AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Players › Official OPPO BDP-95 Anticipation Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Official OPPO BDP-95 Anticipation Thread - Page 5  

post #121 of 1008
12/21/10 at 11:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

Could someone please clarify the expected limitations which will apply to the 95's analog ouputs in regards to distances? I have surrounds at unequal distances and further than FR/L.

See the BDP-93 online manual, the section "Speaker Settings". We expect the -95 will be the same.

-Bill

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #122 of 1008
12/21/10 at 11:48am
"What brands in a DVD or SACD player offers this functionality currently and at what cost? I understand the want, but I don't understand the need. Does anyone know if the soon to be released players by Denon and Marantz will offer such a feature?"

The Esoteric SA-50 and a couple of Cary SACD players have digital inputs to their DACs. They list for five or more times the anticipated BD-95 price.

For that kind of money an OPPO plus a high end DAC leaves lots of cash for software.
post #123 of 1008
12/21/10 at 11:49am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike_WI View Post

That's good.
I wonder if Oppo would/is considering a stand alone DAC?

Mike

They already do, it is called Emotiva or NuForce...
post #124 of 1008
12/21/10 at 12:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuromancer View Post

They already do, it is called Emotiva or NuForce...

So, is the rumor that Emotiva is working on a universal BluRay player accurate?
post #125 of 1008
12/21/10 at 12:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acesn8s View Post

"What brands in a DVD or SACD player offers this functionality currently and at what cost? I understand the want, but I don't understand the need. Does anyone know if the soon to be released players by Denon and Marantz will offer such a feature?"

The Esoteric SA-50 and a couple of Cary SACD players have digital inputs to their DACs. They list for five or more times the anticipated BD-95 price.

For that kind of money an OPPO plus a high end DAC leaves lots of cash for software.


I agree 100% we have a true genius here folks, the only thing is I'm not one there for I can't make such claims

Djoel
post #126 of 1008
12/21/10 at 12:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acesn8s View Post

So, is the rumor that Emotiva is working on a universal BluRay player accurate?


as far as I know no, but Emotiva has a dac.

I think that's what he means

Djoel
post #127 of 1008
12/21/10 at 12:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acesn8s View Post

So, is the rumor that Emotiva is working on a universal BluRay player accurate?

The rumor could be true if Tonewinner is building one. Having some experience with Emotiva products I would have to respectfully decline on buying a universal Bluray player from them. I will gladly stay with Oppo for first rate quality built Bluray players with service to match. One lesson Emotiva could learn from Oppo is how to implement a Beta test program.

Bill
post #128 of 1008
12/21/10 at 2:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlieniceT View Post

From the Oppo website description of the BDP-95:
World Power Supply - The BDP-95 features a world power supply that is compatible with AC power from all regions. Voltage range from 100V-120V and 200V-240V can be selected by flipping a switch on the back panel.

You made my day!

Of course, it said that at the top of the thread all along, and I forget how many times I looked at the picture of the rear of the unit, clearly showing the voltage selector switch. Why don't more manufacturers (apart from Yamaha) do that?

What I also noticed is the earth pin in the IEC connector. Most CE manufacturers only use two pins, just leaving the "serious" makers to use a proper earth. Its altogether a promising rear panel; it reminds me of the Marantz DV9600 and Pioneer BDP-09. Same video board as the 93, but with lots of space set aside for the audio boards. I've got a good feeling about this player.

Nick
post #129 of 1008
12/21/10 at 3:02pm
does anyone know if the dacs in the 83se are better than the ones in the upcoming 95? I noticed they are different?
post #130 of 1008
12/21/10 at 3:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ca1ore View Post

You may well be right. There haven't been too many reliable, documented accounts of 'enhanced' players perfoming better as transports - and I've not compared any for myself - but that doesn't mean this one won't.

You're a Meridian guy, right? Will be interesting to get your impressions of the 95.

Yup; I've been through a G68 & 861V2 this year, and now use a BDP83 / HD621 / 861V4. Good as they are, I still think you need a good transport, plus some sort of multilayer / interfacing buffer for the SSP. In other words, the conventional HDMI architecture of PLAYER > SSP > DISPLAY is not at all optimal. I think a successful AV system needs to keep audio and video separated as far as possible, for various reasons:
  • When playing music, my Onkyo 885 sounded better when the HDMI cable was disconnected from the TV - or when the TV was simply unplugged from the mains.
  • When comparing two players, the difference between them seems greater when the unused one is completely disconnected, not just de-selected.
  • My BDP-09 and A1UD sounded slightly better when they were connected to the SSP by the secondary HDMI output, with the primary HDMI output going directly to the TV.
  • When I was experimenting with the HD621 driving another AVR via spdif & HDMI, I found that the very existence of the HDMI connection from the 621 added a "hashy" sound to the AVR (when using spdif direct from the player).
My growing impression is that although convenient, combining audio and video together on HDMI has been a retrograde step for audiophiles. HDMI tends to make you huddle lots of equipment together that is electrically noisy - anything that handles digital video, and anything with SMPS in particular.

I think that if the SSP (or whatever performs the D to A conversion) can be kept away from video players, video processors, video displays, or anything with an SMPS, then so much the better. The HD621 goes some way to achieving this, which is exactly what Meridian intended (though they shackled it with a switching PSU). The Oppo 95 is also heading in the right direction - a linear PSU, and separate audio and video HDMI outputs (though for other reasons).

I used to have a (modified) 83SE which was very good; I think Oppo are doing all the right things, and I have high hopes for the 95.

Nick
post #131 of 1008
12/21/10 at 3:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parrish View Post

does anyone know if the dacs in the 83se are better than the ones in the upcoming 95? I noticed they are different?

I think its the other way round:

http://www.oppodigital.com/blu-ray-bdp-83SE/
http://www.oppodigital.com/blu%2Dray%2Dbdp%2D95/
http://www.esstech.com/index.php?p=products_DAC

The 83SE uses an ES9006 Sabre Premier DAC for the multi-channel outputs: 120dB DR, and I think its "only" a 24-bit DAC.

The 83SE uses an ES9016 Sabre 32 Ultra DAC for the stereo outputs: 128dB DR, and it is a 32-bit DAC.

The 95 uses ES9018 Sabre 32 Reference DACs for both the stereo AND multi-channel outputs: 133db DNR, and both are 32-bit DACs.

I had always assumed that the BDP-83SE used 32-bit DACs for the 7.1 outputs, but it looks like this isn't the case. The BDP-95 puts that right, and uses better DACs anyway. In ESS terminology, it seems that Reference is better than Ultra is better than Premier.

So not only is the 95 better like-for-like, but it uses better DACs for the multi-channel outputs than the 83SE used for the stereo outputs.

Nick
post #132 of 1008
12/21/10 at 3:52pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parrish View Post

does anyone know if the dacs in the 83se are better than the ones in the upcoming 95? I noticed they are different?

The BDP-83SE uses Sabre32 Premier ES9006 for the dedicated stereo output and the Sabre32 Ultra ES9016 for the multi-channel analog outputs.

The BDP-95 uses Sabre32 Reference ES9018 for both dedicated stereo (analog and RCA) and multi-channel analog outputs.

Thereby, the BDP-95 is superior to the BDP-83SE.
post #133 of 1008
12/21/10 at 4:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acesn8s View Post

"What brands in a DVD or SACD player offers this functionality currently and at what cost? I understand the want, but I don't understand the need. Does anyone know if the soon to be released players by Denon and Marantz will offer such a feature?"

The Esoteric SA-50 and a couple of Cary SACD players have digital inputs to their DACs. They list for five or more times the anticipated BD-95 price.

For that kind of money an OPPO plus a high end DAC leaves lots of cash for software.

Acesn8s,

Thanks for the response and I assumed as much on the cost side. Your solution sounds more cost effective and people expecting this out of a sub $1k blu-ray player is totally unreasonable in my opinion considering what Esoteric and Cary charge for this functionality.


Willie
post #134 of 1008
12/21/10 at 8:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuromancer View Post

Unfortunately the UI is pretty much unchanged from the BDP-8x series, so if you did not like it then, you will not like it then. DLNA/UDnP rendering is not a part of the BDP-9x series of players, so you will still need to use the clunky interface.

Thanks Neuro. Dare I ask: If DLNA/UDnP rendering is not part of the BDP-9x series of players, which series of players is it a part of and would that series of players also play streamed 24/96 2CH & MCH files?

Styln
post #135 of 1008
12/21/10 at 9:38pm
Ok, some I'm confused.

The BDP-95 seems to offer some very good DACs but you can only take advantage of them if you use the RCA outs/XLR outs. I get that, but would I lose my Audyessey calibration if I got 7.1 direct-in to my Onkyo PR-SC5508? Does doing 7.1 in bypass my Audyessey settings?

Another thought...

The BDP-93 seems like a fine unit as well, would it be best to trust the PR-SC5508 burr-brown 32-bit DACs to do the audio processing and save my money by not going with the BDP-95?

I suppose it comes down to this:

192/32-bit Burr-Brown on my Onkyo PR-SC5508 vs. the BDP-95 SABRE-32 Reference Audio DAC

...and how it's implemented.

which is better??
post #136 of 1008
12/21/10 at 10:05pm
The Audyssey question is best directed to the owner's thread for your Onkyo.

Depending on how high end your particular Onkyo model is, there are likely more or fewer such restrictions.

However, understand that to use Audyssey, the Onkyo would have to RE-DIGITIZE the analog inputs since the processing is done in the digital domain. The re-digitization is one potential location for quality loss. And then the Onkyo would do the Audyssey processing. And then, finally, the processed digital audio would be RE-CONVERTED back to analog using the DACs in the Onkyo.

So you would have to believe the quality of the analog output stage of the 95 is SO good that it overcomes any quality loss in the re-digitization in the Onkyo, any quality loss in the Audyssey processing itself, and any quality loss in the conversion back to analog via the Onkyo's DACs for output. That's a tough sell.

And indeed if you like the Audyssey processing and the quality of the output DACs of the Onkyo, you may want to just use digital audio from the player in the first place and avoid the re-digitization. The analog your speakers see is going to come from the Onkyo's DACs anyway (if Audyssey is happening).

In which case you might as well get the 93 and save some money.

That's precisely what I do with my Anthem Statement D2v and Anthem Room Correction.
--Bob
post #137 of 1008
12/21/10 at 10:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Pariseau View Post

The Audyssey question is best directed to the owner's thread for your Onkyo.

Depending on how high end your particular Onkyo model is, there are likely more or fewer such restrictions.

However, understand that to use Audyssey, the Onkyo would have to RE-DIGITIZE the analog inputs since the processing is done in the digital domain. The re-digitization is one potential location for quality loss. And then the Onkyo would do the Audyssey processing. And then, finally, the processed digital audio would be RE-CONVERTED back to analog using the DACs in the Onkyo.

So you would have to believe the quality of the analog output stage of the 95 is SO good that it overcomes any quality loss in the re-digitization in the Onkyo, any quality loss in the Audyssey processing itself, and any quality loss in the conversion back to analog via the Onkyo's DACs for output. That's a tough sell.

And indeed if you like the Audyssey processing and the quality of the output DACs of the Onkyo, you may want to just use digital audio from the player in the first place and avoid the re-digitization. The analog your speakers see is going to come from the Onkyo's DACs anyway (if Audyssey is happening).

In which case you might as well get the 93 and save some money.

That's precisely what I do with my Anthem Statement D2v and Anthem Room Correction.
--Bob

Thanks for the explanation. It sounds like the 93 is more proper for my setup. I can see how the 95 is positioned to supply better audio then what the AVR can do, but that depends on the AVR. If you have a higher-end AVR with similar DACs and processing as the 95, then go with the 93 and save your money, let your beefy high-end AVR do the work, it's what you paid for, right?

If you don't have a beefy AVR then you can allow the 95 to do the work without having to update your AVR.

Am I right or wrong about this?

The only main differences between the 93 and 95 are the better audio output options from the 95. Other than that, they are one in the same correct?
post #138 of 1008
12/21/10 at 10:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangeblast View Post

Thanks for the explanation. It sounds like the 93 is more proper for my setup. I can see how the 95 is positioned to supply better audio then what the AVR can do, but that depends on the AVR. If you have a higher-end AVR with similar DACs and processing as the 95, then go with the 93 and save your money, let your beefy high-end AVR do the work, it's what you paid for, right?

If you don't have a beefy AVR then you can allow the 95 to do the work without having to update your AVR.

Am I right or wrong about this?

That's basically the idea. But the AVR probably provides a lot of "value added" features for digital audio as well including bass management, distance correction, and surround modes (e.g., raise 2-channel input to 7.1 speakers output). Each user has to decide how important access to those features are to him.

Now folks who are heavily into analog want the audio off the disc (which is digital) converted to analog at the highest possible quality as early as possible in the signal path. And then they want that LEFT as analog all the way through the speakers. The see all those "features" in the AVR as just one more thing getting in the way of hearing the original audio. And they don't trust digital audio cable connections to do their job without screwing up the audio.

So their answer would be get the 95, use analog to your AVR -- which you will use as a pre-amp ONLY -- no Audyssey or any other processing -- just volume controlled analog pass through to the speakers. All that other stuff like speaker distance adjustment or room correction would be handled other ways -- for example by installing acoustic treatments into your room.

You can't easily dismiss either approach. For many folks the convenience of what an AVR can do, particularly an AVR with quality room correction, outweighs the purity factor. For others, that's just not so.

If you believe you are going to use analog from the player, even just for comparison experiments, then you ought to consider the 95, for the extra dollars of course. If you believe analog from the player is very much down on your list then get the 93.
--Bob
post #139 of 1008
12/21/10 at 10:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Pariseau View Post

That's basically the idea. But the AVR probably provides a lot of "value added" features for digital audio as well including bass management, distance correction, and surround modes (e.g., raise 2-channel input to 7.1 speakers output). Each user has to decide how important access to those features are to him.

Now folks who are heavily into analog want the audio off the disc (which is digital) converted to analog at the highest possible quality as early as possible in the signal path. And then they want that LEFT as analog all the way through the speakers. The see all those "features" in the AVR as just one more thing getting in the way of hearing the original audio. And they don't trust digital audio cable connections to do their job without screwing up the audio.

So their answer would be get the 95, use analog to your AVR -- which you will use as a pre-amp ONLY -- no Audyssey or any other processing -- just volume controlled analog pass through to the speakers. All that other stuff like speaker distance adjustment or room correction would be handled other ways -- for example by installing acoustic treatments into your room.

You can't easily dismiss either approach. For many folks the convenience of what an AVR can do, particularly an AVR with quality room correction, outweighs the purity factor. For others, that's just not so.

If you believe you are going to use analog from the player, even just for comparison experiments, then you ought to consider the 95, for the extra dollars of course. If you believe analog from the player is very much down on your list then get the 93.
--Bob

Got it. Thanks for that great explanation. I totally understand now how the AVR fits in to the picture. The 93, in this case, is for me. I want the picture quality and processing and I'll have the expensive AVR and external amps do the work. Again, it's why I bought them in the first place.

Thanks again!
post #140 of 1008
12/21/10 at 10:54pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Styln View Post


Thanks Neuro. Dare I ask: If DLNA/UDnP rendering is not part of the BDP-9x series of players, which series of players is it a part of and would that series of players also play streamed 24/96 2CH & MCH files?

Styln

Unfortunately no OPPO player will meet your DLNA Rendering requirements.

The BDP-9x will support 24bit/96KHz multi-channel such as FLAC.
post #141 of 1008
12/21/10 at 11:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by aytang1997 View Post

How can you tell if my pre/Avr re-digitizes? How do I avoid that?

Unluckly, if re-digitize, you can only check but not avoid in some projects it dipends in how the pre/Avr is engeenerized ...
Normally, in bypass function, pre/avr must act as volume control only, some at least, make you set individual analog channels levels ... BUT if a pre/avr does distance (time) regulations this means it involve it's DSP and to do so the analog signal from the 83SE or 95 Dacs must be redigitzed in order to feed the avr DSP ....
post #142 of 1008
12/21/10 at 11:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parrish View Post

does anyone know if the dacs in the 83se are better than the ones in the upcoming 95? I noticed they are different?

Oppo 95 IS THE MACHINE !!! Men !!

Actually the 9018 DACs are the Best out on Market

Speculations.. my 2cents:

I didn't aspect huge improvements and differences in Analog Stereo Area, due at now 83SE Quad Stack 9016 is just great, so the differences will be there but, as you know, the more you rise the target and less audibile are the differences

Where, instead, I aspect a HUGE difference is in 7.1 Analog out Area where the 83SE 9006 Dacs will be blown away by the forthcoming premium Dacs 9018 in 95
Here, imho, we will get a huge improvements !!!
post #143 of 1008
12/21/10 at 11:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuromancer View Post

The BDP-83SE uses Sabre32 Premier ES9006 for the dedicated stereo output and the Sabre32 Ultra ES9016 for the multi-channel analog outputs.
...

It's the opposite ....
9016 for Stereo
9006 for 7.1

post #144 of 1008
12/22/10 at 3:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smarty-pants View Post

Dang, thought it would work. However since this is the case, maybe they can not implement the half steps anyway, do to the limitation that you see.
Based on this information, I would guess that it is a limitation with the MTK chip. So the the only one who could change it would be Mediatek, and with the request being lower in popularity among other requests, I wouldn't expect it to happen, but you never know.

Right Dave ... true ... it's a both firmware and Mediatek limitation ...

I remember that Oppo support wrote me a note about this and in order to ride on is necessary that Mediatek does some implementation in programming the cip that way ... This includes too the ability to treat channels distances indipent or choose the reference group channels to rapport the distances ...

Unluckly, the way as is, it's almost impossible to dial a really precise setting both for Time/Phase and volume domain ...

This will vanish the vantage to go Analog due most guys in some installation prefer to go Digital for more easy and accurate settings via Audissey ...

A wrong phase or level is crucial in a multichannel system ...
If true, all sounds hawful and got many frequecies cancellations in 5.1 setup with Full range speakers ....
post #145 of 1008
12/22/10 at 3:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuromancer View Post

The BDP-83SE uses Sabre32 Premier ES9006 for the dedicated stereo output and the Sabre32 Ultra ES9016 for the multi-channel analog outputs.
The BDP-95 uses Sabre32 Reference ES9018 for both dedicated stereo (analog and RCA) and multi-channel analog outputs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Highlander_AVS View Post

It's the opposite ....
9016 for Stereo
9006 for 7.1

According to the ESS data sheets, the ES9006 Sabre Premier DAC will only accept 16, 20 or 24-bit PCM digital audio. There's no mention of 32-bit capability anywhere I can find for this DAC. I think Oppo let us presume that because the 83SE stereo DAC was 32-bit, that the 7.1 DAC was the same. But it's not (which was a slight surprise to me).

http://www.esstech.com/PDF/Sabre_PF_080507.pdf

Meanwhile the ES9018 Sabre32 Reference DAC in the 95 accepts 16-32 bit audio, and has much better DNR and THD+N.

http://www.esstech.com/PDF/Sabre32%2...F%20100622.pdf

I think this all rather moot however. The theoretical dynamic range of a DAC is 20log2 or 6.02dB per bit. Therefore a 24-bit DAC can resolve a DNR of 144.5dB. The practical limit for even state-of-the-art equipment is currently around 116-120dB, which equates to 19-20 bits of resolution. It's difficult to see how 32-bit DACs will improve on 24-bit DACs, though it's still good to know that Oppo are using the best DACs they can. In a practical sense, I expect the linear power supply is likely to make more of a difference to overall audio performance than the better DACs chips (and improve digital audio performance as well).

Nick
post #146 of 1008
12/22/10 at 3:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by welwynnick View Post

According to the ESS data sheets, the ES9006 Sabre Premier DAC will only accept 16, 20 or 24-bit PCM digital audio. There’s no mention of 32-bit capability anywhere I can find for this DAC. I think Oppo let us presume that because the 83SE stereo DAC was 32-bit, that the 7.1 DAC was the same. But it’s not (which was a slight surprise to me). ....

Nick

Nick, Oppo never stated that 9006 cip is a 32bit ...
They always spoke about Sabre32 9016 for Stereo outs and Sabre 9006 for 7.1 outs

P.S. You wake up now
It's about a year that I raised the "Dust" in asking to have both Stereo and 7.1 with the SAME Sabre32 Dacs

Finally, we will got in 95 with the Premium REFERENCE Class
post #147 of 1008
12/22/10 at 4:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acesn8s View Post

So, is the rumor that Emotiva is working on a universal BluRay player accurate?

Why would anyone want to buy a blu ray player from Emotiva?
post #148 of 1008
12/22/10 at 5:13am
Lets hope by the time this is out Oppo gets WMA lossless in the firmware. It would be pointless to spend so much on a Blu-ray player if it cant even play my lossless files. And no, I don't want to use another format as the Zune software is a spectacular media player that I use which supports it.
post #149 of 1008
12/22/10 at 5:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post

Lets hope by the time this is out Oppo gets WMA lossless in the firmware.

Anything can happen, but there is no reason to think WMA lossless will be supported.

-Bill
post #150 of 1008
12/22/10 at 5:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post

Lets hope by the time this is out Oppo gets WMA lossless in the firmware.

Abandoning Pioneer too?

I'm undecided whether to just get a 93 when region free mod becomes available or get the 95 and be able to sell the BDP-09
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Players
This thread is locked  

Gear mentioned in this thread:

AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Players › Official OPPO BDP-95 Anticipation Thread