Oppo UDP-205 Announced

HDMI might not be an audio standard but in a way it has become one. I would guess that most that listen to multichannel music use HDMI opposed to using 5.1 analog. Less cables and depending on the processor better speaker setting options (bass management and distance settings) as well as the option to use room correction.

I certainly don't consider my living room where my multichannel setup is as "home theater". But the use of Dirac room correction in my room makes a big difference in overall SQ. Most multichannel systems whether it be mostly for movies or a mix of movies and music can benefit from room correction. Most systems are setup in rooms that are not dedicated listening rooms and do not have any forms of acoustical panels etc. So those rooms would again IMO benefit from room correction.

 

Why should most home theatres not use room correction? I don't, but I am curious why you would put it in those terms, almost like a fact rather than an opinion?

 

You beat me to it while I was posting. I don't use it but I respect many here who do. To post it as a fact leaves me to believe I didn't understand the point he was attempting to make.

 

Great question! I guess a lot depends on one's room and gear. Some of the lower tier options from Audyssey aren't that great (from experience). But offerings from Dirac are excellent IMO. Then there's personal preference to not use room correction which I totally respect. I guess we can wait to see what quicksrt's thoughts are.

 

I stated my point and put imo at end of it, so it's an opinion. Read again.

 

With regards to DSP and other digital treatments for room correction it's just simply not a given.

Acoustic treatment is a whole other thing, common on the high end of audio / video.

I agree it's a personal preference. Simple not a given.

 

I agree that room correction isn't a given and a personal preference. But your earlier post indicated that most should not use it which differs from not a "given". I took your "imo" in regard to the reference of HDMI.

Acoustical treatment is definitely out of the question for many as they can be quite intrusive in most rooms. I've thought of it but not only would it alter the appearance of my room there is a science to it. That science or knowledge is lacking (understatement!) on my part. This topic should probably be moved to a more appropriate thread .

 

I think the home theatre part is what threw me off. For movies I rarely see room correction not implemented. If you used the term multichannel music system, I wouldn't have blinked an eye. I guess I just don't keep up with the home theatre aspect of multichannel. I don't watch many movies. The new Kong movie had crazy good rear channel info however.

...I thought the imo was only for the HDMI portion of your post now that I read it again.

 

HDMI is a connection many of us are avoiding at all costs. The options are not just HDMI or 6 RCA jacks. But many folks myself included don't mind the 6 short cables, it's not a big deal when you have as many things going on back there anyway.

I know a major hardware designer who says HDMI stands for horribly designed malfunctioning interface.

So it's a stopgap measure in my opinion until we get more USB3 DACs or whatever comes next in multichannel.

My Oppo by the way can do all of those speaker distance settings, etc. and output via analog. HDMI is not required to do the room correction (Is it?). But I am a purest in some ways - I don't like any resampling. That might be just my preference and option no one here will agree with.

 

No, HDMI isn't a requirement to do room correction. Diraclive can be implemented on a PC but that with a multichannel DAC is not only a new solution, it is an expensive one. HDMI can work very well for many so just because YOU avoid it doesn't make it crap. I use analog outs and no digital correction or bass management myself but like I mentioned, many respected people here do use digital room correction.

Give me a high quality USB multichannel DAC for around $750 and I am in...

 

I have read many that feel HDMI introduces jitter and other issues. But when asked if these issues are clearly audible many say not really. So unless I can clearly hear the issues that some say HDMI has then I'm fine with using HDMI.

I recently connected my 5.1 analog cables to my 105D and did a direct comparison to HDMI with Dirac. I preferred HDMI with Dirac as it produced better separation and my subs blend much better with no localization at all.

With the Oppo's you're limited to using one crossover for all speakers. With most processors one can select different crossovers for groups of speakers. As far as using room correction with 5.1 analog that's not possible with most processors (AVRs and prepros). The only processor that I've owned that allowed digitizing 5.1 analog to use onboard bass management was an Anthem AVM30.

 

@quicksrt are you running a multichannel setup without HDMI? I tried to check your system profile but you have blocked me.

 

I finally bought a 205 to upgrade my 103. Big difference in audio!

 

One thing I noticed when using my AVR to do room correction is that it also adjust for phase alignment after doing adjustment for speakers distance. It means that even if one could get the distance right, the phase from all speakers and subwoofer could still be slightly off. Turning on and off the phase alignment option is noticeable to me. I prefer phase alignment on.

 

The issue with HDMI from a manufacturing\support POV is the HDMI Standard itself.

BTW, as far as room correction for multi-channel music, done right like in Dirac, Trinnov & ARC makes a huge difference.

 

I totally agree. I'm using Dirac and in my room it makes a huge difference with multichannel music.

 

A question for 205 owners who may have experimented with this. . . .

I use a Cambridge Audio CXU currently and I run my DVR into the HDMI input and enjoy better audio through the HDMI output and the analog output and perhaps a bit better picture (I don't really enjoy more than a dash of Darbee so that feature isn't essential to me, but it seems that the picture may be cleaned up a tiny bit going through the CXU.)

If I did the same with a UDP-205 would I experience this improvement? I'm interested as I have a fully balanced preamp and would like to use the balanced audio output of the Oppo. . . .And that mostly for music discs, King Crimson, Yes, etc. Blu-ray Audio and DVD audio discs with hi-res sound.

 

I can only comment on the 105 but I was never convinced there was any great advantage using the balanced outputs-I'm trying to think back but I'm sure my Esoteric A-100 had no volume differential between balanced and RCA (as you probably know often balanced is louder). I'm sure for whatever reasons I preferred RCA then. When I used the Oppo with my Gryphon Atilla which is fully balanced I actually preferred RCA but that's because I felt the RCA gave me more headroom on listening volumes. I think personally this type of thing is so dependant on amp/speaker matching. Your speakers are a bit easier to drive than mine but I think that would be balanced out by your amp which I suspect is lower power. It's something I have became more sensitive to over time I suspect it's partly due to a loss of hearing range over time and simply better and more sensitive speakers-of course compression on some recordings doesn't help.

My best experience with balanced was probably when I had an all Ayre set up.

The big advantage of the 205 although I have never seen this touched on in a review or personally is the improved low jitter aspect aspect of the HDMI output which intrigued me for use with my DAC but I've never been clear if the PS Audio Dac takes HDMI-I know you have the transport too.
This to me is the area that might deliver but I would think the 205 would stand up pretty well in a very good system such as your own. If it would be better than the Cambridge you'll only know by comparing them I think.

 

I had an OPPO. On audio, the CXU is tough to beat with PCM based material. It was more pleasing to me than the OPPO 105. By almost all accounts the 205 doesn't sound much better than the 105. The combination of Anagram Q5 and the Wolfson DACs make for a very nice analogue presentation from the CXU. The upsampled digital signal from Q5 for HDMI etc. output is also very good. FYI, I just did a write-up in the main thread comparing the 105 and CXU explaining why I prefer the CXU

 

Really? Exact opposite of what I've read....

 

I own the 105D and had the 205 in my system for about a month. I returned the 205 as it did not sound much different than the 105D. I did a direct comparison and the 205 had a very slight edge. But once I switched inputs enough so that it came difficult to tell which was which I couldn't tell them apart. Others might have different findings but in my system the 105D was more than capable.

 

How do you have your 205 hooked into your Pre? I use mine to convert to Analog signal into my Pre, so I am relying on it for all conversion, which may be different then your setup.

(but in all fairness, I sent it straight to ModWright when I ordered it, so it ain't "Stock". . Sounds bleeping fantastic to me!)

 

For the comparison I used the RCA analog outputs for both the 105D and 205. Normally I use XLR but for the comparison had to use RCA as my processor only has one XLR input. I returned the 205 and kept the 105D. Both the 105D and the 205 were stock with no mods.

 

Thanks for the reply. In my system balanced sounds better through my preamp than RCA via an adaptor, and my preamp really improves the sound of my sources. . . so I think the balanced output would be a plus for me. Also I have a very good pair of balanced interconnects available to use, a step up from the RCA interconnects available. So the balanced output may be an improvement for me.

By the way it seems the jitter reduction is limited the audio only HDMI out and I could use that with my TV but not my DAC; the PS Audio DirectStream DAC has two HDMI inputs, but they are for a proprietary implementation of I2S signal, not standard HDMI protocol. So I would be using the coaxial output to the DAC and the XLR output to the preamp. Still, I may hear that improvement of sound with my TV when just listening to the TV speakers via HDMI connection.

 

Bill and Diskhound, I've been following this thread so I am aware of the controversy over the differing sound of the two Oppo models, and the preference of some for the CXU. There are others who feel that the 205 betters the 105, and the Oppo betters the CXU. It's the kind of thing that can be system dependent. The CXU is a tad warmer than it needs to be in my system, so I may now prefer the Oppo (I haven't been that impressed with Oppos previewed in earlier incarnations of my system which were a bit leaner, but this Oppo also uses different audio DACs.) And I could sell or repurpose whichever player doesn't work best for me. . . I'm willing to take the financial hit that may incur. I suspect I may give the Oppo a try, its balaced output may pull it ahead for me, I have an input lying unused in my balanced preamp, my amp loves the extra gain that balanced inputs provide, and I have a great cable lying unused as well. Thanks for your input.