Marantz 8300 "Universal "Player. Reviews/Comments?

They most certainly did NOT like it very much. Period. To wit:

"While its music remains perfectly intelligible, it still lacks that invigorating sparkle and insight regularly achieved by ostensibly less ambitious high-resolution players."
TRANSLATION: cheaper universal players have done a better job.

"With Natalie Merchant's DVD-A 'Beloved Wife,' there's no escaping its instrumental muddling as the intensity of the music develops...Compression or muddling is equally apparent with multi-channel SACD choices like David Bridle's 'Sad", which simply did not sound as atmospheric as we know to be possible."
TRANASLATION: It's no damn good on SACD or DVD-A, the player's two "raison[s] d'etre."

"While Marantz is to be applauded for tackling this project, the DV-8300 still offers little advantage over Pioneer's FIRST generation effort."
TRANSLATION: Even OLDER cheaper players are better.

And by the way...the 8300 isn't really "on the cover," it just has a little 1-inch photo in the corner of the cover to let you know that's it's being reviewed in this issue.

Next time, read the review. Or learn the vocabulary that's used in the review...whichever you deem necessary. And STOP telling people that negative reviews are actually positive ones! It's misleading, unethical, and rude.

Thedautch,
You are probably correct about the HiFi News review, the review that I was looking at was the HiFi Choice piece in their October 2002 issue. I am sure HiFi News hated it, but HiFi Choice (another British mag) considered it signficantly better than the Pioneer unit, but not quite as good as the Townshend modified DV-747 which was quite a bit more money.
As for your judging a player that you have never heard, (especially without good equipment due to your crappy, low paying job), then advising people not to buy it without any first-hand experience with it, it might well be taken that what you are the rude, unethical one. At the very least, your opinion is only mildly useful as a regurgitation of someone elses'.
Now back to my opinion, which is based on use with three processors (Sunfire, Integra, Krell), Classe and Krell amps, and B&W Nautilus speakers. I found the Marantz to have a great soundstage, very good channel separation, never found the midrange to be muddy, and it's biggest fault would be a mild lack of energy at times, but certainly worth the $1300. Oh, by the way, I just happened to have a Krell DVD Standard around for 2 channel comparos also, and it sounded about 90% as good on 2 channel, with a slightly smaller soundstage, and slightly lesser dynamics, but the Marantz held up well overall.
Progressive scan video performance is mediocre at best with a picture softer, more video-like, with chroma bug, and more artifacts than good Faroudja equipped efforts out there, but still the quality may be quite acceptable if you don't use a big-screen TV.
As always, try it and judge for yourself...

I was only objecting to your wildly inaccurate summary of an article. I quoted FROM THE ARTICLE, NOT FROM MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS!!! Christ, you don't understand the concept of primary source material, either!