[bigshot]

Which DAC chips sound different and what are the differences? Do you know anyone who has measured the differences?

 

[Sterling2]

Ah, I see the misunderstanding now. CODEC is also a term used for the hardware, usually a single IC, which is an ADC and a DAC of various numbers of channels. It has nothing to do with lossless verses compressed in this case as all CODECs need PCM (or occasionally DSD). My bad, I assumed you and others knew that in this context. As to them sounding different, they can. It is often more to do with the implementation than the choice of chipset, but it still is true.

As I mentioned earlier on this thread, I am using my new OPPO UDP-205's usb DAC to enjoy the music I have on iTunes anywhere from 256k to 24/192. All music so far seems to be more "detailed" than former listening using Airplay at 16/44, for better or worse depending on how well the recordings were engineered.

 

[Glmoneydawg]

As I mentioned earlier on this thread, I am using my new OPPO UDP-205's usb DAC to enjoy the music I have on iTunes anywhere from 256k to 24/192. All music so far seems to be more "detailed" than former listening using Airplay at 16/44, for better or worse depending on how well the recordings were engineered.

Oppo has good sounding machines....their dacs are not proprietary though i believe....is there another part of the chain that could be involved here?

 

[bigshot]

As I mentioned earlier on this thread, I am using my new OPPO UDP-205's usb DAC to enjoy the music I have on iTunes anywhere from 256k to 24/192. All music so far seems to be more "detailed" than former listening using Airplay at 16/44, for better or worse depending on how well the recordings were engineered.

I've done a direct A/B switched line level matched comparison between my Oppo BDP103 and a $40 WalMart DVD player and I couldn't detect any difference between them. I couldn't tell any difference between my Oppo HA-1 and the $40 DVD player either. I'm guessing your comparison wasn't direct switched or blind.

 

[jagwap]

Or you didn't want to hear a difference. The opposite of the audiophile bias.

 

[Strangelove424]

Yes, it's called the "I value money and don't want to throw it at random things" bias.

 

[bigshot]

Or you didn't want to hear a difference. The opposite of the audiophile bias.

Given the choice between "What I can't hear can't hurt me" and "I want to worry about things I can't hear", I know which bias I'd prefer!

 

[jagwap]

Or...8

Refusal to hear something that could disagree with entrenched ideals...

 

[bigshot]

That is simple and is solved by controlled testing. We all do that here in this forum.

 

[jagwap]

I propose that the same bias often accuse of "the audiophiles": that everything makes a difference, can equally and oppositely applied to the other team: that nothing makes a difference.

In blind listening you are listening for a difference. But there is still a bias that can creep in: whether you want to find one.

 

[gregorio]

Or you didn't want to hear a difference. The opposite of the audiophile bias. ...
Refusal to hear something that could disagree with entrenched ideals...

The whole point of a DBX or double blind testing is to listen specifically for differences. So what you're suggesting is unlikely, although it can't be completely ruled out. However, we do have a commonly used test to identify differences which does NOT rely on eliminating hearing biases, the Null Test. What we are left with (after time and volume matching) from a null test is an objective measurement of purely the difference/s. I often perform a null test to determine if there are any differences which even could be audible and if not, I have my answer and there's no need for a double blind listening test but if there are measured differences which could be audible then I do a double blind test with the expectation that I should be able to hear a difference which I know (have proven) is there.

G

 

[jagwap]

The whole point of a DBX or double blind testing is to listen specifically for differences. So what you're suggesting is unlikely, although it can't be completely ruled out. However, we do have a commonly used test to identify differences which does NOT rely on eliminating hearing biases, the Null Test. What we are left with (after time and volume matching) from a null test is an objective measurement of purely the difference/s. I often perform a null test to determine if there are any differences which even could be audible and if not, I have my answer and there's no need for a double blind listening test but if there are measured differences which could be audible then I do a double blind test with the expectation that I should be able to hear a difference which I know (have proven) is there.

G

Nulling two analogue signals is notoriously difficult, due to small phase changes, particularly at the frequency extremes. Can you point to a system that copes with that?

 

[gregorio]

Nulling two analogue signals is notoriously difficult, due to small phase changes, particularly at the frequency extremes. Can you point to a system that copes with that?

I just do a loop back (back into the digital domain) with a very short impulse of a known amplitude just before the test signal to provide an easy to identify alignment point. It's a bit fiddly to align but not especially difficult.

G

 

[Sterling2]

I've done a direct A/B switched line level matched comparison between my Oppo BDP103 and a $40 WalMart DVD player and I couldn't detect any difference between them. I couldn't tell any difference between my Oppo HA-1 and the $40 DVD player either. I'm guessing your comparison wasn't direct switched or blind.

The greater detail I hear from iTunes Library using the OPPO UDP-205 usb DAC vs Airport Express DAC, Creative Sound Blaster X-FI HD DAC, or Sony TA-E9000es DAC I suppose could be the result of a multitude of factors, which I have no interest in exploring, or defending. The perception stands as an impression which does not need to be proven or tested, assuming I had an interest, capability, and means to test such things, which I don't. .My familiarity with the music was ample resource to understand having detail not previously heard from other listening means. At any rate, the detail was not something I sought from the OPPO, that's to say, I did not buy it for it's usb DAC, but instead, as a means to enjoy multi-channel SACDs though a player having multi-channel analog output which could be connected to an analog multi-channel preamp (Sony TA-P9000ES). The usb DAC feature nevertheless was a pleasant discovery, since music from iTunes does seem to be more detailed from OPPOs usb DAC than other means of enjoyment. BTW, does the OPPO 103 have a usb DAC? Does it have the same DACs as found in the 205? One thing for sure, since you can not tell a difference I hope you did not buy your OPPOs expecting a difference. That would surely be very disappointing.

 

[jagwap]

The audio on the BDP-105 & 205 is significantly more advanced then the BDP-103 & 203. As you say the 103 does not have the asynchronous USB input, so you may miss that. The 105 and 205 have the ESS DACs. One for the stereo outputs (balanced, single ended and headphone all have separate DAC channels) and another for the 7.1 outputs. These are not sharing. They have their own DAC channels hardwired.

This is part of why I upgraded.