🚀 go-pugleaf

"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.