My main player has been a Pioneer CLD-D925 for about 6 years.
I love that machine and have bought many identical units of that same model as it is inexpensive, provides all the features I need and is great picture quality.

Like most other folks who started collecting laserdiscs I have always wondered just how much difference there is when you compare the CLD-D925 with a high end machine. Only now am I in a position to make such a comparison for myself, having recently purchased a HLD-X9 at a great price.

Wiki link about laserdisc mentions the following with regard to the X9:

The HLD-X9 contains a red-laser pickup, which significantly reduces crosstalk and picture-noise levels compared to players with the traditional infrared laser; it can also read through all but the worst cases of laser rot and surface wear.

My goal was to verify if this is actually true or not.

Test setup

Sony 28" CRT trinitron
No secondary upscalers used as I wanted to assess the capabilities of the LD players and not other hardware.
Both Pioneer CLD-D925 and HLD-X9 connected directly to the CRT.
CLD-D925 connected via scart cable.
HLD-X9 connected via composite video cable.
HQ circuit switched off in CLD-D925.
comb filter switched off in HLD-X9.

Sample laserdiscs tested:

Sting: The Soul Cages Concert [VALA-3535]
Sarah Brightman: In Concert (The Phantom of the Opera, and others) [WPLR-87]

I first reminded myself what playback looked like through the CLD-D925. Both concerts looked great. In particular the Sarah Brightman disc looks particularly sharp and clear.

I then inserted the Sting LD in the HLD-X9. The first thing I noticed almost immediately was signs of laser rot (tiny little flaws in the video) that had not shown up at all on the CLD-D925. It was actually such a shock to me, because I'd never assumed there was any rot on that disc that I flicked through the chapters to see if it changed. It didn't - I could see evidence of rot throughout the whole disc. None of this had been visible at all on the CLD-D925 using the configuration I have outlined above. I'd always assumed this disc was perfect yet it was filled with rot! This was the first time I had ever been able to see the rot when I played it via the HLD-X9.

So I then switched to playing the Sarah Brightman disc in the HLD-X9. Picture quality was superb. If was more detailed than I have ever seen before and there was no evidence of any issues with that disc in terms of any laser rot being present. It was just the clearest, sharpest picture I have ever seen from a laserdisc - it looked like the sort of picture quality you would expect to see from a really good DVD. I also own that exact same concert on DVD so was able to make that comparison.

Conclusion

In this configuration the HLD-X9 was able to highlight flaws in laserdiscs like no other player I have ever used before. It was reading information from the discs including details of the flaws that were just not detectable by other machines. I subsequently tried a number of other LDs from my collection and the results were identical - any discs with even a hint of rot showed up like a sore thumb on the HLD-X9 and generally did not on the CLD-D925 unless it was very badly rotted.

This was an interesting result because I was always led to believe from the wiki laserdisc link and the various other comments on the internet that the HLD-X9 would hide rot - that doesn't appear to be the case. If you play a disc with any level of rot, it will be more visible than ever before if you are using an HLD-X9 in the configuration above.

I am assuming that to mask this rot, I now need to start configuring the comb filter and also switch to using S-video output on the HLD-X9?
I'd welcome some feedback.

I don't have a HLD-X9 but I just got a cld-53 and some of my discs I tried in it, show the occasional flecks, (imperfections) which don't show when played on my cld-1030 or my cld-3030

So my opinion, a good made disc looks better in all players, and a better player brings the best out but a not as good made disc, a newer player reveals more from the disc, including disc flaws. Maybe other members can comment too.

Do you have any Discovision discs to try on your HLD-X9?

Yes I'd agree with your comments. Perfect discs look great, whereas discs with some flaws even when not visible on other hardware may show up when played via the HLD-X9.
Anyone with lots of older discs (particularly pre 1984) that inevitably had some laser rot on them may want to bear this in mind before splashing out on a HLD-X9 as it will not work a miracle and hide the rot.

I have most of the discovision music laserdiscs. I tried the Olivia Newton-John TV Special disc, side 2 with the big close up of her head.
The discovision disc itself played fine but again any little speckles that were visible still showed up on the HLD-X9. It did not hide them in any way.

Overall I'd say the CLD-D925 holds up extremely well when compared directly with the HLD-X9. Whilst the picture is not as sharp it actually seems to cope better with hiding flaws even without resorting to using the HQ circuit button. For really bad discs you can always switch that on as well. I certainly will not be selling any of my other machines just because I now own a HLD-X9.
Some of the comments I've read from other forums which conclude 'there is no comparison' seem laughable to me!
I'm using the same TV, same laserdisc and no other hardware that could be affecting the picture quality so why could two machines not be compared side by side.

I just wanted to post a more honest review (albeit very simplistic) of the HLD-X9 when compared to a very popular machine like the CLD-D925 which many people may own.

I biggest miss-conception is that the red laser will not display the laser rot dots. This is not true. It will read the LD and play some rotted LDs other players cannot play, you will get viewable laser rot during the playback. What the X9 helps with is being able to play the LD when other players just go to static and stop.

The X9 in "HR" mode does have the sharpest picture you can get and it provide MUSE playback. But I sold the X9 I bought as I was not as impressed as I thought I would be.

It is a misunderstanding that the X9 or any other high-end machine will hide rot.
And as some people used to say already:



So the logical conclusion to this, yes it will HIGHLIGHT rot and other problems like speckles instead.
And the ppl who say otherwise have read "stuff" on the internets and interpreted it wrongly, but never actually tested it.

That is an accurate summary.

I've no ulterior motive like trying to sell someone an X9 on the back of some rumour that has been circulating for years about its playback capabilities with regard to laser rot.
I just wanted to get hold of one of these high end machines, test it for myself and set the record straight.
I've no regrets - the build quality is the best I've ever seen on any player and it is as much (if not more) of a collectable as the discs themselves. It is a beautiful piece of equipment - a work of art really. I can totally understand why so many people would want to obtain an X9. The only thing that surprises me is why some of these rumours have not been dispelled a long time ago. It really wasn't a complicated test to perform.

Unfortunately I have no NTSC discs which are so rotted as to not play at all in my other machines. For that I'd have to resort to a PAL disc and since the X9 is NTSC only I cannot confirm if it will play a disc that bad. Even the Sony DADC discs I owned were not that bad - terrible though they were!

I'll definitely be holding onto my X9 as it is the best laserdisc player I've ever used, however I see absolutely no justification for getting rid of any of the other machines, except for perhaps the Sony MDP 850D which I've never liked - although I may just have got a bad one of that particular model!

As I stated before the X9 can actually read some rot LDs that a conventional LD player cannot. This is the true fact. The rumor or miss-understanding is that it hides LD rot speckles. Will still be watching a speckled picture.