Hi,

I have a McIntosh MLD-7020 laserdisc player. Its a lightly modified Pioneer CLD-97. The mods I noticed so far are RF out for AC-3 and Digital Video Noise Reduction on/off switch (opposed to always "on" on CLD-97).

I have a few questions in my mind. I am not sure if they would bring any improvement to the picture quality but i will ask away anyway.

I will be buying a Denon AVP-A1HDCI pre-amp which uses a 3d none-adaptive comb filter and HQV Realta scaler & de-interlacer chips for VP.

Possible set-ups:

1. Connect MLD-7020 to AVP with Composite.

2. Connect MLD-7020 to AVP with S-Video.

3. Buy an Entech SVSI-1 2D Comb-filter(I have read that Entech is one of the best comb-filter ever made). Connect MLD-7020 to Entech with composite. Connect Entech to AVP with S-Video.

4. Buy a VP which is geared towards analog sources like LD players(mostlikely something from late 90' or early 00' i.e. Faroudja VRS) connect MLD to VP with composite .connect the VP to AVP with component.

5. Buy and Entech SVSI-1 and a VP.Connect MLD to Entech with composite. Connect Entech to VP with S-video. Connect VP to AVP with component.

I am almost certain that the first 2 will not improve the picture much due to the mediocre 3d comb filter used in the Denon AVP and McIntosh LD player.

3rd option could give promising results since entech is a very good comb filter and Denon's HQV realta implementation is a very fine VP for de-interlacing and scaling.

4th and 5th options ; I dont have much clue. seems like too much processing going on but those used VPs are not too expensive nowadays, if they are going to add anything i will give them a try.

final note: the value of the MLD-7020 is 600-800 USD. I know a good shape entech svsi-1 will not be less than 150 USD. those old VPs go for 150-350usd. all together 1000-1200 USD value(LD player + comb filter + VP)

if the combination of those above 2 or 3 aproaches close to 2000USD, I have seen several HLD-X9's go for 1700-1900+shipping. so they would not make much sence. Please make recommendations based on experiences with such electronics but not on theory and keep the cost accourding to the facts above.

thank you in advance

Hi,

I have a McIntosh MLD-7020 laserdisc player. Its a lightly modified Pioneer CLD-97. The mods I noticed so far are RF out for AC-3 and Digital Video Noise Reduction on/off switch (opposed to always "on" on CLD-97).

I have a few questions in my mind. I am not sure if they would bring any improvement to the picture quality but i will ask away anyway.

<snip>

Give this thread (http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=615675) a read (if you haven't already). Few players output "pure" composite.

I believe the final conclusion was X0-->SVCI-1-->Holo3Dgraph for the best possible signal path. Lots of comparisons between the X9 and X0 in that thread. Check post #80 (http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=7217579&&#post7217579).

I started a thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1148195) just recently inquiring about comb filters, which beyond your choice of player is looking for essentially the same thing. Let's hope we get some responses. I've haven't seen mention of the SVCI-1 in a long time! Perhaps we can set up a power buy? ;)

4. Buy a VP which is geared towards analog sources like LD players(mostlikely something from late 90' or early 00' i.e. Faroudja VRS) connect MLD to VP with composite .connect the VP to AVP with component.

I can state from experience that this is not the way to go. I thought the idea had some merit myself, and purchased an old Faroudja LD100 "line doubler" with the thought that it would have been better optimized for analog sources.

First off, this simple deinterlacer was the size and weight of an A/V receiver, and had a very loud fan. Deinterlacing quality was not particularly good on any laserdisc content I fed it. Modern chips are a lot more efficient and do at least as good a job on analog sources (usually better). The comb filter in it was pretty rudimentary, and the picture quite visibly lost detail when run through the LD100 in comparison in comparison to a straight signal from LD player to display.

I recently bought DVDO's Edge and have it hooked up to my Pioneer CLD-D704. Some improvement but not "knock your socks off". Hopefully with some calibration it will look really good.

Josh what settings do you use to get your DVDO process laserdisc? ie; mosquito NR, etc.

Josh what settings do you use to get your DVDO process laserdisc? ie; mosquito NR, etc.

Mosquito NR has basically no effect on analog content, which should not have the type of blocking artifacts that the DVDO's filter is looking for. The DVDO doesn't touch chroma noise, which is Laserdisc's biggest problem.

It's been quite a while since I've last watched any LD content. As I last left it, I was just sending the signal straight through.

The problem with many of the later Pioneer Elite players was the analog noise reduction was done in the Svideo domain. So in this case the Svideo output is better than the composite output. Being that the players internal comb filter has already split YC, that's the most direct output. The composite output is just a recombine of the YC so the damage has already been done.

I modified my CLD95 with a direct composite output before the internal comb filter. It made a difference. Later I tapped the composite digital after the internal TBC and reformatted it to the SMPTE 259 composite digital standard (yes there is a composite 143mbs SDI standard) which I then feed digitally into my decoder. This is the purest path you can possibly get. I also have a Digital Vision noise reducer which works wonders.

Path= CLD95 composite DIGITAL out > Innovision DX210 decoder to component SDI > Digital Vision DVNR1000 Image Processor (all SDI) > DVDO VP50pro SDI in to HDMI > projector.

I find that while laser disks have more random noise than DVDs there is a certian image quality that DVDs lack. Also keep in mind that video origionated material such as concerts are forever locked into NTSC. They were most likely recorded and mastered on 1inch analog tape. So a laser disk also being a direct color recording is as close as the consumer can get to the master. Any DVD of these shows came from a composite master and you are then at the mercy of the decoder quality used in the DVD authoring. Plus you now added MPEG noise to the composite video. Only when a FILM is re-transferred to a component video format does DVD outshine laserdisk.

DVDs of NTSC origionated material are inferior to their LAserdisk versions!

so its y/c + dvnr then combine to composite and then 2d or 3d y/c seperation if s-video out is used?
what kind of y/c seperator pioneer use for the first y/c seperation before dvnr? is the tbc in pioneer ld players good? i have a mcintosh mld 7020 but its a pioneer cld 97 clone.

...so its y/c + dvnr then combine to composite and then 2d or 3d y/c seperation....

No, going from Y/C (S-Video) to Composite is going backwards. Composite is where you add the C into the Y, which results in the Chroma spectra being interlaced with the upper end of the Luma spectra. That's why you need a comb filter when initially processing Composite, to "comb" out the Chroma. If you're at the Y/C stage, you want to go forward (upwards) to COMPONENT (YPrPb), then do your processing.

I'm using a Pioneer CLD-HF9G (Japanese equivalent of CLD-99, Direct Composite with NR off) into a CVSI-1 into a Algolith Flea into a VP50Pro.

Looks beautiful except the CVSI-1 adds some strange blocks (either 4x4 or 8x8 pixels that appear as random noise) to parts of the image. I bought 2 SVSI-1 units used a while back but one was DOA and the other had a scrambled output. Will have to see if I can get them fixed someday.

I'm using a Pioneer CLD-HF9G (Japanese equivalent of CLD-99, Direct Composite with NR off) into a CVSI-1 into a Algolith Flea into a VP50Pro.

Looks beautiful except the CVSI-1 adds some strange blocks (either 4x4 or 8x8 pixels that appear as random noise) to parts of the image. I bought 2 SVSI-1 units used a while back but one was DOA and the other had a scrambled output. Will have to see if I can get them fixed someday.

the CLD-99 is the worst offender when it comes to seperating Y/C.

as far as I can remember, the CLD-99 does 3D Y/C first , and does NR in composite again and goes back to Y/C.

so you have a real mess on your hands to keep Y/C seperate.
IVAR from Norway had a good report on this player on this forum a really long time ago , keep your hands off .


I had 3 CLD-99 here at one time, it's chroma noise it's one of the worst that I have ever seen

the only great player for LD playback is the HLD-X0.

with a little luck it can be bought 2nd hand for around $2500 in Hong Kong,
got one from there 2 years ago.

Michael

I have all NR and processing off. I've never used the CLD-99 so I don't know if it can also be turned off, but I didn't have any problem doing so with the CLD-HF9G.

I don't watch LD enough to shell out for the X0, although I've been considering an X9.

I'm using a Pioneer CLD-HF9G (Japanese equivalent of CLD-99, Direct Composite with NR off) into a CVSI-1 into a Algolith Flea into a VP50Pro.

Looks beautiful except the CVSI-1 adds some strange blocks (either 4x4 or 8x8 pixels that appear as random noise) to parts of the image. I bought 2 SVSI-1 units used a while back but one was DOA and the other had a scrambled output. Will have to see if I can get them fixed someday.

I made some extensive test with the CVSI-1 , a Alchemy VRS and onboard comb filters, and the best result I got was with a HLD-X0's S-Video output.
might still have the files somewhere if interested.
used the Video Essentials LD.

Michael

I have all NR and processing off. I've never used the CLD-99 so I don't know if it can also be turned off, but I didn't have any problem doing so with the CLD-HF9G.

I don't watch LD enough to shell out for the X0, although I've been considering an X9.


it doesnt matter if you use the NR or not, the signal goes through the chip anyway.

if you turn off NR, you have lots of chroma noise , the same amount as you get with the really cheap players. for me unaceptable.

btw, are there still A/V shops in Akihabara ?

I've heard that most of them closed a while ago.

Michael

The HF9G must be different then because I don't see any chroma noise, and the image quality is a huge step up from previous players I've used that didn't have Direct Composite. The player is regularly recommended on Japanese internet forums as well.

Of course there are still AV shops in Akihabara. It has either the nation's 1st or 2nd biggest Yodobashi Camera store, which is like 6 Best Buys stacked on top of each other. Sofmap also opened a new multifloor store there. There's also at least one high-end home theater store I know of, although they're too overpriced. LDs have been mostly cleaned out, although I've bought hundreds of discs from Akihabara in the past.

I found the files, I'm doing an MPEG2 encode right now,

if anyone is interested, contact me for the download link

Michael

ok, did some screengrabs.

Entech,Alchemy, and S-Video HLD-X0


enjoy

Michael

the X9 is slighty better than the HLD-X0 when HR setting is selected, but only on posted test.

Michael

This thread has brought up a lot of memories of me trying to squeeze out the best image I could from my LD collection as I transitioned to a digital projector vs. my Sony XBR tube TV (still one great picture).

Unfortunately, my entire home theater is currently stored and won't get unpacked for a while, but I do have a question...

I have been on the look-out for a Entech SVSI-1 for a while now and always seem to be a day late or a dollar short.

I am curious to know if I can't find an SVSI-1 but do happen upon a Audio Alchemy Visual Reality Engine (VRE) 1.0 which one would provide the better image when converting a composite feed coming off of a LD player into a modern day processor?

Thoughts?

This thread has brought up a lot of memories of me trying to squeeze out the best image I could from my LD collection as I transitioned to a digital projector vs. my Sony XBR tube TV (still one great picture).

Unfortunately, my entire home theater is currently stored and won't get unpacked for a while, but I do have a question...

I have been on the look-out for a Entech SVSI-1 for a while now and always seem to be a day late or a dollar short.

I am curious to know if I can't find an SVSI-1 but do happen upon a Audio Alchemy Visual Reality Engine (VRE) 1.0 which one would provide the better image when converting a composite feed coming off of a LD player into a modern day processor?

Thoughts?



look at the images 2 posts up, the answer is there

Michael

The HF9G must be different then because I don't see any chroma noise, and the image quality is a huge step up from previous players I've used that didn't have Direct Composite. The player is regularly recommended on Japanese internet forums as well.

every LD player has chroma noise in one way or another.

highly saturated colors (red especially) are really bad on some players.

I have attached two pictures

one from a European PAL/NTSC combo player CLD-2950
the other from a HLD-X0

see the difference in chroma noise ?


Michael

The reds look fine with the HF9G in my setup.

deleted v

nidi: thanks for the pics--very informative. Its mindboggling how much better the X0 is!

Mosquito NR has basically no effect on analog content, which should not have the type of blocking artifacts that the DVDO's filter is looking for.

This is not completely true. The basic noise reduction process in a Mosquito will reduce both chroma and luminance noise in an analog source.

And if the analog signal is output via S-Video into any kind of analog-to-digital process (deinterlacing, scaling, etc.) and THEN run into the Mosquito the artifacts resulting from most Y/C filters will be reduced by the digital artifact processing in the Mosquito.

I used to run my Mosquito with LD and found it helpful in both areas. The settings do need to be used carefully.

the best result I got was with a HLD-X0's S-Video output.

This is the very first time I know of that ANYONE with an X0 has said this. Did you use the BNC output of the X0? With good connectors and cabling? On a display able to resolve all of the detail, color, and noise issues? :)
Everyone else who has seen the X0 has stated a clear preference for its BNC composite output over anything else, including the model's S-Video output (I would probably prefer the S-Video output of the X9, or maybe even the 95, over S-Video from the X0 if I had to use S-Video from laserdisc).

The BNC composite of the X0 is the only "pure" LD signal available from latter-day laserdisc players. Almost by definition it would be the best opportunity to obtain the highest-resolution, lowest-noise and least-ringing from laserdiscs.

This is not completely true. The basic noise reduction process in a Mosquito will reduce both chroma and luminance noise in an analog source.

And if the analog signal is output via S-Video into any kind of analog-to-digital process (deinterlacing, scaling, etc.) and THEN run into the Mosquito the artifacts resulting from most Y/C filters will be reduced by the digital artifact processing in the Mosquito.

I used to run my Mosquito with LD and found it helpful in both areas. The settings do need to be used carefully.



This is the very first time I know of that ANYONE with an X0 has said this. Did you use the BNC output of the X0? With good connectors and cabling? On a display able to resolve all of the detail, color, and noise issues? :)
Everyone else who has seen the X0 has stated a clear preference for its BNC composite output over anything else, including the model's S-Video output (I would probably prefer the S-Video output of the X9, or maybe even the 95, over S-Video from the X0 if I had to use S-Video from laserdisc).

The BNC composite of the X0 is the only "pure" LD signal available from latter-day laserdisc players. Almost by definition it would be the best opportunity to obtain the highest-resolution, lowest-noise and least-ringing from laserdiscs.

to which device do you want to feed the Composite ?

all external comb filters people rave about (Faroudja,Entech,Alchemy,...)

are worse than the S-Video output, didn't I prove that in the pics ?

even with a Mitsubishi S=VHS VCR with the latest 3D comb filter you
don't get such a clean picture.

if there would be an external 'latest technology' 3D comb filter with great
internal signal routing, then it might be slighly better,
but a 2D comb filter just doesn't cut it nowadays, too many hanging dots
and crawl and not enough detail.

the X9 is much worse in chroma noise than the X0, even with NR on.


Michael

nidi: thanks for the pics--very informative. Its mindboggling how much better the X0 is!


I do have moving test patterns , contact me for link

Michael

a 2D comb filter just doesn't cut it nowadays, too many hanging dots
and crawl and not enough detail.

Don't watch the test patterns. Watch deinterlaced and scaled movies! :)


1 - you will almost NEVER see dot crawl.
2 - ALL 3-D Y/C filters drop to 2-D performance for much, if not most, of any movie.
3 - ALL 3-D filtering resultings in lost resolution and grim checkerboarding once it is deinterlaced and scaled.

The Composite output should be input to a good 2-D Y/C filter. And then into the rest of the chain.

all external comb filters people rave about (Faroudja,Entech,Alchemy,...)
are worse than the S-Video output, didn't I prove that in the pics ?
No. I don't know what was involved in those pictures.

the X9 is much worse in chroma noise than the X0, even with NR on.
Not necessarily. The X9 can easily be set up to show less chroma noise than the X0, using any outputs from either model. BUT - there are consequences that are more deleterious than the reduction in chroma noise. These include loss of resolution, ringing, luminance noise (due to processing circuitry), and loss of color saturation and fidelity.

The correct statement would be that the X0 beats the X9 at all parameters when both models are set up for optimum overall results and their best respective outputs are used.

Completely off-topic, but isn't it so much more fun to talk about the essence of video processing, about comb filters, about laserdiscs, about a 80 lbs Pioneer player instead of nowadays usual topics like HDMI handshakes or HDCP issues ?

As a HLD-X9 user I'm really enjoying the current topics on our board.

isn't it so much more fun to talk about the essence of video processing, about comb filters, about laserdiscs, about a 80 lbs pioneer player instead of nowadays usual topics like hdmi handshakes or hdcp issues ?

absolutely!!!
:D

Completely off-topic, but isn't it so much more fun to talk about the essence of video processing, about comb filters, about laserdiscs, about a 80 lbs Pioneer player instead of nowadays usual topics like HDMI handshakes or HDCP issues ?

As a HLD-X9 user I'm really enjoying the current topics on our board.

Agree completely! I love the thought of squeezing every last drop of potential performance out of gear. And I love expanding my knowledge in topics like these!

I nearly bought a X0 to back up the Star Wars Trilogy, but abandoned that when I learned about the X0 Project (http://www.x0project.com/welcome.php).

I'd love to get to the bottom of which output of the X0 provides the best signal. I'd always heard it was the BNC composite. Are there any pics of that out through outboard processors vs the S-video? Is that how you took your pics nidi?

Agree completely! I love the thought of squeezing every last drop of potential performance out of gear. And I love expanding my knowledge in topics like these!

I nearly bought a X0 to back up the Star Wars Trilogy, but abandoned that when I learned about the X0 Project (http://www.x0project.com/welcome.php).

I'd love to get to the bottom of which output of the X0 provides the best signal. I'd always heard it was the BNC composite. Are there any pics of that out through outboard processors vs the S-video? Is that how you took your pics nidi?

yes, of course, I used the BNC composite and went into the Entech and Alchemy.

Michael

yes, of course, I used the BNC composite and went into the Entech and Alchemy.

Michael

Thanks for clarifying!

Completely off-topic, but isn't it so much more fun to talk about the essence of video processing, about comb filters, about laserdiscs, about a 80 lbs Pioneer player instead of nowadays usual topics like HDMI handshakes or HDCP issues ?

Here, here! :) As many who has responded on this thread, I too am always on the lookout to squeeze every last bit of performance from my LD player and LD movie collection.

The sad thing is my home theater is boxed away currently, but I hope to apply what I have learned in this thread once I can set everything back up again.

Unfortunately, my budget won't allow for me to purchase a X0 or X9 player, but hopefully if I can find a good quality outboard comb filter (perhaps the Entech model if I am lucky) I will improve the image I am getting from my 704 if even but just a little bit.

Although my collection is small, just over 100 discs, there are a few that you can't get the theatrical edition on DVD (or HD-DVD or Blu-ray for that matter) and a few that have supplements that haven't appeared again since the LD release.

Fun times! :)

EmoryS

I am in a similar situation but with a 703 and would welcome any advice to improve my LD PQ as well. WOuld be nice to have some retro LD nights with stuff that never got released on DVD.

This is not completely true. The basic noise reduction process in a Mosquito will reduce both chroma and luminance noise in an analog source.

And if the analog signal is output via S-Video into any kind of analog-to-digital process (deinterlacing, scaling, etc.) and THEN run into the Mosquito the artifacts resulting from most Y/C filters will be reduced by the digital artifact processing in the Mosquito.

I used to run my Mosquito with LD and found it helpful in both areas. The settings do need to be used carefully.

To clarify, we weren't talking about the Algolith Mosquito. We were talking about the "Mosquito NR" setting in the DVDO VP50PRo, which doesn't affect analog chroma or luminance noise at all.

To clarify, we weren't talking about the Algolith Mosquito. We were talking about the "Mosquito NR" setting in the DVDO VP50PRo, which doesn't affect analog chroma or luminance noise at all.

What would you suggest to improve laserdisc picture quality? I have an Edge and an Panasonic PT-AE3000U. The Edge doesn't seem to help that much for laserdisc (I haven't calibrated much yet). Should I consider a Flea?

The Algolith Mosquito/Flea don't have composite inputs, otherwise they would have probably been a good option. Opinions?

What would you suggest to improve laserdisc picture quality? I have an Edge and an Panasonic PT-AE3000U. The Edge doesn't seem to help that much for laserdisc (I haven't calibrated much yet). Should I consider a Flea?


The best thing to improve laserdisc quality is a better laserdisc player. The Edge is already giving you great deinterlacing, and a comb filter can only do so much to improve quality. The only thing that can really make a big difference in laserdisc quality is to move to a high quality player.

To clarify, we weren't talking about the Algolith Mosquito. We were talking about the "Mosquito NR" setting in the DVDO VP50PRo, which doesn't affect analog chroma or luminance noise at all.

Got it (now), Josh. Thanks.

The best thing to improve laserdisc quality is a better laserdisc player. The Edge is already giving you great deinterlacing, and a comb filter can only do so much to improve quality. The only thing that can really make a big difference in laserdisc quality is to move to a high quality player.

Yeah well I had a hell of a time telling my wife I wanted to get a Pioneer CLD-D704 when I had a D504, S105, M301, LDV-2200 and a Sony MDP-333. All on a dead format. If I was to go for a 2-3K Japanese player?

Thanks for clarifying!



have you downloaded my moving tests yet?


what do you think ?

Michael

to which device do you want to feed the Composite ?

all external comb filters people rave about (Faroudja,Entech,Alchemy,...)

are worse than the S-Video output, didn't I prove that in the pics ?

even with a Mitsubishi S=VHS VCR with the latest 3D comb filter you
don't get such a clean picture.

if there would be an external 'latest technology' 3D comb filter with great
internal signal routing, then it might be slighly better,
but a 2D comb filter just doesn't cut it nowadays, too many hanging dots
and crawl and not enough detail.

the X9 is much worse in chroma noise than the X0, even with NR on.

I don't doubt your results in the slightest, but it's a generalization to state these results are universal with the varied equipment we place after the player or comb filter.

In the case of the X9, at least, my finding are similar to JoshZ's WRT artifacting when coupled to a video processor using S-Video. In my setup, the Entech CVSI-1 fed by the X9's composite output provides a superior result to using S-Video direct from the player. These new super chips employed by modern VPs are doing or expecting something different than what the NEC filters are providing. This issue most likely doesn't exist with the X0 S-Video output since it employs a 2D filter like the Entech.

The Entech is also visibly superior to the much lauded Gen. 5 TI comb filter in the CII and the Marantz MV8300 (JVC 40K clone) that I have experimented with.

Also, I wouldn't test something like an outboard comb filter or deinterlacer on static images if you're running a VP or modern display in the video chain.

I don't doubt your results in the slightest, but it's a generalization to state these results are universal with the varied equipment we place after the player or comb filter.

In the case of the X9, at least, my finding are similar to JoshZ's WRT artifacting when coupled to a video processor using S-Video. In my setup, the Entech CVSI-1 fed by the X9's composite output provides a superior result to using S-Video direct from the player. These new super chips employed by modern VPs are doing or expecting something different than what the NEC filters are providing. This issue most likely doesn't exist with the X0 S-Video output since it employs a 2D filter like the Entech.

The Entech is also visibly superior to the much lauded Gen. 5 TI comb filter in the CII and the Marantz MV8300 (JVC 40K clone) that I have experimented with.

Also, I wouldn't test something like an outboard comb filter or deinterlacer on static images if you're running a VP or modern display in the video chain.

The X0's comb filter is a 3D design.

can someone else post pictures of their Entech filter, please ?

what type of 2D is the Entech ? (2 line, 3 line, ...)

Michael

I don't doubt your results in the slightest, but it's a generalization to state these results are universal with the varied equipment we place after the player or comb filter.

In the case of the X9, at least, my finding are similar to JoshZ's WRT artifacting when coupled to a video processor using S-Video. In my setup, the Entech CVSI-1 fed by the X9's composite output provides a superior result to using S-Video direct from the player. These new super chips employed by modern VPs are doing or expecting something different than what the NEC filters are providing. This issue most likely doesn't exist with the X0 S-Video output since it employs a 2D filter like the Entech.

The Entech is also visibly superior to the much lauded Gen. 5 TI comb filter in the CII and the Marantz MV8300 (JVC 40K clone) that I have experimented with.

Also, I wouldn't test something like an outboard comb filter or deinterlacer on static images if you're running a VP or modern display in the video chain.

Avatax

I can't say that the Entech is the best in the bunch I have here,
it's pretty mediocre and does add some additional noise.

has anyone tested a Crystal View or Camelot ?

I just tested the C2's comb filter with Joe Kane's VE LD.

it's not that bad once you play around with chroma and luma coring.
it's in the region of what the X0's can do, much better than the Entech or Alchemy.

if anyone is interested , I can get a X9 and can do a capture of it's
Composite and S-Video outputs.

I'm waiting for HDgaming42's analysis of my tests, since he's the only one that
asked for the download link.

Michael

anyone got any wish what scene to capture and anlyse next ?

I'm waiting for HDgaming42's analysis of my tests, since he's the only one that
asked for the download link.
I'm with you. If the clips haven't changed much from what you've sent me a few months ago, your decision to use the X0's S-Video output was right. I might be able to share a few X9 + CVSI-1 videos as well quite soon. So at least I should be able to tell if the X9's S-Video or it's composite paired up with an Entech comb filter is better...

Yeah well I had a hell of a time telling my wife I wanted to get a Pioneer CLD-D704 when I had a D504, S105, M301, LDV-2200 and a Sony MDP-333. All on a dead format. If I was to go for a 2-3K Japanese player?

Understood. I am just speaking from my experience on laserdisc players. When I had a CLD-52, I wanted more, so went to a Elite CLD79. Wanted more still so I bougt an Iscan Ultra scaler. Very little improvement at all, then went to an Iscan HD+, again, minimal improvement. In the end, the only thing that significantly improved laserdisc performance was a better laserdisc player. I spent lots of money on scalers thinking it would make a magical difference. All the scaler did was took a mediocore analog image and performed a bit better deinterlacing than my HDTV did. In the end, it was the X9 that got me where I wanted laserdisc to be. Lots of money yes. My advice is just that you are only going to see slight, if any, performance increase on laserdisc based solely on scalers and comb filters. The core performance is in the image that the player itself puts out.

have you downloaded my moving tests yet?


what do you think ?

Michael

Working on it--thanks for posting them. I'll have a chance to go over them tomorrow evening. :)

Understood. I am just speaking from my experience on laserdisc players. When I had a CLD-52, I wanted more, so went to a Elite CLD79. Wanted more still so I bougt an Iscan Ultra scaler. Very little improvement at all, then went to an Iscan HD+, again, minimal improvement. In the end, the only thing that significantly improved laserdisc performance was a better laserdisc player. I spent lots of money on scalers thinking it would make a magical difference. All the scaler did was took a mediocore analog image and performed a bit better deinterlacing than my HDTV did. In the end, it was the X9 that got me where I wanted laserdisc to be. Lots of money yes. My advice is just that you are only going to see slight, if any, performance increase on laserdisc based solely on scalers and comb filters. The core performance is in the image that the player itself puts out.

Thank you for this response. Exactly what I was looking for. Unfortunately players that are better than my CLD-D704 are pretty pricey. I could replace my 124 laserdisc collection and numerous players with blu-ray for the price of an X9. I realize that my Star Wars Editions and my Godfather Epic will probably never see DVD, nevermind blu-ray but I have to settle somewhere. The D704 will have to do I think. I was hoping my DVDO Edge by itself or with another comb filter may have done the trick but I was starting to think what you said was true before you stated it.

Hello,

Well... although I don't think I am going to get much improvement from the component out of my 704 laserdisc player, I couldn't resist picking up a Crystal Vision VPS-1 off of fleabay for $50.

For those that might be interested, there is a new Entech CVSI-1 currently for auction on fleabay - Item number: 180361513220

As good as the Entech unit might be, I don't think it is worth $200 even though it might be new in the box.

Anyway, I don't have any association with the seller, but thought I would mention this in case anyone who reads this thread might be interested in picking up an Entech CVSI-1.

EmoryS

It seems like many people like the Entech CVSI-1. Opinions?

Hello,

Well... although I don't think I am going to get much improvement from the component out of my 704 laserdisc player, I couldn't resist picking up a Crystal Vision VPS-1 off of fleabay for $50.

For those that might be interested, there is a new Entech CVSI-1 currently for auction on fleabay - Item number: 180361513220

As good as the Entech unit might be, I don't think it is worth $200 even though it might be new in the box.

Anyway, I don't have any association with the seller, but thought I would mention this in case anyone who reads this thread might be interested in picking up an Entech CVSI-1.

EmoryS

EmoryS, you read my mind. While I was typing my post you beat me to it.

As good as the Entech unit might be, I don't think it is worth $200 even though it might be new in the box.

Considering the original price of roughly US $1000.00, it not unreasonable, IMHO. The comb filter was actually not the primary function - it was marketed as an S-Video to component transcoder for receivers lacking component switching.

If you need something like this, the S/CVSI are really the only devices to do this.

A unit in decent shape used to command no more than $200 6 years ago. From this thread and others it seems that buying a better LD player would net you a far more substantial gain in PQ than picking up an Entech...

If you're still interested there's a member who just mentioned having one collecting dust. Perhaps he'd be open to a transaction...

the Entech is ... it's pretty mediocre and does add some additional noise.
This is just w.r.o.n.g. on both claims. :) If you are basing this on a color bar frame, please view something other than a static, slightly incorrect test pattern.
With ALL respect - if you want to debate this (and I am fine with that :) ) then we need to go over setup and equipment in detail, including software.
I will state without any qualification that, with a composite source, the Entech is superior to ANY other Y/C filter when any type of deinterlacing, upscaling, or other processing of the video signal.
This is especially true of the SVSI-1. While still applicable I am not quite as enthusiastic about the CVSI-1 in all circumstances. :p

it seems that buying a better LD player would net you a far more substantial gain in PQ than picking up an Entech...
It depends greatly upon the player upgrade. Other factors would be the player output format and the display equipment.

My advice is just that you are only going to see slight, if any, performance increase on laserdisc based solely on scalers and comb filters.
And FWIW I'll take the other side ... :)
The best way to improve the performance of any good LD player is with a Y/C filter that precludes or lessens the ill-effects of composite-to-HD processing.

This is especially true of the SVSI-1. While still applicable I am not quite as enthusiastic about the CVSI-1 in all circumstances. :p

What's the difference between them?

What's the difference between them?

one is Composite to S-Video

and the other adds Component out

Michael

OK, but why is Hunter not enthusiastic about the CVSI-1? Is there a quality difference?

What's the difference between them?

SVSI-1 stands for S-Video System Integrator so it converts composite to S-Video. CVSI-1 stands for Component Video System Integrator and it converts composite and S-Video (and it had a component pass through that was only capable of passing through 480i/576i) to component video.

Sorry I am not sure why Hunter has the preference for the SVSI-1, other than potentially the lower cost and better availability.

OK, but why is Hunter not enthusiastic about the CVSI-1? Is there a quality difference?

SVSI-1 stands for S-Video System Integrator so it converts composite to S-Video. CVSI-1 stands for Component Video System Integrator and it converts composite and S-Video (and it had a component pass through that was only capable of passing through 480i/576i) to component video.

Sorry I am not sure why Hunter has the preference for the SVSI-1, other than potentially the lower cost and better availability.

Are Josh's B-Y going to contribute?

Guys,

does anyone know where to get a service manual for the CVSI-1?

mine stoped working a couple of weeks ago.

Thanks

Michael

This is just w.r.o.n.g. on both claims. :) If you are basing this on a color bar frame, please view something other than a static, slightly incorrect test pattern.
With ALL respect - if you want to debate this (and I am fine with that :) ) then we need to go over setup and equipment in detail, including software.
I will state without any qualification that, with a composite source, the Entech is superior to ANY other Y/C filter when any type of deinterlacing, upscaling, or other processing of the video signal.
This is especially true of the SVSI-1. While still applicable I am not quite as enthusiastic about the CVSI-1 in all circumstances. :p


It depends greatly upon the player upgrade. Other factors would be the player output format and the display equipment.


And FWIW I'll take the other side ... :)
The best way to improve the performance of any good LD player is with a Y/C filter that precludes or lessens the ill-effects of composite-to-HD processing.

Okay now what? I was sure a Y/C comb filter would help with my laserdiscs. Then I was basically told no way. Now we have a resounding yes. For $100 I would love to get one. $200 plus shipping? Maybe?

Other's opinions? Josh Z?

I can't speak for the masses, but I have a HLD-X9 which a very nice LD player and I have a CVSI-1 which is a very nice external comb filter. Still I don't use them in a chain. The X9's internal comb filter is good and the X9 does not have a pure Composite output which I could use to feed the external comb filter. As long as you're using an LD player which internally splits up composite into Y/C (using a mediocre comb filter) and then combing it back together for a "pseudo"-composite output I don't see any chances for huge improvements based on the addition of an external comb filter....

Anyone up for a US/Canada/EU LD get together? Lots of regulars here. Would be interested in seeing others setups, sharing tips, and meeting faces.

We could bring the various assortments of software, VPs, and filters, etc. in one place to put these units through their paces. Preferably on a 9" CRT =)

What's the difference between them?

The SVSI-1 is composite input-S-Video output combfilter, the CVSI-1 is composite and S-Video input-component/VGA output combfilter/transcoder. The SVSI-1 is silver, the CVSI-1 is black.

Not not speak for Hunter (or anyone else), but I believe some have observed macroblocking-like artifacts with the CVSI-1. I have not observed this with the CVSI-1 paired with X9 and CII (and I have an SVSI-1 on-hand). The CVSI-1 seems easier to obtain.

I can't speak for the masses, but I have a HLD-X9 which a very nice LD player and I have a CVSI-1 which is a very nice external comb filter. Still I don't use them in a chain. The X9's internal comb filter is good and the X9 does not have a pure Composite output which I could use to feed the external comb filter. As long as you're using an LD player which internally splits up composite into Y/C (using a mediocre comb filter) and then combing it back together for a "pseudo"-composite output I don't see any chances for huge improvements based on the addition of an external comb filter....

The problem with the X9's 3D comb filter is that it adds terrible checkerboarding artifacts to colors during motion. This is reduced if you turn the 3D Y/C setting all the way off, but a setting of even one notch and they're back. And when you turn 3D Y/C off, that basically disables any of the comb filter's better quality (colors are dull again). The net effect is that it's basically useless.

While the composite output on the player isn't "pure", it lacks those checkerboarding artifacts (because 3D Y/C isn't applied). I'm curious if running that through a better 2D external comb filter will yield any improvements. The few that I've tried to date haven't done much, but I haven't tested extensively, and I've never tried the Entech units.

I'll be honest that I'm eyeing that eBay auction for the CVSI-1. $200 or so isn't out of the question for me. But if it does add macroblocking/checkerboarding, then I'll pass. I'd like to hear from more people who've used it.

The problem with the X9's 3D comb filter is that it adds terrible checkerboarding artifacts to colors during motion. This is reduced if you turn the 3D Y/C setting all the way off, but a setting of even one notch and they're back. And when you turn 3D Y/C off, that basically disables any of the comb filter's better quality (colors are dull again). The net effect is that it's basically useless.

While the composite output on the player isn't "pure", it lacks those checkerboarding artifacts (because 3D Y/C isn't applied). I'm curious if running that through a better 2D external comb filter will yield any improvements. The few that I've tried to date haven't done much, but I haven't tested extensively, and I've never tried the Entech units.

I'll be honest that I'm eyeing that eBay auction for the CVSI-1. $200 or so isn't out of the question for me. But if it does add macroblocking/checkerboarding, then I'll pass. I'd like to hear from more people who've used it.


Josh,

can you give me an example of this checkerboarding problem, a movie and
timestamp where it's seen most pronounced.

Thanks

Michael

http://www.camelottechnology.com/whats_new/video.html

anyone seen this in action ?

Michael

can you give me an example of this checkerboarding problem, a movie and
timestamp where it's seen most pronounced.

Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery.

The movie has very bright, saturated colors that are very prone to this artifact. The problem is basically prevalent through the entire opening credits sequence, especially when they dance. For a pinpoint specific example, there's a part of that sequence when Austin hides in a red telephone booth from the screaming girls running down the street. As the girls pass him, the red of the booth breaks up into checkerboard artifacts.

This is the type of thing that, once you see the artifact, you can't not see it ever again. You'll see it everywhere, on every disc.

anyone seen this in action ?
I remember a statement in some forum which said that it was about the same (qualitywise) as the passive Entech Composite to S-Video converter introduced at about $70 a few years after the active converters.

I can't speak for the masses, but I have a HLD-X9 which a very nice LD player and I have a CVSI-1 which is a very nice external comb filter. Still I don't use them in a chain. The X9's internal comb filter is good and the X9 does not have a pure Composite output which I could use to feed the external comb filter. As long as you're using an LD player which internally splits up composite into Y/C (using a mediocre comb filter) and then combing it back together for a "pseudo"-composite output I don't see any chances for huge improvements based on the addition of an external comb filter....

Okay so where do I stand with a Pioneer CLD-D704 or the D504? My two main players. Is there somewhere that has a list of this type of information?

Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery.

The movie has very bright, saturated colors that are very prone to this artifact. The problem is basically prevalent through the entire opening credits sequence, especially when they dance. For a pinpoint specific example, there's a part of that sequence when Austin hides in a red telephone booth from the screaming girls running down the street. As the girls pass him, the red of the booth breaks up into checkerboard artifacts.

This is the type of thing that, once you see the artifact, you can't not see it ever again. You'll see it everywhere, on every disc.


Josh, I don't have this title. any other title comes to mind ?

Michael

Josh, I don't have this title. any other title comes to mind ?

That's my test case, but like I said, it's pretty much everywhere. Pick any disc with bright colors and a lot of motion, and crank the 3D Y/C setting to its highest. Once you identify the artifact, you'll see that it's still present even at the lowest 3D setting.

What Josh described and the "once you see it it'll drive you crazy forever" is exactly right (unfortunately :( ).

Another example - "The Fifth Element."
As Lee Loo (sp? I've forgotten!) is being cloned/manufactured right after the green fluid is pumped, the robot arms start a weaving process. The screen disintegrates into a checkerboard kitchen tablecloth.
Another different artifact from the start of the same movie - when the professor is moving his pointer along the wall hieroglyphicsat the start, multiple mini-rainbows break out all over the wall in the highlighted details. Most Y/C filters splatter this problem, exacerbate the ringing, and produce a noticeable loss of resolution.

Minimizing the settings on an X9, turning off NR on a CLD-97, or using the Entech yields an improvement. As does using an X0. :D

the X9 does not have a pure Composite output
Yes.
But the X9 is superior to most other players in the quality of its S-Video output: it is not subject to the "two filter" process Pioneer employed with the CLD-99, -704, -97, et al.

And not to beat a tired horse, but the Entech will help the X9 output, when the settings are minimized or turned off as Josh detailed.

Guys,

does anyone know where to get a service manual for the CVSI-1?

mine stoped working a couple of weeks ago.

Thanks

Michael
I don't know about a service manual, but I have one of those. It went out once with a puffing noise and a nasty smell, so I opened it up and sure enough, it had blown a capacitor. It's a simple soldering job to replace it though, and mine worked fine again afterward. Maybe that's what happened to yours.

I don't know about a service manual, but I have one of those. It went out once with a puffing noise and a nasty smell, so I opened it up and sure enough, it had blown a capacitor. It's a simple soldering job to replace it though, and mine worked fine again afterward. Maybe that's what happened to yours.

Same with mine. It blew a capacitor, and after swapping it out it was as good as new.

I don't think I've heard of someone owning a CSVS-1 and NOT having a cap blow! ;)

And not to beat a tired horse, but the Entech will help the X9 output, when the settings are minimized or turned off as Josh detailed.

Hunter, I'd still like to know why you said you're not as enthusiastic about the CVSI-1 than the SVSI-1. Did you find the quality of the CVSI-1 to be inferior?

OK, well, the auction for that CVSI-1 is over and somebody else claimed it.

I'd still like to know whether there are any quality differences between the two Entech units, though.

Hi, Josh -

My concern with the component integrator (CVSI-1) is that I would sometimes see sparklies on some discs. It was infrequent and seemingly random from disc to disc - while visible on some discs they did not seem to be visible on others. When visible on a disc they would always be that way on that disc. It was NOT disc rot, BTW.

It seemed to be most likely in broad areas of low detail and little color variation, with fairly high luminance levels (although not overly bright). Voltage variations with different wall warts did not effect what I saw. And it was there in two units.

Whether or not it is due to some early state of capacitor failure that some have mentioned I do not know. Someone else has reported to me as having no similar problem.

In all other other aspects the CVSI-1 is nor worse than its S-Video brother, the SVSI-1.
As a matter of fact I could find no difference in quality or other advantage in using the all-in-one component output of the CVSI-1 compared to the separate SVSI-1 box + subsequent S-to-Component conversion in another box.

Very interesting. Thanks.

I can find no engineering level specifications for the Entech units. Furthermore they are being represented by Monster Cable. That alone makes me very suspicious of their quality.

Without testing one, I would trust the Pioneer internal comb filters far more than the Entech!

You can find very good decoders from the 1990s as used broadcast equipment. Faroudja made a good analog unit. Better yet get a digital decoder and run SDI into your processor. Since NTSC is basically dead on the high end side of the television industry, there is plenty of high quality NTSC equipment on the market for pennies on the dollar.

You can find very good decoders from the 1990s as used broadcast equipment. Faroudja made a good analog unit. Better yet get a digital decoder and run SDI into your processor. Since NTSC is basically dead on the high end side of the television industry, there is plenty of high quality NTSC equipment on the market for pennies on the dollar.

If cheap enough, this would be fun to test. Do you have any recommended brands and models that could be found on fleabay?

Sending a composite out from my 704 into some type of digital comb filter that outputs SDI sounds very intriguing.

EmoryS

I can find no engineering level specifications for the Entech units. Furthermore they are being represented by Monster Cable. That alone makes me very suspicious of their quality.

Without testing one, I would trust the Pioneer internal comb filters far more than the Entech!

You can find very good decoders from the 1990s as used broadcast equipment. Faroudja made a good analog unit. Better yet get a digital decoder and run SDI into your processor. Since NTSC is basically dead on the high end side of the television industry, there is plenty of high quality NTSC equipment on the market for pennies on the dollar.

Yep, a pro unit would be sweet!

with lots of filter options (2 line , 3 line , 3D , ...)

do you know of any units tha had good word of mouth ?

Michael

Furthermore they are being represented by Monster Cable. That alone makes me very suspicious of their quality.
With all respect ... isn't that a bit similar in mindset to a blanket dismissal by audiophiles of our type of setups??? :)
The Entech unit was developed, engineered, and manufactured by the people heading the highly-respected line of Spectral Audio - Damien Martin, Rick Fryer, etc. Monster's involvement was mainly marketing (and there was little of that!).

Without testing one, I would trust the Pioneer internal comb filters far more than the Entech!
Respectfully, again, I would seriously encourage actual use before "trusting" any company's superiority. Especially the company that developed and promoted as superior the "double, piggyback loop" 2D - 3D Y/C technological dump that Pioneer did toward the end of the Elite line. :D

Better yet get a digital decoder and run SDI into your processor. Since NTSC is basically dead on the high end side of the television industry, there is plenty of high quality NTSC equipment on the market for pennies on the dollar.
The Y/C filters in those digital decoders ARE the problem. When they are used in front of ANY subsequent digital process - deinterlacing, scaling, color and luminance adjustment - they produce artifacts worse than ANY deficiencies in other latter-day non-adaptive filters.

I've tried several of the Sony, Panasonic, JVC and Kramer units - owned, borrowed, used in shops - with and without SDI and it's always the same result. Josh, too, evidently finds it egregious.

Yeah I sound a little frustrated and over the top. :p But it's because I spent almost four years and hundreds (thousand+, probably) of dollars trying everything I could to get solve the problem. In the end the solution was to eliminate the 3-D adaptive process. When I did it ameliorated several other weaknesses along the way - noise, ringing, etc.

Sending a composite out from my 704 into some type of digital comb filter that outputs SDI sounds very intriguing.
You've already got two comb filters in the 704. It doesn't matter WHAT comes after them.

The Y/C filters in those digital decoders ARE the problem. When they are used in front of ANY subsequent digital process - deinterlacing, scaling, color and luminance adjustment - they produce artifacts worse than ANY deficiencies in other latter-day non-adaptive filters.

I've tried several of the Sony, Panasonic, JVC and Kramer units - owned, borrowed, used in shops - with and without SDI and it's always the same result. Josh, too, evidently finds it egregious.



The Y/C filter I am talking about are done in the digital domian. There is no perfect "comb filter". A comb filter is only one of several filter types used in a good decoder. And only a digital based decoder can effectivily do the selection process. The reason is basic time travel. You can't decide what filter to use until you analyze the content. Without digital storage, how do you hold back the video to analyze it. You can't decide on a filter type after the video has passed through the chain. For example my decoder has up to two frames of delay depending on the mode you set it in.

Kramer? That is again prosumer stuff. Even Sony and Panasonic don't make great decoders even though they make other good broadcast equipment. And I don't really think a bunch of guys from an audiophile equipment company know more about NTSC decoding than the people at the high end broadcast manufactures.

Here are the brands I am talking about:

Accom (defunct) DB221
Innovision (bought by Technique, then Leitch) DX210 (I have one of these)
Fortel (now Qustream) - they have some great white papers on decoders
Snell & Wilcox
Vistek

Here is a good paper from an industry expert(IMO)
http://www.qustream.com/whitepapers/FortelDTVCombFilterWhitePaper.pdf

Here is the digital video tap in my Pioneer CLD95. 8 bits, 14mhz clock, H&V sync, and grounds.

This takes the digitized COMPOSITE video after the internal TBC. This goes off to a driver card that converts the TTL levels to balanced ECL per SMPTE125. This is then formatted and serialized by an external box and fed directly into the Innovision decoder. This is an all digital path to the display from this point, that is through a Digital Vision DVNR500 digital noise/grain reducer and a DVDO VP50pro. The only analog is the front end of the LD player. It doesn't get any cleaner than this. I don't use any noise reduction in the VP50 as the DVNR is far superior.

Here is the digital video tap in my Pioneer CLD95. 8 bits, 14mhz clock, H&V sync, and grounds.

This takes the digitized COMPOSITE video after the internal TBC. This goes off to a driver card that converts the TTL levels to balanced ECL per SMPTE125. This is then formatted and serialized by an external box and fed directly into the Innovision decoder. This is an all digital path to the display from this point, that is through a Digital Vision DVNR500 digital noise/grain reducer and a DVDO VP50pro. The only analog is the front end of the LD player. It doesn't get any cleaner than this. I don't use any noise reduction in the VP50 as the DVNR is far superior.


COOL!

do you have the Video Essentials LD ?

if yes, it would be great if you could capture the S&W Zone Plate pattern.

Michael

That's pretty neat. Is this possible with other models?

As for the composite to SDI suggestion, of all the broadcast gear I've used to process analog composite to SDI (admittedly only 3 or 4 units) they all exhibited horrible, horrible artifacting. Perhaps your comment was strictly regarding digital composite?

And yes, I too would love to see some captures!

As for the Entech--the Monster bash was uncalled for and off the mark. I'm not surprised at Hunters response... don't judge a book by its cover etc etc =)

That's pretty neat. Is this possible with other models?

As for the composite to SDI suggestion, of all the broadcast gear I've used to process analog composite to SDI (admittedly only 3 or 4 units) they all exhibited horrible, horrible artifacting. Perhaps your comment was strictly regarding digital composite?

And yes, I too would love to see some captures!

As for the Entech--the Monster bash was uncalled for and off the mark. I'm not surprised at Hunters response... don't judge a book by its cover etc etc =)

The difference between a composite digital input and analog is not huge. Just as an HDMI connectoin is not night and day different than a component analog connection. Keep in mind that composite digital is still encoded NTSC. The only benefit from composite digital is avoiding another D/A to A/D conversion. But with laserdisk on a big screen, I try to squeeze out every last bit of S/N.

If you have had bad results from broadcast grade decoders it may be the source. Many broadcast products expect text book NTSC signals. That doesn't mean good looking pictures either. It means strict adherance to timing specifications. Even Laserdisk players with TBC's still have too much jitter on the output. My Pioneer CLD95 is stable enough. I also have a Sony MDP55? that has a TBC but is not stable enough to feed my decoder. And most broadcast decoders simply will not accept non-phased color, like a VHS playback. The decoders in consumer products including the consumer video processors often do an analog Y/C seperation to get arounf non-phased color and excessive jitter. But the end result is compromised performance.

As for my Monster cable comment - I though we were talking about high end video performance here? Sorry if it offends some here but as an EE with 25 years in the broadcast industry, I can't support their tactics. I still have not seen any MEASURED technical specifications of the Entech decoders. Perhaps someone can point me to some. And then there's this little gem from Monster/Entech:

http://www.mysimon.com/9015-11547_8-21197076.html

I realize this isn't the product being discussed above but come on! No respectable video equipment manufacture would even offer such a thing. It's no more than a simple passive filter - if that. I wouldn't be surprised if it's just a couple of resistors. How does it compensate for insertion loss without any active amplification. What about maintaining 75ohms impedance on the lines?

If you have had bad results from broadcast grade decoders it may be the source.

The player was a Pioneer LD-V4400 fed house sync. One decoder was a leitch, the others I don't remember. Composite out to a broadcast monitor did not show the same artifacting (very digital in nature) that any route into the digital domain produced.

As for my Monster cable comment - I though we were talking about high end video performance here? Sorry if it offends some here but as an EE with 25 years in the broadcast industry, I can't support their tactics.

I don't think anyone here is defending Monster, but the Entech deserves a closer look. Just ignore the Monster marketing speak that is based in anything but reality. :)

I think we'd all love to see some proper measurements for any of the methods discussed here. It would make the whole discussion a lot clearer.

So far we have a number of screencaps of different comb filters operating on the LD Video Essentials. I'd love to see some of your results! The Zone Plate would be of particular interest...

The Y/C filter I am talking about are done in the digital domain. There is no perfect "comb filter".
I know. And the filter in the X9, for instance, is digital, also. And it is the fact of imperfection that makes the trade offs of the 3D adaptive process less acceptable than in the non-adaptive process, when fed into through any digital processing. No matter what the quality of the 3D adaptive circuitry.

I can't support their tactics. I still have not seen any MEASURED technical specifications of the Entech decoders. Perhaps someone can point me to some.
And that's my ENTIRE point!!! :cool:
You haven't seen any specs nor have you seen the actual performance. Yet based upon a almost complete absence of information, you are concluding that the unit is flawed, and uncompetitive.

Don't get me wrong - I am NO supporter of Monster, from their inception in the early 1980's through today. Noel is a fantastic marketer, and has created a hugely successful business. It ends there for me - the products are "mid fi" at best, for the most part, and I have never purchased any at retail (the Entech and a few adapters I've purchased have been from the secondary market).

But to coin a phrase ... I am sorry if it offends some here but as an attorney with 30 years in the legal profession and 40 years in the audio and video areas, rendering judgments on no evidence is not advisable IMO. That's all.

And that CVSC-1? It's not supposed to compensate for insertion loss, resolution loss, color shift, overshoot, phase shift, or any other degradation caused by its use. It doesn't claim to, beyond the typical consumer puffery. It provides the option for people to get a quick, cheap S-Video signal from Composite. It does that!

And I can't let this go ...
It (the CLD-95 et seq) doesn't get any cleaner than this.
Yes is does. No digital conversion. The X0. :D

Peace. Out.

The player was a Pioneer LD-V4400 fed house sync. One decoder was a leitch, the others I don't remember. Composite out to a broadcast monitor did not show the same artifacting (very digital in nature) that any route into the digital domain produced.

I don't think anyone here is defending Monster, but the Entech deserves a closer look. Just ignore the Monster marketing speak that is based in anything but reality. :)

I think we'd all love to see some proper measurements for any of the methods discussed here. It would make the whole discussion a lot clearer.

So far we have a number of screencaps of different comb filters operating on the LD Video Essentials. I'd love to see some of your results! The Zone Plate would be of particular interest...

Well I'm not surprised the Leitch decoder was mediocre. They never made (or claimed to make) a reference decoder. Their products in this area were "utility" grade designed for picture only monitoring and news feed type material.

I know nothing about the Entech, in fact never heard of it until this thread. But looking at it and based on the profile of the company I can pretty much gather it is just a reference design of some OEM decoder chip. The lack of published specs is also suspicious. Do they even have the test equipment to measure the parameters?

I don't have a VE laser disk. I wish I did. I can make screen shots but I am not a beleiver in them. There are so many variables the end result here on the forum is practically useless. A zone plate however would be of some value here.

I know. And the filter in the X9, for instance, is digital, also. And it is the fact of imperfection that makes the trade offs of the 3D adaptive process less acceptable than in the non-adaptive process, when fed into through any digital processing. No matter what the quality of the 3D adaptive circuitry.


And that's my ENTIRE point!!! :cool:
You haven't seen any specs nor have you seen the actual performance. Yet based upon a almost complete absence of information, you are concluding that the unit is flawed, and uncompetitive.

Don't get me wrong - I am NO supporter of Monster, from their inception in the early 1980's through today. Noel is a fantastic marketer, and has created a hugely successful business. It ends there for me - the products are "mid fi" at best, for the most part, and I have never purchased any at retail (the Entech and a few adapters I've purchased have been from the secondary market).

But to coin a phrase ... I am sorry if it offends some here but as an attorney with 30 years in the legal profession and 40 years in the audio and video areas, rendering judgments on no evidence is not advisable IMO. That's all.

And that CVSC-1? It's not supposed to compensate for insertion loss, resolution loss, color shift, overshoot, phase shift, or any other degradation caused by its use. It doesn't claim to, beyond the typical consumer puffery. It provides the option for people to get a quick, cheap S-Video signal from Composite. It does that!

And I can't let this go ...

Yes is does. No digital conversion. The X0. :D

Peace. Out.


How can you have "no digital processing" today? Unless you are feeding your X9 into a CRT based display device, there is going to be digital processing. Does the X9 have a TBC? Then there is digital processing. Or do you perfer the Y/C smear from hetrodyne color stabilization? Now I do agree if that is what you are doing, then my processing chain most assured has more artifacts. However I also have no visible scan lines and far less noise due to the use of a high end image processor. These sold for $70K in the late 1990s and the only reason I have one is the SD models could not be upgraded to HD so most were scrapped. This is not even close to the crappy noise reducers in the current crop of videophile scalers.

As you are an attorney I'm sure you understand circumstantial evidence as well. Tests aside, do you really beleive some < $1000 consumer product made by a tiny esoteric audio company is superior to a $30,000+ product made by a comapny that is recoginized as a leading broadcast image processing manufacture? Yes I am aware of Moore's law but it doesn't close gaps this huge.

The CVS-C1 claims to remove "hanging dots". It's in the sales brochure. Now read the section on "hanging dots" by Virgle Lowe in that PDF I attached. Now do you think that cute little passive box is doing what he outlines as the problem? I'll bet it still does remove the hanging dots though. They simply roll off the luminance at 2mhz! This is why I don't subscribe to many of the consumer video equipment claims. They take a highly technical concept and just throw it into print.

it is just a reference design of some OEM decoder chip
This is just plain incorrect. At a minimum please just open one up and look at it for 15 seconds before you keep making these totally unfounded claims.
Doesn't that seem fair?

I'm sure you understand circumstantial evidence as well
Yes, and you have made it inescapably clear in at least two instances that you do not even have that with regard to the Entech under discussion for the past several years.

As I said I have almost no technical respect for Monster. I do not care, in this arena, about any aspect of the performance of that $119.00 cable-interrupter of a device. Why do you keep harping on that? It is virtually irrelevant to everything people have been otherwise discussing responsibly in this thread.

there is going to be digital processing
THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!!!!!!!!!!!
One more time - it is the combination of the 3D adaptive process PLUS digital processing that causes the problems we have all been writing around. And some of us have even seen. ;)

This is just plain incorrect. At a minimum please just open one up and look at it for 15 seconds before you keep making these totally unfounded claims.
Doesn't that seem fair?
.......
THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!!!!!!!!!!!
One more time - it is the combination of the 3D adaptive process PLUS digital processing that causes the problems we have all been writing around. And some of us have even seen. ;)

Then show me technical specifications or at least a technical review of the product. I have searched and cannot find one.

I an a graduate EE as well as 25 years+ experience in broadcast engineering - mostly in high end post production. You are trying to tell me the Entech is superior to the high end professional decoders. If you bothered to read the technical papaer I povided you would see that 3D adaptive is not universally used in high end units. It is switched in where it will be most effective based on realtime analysis. There is no way the Entech is doing that for it's price point. Your 2D Entech has no knowledge of temporal video information. Only a field and frame based comb filter can compensate for that. You don't get that level of performance in consumer NTSC decoders.

I do image processing as a profession as well as a hobby. I have been involved in restoration of many old 2inch tape projects with the latest digital tools. I know how to get the best image from composite NTSC to component.

Let's try to cut the speculation.

Can somebody with an Entech post a photo if the interior. Try to get the whole interior to fill the screen. Based on what I see, I can tell you exactly what they are doing.

I have built analog encoders (component to NTSC) from the ground up in the mid 1980s. Yes, I can pretty much draw a block diagram form a picture if it's an analog design. With digital processing units, not a chance!

In reading through the posts here and the archived threads on Laserdisk I see there is misunderstanding of how the format works and why a "pure" unprocessed composite output is impossible. One of two things must be done - either a digital TBC that processes the entire composite signal OR a hetrodyne color processor. Here is why:

Laser disk uses "Direct NTSC Recording". That means the entire composite signal is FM modulated and recorded on the disk as FM. The frequencies used are the same as PAL composite analog videotape - roughly 6-9mhz. That locks in a S/N of 46db maximum.

On playback the FM is equalized, limited, and demodulated just as in a broadcast 1 or 2 inch analog VTR. However just like a VTR's rotating heads are mecanically unstable, the large spinning disk is far worse. The jitter far exceeds tolerances for NTSC color playback. So at least the color portion of the signal must be time stabalized. To do this you must seperate the chroma, by some form of filter. Do some analog frequency beating to remove the jitter, and then mix the chroma back to the luminance that has been delayed to match the chromance. Here just like in consumer tape, the chorma is stable but the luminance is not. This is Ok for a monitor but since the locked relationship betwnn the color subcarrier and lumimance sync is lost, you get this Y/C smearing of the edges. One is stable, the other not.

FWEIW, VHS and SVHS is even worse as it can't record FM frequencies more than about 5mhz do to the slow head to tape speed. So they must record the color seperatly to start with. This really causes the ugly VHS artifcats we all know and love, Why can't we record 4.2mhz NTSC with a 5mhz FM signal - all I can say is study FM modulation theory. It's too complex to get into here.

A TBC corrects BOTH the chromanace and luminance together. They are never seperated. But the analog must be digitized to go through a digital TBC. There were analog TBC at one time for 2 inch tape but they are obsolete and never could cope with the high jitter of a laserdisk player.

So anybody thinking they are getting as pure composite analog output from any laserdisk player is mistaken. You either suffer a very early Y/C seperation for the non TBC units or and A/D then D/A conversion for the TBC equipped units.

My idea was to grab the time base corrected video while still in digital format then feed it to a digital input decoder. I suffer one A/D conversion. The X9 feeding a decoder through composite video is going through and A/D and D/A as well as other possible processing so it can't be as clean a signal as a digital tap.

Let's try to cut the speculation.

Can somebody with an Entech post a photo if the interior. Try to get the whole interior to fill the screen. Based on what I see, I can tell you exactly what they are doing.

I have built analog encoders (component to NTSC) from the ground up in the mid 1980s. Yes, I can pretty much draw a block diagram form a picture if it's an analog design. With digital processing units, not a chance!

I can do that, of both units tomorrow.

as I said before, the Entech is mediocre at best.

HDGaming, what are your findings of the test footage you saw from me ?

Michael

Hunter, I would like to see some test footage with your Entech.

THX Movies sometimes had test patterns on them.

In reading through the posts here and the archived threads on Laserdisk I see there is misunderstanding of how the format works and why a "pure" unprocessed composite output is impossible. One of two things must be done - either a digital TBC that processes the entire composite signal OR a hetrodyne color processor. Here is why:

Laser disk uses "Direct NTSC Recording". That means the entire composite signal is FM modulated and recorded on the disk as FM. The frequencies used are the same as PAL composite analog videotape - roughly 6-9mhz. That locks in a S/N of 46db maximum.

On playback the FM is equalized, limited, and demodulated just as in a broadcast 1 or 2 inch analog VTR. However just like a VTR's rotating heads are mecanically unstable, the large spinning disk is far worse. The jitter far exceeds tolerances for NTSC colorplayback. So at least the color portion of the signal must be time stabalized. To do this you must seperate the chroma, by some form of filter. Do some analog frequency beating to remove the jitter, and then mix the chroma back to the luminance that has been delayed to match the chromance. Here just like in consumer tape, the chorma is stable but the luminance is not. This is Ok for a monitor but since the locked relationship betwnn the color subcarrier and lumimance sync is lost, you get this Y/C smearing of the edges. One is stable, the other not.

A TBC corrects BOTH the chromanace and luminance together. They are never seperated. But the analog must be digitized to go through a digital TBC. There were analog TBC at one time for 2 inch tape but they are obsolete and never could cope with the high jitter of a laserdisk player.

So anybody thinking they are getting as pure composite analog output from any laserdisk player is mistaken. You either suffer a very early Y/C seperation for the non TBC units or and A/D then D/A conversion for the TBC equipped units.

My idea was to grab the time base corrected video while still in digital format then feed it to a digital input decoder. I suffer one A/D conversion. The X9 feeding a decoder through composite video is going through and A/D and D/A as well as other possible processing so it can't be as clean a signal as a digital tap.



I have a service manual of the X0, try to post a scematic tomorrow.

and it definately isn't analog all the way.

Michael

Here are a few shots from the CVSI-1's inside:

http://pms.hazard-city.de/cvsi1a.jpg
http://pms.hazard-city.de/cvsi1b.jpg
http://pms.hazard-city.de/cvsi1c.jpg
http://pms.hazard-city.de/cvsi1d.jpg

@nidi: maybe the SVSI-1 would be interesting for comparison. And I'm still wondering about the PSUs. Can you by any chance take a digicam photo of the original SVSI and CVSI power supplies ? You emailed me the specs (16V DC output), but there have been bundled PSUs with 12V as well (thanks to sidb for the the picture) and mine has been running on 9V lately.

Noooow we're getting somewhere! Thanks for the pics Fudoh!

Below are a few crops of Zone Plates blown up to 200% featuring different comb filters. Thanks to Nidi for the caps! :) My only ? is--did you use two different sources? The fonts don't match and there is a luminance difference...

Sorry for them not being inline--I don't have webspace nor the patience to sign up for a free image hosting service. Feel free to do so if you wish!

I've ordered them in (IMHO) descending quality.

Ok, this is a DIGITAL processor. The ADV7123 chip is a triple channel DAC which is most likely providing RGB or YcBcR output. The ADS822E is a flash converter. What I find curious is that there are three of them. The only thing that makes sense to me is one for composite and two for Svideo. I would have shared two of the between Svideo and composite but whatever.

Those Xilinx FPGAs are rather low density by todays standards but big enough to implement a 2D/3D design. There is not enough memeory visible there to hold a field or frame so this rules out temporal combing.

The resistors in the analog section are all 1% so they didn't cut corners there.

I must say it is better built than I expected.

OK, Here's what I don't see. INDUCTORS! Or at least not enough. There looks to be one possibly per ADC but that could also be a power rail choke. There seems to be little or no anti-aliasing filters before the A/D. Likewise there seems to be lacking reconstruction filters on the DACS. Do the guy's that designed this understand Nyquist? You can pull this stunt with oversampling CD players. It won't work very well with video. Any HF noise in the input signal over the Nyquist limit is going to fold back and create aliasing.

Yes, Glimmie, we now ARE somewhere!! :)
Overall ... good for undertaking a view.

Per the "it has to be digital" and TBC postings ... there is no digital TBC in the BNC Composite output of the HLX-X0. Either that or the research (or memory) of several people + me on AVS several years ago is wrong. We studied the schematics.
I would truly like to provide you with those. You have NO idea how much I would like to as it would mean that I still have my X0 Service manual. Somehow it has been misplaced over the years. :(

The 3D adaptive artifacts that NIN74, tkmedia, Josh, myself and others finally found too much to put up with are with any digital processing that occurs after the player's output. Meaning after the filter.

As to the inductors issue ... the unit may not be perfect, according to the most rigorous EE theoretical standards, but it's head and shoulders above most in terms of design, including industry units. (I've seen and heard pro stuff that certainly will survive misuse in any condition, but the results are mediocre.) But I'd be quite surprised, for example, if there is NO anti-aliasing filter of some sort. If nothing else the output just doesn't have the friggin' cr*p that would result. :)

PLEASE view the results of the Entech before you tell anyone that it just can't ultimately be useful. Once you do - after the best possible Composite signal you can find and before any deinterlacing, scaling, etc. - and compare it to other alternatives, then please tell us of your conclusion. I would welcome that. What I can tell you is that with a CLD-95, CLD-97, CLD-99, CLD-704, CLD-703, LD-S2, HLD-X9, HLD-X0, and others, together with close to two dozen Y/C filters and way over a dozen scalers/processors.

Do the guy's that designed this understand Nyquist?
... sigh ... yeah I think so. :mad: :rolleyes: :o I would find it almost impossible to believe you haven't heard of the designers/engineers/theoretical personnel I named earlier: Martin, Fryer, Johnson, and the Spectral staff. You may not agree with some of the details of their choices (there are always tradeoffs, right?), but their respective knowledge, experience and results are unassailable in terms of technical knowledge and application.
For PCM see the SDR-1000, et seq series. From the first effort in the early 1990's the digital products have been excellent at worst. Reference - I am still kicking and wriggling about the sampling/filtering and digital signal/clock interface failings of CD, since having come unglued during one of the first presentations of Sony's horrid-sounding CDP-101 in Washington, D.C., in 1983. In spite of my not having been a supporter of many things Spectral, I have always thought their digital products to be among the finest. The people and company DO understand the issues.

On playback the FM is equalized, limited, and demodulated just as in a broadcast 1 or 2 inch analog VTR. However just like a VTR's rotating heads are mecanically unstable, the large spinning disk is far worse. The jitter far exceeds tolerances for NTSC color playback. So at least the color portion of the signal must be time stabalized. To do this you must seperate the chroma, by some form of filter. Do some analog frequency beating to remove the jitter, and then mix the chroma back to the luminance that has been delayed to match the chromance. Here just like in consumer tape, the chorma is stable but the luminance is not. This is Ok for a monitor but since the locked relationship betwnn the color subcarrier and lumimance sync is lost, you get this Y/C smearing of the edges. One is stable, the other not.

Glimmie, I would be really interested in your insight into the so-called (for lack of a better name) "white smearing" artifact that affects almost every laserdisc player ever produced, except the HLD-X0 and HLD-X9.

The problem manifests only on CLV format discs, not CAV.

I've never heard a good explanation for it. Nor has anyone ever found a fix (aside from buying an X9 or X0).

Yes, Glimmie, we now ARE somewhere!! :)
Overall ... good for undertaking a view.

Per the "it has to be digital" and TBC postings ... there is no digital TBC in the BNC Composite output of the HLX-X0. Either that or the research (or memory) of several people + me on AVS several years ago is wrong. We studied the schematics.


signal path of the X0

signal path of the X0

Aside fromthe Kanji characters I can read "A/D" and "TBC". So this particular unit has a DIGITAL TBC. It also shows that the composite output remains in a composite form and is not Y/C seperated and recombined as in some other Pioneer units. There is a "VNR" block however and this can be trouble. If it can't be bypassed via s switch or menu item, it WILL induce some artifacts.

Yes, Glimmie, we now ARE somewhere!! :)
Overall ... good for undertaking a view.

Per the "it has to be digital" and TBC postings ... there is no digital TBC in the BNC Composite output of the HLX-X0. Either that or the research (or memory) of several people + me on AVS several years ago is wrong. We studied the schematics.
I would truly like to provide you with those. You have NO idea how much I would like to as it would mean that I still have my X0 Service manual. Somehow it has been misplaced over the years. :(

As I explained above, it either has a digital TBC or a Hetrodyne type color corrector. There has to be something there to correct for the mechanical jitter of the disk and optical head. Sure there's a servo system but that's not good enough for color playback. And if it has a hetrodyne color corrector, there has to be Y/C seperation at the front end. Furthermore a hetrodyne color correction system is inferior to a TBC system. As I said, hetrodyne color correctors are what VHS and Beta machines used.

Also note the posted block diagram, the X0 clearly has a digital TBC.


The 3D adaptive artifacts that NIN74, tkmedia, Josh, myself and others finally found too much to put up with are with any digital processing that occurs after the player's output. Meaning after the filter.
Again, with a high end decoder you don't have this issue. At least I don't using an Innovision/Tekniche DX210. The Accom DB221 is just as good.

As to the inductors issue ... the unit may not be perfect, according to the most rigorous EE theoretical standards, but it's head and shoulders above most in terms of design, including industry units. (I've seen and heard pro stuff that certainly will survive misuse in any condition, but the results are mediocre.) But I'd be quite surprised, for example, if there is NO anti-aliasing filter of some sort. If nothing else the output just doesn't have the friggin' cr*p that would result. :)

PLEASE view the results of the Entech before you tell anyone that it just can't ultimately be useful. Once you do - after the best possible Composite signal you can find and before any deinterlacing, scaling, etc. - and compare it to other alternatives, then please tell us of your conclusion. I would welcome that. What I can tell you is that with a CLD-95, CLD-97, CLD-99, CLD-704, CLD-703, LD-S2, HLD-X9, HLD-X0, and others, together with close to two dozen Y/C filters and way over a dozen scalers/processors.

Just as with the TBC/color corrector requirement, there are other laws of physics and electrical engineering that cannot be bypassed without penalty. I don't see a component nest on the board that looks to be a filter anywhere. I can't be sure without a schematic. The fact that you don't see any alaising could be due to other factors. I could show you countless schematics of broadcast equipment with A/D and D/A converters and the associated filters. Many of these filters are at least 5 poles. If the Entech does have filters, there are not more than a single pole. There just isn't any parts there to support anything beyond that. Intesteringly those filters are also the root of other evils. Ringing is high up on the list. Non linear gain and phase shift is another biggie. Differential gain and phase fidelity is very important in NTSC. But simply leaving them out is just as bad. This is why I went to an all digital path as early as possible. right after the TBC in the CLD95. I then only have one analog filter in front of the TBC to induce aritfacts.


... sigh ... yeah I think so. :mad: :rolleyes :o I would find it almost impossible to believe you haven't heard of the designers/engineers/theoretical personnel I named earlier: Martin, Fryer, Johnson, and the Spectral staff. You may not agree with some of the details of their choices (there are always tradeoffs, right?), but their respective knowledge, experience and results are unassailable in terms of technical knowledge and application.
For PCM see the SDR-1000, et seq series. From the first effort in the early 1990's the digital products have been excellent at worst. Reference - I am still kicking and wriggling about the sampling/filtering and digital signal/clock interface failings of CD, since having come unglued during one of the first presentations of Sony's horrid-sounding CDP-101 in Washington, D.C., in 1983. In spite of my not having been a supporter of many things Spectral, I have always thought their digital products to be among the finest. The people and company DO understand the issues.

No I haven't heard of them. Probably becaused I never subscribed to "Stereo Review" or "The Absolute Sound" I am a member of SMPTE, SBE, and IEEE and can get access to AES documents as well. Perhaps you could direct me to some of their papers? I mean these great guys must have published some PROFESSIONAL papers regarding their work?

Glimmie, I would be really interested in your insight into the so-called (for lack of a better name) "white smearing" artifact that affects almost every laserdisc player ever produced, except the HLD-X0 and HLD-X9.

The problem manifests only on CLV format discs, not CAV.

I've never heard a good explanation for it. Nor has anyone ever found a fix (aside from buying an X9 or X0).

I don't know exactly what you are refering too but it sounds like an FM modulation issue.

Do you have a screen shot?

I got the 2 discs today and did a capture of the mentioned examples

of Austin Powers' Phone Booth scene

and 5th Element's LeeLoo assemble scene.

PM me for the download links


Michael

I don't know exactly what you are refering too but it sounds like an FM modulation issue.

It's the issue, on CLV discs, where a faint "ghost" image of an object will seem to smear to the right of that object. The most famous example of this is at the beginning of Goldeneye. When agent 006 points his gun at 007, the barrell of the gun very clearly smears to the right.

The severity of the artifact varies from scene to scene. Some scenes may not have it at all, and on some it's very minor. But it affects every CLV disc to some extent. Meanwhile, the CAV edition of the same movie and transfer will be free of the problem.

This is present on every laserdisc player I've ever owned (and I've owned a lot) except the HLD-X9. I haven't owned an X0, but hear it is also free of the problem. Generally, players with sharper pictures (like the CLD-D704) will show it off more clearly than those with softer picture, where it might be masked (but is still present).

It's visible on any type of display. It's visible with any and all of the LD players' NR and other processing features turned off. I've eliminated every other variable, and am certain that it's not something else in my signal chain. Also, numerous other viewers have confirmed seeing it.

It's the type of thing that once you see it, you can't not ever see it again.

Do you have a screen shot?

Not at the moment.

Here's an old thread about the subject at HTF:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/audio-video-sources/230051-dreaded-clv-laserdisc-smear.html

The post by "ChristopherDAC" is the closest I've ever heard to a plausible explanation, but I don't have the engineering background to know how accurate that theory may be.

It's the issue, on CLV discs, where a faint "ghost" image of an object will seem to smear to the right of that object. The most famous example of this is at the beginning of Goldeneye. When agent 006 points his gun at 007, the barrell of the gun very clearly smears to the right.

The severity of the artifact varies from scene to scene. Some scenes may not have it at all, and on some it's very minor. But it affects every CLV disc to some extent. Meanwhile, the CAV edition of the same movie and transfer will be free of the problem.

This is present on every laserdisc player I've ever owned (and I've owned a lot) except the HLD-X9. I haven't owned an X0, but hear it is also free of the problem. Generally, players with sharper pictures (like the CLD-D704) will show it off more clearly than those with softer picture, where it might be masked (but is still present).

It's visible on any type of display. It's visible with any and all of the LD players' NR and other processing features turned off. I've eliminated every other variable, and am certain that it's not something else in my signal chain. Also, numerous other viewers have confirmed seeing it.

It's the type of thing that once you see it, you can't not ever see it again.



Not at the moment.

Here's an old thread about the subject at HTF:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/audio-video-sources/230051-dreaded-clv-laserdisc-smear.html

The post by "ChristopherDAC" is the closest I've ever heard to a plausible explanation, but I don't have the engineering background to know how accurate that theory may be.

Sounds like ringing or non-linear delay in a filter. Any filter causes a time delay. Some frequencies are delayed more than others so at the output these time differewnces are displayed as the ghost images you see.

Filters are not limited to the A/D and D/A being discussed above either. There are a few filters in the RF (FM) section of the playback chain. These too can cause the problem. As I noted above the RF signal chain in laserdisk is the same as the old broadcast 1 and 2 inch VTRs. Just like a tape head, the laser diode and detector requires some equalization. This is where non linear phase shift is the worst - in a video signal carried as FM. The broadcast tape machines used a "transversal" filter for this stage. These do not induce phase shift but are complex circuits. I doubt any of the Pioneer CLV series had them. In the X series, they may have gone there but I don't know. A simple series type equalizer here will cause frequency dependant phase shifts which when demodulated can cause "ghosts".

Have you seen this artifact on your own player? Can anything be done to eliminate it?

Just downloaded nidi's sample files. Stunning overall picture quality from a LD. The composite output (captured using a Sweetspot card and therefore the Sweetspot's Y/C filter) exhibits several rainbow artefacts all over the place. You can see them at the cast lettering on Austin powers or MM's shirt in the very first scene and nearly everywhere on the construction robot in the 5th Element scene.

In THIS comparison the S-Video output of the X0 looks superior by all means. Now the question remains if there's any external device which will boost the X0's composite output beyond the captured S-Video quality sample...

Have you seen this artifact on your own player? Can anything be done to eliminate it?


I'll check mine. I failed to mention the artifact could be recorded in during the disk mastering as well. Not likely as Pioneer had good QC but still a possibility.

FWEIW My laser disk collection is mainly limited to concerts. Reason being they are forever locked into NTSC and a DVD version is worse based on how much care was taken in the transfer. Furthermore Laserdisk will never have MPEG artifacts.

Movies OTOH, can be remastered to DVD from component video tape. So there is no NTSC involved and I find the lack of NTSC artifacts a favorable compromise to the MPEG artifacts. Still don't think every feature on DVD is from a component source. Mastering was done to analog 1 inch tape up until the early 1990s when component D1 took over. So an older vidoemaster in the studio vault could still be analog NTSC. If it's not a big title the studio will just cut the DVD from the NTSC tape versus the $80K average cost of a new component transfer from film.

This is just FYI for the folks on this thread. The best comb filter I've seen is from this company:

http://www.videoq.com/

http://www.videoq.com/Downloads/VideoQ%20VQP.pdf

Unfortunately, it's only a development board. Videoq is Victor Steinberg's (formerly of Snell and Wilcox) company.

Ron

I'll check mine. I failed to mention the artifact could be recorded in during the disk mastering as well.

If that were true, the problem wouldn't vanish when the disc is played on an X0 or X9. This is definitely a hardware problem, not a software problem.

This is just FYI for the folks on this thread. The best comb filter I've seen is from this company:

http://www.videoq.com/

http://www.videoq.com/Downloads/VideoQ%20VQP.pdf

Unfortunately, it's only a development board. Videoq is Victor Steinberg's (formerly of Snell and Wilcox) company.

Ron

thanks for this! I noticed that the 2D portion of the comb filter uses the SAA chipset.

Glimmie, or anyone else with an opinion on the matter: which is generally regarded as the superior chipset in this regard? The SAA's or the TI's? I was trying to gather this information in another thread but didn't have a lot of takers...

For instance:

- Holo3DGraph II using SAA7118 (http://www.nxp.com/#/pip/pip=[pip=SAA7118_7]|pp=[t=pip,i=SAA7118_7])
- Crystalio II using TI-TVP5160 (http://focus.ti.com/docs/prod/folders/print/tvp5160.html)

Now I realize there will always be differences in implementation, but soley as a chipset, does one perform better than the other?

the Saa is a 2D design and the TI is a 2D/3D design.

I can't capture the output of the C2, but as I said previously, the TI
implementation in the C2 is really good, it's really close to the
X0's comb filter

Michael

Josh , HDGaming, Fudoh, have you compared the test clips
I did yet?

what is your verdict ?


Michael

I sure did, I downloaded the additional SVSI-1 sample as well and while the SCVI-1 might have an advantage when it comes to actual color resolution and to feeding the output to an outboard processor for additional postprocessing (especially sharpening), the X0's direct S-video output actually wins. It has much less rainbow artefacts and vivid, but still solid colors. Also dotcrawl is minimized using the X0's internal comb filter.

So, in the end, the question remains if there's any outboard comb filter which will exceed the X0's s-video quality. I'll try to do the same or similar tests on my X9 soon. Hell, some people mentioned that the X9 had the edge over the X0 when it comes to S-Video output...

Quick comparison:

http://pms.hazard-city.de/austin.jpg

Ok, Glimmie, one more and I am finished. :)

1 - that block diagram is NOT a schematic (duh ;) ). It does not show the two different Composite signals available in the HLD-X0. From two different circuits. From two different rear panel connectors. Again ... this is why the X0 is different than any other laserdisc player.

2 - TBC with regard to laserdisc was implemented only toward the end of the format's commercial life. It developed hand in hand with the noise reduction and, then, filter adjustment capabilities that were enabled with cheap(er) digital hardware. Just like with videotape it is not necessary for basic video playback. You know this. :o

3 - it appears at this point that the nature of your interest will not encourage you to take the first step with even the quickest, easiest path and just spend three minutes on the Spectral website to obtain the most rudimentary knowledge of the Spectral background.

Respectfully - it just appears to me that your interest with this stuff tends more toward academic badminton right now rather than ferreting out and learning about the experiences that many have had with high end laserdisc during the past ten - fifteen years. That's okay - but after several days I just don't wanna play any longer.

>> sigh <<

Josh , HDGaming, Fudoh, have you compared the test clips
I did yet?

what is your verdict ?


Michael

I would generally agree with Fudoh's assessment and pictures. However the "macro-blocking" on the X0 S-video out looks more severe that the composite in the example Fudoh posted. Look above and to the right of his head...

Ok, Glimmie, one more and I am finished. :)

1 - that block diagram is NOT a schematic (duh ;) ). It does not show the two different Composite signals available in the HLD-X0. From two different circuits. From two different rear panel connectors. Again ... this is why the X0 is different than any other laserdisc player.

I can only report on what I see. If you have other documentation then lets' see it.


2 - TBC with regard to laserdisc was implemented only toward the end of the format's commercial life. It developed hand in hand with the noise reduction and, then, filter adjustment capabilities that were enabled with cheap(er) digital hardware. Just like with videotape it is not necessary for basic video playback. You know this. :o

You still don't get it. You cannot achive COLOR playback from a mechanical based playback device without some form of jitter correction. If there is no TBC, then there is a hetrodyne corrector which requires Y/C seperation. There is no such thing as color playback on any laser disk player without a TBC or a hetrodyne color corrector. The only way to avoid Y/C seperation in the playback path is to use a composite TBC. Why do you insist on arguing this technical fact? If you are so sure there is no TBC or Hetrodyne corrector, then prove it.


3 - it appears at this point that the nature of your interest will not encourage you to take the first step with even the quickest, easiest path and just spend three minutes on the Spectral website to obtain the most rudimentary knowledge of the Spectral background.

I have been to the site and can find no technical infromation. All I see is the same old audiophile subjective horse crap. There are no specifications listed what so ever. Is this stuff is so good, where are the measurmenst to back it up. Oh, I know, there is no test equipment good enough to truly measure the acute perfection of this gear. - BS! There are no mention of the principals of the company let alone their bios. This is the right site I assume? http://www.spectralaudio.com


Respectfully - it just appears to me that your interest with this stuff tends more toward academic badminton right now rather than ferreting out and learning about the experiences that many have had with high end laserdisc during the past ten - fifteen years. That's okay - but after several days I just don't wanna play any longer.

>> sigh <<

Oh, and I don't have a high end setup? I think the bulk of the members on this thread already disagree. I have gotten several PMs in the past few days asking many questions and if I can set others up with the digital path I have created on my LD.

Fine, go away then. You have nothing of value to offer here. You think your Entech is the best decoder available. Others have disagreed based on their expereince. I question the claim as well based on my background in broadcast engineering. But you insist on arguing yet dodge and fail to address any of my technical challanges. Typical behavior of a lawyer on the losing end!

Can't we all just get along? :)

Can't we all just get along? :)

Hunter insists on spreading mis-information. That is his X0 has a pure composite output without a TBC or any Y/C seperation. I have posted a great deal of information on how exactly the video chain in LD works and thus the need for some form of jitter correction for color playback. I welcome any qualified contradiction of those posts. Dr1394, Kjack, RORYBOYCE, Sneals2000, or any other members with broadcast engineering backgrounds.

Hunter refuses to even comment on the technical aspects and insists his player somehow is above the laws of physics.

Why can't he acknowledge that either the consumer magazine articals he read about the X0 were wrong or he does not understand what they really said.

Oh no! http://xkcd.com/386/

But at least I'm learning things.

Ok. So I have been baited into one more rebound of this junk.

I have never - not once. EVER - posted or in any other manner maintained:
Entech as the best decoder available
the spread of misinformation (knowingly, willingly or ignorantly)
contradiction of the laws of physics (come ON :rolleyes: )
reading anything at any time in any magazine whatsoever about the HLD-X0
negative judgments of things with which I have had no personal experience
and on and on and on and ... whatever

What I HAVE done is report my experiences exactly as I have worked through them. And this only on equipment with which I have had actual hands on experience before making any claims or evaluations. Check the archives, please.

With regard to "Entech is the best" - my very much earlier statement was in context to the LD format in conjunction with subsequent digital processing. To be perfect it should have been so qualified in such longhand detail there as it has been in other posts in this thread - which did maintain its superiority in such a context.

There is just no use of true time base correction - especially digital - in laserdisc players prior to circa 1990 in the US (around CLD-91 I believe). There IS sync creation/recreation through an oscillator of the time pulses that are already on the disc. That is NOT the time base correction employed later in the format's lifetime, nor is it the time base correction that is mandatory in retaining sync - and thus quality - for the studio use and mixing of multiple video sources. It IS possible for Composite video to be successfully displayed without TBC - it has been done for decades in millions of living rooms.

As to whether or not I - or ANY other human being, let alone AVS member - have "nothing of value to offer" ... well, the eyes of the beholder make that evaluation I guess. I, respectfully, am okay overall with my offerings having some value, imperfect as it may be. ;)

Peace. Out (and it IS out this time).

There is just no use of true time base correction - especially digital - in laserdisc players prior to circa 1990 in the US (around CLD-91 I believe). There IS sync creation/recreation through an oscillator of the time pulses that are already on the disc. That is NOT the time base correction employed later in the format's lifetime, nor is it the time base correction that is mandatory in retaining sync - and thus quality - for the studio use and mixing of multiple video sources. It IS possible for Composite video to be successfully displayed without TBC - it has been done for decades in millions of living rooms.

As to whether or not I - or ANY other human being, let alone AVS member - have "nothing of value to offer" ... well, the eyes of the beholder make that evaluation I guess. I, respectfully, am okay overall with my offerings having some value, imperfect as it may be. ;)

Peace. Out (and it IS out this time).

See, there you dodge the technical issue again.

Are you saying that color playback from a Laserdisk can be done with out the use of a TBC OR hetrodyne color corrector? Yes, playback without a TBC is possible if you employ a hetrodyne color corrector. If you don't, then color playback is not possible. And for a hetrodyne color corrector to work, it must seperate the chroma from the luminance and then put it back after correction and that's Y/C seperation. This has nothing to do with the SVHS jack if there is one. If they player has an SVHS jack, they may take it before the re-combine.

The X0 uses a digital TBC as clearly shown in the posted block diagram. As well it should. A laser diskplayer of this quality would not resort to the inferior hetrodyne color corrector. Now even if there is some undocumented secret second video path only a few trusted users know of, I guarentee you it still has a digital TBC or hetrodyne processor in line if that second output has color.

There is one possible exception. If the player has a video output intended to feed an external TBC, that would be raw NTSC direct from the demodulator. But the player would also have an external sync input as well to keep the servo locked inside the TBC memory window. But if an unprocessed output exists, you can't get color playback from it without a TBC or hetrodyne processor. Sony and Pioneer did make professional players that may have had a "DEMOD" output.

I'll say it again and won't back down. Analog NTSC color playback from a mechanical system is NOT possible without some form of subcarrier jitter correction. Now present technical documentation to the contrary or shut up! It does no good to spread this misinformation.

The CVSI unit appears to be using active lowpass filters, which is why you aren't seeing any inductors. Look between the ADS822 and LT1260s and you'll see little clusters of caps and resistors. Probably involved with implementing 3rd order Bessel LPFs. The LT1260 ICs are 130 MHz GBW triple opamps, so they do have the bandwidth to implement active filters.

Looking at the Austin Power pics on several different systems using a number of jpeg viewers .... the S-Video rendition looks best to me, the Entech version the worst. Not sure whether that is supposed to be the outcome.

The CVSI unit appears to be using active lowpass filters, which is why you aren't seeing any inductors. Look between the ADS822 and LT1260s and you'll see little clusters of caps and resistors. Probably involved with implementing 3rd order Bessel LPFs. The LT1260 ICs are 130 MHz GBW triple opamps, so they do have the bandwidth to implement active filters.

Looking at the Austin Power pics on several different systems using a number of jpeg viewers .... the S-Video rendition looks best to me, the Entech version the worst. Not sure whether that is supposed to be the outcome.

Well that's possible. I did think there were an awful lot of OPAMPS in there for simple gain and buffering needs so an active filter makes good sense.

BTW, you just stepped on a Cobra here saying the Entech is no good :eek:

well then should the history be re-writen:) I have been reading for the past year , also in the archives that X9 has the best S-Video output and X0 has the best composite output. I think its still agreed that X0 for the best composite output but also the S-video as well over the X9?

but its a tricky question:) if the answer is "no" X9 has the best s-video output, since there is no external comb filter that beats X0's internal one(well most agree that it does) and the internal comb filter of X0 is inferior to X9(and again most agree that it is) then X9 is a better LD player :P I hope you got the logic here and hope again that the answer for the above question will be "yes" :)

I wish I could answer that question but I have not seen any of those machines in action. I have seen some screen captures in archives and impo X0's s-video is superior to x9's s-video but again the results should vary depending on the display and processing between the unit and the display.

my knowledge on these subjects are limited to what I read here and there so if I am wrong anywhere, I dont mind being corrected I am here to learn about such stuff anyway:)

well then should the history be re-writen:) I have been reading for the past year , also in the archives that X9 has the best S-Video output and X0 has the best composite output. I think its still agreed that X0 for the best composite output but also the S-video as well over the X9?

but its a tricky question:) if the answer is "no" X9 has the best s-video output, since there is no external comb filter that beats X0's internal one(well most agree that it does) and the internal comb filter of X0 is inferior to X9(and again most agree that it is) then X9 is a better LD player :P I hope you got the logic here and hope again that the answer for the above question will be "yes" :)

I wish I could answer that question but I have not seen any of those machines in action. I have seen some screen captures in archives and impo X0's s-video is superior to x9's s-video but again the results should vary depending on the display and processing between the unit and the display.

my knowledge on these subjects are limited to what I read here and there so if I am wrong anywhere, I dont mind being corrected I am here to learn about such stuff anyway:)

Uderman, I still have the moving captures the stills come from.
PM me for the link and you can judge for yourself.

it has been said that the X9 has the later version 3D filter built in which
should be better than the X0's 1st generation filter.

I could never see any difference in the two (had both players back then) other
than the S&W Zone Plate being better with the HR setting on the X9.

The X9 has more chroma noise than the X0 , which for me was the reason

I bought the X0. The TI chp inside the Crystalio II is also very good, the OSD gives you parameters that can optimise the picture even further.
unfortunetely, you can't record it's output.

I still need to see a Camelot and Cristal Vision filter. anyone sells one ?

Michael

From post 237 of 2147, December 9, 2005, on originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/The-X-Project-Laserdisc-on-Steroids/topic/3548/page/10/:

"Back to the interesting subject of composite re-composition, the HLD-X0 and HIL-C2EX specifically mention that one of their composite outputs (the one with a BNC plug) is a "direct out" composite with a different path than the other composite output (with a regular pin plug). The manuals explain that [nothing but TBC is applied to this "direct" output]....."

From post 237 of 2147, December 9, 2005, on originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/The-X-Project-Laserdisc-on-Steroids/topic/3548/page/10/:

"Back to the interesting subject of composite re-composition, the HLD-X0 and HIL-C2EX specifically mention that one of their composite outputs (the one with a BNC plug) is a "direct out" composite with a different path than the other composite output (with a regular pin plug). The manuals explain that [nothing but TBC is applied to this "direct" output]....."

Ok, so the TBC is still in that path. Makes perfect sense, they are just bypassing the internal "image improvement" processing.

Like I argued endlessly above, there has to be either a TBC or hetrodyne corrector if one expects color playback. And we know a hetrodyne processor is inferior to a TBC so why would a high end player ever use one? :p

So, if you had one of these X0 players and you wanted the ultimate signal fidelity, you could tap directly into the output of the DIGITAL TBC and run it to the outside world, just like you did with your '95.

So, if you had one of these X0 players and you wanted the ultimate signal fidelity, you could tap directly into the output of the DIGITAL TBC and run it to the outside world, just like you did with your '95.

It has crossed my mind. The laser and tracking servo is much improved over the 95. And it plays MUSE disks although are about as rare as it gets.

ok, did some screengrabs.

Entech,Alchemy, and S-Video HLD-X0


enjoy

Michael

Where did you get the test pattern used for the pictures? I'm wanting to test out my Extron QSD-204 to see how that measures up for this kind of application.

That would be the Video Essentials NTSC Laserdisc.

That would be the Video Essentials NTSC Laserdisc.

Ahh... that makes perfect sense, duh.... :rolleyes:

Anyways, since I don't have that laserdisc or a player right now, does anyone have a BMP or TGA of the same content?

Ahh... that makes perfect sense, duh.... :rolleyes:

Anyways, since I don't have that laserdisc or a player right now, does anyone have a BMP or TGA of the same content?

http://www.cinedrome.ch/hometheater/testpatterns/

I have a cld-99 and lds2. How does the lds2 compare to x0, x9? Am I better off using the cld-99? I remember reading the lds2 optical transport is special and similar to a x0 although the rest of the lds2 is dated.

I have a cld-99 and lds2. How does the lds2 compare to x0, x9? Am I better off using the cld-99? I remember reading the lds2 optical transport is special and similar to a x0 although the rest of the lds2 is dated.


The LD-S2 is the player to use out of the bunch.

it's transport is the best of the US players, very low chroma noise,
reasonable sharpness. You hve to use it's S-Video output,
since it's composite is recombined Y/C

I still have mine

Michael

I pulled the trigger and got a used HLD-X9 in excellent condition off of Yahoo Japan.

I have to say, while its S-Video is certainly better overall than the composite output of the CLD-HF9G combined with a CVSI-1, the X9 doesn't do as good of a job of eliminating dot crawl as the CVSI-1. The dot crawl isn't too noticeable but I definitely saw more of it.

I pulled the trigger and got a used HLD-X9 in excellent condition off of Yahoo Japan
what's the current going rate ?

About $900-1100 for one in good condition from the original owner, I'd say.

About $900-1100 for one in good condition from the original owner, I'd say.

The last couple from Ebay US sold for 1700 to 1900. Also depends on what it comes with (original box, manual, spare parts, if it's been serviced, etc). If I put mine up I would want 2K because it has original box, manual, remote, and power transformer. I also have brand new in the box remote, laserhead, spindle motor, fuses, and belts. Plus the parts inside of mine (motor, laser, fuses, belts) are new and have maybe 200 hours on them as I had it completely service by Dunan Hunter. So it all depends on what comes with the package.

Glad I didn't have to get mine from eBay, then.

I pulled the trigger and got a used HLD-X9 in excellent condition off of Yahoo Japan.

I have to say, while its S-Video is certainly better overall than the composite output of the CLD-HF9G combined with a CVSI-1, the X9 doesn't do as good of a job of eliminating dot crawl as the CVSI-1. The dot crawl isn't too noticeable but I definitely saw more of it.

After adjusting the Y/C and NR settings, it looks like I was able to eliminate the dot crawl. So I guess I have no complaints about the X9's S-video output.

After adjusting the Y/C and NR settings
can you please post your prefered X9 settings ?

I believe I have Y/C set to Normal, 3D Y/C set to the lowest setting (not to zero since that results in rainbows galore), and all NR options off. I then output to an Algolith Flea, but most of its settings are very low or off, just a little bit of 2D NR for watching anime.

http://www.cinedrome.ch/hometheater/testpatterns/


beware , those test patterns are from the DVD version of Video Essentials.

Michael

I purchased an Entech/Monster CVSI-1 Composite/S-Video to Component Integrator last weekend. I am waiting for the delivery. I will test it with my McIntosh MLD-7020(Pioneer CLD-97 Clone) as soon as it arrives. I don't have any Calibration LDs. Is there anything else beside The Video Essentials? And where can I find them? How much would be a fair value for such discs? I have seen a couple in the past for close to $100. I assume they are rare and were expensive when they were new but if I were to get my HT setup ISF calibrated, would the ISF calibrater guy have any reference to optimize my LD player/s(I may purchase 1 more by then) or I should provide The Video Essentials LD or such?

I don't know if its the right place to ask but how much am I looking, to get the below setup ISF calibrated?

Pioneer Pro-141FD 60" Plasma monitor
Denon DVD-A1UDCI Universal Blu-ray player (Sacd,DVD-A)
Integra DHS-8.8 HD-DVD Player (Toshiba HD-XA2 clone)
TiVo HD XL DVR HD DVR
Vudu BX100 Internet TV
McIntosh MLD-7020 (Pioneer CLD-97 clone)+Entech CVSI-1
Pioneer HLD-X0 (a big maybe)
Playstation 3
Xbox 360
Wii

All of these are going into Denon AVP-A1HDCI Pre-Amp/Processor which has a decent VP with HQV Realta chips.

And I already wondered who from here purchased the CVSI-1 :) Nice price by the way!

There are laserdiscs out there which have a bunch of testpatterns on them (similar to nowadays THX calibration feature on DVDs). If you know what you're doing (e.g. how to set brightness with a black on screen) you can get most things done without a Video Essentials disc.

An isf calibration would be done on your display, so the needed greyscale patterns could be provided from another source (DVD or BD). A calibrator should be able to tune in the LD picture using the settings available in your VP after that.

I purchased an Entech/Monster CVSI-1 Composite/S-Video to Component Integrator last weekend. I am waiting for the delivery. I will test it with my McIntosh MLD-7020(Pioneer CLD-97 Clone) as soon as it arrives..



you won't like the result in combination with the CLD-97 clone,
as it first splits the Composite signal to Y/C , then processes it and then
recombines it back to Composite. you will have a mangled signal
going into the Entech.

Michael

would it improve the picture on x9 or x0? for 152usd I thought it was worth to try it. supposedly it will eliminate dot crawl and boost colors. I will post my opinions when I test it. next I will get the player allined,cleaned and tweaked for sharper picture. if i am still not satisfied with the picture i will look for a X0 deal. there was 1 one japan auctions for 2300$ a few days ago.

if i am still not satisfied with the picture i will look for a X0 deal. there was 1 one japan auctions for 2300$ a few days ago.

Assuming you don't live in Japan, don't forget the shipping and Customs charges. The X0 is a beast of a machine.

Ok. finaly had a chance to test the entech cvsi-1 out. results are unreal. it is more than i expected. i accept that i am not using a good monitor(sony xbr2 lcd) but still good picture quality(finally). its still not where i want the picture quality to be. i think my tv is terrible at upscaling 480i to 1080p. is dvdo edge good line-doubler and upscaler for such analog sources? now that i have a good 480i component source i am looking for something that will de-interlace it and upscale it to 1080p. soon i will be routing my mld-7020 to entech cvsi-1 to a denon avp-a1hdci(hqv realta de-interlacer and scaler) and a pioneer pro-141fd plasma monitor so I am not looking for a permanent and expensive solution but a short term sub $600 vp.

The Edge will do the job. Probably even better than the A1HDCi. The most important thing when deinterlacing Laserdiscs is a ultra-fast change between video and filmmode which the Edge does rather nice. Converting NTSC Film LDs to 1080p24 instead of 1080p60 is a bit more tricky, but even here the Edge should shine.

The Edge will do the job. Probably even better than the A1HDCi. The most important thing when deinterlacing Laserdiscs is a ultra-fast change between video and filmmode which the Edge does rather nice. Converting NTSC Film LDs to 1080p24 instead of 1080p60 is a bit more tricky, but even here the Edge should shine.

From the mid 1980s most film to tape transfers did preserve the 3/2 cadence across video edits. So conversion to 24P should work quite well. Personally I only keep video origionated Laserdisks such as concerts. The reason being most films have been re-transferred to DVD in component form so there is no NTSC footprint to deal with. But I guess there are still quite a few films out there that have never gone past Laserdisk.

I buy laserdiscs for their uncompressed audio. there are about 2000 titles on blu-ray and about 400 on hd-dvd. about 300 of the hd-dvds are dolby digital plus at 640kbps and again most of the early blu-rays are dolby digital only. I prefer pcm 2ch encoded with dolby surround over dolby digital with 640kbps or less. DTS is fine but then again only 30-35 of them were encoded at full bitrate.

i.e jurassic park will make it to blu-ray for sure but not very soon untill then i prefer the DTS or dolby surround LD over dolby digital or reduced bitrate dts dvd.

Where would suggest looking for one of these? I live in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Where would suggest looking for one of these? I live in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.



you can have mine , don't need it anymore, since we concluded that it was

subpar to other filters


Michael

you can have mine , don't need it anymore, since we concluded that it was

subpar to other filters


Michael

Any other gear you're tossing out post-testing? ;) You could save on shipping--it appears jedi.master.dre and I live in the same city. :D

Jedi-I had to fly to New York to get mine--which I later traded away for other gear. That was the nearest I could find one! (was flying to New York anyway--not just for the Entech!)

you can have mine , don't need it anymore, since we concluded that it was

subpar to other filters


Michael

Any other gear you're tossing out post-testing? ;) You could save on shipping--it appears jedi.master.dre and I live in the same city. :D

Jedi-I had to fly to New York to get mine--which I later traded away for other gear. That was the nearest I could find one! (was flying to New York anyway--not just for the Entech!)

Okay PM me as I really want one but $200 on eBay was too much for me. I will pay shipping obviously.

Just the thread to talk about my all out Laserdisc mod project. You can read some of it here (_ttp://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Laserdisc-revived/topic/10602/)
Its a Sony but Japan only thankfully, both the 999 and c2ex is sturdy built compared to the US sony models wich i wouldnt touch tbh.
The C2ex has a "direct" composite BNC output, its coming from the TBC (as Glimmie knows) bypassing the NR and early 3D comb filter. The X0 works in the same way, there is no such thing as pure analog output :) Pop the hood of the Vp-1000 and there should be at least 2 crystal oscillators on the green circuit board. Imagine how much jitter the gargantuan He-Ne laser and the early motors made, some sort of crude Tbc must have been implemented. Glimmie: Im thinking about using an s-video dual coax cable to capture card or use dual Bnc to keep 75ohms and reduce ringing, what is your take on that?.

Just the thread to talk about my all out Laserdisc mod project. You can read some of it here (_ttp://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Laserdisc-revived/topic/10602/)
Its a Sony but Japan only thankfully, both the 999 and c2ex is sturdy built compared to the US sony models wich i wouldnt touch tbh.
The C2ex has a "direct" composite BNC output, its coming from the TBC (as Glimmie knows) bypassing the NR and early 3D comb filter. The X0 works in the same way, there is no such thing as pure analog output :) Pop the hood of the Vp-1000 and there should be at least 2 crystal oscillators on the green circuit board. Imagine how much jitter the gargantuan He-Ne laser and the early motors made, some sort of crude Tbc must have been implemented. Glimmie: Im thinking about using an s-video dual coax cable to capture card or use dual Bnc to keep 75ohms and reduce ringing, what is your take on that?.

Aleks, what comb filter do you recommend ?

Michael

Aleks,

you're talking about a Runco 4404 scaler in the other thread.

do you have any idea what type of 3D Y/C is in there.

what adjustments can be made in the menu ?


Thanks

Michael

Just the thread to talk about my all out Laserdisc mod project. You can read some of it here (_ttp://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Laserdisc-revived/topic/10602/)
Its a Sony but Japan only thankfully, both the 999 and c2ex is sturdy built compared to the US sony models wich i wouldnt touch tbh.
The C2ex has a "direct" composite BNC output, its coming from the TBC (as Glimmie knows) bypassing the NR and early 3D comb filter. The X0 works in the same way, there is no such thing as pure analog output :) Pop the hood of the Vp-1000 and there should be at least 2 crystal oscillators on the green circuit board. Imagine how much jitter the gargantuan He-Ne laser and the early motors made, some sort of crude Tbc must have been implemented. Glimmie: Im thinking about using an s-video dual coax cable to capture card or use dual Bnc to keep 75ohms and reduce ringing, what is your take on that?.

Welcome to AVSforums! Read the thread you linked to--a tough crowd at times! I'm going to follow your progress on this project with great interest. Please update us!

I also really enjoy the description of your mods. Wish you'd been around for the thread I started on comb filters!

What capture card from Canada did you order?

Glimmie: Im thinking about using an s-video dual coax cable to capture card or use dual Bnc to keep 75ohms and reduce ringing, what is your take on that?.

First I hate RCA connectors for video. They are just a cheap shoddy connector. However they do not cause ringing on NTSC analog video. Even though the impedance is 25-27ohms, the distance of this mismatch is only 1/2 inch. Thats not long enough at 5mhz to cause any significant VSWR. Same goes for an Svideo connector, it too is not true 75ohms but again the mismatch is not long enough to cause problems. The problem with Svideo conectors is the difficulty to get good RG59 75ohm cable into them.

FWEIW, broadcast video equipment used 50ohm BNC connectors up until about 1990. The RF industry is mostly 50ohms so the BNC connectors were made to their specs knowing the mismatch with analog video did not matter. When serial digital video came along at 270mbs, the 50ohm connector starts to have significant VSWR. So 75ohm connectors became quite commen. When 1.5gbs HDSDI came about in 1999, 75ohm BNCs were mandatory. Today with 3gbs HD video the BNC is once again comming under scrutiny.

Here is a silly marketing example I have the priveledge of owning. For years Pioneer Elite components have used BNC connectors for analog video just to cater to the high end videophiles. Well in 2002 I bought a 710 Elite HD RPTV. It had a "high end" BNC connector for the analog NTSC input. But the HD analog inputs were good old RCA connectors. So I guess they think it's critical to have good impedance match at 5mhz but it doesn't matter at 30mhz :cool:

Nidi: Nec 64081bgf (intro 1998), it uses several chips in paralell after this also for chroma processing. Very impressive noise free output, it blew the doors off my Nrs even tho its older. After trying composite into the Nrs and composite via the Runco into the Nrs on S-video for a difficult title, Indiana jones widescreen wich had some rainbowing on the Nrs but not via the Runco with no loss in detail after (inboard) Tbc. I did several mods to it, including one that i havent spoken about on the trilogy forum. Two mundorf supreme caps on X to AC input, they did lessen mosquito noise a bit.

Nidi: Nec 64081bgf (intro 1998), it uses several chips in paralell after this also for chroma processing. Very impressive noise free output, it blew the doors off my Nrs even tho its older. After trying composite into the Nrs and composite via the Runco into the Nrs on S-video for a difficult title, Indiana jones widescreen wich had some rainbowing on the Nrs but not via the Runco with no loss in detail after (inboard) Tbc. I did several mods to it, including one that i havent spoken about on the trilogy forum. Two mundorf supreme caps on X to AC input, they did lessen mosquito noise a bit.

Thanks, that's the board that's in the Runco, right?

NRS ? that's Faroudja's processor ?

tell me a little more about the settings for this filter that can be adjusted
via it's OSD.

when you talk about mosquito noise, you don't mean the digital noise ?


Thanks

Michael

Nidi: Nec 64081bgf (intro 1998), it uses several chips in paralell after this also for chroma processing. Very impressive noise free output, it blew the doors off my Nrs even tho its older. After trying composite into the Nrs and composite via the Runco into the Nrs on S-video for a difficult title, Indiana jones widescreen wich had some rainbowing on the Nrs but not via the Runco with no loss in detail after (inboard) Tbc. I did several mods to it, including one that i havent spoken about on the trilogy forum. Two mundorf supreme caps on X to AC input, they did lessen mosquito noise a bit.


Aleks,

isn't the 3D Y/C in the X0 an older Nec design ?

did you notice any noteworthy improvements in the two filters ?


Thanks

Michael

Nidi: Nec 64081bgf (intro 1998), it uses several chips in paralell after this also for chroma processing. Very impressive noise free output, it blew the doors off my Nrs even tho its older. After trying composite into the Nrs and composite via the Runco into the Nrs on S-video for a difficult title, Indiana jones widescreen wich had some rainbowing on the Nrs but not via the Runco with no loss in detail after (inboard) Tbc. I did several mods to it, including one that i havent spoken about on the trilogy forum. Two mundorf supreme caps on X to AC input, they did lessen mosquito noise a bit.


The NRS still only used an old 3line 2D Y/C design, that's why you saw the rainbow artefacts in the picture.

it's almost the same design as the Entech , which also has too much rainbow
patterns in the moving test plate pattern I did my tests with.

have you tried any other 3D Y/C filters in your tests ?

Michael

Michael: Yes i meant Faroudja NRS. The one used in the X0 is indeed an old design, the unit was released in 95. The Runco and its father the Nec Ips 4000Q was released in 99 so that means the filter in the X0 is from 94 wich is pretty weak compared to the newer 3D filters. Compared to the mitsu 3D filter in the C2ex the Nec is still better. Head to head i bet it can beat the Crystalio II on LD performance if it outputs s-video because of its design and strong TBC. Mosquito noise as fine noise, no osd settings for the 3D filter on the Runco. There was Osd but i disabled all the progressive outputs and changed mainboard to a lesser type with less components onboard. Namely the Ips4000 non Q.

Michael: Yes i meant Faroudja NRS. The one used in the X0 is indeed an old design, the unit was released in 95. The Runco and its father the Nec Ips 4000Q was released in 99 so that means the filter in the X0 is from 94 wich is pretty weak compared to the newer 3D filters. Compared to the mitsu 3D filter in the C2ex the Nec is still better. Head to head i bet it can beat the Crystalio II on LD performance if it outputs s-video because of its design and strong TBC.


I've heard that the Mitsubishi 3D Y/C indeed were very good in their S-VHS
VCR's, but adjustability was almost non existant.

The C2's is very good, it took very long for PixelMagic to mplement the controls necessary to squeeze everything out of it.

can you give me an example where the X0's filter is weak compared to it's
newer rivals. we did extensive tests with the X9, which has a newer design
but cound't find much that was much of an improvement

does the Mitsubishi C2ex offer much adjustment ?

Thanks

Michael

That may be because the hardware in the X0 is based on the LD-S2 with r-core transformers and lots of inductor filtering. The X9 may be pretty but seems to be made off the Cld-D99 platform, its weighs about half of what the X0 does and still got lots of aluminium. Im thinking the overkill circuit design makes up for the negative sides. Also the 3D filter in the X0 is not motion adaptive. The X9 is from what i understand a Nec upd64088, i tried it myself in an old Nec idc 3000 line doubler. But the unit lacked Tbc so the image was pretty noisy compared to the Runco, it was very sharp and detailed tho. Pioneer added a digital tbc but i dont know what make. Maybe Glimmie can explain better than i can why an older filter can perform as well as the newer type.

That may be because the hardware in the X0 is based on the LD-S2 with r-core transformers and lots of inductor filtering. The X9 may be pretty but seems to be made off the Cld-D99 platform, its weighs about half of what the X0 does and still got lots of aluminium. Im thinking the overkill circuit design makes up for the negative sides. Also the 3D filter in the X0 is not motion adaptive. The X9 is from what i understand a Nec upd64088, i tried it myself in an old Nec idc 3000 line doubler. But the unit lacked Tbc so the image was pretty noisy compared to the Runco, it was very sharp and detailed tho. Pioneer added a digital tbc but i dont know what make. Maybe Glimmie can explain better than i can why an older filter can perform as well as the newer type.


Ivar from Norway (back in the good old alt.video.laserdisc days) said
that the X0 isn't based on the S2. I always siad that it was.
the nice sound of ejection of the tray gave it away.

I never liked the X9 due to the shoddy mechanical built quality and
it's massive chroma noise from the start. you could almost get rid of the video noise
by maxing out it's nose reduction controls in the menu, but the picture looks
horribly processed.

it would have ben great to integrate the latest 3D Y/C comb filter into the X0's design with ample adjustment possibilities.

I'm happy with the quality captures I get from my X0 via it's S-Video output.

it would be great if you could post some caps or pics.

Michael

The X0 was produced in very few quantities, i got lots of pictures of the inside of the unit and under it. Its based off the S2 chassis and build alright weather he likes it or not, the pickup is exactly the same just with another wavelength diode wich Pioneer specced for the limited run a Chinese optical pickup manufacturer made for them in late 94 - early 1995. The motor is the same story, exactly the same but (i think) with thicker copper windings on the anchor (the rotating mass inside the motor chassis for those who dont know) to keep steady speeds for Muse playback. I know what Ivar meant tho since most of the advanced circuits are totally different so all in all its built upon its beefy chassis, motor and pickup but not with the old circuits in mind. Im going to get myself a few more C2ex`s because prices are dropping on them and after studying it i cant believe its a Sony to be honest. The spindle motor is almost twice the size of the X0, and spins discs up with a speed i have never before witnessed in my other units (Pioneer, Panasonic), the rails that hold the pickup are all metal etc. The reason its lighter than the X9 is absence of a beautiful aluminium chassis wich i will correct. I will take captures and stuff when im finished with the recapping and power filter build.

Edit: Correction above, the C2ex uses Sony CXD2029Q for comb filtering. The mitsu chip (M65631FP) is an Adaptive Chroma Noise Reducer.

Is the Panasonic LX-HD20 exactly the same as the Sony C2EX?

I realize that there have been no posts here for a couple of months, but I just did a back to back test of several laserdisc players, with two different video processors all feeding a Vizio VF551XVT LED/LCD 1080p HDTV. I had been using a Mitsubishi M-V7057 (Pioneer D704 clone) directly feeding my previous monitor (Vizio 720p plasma) thru composite. However, I was not initally pleased with the picture on my new screen, as it had a fair amount of noise and artifacts. I don't own an X0 or X9 so I can't add them to the mix, but what I used were upper mainstream players.

The equipment I tried:

Mits M-V7057 (CLD-D704 clone)
Pioneer CLD-D703
Panasonic LX-900 (two different ones)
Pioneer LD-V8000 (three different ones)

Processors:

Faroudja VP-100
Faroudja NRS HD 16x9 720p fixed output setting (I would have like to try a 1080i output, but this processor was fixed at 720p. However, the Vizio has a very good scaler built in.)

I played with each setup quite a bit, and also tried both composite and s-video (where available) out of each machine.

In general, here is what I found:

1. As stated previously in this thread, the source makes a huge difference. The cleanest composite out, by far, came from the LX-900's. Next was the D703, the Mits, and then 2 of three of the LD-V8000's, and then one noisy LD-V8000. I played with the DNR on the machines that had it to get the best SNR that I could.

2. S-video from each machine was worse than the digitally recombined composite from the same machine. This appears to result from the comb filters involved. S-video ran from bad to horrid with crawling and hanging dots all over the place.

3. Both of the Faroudja processors added some noise to the signals, even with detail turned fully down.

4. The VP-100 adds a Delay function to help fix synch problems between the Y and C caused by the digital processing of the composite in the players. This helped the Mits and 703 somewhat, but didn't help the LX-900s at all.

5. ALL of the Pioneers exhibit what I call smearing to the right of brightly lit objects on screen, causing a sort of dark shadow. I've seen this in the past, but considered it a trade off for an otherwise high quality signal. Neither of the LX-900s have any of this artifact.

6. Neither of the Faroudja processors, not to mention the players themselves, had comb filters that stood up to the one in the Vizio. This really surprised me. I was using Toy Story as my source watching the same scenes over and over. There is one scene containing a venetian blind about 10 minutes into the movie that proved to be a real test. Both of the Faroudja processors had a tremendous shimmer in the blind as the scene panned across it. The Vizio processor held it rock solid. It didn't matter what source I used, the outcome was the same. The Vizio could be seen switching back and forth between a 3D and 2D filter as motion stopped and started, if I was right on top of the screen.

7. At first, I thought the LX-900s had a softer picture than the Mits and D703. However, close observation showed it was a lack of noise in the picture. I could get sharper images with less noise with the LX-900 by adjusting the set controls. BTW, the Vizio gives great access to video controls and picture improvement is quite noticeable if you play around with sharpness and noise reduction settings.

8. Since the LD-V8000s never go thru a comb filter internal to the machine, I was somewhat surprised by the noise that I saw as they were known as one of the better analog machines. These things are built like a tank with huge power supplies, rigid platforms, and the goodies that you'd think would make for a clean picture. Oh, well.

9. I also found that a THX transfer doesn't mean much as I saw great variation between titles in transfer to video.

10. The 1080p screen doesn't hide as many picture issues as my old 50" 720p plasma did. I've found this true with upconverted DVD's also.

Bottomline: I'm now using one of the LX-900s with a direct composite feed to the set. I'm not using a processor at all. Too bad Panasonic now longer supports them, as they are clearly better IMO than the similarly priced Pioneers of the period. I know that one of the specialty companies did some mods to the Panny and sold it as a high machine under their own name, and now I see why. Anyone want to buy a processor or two?

Jon

Great post, Jon.

I find this the most interesting:

ALL of the Pioneers exhibit what I call smearing to the right of brightly lit objects on screen, causing a sort of dark shadow. I've seen this in the past, but considered it a trade off for an otherwise high quality signal. Neither of the LX-900s have any of this artifact.

The so-called "CLV White Smearing" has been a problem on every laserdisc player I've ever owned, except the HLD-X9, which is totally free of it. I have never tried an LX-900, however. I'd be interested to know if anyone else has had this same experience with the model?

Jon, do you own Goldeneye on LD? That disc is my test case for white smear. Near the beginning of the movie, agent 006 (Sean Bean) points his gun at Bond's head. If the player has this problem, the barrel of the gun will smear almost all the way to Pierce Brosnan's face. Can you test the LX-900 with that scene?

Although I have a LOT of discs, I don't own that one, but based on our reply, I'm getting one with DTS sound. Will let you know.

I wish I knew the mods that were applied to the LX-900 by Runco/MSD. Supposedly something done to the video AGC.

Jon

Hey Josh (or others), I have a Pioneer CLD-D704 to a DVDO Edge to a Panasonic PT-AE3000U. Do you think I should get a comb filter such as the Entech SVSI-1 or Entech CVSI-1 to place before the EDGE? Any other suggestions for better LD playback?:confused:

Opinions on the Kramer FC-10D Composite- YC Comb Filter?

Hey Josh (or others), I have a Pioneer CLD-D704 to a DVDO Edge to a Panasonic PT-AE3000U. Do you think I should get a comb filter such as the Entech SVSI-1 or Entech CVSI-1 to place before the EDGE?

Never managed to get my hands on one of those to test, unfortunately.

Never managed to get my hands on one of those to test, unfortunately.

Do you think I would benefit from some sort of external comb filter? You use a Faroudja LD-100 right? The Entech's seem to be fairly acclaimed.

The EDGE doesn't have a comb filter, right? Would the Panasonic PT-AE3000U?

Josh,
Just got the disc. No smearing in that scene with the LX-900. Enjoying the movie now, with glorious DTS sound!

Jon

Great post, Jon.

I find this the most interesting:



The so-called "CLV White Smearing" has been a problem on every laserdisc player I've ever owned, except the HLD-X9, which is totally free of it. I have never tried an LX-900, however. I'd be interested to know if anyone else has had this same experience with the model?

Jon, do you own Goldeneye on LD? That disc is my test case for white smear. Near the beginning of the movie, agent 006 (Sean Bean) points his gun at Bond's head. If the player has this problem, the barrel of the gun will smear almost all the way to Pierce Brosnan's face. Can you test the LX-900 with that scene?

Do you think I would benefit from some sort of external comb filter? You use a Faroudja LD-100 right? The Entech's seem to be fairly acclaimed.

The EDGE doesn't have a comb filter, right? Would the Panasonic PT-AE3000U?

I bought an LD-100 as an experiment a long time ago, but quickly dumped it. It very clearly caused a resolution loss and softening of the picture.

I do still have a Faroudja VP100, but don't use it for LD. I found it useful primarily for SD cable channels, and I've been watching less and less of those lately. Since Comcast in my area finally picked up FX-HD, there isn't much SD programming left that I'm interested in.

I tried the VP100 with LD, but the results were inconclusive as to whether it was better than the comb filter in my LD player or not.

The problem with these LD players is that, even if you use the Composite connection, the player still digitizes the signal first to run it through its internal comb filter and DVNR circuits, and then recombines it back to analog, where you'll have to run it through yet another comb filter externally. There's no real pure Composite Video output. A lot of the problems with the player's internal comb filter wind up "baked in" to your picture.

The Edge does have a comb filter, as does any device with a Composite input. They have to, by necessity. The question is what type of filter and how good. Traditionally, DVDO's comb filters have been pretty basic 2D circuits and nothing special.

I had an Edge for beta testing for about a week, but very quickly came to the conclusion that it wouldn't work in my system (not nearly enough aspect ratio control for my CIH screen). I returned it without trying the Composite input.

Josh,
Just got the disc. No smearing in that scene with the LX-900. Enjoying the movie now, with glorious DTS sound!

Very interesting indeed. I wish I could check one out.

I don't suppose you can pause on that scene and take a close-up photo of the gun barrell off your screen?

I bought an LD-100 as an experiment a long time ago, but quickly dumped it. It very clearly caused a resolution loss and softening of the picture.

I do still have a Faroudja VP100, but don't use it for LD. I found it useful primarily for SD cable channels, and I've been watching less and less of those lately. Since Comcast in my area finally picked up FX-HD, there isn't much SD programming left that I'm interested in.

I tried the VP100 with LD, but the results were inconclusive as to whether it was better than the comb filter in my LD player or not.

The problem with these LD players is that, even if you use the Composite connection, the player still digitizes the signal first to run it through its internal comb filter and DVNR circuits, and then recombines it back to analog, where you'll have to run it through yet another comb filter externally. There's no real pure Composite Video output. A lot of the problems with the player's internal comb filter wind up "baked in" to your picture.

The Edge does have a comb filter, as does any device with a Composite input. They have to, by necessity. The question is what type of filter and how good. Traditionally, DVDO's comb filters have been pretty basic 2D circuits and nothing special.

I had an Edge for beta testing for about a week, but very quickly came to the conclusion that it wouldn't work in my system (not nearly enough aspect ratio control for my CIH screen). I returned it without trying the Composite input.

Thank you very much for the great information Josh! I guess I will just stick to my current setup for laserdisc unless I can get a SVSI-1 for cheap.

The problem with these LD players is that, even if you use the Composite connection, the player still digitizes the signal first to run it through its internal comb filter and DVNR circuits, and then recombines it back to analog, where you'll have to run it through yet another comb filter externally. There's no real pure Composite Video output. A lot of the problems with the player's internal comb filter wind up "baked in" to your picture.

The Edge does have a comb filter, as does any device with a Composite input. They have to, by necessity. The question is what type of filter and how good. Traditionally, DVDO's comb filters have been pretty basic 2D circuits and nothing special.

I had an Edge for beta testing for about a week, but very quickly came to the conclusion that it wouldn't work in my system (not nearly enough aspect ratio control for my CIH screen). I returned it without trying the Composite input.

Why use Composite instead of S-Video, if available (I've heard some do this under certain circumstances)? Isn't S-Video supposed to be a better connection, at least in theory?

Why use Composite instead of S-Video, if available (I've heard some do this under certain circumstances)? Isn't S-Video supposed to be a better connection, at least in theory?

Because the s-video outputs of lasedisc uses the internal comb filter separating the luminance and color parts of the signal which is not as good as most of the ones currently used in TV's etc. The composite outputs although not pure, are better. There may be a better explanation but that is pretty close.

It is generally better to use the composite output on laserdiscs instead of s-video.

Because the s-video outputs of lasedisc uses the internal comb filter separating the luminance and color parts of the signal which is not as good as most of the ones currently used in TV's etc. The composite outputs although not pure, are better. There may be a better explanation but that is pretty close.

It is generally better to use the composite output on laserdiscs instead of s-video.

Maybe I will try this out. I have a Pioneer Elite DVL-91 combi-player, running an S-Video connection to an EDGE then on to a Pioneer Elite 111FD plasma. It means buying a composite cable, which I'd prefer not to, but we'll see.

I note that running the LD through my EDGE as opposed to direct to the TV does improve the picture slightly, notably in terms of contrast and color.

Maybe I will try this out. I have a Pioneer Elite DVL-91 combi-player, running an S-Video connection to an EDGE then on to a Pioneer Elite 111FD plasma. It means buying a composite cable, which I'd prefer not to, but we'll see.

I note that running the LD through my EDGE as opposed to direct to the TV does improve the picture slightly, notably in terms of contrast and color.

Please report back once you have tried the composite output.

Opinions on the Kramer FC-10D Composite- YC Comb Filter?

I have a Kramer FC-10D Composite- YC Comb Filter, also a Pioneer CLD-504 that was fixed up by Kurtis Bahr before I bought it and a Marantz LV500U that unfortunately does open the door anymore. Always wondered what the Kramer did but could never really see a huge difference, maybe I was expecting to much. If there's some kind of test with the Kramer I can do I'd love to see it.

Sorry for bringing up an older thread but it hits the nail on the head with my question. From reading this thread, is the conclusion to hook the laserdisc player directly to the display? Besides some one off posts that is the conclusion I came to after reading the whole thread. I have what is considered a "good" LD player in an HLD-X9. I have an o 720p Sony LCD XBR2 display. Should I just keep the two hooked up and not bother with any all in one video processor or their earlier incarnations (scalers, line-doublers, etc.)?

well then should the history be re-writen:) I have been reading for the past year , also in the archives that X9 has the best S-Video output and X0 has the best composite output. I think its still agreed that X0 for the best composite output but also the S-video as well over the X9?

but its a tricky question:) if the answer is "no" X9 has the best s-video output, since there is no external comb filter that beats X0's internal one(well most agree that it does) and the internal comb filter of X0 is inferior to X9(and again most agree that it is) then X9 is a better LD player :P I hope you got the logic here and hope again that the answer for the above question will be "yes" :)

I wish I could answer that question but I have not seen any of those machines in action. I have seen some screen captures in archives and impo X0's s-video is superior to x9's s-video but again the results should vary depending on the display and processing between the unit and the display.

my knowledge on these subjects are limited to what I read here and there so if I am wrong anywhere, I dont mind being corrected I am here to learn about such stuff anyway:)



I had two HLD-X9 and two HLD-X0 (I tested both so the difference wasn't due to equipment problem) and I did a lot of test, using 3-4 different displays and 15-20 different laserdisc's. In my opinion the s-video output from the X0 is better than the X9. The X0 is not perfect but it is the overall best image from laserdisc I have ever seen (I tested against R7G, LD-S9, CLD-925, DVL-919, HLD-X9, and some more).

So what VP for best de-interlacing and scaling to 1080P from good s-video from the X0? DVDO iScan VP50PRO or something else? How about the other DVDO units?

Do you think I would benefit from some sort of external comb filter? You use a Faroudja LD-100 right? The Entech's seem to be fairly acclaimed.

The EDGE doesn't have a comb filter, right? Would the Panasonic PT-AE3000U?

The EDGE analog input uses an Analog Devices ADV7800 which has a 3D comb filter.

The EDGE analog input uses an Analog Devices ADV7800 which has a 3D comb filter.

I just picked up a Faroudja LD-100 and the Entech SVSI-1. I planned to use one in my theatre before my DVDO Edge and Panasonic PT-AE3000U. The other before my Plasma.

How do you think the Analog Devices ADV7800 3D comb filter will compare to these units?

Also, do you happen to know what, if any, 3D comb filter the Panasonic PT-AE3000U has?

I had two HLD-X9 and two HLD-X0 (I tested both so the difference wasn't due to equipment problem) and I did a lot of test, using 3-4 different displays and 15-20 different laserdisc's. In my opinion the s-video output from the X0 is better than the X9. The X0 is not perfect but it is the overall best image from laserdisc I have ever seen (I tested against R7G, LD-S9, CLD-925, DVL-919, HLD-X9, and some more).


Amen to tha,

I kept saying that for the last 8 years doing extensive tests.

there migt still be a very good 3D comb filter somewhere in an

S-VHS player or DVD-R-recorder.

it's nfortunate that most filters cannot be tweaked.

I was very amazed how well the Crystalio 2's internal 3D design could

be improved with the lush settings it provides.

there's a guy who modified an old Runco scaler and he claimed

to have the best result (maybe his site can still befound, he was the guy

with the Star Wars LD project)


Michael

unfortunatly, the site doesn't exist anymore, but I fould a thread


http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/The-X0-Project-Discussion-Thread/topic/1640/



Michael

Hi again guys

I have been modding my player quite a bit now, watching the Star Wars 97' special edition i was unsure i were watching Dvd or Ld :)

Here are some pictures of the mods, and as you can see this player outputs Ntsc straight from the Tbc chip. No comb filtering has been done to the signal. The short black capacitors are Black gate Pk's.

Input (from pickup)
http://usr.audioasylum.com/images/5/56844/input.jpg

Rf demodulator (video)

http://usr.audioasylum.com/images/5/56844/RF_demodulator.jpg

Tbc, last chip that handles the Ntsc direct output.

http://usr.audioasylum.com/images/5/56844/tbc.jpg

The things to do is adding some Os-cons for the power rails, more black gates and expensive Amtrans caps. And reclocking the Tbc chip with superclock-4s. The thick double shielded Coax cables are for Rf input and Ntsc direct output to Bnc.

Hi again guys

I have been modding my player quite a bit now, watching the Star Wars 97' special edition i was unsure i were watching Dvd or Ld :)

Here are some pictures of the mods...

Impressive. Most impressive. ;)

Which player are you modding?

I've always wanted to do the direct composite mod to my LD-S2 which I heard a rumor that MSB at one time did that might make it the best LD player out their.

Sony C2ex, its nowhere near stock by now tho. Im glad this player dont have a single mechanical part that is common with the US models wich i wouldn't think of modifying to this degree (Some had a single plastic rail for the pickup, this has 2 and is all steel..). The biggest gripe i had was the upper disc lock clamp (plastic with metal insert) wich has been beefed up with a thick steel type from an old Pioneer Cld 1750. Soon to come is the merging of my Mdp-999 (Heaviest Sony ever made) and C2ex chassis. With the granite slab im going to put in the middle the final player is probably going to end up weighing over 40kilos.

Sony C2ex, its nowhere near stock by now tho. Im glad this player dont have a single mechanical part that is common with the US models wich i wouldn't think of modifying to this degree (Some had a single plastic rail for the pickup, this has 2 and is all steel..). The biggest gripe i had was the upper disc lock clamp (plastic with metal insert) wich has been beefed up with a thick steel type from an old Pioneer Cld 1750. Soon to come is the merging of my Mdp-999 (Heaviest Sony ever made) and C2ex chassis. With the granite slab im going to put in the middle the final player is probably going to end up weighing over 40kilos.

Franken-player.... ;)

Can someone compare Crystalio II 3300, Lumagen Radiance XE and DVDO and Iscan Duo? (Pros vs Cons and overal choice)

-my primary player is a McIntosh MLD-7020(Pio CLD-97), I will buy a HLD-X0 next year sometime)

-Primary display is Pio Pro-141FD monitor(9.5th-10th gen plasma)

-will watch 1.33:1 ratio content-old films(%10), TV shows(%50 X-files, Star Trek etc..)-Music&Concerts(%30)-other(%10), a few films in 1.85:1, and 2.35:1(Star Wars, DTS LDs, LD exclusive cuts etc..) so would like a good aspect ratio management:)

thanks in advance

my impressions so far;

-my pio display has decent comb filter and video processing but can be improved with better equipment.

-since my cld-97(most other) re-combines y/c, prefered output is s-video which rules out the need for a good comb filter.

-if i get a HLD-X0, the player will read/process/output video better in every aspect and I can utilize a better comb filter via its bnc composite out.

-Crystalio II has a custimizable 3d 5line comb filter, choice of Faroudja dcdi and gennum vxp de-interlacers and gennup vxp scaler/noise reduction etc.. on paper seems very appropiate for laserdisc playback

-Lumagen has the best scaling which will give me the best cable tv picture as well(for 720p content)

-DVDO Iscan duo has abt 2010 with fast cadence pick up/de-interlacing, good for both 1080i to 1080p

I am (with my limited knowledge) leaning more towards lumagen vs crystalio however I read great things about lumagen(mostly about updates etc..) vs bad things about crystalio

thanks

Hi again guys

I have been modding my player quite a bit now, watching the Star Wars 97' special edition i was unsure i were watching Dvd or Ld :)

Here are some pictures of the mods, and as you can see this player outputs Ntsc straight from the Tbc chip. No comb filtering has been done to the signal. The short black capacitors are Black gate Pk's.

Input (from pickup)
http://usr.audioasylum.com/images/5/56844/input.jpg

Rf demodulator (video)

http://usr.audioasylum.com/images/5/56844/RF_demodulator.jpg

Tbc, last chip that handles the Ntsc direct output.

http://usr.audioasylum.com/images/5/56844/tbc.jpg

The things to do is adding some Os-cons for the power rails, more black gates and expensive Amtrans caps. And reclocking the Tbc chip with superclock-4s. The thick double shielded Coax cables are for Rf input and Ntsc direct output to Bnc.

Are you thinking about doing this as a side business? I'd like my Laserdisc player upgraded (at least some minor upgrades)

Much of this is over my head. I have a very mediocre Panasonic LX-600 which will have composite out feeding a Denon 2310CI, which has at least some of the Anchor Bay chip active. Does anyone know what comb filter is active in this receiver?

Has anyone tried 1080p/24Hz from an LD? Are results encouraging at all, or are there lots of bad edits and messed up cadences?

Just curious.

I contacted Denon for AVP-A1HDCI/AVR-5308CI, they both have none-adaptive 3D comb-filter(nothing to write home about). From this I dont think the rest of the denon line-up has anything better(although your 2310 is newer). the abt-2010 on that denon is decent for de-interlacing/scaling but it doesnt have any adjustments other than enhancement 0-10 option.

FWIW - I have found years ago that any 3-D Y/C filtering will produce checkerboard and other artifacts when the signal is subsequently run through any digital processing, especially deinterlacing and/or scaling.

The best results can be obtained with an excellent 2-D filter.

Even the best 3-D filters operate in 2-D mode much (if not most) of the time due to the amount of continual motion in most contemporary movies and video. It is only with stopped pans and little motion in each frame that 3-D filtering is actually used.

Yes, you will see better separation on test patterns with 3-D filtering, but that's because the patterns are perfectly static. That doesn't happen in real life. Regardless, the artifacts caused by 3-D + processing are far more objectionable than those resulting from 2-D filtering.

Don't get too caught up in and concerned by the technical performance claims.

I meant to say Denon recievers/processors have mediocre comb filters:) none-adaptive means locked-to 3D mode only? In respect to what you said above means poor results in real life.

My McIntosh MLD-7020 (Pio CLD-97 Clone) has a 2D y/c seperator. I also have an Entech CVSI-1 component integrator which has composite in component out(480i only) and incorporates a 2D y/c seperator.

I want to buy an outboard video processor mainly for LD playback on my Pio 141FD plasma monitor.

It seems like the biggest improvement will come from upgrading my laserdisc player(I have HLD-X0 in mind but cant buy until next year)

I have Crystalio II 3300 and Lumagen XE? which one would you go with?

I meant to say Denon recievers/processors have mediocre comb filters:) none-adaptive means locked-to 3D mode only? In respect to what you said above means poor results in real life.

My McIntosh MLD-7020 (Pio CLD-97 Clone) has a 2D y/c seperator. I also have an Entech CVSI-1 component integrator which has composite in component out(480i only) and incorporates a 2D y/c seperator.

I want to buy an outboard video processor mainly for LD playback on my Pio 141FD plasma monitor.

It seems like the biggest improvement will come from upgrading my laserdisc player(I have HLD-X0 in mind but cant buy until next year)

I have Crystalio II 3300 and Lumagen XE? which one would you go with?


The Crystalio II is as good as an HLD-X0 filter, but you need to tweak it in the menu using the DVE LD.

I still use the X0 and C2 in my daily captures. can't be beat.

Michael

I have Crystalio II 3300 and Lumagen XE? which one would you go with?
I have not seen anything that provides as overall a high level of LD playback as a HLD-X0 >> Entech >> Lumagen Radiance. No ringing, no fringing, no shifting, noise and artifacts at minimum.

The BNC output from the X0 should be used with good connectors and cable; no BNC/RCA adapters should be used. The Entech output should run into one of the S-Video inputs on the Lumagen. There will be no need for any signal manipulation except for Black Level and, possibly, a very slight touch on Color and Hue (none on mine).

I've not seen this particular setup head to head with Crystalio, but I have seen it with a Lumagen HDQ and the Lumagen was better overall. The Radiance is a big step beyond that.

Ref.: G-90 @ 1080p72.

i emailed lumagen to find out about the y/c seperator used in radiance. this is the responce i got;

The Radiance used an excellent TV decoder from Analog Devices (ADV7403). It has a very good 2D filter for composite sources, and in comparisons with a 3D TV decoder we also looked at it actually outperformed the 3D CHroma filter and had none of the 3D filters artifacts that shwoed up when there was motion in the image.


I have the entech composite to component integrator. do you think it is as good as the composite to svideo version?

My experience with the quality of the Radiance filter is exactly what your response described. And also underscores what I have long said about 2D vs. 3D filters ...
And some of this was before I used and/or owned any Lumagen product. ;) As a matter of fact it was my repeated attempts with many devices and cards (Holo 3D, anyone?) to eliminate the artifacts that led to the Lumagen.

I saw no differences in the image quality between the Composite >> S-Video unit compared to the Composite >> Component unit.

What I did see, however, were some sparklies in certain high-contrast border situations on a few laserdiscs. There have been one or two other AVS people that have also seen the same thing. Attempts made to tweak Black, Contrast, Sharpness and/or Noise Reduction levels made no difference. Neither did changing cables, or changing players (HLD-X0 and HLD-X9.)

I'd stick with the Composite >> S-Video unit.

I'm comepletly ignorant when it comes to ld, so bare with me. The only time I ever saw one is when I was a kid my dad borrowed on from his friend in the early-mid 80's and I remember it looking outstanding compared to the beta and vhs.

I'm very nterested in it though, I want to pick up as much good quality content as I can in different formats. I just picked up a bunch of hd dvds and I've been thinking about laserdisc for a long while. I know of course they don't make them anymore but what can you guys tell me about the players.

What would be a really good quality player to buy for around a grand or less. How does the image compare to dvds, blurays? Is it actually hd? What outputs are the best to use? How is the quality measured 720, 1080? Can it be ran thru a modern video processor and avr and hdtv? And does it look good? What are some does and don't for incorporating into a modern himetheatr and connecting to modern gear? Any other info would be great. Thanks guys.

there is about 57000 titles ever released and less than half of this is US releases and the rest is mostly Japanese releases.

full screen lds are similar to dvd quality in resolution

wide screen lds are lesses than dvd but much better than vhs

in audio quality almost every titles is better than dvd, some cases better than blu-ray,hd dvds.

the form of picture is analog so it shows more film grain, if you are a grain hater, you wont like this format. generaly picture is soft. some believe its truer to film.

about 5000 releases never released on dvd,or bd,hd dvd or different cut, version. such as Star Wars 4-6 and 1 are uncut, unaltrered. E.T is uncut with Harrison Ford sceen.

I buy 1.33:1 full screen movies(not full screen editions) which are generaly older movies, concerts, music videos. Also buy Tv shows in 1.33:1 (almost all are) Star Trek, X-files etc..

around a thousand you can buy Pioneer CLD-97($400-600), McIntosh MLD-7020(same as CLD-97, $500-800) Pioneer LD-S9($900-1200), Pioneer LD-S1($300-800), CLD-R7G($700-$1000) the first 2 generates the least video noise but later ones produce sharper image(more digitized)

a CLD-97 with a outboard video processor may likely give better picture than the rest.


for HD-DVDs Toshiba Xa2, Onkyo 805hd and Integra dvs-8.8 are the best players. the later two are xa2 clones with superior software and built quality(also very rare)

if you are interested in dead hd formats, look into D-Theater, D-VHS. these are magnetic tapes that can show 1080i picture with DTS sound.

there is about 57000 titles ever released and less than half of this is US releases and the rest is mostly Japanese releases.

full screen lds are similar to dvd quality in resolution

wide screen lds are lesses than dvd but much better than vhs

in audio quality almost every titles is better than dvd, some cases better than blu-ray,hd dvds.

the form of picture is analog so it shows more film grain, if you are a grain hater, you wont like this format. generaly picture is soft. some believe its truer to film.

about 5000 releases never released on dvd,or bd,hd dvd or different cut, version. such as Star Wars 4-6 and 1 are uncut, unaltrered. E.T is uncut with Harrison Ford sceen.

I buy 1.33:1 full screen movies(not full screen editions) which are generaly older movies, concerts, music videos. Also buy Tv shows in 1.33:1 (almost all are) Star Trek, X-files etc..

around a thousand you can buy Pioneer CLD-97($400-600), McIntosh MLD-7020(same as CLD-97, $500-800) Pioneer LD-S9($900-1200), Pioneer LD-S1($300-800), CLD-R7G($700-$1000) the first 2 generates the least video noise but later ones produce sharper image(more digitized)

a CLD-97 with a outboard video processor may likely give better picture than the rest.

for HD-DVDs Toshiba Xa2, Onkyo 805hd and Integra dvs-8.8 are the best players. the later two are xa2 clones with superior software and built quality(also very rare)

if you are interested in dead hd formats, look into D-Theater, D-VHS. these are magnetic tapes that can show 1080i picture with DTS sound.

This is some interesting stuff. I was checking out eBay and noticed some ld players play dvds and cd also and have digital coax and optical out, are some of the laserdisc converted to digital or are those outputs cor the dvds? If they are for the ld is that the way to go or is it best to stick with high quality component cables? You said that some are are equal to or better sounding that BLURAY even, how is that possible with dolby? What audio formats do they come besides DD. What about widespread, you say that full screen is better quality? Tears unfortunate since you won't get the entire picture. Why are full screen better? Can you play Japanese ld on U.S. ld's? Is there any quality difference? What about the ld players, is there a big different e in PQ between the cheap players and expensive e players? What is the best way to hook it up in your home theatre to get the best picture? Ie: what output do you want to use to the avr and what output would you want to use to the Television? Would you want to keep it component all the way? Will a new digital video processor work or would you need to get an older analog video processor?

There are FAQs about this kind of thing.

Audio on LaserDisc is, for most discs pressed after 1985, a very high quality analog FM stereo track plus a CD-style PCM digital audio track. The PCM audio can be output through coaxial or optical SPDIF, or converted to analog & output from the standard rex/white audio jacks. Although on most discs the two sets of channels carry the same soundtrack, on some the digital & analog channels are different. This can be commentary, separate soundtrack, dual language, or the like. On some later LDs, the left analog audio channel was replaced with a carrier wave encoded with Dolby Digital AC-3 5.1 audio, which requires special hardware to demodulate for modern receivers or processors. On a few later LDs, the PCM digital audio is replaced with dts 5.1 audio, which can be passed out of the player & into a receiver or processor via the SPDIF output, just like PCM.

All NTSC LDs will play on an American LD player. This is all American & Japanese discs, as well as discs from Taiwan, Hong-Kong, & Korea, & a handful of European discs. Most European players will play both PAL & NTSC discs, but the selection in PAL is very small. There are also a few Japanese players which will play both NTSC discs & MUSE discs, which are HDTV in an analog format. Many LD players also play CDs ; the exceptions are early machines which will not play digital audio, & a few high-end machines. A few LD players also play DVDs, but they are mostly mediocre in both LD & DVD modes. Be aware that the component video outputs on LD/DVD combination players are only useful for DVD playback. In general, the most useful video output is the composite output, since LDs are recorded in a broadcast-quality composite format. A few players have high-quality Y/C separators, but in general the S-Video output is not very useful.

Almost all LDs are 4:3 aspect ratio, so a widescreen movie will suffer in terms of resolution, compared to an anamorphic DVD, which allots more scan lines per picture height. Therefore, the best material to watch from LDs is native Academy Ratio, such as TV, music videos, animation, &c, which uses the full height of the screen. Nobody advocates watching widescreen movies cropped to fit the TV ratio, although many older releases were issued in this format, & sometimes that is the only way to obtain a particular film.

There is a wide range in performance of players, which does not necessarily correlate with price. More expensive players tend to have more features. There is at least one person who claims the best video quality is to be had with a very cheap player, the Pioneer CLD-S201, which has no Y/C separation, video noise reduction, or other digital processing on board. (It uses a CCD bucket-brigade analog timebase corrector.)

Laserdiscs did not have region coding or macrovision. as long as your tv/display/player decoder NTSC(japan, usa) or PAL(europe) matches the laserdisc being played (i.e NTSC Japanese LD on NTSC US TV), you wont have trouble watching them.

other than about 10 laserdiscs(which are extremely expensive now), there was never a anamorphic (in other words "enhanced for widescreen tvs") laserdisc. so widescreen laserdiscs have black bars above and below the picture. Ld has a resolution of 420 analog lines(480i is displayed on tv) so about a 100 pixels or so from top and bottom are black bars reducing visible video to less than 400 pixels. on full screen all 480 pixels are used. ld era tv shows in original are shot in 4:3 ratio so you have the full resolution and no loss from convertion.

ntsc laserdiscs can carry 2 pairs of audio tracks. left and right analog, left and right digital. analog tracks are similar to Hi-Fi VHS or better. digital tracks are same encoding as todays music CDs. uncompressed in PCM form. now a ld can substitute one of the analog tracks for Dolby Digital(i.e L cd is mono commentary track, L ch is 5.1 DD). Both of the digital tracks combined can be used for DTS 5.1 as well. DTS on ld is 1.5mbps in bitrate which is twice of dvds. there are some blu-ray discs with DD only. an LD with DTS or 2ch uncompressed PCM Dolby Surround can will sound better.

laserdisc video is composite in nature. there are some players with s-video out however none with component or higher. those combo players do not output ld picture tru component(dvd only)

you want to buy a pioneer player. models numbers are 5xx,6xx, 7xx and Elite line-up. higher the number better the picture will be. you dont want any lesser than 7 series. ld picture heavly depends on players capabilities and good quality cables.

you can use a newer generation video processor. modern flat panels displays do a poor job on processing analog signals. other than pioneer plasmas, none will give you satisfactory picture quality. a video processor can improve the picture quality but you have to know what to expect. LD picture can match dvd on full screen content on very good equipment but that about it.

japanese lds will have japanese subtitles burned on image(can not remove) lds have no subtitle option other than close captioning. foreign movies from foreign countries will not have english subtitle options. US lds will have eng subs burned on image.

older ld player do not have dolby digital out(can be modified)

collecting lds is addicting but a pointless hobby. I am in the process of spending 4000+ us dollars on a video processor and 4000+ us dollars on a new laserdisc player(and already spent thousands for what i own) which will not give me any better picture than $80 dollar magnavox blu-ray player. but i just cant stop myself:)

^
That last line is so true. I have limited myself to a very mediocre Panasonic LD-600, with some nice DTS and criterion LDs. I also have the "faces" Star Wars set, so I can one day show my kids the real version. (yes, I know they're on DVD now, but LD is so much cooler!) :)

I've also gotten burned, shelling out $ for a CAV version of Aliens that now has a nice sheen of laser rot.

Laserdiscs did not have region coding or macrovision. as long as your tv/display/player decoder NTSC(japan, usa) or PAL(europe) matches the laserdisc being played (i.e NTSC Japanese LD on NTSC US TV), you wont have trouble watching them.

other than about 10 laserdiscs(which are extremely expensive now), there was never a anamorphic (in other words "enhanced for widescreen tvs") laserdisc. so widescreen laserdiscs have black bars above and below the picture. Ld has a resolution of 420 analog lines(480i is displayed on tv) so about a 100 pixels or so from top and bottom are black bars reducing visible video to less than 400 pixels. on full screen all 480 pixels are used. ld era tv shows in original are shot in 4:3 ratio so you have the full resolution and no loss from convertion.

ntsc laserdiscs can carry 2 pairs of audio tracks. left and right analog, left and right digital. analog tracks are similar to Hi-Fi VHS or better. digital tracks are same encoding as todays music CDs. uncompressed in PCM form. now a ld can substitute one of the analog tracks for Dolby Digital(i.e L cd is mono commentary track, L ch is 5.1 DD). Both of the digital tracks combined can be used for DTS 5.1 as well. DTS on ld is 1.5mbps in bitrate which is twice of dvds. there are some blu-ray discs with DD only. an LD with DTS or 2ch uncompressed PCM Dolby Surround can will sound better.

laserdisc video is composite in nature. there are some players with s-video out however none with component or higher. those combo players do not output ld picture tru component(dvd only)

you want to buy a pioneer player. models numbers are 5xx,6xx, 7xx and Elite line-up. higher the number better the picture will be. you dont want any lesser than 7 series. ld picture heavly depends on players capabilities and good quality cables.

you can use a newer generation video processor. modern flat panels displays do a poor job on processing analog signals. other than pioneer plasmas, none will give you satisfactory picture quality. a video processor can improve the picture quality but you have to know what to expect. LD picture can match dvd on full screen content on very good equipment but that about it.

japanese lds will have japanese subtitles burned on image(can not remove) lds have no subtitle option other than close captioning. foreign movies from foreign countries will not have english subtitle options. US lds will have eng subs burned on image.

older ld player do not have dolby digital out(can be modified)

collecting lds is addicting but a pointless hobby. I am in the process of spending 4000+ us dollars on a video processor and 4000+ us dollars on a new laserdisc player(and already spent thousands for what i own) which will not give me any better picture than $80 dollar magnavox blu-ray player. but i just cant stop myself:)

I was reading about laserdisc on Wikipedia and if mentioned that the first laserdisc to be released in 6.1 Dolby digital EX surround was star wars episode 1 in 1999 in japan, bug it dosnt say anything further about 6.1, hoe does that sound and are there many movies with it? Also I just found out pioneer just stopped making ld, Jan of 09! I had no idea. Are the new ones better than the older ones probably?

Sorry about my spelling, my first question was are there many movies made with 6.1, are they as available, and how do they sound compared to the DD?

Sorry about my spelling, my first question was are there many movies made with 6.1, are they as available, and how do they sound compared to the DD?

The "6.1" in this case is Dolby Digital AC-3.
6.1 & 7.1 soundtracks, in AC-3 or dts ("ES" or "EX" flavours), are available on some DVDs. They are too scarce on LD to be worth more than a mention.

Again, the standard soundtrack on LD is not Dolby Digital anything. It is high-fidelity analog FM stereo, plus CD-style PCM (uncompressed) digital stereo. Dolby Digital & dts are options, & not very common ones.

The "6.1" in this case is Dolby Digital AC-3.
6.1 & 7.1 soundtracks, in AC-3 or dts ("ES" or "EX" flavours), are available on some DVDs. They are too scarce on LD to be worth more than a mention.

Again, the standard soundtrack on LD is not Dolby Digital anything. It is high-fidelity analog FM stereo

I've always been curious, how does the analog tracks of LDs compare to other analog sources such as Hi-Fi VHS and records, assuming a well-mastered LD? Haven't really listed to many analog tracks to form an opinion of my own.

Hi-Fi VHS was an FM modulated signal far superior to analog LD tracks. Most used a noise reduction process called "CX".

My setup is X9 (composite) -> Entech CVSI-1 (component) -> CII. I have never noticed any of the aforementioned edge luminance issues reported with the Entech component model. My experience is similar to that of Hunters (I think we're both using CRT PJs, too).

I have tested every method of connectivity with this setup (with and without the Entech). The above produces the most satisfactory results. The CII's Y/C separation filter produces very similar results, as does the Y/C filter in a Marantz D-VHS deck (JVC 40K clone).

Much of this is over my head. I have a very mediocre Panasonic LX-600 which will have composite out feeding a Denon 2310CI, which has at least some of the Anchor Bay chip active. Does anyone know what comb filter is active in this receiver?

Has anyone tried 1080p/24Hz from an LD? Are results encouraging at all, or are there lots of bad edits and messed up cadences?

Just curious.

With the HLD-X9 and a VP50Pro, I generally get good results with 1080p24 for films on LD. There are occaisionally some bad edits though, especially in a couple anime discs I have, but most fare pretty well.

With the HLD-X9 and a VP50Pro, I generally get good results with 1080p24 for films on LD. There are occaisionally some bad edits though, especially in a couple anime discs I have, but most fare pretty well.

Wouldn't it be better to use a HQV chip to deinterlace Anime discs, since the cadence is different to normal films?

Michael

Wouldn't it be better to use a HQV chip to deinterlace Anime discs, since the cadence is different to normal films?
In what way? Yes, some scenes are animated "on twos" or "on threes", but virtually all LD anime (excepting Chojuu Densetsu Gestalt) is shot on 16mm or 35mm film at 24fps.
I have found that TV anime is much more subject to bad edits than OVA material. This is one reason I am irritated at my CRT HDTV — although there is an option to turn off cadence detection (since the display scans at 60i anyway, it's not really needed), it doesn't actually seem to be effective on the composite inputs at least, & a bad edit in the video causes several frames worth of stuttering. Reversed field dominance is not a pretty thing to watch!

Hi-Fi VHS was an FM modulated signal far superior to analog LD tracks. Most used a noise reduction process called "CX".
Not true at all. LD analog sound is FM with a wider deviation, better frequency response, less wow & flutter (ie better timebase stability), & better signal-to-noise ratio than VHS Hi-Fi or its Beta equivalent. Also, it never suffered from the nasty buzz VHS Hi-Fi is prone to in case of degraded tape or bad tracking.
LD analog audio is arguably the highest-fidelity analog audio ever in a consumer product. Unfortunately, many later LD players don't have very good analog audio output circuitry.

You say newer models don't have as good analog audio circuitry in your opinion. But don't the newer ones have better picture? I'm in the market for a player and I would be running it through my Onkyo txnr 1008 to a 60' LG plasma. What kind if ld player should I get. I think the turn on in a ld, for me Is sharp film style picture(grainy but Sharp). So is it true that the newer ones look more digital, less grain? That would be more like a dvd wich isn't what I want, but I also dont want grainy and blurry like a vhs or beta. Also, what about sound? Older or newer player? Or does it matter more on wich ld you play. What specs and options do u look for when buying one.

In what way? Yes, some scenes are animated "on twos" or "on threes", but virtually all LD anime (excepting Chojuu Densetsu Gestalt) is shot on 16mm or 35mm film at 24fps.

Yeah, for some reason (probably because of the differing number of cels per second as you imply) a lot of people have the impression that anime always uses weird cadences like 3:2:3:2:2 or 8:7 or whatever, like in the cadence tests some calibration discs have. Pretty sure I've never actually seen anything like that in real life since as you say, anime was shot on film until the late 90's/early 2000's. There were a few digitally-animated anime (often done at 30fps) series that were released to LD in its twilight years, such as Mata Mata Saber Marionette J and Saber Marionette J to X. AIC and possibly some other studios also animated quite a few shows that had digital openings/endings while the actual episodes were still done on traditional cels, like Bubblegum Crisis 2040.



Not true at all. LD analog sound is FM with a wider deviation, better frequency response, less wow & flutter (ie better timebase stability), & better signal-to-noise ratio than VHS Hi-Fi or its Beta equivalent. Also, it never suffered from the nasty buzz VHS Hi-Fi is prone to in case of degraded tape or bad tracking.
LD analog audio is arguably the highest-fidelity analog audio ever in a consumer product.

Yeah, I kinda figured as much. Good to hear, although I wish some of the old concerts I have were available on something other than VHS...

Unfortunately, many later LD players don't have very good analog audio output circuitry.

Hmm, I hope this doesn't include the HLD-X9...

… What kind if ld player should I get. I think the turn on in a ld, for me Is sharp film style picture(grainy but Sharp). So is it true that the newer ones look more digital, less grain? That would be more like a dvd wich isn't what I want, but I also dont want grainy and blurry like a vhs or beta.…

On most discs — it depends, of course, on your choice of programming — you will be listening to the digital stereo track anyway. My personal choice is the Pioneer CLD-D704, or its clones, which performs well & is relatively new (less likely to break down, easier to get parts for), but as is one of the later players it does employ extensive digital video processing. I tend to operate mine with the digital video noise reduction turned off.

Your ideal player is probably a Pioneer HLD-X0, but those cost thousands of dollars. An LD-S2 (http://www.laserdiscarchive.co.uk/laserdisc_archive/pioneer/pioneer_ld-x1/pioneer_ld-x1.htm), or possibly even LD-S1 (http://www.laserdiscarchive.co.uk/laserdisc_archive/pioneer/pioneer_ld-s1/pioneer_ld-s1.htm), with their good analog noise figures, could also fit your requirements, & are much less expensive, but you would have to have the modification done to put in an AC-3 RF output jack if you wanted to access the Dolby Digital 5.1 soundtracks. (The S1 also does not have a digital audio output jack as-built, although that could be added as well.) Also, if I'm not mistaken, the Sony HIL-C2EX has a "direct" video out BNC, for composite video without digital processing.

In what way? Yes, some scenes are animated "on twos" or "on threes", but virtually all LD anime (excepting Chojuu Densetsu Gestalt) is shot on 16mm or 35mm film at 24fps.
I have found that TV anime is much more subject to bad edits than OVA material. This is one reason I am irritated at my CRT HDTV — although there is an option to turn off cadence detection (since the display scans at 60i anyway, it's not really needed), it doesn't actually seem to be effective on the composite inputs at least, & a bad edit in the video causes several frames worth of stuttering. Reversed field dominance is not a pretty thing to watch!


Not true at all. LD analog sound is FM with a wider deviation, better frequency response, less wow & flutter (ie better timebase stability), & better signal-to-noise ratio than VHS Hi-Fi or its Beta equivalent. Also, it never suffered from the nasty buzz VHS Hi-Fi is prone to in case of degraded tape or bad tracking.
LD analog audio is arguably the highest-fidelity analog audio ever in a consumer product. Unfortunately, many later LD players don't have very good analog audio output circuitry.

I stand corrected. Why would they need something like "CX" noise reduction if that were the case?

Just because an audio format has good fidelity doesn't mean a noise-reduction scheme isn't useful. The purpose of using CX on LD was to expand the dynamic range, mostly. VHS & Beta FM audio used Dolby-B or something, I think ; there were some LPs pressed at that time with DBX noise reduction, & one of the forum members here swears by using DBX with the old Japanese 12-bit nonlinear PCM adaptors for recording digital audio on video tape. Actually CX was originally developed for LPs as well — it stands for "Compatible eXpansion", because unlike a lot of noise-reduction modes it doesn't sound particularly distorted if listened to without the proper decoder.

It was found that using the full ±100 kHz deviation of the left analog audio channel, in a scene with saturated colour, would result in a degree of interference between the audio carrier & the chroma subcarrier (which beats against the video FM carrier, producing high-level sidebands). Under unfavourable conditions, this could cause a beat to appear in the picture, or a buzz in the audio. As a result, it became standard mastering practice to limit the picture saturation & the audio amplitude. The CX expansion (which was quite mild, several dB below the original CBS LP specification) helped to compensate for the resulting loss of dynamic range — as the amplitude-to-deviation ratio remained as large as ever, the signal-to-noise ratio was still excellent.

The CX gain-riding method only works if the channel separation is not extreme, so the system is not used on LDs which have significantly different material on the two audio channels. This includes both AC-3 LDs, which use the left audio carrier for QPSK digital data, & discs which have alternate audio of some other kind. I have several of each, & can attest that non-CX-encoded LD audio sounds very good.

I'll say it again and won't back down. Analog NTSC color playback from a mechanical system is NOT possible without some form of subcarrier jitter correction. Now present technical documentation to the contrary or shut up! It does no good to spread this misinformation.

I feel the need to respond to this, although it is more than a year old. This statement, as well as an earlier one by the same poster that the LD modulating frequencies lock in a 46 dB signal-to-noise ratio, is incorrect. The differences arise from behaviour differences between magnetic tape, the author's reference point, & the optical disc system.

I have in my possession, & will gladly post scans of, MCA DiscoVision technical papers originally published in the IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, demonstrating that it was possible to obtain full quality colour playback from LD using a tangent servo driven by the phase error of the recovered subcarrier with respect to the reference crystal onboard the LD player. All early players implemented this system. In fact, with the use of a pilot tone, the tangent servo technique was good enough to reduce resampling phase jitter to tolerable levels for MUSE decoding. It is also worth mentioning, if only for curiosity's sake, that Pioneer did use an analog CCD bucket-brigade timebase corrector in some of its lower-end players. This was possible because of the extremely low inherent timebase error of the recovered signal — the required correction window was less than one line.

CX-encoded, annie-log LD's are just all over the place as far as sound quality goes. I have several hundred of 'em. There's more than a few that are outright atrocious. My jaw dropped when I got my first Dune LD, late 80's I'd reckon. I was stunned how bad the audio was. I rented the VHS tape and it sounded way better. By the 90's, nearly all the new LD's had Digital Sound, read PCM there.

I use my X9's analog processing for all my LD playback these days. I have a digital connection so that I could playback a DTS LD by switching the settings on my pre. I can't remember the last time I played a DTS LD though. I mostly watch ole Academy Ratio films.....Idiot's Delight is a prime example, I watched it recently. BTW, it has Digital Sound.

One of my fav' LD's doesn't have Digital Sound, It Came From Hollywood. It sounds pretty good. It's not a demanding soundtrack by any means though. It looks like a DVD or BD of this title will never materialize. Paramount owns it's rights. That's always a bad omen!

CX sound is erratic. It's usually pretty adequate for 30's and 40's films. It often sucked big time for the more recent films. When I was shopping for LD's in the early 90's, one of the first things I looked for on the sleeve was Digital Sound.

I've got some very good-sounding Analog-CX LDs. One of them is a recording of Dvorak's Sclavonic Dances, with video footage (converted from PAL, I think — anyway it mostly looks dire) shot in various places around Czechoslovakia, including the interiors of cathedrals, & a demonstration of glassblowing.

Most of them are anime discs, though, as is one of my two non-CX analog-only discs (Nausicaa — the other is a Space Archive disc, & who cares what that sounds like). The audio quality is, I would say, mostly of a high standard. I suspect the FM audio is more sensitive to mastering practices than PCM, & I'm just lucky in my choice of material.

Edit : I ought also say that I have dozens of dual-audio discs for which my preferred soundtrack is the one on the analog channels. Most of these, again, sound superb. There are a couple of clunkers, but they tend to be discs which aren't that great all around.

VHS HI-FI tracks had no dolby noise reduction. The far inferior linear stereo tracks did usually use Dolby noise reduction.

You say newer models don't have as good analog audio circuitry in your opinion. But don't the newer ones have better picture? I'm in the market for a player and I would be running it through my Onkyo txnr 1008 to a 60' LG plasma. What kind if ld player should I get. I think the turn on in a ld, for me Is sharp film style picture(grainy but Sharp). So is it true that the newer ones look more digital, less grain? That would be more like a dvd wich isn't what I want, but I also dont want grainy and blurry like a vhs or beta. Also, what about sound? Older or newer player? Or does it matter more on wich ld you play. What specs and options do u look for when buying one.

I think it's time to inject a little reality in to this thread for the benefit of joey here.

I was a big-time Laserdisc fan and collector. See my signature for evidence of that. I still cherish my LD collection. However, anyone attempting to join the format for the first time now deserves to be set some realistic expectations.

Laserdisc is an analog standard-definition video format. It was rated at 425 lines of resolution, which was significantly better than VHS (250 lines), but less than DVD (480). Although many Laserdiscs are "widescreen," almost all were non-anamorphic 4:3 letterbox. There were less than a dozen anamorphically-enhanced LDs ever released (most of them in Japan), and they are all incredibly rare and hard-to-find. See the complete list here (http://www.mindspring.com/~laserguru/squeeze.html).

By modern standards, the vast majority of Laserdiscs have terrible video transfers. The analog video format was prone to chroma noise, dropouts, crosstalk, and other distracting artifacts that have been virtually eliminated in the digital age. Some people may argue that they find these analog artifacts less distracting than some digital artifacts, but that's a "six of one, half a dozen of the other" argument at best.

The Laserdiscs that were considered back in the day to have "reference quality" video were mostly victims of heavy Digital Noise Reduction, Edge Enhancement, and other forms of electronic processing that we find quite objectionable today. We just didn't know any better at the time.

Laserdisc picture quality is also extremely dependent on the quality of the player being used. Entry-level and mid-range units are all basically crappy. LD/DVD combi units are complete garbage for both formats and should never be used under any circumstances. Any LD player from Sony should be thrown in the trash immediately. Only the top-of-the-line Pioneer models (primarily the CLD-D703 or D704, and the exotic models imported from Japan such as the HLD-X9 and HLD-X0) and maybe one Panasonic model (the LX-900) should even be considered for use with an HDTV. Even with these, the digitization needed to watch an analog LD on a digital display tends to interact badly and create all sorts of weird noise and artifacts unless you "massage" the signal with video processing in between.

Most Laserdiscs released from the mid-1980s forward have uncompressed PCM stereo audio. This can be decoded by Dolby ProLogic to give you a very basic form of surround sound. Dolby Digital 5.1 was introduced to the format late in its life, in 1995. It's a big pain in the neck to implement on LD (you need a compatible player and an external RF demodulator device). It's not at all worth the effort for the small selection of discs that offer it. DTS 5.1 came shortly afterwards. It's a little more straightforward to implement (not much different than a DVD player), but has an even smaller selection of titles, most of which are collector's items that sell for a lot of money.

You can spend many thousands of dollars to optimize LD playback. However, in the end, the very best LD player connected to the very best external comb filter and the very best video processor, played back on the very best HDTV, watching the very best-looking LD ever pressed, will give you approximately the quality of a mediocre DVD. That's the reality of the situation.

Some of us who already have heavy investments in the format and large legacy collections of discs may find all this worth the effort and expense. But I don't believe there's any point in romanticizing the benefits of the format to someone new who has no experience with it. Jumping whole-hog into the format now will be a huge mistake, IMO.

My advice: Be patient and wait until you can find a Pioneer CLD-D703 or D704 on eBay, in good condition, for around $100-150. Connect it to the TV by Composite video (not S-video), and pick up a couple of discs that were released in the format's later years for a few dollars a piece. Stick to movies made in the 1990s. That will give you a sense of what to expect. You can decide from there whether you want to invest further.

this is a very good summary.

I would also add Pioneer CLD-95 and CLD-97 and their clones.

however there are a few movies/concerts/tv shows that the LD editions are the best home video format available(some cases only form available)

for example; I am a Star Trek(all of them), X-Files, Babylon 5 fan. I believe at least the first 4 seaons of Star Trek and X-Files and available Babylon 5 LDs look better on LD than DVD counterparts.

I have these on both DVD and LD(not all seasons on LD). Babylon 5 is anamorphic widescreen on dvd however upscaled/cropped(cgi were created in 4:3 480i) cgi parts look awful which makes me prefer cropped to 4:3(originaly aired that way anyway) analog LD. X-Files and Star Trek seasons seems to be the same transfers as LD for at least the first a few seasons(Season 4 and on are anamorphic on Xfiles dvds). Since these were edited and kept in NTSC therefore forever locked to analog NTSC quality. The same applies to most concerts.

My setup is a McIntosh MLD-7020D(CLD-97 clone) with VDNR switched OFF connected to an Entech CVSI-1 composite to component integrater(2D comb filter) to a Pioneer Elite Pro-141FD Signature Plasma monitor(10th gen) with almost all enhancements switched OFF or on LOW settings.

I am planning to add a Lumagen Radiance XE soon and upgrade my player to HLD-X0 as a long term plan. I am hoping to improve my picture by %5-%15.

has anyone compared the Japanese X-Files and/or Star Trek boxsets to US ones? I have heard those are different transfers which might look a bit sharper than the US ones.

One thing I would like to add is running a 2 channel PCM through a Dolby Pro Logic II processor will yield far superior results than a Dolby Pro Logic decoder. It was "II" in name only, and a completely different system with the name simply licensed by dolby laboratories.

I feel the need to respond to this, although it is more than a year old. This statement, as well as an earlier one by the same poster that the LD modulating frequencies lock in a 46 dB signal-to-noise ratio, is incorrect. The differences arise from behaviour differences between magnetic tape, the author's reference point, & the optical disc system.

I have in my possession, & will gladly post scans of, MCA DiscoVision technical papers originally published in the IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, demonstrating that it was possible to obtain full quality colour playback from LD using a tangent servo driven by the phase error of the recovered subcarrier with respect to the reference crystal onboard the LD player. All early players implemented this system. In fact, with the use of a pilot tone, the tangent servo technique was good enough to reduce resampling phase jitter to tolerable levels for MUSE decoding. It is also worth mentioning, if only for curiosity's sake, that Pioneer did use an analog CCD bucket-brigade timebase corrector in some of its lower-end players. This was possible because of the extremely low inherent timebase error of the recovered signal — the required correction window was less than one line.

I am an IEEE member and get the journal. I don't doubt at all there was a paper presentd as to how LD could in theory achieve outstanding S/N ratios. But was this ever achieved on a mass production basis?

I entered the broadcast business in 1980 and later moved on to post production in 1984. I therefore "grew up" with 1 inch type C tape. I also had the good fortune to be living in Los Angeles where one of the most famous laser disk rental and sales dealers was located - Dave's Video. LD was my home movie format for over 15 years before DVD. And I saw first generation 1 inch tape all day long at work.

I have never seen a Laser Disk achieve the S/N of 1 inch tape. Never! It may have been possible with laboratory disk samples and engineering sample players but not in my consumer viewing expereince.

We also were the largest rental house for the CMX 6000 film offline editing system that used laserdisks. We has three ODC 610 LD recorders in house. Now this was a different process than mass produces pressed disks used but the plastic disks off these were initially worse than VHS but got better over the years. They also made a glass disk blank from optical grade glass, very expensive, to be used in applications as kiosks. These were very good, on par with pressed disks but still no match S/N wise to a virgin 1 inch tape.

So while possible on paper, I never saw S/N above roughly 46db (that of course is an emperical observation measurment because I never actually measured it off a disk.)

As for the tangent servo, that's interesting info. I do know the mid 1980s players I owned were hetrodyne due to the tell tale unlocked subcarrier. Perhaps they found this to be more cost effective in some players

Heterodyne LD players? I've worked on a Pioneer LD-660 tube player, & LD-700 & CLD-V710 solid-state machine (based, if I recall, on the CLD-1010), & reviewed the service manuals for other players, & never seen a heterocolor circuit. Up until the introduction of sampling (CCD or digital) TBC, the players never had anything more complicated in the video circuitry than a 1H delay line for DOC. How did you determine that SCH phase was unlocked? I wonder if you might not have been fooled by timebase jitter somehow.

IEEE Transactions/BTR for 1974 November contains the paper "A Review of a Video-Disc System" by Kent Broadbent of MCA Labs (beginning on p. 338), based on the initial DiscoVision 20-minute CAV disc, which recorded a whole broadcast-standard NTSC signal, audio subcarrier & all. He gives a very clear description of the TBC method implemented in, to my knowledge, all LD players without a sampling TBC. As the servo loop for the spindle motor is controlled by a standard 3.58 MHz crystal oscillator, time-base deviations are due mostly to disc eccentricity & out-of-roundness, & mechanical vibrations, most of which are at frequencies substantially less than 15.75 kHz, so that line-by-line variation is rather small (about 20 nanoseconds in the worst case allowed by the specification for eccentricity, which is about 10 microseconds over the whole frame). The detected color burst is compared to the reference oscillator, & the error is used to drive a tangent mirror to vary the velocity of the read beam, keeping the line time & thus the SC frequency reasonably constant, although some variations still occur. Apparently a total variation of 5 ns was originally considered acceptable for reproduction by domestic receivers. See also Adler, "An Optical Video Disc Player for NTSC Receivers", Trans BTR, 1974 August, pp 230 et seq, which describes the matter in terms of the Zenith thin flexible disc system. After discussing their initial use of a heteorcolor system, with downconverted subcarrier & pilot tone, which made for a complex & expensive signal path, he discusses the attempt to eliminate this complication using a tangent servo system.Finally, when the phase detector output was added to the error signal, the horizontal stripes disappeared. Clearly, then, it is possible to let the tangential servo take care of correcting the chroma phase and thereby simplify the decoder considerably.

In the same paper, Broadbent gives the FM signal-to-noise ratio at 40 dB, equivalent to a 58 dB demodulated SNR, admitting that at that point the video SNR of actual pressed discs was limited but still "better than 40 dB". Winslow, "Mastering & Replication of Reflective Videodiscs" (IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, 1976 November, pp318 et seq), gives CNR values from 57 to 66 dB for metal-film cutting, & 54 to 63 with photoresist mastering. This is for the condition with 3 unmodulated carriers, namely, video at 7.5 MHz, & 2.3 & 2.8 MHz for audio each 26 dB down from video. He does, however, report significant levels of intermodulation products, as high as -30 dB in one case, again with photoresist mastering. For injection molded replica discs, the figures are as much as 5 dB worse for IM, with little change in CNR.

My impression is that the actual discs were limited partly by pressing & mastering quality, as defects such as pit asymmetry or size variation would impair the SNR, & that considerable improvements were effected in these areas over the life of the format. I have a number of LDs, mostly later pressings, which strike me as being of excellent quality, & fully comparable with my experience of 1", although it has to be admitted that the heads on the C-Format machines in my living room are far from new. I also have some which are of mediocre quality at best, & the observation that some of these were pressed on the same equipment in the same years as the excellent ones reinforces my opinion that the source material is a strong influence.

Obviously, if the cutter is being fed from even a first-generation 1" tape, as is usually the case, the replica quality is going to be degraded from that to some degree, more so if the master is a tape-to-tape dub, which again was (to my knowledge) more the rule than the exception. More than that, if the mastering practices involved, or the actual masters themselves, were originally intended for VHS tape, there may well be substantial impairments. I have seen on disc what really looked like chroma noise from a colour-under tape, & wondered if it had been produced from a U-Matic source. This was from a company which did most of its business in the VHS market, & most of its LD releases had just the sort of muddy audio & video one would associate with that format.

Please report back once you have tried the composite output.

I finally got around to moving on this. I just got a composite cable (from Blue Jeans) and will be hooking it up to my Pioneer DVL-91. the S-Video cable is also from BJC. I'll have both going into a DVDO Duo VP and will share impressions. MY setup is in flux now because I bought a Power Plant Premier which is DOA apparently; it'll have to go back. But for video comparison only, it shouldn't matter. For now I will do a jury rig and see what happens.

[QUOTE=Josh Z;19657988]I think it's time to inject a little reality in to this thread for the benefit of joey here.QUOTE]

I didn't quote your entire post, obviously, but I have to agree with you. I am still an avid fan of LD but for mostly nostalgic reasons. I used to love getting a new boxed collector's set and I still maintain my collection and will not ever consider selling it. Heck, I still pick up a title every now and again on ebay. My urge to try to get the most from my collection culminated with my purchase of an LD-S9 a few years back. I have both of the Entech units and an Algolith Mosquito NR unit. I also have an old Faroudja broadcast comb filter sitting around somewhere. I haven't messed with any of it for some time but this thread has prompted me to do some fiddling around this weekend. Josh's last statement pretty much sums it up, though. The best of the best of the best is not going to wow you like an average DVD, for film originated material at least. I need to check out some of my concert discs to see how they look.

If I wasn't from the LD generation, I don't think I would pour a ton of money into a system now but as I said, I won't get rid of my collection because I have so many fond memories of the format. Plus, one of my dad's favorite films is Disney's Song of the South and we have two copies of it on Laserdisc. That's the only way we'll ever be able to watch it so that's another reason to keep my LD player running. I'm sure there are other films and concerts that are LD exclusive as well. Beyond that, and don't hate on me, but I'm all over blu-ray from now on.

Laserdiscs were overnight obsolete 14 years ago with the first computer fitted with a DVD player, letting you play DVDs at high res on your computer screen. You knew right away that it was over for laserdiscs, just waiting for the right large 1080p tv and projectors -capable of the resolution of a computer monitor. Prices of laserdiscs started to fall and this is when a lot of newbies invested wrongly in the media in my opinion.