I agree, I think LD preference is just solely based on feelings. if there's a BD transfer that looks worse than LD, the producers of that disc should be fired.

Wheres the lie? The whole thread is about feelings (preference). Why omit my post that said "some are claming".

I understand perfectly well that people like the grainy look. I'm saying that this whole discussion was based on the idea that "while LaserDisc may be technically worse, I still like LaserDisc because of such and such" (If you don't believe me, read the title and/or the first post). What I'm saying is there are in fact cases where the same reasonable person who will say "Well this Blu-ray/DVD/etc. image is better than the LaserDisc one" would say the reverse in certain situations. For example, I have The Heroic Legend of Arislan on LaserDisc and Region 1 DVD. If I play both side by side, it's obvious to the rational person that the LaserDisc is better. You can dismiss tangible measurements, sure, but that doesn't mean they don't exist and LaserDisc exists only to satisfy a sort of feeling people have for the format solely. A movie being on LaserDisc does not inherently make it better or worse. That's my point.

And before anyone tries to argue on the technicality that what I'm saying is subjective and therefore neither wrong nor right. I'm making an assumption (and I have been) on what is considered "better" based on what the vast majority of home theater enthusiasts would consider. That is, quantifiable measurements (such as artifacts, resolution, contrast, clarity, etc.) .


The lie is that you just started saying you had accepted the technical merits of LaserDisc, despite the fact that when I brought it up, you said no.

The reason I posted in this thread to begin with is only because this sort of talk makes the LaserDisc enthusiast look bad. Instead of searching for the quantifiable best/truest picture, you're accepting the notion that DVD is inherently better than LaserDisc based on only theoretical limits and despite that you still like LaserDisc because on the feelings you get from it. LaserDisc can look better than DVD by the same technical merits you dismissed (and yes, you did, read "is technically better vs personal pref. hard to comprehend?").

Nice leaping try, I guess. If this is such damaging talk to the laserdisc enthusiast you sure had a hand in contributing to it with your longwinded thread banter. Don't ever call me a liar. Im to trust that you know the technical merits of ld, but you can casually assume I have no knowledge of ld. I stand buy what I said. Ultimately it is ALL about feelings (ie subjectivity) - that doesn't negat that a persons feelings have no origin. They may have self knowledge of laserdiscs hidden goodies, who cares. This all stems from your inability to have a simple conversation. How do you know if a persons feelings for laserdisc are not based in something deeper like a persons knowledge of the units. You assume too much. Nuff said (for now) I'm off to work carrying a box of vinyl, that someone may like, and someone may not.

You're right in that I should've stayed out of this. I went in to this assuming I could convince people with facts, logic and reasoning. As it turns out, other people had more foresight than I did and did stay out of it, but I didn't anticipate the flamebait.

I'd say this all stems from your inability to be more than just simple. You're trying to put this black and white blanket over the issue with "LaserDisc is technically worse, but it gives me a nice feeling." That dismisses the legitimacy of those of us who invest in LD, when we believe there are tangible gains to be had.

You did lie. I literally took a screenshot of you writing something that contradicts something you wrote later (in other worse, a lie).

The discussion has strong parallels to vinyl vs CD. It's really tough to make the case on a technical level that records sound better or even as good as a well-mastered CD. However tons of people still buy LPs and many prefer the sound. Just a matter of taste.

Not true on either count.
Vinyl is an analogue format and CD(s) use a process called Pulse Code Modulation (PCM) to 'sample' (take parts of) the original analogue signal; I.e. vinyl is better than CD.
Just stating facts here, not being a hater as I use both CD and vinyl as well as SACD.

I suspect you don't want a long disquisition on Information Theory here. Suffice to say that the PCM sampled, quantized audio data reproduced by CD is capable of encoding almost all the information that the best vinyl pressings can transfer, & some which no vinyl pressing can reproduce. Notably, it makes possible total channel separation, while stereo vinyl is capable of 20 dB at best. Due to constraints such as the mechanical stiffness & granularity of polyvinyl-acetate—polyvinyl-chloride copolymer, and the contact area of the needle in the groove, & the inertia of the pickup, the fidelity of reproduction possible with vinyl is limited. That these limits arise in different ways than the limits associated with digital signal reproduction does not mean that they cannot be compared.

The DANCE A-Mode audio used on 4-channel MUSE LDs is digitally sampled at 15 bits and 32 kilohertz, then differences are taken, & companded to 8 bits in 8 ranges with a frame length of 1 millisecond. The audio reproduced compares favourably, so far as the listener is concerned, with that reproduced from an LP record.

I prefer Laserdisc to DVD most of the time, but good 'ol LD just can't compete with most Blu-rays.
IMO, of course.

What do you do for a living?

" I think VHS is better than Blu-ray. You can give me all the scientific facts you want, but VHS simply has superior PQ to Blu-ray." The first post you wrote was admitted sarcasm and you came into this with "flamebait" ignorance? Your, 'save the enthusiasts from the wiles of those who would covertly deny them act' is thin. People will invest in LD because they like it for whatever reason and don't need their hand held by someone who tells them HOW & WHY they should like it.
















You took a screen shot but selectively avoided my prior post

Well that's not what I thought the argument was, especially not based on the other thread that has been mentioned previously that inspired the creation of this one. I agree that Laserdisc still does show some technical merit and has its advantages. But our argument was based around that we were being told that there can be no subjectivity and that an image's merit must be based on its technical specifications. Even in this thread the mentality has entered where you are considered mentally inferior if you judge an image that isn't from the most technically advanced medium available as 'the best'.

The whole thing is becoming somewhat unclear due to people misinterpreting what the original point of argument was. The observation and the measurment of the quality of an image is based on the viewer's subjective opinion and personal context. So the best image for a videophile tends to be the image that presents the greatest measurable level of artifacts (lack thereof), resolution, contrast, clarity, etc.. But for a film buff who is more interested in an experience that best represents the original experience of viewing the film, that then is truly about if that image presents a pleasing representation of the original presentation of the film or at least as close as possible. That sounds convoluted, but I hope my message comes through.

Go through the thread as many times as you want, I never told anyone they had to like anything. If you think I did, go ahead, actually link to something I wrote that proves you're point. And why would you have such a huge space there?



The original post was about "technically better vs personal pref." (which happens to be the title of this thread). His argument from the get-go started with the grounds that LaserDisc is technically inferior. When I did bring up its technical merits remington wrote "no, it's about feelings" (as I screenshoted and quoted earlier). I wasn't saying you were wrong for getting some sort of "feeling" from it. I was saying remington was being irrational for denying the scientific reasons for picking LaserDisc over DVD. At the very core of my point, I was arguing that formats should be judged on a case by case basis, as opposed to this all or nothing "you either get some sort of special feeling from watching LD or its pointless, because it's 'technically worse'" mentality. Though, I definitely do see how with four pages of flaming, one could get confused as to the issues.

Absolutely wrong. You started with deception and want to end with it as well. Remember your words, "You didn't believe anything I said about VHS right?" I acknowledged I saw through you but your words are revealing. You knowingly entered the arena with "flamebait" in hand. From the body of the topic title I said, "I'm told by YOU that the audio on the blu ray disc is superior and YOU outline all the TECHNICAL reasons why that is so." You've been deceptive again by saying I said ld is technically inferior. Again, most people saw the simplicity of the question but you took it as if I was personally attacking the ld format and highlighting any weakness.

From the start subjectivity was the issue. When you first questioned my perceived exclusion of the "technical merits" of ld I said, "WHAT SOME ARE CLAIMING is that scientific facts, tech specs, bit rates or whatever you want to call it makes ld inferior to dvd, blu." This was before your bogus "screenshot lie" claim. The whole thread was designed to deal with feelings (subjectivity)- get out a thesaurus, many words have similar meanings. You missed the whole point. I was saying the "technically better" crowd claimers can't see that laserdisc is preferred no matter what. Even from a feelings standpoint, why you automatically conclude that if I like something (have feelings for it) it is not grounded in anything substantial. Must you ASSUME as you have often done that ld enthusiasts cling to a "nifty" concept. That's insulting to many I'm sure.

Ease up on the paranoia. There was some space because I hit the tab too many times. No, no hidden agenda. Your inference is that enthusiasts will be damaged without your guidance, and need a how and why. Not true.

Oh, good Lord this is outrageous.

Elaborate. Edit- I guess we've all had enough elaborating-forget it.

No, most people didn't see it your way. Most people saw it like this:

There's even a thread about people not liking this thread.

You didn't accept LD as being technically better in certain cases. That screenshot I took was of me bringing up its technical merits and you literally writing "no, it's about feelings." That is what you wrote. You can deny it, sure, but it still happened (in fact, I'm linking to it). I never said anyone was wrong for having some special feeling for LaserDisc. If you scroll up from the post I link to, I wrote "It's not all a matter of feelings." I didn't write "It's not a matter of feelings."

Division between member can be avoided if there is an honest attempt to understand each other. I'll never understand why you assumed I thought ld had no technical merits when I started the topic off speaking in the second person. Are your hands full of peace attempts in this thread?

I'm glad this thread caused realization and inspired someone to start a "better way" thread. As negative as it eventually became, maybe it served a purpose. The End (of this thread for me).

I assumed that because you wrote that. Remember that post I just linked to? I wrote it wasn't as simple as LD > DVD or DVD > LD. Then I brought up LaserDisc's various advantages, such as the lack of Macroblocking. I finished it off with "The choice of LaserDisc over DVD can be scientific in some cases. It's not all a matter of feelings." In response you said "no, it's about feelings." I wrote LaserDisc had technical merits and you wrote no. That is what you wrote (and I keep on linking to it).

This is madness.