|
Post by billmac on May 6, 2013 7:55:46 GMT -5
The example I gave above, I have many more, was deliberately specific, it is quantifiable and repeatable. There is an overall improvement in sound which is a common generalisation, but it is supportable with specific, indentifiable examples. Gary, I'm curious as to what examples you are referring to. If you are referring to subjective listening comparisons how can they be repeated with any form of accuracy? These comparisons would be open to much personal interpretation and not supported by any type of measurements. Without that there is no real objectivity here just personal subjective opinions. Bill
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on May 6, 2013 22:06:44 GMT -5
The example I gave above, I have many more, was deliberately specific, it is quantifiable and repeatable. There is an overall improvement in sound which is a common generalisation, but it is supportable with specific, indentifiable examples. Gary, I'm curious as to what examples you are referring to. If you are referring to subjective listening comparisons how can they be repeated with any form of accuracy? These comparisons would be open to much personal interpretation and not supported by any type of measurements. Without that there is no real objectivity here just personal subjective opinions. Bill Hi Bill, I have repeated this "demonstration" a number of times. My daughter (she plays saxophone) picked the lack of cymbals via the Denon instantly, "where did the cymbals go Dad?". A good friend of mine, he plays guitar, commented that something was missing when I switched to the Denon. When I went back to the XPA-5 he picked the cymbals as what was missing via the Denon. My daughter's boyfriend, he plays classical piano, picks up a lot of subtle differences in other music. He pointed out a few that I hadn't even noticed but could hear when he told me what to listen for. Whenever I get any new hifi gear we play the "can you hear the difference game". It's more specific than the "which sounds better game". We have to identify exactly what it is that is different, name the instrument etc. If it's a sound stage difference we require point references. I started it with my wife, way back, as a means of justifying regular upgrades, the kids just picked up on it and now it's a game for all the family to play. We do similar with vinyl versus CD versus lossless versus SACD, that's a whole lotta fun. Cheers Gary
|
|
|
Post by billmac on May 7, 2013 8:30:46 GMT -5
Hi Bill, I have repeated this "demonstration" a number of times. My daughter (she plays saxophone) picked the lack of cymbals via the Denon instantly, "where did the cymbals go Dad?". A good friend of mine, he plays guitar, commented that something was missing when I switched to the Denon. When I went back to the XPA-5 he picked the cymbals as what was missing via the Denon. My daughter's boyfriend, he plays classical piano, picks up a lot of subtle differences in other music. He pointed out a few that I hadn't even noticed but could hear when he told me what to listen for. Whenever I get any new hifi gear we play the "can you hear the difference game". It's more specific than the "which sounds better game". We have to identify exactly what it is that is different, name the instrument etc. If it's a sound stage difference we require point references. I started it with my wife, way back, as a means of justifying regular upgrades, the kids just picked up on it and now it's a game for all the family to play. We do similar with vinyl versus CD versus lossless versus SACD, that's a whole lotta fun. Cheers Gary Hey Gary, I would not question any of what you posted above. My only question and it has been pretty much the same question I have asked in this thread. That question is when music is played at moderate levels what does the XPA-5 do that makes a specific aspect of the music (cymbals for example) stand out with more clarity? If the amps in the Denon and XPA-5 are amplifying the signal with no form of coloration then how can one sound so different? I could understand these differences if the discussion was about processors or preamps. But I just do not understand how an amp can change the SQ of music when played at levels below clipping. Bill
|
|
|
Post by drtrey3 on May 7, 2013 9:01:15 GMT -5
Yeah Gary, my wife was walking through the room when I was listening to something from Santana III, and she stopped and said "I never heard the wah wah guitar before. Cool." I was thinking the same thing, I know the track, well I thought I did, and there is that part of the arrangement. For me the upgrade was the XDA-2, it is freaking me out a bit because it is making many recordings sound more alive and involving, which is a wonderful thing, but it is rocking my concept of which recordings were well done. My wife, again, noted that one recording we were listening to had been compressed too much. True, but it was not so noticeable. So I am updating my thoughts about my collection. A wonderful thing, to be sure, but it is a bit odd when you have to change the way you think about concepts that you believed you knew!
Trey
|
|
|
Post by sergeantynot on May 7, 2013 9:01:28 GMT -5
But I just do not understand how an amp can change the SQ of music when played at levels below clipping. Bill Bill, I too have my own examples, though in my system I tend to listen to higher SPLs. One example would be my friend that had been using a Denon 5803 receiver (170wpc) to power his mains, for years. One day while I was at his house, I saw he had a stereo amp (250wpc) laying around unused, so I suggested he give it a whirl. While he typically listens to lower volumes, and there was no indication of power strain ever, there never was any clipping. The moment we listened to some music on his system, it was evident the speakers were being strained and not used to their full potential. The lack of stereo power from the Denon was unbelievable, and the addition of the stereo amp opened the speakers further. I guess I can say the equivalent would be like turning DRC on/off on your preamp, or some other kind of "midnight mode". The improved sonics was VERY noticeable to say the least. That experience was with one of Denon's most powerful AVRs ever made, and also had a built-in toroid transformer (today's typical Denons do not), which was benchmarked with an accurate power rating. Given all that, I feel less than confident with just about any other AVR in today's marketplace to accurately drive the most demanding 4ohm speakers, even at low levels.
|
|
bootman
Emo VIPs
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on May 7, 2013 9:05:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on May 7, 2013 9:29:48 GMT -5
Yeah Gary, my wife was walking through the room when I was listening to something from Santana III, and she stopped and said "I never heard the wah wah guitar before. Cool." I was thinking the same thing, I know the track, well I thought I did, and there is that part of the arrangement. For me the upgrade was the XDA-2, it is freaking me out a bit because it is making many recordings sound more alive and involving, which is a wonderful thing, but it is rocking my concept of which recordings were well done. My wife, again, noted that one recording we were listening to had been compressed too much. True, but it was not so noticeable. So I am updating my thoughts about my collection. A wonderful thing, to be sure, but it is a bit odd when you have to change the way you think about concepts that you believed you knew! Trey Regarding the wah-wah pedal in the track from Santana III: Was it that your old equipment didn't reproduce the wah-wah pedal, or was it that you just didn't notice it? I would wonder what would happen if you put your old equipment back in and then listened to the track to see how much different it really sounded. I have had the experience of noticing something on a song that I never noticed before, but that could very well be that I just wasn't previously paying attention to that aspect. When we get new gear, I think we tend to listen more carefully and critically and thus may notice something now that was there before but we just didn't notice it back then. I'm not doubting what you say; I'm saying perhaps there is another explanation rather than the equipment. Something in the chain would have to be pretty poor in order not to reproduce a wah-wah pedal effect.
|
|
|
Post by billmac on May 7, 2013 9:41:12 GMT -5
Regarding the wah-wah pedal in the track from Santana III: Was it that your old equipment didn't reproduce the wah-wah pedal, or was it that you just didn't notice it? I would wonder what would happen if you put your old equipment back in and then listened to the track to see how much different it really sounded. I have had the experience of noticing something on a song that I never noticed before, but that could very well be that I just wasn't previously paying attention to that aspect. When we get new gear, I think we tend to listen more carefully and critically and thus may notice something now that was there before but we just didn't notice it back then. I'm not doubting what you say; I'm saying perhaps there is another explanation rather than the equipment. Something in the chain would have to be pretty poor in order not to reproduce a wah-wah pedal effect. mm, Excellent post and questions as well . I firmly believe what you are saying is so true. I just can not see how changes in DACs and amps can really make such large improvements in SQ. I think what is in play is that people at times tend to focus on certain aspects of the music they are listening to (as you mentioned above). Especially when doing comparisons where they tend to "want" to hear differences. This is especially true when adding a new component(s) that at times are fairly expensive. Or to verify their thoughts on adding such components. Bill
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on May 7, 2013 9:49:22 GMT -5
Regarding the wah-wah pedal in the track from Santana III: Was it that your old equipment didn't reproduce the wah-wah pedal, or was it that you just didn't notice it? I would wonder what would happen if you put your old equipment back in and then listened to the track to see how much different it really sounded. I have had the experience of noticing something on a song that I never noticed before, but that could very well be that I just wasn't previously paying attention to that aspect. When we get new gear, I think we tend to listen more carefully and critically and thus may notice something now that was there before but we just didn't notice it back then. I'm not doubting what you say; I'm saying perhaps there is another explanation rather than the equipment. Something in the chain would have to be pretty poor in order not to reproduce a wah-wah pedal effect. mm, Excellent post and questions as well . I firmly believe what you are saying is so true. I just can not see how changes in DACs and amps can really make such large improvements in SQ. I think what is in play is that people at times tend to focus on certain aspects of the music they are listening to (as you mentioned above). Especially when doing comparisons where they tend to "want" to hear differences. This is especially true when adding a new component(s) that at times are fairly expensive. Or to verify their thoughts on adding such components. Bill Thanks, Bill! The way I look at it (or hear it ;D ) is that if someone says they hear something, I am not going to doubt it since my ears are not their ears and who knows how good my ears are... but I still feel compelled to ask questions now and then just to clarify some things and weed out other possible explanations for why people are hearing what they hear. The same thing has happened to me before - I thought I heard differences but when I went back to listen to the old way, there really was no difference. It was just a Jedi mind trick.
|
|
|
Post by sergeantynot on May 7, 2013 10:08:27 GMT -5
I just can not see how changes in DACs and amps can really make such large improvements in SQ. Bill, Have you ever had an Oppo 95/105 in your system before?
|
|
|
Post by billmac on May 7, 2013 10:16:13 GMT -5
Bill, Have you ever had an Oppo 95/105 in your system before? Sarge, I had the 95 in my system several times. Once when a friend let me borrow his and then for a longer time frame (2-3 weeks) when I bought one from Music Direct. I compared the 95 to my 83SE and in all honesty I could not justify keeping the 95. The reason was I did not hear any significant audible differences between the 83SE and the 95. My comparisons were done with both players connected to a Parasound 2100 preamp. I now have the 103 which I think sounds excellent when using the analog outputs. I thought about the 105 when I ordered the 103 but I just could not justify spending $700 more for what might be minimal SQ differences in my system. Bill
|
|
|
Post by Andrew Robinson on May 7, 2013 10:20:03 GMT -5
Have you ever had an Oppo 95/105 in your system before? You should clarify re: your Oppo DAC response. The difference(s) in DACs would only be audible when using the Oppo's analog audio outs. If connecting the Oppo players (or any player for that matter) to your AV receiver or preamp via HDMI then the DACs don't matter. A lot of people who swear by or spring for the costlier Oppo 105 and hook it up via HDMI and swear they're hearing a difference are fooling themselves. I never used the analog outs on my 103, which is why I gave it up in favor of a Pioneer BDP-62FD for $200. As a transport (which is what any player becomes via an HDMI connection) the Pioneer and the Oppo players are indistinguishable from one another in my head-to-head testing. Not trying to step on anyone's toes, just thought perhaps some clarification was in order.
|
|
|
Post by dcg44s on May 7, 2013 10:43:10 GMT -5
Have you ever had an Oppo 95/105 in your system before? You should clarify re: your Oppo DAC response. The difference(s) in DACs would only be audible when using the Oppo's analog audio outs. If connecting the Oppo players (or any player for that matter) to your AV receiver or preamp via HDMI then the DACs don't matter. A lot of people who swear by or spring for the costlier Oppo 105 and hook it up via HDMI and swear they're hearing a difference are fooling themselves. I never used the analog outs on my 103, which is why I gave it up in favor of a Pioneer BDP-62FD for $200. As a transport (which is what any player becomes via an HDMI connection) the Pioneer and the Oppo players are indistinguishable from one another in my head-to-head testing. Not trying to step on anyone's toes, just thought perhaps some clarification was in order. An excellent point.It amazes me how many people don't realize this.And welcome Andrew.
|
|
|
Post by sergeantynot on May 7, 2013 10:50:47 GMT -5
Bill, Have you ever had an Oppo 95/105 in your system before? Sarge, I had the 95 in my system several times. Once when a friend let me borrow his and then for a longer time frame (2-3 weeks) when I bought one from Music Direct. I compared the 95 to my 83SE and in all honesty I could not justify keeping the 95. The reason was I did not hear any significant audible differences between the 83SE and the 95. My comparisons were done with both players connected to a Parasound 2100 preamp. I now have the 103 which I think sounds excellent when using the analog outputs. I thought about the 105 when I ordered the 103 but I just could not justify spending $700 more for what might be minimal SQ differences in my system. Bill Bill, That's not quite the fairest comparison, especially since I wouldn't imagine you would notice any difference at all between the 83se, 95, and 105. Those DACs are almost the same; I was asking more about your current 103 versus what you've noticed on your prior players that had the Sabre DAC. Over on AVS there are die-hard audiophiles that have all 3 that claim sonic differences between all 3. It's pretty subjective to me. However, I had the luxury of using a 93, 95, and now a 103. I will say that I would be completely shocked if most people would not be able to choose the DACs of the 95 over the 93/103 in a blind stereo test. The differences were that obvious. I have no idea why you can't discern both, but just about every single review I have ever read about the Oppo has made the same claim that a simple DAC can make that much of a difference. I will soon be looking to do another stereo demo of the 95 versus my preamp DACs, which is one of the few to currently use PCM1795 Burr Brown 32bit DACs. They might quite possibly be the only competition to the Sabre that Oppo uses. I will say they hold their own against the 103 player. Keep in mind, the discussion of using analog outs is only for stereo/multichannel music playback. In terms of HDMI audio, I will always prefer HDMI/Audyssey XT32 for movie playback. The analog bass management of any Oppo player just does not rival Audyssey's bass management in any regard.
|
|
|
Post by billmac on May 7, 2013 13:48:05 GMT -5
Bill, That's not quite the fairest comparison, especially since I wouldn't imagine you would notice any difference at all between the 83se, 95, and 105. Those DACs are almost the same; I was asking more about your current 103 versus what you've noticed on your prior players that had the Sabre DAC. Over on AVS there are die-hard audiophiles that have all 3 that claim sonic differences between all 3. It's pretty subjective to me. However, I had the luxury of using a 93, 95, and now a 103. I will say that I would be completely shocked if most people would not be able to choose the DACs of the 95 over the 93/103 in a blind stereo test. The differences were that obvious. I have no idea why you can't discern both, but just about every single review I have ever read about the Oppo has made the same claim that a simple DAC can make that much of a difference. I will soon be looking to do another stereo demo of the 95 versus my preamp DACs, which is one of the few to currently use PCM1795 Burr Brown 32bit DACs. They might quite possibly be the only competition to the Sabre that Oppo uses. I will say they hold their own against the 103 player. Keep in mind, the discussion of using analog outs is only for stereo/multichannel music playback. In terms of HDMI audio, I will always prefer HDMI/Audyssey XT32 for movie playback. The analog bass management of any Oppo player just does not rival Audyssey's bass management in any regard. Sarge, I'm not sure why the comparsion is not fair . I bought the 95 and compared it to my 83SE. Pretty simple comparison IMO. I think you should realize that the DACs/analog section of the 103 were tweaked by Oppo. In an article from Audioholics linked below with Nathaniel Plain (Manager of Technical Services) of Oppo Digital discusses the 103. www.audioholics.com/reviews/transports/high-definition-dvd-players-hd-dvd-blu-ray/oppo-blu-ray-q-aFor the BDP-103, we hired the designer of one of the popular BDP-93 aftermarket modifications to help us improve its analog audio. The new design has a warmer, more open and lively sound comparing to the BDP-93. This is achieved by a novel configuration of the DAC chip and a new analog buffer and filter stage following the DAC output.So doing comparisons between the 93, 95 and 103 is not as clear cut as one would think. From what I have read the 103 is said to be comparable to the 83SE in analog performance. So I tend to not agree with you that the differences between say the 95 and the 103 for analog performance are not going to be as obvious as one would think. Bill
|
|
|
Post by eclypse on May 7, 2013 14:47:58 GMT -5
I'm like lost.. which dacs are best so I know which player to grab? I'm looking for the best for my new LSiM 5.1 set and want to be blown away by 2 channel and 5 channel music listening.. TV and movies will be used as well but not as much as music.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew Robinson on May 7, 2013 15:01:03 GMT -5
I'm like lost.. which dacs are best so I know which player to grab? I'm looking for the best for my new LSiM 5.1 set and want to be blown away by 2 channel and 5 channel music listening.. TV and movies will be used as well but not as much as music. Assuming you'll be using an AV receiver or preamp for multi-channel music listening via SACD or Blu-ray audio disc (concert), then the DACs inside the player are going to be irrelevant as they will be bi-passed via your HDMI connection into your Denon. Thus you'll be relying on your Denon's internal DACs. If you listen to 2 channel music via that same HDMI connection the same will hold true for two channel music as well -your Denon's DACs will be used. The Oppo BDP-103 has a great analog section and is, in my opinion, a great place to start. But if everything is connected via HDMI, don't bother and just stick with either you have or start shopping for a new AV preamp or receiver as that is what is effecting your sound in this instance, not the player.
|
|
bootman
Emo VIPs
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on May 7, 2013 15:02:02 GMT -5
I'm like lost.. which dacs are best so I know which player to grab? I'm looking for the best for my new LSiM 5.1 set and want to be blown away by 2 channel and 5 channel music listening.. TV and movies will be used as well but not as much as music. The answer is simple. How are you going to hook it up? ...and if the new speakers are not blowing you away now, I doubt a player is going to make that much of a difference.
|
|
|
Post by sergeantynot on May 7, 2013 15:25:41 GMT -5
Sarge, I'm not sure why the comparsion is not fair . I bought the 95 and compared it to my 83SE. Pretty simple comparison IMO. I think you should realize that the DACs/analog section of the 103 were tweaked by Oppo. In an article from Audioholics linked below with Nathaniel Plain (Manager of Technical Services) of Oppo Digital discusses the 103. www.audioholics.com/reviews/transports/high-definition-dvd-players-hd-dvd-blu-ray/oppo-blu-ray-q-aFor the BDP-103, we hired the designer of one of the popular BDP-93 aftermarket modifications to help us improve its analog audio. The new design has a warmer, more open and lively sound comparing to the BDP-93. This is achieved by a novel configuration of the DAC chip and a new analog buffer and filter stage following the DAC output.So doing comparisons between the 93, 95 and 103 is not as clear cut as one would think. From what I have read the 103 is said to be comparable to the 83SE in analog performance.
So I tend to not agree with you that the differences between say the 95 and the 103 for analog performance are not going to be as obvious as one would think. Bill Bill, You misinterpret, the comparison of the 83se/95/105 are completely fair, hence why I wrote previously: I wouldn't imagine you would notice any difference at all between the 83se, 95, and 105. Those DACs are almost the sameWhat was implied to be unfair would be the comparison of 83se/95/105 to that of a 83/93/103. Not sure what the confusion is? Speaking of which, where have you read the comparison of the quality of the 83se is to that of the 103? That is news to me, and I follow the AVS threads quite extensively. Last I read on the Audiophile thread, owners are debating the 105 vs 83se; most did not find justification to upgrade. I have yet to read any evidence or threads anywhere of the 103 being at all comparable to an 83se, or any of the Oppo Sabre DACs.
|
|
|
Post by eclypse on May 7, 2013 15:58:50 GMT -5
I'm like lost.. which dacs are best so I know which player to grab? I'm looking for the best for my new LSiM 5.1 set and want to be blown away by 2 channel and 5 channel music listening.. TV and movies will be used as well but not as much as music. Assuming you'll be using an AV receiver or preamp for multi-channel music listening via SACD or Blu-ray audio disc (concert), then the DACs inside the player are going to be irrelevant as they will be bi-passed via your HDMI connection into your Denon. Thus you'll be relying on your Denon's internal DACs. If you listen to 2 channel music via that same HDMI connection the same will hold true for two channel music as well -your Denon's DACs will be used. The Oppo BDP-103 has a great analog section and is, in my opinion, a great place to start. But if everything is connected via HDMI, don't bother and just stick with either you have or start shopping for a new AV preamp or receiver as that is what is effecting your sound in this instance, not the player. No doubt i'll be using analogs to connect the player for music (SACD/DVD-A) and HDMI for movies. I'm like lost.. which dacs are best so I know which player to grab? I'm looking for the best for my new LSiM 5.1 set and want to be blown away by 2 channel and 5 channel music listening.. TV and movies will be used as well but not as much as music. The answer is simple. How are you going to hook it up? ...and if the new speakers are not blowing you away now, I doubt a player is going to make that much of a difference. Analog obviously as I only have a cheap 3D blu ray player right now as I got it for $50 with the purchase of my 82" DLP. The only thing I have to listen to music so far is the receivers (Denon 3313CI HD radio. Yes blown away all right just want to be more blown using proper player for the best sounding music I can afford.
|
|