M2Tech Evo - First Impressions
Posted by: Hot Rats on 09 October 2010
My M2Tech Evo arrived in the post this morning. I had been using a Hiface in my nDAC/XPS, NAC52/Supercap/NAP250, SBLs system and I was keen to hear what the Evo could do. Keith at Purite Audio had informed me that it offered a significant upgrade over the Hiface.
He was right! Bass is much fuller and more tuneful and stereo imaging is much better defined. Vocals also benefit. The articulation is a lot better and there is a warmth to the human voice that was not as evident on the Hiface. I invited my son to listen with me. He said that the sound of the Hiface was 'in your face' whereas the Evo was more detailed and subtle.
I opted for the rechargeable lithium battery to power my Evo. Whether or not I will stick with this I don't know. I will try a mains transformer at some point and will leave the unit powered up. The lithium battery needs charging every fourteen hours according to Keith so it is not too much of a chore ... I just have to remember to do it so that I don't run out of juice! I guess that in theory, the battery should provide a cleaner power supply but I'll try it and see. Either way, it should be a better option that taking power from the USB socket of a laptop, as I was doing with the Hiface.
Although the Evo (£350 with battery and charger)is a more expensive option than the Hiface (£110), initial impressions would indicate that the Evo justifies the extra outlay.
I'll report back in a week or so when I have had an opportunity to evaluate it more fully.
He was right! Bass is much fuller and more tuneful and stereo imaging is much better defined. Vocals also benefit. The articulation is a lot better and there is a warmth to the human voice that was not as evident on the Hiface. I invited my son to listen with me. He said that the sound of the Hiface was 'in your face' whereas the Evo was more detailed and subtle.
I opted for the rechargeable lithium battery to power my Evo. Whether or not I will stick with this I don't know. I will try a mains transformer at some point and will leave the unit powered up. The lithium battery needs charging every fourteen hours according to Keith so it is not too much of a chore ... I just have to remember to do it so that I don't run out of juice! I guess that in theory, the battery should provide a cleaner power supply but I'll try it and see. Either way, it should be a better option that taking power from the USB socket of a laptop, as I was doing with the Hiface.
Although the Evo (£350 with battery and charger)is a more expensive option than the Hiface (£110), initial impressions would indicate that the Evo justifies the extra outlay.
I'll report back in a week or so when I have had an opportunity to evaluate it more fully.
Far from BS. Not everybody will use the same computer, play and rip software. There are variables and those with PCs can't even agree what's best though all are staunchly in their own corners. 
. It's for dealers to help along if possible and I've tried to do that here and constantly do so in the shop. We're far from oblivious or wearing blinders. I bet I can get more from a PC than you can so cool your jets. My partner Ken mixes on a pc and you may be familiar with some of his work on the Naim and other labels. You're seriously barking up the wrong tree by pointing a finger my way here and I can get a killer sound from an Ipod Touch and PS modified Wadia 170. One I'm sure would startle you. Naim has also said in the very beginning that great sound could be derived from computer sources but that it was difficult and complicated. Judging from the gyrations of the past couple of years by those using this method, how could you disagree? By the way many are now doing exactly what I recommended here 2 years back when I was getting slammed for not liking Itunes and tos. 
. It's for dealers to help along if possible and I've tried to do that here and constantly do so in the shop. We're far from oblivious or wearing blinders. I bet I can get more from a PC than you can so cool your jets. My partner Ken mixes on a pc and you may be familiar with some of his work on the Naim and other labels. You're seriously barking up the wrong tree by pointing a finger my way here and I can get a killer sound from an Ipod Touch and PS modified Wadia 170. One I'm sure would startle you. Naim has also said in the very beginning that great sound could be derived from computer sources but that it was difficult and complicated. Judging from the gyrations of the past couple of years by those using this method, how could you disagree? By the way many are now doing exactly what I recommended here 2 years back when I was getting slammed for not liking Itunes and tos. quote:Originally posted by js:
Far from BS. Not everybody will use the same computer, play and rip software. There are variables and those with PCs can't even agree what's best though all are staunchly in their own corners.
I think that as a dealer who is fully conversant with the use of a PC or Mac as a source component you are in the minority. My dealer seemed pretty much in the dark. I don't blame them for this. They do not have the experience or training to provide this service to their customers.
I would say that PC users, and I put my hand up to being one of these, are staunchly entrenched. I have tried most of the options available and settled on the software that I believe gives me the best sound quality with a GUI that I like. It's a subjective decision and I would always respect the choice of those who preferred other software.
I wouldn't say that getting a great sound from a computer is that difficult. I would not consider myself an expert although I do have a reasonable working knowledge of PCs.
The main reason that I opted to go for a PC solution was that I could achieve a good sound for a fraction of the cost of a single box. It was purely down to cash flow. I didn't audition the HDX because I couldn't afford it.
and rational it is but it doesn't reflect on Naim's abilities or motives. What's good enough or what's preferred is always personal but I think it very wrong to assign motives just because one's not in agreement. I find also find some of the conspiracy theories in another thread pretty amusing.
As for dealers, this is what we do. Though some may not be very technically oriented, there should be a basic understanding at this late date. It's not rocket science but the first go around of plugins and configs can be a bit much for 1st timers. Once done a few times it should be easy for any dealer to prep. I know some consumers don't have much in the way of options but I suspect most can find a dealer that will be well enough versed to help. Another problem is that a customer may not want all the info available or suspect his own ears during a dem because the result isn't as expected. Again, this happened to me on this very forum. Help was not only refused but belittled while demanding technical proof. We're sort of damned if we do and damned if we don't. I ignore it, speak my mind and let the chips fall. A bit too much of perfect bits forever being preached out there.
As for dealers, this is what we do. Though some may not be very technically oriented, there should be a basic understanding at this late date. It's not rocket science but the first go around of plugins and configs can be a bit much for 1st timers. Once done a few times it should be easy for any dealer to prep. I know some consumers don't have much in the way of options but I suspect most can find a dealer that will be well enough versed to help. Another problem is that a customer may not want all the info available or suspect his own ears during a dem because the result isn't as expected. Again, this happened to me on this very forum. Help was not only refused but belittled while demanding technical proof. We're sort of damned if we do and damned if we don't. I ignore it, speak my mind and let the chips fall. A bit too much of perfect bits forever being preached out there.
I made no claims and only said they should get themselves up to at least cruising speed. I do understand the frustration. We were slow to sell surround brfore 5.1 as we thought early examples not much more than a fun noise. When we went into a home with an earlier 'expert' installed system, it was difficult to leave before making it work a lot better. Lots of box movers out there but in general, the Naim dealers that I've met have had a clue. Of course there will be exceptions and each country's distribution is unique. It's really helpful to have Dave here in the states. Once things get beyond normal setup, he's quite useful. 
Pays for drinks too.
Pays for drinks too. quote:Originally posted by js:
Far from BS. Not everybody will use the same computer, play and rip software. There are variables and those with PCs can't even agree what's best though all are staunchly in their own corners.
I do agree with most of what you are saying. But another USD2,000 for the Wadia 170i let alone PS-modified. My main grouse is about Naim not being honest. I do recognise that computer audio is not for everyone. But the fun is the journey to getting the sound by trying out various music player software.
I did compared the the std Wadia with Hiface and guess what? I bought the Hiface because when playing 24-bit wav files, it's really a no brainer. At USD150 it really is a steal. However when you compare the SQ of Hiface with using USB drives in the USB ports, you will find the SQ of the Hiface is a long way behind. But it bloody frustrating to use and have a lot of compatiblily problems with some brands of USB drives. This is the real potential the Ndac that I hope Naim will come to their senses before people like Weiss, Wavelength and Ayre capture the computer audio market.
I have deviated enough from the main topic so I will stop here. I do sincerely apologise. BTW, in my system, the Hiface beats my Marantz SA11 even with 16/44.1 files. Just don't use lossy files. Wav files sounded the best. Forget about CD players. For once, Linn is right about digital audio but they are totally worng with their server range. It took Naim long enough to finally produce CD players with digital output.
Well, a HDX will beat the USB port. The Wadia is $380 (not $2000)and with the correct files on a Ipod touch will beat the HiFace. Haven't heard ther EVO. The Ipod Touch doesn't stream 24 bit and down converts so is at a disadvantage if used like that. If you have the program and know the best way to down convert 24/96 to 16/48 before dropping that file onto the Touch, you'll get my results, even against what may have originally been HiDef files. Turn the radios off and drop the display in play. For all we know, the Ipod USB cable may be it's limiter and as I've said before, the nDAC's best input is SPdif if you give it a good one. While it can sound great, if the USB sounds better, you need to work on your SPdif.
You're obviously listening and doing well here as I agree with your file selection and things are obviously good enough for you to tell. I'm also using an old CDS1 with a dig out added and it's competitive with any CD derived format as source for the DAC. Your Marantz wont have a better dig out than a CD5xs and the CDX2's is clearly better. It's all relative and difficult for those that don't get to hear everything and sometimes even for those that do depending on context, files etc.
Turn the radios off and drop the display in play. For all we know, the Ipod USB cable may be it's limiter and as I've said before, the nDAC's best input is SPdif if you give it a good one. While it can sound great, if the USB sounds better, you need to work on your SPdif. You're obviously listening and doing well here as I agree with your file selection and things are obviously good enough for you to tell. I'm also using an old CDS1 with a dig out added and it's competitive with any CD derived format as source for the DAC. Your Marantz wont have a better dig out than a CD5xs and the CDX2's is clearly better. It's all relative and difficult for those that don't get to hear everything and sometimes even for those that do depending on context, files etc.
quote:Originally posted by js:
Well, a HDX will beat the USB port. The Wadia is $380 (not $2000)and with the correct files on a Ipod touch will beat the HiFace. Haven't heard ther EVO. The Ipod Touch doesn't stream 24 bit and down converts so is at a disadvantage if used like that. If you have the program and know the best way to down convert 24/96 to 16/48 before dropping that file onto the Touch, you'll get my results, even against what may have originally been HiDef files.
You're obviously listening and doing well here as I agree with your file selection and things are obviously good enough for you to tell. I'm also using an old CDS1 with a dig out added and it's competitive with any CD derived format as source for the DAC. Your Marantz wont have a better dig out than a CD5xs and the CDX2's is clearly better. It's all relative and difficult for those that don't get to hear everything and sometimes even for those that do depending on context, files etc.
Should be RM2,000 (Malaysian Ringgit) instead. No doubt the HDX will sound great but the price is quite prohibitive. Futher more it can't rip DVD Audio which is a rich source of 24/96 audio. Pity it's dead and gone. I would stick with the Hiface and get it modified when the warranty expire.
I think the potential in the USB is greater as it supports 32bit audio files (when they become available). The SPDIF limited to 24bit.
quote:I think the potential in the USB is greater as it supports 32bit audio files (when they become available).
These 32 bit talks seem queer to me. Obviously one can upsample any bitstream to 32 bit and process the data in 32 bit mode. This is a certain approach in digital filtering which can compete with other filters which don't use upsampling.
But I can't imagine the music to be recorded in 32 bit as well as I can't imagine a true 32-bit DAC. The simple math suggest that 32-bit ADC or DAC should be as accurate as 1 nano-volt to resolve the bits which is absolutely impossible in modern electronics. The noise floor of modern power supplies is million times higher than this value. So I don't believe 32-bit data files will ever appear on the market -- neither I believe it may have any musical sense.
Honestly I suspect that original 24 bit bitstream is almost the same as 20-bit downsampling
32-bit fixed as a storage format is just not needed. The best dynamic range you can get from mic preamps and so on is somewhere between 115-120dB. 24-bit fixed gives you 144dB. If you add many analog preamps together (like a multitrack recording) the dynamic range will decrease.
But most people mean 32-bit floating point when they talk about 32-bit audio. This has 24-bit precision and do not give any benefits over 24-bit fixed for storage or communication (or sound quality). But it is a very convenient format for a programmer doing DSP-algorithms. Unfortunately floating point arithmetic always give rounding errors so for high quality maths you need to go with fixed point (financial applications is one example of this unless you accept some losses).
Given what is physically possible with analog electronics then 20-bits would just about cover it. 20 bits at 48khz sampling would be optimal and would give us DAC:s with better precision (longer time for the electronics to settle) - but how much fun is that in a discussion compared to 64-bit floating at 384khz
But most people mean 32-bit floating point when they talk about 32-bit audio. This has 24-bit precision and do not give any benefits over 24-bit fixed for storage or communication (or sound quality). But it is a very convenient format for a programmer doing DSP-algorithms. Unfortunately floating point arithmetic always give rounding errors so for high quality maths you need to go with fixed point (financial applications is one example of this unless you accept some losses).
Given what is physically possible with analog electronics then 20-bits would just about cover it. 20 bits at 48khz sampling would be optimal and would give us DAC:s with better precision (longer time for the electronics to settle) - but how much fun is that in a discussion compared to 64-bit floating at 384khz
quote:Originally posted by AMA:quote:I think the potential in the USB is greater as it supports 32bit audio files (when they become available).
These 32 bit talks seem queer to me. Obviously one can upsample any bitstream to 32 bit and process the data in 32 bit mode. This is a certain approach in digital filtering which can compete with other filters which don't use upsampling.
But I can't imagine the music to be recorded in 32 bit as well as I can't imagine a true 32-bit DAC. The simple math suggest that 32-bit ADC or DAC should be as accurate as 1 nano-volt to resolve the bits which is absolutely impossible in modern electronics. The noise floor of modern power supplies is million times higher than this value. So I don't believe 32-bit data files will ever appear on the market -- neither I believe it may have any musical sense.
Honestly I suspect that original 24 bit bitstream is almost the same as 20-bit downsampling
You seems to ba a flat-eather. I am merely speculating about 32bit audio. Our PC and Mac are already using 64bit cpus and just a few year back we all think 64bit computers are not necessary.
Well I don't know about you but there is quite a lot of difference between listening to an upsampled 16bit file and an original 24bit file thru the ndac.
I still remembered when Sony and Philips said the 14bit is good enough. Remember also that the so called audio engineers says 20kHz is the limit to our hearing ability.
quote:Listen to areal musical intrument,say, a piano. Then if possible, listen to a reconstruct of all the audible frequencies of the piano with all other frequencies filtered out. I think this is a better test than the one you suggested which seems a bit of an oxymoron.
Well, actually I did it several times (with a classic guitar and male voices if you don't mind)
May I ask if you did this kind of tests?
CPUs for processing has absolutely nothing to do with storage format and straight 16 is better than asymetrically upsampled unless there's something else amiss. 16/44 may well be all we need if the recovery and processing is optimised. Currently for me, 24/96 is the sweet spot as I've heard 1st generation higher but it doesn't mean 16/44 couldn't be perfectly fine f optimised. I think some of the issues are in the encode decode and margin for error as much as anything else but it's speculation. Of course here is where I should use the argument of proof. If the math and science says 16/44 is sufficient for the limits of our perception.... Most of those that have asked me for proof in the past were upsampling in Itunes at the timequote:Originally posted by tyk263:quote:Originally posted by AMA:quote:I think the potential in the USB is greater as it supports 32bit audio files (when they become available).
These 32 bit talks seem queer to me. Obviously one can upsample any bitstream to 32 bit and process the data in 32 bit mode. This is a certain approach in digital filtering which can compete with other filters which don't use upsampling.
But I can't imagine the music to be recorded in 32 bit as well as I can't imagine a true 32-bit DAC. The simple math suggest that 32-bit ADC or DAC should be as accurate as 1 nano-volt to resolve the bits which is absolutely impossible in modern electronics. The noise floor of modern power supplies is million times higher than this value. So I don't believe 32-bit data files will ever appear on the market -- neither I believe it may have any musical sense.
Honestly I suspect that original 24 bit bitstream is almost the same as 20-bit downsampling
You seems to ba a flat-eather. I am merely speculating about 32bit audio. Our PC and Mac are already using 64bit cpus and just a few year back we all think 64bit computers are not necessary.
Well I don't know about you but there is quite a lot of difference between listening to an upsampled 16bit file and an original 24bit file thru the ndac.
.....It's a selective argument. I wont use as I understand there's much we don't know but if you get technical, expect it. Like I said 24/96 is what works for me and this is off analog master dubs and live recordings. You'll find A2D and playback have become the more significant limitations at that point.