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 65

post #1921 of 5987
12/29/12 at 11:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimshowalter View Post

I wanted to check the center channel last night, and went to speaker configuration to send it a test tone, and test tone was marked Off, and no matter what I tried, I couldn't turn it on.
What's the trick?

Make sure all playback is stopped. If you have a disc loaded you'll need to "double" stop it or eject it. If all else fails, eject the disc (if you have auto play set on) and then power cycle. It will not allow test tones if it thinks anything is in a playback stage - that's been my experience.
Reply
Reply

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #1922 of 5987
12/29/12 at 11:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimshowalter View Post

You might be able to connect the Oppo directly to your amps, depending on what other sources you hook up.

Thanks Jim. I currently have no other sources I am using. I just have the Oppo 93. I would consider connecting the 105 directly to my amps but I have never done this before. The UMC-200 prepro that I have on order, has 7.1 analog inputs that are used in
what is called "Direct mode" which offers a pure direct signal path with no processing.
Reply
Reply
post #1923 of 5987
12/29/12 at 12:00pm
well slew rate is important. What's the point in buying highend recordings and highend sources if your amp doesn't have the ability to accurately control the passages. I would imagine that slow decay could cause things such as bad instrument separation and slow bass. Another thing i noticed is that anthem doesn't state how much peak current it can generate.
Reply
Reply
post #1924 of 5987
12/29/12 at 12:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKO1 View Post

I wasn't going to respond to this but you left me no choice with your asinine comment. Actually this forum is full of some very intelligent people with scientific and engineering backgrounds who have yet to be convinced of the mythical "burn-in" as there has never been any objective measurements to clearly demonstrate this. Headphones and speakers are different as they have moving parts that can and will change over time and I have seen measurements that confirm this. So, show us one. That's all we are asking. Just one example of a modern, non-tube/solid state electronics that was measured after about 5 minutes of being turned on for the first time and then ~300 hours later. If the effects are as pronounced as you state then they would clearly be measurable. Oh, and hopefully you never need an ECG/EKG measurement from a non-burned-in machine. Wouldn't want the doctor measuring those signals incorrectly on an untrustworthy machine.
If you want to spend your money on hi-end (sic) cables that's up to you and thanks for helping the economy. It can use a boost.
Cheers.
Tony

Here we go again:D no one ask the only intelligent people here( scientist or the like) if they believe in burn in or highend cables, sure if someone asked about measurements or if said product can produce what said specs say it can or not there's your chance to chime in as it's your time! but for those of use who believe in the purple dragons and magic, burn in is no joke and very real:eek:. I do find it curious how every time the subject is mentioned you guys jump at the chance to refute it, with no evidence to support your claims it doesn't matter:rolleyes: As with my 95 my cables probably cost more than the 105 (lol) why did I do it ? because it produced the desired effect my ears craved! could it have been done cheaper who knows but the cables I use and not that there price matters let the 105 shine. So please let us speak freely on the subject we promise not to convert the masses, we are but a small tribe and have only or ears to guide us! let there be peace between or two peoples!

Oh! I'm in the market for cable my 105 the Perfectwave AC5 is good but I got a feeling an AC10 or something from Shunyata's line may do better!
Reply
Reply
post #1925 of 5987
12/29/12 at 12:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdanderson View Post

Thanks Jim. I currently have no other sources I am using. I just have the Oppo 93. I would consider connecting the 105 directly to my amps but I have never done this before. The UMC-200 prepro that I have on order, has 7.1 analog inputs that are used in
what is called "Direct mode" which offers a pure direct signal path with no processing.

That will work too, assuming the prepro implements direct via relays instead of CMOS gates.

There has been a lot of discusison here about whether digital volume control in the Oppo, then output directly to amps is better or worse than running the Oppo through an analog volume control and then to the amps. The paper from the DAC vendor does a good job of explaining why their digital volume control doesn't affect the signal (they have sufficient bit headroom above signal bits).
Reply
Reply
post #1926 of 5987
12/29/12 at 12:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKO1 View Post

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



Tony,

Dr Olive supports my point:

Of course, loudspeakers have always come with some specifications, which Toole said often served as an ornaments on advertisements and brochures, typically boasting "+/-3 dB from 20 to 20,000 Hz" and implying that such a spec represents the ideal. "That's rubbish," said Toole. +/-3 db can be shrill, if a speaker's response exhibits a midrange rise from -3 dB to +3 dB, or honky, if it exhibits a +6-dB midrange peak in an otherwise flat response. In addition, a +/-3-dB range can include many troubling, audible resonance points. If you can't achieve a +/-3-dB spec, said Toole, "you're in deep trouble. +/-3 dB is a giveaway. +/-2 is better, and if you reach +/-1, well, you have my attention." But ultimately, he said, you don't need a single spec--"You need a graph!"

Far too much wiggle room allowable in published specs to make intelligent equipment choices using them without listening.

Thanks for the link to Dr Olive's work. He gets it.
Reply
Reply
post #1927 of 5987
12/29/12 at 12:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverLitz View Post

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.

Exactly! Comparing specs is meaningless with the exception of speakers, and even then, two speakers with identical specs will sound different due to the materials used in their construction, cabinet design, and crossover designs. When comparing source components, amps and processors, there is very little consistency in how manufacturers measure specs... every company has their own way of doing it. One company may list rated power with all channels driven, while another may rate power with two channels driven, while another may rate it with all channels driven across the full frequency band, while another may only rate power at 1khz... Sometimes, when they change models, the measurement procedure changes too... Pioneer used to rate the Class D AVR's power output with all channels driven across the full frequency band, with the release of this year's models they changed that measurement to 1khz only... you simply can't compare manufacturers specs, and have any understanding of what those specs will mean to the SQ of their unit, or, more importantly, how it will compare in SQ to another.

The only useful specs are the empirical findings from a 3rd party test, such as a magazine that has volumes of test data derived from a consistent testing process. If there is a change in that process, then the measurements attained prior to the change are meaningless for comparison under the new procedures.

The best test is always the listening test.
Reply
Reply
post #1928 of 5987
12/29/12 at 12:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp1080 View Post

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.

 

Trust your eyes too - the line at the top is clearly longer than the line at the bottom, right?

 

 

1000

Reply
Reply
post #1929 of 5987
12/29/12 at 12:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Friendly Fire View Post

Tony,
Dr Olive supports my point:
Of course, loudspeakers have always come with some specifications, which Toole said often served as an ornaments on advertisements and brochures, typically boasting "+/-3 dB from 20 to 20,000 Hz" and implying that such a spec represents the ideal. "That's rubbish," said Toole. +/-3 db can be shrill, if a speaker's response exhibits a midrange rise from -3 dB to +3 dB, or honky, if it exhibits a +6-dB midrange peak in an otherwise flat response. In addition, a +/-3-dB range can include many troubling, audible resonance points. If you can't achieve a +/-3-dB spec, said Toole, "you're in deep trouble. +/-3 dB is a giveaway. +/-2 is better, and if you reach +/-1, well, you have my attention." But ultimately, he said, you don't need a single spec--"You need a graph!"
Far too much wiggle room allowable in published specs to make intelligent equipment choices using them without listening.
Thanks for the link to Dr Olive's work. He gets it.

He most certainly does get it ;-) Measuring AND listening.

My pointing to Sean's blog was in response to your statement:
Quote:
IMHO our methods of measurement are inadequate to capture reliably what the human ear hears and the mind perceives.


in that he and Dr. Toole et al at Harman have been able to develop a method of measurement that can capture reliably what key measurements/graphs are necessary when evaluating loud speakers. What was very revealing in the video and in this blog posting was how poorly the audio reviewers were when it came to evaluating loud speakers.
Quote:
The above graph plots the mean loudspeaker F-statistics for 4 groups of untrained listeners categorized according to their occupations. The performance scores of the untrained groups are scaled relative to the mean scores of the trained listener in order to facilitate comparisons between trained and untrained listeners. The trained listeners clearly performed better than any of the untrained groups, by quite a large margin. The relative performance of the untrained groups, from best to worst, were the audio retailers (35%), the audio reviewers (20%), the audio marketing-sales group (10%), and the college students (4%).

The better performance of the audio retailers relative to the other untrained groups may be related to psychological factors such as motivation, expectations, and relevant critical listening experience. The college students - the poorest performing group - were also the youngest and least experienced test subjects. They tended to give all four loudspeakers very similar and very high ratings indicating they were easily satisfied. While this is pure speculation, the students may have had lower sound quality expectations developed through hours of listening to low quality MP3 files reproduced through band-limited earbuds. Most surprising was the relatively poor performance of the audio reviewers, who despite their credentials and years of professional experience, performed 1/5 as well as the trained listeners, and 15 full percentage points lower than the audio retailers. These differences in trained and untrained listener performance underscore the benefits of carefully selecting and training the listeners used for audio product testing and research.

Cheers.

Tony
Reply
Reply
post #1930 of 5987
12/29/12 at 12:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Trust your eyes too - the line at the top is clearly longer than the line at the bottom, right?


1000

The bottom one would be longer if I stared at it for the required 500 hours.
Reply
Reply
post #1931 of 5987
12/29/12 at 12:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Trust your eyes too - the line at the top is clearly longer than the line at the bottom, right?


1000

So what happens when the brain catches ( eyes and ears are only the deliveyr system the brain interprets the data) up with the deception or mis interpitation and is no longer fooled , is it still placebo? once the trick and the smoke and mirrors disappear what if the good sound remains!
Reply
Reply
post #1932 of 5987
12/29/12 at 12:25pm
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.

Our methods of measurement are exquisitely refined and can detect things at levels FAR beyond what we can sense. We can pick up a 8 watt radio transmission from a 40 year old space probe 8 billion miles away and capture images of the bonds between atoms in a molecule. Of course we can measure anything that an ear can sense.

Companies like Harman have done a lot of research on correlating physical measurements to responses from listeners and now routinely use this methodology to design audio equipment.

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/

The fact you may have not had success at performing a meaningful correlation between measurements and listening experience doesn't mean that it isn't possible. In fact it is something that is done routinely by audio engineers.
Reply
Reply
post #1933 of 5987
12/29/12 at 12:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd68 View Post

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!

 

As you know almost nothing about me, to make any assumption is quite foolish. But it also demonstrates why you believe audio is "magic" and somehow the laws of physics don't apply to it.

 

Have you ever put your golden ears to the test in a blind test situation? Normally, when they conduct these tests, the seek out audiophiles like you, with golden ears, to be the participants. it makes the result of the tests so much more delicious when even the golden-eared cannot tell the difference between a coathanger and a $1,000 interconnect :)

 

Here's a page with the results of about 50 blind tests - worth reading.

 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths

Reply
Reply
post #1934 of 5987
12/29/12 at 12:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKO1 View Post

He most certainly does get it ;-) Measuring AND listening.
My pointing to Sean's blog was in response to your statement:
in that he and Dr. Toole et al at Harman have been able to develop a method of measurement that can capture reliably what key measurements/graphs are necessary when evaluating loud speakers. What was very revealing in the video and in this blog posting was how poorly the audio reviewers were when it came to evaluating loud speakers.
Cheers.
Tony

Sure -- we are on the same page. I was referring to the typically published specs. Use them is like picking a wife using height, weight, and age and never seeing or talking to her.
Reply
Reply
post #1935 of 5987
12/29/12 at 12:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Friendly Fire View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by TKO1 View Post

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



Tony,

Dr Olive supports my point:

Of course, loudspeakers have always come with some specifications, which Toole said often served as an ornaments on advertisements and brochures, typically boasting "+/-3 dB from 20 to 20,000 Hz" and implying that such a spec represents the ideal. "That's rubbish," said Toole. +/-3 db can be shrill, if a speaker's response exhibits a midrange rise from -3 dB to +3 dB, or honky, if it exhibits a +6-dB midrange peak in an otherwise flat response. In addition, a +/-3-dB range can include many troubling, audible resonance points. If you can't achieve a +/-3-dB spec, said Toole, "you're in deep trouble. +/-3 dB is a giveaway. +/-2 is better, and if you reach +/-1, well, you have my attention." But ultimately, he said, you don't need a single spec--"You need a graph!"

Far too much wiggle room allowable in published specs to make intelligent equipment choices using them without listening.

Thanks for the link to Dr Olive's work. He gets it.

 

Loudspeakers. Nobody disputes that loudspeakers sound different to each other. The discussion was about components and electronics. Trust me, Sean Olive does not support your point ;)

Reply
Reply
post #1936 of 5987
12/29/12 at 12:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiofan1 View Post

Here we go again:D no one ask the only intelligent people here( scientist or the like) if they believe in burn in or highend cables, sure if someone asked about measurements or if said product can produce what said specs say it can or not there's your chance to chime in as it's your time! but for those of use who believe in the purple dragons and magic, burn in is no joke and very real:eek:. I do find it curious how every time the subject is mentioned you guys jump at the chance to refute it, with no evidence to support your claims it doesn't matter:rolleyes: As with my 95 my cables probably cost more than the 105 (lol) why did I do it ? because it produced the desired effect my ears craved! could it have been done cheaper who knows but the cables I use and not that there price matters let the 105 shine. So please let us speak freely on the subject we promise not to convert the masses, we are but a small tribe and have only or ears to guide us! let there be peace between or two peoples!
Oh! I'm in the market for cable my 105 the Perfectwave AC5 is good but I got a feeling an AC10 or something from Shunyata's line may do better!

That has never been the debate. The debate begins when someone on the Oppo forum tells another member that they have to wait 350 hours and then the Oppo BDP-105 will sound good because by then the equipment will be burned in. Skeptics like myself are always going to argue that point because the Oppo BDP-105 sounds stellar the first moment you turn it on and play a signal through it. It did not need 350 hours to sound good or to suddenly sound bad because it has burned in.

Us skeptics couldn't care less what cables you have or how much you paid for them only when you try and tell someone else that it will sound better than another less-expensive yet still properly engineered cable. That's where we feel we need to point out that no, that is not the case, and until somehow can show us in a repeatable scientific study, then that zip wire is just as good as the $1000 a foot 10 gauge speaker wire from some cryogenic freezer/oven...

Cheers.

Tony
Reply
Reply
post #1937 of 5987
12/29/12 at 12:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimshowalter View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Trust your eyes too - the line at the top is clearly longer than the line at the bottom, right?


1000

The bottom one would be longer if I stared at it for the required 500 hours.

 

Yes, it gets longer once it is 'burned in" :)

Reply
Reply
post #1938 of 5987
12/29/12 at 12:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bthrb4u View Post

well slew rate is important. What's the point in buying highend recordings and highend sources if your amp doesn't have the ability to accurately control the passages. I would imagine that slow decay could cause things such as bad instrument separation and slow bass. Another thing i noticed is that anthem doesn't state how much peak current it can generate.

Slew rate is one of those meaningful specs that is completely misunderstood. The minimum slew rate for a 100w amplifier to cleanly reproduce a 20khz signal into 8ohms is 5 V/ms, the minimum for a 400w/8ohm amp is 10 V/ms. A safe slew rate margin would be 20 V/ms (this is borrowed from Douglas Self's book "Audio Power Amplifier Design Handbook").

The Anthem you referenced produces 40 V/ms (which is 4 times the necessary figure for a more powerful amp), while the Parasound produces 130 V/ms. I would contend that once you reach a level of safety margin for the amp's power rating, slew rate becomes a non-factor in comparison.
Reply
Reply
post #1939 of 5987
12/29/12 at 12:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiofan1 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Trust your eyes too - the line at the top is clearly longer than the line at the bottom, right?

 

So what happens when the brain catches ( eyes and ears are only the deliveyr system the brain interprets the data) up with the deception or mis interpitation and is no longer fooled , is it still placebo? once the trick and the smoke and mirrors disappear what if the good sound remains!

 

You can't change the way your brain works. It's impossible to say you are, or can become, immune to various forms of bias, such as expectation bias. Nor can you 'train' your auditory memory to last longer than a few seconds. The brain is just a very unreliable indicator of reality which is why illusions work. Medical placebos in drugs trials were developed specifically because human beings are so susceptible to suggestion. In that field, the double blind test is the standard, and has been for many years, precisely because it is the one and only way to be sure what is going on. Audio reproduction is science - without science there would be no audio. There is no 'magic' and everything you can hear can be measured.

 

There are no audible factors which cannot be measured today. In fact, we can measure way, way beyond the limits of human senses now.  But human beings being what they are, they like to find explanations that suit their senses: "the sun goes around the earth - I can see it."  But as I said before, this subjective view of reality has been discredited for many years - we simply cannot explain reality by observation. We are not equipped for it. Fortunately, we have devised other ways to observe reality that do not rely on our unreliable senses.

Reply
Reply
post #1940 of 5987
12/29/12 at 12:43pm
Nobody alive today (or dead) knows everything there is to know about analog audio. Think of all the things in the past that were defined by the experts of the day... like the "fact" that the human body could not survive speeds greater than those achieved by the fastest horses. When you look at the past, it can be laughably silly how little we knew at any given moment in time. Today we know a lot more, but we do not have answers for FUNDAMENTALS like gravity let alone the minutae like everything that can possibly affect analog audio.

Break-in/Burn-in is a side effect of the dielectric effect... something that has been studied and understood but only up to a point. A bare wire in air sound different than a bare wire in vacuum or than a wire coated with some dielectric material touching the surface of the wire (Teflon, or any number of polymers, cotton, whatever). There is a process called "forming" the dielectric that happens when the dlelectric material is in the presence of an electrical field. Only the weak field generated by audio signals never fully forms the dielectrics used in audio equipment and the dielectrics never become fully formed. One cable manufacturer has addressed this... AudioQuest with their DBS cables that create a 72 VDC electrical field around the cable (center wire with no connections except to the battery and shield connection around the outside with no connection to anything but the battery). This field fully forms the dielectric material and these cables sound identical out of the box vs. "burned-in" with 100s of hours of use. The DBS effect lasts as long as the battery (about 7 years... no current flows so shelf-life is the only issue). Capacitors have a "plate" or "plates" insulated with some sort of dielectric material so capacitors also have some sort of break-in effect whether you like it or not. Resistors are covered with material of some sort... epoxy or plastic or whatever so something goes on there as well.

I believe if you research dielectric effect you will find that it is real and it does affect signal transmission causing the selection/specification of certain dlelectrics critical in the design of not only audio equipment but many other types of equipment like sonar, radar, guidance systems, microwave communication systems, high-speed data transmission, etc.
Reply
Reply
post #1941 of 5987
12/29/12 at 12:43pm
I don't know where to find graphs for amplifiers or i would read them. I don't have much experience with them other than headphone graphs but this has been my go to for learning about how to measure amplifiers. It does not say how important each measurement is but to me, it's pretty common sense what specification would be important to know. How many people here went with a differential input or just xlr to reduce common mode noise and distortion of the input? Oh you don't care about specs ......why'd you spend the money. Just saying, you guys say that hearing is the story and specs don't mean a thing but if someone said they heard a difference in how musical one xlr input to another was then there'd be an argument to that but since there isn't, people use xlr because it's superior with less snr.
Reply
Reply
post #1942 of 5987
12/29/12 at 12:44pm
forgot to add this http://www.ti.com/lit/an/sloa068/sloa068.pdf
Reply
Reply
post #1943 of 5987
12/29/12 at 12:44pm
i didn't mean different type of xlr, i meant xlr and rca.
Reply
Reply
post #1944 of 5987
12/29/12 at 12:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKO1 View Post

That has never been the debate. The debate begins when someone on the Oppo forum tells another member that they have to wait 350 hours and then the Oppo BDP-105 will sound good because by then the equipment will be burned in. Skeptics like myself are always going to argue that point because the Oppo BDP-105 sounds stellar the first moment you turn it on and play a signal through it. It did not need 350 hours to sound good or to suddenly sound bad because it has burned in.
Us skeptics couldn't care less what cables you have or how much you paid for them only when you try and tell someone else that it will sound better than another less-expensive yet still properly engineered cable. That's where we feel we need to point out that no, that is not the case, and until somehow can show us in a repeatable scientific study, then that zip wire is just as good as the $1000 a foot 10 gauge speaker wire from some cryogenic freezer/oven...
Cheers.
Tony

Perfectly stated!
Reply
Reply
post #1945 of 5987
12/29/12 at 12:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Loudspeakers. Nobody disputes that loudspeakers sound different to each other. The discussion was about components and electronics. Trust me, Sean Olive does not support your point wink.gif

Actually, I didn't bring up speakers, I was talking about components. I'll dig into it, but I doubt Sean Olive espouses buying based solely on company published spec sheets. We could get rid of dealers and listening rooms and all buy from Crutchfield. But if he does, I'll stand corrected.
Reply
Reply
post #1946 of 5987
12/29/12 at 12:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKO1 View Post

That has never been the debate. The debate begins when someone on the Oppo forum tells another member that they have to wait 350 hours and then the Oppo BDP-105 will sound good because by then the equipment will be burned in. Skeptics like myself are always going to argue that point because the Oppo BDP-105 sounds stellar the first moment you turn it on and play a signal through it. It did not need 350 hours to sound good or to suddenly sound bad because it has burned in.
Us skeptics couldn't care less what cables you have or how much you paid for them only when you try and tell someone else that it will sound better than another less-expensive yet still properly engineered cable. That's where we feel we need to point out that no, that is not the case, and until somehow can show us in a repeatable scientific study, then that zip wire is just as good as the $1000 a foot 10 gauge speaker wire from some cryogenic freezer/oven...
Cheers.
Tony

My point exactly! I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything but when one finds something unexpected such as smoother highs and greater bass extension from repeated listening to there own setup, you have no answers! I have no doubt the debate will continue as it should, its why we come here! Ask yourself, if after 350hrs or more, if the player that didn't sound good out the box still doesn't sound good, out it goes! but just what if , what if the thing starts to sound good! There are scents that I smell at for the first time that anoy me and no matter when I may smell them the results are the same they irritate me so I avoid them they dont grow on me! For me its the same for Audio I've learned that Audio components need burn in , a good room, clean power, good cables and well recorded music to preform at there best. This works for me and many others.

This is just what I've learned on my own! smile.gif
Reply
Reply
post #1947 of 5987
12/29/12 at 12:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

You can't change the way your brain works. It's impossible to say you are, or can become, immune to various forms of bias, such as expectation bias. Nor can you 'train' your auditory memory to last longer than a few seconds. The brain is just a very unreliable indicator of reality which is why illusions work. Medical placebos in drugs trials were developed specifically because human beings are so susceptible to suggestion. In that field, the double blind test is the standard, and has been for many years, precisely because it is the one and only way to be sure what is going on. Audio reproduction is science - without science there would be no audio. There is no 'magic' and everything you can hear can be measured.

There are no audible factors which cannot be measured today. In fact, we can measure way, way beyond the limits of human senses now.  But human beings being what they are, they like to find explanations that suit their senses: "the sun goes around the earth - I can see it."  But as I said before, this subjective view of reality has been discredited for many years - we simply cannot explain reality by observation. We are not equipped for it. Fortunately, we have devised other ways to observe reality that do not rely on our unreliable senses.

Well stated. Even the late great founder of Stereophile, J. Gordon Holt, identified this issue back in the 45th anniversary issue
Quote:
Vitality? Don't make me laugh. Audio as a hobby is dying, largely by its own hand. As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal. [This refusal] is a source of endless derisive amusement among rational people and of perpetual embarrassment for me, because I am associated by so many people with the mess my disciples made of spreading my gospel. For the record: I never, ever claimed that measurements don't matter. What I said (and very often, at that) was, they don't always tell the whole story. Not quite the same thing.

Remember those loudspeaker shoot-outs we used to have during our annual writer gatherings in Santa Fe? The frequent occasions when various reviewers would repeatedly choose the same loudspeaker as their favorite (or least-favorite) model? That was all the proof needed that [blind] testing does work, aside from the fact that it's (still) the only honest kind. It also suggested that simple ear training, with DBT confirmation, could have built the kind of listening confidence among talented reviewers that might have made a world of difference in the outcome of high-end audio.

Cheers.

Tony
Reply
Reply
post #1948 of 5987
12/29/12 at 12:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

As you know almost nothing about me, to make any assumption is quite foolish. But it also demonstrates why you believe audio is "magic" and somehow the laws of physics don't apply to it.

Have you ever put your golden ears to the test in a blind test situation? Normally, when they conduct these tests, the seek out audiophiles like you, with golden ears, to be the participants. it makes the result of the tests so much more delicious when even the golden-eared cannot tell the difference between a coathanger and a $1,000 interconnect smile.gif

Here's a page with the results of about 50 blind tests - worth reading.

http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths

Okay my Oppo now sounds the same as new and I just put a 3 dollar cable with crap connectors on it and I can't tell the difference. I am selling all my hi-end cables on audiogon and use the money for a vacation and beer.

Thanks for showing me the errors of my ways.


Thank you very much.
Reply
Reply
post #1949 of 5987
12/29/12 at 12:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKO1 View Post

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

No, I have it hooked up as Split A/V, with HDMI 1 to the TV and HDMI 2 to the Integra.

The only reason I can come up with is that the player does not get a signal via HDMI 2 that the Integra can handle DSD (since the Integra is off), so the Oppo automatically converts to PCM even though I have set it not to. If HDMI Audio is set to Off, the player then processes the DSD directly (as I set it to do).

For my setup, it would just be better if the player "did what I told it to do".
Reply
Reply
post #1950 of 5987
12/29/12 at 12:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

You can't change the way your brain works. It's impossible to say you are, or can become, immune to various forms of bias, such as expectation bias. Nor can you 'train' your auditory memory to last longer than a few seconds. The brain is just a very unreliable indicator of reality which is why illusions work. Medical placebos in drugs trials were developed specifically because human beings are so susceptible to suggestion. In that field, the double blind test is the standard, and has been for many years, precisely because it is the one and only way to be sure what is going on. Audio reproduction is science - without science there would be no audio. There is no 'magic' and everything you can hear can be measured.

There are no audible factors which cannot be measured today. In fact, we can measure way, way beyond the limits of human senses now.  But human beings being what they are, they like to find explanations that suit their senses: "the sun goes around the earth - I can see it."  But as I said before, this subjective view of reality has been discredited for many years - we simply cannot explain reality by observation. We are not equipped for it. Fortunately, we have devised other ways to observe reality that do not rely on our unreliable senses.

You do realize we know little about the brain? and the measuring devises you speak of where in fact created by it:rolleyes:
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Players

Gear mentioned in this thread:

AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Players ›  Official OPPO BDP-105 Owner's Thread