Continued: LD-S9 Vs. R7G & HLD-X9
Steve Grauman
an LJR-II (if I can bring myself to spend the cash). Anyone want to interject
an educated opinion?
Mitch Kolby
am very, very pleased with its performance. I also considered the LD-S9,
but it was a tad expensive.
True, the R7G is a combo CD - LD player (NOT DVD), but the drawer is one
solid piece, not the usual split cd - LD drawer type. Very solid. The
clamping mechanism is, of course, not LD dedicated, since it must also
accommodate CD playback.
Furthermore, the 3D Y/C filter and D-extension really offer an improved
picture for most LDs.
I am unable to provide any comparison info, but can attest to the R7G
being a terrific and often overlooked alternative.
MA
JR
> > Dropped the 919 from my list, it's down to these three from Pioneer and
maybe
> > an LJR-II (if I can bring myself to spend the cash). Anyone want to
interject
> > an educated opinion?
One of the advantages of the X9 is that it minimizes and/or eliminates
drop-outs, as well as the speckling from rotted (Thanks Sony) discs. Don't
know if the other players mentioned can do the same.
Kurtis Bahr
watchable.
The LJRII is the only THX unit I can remember and it will have low internal
noise and not require DVNR like the Pioneers you mentioned but parts are the
question.
The S9 gives you the more advanced 3D Adaptive filter with a sharper S-Video
output.
The R7G and R9 are nice units.
If you are not going to use the S-Video output and want a Pioneer unit then I
recommend just purchasing a CLD-D704. It's Composite output will equal the R7,
R9, S9 and X9 (though it does not have the advantages of lower crosstalk and
better tracking the X9 provides).
Kevin Hawerchuk
between it and an Elite 97 or Elite 99, anyway.
The Runco has NO color smear which plagues the vast majority of
Pioneer players, right across the board. This Pioneer color smear is
really so minor that it doesn't bother me, but does bother some other
enthusiasts.
Another nice aspect to the Runco, is it has a super-sharp picture with
very little false-outlining. I recently had an Elite 97 with a brand
spanking new laser. Like other Elite 97's I've tried, it had wickedly
noticeable false outlines.
I can honestly say, the Runco LJR II is the finest player I've ever
seen in action.
Now, having said that, I haven't seen either an LD S9 or an HLD X9 in
action. But, I've basically seen everything else.
The only reason I sold it, is I couldn't rationalize having a $2300 US
laserdisc player(the amount I received) for a very modest setup like
what I have.
Kevin
Joshua Zyber
news:20030308042533...@mb-fk.aol.com...
Steve, one issue that has not been addressed: How much are you planning
to spend?
- Josh
Steve Grauman
to spend? >>
I havn't commited to a number yet. I'm trying to learn as much about these
players as I can before I make a definite decision on how much I think is worth
spending on one of these players. But I'd like to keep a $2,500 price cap on it
if I can.
Steve Grauman
HDTV set (either the 34" 16:9 model or the 40" 4:3 set). I figure that either
one of those is going to have a better 3D Y/C filter than what came in any of
the Pioneer LD decks (right?), so I'll be hooking the deck up with Composite
cables. I probably won't be buying any Hi-Def Laserdiscs, but I'm willing to
take a Hi-Def player if it will yield better video quality. And, seeing as I
will be connecting to my A/V reciever, I want a unit with RF and Coaxial
outputs. Going with this, what would you guys reccomend?
Matthew L. Martin
CLD-D704, per Kurtis' recommendation. Absolutely more bang for the buck
than any Elite for your usage (composite input) and it has RF (AC3),
Coax and optical out for digital audio.
One recently sold on ebay for under $220.
<http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3010650177&category=3317>
Matthew
--
<http://member.newsguy.com/~mlmartin/>
Thermodynamics For Dummies: You can't win.
You can't break even.
You can't get out of the game.
Greg Taylor
great, go with an Elite 79. It is basically the same as the 704 expect it has the
Urishi finish and is a great looking machine. If you don't care so much for great
looks, go with the 704. I bought a brand new Elite 79 off ebay about 6 months ago.
I spent more than I would have for the 704, but the Elites are just fantastic
looking, especially when in mint condition. I took it to an Ulitimate Electronics to
test HDTV's with it when I was looking for a new set, and the laserdisc player got
tons of attention.
From what I understand, and I could be wrong, but the S9 and X9 have a high
resolution 3D comb filter, and it is still supposedly used in the new Pioneer Elite
widescreen sets. I don't know how good the comb filter in the Sony is, so you might
want to try to find out what you can about it.
unclejr
> One recently sold on ebay for under $220.
>
> <http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3010650177&category=3317>
The reason that this one sold for that cheap is because it was
auctioned as a "CLD-704," not a "CLD-D704." People who may have been
looking for this player wouldn't have found it through eBay's search
engine, because the seller made this small (but costly) mistake in the
model number.
-Junior
Todd Spangler
I do not generally use the composite outputs on LD players, mainly
because of poor experiences with the comb filters in TVs in the past.
Probably the newer ones are better, but I have not done any recent
comparisons between composite and S-Video.
Keeping in mind that this is based on using the S-Video outputs only,
my HLD-X9 easily outperforms the CLD-79, as well as the older CLD-95
and LD-S2 models, on my 43" Sony digital TV. I have a CLD-97 in
another system but have not watched it on this TV. Perhaps I should
try it sometime, as well as revisiting this S-Video vs. composite
issue.
Todd
Steve Grauman
really think the CLD-D704 will look as good on this set as something like a
CLD-99 or LD-S9?
Greg Taylor
3D comb filter. The 704 has a 3-line filter, so the TV's filter should be better.
The Elite 99 has a 3D comb, but it is an older one so the TV should still be
better. The S9 uses an advanced high resolution 3D filter, which is still
supposedly in use in the new Elite RPTV's, so it depends on how good the comb
filter in the the Sony is. I would expect a little better performance with the S9
as I believe it is for LD playback only and is tailored more towards laser
performance than the Elite99 and CLD 704. You need to try to find out some
information about the comb filter in the Sony.
Steve Grauman
information about the comb filter in the Sony. >>
It's the KV-34XBR800 that I'm looking at, a 34" XBR series 16:9 HDTV tube for
those who don't know. It includes 3:2 Pulldown detection, Sony's DRC (Digital
Reality Creation) chip, defeatable edge enhancement, and a full 3D Y/C Comb
filter. But I havn't been able to find any info beyond that. Even on the most
recent and most expensive LD players, is it really possible that the 3D Y/C
filter in the deck could be any better than what's in this TV? I'm really very
tempted to save myself the money and the trouble by just getting either a
CLD-99 or a DVL-99, there's really no reason to spring for the better filter if
I'll be bypassing it and letting the TV's comb filter do the work. Is there any
other reason that I should buy one of the more expensive units if the TV set's
filter proves to be better than the deck's is?
Kurtis Bahr
the Y/C filters using the S-Video output.
I would be interested in Todd's test of the 97 with a HDTV verses a 79.
Kurtis
Joshua Zyber
> I'm really very
> tempted to save myself the money and the trouble by just getting
either a
> CLD-99 or a DVL-99, there's really no reason to spring for the better
filter if
> I'll be bypassing it and letting the TV's comb filter do the work.
If these are the options you're down to, go with the CLD-99 over the
DVL-919. The DVL is based on the LD section of a mid-level Pioneer deck
like the CLD-D606. The 99 will be better.
- Josh
Steve Grauman
DVL-919. The DVL is based on the LD section of a mid-level Pioneer deck
like the CLD-D606. The 99 will be better. >>
Well here's were I'm at: The 3D Y/C filter seems to be the big feature that
makes these players more or less expensive. It seems to me that all I'm really
getting in the more expensive units is a better Y/C filter. If I'm going to be
bypassing the units built in filter, and letting the one in the TV do the work,
why should I pay for the better one in the unit? There are two things I need to
establish here: Is there a single Pioneer LD deck with a better 3D Y/C filter
than what this TV has? And, if not, is there any other reason to buy a more
expensive imported deck over a less expensive domestic deck?
Kurtis Bahr
than the other units, the 97 can be added here after adjustments but these others
are sharper out of the box.. These will all have the same sharpness using the
composite output with only some machine to machine differences. The sharpness can
be adjusted on the X9 just like you can adjust on the 97. Now the S9 and X9 are
the only two here that have the advanced Mitsubishi 3D Adaptive Filter as in the
Pioneer Elite RPTV's.
In my opinion, if your TV has a really good filter then go for the 704 and use the
composite output. If you want a machine that has a high dollar filter inside look
at the S9 and X9 (these have a larger clamp to better hold the LD but this also
means they can only play 8 and 12 inch LD's, no CD's or CDV's in these units).
Kurtis
Steve Grauman
use the
composite output. >>
That's ideally what I'd like to do. What I need to know is if the Sony's filter
is better or worse than what came in the high end Pioneer LD players.
Joshua Zyber
> Well here's were I'm at: The 3D Y/C filter seems to be the big feature
that
> makes these players more or less expensive. It seems to me that all
I'm really
> getting in the more expensive units is a better Y/C filter. If I'm
going to be
> bypassing the units built in filter, and letting the one in the TV do
the work,
> why should I pay for the better one in the unit?
The CLD-99 is better than the DVL-919 in more ways than just the comb
filter. It has a sharper picture with better noise reduction features.
> There are two things I need to
> establish here: Is there a single Pioneer LD deck with a better 3D Y/C
filter
> than what this TV has? And, if not, is there any other reason to buy a
more
> expensive imported deck over a less expensive domestic deck?
Without knowing that specific TV, I can't say how it compares to the
comb filters in the LD players. The CLD-99, LD-S9, and HLD-X9 are really
the only three LD players that I would even consider using with S-video
(perhaps the R7G, depending on how it stacks up).
If you expect that your TV is going to have a better comb filter than
whatever LD player you buy anyway, find yourself a CLD-D704. They are
pretty cheap these days (around $250) and have a sharp picture with good
composite video output. The D704 will be superior to the DVL-919.
- Josh
Kurtis Bahr
artifacts, color rainbow, crawling dots. If your Sony handles this fine so that
you don't see them then it is fine. This is the only advantage I can think of.
The X9 gives you a narrower beam so lees chance of crosstalk and better picture
when playing LD's with laserrot, but these advantages are only with the X9.
Kurtis
Matthew L. Martin
>
> Well here's were I'm at: The 3D Y/C filter seems to be the big feature that
> makes these players more or less expensive. It seems to me that all I'm really
> getting in the more expensive units is a better Y/C filter. If I'm going to be
> bypassing the units built in filter, and letting the one in the TV do the work,
> why should I pay for the better one in the unit?
The only reason I can think of is to lighten your wallet.
> There are two things I need to
> establish here: Is there a single Pioneer LD deck with a better 3D Y/C filter
> than what this TV has?
I have a 3D Y/C filter in my six year old Toshiba TW56F80. I see
virtually no Y/C artifacts, even on the color bars. The chroma noise
levels of my LDs swamp what little artifacts the filter may
leave/generate. The filter in the Sony you refer to is probably of a
much newer design and a better digital implementation than the old
Pioneer designs.
I suspect that the Y/C filters in the new Pioneer Elites are better than
those in the old Pioneer LD players. After all, the players are frozen
in time and haven't had a new design in eight years or so.
> And, if not, is there any other reason to buy a more
> expensive imported deck over a less expensive domestic deck?
While it's and individual decision when it comes to spending money, I
think this is a no brainer. Spend $250 on a 704 and get excellent
results or spend $3500 on an X9 for the slight advantage of less
speckling on rotted discs and more crosstalk resistance. Since you are
new to the hobby, you don't have to buy any rotters. Kurtis can adjust
your player so that crosstalk won't be a problem, either.
Spend the $250, give it a try. If you decide to "upgrade" you can sell
it for the same price.
Steve Grauman
money on an imported player that would'nt really prove to be of any benefit for
me.
<< Kurtis can adjust
your player so that crosstalk won't be a problem, either. >>
I didn't know Kurtis did this kind of stuff. What business are you in Kurtis?
Joshua Zyber
> Thanks Matthew! You've helped me a great deal, and helped save me a
lot of
> money on an imported player that would'nt really prove to be of any
benefit for
> me.
There is a benefit to the HLD-X9 beyond what was described in Matthew's
last post. Whether the improvement is significant enough to justify the
price difference is a personal decision.
If you are unsure of things at this point, better to spend the less
money on a D704 and leave yourself room to upgrade should you decide to
go that route in the future. The D704 is a good player, and the best
bang-for-your-buck model around.
- Josh
Matthew L. Martin
I suggest you start a new thread to get Kurtis' attention. Don't rely on
him to read every post in every thread.
Kurtis is well known for repairing and tweaking LD players. His opinions
are valued by virtually everyone who posts here.
Steve Grauman
last post. >>
Like what? Other than the fact that it's got a better 3D Y/C comb filter (which
I won't be using) and the ability to better read laser rotted discs, I'm
failing to see what makes it worth any more than players like the CLD-99.
Kevin Hawerchuk
and get your hands on a Runco LJR II.
Not only is it the ONLY THX certified laserdisc player, it doesn't have
the color smearing problem that plagues most Pioneer players.
This issue has been well documented in the google archives.
Do yourself a favor and do PLENTY of research on various player
defects, quirks, and performance issues before you spend a single penny.
There's thousands of posts to decipher and digest!
Kevin
Steve Grauman
and get your hands on a Runco LJR II. >>
What am I going to get from the Runco player that I can't get from the CLD-99,
or even CLD-D704? You'll have to forgive me, but I'm at a loss because I've
never had a chance to compare or even use any of these units...
<< it doesn't have
the color smearing problem that plagues most Pioneer players. >>
I havn't been able to find much real specific info on this problem. How can I
find out which units suffered from the color smear? Was it all Pioneer's, or
only some models? Did the players that had the problem get corrected? (i.e. if
the CLD-99 suffered from color smear, was it only on some of the units
produced, or all of them?)
<< Do yourself a favor and do PLENTY of research on various player
defects, quirks, and performance issues before you spend a single penny. >>
I'm trying, but the best resource I've been able to find thus far is the UK
Laserdisc Player Archive, which is lacking a great deal.
<< There's thousands of posts to decipher and digest! >>
This is part of the problem. I can only spend so many hours a day/week
shuffling through the thousands of old posts. Half the posts I find aren't of
any use to me, and there's obviously a huge number of them to go through. What
I'd really like is to find a single website (or person) that's done a heads-up
comparison (done at the same time on the same TV) of the CLD-99, DVL-919,
LD-S9, CLD-R7G, HLD-X9, CLD-D704, and maybe a couple of other players.
Kurtis Bahr
Don't have enough time to waste on that.
I'm an Engineer for Lockheed Martin and I do this in my spare time so easy
problems get fixed quick and hard problems can take awhile.
The big advantage you get going to the X9 is the red laser. With the narrower
beam it focuses on the desired track more accurately without getting noise data
from the adjacent track which causes the crosstalk patterns on the screen. It
also will playback Laserrot'd LD's better but does not eliminate the colored
speckles. You also get the larger clamp surface with this (This also comes on the
S9) which grips the LD better but this eliminates the ability to put CD's or the
older CDV's in it.
Otherwise the 704 is very good.
Now the CLD-97,LD-S2, MLD-7020, Runco LJRII will give you stabler color and much
lower noise in the background than the CLD-D703/704/79/99/R7G/D99/S9/X9. If this
is your prefference you should look at those machines. But if you are feeding a
HDTV then the signal gets digitized and I'm not sure if that smooth analog look of
the 97/S2/LJRII is lost. Sometimes I get blasted for preferring the look of the
CLD-97, I prefer this over the S2 and have not seen the LJRII, but I prefer the
smooth analog look. Others don't and that is fine, they have a larger selection
of very nice players to choose from than what I have.
Kurtis
Joshua Zyber
That's because you haven't seen one.
I know that Kurtis has stated that he doesn't think there's much
difference between the CLD-99 and the HLD-X9, but I have to respectfully
disagree with him because that has not been my experience at all, nor
the experience of very many other people who have used the X9. The
HLD-X9 has a sharper picture with better tracking and much lower noise
levels than any other laserdisc player I've ever seen.
I've directly compared an X9 to my own LD-S9, a CLD-99, and a CLD-97.
The X9 was, without question, the best of those machines. It wasn't even
debatable.
It is also, of course, an enormously expensive piece of equipment. What
your expectations are and how much you want to spend are up to you. It
is, by majority opinion, the best laserdisc player ever made, but it
will not magically make a badly mastered LD look as nice as a fresh
anamorphic DVD. It will, however, give you the best laserdisc
performance the format is capable of.
If you want "the best of the best", the X9 is it. However, if what you
really need is a "really good" LD player that won't break the bank, the
CLD-D704 is the way to go.
From everything you have said so far, it REALLY sounds to me like the
D704 is the machine for you right now. I fear that if you drop a couple
of grand on an exotic LD player without any idea of what to expect, you
are inevitably setting yourself up for disappointment. Nothing could
possibly live up to the hype.
Buy a D704. Play around with it. Get used to the format. See what it is
capable of. The D704 is reasonably priced and is a good performer. If
you think you want more after that point, you'll have room to grow and
won't have set yourself back to far.
That is my advice. I've used a bunch of high-end laserdisc players in my
day and I like to think I know what I'm talking about.
- Josh
Steve Grauman
narrower
beam it focuses on the desired track more accurately without getting noise data
from the adjacent track which causes the crosstalk patterns on the screen. >>
How big of a difference is there between the CLD-99 and HLD-X9 when it comes to
the crosstalk issue? Even if I'm getting a little noise data from an adjacent
track, isn't the 3D Y/C filter in my TV going to pretty much take care of it?
<< It
also will playback Laserrot'd LD's better but does not eliminate the colored
speckles. >>
I'm hoping to be able to avoid laserotted discs. It seems to me that most of
them are old enough now that the current owner should be aware of any rot, and
can make me aware of it.
<< You also get the larger clamp surface with this >>
What benefit am I going to recieve from this?
<< Now the CLD-97,LD-S2, MLD-7020, Runco LJRII will give you stabler color and
much
lower noise in the background than the CLD-D703/704/79/99/R7G/D99/S9/X9. If
this
is your prefference you should look at those machines. But if you are feeding
a
HDTV then the signal gets digitized and I'm not sure if that smooth analog look
of
the 97/S2/LJRII is lost. >>
Again, I'm tempted to think that the 3D Y/C Filter in the set should pretty
much eliminate any backround noise. And with a set that has 5 individually
adjustable tube modes, edge enhancement, and 960i upconversion, I'm not sure
that any of the players do anything as far as the picture is concerned (color
enchancement included) that I can't do with the TV. What I'm really searching
for here is some kind of assurance from a knowledgeable person that the more
expensive LD players will actually provide some kind of increase in picture
quality that my TV can't.
Steve Grauman
HLD-X9 has a sharper picture with better tracking and much lower noise
levels than any other laserdisc player I've ever seen. >>
So I'm told, but here's what I really need to know: Isn't the 3D Y/C comb
filter and noise reduction hardware in the Sony TV I'm about to buy *at least*
as good as what the X9 has? It doesn't matter how much better the X9 is than a
CLD-99 when it comes to noise reduction and sharpness if my TV's hardware is
better than what *either* of them have. If the only practical benefit I'll be
getting from the X9 is it's better ability to read rotted discs, it isn't worth
the money for me. If the X9 can actually do a better job of color correcting,
noise reduction, and creating a sharp picture than my TV can, that it *is*
worth the money to me.
Matthew L. Martin
I just now thought of this resource for you to review:
<http://www.thadlabs.com/LD_info/>
There are technical specifications for many of the players that have
been talked about in this thread.
Joshua Zyber
> << The
> HLD-X9 has a sharper picture with better tracking and much lower noise
> levels than any other laserdisc player I've ever seen. >>
>
> So I'm told, but here's what I really need to know: Isn't the 3D Y/C
comb
> filter and noise reduction hardware in the Sony TV I'm about to buy
*at least*
> as good as what the X9 has?
The comb filter and the DNR try to clean up a noisy picture *after* it
has been read by the laser. They are reactive functions. Too much
digital processing can and will degrade a picture. The X9 gets a
sharper, less noisy picture *before* digital processing, needing less of
it.
- Josh
Kurtis Bahr
not pressed perfect, X9 - smaller beam and it takes a much greater degree of error
in the LD read process to get the adjacent track data back. The DVNR cannot
totally get rid of this as it is at levels much higher than the noise. The Y/C
filter normally does not get rid of noise, the DVNR function does that with the
exception that the 3D Adaptive Y/C filter in the X9 does help reduce noise.
If you wnt a CLD-99 vintage type machine the one to get is the X9. But they are
expensive, I have $2400 into mine and won't sell it for under that. The X9 using
the S-Video output is the unit to buy if you wnt options that may outperform your
TV. Otherwise buy a CLD-D704 and use the composite to your TV.
Kurtis
Joe DiBasi
> The X9 does not completely eliminate speckles, it does make these LD's more
> watchable.
>
It does on some of my rotters! But it depends on the amount of rot a
disc has and the video setting. If you use the HR setting, you would
see more speckles than if you use the STANDARD setting. I agree with
the previous poster. It at least minimizes rot. And, if it's not in an
advanced stage of rot, speckles don't show up at all!
Joe DiBasi
> So I'm told, but here's what I really need to know: Isn't the 3D Y/C comb
> filter and noise reduction hardware in the Sony TV I'm about to buy *at least*
> as good as what the X9 has? It doesn't matter how much better the X9 is than a
> CLD-99 when it comes to noise reduction and sharpness if my TV's hardware is
> better than what *either* of them have. If the only practical benefit I'll be
> getting from the X9 is it's better ability to read rotted discs, it isn't worth
> the money for me. If the X9 can actually do a better job of color correcting,
> noise reduction, and creating a sharp picture than my TV can, that it *is*
> worth the money to me.
How sharp the TV makes the image would be dependent on the video image
being output. The X9 is the only LD player that uses the same laser
as DVD! That enables it to provide a sharper image and stronger colors
than any domestic Elite player can. I used to have a 99. When I
bought the X9, I was able to compare them. No contest.
Steve Grauman
bought the X9, I was able to compare them. No contest. >>
Just for the sake of discussion, what kind of TV was the comparison done on,
and how were the units connected?
Jerome Marot
> Steve Grauman wrote:
>
> I just now thought of this resource for you to review:
>
> <http://www.thadlabs.com/LD_info/>
>
> There are technical specifications for many of the players that have
> been talked about in this thread.
>
They are nice to have, but none of them is really useful in
determining the difference in picture quality.
Matthew L. Martin
I should think that the video SNR would be the key specification on
which to base an expectation.
Jerome Marot
> Jerome Marot wrote:
> > "Matthew L. Martin" <mlma...@me.com> wrote in message news:<3E6F2891...@me.com>...
> >
> >>Steve Grauman wrote:
> >>
> >>I just now thought of this resource for you to review:
> >>
> >><http://www.thadlabs.com/LD_info/>
> >>
> >>There are technical specifications for many of the players that have
> >>been talked about in this thread.
> >>
> >
> >
> > They are nice to have, but none of them is really useful in
> > determining the difference in picture quality.
>
> I should think that the video SNR would be the key specification on
> which to base an expectation.
>
Maybe, but it looks like this SNR is measured before DNR because the
difference between the players is very small (around 2 dB). And in any
case, the picture quality will depend on:
luma S/N ratio with and without DNR
chroma S/N ratio with and without DNR
chroma bandwidth
effect of DNR on bandwidth (the real weak point of the DVL 919 IMHO)
chroma separation artifacts (for the S-video output)
quality of the tracking
and probably other points which I am forgetting. It seems a bit hard
to sum all that up in a single figure.
Matthew L. Martin
I didn't say it was a single figure of merit. I said it was a basis for
an expectation. An expectation is not a result.
Subsequent processing can change the video picture quality, but change
is not always improvement. A better starting point, meaning a higher
video SNR certainly can't hurt any noise reduction scheme.
In any analog system, noise reduction carries a cost. Digital noise
reduction introduces artifacts, thus changing the type of noise to
something some consider more acceptable. Most of these machines are
using what would now be considered inadequate video ADC/DAC circuits.
That alone can cause as much harm to the video quality as the DNR.
I personally prefer the PQ of my CLD-D704 with the noise reduction off.
Steve Grauman
Video SNR - 52db
Audio SNR - 117db
CLD-R7G:
Video SNR - 51db
Audio SNR - 115db
LD-S9:
Video SNR - 52db
Audio SNR - 117db
Between these three, it doesn't seem like it's worth spending the extra money
on an R7G or S9 over the CLD-99. Anyone have the specs for the HLD-X9?
Matthew L. Martin
CLD-C704:
Video SNR - 51db
Audio SNR - 115db
But, I wouldn't base the decision solely on those numbers.
Steve Grauman
Video SNR - 51db
Audio SNR - 115db >>
What's a C704? I thought it was a D704....
<< But, I wouldn't base the decision solely on those numbers. >>
Without having the ability to do a true heads-up comparo...how else can I
compare the quality?
Matthew L. Martin
> << CLD-C704:
> Video SNR - 51db
> Audio SNR - 115db >>
>
> What's a C704? I thought it was a D704....
A type. Should be D704.
> << But, I wouldn't base the decision solely on those numbers. >>
>
> Without having the ability to do a true heads-up comparo...how else can I
> compare the quality?
As you have been, Listen to reviews and opinions. Research the
manufacturer's specs. Make up your mind. Pull the trigger and buy something.
:-)
Joshua Zyber
> Without having the ability to do a true heads-up comparo...how else
can I
> compare the quality?
Take our words for it.
Steve Grauman
I assume you're the same Joshua Zyber who runs the Laserdisc Forever website?
In any case, everyone seems to think that the X9 will yield the best picture,
but I can't find any hard evidence to back this up. Frankly, I'm having a hard
time believing that the X9 will yield a picture any better than the CLD-99 on
this new Sony TV I'm buying. And as I've said before, it's ability to play
Hi-Vision discs and better read through rotted material are not enough for me
to merit spending so much money on it. For the amount I'd be spending on an X9,
I think I'd rather have the Studio Transport model of the LJR-II.
Joshua Zyber
The X9 is a better player than the CLD-99. I don't know what kind of
"hard evidence" you are looking for if you don't want to believe people
who have used both of these players and can offer you their experience.
If you are hesitant about spending the money to find out how much better
the X9 is (which is perfectly reasonable), buy a CLD-D704. There is very
little advantage to the CLD-99 over the CLD-D704 if you will be using
the composite output. The 99's advantage over the D704 is its 3D comb
filter. But if your TV has a good one, don't waste your money on the 99.
You are obviously skeptical of the X9. Fine. You are setting yourself up
for disappointment anyway if you drop a couple grand on an LD player
without any idea what to expect. As I said before, buy a D704. They are
reasonably priced and produce a good picture. The CLD-99 is just a D704
with a 3D comb filter. Otherwise they are pretty much the same inside.
- Josh
wcfse
for disappointment anyway if you drop a couple grand on an LD player
without any idea what to expect. As I said before, buy a D704. They are
reasonably priced and produce a good picture. The CLD-99 is just a D704
with a 3D comb filter. Otherwise they are pretty much the same inside.
- Josh>
Josh is pretty much correct. Other than the 3D filter, and "improved" (?)
audio circuit, the 99 is the same as the 704. The mechanics are identical,
the power supply is identical. The only other difference is the 99 has
additional choke coils at various points for filtering (i.e. across the A/B
position switch for click suppression).
I'm with him, start with a 704. You can always get your money back if it's a
disappointment....
Kevin Hawerchuk
and owned, an Elite 97, Elite 99, and do currently have both the CLD
D703 and CLD 704 units.
I agree with Josh and Matthew, in that the D704 is the best bang for
the buck. Outstanding picture quality.
However, the Runco LJR II, is better. The sharpness is just as good,
with MUCH better innate color control. It's the only THX certified
player for both video and audio quality.
If Steve-a-rino doesn't want to spend the $$$ for the X9, I recommend
he get his hands on the Studio Reference Runco LJR II.
The last one I had I sold for $2300, however, he might get one cheaper
if he shops around.
I remember watching The Special Edition Star Wars box set on the
Runco. Best laserdisc image I'd ever seen- bar none.
Kevin
Steve Grauman
"hard evidence" you are looking for if you don't want to believe people
who have used both of these players and can offer you their experience. >>
If I didn't want to believe you guys, I wouldn't be here asking you what you
thought. I don't want to seem ungrateful for the help you've given me here.
What kind of "hard evidence" am I looking for? Someone who's compared the
CLD-99 to the HLD-X9 on a high quality HD set, and with both units connected
via the composite outputs. There are a lot of people here telling me that the
X9 is best, and on one hand, I want to believe that. But when no one here has
done a head's up of the two players, connected via composite on an HDTV, how
can we know for sure that in this instance the X9 will really have a better
picture?
<< If you are hesitant about spending the money to find out how much better
the X9 is (which is perfectly reasonable)... >>
I've got no memory whatsoever of the last time I saw a LD player in action. The
only way I could personally find out how much better the X9 is would be to buy
it and another unit, and there's no way I'm paying for that.
<< The CLD-99 is just a D704
with a 3D comb filter. Otherwise they are pretty much the same inside. >>
I thought the CLD-79 was the Elite version of the D704....
Steve Grauman
and owned, an Elite 97, Elite 99, and do currently have both the CLD
D703 and CLD 704 units. >>
Did you ever connect any of the players via the composite outputs? If so, from
the composite outputs, is there any difference in picture quality between the
CLD-D704 and the CLD-99? The CLD-99 has a slightly better Video SNR, but I'm
not sure if it's noticeable.
<< I agree with Josh and Matthew, in that the D704 is the best bang for
the buck. >>
I'm sure it is. But best bang for the buck doesn't neccesarily mean the best
picture quality.
<< However, the Runco LJR II, is better. >>
Considering how much more it costs and that it was the only THX certified LD
player, I certainly hope the LJR-II looks better than a D704. What I'm cuirious
about is how the LJR-II compares to the CLD-99 and HLD-X9, and how the CLD-99
and HLD-X9 would compare to each other on this new HDTV I'm buying.
<< If Steve-a-rino doesn't want to spend the $$$ for the X9, I recommend
he get his hands on the Studio Reference Runco LJR II. >>
I'm tempted. I think the Runco is a better deal than the X9, and I've been told
it was the best player in the world.
<< The last one I had I sold for $2300, however, he might get one cheaper
if he shops around. >>
EBay has been useless. Is there anywhere you guys can reccomend that would be
able to grab this player?
Kurtis Bahr
are only guidelines. You have to go by the actual picture.
The CLD-79 is a CLD-D704 but the audio board is replaced with the CLD-D604 audio
board so the audio is not as good. The CLD-99 is the CLD-D704 with the improved 3D
adaptive filter for S-Video only, composite output of the 79/99/704 is the same.
The X9 and S9 will hold an LD better than the others as it has the larger 8 and 12
inch only clamp. They both have the better 2nd generation 3D Adaptive filter for
S-Video. The S9 uses the same pickup as the 79/99/704. The X9 uses the red laser
which is more accurate in reading just the information desired off the LD.
Using the composite output all of these will look the same but the X9 has the best
D/A Audio, 24 bit Burr-Brown DAC and the X9 will have less tracknig errors and less
crosstalk.
We've all said this countless times. Just buy a CLD-D704 and if your happy just
use it. If you want another you can resale it for what you paid and buy another.
Kurtis
Steve Grauman
*This* is what I've been searching for. The only thing I have yet to establish
is if the 3D filter in the X9 is any better than what the TV comes with. If I
were to find, for sure, that the TV has a better comb filter than *any* of
Pioneer's LD players, than I would know that the X9 is worthless to me. I just
don't want to waste time buying a CLD-D704 only to find out that an X9 via the
S-Video truly would have yielded a better picture.
<< We've all said this countless times. Just buy a CLD-D704 and if your happy
just
use it. If you want another you can resale it for what you paid and buy
another. >>
I'll be happy when I know that the LD player I buy is yielding the *best*
possible picture, and that there's no way I could have done any better. The
only way that I can see for me to figure which unit will really look the best
on this set would be to buy multiple units and try them all. I'm simply not
interested in buying more than one unit, or having to worry about going through
the hassle of trading up at some point. If I knew that the CLD-D704, CLD-99,
and HLD-X9 all had 3D comb filters that were of lesser quality than what the TV
has, and I knew that buying into a more expensive unit would not yield a better
picture *then* I would be more than happy to save myself the cash and buy the
704.
Kevin Hawerchuk
My tv has a superior digital comb filter and I've routinely found that
it is at least as good as the high-end players via S-video output. More
often though, my tv's comb filter is noticeably better.
So, I've gotten into the habit of strictly using the composite output.
All my comparisons are based on this output.
The D704 cannot touch the Runco LJR II for clarity, low natural noise,
or color control.
If you turn off the D704's video noise reduction, old pan and scan
laserdiscs are virtually unwatchable. I have an old pan and scan copy of
Pretty Woman. Pop it into a D704, turn off the DNR and it's like taking
a sheet of sandpaper and lightly rubbing it over your eyes while you
watch the film.
Now pop that same movie into the Runco, and it's pure bliss. Solid
reds, nice sharp clean image. No eye fatigue.
Sure, if you crank up the DNR on the D704 it will wipe out the color
noise, but in return, you get maximal digitalization of the picture!
It's a real tradeoff.
Personally, I can live with this, but a customer of mine whom I sold
one to couldn't! I just received the player back,plus cash of course,
and sent him an MSB Silver LD S2, , as a swap!
The MSB LD S2 is also a souped up Panasonic LX 900!!
Kevin
Michael Nydegger
: Steve, I ONLY use the composite output for serious viewing.
: My tv has a superior digital comb filter and I've routinely found that
: it is at least as good as the high-end players via S-video output. More
: often though, my tv's comb filter is noticeably better.
: Kevin
:
Kevin,
can you do the same adjustments on the TV's 3D Y/C comb filter as you can with
the X9 or X0 or with the CLD-99 ?
can you set the senistivity of 2D/3D processing ?
Michael
Joshua Zyber
> I'll be happy when I know that the LD player I buy is yielding the
*best*
> possible picture, and that there's no way I could have done any
better.
If what you really want is the best of the best regardless of cost, that
is the X9. There is more improvement in the X9 over the CLD-99 than just
the comb filter. Regardless of the quality of the comb filter in your
TV, the X9 will still be better.
If you're looking for peace of mind knowing that you bought the best
player and you're not going to do any better, the HLD-X9 is the one. The
Runco LJR-II may come close, but there are fewer of them in circulation
and so the likelihood of finding someone who has used both players and
run a comparison is smaller. I've compared the X9 to a CLD-79, CLD-99,
CLD-97, CLD-D704 and LD-S9. That's a pretty broad range.
I'm sorry that I haven't tried it on your specific TV. My experience
comes from three different TVs and a front-projection display. The only
way to know how it will react to that particular Sony model is to try
it, and there are few of us here wealthy or foolish enough to run out
and buy every new TV that comes along just to run tests like this.
That's about all I have to offer. It's time for you to use the
information and advice given to you and make a decision. This is a
"blind buy" for you no matter which way you go. All we here can do for
you is offer you our advice.
I still think you are setting yourself up for disappointment no matter
what you buy, and that you'd be better off buying a CLD-D704 for now. It
would be impossible for you to buy an X9 and say "Wow, that's the best
LD playback I've ever seen" when you have no basis for comparison.
Anything you see is going to look inferior to anamorphic DVD simply
because laserdiscs are non-anamorphic and have less resolution. That's
just the way it goes.
How many discs do you realistically expect to purchase, anyway? If you
intend to build a large collection, wanting the "best of the best" is
certainly reasonable. If you just want to buy Star Wars, Indiana Jones
and one or two others, an HLD-X9 is basically a gigantic waste of money
and you should buy a D704.
- Josh
Matthew L. Martin
>
> How many discs do you realistically expect to purchase, anyway? If you
> intend to build a large collection, wanting the "best of the best" is
> certainly reasonable. If you just want to buy Star Wars, Indiana Jones
> and one or two others, an HLD-X9 is basically a gigantic waste of money
> and you should buy a D704.
>
Absolutely agreed. If you are a serious collector, the amount spent on
the software should make your hardware investment look small. One of the
reasons that I didn't justify the purchase of an HLD-X9 is that I have
~500 LDs that aren't available on DVD and I paid an average price ~$7
each (most of them were bought during the flame out of LD software). If
I had many more LDs that cost me a great deal more each, as many who
post here have, an X9 might have been justifiable.
As it is, the $350 each I spent on my two CLD-D704s is a lot less than
the ~$4000 spent on LDs. $3500 wasn't justifiable to me.
Similarly, I've spent ~$700 for my DVD players and have spent ~$16,000
on DVDs. I still use my 1st generation Toshiba SD-3006 as my main player
(and an excellent one it is, I might add) and won't be upgrading that
until I upgrade my entire system to HD, which is probably a few years
off. I'm planning that my next DVD player will be HD-DVD.
KAMCGANN
better than the CLD-99 on this new Sony TV I'm buying.>
Dear Steve
I own both a CLD-99 and an HLD-X9. Though the 99 is a fantastic,
well equipped, even under appreciated player, the X9's performance is in
another world. You can believe me because I am not one of those "loves
everything LD" idolaters. I have high standards and no format sentimentalism.
The HLD-X9 is simply awesome and may be the most exotic piece of A/V equipment
I will ever own. I wish you the best of luck should you choose to pursue one.
Kraig
Todd Spangler
number of LDs you plan on obtaining should be factored in. I was able
to justify getting an X9 because I am a long time LD collector with over
1200 discs. OTOH, I've recently started buying a few 16mm films and
obtained an early 50's model Bell and Howell projector off eBay to watch
them on (once I get around to buying a screen and mastering the
operation of the projector). I spent $46 on the projector + $29 for
shipping and felt an expenditure much larger than that would have been
foolish and unwarranted. If I wind up eventually collecting a shitload
of 16mm films perhaps I could justify getting something better, but the
reality is that that's probably not going to happen.
I agree with Kraig that the X9 is a superior LD player. I ran a
comparison this morning on my Sony KP43HT20 digital TV, with its
internal Sony DRC line doubler, between the HLD-X9 and CLD-79. To try
to get a handle on some of the comb filter issues, I ran both composite
and S-Video out of the HLD-X9 and composite out of the CLD-79 (I already
know from past comparisons that the X9 outperforms the 79 with both
using S-Video outputs). I left the video settings on the X9 on
standard, and varied the DNR on the 79 between the default settings and
max.
I watched a couple of music titles that I have two copies of each, ZZ
Top's Greatest Hits and the Heart 8" disc. The results were the same in
each case, but a little easier to see on the Heart disc because those
videos were generally somewhat cleaner to begin with. The X9
outperformed the 79 whether or not I used S-Video or composite out of
the X9. The 79 simply has a more digitalized picture, particularly
observable on faces as a pastiness or artificial look, along with
blatant digital artifacts. I increased the 79's noise reduction to the
max and saw the same thing. I also think the X9 has better color
control than the 79. These observations are the same as what I've seen
in the past when running S-Video comparisons between the 79 and X9, on
both analog and digtal TVs.
So, if I may extrapolate from these comparisons, my conclusion is that
the X9 will always have a better picture than the 79 regardless of what
kind of display is used. But that in itself is not enough to justify
buying one, IMO. If you do not have either a substantial LD collection
to begin with, or at least one that has a high personal value to you, it
may not be worth it. The fact is that a DVD played on a $200 player will
give you better video performance than any LD player I'm aware of.
Investing big $$$ in a dead format that doesn't perform as well may not
make a lot of sense.
Todd
Brian Simmons
news:b52660$gld$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net...
I have offered to take my X9 in to the local shop and try running it on the
specific Sony that Steve is looking at getting. I was planning on doing it
last Friday, but they said that Tuesday morning would be a better time to do
it.
Yes, the X9 shouldn't even be considered for Steve's application as it's
just not worth the cost for his use. But I see no reason why an S9 shouldn't
be the main player on his list. I wish I had an S9, as the side change on my
X9 drives me nuts. And then I'd also be able to give him a better idea as to
what would work best for his application.
So I will be testing out the X9 on the 34XBR800 to see which has the better
Comb Filter. It just has to wait until Tuesday. That way we'll know for sure
the answer as to what player is right for Steve. And I'm also curious myself
as I've thought about picking up that particular model Sony if for some
reason I couldn't swing the 30" Loewe Aconda when it comes time for a new
set.
I'm planning on taking down a couple of Squeeze LD's, probably the T2 THX
remaster and Cutthroat Island. As I remember when testing all 7 of them
those two were the best quality transfers, though Stargate wasn't far
behind.
Anyone have any other suggestions for video demo's?
unclejr
> The X9 is the only LD player that uses the same laser
> as DVD! That enables it to provide a sharper image and stronger colors
> than any domestic Elite player can.
Doesn't the CLD-1010 use the same narrow red laser? Aside from its
single-side play and lack of AC-3 output, it's my understanding from
Kevin's past posts that this player has a razor-sharp picture. This
is your experience, isn't it Kevin?
See:
<http://www.laserdiscarchive.co.uk/laserdisc_archive/pioneer/pioneer_cld-1010/pioneer_cld-1010.htm>
"One extra special aspect of the CLD-1010, and what sets it apart from
all other Solid State LD players, either before or since, is its Laser
Diode uses a RED laser of 6228 Angstroms. No other LD player or CD
player with a Diode Laser has used a red laser. Red Lasers are VERY
expensive and difficult to produce. But, they achieve an incredibly
tight beam, and have excellent noise rejection. Plus, the red color of
the laser makes most scratches and blemishes on the surface of the
disc invisible to the photo diode system. Strangely, Pioneer never
talked about this feature nor did they promote it."
-Junior
Kurtis Bahr
does not match sharpness of the X9 but it is one of the better pictures. If you don't mind a single
sided player without all the frills the 1010 not's bad. The newer ones also have better Digital Audio
and you have to add an AC-3 RF Output to the 1010.
Kurtis
Kevin Hawerchuk
from its single-side play and lack of AC-3 output, it's my understanding
from Kevin's past posts that this player has a razor-sharp picture. This
is your experience, isn't it Kevin?"
Yes, the CLD 1010, in my humble opinion, has a very sharp picture! It
also really minimizes defects such as black line dropouts and incipient
laser rot.
How do I know? I've done A/B comparisons with many cld D703/704 units.
I must have had my hands on the better part of 20 different 703/704
units over the last 3 years.
I dropped my CLD 1010 and now it needs to have the front flap taped up
to operate, so it's a bit of a pain, but it DOES have a very satisfying
picture. A friend of mine who also has a D704 and Elite 99 was very
impressed by the 1010 that he recently picked up on ebay.
I still believe, if the CLD 1010 had been modified into an autoflip,
AC-3 player, it would have been a much-loved unit to rival the very
best out there!
Kevin.
Kevin Hawerchuk
is a very good single sided performer but it does not match sharpness of
the X9 but it is one of the better pictures. If you don't mind a single
sided player without all the frills the 1010 not's bad. The newer ones
also have better Digital Audio and you have to add an AC-3 RF Output to
the 1010."
I wonder if the HLD X9 has a sharper picture, because of the advanced
comb filter? The CLD 1010 has NO s-video output!
I wonder how the X9 would compare with the 1010 in a "straight
contest". The X9 should be hooked up via the composite output with the
video DNR turned right off
Kevin
KAMCGANN
filter? The CLD 1010 has NO s-video output! I wonder how the X9 would compare
with the 1010 in a "straight contest". The X9 should be hooked up via the
composite output with the video DNR turned right off>
No offense to Kevin, but I cannot find much value in a "contest" that
does not allow both machines to use their full capabilities. I consider a
"straight contest" to be an objective comparison of performance evaluated while
both machines are exploiting every possible advantage of their circuity,
technology, etc.
Kraig
Joe DiBasi
> Just for the sake of discussion, what kind of TV was the comparison done on,
> and how were the units connected?
At different times, a direct-view Toshiba 36" monitor and an
rear-projection Sony 52" XBR. S-video connections for both.
Joe DiBasi
> I still believe, if the CLD 1010 had been modified into an autoflip,
> AC-3 player, it would have been a much-loved unit to rival the very
> best out there!
> Kevin.
I never knew this! And what a shame it wasn't carried over to
subsequent players. Maybe more could have seen the performance
potential of LD. Shame on Pioneer!
Steve Grauman
My tv has a superior digital comb filter and I've routinely found that
it is at least as good as the high-end players via S-video output. More
often though, my tv's comb filter is noticeably better.
So, I've gotten into the habit of strictly using the composite output. >>
*Very* useful post Kev, thanx for the info!
Steve Grauman
is the X9. There is more improvement in the X9 over the CLD-99 than just
the comb filter. Regardless of the quality of the comb filter in your
TV, the X9 will still be better. >>
Now I feel as if we're really getting somewhere, this is the kind of info I
need.
<< If you're looking for peace of mind knowing that you bought the best
player and you're not going to do any better, the HLD-X9 is the one. The
Runco LJR-II may come close >>
So you're saying that the X9 is *better* than the LJR-II?
<< I'm sorry that I haven't tried it on your specific TV. My experience
comes from three different TVs and a front-projection display. The only
way to know how it will react to that particular Sony model is to try
it, and there are few of us here wealthy or foolish enough to run out
and buy every new TV that comes along just to run tests like this. >>
I understand. I was just hoping that someone onwed a fairly new Sony HD tube
and could offer some personal experiances up.
<< All we here can do for
you is offer you our advice. >>
Honestly, that's all I expected from you. You guys have been great, very
helpful and paitient.
Steve Grauman
I own both a CLD-99 and an HLD-X9. Though the 99 is a fantastic,
well equipped, even under appreciated player, the X9's performance is in
another world. You can believe me because I am not one of those "loves
everything LD" idolaters. I have high standards and no format sentimentalism.
The HLD-X9 is simply awesome and may be the most exotic piece of A/V equipment
I will ever own. >>
Awesome, very unbiased, informitive post, I appreciate the help Kraig.
<< I wish you the best of luck should you choose to pursue one. >>
Thanks again, very nice of you. =)
Joshua Zyber
> Awesome, very unbiased, informitive post, I appreciate the help Kraig.
The words "unbiased" and "Kraig" should never appear in the same
sentence together, as you will learn if you read any of his past posts
here.
Joshua Zyber
> << If you're looking for peace of mind knowing that you bought the
best
> player and you're not going to do any better, the HLD-X9 is the one.
The
> Runco LJR-II may come close >>
>
> So you're saying that the X9 is *better* than the LJR-II?
I have not used an LJR-II. I hear it is very good, but the fact that it
is a modified Panasonic LX-900 makes me wonder whether it is as good as
the X9.
- Josh
Steve Grauman
Neither have I, I guess that means neither of us can offer up anything more
than speculation on it.
<< but the fact that it
is a modified Panasonic LX-900 makes me wonder whether it is as good as
the X9. >>
Generally speaking, I *really* like Pioneer equipment. And, generally speaking,
I really *dislike* Panasonic stuff. But I think the fact that Runco has such a
great reputation and that the player was THX certified speaks for itself.
Steve Grauman
sentence together, as you will learn if you read any of his past posts
here. >>
Oh well, as you pointed out, I'm not familiar with any of his other postings.
KAMCGANN
Dear Steve
Hello. The "LD foreverists" of this group consider me "biased"
simply because I never loved the LD format. My opinion regarding formats is
never sentimental, focuses on A/V performance, and is culled from my careful
evaluation of formats after years of experience and ownership. Most of the
posters offering you advice still believe that LD format is superior to the DVD
format, although every single Performance capability/specification of the DVD
format is superior to the LD format. Their beliefs could not be any farther
from "unbiased," but because they approve of bias as long as it is "for" LD, it
is acceptable. Believe who you will and best wishes.
Kraig
Kevin Hawerchuk
Kurtis himself has posted that the only problem with the Panasonic LX
900 was a black-level retention issue. Otherwise I do believe he felt it
was better than most Pioneer units.
This black-level issue was corrected in the Runco LJR II. Other "Runco
proprietory" video enhancements were added so that the player passed the
requirements for the Lucas THX logo!
Basic Panasonic players, like the late-model LX H670 are very grainy.
The old LX 1000 has poor color control, but a very sharp picture. The LX
900 is the best of the Panasonics, albeit with the black level problem.
I believe Runco must have auditioned more than one player before
deciding which player could be modified for THX approval. Makes sense,
right??
The LX900 has fantastic clarity and color control. Correct and enhance
the video and you really have a world-beater on your hands.
I'd still have mine, but with an average size laserdisc collection and
a 11 year old 27 inch Proscan tv set to watch them on, it was like using
a Porsche to drive to the market once a week for bread and milk.
Kevin.
Jeremy Bond Shepherd
kamc...@aol.com (KAMCGANN) wrote:
> >Oh well, as you pointed out, I'm not familiar with any of his other
> >postings.>
>
> Dear Steve
> Hello. The "LD foreverists" of this group consider me "biased"
> simply because I never loved the LD format.
Then why do you still post here Kraig? If you don't have a love
for/interest in the LD format, then why not move on, as so many
countless others have done, to alt.video.dvd?
I completely understand your position, but we differ on our passion for
the LD format. I know DVD has completely displaced LD in the popular
consciousness, but I still love LD for what it is, and will never give
up my passion. Regard me as an old fogey clinging to his Edison
cylinders of you wish. But why keep lingering around on the forum for
devotees of the hobby you dismiss or distain? It seems to me your time
might be better spent discussing other topics. Or is there something I'm
missing?
-Jeremy
KAMCGANN
never loved the LD format.>>
>Then why do you still post here Kraig? If you don't have a love for/interest
in the LD format, then why not move on, as so many countless others have done,
to alt.video.dvd?>
Dear Jeremy
Though I have answered the question you pose countless times, I
will show you some courtesy.
I used the LD format when it offered OAR content in the LD/VHS
era and still use it in the DVD era for its "format exclusive content" and the
memorabilia value that some of its releases have for me.
I participate in this NG for enjoyment and feel that I offer a
unique non sentimental perspective on the A/V hobby in general and your beloved
LD format specifically.
I have fondness and respect for some posters here and as long as
I find it diverting, I will continue to participate.
If you think I lack credibility or relevance to the NG because I
do not love LD, please consider that many of the posters in this thread not
only do not own an HLD-X9, but have not even seen one in action. I own an
HLD-X9 and a CLD-99.
>But why keep lingering around on the forum for devotees of the
hobby you dismiss or distain?>
Any disdain I have is not for the A/V hobby. My passion for the hobby
is reflected in my uncompromising pursuit of Content in its highest integrity
version and its presentation via credible formats and playback systems. My
contempt is directed toward the LDers and the perversion their format
sentimentality has wrought. Truth, facts, and progress hold little value for
these former supporters of the advancement of Home Theater capability.
Kraig
KAMCGANN
been a much-loved unit to rival the very best out there!>>
>I never knew this! And what a shame it wasn't carried over to subsequent
players. Maybe more could have seen the performance potential of LD. Shame on
Pioneer!>
"Coulda, shoulda, woulda" is the true shame of the LD format.
Nevertheless, even the most wondrous imaginary/dream LD player could not offer
the performance or capability of the DVD format.
Kraig
Jeremy Bond Shepherd
kamc...@aol.com (KAMCGANN) wrote:
> I participate in this NG for enjoyment and feel that I offer a
> unique non sentimental perspective on the A/V hobby in general and your
> beloved
> LD format specifically.
> I have fondness and respect for some posters here and as long
> as
> I find it diverting, I will continue to participate.
OK, fair enough. I was beginning to suspect that your motivations for
posting here were more akin to those of the immature pranksters who post
intentionally provoking comments to a forum for the sole purpose of
enjoying the ensuing outraged reactions. You credibly cite other, more
valid motives -- fine, stay on with my blessing. Aren't you just SO
relieved that I approve? :-)
I do enjoy many of your postings; just not the ones that go beyond a
"unique non-sentimental perspective" to approach nastiness.
> If you think I lack credibility or relevance to the NG because
> I
> do not love LD, please consider that many of the posters in this thread not
> only do not own an HLD-X9, but have not even seen one in action. I own an
> HLD-X9 and a CLD-99.
I was not questioning your credibility or relevance. Just what pleasure
you get from participating here. If your sole pleasure is derived from
watching people get outraged at your pointed -- sometimes barbed, and
once in a while poison-tipped -- remarks then phooey on you. Otherwise,
carry on.
> Any disdain I have is not for the A/V hobby. My passion for the
> hobby
> is reflected in my uncompromising pursuit of Content in its highest integrity
> version and its presentation via credible formats and playback systems. My
> contempt is directed toward the LDers and the perversion their format
> sentimentality has wrought.
Well, this is alt.video.laserdisc, not alt.home-theater.misc. The hobby
you dismiss is LaserDisc collecting. Engaging in a pointed debate is
great, but it's the contempt you display here that I find objectionable.
Why be contemptuous of a group of LD fans? And frankly I don't see the
perversion. What possible perversion could a minor gang of
old-technology enthusiasts possibly inflict on the home theatre world of
2003? The war's over, DVD won, almost nobody thinks about LDs anymore
(even Doug Pratt's "DVD Laserdisc Newsletter" seldom mentions the "L"
word, even in comparison with a new DVD release.) What's perverse about
clinging to something I love for reasons not related to the highest and
best playback systems? Nobody's calling the participants of
alt.collecting.8-track-tapes or the CED Digest perverse, so why pick on
LD fans?
-Jeremy
Kevin Hawerchuk
guns and started blasting away in the CED and old-time radio newsgroups.
Kevin
KAMCGANN
sentimentality has wrought.>>
>Why be contemptuous of a group of LD fans?>
Dear Jeremy
I have little, if any, issue with "LD fans." However, I do feel
that LDers, LDforeverists, FORMATers, etc. are deserving of my scorn. These
folks are willing to reject reality, compromise content integrity, and
undermine their personal credibility all for a mere A/V format. Not only do I
consider that absurd but downright pathetic. As I have posted before: formats
come and go, but content stored and presented via a high grade format can be a
joy "forever."
If you have never exclaimed "LaserDisc Forever!" you are likely okay
in my book.
Kraig
KAMCGANN
CED and old-time radio newsgroups.>
Poor choice of metaphor, Kevin.
However, you are mistaken if you believe that I do not have significant
interest in Nostalgia and Memorabilia. I am also not format intolerant and have
collected content on several formats. Until I read ridiculous claims about CED
performance and/or "CED forever!" sign offs, there will be no "CEDer" grumbling
from me.
I am not and never will be any format's "-er" and practice what I preach
with regard to my "Content first" belief. I neither love nor hate any format
and reserve my passion for the content.
Kraig
Kevin Hawerchuk
noses of those who you feel are "married" to the laserdisc hobby.
As I've said before, most LD fans also collect dvds and, like you,
want their favorite movies on the best format.
Who in their right mind would want the old crappy pan and scan LD of
Supergirl, when the anamorphic dvd special edition is so gorgeous to
look at?
I've also said that any character can waltz into Walmart and buy a
$100 DVD player that will put the originally costing $2500 Pioneer
Elites to shame.
It's great that DVD technology came along, but until it did LD was the
mainstay of high-tech video.
It's dead, but not every LD has been replaced by superior dvd's. As
you know yourself, the original pan and scan Warner Bros. dvd's are pure
crap. Ever see the pan and scan dvd of Frantic? I almost threw up,
trying to watch it.
It will still be a few years before EVERY ld is replaced by a
superior dvd version. In that respect, the respect of Content in The
Purist and most Pristine Form, LD is still relevant.
DVD still isn't a perfect medium. The widescreen release of The Final
Countdown is a perfect example. People are still paying big bucks for
the pan and scan LD, as the dvd is reputed to be among the most
atrocious ever produced.
Having said that, I'm sure it's just a matter of time before a special
edition of every movie comes along. This will still take a long time as
the main focus is split between new material and the reissuing of old.
Let's face it, even the most die-hard LD enthusiast must own a dvd
player, as over the last several years ONLY dvds are being released. If
you collect movies you MUST be a DVD-er Forever also!
Kevin
p.s. I was only kidding about my "mixed" metaphor.
Joe DiBasi
>>
> "Coulda, shoulda, woulda" is the true shame of the LD format.
> Nevertheless, even the most wondrous imaginary/dream LD player could not offer
> the performance or capability of the DVD format.
> Kraig
But can outdo the often crappy DVD software easily. Sorry Klueless.
Matthew L. Martin
Often? Giggle!!
Matthew
--
<http://member.newsguy.com/~mlmartin/>
Thermodynamics For Dummies: You can't win.
You can't break even.
You can't get out of the game.
KAMCGANN
favorite movies on the best format.>
Dear Kevin
I differentiate between LD fans and the LDer LDforeverist ilk.
LD fans may indeed "want their favorite movies on the best format."
LDers/LDforeverists do not and will happily compromise content integrity,
resolution, etc. just to have content stored on the archaic LD format. They are
even willing to settle for lower resolution, lower capability TV sets to
optimize LD's primitive signal.
>Who in their right mind would want the old crappy pan and scan LD of
Supergirl, when the anamorphic dvd special edition is so gorgeous to look at?>
Joe Di-Bias-i. Oh, wait, you qualified the question with "right
mind."
>It will still be a few years before EVERY ld is replaced by a superior dvd
version. In that respect, the respect of Content in The Purist and most
Pristine Form, LD is still relevant.>
You are well aware that my playback stable includes LD and other
obsolete formats. This capability permits me to avoid compromising for any
format. You should also be well aware that I have recommended the LD format to
Content oriented enthusiasts/collectors.
>If you collect movies you MUST be a DVD-er Forever also!>
I disagree. I will never be any format's "-er" and will never sign
off with the name of any format followed by the word "Forever!"
Kraig
KAMCGANN
Yeah! And I don't want to have to say this again, GOT IT!
Kraig