NAD Master Series M-51 DAC/preamp
- Thread starter JohnVF
- Start date
MWalt
Super Member
I might as well own stock in HD Tracks :sigh:
They got a good deal. It was like-new and better than any player I can think of for the used price. I bought it used, too...it's getting around! Merry Christmas to some happy listener.
VinylRob
Vinylphile
><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯ `· .¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>
Very nice to follow your experience here John...
The "source first" approach has always made sense and worked quite well for me.
Agreed, not to get into a cable-go-round, yet I think it is telling that this combo is so resolving and maybe even "picky" about your cabling choices. To me, that is often a very good sign about the gear itself.
I am a long time fan of NAD for so many value based reasons and like it just fine in my TV room with a little multi-channel thing going on, wouldn't trade it. Enjoy hearing that they are evidently a strong player in the Pre/DAC game.
Happy Listening!
Very nice to follow your experience here John...
The "source first" approach has always made sense and worked quite well for me.
Agreed, not to get into a cable-go-round, yet I think it is telling that this combo is so resolving and maybe even "picky" about your cabling choices. To me, that is often a very good sign about the gear itself.
I am a long time fan of NAD for so many value based reasons and like it just fine in my TV room with a little multi-channel thing going on, wouldn't trade it. Enjoy hearing that they are evidently a strong player in the Pre/DAC game.
Happy Listening!
Billfort
Addicted Member
I've owned a few NAD pieces over the years and always liked their sound-for-the-bucks ratio, it is nice to hear that their new upper-end stuff performs so well. If I was buying new SS, NAD would certainly be on my audition list.
The M-51 DAC/preamp is an intriguing piece and I'd love to hear one someday. It's not a fit for me (gotta have vinyl, DSD decoding and so far, prefer non-oversampling) but for an all digital system, it really seems to make sense. Still trying to understand the technical aspects of how it does conversion but my reading on it tends to just get my eyes glazed over - I just want to hear about how it sounds.
The M-51 DAC/preamp is an intriguing piece and I'd love to hear one someday. It's not a fit for me (gotta have vinyl, DSD decoding and so far, prefer non-oversampling) but for an all digital system, it really seems to make sense. Still trying to understand the technical aspects of how it does conversion but my reading on it tends to just get my eyes glazed over - I just want to hear about how it sounds.
How it sounds? Hmm...
It's everything I like about digital and none of the things I don't like. Kind of like the Aleph is sort of everything I like about solid state and none of what I don't like.
Big, deep, dynamic, no grain, no etch, no glare, and the best bass I've heard in a digital unit. I still intend to borrow the Mytek from the local place and do a comparison. I need a DAC for the main system as I'm tired of dragging my Apogee out of my recording rig.
It's everything I like about digital and none of the things I don't like. Kind of like the Aleph is sort of everything I like about solid state and none of what I don't like.
Big, deep, dynamic, no grain, no etch, no glare, and the best bass I've heard in a digital unit. I still intend to borrow the Mytek from the local place and do a comparison. I need a DAC for the main system as I'm tired of dragging my Apogee out of my recording rig.
Since my Kef LS-50s were still boxed up after their field trip to Tom Brennan's place, and since I was cleaning out one of my closets, I decided to pull the Quad 63pros out, and see how the NAD fared with a more full-range speaker, particularly one that the best amp here, the Pass Aleph 30, could properly drive. Basically an assemblage of what I consider to be the best three components here.
The results?
I've not heard better. Certainly not here. I've heard different, but there are things this combination does that I've not heard extremely expensive setups do as well (to my ears, anyway). Perfectly balanced, lively, dynamic (yes, the Aleph eeks a good deal of bass out of these 63s, the pros being a more robust/rigid speaker than the original ESL-63), with an openness and clarity without going overboard with the hi-fi exaggeration of detail. I always forget just how good the Quad 63 is. Cabling was Straightwire Crescendo between the NAD and Aleph, and Vertere D-Fi speaker cable (which I have to say, has made me a cable convert. Sorry to anybody offended by such things).
I might keep this setup until I hear about the T+A amp. Or I might not (the 63s take up a lot of room in my bedroom). Either way, I'm going to spend a lot of time listening while they're setup like this, and I'm going to remember this if I move apartments in the spring, as a listening room where I could leave this up permanently would be very very nice.
Anyway, in a setup with speakers that will tax a preamp and expose it for what it truly is, the Quads have revealed the NAD M-51 to be top-shelf.
The results?
I've not heard better. Certainly not here. I've heard different, but there are things this combination does that I've not heard extremely expensive setups do as well (to my ears, anyway). Perfectly balanced, lively, dynamic (yes, the Aleph eeks a good deal of bass out of these 63s, the pros being a more robust/rigid speaker than the original ESL-63), with an openness and clarity without going overboard with the hi-fi exaggeration of detail. I always forget just how good the Quad 63 is. Cabling was Straightwire Crescendo between the NAD and Aleph, and Vertere D-Fi speaker cable (which I have to say, has made me a cable convert. Sorry to anybody offended by such things
). I might keep this setup until I hear about the T+A amp. Or I might not (the 63s take up a lot of room in my bedroom). Either way, I'm going to spend a lot of time listening while they're setup like this, and I'm going to remember this if I move apartments in the spring, as a listening room where I could leave this up permanently would be very very nice.
Anyway, in a setup with speakers that will tax a preamp and expose it for what it truly is, the Quads have revealed the NAD M-51 to be top-shelf.
Last edited:
TimF
Super Member
Very good John, would love to hear that setup. I am hoping to just get a listen to the NAD C-390DD at some point here. Not going to buy, but just want to do some comparison listening. Looking at it, I think this could be a really great option for someone that is looking for a basically one/two box type of setup, depending on source of course. I could see this paired up with a decent Oppo Blu-ray player, and using the modular HDMI board, having a nice audio and video setup. Tim
Catcher10
Prog-tastic!
Since my Kef LS-50s were still boxed up after their field trip to Tom Brennan's place, and since I was cleaning out one of my closets, I decided to pull the Quad 63pros out, and see how the NAD fared with a more full-range speaker, particularly one that the best amp here, the Pass Aleph 30, could properly drive. Basically an assemblage of what I consider to be the best three components here.
The results?
I've not heard better. Certainly not here. I've heard different, but there are things this combination does that I've not heard extremely expensive setups do as well (to my ears, anyway). Perfectly balanced, lively, dynamic (yes, the Aleph eeks a good deal of bass out of these 63s, the pros being a more robust/rigid speaker than the original ESL-63), with an openness and clarity without going overboard with the hi-fi exaggeration of detail. I always forget just how good the Quad 63 is. Cabling was Straightwire Crescendo between the NAD and Aleph, and Vertere D-Fi speaker cable (which I have to say, has made me a cable convert. Sorry to anybody offended by such things
I might keep this setup until I hear about the T+A amp. Or I might not (the 63s take up a lot of room in my bedroom). Either way, I'm going to spend a lot of time listening while they're setup like this, and I'm going to remember this if I move apartments in the spring, as a listening room where I could leave this up permanently would be very very nice.
Anyway, in a setup with speakers that will tax a preamp and expose it for what it truly is, the Quads have revealed the NAD M-51 to be top-shelf.
Now that is cool! Don't you just love it when other gear just mind melds well with existing gear....
I listened to the C-390DD for a couple of hours with speakers priced well above what would likely be matched together (Dali Epicon 8) and it was very well balanced with no clear emphasis on any one sonic attribute. I'm not sure how to describe it other than an even presentation...nothing jumped out, which is almost certainly perfect for a long term ownership. If NAD can do that with a fairly budget priced unit I'm sure the M-51 is nothing short of incredible.
estreeter
Super Member
Where I live, the C390DD is more expensive than the M51 by at least five hundred dollars - which it probably should be given that it's a 'one-box solution' based on a 6K+ Master Series amp. In NAD terms, the 390 is only 'budget priced' compared to its big sister, the M2 (and that amp's dual mono predecessor, the M3, but the latter is a much more conventional proposition).
IMO, there are two standout bargains in the Master Series, and the M51 is one of them. Ironically, one would need to upgrade the 390 to use it with the M51, and I dont know two many people who would do that.
Congrats on your 390 - its an amp that gets very few keystrokes IME. :thmbsp:
The M-51 shares the balanced sound you heard with the C390DD. Nothing is overtly accented, yet it possesses the ability to present a lot of detail without it becoming distracting. It's similar to the Quads in that way, maybe that is why they're such a great match. I got a good deal on it, and traded a bunch of gear on top of that so out of pocket it wasn't much and it was an easy decision to buy it once I had it here, and realized how much it added to the sound quality I was getting in this system. I also have more room on the shelf and in the closet now . It's big for a DAC but not for a preamp.
The M2 is fantastic, but a good deal more expensive. It's been awhile since I heard it but I remember it having a similar balanced sound.
. It's big for a DAC but not for a preamp. The M2 is fantastic, but a good deal more expensive. It's been awhile since I heard it but I remember it having a similar balanced sound.