My $3200 JLTi Oppo 95 vs my $15,000 vinyl system: Rachmaninoff Concerto No 3 Byron Janis/Antal Dorati (Mercury SACD vs Speakers Corner 180g vinyl)

[Warren M.]

Firstly I need to say that this is not a perfect comparison for several reasons, but I believe it is nevertheless an effective and valid comparison.

• Try as I might, I could not get the volumes to be identical for the same volume setting on my amplifier, with the Oppo about a dB softer than the turntable. That means greater "presence" in the vinyl when going A to B. When allowed to listen to each individually without flicking back and forward, for the SACD I raised the volume of the amp a smidgin (technical term) to compensate
  
• The record was cut from a master taken from the original 3-track Mercury 35-MM magnetic film recording while the SACD was digitally mastered out of the 3-track tape version which was itself a copy from the 35mm film version (the film master was not available for some reason). Both were mixed to two channels under the careful guidance of the legendary Wilma Cozart Fine and the mastering to SACD was also under her guidance. They have the same balance, which is different to the two-track mastering found in the CD of the same performance, available in the Mercury Edition 50-CD set.
  
• My speakers are not state-of-the-art with a comparatively narrow and shallow sound stage compared to the very best. My room is VERY not state of the art, with many severe reflections affecting the precision of stereo imaging and 3D sound stage. The result is that some differences which may be more apparent with better speakers and a better room, were undoubtedly masked
  

Secondly, I have listened to this SACD before on my Denon SACD player in the otherwise identical system. The sound was not in the same league (not even on the same planet) as the vinyl version in my system. The vinyl was VASTLY more musical, engaging and realistic.

I listened to the first movement of the following concerto:

Rachmaninoff Piano Concerto No. 3 in D minor, Byron Janis pianist with the London Symphony orchestra under the baton of Antal Dorati, recorded in Watford Town Hall on June 16, 1961, under the recording direction of Wilma Cozart (not yet Cozart Fine). To my ears, this is the finest performance of the work I have heard on record or live. I have 8 (I think) recordings on vinyl or CD (including Janis' other recording on RCA on CD).

The first thing I noticed was that I was obviously listening to the same initial mastering - balance was to my ears, identical. Neither the digital player nor the record player was messing with the balance in any audible way.

The SACD was thrilling, subtle, detailed and overall, sounded superb.

The record had a slightly greater spatial sense of the performers and slightly greater 3D depth. The record had a slightly greater sense of urgency and tension about it. I prefer the way the record brought out deep bass of the piano, but this may in fact be less accurate than the SACD. The record also managed to highlight individual orchestral instruments in a slightly more engaging way.

The differences were not huge. It was as if there was nothing lacking in the SACD, yet there was slightly more again in the record (I know that sounds contradictory but it is actually how it seemed to me while listening).

All in all, the record playing system acquitted itself better than the JLTi Oppo 95 playing SACD in every area (apart from 3 pops on the record which apparently needs to be rewashed ).

BUT

The differences were like listening to the difference between two expensive record players or two different cartridges, NOT like comparing digital to analogue. If there was a complete record playing system retailing for $3200 including phono preamp, which sounded like that, it would wipe out most of its competitors in the sub $20,000 range!

I consider my turntable system to be a true audio bargain at its full $15K retail (let alone the substantially sub-retail prices I paid for much of it). So where does that put a SACD player which retails for $3200 and sounds nearly as good (and throws in amazing CD performance, Bluray, DVD, hard-drive stored FLAC, MP3 and WAV files as well)?

System:

Record player:

• Once Analog turntable
  
• Audio Origami PU7 pickup arm
  
• Shelter 501 Mk2 cartridge, upgraded with Soundsmith Optimum Contour/Contact Line stylus on ruby cantilever
  
• Eastern Electric MiniMax phono preamp with Psvane 12AX7_T and NOS Mullard 6X4 tubes
  
• Herbie's Way Excellent 2 turntable mat
  
• Extreme Phono Speed graphite mat (sits over the Herbie's)
  
• TTWeights TTMega 1kg ring weight
  
• Once Analog 1.4 kg Nugget centre weight
  

Universal digital player:

• JLTi-modified Oppo BDP-95 Bluray player
  

Amplification:

• JLTi KT-88 Mk2 integrated amplifier, upgraded with
  
  • Tung-Sol KT-120 tubes (4)
    
  • Psvane 12AT7_T tubes (2)
    
  • Sophia 6SN7 tubes (2)
    

Speakers:

• Totem Arro diminutive floor-standing front speakers
  
• REL T3 sub
  

Cheers,

Warren

Edited September 9, 2012 by warrenmmmmm

[Guest kab]

Money well spent i reckon......some people are spending $3000+ on cartridges let alone the rest of their analogue rig.

Sounds pretty impressive .......enjoy cheers

Edited September 8, 2012 by kab

[techspurt]

The record had a slightly greater spatial sense of the performers and slightly greater 3D depth. The record had a slightly greater sense of urgency and tension about it. I prefer the way the record brought out deep bass of the piano, but this may in fact be less accurate than the SACD. The record also managed to highlight individual orchestral instruments in a slightly more engaging way.

Interesting report, many thanks!

I suspect here you're hearing the deficiencies of DSD processing, not digital itself. A comparison between a 24/96 transfer and the LP would be even more interesting.

[Stump]

Thanks for the input.The Oppo BDP-95 is a great bang for your buck player.Add the JLTi-modified and it jumps another level.Spending big dollars on Turntables Carts and tracking down Mint copies of your favourite LPs is a different hobby.

Stump

[techspurt]

Looks like Oppo's got new players in the pipe - at CEDIA they unveiled BDP-103 and BDP-105. Same pricing apparently.

[Warren M.]

Looks like Oppo's got new players in the pipe - at CEDIA they unveiled BDP-103 and BDP-105. Same pricing apparently.

From the little info available, it sounds like the improvements are mainly in the video and connectivity areas (4K scaling, smartphone connectivity, HDMI input). If IP control becomes available (my main hope), it appears that this will be provided also in the firmware upgrades to the 95 and 93. There will be a headphone amp which is nice, and suggests that they are looking to turn the Oppo 103/105 into a preamp/player. It will be half as high again.

[techspurt]

More space inside the box should suit the aftermarket modders very nicely - linear PSUs are always bulkier than switchers.

[jamesg11]

I suspect here you're hearing the deficiencies of DSD processing, not digital itself. A comparison between a 24/96 transfer and the LP would be even more interesting.

Interesting to evaluate differences between the dsd into dsd dac & the vinyl ie. comp software/ no disc spinner.

[samman]

Hi Warren a great insight at how to arrive at a similar result through two different and contrasting routes. Must be great fun comparing, hope you are enjoying the journey. I know I am

Edited September 8, 2012 by samman

[eso]

Hi Warren

Congrats on your upgrade. Do you know if the digital out still works after the mod.(coaxial not the hdmi).

Thanks

Rob

[Warren M.]

Do you know if the digital out still works after the mod.(coaxial not the hdmi).

Thanks

Rob

The only outs which have been disabled are the standard RCA 2-channel outs - the balanced outputs are used instead (if you are going to use RCA as I do, you either use a balanced-to-RCA converter which Joe provides, or Joe's hand-made dedicated balanced-to-RCA cables for which he charges about $100 the pair, which is a ridiculous bargain). Both digital outs are operational.

Cheers

Warren

Edited September 9, 2012 by warrenmmmmm

[henry218]

i always remembered my experience listening to totem arro 4-5 years ago.

first the store setup with rega brio amp, after few songs, he offered me to listen through electrocompaniet nemo 500w mono. that was the first time i realised how much amp can transform a little speaker such as arro to a big sounding speaker, "big" means it was as if the speaker have different scale of sound projection.

it just an eye opening experience, i mean if nemo can do this to arro, how about true fullrange speakers with multi woofers??

[Warren M.]

i always remembered my experience listening to totem arro 4-5 years ago.

first the store setup with rega brio amp, after few songs, he offered me to listen through electrocompaniet nemo 500w mono. that was the first time i realised how much amp can transform a little speaker such as arro to a big sounding speaker, "big" means it was as if the speaker have different scale of sound projection.

it just an eye opening experience, i mean if nemo can do this to arro, how about true fullrange speakers with multi woofers??

The Arro is certainly no slouch. It looks like it would bottom out at about 100Hz with those tiny 4½" bass drivers, but still has real bass down a whole additional octave and more. For me, the Arros were a no-brainer: I needed a pair of speakers with a high WAF rating (that's Wife Acceptance Factor) in a very limited sized and complicated living room, where speakers sitting two or more feet from the back wall was simply not an option (my previous B&W Matrix 2Es were not conducive to family harmony!). The Arros are designed to sit 6 to 14 inches from the back wall. Add a fast high-quality sub and I have a beautiful detailed speaker system which goes down to 30 Hz and below if I need it.

[Once was an audiophile]

The Arros are designed to sit 6 to 14 inches from the back wall. Add a fast high-quality sub and I have a beautiful detailed speaker system which goes down to 30 Hz and below if I need it.

Depth of sound stage becomes an issue with such setup speakers need room to create depth lot more then 6 to 14 inches imho

[Warren M.]

Depth of sound stage becomes an issue with such setup speakers need room to create depth lot more then 6 to 14 inches imho

John Dunlevy designed a pair of "picture-frame" speakers which Duntech sold for, at the time, $1600 (more than I could afford back then, and, in today's money probably more than I can afford now). They hung on the wall. I heard a pair at a private house in Sydney. I can tell you that the sound stage went metres behind the wall! Phenomenal. He used the PCL-1500 designation for them, but, when he found he could not make them for the price he was selling them, withdrew them and reused the PCL-1500 designation for a more conventional small model. Maybe the Orpheus guys know a bit more about these.

Edited September 9, 2012 by warrenmmmmm

[mjs]

I'm a bit of one for speakers in the room, rather than on the perimeter. Years ago (maybe 30 odd, and I do mean odd), had some LS3/5A's, so reasonably small, small mid bass driver, but high quality. Made some timber stands about 4' tall and positioned them at least a metre into the room (apologies for the mixed units). Think I had my first LP12 with Grace 707 and Supex900, sounded great even though the speakers were modest. Now have some ribbons which are also out in the room to a certain extent. Also have an Oppo 95 now, not the JLTI version tho'.

[Once was an audiophile]

John Dunlevy designed a pair of "picture-frame" speakers which Duntech sold for, at the time, $1600 (more than I could afford back then, and, in today's money probably more than I can afford now). They hung on the wall. I heard a pair at a private house in Sydney. I can tell you that the sound stage went metres behind the wall! Phenomenal. He used the PCL-1500 designation for them, but, when he found he could not make them for the price he was selling them, withdrew them and reused the PCL-1500 designation for a more conventional small model. Maybe the Orpheus guys know a bit more about these.

Now that is magical to have speakers like that was the front end solid state?got any links for the speakers

[Warren M.]

Now that is magical to have speakers like that was the front end solid state?got any links for the speakers

I'm pretty sure the amp was solid state, but I really don't recall. I only ever saw that one pair, though I rang John Dunlevy in Adelaide about them. The secret to the success of these picture-frame speakers was that they rolled off at about (I think) 60Hz, and needed a sub to handle all the bass below low C. As a result there was such a small bass suck-out and doubling that it could be exactly compensated for using electronics, and the mathematics of it were "easy" because the distance from the wall was known (zero) - we are talking John Dunlevy style "easy" (he had various telecommunications, radar and electronics patents for which his estate is still handsomely paid by the US military among others).

I just found comment about it on an Audiogon speaker discussion back in 2005 - it was PCL-15 not 1500 - the same ID as the Princess bookshelf which came later. Here is the discussion: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?cspkr&1105651509&read&keyw&zzduntech+pcl-15

[Once was an audiophile]

I'm pretty sure the amp was solid state, but I really don't recall. I only ever saw that one pair, though I rang John Dunlevy in Adelaide about them. The secret to the success of these picture-frame speakers was that they rolled off at about (I think) 60Hz, and needed a sub to handle all the bass below low C. As a result there was such a small bass suck-out and doubling that it could be exactly compensated for using electronics, and the mathematics of it were "easy" because the distance from the wall was known (zero) - we are talking John Dunlevy style "easy" (he had various telecommunications, radar and electronics patents for which his estate is still handsomely paid by the US military among others).

I just found comment about it on an Audiogon speaker discussion back in 2005 - it was PCL-15 not 1500 - the same ID as the Princess bookshelf which came later. Here is the discussion: http://forum.audiogo...zduntech pcl-15

Truly amazing speakers hang on a wall powered by a ss amp and able to reproduce a 3d image wow i am speechless i still haven't heard a ss with any real depth like a valve amp including ss amps of 40k+ who am i to argue you heard it.

[Warren M.]

Truly amazing speakers hang on a wall powered by a ss amp and able to reproduce a 3d image wow i am speechless i still haven't heard a ss with any real depth like a valve amp including ss amps of 40k+ who am i to argue you heard it.

I do recall the turntable in use - it was a Sota Sapphire Vacuum (or whatever they were called - first one I had ever seen) with a Sumiko The Arm and I know not what cartridge - I think maybe a Dynavector. Given those credentials, it seems more than likely it was in fact a valve amp being used, but I really can't remember seeing the amp at all..

Edited September 11, 2012 by warrenmmmmm

[techspurt]

More space inside the box should suit the aftermarket modders very nicely - linear PSUs are always bulkier than switchers.

Audioholics has a new internal pic of the 103, looks as though the 105 comes with a linear PSU as standard within its additional 1.7" height as they talk about a new toroidal trafo.

http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/transports/high-definition-dvd-players-hd-dvd-blu-ray/oppo-blu-ray-q-a

[LuzArt]

Thanks for the interesting comparison Warren, a great read.

[Sam Z]

To those posts about Duntech wallmounts...I have a set of the old Duntech PCL-5 wallmounts from the 80's/early 90's—as far as I know there were two Duntech wallmount production models: PCL-3 and PCL-5.

I've never heard about the early PCL-15 wallmounts, only the production PCL-15s, which were monitors. They just would have been early versions of the PCL-3 or PCL-5. I think that John Dunlavy was making wallspeakers very early on, in the 70's, before he was using the Duntech name and it was called Audio Standards Corporation or something like that.

As for my PCL-5's, I've never really set them up properly on the walls so I can't comment on their soundstage when they're hanging on a wall. My pair have some custom freestanding stands so I just use them on those. They sound pretty good for their novel design, but not as good as regular speakers. I don't know too much about the engineering behind them but there are some pics on the net of them or I can post some of mine if you want to have a look. Pretty unusual design...most are in recording studios I imagine.

http://thelodge.com/...es/center-2.jpg

http://www.audiokarm...ad.php?t=369279

Edited October 10, 2012 by sam_z

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Truly amazing speakers hang on a wall powered by a ss amp and able to reproduce a 3d image wow i am speechless i still haven't heard a ss with any real depth like a valve amp including ss amps of 40k+ who am i to argue you heard it.

It seems you don't get out much.

[Once was an audiophile]

It seems you don't get out much.

Any recommendations zb? for ss amp with depth like a great valve amp