twelvebears

I'm definitely interested in the Poly to partner my Mojo, but there a few things I'd want to be clear on: 1. how will it interact with (say) BT and wifi enabled DAPs like Astell & Kern? 2. How secure is the physical connection? Surely just using the plug sockets can't be a great idea? 3. Will they release a revised case to enclose both together? Which would probably resolve my concerns re the physical connection.

With the introduction of Tidal integration and addition of a Peachtree Audio X1 USB/SPDIF converter, Audirvana has now become my only digital source. Combined with the iPad remote app, it makes such a great combination. Well done Damien.

While early days, from what I've read, it's not the same question at all. BetaMax was a physically distinct format, which had hardware compatibility limitations. The objective (yet to be demonstrated) is that MQA is a format based solution which looks to avoid as many physical limitations as possible. As an owner of a (once cutting edge) NAD M2, I am very keen to know whether if MQA gains support, will my beloved M2 become a limiting factor? Would it still be viable if fed a MQA decoded PCM stream from an outside source (say a MacMini running MQA software), or could it have a firmware update to decode MQA itself? If the latter, how would this be done? These my be early questions, but as the owner of a high-end bit of digital audio, you can understand my concern

I've noted elswhere, folks considering the DF vs the DACport and feeling the DF offers great value by comparison (re performance if not material). Anyone doing so should also remember that with an output impedance of just 0.65 Ohms, the DF is better matched to a wider range of headphones right off the bat. The DACport has a standard output impedance of 10 Ohms and the 1 Ohm conversion is a $100 option, so for lower impedance 'phones, especially high-end IEMs, the DF is even better value than it first appears.

Fortunately the M2 can take any form of digital input apart from USB, with multiple coax, and digital, plus 75 Ohm BNC (which is probably what I will use). Also it supports up to 24/192 as this is what it already converts it's analogue input to. Right then, a USB-SPDIF converter it is then. Fortunately I've really very little in 24/192, almost everything is 24/88.2 or 24/96, so I'll think about whether to bother with a 24/192 capable device, but as the NAD does it, it seem silly not to really. Thanks again for you replies.

OK folks, I have searched on here but no-one seems to have given much of a view so I'm asking again. Like many I expect, I'm feeding the digital from my iMac to my DAC (actually direct to a NAD M2 in my case) using an optical cable, but given the talk about the advantages of 'going asynchronous USB' where you let a USB to SPDIF converter do the 'clocking' with (hopefully) a reduction in jitter, I've been wondering if this would be a better option. So there's the question - Do folks think that an asynchronous USB to SPDIF device will be a better option that using an optical output direct? Views, thoughts, or preferably experiences of other Mac users please.

Sorting out power issues can be expensive and it's always a tough call to decide that the money is best spent on power products rather than an upgrade to a bit of kit. The thing to keep in mind is to look at the cost in the context of the whole system. Resolving mains quality will maximise the performance of everything in your system and make it perform consistently. What's more, that consistent performance will be mobile because that clean power goes where your power products go, especially with a PPP which regenerates the actual supply. If you invested the same money in an equipment upgrade would you notice the same improvement? I guess it depends what level of performance and cost your kit is really, but what if you move home? You could end up somewhere with crappy mains power and then that upgraded kit fails to deliver. Whatever the situation, I'd say that sorting power issues out becomes key at the point where you're generally happy with your system and have no burning urge to change any one bit.

I have a PS Audio Power Plant Premier and I'm very pleased with it. I find that it makes my system more consistent and delivers a 'late night' performance even if it's evening and everyone in the neighbourhood is using their hobs, ovens and kettles. The kit is just hooked up with some carefully home-made, shielded mains cables. As with many things audio, 'milage may vary' depending on your equipment, where you live etc but for me, getting the power sorted is an essential part of getting the best out of any system. I should also say that I think the PPP is great value for a complex bit of kit that actually does something - measurable regulating the output voltage and THD - rather than some of the massively expensive passive filters around. I also can't get my head (or wallet) around some of the crazy money power leads, some of which cost more than a PPP....

What Firedog said.... This is defo the best/simpliest and pretty much cheapest option because it sounds great (especially with a decent DAC), works perfectly with iPhone/iTouch/iPad apps AND plays files of all different resolutions properly without fiddling with audio output setting.

Until I recently simplified my system set-up with a NAD M2 (awesome!), I had a very similar arrangement. I had a SB3 connected via a wired network and an iMac. Both were individually connected to my Benchmark DAC1 (also non-USB), the SB3 via coax and the iMac with an optical cable. Personally, from an audio perspective, there wasn't much between them, though the SB3 did definitely have the edge, but then it had been modded and had a dedicated, regulated PSU. The iMac, like most computers, is a bit compromised as a digital 'transport' in that it was a whole bunch of RF noisy gubbins crammed into a small space. If you think how careful audio manufacturers are to keep any source of noise out of harms way, the innards of a typical computer would have them cringing. That said, the Benchmark is remarkably good at jitter rejection, plus of course, using an optical connection breaks any electrical link between the computer and DAC. It's for this reason that personally I favour an optical connection for any computer, rather than either coax OR USB. Hence the reason why I never bothered with a USB version of the Benchmark. So audio wise, I suggest the SB Touch would be a better option than the PC, but if you were going to use the PC, then a soundcard that offers an optical digital output would probably be preferable to an electrical connection as it isolates the two from each other. As for the user experience of using either JRiver or the SB? Well I have always, and still do use iTunes as my music management tool, but find that I use the SqueezeCentre browser nearly all the time to control the SB3 to play music when I'm at the computer, as I like the way the HTML interface makes all the track, album, artist info a clickable link for navigation. Unless you've got to make a rapid decision, I'd suggest just giving each a go and see what fits.

I was lucky enough to pick up a pair of ex-dem, current spec A.C.T. back in June of this year and have been utterly, utterly delighted with them. Various members on another forum had been hugely disparaging about them, but having had them for 6 months I can only conclude that many of their comments where made without actually listening to them properly (or possibly at all!). Some accuse them of being harsh or clinical, but my experience is that they are very easy to live with and have very little 'character' of their own, which is something that pretty much all speakers tend to add quite a lot of. Because of that, they don't hide flaws up-stream and a rough source and/or amp will sound just that. This possibly explains some people's views as (for commercial reasons linking the two companies) they are often heard being driven by Chord electronics, which themselves can be a but unforgiving. As Mani says, one of their strong points is the may the drivers integrate so well. To that I'd add tremendous speed, transparency and bass extension for the size of cabinet. Probably the best thing I can say is that they are the only speaker I've had which allowed me 'closure' over the fact that I had to sell my pair of Sonus Faber Extremas several years back. Until the WBs turned up, I had always been kicking myself for that decision, but now I'm fine with it. :-)

Hi Nigel. Totally agree! As you say, it was just chance and boredom which meant I got to hear the M2. Otherwise I'm certain that it would never have featured on my list of possibilities. I try not to be a 'badge snob' but I guess NAD just seemed a bit bland to me, though that's more because I have always dislike the aesthetics and 'army kaki' colour of their amps. It is a truly stonking product and one which the serious high-end manufacturers should be worried about if it weren't for the fact that most of their target customers won't even consider it because of the brand! Perhaps NAD should do a Toyota/Lexus luxury marque rebrand job....

As a pretty much exclusive user of computer sourced music (my turntable and SACD/CD do get used occasionally), I'm quite surprised that the NAD M2 hasn't generated more topics of conversation here on CA than it has. I've been a user of the traditional source-DAC-amp arrangement for ages, running multiple digital sources (CDP, Squeezebox, iMac, PS3) initially via a Beresford DAC and for the last 18 months or so a Benchmark DAC1. About 6 months ago I started looking for a new amp. Changing my D/A conversion 'solution' wasn't on the agenda at all, as apart from the slight inconvenience of having to switch digital sources manual, I was delighted with the Benchmark, which I still consider to be one of the best DACs available for anything like sensible money. Thanks to Audio Emotion (a wonderful UK dealer who I can wholeheartedly recommend) I had had a number of extended home trials while searching for a replacement for my decade-old Musical Fidelity M3 (yes the similarity of the model names did make me chuckle), and had finally settled on an MBL 7008 integrated. However during the significant wait for MBL to actually deliver the damn thing, I happened to come across the stellar reviews of the M2 and out of boredom and curiosity, decided to borrow AE's demo unit to kill some time. It was without doubt, the greatest fluke of my whole audio history. Putting aside it's wonderfully, but boring as hell to look at build quality, it is an absolute gem. The sound is everything I was looking for: transparent and detailed but without any nasty edges, and plenty of drive and control in the bass. But the HUGE advantage is the way it works so perfectly at the heart of a system with multiple digital sources, bringing simplicity and ease of use to the set-up. My system is now MUCH more user friendly (no manual switching of sources), simpler in architecture (no 'traditional' DAC and far less cables) and sounds fantastic. Even a comparitively 'lo-fi' source such as premium Spotify sounds great. It even manages to make a decent fist of analogue signal from my TT and phone stage, although that does involve 'normal' A/D conversion. And as a bonus, it even part paid for itself by allowing me to sell the Benchmark, and a selection of cables. Cracking bit of kit which as a Computer Audiophile, I can't recommend highly enough. Just one last point: As far as my understanding goes, the M2 is not a DAC and amp in a single box in the normal sense. The bit of tech that makes the M2 unique (though believe the Lingdorf/TacT Millennium is pretty much the same), is that the PCM digital signal directly modulates the switch-mode output stage. It is therefore this process that effectively does the D/A conversion.

I debated the decision about how to store all my CDs long and hard when I first made the move about 4 years ago. I didn't get myself tied up in knots over what type of lossless file to use (and I'm sorry but I've never been able to hear a difference between lossless formats), but I did think hard about using a non-compressed format. At the time, the considerations were: 1. Support for ID3 tags (you don't want to be left with the mess of un-tagged WAV files if your iTunes library eats itself). 2. Hard drive space (back then 500Gb drives were over £100) As a result, I went ALAC and have never regretted the decision. However if I were starting from scratch now, with storage space being as cheap as it is, I might consider AIFF instead. The reason why lossless formats are important for me now is hi-res files, because storing uncompressed 24/96 files really will eat hard drive space....

Well assuming the readout on the front is deliberately false, I can see that my PS Audio Power Plant Premier turns incoming mains which fluctuates between 236-247volts at 3-5% THD into exactly 240volts at 0.3% THD So in terms of a measurable change to the power itself, I think it's clear. As to the subjective changes that this make to the sound? Well measuring that would be as hard as explaining by measurements why Amp A and Amp B differ in terms of THD etc, when of course there are plenty of examples where things measure great and sound poor and vice versa. To take your point however, the PPP produces a measurable change. I wonder how many of the nutty price mains cables do the same? (some of which cost as much as the PPP)