Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › NAD M51 Direct Digital DAC Impressions
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

NAD M51 Direct Digital DAC Impressions - Page 80

post #1186 of 1217
Edit
post #1187 of 1217

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  .

post #1188 of 1217
Quote:
Originally Posted by pearljam50000 View Post

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.  :p

post #1189 of 1217
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.
post #1190 of 1217

Add the 12v trigger...

post #1191 of 1217

On the paper C510 is better than M51.

post #1192 of 1217

Any verified truth to the C510 = M51?  Saw the CAP thread and it seemed to veer way off course.

post #1193 of 1217

subbed...

post #1194 of 1217

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.

post #1195 of 1217
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.

post #1196 of 1217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riffle View Post

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?
post #1197 of 1217
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....
post #1198 of 1217
Fantastic, thanks for being the guinea pig! biggrin.gif
post #1199 of 1217
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.
post #1200 of 1217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riffle View Post

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 ....

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dedicated Source Components
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › NAD M51 Direct Digital DAC Impressions