Official OPPO BDP-95 Owner's Thread - Page 25 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #721 of 11138 Old 02-11-2011, 12:31 PM
Read the FAQ!
 
Bob Pariseau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 27,164
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Liked: 775
Quote:
Originally Posted by xMEATx View Post
Bob, are you using the 95 as cd player(analog outs) or transport with the d2v for two channel music? I guess what I want to know is so far do you prefer the Oppo's DACs to the Anthem's DAC. If you like the Oppo's, do you bypass your ARC processing or use the ADC on the Anthem, so you can use ARC? I have wondered where you have been posting, don't see you on the Anthem thread much lately. Thanks for your thoughts...have a good weekend.
In my room with my equipment, analog sources *ALWAYS* sound better when processed through ARC in my D2v. A lot. No contest. This is not just true of the Oppo players.

For testing the 93 I regularly use both HDMI audio and 2-channel analog (i.e., set the Speaker Configuration in the Oppo so all speakers are OFF except for LF/RF. Set LF/RF to "Large", equidistant, and with 0dB volume trim. Set down-mix to Stereo or LT/RT depending on what I'm testing. Set crossover to 40Hz although that should make no difference in my setup. And set Dynamic Range Control to OFF. Also set the LPCM rate limit for Optical/Coax to 192KHz as that affects some analog output.)

I don't have a 95 (I'm not a Beta tester for the 95), but based on other tests I've done I have no doubt I'd still prefer its analog output to be processed through ARC in my setup. I realize this will scandalize the true analog fans here. If you burn me in effigy, please make it a good likeness.
--Bob

Anthem D2/D2v/AVM50/AVM50v/ARC1 tweaking guide. -- Need personal consultation/training? PM me!
Bob Pariseau is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #722 of 11138 Old 02-11-2011, 02:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
dmusoke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Redondo Beach, CA
Posts: 2,402
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Pariseau View Post

In my room with my equipment, analog sources *ALWAYS* sound better when processed through ARC in my D2v. A lot. No contest. This is not just true of the Oppo players.

For testing the 93 I regularly use both HDMI audio and 2-channel analog (i.e., set the Speaker Configuration in the Oppo so all speakers are OFF except for LF/RF. Set LF/RF to "Large", equidistant, and with 0dB volume trim. Set down-mix to Stereo or LT/RT depending on what I'm testing. Set crossover to 40Hz although that should make no difference in my setup. And set Dynamic Range Control to OFF. Also set the LPCM rate limit for Optical/Coax to 192KHz as that affects some analog output.)

I don't have a 95 (I'm not a Beta tester for the 95), but based on other tests I've done I have no doubt I'd still prefer its analog output to be processed through ARC in my setup. I realize this will scandalize the true analog fans here. If you burn me in effigy, please make it a good likeness.
--Bob

Bob, am i hearing you right that you've become an analog fan? You were always pro-HDMI as the main source for the D2v. That's why you got the original 83 and not the SE, if i remember right. Glad to know you've changed "your ways"

In my case I love the MCH and Stereo analogs of my 83SE with ARC on my D2v as well

How to phase match subwoofers to the mains speakers: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post19542630
dmusoke is offline  
post #723 of 11138 Old 02-11-2011, 02:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
SoundofMind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: SE MI
Posts: 7,962
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 158
^I too have a very slight preference for the dedicated stereo outs of my 83SE processed through additional ADC/DAC and Audyssey MultEQXT room EQ vs the HDMI digital output direct to the AVR for playing redbook CDs. Both beat the pants off any pure analog route, even with a good analog preamp. The quality of the ADC in the Denon 4310 is really very good (same BurrBrown 1804 DAC as the flagship AVR 5308 @ MSRP $5500) and the DACs (same BurrBrown 1791A differential DAC as the 4810 @ $3K) are pretty darn good too. I encourage folks to try this oft scoffed-at option. But for most folks with an HDMI-equipped AVR with good room EQ, HDMI is excellent and simple. And AFAIK the 93's HDMI output is nearly indistinguishable from the 95

Yes, I still like playing with Dalis.

SoundofMind is offline  
post #724 of 11138 Old 02-11-2011, 03:24 PM
Read the FAQ!
 
Bob Pariseau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 27,164
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Liked: 775
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmusoke View Post


Bob, am i hearing you right that you've become an analog fan? You were always pro-HDMI as the main source for the D2v. That's why you got the original 83 and not the SE, if i remember right. Glad to know you've changed "your ways"

In my case I love the MCH and Stereo analogs of my 83SE with ARC on my D2v as well

Nope. I use analog for testing only. By the way, and off topic for this thread, I found this 2 channel analog setup in the 93 BETTER than the dedicated stereo output of my 83. Surprised the heck out of me.
--Bob

Anthem D2/D2v/AVM50/AVM50v/ARC1 tweaking guide. -- Need personal consultation/training? PM me!
Bob Pariseau is offline  
post #725 of 11138 Old 02-11-2011, 03:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
dmusoke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Redondo Beach, CA
Posts: 2,402
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Pariseau View Post

Nope. I use analog for testing only. By the way, and off topic for this thread, I found this 2 channel analog setup in the 93 BETTER than the dedicated stereo output of my 83. Surprised the heck out of me.
--Bob

OK... we'll continue to reason with you and not give up until you bow to the analog gods.

How to phase match subwoofers to the mains speakers: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post19542630
dmusoke is offline  
post #726 of 11138 Old 02-11-2011, 06:59 PM
Member
 
guss2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 53
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Wow the BDP-95 sounds like just what the doctor ordered for me. I'm a two channel headphone guy all the way and I've been looking for a good Blu-ray player in my computer room to compliment my HE90/Aristaeus/SCD-1 combo, but my SCD-1 just recently stopped working. I was planning on modifying/upgrading my player, but if the Oppo is really a giant killer (soundwise) then I might be able to kill two birds with one stone here. I know this player is fairly new, but has anyone compared the Oppo to the higher end SACD/CD players? Thanks, Gary.
guss2 is offline  
post #727 of 11138 Old 02-11-2011, 07:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
dmusoke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Redondo Beach, CA
Posts: 2,402
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by sillysally View Post

imo that is a bunch of double talk (crap) for a flavored DAC/audio PCB. A tube amp has many different sound qualities and caricaturists just like a solid state amp. The benefit of a high end tube amp that uses point to point wiring (no PCB) is that you can change the sound signature by switching components (coupling caps, voltage filtering caps, cathode caps, decoupling caps, ect.) or even easier is tube rolling.
So to sum this up, just as you can get bad solid state amp's you can get bad tube amps. Anybody that says "If you are a tubeophile , you would probably really enjoy the 93NE." has no understanding of a tube amp and only raises one question in my mind, what is that reviewer covering up.
The BDP-95 is a very neutral DAC/audio PCB that has a very large dynamic range, great sound staging, wonderful highs, mids and lows, very well balanced, great speed and note separation, very low and black floor, very good impact, ect.
For only $100 more the BDP-95 is a no brainier over the BDP-93NE even if you love a great tube amp like me. Matter of fact unlike the BDP-83SENE I would leave the BDP-95 alone and not mod it, the BDP-95 is that good.
All that said I would still advise that if you just have a so so sound system then just stay with the BDP-83SE or if you are new to Oppo get the BDP-93. If you do go with the BDP-95 expect you will probably have to tweak your audio system to bring out the best of the BDP-95.
One thing also to keep in mind is imo there is a definite improvement in PQ with the BDP-95 over the BDP-83.

ss

Great points indeed SS ...but i have a gut feeling NuForce would not make a such bold claim without proof in the listening. They may have actually relicated an excellnt tube sound so much so they confidently charge the buyer an extra $400 for that previledge. They may have pulled it off but ofcourse, I'm just speculating here, but they'd have a lot to lose if their claim is proven false.

How to phase match subwoofers to the mains speakers: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post19542630
dmusoke is offline  
post #728 of 11138 Old 02-11-2011, 07:38 PM
Member
 
blaven2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 91
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
To the ARC guys (Bob & soundofmind). I must say that I am confused. Why would you let the OPPO convert D to A and then take that analog, convert it again to digital, and then one final time D to A and out. If I am understanding you, this is a lot of extra processing.

If one is to use external processing, then Why not just keep digital out from the OPPO and then use just the external DAC? And, If this is the case, why not just use the 93?

Am I not understanding? Not trying to be critical, just very confused.
blaven2 is offline  
post #729 of 11138 Old 02-11-2011, 08:13 PM
gsr
Oppo Beta Group
 
gsr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 7,356
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by blaven2 View Post

To the ARC guys (Bob & soundofmind). I must say that I am confused. Why would you let the OPPO convert D to A and then take that analog, convert it again to digital, and then one final time D to A and out. If I am understanding you, this is a lot of extra processing.

If one is to use external processing, then Why not just keep digital out from the OPPO and then use just the external DAC? And, If this is the case, why not just use the 93?

Am I not understanding? Not trying to be critical, just very confused.

At least in Bob's case, what he's saying is that he normally uses HDMI. BUT when he uses the analog outputs for testing purposes, the extra ADC and DAC conversions combined with ARC (Anthem's equivalent to Audyssey) sound better than analog passthru presumably because his system benefits a lot from room correction and the far more flexible bass management in his D2V.

I concur with his findings in my system with a BDP-95 and Denon AVP-A1HDCI (with a Denon POA-A1HDCI amp, 7 channels of B&W Matrix 800 series speakers, and a pair of Seaton Submersive HP subwoofers). While the analog outputs are truly excellent on the BDP-95 in passthru mode, I prefer the end result with bass management and Audyssey enabled. If I had a room with nearly perfect acoustics, my findings would quite possibly be different. When in analog passthru mode, my B&W Matrix 802S3's have to handle all the bass for 2 channel audio. When the bass management in my AVP is in the loop, my Submersive HP's take over the deep bass duties. My room also benefits a lot from Audyssey.

In general though, I agree with you that the extra ADC and DAC steps really don't make any sense. One will almost always be better off just using HDMI when they want to use the processing in their receiver or surround sound processor and avoid those extra conversions.
gsr is offline  
post #730 of 11138 Old 02-11-2011, 08:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
sillysally's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,647
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmusoke View Post

Great points indeed SS ...but i have a gut feeling NuForce would not make a such bold claim without proof in the listening. They may have actually relicated an excellnt tube sound so much so they confidently charge the buyer an extra $400 for that previledge. They may have pulled it off but ofcourse, I'm just speculating here, but they'd have a lot to lose if their claim is proven false.

Just for the record, I am not saying Nuforce is making any false claim. I just read what Nuforce had to say about there 93 upgrade and there is nothing about a tube like sound in there statement about the upgrade audio broad for the 93.

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaven2 View Post

To the ARC guys (Bob & soundofmind). I must say that I am confused. Why would you let the OPPO convert D to A and then take that analog, convert it again to digital, and then one final time D to A and out. If I am understanding you, this is a lot of extra processing.

If one is to use external processing, then Why not just keep digital out from the OPPO and then use just the external DAC? And, If this is the case, why not just use the 93?

Am I not understanding? Not trying to be critical, just very confused.

Yes you are right it can be confusing. Your best bet is to use as few gears in your audio path as possible, however in some cases to achieve your goals that is not always possible.
So what this means is that when adding gears like a external DAC you want to make sure it is very neutral and it honors the sound signature of your source player. After all the main reason for a DAC is just what it says, Digital to Analog Conversion, so when you read about more music like or more tube like ect. all that is saying is that the DAC/audio board is not neutral and there for probably will change the sound signature of your source player. There for not remaining true to your source material that you are using, of-course that is saying you are using a source player like the BD-95 that is neutral.

ss
sillysally is offline  
post #731 of 11138 Old 02-11-2011, 08:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
SoundofMind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: SE MI
Posts: 7,962
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by blaven2 View Post

To the ARC guys (Bob & soundofmind). I must say that I am confused. Why would you let the OPPO convert D to A and then take that analog, convert it again to digital, and then one final time D to A and out. If I am understanding you, this is a lot of extra processing.
If one is to use external processing, then Why not just keep digital out from the OPPO and then use just the external DAC? And, If this is the case, why not just use the 93...

You are exactly correct. I have a good AVR and quite good speakers in an average room without any acoustic treatments per se. I have done what I can with speaker and sub placement, curtains, rug, etc. Audyssey adds very significant improvement to SQ in comparison to pure analog regardless of the extra ADC/DAC. Note that the added improvement I can hear using the Oppo DACs is at least one order of magnitude lower (less than 1/10) and is only for certain well recorded acoustic stereo material redbook CDs. For most folks that is certainly NOT worth spending hundreds extra to obtain those better DACs in the player, as with moving from an 83 to an 83SE or from a 93 to a 95.

I found this out for myself while seeking improved 2 ch SQ through pure analog routes when I did some relevant controlled comparisons to digital. This took considerable effort and some expense, as posted here. The point is to help folks understand how to focus their HT $ on the weakest links in the system and to get the most bang for the buck.

Yes, I still like playing with Dalis.

SoundofMind is offline  
post #732 of 11138 Old 02-11-2011, 09:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
dmusoke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Redondo Beach, CA
Posts: 2,402
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by sillysally View Post

Just for the record, I am not saying Nuforce is making any false claim. I just read what Nuforce had to say about there 93 upgrade and there is nothing about a tube like sound in there statement about the upgrade audio broad for the 93.

ss

Will this raise your blood pressure?

" .....
With the 93NE, its predominance of even ordered distortion compared to the odd ordered distortion of the 93 made it sound a bit more musical, sort of like what a Class A triode does (almost entirely second order distortion). It was a slight difference, but I could hear it (triodes produce large second order peaks, while the second order peaks in the 93NE were small). When I asked NuForce about this, they said that the emphasis on second order harmonic distortion was their exact intent, and that the result would be "more musical".
....
"

How to phase match subwoofers to the mains speakers: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post19542630
dmusoke is offline  
post #733 of 11138 Old 02-11-2011, 09:34 PM
Member
 
Sa_M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 80
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I am looking for some advice on new speakers. I'm considering buying the Sonus Faber Cremona M that I heard a few times or, the Thiel 3.7, which I haven't been able to audition yet. Have any of you heard the Thiel 3.7? Any thoughts?
Sandro
Sa_M is offline  
post #734 of 11138 Old 02-12-2011, 06:44 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Bill Mac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 11,388
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 387
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sa_M View Post

I am looking for some advice on new speakers. I'm considering buying the Sonus Faber Cremona M that I heard a few times or, the Thiel 3.7, which I haven't been able to audition yet. Have any of you heard the Thiel 3.7? Any thoughts?
Sandro

You might want to try asking your question in the speaker forum.

Bill

My SACD collection, watch it grow and my wallet shrink ;-).

 

Denon 4311 (in preamp mode), Parasound 2100, Boston Acoustics A7200 amp, Oppo BDP-103, Consonance CD120, Panasonic TC-P60GT50 plasma, Panamax 5100EX, Salk Song Towers, Song Center, ADS 300C (surrounds) and two Rythmik F12SEs.
Bill Mac is offline  
post #735 of 11138 Old 02-12-2011, 08:01 AM
Senior Member
 
ron12n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Pariseau View Post

Get a copy of your compilation disc to Oppo tech support and they can take a look at it to see what's up. [.....] they'll be able to check and see.
--Bob

I'm not too sure of that. Oppo has had a burned BD disc of mine for
the past 2-3 months. It played fine on every player I checked it on
Including my computer, except for the Oppo BDP-83 that I owned
at the time. I sold it for that reason, plus I was hoping to upgrade to
the BDP-95, if/when Oppo gets around to making it play that disc.

So far, no luck.

-- Ron
ron12n is offline  
post #736 of 11138 Old 02-12-2011, 08:35 AM
Advanced Member
 
The Rang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Delta, BC
Posts: 571
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by gsr View Post

At least in Bob's case, what he's saying is that he normally uses HDMI. BUT when he uses the analog outputs for testing purposes, the extra ADC and DAC conversions combined with ARC (Anthem's equivalent to Audyssey) sound better than analog passthru presumably because his system benefits a lot from room correction and the far more flexible bass management in his D2V.

.

This raises an interesting question as I ponder upgrading my system.

The question is slightly off topic but: if I buy the 95 it will be for 2 channel audio. It will live in a 2 channel room without the extra speakers, big TV etc.

I currently use a basic stereo integrated. Despite the completely "non-surround" nature of the system, should I consider an amp (or pre-amp) with room correction capabilities?
The Rang is offline  
post #737 of 11138 Old 02-12-2011, 09:02 AM
Senior Member
 
dylan24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 257
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

You are exactly correct. I have a good AVR and quite good speakers in an average room without any acoustic treatments per se. I have done what I can with speaker and sub placement, curtains, rug, etc. Audyssey adds very significant improvement to SQ in comparison to pure analog regardless of the extra ADC/DAC. Note that the added improvement I can hear using the Oppo DACs is at least one order of magnitude lower (less than 1/10) and is only for certain well recorded acoustic stereo material redbook CDs. For most folks that is certainly NOT worth spending hundreds extra to obtain those better DACs in the player, as with moving from an 83 to an 83SE or from a 93 to a 95.

I found this out for myself while seeking improved 2 ch SQ through pure analog routes when I did some relevant controlled comparisons to digital. This took considerable effort and some expense, as posted here. The point is to help folks understand how to focus their HT $ on the weakest links in the system and to get the most bang for the buck.

I'm trying to decide between the 93 and the 95. I think I'm in the camp that Audyssey improves even pure analog sources. For example, I think the sound of my turntable and phono preamp sounds better with Audyssey equalization than through pure analog bypass. That being said, would the sound of the 95 through the analog outs and then with Audyssey be better than the 93 through hdmi? And, if it is, is it $500 better? It seems that SoM's conclusion is that it is not worth the extra $ for most people. Then, is there anything on the video side that would lead me to the 95 over the 93?
dylan24 is offline  
post #738 of 11138 Old 02-12-2011, 09:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
audiman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Montreal region, Canada
Posts: 1,119
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
D2v analog conversion thru ARC sounds better than analog direct because the analog passthru in the D2 is very average at best. Nothing audiophile about it. Same with HDMI without ARC processing.
audiman is offline  
post #739 of 11138 Old 02-12-2011, 10:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
SoundofMind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: SE MI
Posts: 7,962
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 158
dylan has a very nice AVR with good room EQ. DSP sounds better to him, with his gear in his room, even for pure analog sources. If he does not have the most optimal speaker placement and good acoustic treatments, this is not surprising to me. In all likelihood the digital output of his 83 will sound very close to that of a 93 which will sound very close to a 95. And each will sound great with room EQ and each will sound better in his room than a pure analog path. Now I have found that I can squeeze a tiny bit of extra SQ by using the 83SE analog out thru DSP but it makes little sense to spend a thousand bucks on better DACs which just won't make much difference. The 95 is not for everyone.

I was concerned that I was missing out on great 2 ch analog precisely because my Denon AVR 4310 might not do "great" analog passthrough. So I replaced my 83 with an 83SE and started controlled comparisons using several dedicated analog preamps with HT bypass including the $2K Parasound P7, which provides a pretty decent pure analog path. Conclusion: high level refinements in both preamping quality and DACs matter far less than good room EQ for rooms that do not have excellent acoustics.

Yes, I still like playing with Dalis.

SoundofMind is offline  
post #740 of 11138 Old 02-12-2011, 11:40 AM
Read the FAQ!
 
Bob Pariseau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 27,164
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Liked: 775
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiman View Post

D2v analog conversion thru ARC sounds better than analog direct because the analog passthru in the D2 is very average at best. Nothing audiophile about it. Same with HDMI without ARC processing.

*rises up on hind legs* Oh yeah?

Anyway, off topic for this thread.
--Bob

Anthem D2/D2v/AVM50/AVM50v/ARC1 tweaking guide. -- Need personal consultation/training? PM me!
Bob Pariseau is offline  
post #741 of 11138 Old 02-12-2011, 11:44 AM
Read the FAQ!
 
Bob Pariseau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 27,164
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Liked: 775
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

. . .

Conclusion: high level refinements in both preamping quality and DACs matter far less than good room EQ for rooms that do not have excellent acoustics.

Above a certain, base threshold of pre-amp / DAC quality, agreed. The trick is, nobody can agree on that threshold.
--Bob

Anthem D2/D2v/AVM50/AVM50v/ARC1 tweaking guide. -- Need personal consultation/training? PM me!
Bob Pariseau is offline  
post #742 of 11138 Old 02-12-2011, 11:47 AM
Read the FAQ!
 
Bob Pariseau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 27,164
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Liked: 775
Quote:
Originally Posted by dylan24 View Post

I'm trying to decide between the 93 and the 95. I think I'm in the camp that Audyssey improves even pure analog sources. For example, I think the sound of my turntable and phono preamp sounds better with Audyssey equalization than through pure analog bypass. That being said, would the sound of the 95 through the analog outs and then with Audyssey be better than the 93 through hdmi? And, if it is, is it $500 better? It seems that SoM's conclusion is that it is not worth the extra $ for most people. Then, is there anything on the video side that would lead me to the 95 over the 93?

The video solution is identical on the 95 and 93.

There's no pat answer to the question of "presumed perfect" analog input vs. HDMI input since it largely depends on what the processor might be doing wrong in both cases. In my opinion, with almost all HDMI-equipped processor gear, the odds are in favor of HDMI input.
--Bob

Anthem D2/D2v/AVM50/AVM50v/ARC1 tweaking guide. -- Need personal consultation/training? PM me!
Bob Pariseau is offline  
post #743 of 11138 Old 02-12-2011, 11:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
SoundofMind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: SE MI
Posts: 7,962
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 158
ymmv!

Yes, I still like playing with Dalis.

SoundofMind is offline  
post #744 of 11138 Old 02-12-2011, 11:55 AM
Read the FAQ!
 
Bob Pariseau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 27,164
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Liked: 775
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rang View Post

This raises an interesting question as I ponder upgrading my system.

The question is slightly off topic but: if I buy the 95 it will be for 2 channel audio. It will live in a 2 channel room without the extra speakers, big TV etc.

I currently use a basic stereo integrated. Despite the completely "non-surround" nature of the system, should I consider an amp (or pre-amp) with room correction capabilities?

You'll probably get more useful answers in the Owner's Threads here for the particular processors you are considering.

I know over in the Anthem D2v thread there are quite a few folks posting that ARC has made a big improvement in listening to their analog stereo sources. This is true both for posters running their speakers "full range" and for posters trying to integrate a subwoofer. The ARC charts also give you a handle on what your "uncorrected" room is doing, which can be a big help in speaker positioning and evaluating room treatments.

In addition to Anthem's ARC, there are of course the processors that bundle Audyssey's products, and there are some exotic solutions out there as well. Again, for the discussion of any of these for stereo, your best source of info is the owner's threads. For the exotic stuff, check out the over $20K forum here.
--Bob

Anthem D2/D2v/AVM50/AVM50v/ARC1 tweaking guide. -- Need personal consultation/training? PM me!
Bob Pariseau is offline  
post #745 of 11138 Old 02-12-2011, 12:00 PM
Read the FAQ!
 
Bob Pariseau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 27,164
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Liked: 775
Quote:
Originally Posted by ron12n View Post

I'm not too sure of that. Oppo has had a burned BD disc of mine for
the past 2-3 months. It played fine on every player I checked it on
Including my computer, except for the Oppo BDP-83 that I owned
at the time. I sold it for that reason, plus I was hoping to upgrade to
the BDP-95, if/when Oppo gets around to making it play that disc.

So far, no luck.

-- Ron

Do you know if the problem was read errors? I.e., the 83 didn't handle the particular way you burned the disc? Or was it with file format or data rates? Or still unknown?
--Bob

Anthem D2/D2v/AVM50/AVM50v/ARC1 tweaking guide. -- Need personal consultation/training? PM me!
Bob Pariseau is offline  
post #746 of 11138 Old 02-12-2011, 12:08 PM
Member
 
blaven2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 91
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiman View Post

D2v analog conversion thru ARC sounds better than analog direct because the analog passthru in the D2 is very average at best. Nothing audiophile about it. Same with HDMI without ARC processing.


I am very curious about this...I am planning pure analog pass through Integra DHC 40.2 Pre-Pro with Parasound multichannel amp and Vandersteen matched multichannel with 2 subs (external crossover for 2WQ).

I am waiting on the Integra, but the entire reason I got the 95 was for the analog out, and will use pass through for stereo and multichannel on Integra.

Why would analog passthru be that average on the D2 compared to other companies?? Any sense at how well the Integra Pre-Pro's handle it such as my setup (still waiting for Pre-Pro arrival).

I guess I could always se the HDMI out and let the Integra Pre-Pro handle DAC duties, but I really prefer to let the OPPO handle it.
blaven2 is offline  
post #747 of 11138 Old 02-12-2011, 12:13 PM
Read the FAQ!
 
Bob Pariseau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 27,164
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Liked: 775
Quote:
Originally Posted by blaven2 View Post

To the ARC guys (Bob & soundofmind). I must say that I am confused. Why would you let the OPPO convert D to A and then take that analog, convert it again to digital, and then one final time D to A and out. If I am understanding you, this is a lot of extra processing.

If one is to use external processing, then Why not just keep digital out from the OPPO and then use just the external DAC? And, If this is the case, why not just use the 93?

Am I not understanding? Not trying to be critical, just very confused.

As I posted above. I use analog input for testing purposes only.

Now I'm not hearing any problems with analog processed this way. The re-digitizing, processing, and analog output stages in my D2v are doing a fine job.

But HDMI is more convenient for me, and, as you say, it eliminates some steps. Even if I don't hear problems due to those steps, eliminating steps puts the odds more in your favor. So I use HDMI Audio Input for all normal listening to stereo music, multi-channel music, and movies.

There's at least one audiophile case where HDMI offers a feature analog does not. In the one specific case of 5.1 DTS-HD MA 192Hz audio, the Oppo will decode that as 96KHz. That's what the analog outputs get, as well as what you get for HDMI LPCM output. But it will send the 192KHz Bitstream over HDMI and the D2v decodes that at 192KHz. NOTE: There is no such limitation on TrueHD or for stereo DTS-HD MA. And DTS-HD MA doesn't even support 192KHz on Blu-ray for 7.1 content so no limitation there either.

ETA: There's another limitation in the Oppo players which doesn't really fall into the audiophile category, but I'll add it here for completeness. The Oppos will not decode the matrixed rear channel information from traditional, lossy, 5.1 DTS ES tracks. Your processor may offer the feature to extract that from the analog or HDMI LPCM input (e.g., PLIIx processing), or you can use HDMI Bitstream and your processor may extract that as part of its decode. There's no such limitation for the equivalent rear channel hack offered on some lossy Dolby Digital tracks.

(Analog Audio Input Tip for Anthem D2v and AVM 50v users: The analog output voltage of the Oppo players is a tad hotter than the Anthems are expecting. Go into the Analog Input Level settings on the Anthem and lower the input level for those Sources by -1.5dB. Also, for stereo analog input, be sure to go into the ADC settings in the Anthem and raise the default sampling rate for re-digitizing 2-channel analog to 96KHz. For the 6-channel analog input, that's already the default.)
--Bob

Anthem D2/D2v/AVM50/AVM50v/ARC1 tweaking guide. -- Need personal consultation/training? PM me!
Bob Pariseau is offline  
post #748 of 11138 Old 02-12-2011, 12:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Brian-HD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NY
Posts: 2,204
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

dylan has a very nice AVR with good room EQ. DSP sounds better to him, with his gear in his room, even for pure analog sources. If he does not have the most optimal speaker placement and good acoustic treatments, this is not surprising to me. In all likelihood the digital output of his 83 will sound very close to that of a 93 which will sound very close to a 95. And each will sound great with room EQ and each will sound better in his room than a pure analog path. Now I have found that I can squeeze a tiny bit of extra SQ by using the 83SE analog out thru DSP but it makes little sense to spend a thousand bucks on better DACs which just won't make much difference. The 95 is not for everyone.

I was concerned that I was missing out on great 2 ch analog precisely because my Denon AVR 4310 might not do "great" analog passthrough. So I replaced my 83 with an 83SE and started controlled comparisons using several dedicated analog preamps with HT bypass including the $2K Parasound P7, which provides a pretty decent pure analog path. Conclusion: high level refinements in both preamping quality and DACs matter far less than good room EQ for rooms that do not have excellent acoustics.

SoM,

I compared the Denon 4310 connected to B & K and the UMC1 and XPA 5 Amp with the Oppo 83se, 2 ch only. I really enjoyed the the UMC 1 and B&K ref 200.5 Amp with the Oppo se. After a week of music, the Denon 4310 was on audiogon. That cheap buggy UMC was with me for 5-6 months until I was being bugged out. I returned the UMC to Emo for a full refund and replaced it with the Anthem MRX 700. My friend still has a UMC 1 and UMC was compared to the Anthem. The Anthem has the BEST sound with ARC so far IMO.
My point, it depends on your setup for best sound and components that are connected to the Oppo with (SPEAKERS). Everyone will NOT have the same result as you do.

Brian
LL
LL
Brian-HD is offline  
post #749 of 11138 Old 02-12-2011, 12:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
WestCoastD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: California
Posts: 7,349
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

I too have a very slight preference for the dedicated stereo outs of my 83SE processed through additional ADC/DAC and Audyssey MultEQXT room EQ vs the HDMI digital output direct to the AVR for playing redbook CDs. Both beat the pants off any pure analog route, even with a good analog preamp. The quality of the ADC in the Denon 4310 is really very good (same BurrBrown 1804 DAC as the flagship AVR 5308 @ MSRP $5500) and the DACs (same BurrBrown 1791A differential DAC as the 4810 @ $3K) are pretty darn good too

were'nt you using the Marantz AV7005 pre-pro?
WestCoastD is offline  
post #750 of 11138 Old 02-12-2011, 12:49 PM
Member
 
jwhart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 150
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I have a Pioneer BDP-95 which is 2 years old and while painfully slow to load, still provides an excellent picture via component thru a Onkyo TX SR-705 A/V receiver to my Sony VPL VW-60 projector. I realize that I'm deprived of 1080P resolution by not running HDMI but it's simply not possible; maybe one day a reasonably priced wireless solution will be available. I also have a Roku unit for Netflix streaming. I'm convinced that, were I to make the change, I would probably go with one of the Oppo models but not certain which model. Since both 83's use Anchor Bay ABT VRS for video processing and the 93 and 95 use Marvell Qdeo, what's the consensus as to video performance both on blu-ray and conventional DVD viewing?
jwhart is offline  
Reply Blu-ray Players

Tags
Oppo Bdp 95 Blu Ray Disc Player , Blu Ray Players , Oppo

User Tag List

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


Forum Jump: 

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

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