, just move on. Interest waxes and wanes here from time to time.

I get that I wasnt agreeing with people (hanging offence obviously) but I would argue that many of the posts are related to how to overcome shortcomings in the m51 - for instance lots of posts about jitter/synchromesh etc - if that's ok why aren't my posts?

I also get the point about moving on but a bit of a sad indictment on the forum.

I clearly remember posting about digital a few years back and being howled down by the must be analogue crowd. Deja vu.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having had a high-end DAC in my system that has built-in ethernet and a media renderer I couldn't go back to something that doesn't. However at it's price point I'm not complaining about lack of ethernet support in M51. What I am saying is in todays networked environment NAD should have embedded these features into it and upped the price by $500.

Highend dac is it Kaleidescape??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having had a high-end DAC in my system that has built-in ethernet and a media renderer I couldn't go back to something that doesn't. However at it's price point I'm not complaining about lack of ethernet support in M51. What I am saying is in todays networked environment NAD should have embedded these features into it and upped the price by $500.

I'm sort of with you on this. I actually come from a computer hardware background and know that the additional chips, circuits etc would add maybe $50-100 to the cost of parts for the m51. It is certainly not a case of the technology being available as several companies have been delivering it for several years. So it strikes me as being a deliberate tactic on the part of vendors to maximize sales. Shock horror that they would do this...

What is really sad is that most on this forum seem to accept this as quite acceptable. And worse, attack anyone that suggests the emperor has no clothes.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get that but what's the problem with suggesting that it's time someone took a big jump forward and try and come up with a single solution to the digital music pathway. These guys are coming so close but I still need a Sonos ZP90, a Synchromesh and a DAC to get great results unless I want to park a PC or MAC in my living room. It's not the money as I am buying all those things - just wish someone could get it together in one box...

There are solutions like you want, check for example a Naim Unity all you want + power amp

Others as well

So now, go google that and get out of the M51 thread, this is a DAC !

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Glockers, it's a bit aggressive of you to talk about "what is really sad" like that.

Please understand this: the $50-$100 bucks worth of parts which would translate to at least $200 extra retail price would likely be completely wasted on many of us, because we have come to know that those parts sound no good compared to other things we can buy. I would personally like to buy one of these NAD products without paying for even the USB interface, because my battery powered Audiophilleo 2 USB to SPDIF converter sounds significantly better in a direct comparison on the back of a C390DD.

I understand that you prefer fully integrated solutions. Fair enough. But for me, adding a mediocre network streamer and bumping the price would make this product worse, not better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are solutions like you want, check for example a Naim Unity all you want + power amp

Others as well

So now, go google that and get out of the M51 thread, this is a DAC !

Chill3 - so you are both a nitwit and rude. Good combination and usually a refuge of the ignorant. "DACs cant have Internet" - do some research before you make foolish statements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glockers, it's a bit aggressive of you to talk about "what is really sad" like that.

Please understand this: the $50-$100 bucks worth of parts which would translate to at least $200 extra retail price would likely be completely wasted on many of us, because we have come to know that those parts sound no good compared to other things we can buy. I would personally like to buy one of these NAD products without paying for even the USB interface, because my battery powered Audiophilleo 2 USB to SPDIF converter sounds significantly better in a direct comparison on the back of a C390DD.

I understand that you prefer fully integrated solutions. Fair enough. But for me, adding a mediocre network streamer and bumping the price would make this product worse, not better.

Fair enough I guess but I don't plan to accept second best without some kind of noise

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chill3 - so you are both a nitwit and rude. Good combination and usually a refuge of the ignorant. "DACs cant have Internet" - do some research before you make foolish statements.

Whoops. Misquoted chille - dacs can't have Ethernet...

Link to comment
Share on other sites



I'm sort of with you on this. I actually come from a computer hardware background and know that the additional chips, circuits etc would add maybe $50-100 to the cost of parts for the m51. It is certainly not a case of the technology being available as several companies have been delivering it for several years. So it strikes me as being a deliberate tactic on the part of vendors to maximize sales. Shock horror that they would do this...

What is really sad is that most on this forum seem to accept this as quite acceptable. And worse, attack anyone that suggests the emperor has no clothes.

Totally disagree!

What about software and interface design?

Also, the people here suggesting workarounds for jitter are not doing what you did. They suggest add-ons to what IS. You debate what could have been, resisting what IS. NAD offers what they offer. Pining on for other features to be built in is like closing the gate after the horse bolted.

Edited by wis97non
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have read most of the 19 plus pages of posts and didn't see anything that particularly answered my questions but thanks for the gratuitous advice.

This is the distasteful remark that started the whole thread descent.

I am glad you all sorted it out, but please try give others the benefit of the doubt. This is supposed to be a fun hobby and all should be welcomed and treated with respect.

Flaming is useless folly.

Edited by wis97non
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the distasteful remark that started the whole thread descent.

I am glad you all sorted it out, but please try give others the benefit of the doubt. This is supposed to be a fun hobby and all should be welcomed and treated with respect.

Flaming is useless folly.

This actually started well before my quoted comment with the dismissive post that DAC's and Ethernet are incompatible. You might also want to question the poster who started discussing hormone levels - now that was really both relevant and respectful.

But I accept that you all have decided I am the bad guy and I'll leave you to yourselves now...I know I said that before but I couldn't help the rejoinders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So your theory is that just another box is OK? It wouldn't have taken much to include ethernet input into the design. Sonos managed to do it with a DAC some years back (ZP90), it's just the quality of the SonoDAC that makes us chase a separate DAC - if they did a unit with a better DAC and less jitter I'd be a happy camper. Similarly the Oppo 93 is a great bit of tin but could be even better if it had digital inputs.

I'm very much part of the "less is more" school and I think it is quite legitimate for members of this forum to discuss this rather than have you and others like Chill3 dismiss it out of hand.

Hi Glockers - have yo9u seen the Olive music server - I think this does all of the stuff you want.Something like this

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Have just installed my new m51. Running optical from sonos 90 and out via balanced to my bladelius Thor integrated.

Any recommendations on

1. Optical vs coax vs USB?

2. Fixed volume on m51 vs variable?

Have also ordered an empirical audio synchromesh but that's going to be a few weeks away. Would this change your recommendations?

All sounds good so far.

Im running Sony s470>coax/optical/HDMI>M51 using only 16/44 CDs :D

Have not notice any differences between optical out and s/pdif coax, the HDMI is a little ressess in SQ and it is not as good as s/pdif :( But easy to live with :)

Have not notice any difference between variable or fixed settings for the volume, this is due to the fact it is digital :thumb: This is a great thing :P

Understand why you have enquiry and questioned the lack of ethernet support, If you read my earlier post I believe the M51 was still on the drawing board while companies such as Sony/Samsung etc are putting ethernet and WIFI into most of there components. This isnt to serve as a multi media player but also act as a gateway to automatically updated firmware and other software features :thumb: Soon you will see this happening more and more and companies that fail to implement this feature will lose market share and fall behind!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sad to see this degenerate like this.

For the record, I have personally replied at least twice to various people about input SQ / external reclockers and as far as fixed vs variable modes are concerned - it's in my opening post.

I'm not sure I'd want media player functionality in a DAC / Pre-Amp as that field is still evolving very quickly. The M51 is NADs' premier DAC. The M50 is their streamer. Personally I thought the mere inclusion of USB and HDMI was a major step forward. It's just a pity the USB is not a good as the COAX.

Lil Caesar,

you have been a real gentleman on this thread. Good to see someone so dedicated to this hobby and enhancing the journey towards the pleasure of listining to music :thumb:

Keep up the good work so I can be entertained when I'm not enjoying listening to music :)

Edited by pchan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Highend dac is it Kaleidescape??

In my system the SQ I get out of the latest Kaleidescape M-Class player was so much on-par with a $5000+ high end DAC that I couldn't justify the expense of the DAC, so it went back to the dealer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how are these used?

Can they be plugged straight into the digital xlr, and a BNC into it?

Or does it need to be crimped into a coax cable?

And does it affect the signal in a negative way at all?

If this is simply an adapter without issues this could be the preferred way of connecting SPDIF to the M51.

The impedance issue of that silly little digital RCA is avoided and a second coax input added!

I also get a vibe from the literature that the designers treated the AES EBU input with a little more respect in the design.

Any which way this has to be tried from an audio quality perspective.

Update: This different model appears to be preferable as it has a male xlr and will plug into the back of the M51 allowing attachment to it with a standard BNC cable as though it were a standard chassis BNC.

http://store.haveinc.com/p-49468-canare-imp-transfrmr-bnc-jack-xlrp.aspx

Edited by HumanMedia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm,

this is a thread is about a DAC??

Yes?

I'm not sure why it has to be the hambuger with the lot for every single person all with very different preferences in what they want in a unit?

After all every streamer does have a DAC in it, doesn't it? But they just seem to be less than the ultimate.

Thats the clincher,one persons caviar and champagne may ne someone elses greasey burger.

Sure there are units that do cover all the bases, but like anything else in this hobby their strenghts and weaknesses will vary

from one person to the next.

As in a typical audiophiles life intergrating everything seems to be evil anyhow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...
To Top