I’ll definitely be listening to SACD. I am one of the few with a decent sized collection. I am also one of the few that notice a difference, at least with some discs, certainly not all. That's a whole different argument though. DVD-A as well. I’d like to get another opinion by having someone come over too. I could always be bias subconsciously or not. At least if someone else concurs, it’ll be more objective.

I am really impressed with the picture. My current BRP is the Marantz 8002.

Regarding the BDP-93. Apparently it's different in that it has Blu-ray 3D, Streaming, Dual HDMI, and eSATA. I went ahead with the Theta unit because I value 2-ch first and was sick and tired of the BR load times of my current BR player. So I went from two players (one for BR and one for audio) to hopefully just one for all.

I don't see myself going to 3D anytime soon. I'm not thrilled with the idea of wearing glasses while watching a movie even though it looks cool, and I don't see myself sinking a ton of coin into upgrading a projector since I am very happy with the one I have now that is only a year old. I could stream easily enough, but I still like getting the physical CD and going through the case and booklet, so streaming isn’t a big deal to me, nor is the eSATA.

So the bottom line is - I am not sure what I am giving up by getting the Theta now. Maybe in a year or two I'll revisit, but by then I will have had a year or two of enjoyment from what I have now...afterall...I don't NEED any of this, it's all for kicks and giggles – my personal enjoyment and relaxation – nothing more.

I understand the reason for Oppo doing the 93 and running out of inventory of 83s is the lack of supply lasers from Sony, or the drive, or something like that. Seems like they had no choice but to make a change.

Let's face...anything you buy today will end up being obsoleted in technology eventually.

A lot quicker than eventually.

A lot quicker than eventually.

I've been told that I've been obsolete for years. My parts though all work, though many of them "putter" along!:D

I've been told that I've been obsolete for years. My parts though all work, though many of them "putter" along!:DLet's hope you do not have a need for factory service.

I've been told that I've been obsolete for years. My parts though all work, though many of them "putter" along!:D

So I guess it goes without saying - your out of warranty...

So I guess it goes without saying - your out of warranty...

Thats a nice way of puttin' it!:cool:

I had a major factory service about 15 months ago. Without it I would have been fried and buried by now. Fortunately, the techs knew what they were doing and while the service cost almost as much as a good HT at dealer accommodation costs, it was worth every penny and I had a service contract that paid all but a tiny fraction of it.

Now Dave. Tell me exactly what is wrong with lying back and letting a women do the work. Not only will the results be enjoyable but you will pretty much be able to watch the whole show while she is doing the work..

Some of you guys are just clueless. You mitch about the wrong things.

I had a major factory service about 15 months ago. Without it I would have been fried and buried by now. Fortunately, the techs knew what they were doing and while the service cost almost as much as a good HT at dealer accommodation costs, it was worth every penny and I had a service contract that paid all but a tiny fraction of it.



Yea, that U.S Govt retiree healthplan is the best that you don't have to spend money to buy. Congrats. And we are glad to have you still here!!
Will see you in a month when you siesta to Az for your daughter's ASU graduation!!@@@

Now Dave. Tell me exactly what is wrong with lying back and letting a women do the work. Not only will the results be enjoyable but you will pretty much be able to watch the whole show while she is doing the work.

Now that's largely dependent on inventory and useful service life too...isn't it?




Hmm...good thing my wife doesn't know my username...

He Steve. I still am paying for my retiree health plan and now that medicare Part A has kicked in I had to add medicare Part B to it for about $220 a month more.

He Steve. I still am paying for my retiree health plan and now that medicare Part A has kicked in I had to add medicare Part B to it for about $220 a month more.I heard you get a free Oppo 83 player with Part B. :cool::cool:

He Steve. I still am paying for my retiree health plan and now that medicare Part A has kicked in I had to add medicare Part B to it for about $220 a month more.

Peanuts!!!@@@

Chocolate.

Can someone explaine it me that, why would I spend the money on the compli
blu instead to buy a cheaper oppo its much cheaper. Consider my orginal compli is garbage now which Theta won't even service it if anything happen to it:mad: I've check their website and look up the manuel, after the first few page it turn in to the oppo manuel:confused:

Can someone explaine it me that, why would I spend the money on the compli
blu instead to buy a cheaper oppo its much cheaper. Consider my orginal compli is garbage now which Theta won't even service it if anything happen to it:mad: I've check their website and look up the manuel, after the first few page it turn in to the oppo manuel:confused:

Can someone explaine it me that, why would I spend the money on the compli
blu instead to buy a cheaper oppo its much cheaper. Consider my orginal compli is garbage now which Theta won't even service it if anything happen to it:mad: I've check their website and look up the manuel, after the first few page it turn in to the oppo manuel:confused:

Read my review of the Compli Blu and comparison with the Oppo 83SE that I posted earlier in this thread. You find it here:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=18331038#post18331038

I added an update later:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=19006470&highlight=#post19006470

This will explain to you why some of us have chosen the Compli Blu over the Oppo. But if it is wise to get the Compli Blu now regarding Theta´s service and how well they are doing - or not - at the moment I don´t know. Some say Theta is financially stronger than ever and that sales is going well, some believe they are soon bankrupt... Time will tell, but that´s another topic. Technically the Compli Blu is a very good player.

Note that the Compli Blu soon will be replaced by a Mk.II version, based on the new Oppo BDP-93 which has HDMI 1.4 and 3D. Personally I couldn´t care less...

Note that the Compli Blu soon will be replaced by a Mk.II version, based on the new Oppo BDP-93 which has HDMI 1.4 and 3D. Personally I couldn´t care less...

Any ideas on when this will happen?

To the question - I have a Nuforce 83SE here as well as the Theta. I'll be able to get you an idea soon, I just don't have time to answer right now.

Any ideas on when this will happen?

No.

FYI - Here's a shot of the Compli Blu next to the Nuforce Oppo BDP-83SE - As you see, complete different case, but it's tough to see in this photo the heights and the quality:

FYI - Here's a shot of the Compli Blu next to the Nuforce Oppo BDP-83SE - As you see, complete different case, but it's tough to see in this photo the heights and the quality:

Do you have a (stock) bdp-83 shot for a reference?

Try looking at this article:

http://www.laaudiofile.com/oppo_bdp83se.html

The Oppo images are copied from this article. The Theta Images I took.

Gotta to go get some work done now...

Try looking at this article:

http://www.laaudiofile.com/oppo_bdp83se.html

The Oppo images are copied from this article. The Theta Images I took.

Gotta to go get some work done now...

I think you can ask my "friend" Doug (DW) (see my signature below) for pix of whatever you want. From the insides of audio gear

(http://s716.photobucket.com/albums/ww161/DougWinsor/)

to some very attractive females

(Do a Google search for "Doug Winsor Photo" and you will see all you can see if you know what I mean)

Steve - please keep it civil. This needs to stay fun for us to stay involved.

Now, in regard to your link...thank you! It makes me feel a little (emphasis on "a little") better knowing someone is more neurotic on this stuff than I am.

I seem to go in cycles, every few years I go nuts again and then I disconnect altogether for a few years and just enjoy what I have. But I don't think I'd ever go as far as to collect a set of photos like that. Heck, if my phone didn't take photos, I wouldn't even have the Theta shots I took...

Got insomnia?

To the question of why spend the money on the Theta over the much less expensive Oppo, there are a few factors to look at, especially before throwing anyone under the bus…IMHO...which seems to be the first thing that happens to the manufacturer and/or purchaser of such items.

First and foremost…hopefully the Theta Sounds better, so you pay more for the sound and/or video quality.

The reality is that only the user can ultimately decide if spending any money on any A/V gear is worth it…as digressed upon earlier in this thread. This includes any sound quality improvement whether it’s real or perceived, as if there’s a difference, especially since Theta’s reputation is in the HiFi /sound end of A/V over the Video side of things.

So why is there so much confusion over these players, and why are companies like Theta, Ayre and Lexicon seemingly pilfering the Oppo?

I think Theta knows they need to have a source component in their product line. The problem is how to have one that can compete in today’s market, and with a limited number of component suppliers. Specifically some of the drive components which are manufactured by only a few different companies, at least that’s what I am lead to believe, but I am not in this business.

From the beginning Theta was very clear about what they were doing with the Compli and the Oppo, so at least they cannot be accused of trying to fool their customers like the way Lexicon appeared to do.

Now - to the gritty details – Has Theta put in a legitimate effort to improve the Oppo? IMO, they have. Now that I have one in hand, it is easy to tell there’s been a good amount of extra effort, and therefore money poured into it.

The first thing you notice is that the chassis is completely different, and far stiffer/stronger. The metal used in the Compli is more than 50% thicker than the Oppo. With the covers off, the Oppo seem particularly fragile and vulnerable. You can feel and hear it flex in your hands if you’re not careful. The cover seems to help it stay together. It has a feel of something you’d pick up one afternoon at BB to put in your kid’s dorm room.

The Compli’s chassis on the other hand, is strong enough that it would take a deliberate effort to twist or damage the structure. So there is the tactile feel of quality with the Theta, something Theta customers would expect ,especially when paying the premium. I know I would be disappointed if I spent a couple of grand on the Oppo just based on how it looks and feels in my hands (please – no flames…I’m prejudiced on such matters and I now it, and am OK with it). Ahhhh – but in the end does any of this make it sound any better…? The never answered question…

The Compli’s chassis is a bit deeper too so that the transport and the digital/video board don't overlap. This is how they can mount the transport to the chassis’ base. If you’re going through the trouble of building your own chassis, why not do this? The outputs and general rear layout is very close since the A/V connections are all mounted to the internal boards…which are the same in both the Oppo and the Theta.

The bits of foam on top of the drive are still there on the Compli too– no sure why though. On the Oppo you can see how they would be a kind of damper, being sandwiched between the drive and the top cover. However they don’t touch anything in the Compli since the drive is mounted so low.

And of course the thick faceplate and pretty cover that match the other gear in Theta’s product line. Again, the audible effects of these details can be debated until the cows come home, but there should be little doubt these changes cost Theta to implement, and therefore that cost will be passed onto the consumer.

Theta also had to make their own front controls and display since the transport has been remounted to the floor of the chassis. Although the button layout is similar, it does appear that Theta had to have their own stuff built – big whoop for the sound side of things, but it does cost yet more money.

The biggest change clearly comes in the power supply, which is different from the BDP-83, the SE, as well as the NuForce version. It uses a toroidal transformer, and a completely different main power board.

Upgrading power supplies is nothing new in A/V, and most folks would agree that there are improvements when done properly. From conversations I’ve had over the years, a switching power supply is small, lightweight, and efficient, so it’s easier to package, especially in an enclosed case, not to mention it has become much more attractive in price more recently. Keep in mind too that the weight difference is more significant than you might think because of how it affects shipping cost, which has an impact on the bottom line. As mentioned earlier, the Oppo case is very thin sheet metal and I wonder if it could properly support a heavy transformer. Heck, the Compli Blu power supply alone might weigh close to a complete BDP-83 weight. So a switching power supply seems like a winner.

But the A/V community in general feels that a switching power supply is not ideal in these applications for several reasons starting with emission of RFI and EMI noise which can effect nearby circuits in a way we can hear and/or see.

A more traditional linear power supply tends to be quiet, but is less efficient, physically large, and heavy, and maybe now more expensive since the price of metals has gone up so much over the last few years (not so sure on that last one).

Anyway – several paragraphs ago this became too long of a post…the bottom line is that clearly Theta has spent some time and effort on the Oppo to create the Compli Blu. It will be one’s own opinion if the Compli Blu is better than the Oppo BDP-83, or the BDP-83SE, or the NuForce BDP-83SE.

I am still going through my own familiarization with the NuForce and the Compli Blu, but I don’t want to draw any conclusions until I really have some time with both. So far, I am impressed with both. I’ve just been too busy with the real world lately and haven’t had the time concentrate on this part of my “hobby.”

This must be a record long post...

Insomnia cured?

Dave thanks for taken your time to provided all these detail information. I love Theta's
product but I am reluctant to throw in money for a product which won't even get service after coupe years ,like the orginal compli that I have :( After reading your write up I am think about to give it a try hopefully won't get burn again.
Thanks again

For that kind of money , im not impressed with the compliblu at all.


If i were to use an analog section , the pioneer 09-FD has a better over all build and its much cheaper. And if I were to be sending bitstream audio information having my pre/pro do the unpacking id rather go with a PS3. The sound would be the same.

For that kind of money , im not impressed with the compliblu at all.


If i were to use an analog section , the pioneer 09-FD has a better over all build and its much cheaper. And if I were to be sending bitstream audio information having my pre/pro do the unpacking id rather go with a PS3. The sound would be the same.

When did you hear it or see it?

HiFi - In regard to service, I would guess the biggest issue will be supply of the drive. This problem will be the same for all Oppo BDP-83 based players, and I think is why they went out of production. Obviously, I am not too concerned about the service. I think after a good amount of time has passed, servicing an older disc spinner becomes a moot point when then new products might cost only a little more than servicing an older one as they become obsolete.

if my slim PS3 sounds exactly the same as my Pioneer 09-FD did while bitstreaming hd codecs to my prepro and the pioneer 09-FD sounded worse using the analog outs than I can come to a pretty good assumption that the Theta would sound no better.

The high price tag doesn't fool me.

i just expect more from Theta on the build quality of the analog section. They are super high end.

What DACs are used in the analog section?

baddgsx - Keep in mind that Theta calls this a "transport" which might imply they expect it to connect via HDMI to their other gear...I think.

Perhaps this is why they put the effort into the power supply and the standard BDP-83 other guts, not the BDP-83SE. BTW - The Compli Blu has the same analog audio board as the BDP-83 too.

On the other hand, perhaps they committed to this before the SE version was out...who knows.

Hmm - how about putting an SE board into a Compli Blu...

I just took a look at the BDP-93 spec sheet and it appears as though it will have the same audio DAC section as the basic 83. Furthermore, only one set of 7.1 analog outputs. This wouldn't work for me since I use a different 2-ch preamp and my pre/pro for multi-channel. Haven't messed with multi-channel audio over HDMI yet though.

The world is moving towards all digital it seems...which is what the 93 looks to be ideally suited for as well as 3D.

I just took a look at the BDP-93 spec sheet and it appears as though it will have the same audio DAC section as the basic 83. Furthermore, only one set of 7.1 analog outputs. This wouldn't work for me since I use a different 2-ch preamp and my pre/pro for multi-channel. Haven't messed with multi-channel audio over HDMI yet though.

The world is moving towards all digital it seems...which is what the 93 looks to be ideally suited for as well as 3D.

If you havent checked out multi channel bitstreamed HDMI , i suggest you do. Honestly , to me the difference was big. It was big enough for me to easily sell my 09-FD and not look back.

If you havent checked out multi channel bitstreamed HDMI , i suggest you do. Honestly , to me the difference was big. It was big enough for me to easily sell my 09-FD and not look back.

I went the other way. Started out with a Denon 2500 HDMI transport which sounded horrible over my Onkyo 885 Pre/Pro. Bought the Pioneer 09FD and played it MCH analog into the Onkyo. Big improvement.

I have since upgraded both the Pioneer and the Onkyo, but stick with analog. Only decent sounding HDMI MC audio I have ever been able to get was DSD direct from a Sony XA5400 into the Onkyo 885 - this was obviously SACD only.

Interestingly, there is a Compli Blu Ray review on Audiogon and after break in the owner prefers Analog over HDMI for music (using a Cary Cinema 11a). So the few reviews I have read all suggest the strenght of the Compli is as an HDMI transport (not an analog source), AND the Cary is far from the final word in MCH analog preamps. Nonetheless, the Compli BR + Cary sounds better analog than over HDMI (to the guy on audiogon anyway). This is another datapoint that says for MUSIC the analog route beats HDMI hands down, which would be entirely consistent with my experience.

If you havent checked out multi channel bitstreamed HDMI , i suggest you do. Honestly , to me the difference was big. It was big enough for me to easily sell my 09-FD and not look back.

What are you using as a pre/pro?

When I played with this in the past I always ended up strongly preferring analog connections for 2-ch. I never really got into m-channel audio even though I am well set up for it. My 2-ch sound is very enveloping and more real sounding. Whenever I went HDMI or even coax before, I seemed to dramatically loose quality. I went about changing cables to see if that was it, but it wasn't.

My Pre/pros have changed over the years too. Only recently could they decode like they do today. I am now using a Marantz AV8003. Having been disgruntled with Digital connections for audio, especially after getting the Gill Alana pre-amp which is excellent, I just couldn't commit the big coin to my pre-pro since I use it primarily for movies and occasional m-channel audio.

So my experience is more like edorr's...and I tend not to continue to revisit it...but I will again just for kicks and giggles.

... And if I were to be sending bitstream audio information having my pre/pro do the unpacking id rather go with a PS3. The sound would be the same.
Not at all. I have both the Theta Compli Blu and a PS3 connected with HDMI to my surround processor so I have compared them side by side. (Because you say "would be the same" I guess you haven´t). And the Theta Compli is far superior both in audio and picture quality, even over the standard Oppo.

It is not only analog that matters. The transport mechanism, PSU, shielding etc etc. - it all matters. It is the same as with CD transports. It is not only the DAC which is important, the transport also.

Not at all. I have both the Theta Compli Blu and a PS3 connected with HDMI to my surround processor so I have compared them side by side. (Because you say "would be the same" I guess you haven´t). And the Theta Compli is far superior both in audio and picture quality, even over the standard Oppo.


Cough bull **** cough!!

Whoa. Smelled crap and I started coughing!

Now I never opened my now sold Theta Compli, which I bought back in 2005
(from the Theta dealer who was then behaving), but I recall being told that it had a switching power supply. Mebbe my memory ain't so good? But it sounds like Theta went to bat using a real good power supply for the Compli Blu.

Cough bull **** cough!!

Whoa. Smelled crap and I started coughing!

Necessary?

Certainly antagonistic, useless and insulting.

Cough bull **** cough!!

Whoa. Smelled crap and I started coughing!

What did you do? Swallow that tiny switching power supply in your ADA:D SSP?:D

Necessary?

Certainly antagonistic, useless and insulting.

You forgot 'truthful'. No one has ever shown this to be true. Packed bitstreamng is better with the Theta???

[laughing]

You forgot 'truthful'. No one has ever shown this to be true. Packed bitstreamng is better with the Theta???

[laughing]

"Truthful" :rolleyes: You didn't say anything but to fling an insult.

Simple request -whether you agree or disagree, even strongly, can everyone just be civil and respectful?

That's everyone, not just thebland.

Show us proof. Bitstreamed signals are compressed files transported to the SSP. no jitter, etc. There's no way you can make ridiculous, unfounded statements sndnot be challenged (Sorry you don't like my style). But your statement doesn't even have a theory to support it let alone any objective corroboration.

Frankly I'm tired of these statements.

You forgot 'truthful'. No one has ever shown this to be true. Packed bitstreamng is better with the Theta???

[laughing]

How does one "show" anything to be "true" in audio? Subjective experience. If we were to dismiss all listening experiences that were hard to rationalize on theoretical grounds, there would be precisously little to talk about (other than specsheets) on this forum.

If I can hear a distinct difference swapping out a powercord an a CD transport, why would a redesigned powersupply on the Compli not yield Audible improvement? May be I was hallucinating. But thenagain, why did my magic mushrooms stop working when I put a $500 vibration platform under the same CD transport and heard absolutely no difference? Who knows.

Incidentally, as we speak Kal is reviewing a Ayre universal as an HDMI transport, comparing it to a standard Oppo. If he finds the Ayre to sound better are you going to call him out as a bull shi*ter?

I personally like to hear others' subjective opinions about SQ of different components in A/B comparisons. You do not do anyone any favors by insulting the folks that bother to actually compare components and report on this on the forum.

I think I read that Armand did his HDMI listening using LPCM.

Jeff. A person who has done an awful lot in presenting info about the Compliblu has made a reasonable behavioral request. You can disagree in a civil manner rather than as a political heckler. It is disruptive and leads to unnecessary posts including mine which of course gives you the opportunity to heckle more.

I rspect you, you respect me. Please respect the wishes of the participants here.

There is a place here to disagree civally. If you are tired of something being said here, ignore it. You have made your decision regarding Theta and material here won`t change it. If you want to read this stuff lurk, smirk, but stop heckling. Thanks.

LPCM? well you can add jitter with lpcm. Not sure why anyone with HDMI 1.3 would use lpcm. Moreover some bd players and pre-HDMI 1.3 receivers mishandle lfe w/ lpcm.

Bitstreamed packets are analogous to zip files. Hard to see how the Theta is somehow improving such.

It's not good enough to make such an unsupported claim and then defend it with the old 'because I say it's better' mantra.

Thanks Jeff. You are a good man.

Jeff. A person who has done an awful lot in presenting info about the Compliblu has made a reasonable behavioral request. You can disagree in a civil manner rather than as a political heckler. It is disruptive and leads to unnecessary posts including mine which of course gives you the opportunity to heckle more.

I rspect you, you respect me. Please respect the wishes of the participants here.

There is a place here to disagree civally. If you are tired of something being said here, ignore it. You have made your decision regarding Theta and material here won`t change it. If you want to read this stuff lurk, smirk, but stop heckling. Thanks.

I understand your point. Civility is good but the ludicrous nature of the claim made me flip. It is AVScience. Nobody is using lpcm so the idea of a marked improvement with bitstreamed audio being 'better' on one player than another is lunacy.

Dave , I'm using the same pre/pro as you av8003.
My equipment is as follows
Pioneer 141 panel
Wyred4sound mc 500x3 250x2 mc amp
Ps3
Definitive tech 7000sc fronts
Dt 7001sc sides
Audience ar12 power conditioner

Make sure ur sending bitstream and not PCM. I tried PCM with and without Audyssey and they don't compare to bitstream hdmi on my setup. Bitstreamed hd audio through the marrantz sounds sooo dynamic and transparent.

What I do wonder though is if the denon avp-1 with TRUE balanced xlrs would sound better. Or if the denon which could decode bitstream and then apply Audyssey would sound better.

Right now I can't afford that thought upgrade because of my videography hobby which is an expensive investment.

Sending lpcm signals through hdmi is definitely different sounding than sending bitstreamed info and having the ssp dsp do the magic

Not at all. I have both the Theta Compli Blu and a PS3 connected with HDMI to my surround processor so I have compared them side by side. (Because you say "would be the same" I guess you haven´t). And the Theta Compli is far superior both in audio and picture quality, even over the standard Oppo.

It is not only analog that matters. The transport mechanism, PSU, shielding etc etc. - it all matters. It is the same as with CD transports. It is not only the DAC which is important, the transport also.

I don't buy it either. Just face the truth , digital hdmi killed the ultra high end!

They need to focus on stronger DSP chips now.

OK - you've got me revisiting the whole LPCM vs bitstreamed for the HD codecs as well as trying different things for music. Now I need even more time to mess with all of this. The manuals all stink for sorting this stuff out.

As mention - 2-channel is my priority even though my room is acoustically certified, set up for multi-channel music (equidistant speakers) and my display is THX calibrated and certified. I've just gotten away from the rest of it over the last few years. I took a set it and forget it attitude.

I was just revisiting some old posts as to why I went with LPCM to begin with. It had something to do with the combination of the BD8002 player and the AV8003 pre/pro. I was on top of the details back then, but just can't remember them now (old age setting in).

Interesting post #11 here on the Ayre thread:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1181755
This implies the power supply is rather critical...as expected.

I was hoping to play with this tonight - unfortunately my daughter's sleep-over has resulted in movie watching and my hanging with my better half and some wine...so not likely tonight.

And post #13:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1181755

Sad - I'm sitting here with my wife, playing on the computer while we text each other from each side of the sofa. Kinda funny, but sad too.

Jeff. A person who has done an awful lot in presenting info about the Compliblu has made a reasonable behavioral request. You can disagree in a civil manner rather than as a political heckler. It is disruptive and leads to unnecessary posts including mine which of course gives you the opportunity to heckle more.

I rspect you, you respect me. Please respect the wishes of the participants here.

There is a place here to disagree civally. If you are tired of something being said here, ignore it. You have made your decision regarding Theta and material here won`t change it. If you want to read this stuff lurk, smirk, but stop heckling. Thanks.

I understand your point. Civility is good but the ludicrous nature of the claim made me flip. It is AVScience. Nobody is using lpcm so the idea of a marked improvement with bitstreamed audio being 'better' on one player than another is lunacy.

I understand your point. Civility is good but the ludicrous nature of the claim made me flip. It is AVScience. Nobody is using lpcm so the idea of a marked improvement with bitstreamed audio being 'better' on one player than another is lunacy.

So bitstreaming would solve all HDMI jitter issues and make all transports sound the same? Why would Charles Hansson bother to sink substantial R&D $$$ into building a better HDMI transport if the whole enterprise was pointless on the basis of digital technology theoretical grounds?

Is Charles Hansson profiting on his 'improvements'?

Moreover. There is no jitter to speak of when bitstreaming. LPCM? Then, yes.

Is Charles Hansson profiting on his 'improvements'?

Moreover. There is no jitter to speak of when bitstreaming. LPCM? Then, yes.

If his improvements were all imaginary he would go the Lexicon route and stick a standard Oppo in an Ayre chassis.

Like Theta?

Like Theta?

Exactly. Theta, Lexicon, Oppo, Ayre are all part of the great HDMI conspiracy, solely aimed at defrauding gullible audiophiles. If only these suckers would read up on digital engineering theory, they would run to radioshack to get a $99 bitstreaming HDMI transport and hook it up to their ADA Mach IV. In fact, I suspect Stereophile and Kal are in on the scam if they report the Ayre sounds better than the standard Oppo over HDMI. We'll see.

Why would Charles Hansson bother to sink substantial R&D $$$ into building a better HDMI transport if the whole enterprise was pointless on the basis of digital technology theoretical grounds?

Because, whether there is really any difference or not, some subset of hiend consumers believe there is and will spend $10K. I'm hopeful that reviews of the Ayre as a digital transport do in fact show an improvement.

Moreover. There is no jitter to speak of when bitstreaming. LPCM? Then, yes.
As non-intuitive as it might sound, what you say is not correct at all! :)

Here is the issue. You are right that when the compressed bitstream is being sent, it is indeed "data" and has no explicit timing. So all the receive has to do is capture the bits which it can do reliably even in the face of pretty severe amount of jitter.

What do you do with those compressed bits you just captured? You give them to a DSP which decodes them using the appropriate decoder logic (AC-3, TrueHD, etc). Now you have PCM samples sitting in the memory of the DSP.

What do you do with PCM samples? They need a clock in order to be fed to the DAC at the right rate.

No, you don't get to pick 48 Khz just because that is what the nominal data rate of the audio is advertised to be by the source. Audio is slaved to video in these applications. Meaning the master clock is video, not audio. Each frame of video will have X number of audio samples and by the time you display the next frame of video, you better have played precisely that many audio samples -- no more, no less.

As an example, the BD disc can be "muxed" in such a way that you have 48,001 samples or 47,999/second to match the video frame rate. And hence the reason I said the data rate that comes as part of the header of the bistream is the nominal value, not actual.

So guess where we get the audio clock from. HDMI! You must derive your audio clock from that because that is the rate being produced by the source and your DAC must stay synchronous to it. Anything else will be wrong and cause the audio to lose sync with video over a few seconds.

In reality then, there is no fidelity advantage to bitstreaming as far as jitter is concerned. Indeed, I can make a case that by having the audio DSP whaling in the AVR, you may be introducing more jitter into the DAC clock than if PCM was fed to to it! In the words of the Oracle in the movie Matrix, "if that doesn't cook your noodle, I don't know what will!" :D

Let me mention that you were right about video. Since our displays have fixed pixel locations, timing jitters mean nothing there (as long as data is not corrupted). So changing the power supply, heavier chassis, etc. mean nothing for video. If you are seeing something different, that is because your player is feeding a different format to your display (e.g. if levels are different). This would mean one or the other player is not working right and not cause for celebration that Theta has done something to improve video.

If someone from Theta wants to explain how video is improved, I am all ears. Until then, the only area that can be improved by what they have done is audio. How much is impossible to quantify. But there is possibility for improvement in both analog and digital domains.

I think I read that Armand did his HDMI listening using LPCM.

That has only been for a short period because of a bug that showed up in one of the latest firmware versions for my Cary Cinema 11a. This bug was fixed by Cary in their latest firmware, so now I am back to bitstream.

This discussion is reminding me about those who don´t believe there are differences in digital cables either. Hearing is believing!

But also seeing is believing! When I got Nordost Silver Screen HDMI cables I had to recalibrate the settings in my video processor. The picture got so much brighter, more colors when I got a complete loom of these cables, I was chocked.

This discussion is reminding me about those who don´t believe there are differences in digital cables either. Hearing is believing!

But also seeing is believing! When I got Nordost Silver Screen HDMI cables I had to recalibrate the settings in my video processor. The picture got so much brighter, more colors when I got a complete loom of these cables, I was chocked.

I did giggle reading this. What length are you using over 1000 feet? I use all dvigear hdmi cables because of their strong build quality and performance but wouldn't spend more. It's not needed

I ran a couple 3-12 foot tests using two types of hdmi cables. Did not see or hear a difference. And to make sure my eyes were ok I used the eyeone pro to test my rec 709 standard settings. The results were the same. I was still at 35 foot lambs for contrast.

I did giggle reading this. What length are you using over 1000 feet? I use all dvigear hdmi cables because of their strong build quality and performance but wouldn't spend more. It's not needed

I ran a couple 3-12 foot tests using two types of hdmi cables. Did not see or hear a difference. And to make sure my eyes were ok I used the eyeone pro to test my rec 709 standard settings. The results were the same. I was still at 35 foot lambs for contrast.

+1. Pure horse ****.

Is Charles Hansson profiting on his 'improvements'?

Moreover. There is no jitter to speak of when bitstreaming. LPCM? Then, yes.

Charles is saving using his profits on this compliblu to pay for the new casablanca hdmi 1.3 licenses fees which are not cheap.

That's probably why we haven't seen the hdmi board on it yet. Soo buy up everyone so maybe this year we can see this Casablanca hdmi

Fair points.

That said,I see your bit streaming jitter explanation as having a nuance in impact on the typical Blu Ray release (at best). I appreciate the explanations.

Yes we agree that the player would have zero impact on video.

I find these wild admonitions of ones own gear funny at best.

Thanks!

As non-intuitive as it might sound, what you say is not correct at all! :)

Here is the issue. You are right that when the compressed bitstream is being sent, it is indeed "data" and has no explicit timing. So all the receive has to do is capture the bits which it can do reliably even in the face of pretty severe amount of jitter.

What do you do with those compressed bits you just captured? You give them to a DSP which decodes them using the appropriate decoder logic (AC-3, TrueHD, etc). Now you have PCM samples sitting in the memory of the DSP.

What do you do with PCM samples? They need a clock in order to be fed to the DAC at the right rate.

No, you don't get to pick 48 Khz just because that is what the nominal data rate of the audio is advertised to be by the source. Audio is slaved to video in these applications. Meaning the master clock is video, not audio. Each frame of video will have X number of audio samples and by the time you display the next frame of video, you better have played precisely that many audio samples -- no more, no less.

As an example, the BD disc can be "muxed" in such a way that you have 48,001 samples or 47,999/second to match the video frame rate. And hence the reason I said the data rate that comes as part of the header of the bistream is the nominal value, not actual.

So guess where we get the audio clock from. HDMI! You must derive your audio clock from that because that is the rate being produced by the source and your DAC must stay synchronous to it. Anything else will be wrong and cause the audio to lose sync with video over a few seconds.

In reality then, there is no fidelity advantage to bitstreaming as far as jitter is concerned. Indeed, I can make a case that by having the audio DSP whaling in the AVR, you may be introducing more jitter into the DAC clock than if PCM was fed to to it! In the words of the Oracle in the movie Matrix, "if that doesn't cook your noodle, I don't know what will!" :D

Let me mention that you were right about video. Since our displays have fixed pixel locations, timing jitters mean nothing there (as long as data is not corrupted). So changing the power supply, heavier chassis, etc. mean nothing for video. If you are seeing something different, that is because your player is feeding a different format to your display (e.g. if levels are different). This would mean one or the other player is not working right and not cause for celebration that Theta has done something to improve video.

If someone from Theta wants to explain how video is improved, I am all ears. Until then, the only area that can be improved by what they have done is audio. How much is impossible to quantify. But there is possibility for improvement in both analog and digital domains.

Charles is saving using his profits on this compliblu to pay for the new casablanca hdmi 1.3 licenses fees which are not cheap.

That's probably why we haven't seen the hdmi board on it yet. Soo buy up everyone so maybe this year we can see this Casablanca hdmi

I see Roger has his hdmi board upgrade on his Classe 800. Looks like Theta was beaten again.

I see Roger has his hdmi board upgrade on his Classe 800. Looks like Theta was beaten again.

Using HDMI 1.3b the CT-SSP offers internal decoding of Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio sources. Digital Signal Processing (DSP) is handled by two Texas Instruments processors, each capable of up to a remarkable 2800 MIPS (Million Instructions per Second). The DSPs operate in 64-bit double precision and use floating point arithmetic for all audio signal calculations to ensure the most accurate results possible.

64 bit dsp chips! I would love to test this out to see i could hear a difference.


Bland , im surprised you haven't gone for this piece.

Using HDMI 1.3b the CT-SSP offers internal decoding of Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio sources. Digital Signal Processing (DSP) is handled by two Texas Instruments processors, each capable of up to a remarkable 2800 MIPS (Million Instructions per Second). The DSPs operate in 64-bit double precision and use floating point arithmetic for all audio signal calculations to ensure the most accurate results possible.

64 bit dsp chips! I would love to test this out to see i could hear a difference.


Bland , im surprised you haven't gone for this piece.

I considered it but wanted more inputs and a LAN connection. That said, it does look to be a first class sonic performer. Also, the ADA has a more sophisticated PEQ.

As non-intuitive as it might sound, what you say is not correct at all! :)

Here is the issue. You are right that when the compressed bitstream is being sent, it is indeed "data" and has no explicit timing. So all the receive has to do is capture the bits which it can do reliably even in the face of pretty severe amount of jitter.

What do you do with those compressed bits you just captured? You give them to a DSP which decodes them using the appropriate decoder logic (AC-3, TrueHD, etc). Now you have PCM samples sitting in the memory of the DSP.

What do you do with PCM samples? They need a clock in order to be fed to the DAC at the right rate.

No, you don't get to pick 48 Khz just because that is what the nominal data rate of the audio is advertised to be by the source. Audio is slaved to video in these applications. Meaning the master clock is video, not audio. Each frame of video will have X number of audio samples and by the time you display the next frame of video, you better have played precisely that many audio samples -- no more, no less.

As an example, the BD disc can be "muxed" in such a way that you have 48,001 samples or 47,999/second to match the video frame rate. And hence the reason I said the data rate that comes as part of the header of the bistream is the nominal value, not actual.

So guess where we get the audio clock from. HDMI! You must derive your audio clock from that because that is the rate being produced by the source and your DAC must stay synchronous to it. Anything else will be wrong and cause the audio to lose sync with video over a few seconds.

In reality then, there is no fidelity advantage to bitstreaming as far as jitter is concerned. Indeed, I can make a case that by having the audio DSP whaling in the AVR, you may be introducing more jitter into the DAC clock than if PCM was fed to to it! In the words of the Oracle in the movie Matrix, "if that doesn't cook your noodle, I don't know what will!" :D

Let me mention that you were right about video. Since our displays have fixed pixel locations, timing jitters mean nothing there (as long as data is not corrupted). So changing the power supply, heavier chassis, etc. mean nothing for video. If you are seeing something different, that is because your player is feeding a different format to your display (e.g. if levels are different). This would mean one or the other player is not working right and not cause for celebration that Theta has done something to improve video.

If someone from Theta wants to explain how video is improved, I am all ears. Until then, the only area that can be improved by what they have done is audio. How much is impossible to quantify. But there is possibility for improvement in both analog and digital domains.

Amir, since you appear to actually understand this technology let me ask you a question. I switched from an analog MCH system (McCormack MAP1) to HDMI after an in house audition of an (upgraded) Onkyo 885 and Sony XA5400 SACD player streaming DSD direct over HDMI. This sounded stellar and I though analog was dead, life was good (and cheap), and all I needed was an HDMI transport for video/BR. So I bought the (cheap) Denon 2500 (HDMI only transport), only to find out it sounded crap on my BR and DVD concert discs. I have since gone back to MCH analog. Can the dramatic difference in SQ between the audio only over HDMI Sony transport for SACD and the crappy Denon on BR be explained by the absence of a video clock in the Sony? If not how would you explain it?

I did giggle reading this. What length are you using over 1000 feet? I use all dvigear hdmi cables because of their strong build quality and performance but wouldn't spend more. It's not needed

I ran a couple 3-12 foot tests using two types of hdmi cables. Did not see or hear a difference. And to make sure my eyes were ok I used the eyeone pro to test my rec 709 standard settings. The results were the same. I was still at 35 foot lambs for contrast.

The hdmi cable from my video processor to the projector is 45 feet. The Nordost Silverscreen replaced an even costlier Wireworld Silver Starlight hdmi cable, but the less expensive Nordost was clearly better.

I had a professional who helped me with this and some other things and he did measurements in my system. He also was shocked when he saw the differences with his own eyes. He wasn´t prepared for that.

But I won´t throw this at you guys more anyway, I guess you still won´t believe it, or would you? Think to recall you said something about your own hdmi cables "strong performance"???

ps. Why don´t you throw in a Nordost Quantom Qx4 between the wall outlet and your projector, just for fun, and see what that will do!

The hdmi cable from my video processor to the projector is 45 feet. The Nordost Silverscreen replaced an even costlier Wireworld Silver Starlight hdmi cable, but the less expensive Nordost was clearly better.

I had a professional who helped me with this and some other things and he did measurements in my system. He also was shocked when he saw the differences with his own eyes. He wasn´t prepared for that.

But I won´t throw this at you guys more anyway, I guess you still won´t believe it, or would you? Think to recall you said something about your own hdmi cables "strong performance"???

ps. Why don´t you throw in a Nordost Quantom Qx4 between the wall outlet and your projector, just for fun, and see what that will do!

At those lengths I can see where you might have some issues but there are cheaper alternatives to fixing that problem. How much does a nordust 45 foot hdmi cable cost anyways. There's cables aren't cheap.

At those lengths I can see where you might have some issues but there are cheaper alternatives to fixing that problem. How much does a nordust 45 foot hdmi cable cost anyways. There's cables aren't cheap.

The Silverscreen was only about 1000 USD + VAT for 45 ft. So it is not as expensive as you could expect from Nordost! (For their HDMI cables they don´t charge a lot extra for additional lengths). They also carry a less expensive model called Wirewizard, but I find Silverscreen to be better and worth the price difference. As with their other cables I find it best to run Silverscreen all the way. Can´t explain why, it just seems to give the best result.

The most dramatic difference I've had in HDMI cables is longevity. I have a 35 or 40 foot run to my projector. I've had two cables go bad over time because they became stiff and brittle and failed when I moved some gear. Just another consideration. I also have had cables just flat out not work at this length, so I do believe there are quality differences.

I wonder if the connectors rather than the cable failed.

The connectors weren't really stressed in any way. The cable itself lost flexibility.

Either way - they were junk.

With 40 foot runs, you tend not to experiment "just to see". It's cost prohibitive.

Interesting post #11 here on the Ayre thread:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1181755

And post #13:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1181755

Is Charles Hansson profiting on his 'improvements'?
Moreover. There is no jitter to speak of when bitstreaming. LPCM? Then, yes.

So guess where we get the audio clock from. HDMI! You must derive your audio clock from that because that is the rate being produced by the source and your DAC must stay synchronous to it. Anything else will be wrong and cause the audio to lose sync with video over a few seconds.

Try post 690, which is very topical to this conversation - Charles Hansen is saying the same thing:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=18829749#post18829749


Originally Posted by scottsol
I've heard some people claim that the undecoded streams are less affected by jitter than LPCM.

NO! Our product is perfect!

OFF WITH HIS HEAD!

(Just kidding.)
~~~~~~~~~
Anything is possible. But it's not clear to me why that would be the case. The problem was literally that the HDMI connector was designed before the rest of the system, and they didn't have a spare wire to use as an audio clock (although there is a spare wire that has never been used for anything -- go figure).

The video clock is sent, which for 720p and 1080i is 74.25 MHz and for 1080p is 148.50 MHz (or that times 1000/1001, thanks to NTSC). Then the source sends signals to the receiver telling it what ratios to use in the audio PLL to recover the audio clock from the video clock.

In the best of circumstances this is a relatively high-jitter way to generate an audio clock. So the receiver is stuck with a jittery audio clock. The question is "Will sending packetized bitstream information create lower jitter than sending PCM?"

I can't think of a single reason why this would be true. The bitstream information has to be decoded by the receiver. Then it is in PCM form, which the DACs chips can understand. So in either case the net result is to send PCM to the DAC chips. And the conversion to analog is controlled by the local master audio clock. And that is all that matters -- how low is the jitter at the DAC chip.

So I would say that the claim of sending bitstream resulting in lower jitter is an urban myth.

All of which has been bothering me a great deal for a long time, as Amirm and Charles Hansen are the main reasons I stick with AVS. I'm one of those foolish folk who still believe bitstreaming sounds better than LPCM (and I presume its down to jitter). There was a comprehensive, reasoned post on AVS a while ago that explained better than I could, why bitstream connections should have an advantage over PCM. The context of that was with the use of spdif connections, and I wondered if it was the power of suggestion that made people think that amplifier decoding of HDMI bitstream also sounded better.

When I finally got to try it for myself (long story, and contrary to informed opinion) I was convinced bitstreaming was better.

Firstly, when I played an LPCM source, such as CD or decoded BD, I found good players sounded better than poor players (and some HDMI amps and processors could be transformed from sounding bad to sounding great just by changing the player).

Secondly, when I played a bitstream source, I never heard any difference between any players. Ever. Even comparing an expensive Denon with a cheap LG, which were miles apart with PCM.

A dozen BD players and a dozen receivers and processors have passed through my hands in the last year, and the story is the same with all of them, to a greater or lesser extent. Onkyo and Audiolab processors seem to be as vulnerable to LPCM-carried jitter as a leaky colander, while the Meridian 621/861 puts up a really good fight (without quite winning the battle).

So what to make of something that contradicts the views of the two people I respect the most?

Nick

Nick, I wish I had my own listening tests to put forth but I can't. It is not for lack of trying through. I have tried to setup such test fixtures but switch over time is so long when you change modes that I can't do reliable A/B blind tests (on myself). The audio mutes, glitches, etc. and then switches over. To me, if the switch over time is not less than a second, it is very hard to develop reliable observations.

That said, what I explained was the problem and not the solution. That is, no matter what happens, audio needs to stay in sync with HDMI clock. It is possible that people have come up with better ways of syncing the output of the DSP to HDMI clock than if they used HDMI clock directly.

Question for you: what do you hear as the differences?

Amir, I think there two ways to do the comparison.

The first is to change the players output mode between native/bitstream and decoded/LPCM. This can take time, as the disc may have to be stopped and re-started (very frustrating; though the Oppo is quick and easy). There are pitfalls, such as DRC and different output levels - some receivers play 3dB louder with bitstream inputs, some 6dB, some the same - go figure.

The second is to compare different players doing the same thing, back-to-back. Play the same BD (with a lossless compressed soundtrack) in two players, first with bitstream output, then LPCM output.

What I hear with bitstream (and the better players with PCM) is better focus and clarity, less veiling and muddle, and in particular a more transparent and open soundstage. Bitstream always sounds better to me, and even cheap players sound good. I've never heard any difference between bitstreaming players, and I've tried hard.

With LPCM there are small but clear differences between players, and these differences are exagerated when playing CDs. (This made me wonder about the possibility of, say, DTS-MA re-encoding for PCM sources, such as CD, or BDs & DVDs with PCM soundtracks.)

Since the HDMI spec suggests options for audio clock recovery in the sink, rather than defining the implementation, I figured that just because some receivers and processors (like Onkyo) behave this way, it might not apply to all of them. If, for bitstream inputs, the sink regenerates the audio clock by source-controlled rate decimation of the video clock, in the same way that it does with PCM sources, then I presumed the end result would be the same.

Therefore, if there's an audible difference between bitstream and PCM, that suggests a different clock recovery process is being used. Is it the right way? Maybe not, but before HDMI came along, it was still necessary to sync audio and video with DVD players. That was handled by the player - the receiver just received a DD or DTS bitstream over spdif, and generated an audio clock from that. The receiver never had a video clock to use.

Nick

The second is to compare different players doing the same thing, back-to-back. Play the same BD (with a lossless compressed soundtrack) in two players, first with bitstream output, then LPCM output.
I tried this too. At least on the AVR I was using, the delay and glitches were way too long.

My next attempt was going to be two identical AVRs, being fed with two BD players! :eek: I got close (bought two identical Onkyo AVRs) but didn't get to finish the job.

Since the HDMI spec suggests options for audio clock recovery in the sink, rather than defining the implementation, I figured that just because some receivers and processors (like Onkyo) behave this way, it might not apply to all of them. If, for bitstream inputs, the sink regenerates the audio clock by source-controlled rate decimation of the video clock, in the same way that it does with PCM sources, then I presumed the end result would be the same.
Well, that is yet another fun topic! :). Let's say the sink does implement that as does the source. And the sink instructs the source to slow down. Just exactly how does the source do that? The bits are coming at it furiously form the drive. It has no ability to slow down one of the streams and as a result lose sync.

One option is for it to interpolate when asked to speed up, and decimate+filter when asked to slow down. In either case, we get rid of jitter but then are at the mercy of this manipulation not being harmful. BTW, my theory as to why bitstream might sound better is that it might be performing this type of synchronization.

Therefore, if there's an audible difference between bitstream and PCM, that suggests a different clock recovery process is being used. Is it the right way?
I don't think we know. Reason I asked you to explain what you were hearing was to see if your observation matched what jitter normally does. I couldn't tell from the way you explained it :).

Problem with jitter is that it comes with all forms imaginable. It is entirely possible that when the DSP is decoding, it is adding other noise or jitter of its own which happens to sound better subjectively.

The right way to figure this out is to measure it both ways.

Maybe not, but before HDMI came along, it was still necessary to sync audio and video with DVD players. That was handled by the player - the receiver just received a DD or DTS bitstream over spdif, and generated an audio clock from that. The receiver never had a video clock to use.

Nick
Well, the player made sure that the clock it sent out on S/PDIF also matched its video output rate. Good news there was that people have figured out how to clean up S/PDIF clock. Fewer have figured out how to do that with HDMI.

Well, that is yet another fun topic! :). Let's say the sink does implement that as does the source. And the sink instructs the source to slow down. Just exactly how does the source do that? The bits are coming at it furiously form the drive. It has no ability to slow down one of the streams and as a result lose sync.

How would that happen? Did you mean the source instruct the sink to slow down? Might be talking cross-purposes, but what you're describing sounds like Audio Rate Control, which is another thing. I used to have a Pioneer combo, and that achieved much the same end result. I couldn't tell the difference between bitstream and PCM with ARC.

Interestingly though, ARC only works on PCM audio, not bitstream. That's another reason I suspect clock regeneration with bitstream is different to PCM. If they were the same, then surely ARC (PQLS, HATS etc) would work on both PCM and bitstream?

Its not solid information; just clues.

I don't think we know. Reason I asked you to explain what you were hearing was to see if your observation matched what jitter normally does. I couldn't tell from the way you explained it :).

I didn't want to give the impression I was jumping to conclusions, but bitstreaming seems to me to have the same benefits I've heard with other jitter-reduction schemes, such as TagLink, I-link and PQLS. I don't associate a particular "sound" to jitter, its more of a slight defocussing of everything, like looking through a frosted window. The sounds are still there, but everything gets a bit fuzzier.

Problem with jitter is that it comes with all forms imaginable. It is entirely possible that when the DSP is decoding, it is adding other noise or jitter of its own which happens to sound better subjectively.

Yup - or it could be that the additional decoding in the player is adding noise / distortion / interference / electrical pollution (call it what you will) to everything, and one way or another this finds its way into the DAC. If that were the case though, I'd expect rather variable results with different products.

Nick

Interestingly though, ARC only works on PCM audio, not bitstream. That's another reason I suspect clock regeneration with bitstream is different to PCM. If they were the same, then surely ARC (PQLS, HATS etc) would work on both PCM and bitstream?
I don't think that has anything to do with this topic. The machines that can't walk and chew gum that way are out of DSP horsepower. When receiving PCM audio, the DSP is free to do room correction. Once it starts to decode streams like DTS-HD-MA, then DSP cycles are used up and nothing is left for room correction.

I don't think that has anything to do with this topic. The machines that can't walk and chew gum that way are out of DSP horsepower. When receiving PCM audio, the DSP is free to do room correction. Once it starts to decode streams like DTS-HD-MA, then DSP cycles are used up and nothing is left for room correction.

Sorry, I meant Audio Rate Control, not Anthem Room Correction (or Audio Return Channel). I don’t think Audio Rate Control makes any significant increase to the receivers processing burden at all – just a bit of buffer monitoring and occasional flow control signalling. The heavy lifting is done by the player, which has to do all the codec decoding PLUS the rate matching.

There are several different implementations of flow control, including I-link, Denon Link, HATS and PQLS, which achieve much the same thing with varying degrees of inter-compatibility. These work with stereo PCM audio to give a DAC-master configuration.

However, I think it’s the most recent versions that are the most interesting: DL4 and multi-channel PQLS. These perform flow control for multi-channel audio as well, which is clever enough in itself. But what everyone seems to have overlooked is the outstanding accomplishment (IMHO) of achieving audio flow control with video sources, not just audio. I think the significance of this is that the player now has to synchronize the video to the audio, not the other way round. Both video and audio streams are read at varying rates, and have to be decoded to uncompressed streams running at the same speed for transmission to the receiver.

This has previously been done in DVD and BD players by syncing to the drum beat of the video clock, but now it’s effectively done against the audio clock. And an audio clock that comes from the receiver, at that. The player therefore has to manage and buffer the enormous video data rate, rather than treating that as the invariable. Awesome.

BUT – again these schemes only work with PCM audio, not bitstream. Hard to see how it would work with bitstream.

Nick

Much of these recent postings are way beyond my ability, and desire, to understand them. I have a simple question though - could RFI and/or EMI noise generated from within a unit, or even from outside a unit, effect any of the digital outputs (HDMI Video, LPCM, or bitstream audio)?

I will have my video professionally re-calibrated sometime soon, at which time I will likely have more than one player set up for BR in the house. I'll ask the calibrator to do one or two extra players to see what the differences are since he has the tools/meters to read them.

It is very difficult to say Dave with any certainty. There are a million variables there from the kind of EMI/RFI noise to circuit design and shielding in your equipment. This is one of the reasons why these arguments go on forever :).

At high level though, digital circuits can be impacted even though at first blush, it sounds like digital is immune to such things.

It is very difficult to say Dave with any certainty. There are a million variables there from the kind of EMI/RFI noise to circuit design and shielding in your equipment. This is one of the reasons why these arguments go on forever :).

At high level though, digital circuits can be impacted even though at first blush, it sounds like digital is immune to such things.

Thanks amirm.

That's what I am deducing form various discussions in different places. Perhaps this noise is why Theta chose to focus on the power supply, to make it "quieter" for the digital output, and ignore the analog section since they are calling it a transport. I'll leave it up to the experts to work on and argue while I just use my ears - perception is reality in this game.

Surprisingly the "street price" for the Compli Blu is only several hundred more than the Nuforce, and so far it compares favorably IMO. I am just listening to analog right now though, and watching some BR. The Theta's PQ really impresses me. I haven't tried the Nuforce on video yet because I am too lazy to take the time to make the adjustments, albeit minor on the Compli Blu.

There have been a bunch of very critical comments in this thread, but I found them to be annoyingly repetitive, and the posters themselves keep showing up in every Theta thread just blasting the company and any of their products...I really don't understand why anyone would want to spend their time dissing something they already hate unless they simply like arguing more than they like listening to/viewing their own system. Whenever I see a thread on something I don't like, I keep moving on and don't open it. Different strokes I guess. Anyway - I digress...sorry.

There's so much these new players offer - analog audio, HDMI audio via LPCM or Bitstream, HDMI Video for BR and older DVD with still good PQ, and then SACD and DVD-A, both through either HDMI or analog an din the case of SACD, either DSD direct or PCM. Oppo really has changed the game, but it makes a complete evaluation very time consuming if not impossible. I'm afraid I'll never evaluate all the aspects of these players. I know I'll just make my mind up on one or two aspects and just go from there.:rolleyes:

So the proof is in the pudding as we say..

Now that the Compli Blu has been around for a little while, we are starting to get lots of feedback from the user base..

I got 3 emails in the last few weeks from customers telling us that the Compli Blu is some of the best money they have spent in years...

These are critical listeners who have other players and have nice gear like Theta,Aerial and Magnepan and all are saying that it sounds wonderful.

Yes I know it uses the Oppo Motor Assembly but the numerous hand built power supplies that are feeding all the electronics and motors are really making it sound great along with the solid chassis and controls..

Theta has a winner again...

Thanks
Craig
Theatermax NJ

Much of these recent postings are way beyond my ability, and desire, to understand them. I have a simple question though - could RFI and/or EMI noise generated from within a unit, or even from outside a unit, effect any of the digital outputs (HDMI Video, LPCM, or bitstream audio)?


That's what I am deducing form various discussions in different places. Perhaps this noise is why Theta chose to focus on the power supply, to make it "quieter" for the digital output, and ignore the analog section since they are calling it a transport.

I think there's a lot to be said for looking at things this way. Many people talk about jitter as being responsible for the differences in players, but there’s always been a suspicion that there’s something else. I think ultimately it boils down to jitter – but specifically at the point where it really matters – the DAC. How it gets there is something else, and I suspect the effects of noise, distortion and interference aren’t confined to the digital audio stream, but instead pollute the DAC in other ways, including grounds, screens, power supplies and radiation.

There are a few reasons for this.
Firstly, I find that surround processors sound better when the TV or projector is disconnected or unpowered.
Secondly, my Meridian HD621 degrades SQ when it’s powered and connected, BUT the audio connection is SPDIF direct.
Thirdly, I’ve had good experience with various players and processors that were modified by David Schulte. He typically uses a lot of what you might call EMC control measures to keep audio, video, digital and analogue domains better separated, and this was surprisingly effective with some pretty modest stock hardware.

So the simple presence of HF noise and interference from switch-mode power supplies, video decoders and processors and the like has a significant effect on SQ – even for other units in the system. Maybe its down to electric fields, magnetic fields or just conducted interference down signal screens or power supplies. It seems to me that substituting a good, linear power supply for an SMPS is generally a good thing. Many other mod-men do similar things to the Oppo 83, and I can’t help thinking about upgrading the SMPS in my Meridian gear.

Nick

This is noise and interaction between components is discussed in the Ayre thread. They make an effort to isolate each component while also eliminate the noise sources.

Sorry, I meant Audio Rate Control, not Anthem Room Correction (or Audio Return Channel).
Oops. My apology also in thinking it was room correction :).

BUT – again these schemes only work with PCM audio, not bitstream. Hard to see how it would work with bitstream.

Nick
If you think about it, even if HDMI spec allowed rate control for bistreams, it is a tough problem. To change its speed, the player would have to decode the bitstream, interpolate it to slow down or speed it up, and then re-encode to send out the bit stream! Compressed audio is packetized data and cannot be rate controlled beyond its coarse packets.

To the extent the bit stream is opaque data to the player in this mode, it is hard to expect it to know how to speed or slow it down.

So again, I don't think this has anything to do with where and how the clock is generated. The limitation is a system design restriction.

I thought some time ago that with bitstreaming you couldn't get the extra content available on the BR audio track and that was why some pre/pros were coming out with HDMI switching but without a full compliment of HD audio decoding.

What ever happened with this thought process? Can you now get the additional content via bitstreaming?

Admittedly, I've been off the market for a while. I've been too busy just enjoying what I owned already.

I thought some time ago that with bitstreaming you couldn't get the extra content available on the BR audio track and that was why some pre/pros were coming out with HDMI switching but without a full compliment of HD audio decoding.I hadn't noticed that. I thought they were just lagging behind the curve and are catching up now.

What ever happened with this thought process? Can you now get the additional content via bitstreaming?Always could but not with the full HD audio.

I thought some time ago that with bitstreaming you couldn't get the extra content available on the BR audio track and that was why some pre/pros were coming out with HDMI switching but without a full compliment of HD audio decoding.

What ever happened with this thought process? Can you now get the additional content via bitstreaming?

Admittedly, I've been off the market for a while. I've been too busy just enjoying what I owned already.

You're thinking of HDMI 1.3 vs HDMI 1.1/1.2 capabilities on the player. No BD LIVE w/o 1.3.

I believe he is talking about the fact that if you use bitstream output from the player, you lose interactivity and secondary audio mixing. The only way that can work is if the player decodes the audio stream, performs the audio mixing, and then outputs PCM. Unless there is a real-time encoder, there is no way to send out a bit stream again. Your output is kind of forced to be PCM.

So there is a usability cost to putting out a bit stream from the player if you care about the extra that way.

This is why in my book, PCM in the player is the way to go.

I believe he is talking about the fact that if you use bitstream output from the player, you lose interactivity and secondary audio mixing. The only way that can work is if the player decodes the audio stream, performs the audio mixing, and then outputs PCM. Unless there is a real-time encoder, there is no way to send out a bit stream again. Your output is kind of forced to be PCM.

So there is a usability cost to putting out a bit stream from the player if you care about the extra that way.

This is why in my book, PCM in the player is the way to go.

amirm - This is exactly what I am talking about, and has nothing to do with HDMI 1.1, 1.2, or BD Live. To my knowledge, you still can't get the secondary audio via bitstream from the player.

Personally - I don't give two hoots, and this is far from a deal breaker for me. I like the HD audio and the movie as the director intended it to be viewed and heard, and have little interest in the secondary audio. The secondary audio is a gimmick to me, albeit intriguing sometimes.

Nevertheless, a while back I thought it was this thought process that was leading manufacturers to cater to having the players doing the conversion rather than the processors.

Oh well - just looking for clarification, no big deal really.

Nevertheless, a while back I thought it was this thought process that was leading manufacturers to cater to having the players doing the conversion rather than the processors.
That was the "original" plan until DTS decided they liked to go after receiver manufacturers and not push player companies to support its lossless codec. AVR/Processor companies then realized that was a way to get people to buy new AVRs/Processors seeing that new logo and here we are :).

AVR/Processor companies then realized that was a way to get people to buy new AVRs/Processors seeing that new logo and here we are :).

Yeah, but I still think bitstream sounds better.

The reason I'm confident is because on one day, Jan 25 2009, when I first heard bitstreamed BD audio (into an Onkyo 886 processor) I thought it sounded the same. After building myself up through months of speculation and supposition, I had been fully expecting to hear something new and magical that first time. To cement my embarassing inability to hear what lots of people had already heard, I made this post:

http://www.avforums.com/forums/8702129-post354.html

The next day, I realised that the BD I had played did not in fact have a DTHD soundtrack as I had thought, but had an LPCM soundtrack instead. So I had effectively been listening to the same thing. More importantly perhaps, despite the overpowering prejudice & expectations of a sighted comparison, I SAID that I couldn't reliably hear a difference.

Once I played a BD with a lossless compressed soundtrack, the magical improvement I had been longing to hear suddenly appeared, and I retracted quickly:

http://www.avforums.com/forums/8704464-post362.html

After that, I always encouraged people to listen for themselves, and not to everyone else's theories that explained what should sound the same. That occassion also started to make me aware of the impact of different players on BD audio, and appreciate what the expensive players like the Denon, Ayre and Theta could and couldn't do.

I always think its best not to decide what the answer to a question is, before you try to answer it (even though I was clearly a complete hypocrite myself).

Nick

Nick - I think many of us have gone through similar scenarios. A reason why I always demo with my ears not with a spec sheet, theory, or forum comments. Not only is each system different, but I feel audio is often more complicated than people realize. Bits many be bits, but I feel many times there are other factors that influence those bits and we never know what those factors are, we just hear a difference. Funny - this coming from a guy who still uses a tubed pre-amp.:rolleyes: But hey, I like the sound it makes, and so far nothing has come close.

A few points Nick:

1. My rule is this: if science can explain something conclusively, then it is a done deal. If I measure an amp and it puts out 10 watts and another 200 watts, no amount of saying the former sounds louder to someone moves my position. So the notion that we should always trust our ears doesn't work for me.

2. In absence of above, I have been the strongest supporters of theories, no matter how remote, that something could improve the sound. See my earlier post in this very thread and led to this discussion. If someone hears something, and there is an engineering theory as to why, then I am all for it. But right now, I have no theory to offer in support of this observation. And if anything, I have a much better explanation in support of #1. If we stay subjective all the time, then the foundation is too week for a constructive discussion in my view.

4. Way, way too many people are chasing the bitstream mode as an audible advantage and wasting money buying new AVRs/Processors to get it. I am an absolute believer that for movies, this makes no sense whatsoever even if you think there may be an advantage. You lose usability and there is no fidelity gained that would be perceptible.

The marketing power of such logos on equipment have been proven time and time again. DTS became mandatory in AVRs in DVD days exactly because of the power of the logo on the AVR. That success on the original AVR (Yamaha?) led to everyone supporting it as it increased sales of hardware. So we cannot assume that some native performance advantage is the reason AVR/Processor companies are putting this feature in. They are doing it primary to sell more products.

5. Have you heard any manufacturer of processor/AVRs claim that this mode improves audio fidelity? If so, I love to see that. If there isn't, it makes you think why they would not advocate it heavily. Here is an example from ADA being discussed here: http://www.ada.net/products/ht/cinema_rhapsody_mach4.php

"The Cinema Rhapsody Mach IV decodes all the latest Dolby TrueHD, DTS-HD Audio Master and Multi-Channel PCM soundtracks found on Blu-ray DVDs. Just as HD video is noticeably better than regular DVD, these high-resolution (lossless) audio formats are dramatically better than regular 5.1 or 7.1 surround sound. You really can hear the difference and will never want to watch or listen to regular DVDs ever again. In a word, the home cinema as experienced on the Cinema Rhapsody Mach IV is fabulous."

No mention of the fact that on-board decoding makes things better. Instead, carefully positioning this as needing an AVR to decode advanced audio formats even though alternatives exist.

Here is Theta doing the same: http://www.thetadigital.com/press_release_casablanca_iii_hdmi_upgrade.shtml

" New formats such as Dolby® TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio™ are now able to be accessed, leveraging Theta's legendary expertise in D / A conversion technology, providing the highest levels of performance possible. "

Here is Krell: http://www.krellonline.com/s1200.html. They don't even hype the on board decoding of advanced codecs! Interestingly, measurements show them to have one of the lowest jitter specs over HDMI.

Here is Arcam: http://www.arcam.co.uk/products,FMJ,AV-Amplifiers,AVR500.htm

No hyping whatsoever from another company with good HDMI Jitter specs products.

5. I believe we should keep pressure on companies to make HDMI transport work for audio. They did that after years of working at it for S/PDIF. Measurements show that some companies have gotten this right per above. The rest can do so also.

So I hope you understand where I am coming from on this :). I need something to hang my hat on as to why this could make things sound better but I just don't have anything....

One sees or hears something different. Then one postulates why. The theory is applied and the event is duplicated. Does that make the theory correct. A theory based on the smallest particle being an electron. Then someone discovers that isn`t the smallest. There are more and the old theory while covering the previously observed event is dead wrong.

While observation is subjective, that's all we have or that counts. Coming up with a reason. That's nice but will often be wrong anyway but it at leasts justifies one having the subjective observation.

Because something can`t be explained based on the information one has doesn`t make the subjective observation any less real.

Because something can`t be explained based on the information one has doesn`t make the subjective observation any less real.
Do you hear the difference between bit stream and PCM audio? If so, can you explain your observation?

1. My rule is this: if science can explain something conclusively, then it is a done deal.
2. In absence of above, I have been the strongest supporters of theories, no matter how remote, that something could improve the sound.
4. Way, way too many people are chasing the bitstream mode as an audible advantage and wasting money buying new AVRs/Processors to get it.
5. Have you heard any manufacturer of processor/AVRs claim that this mode improves audio fidelity?
6. I believe we should keep pressure on companies to make HDMI transport work for audio.
So I hope you understand where I am coming from on this :). I need something to hang my hat on as to why this could make things sound better but I just don't have anything....

Speaking as someone from a (slightly less distinguished) science and engineering background, I really can't argue with any of that, especially the marketing motivation for AVR specifications. I very much want to have a good scientific understanding and explanation for what we hear.

I've had a lot of receivers and processors pass through my hands recently, and quite why anyone would want to buy a budget receiver with HF decoding is beyond me. Most equipment has some way to go before it can realise the potential of DTS, never mind DTS HD MA. You have to go some way up the food chain to make it worthwhile.

Many people say that jitter control only matters for music, not movies. I'd say that music is the sterner test for any equipment, but pursuing fidelity is still worthwhile for many films. I've only ever heard the difference between PCM & bitstream on blu-rays, and that was the context for my comments. The difference between BD players outputting PCM doesn't sound great to me - nothing like the difference you hear when playing CDs.

Yes, I think getting HDMI right is very important for audio. Knowing what HDMI receivers do with the audio clock makes me shudder, so its been quite a surprise to hear just how significant the performance of the player is for the rest of the system. I've only found this with PCM audio - I've still never heard any difference between bitstreaming players. If I can defend my corner for a moment, I'd like to mention that I was probably the first layman to notice the potential for Audio Rate Control. I wrote this three years ago, and if you have the time, it explains some of where I'm coming from:

http://www.avforums.com/forums/hdmi-cables-switches/598008-prospect-better-audio-hdmi-v1-3a-pay-attention-audiophiles-could-good.html

Nick

No. My comment was in response to your comment loosely translated that you must have a reason why before accepting an observation that something be better. A generalization not a specific response to the issue at hand. And I am not trying to be offensive to you or your post. Often an observation can be valid without being able to explain why or with only an incorrect explanation.

I remember when tip toes came out and the explanation reviewers posted as to why they worked as isolators of vibrations..

I don't think there is a lot of doubt that a linear power supply will make many units sound better then if they used a switched mode power supply although some of the nasties of SMPS can be isolated to the power supply with proper design. Also anything digital will send noise into the house power grid. Unplugging digital things on the same breaker circuit will help just as proper design of one's audio power circuits.

No. My comment was in response to your comment loosely translated that you must have a reason why before accepting an observation that something be better. A generalization not a specific response to the issue at hand. And I am not trying to be offensive to you or your post. Often an observation can be valid without being able to explain why or with only an incorrect explanation.
What determines how "often" you consider that a valid observation depends on the claim and knowledge level of the person receiving it. If I said that when I put 3-d glasses on, all displays and programming looks 3-d to me, would you run with that as a valid observation and search for a reason? I assume not. Your knowledge would tell you that is not possible and while a person may have indeed perceived something there, it is not something you would be open to spending your own time and energy to prove. Nor would it be something you would repeat to others as being factual. My rule #1 would be at work here. Science of impossibility determines the outcome here.

Another example would be if I said every CD I rip into MP3 has better fidelity. We can show with science that there is nothing in MP3 encoding to improve fidelity of the original music. So we get to dismiss the observation rather than accepting it as a valid assumption and going from there.

Your original post made it sound like anything should be plausible. I make the point that there are a class of observations we can rule out pretty conclusively.
I remember when tip toes came out and the explanation reviewers posted as to why they worked as isolators of vibrations..
Blame certainly goes both ways on such things. There are people who are not open to any such observations based on incomplete or incorrect understanding of such systems. But to cement the opposite point of view, if I told you that blue isolators work better than red, would you accept that as a valid observation and chase a proof point? I suspect not. So as long as examples abound on both sides, no case can be made.

All of this said, I value Nick's observations. I lack the listening tests he has performed. While I have a theory as to why he shouldn't have heard the improvements he heard, I don't have enough proof points to convince him conclusively otherwise. We can therefore put this in the gray area in the middle. When I have more time to kill, I will try to perform some tests and if I can hear the same thing he has, I might go chase an answer.

I remember Enid Lumley at a CES show a few years back. She shut all the lights off and we all listened to an LP. Then **** turned on a small pen lite flash light and shined it at the cartridge. Didn`t say a word. We all heard the sound degrade.
Postulate some reasons. I asked her about whether she tried it with a non mettalic flash light tube and with different composition batteries.

She looked at me. It was very scary. My wife and I took her to lunch.Try sticking little soft dots on the walls. You would reject that as being ridiculous to make the room sound better. Bllue tip toes versun red tip toes. Really? Let's do a doubleblind test. If there was a statiscalally valid difference, then where would we go?

Another example would be if I said every CD I rip into MP3 has better fidelity. We can show with science that there is nothing in MP3 encoding to improve fidelity of the original music. So we get to dismiss the observation rather than accepting it as a valid assumption and going from there.

Your original post made it sound like anything should be plausible. I make the point that there are a class of observations we can rule out pretty conclusively.

I would only ask that people consider the possibility that SQ can indeed be improved by a linear power supply that reduces noise emissions to the rest of the system, or by a different replay architecture arising from bitstream playback.

The benefits aren't easy to prove, but the ideas aren't that far-fetched, there's nothing incredible there. What I really want to know is how the manufacturers do it, but that's not easy to come by. I've obtained schematics for lots of recent HD equipment, but they don't answer the question.

In spite of everything I've said, the system I'm using (A1UD/Radiance/HD621/861V4/CinePro) DOES use player decoding in conjunction with the worst possible architecture: a cascaded transport-master configuration, plus HDMI and spdif connections. Amazing that it works so well in spite of that.

Nick

I remember Enid Lumley at a CES show a few years back. She shut all the lights off and we all listened to a CD. Then **** turned on a small pen lite flash light and shined it at the cartridge. Didn`t say a word. We all heard the sound degrade.
That's remarkable. I had no idea you could play a CD with a cartridge. I can easily see the photons of light getting the way of the cartridge needle reading 100 nanometer pits of compact disc :D.

Seriously, I am the best friend you got to defend theories like this 'cause I can put forth an explanation for this. It can be imagined that light shining on the OPU could cause the focus servo to hunt and possibly make an audible difference. Now if you mean a turntable, you need to find someone else to postulate a theory as to why it might make a difference :).

Try sticking little soft dots on the walls. You would reject that as being ridiculous to make the room sound better.
Well, I have heard she has also claimed shining light on Magnepans made them sound better and we have people who have tried it to no avail: http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?404-How-Do-You-Listen-Grill-Covers-On-Or-Off&p=3100&viewfull=1#post3100

Here is how it is. We all have thresholds for what we consider plausible. Reading your post, seems your threshold is incredibly low. As an engineer and someone with decades of actually putting these things to test -- yes, including double blind tests -- my bar is different thn yours. I cater to a balanced view that we don't know why we hear everything. But that science and engineering answer many questions. I appreciate that some live at different extremes.

I would only ask that people consider the possibility that SQ can indeed be improved by a linear power supply that reduces noise emissions to the rest of the system, or by a different replay architecture arising from bitstream playback.
I am more than happy to accept that. The only thing I ask is why Theta performed no measurements before and after. Do they not have any audio test gear? I assume they do. Why not then quantify this difference? We could then argue whether that measured difference matters. But they have left us pretty exposed here :).

My fault Amirm for wasting your time splaining the CD flashlight phenomenon. But I mistyped what I attempted to report. It was indeed an LP.

That's remarkable. I had no idea you could play a CD with a cartridge. I can easily see the photons of light getting the way of the cartridge needle reading 100 nanometer pits of compact disc :D.

:D

Of course, an LP stylus can recover signals smaller than the wavelength of light, so maybe it can read CDs better than a laser?

I cater to a balanced view that we don't know why we hear everything. But that science and engineering answer many questions.

Hear hear. This is why I'm on this thread. And while I'm swiimming in endorphins, here are the other three threads on AVS that I've really enjoyed:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=958570

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=960826&highlight=advanced+audio

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1181755&highlight=ayre

Pure indulgence; all-too-rare goldmines of informed opinion; and compulsory reading for any real audio- and videophile. But lo and behold, what should I see in the first of them?

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12570667#post12570667

Note that if you want to be a purist, all of the lossless compressors outperform LPCM since they reduce jitter induced through transmission from source to AVR.

:)

Amirm. I am somewhat surprised at the insult you posted about where one sets the bar and this being based on their profession.

In case you didn`t know I have a degree in Engineering from oe of the better engineering and science schools in the country. Despite the considerable time I had to spend away from my studies being on the one din 1A team we had, hockey, I managed through a lot of summer work to graduate at the top of my Department. Of course this was manymany years ago and I am not very digital savy. We all have cetain areas of expertise and we all have different egrees of intelligence.

I have conducted many many ABs from being in the high end AV business for some 27 years now. Many tests have been double blind. Somethings that I can discern 9 times out of ten (why not perfection? I get tired) I can not explain. Why shining a light on a cartridge makes the sound worse, why little jars of pepples in the back room corners improves the bass performance, why bowls of water, with and without ice) in front of the speakers improves the sound stasge for lack of a better word, stuff that some would consider stupid. It can`t be. But my observations are repeatable and are not financially driven even though I am in the business.


I would suggest not to let you go scott free for your insult, that perhaps your audio acuity might be a lot lower than ideally it should be amd far below mine in areas where it counts.

I hope this doesm`t not affect your willingness to be my best friend in certain areas. I do have a tremendous respect of you despite your misguided superiority complex.

Amirm. I am somewhat surprised at the insult you posted about where one sets the bar and this being based on their profession.
I made no insult but made an observation that your bar is much lower than mine in what observations you accept. If that is not factual, let me know. That is how it seemed from your posts. I am friends with many people who take your position and I don't consider any of them any less smart than me. Audiophiles differ on these things drastically and that difference is what makes us want to come here and have these conversations. IMHO if we want to take them as insults, then we shouldn't bother being here. :)

In case you didn`t know I have a degree in Engineering from oe of the better engineering and science schools in the country. Despite the considerable time I had to spend away from my studies being on the one din 1A team we had, hockey, I managed through a lot of summer work to graduate at the top of my Department. Of course this was manymany years ago and I am not very digital savy. We all have cetain areas of expertise and we all have different egrees of intelligence.
No, I didn't know you had an engineering degree. That said, having gone through the same education, I don't recall anyone teaching you how an AVR works. How HDMI works. How compressed audio is mux'ed on a Blu-ray disc. What the audibility results of jitter are. What is room correction. Or frankly 99% of the stuff we talk about.

If your school taught you all of this, kudos to whoever put together that program and I look forward in the future to hearing engineering explanations of what we are talking about from your end.

That said, as males, we are always guilty of trying to make ourselves the "alpha wolf" and you and I are no different. :D To wit, much of what I know per above, did not come from going to school but rather, in building Audio/Video/computer products for companies and personal experience (electronics was my hobby since I was little). As I learned more, I also changed my views on many things. Without the incredible amount of resources I had at my disposal, I am sure I would not know what I know now. An EE degree gave the fundamentals to learn these things but that was it.
I have conducted many many ABs from being in the high end AV business for some 27 years now. Many tests have been double blind. Somethings that I can discern 9 times out of ten (why not perfection? I get tired) I can not explain. Why shining a light on a cartridge makes the sound worse
What was the nature of your double-blind testing for that?

, why little jars of pepples in the back room corners improves the bass performance
You have a double blind test that shows that too?

, why bowls of water, with and without ice) in front of the speakers improves the sound stasge for lack of a better word, stuff that some would consider stupid. It can`t be. But my observations are repeatable and are not financially driven even though I am in the business.
Again, I would love to know the nature of your testing for all of these.

I would suggest not to let you go scott free for your insult, that perhaps your audio acuity might be a lot lower than ideally it should be amd far below mine in areas where it counts.
What did I say about the alpha wolf syndrome? :D

There is nothing in this thread about what I hear or don't hear. In my day, I was a trained listener and that training came out of thousands of hours of specialized listening tests and access to technology to get me there. I got pretty good at it, able to hear artifacts few people could. But this is years later and this aging ear probably is not anywhere close to what it used to be. For sure, if I put ice in my glass of water, I can't hear its effect anywhere but on my tongue :D. So if that makes me deaf relative to you, I happily grant you that advantage.

I hope this doesm`t not affect your willingness to be my best friend in certain areas. I do have a tremendous respect of you despite your misguided superiority complex.
Likewise other than the misguided part :). I don't think you are misguided at all. But simply different than me in your conclusions.

The testing re the pebbles was conducted with a methodogy you may find fault with but I would nd not find fault with it. An object was filled with jars or not jars straws or the such. A person in a private rom drew the straws and listed them as randomly drawn from 1 to 20. 40 straws were in the draw container. The audio equipment was set up. And the same track was played for each test. Nothing was touches except for restting the CD player to the track and pressing play. I closed my eyes and the person entered the room, and went to each corner bending down and placing,jars removing jars, or doing neither for each test. The jars were in the corners behind me and I did not turn around to view the rear corners.The person started the track and left the room. I did not see the person and he did not speak. I had a pad, numbered one to 20. I kept track better or worse. The first couple may of had to be changed once I heard to me a better or worse. At the end I compared my observations to the test sequence employed. I am sure you could find some fault with the methodology but it was good enough for me.

And no I was not taught the stuff you listed. I graduated in 1967. I taught engineering until mid 1971.And I am not a dog. Alpha or otherwise. I am more like a pussy cat. I do like dogs, have one myself, but I love *******.

Amirm. I am somewhat surprised at the insult you posted about where one sets the bar and this being based on their profession.


I was just beginning to wonder how long we could keep a discussion going on a substantitive issue without someone's feelings getting hurt. It was a pretty good streak while it lasted......

My feelings aren`t hurt. Just my rear end. I am a big boy and respect Amirm a lot. But I will bust his chops if necessary. Sort of a behave yourself Junior.

these guys are pretty fart smellers... I mean pretty smart fellars.

They can type fast too!

I was just beginning to wonder how long we could keep a discussion going on a substantitive issue without someone's feelings getting hurt. It was a pretty good streak while it lasted......

Aaaah - but they pretty much brought it back to some civility on their own. Well done gentlemen.

Back to Theta for a moment - The other night I did some more listening and although I am preferring the Theta over the NuForce, I cannot figure out why exactly.

My blind test went as follows:

I connected two sets of identical ICs to my pre/pro at the bottom of my gear rack and ran them up to the players which were on two different shelves, one right over the other. At the players, I could only see left and right labels and didn't know which input they went to because I couldn't see down to the pre/pro, but I did keep the pairs semi together so I wouldn't be mixing one left with the other's right.

Then I switched back and forth between the two analog inputs on my remote while playing two identical CDs. It worked pretty easy since both use the same remote commands, they would both start/stop/skip and so forth together. Also, I cannot see my gear from my seat because it's all in a closet behind my front wall. I use an RF remote with an IR repeating system.

Anyway - at first listen, I consistently chose input #2 over my other input #7. I couldn't put my finger on exactly why, but very subjectively it just seemed a little more of an open stage and more organic/real sounding, but slightly. I also noticed a slight shift in the soundstage. The #2 input seemed to have more separation between some instruments in some tracks. This was track dependent though. In other words, this separation wasn't there for every track I played, only a few. Not sure I can explain that one, but there's a lot a cannot explain.:rolleyes:

OK - now the self critical observation. Once I decided on a preference of inputs I went to check to see which player was which. That's when I learned #2 was the Theta...kind to my surprise due to the different analog sections of these two players, and that was all I was comparing at this time.

However - when I went back to repeat my experiment, I could not tell the difference between the two anymore even though previously I could pick the Theta (#2) pretty much every time. The difference was that now I knew which input was which player.

In trying to explain what I heard I'd say the Theta seemed maybe bit more extended in the top end, but I know my hearing isn't very good at higher frequencies so I hesitate to mention this, and not sure why I would even notice something like this. Both players had very good bottom end extension, something that is easily distinguished in my system, and is the first thing that has distinguished players for me in past comparisons. The Theta's bottom end might be a bit cleaner though. It seemed to have less "rumbling" associated with the bass if that makes any sense.

Anyway - these are very subjective observations. I am pleased with both players, and will keep both players for two different systems in my home. I will also add that my pre/pro is not nearly as good on 2-ch as my preamp, but for reasons I'd rather not get into I couldn't effectively do the same comparison through my preamp. Both players via the preamp sound worlds better IMO.

As much as I know I might like 3D video in the future, I want to enjoy my A/V now. I am willing to accept this will cost me more money, but it's not huge money, and life can be surprising short...or long... especially if you always delay doing something today because there will be something better tomorrow, which in A/V will always be the case.

Great effort Dave in quantifying the audible difference. One thing I do other than what you did is that I randomly switch the cables and then re-run the experiment. If I arrive at the same conclusion as the first time, I feel better about the results. So if you have time and can repeat the "blind" aspect of this, it would be great.

Until then, you are using the right words to explain what differences might be. It is the last few bits of audio resolution which gives us a sense of space and separation between instruments. And indeed such differences would not be heard all the time (or even most of the time).

It is also very natural for such small differences to vanish, or even change sides when testing conditions are changes such as knowing which source is which. So the fact that your observations changed once you knew the sources is also quite normal.

Amirm. Any comments on my pebbles in the jar test methodology? Asked of course constructively. Thanks in advance.

Sure. A few thoughts:

1. You were not specific as to the size of the container and location of the pebbles. At some level, you could be impacting the acoustics of the room. If this were a tiny jar with small items, then I don't have an explanation of why it would be an audible change.

2. You said you marked whether the sound got worse or better. It would have been best if you had a box that said "no change." With good or bad, you had 50% chance of being right. And the test further assumes that it is not possible for the change to not be audible. Since "no change" would the most common and predictable choice, its absence stands out.

3. Would have been nice to have a control. That would have been a person walking in, doing nothing as far as pebbles and seeing how you vote. Alternatively, they could have covered one speaker with cloth instead of messing with the pebbles to see if you could tell that (i.e. gross changes that anyone should hear). We usually have such controls as ways to dismiss poor testers although admittedly, in my own tests, I won't subject myself to such things either :).

4. You never said how you did! How often were you right? Was there a rhyme or reason to when you were right or wrong?

5. mmiles said something about people farting and such. If they did, that surely would have invalidated the blind aspects of your tests :D.

6. I always admire people who do any type of test to discover things on their own. So despite my comments above, I think it is great that you subjected yourself to this test. Even if we don't learn much about what you did, I am sure you did.

I scored 19 out of 20 correct. I simply went better same worse once I reached the first change point. So I started same and then when it went worse or better I remarked the start up to the change point. They were small jars maybe that would hold. 6 ozs of fluid I don`t remember exactly except they were filled with pebbles of varying sizes and colors.

I scored 19 out of 20 correct.
That's impressive results Mark. Congratulations.

If I may ask a few more questions so that I understand the full test, that would be great:

You said earlier:
The testing re the pebbles was conducted with a methodogy you may find fault with but I would nd not find fault with it. An object was filled with jars or not jars straws or the such.
What "object" was filled with jars? You mean the room was populated with jars, some of which were empty and some of which had straws? If so, where does the pebble enter the equation?

What size were the jars and the straws? Are the latter drinking straws or are we talking about decorate grass type straws?

A person in a private rom drew the straws and listed them as randomly drawn from 1 to 20.
What do you mean by listing straws?

40 straws were in the draw container.
What container? Is this a container outside from which straws are taken? if so, what is the significance of having 40 straws in them?

The audio equipment was set up.
How was the equipment room set up? Two speakers in the front and said jars/bowls in the back corners? Where there room treatment otherwise? How empty was the room? How larger was the room?

I closed my eyes and the person entered the room, and went to each corner bending down and placing,jars removing jars, or doing neither for each test.
Oh, so they are not changing the number of pebbles in the jars but adding or removing jars from the room?

I had a pad, numbered one to 20. I kept track better or worse. The first couple may of had to be changed once I heard to me a better or worse.
You mean you went back and changed your first few votes? And when you voted "better or worse" what did that mean? That the bass was reduced or increased?

At the end I compared my observations to the test sequence employed.
What do you mean by test sequence. What did the observers record for each step?

I am sure you could find some fault with the methodology but it was good enough for me.
Well, I suspect you are discussing it here because you want more people than yourself to believe in the results :).

The testing re the pebbles was conducted with a methodogy you may find fault with but I would nd not find fault with it. An object was filled with jars or not jars straws or the such. A person in a private rom drew the straws and listed them as randomly drawn from 1 to 20. 40 straws were in the draw container. The audio equipment was set up. And the same track was played for each test. Nothing was touches except for restting the CD player to the track and pressing play. I closed my eyes and the person entered the room, and went to each corner bending down and placing,jars removing jars, or doing neither for each test. The jars were in the corners behind me and I did not turn around to view the rear corners.The person started the track and left the room. I did not see the person and he did not speak. I had a pad, numbered one to 20. I kept track better or worse. The first couple may of had to be changed once I heard to me a better or worse. At the end I compared my observations to the test sequence employed. I am sure you could find some fault with the methodology but it was good enough for me.

And no I was not taught the stuff you listed. I graduated in 1967. I taught engineering until mid 1971.And I am not a dog. Alpha or otherwise. I am more like a pussy cat. I do like dogs, have one myself, but I love *******.

Sounds like a shamanistic ritual..... If peyote was involved in the expiriment that would explain the results.

We had to establish a random test sampling. So we filled an object, I don`t remember what, with 20 slips of paper (I called them straws), ten marked jars, the other ten marked no jars. The test conductor with out our seeing, drew 20 times, writing the result of the draw, he replaced the straw each time so the number of tests were not balanced 10 to 10 but something close 12 to 8 or 11 to 9.

I didn`t know the start condition, jars or no jars. The sound was tighter, less overhang of bass blurring the the pebbles in the jars. So until there was a change, I couldn` mark better or worse. I marked the first one unknown. The second one the same. The third one better. Then I went back amd remarked the first Worse, the second same, the third better. It was the same as marking my guess Jars or no jars but I didn`t have a correlation to start the sequence.

Really I don`t care what people think about the concept of magic rocks in small jars making the bass sound better. I know what I heard under what were blind test conditions in my book. To me, it is far more important to get one`s rock off than you guys ever concurring that something could make a difference without some genius coming up with a why it did.

Thanks Mark. Let me see if I have this right. You had a bowl that had instructions for the person coming into the room to make changes. The proctor draw 10 random instructions out which then dictated what change was about to be made to the room at each step in the test.

If this is right, then what? How was the actual test conducted? What did people bring into the room?

"I know what I heard under what were blind test conditions in my book. "

Single blind though... right?

Shawn

Sounds like the Synergistic Mystic Bowls test. All I know is I've heard it in 3 different rooms on 3 different systems, and it makes profound improvements every time. No scientific reason, of course. Norm

The water in bowls and with ice were another test.


Amimr. The test were to have a person bring two jars or pebbles into the room, place them in the corners, and hit the replay button on the CD player. A series of 20 random jars in the rear corners jars not in the rear corners were pre drawn by the person bringing the jars in and out of the room. The person did not speak and I shut my eyes after each track and did not observe the person or his actions. He did not speak. I did not establish the 20 in or out sequence. Just for each replay kept track, better or worse. Then I compared my observations to the test sequence. Better coincided with jars in gthe corners. I got it right 19 out of 20.

Really I don`t care what people think about the concept of magic rocks in small jars making the bass sound better.
I didn't care either until you asked me to comment :).

To me, it is far more important to get one`s rock off than you guys ever concurring that something could make a difference without some genius coming up with a why it did.

Concurr.

I don't think we have to have an explanation for an empirical result for us to be able to accept the result.

I sure want to be able to understand it though. Its all good science.

Congrats on the new role by the way.

Nick

Amirm. My question went to the methodology of establishing my conclusion to the what I was concluding, that is jars, bowling, pins, balloons or whatever. I am not trying to argue the tweak just the validity of my test methodology.

Mark, I can't comment on the methodology if I can't figure out what were doing :). And I honestly know very little despite the past few tests. I tried to ask clarifying questions but that didn't work either.

Just to give you an example of when I had to explain a test I had done, see here: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1136745

Read my description of my test and compare it to yours here and then tell me what you think :).

Does anyone know how the Theta does with scratched and dirty blu-rays. The Oppo, upon which it's based, is supposed to do very well in this regard. I get discs from Netflix and their quality control is often not the best. I had a David and I remember that it was pretty fussy about what it could and couldn't play, but it was based on a Pioneer player. Incidentally, I am using a Pioneer 95 for now and it gets through an entire Netflix movie without any issues only about 2/3 of the time.

Does anyone know how the Theta does with scratched and dirty blu-rays. The Oppo, upon which it's based, is supposed to do very well in this regard. I get discs from Netflix and their quality control is often not the best. I had a David and I remember that it was pretty fussy about what it could and couldn't play, but it was based on a Pioneer player. Incidentally, I am using a Pioneer 95 for now and it gets through an entire Netflix movie without any issues only about 2/3 of the time.

Theta does not touch the transport, not anything digital, so performance in this regards should be completely identical to the Oppo 83. My Netflix no issues playback success rate on the Marantz ud9004 is about 90%. Wonder how this compares to the Oppo. Next time I have a disc with problems on the ud9004 I'll try it on my upstairs Oppo 93 and see how it does.

Although they don't touch the transport itself they do add some isolation and damping. I suppose that that could change some of the tolerance specifications of the optical reading mechanism. Of course this is pure speculation, but why else would they do anything mechanical in nature if it has no effect.

Theta does not touch the transport, not anything digital, so performance in this regards should be completely identical to the Oppo 83. My Netflix no issues playback success rate on the Marantz ud9004 is about 90%. Wonder how this compares to the Oppo. Next time I have a disc with problems on the ud9004 I'll try it on my upstairs Oppo 93 and see how it does.

In regard to the question, I think you are correct mostly because the transport itself is relatively untouched. However, I think the drastically different power supply has a great influence on the digital performance. I have an 83SE and a Compli Blu. The Theta is surprisingly good...IMO of course.

For the record, I don't own a Compli Blu. We have an Elite BDP-09FD in our reference system. Norm

Norm:

Have you found any issues with 7.1 LPCM out of the BDP-09FD? I have issues with that and the new CB3HD.

Thanks