or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Players › Official OPPO BDP-103/BDP-105 Anticipation Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Official OPPO BDP-103/BDP-105 Anticipation Thread - Page 89

post #2641 of 2827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

The Acoustic Reality Experience BDs are remixed/remastered from licenced and previously released materials, for the most part, and of variable quality.  2L is a real label offering high quality original recordings.  No comparison. Also, the 2L recordings are available on BDs and/or SACD as well as downloads.

The Acoustic Reality discs are not even "real" Blu-ray discs. They are actually AVCHD file structure burned on a DVD. The player sees the AVCHD folder structure and plays that "like" a Blu-ray, but you'll notice, for example, that it has to spin the disc at higher than usual speed to get the data read rate up to where it needs to be.

And if you read the liner notes, you'll find that their "7.1" music tracks are really sourced from 5.1 masters (originally made for DVD-Audio or SACD for the most part). I.e., the Acoustic Reality folks have digitally "processed" the 5.1 masters up to 7.1 to go on the disc.
--Bob
post #2642 of 2827
Quote:
Originally Posted by belvista View Post

Hi Bob,

Isn't it a bit disquieting that Oppo could not get a fundamental element like audio synchronization correct right out of the box? I want the 103 but why would I retire my PS3 to instal a machine which could or will produce dialogue imperfectly matched to the speaker's lips and ruin the film experience for me? Sigh.

Welcome to the challenging world of modern home theater equipment! These puppies are complicated.

On the other hand, I think you could safely bet that OPPO will get this sync problem fixed, whereas, say, it's been SIX YEARS and Sony still hasn't managed to fix the fundamental, video de-interlacing flaws in the PS3. biggrin.gif
--Bob
post #2643 of 2827
Quote:
Originally Posted by belvista View Post

Hi Bill,
I'm not referring to the audio delays induced by different audio configurations/devices. I'm talking about the sync issue inherent in the Oppo itself which Bob P. has described. I can understand the former because of myriad devices and set up out there in the real world but the sync issue intrinsic to the Oppo itself is harder to fathom.

I have no lip synch issues with the 103 in my set-up.
post #2644 of 2827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Pariseau View Post

The Acoustic Reality discs are not even "real" Blu-ray discs. They are actually AVCHD file structure burned on a DVD. The player sees the AVCHD folder structure and plays that "like" a Blu-ray, but you'll notice, for example, that it has to spin the disc at higher than usual speed to get the data read rate up to where it needs to be.
And if you read the liner notes, you'll find that their "7.1" music tracks are really sourced from 5.1 masters (originally made for DVD-Audio or SACD for the most part). I.e., the Acoustic Reality folks have digitally "processed" the 5.1 masters up to 7.1 to go on the disc.
--Bob

Boy, the more I read the more I understand why I was so disappointed in the quality of the Acoustic Reality discs, from so many points of view.

On the other hand I have been impressed by the quality of hi-res recordings from Tacet, AIX, MA Recordiings, and two recent Naxos blu-ray audio recordings. The sound quality of recordings from these sources have all been very high, musicianship enjoyable and satisfying.

I look forward to including 2L in this list in the next 1-2 weeks when I receive my ordered disc. My personal preference for future purchases is hi-res, (by that I mean lossless, 24-bit 88.2hz sample rate or better) recordings to get the most satisfaction from my equipment. Of course, there will be recordings I want that are not available in this format, but I am hoping this will become less so as more studios start using the full potential of the blu-ray format, knowing that this format is accessible to an increasingly larger market (unlike the SACD and DVD-A formats, which both required special equipment not commonly owned by the majority of consumers)

I wonder if, when playing 2-channel recordings on my Oppo 95, I should use the stereo outpout rather than the LF RF plugs of the 7.1 analogue outputs. Would there be a significant difference (to my 68 yr old ears?)
post #2645 of 2827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Pariseau View Post

Welcome to the challenging world of modern home theater equipment! These puppies are complicated.
On the other hand, I think you could safely bet that OPPO will get this sync problem fixed, whereas, say, it's been SIX YEARS and Sony still hasn't managed to fix the fundamental, video de-interlacing flaws in the PS3. biggrin.gif
--Bob

Not only that, but the DA's in the PS3 never sounded that good to me and my model, with the optical out (didn't have an HDMI capable pre), always resampled 44.1k wav and mp3 files to 48k (unless it was an actual audio CD) - yuck.
post #2646 of 2827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Pariseau View Post

If you are just looking to test high bit rate media files, Linn Records has some *FREE* FLAC download test clips that you can use:

Suggest a peek at this article: Playback fidelity of 24-bit/192kHz is slightly inferior to 16/44.1
post #2647 of 2827
Thinking of getting an Apple TV and connecting it to the HDMI in on my 103. Or would I be better off saving some money and using the 103 to do all my streaming (what little I do)?
post #2648 of 2827
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkphader View Post

Suggest a peek at this article: Playback fidelity of 24-bit/192kHz is slightly inferior to 16/44.1


If I read it correctly as I only did a quick read. He states it's system dependent as some systems can reproduce it (24/96-24/192) properly and others will not? I have one disc with 24/192khz (Akira) and it sounds great on my system. I know that "Chris Botti's with orchestra and friends" Blu-ray is at 24/96khz. It also has the Dolby Digital track along with it for comparison.
Edited by Sharp1080 - 11/28/12 at 9:24am
post #2649 of 2827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waboman View Post

Thinking of getting an Apple TV and connecting it to the HDMI in on my 103. Or would I be better off saving some money and using the 103 to do all my streaming (what little I do)?

Depends on what you want to use it for. The appletv will have a better interface and adds several options but it is also limited to only streaming 16/44 material and though I often can't tell much of a difference between most components, I never felt the appletv sounded even close to as good as the oppo. But the appletv will also give you access to ALAC which could be a plus (or you can just use the USB DAC option to play ALAC too). I haven't compared netflix yet, but with the new oppo netflix app, you might as stay with that anyway.
post #2650 of 2827
Since this thread is about anticipation, I can't wait to get mine. I'll be comparing a few things on the audio side, like how it compares to the McIntosh MCD301 for CD/SACD and headphones, and how it compares to the Peachtree DAC-it for hi-res lossless (mostly 24-96) and lowres (OTA HDTV signal).
post #2651 of 2827
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkphader View Post

See footnote 15:
Several readers have wanted to know how, if ultrasonics can cause audible intermodulation distortion, the Meyer and Moran 2007 test could have produced a null result.
It should be obvious that 'can' and 'sometimes' are not the same as 'will' and 'always'. Intermodulation distortion from ultrasonics is a possibility, not a certainty, in any given system for a given set of material. The Meyer and Moran null result indicates that intermodulation distortion was inaudible on the systems used during the course of their testing.
Readers are invited to try the simple ultrasonic intermodulation distortion test above for a quick check of the intermodulation potential of their own equipment.

I don't want to hurt anybody's feelings but when I look at the frequency spectrum of the files on xiph.org, there seems to be some problems. I think that I'll generate a few files of my own instead before jumping to any conclusions...
post #2652 of 2827
Quote:
Originally Posted by tme110 View Post

Depends on what you want to use it for. The appletv will have a better interface and adds several options but it is also limited to only streaming 16/44 material and though I often can't tell much of a difference between most components, I never felt the appletv sounded even close to as good as the oppo. But the appletv will also give you access to ALAC which could be a plus (or you can just use the USB DAC option to play ALAC too). I haven't compared netflix yet, but with the new oppo netflix app, you might as stay with that anyway.

Just picked up an Apple TV. Now I have to decide whether to connect it to my processor via HDMI or use the HDMI input on the 103? Decisions, decisions.
post #2653 of 2827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Pariseau View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by belvista View Post

Hi Bob,

Isn't it a bit disquieting that Oppo could not get a fundamental element like audio synchronization correct right out of the box? I want the 103 but why would I retire my PS3 to instal a machine which could or will produce dialogue imperfectly matched to the speaker's lips and ruin the film experience for me? Sigh.

Welcome to the challenging world of modern home theater equipment! These puppies are complicated.

On the other hand, I think you could safely bet that OPPO will get this sync problem fixed, whereas, say, it's been SIX YEARS and Sony still hasn't managed to fix the fundamental, video de-interlacing flaws in the PS3. biggrin.gif
--Bob

Bob, i just want to get something straight...

 

The AV sync delay problem doesn't exist when playing shiny disks but only a problem when using HDMI and digital inputs, right? And if this is the case, then isn't the player fairly bug-free?

post #2654 of 2827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waboman View Post

Just picked up an Apple TV. Now I have to decide whether to connect it to my processor via HDMI or use the HDMI input on the 103? Decisions, decisions.


Excuse my ignorance but what's the benefit of connecting the ATV to your 103? I've read another poster wanting to do the same, can you take advantage of the 103's DAC as well as the 105?


Thanks and pardon the question.

Djoel
post #2655 of 2827
dmusoke,
Not correct. There's a different direction of sync error during shiny disc playback in several common configurations. The error is smaller, and since audio is ahead of video, it can be corrected by the user via adding external audio delay. But it shouldn't be there in the first place.
--Bob
post #2656 of 2827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djoel View Post

Excuse my ignorance but what's the benefit of connecting the ATV to your 103? I've read another poster wanting to do the same, can you take advantage of the 103's DAC as well as the 105?
Thanks and pardon the question.
Djoel

Connecting the ATV to the 103 via HDMI will let me use and take advantage of the Oppo's excellent video scaling. Basically turning the 103 into an external VP. I will still be using the DAC's in my pre/pro.
post #2657 of 2827
^i guess the question is which unit (103 or your pre-pro) performs the D/A task best?
post #2658 of 2827
I'm going with my pre/pro.
post #2659 of 2827
Is your decision based on comparing the SQ between your pre/pro and 103, or is it for other reasons?
post #2660 of 2827
Quote:
Originally Posted by vlach View Post

Is your decision based on comparing the SQ between your pre/pro and 103, or is it for other reasons?
His pre/pro is the Denon AVP-A1HDCI. It is definitely better at the D/A conversion than the 103 and has Audyssey XT32 (if it's been upgraded) to boot. The 103 does pretty well, but it shouldn't be expected to compete with high-end pre/pros like the Denon or Anthem D2v.
post #2661 of 2827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waboman View Post

Connecting the ATV to the 103 via HDMI will let me use and take advantage of the Oppo's excellent video scaling. Basically turning the 103 into an external VP. I will still be using the DAC's in my pre/pro.




Crystal..Thanks smile.gif


Djoel
post #2662 of 2827
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkphader View Post

Suggest a peek at this article: Playback fidelity of 24-bit/192kHz is slightly inferior to 16/44.1

Well, that's a bit of a downer!!! eek.gif

Without a scientific background, I cannot assess the validity of his arguments (although it is a bit hard to deny the results of proper double-blind testing, and I have read of similar results in double-blind testing - which may have even been challenging listeners to compare a high-sample mp3 to the original and most couldn't??) .

And at sixy-eight years of age, I am certainly not going to attempt to pit my ears against such tests.

So maybe it does come down to the probability that most studios doing hi-res masters are run by people who care about what they are doing, and simply do a better job of mastering, and are more likely using the best equipment, and their work would sound just as good without the hi-res authoring??

I would have to confess that I own a few Deutsche Grammophen recordings ("lowly cds" I am talking about here!) that I have often found myself thinking sound exceptionally good, even compared to some of my hi-res DVD-As and SACD's. And I have also found the sound quality of some concert DVD's more than satisfactory.

So are we hi-res fanatics the victims of clever marketing?? Are we confusing lossless with hi-res?? Can 16-bit 44.1 hz (properly mastered of course) be all we need?

Of course, this is all totally off-topic for this thread, so apologies to all!! biggrin.gif

Is this debated on any thread anyone can point me to??
post #2663 of 2827
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkphader View Post

Suggest a peek at this article: Playback fidelity of 24-bit/192kHz is slightly inferior to 16/44.1

Excellent article! I really learned a lot, thank you.
post #2664 of 2827
^ Although there's nothing wrong with the technical information in that article, I find a number of the conclusions fallacious.

BAD 192KHz 24-bit is worse than GOOD 44.1KHz 16-bit. No argument there.

And the belief that, all other things being equal, a 192KHz 24-bit track of any given performance MUST sound better than a 44.1KHz 16-bit track is equally wrong. So no argument there either.

There's also nothing magical about 192KHz 24-bit which will prevent the audio engineers from screwing up. High bit rate can not be taken as some sort of "seal of approval"!

But it's that "all other things being equal" statement where the argument falls apart.

The reality is that people making high quality recordings -- made with maximal care and attention to detail -- are more likely to author those for high bit rate rather than CD rate. The actual frequency and dynamic range in the RESULT might not be better than if they had stuck to CD rate, but odds are they feel more comfortable working at the higher rate.

Now dynamic range is the easiest factor to deal with. The human ear under ideal conditions can't really hear 24 bits of dynamic range. But it CAN hear more than 16! The best test results I've seen say that human hearing tops out at about 20-bit. As it turns out, packing 20-bits of REAL dynamic range into 24-bit data just works more conveniently in modern recording formats and digital transmission protocols. Of course packing 20-bits into 16-bit data is problematic.

Next the sampling rate: Digital audio gets "processed". Perhaps quite a lot. (Such processing is not necessarily a bad thing!) Even though 44.1KHz may be perfectly adequate to carry the desired end result in frequency range, you have to be very careful when processing that digital audio data stream to keep from introducing artifacts which can look a lot like the "aliasing" that happens if you try to force too high frequency of content audio into that 44.1KHz. Aliasing doesn't affect just the frequencies that are too high for the sampling rate. It affects ALL THE LOWER frequencies too. So the audio engineers need to be sure they've pre-filtered out the high stuff before digitizing, or the result WILL be screwed up.

Now using a higher sampling rate means you can use a higher filter (as if the human ear could really hear those higher frequencies), but that's not where I'm going. Where I'm going is that making digital audio processing math work at lower sampling rates is tricky stuff! Operating at a higher sampling rate takes more processor power, but you are less likely to trip over a goof in the algorithms that introduces aliasing-like artifacts.

So these are two, good arguments for doing the audio engineering at high bit rate.

Of course if just do that willy-nilly, without regard to whether you are carrying ultrasonics along to the final result or any of the rest of the litany of problems he's worrying about, then sure the end result is not "best".

But operating at lower bit rate comes with its own pitfalls! Those algorithmic artifacts for example.

So here's my take: You can't assume a recording is good simply because it is delivered as 192KHz 24-bit.

But you also can't assume it is bad!

The proof is simple: A 192KHz 24-bit data stream can contain A BIT-PERFECT IMAGE of a 44.1KHz 16-bit data stream. So who's to say it doesn't?

Q.E.D.

It all comes down to how much care was taken in the recording and audio engineering process. There is nothing INHERENTLY bad about 192KHz 24-bit.

By the way, those same, digital audio processing gotchas come into play in the home theater gear that's trying to render the audio track.

So for example, my Anthem Statement D2v upsamples audio to 192KHz 24-bit prior to any other processing -- NOT because Anthem thinks that will magically make higher frequencies appear, but because it makes the digital audio processing SIMPLER to get right -- and the D2v has the horsepower to allow them to do that.

Of course if the input is ALREADY 192KHz 24-bit, it doesn't have to do that.
--Bob
Edited by Bob Pariseau - 11/30/12 at 6:59am
post #2665 of 2827
Thanks fo that Bob, I'll be climbing off the ledge now. smile.gif


Djoel
post #2666 of 2827

Bob:

 

One of the arguments he gave was the intra-harmonics generated if (as an example), you had ultra harmonics between 30kHz and 33kHz. If one was using a 192kHz sampling rate with an aliasing filter up to 96kHz(theoretically), the 3khz-ish intra-harmonics will be well within the audible band.

 

Some instruments(such as the flute, saxaphone etc) have harmonics up to 30kHz and beyond so hopefully when these ultra-sonic frequencies interact with each other and alias into the audible band. I think this is where the IMD(intermodulation distortion) spec comes in handy for all audio components???

post #2667 of 2827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Pariseau View Post

^ Although there's nothing wrong with the technical information in that article, I find a number of the conclusions fallacious.
BAD 192KHz 24-bit is worse than GOOD 44.1KHz 16-bit. No argument there.
And the belief that, all other things being equal, a 192KHz 24-bit track of any given performance MUST sound better than a 44.1KHz 16-bit track is equally wrong. So no argument there either.
There's also nothing magical about 192KHz 24-bit which will prevent the audio engineers from screwing up. High bit rate can not be taken as some sort of "seal of approval"!
But it's that "all other things being equal" statement where the argument falls apart.
..........................
--Bob

Again, my technical background does not allow me to confidently say who's right or wrong here. My bias wants to believe Bob is right, of course. I love my hi-res DVD-As, blu-rays, SACDs etc and the thought that I have been imagining how good they are is a little deflating, to say the least. Within the limits of my technical savvy, I think I understand Bob's logic (logic is something I am generally good at, although logic is only as good as the assumptions/facts it is applied to, and if they are wrong....... eek.gif ) and can see the points he is making, and they make sense.

Boy, Darkphader, you really started something here!
post #2668 of 2827
Quote:
Originally Posted by madaudio View Post

Again, my technical background does not allow me to confidently say who's right or wrong here. My bias wants to believe Bob is right, of course. I love my hi-res DVD-As, blu-rays, SACDs etc and the thought that I have been imagining how good they are is a little deflating, to say the least.

They do sound better, but mainly because of better mastering - not so much because of higher sampling.
post #2669 of 2827
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdgrimes View Post

They do sound better, but mainly because of better mastering - not so much because of higher sampling.

I agree with this but I also feel that the higher sampling and bit rate can only help the outcome. I have a few hundred SACD's and the same number of DVD-Audio discs and most of them sound excellent. Mind you 99% of them are 5.1 so this may have something to do with it as well.
post #2670 of 2827
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkphader View Post

Suggest a peek at this article: Playback fidelity of 24-bit/192kHz is slightly inferior to 16/44.1

Any one listened to their OPPO 105 with these files? Was is silent?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Players
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Players › Official OPPO BDP-103/BDP-105 Anticipation Thread