Post by jzpchen January 2, 2010 (221 of 234)
|
|
Just thought to let people know CS4398 - the DAC in OPPO 2 channel mode was designed in Nov 2002. http://www.cirrus.com/en/products/pro/detail/P1023.html. It is probably not a bad DAC. We are talking about digital and analog design in OPPO is not changed for at least that long.
|
|
|
|
|
|
urbo73 said:
A modern CD player has a lot of features in there for marketing reasons. There is no real art to designing a CD player, since the format has been around for quite some time and it hasn't changed. So you either do it right or you don't. All these bells and whistle "features" are just nonsense added in there so the manufacturers can keep selling their products. There is no innovation, except in marketing. Do you really think there is a need for a company to come out with a new CD player these days? Was there a need 5 years ago? Ten years ago? Not really. But a company must continue to sell or perish. My 13 year old Rotel sounds no better and no worse than my several month old OPPO BDP-83. Both were correctly designed - it's as simple as that, but hard for some reason for people to believe.
I have my 7 year old Sony SCD555ES which basically is a striped down SCD 1. I'm not going to buy a new CD because I think when you come to a certain level on your setup the difference is very small. However I do think there is a clear difference between different CD players on the market. And I also think there is a clear difference between CD and SACD in 2ch in favor to SACD, at least on my setup.
I don't think the Oppo is a bad player. However I think the majority that buys the 83 model is using it in a multichannel environment where you also have a multichannel receiver. Therefore I think that the analog part/outputs on this player is probably not state of the art.
So my conclusion is a bit different then yours.
|
|
|
Post by urbo73 January 3, 2010 (223 of 234)
|
|
zeus said:
I wasn't alluding to just the Oppo, but your empirical approach to audio that I suggest gets in the way of your enjoyment of its possibilities.
I acknowledge that many things audio related cannot be measured. Such as why does frequency X affect this person in a good way or another in a bad way. I can go on and on, but I'm sure we all understand this and agree. And I don't try to measure these things, because I can't and don't care. If it sounds good to me, I'm happy. If it sounds good to you, great. We don't have to like the same thing. And we may not even know why. Horses for courses. But I'm not debating preferences and tastes here. Because it's silly and pointless to.
But when it comes to the digital world and electronic devices that CAN be easily measured, then the empirical approach seems the way to go to me. There are no lies in objective measurements. And there is no "hidden magic" in a piece of electronic gear. Like I said, a piece of equipment can be measured and then we can see if it's implemented correctly or not. Many devices are not. For various reasons. Some because they are cheap, and some because they are expensive and color sound (in other words, they are not transparent to the input signal). My goal is to have equipment that is as transparent as possible. Is this not everyone's goal? I want to hear what's on the recording, nothing more and nothing less. And in aiming for my goal, yes I do quite a bit of research when buying gear. The OPPO measured perfectly fine. If they charged $2000 for it, I would have paid it. I didn't buy it because I was scrapping for cash. So when I see a new OPPO with new DACs, of course I ask myself, what is there to improve upon? Transparency is transparency. And yeah, of course manufacturers continuously come out with new products that offer nothing to improve, but give the illusion to. That's how they continue to thrive. You don't think this is true? It's absolutely true in the audio world. Sometimes to the point of being quite ridiculous and insulting to audiophiles.
So to be quite honest, I'm open to many things, and I can assure you my enjoyment of audio/music is not suffering. I listen to music almost all day long - at home the stereo is on almost all the time, at work, in the car, etc. Most of us here probably do the same. Do I wish sometimes a CD or whatever was better sounding or better produced? You betcha! But I don't fret over it. I don't go nuts if I can't hear the breath of the piano player as he hums along while playing, etc. I can appreciate and enjoy that, but I don't need it to enjoy the music. Someone before said something about seeing the forest for the trees. And IMO, many audiophiles are definitely looking at the trees. Manufacturers encourage that behavior. But to each his own. Whatever one enjoys. But please don't assume that I'm somehow enjoying things less because I'm cynical of manufacturers and "features" the add on to charge more money. Or that I'm turned off and chuckle at the editors of Stereophile or The Absolute Sound when they are using very creative adjectives to describe a solid state power amp that is as basic as can be. I wish these magazines would lean more towards objectivism, but I realize that won't sell much equipment.
But again, if someone wants to read that and they love it, great! I don't care. I'm just trying to point out why I used the player I did, and how I don't believe it invalidates my testing in any way. And that in the end, I do enjoy both formats for reasons stated. Peace!
|
|
|
Post by fafnir January 3, 2010 (224 of 234)
|
|
Dear Urbo,
Although I agree with your almost all your conclusions and methodology, I haven't entered this thread because I believe I could spend my time more profitably taking a nap or, better yet, listening to some music, preferably on SACDs. However, since with think basically alike, it might be worthwhile to have some correspondence. I can assure you that I'm perfectly harmless, a music lover, and a retired electrical engineer who has no use for junk science or magical thinking. Your email address would be safe with me.
Brian Smith
|
|
|
Post by zeus January 3, 2010 (225 of 234)
|
|
urbo73 said:
The OPPO measured perfectly fine.
You still don't get it, do you? Firstly, you're not using the player solely as a digital device. Secondly, the measurements assume that you've got a handle on ALL the variables, not just the headline ones. Seemingly insignificant factors can play a big part in our perception of how well things work (or not). Lastly, and I'm sure you'll find this one really difficult, you may actually PREFER something that doesn't measure as well. If you're going to kit out your audio system with components that simply measure well (without auditioning them) frankly you deserve what you get.
|
|
|
Post by urbo73 January 3, 2010 (226 of 234)
|
|
fafnir said:
Dear Urbo,
Although I agree with your almost all your conclusions and methodology, I haven't entered this thread because I believe I could spend my time more profitably taking a nap or, better yet, listening to some music, preferably on SACDs. However, since with think basically alike, it might be worthwhile to have some correspondence. I can assure you that I'm perfectly harmless, a music lover, and a retired electrical engineer who has no use for junk science or magical thinking. Your email address would be safe with me.
Brian Smith
Brian,
I just put my email in my profile. Anyone can email me if they want.
Ryan
|
|
|
Post by urbo73 January 3, 2010 (227 of 234)
|
|
zeus said:
You still don't get it, do you? Firstly, you're not using the player solely as a digital device. Secondly, the measurements assume that you've got a handle on ALL the variables, not just the headline ones. Seemingly insignificant factors can play a big part in our perception of how well things work (or not). Lastly, and I'm sure you'll find this one really difficult, you may actually PREFER something that doesn't measure as well. If you're going to kit out your audio system with components that simply measure well (without auditioning them) frankly you deserve what you get.
I get it zeus, we just differ in our approach. My post was pretty clear, not sure why you make so many assumptions about me. We can disagree - that's OK. I especially don't appreciate the last sentence, but you have the right to be upset for whatever reason..
|
|
|
|
|
|
urbo73 said:
I get it zeus, we just differ in our approach. My post was pretty clear, not sure why you make so many assumptions about me. We can disagree - that's OK. I especially don't appreciate the last sentence, but you have the right to be upset for whatever reason..
Even if the Emperor's clothes are invisible, he may not appreciate you stepping on the hem of his robe!
Your conclusions re: SACD and CD are never going to go down easy on a forum largely populated with SACD "believers." Belief systems are strong and challenging them results in a lot of negative energy, for the most part.
PS: I more or less agree with you but what do I know?
|
|
|
Post by zeus January 3, 2010 (229 of 234)
|
|
carledwards said:
Your conclusions re: SACD and CD are never going to go down easy on a forum largely populated with SACD "believers." Belief systems are strong and challenging them results in a lot of negative energy, for the most part.
Which is worse? A belief that a few metrics tell you all there is to know about the sound, or believing your own ears?
The problem I think is that audio has gotten so good in the last few years that all the typical audiophile metrics have been covered. If you're just listening to "sound", it's probably hard to differentiate between the two ... which is the trap many fall into. The differences for me boil down to those in presentation, nuances that signal "realism", a sense of "involvement" etc. These are less easy to put your finger on than the overt sound, resolution etc. Everybody will have their own threshold where one crosses over to the other, and it will also be somewhat system dependent. Where I disagree is that you can tell all this from looking at the specifications of components alone.
|
|
|
Post by jzpchen January 3, 2010 (230 of 234)
|
|
zeus said:
from looking at the specifications of components alone.
I totally agree. If you just look spec, you'd be satisfied with a transistor amp 25 years ago, CD player 20 years ago or any opamp to be done with any preamp needs. Actually this was my state of mind 20 years ago. Though, I do hope no one here is really suggesting looking at the specifications alone. I guess may be the specification doesn't cover all that matters. We may not know all that matters. For example, I still don't know how ringing, ripple, group delay, phasing, etc, etc in the specification matters. Given that they cannot be 0 or made perfect, I am not sure a bit bigger or less of each parameter is better or not. They do sound different to me.
|
|
