Oppo BDP-103 Universal 3D 4K Blu-ray Player Video Review

[j_garcia]

I've been saying for a while that 4K really isn't necessary at this point, so that's nothing new. Even when 4K does hit the consumer level market, they won't come down to "mere mortal" levels of pricing for a while. I don't think 4K was really a main draw for these players though; it just so happens that the processors are out that can do it now so they used them - the fact that the display market is lagging behind created the disparity. We will likely see every new player that comes out this year with 4K now because average consumers don't know any better.

Yes, these players with the uber-processing will likely be better than the Sonys and Pannys, but as I've said all along, on a typical size display, the average person won't really be able to tell the difference. The better processing is targeted at those who ARE interested in the best processing and who also likely have much larger than average displays, not average joe.

 

[PENG]

Good thing I bought the 590 instead. For under $100, the $590 suits me well. It allows me to save the Oppo for 2 channel music only.

 

[wlmmn]

Two things really bothered me with this review:

1. Nowhere in his video or text review did he mention Oppo did away with the esata connection on the back. I have an esata external drive that I use ALL THE TIME with my Oppo, it's got tons of content on it and I'd hate to spend money on an Oppo that has LESS of what I'd actually use than the BDP-93 I have now. Put it back on, Oppo.

2. And this statement was completely incorrect:

This is a great recording since it's recorded and mixed without any DSP boxes or compression.

I'm a recording engineer, I've spent countless hours in the studio recording bands. ALL RECORDINGS ARE COMPRESSED. A compressor in the studio reduces the dynamic range of a particular track so it sits well in the mix. It's good engineering practice to do so, otherwise you'll get certain notes or phrases in the music popping way out of where they're supposed to sit in the mix. A lot of times compressors add a nice sonic touch to the track as well: the 1176 is considered a classic compressor, and the Beatles recordings often had a Fairchild compressor patched into the signal chain.

It's one thing to talk about data compression in the context of home theater (like mp3s have lossy data compression) but if you're going to talk about recordings and the recording process, you, Andrew, need to understand that the term "compression" has a completely different context to recording engineers, as in signal compression. And if you don't specify which one you're talking about, a recording engineer's going to assume you mean signal, or dynamic range compression. I love compressors and what they contribute to the sonic character of a recording.

Dynamic range compression - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[tvrgeek]

Missing features, extra features? Well, all I know is it is fast enough not to REALLY tick me off like my Pioneer and Panasonic. I know it makes older DVD's look considerably better. I am ecstatic about mine. Nit picking, the tiny flush eject button.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Two things really bothered me with this review:

1. Nowhere in his video or text review did he mention Oppo did away with the esata connection on the back. I have an esata external drive that I use ALL THE TIME with my Oppo, it's got tons of content on it and I'd hate to spend money on an Oppo that has LESS of what I'd actually use than the BDP-93 I have now. Put it back on, Oppo.

2. And this statement was completely incorrect:



I'm a recording engineer, I've spent countless hours in the studio recording bands. ALL RECORDINGS ARE COMPRESSED. A compressor in the studio reduces the dynamic range of a particular track so it sits well in the mix. It's good engineering practice to do so, otherwise you'll get certain notes or phrases in the music popping way out of where they're supposed to sit in the mix. A lot of times compressors add a nice sonic touch to the track as well: the 1176 is considered a classic compressor, and the Beatles recordings often had a Fairchild compressor patched into the signal chain.

It's one thing to talk about data compression in the context of home theater (like mp3s have lossy data compression) but if you're going to talk about recordings and the recording process, you, Andrew, need to understand that the term "compression" has a completely different context to recording engineers, as in signal compression. And if you don't specify which one you're talking about, a recording engineer's going to assume you mean signal, or dynamic range compression. I love compressors and what they contribute to the sonic character of a recording.

Dynamic range compression - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Don't know why but many confuse perceptual coding like mp3 and what you are discussing, dynamic compression. Frustrating indeed.

 

[Cpt.H.M.Murdock]

I've been saying for a while that 4K really isn't necessary at this point, so that's nothing new. Even when 4K does hit the consumer level market, they won't come down to "mere mortal" levels of pricing for a while. I don't think 4K was really a main draw for these players though; it just so happens that the processors are out that can do it now so they used them - the fact that the display market is lagging behind created the disparity. We will likely see every new player that comes out this year with 4K now because average consumers don't know any better.

Yes, these players with the uber-processing will likely be better than the Sonys and Pannys, but as I've said all along, on a typical size display, the average person won't really be able to tell the difference. The better processing is targeted at those who ARE interested in the best processing and who also likely have much larger than average displays, not average joe.

Agree 100% QFHD isn't ready for average Joe. Keep it in the movie theaters where we need that resolution on their monster screens. I think where QFHD displays/source material will shine is in the realm of 3D. This is just a guess however, and only time will tell. At this point however like you say its just a marketing ploy for suckers..uh I mean 'early adopters'.

 

[Darkwing_duck]

Hey all I have a basic question about this player....what is the purpose of using the analog outputs for music aside from using them with a receiver that doesnt support hdmi....and why would someone choose to use the 2 channel analog output for music instead of using the hdmi out? Wouldnt you be getting the bit for bit information with hdmi anyways compared to analog rca cables?

 

[Grador]

Hey all I have a basic question about this player....what is the purpose of using the analog outputs for music aside from using them with a receiver that doesnt support hdmi....and why would someone choose to use the 2 channel analog output for music instead of using the hdmi out? Wouldnt you be getting the bit for bit information with hdmi anyways compared to analog rca cables?

At some point those bits have to be translated back to an analog signal. You would use the analog output of the oppo instead of hdmi if you believed that the oppo did a better job with the conversion.

 

[Darkwing_duck]

Is there a way to determine if the oppo really did a better job with the conversion? Or is this another psycho-acoustics thing....aka " I swear i can hear a difference..."

Ive always wondered why individuals audiophiles in this case demanded to have 2 ch analog outs for music rather than having everything go through a hdmi cable and keep everything less cluttered....i mean, lossless is lossless right? Its the exact bit for bit copy of the original studio master so wouldnt this be the way to go?

 

[Grador]

The oppo does measure better than your average AVRs DAC [Digital-to-Analog Converter], but that doesn't necessarily mean it's audible. Determining an actual audible difference is a very difficult task.

In this case lossless is NOT lossless. Yes, HDMI gives you a bit per bit, but your speakers do not output bits. Those bits need to be converted back to an analog waveform. Different DACs are more or less precise about the waveform they output.

 

[Darkwing_duck]

The oppo does measure better than your average AVRs DAC [Digital-to-Analog Converter], but that doesn't necessarily mean it's audible. Determining an actual audible difference is a very difficult task.

In this case lossless is NOT lossless. Yes, HDMI gives you a bit per bit, but your speakers do not output bits. Those bits need to be converted back to an analog waveform. Different DACs are more or less precise about the waveform they output.

Um...ok if thats the case then I guess HD lossless audio tracks on a blu ray movie disk are not lossless either.....since you're saying speakers do not output bits. I dont know what to believe anymore to be honest. Lossless isnt lossless and HDMI doesnt help. Is this the reason why folks prefer 2 ch analog out for their music? Since you are saying lossless music isnt really lossless then there is no real advantage of using HDMI

 

[jcl]

Perhaps 'bit perfect' would have been a more accurate term than 'lossless'. I can recall discussions of copying music in the digital domain and ensuring that the copy was a bit for bit perfect replica of the original. You can do that while in the digital domain, but once the D/A conversion is implemented you can't.

There are various measurements that can be taken to compare, but for good current d/a they are below the threshold of audibility. I'm sure that doesn't stop people from hearing differences however.

 

[Grador]

My troll alarm is starting to go off a bit here, but I'll give it one more go:

So you really can't see any advantages HDMI has? I rather enjoy not plugging in 6 RCA cables [8 if i had 7.1] for audio and another 3 for video. I'm perfectly happy with the DAC in my receiver, so I'd rather not pay the cost to have my bluray to have 8 channels of DAC built in.

For [stereo] music there is literally no advantage to HDMI over coax/optical digital. Both are equally capable of sending uncompressed stereo digital audio from point A to point B. HDMI has an advantage with multichannel, as past stereo coax/optical can only send compressed [dolby digital or dts] audio while HDMI can send uncompressed 8 channel audio.

To finish it off with a bit of your logic: why not just rip all of your CDs to 32k mp3 since lossless isn't lossless and none of it makes any difference?

 

[Darkwing_duck]

My troll alarm is starting to go off a bit here, but I'll give it one more go:

So you really can't see any advantages HDMI has? I rather enjoy not plugging in 6 RCA cables [8 if i had 7.1] for audio and another 3 for video. I'm perfectly happy with the DAC in my receiver, so I'd rather not pay the cost to have my bluray to have 8 channels of DAC built in.

For [stereo] music there is literally no advantage to HDMI over coax/optical digital. Both are equally capable of sending uncompressed stereo digital audio from point A to point B. HDMI has an advantage with multichannel, as past stereo coax/optical can only send compressed [dolby digital or dts] audio while HDMI can send uncompressed 8 channel audio.

To finish it off with a bit of your logic: why not just rip all of your CDs to 32k mp3 since lossless isn't lossless and none of it makes any difference?

I'm not trolling I'm just trying to make sense of this lossless music debacle you got me into. you did say lossless isn't lossless since speakers do not output bits....and to me that would interpolate into a why bother with lossless aka the bit for bit copies of music which would then lead me to think exactly what you just mentioned "why not just rip all of your CDs to 32k mp3 since lossless isn't lossless and none of it makes any difference?" You know before I posted in this thread I was under the assumption that Dolby True HD and DTS HD codecs were the exact copies of the studio mastered tracks when uncompressed and that lossless music files were the exactly similar to the studio files

 

[Grador]

Do all speakers sound the same? Clearly they do not. Once you leave the digital world and enter the realm of analog all bets are off. The HD audio codecs are completely lossless, exact copies of what the studio had. That said once you take that digital, lossless, copy you must convert it to sound. The DAC must take the completely lossless bits and make them into an analog waveform. The speakers then take that waveform and turn them into pressure waves. Every step of analog processes can have an effect upon the sound.

If you start with total junk (32k mp3) then your system will simply be trying to as accurately as possible reproduce junk. Any of the inaccuracies that your DAC and speakers have will just be added on top of the already terrible signal you're giving them.

Edit: I guess to sum up my point, you can't look at your HT/music system as a "system" and as a set of components. Each component capable of screwing things up if it doesn't do it's job right, and ideally having zero effect upon the sound.

 

[Darkwing_duck]

Do all speakers sound the same? Clearly they do not. Once you leave the digital world and enter the realm of analog all bets are off. The HD audio codecs are completely lossless, exact copies of what the studio had. That said once you take that digital, lossless, copy you must convert it to sound. The DAC must take the completely lossless bits and make them into an analog waveform. The speakers then take that waveform and turn them into pressure waves. Every step of analog processes can have an effect upon the sound.

If you start with total junk (32k mp3) then your system will simply be trying to as accurately as possible reproduce junk. Any of the inaccuracies that your DAC and speakers have will just be added on top of the already terrible signal you're giving them.

Edit: I guess to sum up my point, you can't look at your HT/music system as a "system" and as a set of components. Each component capable of screwing things up if it doesn't do it's job right, and ideally having zero effect upon the sound.

Alright so what you are saying is it doesnt matter what type of lossless medium we develop and use its original purpose of delivering hifi fedelity and transporting the listener to the studio where it was recorded is actually in vain since those bit for bit copies mean nothing when they enter the dac and transform into analog waveforms which then transforim into pressurized sound waves? If it isnt, then what the heck are you talking about!?

And my original question still stands ( for someone else to answer ) Why do folks prefer to use 2 ch analog outs for music over an hdmi cable? and Is there a difference in sound quality when listening to a lossless song over 2 ch analog outs compared to hdmi out?

 

[Grador]

Alright so what you are saying is it doesnt matter what type of lossless medium we develop and use its original purpose of delivering hifi fedelity and transporting the listener to the studio where it was recorded is actually in vain since those bit for bit copies mean nothing when they enter the dac and transform into analog waveforms which then transforim into pressurized sound waves? If it isnt, then what the heck are you talking about!?

Because we have good DACs and speakers that are quite good at their jobs? The limiting factor on quality is...whatever the weakest link in the chain is. If you've got a terrible recording it's going to sound terrible on the best of equipment. If you've got the highest quality recording ever produced it'll sound terrible on terrible speakers.

I really think you should do some research of your own on how audio equipment works with an emphasis on digital audio. You seem to be lacking a bit of fundamental knowledge in this respect.

 

[Darkwing_duck]

Because we have good DACs and speakers that are quite good at their jobs? The limiting factor on quality is...whatever the weakest link in the chain is. If you've got a terrible recording it's going to sound terrible on the best of equipment. If you've got the highest quality recording ever produced it'll sound terrible on terrible speakers.

I really think you should do some research of your own on how audio equipment works with an emphasis on digital audio. You seem to be lacking a bit of fundamental knowledge in this respect.

Funny...I thought that's what i was trying to do...but let me get back to you after I finish my 4 year electrical engineering degree...maybe then you"ll be less umm...condescending with me.

 

[Darkwing_duck]

Because we have good DACs and speakers that are quite good at their jobs? The limiting factor on quality is...whatever the weakest link in the chain is. If you've got a terrible recording it's going to sound terrible on the best of equipment. If you've got the highest quality recording ever produced it'll sound terrible on terrible speakers.

I really think you should do some research of your own on how audio equipment works with an emphasis on digital audio. You seem to be lacking a bit of fundamental knowledge in this respect.

I don't think you understand what you are trying to tell me or maybe you are confused because I know I sure as he'll isn't. Lossless music is redundant since everything will find end up in the analog domain so a bit for bit copy means moot. " Once you leave the digital world and enter the realm of analog all bets are off. The HD audio codecs are completely lossless " ....this is what you said after all.....thanks for trying to help but I think I'll ask someone else for help

 

[allessior]

BDP-103 Reality

Frankly, I don't understand all of the clamour surrounding this unit.

My home theater shop sold me on the 4k. but without h.265, what good is it? I did not expect this deficiency and only found out after the sale that it was just upscaling, not true 4k with h.265 decoding.

Secondly, Netflix is a struggle just to bring up. While invocation of Netflix from the oppo invariably fails the first few times it is tried (message presented is "Netflix not responding, try again or exit" all other Netflix apps on other devices are working just fine. The oppo is on the same network as the other devices, and there are no frame errors or other ethernet errors. Changing the cable from the oppo to the enet hub does not fix it. Swapping hub ports or the entire hub does not fix it.

Thirdly, spinning up a BluRay takes forever. People usually get up and leave the room while waiting endless minutes for the movie to start.

I don't get all the praise.