🚀 go-pugleaf

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message 
news:WIWdnRJmv-W2ZE7fRVn-vQ@comcast.com...
> "Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:79mdncn9VsKwak7fRVn-iQ@comcast.com
>> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
>> news:DdSdnYnwArjiQE7fRVn-ig@comcast.com...
>>> "Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:JvidnWkRmrYKRk7fRVn-vA@comcast.com
>>>> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:rbadnWfSFt00TU7fRVn-jQ@comcast.com...
>>>>> "Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:c_Gdnfsr8K9iUE7fRVn-rQ@comcast.com
>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:stWdnY-9sNadL07fRVn-qA@comcast.com...
>>>>>>> "ric" <nospam@home.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:42D35A8B.C592E9B@home.com
>>>>>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You can easily get one that is just as good new,
> for
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> price of the laser assembly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A player as good as the XA7ES for $160 USD? Which
> one,
>>>>>>>> praytell?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have a Pioneer DV-563A which is I believe the
>>>>> predecessor
>>>>>>> of Stewart's Pioneer DV-575A which is approximated by
>>> the
>>>>>>> Pioneer DV-578A outside the UK.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Harry Lavo recommended the DV-563 to RAHE readers, so
>>> how
>>>>>>> bad can it be?  Of course, later on Harry
> dis-recommended
>>>>>>> it for questioanble reasons, but consistency isn't
> one of
>>>>>>> Harry's primary traits.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sound and Vision gave the DV-563A a good review, and
>>> that
>>>>>>> appears to be about the time the golden ears turned
>>>>> against
>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
> http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/assets/download/1132003135639.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, no, Arny.  I never owned or auditioned the
>>> 563a.
>>>>>
>>>>> But you did make a positive mention of it in a post,
>>> Harry.
>>>>> Thanks for showing the kind of slippery statements you
>>> will
>>>>> restor to in order to avoid admitting to a possible
>>> error.
>>>>>
>>>>>> But I did recommend the 578 immediately after it came
> out.
>>>>>> I think for it's price it is head and shoulders above
> it's
>>>>>> similarly priced competition in sound quality.
>>>>> Interesting
>>>>>> that the editors of The Perfect Vision just picked it
>>> for
>>>>>> their lowest priced recommended system as the one to
> buy
>>>>> "if
>>>>>> sound quality is your primary emphasis".
>>>>>
>>>>> As another poster mentioned, Perfect Vision also said
>>> nice
>>>>> things about the 563a in Mar./Apr. 2004.
>>>>>
>>>>> So now Harry, you say that the 578 is good because PV
>>> said
>>>>> nice things about it, but they said nice things about
> the
>>>>> 563 but  you are right to disagree with them?
>>>>>
>>>>>> However, it's value varies by format.  It is a very
> decent
>>>>>> CD player.  It is an exceptional DVD-A player at it's
> price
>>>>>> point.  And it is a mediocre SACD player.  It's main
>>>>>> shortcoming is that it doesn't reveal ambience the way
>>>>> better
>>>>>> players do.  In other words, it lacks the ultimate
>>>>>> transparency that better players have.
>>>>>
>>>>> Prove it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> And BTW Arny, I don't recall ever changing my opinion
> on
>>>>> this
>>>>>> in RAHE.
>>>>>
>>>>> So much for your memory, Harry.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I did however change my opinion on the cheapy
>>>>>> Panasonic I had previously brought to the group's
>>>>> attention.
>>>>>> And that was in part based on poor video performance.
>>>>> Perhaps
>>>>>> you are confusing the two.
>>>>>
>>>>> No Harry, your negative post about 563 said:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.audio.high-end/msg/0b453da09ffffb70
>>>>>
>>>>> "I *do* know that the 563 had control chip problems
> that
>>> led
>>>>> it to not being
>>>>> able to read the SACD layer on many UMG hybrid
> disks...so
>>> a
>>>>> lot of people
>>>>> who liked the sound gave them up because of the hassle.
>>>>> That is also why I
>>>>> never even tried it."
>>>>>
>>>>>> And for what it is worth, my recommendation to the
> group
>>>>>> pre-dated any written review of the 578.
>>>>>
>>>>> So Harry this is an attempt on your part to steer
>>> attention
>>>>> away from your mistakes w/r/t the 563?
>>>>>
>>>>> This just shows that you were speaking out on a topic
> you
>>>>> actually knew nothing at all about.
>>>>>
>>>>>>  I bought it when
>>>>>> shopping for a good DVD-A player, and decided that
> there
>>>>>> wasn't enought sound difference given the uncertainty
>>>>> about
>>>>>> DVD-A's future to justify the Arcam DV79, which is a
>>>>> superb
>>>>>> DVD-A machine.  I bought it based on my ears.
>>>>>
>>>>> The fallacy your perceptions and thoughts are already
>>> well
>>>>> known, Harry.  Ditto for your brain, given how you just
>>>>> scrambled facts like the dynamic range of SACD versus
>>> DVD-A,
>>>>> and your prior recommendations and comments.
>>>
>>>> Arny, the 563 and 578 players are different players.
>>>
>>> Your mastery of the obvious is amazing, Harry.
>
>> And once again Arny you practiced your old trick of simply
>> snipping (without indication) the part of my post
> following
>> this sentence, which clearly reflected back on you.
>
> Harry, the portion of your post that I snipped was
> irrelevant to my comment. Sue me for trying to keep the
> discussion on topic.

Bullshit.  It was dead on topic.

>
>> You not only can't stand the heat, you run out of the
> kitchen,
>> pul down the blinds, and won't even let anybody else know
>> what's cookin'.
>
> Harry, discussing things with you would be more interesting
> if you would take responsibility for your own errors. This
> whole whine about my snippage is really the smoke screeen
> you're trying to put up because you just erroroneously
> claimed that SACD and DVD had the identically same dynamic
> range, and also the mixed signals you've given to RAHE about
> some of the Pioneer inexpensive universal players.

Arny, you are the one making the mistake, attributing my endorsement with 
the 578 with the 563a.  And no amount of huffing and blowing can change 
that.  All I have done is correct you.

>
> Now Harry if you are willing to admit that you were grossly
> mistaken about the SACD versus DVD dynamic range issue, I
> might be willing to continue forgive and forget your RAHE
> comments.

I'm not looking for your forgiveness, Arny.  I'm looking for some 
truthfulness.  Do you never look at the dynamic range measurements that John 
A publishes on every high rez player.  If you did, you would note that at 
low and midrange frequencies SACD and DVD-A are IDENTICAL and that it is 
only in the high frequencies that SACD yields to DVD-A in dynamic range. 
That's what I said.  It's fact.  It's demonstrable.  What's your beef?