Official OPPO BDP-103 Owner's Thread - Page 430 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!


Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-04-2013, 12:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Chere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,282
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 325 Post(s)
Liked: 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSperber View Post

Actually, the most sensible way to calibrate your HDTV is through the exact same signal/cable path you're going to be watching through. Makes no sense to calibrate using HDMI-2 out if you're going to be watching through HDMI-1 out.

Because I have two HDTV's (Panny 65VT50 and Sony 34XBR960) fed via the two HDMI outputs of my Yamaha RX-V867, I feed the output of HDMI-1 on my 103 through the AVR (rather than going directly to an HDTV if I had only one) so that I can choose to watch either HDTV. And all of my HD sources go through the external HDMI inputs of my 103 to benefit from QDEO and upconversion to 1080p by the Oppo.

So my D-Nice calibrations of both of my HDTV's were done the same way: his signal generator fed the front HDMI input on the 103, so that it would go through the 103 and out HDMI-1, and then on to the AVR and out to each HDTV... exactly the same as when I truly watch BluRay discs or external HDMI input through the 103.

Therefore his light meters produced calibration results from a setup that is identical to how I actually use my equipment to watch. Wouldn't be reasonable to calibrate for one setup that is different from what you really use to watch actual content.



I understand what you're saying but this brings up the ''if'' scenario of what to do if your set up and source changes. Say you move on and upgrade to the 103D which by all accounts doesn't suffer from the non defeatable DNR issue- wouldn't you rather have had the calibration done from an original clean source instead of the HDMI 1 input of the 103? D-Nice also calibrated my Panasonic 65ST50 but at the time I didn't own my 103D but I have a feeling that had I asked him he'd probably would have agreed with me.

I just think it's easier working around the issue originating from the source by tweaking your settings instead of the other way around from your 2 calibrated sets. Now if you don't intend to change/ upgrade your hardwares for a while then your way makes sense wink.gif
Chere is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 11-04-2013, 01:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Chere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,282
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 325 Post(s)
Liked: 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by miike8888 View Post

Hi!

so the only way to go is with the HDMI 2 output then for best PQ for 1080p movies?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wmcclain View Post

That's really up to you. Can you see it? If not, don't worry about it. Most people find the QDEO effect on HDMI1 when set to 0 to be negligible.

-Bill



Agree with Bill. I don't own the 103 but I've read owners who've felt that moving their Oppo's sharpness to a +1 setting effectively deals with the soft PQ they were seeing because of the non defeatable DNR. Again, as Bill pointed out this is only something that a small minority of owners who've encountered this. The majority are quite satisfied and consider this a non-issue.

Hopefully you have a reputable ISF Calibrator in mind and I suggest you explain everything to him before he starts working on your set. He'll be able to run test patterns between HDMI-1 and HDMI-2 which will conclusively prove if this is something to even worry about at all.

I also suggest that you consider the Oppo 103D for a $100 more which has worked out excellently for me so far.
Chere is online now  
Old 11-04-2013, 03:23 PM
Member
 
robcentola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 92
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 17

Jriver worked PERFECTLY for me. I use the Gizmo app from my Android and it pushes the files to the Oppo in it's native state. I couldn't ask for more.

 

I figured it out after Bob's post and literally jumped for joy when it worked. I'm  a HUGE believer in JRiver, no doubt!

robcentola is offline  
Old 11-04-2013, 04:39 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
DSperber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Marina Del Rey, CA, USA
Posts: 5,563
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Liked: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chere View Post

I understand what you're saying but this brings up the ''if'' scenario of what to do if your set up and source changes. Say you move on and upgrade to the 103D which by all accounts doesn't suffer from the non defeatable DNR issue- wouldn't you rather have had the calibration done from an original clean source instead of the HDMI 1 input of the 103? D-Nice also calibrated my Panasonic 65ST50 but at the time I didn't own my 103D but I have a feeling that had I asked him he'd probably would have agreed with me.
Well, I didn't go with calibrations right now for my two HDTV's intending for them to be potentially invalidated (to an unknown degree, anyway) by some potential indeterminate possible future equipment change which was unplanned for now. I got the calibrations now so that I could enjoy my current equipment, right now, with maximum viewing pleasure.

Should some equipment change down the road (in some far far distant future, perhaps when OLED in large screens becomes available and affordable) I would no doubt invest again in a proper fresh calibration at that time, corresponding to whatever equipment I might then have at that time. Though I own ControlCal, I would have no desire to attempt my own adjustments to try and compensate for image changes due to equipment changes. If it's that noticeable, I'd just go for another proper calibration to again maximize my enjoyment.

At the moment I have no reason to go from 103 to 103D. I'm really totally satisfied with how my picture currently looks (at sharpness = +1) for all sources. I never touch one picture setting on either HDTV since my calibrations, as I would rate them as "sheer perfection". Turn the set on, turn on the DVR (in "native") or insert a BluRay disc or stream something from Netflix, and just watch (generally in awe, at how much "depth" and perfect image color, brightness, and contrast my 65VT50 presents).
DSperber is online now  
Old 11-04-2013, 05:01 PM
Member
 
Jack the cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Mount Juliet, TN
Posts: 62
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Pariseau View Post

The recommendation is primarily to keep people from constantly calling saying they don't see the TrueHD and DTS-HD MA lights turning on in their AVR. Seriously, you'd be shocked how many folks get worried about that.

Secondarily, proper handling of HDMI LPCM input requires buffering and re-clocking the LPCM digital audio input stream. Most receivers do that properly as a matter of course -- in general if your receiver lets you apply lip-sync adjustment to HDMI LPCM input then it must be doing that, and so it just comes down to whether there's a bug in that. Some OLDER HDMI receivers do NOT buffer and re-clock HDMI LPCM input. Now the trick is, such receivers are also usually old enough that they don't accept lossless Bitstream input EITHER. If you have a receiver from the transition -- one that DOES accept lossless Bitstreams, but does NOT properly buffer and re-clock LPCM input, then the odds favor the Bitstream sounding better. That's still not a guarantee as processing the Bitstream is complicated, and a Receiver with the LPCM processing weakness is more likely to also be of a vintage that screws up Bitstream input, TOO!

The bottom line is that for most people LPCM and Bitstream input will sound the same -- assuming the AVR is set to handle the two of them identically.

Sound quality aside, it is more complicated for the AVR to start up a Bitstream. The problem is that it first has to validate that the incoming stream is well formatted -- that it isn't just garbage. Now it should be doing that for startup of an LPCM stream as well, but validating LPCM is easier and faster.

Understand that if you send a Bitstream to an AVR, what it does with it is decode it into LPCM -- everything else happening in the AVR stays LPCM until it finally converts that to Analog for output to your speakers. So the LPCM stuff (other than the buffering and re-clocking at the point of the HDMI Input) is happening ANYWAY in the AVR -- even if you send Bitstream. Bitstream requires ADDITIONAL processing to decode it into LPCM.



So why is it there? Marketing reasons.

To follow that requires some background. (For folks who get bored easily, this is the point to skip to the next post.)

Bitstream formats are packing formats. They take master audio (which is LPCM) and convert it into something which takes up less space on disc. The whole POINT of the Bitstream formats is to create audio that takes up less space on disc -- and perhaps even more importantly, takes a smaller bit-rate to read OFF the disc! The reduction in file size and necessary bit rate is referred to as the "compression factor".

LPCM digital audio is best thought of as the "simplest" form of digital audio. By the way, the "L" in that does not stand for "Lossless". It is "Linear Pulse Code Modulation" -- one flavor of the more general type of digital audio style called simply Pulse Code Modulation, or PCM. There is one LPCM stream per speaker channel. LPCM is "simple" but it is not compact, and then you also have to manage a SET of LPCM streams for multi-channel audio. The Bitstream formats pack up a set of LPCM streams into a single Bitstream. But processing of digital audio happens as LPCM. So before you can hear a Bitstream, it first has to be decoded BACK into LPCM.

Traditional, lossy Bitstream formats (DD and DTS) achieve a higher compression factor by the trick of discarding portions of the audio that tests show are hard to hear. They are "lossy" in the sense that the LPCM that comes out of the decoder is not bit for bit identical to the LPCM that went INTO The encoder when the studio created the Bitstream track. Again, this works because what is "lost" is cleverly chosen to be hard to hear.

The new, "Lossless" Bitstream formats for Blu-ray (Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA) are "lossless" in the sense that what comes out of the decoder IS bit for bit identical to the original LPCM. Nothing is lost. Note carefully that "Lossless" doesn't equate to "high quality". If the original LPCM master audio was crappy then selling it in the form of a "Lossless" Bitstream aint going to make it any better.

Because of the way the Lossless Bitstreams work, they can not achieve as high a compression factor as the Lossy Bitstreams. Fortunately Blu-ray has both higher disc capacity than SD-DVD and a much higher maximum disc read bit-rate than SD-DVD. Which is why the Lossless Bitstreams work for Blu-ray. Indeed Blu-ray is SO capacious in these two specs that even NON-compressed, raw, high-bit rate, multi-channel LPCM tracks work!

Note that I've talked only in terms of capacity on disc and bit-rate to read the disc. What about transmission over HDMI? Well there the advantage of Bitstream no longer applies!

How can that be? Well, there's no such thing as a separate HDMI Audio signal. HDMI Audio is embedded in the "blanking intervals" of HDMI Video. Always. Even if the only video being transmitted is a static, black image.

That is each "frame time" of video has a portion set aside to carry the audio format. A percentage of the "video bandwidth" is actually reserved as "audio bandwidth". There are a couple of consequences of this design.

First, you can't use the Lossless Bitstreams, or multi-channel, high bit-rate LPCM either, in video that's lower than 720p resolution. Why? The percentage of space left over in the blanking intervals (i.e., between frames) is not big enough. So instead you get what's called "compatibility" audio -- i.e., you get a LOSSY Bitstream, which is smaller and thus fits. Every Blu-ray disc is required to have a compatibility audio track for just such purposes -- also applies if you use Optical or Coax S/PDIF outputs. The compatibility track may not be visible in the disc's audio selection menus, but it is there nonetheless. (For DTS-HD MA, the compatibility, lossy DTS track -- called the core audio -- is actually embedded inside the DTS-HD MA file. For TrueHD and raw LPCM high-bit rate tracks, the compatibility audio is a separate file called the associated audio.)

Second, for 720p video resolution and higher, the space set aside for HDMI Audio is big enough REGARDLESS of which format you use! By design. I.e., the supported formats (on Blu-ray and for the HDMI spec) are CHOSEN so that they will fit!

The way HDMI works, data gets transferred in "pixel clock" chunks. The data is always flowing, even during the "blanking intervals" between frames. So it doesn't matter whether the audio portion of each "frame time" has Bitstream, or LPCM, or even silence (no audio) in there -- the same amount of bits -- the same amount of "pixel clock" chunks get transmitted.

So there is no advantage to Bitstream over LPCM on the HDMI cable itself. There MAY be an advantage for LPCM when viewed from the standpoint of the HDMI transmitter and receiver chips, because LPCM is "simpler". But by this point, this is pretty much commodity technology, so not even worth worrying about.

Now, if the disc track you are playing is a Bitstream track, it has to get decoded into LPCM at some point before it gets converted to Analog to go to the speakers. If the decoding is being done in the player, then that complexity is in the player. As far as Blu-ray is concerned, the Bitstream has already done its job -- reducing the bit-rate needed to read the disc. The HDMI connection doesn't care. So if the player knows how to decode, there is nothing lost by letting the player do the decoding. If, on the other hand, the AVR is doing the decoding then that complexity moves to the AVR. The AVR has the ADDED complexity of verifying that the incoming digital audio stream is well formatted. (The Blu-ray player doesn't have to deal with that since what it sees as Bitstream or LPCM comes out of the disc reading portion of the player -- i.e., it is properly formatted by definition.)

Now, with that technical background there's one other piece of MARKETING background you need.

The original idea for Blu-ray was that decoding would be done IN THE PLAYER. ALWAYS. There are portions of the Blu-ray spec which depend upon this simplification -- Secondary Audio Mixing being the big one. Secondary Audio Mixing can't happen before the Bitstream is decoded, and the HDMI cable doesn't provide a way to transmit TWO audio steams (primary and secondary). So Secondary Audio Mixing can ONLY happen inside the player -- and that MUST be preceded by decoding.

The idea was simple: Bitstream audio is a technology for providing compression ON DISC -- just like the various video compression formats (e.g., MPEG2 or VC1). Nobody expects an AVR to have to handle the decoding of the VIDEO compression formats. OBVIOUSLY the player should be responsible for that. So why should audio be different? Well, the answer is, it shouldn't. And so Bitstream audio -- the compression format for audio -- is to be decoded INSIDE THE PLAYER. The HDMI cable then carries only LPCM audio.

OK, cool idea, so what happened? Well, marketing happened.

First of all, the AVR makers were already shipping AVRs that accepted HDMI LPCM audio. Even high bit-rate, multi-channel LPCM audio. So wait, now that these new Bitstreams are coming out for Blu-ray, how is that going to make people want to throw away their perfectly good, current, HDMI-capable AVR and buy a new one? Well they won't! So the AVR makers insisted that THEY TOO be allowed to offer Bitstream decoding! Of course that meant folks would be paying for it twice -- once in the player and once in the new AVR -- but that's just fine. Getting people to pay for things, preferably multiple times, is the whole idea behind the consumer electronics industry.

So the AVR guys were lobbying hard for Lossless Bitstream over HDMI -- with decoding in (new) AVRs. The HDMI spec would have to be changed to accommodate that, but HDMI.ORG is a creature of the industry, so no problem

And that's when the DTS screw up threw a monkey wrench into the Blu-ray plans!

DTS was late with DTS-HD MA. That meant decoding chips were late. And behold! Once DTS-HD MA became "known", the amount of processing power needed to decode its over-the-top complexity was beyond what had been pre-sold! Pioneer, for example, lost a whole model cycle of players when they found the processing power they had built into them couldn't actually handle what DTS now required.

But AVRs have processing power up the wazoo! They've got DSP chips that have to handle LOTS of problems -- with the cost amortized over ALL the things the AVR is supposed to do.

The upshot was that DTS-HD MA decoding showed up in AVRs FIRST.

At which point the Blu-ray guys had no choice but to cave on the design goal that Bitstream decoding ALWAYS happens IN THE PLAYER.

Fast forward to today, and of course now you have Lossless Bitstream decoding as a given in players. But it is also still in AVRs. Folks pay for it twice. (Applause from the manufacturers!)

But just as with video de-interlacing before it -- i.e., do you pay for it in a "progressive" SD-DVD player? Or in your AVR? Or in your TV? ANSWER: You pay for it in all THREE! And so it goes with Bitstream decoding as well.

Aren't you glad you asked? biggrin.gif
--Bob

Raise your hand if you read all of this.
B 26354 likes this.
Jack the cat is offline  
Old 11-04-2013, 05:27 PM
 
somelogin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,072
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Does anyone feel like running a TiVo through this player makes a big enough difference to warrant it? I'm pretty sure that's my plan, but the only thing is having to have the oppo on all the time.... I would be worrying it will cause it not to last as long before having failures. I already hate that about the TiVo itself.
somelogin is offline  
Old 11-04-2013, 06:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Chere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,282
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 325 Post(s)
Liked: 173
^^^^^ You don't need to leave the Oppo on at all. I have mine connected to my Tivo Roamio and I usually leave my 103D off. I have never missed a recording to this point and don't expect to unless I have an outage or some other unforeseen circumstance.
Chere is online now  
Old 11-04-2013, 07:42 PM
Member
 
pqwk50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 74
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack the cat View Post

Hand raised.

pqwk50 is offline  
Old 11-04-2013, 07:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
hernanu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Boston Suburbs
Posts: 3,192
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 328 Post(s)
Liked: 723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack the cat View Post


Hand raised. Very good description of marketing winning over good engineering.
LairdWilliams likes this.
hernanu is offline  
Old 11-04-2013, 08:10 PM
 
somelogin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,072
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chere View Post

^^^^^ You don't need to leave the Oppo on at all. I have mine connected to my Tivo Roamio and I usually leave my 103D off. I have never missed a recording to this point and don't expect to unless I have an outage or some other unforeseen circumstance.
Not for recordings, but I read somewhere that to actually watch the TiVo you have to have the oppo on. So I didn't mean literally all the time, but a lot more often than when using the oppo only for blu rays.
somelogin is offline  
Old 11-04-2013, 08:18 PM
Senior Member
 
LairdWilliams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Raleigh, NC, USA
Posts: 432
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Liked: 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by hernanu View Post

Hand raised. Very good description of marketing winning over good engineering.

Excellent explanation - although whether the result is all that "bad" is debatable.

You can make a good case for putting the decoding in the AVR rather than the source. This approach has its advantages too. I have a very good audio D/A in my AVR (Pioneer SC-77), and would just as soon have it do all the audio decoding for all of my sources. In fact, my plan to do things this way is why I purchased a 103 rather than a 105. In this case, the marketing (which is different from advertising) resulted in me getting what I would prefer to see for my system anyway. So I really can't complain too loudly about marketing that resulted in products that do what I want them to do ;-)

There are also benefits to doing the decoding in the source. The point is, which approach qualifies as "good engineering" here is a tad debatable. Maybe BOTH approaches are "good engineering" and we should be glad that we ended up with both (?).

Display: Panasonic P60UT50 (Plasma)
Speakers: (4) Monitor Audio Silver 9i (Front and Surround), (1) Monitor Audio Silver 12i (Center), (4) Monitor Audio Silver 4i (Rear and Wide), (2) Aperion Audio Bravus II 8d (Subwoofers)
Receiver: Pioneer Elite SC-87 AVR (9.2)
Sources: Oppo BDP-103, Roku 3, Cable...
LairdWilliams is offline  
Old 11-04-2013, 09:03 PM
AVS Special Member
 
hernanu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Boston Suburbs
Posts: 3,192
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 328 Post(s)
Liked: 723
Quote:
Originally Posted by LairdWilliams View Post

Excellent explanation - although whether the result is all that "bad" is debatable.

You can make a good case for putting the decoding in the AVR rather than the source. This approach has its advantages too. I have a very good audio D/A in my AVR (Pioneer SC-77), and would just as soon have it do all the audio decoding for all of my sources. In fact, my plan to do things this way is why I purchased a 103 rather than a 105. In this case, the marketing (which is different from advertising) resulted in me getting what I would prefer to see for my system anyway. So I really can't complain too loudly about marketing that resulted in products that do what I want them to do ;-)

There are also benefits to doing the decoding in the source. The point is, which approach qualifies as "good engineering" here is a tad debatable. Maybe BOTH approaches are "good engineering" and we should be glad that we ended up with both (?).

Good points.

As an engineer, the more points of development, the better for me.

As a matter of providing choices for the consumer, it also may work better, as the ability to do decoding in both source and destination allows us as AV philes to pick and choose who seems to do it best, for example if a troublesome disk's bitstream stuttering is healed by a good application of LPCM at the player.

Or (as I do enjoy) to have the awesome DTS-HD-MA come up on my Pioneer Elite screen. Makes me feel pretty slick cool.gif
hernanu is offline  
Old 11-04-2013, 10:42 PM
Read the FAQ!
 
Bob Pariseau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,744
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 976 Post(s)
Liked: 1187
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobearQSI View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Pariseau View Post

Some OLDER HDMI receivers do NOT buffer and re-clock HDMI LPCM input.
Quote:
Well, there's no such thing as a separate HDMI Audio signal. HDMI Audio is embedded in the "blanking intervals" of HDMI Video. Always. Even if the only video being transmitted is a static, black image.

Forgive me if I'm missing something, but aren't these two statements contradictory? I don't see how a digital audio signal can be sent in a very small window but then be played back over a larger period of time without being buffered and re-clocked.

It's probably best to treat it as magic. The only point that's important is that there are (or at least were) a class of HDMI Receivers that screwed this up. And for those receivers, Bitstream was preferable.
--Bob

Anthem D2/D2v/AVM50/AVM50v/ARC1 tweaking guide. -- Need personal consultation/training? PM me!
Bob Pariseau is offline  
Old 11-04-2013, 10:49 PM
Read the FAQ!
 
Bob Pariseau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,744
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 976 Post(s)
Liked: 1187
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeeMoreDigital View Post

When it comes to playing content that contains 7.1 channel PCM audio, I'm still not 100% sure that the back left/right and side left/right channels are correctly mapped eek.gif

AIX Audio Calibration, Blu-ray, has 7.1 LPCM, 7.1 TrueHD, and 7.1 DTS-HD MA channel ID tracks you can use to check your 7.1 speaker configuration is working as intended:

http://www.aixrecords.com/catalog/bd/oppo_sampler_bd.html

--Bob
KC-Technerd likes this.

Anthem D2/D2v/AVM50/AVM50v/ARC1 tweaking guide. -- Need personal consultation/training? PM me!
Bob Pariseau is offline  
Old 11-04-2013, 10:51 PM
Read the FAQ!
 
Bob Pariseau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,744
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 976 Post(s)
Liked: 1187
Quote:
Originally Posted by KC-Technerd View Post

I've tested DTS-ES Discreet 6.1 and Dolby Digital Surround EX Matrix sources with the LPCM output on the BDP-103. It appears that the bitstream decoder in the Oppo is not extracting and reproducing the surround back channel for these formats, perhaps failing to recognizing the flags. I suspect the same would hold true for DTS-ES Matrix. These formats are probably not very relevant for Blu-ray disc playback, but I do have a few DVDs and a DTS-CD with these formats. I'm also guessing the results would be the same via the analog outputs.

How recently have you checked this? My recollection is that the last time I checked these were working.
--Bob

Anthem D2/D2v/AVM50/AVM50v/ARC1 tweaking guide. -- Need personal consultation/training? PM me!
Bob Pariseau is offline  
Old 11-05-2013, 12:32 AM
Senior Member
 
AndrewFG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 252
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack the cat View Post

Raise your hand if you read all of this

I did.
AndrewFG is offline  
Old 11-05-2013, 12:40 AM
Senior Member
 
AndrewFG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 252
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by LairdWilliams View Post

I have a very good audio D/A in my AVR (Pioneer SC-77), and would just as soon have it do all the audio decoding for all of my sources.

Bob's article was about decoding operations in the digital domain. He was not talking about the conversion from digital to analog. These are two totally different matters.

Whether an AVR has a good digital to analog converter, does not in any way imply that it is good at digital domain decoding operations.

Personally I prefer to let my Oppo do the digital domain decoding (converting Bitstream to LPCM), and I let my AVR do the digital to analog conversion.
AndrewFG is offline  
Old 11-05-2013, 01:16 AM
Member
 
miike8888's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 21
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chere View Post



Agree with Bill. I don't own the 103 but I've read owners who've felt that moving their Oppo's sharpness to a +1 setting effectively deals with the soft PQ they were seeing because of the non defeatable DNR. Again, as Bill pointed out this is only something that a small minority of owners who've encountered this. The majority are quite satisfied and consider this a non-issue.

Hopefully you have a reputable ISF Calibrator in mind and I suggest you explain everything to him before he starts working on your set. He'll be able to run test patterns between HDMI-1 and HDMI-2 which will conclusively prove if this is something to even worry about at all.

I also suggest that you consider the Oppo 103D for a $100 more which has worked out excellently for me so far.

 

Hi!

you mean if i set the sharpness to 1+ it gives me the same result as running HDMI output 2?

 

But if now everybody knows that better PQ comes out of HDMI 2 why doesn`t everybody go that way(if you dont have a 4K tv) i mean we are all PQ freaks in some way and just to know even if not seen....should give some kind of satisfaction!:)

 

I ordered Spears&Munsils Test disc and are going to try this and see what difference i can see.

miike8888 is offline  
Old 11-05-2013, 01:19 AM
Read the FAQ!
 
Bob Pariseau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,744
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 976 Post(s)
Liked: 1187
^ You are assuming facts not in evidence. Plenty of folks prefer HDMI 1 output. That's what I use, and with Sharpness (and all other adjustments) at default (0) values.
--Bob
KC-Technerd and B 26354 like this.

Anthem D2/D2v/AVM50/AVM50v/ARC1 tweaking guide. -- Need personal consultation/training? PM me!
Bob Pariseau is offline  
Old 11-05-2013, 01:38 AM
Member
 
miike8888's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 21
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Pariseau View Post

^ You are assuming facts not in evidence. Plenty of folks prefer HDMI 1 output. That's what I use, and with Sharpness (and all other adjustments) at default (0) values.
--Bob

 

Hi Bob!

 

Have you compared HDMI 1 and 2 with a test disc like spears and munsil and seen a difference or not seen a difference?

miike8888 is offline  
Old 11-05-2013, 03:08 AM
Read the FAQ!
 
Bob Pariseau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,744
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 976 Post(s)
Liked: 1187
You won't see a difference with a calibration disc.

The small amount of base processing the QDEO is doing on HDMI 1 doesn't show on test charts. It takes real imagery to see it, and odds are you won't even see it in real, HD imagery.

You may see it in upscaled SD-DVD output. Upscaled SD-DVD output is, of course, processed by its very nature. The question then is do you like the end result of the processing better as passed through the QDEO or not?

Folks, this stuff does not have cut and dried answers. As I've said before, the angst about this is way overblown.

And the original reason for suggesting folks try using Sharpness +1 on HDMI 1 no longer exists. If anyone is still using that in current firmware they should revisit their decision process on this.
--Bob
KC-Technerd likes this.

Anthem D2/D2v/AVM50/AVM50v/ARC1 tweaking guide. -- Need personal consultation/training? PM me!
Bob Pariseau is offline  
Old 11-05-2013, 05:24 AM
Senior Member
 
Repdetect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 436
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Pariseau View Post


As I've said before, the angst about this is way overblown.

--Bob

Your diplomatic tactfulness is admirable.smile.gif

Mitsubishi WD73-742, Oppo BDP-103, Gallo Classico CL-4/Classico CL-C Center/ CL-10 Sub/ Adiva-ti surrounds, Emotiva UMC-200/ XPA-5/ XPA-3, Toshiba HD-A3. Roku XS  "All rooms, speakers and ears are different, trust your own ears."
Repdetect is offline  
Old 11-05-2013, 06:09 AM
AVS Special Member
 
KC-Technerd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Liberty, MO
Posts: 1,329
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Pariseau View Post

How recently have you checked this? My recollection is that the last time I checked these were working.
--Bob

I just tested 2 days ago, a few hours before making that post. Firmware Version BDP10X-60-0808B. In both cases (DTS-ES Discreet and Dolby Digital EX) my AVR is showing it is only receiving 5.1 LPCM (no surround back channels) from the BDP-103. With the DTS-ES Discreet bitstream delivered to the AVR, it decodes properly into 6.1. My current configuration does not allow verification of the AVR properly decoding Dolby Digital EX bitstream. I haven't found a DTS-ES Matrix source to test. With a 6.1 channel DTS-HD MA source my receiver is showing that it is receiving 7.1 LPCM from the BDP-103.
KC-Technerd is offline  
Old 11-05-2013, 06:33 AM
AVS Special Member
 
KC-Technerd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Liberty, MO
Posts: 1,329
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by LairdWilliams View Post

I have a very good audio D/A in my AVR (Pioneer SC-77), and would just as soon have it do all the audio decoding for all of my sources. In fact, my plan to do things this way is why I purchased a 103 rather than a 105.

I also have a Pioneer SC-77 and agree that unpacking the DD or DTS codec into LPCM really has nothing to do with quality of the DACs. I don't believe that function is even performed by the DACs. The DACs simply convert LPCM into analog. There would be no difference in this regard between the 103 and 105. HDMI audio from either the 103 or 105 to the SC-77 will always use the SC-77's Sabre32 DACs for LPCM to analog conversion regardless of the Oppo outputting bitstream or LPCM. The only difference is whether the Oppo's or the Pioneer's digital processor is used to decode the DD or DTS codec into LPCM.
KC-Technerd is offline  
Old 11-05-2013, 06:33 AM
Senior Member
 
117olddude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: West of LA
Posts: 205
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Hand up for the treatise. Very informative.

I use LPCM because I get better results using my discs and equipment.

My Pioneer 1522 will decode bitstream just fine, I just seem to get a better result using LPCM

I DO miss the cute HD codec displays on my Pioneer

I don't think it matters what you do as long as you are happy with the result. There is no "right" or "wrong" answer to all of this
117olddude is offline  
Old 11-05-2013, 06:43 AM
Member
 
pqwk50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 74
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Pariseau View Post

You may see it in upscaled SD-DVD output. Upscaled SD-DVD output is, of course, processed by its very nature. The question then is do you like the end result of the processing better as passed through the QDEO or not?

--Bob

I'm confused about the difference in HDMI ports on the 103. HDMI2 can be set to output 480p when playing back an SD-DVD, right? HDMI1 can also be used to output 480p for SD-DVD, right? In both of these cases, there is no upscaling and minimal processing (480i to 480p). So is there going to be a difference between the two ports (HDMI1 is using Qdeo to do the 480p conversion but HDMI2 is also doing a conversion just not with Qdeo, right)?

 

All the HDMI1 vs HDMI2 talk is limited to the context of whether user has set these ports to upscale SD-DVD playback?

pqwk50 is offline  
Old 11-05-2013, 06:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
SeeMoreDigital's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Notts, UK
Posts: 2,151
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 283 Post(s)
Liked: 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by KC-Technerd View Post

I haven't found a DTS-ES Matrix source to test...
Here you go: http://www.sr.se/laddahem/multikanal/dts/norgeES.zip


Cheers

I SUPPORT 'FAIR USE'. MY MORALS PREVENT ME FROM HELPING ANYONE WHO OBTAINS COPYRIGHTED CONTENT ILLEGITIMATELY
I've been testing hardware media playback devices and software A/V encoders and decoders since 2001 | My Network Layout and A/V Gear
SeeMoreDigital is offline  
Old 11-05-2013, 06:54 AM
One-Man Content Creator
 
wmcclain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 18,803
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1243 Post(s)
Liked: 591
Quote:
Originally Posted by pqwk50 View Post

I'm confused about the difference in HDMI ports on the 103. HDMI2 can be set to output 480p when playing back an SD-DVD, right?

Yes, all output resolutions are available on both ports. On HDMI2 the Mediatek chip does all the work.
Quote:
HDMI1 can also be used to output 480p for SD-DVD, right?

Yes.
Quote:
In both of these cases, there is no upscaling and minimal processing (480i to 480p). So is there going to be a difference between the two ports (HDMI1 is using Qdeo to do the 480p conversion but HDMI2 is also doing a conversion just not with Qdeo, right)?

Theoretically, there could be other video processing effects like sharpening or noise reduction.
Quote:
All the HDMI1 vs HDMI2 talk is limited to the context of whether user has set these ports to upscale SD-DVD playback?

No.

I forget if you have one of these players. If you do: what do your eyes tell you? If you are not seeing a difference then this is all moot.

-Bill

Review older films here: 1979 and earlier | 1980s | 1990s | Combined reviews: Strange Picture Scroll
Unofficial OPPO FAQS: BDP-103 | BDP-93 | BDP-83 | BDP-80    
wmcclain is online now  
Old 11-05-2013, 07:26 AM
AVS Special Member
 
KC-Technerd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Liberty, MO
Posts: 1,329
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by pqwk50 View Post

I'm confused about the difference in HDMI ports on the 103. HDMI2 can be set to output 480p when playing back an SD-DVD, right? HDMI1 can also be used to output 480p for SD-DVD, right? In both of these cases, there is no upscaling and minimal processing (480i to 480p). So is there going to be a difference between the two ports (HDMI1 is using Qdeo to do the 480p conversion but HDMI2 is also doing a conversion just not with Qdeo, right)?

All the HDMI1 vs HDMI2 talk is limited to the context of whether user has set these ports to upscale SD-DVD playback?

Don't forget that EVERYTHING must be scaled to the resolution of your video display. You are only right about no upscaling if you are using a 480p video display. If you are using a 720 or 1080 display, upscaling from SD-DVD is occurring somewhere whether that be in the Oppo, in the video display, in an AVR, or in an outboard video processor. It is unlikely that any other video scaler in the chain would be superior to the one in the Oppo, which is supposedly the only non-ringing scaler currently available in a consumer product.

HDMI 1 and HDMI 2 both use the Media-Tek processor in the Oppo for ALL scaling and de-interlacing processes, except upscaling to 4k. The Marvel QDEO's scaling capability is only used for 1080p to 4k scaling and only on HDMI 1. Otherwise, the difference between HDMI 1 and HDMI 2 is that HDMI 2 completely bypasses the Marvel QDEO processing and only offers processing from the Media-Tek processor. A minimal amount of noise reduction from the Marvel QDEO is always applied to HMDI 1, regardless of settings and whether any scaling is taking place in either processor. The Marvell QDEO then offers processing for more noise reduction, and color, contrast, and sharpness enhancement.

The Qdeo Extended Technology Brief shows what the Marvell does, however don't forget that what is shown for "QDEO Format Conversion" is not utilized in the Oppo 103/105 except for 1080p to 4k scaling. The Media-Tek processor is used for all other format conversions on either HDMI output.
pqwk50 likes this.
KC-Technerd is offline  
Old 11-05-2013, 07:35 AM
Senior Member
 
LairdWilliams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Raleigh, NC, USA
Posts: 432
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Liked: 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by KC-Technerd View Post

I also have a Pioneer SC-77 and agree that unpacking the DD or DTS codec into LPCM really has nothing to do with quality of the DACs. I don't believe that function is even performed by the DACs. The DACs simply convert LPCM into analog. There would be no difference in this regard between the 103 and 105. HDMI audio from either the 103 or 105 to the SC-77 will always use the SC-77's Sabre32 DACs for LPCM to analog conversion regardless of the Oppo outputting bitstream or LPCM. The only difference is whether the Oppo's or the Pioneer's digital processor is used to decode the DD or DTS codec into LPCM.
You are correct of course. That being said, I would prefer to just have a minimally-manipulated audio stream come into the AVR and deal with everything else there, unless there is a really compelling qualitative reason to put those functions elsewhere (as there appears to be for the video - one of the reasons I purchased the 103).

Had I purchased a 105, and say, an SC-73 (or similar), I would be doing everything audio in the Oppo instead (including the D/A) and then using the AVR for audio amplification only. In this case, like several folks here, I would probably jack my Roku 3 and Cable Box into the Oppo to centralize (and hence, take full advantage of) the processing there. But I made the explicit decision to make my AVR my audio hub, so I like the idea of doing the unpacking, processing, and conversion of the audio there - UNLESS there is a really good qualitative reason to do it another way - which there really is not at this point. And it IS nice to have clear indication on the unit of what type of audio coding you are getting.

As a side note - I have two reasons for not jacking the other sources through the Oppo - which would indeed be likely to improve the up-conversion on the cable especially, since the cable box is constrained to 720p or 1080i. First, HDMI/HDCP handshaking has been a nightmare on my system. The system is extremely sensitive to the order in which I turn on components - and seems to "remember" connection parameters to some degree, so if the handshaking GOES bad, it STAYS bad until I unplug everything and let it all reset, and then replug and power it up correctly. Adding yet another active HDMI connection into the chain when watching cable just does NOT appeal to me right now. Second, the consistency of a usage model where everything we do on the system involves the TV, the AVR, and EXACTLY ONE other component is easy for the OTHER users of my system to grock, and hence to deal with effectively. And those folks don't care as much about image quality - and we don't use the cable in that room enough for me to care much either. (The cable gets used MUCH more in another room).

Display: Panasonic P60UT50 (Plasma)
Speakers: (4) Monitor Audio Silver 9i (Front and Surround), (1) Monitor Audio Silver 12i (Center), (4) Monitor Audio Silver 4i (Rear and Wide), (2) Aperion Audio Bravus II 8d (Subwoofers)
Receiver: Pioneer Elite SC-87 AVR (9.2)
Sources: Oppo BDP-103, Roku 3, Cable...
LairdWilliams is offline  
 

Tags
Oppo Bdp 103 3d Blu Ray Player , Oppo Bdp 105 Blu Ray Player , Oppo Bdp 93 Blu Ray Player , Oppo Digital Inc
Thread Tools


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