Oppo BDP-831?

[Andrew Everard]

al7478:Might be part of the reason for the confusion tho, not that I agree with what you refer to as Will's allegation - that subject has been done to death and then some.

Except the blog-piece I referenced is a personal opinion, not the considered verdict of the test-team, and does in fact say it's not meant to pre-judge the eventual verdict.

Oh, and I didn't refer to anything as an allegation - I called it an accusation.

 

[mjs]

well, after all this, and the fact that I appear unable to buy an Oppo anyway, I`ll stick with my PS3( original 60Mb) for SACD, and buy the S-760.

 

[The_Lhc]

Dazmb: Does it deserve 5*'s for that universal status. No, not if the test is not a test of Universal players. And it isn't. It can't muscle in at the top when it's @ £100 more than the Sony and it performs it's core functionality as a BD/DVD player worse.

Well, that's where I find this review a little awkward. This WASN'T a group test, the Sony and the Oppo were reviewed in *isolation* (as Clare stated, the group test is yet to come), therefore the Oppo should have been considered on all its merits, ie as a universal player. On that basis, as WHF stated, it's easily the cheapest universal player out there and the performance per price (the bang-per-buck criteria that WHF are always stating they judge things on) must surely have given it 5 stars, when compared to other universal players?

However with a group test of £350-£600 BDP players coming up, then the Oppo will be judged under those criteria, where, apparently, it falls down a little, so you potentially end up with two different ratings, a 4* as a BDP and 5* as a universal player, so I can see how it might present a dilemma for the WHF team.

I also disagree with another assertion, that people will mainly buy this for the DVD/BD performance. I don't think that's correct, if that were the case you'd just go and buy any one of a number of much easier to get hold of and cheaper machines.

Personally I don't have an Oppo, but I was considering it, for one reason, the universality (made up word!), I haven't got any SACDs at the moment but I have been thinking of getting a few (I really need ANOTHER version of War of the Worlds). And the region mod... TWO reasons, I was considering it for two reasons, the universality and the region mod. And the multi-channel outs, THREE... I'll come in again... anyway, you get my point, you'd have to think that most people buying the Oppo would be getting it for a reason other than the BD performance, otherwise, as I said, there are less tortuous routes you can take.

Now, I don't know what to get, I was seriously considering the Oppo, mainly for the multi-channel outs, as I'm not ready to spend the cash on an HDMI amp yet, but now the Sony comes in cheaper (and I don't like the sound of handing over my credit card details to a dodgy looking website either). I'm still annoyed Pioneer have butchered their BDPs to remove the MCOs because it's a Pioneer amp I'll be getting and I also wanted the PQLS but, never mind, guess I'll keep putting the decision off a little longer.

 

[Andrew Everard]

It wasn't a group test in the sense of it being published in the magazine - yet -, but the Sony and the Oppo were compared as part of the Awards judging process, as is clear from the reference to the Sony in the Oppo review.

And I say again that I find the Oppo perfect for my needs, which as I made clear in the original blog piece and will do again in a forthcoming Gramophone review, encompass a lot of SACD listening and the viewing of Blu-ray discs from a variety of regions, both for work and for family reasons.

However, I agree totally with the assessment given in the 'formal' WHFSV review.

 

[Anonymous]

Andrew, you would agree totally, you work at What Hi-Fi.

The_LHC is spot on. Players and other pieces of kit, have all previously been assessed on their merits. When you want to run a shootout you compare an aspect (usually the main one) of performance of a range of items all broadly trying to do the same thing. In this case, you didn't.

Now, in my experience, there is no difference between the cheaper and most expensive BluRay players in their 1080p24 output over HDMI. I think that the differences are basically not there. BluRay is a digital medium, being read and transmitted digitally with no interpretation, at 1080p24, aside from the unpacking of packets of data. To suggest that one player looks different from another is in my experience blatantly misleading and can only be seen as a means to allow manufacturers to continue to mislead the public and sell on a differentiation that doesn't exist. If you don't need analogue outs and only care about the picture and sound over HDMI and aren't too fussed about loading speeds, I'd buy a Sony S350. It's indistinguishable from a Denon DVD-A1UD at £4500.

On the subject of which, you awarded the A1UD five stars. It does exactly the same job as the Oppo, but much more slowly. The A1UD costs £4,500 and the Oppo £450. Excuse me for making the comparison, but if we discount the analogues, which I thought sounded very alike over stereo only, the HDMI outputs were identical. How on earth can a machine costing 1/10 of the price of the Denon, doing the same job, more quickly, receive only 4 stars.

Basically, you're setting yourselves up as a consumer magazine but you're not showing the impartiality I would expect from a consumer magazine.

The Oppo is sold via the company's website. This counts out all of the hi-fi stores up and down the country who make their livings from the sale of hi-fi with a margin they're able to tack on. Giving the Oppo five stars would clear the way for many people, who've been waiting for a What Hi-Fi verdict on the player, to buy one. The four stars has nothing to do with what the player deserves, I think anyone reading this thread by now would have figured this out, it has everything to do with protecting the hi-fi retailer business model and protecting the largest source of revenue to Haymarket, which undeniably comes from advertising. I won't suggest that anyone asked you to mark down the Oppo. But it's a fairly basic business reality, that you don't bite the hand that feeds you. This is where my disappointment in What Hi-Fi really comes to a crunch. I'd have expected a little professional integrity.

This is, of course, only my opinion. I no longer know how much of your editoral and reviews I can believe. Thank goodness that other sources of information exist, but what a shame that my favourite and my most looked-forward-to monthly read has turned out to be what I can only call an industry stooge. You undermine the rest of your work, when you make such a blatant misjudgement as this.

 

[Andrew Everard]

Will Harris:Andrew, you would agree totally, you work at
What Hi-Fi.

Doesn't mean I have to agree with every group verdict, and if I didn't I would say so.

Will Harris:The_LHC is spot on. Players and other pieces of kit, have
all previously been assessed on their merits. When you want to run a
shootout you compare an aspect (usually the main one) of performance of
a range of items all broadly trying to do the same thing. In this case,
you didn't.

I'm afraid we did. Unless you were present during the testing, however, I'm not sure how you can claim to know better.

Will Harris:Now, in my experience, there is no difference between the cheaper and
most expensive BluRay players in their 1080p24 output over HDMI. I
think that the differences are basically not there. BluRay is a digital
medium, being read and transmitted digitally with no interpretation, at
1080p24, aside from the unpacking of packets of data. To suggest that
one player looks different from another is in my experience blatantly
misleading and can only be seen as a means to allow manufacturers to
continue to mislead the public and sell on a differentiation that
doesn't exist.

With as little respect as I can muster in the circumstances, your experience is very limited, Mr Harris.

Will Harris:Basically, you're setting yourselves up as a consumer magazine but
you're not showing the impartiality I would expect from a consumer
magazine.

I'm afraid suggestions of impartiality in this case smacks of pots and kettles...

Will Harris:The Oppo is sold via the company's website.

No, at the moment it's not sold through any website.

Will Harris:The four
stars has nothing to do with what the player deserves, I think anyone
reading this thread by now would have figured this out, it has
everything to do with protecting the hi-fi retailer business model and
protecting the largest source of revenue to Haymarket, which undeniably
comes from advertising.

The day such considerations govern the testing on WHFSV is the day I no longer work there. Again you are applying your twisted logic.

Will Harris:I won't suggest that anyone asked you to mark
down the Oppo.

So why, pray, was it marked down? And indeed why was my blog piece allowed to be published?

Will Harris:This is, of course, only my opinion. I no longer know how much of your
editoral and reviews I can believe. Thank goodness that other sources
of information exist, but what a shame that my favourite and my most
looked-forward-to monthly read has turned out to be what I can only
call an industry stooge. You undermine the rest of your work, when you
make such a blatant misjudgement as this.

Once again, Mr Harris, you are overreacting to the marking down of your favourite toy, which you have been relentlessly promoting, along with the single retailer selling it to date, for several months now.

Now you are making ridiculous allegations without a shred of evidence, and to date we have given you the opportunity to express your ill-informed, snide views at some length.

So, once and for all, put up or shut up - either present some solid evidence to back up the very serious accusations you make, or go away.

 

[Anonymous]

Andrew Everard:
Once again, Mr Harris, you are making ridiculous allegations without a shred of evidence, and to date we have given you the opportunity to express your ill-informed, snide views at some length.

Now, once and for all, put up or shut up - either present some solid evidence to back up the very serious accusations you make, or go away.

I put in in the most balanced and fair way I could and I made a number of points. I don't think there are any accusions in there that don't follow from the points made in the beginning of the post. Reacting angrilly to what I wrote only makes you look as though you have something you'd rather not discuss. You're in a no-win situation here. Not something I can't say isn't self inflicted. You may disagree with me, others may not. Lets see what the general consensus is. I made my points. I shalln't labour them. If others feel minded to agree, then I'm sure they'll say so and if they disagree then I have no doubt they'll make it clear where they feel I've strayed in my views.

But the strength of venom in your post towards me only highlights the antipathy with which you hold one of your customers. I'm unused to seeing representatives of a business show such agression towards members of the public, and their customer at that. But you are entitled, of course to defend yourself and your business, though you have offered no defence save for an angry retort.

 

[Anonymous]

With the greatest respect Will, I feel it is you that have offered no evidence to support your views. I personally feel that WHF have been more than accomodating with your views about them and also feel that Mr E's response was justified and fair.

I have a great deal of experience dealing with customers and sometimes you do have to be blunt with people that are being unreasonable.

The bottom line is that you have called the entire magazines integrity into question over a single piece of equipment.

Reviews are subjective because it based on the perceptions of the reviewer. This is fact unless quantitively measured. As this is realistically unfeasable, a panel would seem an appropriate next step to ensure it is not just the personal opinion of an individual.

If you don't agree with a review, that does not mean the magazine/reviewer is wrong.

In the past I have felf that sometimes the 'stick' you have received has been unjustified, yet you have always maintained a mature demeanour to it.

With your last two posts however this has gone, and I think you were way out of line. For the record, I always agrees with anyones right to post a view or opinion, however I do feel that without any evidence calling WHF a stooge to the Hi-Fi industry is un-just.

 

[Andrew Everard]

Will Harris:I put in in the most balanced and fair way I could and I made a number of points. I don't think there are any accusions in there that don't follow from the points made in the beginning of the post.

Hardly balanced, hardly fair. And what you infer or imply isn't any substitute for the evidence you have so far failed to provide. Principally because it doesn't exist.

Will Harris:Reacting angrilly to what I wrote only makes you
look as though you have something you'd rather not discuss. You're in a
no-win situation here. Not something I can't say isn't self inflicted.

Ah, the old 'defend yourself and you're clearly guilty' logic?

Will Harris:But the strength of venom in your post towards me only highlights the
antipathy with which you hold one of your customers. I'm unused to
seeing representatives of a business show such agression towards
members of the public, and their customer at that.

Hold on, so you're saying it's perfectly justified for you to make public allegations of corruption, misleading the readers and so on, without a shred of evidence beyond that in your own mind, and make them on this forum, but not so for us to react forcefully to your snide innuendos?

 

[Anonymous]

Andrew Everard:
Will Harris:Reacting angrilly to what I wrote only makes you
look as though you have something you'd rather not discuss. You're in a
no-win situation here. Not something I can't say isn't self inflicted.

Ah, the old 'defend yourself and you're clearly guilty' logic?

Lol

 

[Ravey Gravey Davy]

Will Harris:Andrew Everard:

Once again, Mr Harris, you are making ridiculous allegations without a shred of evidence, and to date we have given you the opportunity to express your ill-informed, snide views at some length.

Now, once and for all, put up or shut up - either present some solid evidence to back up the very serious accusations you make, or go away.

I made my points. I shalln't labour them. .

Thanks for brightening my morning- Haven't laughed so much for ages.

 

[Anonymous]

Clare Newsome:
kaotician:

Very pleased to see this review surface,
though disheartened that the build-up to it has produced such rancorous
feelings all round, which puts me off a little bit.

My question
is for clarification: Am I right in thinking that the Oppo has earned 4
stars as a BD/DVD/CD deck then, discounting the SACD/DVDA aspects of
it, or is it a 3 star BD/DVD/CD player, with a star extra for
versatility?

Thanks very much.

It's not as simple as that. Let's put it another way: the Sony is a star better than the Oppo both because of superior BD/DVD/CD performance, but also because it's already on-sale for £100 less.

Obviously if it was being judged on purely universal-player terms, the Oppo would be the clear winner and the Sony a fail!

Oops!! So sorry I didn't understand quite what was being said

Overall then, a decent player, but outpointed on PQ by the Sony on BD/DVD/CD sound (via analogues).

 

[AndrewH13]

It's a Universal Player, it had a very good review, needlessly compared with the Sony which I don't find relevant in a FIRST LOOK. Its costs so much less than other Universals. I had no SACDs or DVD-As but followed Andrew E's column in Gramophone and am now enjoying some great sounds, F Lips, Yes etc and more to come.

Every dedicated BluRay player before the Oppo was released before they were ready in my opinion, as the loading was ludicrous after what we have come to expect with DVD. The Oppo changed these times (and I expect others have since?) and for that alone was a groundbreaking product. So it gets 4 stars....

As an Oppo owner it doesnt affect me as I know how good the player is and am very happy with it; as a WHF subscriber I am very disappointed, because I feel it just doesn't add up, and it questions my belief in the magazine.

 

[Anonymous]

Will Harris:Now, in my experience, there is no difference between the cheaper and most expensive BluRay players in their 1080p24 output over HDMI. I think that the differences are basically not there. BluRay is a digital medium, being read and transmitted digitally with no interpretation, at 1080p24, aside from the unpacking of packets of data. To suggest that one player looks different from another is in my experience blatantly misleading and can only be seen as a means to allow manufacturers to continue to mislead the public and sell on a differentiation that doesn't exist.

But you know this can't be true. DVD is a digital-only medium too. I have a Pioneer 610 DVD player, a cheapo, for SACD playback currently, which runs into my amp via hdmi that's exactly the same brand of cable as my Panny BD350 uses, yet if I run exactly the same disc through either machine, both upscaled in exactly the same way, the PQ difference is massive, with no disrespect to the Pioneer which does a fine job at its' price.

 

[carter]

if its to be rated on all points it should be docked 2 stars for avalability.bottom line picture isnt the best dont care if i have to wait another 8 secounds for it to load

 

[hammill]

kaotician:

Will Harris:Now, in my experience, there is no difference between the cheaper and most expensive BluRay players in their 1080p24 output over HDMI. I think that the differences are basically not there. BluRay is a digital medium, being read and transmitted digitally with no interpretation, at 1080p24, aside from the unpacking of packets of data. To suggest that one player looks different from another is in my experience blatantly misleading and can only be seen as a means to allow manufacturers to continue to mislead the public and sell on a differentiation that doesn't exist.

But you know this can't be true. DVD is a digital-only medium too. I have a Pioneer 610 DVD player, a cheapo, for SACD playback currently, which runs into my amp via hdmi that's exactly the same brand of cable as my Panny BD350 uses, yet if I run exactly the same disc through either machine, both upscaled in exactly the same way, the PQ difference is massive, with no disrespect to the Pioneer which does a fine job at its' price.

I think the point is your DVD is beiing upscaled, which requires some clever circuitry and presumably your two different players have different upscaling circuitry.The Blu-Ray is not being upscaled, so theoretically presenting the picture should be far simpler.

 

[VoodooDoctor]

WHF isn't the only British magazine that has reviewed the Oppo and given it 4 stars...

 

[Clare Newsome]

AndrewH13:

It's a Universal Player, it had a very good
review, needlessly compared with the Sony which I don't find relevant
in a FIRST LOOK. Its costs so much less than other Universals. I had no
SACDs or DVD-As but followed Andrew E's column in Gramophone and am now
enjoying some great sounds, F Lips, Yes etc and more to come.

Every
dedicated BluRay player before the Oppo was released before they were
ready in my opinion, as the loading was ludicrous after what we have
come to expect with DVD. The Oppo changed these times (and I expect
others have since?) and for that alone was a groundbreaking product. So
it gets 4 stars....

As an Oppo owner it doesnt affect me as I
know how good the player is and am very happy with it; as a WHF
subscriber I am very disappointed, because I feel it just doesn't add
up, and it questions my belief in the magazine.

Well I'm sorry you feel that, but - i'll repeat yet again - if the Oppo excelled with BD/DVD/CD, it would be five stars, In our opinion/experience, you can buy better performance for those formats (and for less money), so it can't justify five stars.

Also, every single product we test - whether as a first look or in a group test - is comparatively tested against products at the same price. We don't review any product in isolation - otherwise how would we truly put a product in context?

Returning to one of Will's unfounded allegations earlier re us supporting retailer over companies that sell direct - that's quite simply (in his own words) poppycock. As anyone who has the Awards issue by now (or can wait the hour or so for our Awards microsite to go live) there are a number of winners you can only buy direct, not via retail. And that includes in key categories, such as stereo speakers.

We remain dedicated to telling people about the best-value products their money can buy, regardless of who makes them and how they're distributed (with the caveat that products need to be available for in-store or home trial). If we seriously believed otherwise, why would we continue to review and recommend products (and yes, I have widely recommended the Oppo to the few people who've mentioned SACD/DVD-A needs) that are sold direct?

 

[John Duncan]

VoodooDoctor:WHF isn't the only British magazine that has reviewed the Oppo and given it 4 stars...

Thangyouverymuchgoodnight

 

[Andrew Everard]

VoodooDoctor:WHF isn't the only British magazine that has reviewed the Oppo and given it 4 stars...

...And a video review preview I have seen from another magazine suggests they feel the video upscaling isn't all that, with some 'jaggies' being apparent.

Find one more less than adulatory review and I guess that will make us

 

[Clare Newsome]

nodnarb4444:if its to be rated on all points it should be docked 2 stars for avalability.

The irony is not lost on me that if the Oppo had won the Award, strictly speaking we would have had to disqualify it and remove the Award for not being on sale by October 20th....

But seriously, I wish them every luck getting what's obviously proving to be a problematic site live; it's a great player and deserves to sell well.

 

[Ravey Gravey Davy]

JohnDuncan:VoodooDoctor:WHF isn't the only British magazine that has reviewed the Oppo and given it 4 stars... Thangyouverymuchgoodnight

Don't lock it yet- we haven't had a public hanging since 1875.

 

[Andrew Everard]

No intention whatsoever of locking this thread at the moment...

 

[Ravey Gravey Davy]

Andrew Everard:No intention whatsoever of locking this thread at the moment...

Good,and having reread the last page,and just to clarify, I am not referring to you in the noose.

 

[John Duncan]

So let's summarise. It's not as good as a BD player or a CD player as the Sony (compare the reviews side by side - by the same people - please, and grasp the tone of each piece). Clearly it beats the Sony on universal playerness, for the 7,000 SACD and DVD-As available on Amazon (compared to the 1.7m CDs and 315,000 DVDs and BluRays available).

You pays your money, it would seem. Personally I'd probably buy the Oppo (would that I could) for its speed of loading and the yellow "Start Film Now" button (thus obviously avoiding any four-minute Gwyneth diatribes), and I might even try an SACD or two. Because I read around the subject and judge a product on what it does for me, instead of just looking at the star rating (the star rating of my hifi reads 4/4/0 currently).

Oh, and for the record, average star ratings for Sony products on this website - 4.11, average star ratings for Oppo - 4. A discrepancy that hardly points at industry stoogeness, I'd say.