Is my dealer lying to me?

My Panasonic DVD sounds like shit. My 10 year old Rotel 855 was seriously more dynamic and musical. Sure, cheap DACs have improved, but the difference in mechanical transport quality probably accounts for the difference.
Likewise, I wasn't happy with other CDPs (ARCAM 9, FMJ, ARC, Marantz, Bel Canto)to replace this old humble Rotel until I got a REALLY mechanically stable CDP with a super-smooth DAC (EMC-1 MkII). Thus I posit that it isn't just about lasers and chips. You gotta spin these acrylic frisbees VERY correctly, no?
My take on the component importance ladder is a bit of an amalgam of others' posts: I believe it's the transducers that carry all the weight:
1. Source
2. Speakers and room
3. Amplification to drive the speakers in the room.
4. Dedicated AC lines, and cables to synergize the system

One can get a used EMC-1 for around $2k, and I sold my Rotel for $250. Was there a difference? An incredibly large one! Was there a difference between the Rotel and the others I demoed in the $500-$1600 range? Essentially not...in that small improvements in smoothness over midrange bloom were counterbalanced by lack of dynamics or good pace. And the DVD alone was crap, and not THAT much better with a 'Canto on it.
My take on under $1k CDPs is that you try to find a player that has a good enough transport to keep time well, and then find a filter you like with your speakers/room.
Would I have bought the EMC-1 if I hadn't already upgraded to VERY resolving speakers? Probably not! But my Parsifal Encores (especially once driven by a great pre/mono setup) easily resolved stuff upstream that NOW proved bothersome, so the hunt was on to improve the front end...but ONLY when I could resolve differences therein.
I glean from some of the posts (and I agree) that one can get quite decent peformance from some cheap CDPs, so that the cost/benefit curve is rather non-linear.
I don't believe this is so much the case with loudspeakers, although room-matching is so important that one's specific results can be wildly non-linear, of course.
Nonetheless, I believe one should apportion one's budget for a great set of speakers, a decent front end, and clean adequate electronics in between as necessary. We HEAR transducers...elecronics just enable them, with as little coloration as possible if we're lucky.
Bon soir.

Yes you made the right decision to go with the Panasonic.

The RP-56 has a superb picture and very good sound. I recently had a discussion with a reviewer who lives in my neck of the woods and he told me that it measures more accurately than any of the Sonys that he has tested (for video, of course) and even better than the more expensive Panasonic he reveiwed that has DVD Audio. He believes that the Sonys have some extra processing/emphasis in the chips that cannot be turned off. To some, however, the extra processing gives the picture more punch, but at the expense of accuracy. He also told me the reason why the Panasonic is better is because there is less processing and features in it. As for the sound you will have to be the judge, but at the very least you have an excellent dvd player.

Keep this in mind when you go shopping for speakers and amplication.

In the long run you will find as you get further into audio that often times, less is more; the fewer things you have in the circuit the more pure the sound is (it should be more reliable too). Most of the time efficient speakers have a very simple crossover or none at all and lower powered amps have less transistors or tubes and an overall simpler circuit design. Therefore, when you go looking for your next set of speakers consider its efficiency. This will allow you to use an amp with less power. Like the Panasonic keep it simple.

Subaruguru is closer to what I think is the proper hierarchy of things audio: the transducers are critical, to which I want to add that speakers are probably the "weakest link" (it's hard trying to sound female, British, annoying and nasal, in writing...). That is not to say that the people favouring a balanced approach are wrong. The two approaches are not mutually exclusive. I will trot out my old warhorse again: cables are the least significant factor and they should not be used to alter the sound of a system, unless something is wrong with the components (oh! sorry, yes, yes, cables ARE components), they should be neutral. Ever since Linn came out with the LP-12 and announced to the world that the greater portion of your budget should be on the source and the dealers started to sell lopsided systems consisting of a very expensive turntable/arm/cartridge combo with a tiny British amp and equally tiny two way speakers, this idea of the source being the prime consideration resurfaces regularly. The source is very important, but you have to have balance or else you may very well be equipped to reproduce the Linn dealers demos of yore: chamber music played at a very "reasonable" spl. Strange to think Linn only made turntables back then, maybe preaching for his own parish, no? From the little I know about music (euhm...), it is dynamic and when the going gets tough, you do need the speakers with both range and dynamics and, taking into account how efficient those speakers are, a power amp with enough gumption to drive them to the required levels in a clean fashion. In closing, Subaruguru mentioned the room in which all that sound and fury will be sampled: again right on, proving two things: the guru knows cars and sound systems. Yes, no sense in pining for that last bottom octave if your room will kill it. As in all things, balance is what counts, but to achieve it certainly means a holistic approach which includes the room and which does not mean that every component in this chain should be treated equally. And in answer to the question itself: dealers speak the truth AS THEY KNOW IT. I have never met one wishing to sell a less expensive product or actively inciting a customer to buy a product from a line he does not carry. Although, I have heard a sales person in one of the largest shops here recently telling me that tube products are not reliable and that the store stopped selling a Canadian brand of tube electronics because some of their products would actually blow up in flames or at least set themselves alight... The truth is a rare and elusive commodity. Regards.

You've got a good point, Natalie, re: the new
Sony DVP-S900ES vs. the 9-year old Meta Laser 1, but, after hooking up the Sony and listening, I checked around the web and read more than a few reviews remarking on the superb sound quality of the Sony, comparing it to CD players at several times the cost. You're right, I can't comment without having listened to CD players in the same price range, though I think I have a pretty good ear and have listened to much more expensive players. This one holds its own. (Maybe I'm just thrilled with the upgrade.)

Pbb, don't assume the reason the story the dealer told you about the line he no longer carries is true. I've heard all sorts of stories about lines dealers "decided" to abandon.

I knew one retail salesman who, knowing my price range and objectives, recommended a cd player that his store did not carry. He was also honest about the merits and deficiencies of the products in his store. Only problem was, the guy could never hold a job in retail.

Oh, and speaking of retail, Gunbunny et al., sometimes a salesperson has an extra incentive (e.g., a manufacturer's spiff) to promote one line over another. Ask them when they give you the line about A brand putting all its money into those glossy ads and B brand putting more money into "the product." In reality, both brands spend as much on promotion, but A advertises more and B gives spiffs to salespeople.