New Nad Master Series... - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 157 Old 12-08-2005, 05:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Morbius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Livermore, CA USA
Posts: 4,728
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall View Post

Too bad audio and video is *my* specialty. And yours is something entirely different. You're on my turf. Don't ever forget it. Because I'll keep reminding you.

John,

HA!!! You think being a salesman confers some degree of expertise?

John, some pimply-faced teenager can be an audio/video salesman!
In fact, the teenage salesmen I've talked to at mid-fi "box stores" have more
expertise than you have in terms of technical moxie.

Do you remember General Norman Schwartzkopf's comment about the
military expertise of Saddam Hussein? Stormin' Norman stated,
"As far as Saddam Hussein being a great military strategist, he is neither a strategist,
nor is he schooled in the operational art, nor is he a tactician, nor is he a general,
nor is he a soldier. Other than that, he's a great military man."

John Ashman is not a scientist, nor an engineer. He doesn't have a Ph.D. in the sciences,
nor an M.S. in science, nor a B.S. in the sciences. He's hasn't completed advanced study
beyond high school in the sciences. He doesn't know physics, mathematics, chemistry,
material science, nor electronics and electrical engineering. He's not a speaker
designer nor audio engineer. He's not a reviewer like Kal Rubinson, nor an audio
magazine editor like John Atkinson... He's a salesman. He doesn't advance the
state of the audio / video art - he just sells what OTHERS have made.

Other than that - he's a great audio / video expert.

Yes - please do keep reminding me what your "specialty" is [ such as it is].

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
Morbius is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 157 Old 12-08-2005, 06:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dizzman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 5,251
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
well, at the risk of keeping this going...

Composite to component, S to component, even RGB to component (and all the other variations that i care not to list) are all transcodes. THere is indeed encoding and decoding going on. But in most cases, no scaling (up or down)

John, your arguments as to why you are the expert are tremendously tiresome. Just because you say so? That is is why we need to accept you?

I have been a trainer in this industry for the last 10 years, i have taught at all the trade shows and am faculty in different associations. Only through those points and the knowledge to find other resources and point others to them do i consider myself any type of expert. And in all cases, it is merely my job to make a point, show some evidence that supports it and hope others agree with my point of view.

You have not done anything even approaching this in any of the threads that you have ruined. Do i think Greg is getting carried away... yes. Only because as a physicist and scientist he feels a need to help explain how things really work. So you are the wall he is banging his head against.

If anything... to me simply saying you have been in this industry for the last XX years is an indicator that you probably know very little other than whatever you have managed to piece together into an explanation that makes sense to your tiny little brain.

There are plenty of folks here who put forward logical reasoned arguments. And debates ensue. YOu just throw out the comment that greg is an idiot and then blindly take potshots. At a guy who does have the credentials and puts forward logical reasoned arguments. Do i think greg is wrong sometimes... Yes. Do i go after him... No. Why not, because i feel that if i cannot refute the logic, then maybe i need to go find out why i am right. then i can discuss things in a way that is logical. Just yelling... "IT'S FLAT I TELL YOU!" will never work.

Please do us all a favour and if you are so bloody smart, then LOGICALLY, INTELLIGENTLY try to take apart one of his arguments.

Other than that... **** off. most of us are tired of you.

Proud Daddy to Anastasia and Christopher.
Born October 26 2005.

Ob was the delivery doc.

Since i cannot rant on a soapbox in the town square...
http://commonsensehasdied.blogspot.com/
Dizzman is offline  
post #93 of 157 Old 12-08-2005, 06:19 PM
Member
 
dakkon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 89
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Not to interrupt the argument, but I recently bought a T163, and was wondering how much nicer the M15 was than the 163? So far I really like the 163 but now that I am reading about the m15 I am king of wondering what I am missing out on?



Is it worth the extra money, by a factor of 2?
dakkon is offline  
post #94 of 157 Old 12-08-2005, 06:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Morbius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Livermore, CA USA
Posts: 4,728
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dizzman View Post

Other than that... **** off. most of us are tired of you.

Dizzman,

Well said - I wish I was that eloquent.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
Morbius is offline  
post #95 of 157 Old 12-08-2005, 06:51 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Michael Grant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 10,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
OK, first of all: Greg, for the love of God, please take a chill pill. I never see you sound so juvenile as when you're trying to correct John. Heck, I rarely see anyone that juvenile on this forum; and that's saying something, considering how juvenile I've been sometimes.

Having said that: John, you're off base here. The one thing you're correct about is how the term "transcoding" is applied to conversion between audio or video formats. That's a correct use of the term. However, your refusal to accept its use in other contexts is your problem, not necessarily anyone else's. You've quoted your defintion twice, fine. However, you've not shared with us where you obtained it; and why are we to believe it's definitive? Furthermore, nothing in that definition says that #4 is "frowned upon". That is apparently your addition, unless you actually provide authoritative source otherwise.

It's one thing for a term to be popularly misused, and another for it to be adopted. And that's what has indeed occurred in this case. It is indeed acceptable to refer to the transcoding of component signals to composite. If you really wish to be as pedantic as you claim, then you might be able to get away with saying that transcode only applies to digital signals. And that's fine: and yet, composite/s-video to component transcoding is quite often done in the digital domain, often as the first step in the deinterlacing and scaling process. But again, I think the bulk of the evidence goes against the limiting of "transcode" to digital signals.

Furthermore, your attempt to analyze its definition using some hacked-up version of examining the roots "trans" and "code" suffers because of your inappropriately limited definition of the latter---in fact, you defined the word in terms of itself, which isn't particularly good form. Furthermore, a proper analysis of this sort requires that you go back to the source language, which in this case is Latin. When you do that, you find that "code" is taken from codex which means "book/tablet". Its adaptation for legal and scientific use came later. (The point being that its application need not be as limited as you're trying to make it.)

Incidentally, I must reject the use of the term "upconvert" to describe composite/component, composite/s-video, and s-video/component conversions, at least when they all remain at 480i. That's just an inappropriate use of the term. Upconvert implies a change in carrier frequency and/or sample rate, depending upon the context you're talking about (analog RF signal processing or digital signal processing, respectively). None of the aforementioned conversions qualify. Now, I know some people use it. But it seems to me that it has less "support" than transcoding in this context. And if you're being picky about "popular" usage versus "correct" usage, I think that should matter to you.

Michael
Michael Grant is offline  
post #96 of 157 Old 12-08-2005, 06:54 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by dakkon View Post

Not to interrupt the argument, but I recently bought a T163, and was wondering how much nicer the M15 was than the 163? So far I really like the 163 but now that I am reading about the m15 I am king of wondering what I am missing out on?

Is it worth the extra money, by a factor of 2?

Sorry Dakkon, I just needed to change a few diapers.

The M15 is a substantially better preamp/processor than the T163. It is much quieter, more upgradeable, has more advanced processing, more advanced DACs in a dual differential setup, it's got HDMI, "video upconversion" (the accepted term and a direct quote from the literature), dual component output, a nicer remote, DTS 24/96, THX (well, not a huge deal, but occasionally useful), and some other capability. Is it worth more? Sure. Double? I think so, but it depends on your pocket book and priorities. It has one of the best S/N ratios in the industry, which, while not a direct indicator of quality, it sure is an indicator of attention to detail. The build quality is also very impressive, which is a great feel good feature.

John
Alimentall is offline  
post #97 of 157 Old 12-08-2005, 07:00 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Michael Grant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 10,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:


"video upconversion" (the accepted term and a direct quote from the literature)

Actually, here's what's funny. In NAD's press release for the M15, it says this:
Quote:


The M15 is also capable of transcoding, or upconverting' Composite and S-Video signals to Component Video output. Through the use of the highest quality components and digital comb filters, the video quality of Composite and S-Video is fully preserved.

Note that it chooses to place 'upconverting' in quotes, but not transcoding---implying, therefore, that transcoding is the more basic and descriptive term.

Having said that, upconversion probably does apply, even by my standards, to the M15, because if I understand it's capabilties properly (and no, I'm not sure I do) it can do deinterlacing and scaling. Who knows, maybe it can upconvert 480i analog sources to 720p/1080i component, which would mean that 'upconvert' is applicable to the analog stage as well.

Michael
Michael Grant is offline  
post #98 of 157 Old 12-08-2005, 07:54 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Michael Grant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 10,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:


Actually, I could pull quotes from many sites that show the same or similar definition.

Well, yes, but again, the definition itself doesn't say anything about definition #4 being inappropriate. That is happens to be the least common usage is immaterial if it's still correct. You haven't provided for us an authoritative source to that effect.
Quote:


Transcode, in the narrower sense of the word means to convert between two different types of encoded data. It doesn't mean filter *or* combine.

I agree with the first sentence, but the second is a bit ill-posed. First of all, filtering can indeed be a part of the transcoding process; indeed, it might even be necessary in certain instances. For example, the term is often used to describe the process of conversion between DSD and PCM; and in such case, filtering is a fundamental part of the process. Furthermore, I'm frankly not even sure what you mean by "combining" in this context. Are you simply referring to the combining of multiple independent signals (e.g. component video) into one (e.g., S-Video)? If so, I think this represents an unnecessary limited view of signal processing. After all, the three component signals are in fact part of a single cohesive whole, and people deal with multiple simultaneous signals in the mathematical side of things without much difficulty.
Quote:


In the digital domain, Transcode implies a much more sophisticated process between two more different types of information Taking an NTSC signal and converting it to HDTV would be a better use of the word transcode.

Hmm, no, I'd say that's an "upconvert".
Quote:


Converting a PC program to MacIntosh via an algorithm would be a better use of the word transcode.

I'd have to disagree. At the source code level, this is not transcoding, because in fact the format stays the same, it's the content that has to change. At the binary level, people talk about emulation or translation, but I've never heard of transcoding in this context. It's not my field of expertise by any means; they're the next building over If you can find even a single Google page from a competent source that uses the term in this way, I'd be genuinely interested to read it.
Quote:


Typically, a transcode changes data from one type of another encode and, as I understand it, without having to decode the data.

Well, then you'd better be careful to define "decode". Because in fact, I don't think you'll find an audio transcoder (MP3->AAC, AAC->Ogg, FLAC->MP3, whatever) that doesn't involve decoding the source format before re-encoding to the destination format.
Quote:


It generally implies the use of an algorithm, not a filter set.

You say this as if these are so easily distinguished... again, transcoding can often involve filtering.
Quote:


But, the genesis of the "up" is to denote whether the signal is being filtered or combined. If you are filtering, that is "upconversion". If you are combining, that is "downconversion".

I do see the merit in this distinction, as it is similar to the way upconversion and downconversion is used in digital signal processing (though a bit different from its original usage in radio). So I'll back off my total rejection of "upconvert" to describe the conversion of, say, composite to component. However, I think that "transcode" is also justifiable in these contexts because the information content is preserved.

Michael
Michael Grant is offline  
post #99 of 157 Old 12-08-2005, 07:57 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Michael Grant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 10,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:


Actually, Michael, I'm willing to take a "partial" wrong on this. I mean, I'm right as I (and the original person asking the question) used the term "upconversion", because when companies use the term "transcode" in A/V, they mean bi-directional capability. So, you *can* use transcode *if* the system both upconverts and downconverts. But upconversion does not equal transcoding. Upconversion PLUS downconversion equals transcoding, at least for the purposes of video format conversion. But when I see transcode elsewhere, I see it used as a conversion processes between different systems, and not necessarily bi-directional.

Huh? I was all happy with your first sentence, especially since I conceded above on "upconversion". But the rest of this threw me. Bidirectionality has nothing to do with it. Heck, it's nowhere to be found in your very own definition of the term "transcoding".

Michael
Michael Grant is offline  
post #100 of 157 Old 12-08-2005, 08:55 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Michael Grant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 10,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Well hey, if we're now accepting Extron's definition of transcoding...

Michael
Michael Grant is offline  
post #101 of 157 Old 12-09-2005, 12:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Dizzman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 5,251
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
i could have (and did) clarify extrons definition. I am pretty familiar with their stuff

Proud Daddy to Anastasia and Christopher.
Born October 26 2005.

Ob was the delivery doc.

Since i cannot rant on a soapbox in the town square...
http://commonsensehasdied.blogspot.com/
Dizzman is offline  
post #102 of 157 Old 12-09-2005, 05:26 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Note my unilateral sanitizing of this thread for the good of NAD fans everywhere

John
Alimentall is offline  
post #103 of 157 Old 12-09-2005, 10:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
hifisponge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Redmond, WA
Posts: 7,516
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Guys -

Is it really necessary to spend this much time bickering about transcoding vs upconverting in what is supposed to be a thread about the Master Series? Yes, the debate stemmed from the NAD literature, but cummon. Please use the PM system if you're not done.

- Tim
hifisponge is offline  
post #104 of 157 Old 12-10-2005, 07:36 PM
Advanced Member
 
sc10000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 627
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The masters series has HDMI switching, yes, but I am happy with the T773 and can always add a geffen hdmi switch if the bluray player needs it, and it prob will; for a whole heck of alot less $.
sc10000 is offline  
post #105 of 157 Old 12-11-2005, 06:34 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Sherwood has a new HDMI switcher that looks very promising. The real reason to get an M15 is sonic performance, really, the HDMI is just there because it needs to be.

Quote:


However, instead of building HDMI capability into their advanced A/V receivers, Sherwood designed a free-standing unit. When asked why, Hipps responded, HDMI is a moving target. With the HDMI 1.3 standard probably 2 years away, any of today's HDMI devices risk obsolescence. Rather than have a $4,000 audio receiver be viewed as obsolete because it can't support HDMI 1.3, we'd prefer to offer a low cost option. Our HDMI-Link is only $299.95.

While Sherwood's HDMI-Link does provide remote (or RS-232) switching for 2 HDMI source units, what really makes it useful is its ability to convert any component video input into an HDCP compliant HDMI output. According to Hipps, We already have two generations of receivers from Sherwood and other manufacturers that convert composite video and S-Video inputs into a component video output. Simply adding our HDMI-Link to the output chain will complete the conversion of those legacy video formats to HDMI.


John
Alimentall is offline  
post #106 of 157 Old 12-12-2005, 08:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
KeithR's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,472
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall View Post

No, that's totally normal.

Yes, it's for a no-compromise high-end stereo music system. The only integrated, of which I'm aware, that might be its equal in both quality and flexibility is the $6000 Mark Levenson integrated. The subwoofer crossover function is pretty sweet (it's on a completely separate circuit)

.

I hope its better than the ML. That integrated is not competitive with much out there these days. It isn't very powerful as an ML should be, and sonics definitely suffer compared to others. It looks nice though
KeithR is offline  
post #107 of 157 Old 12-12-2005, 08:16 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Good point. I meant basically build quality/design combined with all the cool features. You don't see that many 50lb + dual transformer integrateds with RS-232, 12V DC triggers, etc. I was more commenting on the physical similarities as I've not heard either yet. One of my customers has the ML, though, running a pair of 801s. Maybe I'll have to loan him the M3 and see what he thinks once I get one.

John
Alimentall is offline  
post #108 of 157 Old 12-12-2005, 04:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
KeithR's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,472
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall View Post

Good point. I meant basically build quality/design combined with all the cool features. You don't see that many 50lb + dual transformer integrateds with RS-232, 12V DC triggers, etc. I was more commenting on the physical similarities as I've not heard either yet. One of my customers has the ML, though, running a pair of 801s. Maybe I'll have to loan him the M3 and see what he thinks once I get one.

I always wondered why they put those things on an integrated amp, since 99% of integrateds i would gander only have 2 ch. systems and are doing it for "simplicity" or as a second system (ala bedroom).

btw, your customer is dreadfully underpowering those 801s. 801s need tons and tons of current. 436 monos *might* suffice.
KeithR is offline  
post #109 of 157 Old 12-12-2005, 05:24 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Well, the great thing about the Masters is that a) the RS-232 allows software feature upgrades (I've already got one on "special order"), b) the 12V DC trigger can turn on other amps, CD player, etc, c) the sub crossover w/remote allows for turning a sub on/off at will for those who can't make up their mind if a sub is a good addition d) the A/B allows for bi-wiring. I think those features make it *very* sellable!

As for the B&Ws, nah, they're unbelievably easy to drive. That's one of my "biggest myths in audio". I have a customer that runs his off a Denon receiver that maybe has 35W/ch in surround mode. It can run the 801s all day. When I upgraded him to NHT T6s, even with their self-powered subs, the Denon would shut down at anything higher than -10dB with an action movie. B&Ws are amazingly easy to drive. Thiel, Apogee, NHT, those are hard to drive speakers. The reason people think they're hard to drive is that Kevlar has a very similar sound to an overdriven amp when played at higher volumes. The amp may be loafing along at <5W, but the Kevlar makes it sound like the amp is straining when it is actually enjoying life. Of course, the other reason is that the 801 woofer is terribly under damped, so good current may help control it a *bit*, but even the most iron-fisted amps can't make the woofer perform like a well damped woofer. IOW, they're not hard to drive at all, but have characteristics that make them seem as though they need high voltage/high current.

John
Alimentall is offline  
post #110 of 157 Old 01-02-2006, 10:24 PM
Newbie
 
fg2bm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: tartane martinique FWI
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Well
I know that I may be a wee late but I would like to wish a Happy new year 2006 to all AVS members.
Best regards from The Flowers Island,
fg2bm
Tartane
Martinique FWI

There are two choices the bad ones and the good ones...Period
fg2bm is offline  
post #111 of 157 Old 01-03-2006, 01:24 AM
t69
Newbie
 
t69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Switzerland / Corpataux
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
hello,

is the m15 now out, any review ?

:-) thx T69
t69 is offline  
post #112 of 157 Old 01-07-2006, 08:37 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Anyone know WHERE NAD is at CES? They're not listed and I know they're here!!! And, of course, everybody is closed, so I can't even call anyone at NAD.

John
Alimentall is offline  
post #113 of 157 Old 01-07-2006, 11:26 AM
AVS Special Member
 
hifisponge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Redmond, WA
Posts: 7,516
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall View Post

Anyone know WHERE NAD is at CES? They're not listed and I know they're here!!! And, of course, everybody is closed, so I can't even call anyone at NAD.

They're probably off-site with all of the high-end audio stuff. Try one of the help desks for information. We're counting on you.
hifisponge is offline  
post #114 of 157 Old 01-07-2006, 09:37 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I think I found them - Hark Rock. They're here, just not a part of CES. Going first thing tomorrow!

BTW, the M15 was actively in use at the Audyssey suite. Just as a preamp, but the mind wanders.........

John
Alimentall is offline  
post #115 of 157 Old 01-08-2006, 12:22 AM
AVS Special Member
 
hifisponge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Redmond, WA
Posts: 7,516
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Alimentall -

If you make it to the NAD booth, ask them about the HDMI inputs. Are they version 1.1? The reason I ask is that I'm wondering how I'm going to get multichannel audio out of both my current DVDA / SACD player *and* an HDDVD player when they are released later this year? It's not a deal breaker for me, but I really wish the M15 prepro either had another set of 7.1 analog inputs, a firewire connection or some other means of supporting another multichannel device. At this point with the M15, it looks like I'll have to choose one to connect to the only 7.1 input.
hifisponge is offline  
post #116 of 157 Old 01-08-2006, 05:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
hifisponge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Redmond, WA
Posts: 7,516
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Alimentall -

Any CES news to share?
hifisponge is offline  
post #117 of 157 Old 01-08-2006, 11:55 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Well I MISSED them! Apparently, they only ran the demo until Saturday.

However, I ran into the head of sales Sunday afternoon and he gave me the full download:

1. Masters series M5 (I knew about this one previously) - $1800 CD player with SACD capability, dual differential balanced out, gain stage modules from the M3, no video or anything.
2. A Theater series version of the M55 Universal player will be available for $1200.
3. A $1300 Theater 5-channel amplifier

The Masters looks like it will be a hit, but they're going to proceed with caution til they know how well it will sell. Steve said that the M3 trounces the earlier S300 amplifier and I can see it from his enthusiasm that he means it. And he's *very* excited by the M3 as a music player. The M55, as good as it is, has *some* compromise in it. The M5 removes those compromises by eliminating the video capabilities and putting in the best analog output they know how to build.

Personally, I'm pushing for

1. A Masters stereo amp based on the M3
2. A Masters stereo preamp with DSP capability
3. A Masters tuner with headphone amp and a few other unique features
4. A Masters surround sound receiver
5. A Masters stereo receiver

We'll see how far they take this over time. I did get some interesting general tidbits about what other things are coming from NAD, but suffice it to say, I can't repeat it, BUT, it's going to be a *very* interesting year for NAD and they're just getting started. I very much like where they're going and I was told that a lot of my product ideas are being incorporated and that is very cool because some of them are pretty unique.

BTW, one of my customers forwarded this link with pics of the M5:

http://www.shows.soundstagelive.com/...toppers1.shtml

John
Alimentall is offline  
post #118 of 157 Old 01-09-2006, 11:34 AM
AVS Special Member
 
hifisponge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Redmond, WA
Posts: 7,516
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Thanks for the info Alimentall. It's great that NAD is planning to expand the Master Series line-up, but all I want to know is just how future proof the M15 is. More specifically, will I be able to connect both my existing DVDA / SACD player and a new HDDVD player to it? Since they are both multichannel devices and the M15 has only one set of multichannel inputs, I'm wondering how that can be done.

In a related matter, I'd still like to know if the HDMI inputs on the M15 support the HDMI 1.1 spec and if they process audio (rather than just acting as an HDMI video switcher).

I'd also like to know just when exactly the M15 and M25 units are supposed to hit retail. I've been told they will ship in Jan, but when?
hifisponge is offline  
post #119 of 157 Old 01-09-2006, 05:57 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by hifisponge View Post

Thanks for the info Alimentall. It's great that NAD is planning to expand the Master Series line-up, but all I want to know is just how future proof the M15 is. More specifically, will I be able to connect both my existing DVDA / SACD player and a new HDDVD player to it? Since they are both multichannel devices and the M15 has only one set of multichannel inputs, I'm wondering how that can be done.

Well, in theory, that would be tough. You can realistically only do one Universal/HD-DVD/Blu-Ray player.
Quote:

In a related matter, I'd still like to know if the HDMI inputs on the M15 support the HDMI 1.1 spec and if they process audio (rather than just acting as an HDMI video switcher).

I've been told that it's just stereo audio. It would take v1.2 or v1.3, I believe, to do what you need.
Quote:

I'd also like to know just when exactly the M15 and M25 units are supposed to hit retail. I've been told they will ship in Jan, but when?

Here's what I believe after speaking with NAD -
~1 week to ship M3s
~2 weeks to ship M25s
~3 weeks to ship M55s
~4 weeks to ship M15s.

I think these are the likely dates, though the M55/M15s could move forward or back.

John
Alimentall is offline  
post #120 of 157 Old 01-09-2006, 07:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
hifisponge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Redmond, WA
Posts: 7,516
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Thanks for the reply John. I'm a little confused about the HDMI spec on the M15. Based on my readings in this forum and that of other manufactures, the HDMI 1.1 spec supports 5.1 DVDA audio and that the 1.1 spec would also be able to process the multichannel PCM bitstream from an HDDVD player. So are you saying that NAD has chosen to only process two channel over HDMI even though the 1.1 spec is capable of 5.1 PCM? Or does the M15 only support the HDMI 1.0 spec? I'm hoping that this is just a misunderstanding.

Here's an exeprt from a review of the Denon 5910 DVD player that talks about the HDMI 1.1 spec.

"The HDMI output of the 5910 is compliant with the new HDMI 1.1 spec. This allows for the standard two-channel PCM found on CDs, Dolby Digital, and DTS soundtracks from DVDs and now high resolution 5.1 PCM tracks that are found on DVD-Audio discs."
hifisponge is offline  
Reply Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+)

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off