Oppo 203 decoding question

[par4ken]

SACD sample rate is 2.8224 MHz which is exactly 32 times 88.2kHz, that's why.

I still don't get why that would be important. I convert sample rates all the time, most notably 96 or 192 down to 44.1. IMHO Sticking to even multiple only makes absolutely no difference soundwise.

 

[ar surround]

What do you use for the conversion? Converting to 32 bit makes sense to prevent any possible clipping.

I will get back to you on this Ken when we get home. I’m still warding off attacks from my 4 year old grandson.

 

[mandrix]

What do you use for the conversion? Converting to 32 bit makes sense to prevent any possible clipping. With Foobar you have a gain setting, it's more of a guess as to what setting to use. I've often wondered about the choice of 88.2kHz rather than 96kHz. I don't get the "correlation" between the seaming unrelated 1-bit rate and the PCM rate. dBpoweramp can be used for conversion, it outputs 96Khz files.

I've all but stopped doing conversions and now save my SACD rips as .dsf files. Foobar converts on the fly if played from the PC.

Along the way I discovered that better filters than those used by default in Foobar are available. I get good results using those. Best to use the "short" filter and 176.4kHz. Conversion from DSD requires that much of that high frequency noise be filtered to prevent possible aliasing when converted to PCM. Deficiencies in that filtering is one likely cause of any "deterioration".

What I have not yet done is to directly compare the files converted using the better filters to those done with the standard ones and to native DSD. That will have to wait for some other day. I'm much too busy listening to "new" music lately.

Are you using the S-Audio filters in Foobar?

 

[Owen Smith]

It's best (in theory at least) to use one wire for the signal and the other wire for the ground (return) connection. The shield should then be connected at one end only. The grounded end should go to the component with the higher signal level. That is what is done with those "high end" dictional cables. My turntable is wired that way as well.

The way I did it sounded fine to me. And the two inners looked a bit thin so doubling them up felt like the way to go.

 

[Owen Smith]

I still don't get why that would be important. I convert sample rates all the time, most notably 96 or 192 down to 44.1. IMHO Sticking to even multiple only makes absolutely no difference soundwise.

It used to matter back when non integer sample rate conversion produced crap results about 20 to 30 years ago. I agree these days it makes no difference. I've even seen an argument that non integer sample rate conversion is better as you can dither the results better and you don't get beating with the original rate.

 

[par4ken]

It used to matter back when non integer sample rate conversion produced crap results about 20 to 30 years ago. I agree these days it makes no difference. I've even seen an argument that non integer sample rate conversion is better as you can dither the results better and you don't get beating with the original rate.

That is what I was thinking as well!

 

[par4ken]

The way I did it sounded fine to me. And the two inners looked a bit thing so doubling them up felt like the way to go.

Yes, I had to fix the end on one of my "Monster" car audio cables, I couldn't believe how thin the wire was! Not passing heavy current you can get away with fine wires but never fine shielding!

 

[par4ken]

Are you using the S-Audio filters in Foobar?

Yes the S-Audio filters.

 

[Sal1950]

My ears are old too but I can hear the difference!

Then something is wrong either with technical transfer or the listening procedure.
There's no "magic" in the "sound" of DSD.

 

[par4ken]

Then something is wrong either with technical transfer or the listening procedure.
There's no "magic" in the "sound" of DSD.

That is what I've been getting at all along. By the way I have never ever said that DSD was superior to PCM, but merely that the conversion process must be flawed! If you can't hear the difference in the Oppo players analogue output between DSD and PCM then you have a tin ear or sub par equipement! The manual even states the fact that the two sound different and that you may prefer one or the other. FYI I read the manual long after the fact, just in case you think that gave me some sort of bias!

Once again the difference is clearly audible and upon hearing it, all I could say was WOW! It inspired me to start a thread about it. The question isn't if there is a difference or not, it is more like why the difference. Remember that the conversion process between the two is considered lossy, it is not bit perfect (how could it be), Foobar likes to warn you of that fact.

Not magic but I consider the sound of those DV SACDs and in particule The Guess Who "Canned Wheat/Wheatfield Soul" to be magical! When converted by the Oppo player it sounds like an n'th generation taped copy, great surround but lackluster sound quality. My old Pioneer and my Oppo DV-970HD which both render DSD as PCM never made me remark WOW while playing any SACD!

 

[mandrix]

That is what I've been getting at all along. By the way I have never ever said that DSD was superior to PCM, but merely that the conversion process must be flawed! If you can't hear the difference in the Oppo players analogue output between DSD and PCM then you have a tin ear or sub par equipement! The manual even states the fact that the two sound different and that you may prefer one or the other. FYI I read the manual long after the fact, just in case you think that gave me some sort of bias!

Once again the difference is clearly audible and upon hearing it all I could say was WOW! It inspired me to start a thread about it. The question isn't if there is a difference or not, it is more like why the difference. Remember that the conversion process between the two is lossy it is not bit perfect.

Not magic but I consider the sound of those DV SACDs and in particule The Guess Who "Canned Wheat/Wheatfield Soul" to be magical! When converted by the Oppo player it sounds like an n'th generation taped copy, great surround but lackluster sound quality. My old Pioneer and my Oppo DV-970HD which both render DSD as PCM never made me remark WOW while playing any SACD!

I guess my question is, why convert at all? If your equipment has HDMI and will play DSD that is.
If not then disregard.
But I confess I often use either Foobar or JRiver for SACD. Foobar won't bitstream over HDMI AFAIK but does the conversion internally. Not sure what JRiver is doing exactly.

 

[par4ken]

I guess my question is, why convert at all? If your equipment has HDMI and will play DSD that is.
If not then disregard.
But I confess I often use either Foobar or JRiver for SACD. Foobar won't bitstream over HDMI AFAIK but does the conversion internally. Not sure what JRiver is doing exactly.

Agree fully, why convert unless you have to? Many have equipment that will not do DSD or they insist on using the AVRs PCM based equalisation and time/distance settings. Personally I use HDMI mainly for video. For audio I use the analogue outputs of my Oppos.

Conversion to PCM is necessary to play via my computer's sound card. I now use Foobar to convert on the fly, rather than converting .dsf to .flac. That retains the original files, I can drop them on a flash drive to play natively on the Oppo BDP-103. That doesn't work with the older model BDP-95.

 

[mandrix]

I can tell you that years ago I was totally into pc sound cards, and analog connections in general. I still have two old Audigy 2 ZS, which came with software to play DVDA from your pc optical drive!
Asus & also a few cards other probably hereabouts.
I still have a Creative DTS-610 unit I used to patch and to convert my Plogue mono tracks directly to DTS on playback.

But it was HDMI that changed my thinking.
I mean 3 times x wires going from pc to switch to ? Multiplied by x. Not including video switching.

I built an "HTPC" with a mini itx and i3, cheapest video card I could find with HDMI, a very long time ago. Used it for years for music and movies.
That was the start of ditching analog. I mean, I have no equipment these days that need it save an amp.

 

[par4ken]

I can tell you that years ago I was totally into pc sound cards, and analog connections in general. I still have two old Audigy 2 ZS, which came with software to play DVDA from your pc optical drive!
Asus & also a few cards other probably hereabouts.
I still have a Creative DTS-610 unit I used to patch and to convert my Plogue mono tracks directly to DTS on playback.

But it was HDMI that changed my thinking.
I mean 3 times x wires going from pc to switch to ? Multiplied by x. Not including video switching.

I built an "HTPC" with a mini itx and i3, cheapest video card I could find with HDMI, a very long time ago. Used it for years for music and movies.
That was the start of ditching analog. I mean, I have no equipment these days that need it save an amp.

I doubt that I will ever ditch analogue. Vintage decoders are irreplaceable. No DSP based Tate decoders yet! Despite digitising my vinyl the analogue equipment will always be required as a first step in that process. A lot of wires for sure.

All that HDMI connected equipment and the integration of audio with video does not turn my crank in any way. Sometimes I feel that I have much more in common with some of those stereo only, anti digital audiophiles than with the home theater crowd! Modern equipment looks and feels more like simple appliances than reel audio equipment!

 

[mandrix]

I doubt that I will ever ditch analogue. Vintage decoders are irreplaceable. No DSP based Tate decoders yet! Despite digitising my vinyl the analogue equipment will always be required as a first step in that process. A lot of wires for sure.

All that HDMI connected equipment and the integration of audio with video does not turn my crank in any way. Sometimes I feel that I have much more in common with some of those stereo only, anti digital audiophiles than with the home theater crowd! Modern equipment looks and feels more like simple appliances than reel audio equipment!

Yeah I totally understand that when you have irreplaceable equipment that uses analog you do what you have to do.

That in itself would not dissuade me from using HDMI, and I confess why you seemingly want to create a time capsule restricted to old tech with no advances eludes me. But we like what we like, got no problem with that.

Audio/Video equipment keeps traveling on. Pretty VU meters? Nope. Displays you need a magnifying glass to read. Yep. But with OSD one click on the remote tells me all I need.

 

[MidiMagic]

It's best (in theory at least) to use one wire for the signal and the other wire for the ground (return) connection. The shield should then be connected at one end only. The grounded end should go to the component with the higher signal level. That is what is done with those "high end" dictional cables. My turntable is wired that way as well.

I do that too.

 

[par4ken]

That in itself would not dissuade me from using HDMI, and I confess why you seemingly want to create a time capsule restricted to old tech with no advances eludes me. But we like what we like, got no problem with that.

But I do advance although I don't ditch old tech, I simply add to it! HDMI is useful for video. It serves no other purpose for me. The Oppo does most of what an AVR would do and still has those precious analogue outputs. I can't see the value of something with HDMI inputs and little or nothing for analogue signals. Digital signals have to be converted back to analogue at some point. I would rather it be done sooner than later. I prefer to process those analogue signals in the analogue domain via basic tone control circuits. A much more straightforward approach than DSP.

Just as DSD is best kept as DSD analogue is best kept as analogue. Call me a purist if you will.