Official OPPO BDP-95 Owner's Thread - Page 338

^ Yeah, well that's what I think about what they are requiring for Analog. I think I have to put another mark against DTS on the naughty list.
--Bob

I confirmed its more then a "simple" duplication.

The said:

the audio is likely re-equalized lower than the surrounds and slightly delayed to ensure that there is no collision of the audio and the Surround Backs do not overshadow the Surrounds. It is still a duplication of the Surround channels, but altered to better suit a 7.1 configuration.



I think this is a good thing. Its too bad its not available for Dolby as well. I'm thanking DTS.

If the AVR can accept 7.1, it can also have control over what happens to the 5.1 signals. Some allow users to choose "sides/rears/both" and of course PLIIx and Neo:X would not work if the signal came in as 7.1.
But which 5.1 speakers? In a proper 7.1 setup, neither the surrounds or the rears are in the ideal position for 5.1.

I have no problem in having a process that spreads the signals across all 4 speakers (as that phantom images much closer to the correct position for 5.1). My issue is that the user has no way to express a preference, other than the "throw baby from the train" downmix to 5.1 option. I think I am making some headway in making this a flexible option in future.

Sounds like whoever you talked to was guessing. I just checked, and the outputs are identical in gain and delay. Of course this only happens when the surrounds and rears have identical distance and gain settings in the speaker setup menu.

True that. But of course the AVR has no way to know the incoming 5.1 LPCM track originated as DTS, so the user has to MAKE that happen -- manually. Thus, by default, DTS has spec'd a BUILT-IN error between HDMI LPCM and HDMI Bitstream playback -- presuming the same hack is imposed on the AVR specs -- or a built-in error between HDMI Bitstream playback and Analog playback if it's not.

Complexity for complexity's sake. And pity the poor 7.1 speaker owner who set his side surrounds back of 90 degrees and now hears the surround stage pushed even FURTHER to the rear.

Trying to drag this back to some semblance of "on topic", I guess the answer is that the 7.1 Analog output for 5.1 DTS tracks is working as DTS requires it to work for certification. I disagree that they should require that, but DTS is what it is. As you've verified, there's nothing particularly "smart" going on here. It's not surround sound processing. It's just duplication. Which gets us back to the starting point that the OPPO does not do surround sound processing. Which is why 7.1 Analog output for 5.1 Dolby tracks (or 5.1 LPCM tracks for that matter) is working the way IT is working -- the rears stay silent.

(I would not expect that to change as it would likely require feature changes in the decoder chip -- which probably won't happen given that the decoder in the 93/95 has now been superseded by a newer model chip.)

For folks who've lost track, you can "fix" this by temporarily setting Speaker Configuration > Down Mix to 5.1 when playing 5.1 DTS or DTS-HD MA tracks while wired as a 7.1 Analog output configuration. Just remember to switch back to Down Mix 7.1 before playing any 7.1 tracks. If you are using HDMI Audio output there's no issue.

The 103/105 players do offer a first step into surround sound processing with DTS Neo:6 for raising 2.0 content to surround.
--Bob

For "certain blu ray discs" the BDP-95 features auto resume.
Must the drawer be opened for this to work?

Lately I've never seen a disc that works for auto resume, so one has to go to the whole lengthy caboodle again after having switched off the player.
It's enabled in the setup, and the fw is the most recent (per LAN).

Thanks!

BR discs without java: for these the player can remember resume points. I don't believe ejecting the tray is required.

BR discs with java: for these the java programming on the disc has to manage any resuming. In the beginning, none did. It's become more common, but many still don't bother.

Most BR discs have java these days.

-Bill

I just did a quick search of the cost to buy a used BDP-95 (with region free tweak) and was amazed at what people are selling them for, and even that new ones are still available at pretty much the original price.

 

Opinions?  Are they just that scarce?  Are people crazy?

 

Thanks - Frank

Region free for Blu-ray does require a hardware mod and that reasonably adds to the price,

But people are somewhat crazy in how they spend their money. Ebay in particular is a a "seller's market" and buyers bid up outlandish prices.

A person might rationally want the -95 over later players because:

• it has pre-sunset component video (important to some, although that population dwindles with time)
• it does not enforce the CInavia copy protection scheme
• it has eSata in addition to USB
• it MIGHT have older firmware that supports DVD and BR iso file playback (but you cannot update the firmware without losing that)

-Bill

I think it's more a case of you can't get anything that sounds better and plays movies for less money.

What a black-hole and money-pit this website is. I moved to a new house and put up a 110" screen in the basement and got a sub $3,000 projector, which made me need to upgrade my receiver, which led to me upgrading my speakers, which has now led me to thinking I need to upgrade my crappy dvd/cd player. So here I am. I've decided to go with the BDP-95 over the BDP-93. I'm assuming that I will notice a significant difference in the sound quality over my HDMI connected Sony HTIB dvd player or PS3. Will there also be a significant difference in the video quality? I'm also debating on replacing my Marantz SR-6007 for a Cambridge Audio 551R or 651R. Which receiver would get the most out of the BDP-95?

Video is the same. Audio will be the same if you use HDMI, different if you use the multi-channel analog outputs.

Note that the -93 and -95 are both out of production.

-Bill

I won't be using HDMI for the audio, which is my reason for upgrading instead of simply getting a stand-alone DAC. I plan on using stereo or multi-channel analog outputs for audio. So the video quality is not affected by the quality of the video decoder in the BDP-95 vs what's in my Sony HTIB blu-ray player? I know the BDP-95 is out of production, but I found a pretty good deal on a new one. Would you recommend the BDP-105 instead?

I've been going back and forth about upgrading from my 95 to the 103. I'd probably have done that if it didn't appear that the 103 is having growing pains. I'm also not so sure that the stacked DACs for two channel isn't technically better than the 103's implementation.

No, I meant video on the -95 is the same as on the -93.

I'm not qualified to comment on audiophile players. The -103 is the same price as the -93, but the -105 is more expensive than the -95.

-Bill

Okay. Makes sense. Would the -95 sound better than the -103 when playing stereo and multi-channel audio via analog outputs?

I'm still not qualified! Maybe someone else here can comment, or try the -103 thread.

-Bill

That depends entirely on what's connected downstream from the player. Either player is an excellent choice for analog audio, and will best other players costing much more.

Downstream currently is a Marantz SR6007 (which I'm thinking of swapping for a Cambridge Audio 551R, 651R or NAD T57). I'm currently in-home auditioning the Gallo CL-3s, CL-C and CL-1s and the B&W 683s, CMC2 and 686s in a 5.1 setup. I'm trying to ascertain whether there is a difference in sound quality between -95 and -103 or if I should just spring for the -105.

On the analog channels, the 95 and 105 will sound the same, both being much better than the 93. My 95 sounds great.

How did you check this? I think you might be right, but do wonder how to be sure.

I traded some email all day with a buddy that taught me a trick to get true 7.1 inputs from a B&K reference 30 or 50. When his B&K died, he could not get his new pr-pro to sound as good as the 95 with analog, so he went HDMI, sold the 95 and got a 93.

I'm wondering what pre-pros sound as good or better than a 95 with a true analog patch? Hometheater in their review said a 93 on analog sounds better than an Integra.

I think playing a true 7.1 disc on a 5.1 system is not ideal either, right?

Is there a pre-pro available with a 7.1 true analog path, that still can matrix in the center rears, on an as needed basis, like the old B&Ks? I don't think there is. That would be the best case.

As more discs are made in 7.1, the 5.1 setups are going to be hurting. The sounds set to go over your head, just get stuck in the surround channels.

I'm not sure that's even possible since it would have to be done in the digital domain if I understand this stuff correctly.

The BK reference 30 and 50 send 7.1 outputs from 5.1 analog inputs (or optical inputs). It would be an extra A/D/A step, but only on the center rears. It would sound better than a speaker with no sound, the way it is now with certain configurations. I'd prefer to have a basic post processor on the 95 to do this for sure.

So the 95 would sound better than the 103 for analog output?

Yes! How much better will largely depend on factors like what components and speakers you have downstream of the 95 and room acoustics. The 95 comes with very high quality DACs and the price difference between it and the 93/103 is largely due to those DACs and the associated upgraded analog circuitry
Edited by Torqdog - 1/23/13 at 9:01pm

Analog sound quality on the Oppo players progresses like this:

BDP-83 < BDP-93 < BDP-83SE* < BDP-103 < BDP-95 < BDP-105

* One might argue that the BDP-83SE's analog audio is better than the BDP-103, but the 2 are probably close enough that the distinction isn't all that important.

Those apply to both players. So the 95 will still be better to start than the 103 - apples to apples. Whether you can tell is another story. I think its a lot bigger difference than expensive cables. Probably less than a decent amplifier upgrade. If you have any buzz in your speakers, even with your ear up to them, fix that first. A low noise floor is important for the last level of performance.

The speakers I have hooked up to the Marantz SR6007 are Gallo CL-3s (I'm also in home auditioning B&W 683s and PSB T6s, so far the Gallo sound the best followed by the T6s). I do not hear any buzz from any of the speakers I'm currently auditioning. I've also tested the noise floor of the CL-3s with the WOW calibration DVD.

How does it sound?

I've had a bit of an awakening on the DAC quality issue. A while back I did some serious testing of my old 83SE on analog 2 channel SACDs versus the same song on regular CD. There was a noticeable difference for the better on the Oppo, as expected.

I've swapped out a fair number of pieces since then. I went to the 95 for one. Now I'm running the new Emotive UMC-200. I tried a Rotel a few years back, but there were too many pops and non-lock issues for me. The UMC-200 was intended to mainly provide a clean path fro the Oppo.

The UMC-200 uses a version of a Cirrus chip - I think. I also have an external DAC I bought for my housewide system. That one is not that expensive ($300 range), but also runs a Cirrus, and has a tube stage. The idea of the tube DAC was to warm up the sound from my old Escient Fireball music server, which is seems to do.

I have a couple nice 2-channel SACDs I like - Jeff Beck - Blow by Blow and Peter Gabriel - So. The mellow tunes show off my system.

Its hard to believe, but the SACD from the Oppo, going on a direct analog path sounds pretty much the same as the tube DAC converting a bitstream from the Fireball read from a FLAQ ripped from a CD. Hmmm. Then the UMC-200 decoding the same bitstream, with room correction running on the DSP, probably sounds a bit better to me. hmmm. I brought my wife an daughter down to each listen. My daughter said the tube DAC made the vocals on So sound a bit more raspy, which she though would have been Peter's intention. Now there is an audiophile in the making. My wife liked the tube DAC too, saying the SACD sounded too perfect. I thought they all sounded so close, its hard to tell.

So I'm guessing the decent DACs are a lot closer to the high end DACs than a few years back. The only other variable is that I went to a bi-amp setup on my main speakers, using a tube to drive the horns. Maybe that is warming everything up to make the differences super subtle? I think I really underestimated the value of room EQ too. Its only tweaks here and there, but overall its better.