Ayre DX-5 bluray player - Page 34

Mr. William McClain is the author of the "unofficial" FAQs for the Oppo BDP-83 and BDP-93. He probably knows more about these machines than anyone outside of Oppo. Thank you Mr. McClain, for providing the authoritative answer.

As I suspected, there is not necessarily a trend towards faster boot up times. Both the HDMI association and the Blu-ray Disc Association insist on adding more and more features (some of which may not even be wanted). And I am agreement with Mr. McClain that the increased sized of the operating system on the newer models is likely responsible for the longer boot up times.

As an aside, Mr. McClain graciously allowed Ayre to use his "unofficial" Oppo BDP-83 FAQ as the basis for the "official" Ayre DX-5 FAQ, located on the Ayre website. He did a wonderful job and I felt absolutely no need to reinvent the wheel. It turned a two-week job into a two-day job, for which I am eternally grateful. I only had to change the few items that were specific to the DX-5, such as the additional audio-only HDMI and the lack of component video outputs.

There is a similar but much smaller difference in load times for SACD.

Interesting, and not something I would have expected. I would assume that the ARM core is the same. I would assume that the processor clock speed is the same.

I can understand taking longer to boot up at power on. And I can understand taking longer to load a Blu-ray disc (it has to check for 3D and so forth). But I'm not sure why it would take longer to read an SACD. Maybe it has to do with the PSP (Pit Signal Processing, also known as pit-width modulation) digital watermark.

The '83 has much of that circuitry built into the transport. The '93 has much of that circuitry off-loaded to the main board, presumably to the main processor. Perhaps that has something to do with it.

Cannot say why and the differences are on the order of 2-3 seconds but they are consistent. I would say that they are significant only for people like me who need to synch 2 players for A/B comparisons. I can do that with the 83/95 by first loading the discs in both players and then hitting "play." From there, they are in synch.

I don't really care about streaming video (why would I want to watch streaming video if I'm investing in a Blu-ray player?), but what I do care about is time to load a disc, especially as I have a bad habit of accidentally hitting "stop" instead of "pause" on BD players, requiring a whole reload sequence.

Of course without 5.1 analog outs, the DX-5 wouldn't work for me anyway.

We could have put 5.1 analog outs. But then people would have complained that it didn't have 7.1 analog outs. We could have put 7.1 analog outs, but that would have required four of our two-channel analog boards.

Each channel has something like 35 transistors, 20 resistors, and 30 LEDs. Plus the DAC chip and the FPGA for the digital filtering. Plus the double regulated power supply for the analog circuitry and the six or seven individual discrete zero-feedback regulators for all of the critical digital clock path.

It's a big board and requires a lot of power, so we would have needed a much larger power transformer. And all of that power is turned into heat, so we would have needed a much larger chassis and/or a fan that runs all the time.

Add it all up and I'm guessing that you would be looking at $18,000 to $20,000 US retail. We probably would have sold two or three a year. If we were lucky. Most people that want the absolute best analog audio are happy with two channels. And most people that want surround sound use an HDMI-equipped processor. So we have covered most (but not all) of the bases.

What I have learned is that you can't be all things to all people. To paraphrase P.T. Barnum, "You can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time."

I never expected five outputs of the quality of the front stereo channels, just other outputs.

I never spent the big bucks for an HDMI-capable surround processor because formats seemed to be changing daily, and I had invested in a Lexicon MC-8 a few years back that works very well for LD/DVD and has a pass-thru that I use for my current Blu-ray player.

That and I'm not sure if even today that PIP audio for commentaries and such works over HDMI out (it used to only work on players' internal audio outs.)

But then again I'm also not surprised you would never let any audio out be anything but the highest quality.

Yes, one option would be to have two "proper" channels for the front L & R outputs. Then have a six channel DAC chip with IC op-amp analog circuitry for the other channels. That would save a lot of money. It would only save connector space if we dropped the balanced outputs. The extra power supply load and heat dissipation would be much reduced.

The biggest problem is that (as you note), it's just not the way we do things. With film soundtracks, the center channel usually has the most dialog information. So having two good channels might not help that much. I suppose we could put in three good channels and five lesser channels, but that is something of a slippery slope.

For someone in your shoes, I would recommend getting a decent two-channel preamp with a pass-through mode (I know of a really nice one for $3500 US retail) and then getting a Rotel or Arcam or similar processor with HDMI for a couple of thousand dollars. That is a great setup for movies, where the sound tends to be somewhat less important than a music-only format.

About the only time that our player runs into trouble is when somebody has a big collection of surround SACDs and a killer surround system. In that case it would be nice to have six high quality analog outputs. The problem is what are you going to use for a preamp? The only high quality six channel preamp I know of is if you slave together three of our KX-R's, but that is over $50,000 US retail! There must be some other other good sounding preamp that can be slaved, but I'm not aware of it.

Otherwise you are back in the boat of buying a good (read: expensive) processor that handles SACD over HDMI and has a good volume control (not those silly IC "chip" volume controls that are used in $400 Pioneer receivers). And then you have to worry about having an expensive boat anchor. I heard a rumor that somebody was seriously planning to release a 10.2 channel system. (With any luck at all, it will flop instantly. Hopefully this 3D insanity has taught them a lesson. But probably not. I keep hearing about handheld 3D gaming machines and other such idiocy.)

Someone else here probably knows more about the PIP audio than I do. However, it seems to me that it would be a function of the player, not the processors. Plus I can't imagine them going backwards in what has essentially devolved into a features war.

I am still happily using my DX7e with SDI to Lumagen XS. I am reconfiguring and previous had the XLR Compressed out going to my processor and XLR PCM out going to my DAC.

I now need only one XLR audio out as the new processor will handle both DVDs and CDs to my satisfaction. Is there any sound dropoff using the XLR Compressed out for CDs? I prefer to use only one XLR cable but there are enough inputs on the processor to use two.

Thanks.

Ah, an oldie but a goody!

The MPEG decoder chip has two separate outputs, so we included them exactly for the purpose you describe -- one to a perfectionist two-channel DAC and one to a surround processor. We took great pains to make them both the same quality. Both are reclocked by the master audio oscillator just before it goes to an isolation transformer and then the output connector.

I suppose it is possible that there is something different about the signal path inside the MPEG chip that could make an audible difference, but this should be pretty much nullified by the reclocking process. So I would say there shouldn't be any difference between the two outputs, but the only way to be absolutely sure would be to do a listening test.

It's not too hard. First connect the XLR cable into the "PCM Only" output. Then play three or four of your favorite songs. Don't listen for any specific thing -- not the highs or lows or soundstaging or dynamics. Just listen the way you would normally -- because you love the music.

Then switch the cable to the other XLR output and play the same three or four songs. The order is not important. Don't worry that it might be boring to hear the same songs twice within a short time span. (It doesn't matter -- it's just easier to hear a difference going from good to bad than the other way around, and if there is a difference I would guess that it is going to be in favor of the "PCM Only" output -- but that is just a guess.) Just notice if you liked hearing the music as much the second time as the first time.

Finally, let us know what you find out. The worst case will be that one output will sound slightly better and you can run two cables to your processor. But honestly I would think that the brand of cable would make more difference than anything between the two outputs.

Hi all, I'd like to check with DX-5 owners if they can play the 10th Anniversay Blu Ray digibook version of The Matrix. I bought this disc recently, but it will not play in my DX-5. I'm running the latest firmware (v.55). Upon loading the disc, the piracy warning screen comes up first, immediately followed by the WB intro screen (with music), but then the display resets to zero and nothing happens. I've waited over five minutes, but no load, and the player freezes. I have to turn off the power and then turn it back on to remove the disc.

Strange thing is that the disc will play fine in my Oppo 83 (?).

Any suggestions?

My DX-5 plays this disc. Try deleting Persistent Storage, unplug / plug in the unit.

Thanks Tim, that worked perfectly, problem solved

Hi all

I bought DX-5. and running the latest firmware (v.58) (AYDX5-58-1215)
And play Blu-ray title. But it's too strange. Not matched Full HD pixel. (connected HDMI)


This is normal 1080P pixel match image. but My DX-5 (v.58) output...


Output this. Image move left.

1080i BD no problem. Only 1080P BD(ex: DVE 1080P test pattern, Dark Knight, Gladiator, Quantum Of Solace, etc...) have this problem.
I tested PS3 in same TV and same HDMI port. PS3 output normal 1080P pixel matching image.


DX-5 Set up...
HDMI
16:9 wide/auto

Source direct
1080P24 output: Auto, DVD 24P C: On
Ycbcr 4:2:2, 36bit
other video setup all default (for the DX-5)

Any suggestions?

I solve problem.

Resolution Output set to 'Auto', problem has gone. DX-5 output normal 1080P pixel matching image.

But My question hasn't been answered yet. Why 'Source Direct' Setting has this Problem? My Marantz player that connect same TV(HDMI), has no problem set on 'Source Direct'. Why DX-5 has problem?

Happy to read of a new firmware. Unfortunately, even with the new firmware, the DX-5 does not play my favorite BD set: Lord Of The Rings, Extended Editions. I'm speaking of the set of german dubbed code B replacement discs (Warner had them replaced because of a pitch error in the german soundtrack).

The DX-5 shows a black screen and freezes.

First, DX-5 firmware up to .v58. and Try deleting Persistent Storage, unplug / plug in the unit.

My DX-5(firm .v58) can play My Lord Of The Rings, Extended Editions (code A) disc.
(But firm .v55 DX-5 couldn't play same disc)

PS:
My DX-5(firm .v58) often freezes when plays 'Dark Knight' BD.
Warner Bros logo screen comes up first, but then the display resets to zero and nothing happens. Than I push 'OFF' and re-on and play 'Dark Knight'.

I want to resolve this problem.

Hello,

Several have posted with various issues regarding specific titles. Today Oppo released a Public Beta firmware for the BDP-83:

http://oppodigital.com/blu-ray-bdp-8...-59-0117b.aspx

Please look at this page and see if this may address the issues. Unfortunately the Oppo firmware will not load in the Ayre player, so you will not be able to test this directly for now. Often there will be several running changes in the Beta firmware. Oppo normally only supplies us with new firmware when it has been finalized. Generally this takes a few weeks, so please be patient and know that new firmware will be coming.

Thanks,
Charles Hansen
Ayre Acoustics, Inc.

New Firmware (AYDX5-59-0117) online. LORD OF THE RINGS EEs (Region B) now play fine. Great.

Not for nothing, but why would any one buy a expensive blu-ray player, when you can buy a quality DAC like PS Audio DAC MK2 and new improved (each year) under $400 blu-ray player? I don't get it, unless you like big, heavy out of date players? Don't get me wrong, I love the quality of Ayre, but blu-ray tech. moves too fast.

I doubt that owners of this player are playing blu ray's only through it. I would play CD's and any other little silver discs that I owned. It's the MUSIC side of the player that is the selling point.

If you read what I wrote again, you will noticed I mentioned a world class DAC, and in my case a use a Wadia GNSC S7i Statement's coax rca connected to my blu-ray player, which I replace every year or 2. That was my point only. Ys, I am sure the Ayre is a good cdp, but not state of the art by todays standard, IMHO. Why not spend your money on a upgradable high-end DAC, and a mid-fi bdp? Taht said, I am sure the Ayre is built like a tank.

Certainly an option using a separate 2ch dac talk2me ; the ayre is also targeted at sacd and dvd audio multichannel playback though ; albeit through hdmi not multichannel analog

When sacd can be decoded [ can already be hacked with a ps3 and put on a disc I gather] and then streamed you will certainly have a point

When you have over 500 SACDs and don't want to have 4 or 5 extra pieces in your rack.

Bluray itself hasn't changed, are you referring to 3d and such? if that's the case then one only need consider if its something you want, if so buy a separate cheap player and keep the Ayre which is not only a reference blu player but a host of other formats as well, even still if it where only a bluray player then yes it would be SOTA because the spec's haven't changed

Some may like to think things are changing fast but that's only because we are measuring by increments instead of by the leaps and bounds tech should be by now, A good example 4k vs 8k

As I noted very early on in this thread, the DX-5 is not for everyone. It is arguably the best Blu-ray player available, but (for most people's needs) it is not much of a bargain.

If I may blow our own horn a bit, in addition to the features noted by other posters it also has visibly superior picture quality compared to any other Blu-ray player. You can read about this in Shane Buettner's review in Home Theater magazine:

http://www.hometheater.com/content/a...rsal-av-engine

"This isn’t the first high-end-priced player I’ve seen—or the first I’ve used directly connected over HDMI to a front projector in my system (in this case, the JVC DLA-X7 reviewed in HT’s May 2011 issue). It’s just the first one I’ve seen that actually looks better in comparison to other players I’ve seen over HDMI."

"The overall impact was that movies looked and felt more like movies on the DX-5. There was also an easy-on-the-eyes quality to the picture that I haven’t encountered before. I know my comments on the HDMI video output looking better than other players will be met with skepticism. I get it. That’s how I felt before I saw the DX-5. But after I spent time with it and went back and forth between it and the other players I had on hand, I unequivocally looked forward to watching movies on the DX-5 more than with any other Blu-ray player I’ve ever used."

I was somewhat reluctant to send the player to Home Theater for review because I knew that Shane is a big proponent of 3D, a feature missing from the DX-5. After the review I asked him about it. I'm sure that displays have improved since then, but at that time he said he very rarely watched a disc in 3D after he purchased (!) the review player. I pressed him on this as even I (not a 3D fan) had to admit that there was at least a handful of titles that were pretty impressive in 3D, mentioning the animated film "Up!".

His reply surprised me. He said that "Up!" actually looked better in 2D, as one of the main attractions of the picture quality are the bold, bright colors. In 3D (at least with the displays of a couple of years ago) that brightness was lost and so was much of the film's visual impact. He said there were perhaps only two titles that looked better in 3D than they did on the DX-5 and that it wasn't worth changing the setup to watch those as the gain was relatively small. He strongly preferred the film-like video that the DX-5 provides.

The bottom line is that there are many reasons to buy a DX-5 and really only one not to -- the price. As I said it's not a player for everybody, just for those who appreciate its attributes and also have deep (enough) pockets.

Best regards,
Charles Hansen
Ayre Acoustics, Inc.

Subjective visual impression of PQ isn't good enough any more when there is now HDMI output benchmark measurement. The aim is for an accurate unmolested output rather than any non-defeatable post-processing that is visually pleasing to match individual's taste. The ABT chip isn't the newest or considered the best any more. In any case $500 DVDO Edge video processor with the same chip has more options to play with particularly in 2:2 de-interlacing with 50i PAL contents. Anyone who desires better solutions of course have other choices in vp. So there isn't much to get excited about.

Hi Charles,

I was quite surprise to read a review of the Oppo BDP-95 in Hi-Fi Choice (UK) that stated the unit uses both analog and switching power supplies. I had always assumed it used 100% linear supplies, at least for the A/V circuits.

Inside the player is a big toroidal transformer marked Custom designed and manufactured by Rotel'. Oppo informed us that the Japanese hi-fi manufacturer's role in the BDP-95EU's genesis extends to nothing more than the supply of this key component.

The transformer in question is associated with a linear power supply that caters exclusively to the analogue audio sections - everything else is energised by a switch-mode power supply that lives under a metal shield.


I was curious about this so I emailed Oppo and here is their reply:

The direct power supply, the board which directly interfaces with the power plug, is a switching power supply. However, the switching portion of this power supply is only connected to the mainboard (digital and video processing board). The AC rail past the fuse is connected to the toroidal power supply. This section is linear as there is no power processing.

The toroidal power supply into a secondary voltage linear power supply designed to always have more voltage in the capacitors than the working voltage of the whole of the player. This power supply is only connected to the analog audio board.


Charles, I know you are not a fan of SWPS and I am wondering how you handle this hybrid use in the Oppo. Do you replace SWPS or is the it in a "benign" position and not worth bothering about?

BTW based on your advice earlier in the thread I have replaced all my wall-wart switching power supplies with outboard linear supplies and am very happy with the result.

Well, I built a DIY Ayre DX5.. I bought a Oppo 93 and upgraded the switch mode power supply and the tiny power connector to a beefy linear power supply and 3 pin power connector (like the DX5) made by Dr. Jae Lee. I can now use an audio high-end power cable. I am getting great pq and sq results. Some on AV say it makes absolutely no difference, but I think it does.

According to whom?

What else are you going to abrogate to machines? Wine tasting? Judging the beauty of members of the opposite sex? Mate selection?

The argument you propose is absurd on the face of it. Just like everything else, video playback systems should be judged in the same way that they are used. If you use your Blu-ray player by connecting it to an "HDMI output benchmark assessment" device, then it would make sense to make your purchasing decisions based on how it performs on those test.

On the other hand if you use your Blu-ray player to watch movies, then the obvious way to make your purchasing decision is to use it to watch movies. If you see no difference between players, then it would only make sense to purchase the cheapest one with the features you desire.


What makes you think that the DX-5 performs any "non-defeatable post-processing that is visually pleasing to match the individual's taste"?


Obviously it is not the newest. Who does not consider it "the best any more"? The ABT is designed to perform the absolute best scaling and frame-rate conversion possible. That's it.

The newer chips are designed to make crappy sources look acceptable by using "post-processing that is visually pleasing to match the individual's taste". Why? That is where the money is. The average person doesn't have any idea that there is any more to "high-def" than simply a number of lines on the screen (eg, 1080p). They are not aware (and don't care) that the picture quality from their cable provider is much worse than what is attainable from BD.

The situation is exactly the same as in music distribution. It is cheaper to download MP3 (or AAC) compressed files than it is to manufacture and distribute physical discs. Sure MP3 does 20 Hz to 20 kHz, but does it sound as good as even a Red Book CD? What about compared to a 96/24 PCM file?

There is no video processing chip on the market that does scaling and frame rate conversion better than the ABT. There are video processing chips that do a better job of removing compression artifacts that are part and parcel of video streaming solutions, but are not found on either DVD or Blu-Ray discs.


Since you haven't seen the product in question, you are right -- there isn't much for you to get excited about.

Charles Hansen
Ayre Acoustics, Inc.