Wow, so far I am really perplexed about some of the responses I am getting here at Stereophile. Because this hobby binds art, science, and opionions by the boatload, I am using some different forums to help supplement my own reading, listening, and testing.

1. You said: "The tests are not accuarate."

Well, agreed sort of, but I mentioned that these were not scientific tests with level matching and blind testing. Funny that anyone on this site would bring that up. These are listening tests, they have very little to do with 'accuracy'. It seems to be the finer sublties that are emphasized around here, and that being gained through listening. As far my setup and test scenarios for comparison sake, I believe the scenarios (connection options/what to compare) are right on. Except one - I should (and will) give the Panasonic a
listen through the L/R of the 5.1ch ins. I forgot that one.

2. You said: "You are at a point where you are not hearing the full capability of your Rotel player because in this instance, your CD player is much better than your receiver and I suspect your speakers. So, you're hearing the limitations of your equipment other than the new CD player"

What the? This is a very confused statement. Where to start. You don't really compare if a CD player is better than a receiver or speakers. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that by you saying "that the player is much better than the receiver", you mean the DACs in the player are better than those in the receiver.
Well yea they are, and that reported itself to be true, just like I mentioned. Using the 5.1ch ins, where the DACs in the player are used exclusively (no AVR processing), this sounded the best. Better clarity and separation.

The idea that I am "not hearing the full capability of the Rotel" at this point is just plain wrong. Are there better systems than mine to hear and try out the Rotel in general, well ofcourse. But the statement is not relevant if you are telling me that a suite of high end separates is needed to tell the difference in players. Or should I say provide a reasonable testing environment for the player.

You said you suspect that the Rotel is better than my speakers. First, its just far to general to relate a player to speakers, and frankly nonsense. I realize that you may have meant that if I am using speakers say from an old radio shack system that would be a poor environment for testing. Yes, that would be. I have $2500 in my left and right mains alone, not the ultra tops, but they are darn
good speakers. IMO they beat out a $4k set of B&Ws when I was comparing. And they are separately amped (not the receiver amps) with a very capable and powerful SS amp. So, uh, wrong, on all accounts. Sorry, I don't mean to be challenging you in such a way that its personal. Its just that this type of stuff is the very thing that I am combating when it comes to audio. Misinformation. Getting accurate info out to those who are coming in along behind
me. What really got me though, is two other posters responded in exact agreement with your post. Its a little 'twilight zoneish". So I just could not leave the post unanswered.

3. You said: "If you really want to hear what your CD player is capable of and really compare it to your panasonic, bring the Rotel and the panasonic back to the dealer and ask him to hook both of them to some high end equipment, using the same components and just switch back and forth between the two players. That will be a much
more accurate test of your new player's capabilities."

I would hope that if this were someone else that they would not waste their time and energies and actually take this advice. You say it will be a "much more accurate test". No, it will be a waste of time, unless the dealer offers level matching and blind testing with a number of subjects. The differnce in the sound reproduction of these players is that close (as it is with most if not all). Not
only that, but many rooms used by audio dealers are just plain bad to evaluate sound. I have a very good sounding basement, some by luck, some by setup. There is no better place to evaluate something that you plan on putting in your system than that system itself.

Its simply this, as seems to become proven more and more. If we are talking CD or DVD players, the player is comparitively insignificant in regards to sound. My tests proved it to my ears, by and large. That coupled with reading tests and reviews that have real data.
So, why did I get the player then anyway? The price was right, it will last a long time, I like the way the controls are orgainized, and it does squeeze out, what sounded to my ears, a slight improvement in sound.

Are you reading. I never said the equipment was not worth the money. I questioned it, but I also said I like the unit and will keep it. So I guess I'm one guy who thinks its worth the money.

This really is twilight zone like. I told you, I used speakers and an amp quite capable of evaluating a $650 CD player. Or do you think not. What more are you peolple saying is needed? Do I need a $30k mac system to evaluate players? I have audiofile speakers and an amp that was used to evaluate. Very decent stuff. So I still don't know what you are saying. Read the posts.

That whole kia analogy -
Its a poor analogy because its not even relevant to any of the posts. What's going on here. Am I lost? Anyone?

"I did not mean to suggest that your tests were invalid because you didn't do a double blind study."
Its wearing me down a bit.... I KNOW that you were not suggesting the test was "invalid do to not doing a double blind". You, nor I never suggested that, so I don't know why its mentioned now, but anyway. The use of the word 'accuracy' is confusing because it is not valid. And if you wanted to suggest that a preamp or analog stage was the weak link, then just say that. Otherwise its a very confusing post. Look at it. I think you would agree.

Do you really think that its good advice in this case to take the units to the dealer and try them out. I can only go by what you write. And if I was just a bit newer I might have taken that advice up. I think its poor advice, do you really stand by that. I mentioned in the other post why this is not such a good idea.

I am keeping the unit, AGAIN for reasons I must have mentioned three times, why ask this stuff when its already in there. A slight improvement for not a ton of money is OK, then counting in that its likely to last a good long time. AND if what you believe is true, when and if I do upgrade, it will be there. I am not at all convinced that adding a good preamp would have made much difference. I could be wrong there, so I will try it.

Just to maybe get things a little straight. You said the analog stage of the receiver is the weakest link there. And to that I would agree. So given that, do you think a noticeable difference will be heard if 1. a good preamp is added 2. a high end receiver is added. Or either.

Bro, I'm not trying to conflict with you. Its just that I think due to the fact that there is so much confusion within the hobby in general (esp for new folks), that we should be clear as possible. Have a good New Year and I do appeciate the responses.

Buddha,
go a little mixed up. You said Rega. Did you mean Rotel?