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!
I recently sold my PS Audio Directstream with Bridge and the PS Audio Memory Transport faster than I thought as I’m in the middle of an upgrade project.
Since I had my HT in the same room, I simplified my home theater by pulling the A/V and the 6 speakers plus the JL Sub F112 V2 that I’ll be listing and right now have the Oppo 203 serving as my DAC and Transport.
The surround speakers had a profound influence when playing 2 Channel and when the 7 speakers where removed the sound was audibly cleaned up and the volume dropped by an easy 20%, if not slightly more.
I have Apple TV going into Oppo HDMI in, and use the FL/FR RCA outputs with XLR adapters into my preamp. Since my primary server with no DAC is down, I’m connected to Roon on my secondary unit, via the Mac Mini. The RCA cables are mid-level Audioquest from the home theater, Power is Ansuz A2, Ethernet and Grounding, Nordost.
Color me impressed, simplified video watchimg with better sound and better screen resolution coming from my 2 Channel than the 7.1, with near perfect imaging, there is no need for a center Channel.
I’m estimating the Oppo sound quality is 65%-70% of the quality compared to PS, mind you Oppo is cabled up with the power, ethernet and grounding being high end cables going into high end gear, but still...while this fun in a way to make do, the 30%-35% PS contributed was IMO worth the $$$.
If you’re referring to me, I’ve tried connecting the 105 outs to the DAC. Not as good a result as using the Cyrus. My power cord and connectors are all high quality Morrow MA4’s.
No doubt that your Cyrus/Schiit combo sounded better than a stock Oppo 105. A stock Oppo 105 is ok and somewhat unlistentable when playing standard resolution materials eg CD especially bad recording CD. The stock 205 is quite a bit better than the stock 105 actually and is more listenable or acceptable than the stock 105. Now the Modwright Oppo 205 even sounded significantly better than the Modwright Oppo 105. Modwright mod on the 205 is lot more extensive and comprehensive compared to that of the Modwright mod on the 105, which includes a replacement of a stock stereo op-amp with a discrete class A stereo analog audio output stages on the Modwright 205 only. It also includes a total comprehensive redesign that results in true differential or fully balanced design stereo analog output stages on the fully modded Modwright Oppo 205 only. When you use a really good quality power cord and XLR analog interconnects on the Modwright Oppo 205 you will have yourself a full enjoyment of your favorite 2ch music source playbacks.
But if you are happy with the Cyrus/Schiit combo that’s what matters. But I was just saying that there are room for sonic improvements of your 2ch music playbacks when you go with a fully modded Modwright Oppo 205 compared to the Cyrus/Schiit combo. Plus you can also use the Modwright Oppo 205 for your AV playbacks eg bluray, 4k UHD bluray disc playbacks via HDMI to your either AV processor or receiver. And you won’t even need your 105 anymore. Fyi, the audio & video performances over HDMI is better on the 205 compared to that of the 105 when playing regular bluray movie discs. I have the 205 now but was previously using the 105 before.
Great dissertation Tim. Some will still enjoy the "quaintness" of vinyl, some the convenience and preciseness of digital, and others will be happy with the stream. Understanding the character of each format will help determine which to follow and why.
@glupson. Sorry I missed your post a few weeks ago, but I couldn’t agree with you more. I currently play my SACDS by outputting the DSD layer from my Oppo 105 over HDMI into a Bryston DAC3 in 2 channel, and it’s superb. Comparison with lps? Puh-leeze. I have to start learning to restrain myself when someone says lps are more holographic, or whatever. With my SACDs I frequently feel as if the musicians are in the same space. With vinyl I feel that they are embedded in wax and simultaneously drowning in a bowl of Rice Krispies. melm
I use an Oppo 105 and I disagree that it sounds inferior to the same discs burned to a HD. When I listen to those same discs burned to my NAS, using the Network function of the Oppo, and switch from disc to NAS, at best, the NAS sounds equal to disc playback, and frequently the NAS sounds just a bit worse. i won’t be throwing out my CDs now after I burn them. Ymmv
I wrote that post back in August. Since then, I’ve made several major changes to my system. And the Cyrus/Schitt combo sounds wonderful, and much better than the Oppo 105 by itself, as it should.
You should sell your Oppo 105, Cyrus CD transport & Schiit DAC and look for a used Modwright Oppo 205 (fully modded) in used after markets. I believed I saw one here few months ago. The Modwright mod only affects stereo analog audio output stage (XLR & RCA). It is a tube based mod. Includes total redesign of the Oppo 205’s 2ch analog output stage that encompasses a replacement of standard stereo op-amps with a discrete class A analog output stage. Also comes with an external tube based PSU (power supply unit) and rectifier that feeds power to the Oppo’s stereo analog audio output circuitry only. Dan Modwright also did further dampening of the disc transport mechanism.
This is the best mod that Dan Modwright has ever done. Dan based this Oppo 205 mod on his own Elyse DAC’s analog audio output stage. This Modwright DAC retails for $8k. Of course both units use different DAC chips, implementation & configuration and clock etc. However, Dan himself admitted that the clocking and implementation of the latest Sabre Pro DAC in the Oppo 205 is already pretty good.
This fully modded Modwright Oppo 205 will elevate the Oppo 205 stereo analog audio performance to near reference quality player sonically and will crush your Cyrus transport + Schiit DAC. The Modwright Oppo 205 is a huge step up sonically than a stock 205. They aren't in the same league at all. Fyi, a stock Oppo 205 sounds better than a stock 105, actually quite a bit better especially when played back through a highly resolving setup and system.
It is good to know the road goes even further. I certainly know my discovery is not an isolated incident; after all, there are some rather incredible units out there as in separate's in transport / DAC combos. I am just happy to know the future of Redbook CD playback is bright.
Convenience is nice as I have certainly dabbled in that arena, whether it be from my MacBook Pro or iPad or iPhone, or even the Oppo app. But I also found myself getting lost in the quantity of it all; there is so much to listen to. When I started going back to my CD's I hadn't listened to in a while, I was simply blown away at how good CD's could sound. I feel like I am rediscovering my music collection for the very first time.
I have a handful of audiophile recordings, some of which I play to remind myself how good my system really is. But then when I return to the music I really like to listen to, most of which are not audiophile grade, I am still floored at how awesome the music sounds; it send chills up my spine. I have shared my experience with an audiophile buddy of mine & he stated he is so glad he kept his DVD-A10. He is now interested in obtaining a DAC. His main system is a vinyl rig with Tube amplification. But like me, he has a decent CD library.
I can't wait to see the grin on his face when he finally is able to listen to CD's again.
There are many roads to audio pleasure and we all need to decide when to stop playing with equipment and just remain with playing the music. It seems you have found that place, at least for the time being. You have discovered, seemingly by chance, a terrific solution which a lot of us might never have found.
My own road has gone a bit further. The DAC in the Oppo 105 has been surpassed by many at reasonable prices that have appeared in recent years. A better DAC will more clearly distinguish among sources. And for me, the convenience of controlling my listening from the easy chair is captivating. And from my public library I have accumulated free classic disk rips that I may not have been able to have otherwise.
@melm I did not know the BDP-105’s transport is its Achilles’ Heel. Now I know that at least for CD playback, an external transport is superior - at least for me so far, using the Technics transport is an incredible upgrade.
@bo1972 stated earlier that the BDP-105 DAC cannot render 3 dimensional sound; after my discovery, I beg to differ. I am hearing a very well defined 3 dimensional soundscape. I can clearly distinguish separate instruments & vocals well defined from each other such as harmony & melody vocals. I hear each voice & instrument hovering in different spaces all around. So much so I feel like I can reach out & touch them; much like a real live performance.
I haven’t played much DVD Audio or SACD recently, but I remember them being rather excellent. However, I do not have an extensive collection of those formats. I do have a very large Redbook CD collection & I am now rediscovering my whole catalog - smiling from ear to ear.
I have indeed tried ripping my CD’s to a HDD as well as USB drive and the SQ is quite good; however, I cannot say for certain that it is better than playing CD directly from the 105 transport. What I can say for certain is that Redbook CD playback from DVD-A10 transport to the BDP-105 DAC is fantastic.
Oppo 105D 1st of all is an SACD player and Hifi DAC. Which can produce 5.0 channel hi resolution music. Best of all, it is both audio and video steamer. Build in Tidal and Berlin philharmonic digital concert hall app. I could really enjoy the music and live concert with the touch of my iPad. No LP for me.
You have discovered, as have others, that the stock Oppo units are not the best transports. A possible next step, if you want to try, is to rip your CDs to a hard disk. It can be a small portable to plug into the Oppo. Not only might you get better SQ (I can attest that it will beat the Oppo, but I cannot say re: the DVDA10), but using the Oppo software you will be able to control your listening from a phone or ipad.
Jumzhang is correct that SACDs will not go through. That will require connection to a separate DAC. But you will also have the option of borrowing and copying CDs from friends or public libraries.
I'm not using the BDP105 as a transport; instead I am using DVDA10 as a CD transport fed to BDP105 as DAC. CD's sound amazing with this configuration. Now the BDP105 is no slouch as a CD player, but the above setup just seemed to sound better in areas I mentioned above.
Oppo 105 is an SACD player which has multi-channel analog out. If you use it as transport, DSD will be downgrade PCM to external DAC. So you loose 1) multi-channel 2) more information from DSD.
I admittedly haven’t read through this entire thread, but in my search for ’Oppo 105 and transport’ it seemed to be the closest topic.
I was bored one day & decided to try connecting my old Technics DVD-A10 as a CD transport feeding digital out via both coax & optical to BDP105. I also configured the DVD-A10 for no upsampling to 192/24; strictly 16/44.
My reason for trying was simply out of curiosity but also my desire to extend for as long as possible the duty cycle of the BDP105 transport, since it also doubles & triples its duty for Blu-ray & SACD discs.
To my surprise, the music from CD's came through with an amazingly uncanny three dimensional soundstage that by comparison, using the BDP105 transport did not exhibit as well a three dimensional sound. The DVD-A10’s coax connection sounded slightly better than the optical, but not by much. The noise floor was also noticeably lower & the music just sounded more organic & accurate with respect to pace timing & rhythm.
It got me wondering if the isolation between the two components is a contributing factor; any thoughts why?
In case anyone is still following this thread, I’ll update it. I finally got a power cable from Cyrus itself, and, lo and behold, it’s a THREE pronged IEC hole instead of the two hole designed for the unit. The good news is that it works and sounds great, much better than the cable I was using. The bad news is that, for some reason, the coaxial interconnect now produces no sound whatsoever! Fortunately, the optical cable works. I’ve called Cyrus.
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.
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.
You claim to have
"discovered the true potential of digital," your own words. However, your digital "reference" is an Oppo 105. I have a 105, and it comes nowhere near to revealing how good digital can really be, and that is readily and easily demonstrable.
You say you have never compared comparable digital to analog, but yet you have "impressions." Have I got that right?
Enjoy your system, as you obviously do, but are you sure you want to go on pontificating?
@junzhang10 @geoffkait
The great, and best, SACD releases of analog material are AAD, not ADD.
Maybe records do sound more like a real event. Maybe the sound of frying bacon is reminiscent of the guy sitting behind you opening his package of, let's say, paper tissues. Maybe the dust on the needle makes you feel like sitting in the back, under the balcony, all the way to the right side, and so on.
Speaking of Mahler, after hearing a number (maybe 20-30?) different SACDs, I am puzzled why anyone would ever want an LP. What is it that bothers people on it? I heard only one LP of the same material as SACD and I have no idea why, but it was incomparable. On the other hand, after buying mono Beatles on LP, I started enjoying their music to some extent. As far as clicks and pops, they were there from the get-go.
Amazon now selling the famous RCA recording CD boxset #1 and #2. there are the recordings by the very excellent musicians. I also bought same SACD so basically a duplicate of the CD but in DAD form. But Tidal allows me to to explore more new generation artist with better recording technology. I also like the dynamics of classical music. Think about upgrading speakers and amplifier. As far DAC, I got the recent 205D which has built in DSD/PCM/MQA DAC.
ADD usually means the original source was tape. All the famous Mercury’s were recorded on tape. CDs and SACDs of the famous Mercury’s are all from tape. Ditto the famous RCAs.
many SACDs are ADD. Like the very famous Mercury Live. I can hear the poping noise from SACD. On the other hand, a modern multi-bit remastered 44.1k/16 bit PCM sound as good as 2.8 Mk/1bit SACD. Vinyl is just like film camera, it is for hobbyist now. I digitized my CD collection and everything is in the cloud or on hard-disc now. No need to sort CD anymore.
Thanks for the info. Most of my original customers had the Rockport turntable but it wasn’t a transcription type but it did have a dedicated isolation platform. The version that came out in 2000 went for $73K. I participated in a (big) room at Las Vegas with Rockport Hyperion speakers. EMT had a transcription turntable, maybe that’s the one.
@geoffkait - In the late 90's, Sony bought several special Rockport transcription turntables at something like $80,000 each. It was assumed they would be used to copy vinyl where the master tape wasn't available or in proper condition.
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.
Many CD or even DSDs are copied form Vinyl so you could imagin the sound quality without more digital processing. Modern direct digital recording improve this. Even the spinning CD has variation from all sources. Digital stream is the new form of music playing. IMHO, music is above all. DAC, amp and speaker are second. As far as 105D as DAC, it is a very good CD/DSD/SACD/Blueray player. Save your money and subscribe to Tidal or even Spotify at $20/month. The $2000 DAC upgrade can buy you 100 months Tidal Hifi/MQA. For two channel music, I will use the the balanced XLR out at line level to get the best SNR. Use balanced all the way to amp. For SACD, I would use the 5.1 analog out to 5.1 speaker setup.it is a totally new music listening experience when you heard 5.1 ( I should say 5.0) when you hear SACD multi-channel.
In saying that I prefer records to CDs I was somewhat overstating the case. There are some terrible sounding records and some wonderful sounding digital recordings. Indeed I think quality control is generally higher in the digital domain than in the analog. I just prefer the sound of the best records to the best CD’s, SACDs, etc. Also, In using the Oppo 105 as a transport to the Schiit Gumby, I’m getting much better sound than with the Oppo alone.
I am indifferent as between good analog and good digital. I enjoy them both. Most of my listening is to classical.
Dynamic range: Classical music has the most dynamic range generally. While the dynamic range of digital is greater than analog, that even of analog surpasses the need in a domestic environment. In fact, some digital releases have an excess of dynamic range for a home environment. I can cite many Bis SACD recordings as examples. So the dynamic range issue is a non-issue IMO
Surface noise. Well cared for records and equipment make this a non-issue and millions of us continue to listen to lps notwithstanding. We just tune them out, if they'e there, because vinyl gives us a musical experience that the best of digital tries to emulate.
Rumble? Obviously you have never used a quality turntable. It is a non-issue though I'm sure some scientist can measure it. Totally un-hearable on my system.
Speed variation. Totally a non-issue on a well tuned system. There is a piano and players in my house and I listen to a lot of piano recordings with notes that trail off into silence (the ultimate test for speed stability).
Channel Separation. I don't doubt your specs, but as for listening I can discern no difference between the channel separation on vinyl and cd of the exact same recordings. I have many. It's a non-issue.
Continuous, etc. I understand the physics so I don't worry about chopped up. Cartridges can reach well above the 22kHz of a CD as can much electronics. Loudspeakers, I'm not so sure.
Longevity is another non-issue. Some of my old records sound as good after years of playing. It is an old wives tale that they are used up with each play. Clean and with good equipment it has been written that they are polished by the playing. I don't know if that is so . . . but they still sound great including those at the top of the pile for many, many years. Many people report the same.
Some people think that vinyl, with all its issues, sounds more like the real thing, real acoustic music in real space . . and there's nothing you can say that makes any difference. Vinyl is "better" if it sound more like the real thing, as many serious listeners believe. In fact, it sounds as though, like so many here, you have never experienced a really good vinyl system in a home environment. You might be shocked.
As for digital, some of the best, and most consistently outstanding, I have experienced are the SACD transfers of analog originals, the SACDs ripped to hard disk. There are sound technical reasons why that might be so. Better than original digital recordings and better even than most other SACDs and other high definition ones.
in fact, and I apologize here for looking at your equipment list, and notwithstanding that you think you've "discovered the true potential of digital," it sounds like you're not experiencing anything like digital is currently capable of if your're still listening through an Oppo 105.
If anybody bothers to ever look at my virtual system or has followed any of my threads ever then they would know I am NOT a vinyl proponent, or digital or streaming. I embrace them ALL and recognize that they all have their vices and virtues. I mix it up between vinyl on my Nottingham Analog /Goldnote PH-10 phono rig, or play a tape on my Nakamichi 582, or play a cd/sacd through my Pioneer Elite DV79AVI, or stream full 24/192 Tidal MQA through my Bluesound vault2/Mytek Brooklyn dac combo.
Easiest way is just not to even bother trying to compare them.
excellent post, Tim saved me a lot of trouble as I have been tied up the last couple of days and wanted to make these same points. Odds are you made them in a more cogent manner than I would have.
I was so ready to drop lps when CDs came out. I was just so frustrated at the poor quality of the vinyl, the constant vigilance required to prevent deterioration of the record, and a host of other factors. 15 seconds of CD listening, to Colin Davis conducting Debussy Image For Orchestra, converted me for life. Even on a 14 bit CDP, which I used for the first 12 years or so of the format until the laser bagged it, had such an expanded dynamic range and such quieter backgrounds that I was hooked. At the same time my lps were trashed in a house flood, and lps were disapearing from shops in the mid 80s, so the switch was painless.
Around 2000 used lp stores began springing up. The one part of vinyl that I really missed was reading the liner notes on lps of classical albums while I shopped. I began hanging out in the stores for that reason and I began to realize that many of my favorite lps had not bee ndigitalized at that time, and wouldn't it be fun to be able to play them? I bought the low end Project player of the day and the nreunited with a handful of albums. Then the vinyl propaganda, sponsored by the likes of Fremer and Dudley began, and I upgraded my vinyl font end, although CDs were still my preferred source.
3 years ago I began to realize that ll of the lps that hadn't been digitalized around 2000 now were, either in CDs or cD quality downloads and occasionally in high resolution. Every single time I compared the digital version to one of the lps the digital one, and there was no speed instability, surface noise, static electricity, etc.
So I sold my vinyl rig, which by now consisted of th Clearaudio Concept mc tt and cartridge, and a Musical Surroundings Phono Pre Amp. I had paid about $2500 for the vinyl front end and got about 90% of back, thanks to the vinyl revival. I used the proceeds to buy a Bluesound Vault2 and node2 and have been very happy.
I think that for people who have large lp collections, left over from the heyday of the lp, or alternatively have inherited one (as we boomers age, a more frequent event), and who let their lp playback system elapse, it makes sense to want to buy a tt and be able to enjoy the records. If someone is coming to it from having no physical media at all, I don't understand why they would want to go the vinyl route, but given the pro vinyl propaganda out there, perhaps that is the reason.
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.
Getting back a little closer to the original subject, the three to two hole adapter that I got to enable me to connect the Cyrus to the DAC had the wrong size two-hole. So, I’m back to the original dilemma of not being able to hook up a decent cable to the transport. Writing to Cyrus didn’t do much good. They, incredulously, praised the Oppo, and said the sound might be a matter of taste!
Ideally the big advantage of the compact disc was its signal to noise ratio and dynamic range which all things being equal is much higher than what the best turntable can deliver. Let’s say 60 dB for analog and 90 dB for compact disc/player. That’s a difference of 30 dB, right. But everything is relative so when CDs are overly compressed Dynamic Range wise then it could even the playing field, it all depends though whether the record you’re comparing it to was overly compressed itself. But I tend to agree that subjectively on average to good systems records can sound more dynamic. There are also lots of Polarity issues with CDs, more than with records I suspect.
Not that I want to get into a debate either, but in my subjective experience, I’ve found that records have always sounded more “open” and transparent than CDs. And, as I’ve stated, there’s very little if any background noise on a clean record.
Tim A quick google search reveals at least as many claims to the contrary from scientific tests as you state.
I find plenty of articles "proving" which has more dynamic range swinging both ways. And of course it also all depends on your definition of dynamic range and how you test and measure it. This is an argument that has raged for decades!
Which is why I clearly stated "may" as it all depends on which articles you decide to believe, and how you interpret dynamic range.
No I am not going to bother to post any links but your assertion that my statement is completely untrue and factless is just not correct.
IMHO of course and no I am not going to waste time getting into a debate over it either.
"
@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
People forget one important thing. Oppo cannot create a 3-dimensional stage. Based on the fact that it does not own this property. We have client who owned the 105 and 205. We could proof that they are 2D products.
This is why they sold it. When you would use it as a transport you still will keep the same stage dna. You never can go to a 3D stage.
Audio is all about sound. And sound is being founded on diffeent properties. When you want to reveal all the details and properties of the recoding. You need an audiosystem what is capable of revealing all these details and layers.
But the Oppo cannot reveal all the 8 properties, due to the fact that is lacks different properties of sound. And what is missing will never be there.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
