DSD said:

I don't trust Receivers, I think preamps and power amps sound considerably better. Now you are asking a Receiver to do even MORE by decoding digital. To me it seems more logical that a great sounding DAC would be put in an SACD player rather than an all purpose Receiver.

I listen in 2 channel stereo and prefer EVERYTHING that way, including movies. I'm an audio dinosaur I guess.

rammiepie said:

I heard a significant difference between the stock OPPO BDP~83 and the NuForce OPPO in every parameter via HDMI.

I just read Fremer's review of the new Ayre DX~5 Universal Engine in which he stated that DVD~Audio sounded better than SACD playback (a rebuttal in the manufacturer's comments in the back of the issue questioned whether Michael had inadvertently failed to use the proper output {DSD vs PCM} from the Ayre)

BTW, the $10,000 Ayre uses the basic OPPO BDP~83 disc drive and controller but everything else is proprietary to the Ayre engineers.

I'm sure Michael will do a follow up review because in essence, this puppy should sound significantly better (as Ayre claims) than their Stereophile Class A+ C~5xe Universal player which this unit replaces.

As far as HDMI cables, I am using a stock RAM electronics $10 cheapie. The picture and sound from the NuForce into my Meridian Projector is breathtaking. But I'm sure, over time, some enterprising company will come up with a better cable and I wish some enterprising reviewer (like our very own KAL Rubinson) will do a "shootout!"

Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Being an ardent Kal fan, it is also fair to say that he heard and reported on audible improvements via HDMI even on newer Oppo players vs. older ones, as well as other brands. I heard the same differences. Were they huge? No, but they were clearly there. Jitter emanating from the transport is the probable cause, and it is the only known scientific reason this could be the case

I also hear a slight difference on bitstreaming DSD vs. transmitting PCM via HDMI, even though the signal is converted to PCM in the AVP/AVR. I prefer the bitstreamed DSD. DSD transmission is theoretically less prone to jitter than uncompressed PCM over HDMI.

As to cables, I have done no significant experimentation and I am highly skeptical of differences with HDMI cables under a few meters. I would, however, try Disbeliever's Chord recommendation if it were available in the US, which it is not.

Disbeliever said:

You said it, about time you moved forward to better sound

Kal Rubinson said:

Of course, real stereo requires more than 2 channels. ;-)

Kal

rammiepie said:

Kal, would you amplify on that supposition?

I have heard of live to two track or are you referring to the 3~channel recordings popular in the late 50's and early 60's which are being referred to as "multi-Channel?"

Or, like most recordings recorded to 48/24/16/8 track folded down to stereo?

Kal Rubinson said:

Not a supposition. Stereo means solid, not 2 channels. In order to create a solid, three-dimensional sound recreation, 2 channels are simply inadequate.

It was also a jibe at DSD.

Kal

Arnaldo said:

Right on!

If one wants to listen to planes flying overhead, birds and bees buzzing all around, as well as live rock concerts and ballgames, multichannel is certainly a valid option.

In the meantime, others will be listening with just "two" ears to real music recorded with just "two" channels.