NAD M10 Streaming Amplifier Review

[AudioScience Enthusiast]

How about all those email responses from NAD saying they are “working on DLBC” when I asked them about my M10 V2?

Someone should setup a website please and we will submit all of these to the website to expose NAD.

I don’t like doing this kind of thing but their years of misleading statements need to be held accountable.

 

[katsu]

Alfaholic I wouldn't say that they don't still plan to implement dlbc for the m33. I think that is still unknown.

Enthusiast. Your correspondence is certainly evidence that they did not disavow you of your expectation based on their misrepresentations that dlbc would be implemented.

 

[ban25]

How about all those email responses from NAD saying they are “working on DLBC” when I asked them about my M10 V2?

Someone should setup a website please and we will submit all of these to the website to expose NAD.

I don’t like doing this kind of thing but their years of misleading statements need to be held accountable.

It's surprising that the support folks are giving honest answers. It likely does open them up to liability for false advertising claims. The typical playbook is to just claim that a feature is still "Coming Soon," a la Anthem & Roon Ready.

 

[AudioScience Enthusiast]

I am officially mad at NAD after being lied to for years whenever I asked them when DLBC is coming to my M10 V2.

Collecting evidence or claims where DLBC was promised for NAD M10 V1/V2, other than what was sent to me directly by NAD (I will keep updating this post as I find more).

If you would like to join in, please add screenshots of the correspondence you received from NAD instead of just quotes to enhance the authenticity.

1. AVSforums

2. Highdefdigest.com

3. AVNirvana

4. Hometheatre Review

 

[JGQC]

From my corrspondance with them in Januaey and July 2024:

 

[AudioScience Enthusiast]

From my corrspondance with them in Januaey and July 2024:
View attachment 390983
View attachment 390984

@JGOC, from your support history, it seems NAD is walking back their previous public communication that DLBC will be available for M10 V1/2, as evident by "forward this request", "consideration as a future update", "working to improve the experience".

This is very illuminating, hopefully more members share their screenshots we can find out what game NAD has been playing all along.

 

[katsu]

One more example of NAD promising DLBC on other products here at 22:19 they say:

"we have said the the M33, M10 and 658 will be getting bass control one day and that is still true"

 

[JGQC]

good catch @katsu

 

[pogo]

Mark T. (NAD Electronics)
Sep 12, 2024, 11:48 AM EDT


Hello XXX,

Please be advised that your support request has been escalated to me.

First of all, apologies for the delay in getting back to you and secondly, sorry for the confusion.

It is still our intention to have Dirac Live Bass Control on NAD M33 and other current NAD devices. As to what devices, that is still being finalized as to wether such device can handle this upgrade.

Thank you for choosing NAD Electronics, HEART+SOUL You Can Hear.

Regards,
Mark
The NAD Electronics Support Crew

 

[JGQC]

Mark T. (NAD Electronics)
Sep 12, 2024, 11:48 AM EDT


Hello XXX,

Please be advised that your support request has been escalated to me.

First of all, apologies for the delay in getting back to you and secondly, sorry for the confusion.

It is still our intention to have Dirac Live Bass Control on NAD M33 and other current NAD devices. As to what devices, that is still being finalized as to wether such device can handle this upgrade.

Thank you for choosing NAD Electronics, HEART+SOUL You Can Hear.

Regards,
Mark
The NAD Electronics Support Crew

Richard and Mark from NAD don't agree

 

[AudioScience Enthusiast]

One more example of NAD promising DLBC on other products here at 22:19 they say:

"we have said the the M33, M10 and 658 will be getting bass control one day and that is still true"

Maybe the "M10" that they are referring to in the video is the M10 V3?

 

[chefffe]

Its disappointing but I still LOVE my v2

(anyway dont use Subwoofers)

 

[AudioScience Enthusiast]

Mark T. (NAD Electronics)
Sep 12, 2024, 11:48 AM EDT

As to what devices, that is still being finalized as to wether such device can handle this upgrade.

Regards,
Mark
The NAD Electronics Support Crew

Hmm... I am no audio equipment engineer, but if a company has taken this long to figure out "which devices can handle this upgrade" should I even have faith in their capability to ever add DLBC to my M10 V2?

To me, it's a simple yes or no answer. What game are they playing here?

 

[EJ3]

Hmm... I am no audio equipment engineer, but if a company has taken this long to figure out "which devices can handle this upgrade" should I even have faith in their capability to ever add DLBC to my M10 V2?

To me, it's a simple yes or no answer. What game are they playing here?

"NO" would be my answer.

 

[AudioScience Enthusiast]

"NO" would be my answer.

I’m curious if the reason the M10 V2 doesn’t or won't ever support DLBC is because it features a single subwoofer output that’s split into two connections. Has this been confirmed?

If this is true, it confirms there’s a physical limitation preventing DLBC from being implemented on this model. As I understand it, DLBC requires multiple independent subwoofer channels to function correctly. Unless there’s a way to split a single subwoofer output into two discrete channels—which seems unlikely due to hardware constraints—it wouldn’t be feasible to enable DLBC on the M10 V1/2.

I’m not an audio equipment engineer, but this appears to be a fundamental technical consideration that should be well understood by NAD engineers. It raises the question of why NAD hasn't acknowledged this limitation in their design of the M10 V1/2. The only explanation for NAD's conflicting responses in the absence of conclusive facts is that they are playing games.

 

[EJ3]

I’m curious if the reason the M10 V2 doesn’t or won't ever support DLBC is because it features a single subwoofer output that’s split into two connections. Has this been confirmed?

If this is true, it confirms there’s a physical limitation preventing DLBC from being implemented on this model. As I understand it, DLBC requires multiple independent subwoofer channels to function correctly. Unless there’s a way to split a single subwoofer output into two discrete channels—which seems unlikely due to hardware constraints—it wouldn’t be feasible to enable DLBC on the M10 V1/2.

I’m not an audio equipment engineer, but this appears to be a fundamental technical consideration that should be well understood by NAD engineers. It raises the question of why NAD hasn't acknowledged this limitation in their design of the M10 V1/2. The only explanation for NAD's conflicting responses in the absence of conclusive facts is that they are playing games.

The NAD people are having to rely on what the DLBC people say that they can (or cannot) do.

 

[AudioScience Enthusiast]

The NAD people are having to rely on what the DLBC people say that they can (or cannot) do.

Is it plausible that NAD needed Dirac to inform them that it’s impossible to split a single subwoofer output into two discrete channels for DLBC? This reasoning seems unconvincing, ie. I don't buy it.

Considering that NAD has released the M10 V3 with discrete subwoofer channels, it appears they were aware of the hardware limitations inherent in the M10 V2. Continuing to tease DLBC functionality on the M10 V2 while knowing it lacks the necessary hardware is misleading. Implementing DLBC requires multiple independent subwoofer outputs, and the M10 V2’s single subwoofer output—split into two connections—does not support this, if it is proven that V1/V2 has single subwoofer channel only (not the number of subwoofer output connectors).

This situation raises serious concerns about NAD’s transparency regarding the capabilities of the M10 V2. It would be more straightforward for NAD to acknowledge the hardware limitations that prevent DLBC from being implemented on this model. Suggesting that they are working on (whether it's by themselves or with DIRAC) enabling a feature that is physically impossible given the hardware constraints does a disservice to customers seeking clear and accurate information.

Ultimately customers like me will lose faith in NAD, if it is not already happening.

 

[EJ3]

Is it plausible that NAD needed Dirac to inform them that it’s impossible to split a single subwoofer output into two discrete channels for DLBC? This reasoning seems unconvincing, ie. I don't buy it.

Considering that NAD has released the M10 V3 with discrete subwoofer channels, it appears they were aware of the hardware limitations inherent in the M10 V2. Continuing to tease DLBC functionality on the M10 V2 while knowing it lacks the necessary hardware is misleading. Implementing DLBC requires multiple independent subwoofer outputs, and the M10 V2’s single subwoofer output—split into two connections—does not support this, if it is proven that V1/V2 has single subwoofer channel only (not the number of subwoofer ports).

This situation raises serious concerns about NAD’s transparency regarding the capabilities of the M10 V2. It would be more straightforward for NAD to acknowledge the hardware limitations that prevent DLBC from being implemented on this model. Suggesting that they are working on (whether it's by themselves or with DIRAC) enabling a feature that is physically impossible given the hardware constraints does a disservice to customers seeking clear and accurate information.

Ultimately customers like me will lose faith in NAD, if it is not already happening.

Just saying that they need to be working together on this. If it's not happening: Then this is a black-eye for both..

 

[keith_h]

Just saying that they need to be working together on this. If it's not happening: Then this is a black-eye for both..

I'd imagine that its not a cover up or conspiracy, just the support team not being plugged into the development pipeline and I think that's normal for many organisations. They can note that the functionality is under development, but how its implemented may not be information known to them or even information under embargo.

I was advised that some of the defects in the V1 one product could not be fixed with a software update after the V2 release owing to hardware differences. I'd expect its the same situation here with the bass management and V3 vs V2 hardware.

How many are using a pair of subs anyway?

 

[EJ3]

I'd imagine that its not a cover up or conspiracy, just the support team not being plugged into the development pipeline and I think that's normal for many organisations. They can note that the functionality is under development, but how its implemented may not be information known to them or even information under embargo.

I was advised that some of the defects in the V1 one product could not be fixed with a software update after the V2 release owing to hardware differences. I'd expect its the same situation here with the bass management and V3 vs V2 hardware.

How many are using a pair of subs anyway?

I've been using a pair of subs in a stereo configuration since 1990. And a single one since 1977. It's taking a long the idea to game actual traction. A lot of lip service but mostly just a tease.