In terms of Laserdisc the DVL-91 i believe it's a CLD-99 inside right? And as for DVD i believe it's a DV-09!

According to this opinion. No, it's not.

http://moesrealm.com/home-theater/guide ... isc-guide/

Don't have any first hand experience with that one but definitely not a CLD-99 inside. From everything I've read it's an average LD player at best.

In my experience it's not "average" but certainly not CLD-99

Hi Duncan,

When you say it's not average but it's not a CLD99 i feel i don't know anything about laserdisc anymore. The CLD99 to my eyes is average, i saw one working, and it's ok, but not too good.

I remember you writing once that you had an X0. If that's true, than you already have the very best of the best. The CLD-99 certaintly isn't "average," because the actual average LD player is far worse. Although I can certaintly see how it might look mediocre to someone with a X0.

Yeah, maybe that's a fact, i am very used to that pure analog picture.

I agree, if you already have a HLD-X0 then there is noting that can compare to the smooth analog picture you get from the X0. The LD-S2 is the closest.

As for the CLD-99 verses DVL-91. The CLD-D703/D704/79/99/LS-S9/HLD-X9 and a few more Japanese imports have the sharpest picture. But all of these do not have the natural electronic low noise design as in the X0. They all depend on DNR to reduce noise levels but they look very digitized next to the X0. The DVL-91 actually has a sharper S-Video output than the other DVL machines so Pioneer did do something there but the composite is the same on all DVL machines from my memory. If I owned a DVL my preference would be the 91. But I agree with Duncan, the 99 is a better LD player. The DVL machines are the upper mid-line based LD only players, not the upper line CLD-D703/D704/79/99.

If you are looking for a two sided player you need to sample the CLD-97. The noise levels are between the 99 and X0 (more on the X0 side in my opinion) but not quite as sharp as the 99.

If you want a single sided player the LD-S2 looks pretty much the same as the HLD-X0 with all the DNR options turned OFF on the X0.

OK, here comes the hate mail. I don't care that much for the X0. To me it looks over processed. For the HIGH price I'd much rather have the S2.
I've been running an S9 at home, don't use any of the nosie reduction, and I'm very pleased with the picture. The added bonus is that as on old lazy guy I don't have to get up and turn the disc over

auto turn i think is the second best thing ever invented
i don't really know the first one, airplanes?

as for players, i think that we all have to understand the 1st rule, what can you afford to
pay for a dead technology.

yes player A might be better than player B,C,D etc.
but when i upgraded to my player it gave me what i needed at a price i could afford AND wanted
to pay.

i couldn't see spending at the time 1500+ for the LD-S9 and that was around 2004.
so it all matters on what you are willing to pay
then how do these great analog pictures look on your new flat screen computer monitors.
or are you spending a whopping 50 bucks for your CRT at goodwill to watch films
with your 1000+ LD player

I think I said it in an earlier post. It's all subjective. When I worked at a sales and service shop you couldn't tell someone what the best speaker to buy was. Some like bass, some like "natural". So maybe it's what you can afford, and if you can "afford" then it's what looks best to your own eye. Elie needs to get this. EVERYBODY is going to have a different opinion. What rein-o likes I might not like (oh, doubt it )
Anyway, that's my two Lincolns

i just like LDs, when i was looking into upgrading my player i never even heard of the
whole analog/digital picture.

has it gone upto 10 bucks now?

all i know is that i'm going to totally cry once i get a flat screen TV and my LD image looks like
crap and i won't even be able to use the S-video connectors to get use out of my
3D comb filter

Speaking of flat screens, the other day I found a great day. Well, actually alot of great deals I was walking my poodle(yeah I know, I'm a dog person), and went walking past a yard sale. The guy had some CRT TV's. They were a JVC AV 27530 with S video and component, and a Sony with S video and component as well. Ended up getting the JVC for 10 bucks and the Sony for free! Both work great, and that CLD 3090 looks great on that JVC! Looks like crap on my Panasonic LCD I also got a Pioneer CLD V740 as well which came with the microphones and stuff, also came with an amplifier for the microphone connections. Moral of the story is, if your going to watch LD, either get a a REALLY good receiver, or just go get a CRT TV, (I really want an HD CRT btw) for your LaserDisc viewing, cause from experience, an LCD just ain't gonna cut it.

Hey nice go

I wish i could be that rational But i admit i love the S9 also it's so nice, but speaking of that i prefer the X9 looks.
The only thing that the X9 should have was the "THEATER MODE".
Big miss from Pioneer

It pretty much comes down to where and how you will be using your laserdisc player and what looks good to you. Being that LD is a composite analog medium, I would think the pure analog folks would want the player that keeps the best analog picture without any DNR processing, but a good comb filter(be it may be the T.V.). That would be the heavy solid units with little mechanical noise created.

Now the folks who want to do digital transfers or use a modern digital t.v. will probably want the best DNR processing applied along with the comb filter. The issue now a days is that many of todays external devices (T.V. included) can probably achieve these processes much better than any Laserdisc player could 20 years ago. Thus, the wise digital buyers will also want the same players as the analog buyers and use the composite output. Forget the S-video output.

The last topic of importance is the sound. This is most important, because must folks are going to want digital outputs, LPCM and (movie folks) AC3. Analog of course and here again this is important, you want the heavy players with the least amount of noise for analog playback.

Therefore I conclude that the players that will retain their highest value and worth are those that are best at recreating a great composite output picture and the best analog sound. Also they will be digitally capable for sound or at least have capabilities to have AC3 added if not already there.

Other factors: Durability, parts, price.

As far as the DVL-91. Why would anyone want this player unless the price was cheap. What good is an old DVD player? When todays are cheaper and better. So basically your buying this unit for it's LD capabilities. Which accordingly to others is similiar in composite output to a CLD d704 or CLD 79. But more could go wrong with this player having the DVD capabilities tied in.

Conclusion: Unless your getting the DVL-91 for a slight discount to the CLD d704 or CLD 79. Then it's not worth it. Because the DVD player is a negative (breakdown possiblities), not a positive.

On a digital flat screen the X0 and S2 are the best players I've seen. The X0 has the best DNR processing I've seen in a LD player and I pretty much give the credit to the low internal noise by design. The X0 does have a never DAC for Audio lovers. Otherwise for video if you totally turn OFF all DNR option in the X0 it looks pretty much like the S2. I don't have an analog TV to conpair these on anymore.

So I can agree with Duncan's point. If you don't use the internal Video DNR of the X0 and the Audio of the S2 is good enough then the S2 provides a great picture at about 15% of the cost of the X0.

Well, tonight I tried an experiment to see which players composite output was superior. DVL-91 versus CLD 97, captured exactly the same, setup. To my dismay, the DVL-91 has a superior composite picture than the CLD 97. Better range of color, especially with the lighter colors. Why is this so? Does the 3D comb filter in the DVL-91 give superior results to the 2D comb filter in the CLD 97? Tried using a Toshiba DVD video recorder D-R2 as a pass thru device for the CLD 97 composite output to the Toshiba, output S-video from Toshiba to capture card. In my opinion it made it worse? Why? The only explanation I have is that the 2D comb filter effects the CLD 97 composite output in a negative way. If there was a way to bypass it, then maybe the Toshiba DVD recorder as a pass thru would be better?
Any one else have experience with similiar discoveries?
Elvis

The DVL-91 does NOT have a 3D comb filter. It uses a 3-line 2D adaptive comb filter like almost every other player. The only US player to have a 3D comb filter was the CLD-99 and its modded versions from EAD and Faroudja. Not even the Runco had a 3D comb filter.

The CLD-97 has a discrete D/A for the composite output, not the re-combined Y/C output. I do not have a service manual for he DVL-91 so I do not know if it is re-combined or discrete like the 97. Either way I do agree the 91 is the best DVL unit. The problem I have is you need to have the outputs any two players properly calibrated before a head to head test is valid. I do not care what players you are comparing. On any player that re-combines Y/C to get composite you can adjust the gain of the Chroma signal and it will them also effect the composite signal chroma level. Are the capture card parameters adjusted to match the 91 or 97? What can effect chroma is noise and saturation.

One thing that would be interesting is to turn OFF the DNR for both machines. Then see if the results change again.