Latest Thread Images

PXL_20230724_015626853 (1).jpg
PXL_20230404_224736221.jpg
PXL_20230724_011943578.MP.jpg
PXL_20220608_031508920.jpg
IMG_3795.jpg
20180610_150313.jpg
Image.jpg 2016-02-25.jpg WP_20141201_15_05_10_Pro.jpg 75268281.jpg image.jpg image.jpg image.jpg 51KAALSji6L._SY450_.jpg open_big.jpg photo.jpg audiolab-8200cd-2.jpg 2.jpg
See full thread gallery...
NAD M51 Direct Digital DAC Impressions
Jan 29, 2015 at 3:46 AM Post #1,276 of 1,623
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.
 
Feb 3, 2015 at 8:51 AM Post #1,277 of 1,623
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
 
Feb 4, 2015 at 3:46 AM Post #1,278 of 1,623
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.
 
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
Click to expand...

 
Could you please compare with NAD volume at -5 dB or 0 dB too?
 
Feb 4, 2015 at 4:07 AM Post #1,279 of 1,623
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.
 
Feb 4, 2015 at 5:04 AM Post #1,280 of 1,623
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. 
 
Feb 4, 2015 at 7:04 PM Post #1,282 of 1,623
ellevoid said:
Could you please compare with NAD volume at -5 dB or 0 dB too?
Click to expand...


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.
 
Feb 4, 2015 at 10:57 PM Post #1,283 of 1,623
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.
 
Feb 5, 2015 at 7:07 AM Post #1,284 of 1,623
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.)
 
Feb 5, 2015 at 8:07 AM Post #1,285 of 1,623
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.)
Click to expand...

Nope, its indeed measurable.
 
Feb 23, 2015 at 7:33 AM Post #1,287 of 1,623
^ 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.
 
Feb 23, 2015 at 7:43 AM Post #1,288 of 1,623
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.
Click to expand...

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 :) 
 
Feb 23, 2015 at 2:06 PM Post #1,289 of 1,623
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'.
 
Feb 24, 2015 at 7:32 AM Post #1,290 of 1,623
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'.
Click to expand...


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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top