Testing CLD-99 vs DVL-91 vs Japanese CLD-R7G

[Guest]

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

I put a Japanese CLD-R7G back together to test against the CLD-99 and
DVL-91. I connected them to my NTSC Pioneer RPTV to check sharpness of the
picture, I did not check color purity. I went in thinking the R7G would test
equal the 91. Also my Pioneer RPTV performs processing on composite inputs
to make them sharper and the S9/X9 in HR mode so far have been the only LD
players to match my RPTV's processing. ALL tests were performed with DVNR
and 3D processing OFF. I'm testing the base design here.

The CLD-99 was the same as all others I've seen, good detail but the S-Video
output no matter where I set the sharpness on the 99 unit cannot touch what
my RPTV does.

The DVL-91 as I expected the composite output looked like the CLD-D604, not
as detailed as the CLD-99, softer. The S-Video Output surprised me, it
sharpened up the picture and was better than the CLD-99 for sharpness. Only
problem is that the 91 does not have the Adaptive filter so it does not
process NTSC artifacts like the 99/R7G/S9/X9.

The Japanese CLD-R7G totally surprised me. Composite picture sharper than
the CLD-99. The S-Video is now the second filter I've seen to sharpen the
picture like the S9/X9 filter, it was better than the 99 and 91. Plus this
one is Adaptive. I've only seen this one R7G but it impressed me over what I
thought it would have done. I still prefer the S9 as it has more internal
adjustments to fine tune the unit but from my first look I'd buy the R7G
over the CLD-99 if I didn't want to pay for the LD-S9.

I will sometime have to compare the R7G to my X9.

Again, this was a sharpness test and background noise was equal. ALL test
were performed with DVNR and 3D Processing OFF.

Kurtis

 

[Guest]

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

"Kurtis Bahr" <kbahr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Q7-dndTcw9yHzgvcRVn-gw@comcast.com...
> The Japanese CLD-R7G totally surprised me. Composite picture sharper
> than the CLD-99. The S-Video is now the second filter I've seen to
> sharpen the picture like the S9/X9 filter, it was better than the 99
> and 91. Plus this one is Adaptive. I've only seen this one R7G but it
> impressed me over what I thought it would have done. I still prefer
> the S9 as it has more internal adjustments to fine tune the unit but
> from my first look I'd buy the R7G over the CLD-99 if I didn't want to
> pay for the LD-S9.

Any CLV streaking on this player?

 

[Guest]

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

Forgot to add that, it has the same streaking as in the 704/99/S9. The best
unit to eliminate streaking is still the HLD-X9

Kurtis

"Joshua Zyber" <jzyber@SPAMMERS-BITE-ME.mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:mCtld.15370$Gm6.14063@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "Kurtis Bahr" <kbahr@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Q7-dndTcw9yHzgvcRVn-gw@comcast.com...
>> The Japanese CLD-R7G totally surprised me. Composite picture sharper than
>> the CLD-99. The S-Video is now the second filter I've seen to sharpen the
>> picture like the S9/X9 filter, it was better than the 99 and 91. Plus
>> this one is Adaptive. I've only seen this one R7G but it impressed me
>> over what I thought it would have done. I still prefer the S9 as it has
>> more internal adjustments to fine tune the unit but from my first look
>> I'd buy the R7G over the CLD-99 if I didn't want to pay for the LD-S9.
>
> Any CLV streaking on this player?
>

 

[Guest]

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

> the CLD-99. The S-Video is now the second filter I've seen to sharpen the
> picture like the S9/X9 filter, it was better than the 99 and 91. Plus this
> one is Adaptive.

'Adaptive'. That means it switches back and forth between 2D and 3D
filtering, right? Doesn't the 99's filter do that too?

 

[Guest]

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

>Also my Pioneer RPTV performs processing on composite inputs
>to make them sharper and the S9/X9 in HR mode so far have been the only LD
>players to match my RPTV's processing.

That's probably because:
1. The S9 and X9 have the same comb filter and
2. Your Pioneer RPTV probably uses the same comb filter that's in the S9 and
X9, and may well also share some other basic video hardware.

>The CLD-99 was the same as all others I've seen, good detail but the S-Video
>output no matter where I set the sharpness on the 99 unit cannot touch what
>my RPTV does.

The CLD-99 was the only North American player I know of to use a 3D Comb
Filter. Compared to the s-video quality of the CLD-D704/CLD-79 on which the 99
is based, there would be a noticeable difference. However, the X9 and S9 had
the top-spec comb filter, several steps better than the one in the 99, which is
most likely what your RPTV also has. This accounts for that observation.

>The DVL-91 as I expected the composite output looked like the CLD-D604, not
>as detailed as the CLD-99, softer.

How did video noise compare between the 2 players?

>The S-Video Output surprised me, it
>sharpened up the picture and was better than the CLD-99 for sharpness.

This interests/surprises me. It was my understanding that the 99 had the best
comb filter of any North American player. And it is based on the CLD-D704 which
has a sharp picture.

>The Japanese CLD-R7G totally surprised me. Composite picture sharper than
>the CLD-99.

The CLD-R7G had the "middle grade" filter, one step better than the 99's but
not as good as the X9/S9 filter. How did noise levels compare?

>I still prefer the S9 as it has more internal
>adjustments to fine tune the unit but from my first look I'd buy the R7G
>over the CLD-99 if I didn't want to pay for the LD-S9.

The CLD-R7G is sort of the entry point for enthusiasts wanting a Japanese unit
and/or an upgrade from the domestic units avaliable here in the U.S. It, as per
your tests, can't quite match the performance of the S9 or X9 but it's
certainly a step-up from the CLD-99 with it's improved overall hardware and
better comb filter. In fact, I'd ventuire to say that a serious enthusiast
would skip the 99 all togethor, going straight from the CLD-97 to the CLD-R7G.
Steve Grauman

 

[Guest]

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

Yes, I think everyone here knows the S9 and X9 have the same 3D Adaptive
filter. The CLD-99 was the only US release of a 3D Adaptive filter and I
have always considered it not worth the extra money unless dot crawl drives
you nuts, many disagree with me here and that is OK. Pioneer never released
a US LD player with the better Adaptive filters. The 99 and R7G had about
the same noise levels, non down to the level of the CLD-97 or LD-S2.

My Pioneer analog RPTV is a 1988 model. It's comb filter was developed
years before the ones in the 99/S9/X9. Extremely good for it's time and
still extremely good by today's standard.

Kurtis

"Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041113194559.12394.00000682@mb-m28.aol.com...
> >Also my Pioneer RPTV performs processing on composite inputs
>>to make them sharper and the S9/X9 in HR mode so far have been the only LD
>>players to match my RPTV's processing.
>
> That's probably because:
> 1. The S9 and X9 have the same comb filter and
> 2. Your Pioneer RPTV probably uses the same comb filter that's in the S9
> and
> X9, and may well also share some other basic video hardware.
>
>>The CLD-99 was the same as all others I've seen, good detail but the
>>S-Video
>>output no matter where I set the sharpness on the 99 unit cannot touch
>>what
>>my RPTV does.
>
> The CLD-99 was the only North American player I know of to use a 3D Comb
> Filter. Compared to the s-video quality of the CLD-D704/CLD-79 on which
> the 99
> is based, there would be a noticeable difference. However, the X9 and S9
> had
> the top-spec comb filter, several steps better than the one in the 99,
> which is
> most likely what your RPTV also has. This accounts for that observation.
>
>>The DVL-91 as I expected the composite output looked like the CLD-D604,
>>not
>>as detailed as the CLD-99, softer.
>
> How did video noise compare between the 2 players?
>
>>The S-Video Output surprised me, it
>>sharpened up the picture and was better than the CLD-99 for sharpness.
>
> This interests/surprises me. It was my understanding that the 99 had the
> best
> comb filter of any North American player. And it is based on the CLD-D704
> which
> has a sharp picture.
>
>>The Japanese CLD-R7G totally surprised me. Composite picture sharper than
>>the CLD-99.
>
> The CLD-R7G had the "middle grade" filter, one step better than the 99's
> but
> not as good as the X9/S9 filter. How did noise levels compare?
>
>>I still prefer the S9 as it has more internal
>>adjustments to fine tune the unit but from my first look I'd buy the R7G
>>over the CLD-99 if I didn't want to pay for the LD-S9.
>
> The CLD-R7G is sort of the entry point for enthusiasts wanting a Japanese
> unit
> and/or an upgrade from the domestic units avaliable here in the U.S. It,
> as per
> your tests, can't quite match the performance of the S9 or X9 but it's
> certainly a step-up from the CLD-99 with it's improved overall hardware
> and
> better comb filter. In fact, I'd ventuire to say that a serious enthusiast
> would skip the 99 all togethor, going straight from the CLD-97 to the
> CLD-R7G.
> Steve Grauman

 

[Guest]

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

"Joshua Zyber" <jzyber@SPAMMERS-BITE-ME.mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<mCtld.15370$Gm6.14063@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
>
> Any CLV streaking on this player?

My own tests, made with Eraserhead (chapter 4) as suggested by Josh,
gave streaking on the R7G to be about 1/3rd what is was on an S9,
while an X9 had about none. I was able to run simultaneously all 3
decks with 3 copies of that disc. My display is an old analog Sony
HDTV.

Another advantage of the R7G over the S9 is the CAV field freeze
capability, as reported in an earlier thread.

My permanent setup is X9 + R7G. The R7G's fast operation and front
plate buttons make it a great machine for testing LDs. Moreover, these
two decks have common exterior design (also shared with Pioneer's
older DVD decks) and go well together, while the S9 looks odd imho.

Nicolas

 

[Guest]

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

oneactor1@aol.com (Steve Grauman) wrote in message news:<20041113194559.12394.00000682@mb-m28.aol.com>...
>
> The CLD-R7G had the "middle grade" filter, one step better than the 99's but
> not as good as the X9/S9 filter. How did noise levels compare?
>
> Steve Grauman

I don't know how you can state that. You probably saw my post listing
all comb filters in Japanese recent decks, a few months ago. The R7G's
filter is a late iteration of the NEC chip (previous versions found in
X0 and US 99), and as it was also used in the H9, it would suggest
Pioneer considered it to be quite high grade. Hard to say where it
stands compared to the Mitsubishi chip found in S9 and X9, but i would
bet it is much closer the Mitsubishi chip than it is to the older NEC
chips.

Nicolas

 

[Guest]

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

This 3rd generation NEC is much better than the 1st generation
implementation in the CLD-99. I did not perform any NTSC artifact
comparisons. That is what you'd have to check.

A straight 3D Digital filter specialize in doing the best job separating the
Y/C signals without creating artifacts. The Adaptive filter is a process
specifically design to look for and reduce NTSC artifacts that get through
the Y/C processing. The amount of Adaptive filtering you select in the
99/R7G/S9/X9 does start at 2D Adaptive and move to full 3D Adaptive. Full
3D will do the best job at trying to eliminate the artifacts but due to the
level of processing you can get digital smear on fast moving objects. You
just have to set it where you are happy.

Kurtis

"Nicolas Santini" <nsa@dk.catv.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:13d89e92.0411141859.672332bd@posting.google.com...
> oneactor1@aol.com (Steve Grauman) wrote in message
> news:<20041113194559.12394.00000682@mb-m28.aol.com>...
>>
>> The CLD-R7G had the "middle grade" filter, one step better than the 99's
>> but
>> not as good as the X9/S9 filter. How did noise levels compare?
>>
>> Steve Grauman
>
> I don't know how you can state that. You probably saw my post listing
> all comb filters in Japanese recent decks, a few months ago. The R7G's
> filter is a late iteration of the NEC chip (previous versions found in
> X0 and US 99), and as it was also used in the H9, it would suggest
> Pioneer considered it to be quite high grade. Hard to say where it
> stands compared to the Mitsubishi chip found in S9 and X9, but i would
> bet it is much closer the Mitsubishi chip than it is to the older NEC
> chips.
>
> Nicolas

 

[Guest]

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

"Nicolas Santini" <nsa@dk.catv.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:13d89e92.0411141849.2c577cd0@posting.google.com...
> My own tests, made with Eraserhead (chapter 4) as suggested by Josh,
> gave streaking on the R7G to be about 1/3rd what is was on an S9,
> while an X9 had about none. I was able to run simultaneously all 3
> decks with 3 copies of that disc. My display is an old analog Sony
> HDTV.

How would you compare the sharpness of the three players on your
display, Nicolas?

 

[Guest]

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

> In fact, I'd ventuire to say that a serious enthusiast would skip the 99 all
togethor, going straight from the CLD-97 to the CLD-R7G.>

It is so generous of Steve to share his musings and recommendations about
LD players he has never seen and likely will never see. This is the kind of
stuff that keeps the NG humming along.

In spite of Steve's numbingly worthless keystrokes and rampant
misspellings, I will weigh in regarding my "friend," the CLD-99. I consider the
Pioneer ELITE CLD-99 to be the Rodney Dangerfield of high end LD players. Even
though it was the best equipped US domestically released player and still
offers far better performance and capability than most other LD players, it
does not get any respect. The 99 is no HLD-X9, but the two 99s that I have
owned served me ably, required neither modification nor service, and earned my
respect.

Kraig

 

[Guest]

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

I think Kraig does have a good point here. Kraig does own two of the
best machines out there- Elite 99 and HLD X9.
What I've learned is that there is no such thing as the "perfect"
player. I have yet to see an HLD X9 or HLD X0, but I've basically seen
every other exotic player. I recently picked up another Runco LJRII out
on ebay. Had one before, but had to sell it as the price offered was too
high to refuse.
To date, the best player that I've personally seen in action was the
Runco LJRII.
It all comes down to tastes. Some players have artifacts that others
don't.
The infamous CLV Color smear, shows up on some monitors with the
D704/Elite 99 models.
The Runco, based on the Panasonic LX 900 doesn't have this issue.
Also, factoring in here is parts replacement. Pioneer still makes
replacement parts, Panasonic doesn't.
With the prices that the Elite 99's are commanding now on ebay, it's a
good time to pick up this unit!
Kevin

 

[Guest]

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

What kind of comb filter does the Runco have?

 

[Guest]

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

My GUESS is the Runco has the same 3D digital comb filter that the
Panasonic LX900 has. I don't think it has a 3D adaptive filter, because
there are no comb filter user adjustments on the Runco LJRII.
The player has MSB mods and a bona fide THX certification. I remember
playing the special edition of Star Wars on the Runco and marveling at
the picture quality. Crystal clear, razor sharp, no smearing, no chroma
noise. Of course that particular transfer is fantastic also...
Kevin

 

[Guest]

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

This is true, for the US releases the CLD-99 was a very good unit. Some
prefer the 99 and other the 97. Personally I would rather spend Elite
prices for a CLD-97 but that is just my preference, others prefer the
CLD-99.

Now that people are making money by selling Japanese players to people in
the US it has to make you rethink what to buy. I would much rather have a
LD-S9 than the CLD-99. These units were just never offered in the US, guess
it was too close to the point where the US movie industry pushed DVD's and
LD player sales slowed down.

Kurtis


"KAMCGANN" <kamcgann@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041116020240.06040.00000382@mb-m19.aol.com...
>> In fact, I'd ventuire to say that a serious enthusiast would skip the 99
>> all
> togethor, going straight from the CLD-97 to the CLD-R7G.>
>
> It is so generous of Steve to share his musings and recommendations
> about
> LD players he has never seen and likely will never see. This is the kind
> of
> stuff that keeps the NG humming along.
>
> In spite of Steve's numbingly worthless keystrokes and rampant
> misspellings, I will weigh in regarding my "friend," the CLD-99. I
> consider the
> Pioneer ELITE CLD-99 to be the Rodney Dangerfield of high end LD players.
> Even
> though it was the best equipped US domestically released player and still
> offers far better performance and capability than most other LD players,
> it
> does not get any respect. The 99 is no HLD-X9, but the two 99s that I have
> owned served me ably, required neither modification nor service, and
> earned my
> respect.
>
> Kraig

 

[Guest]

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

>It is so generous of Steve to share his musings and recommendations about
>LD players he has never seen and likely will never see. This is the kind of
>stuff that keeps the NG humming along.

It's really a matter of logic, Kraig. The CLD-99 was really a CLD-D704 with a
more advanced comb filter. However, comb-filter technology has progressed since
that model was inroduced and many higher-end television sets offer internal
filtering superior to that of the 99. Therefore, a "serious" enthusiast would
probably run the 99 via composite output if they were using a high-end monitor,
rendering a picture quality identicle to that of the less expensive and
otherwise equally competant 704. If one owned a CLD-97, which has lower noise
levels than than the 704/99 and also owned a high-end monitor, it simply would
not make sense for a CLD-99 to be the next step. The CLD-R7G or LD-S9 would be
neccesary in order for there to be a noticeable difference in performance. If
you reject this logic, you would need steady grounds to do so. Please check
your footing before attempts at wit, which I must inform you is not your strong
suit.
Steve Grauman

 

[Guest]

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

I agree with this post from Steve, this is exactly what I have been saying
for years. Until last week I did not know to put the R7G into this category
of a unit to seriously consider.

The real battle between the 97 and 99 is how you feel about background
noise. I modified my 97 to have the background noise default to OFF and you
can really see visually that the unit has lower noise. If you don't mind
what I call a digitized look and use the DVNR and adaptive filtering in the
99 then you would prefer that unit. But now the R7G and S9 have much more
advanced Adaptive filters and more flexible that the ones built-in the
monitors I've seen.

Kurtis

"Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041116214923.21841.00000643@mb-m14.aol.com...
> >It is so generous of Steve to share his musings and recommendations about
>>LD players he has never seen and likely will never see. This is the kind
>>of
>>stuff that keeps the NG humming along.
>
> It's really a matter of logic, Kraig. The CLD-99 was really a CLD-D704
> with a
> more advanced comb filter. However, comb-filter technology has progressed
> since
> that model was inroduced and many higher-end television sets offer
> internal
> filtering superior to that of the 99. Therefore, a "serious" enthusiast
> would
> probably run the 99 via composite output if they were using a high-end
> monitor,
> rendering a picture quality identicle to that of the less expensive and
> otherwise equally competant 704. If one owned a CLD-97, which has lower
> noise
> levels than than the 704/99 and also owned a high-end monitor, it simply
> would
> not make sense for a CLD-99 to be the next step. The CLD-R7G or LD-S9
> would be
> neccesary in order for there to be a noticeable difference in performance.
> If
> you reject this logic, you would need steady grounds to do so. Please
> check
> your footing before attempts at wit, which I must inform you is not your
> strong
> suit.
> Steve Grauman

 

[Guest]

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

>>It is so generous of Steve to share his musings and recommendations about
LD players he has never seen and likely will never see.>>

>It's really a matter of logic, Kraig. The CLD-99 was really a CLD-D704 with a
more advanced comb filter.>


Dear Steve
Why do you keep parroting and/or paraphrasing other posters and
reposting common knowledge about LD players? Do you think rattling off model
numbers and the obvious features of particular LD players, that nearly all of
us already know about machines you have never seen, is somehow a contribution
to this group?

Kraig

 

[Guest]

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

>I agree with this post from Steve, this is exactly what I have been saying for
years.>

Yes, it is exactly what you have been saying for years and that is what
Steve regurgitated for "his" post. He has not seen any of the players mentioned
in the thread.


>If you don't mind what I call a digitized look and use the DVNR and adaptive
filtering in the 99 then you would prefer that unit.>

I think the 97 has been overrated nearly to the same extent as the 99
has been underrated. I found the 97's video performance to be softer and chroma
noisier than my 99. The 97 needs modification for AC-3 and, as you mentioned,
for its background noise default. The 99 is a very well equipped unit that has
convenient on screen adjustments for its advanced features.

Kraig

 

[Guest]

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

It's interesting that Kraig mentions the soft picture of the Elite 97.
Personally, I noticed that too, even after I had a new laser pickup
installed in one unit.
I remember once having a Toshiba player, and in the owner's manual, it
recommended pushing a certain button to give a "soft, more pleasing,
picture".
I think Pioneer actually felt that since people were so used to VHS
videotape, that an overly sharp laserdisc picture would be "offputting."
I haven't seen the LD S1 or LD S2, but I've heard that they also have
a soft picture.
Kevin