NAD M51 Direct Digital DAC Impressions

[T.R.A.N.C.E.]

^ If your M51 came with 1.43, or 1.5 then you can not use 1.39, it soft bricks the M51. Mine came with 1.43 and I tried flashing 1.39, it soft bricked, but was still able to flash back and unbrick.

 

[Spark85]

Thank´s Sonic Defender and T.R.A.N.C.E. for your answers and advice. It is a difficult decision. Mine did not have the versions 1.43 or 1.50 Factory. It is likely then that does not have problems and so compare ¿Can you tell me, where I could download the version 1.39?
 
Thank you.

 

[screwdriver]

I think it depends on how new your dac is , the latest ones does not allow the upgrade , I tries to update mine but it wont update from 1.41 to 1.39, there was one report they bricked his dac and had to send it in

 

[Spark85]

Hello screwdriver.
 
¿It was finally repaired? ¿That serial number is yours? Mine is H48M51xxxx.
 
It´s posible that may be the cause. The first models have a Zetex ZXCZM800 DAC and mine, have a CSRA6601 DAC. I hope that is not the cause of the failure to update the firmware or be of lower quality than the first model of the manufacturer Zetex.

 

[T.R.A.N.C.E.]

^ Might have something to do with it, your serial number is a recent one so you probably can't use 1.39. My serial number is weird, it is H3ZM51T04756, it has H3Z instead of a double digit number like most others. Mine is probably of the recent variety with CSRA6601.
 
Actually the replacement model of the M51, the C510 also uses the CSRA6601. I looked at the data sheets for both chips and they are completely identical, I believe they are in fact the exact same chip just manufactured by different companies.

 

[WDitters]

If my memory serves me right, Zetex was simply acquired by CSR, and the Zetex ZXCZM800 simply was rebadged into CSRA6601. However there probably may have been some slight modifications inside the chip in order to support that rebadging such as hardware insertion of the new chipname/brand.
 
So while the two DACs in fact are 100% identical, the rebranding may have taken place somewhere around OS version 1.42 and the result of that may have been that older firmwares were Zetex only while newer versions probably were specifically coded to support both brand versions.
 
Hence the fact that older OS versions soft-brick the CSR chips. There probably is some kind of if-then-else routine inside the OS firmware revision that checks for the presence of the DAC model and halts when it cannot find it. The older firmwares may simply not have been instructed to look for CSR chips, only for Zetex ones. And recompiling those older firmware revisions to add the new CSR brand may simply have been judged to be a waste of time/money.
 
Of course this is an assumption, but at least one that is supported by a fair bit of industry and technical knowledge ...

 

[WDitters]

 
 
Actually the replacement model of the M51, the C510 also uses the CSRA6601. I looked at the data sheets for both chips and they are completely identical, I believe they are in fact the exact same chip just manufactured by different companies.

 
Rumour has it that while the C 510 shares the same DAC with the M51 , there are some modifications that definitely seem to make the C 510 the lower range (and more cost efficient) DAC. According to some of the reviews I read the M51 sounds better.

 

[Spark85]

Hello. Comments are welcome.
 
It could confirm the thoughts.I could not install the update 1.39. Apparently it makes loading and installed, but later don´t restarted. The blue light turns on, but the screen is black. I tried it twice and finally,  I reinstalled the latest 1.50. I hope these latest versions have not lost quality, but do not stay quiet when there are so many people, who think that sounds better version 1.39.
 
The M12 have a DAC CSR brand too, but do not know the specific model. It is likely to be the same, and the differences between them is a story in their specific implementation.
 
I've also seen the XMOS USB interface, the model is SK1415L2, There is not much information about it.Any reference to a similar model if ever.
 
I have a Gustard U12 interface, If anyone knows, with an apparently well advanced XMOS model ¿Do you think you might be convenient to use with the M51?
 
A greeting.

 

[Sonic Defender]

  Hello. Comments are welcome.
 
 
I have a Gustard U12 interface, If anyone knows, with an apparently well advanced XMOS model ¿Do you think you might be convenient to use with the M51?
 
A greeting.

I went with the Melodius MX-U8 myself, and while it sounds great, I'm not sure that it actually sounds better than the USB built into the M51. It might sound better, but it is difficult to compare. For what it is worth many people seem to like the Gustard U12 and swear that it sounds better than the USB built into their DACs.

 

[Spark85]

Thank´s for reply Sonic Defender.
 
Yet I have little time with the M51 to make a comparison. For now, the USB interface M51 I appreciate good sound. I would just try the U12 via AES / EBU.
 
Regards.

 

[Spark85]

Sonic Defender. One question please.
 
Were you able to test the HDMI NAD M51 connection, with the I2S of the MX-U8?

I have not been able to test the I2S output of U12. It syncs, but I get no audio.

¿As a general rule, as could turn the NAD M51 to HDMI video output of a PC? Is that possible?
 
Thank you.


 

 

[Sonic Defender]

  Sonic Defender. One question please.
 
Were you able to test the HDMI NAD M51 connection, with the I2S of the MX-U8?

I have not been able to test the I2S output of U12. It syncs, but I get no audio.

¿As a general rule, as could turn the NAD M51 to HDMI video output of a PC? Is that possible?
 
Thank you.


 

I wish I could help you, but I went with AES myself. AES seems to be the majority consensus interface and I have had no issues at all and I feel the system sounds great. I purchased a reasonably priced AES cable ($35) and am very pleased.

 

[Spark85]

Ok, Thanks anyway.
 
I also soon buy the AES / EBU corresponding cable and also, I will try to add a volume knob or buttons on the front panel of the M51. At the moment I use it just to listen with headphones and I would be more comfortable and practical to control the volume locally.

And I will comment if I get it.
 
I've been a few days with him and I really like their sound. Very Smooth and detailed. Better sound than my previous DAC, the Gustard X-10 with the Sabre 9018 DAC.

A greeting.

 

[WDitters]

Between DH-Labs D-110 AES/EBU and Harmonic Technology Magic Link II AES/EBU after auditioning I settled for the Harmonic Technology ...

 

[Sonic Defender]

  Between DH-Labs D-110 AES/EBU and Harmonic Technology Magic Link II AES/EBU after auditioning I settled for the Harmonic Technology ...

Did you do any blind listening tests to see if un-sighted you could actually hear any difference? Just curious.