Having trialled the Cambridge which I returned because of its awful SACD playback quality compared to my former Arcam DV 137 I have yet to buy the Oppo 95 however I have heard the Sabre Dacs installed in this model fitted to DSD Professional DACs and was very impressed .
As this is the main reason why anybody reading what used to be or still should be a Hi Fi mag I am amazed that such ditty’s are only given a footnote in What Hi Fi reviews, which often focus on intangibles verging on mysticism rather than test the equipment properly like other well-known Hi Fi Mags of which our friend noel is a contributor and editor
Hmmm....don't normally post on these forums as they normally seem to be full of coments by owners of specific brands trying to prove why their choice is right and everyone else's is wrong.
However, thought that as I had auditioned a number of players and settled on the bdp-95, I'd add a brief line or two.
I personally don't care where it's made as long as the picture and sound suit my tastes - the oppo did, especially in the audio department. I am still a bit old fashioned and like my CD/SACD's and found the player gave a detailed soundstage without being overly harsh. I wouldn't say it matched say the Plinius 101 for pure detail, but it did punch well above it's weight.
Picture wise, it was easy to set-up and has produced the best 2D picture (via my JVC X3 projector) that I have seen - even my wife agrees, and she has never seen the point of anyone spending more than 500 pounds on any hifi component!
Overall, it's not an audiophile 'must have', but as I said, it works well for my ears and eyes, and at the end of the day that's what should count for everyone, not someone else's review - use reviews as a guide and then go and listen for yourself - isn't that the fun bit
Now guys,remember when the pioneer bdp-lx55 arrives.It will more than likely easily justify a paltry £350 in comparison & if it by chance gets 5 stars,and again by chance performs on par with this machine,S&V wise of course,not build quality or spec,Please oppo owners dont start trying to undraw parallels!They were here way before the 2004 founded chinese oppo & if the lx55 gets a good review,at least it will be something we can all afford,sorta like when they brought out the bdp-51fd,sound & vision of that quality at the price was unheard of at the time.Just sayin....
I thoroughly enjoyed reading all the rants above. Thank you for brightening my day.
The Marantz UD7006 was the group winner, it beat the Oppo 95.
How did these two players compare in terms of picture quality for DVD and Blueray ?
[edited by mods for groundless accusations. Please stick to constructive feedback not libellous statements].
I know you were not being malice,but the player got a glowing 5star review.It like somebody with an audi complaining that their car has some identical as a skoda,but as we all know a skoda is no audi & a panasonic bdp is no oppo bdp,but this is the sort of manufacturing that happens then people get offended at their BDP even being compared to what they believe is inferior quality,but theres no getting away that even the mighty oppo use some same components that other so called inferior companys use.As long as it performs up to expectation,i reckon this is whats important,no matter whats inside or where it comes from.
I have to admit to having demo'd the 93 and 95 along with a range of other kit inc a PS3, high end Denon,etc
For the money the Oppo's can't be beaten.
[edited by Mods - House Rules]
From TV's to AV receivers you do NOY normally mention where they are manufactured. Call me old fashioned but yes IT DOES matter to me where a product comes from. Your test reports also miss out important details about the product and yes you are only human, but you DO get it wrong sometimes. Not to mention the spelling!
Not sure what 'NOY' means, but as my comment clearly states, we occasionally mention where a product is manufactured - we don't as a matter of course. Sure we can find out that information for readers like yourself whom feel strongly about the matter, however. And thank you for your other feedback, generic though it is.
Does What HiFi ever look inside of the machines? I, for one, like to know where the machine is made. i.e. China, US or UK. They never mention it.
Yes, we do look at inside of machines - you can see many examples in our magazine reviews. We also occasionally mention where something is manufactured, though - in our experience of visiting product factories worldwide (see our Blogs section for plenty of hands-on reports) - this is rarely relevant. A company's desigh, production and quality-control processes are far more important.
@johnjay. There's no malice intended, but as an example the Onkyo BD606/507 decks, and Denon DVD-1800BD from a year or so ago were all very closely related to some fairly bog standard Panasonic decks and no mention of a parity of components had been highlighted there. Far from favouring any brand they should all be shown the same level of comparison when it's a "bought in" design.
Just imagine if you were a DVD-1800BD owner who paid the original £600 price to find out later (after review) that it was essentially a cheaper machine with a few tweaks. Particularly when the price of it plummeted soon after release!
Whenever you see a review on a "Turbo charged", "modded" or "tweaked" model the reviewer ALWAYS points out the base model origins.
Why should ANY brand of "cloned" deck not be subjected to the same transparency of review?
Well we didn't review the Denon, but the Onkyo '606 got just three-stars for being blatantly over-priced and more comparable to budget decks.
Also, we noted in another three-star review - this time of a Yamaha deck - the Panasonic relationship:
So please get your facts straight before hurling accusations!
We were not hurling accusations (and I did state as far as I am aware when it came to WHF reviews of the past). I wasn't even aware WHF had reviewed the 606 (i've just read it now) nor not having reviewed the 1800, I was using them as an example.
It just seems counter productive to portray the similarities (to that extent) between machines that offer similar levels of performance for a modest difference in price and for it to be written in such a way as to infer that Brand A has merely taken Brand Bs design and changed a few key components, thus allowing the reader to come to the natural conclusion that you may as well save the £100 opt for the cheaper machine. A token 5 star comment at the end to redress the balance to allow the reader to go out and audition both decks and make a personal judgement.
The Yamaha review highlight is exacty how it should be handled, explain the similarities in modest detail, explain the performance gains (if any) and then give a comparison with rest of it's peers so the reader can ascertain it's market position (obviously not at great length if a Supertest is just around the corner!).
In stark contrast the Onkyo 606 review stipulates the poor performance but wouldnt it have been great to have popped the lid off that too and let people know why it shared a performance level more akin to the models it was based upon? Highlight the models which are just lazy rebadges rather than putting it down to a "slip in form" or whatever.
With so many clones on the market (in both hifi and AV) I'm just saying that the review has to be balanced in order to shame the lazy overpriced copies, but to promote the models like the CA and Oppo decks in such a way that it encourages the reader to audition the options and make their own decision on each unit's merits.
It might even be worth bringing back the practice of EVERY review carrying the name of the person who reviewed it so the reader can build a portfolio of the reviewers who go that extra mile to delve into the inner workings of what ends up in the readers homes?
Really can't see any point in that whatsoever.
I guess the time and effort reviewers such as Alvin Gold, Noel Keyword etc have all been in aid of pointless careers then?
In the case of Noel, it would seem so: even his name hasn't made an impression on you.
There's no such thing as a 'token' five-star rating - the Oppo is a damn fine player that many people may prefer over any other. But as someone commented previously, maybe even five stars and a glowing recommendation (did you read the Group Test verdict in the mag?) isn't enough for certain people (including dealers like yourself).
. We urge auditioning of every piece of kit, by the way, both here and in the mag. And the reason we have no bylines is that we team test - no reviewer either tests or decides on a star rating in isolation.
now its not fair to point out a similarity.The only way is to give every oppo machine 6 stars to stop them whining at every oppo review,its getting to a point that a reviewer cant even say an oppo BDP has any shortfalls.Yes they make brilliant machines ,but so a lot of other AV co's.
Sure looks like both machines are a little "too related" to each other. Were are Oppo machines made / designed?
Good to see the 95 getting a positive write up although drawing on the similarities between it and the Cambridge seems a little unfair as no mention (to our knowledge) is made of the many Panasonic 'clones' on the market...
Login or register to post comments
Cracking value for an all-in-one home cinema system with only a few spec and performance gripes qualifying our praise
The Samsung Galaxy S4 performs significantly better than its predecessor but has pressing issues with its interface, sound and picture quality
Good but not great – and that’s not quite enough at this hugely competitive price for AV receivers
© 2013 Haymarket Publishing