Oppo UHD 4K Owners & Discussion Thread

[Guest]

Nice player 

[MrC]

I have asked this before ... will it be worthwhile to also have a Darbee version ?

[petetherock]

Personally Darbee didn't do it for me. I had the 105, 105D and I didn't see any life changing differences.. YMMV..

[betty boop]

darbee just pushed up the price of oppos 

[cwt]

I wouldnt wait for it [ even their 4k standalone is still coming] and I cant see it improving on the bt2020 container WCG in any case ; not to mention the better colour gradations of HDR  YMMV  

Will take it awhile to get it to talk properly with the mediatek SOC
 

Quote

 

How to implement DVP 4K/UHD IP in a design:

* 4K/UHD DVP chip set will be available directly from DarbeeVision
* Integration support will be provided by DarbeeVision

 

 

[Jliang70]

I had Darbee for almost a year and could not tell what difference it makes.

[duke]

Complete waste of money IMO. I noticed bugger all difference too.

[JSmith]

1 hour ago, Jliang70 said:

I had Darbee for almost a year and could not tell what difference it makes.

 

12 minutes ago, duke said:

Complete waste of money IMO. I noticed bugger all difference too.

So when DB picture settings were changed... nothing changed at all?

JSmith 

[duke]

1 hour ago, JSmith said:

 

So when DB picture settings were changed... nothing changed at all?

JSmith 

Nothing really noticeable that improved the picture.

[CAVX]

I think my Darbee setting is on 30% right now.  It can make a difference, but I think that difference is really source dependant.  I also noticed that I had the same EE and DE controls on my projector which made a clear difference.    

[Jliang70]

I would say the improvement was very marginal and almost unnoticeable.  I don't have the dedicated Darbee standalone unit but the one I have is the one in the Lumagen processor,  I have mine set at 35% and just like everything in AV some people might be able to pick the difference but I can't.

[Hydrology]

On 9/24/2016 at 9:37 PM, al said:

I wonder if that means we will have  local release before year is out or we have to wait till next year !

 

According to distributors Interdyn, arrival in Australia is currently late November.

[betty boop]

14 minutes ago, Hydrology said:

 

According to distributors Interdyn, arrival in Australia is currently late November.

 

Woohoo !

[cwt]

Looking good for those with projectors that havent the dynamic range to do HDR justice ; no conversion back to SDR REC709 like the pana but full WCG  No need for any fury integral like the competition.. one link less in the hdmi chain which is great.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/149-blu-ray-players/2582401-official-oppo-udp-203-uhd-blu-ray-player-anticipation-thread-16.html#post47053129

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/149-blu-ray-players/2582401-official-oppo-udp-203-uhd-blu-ray-player-anticipation-thread-17.html#post47057697

[petetherock]

http://www.trustedreviews.com/oppo-udp-203-review

 

AKM DACs.. same one as in the 101ci 

[cwt]

4 hours ago, petetherock said:

http://www.trustedreviews.com/oppo-udp-203-review

 

AKM DACs.. same one as in the 101ci 

May pay to wait Pete considering avforum said sabre dacs ; or maybe they let slip what the "205" is going to get ?  I think akm's may be it as the 4458 isnt near the top of the line 4497 which just replaced the 4490

Quote

ES9038 DAC for top-of-the-line digital-to-analogue performance and a fully balanced design for the best signal quality

 

[JSmith]

I wonder if any of the currently released players will be able to be ungraded with firmware to support HDMI 2.1 with dynamic metadata;

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1457513362

JSmith 

[petetherock]

It's probably akm DACs for the 203 and Sabres for the 205 imho ..

[cwt]

On ‎3‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 7:31 AM, JSmith said:

I wonder if any of the currently released players will be able to be ungraded with firmware to support HDMI 2.1 with dynamic metadata;

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1457513362

JSmith 

Nothing is certain atm J ; some speculation that hdmi2.0'b' may be linked to another HDR10 metadata stream [ whether static like "a" passes or dynamic like DV ]  . KeithL an engineer at emo has what could be called insider info

Quote

Word is that HDMI 2.1 will be announced in December.... but there are no details yet.
(Incidentally, don't bother to Google it; word is that much of the "leaked" information about it from a few months ago is incorrect.)
 

Luck of the draw what type of chipset oppo has in relation to this ; lets hope its the type Samsung got for certain panels

Quote

HDMI and HDCP support requires both hardware and firmware.
In order to support a given set of features, both the hardware and the firmware must be able to do so.
Large manufacturers sometimes get "provisional hardware" that is designed before the specs are finalized... and if they're lucky they can "enable" a feature by a firmware update

 

[MLXXX]

On 10/3/2016 at 1:56 AM, cwt said:

ES9038 DAC for top-of-the-line digital-to-analogue performance and a fully balanced design for the best signal quality

 

I'm not sure cwt what the review at https://www.avforums.com/news/first-look-at-the-oppo-udp-203-4k-ultra-hd-blu-ray-player.12972 meant by the phrase I've highlighted in red. Conventional wisdom would see merit in a balanced connection for long cable runs or for low signal levels (e.g. for microphone cables), or to overcome an earth loop hum problem. For a short run at line level, unbalanced would normally not be a problem.

Providing a Blu-ray player with multi-channel analogue outs begs the question what the player is designed to be connected to. If to a multichannel AVR then an easy and effective method is HDMI. The AVR will do its own decoding and use its own DACs. But perhaps some people have a very old AVR that doesn't accept HDMI.   I wonder  how many people buying an Oppo 4K player wouldn't already have an AVR that accepts HDMI.

I guess a  small number of people might plan on connecting two channels from an Oppo 4K player to a stereo amplifier that has no DACs when using the Oppo to play a CD or a  stereo SACD.

[cwt]

Quote

 

I'm not sure cwt what the review at https://www.avforums.com/news/first-look-at-the-oppo-udp-203-4k-ultra-hd-blu-ray-player.12972 meant by the phrase I've highlighted in red. Conventional wisdom would see merit in a balanced connection for long cable runs or for low signal levels (e.g. for microphone cables), or to overcome an earth loop hum problem. For a short run at line level, unbalanced would normally not be a problem

 

Yes unbalanced is fine for short runs . There are some that like feeding a power amp direct and even some that want the oppo to incorporate dirac live room eq [ as they are a partner ] . Most sensible people use an avr or pre pro to do these tasks  The multichannel outs are becoming more redundant with atm 7.1.4 etc atmos etc outputs needing to be decoded in said avr and not in the source anymore  .. and I have yet to see an avr with 7.1.4 pre out ins for the object audio

Its  something that people who want a complete balanced source to power amp setup need MLXXX . Some pre pro's and power amps have dual differential  circuitry on their 2ch or even multi channel circuitry [ basically a duplication of what most cheaper designs have - unbalanced single ended ] an example would be an Emotiva XMC1 on its 2ch ref stereo inputs or a Denon AVP-A1 ; not cheap . Some would rather not have a single ended conversion to balanced xlr outputs as there are different methods this can be done and extra steps means no short signal path ..

Theoretically this means a rough 6db better signal to noise ratio due to the common mode noise rejection all the way down the line but most dacs have 120db+ s/n ratios so a well designed chain is fine ; speakers are the weaker spot

[petetherock]

Lots of errors in the review, which will be revealed when the embargo on beta testers doing their reports is lifted.. right now it's the holiday week in China, so it will be pretty quite for now. 

Yes Oppo is Chinese, not American, despite any claims to be different

[MLXXX]

11 hours ago, cwt said:

Some would rather not have a single ended conversion to balanced xlr outputs as there are different methods this can be done and extra steps means no short signal path ..

Connection of balanced output to unbalanced input can be a little tricky but for a short run at line level, connection of an unbalanced output to a balanced input need not be. You probably are fully aware of that, cwt, but for other readers I note the following.

It is sufficient to connect the signal output of the unbalanced source to the hot side of the balanced input and the chassis (earth) output of the unbalanced source to the cold side of the balanced input. For each channel this could be done with a very short length of cable with appropriate connectors to mate with the existing balanced cable. Alternatively discard the original balanced cable and use a cable with an rca plug for the source and an XLR plug (wired as just described) for the preamplifier/amplifier balanced XLR socket input.   

There is the reverse problem if your signal source has only balanced outputs and you want to feed that to a device with unbalanced inputs. I guess if Oppo really wanted to they could manufacture a Blu-ray player with 8 balanced phono socket audio outs, and 8 unbalanced RCA socket audio outs!

That could keep all campers happy though I still question whether the unbalanced outputs would really be needed in a domestic situation of relatively short cable runs and not in proximity to extraordinary levels of EM interfence (such as from a power station transformer, radar installation, nuclear reactor, or a cloaked communications centre in frequent use by extraterrestrials). Yes, I am sceptical of the need for balanced connections for short runs of line level signals in the home.

Edited October 5, 2016 by MLXXX

[cwt]

33 minutes ago, MLXXX said:

Connection of balanced output to unbalanced input can be a little tricky but for a short run at line level, connection of an unbalanced output to a balanced input need not be. You probably are fully aware of that, cwt, but for other readers I note the following.

It is sufficient to connect the signal output of the unbalanced source to the hot side of the balanced input and the chassis (earth) output of the unbalanced source to the cold side of the balanced input. For each channel this could be done with a very short length of cable with appropriate connectors to mate with the existing balanced cable. Alternatively discard the original balanced cable and use a cable with an rca plug for the source and an XLR plug (wired as just described) for the preamplifier/amplifier balanced XLR socket input.   

That would be a sensible way of doing it MLXXX ; Ive read of other methods involving transformers and resistors ; to quote a pro site its in the quality used http://www.engineeringradio.us/blog/2011/03/unbalanced-to-balanced-audio/

Quote

Well designed and manufactured passive components (transformers and resistors) will provide excellent performance with little chance of failure.  There several methods of using transformers to go from balanced to unbalanced or vice versa

Ime a bit wary of certain ce's after makes like onkyo and marantz put balanced xlr outputs on a design but wired them unbalanced ; current models are fine though . Read a few audioholics articles by Dr David Rich and you tend to see a lot is built to a price like stripping the power amp out of an avr and getting a cheap pre pro ; but Ime going o/t now ; back to the 203 . I wonder how many will just keep their 95/105 and get the 203 now its got a hdmi2.0a input ?

[betty boop]

well mine is pre ordered and paid for

 

I ws in tivoli this morning and as it happens apparently they had been notified of it last week so paid up an await my unit hopefully next month