Meaning that audio people who are concerned with SACD reproduction will be interested primarily interested in stereo (not multi-channel) and those individuals will generally opt for dedicated high end CD players.
I agree that many SACD enthusiasts will opt for high-end SACD players (not CD players). But I believe that this is largely because most people don't even know that the option which I have been suggesting above exists. And my point is/was that they don't need to do this anymore to play stereo SACDs because it is now possible to extract DSD from the majority of universal players in real-time and play these through many high-end DSD-capable DACs (without needing to rip them).
The radiogram as was called over here. And typically low fi at that. I think the American variants used better quality valve amps in their , but not sure of the decks.
I wanna chime in here as it has been my experience that it's split, 1/2 are into 2 channel Stereo and the other half are into that AND Surround. Me, I'm just a 2 channel guy but give Kudo's to all that do the surround thing as well, I've heard a couple of friends setups and it was indeed impressive. Beave
I've been doing "surround" sound with regular stereo for many years. I will generally listen to 2-channel stereo with three pairs of speakers playing. Since the towers and amps share the same power amps, I use the both for stereo and have a processor for 5.1 channel surround. I prefer a more immersive experience.
Quick question. I have a 203 new in the box and I'm about to buy a new TV (LGOLED55C9PUA) which has HDMI 2.1 -- The OPPO has HDMI 2.0 -- can I hook these two up? This would just be a video connection. I use analogue audio connections. Should I buy a new 2.1 cable? Or would that not work with the OPPO?
U should give 5.1 n QUAD a try if u really want an immersive experience...try flaming lips yoshimi battles the pink robots...damn immersive
Generally, digital video tends to be forward-compatible from the source and backward-compatible from the display, assuming you have cables with the right connectors and pinouts. An HDMI 2.1 display should be able to handle anything delivered over HDMI up to 2.1 specs, including 2.0. The reverse might not be true, though: an HDMI 2.0 display might not be able to handle 2.1 content or may simply handle it incorrectly.
There are very few (if any) HDMI 2.1 source devices right now so it doesn't really matter. Just buy the certified HDMI cable from Monoprice and you'll be fine either way.
These are the cables I ordered. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B078LTNDZW/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 Question. Should I have ordered 2.0 120hz cables? I'm looking for the best decently priced HDMI cables for 4K Blu-Ray's to my new 4K TV.
I have no idea about those cables. I use these without any issues. https://www.monoprice.com/product?p_id=15427Monoprice Certified Premium High Speed HDMI Cable, 4K@60Hz, HDR, 18Gbps, 28AWG, YUV 4:4:4, 3ft, Black - Monoprice.com
I don’t want to throw cold water on anything but if you’re looking for a 4k 18Gbps hookup you need to get a cable that comes with this sticker. Any other cable may or may not work or introduce problems somewhere down the road. No matter what the cable says. HDMI cables are also notorious for dying for no obvious reasons.
The hdmi cable included with the Oppo 203 is one that qualifies for 4k hdr and is an of the shelf looking cable. John.
Yes - I was actually a little surprised when I saw the HDMI cable included with my 205. It is thinner and much more "off the shelf" looking than the thick one that came with my 105 - but the 205's cable did indeed come in a package with that "premium"/QR-code sticker on it.
Right now, the best HDMI cables on the market that can pass 4K HDR video content without issue are extremely thin. Belkin Ultra HD High Speed HDMI Cable, Optimal Viewing for Apple TV and Apple TV 4K, 4K/Dolby Vision HDR, 2 m/6.6 ft - Black https://www.amazon.com/dp/B075N83B9X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_QX-lDbBV3KVNP
I'm 2.0 because quality reproduction really matters to me & my funds are limited. I.E., I prefer kick ass 2.0 over lower quality 5.1. Which would be the case for me because I can't afford 4 more channels (cables, power amps, speakers, preamp) at even close to the quality of my 2.0 rig. If I was rich, I would go to 5.1. Hell, if I was rich I would have got an Oppo 205 to supplement my 95 when that was still possible! (But then my 95 plays burned SACD's & has a region free blu mod!)
Stereo and surround SQ matter quite a bit to me as well. The additional channels are an added expense but I'm far from rich. I don't believe one has to be rich to have great stereo and surround SQ. As far as cables I use one generic quality HDMI cable for surround. If all the speakers in a 5.1 system are matched well, located properly and calibrated the SQ of the better surround titles can be amazing !
I feel your pain. Interestingly enough 5.1 is now getting ridiculously cheap. You can get a Sony X800 Universal Player and a Sony STR-DN1080 AVR plus the additional speakers needed for less than $1500 to get music and movie sound which just has so much more breadth and depth than stereo can deliver. At any rate, having 5.1, I find stereo somewhat less satisfying.
Re the Sony UBP-X1100ES. The pictures I have found are all pretty unclear but there is a USB symbol on the front and one review states there is USB capability. I would be playing dsf and flac files for the most part. Anyone confirm the new model does have a USB. The reviews I read for more concerned with blu-ray for films whereas I only really play music blu-rays.
