How do I ajust the sharp/softness on my Panasonic VCR? Picture seems grainy

[daysaf00]

I have a question regarding some VHS to DVD transfers I'm doing. I'm using my VCR (I have a few different ones) and a stand alone DVD recorder.

The tracking result is best on my Panasonic Omnivision machines (from the mid-late 90s) but the image on screen is a little too sharp...almost give it a grainy look. Does anyone know how to adjust or soften the image? I can't do it with the TV remote, because it won't adjust it to the dvd. I just don't see any settings on the Panasonic Omnivision models to ajust the sharp/softness at all.

Any feedback would be helpful. I've tried these tapes in my JVC and the image appears much softer, but doesn't track well. I'd really like a balance between my Panasonic and JVC.

Thanks.

[sanlyn]

I just don't see any settings on the Panasonic Omnivision models to ajust the sharp/softness at all.

There is no sharpness control. After about 1992 or so, few VCR's had them. I you had one, playback would start looking like your JVC. You could find them on very pricey machines like the AG-1980, etc., and similar pro-style machines from SONY.

I've tried these tapes in my JVC and the image appears much softer, but doesn't track well.

That's because it's a JVC.

I'd really like a balance between my Panasonic and JVC.

Probably a mid- or late-90's SONY would fill the bill. Panasonic did oversharpen somewhat, JVC couldn't play anything well by 1998 (but I had a 1992 JVC I'd love to own again). Mitsubishi was a big name reportedly favored because its image had lower contrast, less detail, and was almost entirely red; and high-end late 90's Toshiba's are highly regarded but difficult to find. A pro-grade VCR with a sharpness control and excellent tracking is the Panasonic AG-1980 (original MSRP $1500), but good luck finding one that isn't toast by now.

The biggest headache you'll still have is recording old VHS directly to DVD. It's convenient, and most people do it that way, but it's not the best idea.

[orsetto]

For sadistic reasons known only to VCR mfrs, just about all of them decided around 1996 that henceforth all VCRs would default to a ridiculously hyped up sharpness setting. The Panasonics were particularly awful in that they offered no way at all to adjust or back off from this setting, so I'm afraid you're stuck unless you buy another used VCR.

The brands that did offer a sharpness adjustment were still over-boosted to begin with, so even if you dialed back to a "Normal" or "Soft" setting it just looked like muddy grain instead of sharp grain: you couldn't really get the standard VHS "look" that had been typical for the previous 20 years. JVC was about the only brand that refused to join the "grainy" brigade, and most JVCs did/do have a NORM-SOFT-SHARP-AUTO setting buried in their menu system somewhere. Unfortunately, as you've experienced, JVCs tend to be lousy at tracking most tapes.

You will need to look for a compromise VCR that has both wide tracking range and reasonably normal PQ. These can be difficult to find at affordable prices, most were high-end or semi-pro models. My first suggestion (if you don't already own one) would be to look for a nice clean 4-head hifi Sharp vcr: these generally are less over-grainy and track better than comparable VCRs of the period. The "compact" narrow-width low-end Sonys were rather nice, and had a sharpness adjustment in their picture menu, but were unpredictable trackers: they tended to be great new but would drift as they aged. The normal-width Sonys were much less reliable and are a bad risk used. Goldstar (LG), Emerson, Sylvania, and other "no-name" 2-head mono VCRs skipped the grainy trend: some of these were very cheap and considered "crap," but today prove useful for some particularly difficult tape transfers. All can be had for $20 or less from local pawnshops or Craigs List. Avoid anything Hitachi or made by Hitachi like RCA, they track like hell. Most Toshibas were pretty grainy apart from the very high end. Mitsubishis can track well, but the picture is average at best unless you blow big bucks on the exceptional HS-HD2000U DVHS model.

My usual recommendation is to skip all those and go straight for the industrial 4-head hifi Panasonic AG2560, the last decent VCR Panasonic ever made. These were mfr'd in 2001, have a very robust all-aluminum tape transport with excellent tracking range + tracking steadiness, and they don't have the ultra-grainy look of prior consumer models (although there is a pushbutton on the front panel that will instantly give you that horrible grainy look- go figure, some people must have liked it). In essence, the AG2560 gives you two settings: nice normal medium tradeoff between detail and grain, or horribly hyped up grain circa 1996 (it does not have a "soft" setting, but I find that isn't needed on this model since its normal default setting is near-ideal). The AG2560 is somewhat obscure so really only turns up on eBay, priced between $25-50. I've picked up a half dozen over the last few years, they're the best VCR you can buy for under $100 (however they do not play SVHS, only regular VHS).

[sanlyn]

Good notes, orsetto, and thanks for the details. Yep, that sharpening and contrast juice-up in consumer units is difficult to tolerate, but it can be tamed somewhat during capture and post-processing. Still, a pain in the neck. I have a single, rebuilt VCR remaining from the early 90's, a 1991 SONY SLV-595HF. But true to the SONY VCR name, it slips out of alignment after a handful of tapes so I hardly use it. I'd make the following exception, though:

My usual recommendation is to skip all those and go straight for the industrial 4-head hifi Panasonic AG2560, the last decent VCR Panasonic ever made.

Not really "made" by Panasonic, it's standard JVC VHS right down to the remote, but with considerably beefed up tracking and that added contrast, uh, "enhancer" option ("destroyer" would be more descriptive) . Rugged machine designed for long-term conference room use. Don't expect much if you have 6-hour EP tapes to transfer. But it's a workable model for most old tapes that need stable tracking. I seem to recall a similar business-oriented "AG" VHS/SVHS model marketed at about the same time, but I don't remember the model number.

[orsetto]

The sudden drastic drop in PQ across nearly all VCR lines in 1996 was not simply an over-boosted sharpness setting: there was more to it than that. Underneath the fake boost, one could see there were no actual picture details (hair strands on a persons head, blades of grass, other textures). The image was akin to poor macroblocking with digital, but in an analog medium. This was bad enough first generation off-air but degraded to completely unwatchable if you dubbed something second generation to cut out commercials or compile a clip collection.

Panasonic was always middle-of-the-road in PQ, never terrible but never superior. In 1996, they became dramatically worse, as did Mitsubishi and many others. JVC and Sony did not drop PQ quite as much: I tried switching but they remained as mechanically and electrically trouble-prone as they'd always been (i.e., not worth the aggravation to get the slightly better PQ). So to be clear, when I say the AG2560 has an excellent picture, thats in comparison it to other VCRs circa 1996-2004 which were grossly grainy. The AG2560 playback PQ is similar to the decent earlier PV-4550 or PV-S4680: better than the 1997 PV8500 etc or the 1998 PV-8660. But not quite as good as a properly-functioning higher-end JVC or Sony (good luck finding one of those).

[The AG2560 is] not really "made" by Panasonic, it's standard JVC VHS right down to the remote, but with considerably beefed up tracking and that added contrast, uh, "enhancer" option ("destroyer" would be more descriptive) . Rugged machine designed for long-term conference room use. Don't expect much if you have 6-hour EP tapes to transfer. But it's a workable model for most old tapes that need stable tracking. I seem to recall a similar business-oriented "AG" VHS/SVHS model marketed at about the same time, but I don't remember the model number.

I'm reasonably sure I'm on the right "track" and you are (understandably) a bit confused by the turn of events that happened at Panasonic in the late 1990s. Like you, I had been burned- burned badly, and burned often- throughout the 90s by disappointing experiences of JVC after JVC turning into a tape-ruining monster. So trust me when I say I sniffed for any "contamination" of Panasonic's product range by JVC like a shark sniffs for blood in the water.

Again like you, I did catch it immediately when Panasonic began turning over production of several models to JVC, including the lower end of the AG series. This occurred between 2000-2002 depending on the model. In some cases it was blatantly obvious, the Panasonic looked exactly like a comparable JVC. In other cases it was more subtle and you had to do dig deeper into the specs or chassis to identify the source. The AG25xx was tricky because it was a series of similar-looking VCRs that switched to JVC mfr halfway thru the run.

I have had most of them, which is why I'm fairly certain The AG2560 was the final "real Panasonic" iteration. It is nearly identical in most respects to the previous AG2550 which had been in the line for a few years, but greatly improved in terms of tracking consistency and slightly improved in overall PQ (the addition of the front panel detail boost button was an anomaly). It uses the standard Panasonic menu interface and oddball AG1980/2550/2560-exclusive remote. It never chews tapes, and it never pulls the tell-tale JVC stunt of magnetically damaging tapes while leaving no physical evidence that the tape is ruined. The series switched to JVC assembly lines beginning with the AG2570 and AG2580 models, which looked noticeably different and used the JVC interface and JVC remote. The 2570 is transitional, the 2580 is full-on JVC with the usual JVC tracking difficulties and other problems.

I find my AG2560s to perform on par with my AG1980s, but without the artificial processing artifacts introduced by the 1980 TBC/DNR. I much prefer the AG2560s for predominately dark or night-time videos, because the processor in the 1980s backfires and adds a ton of noise to dark tapes.

[sanlyn]

Orsetto, I know what you're saying about the AG mentioned. I'm certain Panasonic made its own mods to a kind of "JVC core". Having seen that machine in business use by a big corp I can agree, it's kind of a cross-breed that seemed mechanically sound and had a good image, not the spiked picture you get from Pannies of that era. I thought the audio was better, too. 6-hour tape didn't fare so well. I see maybe 5 or 6 of this VCR listed on eBay.

Speak of the devil (eBay): I don't even remember how I got my hands on it, but I have an older Panasonic PV-4661 from 1995/96 or so. Has Dynamorphous (sic?) heads on it. I believe I paid $45. I fully suspected the thing would arrive with worn heads and full of dust, but it was immaculate, plays perfectly, and even shipped with an original copy of a then-recent servicing bill. I use it sparingly, though; you can still get heads for it, but little else. I know of no tech locally who would take it on. I see a lot of pre-1996 Pannies on eBay, but I notice the prices are going up. I'm deathly afraid of throwing a damaged tape into it for fear of injuring the thing.

[orsetto]

Speak of the devil (eBay): I don't even remember how I got my hands on it, but I have an older Panasonic PV-4661 from 1995/96 or so. Has Dynamorphous (sic?) heads on it. I believe I paid $45. I fully suspected the thing would arrive with worn heads and full of dust, but it was immaculate, plays perfectly, and even shipped with an original copy of a then-recent servicing bill.

NICE score! The PV-4661 was near top of the 1996 lineup: it was identical to the PV-S4670 but minus the SVHS capability. My PV-S4680 was the exceedingly rare top of the line, essentially a 4670 with the addition of flying erase heads. I picked up the 4680 for $85 a few years ago, near mint in box. Over the years, I've found the small-chassis 4500 and 4600 series of 1995-1996 hold up very nicely. They look like toys because they're small, but construction is actually pretty good (vastly improved over the flimsy 4300 series of 1993 which was so unrepairable they had to swap for new replacement VCRs under warranty). The only real Achilles Heel of the 1995/1996 Pannys is the front loading mechanism, which like every other VCR will fail eventually under hard use. The DynaMorphous metal video heads are nearly indestructible: if a dirty tape clogs them, any competent tech can clean them good as new. You have to be truly hamfisted to damage them.

Aside from the AG2560 and 4500/4600 series, my sentimental favorite Panasonic of all time was the elegant PV-1730, their first hifi model. Gorgeous, looked like it was worth every penny of the $699 it cost me back in 1985. Unfortunately like all the initial hifi models, audio tracking interchange with tapes made on other VCRs or Hollywood studio tapes was awful.

[sanlyn]

Speak of the devil (again): A PV-S4670 was just listed. Ugh, kinda pricey at two hundred, with no remote. 3 day return (at that price??). I don't trust the seller that much: has had some complaints, over 40 in a year, and "other items" is everything from garbage carts to Disney games. Saw an S-4566 as well, but I saw forum complaints about harsh audio and color bleed. Ah, me. But I'm sure daysaf00 could find a good tracker in there somewhere. My 8661 and 8662 have played some rather chewed up video that destroyed my 9668 (which weighed less than a loaf of white bread). I'll keep looking, myself.

[orsetto]

The color bleed (actually color shimmer) issue is common to many mid-to upper-range Panasonic models between 1993-1996. It is caused by their special color noise reduction filter, which did get rid of noise (streaks and lines) but added a disconcerting bloom/shimmer effect to large areas of red in the picture. The filter cannot be switched off, the only way to reduce the shimmer is careful adjustment of tracking controls to "dial it out" (it is very tracking-dependent). This is very annoying in the earlier 4300 and 4400 series, slightly better in the 4500 models and is almost perfect in the 4600 series. I'm not sure if they really changed the circuit so much as improved the tracking performance in the 4600 models: the earlier VCRs, esp the 4300, had incredibly twitchy tracking that could be optimized for either the color filter or the hifi audio but not both at the same time.

This color filter circuit was only included in VHS models that had DynaMorphous Metal Video Heads, generally ending in 60, and the SVHS models ending in 70, 80 or 90. Models ending in 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 were not affected and had normal color response. The filter/tracking interaction was finally cured in the entire 4600 series, then dropped altogether after 1997 except in the semi-pro AG1980. The worst offenders were the very expensive, uncommon PV-S4380 and PV-S4480 which retained the horribly flimsy 1993 chassis design and terrible tracking performance for several years as Panasonic's "top" consumer VCRs. At the beginning of the "transfer VHS to DVD" craze, a lot of people got burned paying way too much for a broken-down used PV-S4380 or 4480 simply because they did include a "TBC" feature (which was then getting a lot of hype as "absolutely necessary" on VH and other AV forums). However the "TBC" in the 4380 and 4480 is extremely crude and ineffective, less effective than the ancient AG1970 TBC: no match for the AG1980, various JVCs, or the more recent DVHS models. The 4380 and 4480 (indeed any of the 43xx or 44xx series) are very bad risks second hand: performance is poor, they easily break, and no repair parts were available even when they were new (forget now). Musts to avoid.

Panasonics are very confusing to shop second hand due to these subtle differences, complicated by the fact some models were rebadged JVCs and the company stupidly recycling model numbers after 2001 (a 4820 made in 1998 or 1999 is a really nice budget hifi vcr, a 4820 made in 2001 is utter garbage). Buying off eBay is tricky unless you can see the date stamp on the back panel: the sweet spot for Panasonic is the compact models sold between 1997-2000 with the curved bulbous "Jetsons" front panel. These (and their Quasar sisters) often sell for $10 at thrift shops but work very well with decent PQ, good tracking and high reliability (larger "wide body" models 1997-2000 look nicer but are grainy trash). All the 1996 models are quite decent (and the 1995s as well if you stick with 4551 and below). Models made between 1992-1994 were flimsy with very poor HiFi tracking. Older than that you get decent PQ, great build quality, but the hifi tracking isn't good. After 2000, the entire consumer VCR line is crappy without exception.

Aside from feeling its a really good VCR, I recommend the AG2560 because its a single distinct industrial model thats easy to search on eBay and CL, as opposed to weeding thru countless other lookalike consumer models and risking a big mistake. Sellers of the AG2560 rarely try to overprice it, its mostly sold by office liquidators looking for a fast sale instead of private sellers looking for a sucker. FWIW, I've never received one in less than fully-functional condition, while I've had to repair every flagship AG1980 that passed thru my hands.

[sanlyn]

Fascinating detail, orsetto. I'm making a personal "sticky" of all this on my own PC. Thanks again.

[handyguy]

Try it on a CRT TV.

[sanlyn]

Hm? Try what, handyguy? I still use my old 24" CRT. These VCR's look OK on that, on my LCD, and my plasma. What would be different about a CRT (other than the CRT having more accurate color and deeper blacks)?

[orsetto]

FWIW, most of my VCR testing and comparisons over 30 years were done on Proton CRT monitors, with a Triniton thrown in here and there. I've only had flat-screen LCDs for the past couple years: Sony, Panasonic and Samsung. The Panasonic IPS LCD has the most "CRT-like" color and contrast, but fleshtones vary so much from program to program I couldn't take it. Samsung 40" LED looks fantastic with hidef cable input, terrible with everything else. Sony Bravia EX500 splits the difference among these, so became my reference LCD. Would I have preferred to stay with CRT? Absolutely. But you can't buy Protons or Trinitrons anymore, and I can't deal with random second-hand 175 lb CRT hidef sets: I moved to LCD because there was no other realistic option.

The move revealed some unexpected, significant differences in the performance of many VCRs, esp the "high end" where some glaring faults emerged that were invisible on CRT. This is part of the reason I'm in the minority here who recommend NOT jumping mindlessly onto the "JVC SVHS-Panasonic AG1980-TBC/DNR" bandwagon. I have discovered the TBC/DNR "improvement" applies mostly to CRT viewing: when shown on LCD some of the signal alterations that looked great on CRT are interpreted and displayed as gross noise by LCD, particularly in dark or night scenes. This was bad enough to make me go back and redo many of my earlier VHS>DVD conversions with a plain-jane VCR instead of TBC/DNR "high end:" the ordinary noise from the ordinary VCR translates seamlessly to LCD: not great that its there, but it didn't look any different on CRT. Removing that noise with TBC/DNR unpredictably results in much worse artifacts unless I babysit every minute of every tape transfer.

The only TBC/DNR equipped VCR I've used that does not hit me with unpleasant LCD viewing surprises is the Mitsubishi HS-HD2000U DVHS, often mocked here on VH as "not as good as a twenty year old JVC" and "doesn't measure well." All I can say to that is I *deeply* regret selling off the six MGAs I had stockpiled brand new, bought cheap from a liquidator in Arizona five years ago. I paid $150 apiece for them and later got offered $350 apiece by DVHS fanatics. I took the deal, figuring I'd just replace them with Panasonic AG1980s and a couple JVCs. Bad move- I wish I could get back the MGAs, but they're so prized by the small cult of DVHS users that you can't touch them now for less than $450. When I bought my last 1980, a 2560 came with it and I found it actually works better for most of my tapes than the 1980. I ditched most of my 1980s and the JVCs after that, and replaced them with 2560s. Between those and my two remaining MGA 2000s, I hope I can finish my massive transfer project before my VCRs (or my patience/eyesight) wear out.

[sanlyn]

I gave up on TBC-equipped players -- for the same reasons you've cited (CRT -vs- LCD), and immediately because the damn players kept breaking down. My TBC is always a Panasonic or Toshiba "legacy" DVD recorder used as a line-tbc pass thru device. Now I'm so fearful that my 1992 and 1996 CRT's might kick ye olde bucket any day now, I use 'em only for a final test viewing of VHS transfers. The SONY LCD and the Samsung plasma, both long gone from the shelves and both calibrated with my handy EyeOne D2 every few months or so, will have to live on and on. The new LCD's and plasmas are crap, and getting worse all the time.

A while back I had an IPS Panasonic LCD. Yep, very smooth picture and nice viewing angle, great contrast. The daffy colors, unfortunately, drove me bananas in short order. Panasonic TV engineers have absolutely no interest in color accuracy. As far as I can remember, they never did.

[NJRoadfan]

Now I'm so fearful that my 1992 and 1996 CRT's might kick ye olde bucket any day now, I use 'em only for a final test viewing of VHS transfers. The SONY LCD and the Samsung plasma, both long gone from the shelves and both calibrated with my handy EyeOne D2 every few months or so, will have to live on and on. The new LCD's and plasmas are crap, and getting worse all the time.

A while back I had an IPS Panasonic LCD. Yep, very smooth picture and nice viewing angle, great contrast. The daffy colors, unfortunately, drove me bananas in short order. Panasonic TV engineers have absolutely no interest in color accuracy. As far as I can remember, they never did.

Chances are those two CRTs will outlast the LCD and plasma sets anyway. Panasonic seems to be better with plasma sets then with LCD that I've seen.

Remember that VHS was never envisioned to be viewed on progressive scan HDTVs and that video scalers in TVs vary greatly by model. The Panasonic plasma I got does a crap job at upscaling SD video (my VHS conversions look like crap on it), yet the BluRay player connected to it does a great job with upscaling DVDs.

[daysaf00]

Sanlyn you mentioned you use a Panasonic or Toshiba DVD recorder as a pass thru TBC. Can you give me some model #'s by chance? I'd like to pick up one that I could use for some of my transfers without buying a full on TBC.

[sanlyn]

Remember that VHS was never envisioned to be viewed on progressive scan HDTVs and that video scalers in TVs vary greatly by model. The Panasonic plasma I got does a crap job at upscaling SD video (my VHS conversions look like crap on it), yet the BluRay player connected to it does a great job with upscaling DVDs.

Fortunately my SONY and Samsung (the latter 720p) upscale quite well - but that's unusual. Then there's my newer DENON player that upscales cleanly, and so does that DENON megdollar receiver/converter/multi-input/AnchorBay unit. If I were forced to replace either of those two TV's, I'd have to use the other components for anything to be upscaled.

[davideck]

I still use my old 24" CRT. These VCR's look OK on that, on my LCD, and my plasma. What would be different about a CRT (other than the CRT having more accurate color and deeper blacks)?

In general, LCD and Plasma sets digitize their analog video inputs. CRT sets do not. Anytime you digitize an analog video signal, you do so with some inherent TBC performance. Some HDTVs have a TBC performance that is on par with the best DVD recorders and VCRs. Needless to say, a display device that significantly timebase corrects an otherwise unstable analog video input can lead to much confusion.

[sanlyn]

Sanlyn you mentioned you use a Panasonic or Toshiba DVD recorder as a pass thru TBC. Can you give me some model #'s by chance? I'd like to pick up one that I could use for some of my transfers without buying a full on TBC.

Remember, we're talking about consumer DVD recorders that have the usual inputs and outputs, not just a "DVR" rented from your cable company or a TIVO-like device. Consumer recorders allow you to make and burn your own recordings to disc. It isn't necessary for the recorder to have a hard drive (some accept only a DVD disc). My preference is Toshiba.

Most recorders currently being sold by Toshiba and Magnavox, particularly combo DVD/VCR recorders, have built-in tbc's. Avoid the lowest-end of these units; they cut quite a few corners. I'm not familiar with most being sold in your country, but European and North American model numbers look about the same. I don't think you'll see Magnavox in your area (I could be wrong there). With used Toshiba's, the RD-3, -4, -5 series (sometimes listed as "R-D3, R-D4", etc.) were decent disc-only machines. With hard drive units you can find used RD-XS series (very expensive). Avoid the very early RD-1 or RD-2 -- as recorders they did not record proper black levels, but they play pre-recorded discs correctly and can be used for pass-thru.

Panasonics are variable, I can't vouch for many of them. The old ES10, -20, and -15 had a tbc (only on Line 1 input). On some captures with my "ES" machines I see faint rolling gray bars in dark areas, the result of a poorly filtered cooling units throwing DC into the signal. I once saw an article long ago showing how to fix that with a cheap capacitor, but it's a pain. Some people say they don't see the effect. I did.

The optical drives in these units didn't last forever, but you don't need that drive for pass-thru as long as the other play-thru functions work. The optical drive on my ES10 died a while back but the tbc still works. I use the ES20 anyway, as it still plays.

There are many DVD recorders that have tbc's built-in but they often work only during record, not as pass-thru. I prefer Toshiba because they have a decent y/c comb filter on the composite inputs (can be disabled).

These are not "professional studio" tbc's. You'd need thousands of euros for those, and plenty of associated equipment to go with them. But for our purposes they work well.

[sanlyn]

Today's mail brought a cheaper used PV-8662 (made 1998) I just bought on eBay. Quite clean, with only a single quarter-inch scratch on the top. Looking at the menu alone, there's some slight flicker in the output, but the heads seem to be in good shape (no streaks or bad tracking, etc.). My older Pannies look somewhat cleaner, but this 8662 will do for really awful tapes that will never look that good anyway (four years of "Kojak" recorded on bargain-bin tape off a static-ridden antenna in the 1980's, and on an ancient top-loading RCA, for heaven's sake, with a remote connected by a 20-foot wire!!! Ah, those were the days. . .)

[davideck]

There are many DVD recorders that have tbc's built-in but they often work only during record, not as pass-thru.

That has not been my experience. I have tested DVD Recorders from JVC, Lite-ON, Panasonic, RCA, Toshiba, Philips, and Magnavox. Every one provided Frame Synchronization and TBC functionality via pass-thru.

[sanlyn]

OK, davideck, I stand corrected. I was dealing with players from my own experience. Haven't tried 'em all. But if most players work, daysaf00 is all set .

[orsetto]

The "TBC" and "frame synchronizer" built into DVD recorders does not necessarily mean you can take just any random broken-down DVD recorder from a thrift shop and connect it between your VCR and a PC as as some sort of quick/dirty/cheap external processor. They don't all work exactly the same, and within each brand the effect of these circuits changes with each model year and even within that model year lineup. We should also be clear that we're talking three very distinct types of "TBC" as far as visible effects to the typical consumer are concerned.

External "true" TBCs like the DataVideo TBC1000 or AVT8710 or CBT100 totally rebuild the basic underlying video signal. You would be surprised how often there really is no visible effect on the image when you connect one of these (if anything, you'd notice the video looks softer: TBCs inevitably soften video unless you're using megabuck modern post-production gear). "True" TBCs are mostly used in consumer VHS transfer to solve two problems: they remove protection from old studio tapes, and rework the fragile, rickety VHS sync signal into something steady and stable. This last is often necessary when dubbing to a PC, because PC-hosted encoders tend go haywire when confronted with VHS ("dropping frames" which causes lipsync drift among other symptoms) unless a TBC is used between them. Some early DVD recorders also needed an external TBC to stabilize VHS, because their onboard circuits were designed for broadcasts and too weak to fix VHS input (resulting in geometric distortions and other artifacts). Some MiniDV camcorders also had very strong passthrough TBC functionality that nearly equaled an external TBC box: they polished the signal and cleared away protection interference.

The "TBC" built into high-end SVHS and DVHS vcrs is something else again. WIth these, it isn't so much the "TBC" as the DNR (digital noise reduction circuit) that comes as a package deal. In most of these VCRs, invoking the TBC also turns on DNR, they are not independent functions. The DNR is what makes an immediately visible and obvious difference in VHS playback: all color noise is removed, as well as much graininess. The DNR can be crucial for removing horrible analog cable TV signal artifacts. You will see a rather dramatic difference turning the circuit on and off. The "TBC" built into these VCRs straightens out squiggly verticals or flagging at the top of the screen, while the DNR clears up nearly every other flaw. But there is no free lunch: there is a tradeoff for this "cleaner" image. Motion can become strange, and everyone on screen looks like they went to Faye Dunaway's plastic surgeon. And depending on the TV display type, the cleaned-away noise can come roaring back worse than if you'd done a straight-up dub. The "TBC" in these VCRs will not clear studio protection on commercial tapes.

The "TBC" built into DVD recorders falls somewhere between these two, and functionality varies with the model. Sometimes improvements are visible, sometimes not. If used as pass-thru "stabilizers" between a standard VCR and a PC encoder, most will at least correct the signal enough to avoid dropped frames and lipsync issues. Beyond that, each DVD recorder is different. The most famous of these is the Panasonic ES-10, which contained a one-of-a-kind circuit capable of stabilizing the most jittery, crappy tape input and fixing the most stubborn distortions and flagging. Unfortunately, being a very early Panasonic, it also has major color issues and the passthrough is not transparent (the machine encodes the analog for itself, which it does not do so well, and that signal is passed to your PC to be re-encoded). For this reason the old ES-10 is best reserved for really horrible tapes that would be unwatchable without it. The early Toshibas of the DR and XS series (pre-2006) probably have the best quality signal passthrough function. They include adjustable noise filtering akin to the high-end VCRs and lock down the signal nicely enough to suit most PC encoders. Later Toshibas were made by the Philips/Magnavox OEM and are just average, like nine out of ten other recorders. Used as passthrough to a PC, they may or may not prove helpful depending on your specific problems. Pre-2006 JVC had TBC/DNR similar to Toshiba but not adjustable (always on at full strength). The "TBC" in all DVD recorders will not clear studio protection on commercial tapes.

My opinion on the whole is that dubbing straight from a good VCR into a good DVD/HDD recorder, editing on the HDD, then burning the DVD copy in the recorder is the most reliable, predictable, least-troublesome method of digitizing VHS. There are many experts here who pooh-pooh this workflow, because DVD is inherently lossy. They prefer to create huge AVI files on their PCs and use their skills in software filters to massage and perfect the video. I see their point, but think its overkill for the vast majority of VHS collections (recorded from 1988 TV broadcasts using a bent coathanger for an antenna, or '80s cable TV which could be even lesser quality). Other than your personal family camcorder videos, or that rare tape only you own of John Lennon smacking Paul McCartney with a rubber chicken, I can't see any advantage to killing yourself with PC dubbing. The PC is often much too twitchy to handle VHS without a lot of fooling with external boxes, and I've always thought it a bit silly to use a DVD recorder as a passthrough (if you have a DVD recorder handy, and its far more stable with VHS input than your PC, why not skip the PC and use the recorder?) Unfortunately, the last DVD/HDD recorder available in North America was discontinued a couple weeks ago so that option is now off the table. You might be able to find a Magnavox MDR513 or MDR515, or Panasonic EH-59 or EH-69, left over at some dealers like J&R, B&H, World Imports, or perhaps eBay. But if history repeats, these discontinued items that were $250 a month ago will hit $500 within weeks. At those prices, you may as well buy a new TBC (if needed) and dub to your computer.

[sanlyn]

Most of the old VHS tapes I've been capturing are in sad shape. SOme of them look as if a coat hanger antenna might have been an improvement. AS they do have personal value (most of them), they go into the PC for cleanup. Of the few pristine retail tapes I had, all were transferred directly to DVD in the recorder (a proc amp helped with that, too). I don't know what guided me a few years ago when I bought an RD-XS34, then a refurbed copy, then a used RD-XS35. The U.S. reviewers poo-pah'd them as "unexciting" but the British press raved about them; I thought the Brits had generally better taste in video and sound anyway, so I followed their advice. I find their tbc's fairly effective but not a cure-all, and light noise or y/c filtering works OK as well in those machines. I have seen these $500 US-MSRP machines on the used market for over $800 and up, and up. . .and up. . .

Thanks for the update on DVD-tbc's. From posts I've seen in this forum, earlier machines from 5 years ago or earlier are the only specific recommendations I've seen so far.

[robjv1]

I miss old threads like this where people dragged out all the old myths and model numbers, it brings a tear to my eye haha.

Another problem I found with a lot of those consumer decks is the boosting of contrast ratio up way too high. It makes for a picture that 'pops' off the screen and rich looking blacks, but as Orsetto alluded to, comparing that image side by side with a more conservative deck reveals details washed away details at best and having them completely blown out in the worst cast.

I also agree to with the idea that many of the JVC DNR/TBC models create a sort of hazy, gauzy type of artifact that isn't always aesthetically pleasing on larger non-CRT televisions. I particularly noticed it on my JVC HR-7600U, which I often used in tandem with a DataVideo TBC and a SignVideo DR-1000 sharpening unit -- those three together were not a good fit. The 7600U was too soft for my liking to begin with, especially on SP masters, but if I needed to use the TBC and wanted to include the sharpening equipment, I just ended up with a grainy, soft capture with nasty edge enhancement.

I find the JVC SR-W5U/7U line (among some old decks) produce a much more aesthetically pleasing image out of the box compared to the other JVC SVHS TBC models I've tried, with a neutral color and contrast balance compared to consumer decks, and a sharper, cleaner looking picture than most SVHS decks due to the less aggressive and modified DNR/TBC. I'm not sure what it is about that line that makes the DNR look so different than the other decks and I'm curious to find if any other JVC decks utilize it as well. I assume it's an entirely different algorithm at work. The TBC is in an always-on state when used with a W-VHS tape, so I assume it was optimized for use with those tapes and that its great performance with SVHS and VHS tapes is a happy accident. I don't know if the other JVC models tout their noise-reduction circuitry, but "three dimensional Hadamard noise reduction" is mentioned extensively in the product literature for the WVHS line, although I'm sure that could mean any sort of Hadamard based algorithm, unless a specific one is trademarked and implemented by JVC. The only other product I can recall that buzzword being mentioned in was some the "Digipure" JVC DVD recorders, which utilized it to reduce block noise. It really excels on commercial tapes and off-the cable recordings though and perhaps allows too much noise for tapes in worse condition. I can see why people would prefer the other models for noisy, EP home movies especially. In that case, I think you need the aggressive filtering (just as long as the tracking gets along with your particular tape). That is the one benefit about that particular line though -- they'll track almost any SP/EP tape well, although it can be hit or miss for LP tapes.

Speaking of LP tapes -- Orsetto/Sanlyn -- What do you guys know about the Panasonic PV-9451? I'm assuming it's a late 1990s - early 2000s model. My parents have one of them in their garage that they used for about a month and threw back in the box when they got one of those Go Video dual-deck VCRs (talk about adding artificial sharpness to a picture on playback, but at least it had an adjustable dial). I'm dying to steal it from them test it out on a troublesome run of LP tapes. My old Omnivision deck seemed to play LP tapes like a champ, so I'm hoping for similar results. My JVC decks play them with varying success. The JVC SR-V101US just can't cope with it at all and the image tends to bounce around like crazy, while the SR-W5U decks play them pretty well, but with a slight, constant amount of noise in either the top 15% or bottom 15% of the image that can't quite be eliminated through tracking adjustments.

[sanlyn]

The PV-9000 series were produced sometime around 2000-2002, the era of contrast "enhancement" and oversharpening. I'm not familiar with that particular model, but all the 9000's display a similar image character, which in the lower-numbered models (I seem to recall the "highest"model number was 9668) was pretty noisy, especially with darks. Slow-speed tapes look rather impressive to most owners because of all the sharpening -- which included sharpening the noise, although the highest model numbers seemed to have had a mild non-configurable DNR. By 2000 the tracking mechanism did OK when new but there was too much chintzy tin-and-plastic to expect any level of durability. I went thru two 9668's, had the tracking repaired twice on each, and finally gave up on 'em. By 2000 it was obvious that Panasonic had no intention of any further upgrading in the quality of consumer VCR's. These machines were so lightweight that they had no heft at all, just pushing a button would make the things move around on a shelf.

[NJRoadfan]

I also agree to with the idea that many of the JVC DNR/TBC models create a sort of hazy, gauzy type of artifact that isn't always aesthetically pleasing on larger non-CRT televisions. I particularly noticed it on my JVC HR-7600U, which I often used in tandem with a DataVideo TBC and a SignVideo DR-1000 sharpening unit -- those three together were not a good fit. The 7600U was too soft for my liking to begin with, especially on SP masters, but if I needed to use the TBC and wanted to include the sharpening equipment, I just ended up with a grainy, soft capture with nasty edge enhancement.

I always thought that haze (sometimes ghosting) was a sign of an overly aggressive median filter, the Digipure DNR likely compounds it. The best way to detect it is with a tape with noisy dark or black segments, it looks like the noise is moving/fading in slow motion. I've seen it on some non-CRT TVs with normal consumer VCRs too.

The JVC HM-DH40000U does some weird edge enhancement thing with EP tapes. I noticed sharp edges, particularly on CG text tended to be "staticy"compared to say my Panasonic AG-1980. I have examples, will post later. The one nice thing about that DVHS machine is that its can be used as a pass-through TBC like the "classic" DVD recorders. It also outputs everything to Firewire in MPEG-2 video format (but MPEG-1 Layer-2 audio).

[sanlyn]

I always thought that haze (sometimes ghosting) was a sign of an overly aggressive median filter, the Digipure DNR likely compounds it. The best way to detect it is with a tape with noisy dark or black segments, it looks like the noise is moving/fading in slow motion. I've seen it on some non-CRT TVs with normal consumer VCRs too.

With my old JVC I saw it everywhere, not just non-CRT's.

[robjv1]

The JVC HM-DH40000U does some weird edge enhancement thing with EP tapes. I noticed sharp edges, particularly on CG text tended to be "staticy"compared to say my Panasonic AG-1980. I have examples, will post later. The one nice thing about that DVHS machine is that its can be used as a pass-through TBC like the "classic" DVD recorders. It also outputs everything to Firewire in MPEG-2 video format (but MPEG-1 Layer-2 audio).

Yeah I'd love to see your examples -- I'm curious if it is a similar look to what I've experienced. Maybe I can dig up some samples as well.

[robjv1]

The PV-9000 series were produced sometime around 2000-2002, the era of contrast "enhancement" and oversharpening. I'm not familiar with that particular model, but all the 9000's display a similar image character, which in the lower-numbered models (I seem to recall the "highest"model number was 9668) was pretty noisy, especially with darks. Slow-speed tapes look rather impressive to most owners because of all the sharpening -- which included sharpening the noise, although the highest model numbers seemed to have had a mild non-configurable DNR. By 2000 the tracking mechanism did OK when new but there was too much chintzy tin-and-plastic to expect any level of durability. I went thru two 9668's, had the tracking repaired twice on each, and finally gave up on 'em. By 2000 it was obvious that Panasonic had no intention of any further upgrading in the quality of consumer VCR's. These machines were so lightweight that they had no heft at all, just pushing a button would make the things move around on a shelf.

Good to know, thanks! I'll grab it since it's basically new and run some tests on it and post my impressions.