...Or taking a really long time to read CDs, or not being able to read SACDs no more, or to not being able to adjust the lens to an Hybrid Multichannel SACD; like it cannot switch between the CD layer, the Stereo SACD layer, and the Multichannel SACD layer. ...And I'm not talking about players that took years to develop those very serious and frustrating issues; but within two years of owning them (& brand new)!
And there isn't a guy who took more better care of his electronic equipment here than I on this planet! ...Just ask Mom.
The only thing I truly want in life is the perfect transport (lasting, durable, silent), the perfect sound (), and very affordable.
But most importantly: SIMPLICITY & JOY.
As for Analog or Digital, I just don't give a rat squat square date bridge plyers axe fat mat loony moose!
I'll chime in to agree here about Denon,very nice sounding players for the price, but I've had two since 2000, neither modified in any way, each lasted only about 4 years before laser failure and a prohibitively expensive repair bill. One was used only in my HT/2nd system, it couldn't have been used more than 2 hrs/d, probably less.
And I admit to still being baffled about Lloyd's experience with the 83 vs the 95 used as a transport. As I said, mechanically the transport of the 95 is notably and obviously better than that of the 83; I know there is more to the "sound" of a transport than just its mechanical properties, but still...
A couple of things to consider with the 95: it sounds better both on its own and as a transport with the cover removed (I have mine on shelf 2 of my rack), and depending on the galvanic isolation of the DAC used it may well sound better with a glass Toslink rather than coax (no BNC available on the stock unit, of course)
-- Nothing baffles me no more in this hobby.
-- Oh yeah, that was exactly included (A/V) between those two last words (invisibly). ...Thx!
* Famous Last Words - Supertramp