[oogabooga]

Quote:

 
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:

 
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:

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:

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:

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.