Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

When will X9s price go down?

Tags:
  • Laser Disc Players
  • Video
Last response: in Home Theatre Legacy
Share
Anonymous
May 20, 2004 8:18:55 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

Wasn't the CLD-D704 over $1,000 brand new? And now they're $250-$400?
The HLD-X9 has almost been out as long as the D704, yet it still
commands premium prices. When will the prices for those monsters start
coming down?

More about : x9s price

Anonymous
May 21, 2004 12:41:16 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

On 20 May 2004 16:18:55 -0700, memnon2@ziplip.com (Chris W.) wrote:

>Wasn't the CLD-D704 over $1,000 brand new? And now they're $250-$400?
>The HLD-X9 has almost been out as long as the D704, yet it still
>commands premium prices. When will the prices for those monsters start
>coming down?

I am guessing you are in the USA. Having not been sold here officially
I would say they wont go down but rather up in price. Being driven for
demand. As soon as I can afford one I plan to get one. Whuch might be
never.
Anonymous
May 21, 2004 4:54:33 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

The price has seemed to have gone up since they are now out of production
and this is not a US released unit. In time they'll go down.

Kurtis


<john33907@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:eujqa05fs4ppsbonefqmtkbrc8gi2g5fde@4ax.com...
> On 20 May 2004 16:18:55 -0700, memnon2@ziplip.com (Chris W.) wrote:
>
> >Wasn't the CLD-D704 over $1,000 brand new? And now they're $250-$400?
> >The HLD-X9 has almost been out as long as the D704, yet it still
> >commands premium prices. When will the prices for those monsters start
> >coming down?
>
> I am guessing you are in the USA. Having not been sold here officially
> I would say they wont go down but rather up in price. Being driven for
> demand. As soon as I can afford one I plan to get one. Whuch might be
> never.
Anonymous
May 21, 2004 3:57:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

"Kurtis Bahr" <kbahr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:2fOdnUlKA6WfETDdRVn-vw@comcast.com...
> The price has seemed to have gone up since they are now out of
production
> and this is not a US released unit. In time they'll go down.

I don't know that they ever will go down. The unit was made in small
production runs, and generally people who buy one hold onto it. You
don't see very many of these on the used market. Hence it is very rare
in the United States, and still highly desireable because of its
reputation. Prices will only come down when supply exceeds demand, which
certainly won't be anytime in the near future.
Anonymous
May 28, 2004 6:29:07 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

"Joshua Zyber" <jzyber@SPAMMERS-DROP-DEAD.mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<09mrc.23964$KE6.14357@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> "Kurtis Bahr" <kbahr@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:2fOdnUlKA6WfETDdRVn-vw@comcast.com...
> > The price has seemed to have gone up since they are now out of
> production
> > and this is not a US released unit. In time they'll go down.
>
> I don't know that they ever will go down. The unit was made in small
> production runs, and generally people who buy one hold onto it. You
> don't see very many of these on the used market. Hence it is very rare
> in the United States, and still highly desireable because of its
> reputation. Prices will only come down when supply exceeds demand, which
> certainly won't be anytime in the near future.

Yes, that's fer sure.

I have three (yes, 3, of the X9s (don't ask :-) (I was in the right place
at the right time)) and there are many LDs whose sound and/or video far,
far, exceeds that on the comparable DVD release(s) and I will never sell
my X9s (esp. considering how many LDs I have).

Regardless of what "the Cretin" might snipe-in and write, there are many
excellent LDs for which the DVD counterparts pale in comparison. Be that
as it may, I do have some 2000+ DVDs to complement (NOT supplement) my
4000+ LDs (simply due to the (sad) fact LDs haven't been maufactured for
awhile).

Sigh. I've been at a startup for 4-1/2 years now where almost everyone is
1/2 to 1/3 my age and "innocent", yet when they come over for my movie nights
(on LD (natch :-)) they are simply flabbergasted at the quality, both sound
and video.

Yeah, I know I'm preaching to the choir, but, jeez ...
Anonymous
May 29, 2004 3:53:58 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

>Regardless of what "the Cretin" might snipe-in and write, there are many
excellent LDs for which the DVD counterparts pale in comparison.>

It is common knowledge to any content oriented enthusiast that the number
of LDs that offer a higher integrity presentation of content than the DVD
release is minuscule. It seems that almost daily there are releases on DVD that
were never offered OAR, 5.1, or with extras on LD. Today I will be enjoying the
DVD release of Ralph Bakshi's WIZARDS for the first time in anamorphically
enhanced OAR. The $14.95 MSRP DVD offers an audio commentary, a documentary,
trailers, and more. The LD was bare bones P&S and carried an MSRP of $34.95. I
purchased the WIZARDS DVD for $9.98. No LD ever offered that kind of bang for
the buck. Wishing for the good ol' days of LD, days that were not even that
good, is a fool's errand. I can think of no one that fits that bill better than
the LD foreverist poster to whom I am responding.

>Be that as it may, I do have some 2000+ DVDs to complement (NOT supplement) my
4000+ LDs (simply due to the (sad) fact LDs haven't been maufactured for
awhile).>

Get a tissue for the LDer crybaby. DVD has been a "godsend" for non
format or obsolete technology obsessed enthusiasts. The DVD format routinely
offers much higher A/V performance, far greater value, and worlds better
sophistication and convenience than the LD "VHS disks" loved so much by so few.


>yet when they come over for my movie nights (on LD (natch :-)) they are
simply flabbergasted at the quality, both sound and video.>

I would love to hear how the poster overcomes the design limitations of
LD to deliver such magical LD performance. It cannot be easy when one starts
out with lower resolution, composite color, chroma noise, and the rest of LD's
cumbersome outdated "features." That must be quite an easy crowd to please.

Along the same lines, I just hosted my 52nd Movie/Film appreciation
class/program, MOVIES 101, for my circle of friends. Not one of them has ever
confused the "state of the art" standard definition 480p performance of DVD for
what LD via my tip top HLD-X9 can muster.
The obsolete LaserDisc format was as severely hampered by its
technological era as the limitations of its specifications. I will never let
format sentimentality prevent me from enjoying the advances of modern and
future A/V delivery systems.

Kraig
Anonymous
June 2, 2004 5:56:52 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

kamcgann@aol.com (KAMCGANN) wrote in message news:<20040528195358.13612.00000035@mb-m20.aol.com>...
> >Regardless of what "the Cretin" might snipe-in and write, there are many
> excellent LDs for which the DVD counterparts pale in comparison.>
>
> It is common knowledge to any content oriented enthusiast that the number
> of LDs that offer a higher integrity presentation of content than the DVD
> release is minuscule. It seems that almost daily there are releases on DVD that
> were never offered OAR, 5.1, or with extras on LD. Today I will be enjoying the
> DVD release of Ralph Bakshi's WIZARDS for the first time in anamorphically
> enhanced OAR. The $14.95 MSRP DVD offers an audio commentary, a documentary,
> trailers, and more. The LD was bare bones P&S and carried an MSRP of $34.95. I
> purchased the WIZARDS DVD for $9.98. No LD ever offered that kind of bang for
> the buck.

It is true that a year 2000+ DVD offers better bang for buck than a
1980+ technology LD.

But in the same time span, other fields (such as Personal Computers)
have gone from Apple II to Windows XP, and the cost of hardware has
fallen to a fraction of what it used to be.

In this light, i think DVD is a disappointment. The progress over LD
is simply not enough !

If DVD had been skipped altogether, we could possibly have had a world
wide launch of HD DVD by now.

Only HD DVD offers a significant progress over LD justified by 20
years of evolution. Anamorphically enhanced NTSC or PAL is still
unacceptable.

In short, i think DVD is a replacement for VHS (mass market), while HD
DVD will be the true replacement for LD (enthusiast market).

Of course there always will be unreplaceable LDs, the way there are
also LPs, VHSs, VHDs or whatever obsolete format with no better
release. There will be DVDs as well... probably there are already.

Nicolas
Anonymous
June 2, 2004 9:50:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

>If DVD had been skipped altogether, we could possibly have had a world wide
launch of HD DVD by now.>

Without the unprecedented success of DVD worldwide, there would be the
perception of insufficient demand for any present or future higher performance
A/V formats. DVD demonstrated that a great design, high capability, and an
excellent value, sells. LaserDisc missed on all three counts and nearly proved
that there was no significant enthusiast market.

>Only HD DVD offers a significant progress over LD justified by 20 years of
evolution. Anamorphically enhanced NTSC or PAL is still unacceptable.>

Anamorphically enhanced DVD via component video with 5.1/6.1 sound as
practically a standard feature has been world's better than LD for 7 years. DVD
is only a standard definition format, but it has whetted the appetite of
enthusiasts and consumers for HD. LaserDisc was VHS on a disc that required too
much effort for anybody that was not in love with the quirky limitations of
LD's "old when it was new" design and functionality. LaserDisc was a micro
niche format that was loved very much by very few. Its greatest accomplishment
is that its numerous design, specification, and marketplace challenges were an
inspiration to do a disc format right. I am very thankful for DVD as it has
significantly upgraded my A/V stable and the standard definition contingent of
my content collection.

>In short, i think DVD is a replacement for VHS (mass market), while HD DVD
will be the true replacement for LD (enthusiast market).>

DVD may have been intended to only replace VHS, but the "enthusiasts
market" showed its preference for DVD almost before the format was introduced.
Since DVD's launch, the enthusiast and consumer market alike have chosen DVD as
the reference standard definition format. DVD has made "Widescreen" a household
word and has offered extras abundantly and delivers its A/V wares much more
conveniently than LD did. LaserDisc limped along in obscurity and its only
bragging rights were that it could outperform VHS, but was not offered as a
recordable format and could not even play movies without interruption.

Kraig
Anonymous
June 3, 2004 12:09:28 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

> In short, i think DVD is a replacement for VHS (mass market), while HD
> DVD will be the true replacement for LD (enthusiast market).

Wouldn't D-VHS more logically be a replacement for VHS, due to them
being similar formats? The true replacement for Laserdisc was probably
Hi-Defintion Laserdisc.
Anonymous
June 3, 2004 8:37:09 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

"Chris W." <memnon2@ziplip.com> wrote in message
news:9fecf0b.0406021909.32248966@posting.google.com...
> > In short, i think DVD is a replacement for VHS (mass market), while
HD
> > DVD will be the true replacement for LD (enthusiast market).
>
> Wouldn't D-VHS more logically be a replacement for VHS, due to them
> being similar formats? The true replacement for Laserdisc was probably
> Hi-Defintion Laserdisc.

D-VHS at its highest market penetration is an even smaller niche market
than laserdisc was at its lowest point, and D-VHS's extinction is
imminent. I don't think you're getting his point. He's not comparing
tape to tape or disc to disc. He's comparing the mass market formats
against high-end niche formats.
Anonymous
June 3, 2004 11:07:12 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

>LaserDisc missed on all three counts and nearly proved
>that there was no significant enthusiast market.

I'm not sure that DVD is proof of the existance of an enthusiast market. It's
simply proof that a realitivly inexpensive replacement for VHS sells. LD's
biggest problem was it's high cost.

>LaserDisc was VHS on a disc that required too
>much effort for anybody that was not in love with the quirky limitations of
>LD's "old when it was new" design and functionality

LD was at least as big an improvement over VHS as DVD has been over LD.
Anonymous
June 3, 2004 9:19:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

I'm not sure that DVD is proof of the existance of an enthusiast market. It's
simply proof that a realitivly inexpensive replacement for VHS sells. LD's
biggest problem was it's high cost.>

There was certainly a small group of film/movie "enthusiasts" that
supported LD. However, I believe that DVD's unqualified success has created the
enthusiast "market." DVD Special Editions are announced nearly every day and
can sell in the millions. DVD has done far more for enthusiast "causes" than
LD, i.e., the almost routine offering of: OAR, behind the scenes extras,
multiple audio commentaries and soundtracks, greater and more sophisticated
resolution and more accurate sound reproduction. In the LD days, "enthusiasts"
used to get excited about a trailer being included because that made it a
LaserDisc "Special Edition."
If a Special Edition DVD that offers anamorphic enhancement, DTS
and/or higher bit rate Dolby Digital than LD's AC-3 with easy to access extras
is not intended for enthusiasts, then I do not know who they are intended for.
The LaserDisc format never released a Special Edition with DTS or with
Anamorphic Enhancement. Do you still want to go back to the good ol' days of
LD?


>>LaserDisc was VHS on a disc that required too much effort for anybody
that was not in love with the quirky limitations of LD's "old when it was new"
design and functionality.>>

<LD was at least as big an improvement over VHS as DVD has been over LD.>

Except that DVD can do everything that LD could do and more. LD
could not do everything that VHS could do. LD had better audio and video than
VHS, but its players were expensive and high maintenance, did not offer
recording, and could not play movies uninterrupted.

This has been a good week for you, Steve. You learned that LD's DTS
bit rate has always been only 80% of DVD and D-VHS/D-Theater's full bit rate,
that a DVD can indeed store 1509kpbs DTS, that SuperBit DVDs offer only
improved picture along with DD5.1 and DTS 754kbps, and that LD compromised its
dynamic range.

Kraig
Anonymous
June 4, 2004 6:34:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

memnon2@ziplip.com (Chris W.) wrote in message news:<9fecf0b.0406021909.32248966@posting.google.com>...
> > In short, i think DVD is a replacement for VHS (mass market), while HD
> > DVD will be the true replacement for LD (enthusiast market).
>
> Wouldn't D-VHS more logically be a replacement for VHS, due to them
> being similar formats? The true replacement for Laserdisc was probably
> Hi-Defintion Laserdisc.

I'm not sure how much life D-VHS will have. Those who want to record
in HD will purchase recordable HD DVD - which already exists - or
record onto HDD. NTSC can perfectly well be recorded on regular DVD. I
think D-VHS only exists while waiting for HD DVD to spread. In fact i
don't see any future for any tape based system.
Anonymous
June 4, 2004 8:15:17 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

kamcgann@aol.com (KAMCGANN) wrote...
> If a Special Edition DVD that offers anamorphic enhancement, DTS
> and/or higher bit rate Dolby Digital than LD's AC-3...<snip>

I have yet to encounter an AC-3 LD with a lower DD 5.1 bit rate than
the maximum allowable of 448 kbps. If you know of an AC-3 LD that
refutes my albeit limited observation (based upon ca. 30 titles in my
collection), I would appreciate knowing about it.

Otherwise, AFAIK, the bit rate for DVD cannot be higher for DD 5.1
than it was for AC-3 LD. However, the bit rate for DD 5.1 on DVD
*CAN* be lower than 448 kbps (384, 320, 256, and 224 kbps come
immediately to mind).

TIA,

-Junior
Anonymous
June 4, 2004 10:09:38 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

>You learned that LD's DTS
>bit rate has always been only 80% of DVD

But that isn't true. The vast majority of DVDs use half rate DTS making them
output at far below LD level.

>and D-VHS/D-Theater's full bit rate,

I have no idea what the average DTS D-VHS tape is encoded at. Beyond that, how
many D-VHS tapes actually have DTS? It's only in the last few months that JVC
has released a DTS compatible deck.
Anonymous
June 4, 2004 1:01:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

Steve,

"Don't feed the troll", Kraig won't ever listen to your arguments.

Rgds,
Julien


Steve Grauman wrote:
>>LaserDisc missed on all three counts and nearly proved
>>that there was no significant enthusiast market.
>
>
> I'm not sure that DVD is proof of the existance of an enthusiast market. It's
> simply proof that a realitivly inexpensive replacement for VHS sells. LD's
> biggest problem was it's high cost.
>
>
>>LaserDisc was VHS on a disc that required too
>>much effort for anybody that was not in love with the quirky limitations of
>>LD's "old when it was new" design and functionality
>
>
> LD was at least as big an improvement over VHS as DVD has been over LD.
Anonymous
June 4, 2004 3:45:31 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

"unclejr" <watsona@kenyon.edu> wrote in message
news:139de3b3.0406040315.58262be5@posting.google.com...
> I have yet to encounter an AC-3 LD with a lower DD 5.1 bit rate than
> the maximum allowable of 448 kbps. If you know of an AC-3 LD that
> refutes my albeit limited observation (based upon ca. 30 titles in my
> collection), I would appreciate knowing about it.
>
> Otherwise, AFAIK, the bit rate for DVD cannot be higher for DD 5.1
> than it was for AC-3 LD.

You've got the numbers backwards. Laserdisc's bit rate for Dolby Digital
is 384 kb/s. DVD's is variable and can reach up to 448 kb/s.
Anonymous
June 5, 2004 2:28:55 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

>>You learned that LD's DTS bit rate has always been only 80% of DVD>>

>But that isn't true. The vast majority of DVDs use half rate DTS making them
output at far below LD level.>

Naughty Naughty Steve. You did not quote my sentence completely. Here is
my sentence without Steve's editing.

"You learned that LD's DTS
bit rate has always been only 80% of DVD and D-VHS/D-Theater's full bit rate"

Though it is true that most DTS DVD's are 754kbps, I never inferred
otherwise and referred specifically to the DVD format's full bit rate of
1509kbps.

Steve is welcome to think that a DTS DVD encoded at 754kbps with full
dynamic range is inferior to a DTS LD with compromised dynamic range. My
experience is clearly not the same as his. I have been quite impressed with DTS
DVDs at both bit rates. A DTS LD is no slouch, but like all of the LD format's
specifications and capabilities, DVD has bettered them.
Kraig
Anonymous
June 5, 2004 2:42:11 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

"Joshua Zyber" <jzyber@SPAMMERS-DROP-DEAD.mindspring.com> wrote...
> You've got the numbers backwards. Laserdisc's bit rate for Dolby Digital
> is 384 kb/s. DVD's is variable and can reach up to 448 kb/s.

Okay, Josh. I'll aver to your usual air of authority on these
matters. Unlike your system, I cannot measure the bitrate of LDs
directly. However, EVERY TIME that I capture DD 5.1 from an LD, the
resulting AC3 file is 448 kbps. Weird.

-Junior
Anonymous
June 5, 2004 2:55:44 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

> Steve is welcome to think that a DTS DVD encoded at 754kbps with full
>dynamic range is inferior to a DTS LD with compromised dynamic range

I've always preferred DTS sound to Dolby Digital. Anytime I have the option of
getting a movie that I want in a package that includes DTS sound, I usually do
so. However, I've been told -and have seen no evidence to the opposite- that
LDs generally carry a higher bit-rate than DVDs where DTS sound is concerned.
In doing an A/B comparison I found DTS sound on an LD to be better than the DVD
counterpart, at least in my limited sample. DVD may be capable of handling a
higher bit-rate than LD, but that capability is sparsely put to use making the
point moot at best. The engine in my car could be tuned to well over 300Hp. But
I have not tuned it as such, so talking about the capability for such power is
pointless.

> A DTS LD is no slouch, but like all of the LD format's
>specifications and capabilities, DVD has bettered them.

But in this case the improvement is moot because it's rarely put to use. If
there are still some LDs with better sound than their DVD counterparts than
it's simply proof that DVD was not a unanimous improvment over LD. DVD
technology carries with it a host of it's own issues and limitations, many of
which LD never suffered from. Hell, DVD wasn't even able to eliminate the
neccesity to change discs. My DVD copies of The Godfather Part II and Once Upon
A Time in America both require 2 discs in order to view the entire movie. And
the disc change with OUATIA is particularly bad, they choose a poor spot to
make the break.
Anonymous
June 5, 2004 3:00:06 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

>I'm not sure how much life D-VHS will have. Those who want to record in HD
will purchase recordable HD DVD - which already exists - or record onto HDD.>

I recently added a JVC HM-DH40000U to my A/V stable and my reasoning
may be interesting to some. Firstly, I have no intention of purchasing many
D-Theater tapes. Thus far, I have only purchased TRUE LIES, as the D-Theater
offering betters both the DVD and the DTS LD as the DVD was not anamorphically
enhanced or DTS and the D-Theater tape offers full dynamic range full bit rate
1509kbps DTS and the DTS LD does not and X-MEN 2 because it has DTS and is
supposed to be a reference quality tape. Secondly, I am not receiving any HD
signal from cable or satellite so I am currently under utilizing the unit. My
main reason for purchasing the D-VHS player is to play my standard VHS library.
I read that the player can play regular VHS better than any other VHS deck ALA
the HLD-X9 with LaserDiscs. I like that the standard VHS comes through my HD
set's component inputs and that the sound is sent to my receiver via an optical
digital port. The standard VHS playback performance has been good, though not
earth shattering.

I have enjoyed playing with the HD tapes and may purchase a few
more, but not from Widescreen Review. They do not tell you their shipping costs
up front or in the "shopping cart." I trusted them, so I completed my order
anyway. They charged me nearly 12 dollars to ship two tapes! I complained. They
said they were sorry I did not like their service. At least they were sorry. :) 
Amazon.com offers free shipping for D-Theater tapes.

Kraig
Anonymous
June 5, 2004 3:07:55 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

Joshua Zyber wrote:
> "unclejr" <watsona@kenyon.edu> wrote in message
> news:139de3b3.0406040315.58262be5@posting.google.com...
>
>>I have yet to encounter an AC-3 LD with a lower DD 5.1 bit rate than
>>the maximum allowable of 448 kbps. If you know of an AC-3 LD that
>>refutes my albeit limited observation (based upon ca. 30 titles in my
>>collection), I would appreciate knowing about it.
>>
>>Otherwise, AFAIK, the bit rate for DVD cannot be higher for DD 5.1
>>than it was for AC-3 LD.
>
>
> You've got the numbers backwards. Laserdisc's bit rate for Dolby Digital
> is 384 kb/s. DVD's is variable and can reach up to 448 kb/s.
>

Just picking a nit here. The data rate for a single DD track is not
variable. Different rates can be used but the rate isn't changed in
midstream. The video bitrate on DVDs is indeed variable, the audio
bitrates are not.

Matthew

--
If the war in Iraq was over oil, we lost.
Anonymous
June 5, 2004 3:34:53 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

> X-MEN 2 because it has DTS

So does my DVD copy. But probably at a much lower bit-rate. However, DTS D-VHS
tapes are still somewhat sparse as JVC's DTS compatible deck is fairly new
(less than a year old if memory serves me). I've seen a couple of D-VHS tapes
in action and they blew me away. The picture quality is amazing. However, I'm
still put off by the limitations of a tape-based format, probably now moreso
than ever because I've been getting spoiled by the ease of DVD playback since
early 1998. And I've got so few VHS tapes left that the VHS and S-VHS decks
I've got (2 of which were fairly expensive at the time they were new) will tide
me over fine.
Anonymous
June 5, 2004 3:40:58 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

>I've always preferred DTS sound to Dolby Digital.>

Something Steve and I agree on.

>I've been told -and have seen no evidence to the opposite- that LDs
generally carry a higher bit-rate than DVDs where DTS sound is concerned.>

DTS LDs are 1235kbps but do not have the dynamic range that DTS DVDs
offer in either the 1509kbps or 754kbps bit rates.

>In doing an A/B comparison I found DTS sound on an LD to be better than the
DVD
counterpart, at least in my limited sample.>

If you feel that your "limited sample" is sufficient to make your
assessment of LD DTS vs DVD DTS, your work is done. I have found no inferiority
in 754kbps DTS on DVD when compared to DTS LDs. However, I have a powerful
audio system in 6.1 configuration and probably benefit from the dynamic range
advantages of DVD.

<If there are still some LDs with better sound than their DVD counterparts than
it's simply proof that DVD was not a unanimous improvment over LD.>

The DVD format's specifications and capabilities are a "unanimous
improvement" over the obsolete LaserDisc format. Compare the best LD to the
best DVD. Arguing about a particular release of the DVD or LD format is another
thread. I have never judged a format by a non representative offering and I
have rejected below par releases from both formats. You seem to like to speak
in general terms. In general, I find the DVD format to be far superior to the
LD format.

>DVD technology carries with it a host of it's own issues and limitations, many
of which LD never suffered from.>

Now you are getting silly. The DVD format is certainly not perfect, but
can almost seem so because it is so far superior to LD. Do you really wish to
return to the malaise of the LD era? If there were still day and date side by
side releases of DVDs and LDs, would you still buy new LDs?
Kraig
Anonymous
June 5, 2004 6:12:26 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

> If you feel that your "limited sample" is sufficient to make your
>assessment of LD DTS vs DVD DTS, your work is done.

I've got several hundred DVDs at the monet, a good sampling of which have DTs
sound. I've become fairly familiar with the general quality of DTS from DVDs
and did a comparison with several different LDs. I'm not here claiming that all
LDs have superior sound over all DVDs. I'm simply pointing out that DVD may not
be the all encompassing king of home-theater media you claim it is, considering
that there are still some LDs that outshine their DVD counterparts.

>However, I have a powerful
>audio system in 6.1 configuration and probably benefit from the dynamic range
>advantages of DVD.

I have a fairly powerful system currently configured for 5.1 sound. This is the
system I used for evaluation, primarily because I know it well.

> Now you are getting silly. The DVD format is certainly not perfect, but
>can almost seem so because it is so far superior to LD. Do you really wish to
>return to the malaise of the LD era?

Not entriely. But certain things that Lds lacked, like compression artifacting
can be missed as much as DVDs improvements can be greeted.

>If there were still day and date side by
>side releases of DVDs and LDs, would you still buy new LDs?

Most likely, no. But this is a silly question, and I suppose that side by side
comparisons would need to be done.
Anonymous
June 5, 2004 7:34:13 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

"Matthew L. Martin" <mlmartin@me.com> wrote in message
news:95c3ae49da8a6f525131df54ade21f71@news.teranews.com...
> > You've got the numbers backwards. Laserdisc's bit rate for Dolby
Digital
> > is 384 kb/s. DVD's is variable and can reach up to 448 kb/s.
>
> Just picking a nit here. The data rate for a single DD track is not
> variable. Different rates can be used but the rate isn't changed in
> midstream. The video bitrate on DVDs is indeed variable, the audio
> bitrates are not.

Yes, the "variable" I used was perhaps not the best word. What you
describe is what I was trying to say.
Anonymous
June 5, 2004 7:57:11 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

> I'm simply pointing out that DVD may not be the all encompassing king of
home-theater media you claim it is, considering that there are still some LDs
that outshine their DVD counterparts.>

Although I never referred to it as such, DVD could certainly be called
"the King of Home Theater media" as it has sold more OAR, anamorphically
enhanced, 5.1/6.1, Special Editions than any other format. If you are unaware,
there is an important qualification to my enthusiastic support for the well
executed offerings of the DVD format. Though I consider the DVD format to be
the reference, state of the art standard definition format, it is only a
standard definition format. I have never thought it would or would want it to
be the "zenith" of formats, like you and your LDer brethren have felt about LD.
I am looking forward to HD-DVD and beyond.

>>Do you really wish to return to the malaise of the LD era?>>

>Not entriely. But certain things that Lds lacked, like compression artifacting
can be missed as much as DVDs improvements can be greeted.>

I have a well calibrated 73inch WS HDTV and a pretty darn good DVD
player, a Panasonic DVD-XP30. Well mastered DVDs do not exhibit compression
artifacts. LD's composite colors, chroma noise contamination, and 1/3 less
horizontal resolution from WS sources are much more distracting issues in my
theater.

>>If there were still day and date side by side releases of DVDs and LDs, would
you still buy new LDs?>>

>Most likely, no. But this is a silly question, and I suppose that side by side
comparisons would need to be done.>

I was not trying to trick you and should have worded the question
better.

If there were still day and date side by side releases of DVDs and
LDs, and the releases were well executed representations of their respective
formats' capabilities, would you still buy new LDs?

Kraig
Anonymous
June 5, 2004 8:09:16 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

>I have never thought it would or would want it to
>be the "zenith" of formats, like you and your LDer brethren have felt about
>LD.

This is hardly the case, at least for me. I find LD attractive because it
represents the best possible avaliable version of many titles, for a number of
reasons. Many LDs have yet to be re-printed as DVDs, many more, such as
Criterion releases, contained supplements not avaliable on the newer DVDs. I
find DVD to have superior picture and sound *most of the time* but would not go
so far as to say that DVD will always be better, or is even generally better.
Which version of a particular release is better is entirely subject to how you
qualify the word.

> I have a well calibrated 73inch WS HDTV and a pretty darn good DVD
>player, a Panasonic DVD-XP30. Well mastered DVDs do not exhibit compression
>artifacts.

Of course the XP30 was borderline where Layer Change, Responsiveness and
Recovery Time were concerned in Home Theater and Hi-Fi's testing. And it failed
tests regarding 2-2 Cadence and Film Flags. DVD players of all level are prone
to problems.
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/cgi-bin/shootout.cgi?fun...
es=all&type=DVD+Player&manufacturer=6&maxprice=0&deInt=0&mpeg=0

> If there were still day and date side by side releases of DVDs and
>LDs, and the releases were well executed representations of their respective
>formats' capabilities, would you still buy new LDs?

Assuming both releases represented the best possible picture and sound from
their respective technologies, I'd take the DVD. However, only in a dream world
will this always be the case. And the question fails to address the issue of
bonus materials which may or may not sway my decision.
June 5, 2004 10:57:03 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

watsona@kenyon.edu (unclejr) wrote in message news:<139de3b3.0406042142.c7d2799@posting.google.com>...
> "Joshua Zyber" <jzyber@SPAMMERS-DROP-DEAD.mindspring.com> wrote...
> > You've got the numbers backwards. Laserdisc's bit rate for Dolby Digital
> > is 384 kb/s. DVD's is variable and can reach up to 448 kb/s.
>
> Okay, Josh. I'll aver to your usual air of authority on these
> matters. Unlike your system, I cannot measure the bitrate of LDs
> directly. However, EVERY TIME that I capture DD 5.1 from an LD, the
> resulting AC3 file is 448 kbps. Weird.
>
> -Junior

AC3 on LD is 384kbps.
Anonymous
June 5, 2004 5:32:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

unclejr wrote:
> "Joshua Zyber" <jzyber@SPAMMERS-DROP-DEAD.mindspring.com> wrote...
>
>>You've got the numbers backwards. Laserdisc's bit rate for Dolby Digital
>>is 384 kb/s. DVD's is variable and can reach up to 448 kb/s.
>
>
> Okay, Josh. I'll aver to your usual air of authority on these
> matters. Unlike your system, I cannot measure the bitrate of LDs
> directly. However, EVERY TIME that I capture DD 5.1 from an LD, the
> resulting AC3 file is 448 kbps. Weird.

Not really. The payload (bits actually used) can be less than the number
of bits being transfered. IIRC the DTS bitrate on "half rate" encodings
is less than 768Kbs.

Matthew

--
If the war in Iraq was over oil, we lost.
Anonymous
June 6, 2004 8:06:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

>I find LD attractive because it represents the best possible avaliable version
of many titles, for a number of reasons. Many LDs have yet to be re-printed as
DVDs, many more, such as Criterion releases, contained supplements not
avaliable on the newer DVDs.>

As I have written many times before, the format whose offering has
the highest integrity presentation of a particular subject or includes content
exclusive to a format, will be found in my collection. By overwhelming numbers,
DVD dominates my collection in this regard, but LD is well represented. I
respect individual releases of the LD format far more than the format in
general.


<<I have a well calibrated 73inch WS HDTV and a pretty darn good DVD
player, a Panasonic DVD-XP30.>>

<Of course the XP30 was borderline where Layer Change, Responsiveness and
Recovery Time were concerned in Home Theater and Hi-Fi's testing. And it failed
tests regarding 2-2 Cadence and Film Flags. DVD players of all level are prone
to problems.>

Steve was being naughty again. Even though he erroneously suggests
that my player failed two tests, there was only one, the insignificant test,
"2-2 Cadence, Film Flags," something I am quite sure Steve would not have a
clue about. Steve attempted to highlight the 3 tests where the XP30's
performance was deemed average, but failed to mention that the very same
testers found that "the XP30 delivers one of the most accurate images we have
seen, combined with top-notch deinterlacing" and that "we certainly recommend
this player highly."

Steve also did not list the tests my XP30 passed with flying colors,
tests that no LaserDisc player could ever pass.

Chroma, 3-2 Film Flags
Chroma, 3-2 Alt. Flags
Chroma, 2-2 Film Flags
Chroma, 4:2:0 ICP
Video Levels
Blacker-than-Black
YC Delay
Image Cropping
Sync Subtitle to Frames
3-2 Cadence, Film Flags
3-2 Cadence, Alt. Flags
3-2 Cadence, Video Flags
3-2 Cadence, Mixed Flags
Film Mode High Detail
Bad Edit
Video to Film Transition
Incorrect Progressive Flags
Motion Adaptive


I paid $200 for my XP30 and have enjoyed exemplary performance from
the unit, performance that is world's better than the best LD via my HLD-X9.

Kraig
Anonymous
June 7, 2004 8:49:11 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

oneactor1@aol.com (Steve Grauman) wrote in message news:<20040604193453.16625.00000423@mb-m15.aol.com>...
> > X-MEN 2 because it has DTS
>
> So does my DVD copy. But probably at a much lower bit-rate. However, DTS D-VHS
> tapes are still somewhat sparse as JVC's DTS compatible deck is fairly new
> (less than a year old if memory serves me). I've seen a couple of D-VHS tapes
> in action and they blew me away. The picture quality is amazing. However, I'm
> still put off by the limitations of a tape-based format, probably now moreso
> than ever because I've been getting spoiled by the ease of DVD playback since
> early 1998. And I've got so few VHS tapes left that the VHS and S-VHS decks
> I've got (2 of which were fairly expensive at the time they were new) will tide
> me over fine.

Same for me, a 10 years old W-VHS deck is all i need to record any
format (NSTC or HD) and wait until recordable HD DVD becomes
affordable. Tapes not only deteriorate, the whole mechanism to play a
video tape is so much more complex than a laser pickup that it either
costs a lot or is not reliable. I think the public at large will not
accept to use tapes anymore due to the obvious annoyance of rewinds
and lack of direct access. Space may also be an issue, i had some
blank Blu Ray discs in hand, they're bigger than DVDs (at least the
case is) but still awesomely small for the amount of data they hold.
Anonymous
June 7, 2004 9:51:53 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

>Steve would not have a
>clue about. Steve attempted to highlight the 3 tests where the XP30's
>performance was deemed average, but failed to mention that the very same
>testers found that...

I never said it was a bad player. I was simply pointing out that perfection
does not exist among A/V equipment and even your highly regarded XP30 is prone
to borderline and even "fail-worthy" performance in certain areas. You continue
to hold DVD up as the supreme A/V format but while it may have improved upon LD
in many ways, it STILL suffers from certain problems that NO player can
completely overcome. Some of which are compression related problems that an
uncompressed format like LD simply won't ever have to endure. Besides, if we
were to count, I'd bet that quite a number of DVDs are simply straight pans of
the LaserDisc version. I too take audio and video performance highly into
consideration when making equipment and software purchases. However, where as
you are more likely to simply take the DVD without looking back, I weigh
several key factors, including the packaging. I'm willing to take what I
believe is an acceptable level of "degredation" over a DVD release if it means
getting supplements and other information that is of importance to me. Examine
T2...it took them 3 releases to create a DVD that was truly "better" than the
LD boxset that preceeded it by several years.
Anonymous
June 7, 2004 12:14:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

>I was simply pointing out that perfection does not exist among A/V equipment
and even your highly regarded XP30 is prone to borderline and even
"fail-worthy" performance in certain areas.>

When was "perfection" in anything ever mentioned by me? My "highly
regarded" XP30 clearly impressed the "benchmark" testers and has provided me
with terrific performance that can easily blow away my HLD-X9. Not bad for
$200.

>You continue to hold DVD up as the supreme A/V format but while it may have
improved upon LD in many ways, it STILL suffers from certain problems that NO
player can completely overcome.>

You are not paying attention. Would you care to try and dispute the fact
that the DVD format is the highest capability, highest performance standard
definition format?


>Some of which are compression related problems that an uncompressed format
like LD simply won't ever have to endure.>

The limitations of NTSC and composite color are considered forms of
compression and the LD format's legendary chroma noise contamination are issues
that even my HLD-X9 cannot overcome. LD is "VHS on Disc" when compared to DVD
on HD set ups.

> I too take audio and video performance highly into consideration when
making equipment and software purchases.>

Not too highly if you are so willng to settle for outdated LD level
performance. Do you own and HLD-X9 and an RP82 or XP30, or even an HD 16X9 set?


>However, where as you are more likely to simply take the DVD without looking
back, I weigh several key factors, including the packaging.>

You are making an insupportable assumption. I have repeatedly attempted
to communicate to you that I value the integrity of the content higher than the
format and have collected and rejected offerings from both DVD and LD. If it
takes a title's offerings in both the LD and the DVD formats to get all the
"goods," I purchase both. I do not compromise for any format.

>Examine T2...it took them 3 releases to create a DVD that was truly "better"
than the LD boxset that preceeded it by several years.>

A poor choice for an example. How many LD releases were there before
the LD box set?
The admittedly nice T2 box set, which I own, does not even offer 5.1
sound! It is not CAV and, of course, it is not anamorphically enhanced as no LD
box set ever offered anamorphic enhancement and/or 5.1 sound; features that are
routine for the DVD format and standard on nearly all DVD SE releases.
Obviously, discrete sound channels, 30% higher horizontal resolution,
and component video separation are not very important to you although you claim
to "take audio and video performance highly into consideration when making
equipment and software purchases."

Kraig
Anonymous
June 7, 2004 2:06:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

>You are not paying attention. Would you care to try and dispute the fact
>that the DVD format is the highest capability, highest performance standard
>definition format?

No, because I never claimed it wasn't, and I wasn't debating you on that point.
I'm debating the point that LD is still a viable format and that even in the
age of DVD it offers good performance and in some instances, a complete package
better than DVD. I should certainly hope that DVD carries SOME kind of general
improvement - it's 21 years newer technology.

>LD is "VHS on Disc" when compared to DVD
>on HD set ups.
>

I wonder how well it would hold aganist MUSE on an HD set?

> Not too highly if you are so willng to settle for outdated LD level
>performance

I'm willing to "settle" when the LD version of a movie offers me more as a
total package than the newer DVD release. I find the Criterion release of "The
Player" for instance, to be more satisfying overall the DVD version.

>Do you own and HLD-X9

No, but you knew that.

> and an RP82 or XP30

No, I've got a Denon DVD-1600 though, which is based largely on a Panasonic
design and is QUITE a good player, one of the best, really. I purchased a
Pioneer DV-656A as well about 2 years ago now, but I hardly use it.

>or even an HD 16X9 set?

We have one, in the living room, which is where my 1600 is. The Pioneer is in
my room on an analog Wega set. But that TV will be replaced this year with a
16:9 HD tube, and in the long run, I spend most of my time in the living room.
Being 21, I'm not in a position yet where I'm making enough money to dump huge
amounts at a time into home theater equipment.

>it is not anamorphically enhanced as no LD
>box set ever offered anamorphic enhancement and/or 5.1 sound; features that
>are
>routine for the DVD format and standard on nearly all DVD SE releases.

There still seem to be some older DVD releases without anamorphic video.

>Obviously, discrete sound channels, 30% higher horizontal resolution,
>and component video separation are not very important to you

Where did you gather that? What's most important to me is content. I take audio
and video performance into consideration but I'm unwilling to give up the extra
materials I want even in instances where it means sacrificing some video
quality. It's the overall package that's most important to me, not just the
quality of the picture and sound.
Anonymous
June 7, 2004 4:00:31 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

"Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040607060652.09603.00000691@mb-m11.aol.com...
> No, I've got a Denon DVD-1600 though, which is based largely on a
Panasonic
> design and is QUITE a good player, one of the best, really.

The Denon 1600 is a better player than the XP30. It uses the exact same
video section, with an improved audio section and DVD-Audio playback
capability.
Anonymous
June 8, 2004 12:52:47 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

>I'm debating the point that LD is still a viable format and that even in the
age of DVD it offers good performance and in some instances, a complete package
better than DVD. >

Please define viable with regard to the defunct LaserDisc format and
please give an example of a "complete package" LD that is superior to a DVD
complete package, I am assuming that you are talking about Special Editions.

>>LD is "VHS on Disc" when compared to DVD on HD set ups.>>

>I wonder how well it would hold aganist MUSE on an HD set?>

MUSE was an obscure quasi HD 12" disc format that played $300 disc
sets; another format that only an LDer could love. I have no doubt that HD-DVD
will blow MUSE away as VHS's HD format certainly can.

>>no LD box set ever offered anamorphic enhancement and/or 5.1 sound; features
that are routine for the DVD format and standard on nearly all DVD SE
releases.>

>There still seem to be some older DVD releases without anamorphic video.>

Of course there are. Just like there are P&S DVDs and poorly executed
DVDs. What is your point as a non anamorphic WS DVD is still better that a non
anamorphic LD? Are you unaware of LD P&S legacy? LD was very rough on its
enthusiasts as it would sell them a P&S version first, eventually a WS version,
then a WS Deluxe Edition (with trailer) then a WS Special Edition, then maybe a
box set, then possibly an AC-3 version, and then maybe a DTS version. I do not
miss the good ol' days of LD at all.

>What's most important to me is content.>

Sounds like I was just sincerely flattered.

Kraig
Anonymous
June 8, 2004 1:03:35 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

>The Denon 1600 is a better player than the XP30. It uses the exact same video
section, with an improved audio section and DVD-Audio playback capability.>

The $499 Denon 1600 passed and failed the exact same tests as the $299
XP30. Funny that Steve would try to criticize my XP30 when his player's video
performance was identical. As this poster pointed out, the players use the same
exact video section. The XP50 was Panasonic's DVD-Audio model. I passed on the
XP50 because at the time I was looking to add an exotic DVD universal player to
my stable. I will likely wait for a universal HD-DVD player.

Kraig
Anonymous
June 8, 2004 3:02:08 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

>The Denon 1600 is a better player than the XP30. It uses the exact same
>video section, with an improved audio section and DVD-Audio playback
>capability.

You have one too, don't you Josh? I love it! I bought after having a great
experienece with a Denon A/V reciever and couldn't be happier.
Anonymous
June 8, 2004 3:04:28 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

> The $499 Denon 1600 passed and failed the exact same tests as the $299
>XP30. Funny that Steve would try to criticize my XP30 when his player's video
>performance was identical.

I'm not picking on your player Kraig. I'm simply pointing out that even the
best DVD players are prone to format-specific problems, just like LD. However,
Josh seems to feel that the 1600 is a better player than your XP30....
Anonymous
June 8, 2004 3:11:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

>Please define viable with regard to the defunct LaserDisc format and
>please give an example of a "complete package" LD that is superior to a DVD
>complete package,

Criterion Edition "The Player" LD
Criterion Edition "The Game" LD
Pioneer Speical Edition "One flew over the cuckoo's nest" LD
Criterion Edition "Akira" LD
Criterion Edition "2001: A space odyssey" LD
Criterion Edition "Dr. No" LD
Criterion Edition "Dr. Strangelove" LD
Should I keep going? All of these LD offer supplements, either in number or of
type not avaliable on the DVD versions. The Criterion of Blade Runner is easily
superior to the early DVD release, which I also own.

>enthusiasts as it would sell them a P&S version first, eventually a WS
>version,
>then a WS Deluxe Edition (with trailer) then a WS Special Edition, then maybe
>a
>box set, then possibly an AC-3...

Gee, studios are never known for their multiple DVD releases. Pitch Black is
now on it's 3rd incarnation. Spiderman is on it's 2nd. So is The Usual
Suspects. T2 has had 3 releases, should I go on? The studios will screw us over
and over, regardless of the format. And 90% of every movie that comes out on
DVD is released in Pan & Scan. And I happen to know that it still acounts for
most of the DVD sales.
Anonymous
June 8, 2004 3:12:30 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

> I think the public at large will not
>accept to use tapes anymore due to the obvious annoyance of rewinds
>and lack of direct access.

That's a big part of why I've largely abondonded the format. DVD is to much
better and to much easier.
Anonymous
June 8, 2004 10:39:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

"Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040607191129.15320.00000521@mb-m26.aol.com...
> >Please define viable with regard to the defunct LaserDisc format and
> >please give an example of a "complete package" LD that is superior to a
DVD
> >complete package,

.... and also
'Raging Bull' Criterion Collection
'Midnight Cowboy' Criterion Collection
'Twilight Zones' Box sets
'Boogie Nights' Criterion Collection
'Bram Stoker's Dracula' Criterion Collection
'Glengarry Glenn Ross' Pioneer Special Edition
etc... etc...

--
Italo
Anonymous
June 9, 2004 10:35:36 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

kamcgann@aol.com (KAMCGANN) wrote in message news:<20040607165247.11585.00000669@mb-m04.aol.com>...
>
> MUSE was an obscure quasi HD 12" disc format that played $300 disc
> sets; another format that only an LDer could love. I have no doubt that HD-DVD
> will blow MUSE away as VHS's HD format certainly can.

MUSE was obscure outside of Japan, but within the country i think it
was known to most consumers, not because of MUSE LDs, but because MUSE
was also the encryption used for HD satellite analog broadcasts (BS
channel 9) which started in the early 90s and still exist.

I don't know why you call it "quasi" HD. It is not less HD than
present day digital HD which gets compressed by other means than MUSE
but compressed anyway. The Hi-Vision signal it compresses and
decompresses is 1080i, just like present day HD (to which it is
entirely compatible; ie MUSE LDs can be played on any HDTV).

HD-DVD may well surpass MUSE LDs if the compression is done properly,
we can have this debate in a few years when they come out. It surely
will be priced a lot lower, but that is justified by 10 years or more
of time lapse. In particular, i think we may see a similar price ratio
on DVD (HD/NTSC) as we saw on LD (MUSE/NTSC), it happened to be 3 to
4.

What do you call "VHS's HD" ? D-VHS ? I don't know how to compare
specs of analog MUSE with those of digital D-VHS, can you ? I have all
the specs for MUSE, if someone wants to help.

Nicolas
Anonymous
June 9, 2004 11:02:59 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

>... and also
>'Raging Bull' Criterion Collection
>'Midnight Cowboy' Criterion Collection
>'Twilight Zones' Box sets
>'Boogie Nights' Criterion Collection
>'Bram Stoker's Dracula' Criterion Collection
>'Glengarry Glenn Ross' Pioneer Special Edition

Yupp. The primary reason I want a LD player is for the Criterion titles. Most
of them have not been re-released as Criterion DVDs and I want the supplements.
Plus a few of those Pioneer Special Editions that're so good. And I can add the
Star Wars Trilogy to the list. I'll be buying the DVDs in September, but LD
will remain the only way to own the non special edition versions of the film. I
plan on getting the 1995 THX releases because they were restored, but not
tampered with.
Anonymous
June 10, 2004 3:02:26 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

"Nicolas Santini" <nsa@dk.catv.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:13d89e92.0406090535.3599f103@posting.google.com...
> What do you call "VHS's HD" ? D-VHS ? I don't know how to compare
> specs of analog MUSE with those of digital D-VHS, can you ?

It is particularly amusing to hear a person who admits to owning a D-VHS
deck complain about another obscure niche format based on an antiquated
delivery system, whose software is overpriced and undersupplied.
Anonymous
June 10, 2004 7:31:22 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

>>Please define viable with regard to the defunct LaserDisc format and please
give an example of a "complete package" LD that is superior to a DVD complete
package,>>

>Criterion Edition "The Player" LD
Criterion Edition "The Game" LD
Pioneer Speical Edition "One flew over the cuckoo's nest" LD
Criterion Edition "Akira" LD
Criterion Edition "2001: A space odyssey" LD
Criterion Edition "Dr. No" LD
Criterion Edition "Dr. Strangelove" LD
Should I keep going? >

No, especially because not one of the sets you listed above offers
either Anamorphic WS or 5.1 sound. That just does not cut it in the DVD era.

>All of these LD offer supplements, either in number or of type not avaliable
on the DVD versions. The Criterion of Blade Runner is easily superior to the
early DVD release, which I also own.>

The Criterion CAV LD of BladeRunner, that I own also, was certainly not
superior in video or audio to the DVD, but it is the version that I prefer, so
I treasue it in my collection. The extras are not stellar and are certainly
below Criterion's average.

>And 90% of every movie that comes out on DVD is released in Pan & Scan. And I
happen to know that it still acounts for most of the DVD sales.>

Not even a very good guess, Steve. Although there are Full Frame DVDs
released in addition to OAR releases, the highest selling DVDs of all time have
been OAR. The DVD format has easily sold more OAR, SE, anamorphically enhanced,
and 5.1/6.1 releases than any other format.
Kraig
Anonymous
June 10, 2004 8:06:34 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

>It is particularly amusing to hear a person who admits to owning a D-VHS deck
complain about another obscure niche format based on an antiquated delivery
system, whose software is overpriced and undersupplied.>

The poster is only amused because he is ignorant. I explained my
reasoning for my nominal support of D-VHS/D-Theater in a post that his killfile
prevented him from reading. I find the uninformed very amusing.

However, is the poster correct about D-VHS/D-Theater being an
"antiquated delivery system?" Absolutely.

Is the software "overpriced and undersupplied?" Overpriced? I don't
think so. DTS D-Theater tapes are cheaper than DTS LaserDiscs were, but offer
1080i High Definition, 1509kbps DTS with full dynamic range and can play movies
uninterrupted by side changes and disc changes. Though the number of D-Theater
titles available is very limited, I never intended to purchase many anyway. I
wanted a D-VHS deck to get the most out of the playback from my more obscure
content stored on VHS.
Kraig
Anonymous
June 10, 2004 8:25:22 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

>>MUSE was an obscure quasi HD 12" disc format that played $300 disc sets;
another format that only an LDer could love.>>

>MUSE was obscure outside of Japan, but within the country i think it was
known to most consumers, not because of MUSE LDs, but because MUSE was also the
encryption used for HD satellite analog broadcasts>

Dear Nicolas
I was wrong. I was referring to the failed Hi-Vision disc format,
not MUSE.

> don't know why you call it "quasi" HD. It is not less HD than present day
digital HD which gets compressed by other means than MUSE but compressed
anyway.>

I am no Matthew Martin, but my understanding is that Hi-Vison/MUSE is
quite a bit "less" than digital HD because of its analog limitations and its
video bit rate.

>What do you call "VHS's HD" ? D-VHS ?>

The prerecorded HD tapes that I am referring to are called
D-Theater. They have tested much better than satellite HD in the articles I
have read.

Kraig
Anonymous
June 10, 2004 8:51:09 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

>>The $499 Denon 1600 passed and failed the exact same tests as the $299 XP30.
Funny that Steve would try to criticize my XP30 when his player's video
performance was identical.>>

>I'm not picking on your player Kraig. I'm simply pointing out that even the
best DVD players are prone to format-specific problems, just like LD.>

Every player of every format has its pros and cons. I consider the
Denon 1600 and the XP30 to be top notch players that offer much greater A/V
performance than any LD player of any price. For example, the $3500 HLD-X9 is
the best player for NTSC LD playback, so I purchased it and agree, but even the
X9 lacks component video, cannot play CDs or SACDs, has slow side changes, and
no black screen option while it interrupts playback and changes sides every
thirty or sixty minutes.

>However, Josh seems to feel that the 1600 is a better player than your
XP30....
>

"Better" would be hard to demonstrate as they share the same video
processors and their video performance was identical. If he considers a
particular unit "better" simply because it offers something another model does
not for an additional $200, fine. But a more valuable opinion would be if he
had compared his beloved Denon 1600 with Panasonic's comparably equipped model,
the XP50. Just to be clear, I would not hesitate to praise or recommend the
Denon 1600 or any other nicely executed chroma bug corrected player.

Kraig
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!