🚀 go-pugleaf

"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.

> 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.

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.