or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Players ›  Official OPPO BDP-105 Owner's Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Official OPPO BDP-105 Owner's Thread - Page 64

post #1891 of 10244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

I have not had that problem with my setup via jRiver although the Oppo does respond to on/off of the display with a brief interruption in the sound.  I can turn off the Meridian and/or LCD and still play the output via the analog XLRs.  

+1

I frequently listen w/o turning my DVI monitor on and have no problem with the BubbleUPnP controller pushing content to the 105. Just for grins I powered the deck down, unplugged the video cable (felt really good smile.gif), and booted the system up. Yep, zero impact on DLNA, as expected.

Styln
post #1892 of 10244
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeff52 View Post

I finally got WMP to recognize the player and was able to stream music to it, however it leaves a lot to be desired using it in that fashion. Some songs play, others won't and some hang while "contacting the media server". I also was able to get Foobar to recognize the player but it buffers and then stops and won't play the queued files.
I have given up using the player in this fashion and will use my Touch rather than the OPPO. The player works fine when accessing music via a server but doesn't work worth a crap when pushing music to it. If I ever decide to use the OPPO for playing files from my computer I will connect a monitor and use the network interface to locate and pull music from the server. The Touch works flawlessly with lossless FLAC and 24/96 high res files over the network but the OPPO/WMP/Foobar combination is a PITA when pushing music to it.

I use Asset UPnP instead of Foobar as a server, but Foobar should allow you to losslessly and transparently transcode your content to LPCM. I do this for non-native formats and am finding the 105 to be a capable & hassle free network streamer.

Styln
post #1893 of 10244
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKO1 View Post

Oh, and hopefully you never need an ECG/EKG measurement from a non-burned-in machine.
Tony

It is called calibration. If I recall in a previous post you used oscilloscopes as a reference as well...they too are calibrated on a regular schedule...why...because components drift over time. Using these types of equipment as an anaolgy does not bear weight in the "burn in" discussion.

If 2 amps from different manufactures have the exact same specifications...according to the "engineers" (and I am one) they would sound identical in every way...and I think we all know that is not the case, otherwise we would only need one brand for all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimshowalter View Post

The only expertise I claim is knowledge of the scientific method: http://us.gizmodo.com/363154/audiophile-deathmatch-monster-cables-vs-a-coat-hanger.

Really not much of a comparision, equal quality, the coat hanger should win.

If one cannot hear the difference, then it doesn't matter...if one can hear a difference, it does matter. For those who cannot, audio decisions are much simpler...and cheaper.
For the rest of us, we know what we are hearing...and until we have the technology to spec our brains to understand why we differ...the debate will continue.
post #1894 of 10244
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenGodzilla View Post

Anybody have any opinions on the audio differences between the 103 and 105 for music only?
I've seen a few posts and had experiences that urge caution to me for jumping in and buying a 105 mostly for stereo......

That is ridiculous IMO. But, you can try it for the cost of shipping and handling for 30 days in your system and form your own opinion, eh?

Styln
post #1895 of 10244
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimshowalter View Post

Double-blind it. That's all we're asking. Clearly you believe you can hear a difference (and nobody is stating that you don't believe that you hear a difference). Because you believe you can hear a difference, you should be able to detect that difference without knowing which component has been "burned in". If you're going to dismiss the lack of objective measurements, then all that's left is your subjective impressions, and the only way to verify that those aren't just you making stuff up is for your impressions to pass a basic test of validity.
If you dismiss all forms of testing, then you're not being scientific. (The acronym AVS stands for Audio Visual Science.) It's okay to be a mystic, but don't expect to be taken seriously.
The human capacity for self-delusion is almost limitless. For thousands of years, we wandered around in a fog thinking things like "bigger objects fall faster", because we hadn't clued into the idea yet of testing hypotheses. People still think eyewitness testimony is the gold standard (they "know" what they "saw" with their own eyes), when it turns out to be remarkably unreliable, as shown by objective, scientific, DNA testing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_identification).
Now that we know about testability, we live in a world of seeming miracles, courtesy of the scientific method.
It's not really true that everyone has a right to their opinion. For example, a physician who still practiced phrenology because, in his opinion, it was beneficial would be driven out of the profession. Not all opinions have equal value. Some are complete hogwash. It's important to know how to distinguish fact from fiction.
We just got done with an election in which an entire political class deluded itself into not believing data from scientific polling, because their "pundits" were convinced of systemic bias. You know how well that worked out for them.
Audiophiles can't tell the difference between coathangers and Monster Cable in a single-blind test. That should make audiophiles step back and go whoa, what was I thinking? Instead, they redouble their efforts.
Someone will probably object that this is drifting off topic, but if you review the past couple hundred posts, a significant percentage of them involve unsubstantiated claims about unmeasured (and probably unmeasurable) characteristics of the Oppo 105 and various other components.

IMHO our methods of measurement are inadequate to capture reliably what the human ear hears and the mind perceives. A perfect measurement system with a 1:1 correlation to idealized SQ simply does not exist. I've been very disappointed buying equipment based on spec sheets. Greats specs, not so great sound, and worse -- cheaper gear with so so specs sounds better.

The only way to know for sure is to turn it on and listen, specs be damned.

Let's take a step back and look at a wider landscape -- why do we buy this gear to begin with? Well, personally I enjoy the planning and setup, the tweaking and finally the output in the form of fine PQ, SQ, and the experience. None of us would do it if we didn't enjoy it in some manner. So, if a Golden Ear has a better experience spending $$$ on a piece of gear that has lousy specs and flunks a double blind listening/viewing test, is that a problem? If a gear head has a room full of absolutely wretched sounding gear with exception spec sheets, is that a problem? (If I have to listen to it, it is.)

I've been burned by spec sheets enough -- listen and let listen.
post #1896 of 10244
Quote:
Originally Posted by tme110 View Post

finally had a chance to look, no bubbleupnp on Kindle either frown.gif

https://play.google.com/store/search?q=bubbleupnp&c=apps

Really? Haven't tried it, but should install and run just fine on the Kindle Fire and Kindle Fire HD.

Styln
post #1897 of 10244
Quote:
Originally Posted by fenario View Post

It is called calibration. If I recall in a previous post you used oscilloscopes as a reference as well...they too are calibrated on a regular schedule...why...because components drift over time.

Yes, it's calibration. But it's done scientifically. It's not done by someone saying the EKG seems "lush in the midrange" or some such. It's done by saying input X produces output Y.

Would you want a subjectivist to calibrate a heart monitor? How about aligning your car's suspension?

Why then in audio do we throw science out the window and go with our "gut".

You said if a person can hear the difference, it matters. You're missing the point. We agree the person hears the difference. We don't agree they could hear the difference in a double-blind test.
post #1898 of 10244
Anthem statement P2 Msrp $4300
18 kΩ (RCA), 22 kΩ (XLR)
DAMPING FACTOR >600 at 20 Hz, 400 at 1 kHz (ref. 8 Ω)
SLEW RATE 40 V/µs
125 dB, A-weighted (ref. 325 W)
crosstalk -140 dB (20 Hz), -80 dB (20 kHz)

Parasound Halo A21 Msrp $2300
60 amperes peak per channel
5 Hz - 100 kHz, +0/-3 dB at 1 watt
Slew rate> 130 V/µsecond
Damping factor:
> 1100 at 20Hz
S/N ratio:
112 dB, input shorted, IHF A-weighted

I know this is the oppo forum sorry.

I said for the price range anyways but here are the specs.
(honestly i didn't even see the statement amps)
They like completely opposite amps.
The anthem has a ridiculously good signal to noise ratio and crosstalk but a low slew rate and damping factor.
The parasounds have best in class slew rates and damping factor and while not up to par with the anthem in SNR it is still very high compared to other amps in its price range
I don't know much about the effects of crosstalk but the parasound does have a pretty low crosstalk compared to the anthem

When i said that the anthem amps aren't much better than receiver amps i was comparing the Anthem MCA 20 $1700 which as i can see only has a high snr but everything else seems sub par.
post #1899 of 10244
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMD View Post

Tony - I wish I had your "tin" ears and did not hear a difference between electronics (burned in or otherwise), tweaks & cables. I always tell this to my friends are are happily listening to their iPod speakers playing back 128kb files
Cheers

Ah yes, the typical ad hominem attacks ;-)

I always refer back to Dr. Floyd Toole, arguably the world's most famous audio scientist/engineer, and some words that he wrote in this online essay:
Quote:
The literature of audio continues to be sprinkled with letters, articles and internet discussions debating the merits of science in audio. The subjectivist stance is that “to hear is to believe”, and that is all that matters. Some of the arguments conjure images of white-coated engineers with putty in their ears, designing audio equipment and not caring how it sounds, only how it measures. I have never met such a person in my nearly 40 years in audio.
The simple fact is that, without science, there would be no audio, as we know it. Without extensive and meticulous subjective evaluation to confirm the meaning of measurements, there would be no audio science, as we know it. Without audio science, audio engineering would be a trial and error exercise. Clearly, one must pay close attention to both the objective and subjective forms of product evaluation, because there is still more to learn.

Cheers.

Tony
post #1900 of 10244
I just have to laugh sometimes at the debate on burn in and effects of cables. It constantly comes up on this particular forum. It's always the side that has not tried it that will debate until their last breath about "science" and "specs". Both sides are needed as stated above. Keep arguing as I am too busy "listening" and "viewing" and enjoying my BDP-105. Trust your ears.
post #1901 of 10244
That's audiophile pornographic poetry right there! love it
post #1902 of 10244
Quote:
Originally Posted by bthrb4u View Post

i heard that if you read the specifications for anthem and then compare them to a brand like parasound, you can't help but wonder how they are still in business. I mean, that's what i heard. Something about how the specifications are no better than receiver specs. I've heard of a lot of companies with this status.

Both Anthem and Parasound are well thought of brands for $. Though I have owned old Parasound preamps and poweramps (John Curl designs), I have not actually listened to any Anthem equipment.. I would NOT put too much focus on specs, as they have very little relationship with SQ, e.g. a lot of SQ is determined by what is NOT easily measured. Many companies use spec many for marketing purposes.
post #1903 of 10244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp1080 View Post

It's always the side that has not tried it that will debate until their last breath about "science" and "specs".

It's always the side that hasn't tried double-blind testing that will debate subjective impressions to their last breath.

Read about expectation bias.

Classic example: French wine snobs. Always did their tastings with the bottle labels showing. Always favored French wines. Steven Spurrier conducted a blind tasting. First place red? California. First place white? California.
post #1904 of 10244
Quote:
Originally Posted by fenario View Post

It is called calibration. If I recall in a previous post you used oscilloscopes as a reference as well...they too are calibrated on a regular schedule...why...because components drift over time. Using these types of equipment as an anaolgy does not bear weight in the "burn in" discussion.
If 2 amps from different manufactures have the exact same specifications...according to the "engineers" (and I am one) they would sound identical in every way...and I think we all know that is not the case, otherwise we would only need one brand for all.
Really not much of a comparision, equal quality, the coat hanger should win.
If one cannot hear the difference, then it doesn't matter...if one can hear a difference, it does matter. For those who cannot, audio decisions are much simpler...and cheaper.
For the rest of us, we know what we are hearing...and until we have the technology to spec our brains to understand why we differ...the debate will continue.

ROTFL! Yes, that is true we calibrate them and guess what. I have never once, seen them drift. Not once, ever. They measured exactly the same each and every time. Or maybe I was just lucky and all the different expensive electronic equipment I used from HP, Tektronix, Rohde & Schwartz, synchronised with Cesium beam or Rubidium Frequency Standard timing equipment for measurements in the nanoseconds were already "burnt-in" ;-) So did you calibrate your Oppo? Did Oppo calibrate knowing it would be in your home and somehow 300 hours later send a signal via the Internet to make sure it was calibrated properly?

And the specifications argument is completely without merit as the majority of specifications are completely meaningless... +/- 3dB 20Hz-20kHz ??? Watts per channel???? all channels driven...

Cheers.

Tony
post #1905 of 10244
Quote:
Originally Posted by wmcclain View Post

The alluring but strangely unloved Audio theory, Setup and Chat is always available for non-OPPO audiophile issues. I don't know why people don't use it more often.

-Bill

 

You kidding, right?  This Oppo forum is like cocainetongue.gif! No matter how hard you try to avoid it, you can't for the monster always has its waybiggrin.gif! Sort of like facebook where you feel obligated to post about every silly thing on earth, whether useful or not. This cocaine is very addictive!

post #1906 of 10244
Quote:
Originally Posted by bthrb4u View Post

Anthem statement P2 Msrp $4300
18 kΩ (RCA), 22 kΩ (XLR)
DAMPING FACTOR >600 at 20 Hz, 400 at 1 kHz (ref. 8 Ω)
SLEW RATE 40 V/µs
125 dB, A-weighted (ref. 325 W)
crosstalk -140 dB (20 Hz), -80 dB (20 kHz)
Parasound Halo A21 Msrp $2300
60 amperes peak per channel
5 Hz - 100 kHz, +0/-3 dB at 1 watt
Slew rate> 130 V/µsecond
Damping factor:
> 1100 at 20Hz
S/N ratio:
112 dB, input shorted, IHF A-weighted
I know this is the oppo forum sorry.
I said for the price range anyways but here are the specs.
(honestly i didn't even see the statement amps)
They like completely opposite amps.
The anthem has a ridiculously good signal to noise ratio and crosstalk but a low slew rate and damping factor.
The parasounds have best in class slew rates and damping factor and while not up to par with the anthem in SNR it is still very high compared to other amps in its price range
I don't know much about the effects of crosstalk but the parasound does have a pretty low crosstalk compared to the anthem
When i said that the anthem amps aren't much better than receiver amps i was comparing the Anthem MCA 20 $1700 which as i can see only has a high snr but everything else seems sub par.

Damping Factor is a useless specification and for any number larger than 20 is sufficient. This amplifier specification was proven meaningless about 30 years ago by Dr. Toole in this article - Damping Factor and Damn Nonsense

Cheers.

Tony
post #1907 of 10244
When playing an SACD with SACD output set to DSD, I have to set HDMI Audio to Off to get the player to process the DSD (no PCM indicator light and the screen indicates "SACD DSD").

If HDMI is set to Bitstream (where I would like to keep it with my setup), and SACD output is set to DSD, the player converts to PCM (the PCM indicator light is on and the screen indicates "SACD PCM").

This would appear to be a bug. ?
post #1908 of 10244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Real View Post

When playing an SACD with SACD output set to DSD, I have to set HDMI Audio to Off to get the player to process the DSD (no PCM indicator light and the screen indicates "SACD DSD").
If HDMI is set to Bitstream (where I would like to keep it with my setup), and SACD output is set to DSD, the player converts to PCM (the PCM indicator light is on and the screen indicates "SACD PCM").
This would appear to be a bug. ?

It depends on what is downstream of your Oppo. Can it handle DSD natively?

What amplifier/AVR/pre-amplifier are you connecting to?

Cheers.

Tony
post #1909 of 10244
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmusoke View Post

You kidding, right?  This Oppo forum is like cocaine:p ! No matter how hard you try to avoid it, you can't for the monster always has its way:D ! Sort of like facebook where you feel obligated to post about every silly thing on earth, whether useful or not. This cocaine is very addictive!

maybe more like crack cocaine or oxycontin. Something completely out of control.

Cheers.

Tony
post #1910 of 10244
I currently have the Oppo BDP-93 and I am seriously considering the BDP-105 to replace the 93. My question has to do with the sonic benefits of the analog outs on the 105 compared to the 93.
I had an Emotiva UMC-1 which I have sold and I am waiting on the UMC-200 to arrive. I do not have a separate preamp. In order to appreciate the sonic benefits of the analog outs on the 105, would
I need to have a separate high quality preamp to use with the 105 or would a prepro like the UMC-200 work for me in order to hear a difference over the 93 when it comes to sound? Thanks for any input.
post #1911 of 10244
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdanderson View Post

I currently have the Oppo BDP-93 and I am seriously considering the BDP-105 to replace the 93. My question has to do with the sonic benefits of the analog outs on the 105 compared to the 93.
I had an Emotiva UMC-1 which I have sold and I am waiting on the UMC-200 to arrive. I do not have a separate preamp. In order to appreciate the sonic benefits of the analog outs on the 105, would
I need to have a separate high quality preamp to use with the 105 or would a prepro like the UMC-200 work for me in order to hear a difference over the 93 when it comes to sound? Thanks for any input.

There is no comparison between the analog outputs of the 93 and the 105. The 93 is more of a digital (i.e. HDMI) universal player/processor whereas the 105 (and its predecessor the 95) were made for the analog outputs. This would be true no matter what equipment you were using to provide amplified sound to the speakers. I am not familiar with the UMC-200 other than just a quick look at the website and since it provides the EmoQ room correction capability (another technology I am not familiar with) you have to decide what it is you are trying to do. Room correction in the processor means that you would have to convert the Oppo signal three times for the room correction to take place (D-A, A-D, D-A) and from my experience it would be best to do that type of thing completely in the digital domain until the last moment which means you wouldn't be using the analog output. The benefits of a capable room-correction system can outweigh the pristine analog signal the Oppo generates in most listening rooms.

Hope this helps.

Cheers.

Tony
post #1912 of 10244
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKO1 View Post

It depends on what is downstream of your Oppo. Can it handle DSD natively?
What amplifier/AVR/pre-amplifier are you connecting to?
Cheers.
Tony

Yes, the Integra 9.8 can do DSD natively. I am playing back a 2 channel SACD through the dedicated stereo outs with the Integra off. Thanks.
post #1913 of 10244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Real View Post

Yes, the Integra 9.8 can do DSD natively. I am playing back a 2 channel SACD through the dedicated stereo outs with the Integra off. Thanks.

It might be a bug. Is your HDMI connection to the Integra on HDMI2? There is a hardware limitation that means you can only get DSD output if it is on HDMI2. The bug might be related to this?

Cheers.

Tony
post #1914 of 10244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Friendly Fire View Post

IMHO our methods of measurement are inadequate to capture reliably what the human ear hears and the mind perceives. A perfect measurement system with a 1:1 correlation to idealized SQ simply does not exist. I've been very disappointed buying equipment based on spec sheets. Greats specs, not so great sound, and worse -- cheaper gear with so so specs sounds better.
The only way to know for sure is to turn it on and listen, specs be damned.
Let's take a step back and look at a wider landscape -- why do we buy this gear to begin with? Well, personally I enjoy the planning and setup, the tweaking and finally the output in the form of fine PQ, SQ, and the experience. None of us would do it if we didn't enjoy it in some manner. So, if a Golden Ear has a better experience spending $$$ on a piece of gear that has lousy specs and flunks a double blind listening/viewing test, is that a problem? If a gear head has a room full of absolutely wretched sounding gear with exception spec sheets, is that a problem? (If I have to listen to it, it is.)
I've been burned by spec sheets enough -- listen and let listen.

Perhaps you would be better informed if you visited Dr. Sean Olive's Audio Musings blog where he has shown, convincingly, that you can capture the right data from trained listeners that can be correlated scientifically with objective data.

Cheers.

Tony
post #1915 of 10244
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post


For the component to "improve over time" it has to change. What is it that you believe changes?



Not really any of those. Listening tests are notoriously unreliable. If they are conducted more than a few moments apart, then our auditory memory lets us down because we just can't remember sounds for very long, so comparing one with another is very difficult. Similarly, there is the human psychological phenomenon known as 'expectation bias'. This means that if we believe an expensive component will make a difference, and we know the expensive component is being used, we expect it to 'sound better' and so it does. Same with burn-in. If we believe it makes a difference then we will hear a difference. Nobody is 'ignorant' or 'delusional' - it is just the way human beings work, physiologically and psychologically. Because we can't change the way we work, we need to devise other ways to appreciate differences between components that are more reliable than listening alone. One of these ways is to measure things and compare results. Another way is ABX testing. If you measure, or ABX a component that is supposed to "improve with age" you will find that nobody can reliably differentiate between the brand new component and the aged one.


Everyone has a right to an opinion so long as it is not presented as fact.  If someone says "I believe I can hear an improvement after a component has aged for xxx hours" that is one thing. It is a very different thing to say "Components improve with age". 

Yes, if you can't measure a difference, then you can't hear it!  All things you can hear can be measured. Not all things you measure can be heard. 

Because the people who say they can hear improvements after 'burn-in' are not engineers isn't what makes them wrong. What makes them wrong is that there is no scientific basis for that belief. If you subject their belief to even rudimentary scientific evaluation, it becomes clear that these electrical components do not change after they have been used for xxx hours. If they did change then the change would be measurable. If they don't change, then they cannot possibly 'sound better' after xxx hours can they? 

The people who say components change after burn-in can never tell you what exactly changes to account for the 'improvement' they hear. They just say "I can hear the difference". This way of explaining reality based solely on perception has been discredited for centuries - like when people used to say "I can see the sun goes around the earth, so it obviously does". 'Fraid not.

Nicely put, but ABX blind testing only put stress on the listeners. Listening in ones own home and system over time and listening in a relaxed state enjoying the experience is what matters. Capacitors are the main components that burn-in and change the sound, resistors, transistors etc. not so much if at all, I believe. Why do two identical value coupling caps in an identical amp, but one being an cheap electrolytic junker and the other a Teflon V Cap as example of an audio grade model, sound different? I am not sure why but they do! Why do designers choose a balance of quality parts to a price point, for hi- end audio gear instead of throwing all the cheapest junk in the component, I mean they all measure the same somewhat and do the same task.

Measurements are only one tool in designing audio gear, the rest is more of trial and error and listen and learn process!

If you have tin ears, be happy with your savings and enjoy the music!

Cheers!
post #1916 of 10244
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKO1 View Post

There is no comparison between the analog outputs of the 93 and the 105. The 93 is more of a digital (i.e. HDMI) universal player/processor whereas the 105 (and its predecessor the 95) were made for the analog outputs. This would be true no matter what equipment you were using to provide amplified sound to the speakers. I am not familiar with the UMC-200 other than just a quick look at the website and since it provides the EmoQ room correction capability (another technology I am not familiar with) you have to decide what it is you are trying to do. Room correction in the processor means that you would have to convert the Oppo signal three times for the room correction to take place (D-A, A-D, D-A) and from my experience it would be best to do that type of thing completely in the digital domain until the last moment which means you wouldn't be using the analog output. The benefits of a capable room-correction system can outweigh the pristine analog signal the Oppo generates in most listening rooms.
Hope this helps.
Cheers.
Tony

Thank you Tony for your input. I am not that interested in using the EmoQ room correction. I actually prefer to setup everything myself manually, with my RS spl meter and a calibration disc like the AIX setup disc. I would be using the Oppo 105 for half music and half movies.
I like the sound of my sacds and dvdaudio dics with hdmi but I am interested in getting more into listening to mutichannel music and regular cds through analog outs. Thanks.
post #1917 of 10244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd68 View Post

Why do designers choose a balance of quality parts to a price point, for hi- end audio gear instead of throwing all the cheapest junk in the component, I mean they all measure the same somewhat and do the same task.

Higher-quality components have tighter tolerances, and tend to be more stable. (Which of course means higher-quality components would require less "burn in".)

You really need to stop with the "tin-ears". You're assuming that because others disagree with you, they have poor hearing. You might as well also dismiss them as stupid, ignorant, short, and ugly. It would be equally valid.
post #1918 of 10244
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdanderson View Post

Thank you Tony for your input. I am not that interested in using the EmoQ room correction. I actually prefer to setup everything myself manually, with my RS spl meter and a calibration disc like the AIX setup disc. I would be using the Oppo 105 for half music and half movies.
I like the sound of my sacds and dvdaudio dics with hdmi but I am interested in getting more into listening to mutichannel music and regular cds through analog outs. Thanks.

You might be able to connect the Oppo directly to your amps, depending on what other sources you hook up.
post #1919 of 10244
V- Caps are one of the best out there and take the longest to burn-in. Sorry for the tin ear joke, and I am short and ugly. LOL
post #1920 of 10244
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdanderson View Post

Thank you Tony for your input. I am not that interested in using the EmoQ room correction. I actually prefer to setup everything myself manually, with my RS spl meter and a calibration disc like the AIX setup disc. I would be using the Oppo 105 for half music and half movies.
I like the sound of my sacds and dvdaudio dics with hdmi but I am interested in getting more into listening to mutichannel music and regular cds through analog outs. Thanks.

Cool. If you are only after the analog output and not interested in the USB DAC processing/headphone amplifier you might be better off getting the BDP-95 which is very very similar in analog performance and save yourself some money. The BDP-95 does have a fan which some owners have not preferred whereas the BDP-105 uses passive cooling. Something to consider.

Cheers.

Tony
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-105 Owner's Thread