From: shetline@bbn.com (Kerry Shetline)
Newsgroups: rec.video
Subject: Re: Laser Disk combi players...
Followup-To: rec.video,rec.audio
Date: 30 Dec 1992 00:20:23 GMT
Organization: BBN
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

In article <184728@pyramid.pyramid.com>, lstowell@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com
(Lon Stowell) wrote:
> >Couple of side notes if needed: I do have a Mitsubishi screen with
> >S-video, and this is required.  I am equipped for surround sound with
> >Denon, Mission speakers and Velodyne subwoofer (F1000), so lead on
> >guru's...
> 
>    WHY is the S-video "required"?   Laserdisk does not inherently
>    have the problems of VCR's....so it really doesn't need S-video.
> 
>    In your price range, going with S-video is going to HURT video
>    quality....use the standard video output on the laserdisk.
> 
>    Laserdisks with S-video outputs have to internally convert the
>    video signal to the S-video format.  This added function always
>    adds cost....and GOOD conversion costs more than cheap
>    conversion.   But why bother...it does no good and is likely to
>    do harm.   

'Required' may have been too strong a word (I doubt that the Mitsubishi has
ONLY S-video), but I might guess that Mr. Anschuetz would prefer to
simplify his system by keeping everything S-video and skipping composite
video entirely.

When I first heard of S-video for a laserdisc player it seemed strange --
laserdiscs contain a composite video signal (the luminance(Y) and
chrominance(C) signals are already mixed). However, making a really good
comb filter to separate Y from C can be tricky, and the jitter in a video
disc-delivered signal can make the proper frequency notch a moving target.
A good player can use timing information from the servo motor to improve
the Y/C separation process, doing a (slightly) better job than an external
circuit could.

As for Pioneer equipment, I've had mixed results. I had an old, fairly
vanilla unit that did a good job for what it was capable of. It is still
providing good service to a friend to whom I sold it. I tried upgrading to
a 3090 (top-of-the-line at the time, excluding the multi-$1000 Elite
series), and had some annoying problems that occured on two units I brought
home and others on display at stores. One was with drop-outs. Even my old
LD-838 handled these gracefully. Using a technique that has been around
since the first players, drop-outs are supposed to be filled in using a
delay-line to substitute the missing info with a signal from a previous
scan line. The 3090, with its digital field memory, should have been able
to do this especially well. But with a couple of disc I tried, it didn't do
it at all, resulting in white streaks across the picture.

The other major problem was that it just couldn't play certain disc titles
from one particular manufacturer. Ultimately, this turned out to be a disc
mastering problem. Regardless, no other machines cared about it, so the
expensive 3090 should have been just as forgiving.

On top of that, the drive was very noisy, so while the specs might have
given nice ratings for the sound quality, you would have to use good
headphones or operate the 3090 in another room to get the practical benefit
-- noise is noise, regardless of whether it comes over the wires or
straight through the air from an offensive motor.

At the time, a number of dealers were feeling grouchy about this and told
me that they felt that, in general, Pioneer's quality was going down. I
ended up buying a Panasonic LV-1000 with which I am quite pleased. This is
definitely out of the original price range mentioned of $400-$500, however.
What current Pioneer stuff is like, especially at lower prices, I don't
know.

-Kerry