Oppo 105 D vs. DAC-transport combination.


To my great dismay, the more I listen, I’m finding my Oppo 105 is outperforming a very well thought of DAC and transport combination for which I paid 3x the price.  Basically the sound stage is wider and better defined.
Both the DAC and transport are less than a year old.  I thought I was upgrading.
Played by itself, the DAC-transport combo sounds great.  Until I compare it to the Oppo. 
I can’t understand it!
rvpiano

Showing 5 responses by noble100


     Mahler123 stated:
"@melm Sorry the Oppo 105 didn’t come close to sounding like your vinyl.  Perhaps if Oppo had figured out a way to compress their dynamic range, add speed instability and most importantly simulate the sound of frying bacon superimposed on the music, then they would still be making players."

    I don't believe mahler123 deserves to be called 'an ignorant fool' for his insightful and quite humorous comment. 
     Listening to music emanating from a dead quiet background is a  quality that I would think and hope we all can appreciate as a significant contributor to excellent sound quality in our systems.
     
Tim
uberwaltz:

" @mahler123.
 I think you may be surprised at the dynamic range of vinyl. You may find its range far exceeds digital."

uberwaltz,
     Are you serious?  Fortunately for all of us you are trying to mislead, the actual dynamic range of vinyl vs.digital is not a matter of opinion.  The dynamic range, as well as the frequency response range and noise levels,of both formats can be and have been scientifically measured.  Digital has been proven to be superior in all 3 measurements.

     , I understand the appeal of high quality vinyl playback and have no desire or intention of discouraging its usage.  I believe everyone should listen to whatever they prefer. 
     But I also believe there is no benefit of making the obviously and scientifically verifiable false statement you made..
Tim


     Okay guys, I will concede that the issue of Vinyl vs.CD is complicated by the 'loudness wars' and resultant compression of dynamics that has been employed and imposed by recording engineers on the vast majority of CDs produced since about the mid 1980's.

     If this very significant compromise of CD performance caused by the recording engineers' misguided compression practices were not utilized, however,  an accurate summary of comparing vinyl to CD would be the following:

Dynamic range. The difference between the loudest and softest sounds an LP can play is about 70 decibels (dB). CDs can handle over 90 dB. In practical terms, this means that CDs have more than 10 times the dynamic range of LPs. 24-bit digital audio affords 144 db dynamic range.

Surface noise. Dust particles in the grooves of an LP cause crackles and ticks that are present and audible no matter how well you clean the record. CDs are not affected by surface noise, because they use light beams to read the musical data, which ignore any foreign substance on the disc. Besides that, vinyl records have an underlying hiss generated by the needle moving over the surface. CD and 24-bit audio have no surface noise.

Mechanical noise. Every turntable, even the most expensive, generates a low-frequency rumble that is transmitted by the stylus into the amplifier and speakers. The system has to work much harder to handle all that low-frequency energy, and that can cause distortion in other parts of the audio spectrum. Many audio systems include a rumble filter that can reduce this, but that filter also removes the lower-frequency sounds on the record, like the bottom octave of a piano, or the low tones that give a bass drum so much of its power.  CDs and 24-bit audio have zero mechanical noise.

Speed variation. Listen to a recording of a solo piano on an LP, and then on a CD. I’ll bet you can hear the difference immediately. Vinyl depends on a mechanically driven system, and any such system will introduce minute changes in the speed and pitch of playback. A vinyl record that is even slightly warped, or has a hole that is not perfectly centered, will have “wow”—slow variations in pitch. Tiny imperfections in the belts or wheels of the turntable will cause more rapid pitch changes, known as “flutter.” CD players, because they use super-accurate digital buffers, are immune to this. as are 24-bit audio players/computers.

Channel separation. On a CD, the separation between the left and right channels used in recording is over 90 dB. 24-bit audio is greater than 95 dB across the entire audio range.  On LPs, it’s 30 dB at best. That means engineers have a much narrower range to work with when they’re mixing and mastering the audio, and the result, for the listener, is that the stereo “image” is highly constricted. It’s worse at lower frequencies; a loud bass signal in one channel of a record can push the needle out of the groove, so engineers have to make sure bass frequencies are always in the center.

Continuous vs. “chopped up.” Some people believe that because digital audio “chops up” the signal into discrete numbers, it cannot carry all of the information that an analog signal does. But before the digital signal reaches our ears, it is reconstituted into a continuous analog wave. The process does filter out sounds above 20 kHz, which is the highest frequency the most acute human ears can hear. However, no phono cartridge, amplifier or speakers can reproduce those frequencies anyway. So really, nothing is taken out that affects the sound.

Longevity. Friction causes heat, which softens plastic and makes it easy to deform. This means that every time you play a record, the smallest peaks and dips—the high frequencies—soften and can literally get shaved off. The more you play it, the worse it gets. Also, whenever the needle encounters a dust particle, it gouges a hole in the soft surface, so that pop or crackle becomes permanent. By contrast, CDs and 24-bit audio files will sound the same essentially forever, unless you leave CDs on your car dashboard on a sunny day or bring a powerful magnet near a hard drive.. And you can always make as many perfect copies of them as you like.

CDs and 24-bit audio reflect exactly what the artists recorded in the studio. Vinyl distorts it. Some listeners honestly feel that the defects vinyl introduces somehow make it more attractive or “warmer.” But from any objective standpoint, there’s no justification in calling the sound of vinyl records “better.”

     Despite all of the above, however, I can still understand why many prefer listening to well cleaned vinyl lps on a good TT based system to the compromised sound of many redbook CDs.

    But digital is not limited to just the mediocre quality of MP3, AAC and redbook CD or even the higher quality SACDs.  

     I've discovered the true potential of digital is realized with music recorded directly to digital and played back as 24 bit/96khz hi-resolution or above.  The sound quality is superior to any other format I've heard.; dynamic range that actually match the wide dynamics of real live music, very accurate tonal accuracy from top to bottom and a combination of high detail levels along with virtually no background noise that enables a very stable and real sounding sound stage illusion.  

     In my experience, a minimum of 24 bit /96 khz playback of digital files that have been recorded direct to digital is required to achieve the exceptionally high quality sound I described above in my system. The more common transfers of the original analog master (typically recorded on hi-speed reel-to-reel tape) to hi-res digital format also sound very good to me.  After all, it is an exact copy of the analog master.  

     But I'm still able to discern the direct to digital recordings by their wider dynamic levels, dead quiet background levels (especially between songs but less so during songs) ,higher detail levels and a more extended treble.

     My main point is that digital has moved well beyond CD quality to high resolution digital.  I just hope recording direct to hi-res digital becomes the norm soon because we'll all benefit from that and all who wish can still enjoy their vinyl.  

Tim

melm,

     You are correct, I've never owned or used a high quality vinyl setup in my system, just a mediocre vinyl setup that I used during my college years.  I switched to a CD setup fairly soon after graduating in 1980. 
     Side note a bit off topic:  I also used a Super-Beta vcr in my A/V system during the early 80's and recall using it to create custom playlist  tapes by recording my favorite CD tracks on Beta tapes recorded at the Super-Beta recorder's highest speed.  These audio recordings made on Beta video tapes using the Super-Beta machine's highest recording speed not only sounded superior in my opinion to the original CD but also had a lower noise level and higher recording capacity than the typical audio cassettes were capable of at the time.  
     While I've never used a high quality TT setup in my system, I have been and am familiar with the very high sound quality a good TT setup is capable of via listening to hi-end TT based systems of friends and retailers.  
     However, my opinion is that high resolution direct to digital recordings, even played back on my admittedly mediocre system, sound superior to me to vinyl recordings played back on significantly better systems.
     I perceive direct to digital recordings as presenting a more realistic sound stage illusion in general that gives me a greater impression that I'm actually 'in the room'.  I attribute this increased realism being due to hi-res digital's ultra quiet background combined with its fine detail levels and exceptional dynamic range ability. 
     To be fair though, I've never been able to compare the same musical content recorded to vinyl to one recorded direct to digital. and these are just my overall impressions.
     But, as we've all stated before in various ways, which format is 'best' is much less important than which one you enjoy listening to the most.

Tim 
melm,

     I guess you're right, I do seem to have a lot of opinions.  But isn't sharing and discussing information and opinions the main purpose of this site?  My comments and opinions are just my honest thoughts based on my personal knowledge and experiences accumulated through many years of being interested in and using audio/video equipment and enjoying listening to music.
     I readily admit I've never possessed a high quality vinyl/TT setup but I have listened to enough of them to know their appeal.  
     But you stated: " However, taking you at your word, the analog systems you have heard had noisy bearings--hence rumble, poor speed control--hence flutter, etc., were playing dirty records--hence annoying surface noise, inferior phono electronics--hence poor dynamic range, and poorly adjusted cartridges--hence poor channel separation. That seems to be your vinyl experience . . in your own words." 
  
     I believe those are your words, not mine.

     I also make no claims that my digital based system is of the highest quality.  But its quality is sufficiently high for me to know that its sound quality is superior to. and I prefer it to, the finest vinyl systems I've heard thus far.....in my opinion.
     Beyond sound quality, there is also the undeniable advantage of convenience.  This is especially important to me since the left side of my body is semi-paralyzed due to a stroke.  I use a laptop running JRiver Media Center software with a 10 TB NAS and my Oppo 105 as the dac/player.  All are connected to my wi-fi and this functions just like a very good quality juke box. 
     As I've stated previously, I perceive high resolution (24 bit/192 Khz or higher) digital files to sound superior to the finest vinyl systems I've heard thus far.  Hi-res files recorded direct to digital sound best to me but even transfers of analog masters to digital typically also sound very good; after all, hi-res digital is capable of copying the full resolution and quality of the original analog master reel to reel tape. 
      Of course, the preference of vinyl or digital is a highly subjective choice that others may and often do disagree with.  

Tim