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 91

post #1351 of 1360
Quote:
Originally Posted by wink View Post
 

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.


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.

post #1352 of 1360

I get plenty of bass from my M51, although they are hooked up to dual subs :D

post #1353 of 1360

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.

post #1354 of 1360
Quote:
Originally Posted by olor1n View Post
 

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?

post #1355 of 1360

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 ...

post #1356 of 1360
Quote:
Originally Posted by KmanChu View Post
 

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.

post #1357 of 1360

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.

post #1358 of 1360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic Defender View Post


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 smily_headphones1.gif)
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 smily_headphones1.gif),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 smily_headphones1.gif 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
Edited by xxxfbsxxx - 4/27/15 at 7:03pm
post #1359 of 1360
Quote:
Originally Posted by xxxfbsxxx View Post


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 smily_headphones1.gif)
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 smily_headphones1.gif),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 smily_headphones1.gif 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


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.

post #1360 of 1360
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.
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