When will X9s price go down?

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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?function=search&articl
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.

 

[gtaylor]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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....