|
|
INDEX F.A.Q. SEARCH LATEST POSTS
Rules Register Profile Private messages Login
| Author |
Message |
theaveng
Member
Joined: 09 Oct 2007
Location: United States
|
|
I'm trying to separate the truly "outstanding" VCRs (super vhs) from the rest, so I'll know which ones are worthy of keeping & which ones to dump on ebay. I need the best VCR so I can transfer S-VHS camcorder movies to my PC.
Thank you. 
Troy
Panasonics
AG-1980 (TBC???)
PV-S7670
PV-7401 (VHS-only)
Sears
SR-1000 (VHS; no macrovision)
Older JVC Models (larger in size; large jog wheel)
HR-S7900 (with TBC)
HR-S7500 (with TBC)
HR-S6800
HR-S4600
HR-S3500
Newer JVC Models (smaller in size; tiny jog wheel)
HR-S5902
HR-S5901
HR-S3902
|
|
lordsmurf
Video Restorer
Joined: 10 Jun 2003
Location: Want my advice? PM me.
|
|
Keep these four:
AG-1980 (TBC???)
HR-S7900 (with TBC)
HR-S4600
SR-1000 (VHS; no macrovision)
The others are redundant or inferior.
Even if you kept them all, I'd bet those are the four most used.
My "most used" list is similar (NTSC only):
AG-1980
HR-S9800
HR-S3800
Sharp VHS (forget model #)
I have others, but they mostly hold the cabinet to the floor and keep dust from hitting the carpet. In some cases, units are mere backups (such as SR-V10).
_________________
digitalFAQ.com -- Help with VHS to DVD, DVD recorders, other video/photo issues.
NoMoreCoasters.com -- How to avoid bad burns, how to find the best blank DVDs.
|
|
theaveng
Member
Joined: 09 Oct 2007
Location: United States
|
|
| lordsmurf wrote: |
Keep these four:
AG-1980 (TBC???)
HR-S7900 (with TBC)
HR-S4600
SR-1000 (VHS; no macrovision) |
Thanks. I'll probably hang onto the HR-S7500 too, as a backup TBC-equipped unit. Two things surprise me:
- You recommended the 4600 over the 6800 unit? Isn't the 6800 superior because of its bigger number?
- You recommended keeping the sears model. Was that because it strips macrovision? I wonder if such a VCR is considered "rare" and valuable on ebay's market.
|
|
lordsmurf
Video Restorer
Joined: 10 Jun 2003
Location: Want my advice? PM me.
|
|
I have personal experience with the 3600/4600/3800/4800 lines, and I was impressed enough that I kept a pair of 3800 decks for recording. They are pretty much a VHS-quality VCR plus more. The x600 line was better, and the 4000 series was better than the 3000 series. These units play tapes differently that the 9800, an apparently different transport system (or at least something is different enough to affect tape playing).
The old "Big Bertha" type VCRs have their uses. I still retain a Magnavox that is from 1981. The manual tracking is the main aspect of why you should keep it. The "strippping" (ignorance) of anti-copy can be helpful. It's rare but lacks the value it probably deserves. I keep mine in a box in the closer, pulling it out maybe twice per year when I get those "oh crap how do I fix this tape" problems. And it never fails -- the machine plays it. Not the best quality, mind you, but the fact that these tapes played at all was an answer to a prayer.
Personally, I suggest keeping them all -- or at least long enough until you're able to ascertain on your own what works best and what does not. The conditions of the machines is just as important as anything else. A few of those I'm not familiar with (the older JVC's, for example).
_________________
digitalFAQ.com -- Help with VHS to DVD, DVD recorders, other video/photo issues.
NoMoreCoasters.com -- How to avoid bad burns, how to find the best blank DVDs.
|
|
theaveng
Member
Joined: 09 Oct 2007
Location: United States
|
|
All VCRs have manual tracking (well the ones I use do; it's typically controlled with the channel up/down buttons).
Does the Panasonic AG-1980 have a TBC?
Shall I assume the newer 3900 and 5900-series are junk? If so those are probably the first I will get rid of. (They have excellent NTSC tuners, pulling-in stations 60-70 miles away, but that will soon be a non-issue.) If the transport is poor quality, than I don't want them.
|
|
orsetto
Member
Joined: 31 Oct 2007
Location: NYC
|
|
I think what LordSmurf means by "manual tracking" on the really ancient VCRs is that they have big ole actual mechanical tracking adjustment knobs. These give much greater feedback and control than the tedious "electronic" up/down tracking buttons on newer VCRs. The combination of "real" tracking knob and the vastly different transport mechanics in a good older deck (like the Magnavox/Panasonic) can make certain impossible tapes play just well enough to transfer to DVD, albeit with compromised PQ as LordSmurf warns.
The Panasonic 1980 has a unique TBC/DNR combo not matched by that of any other VCR: its one of a kind and can be a lifesaver with certain tapes. If your 1980 is in good operating condition, keep it: a bird in the hand, you know. Resale on these used to be quite high but recently has dropped to $150-250 on eBay. You could easily spend $150 repairing one old vcr, so if your 1980 is good you should hold onto it. You can always get at least $100 for it later when your dubbing project is finished. There are those on this forum that loathe the 1980, which baffles me because it is no better or worse than any other high end VCR in PQ. It can make the picture soft with its TBC engaged, but this is equally true of the JVCs with TBC/DNR. I don't see a significant difference. The value of the 1980 is its ability to stabilize and restore certain tape signals that stump the JVCs with TBCs, and vice versa. By keeping both a JVC and a 1980 on hand you cover 99% of the bases.
I would likely get rid of the lesser JVCs, but only if you really don't have anywhere to store them. With tape transfers, the more VCRs the merrier, you never know which one will save the day. The 3900 and 5900 series were nice when they worked but often they didn't work. They aren't worth much on the second hand market but occasionally you see spikes where someone will pay good $$$ for one. Keep them if you can, otherwise sell 'em.
Overall I would agree with LordSmurfs recommended shortlist in his initial response to your question.
|
|
lordsmurf
Video Restorer
Joined: 10 Jun 2003
Location: Want my advice? PM me.
|
|
Digital tracking and manual analog tracking are not at all the same.
_________________
digitalFAQ.com -- Help with VHS to DVD, DVD recorders, other video/photo issues.
NoMoreCoasters.com -- How to avoid bad burns, how to find the best blank DVDs.
|
|
davideck
Preservationist
Joined: 03 Feb 2003
Location: USA
|
|
I can't speak for all of your VCRs, but given that you want to transfer S-VHS Camcorder tapes, I would rate the ones I am familiar with in this order;
AG-1980 (with TBC)
HR-S6800
HR-S7500 (with TBC)
HR-S7900 (with TBC)
HR-S4600
HR-S3500
The later model JVCs were built around the same basic mechanical transport. IIRC, the 3500/3600/3800 is the entry level S-VHS VCR. Roughly speaking, adding a flying erase head and editing capabilities to it makes a 4600. Adding a TBC/DNR to that makes a 7900. Adding a Dynamic Drum System to that makes a 7500/9600/9800.
The Dynamic Drum provides special playback functions like noise free search (and improved tracking in some cases). The TBC/DNR is added to the basic transport to improve the PQ on the higher end models. If I turn off the TBC/DNR on my 9600, the playback quality is the same as my 3600.
A more stable transport and superior signal system is found on the 6800. It has no TBC, but provides excellent playback performance from my S-VHS Camcorder tapes. I was fortunate to have one of the very few S-VHS Camcorder models that had a full size head drum and a superior camera element. It made great recordings, and by using S-Video connections during capture, the luminance and chrominance are never mixed or separated, maintaining clean, detailed signals right through to the DVD.
My AG1970 provides the transport/signal system quality of the 6800 with the addition of a TBC without mandatory DNR. It also does a particularly good job with my older VHS Camcorder tapes.
_________________
Life is better when you focus on the signals instead of the noise.
|
|
theaveng
Member
Joined: 09 Oct 2007
Location: United States
|
|
| davideck wrote: |
| Adding a TBC/DNR to that makes a 7900. Adding a Dynamic Drum System to that makes a 7500/9600/9800. |
That explains why you ranked the 7500 higher than the 7900, despite the 7500 being an older model.
| Quote: |
| My AG1970 provides the transport/signal system quality of the 6800 with the addition of a TBC without mandatory DNR. It also does a particularly good job with my older VHS Camcorder tapes. |
Perhaps I should have bought a AG-1970 instead of the 1980?
As a rule of thumb:
I take it using the original camcorder (with TBC on) will provide the best quality signal? My brother has some VHS tapes. Should I capture them off the original camera (1980s model), or should I use my S-VHS playback?
|
|
lordsmurf
Video Restorer
Joined: 10 Jun 2003
Location: Want my advice? PM me.
|
|
I prefer the 1980 to the 1970.
_________________
digitalFAQ.com -- Help with VHS to DVD, DVD recorders, other video/photo issues.
NoMoreCoasters.com -- How to avoid bad burns, how to find the best blank DVDs.
|
|
deuce8pro
Member
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
Location: United States
|
|
| orsetto wrote: |
| There are those on this forum that loathe the 1980, which baffles me because it is no better or worse than any other high end VCR in PQ. |
I disagree with that. In order to clean up tapes (which you must do) using the 1980, you must set it all the way to soft which is overly softening the picture. To set in the middle adds grain that doesnt need to be there (I know you prefer a grainier image but thats unacceptable for my needs). Therefore, I dont even think it should be considered as an option for dvd transferring.
Always consider the JVC units with the tbc/dnr the first option in transferring anything to dvd along with a Pan ES10 pass through when it comes to your SVHS camcorder tapes or any tapes. Frequently clean the tape guides of all your decks, if you are using them a lot like I do mine.
|
|
orsetto
Member
Joined: 31 Oct 2007
Location: NYC
|
|
| deuce8pro wrote: |
| In order to clean up tapes (which you must do) using the 1980, you must set it all the way to soft which is overly softening the picture. To set in the middle adds grain that doesnt need to be there (I know you prefer a grainier image but thats unacceptable for my needs). Therefore, I dont even think it should be considered as an option for dvd transferring. |
You have stated this several times before in other contexts where I could not address it in any depth, I'm going to try here. The thing to bear in mind about ALL Panasonic AG recorders is they were absolutely, ridiculously overpriced when new. This coupled with the fact they were not at all attractive and lacked convenience features that were standard on all VCRs at a tenth of the price means these AG machines sold almost entirely to semi-pro users like college video labs, small TV stations and wedding/event videographers. So, nine out of ten AG1970 and AG1980 units are on their last legs and worn to death from "pro" usage. And a worn Panasonic, consumer or semi-pro, does not produce a pretty picture.
A well-used AG1980 is no great shakes and will likely provide the disappointing performance you describe: I have seen this with my own eyes and do not dispute you if we're talking about decks that aren't working at their best. Where my experience diverges from yours is with mint or restored AG1980s. With these I find the opposite image that you see: I have two of these that I kept, and each one actually has very limited range in its "detail" control, at least with standard VHS. I leave the slider in the middle as the best compromise, where its output is either identical to my JVC9911 and MGA DVHS, or slightly better. Moving to the left instantly creates mush, moving to the right doesn't add any detail but merely creates false outlines. I have confirmed this is "correct" AG1980 performance with the Panasonic tech who gave my units the once-over. Making this more confusing is the conflicting behavior of the similar-looking AG1970: this model has very wide range in its detail slider, from unbearably soft to much too sharp with several stops between. In this regard it is better than the 1980, but it loses ground because it has virtually no color noise reduction: it is not remotely in the same class as the 1980 or the JVCs or the Mitsu DVHS. There are two areas where the 1970 can be more useful than those "better" decks: if you have a very good-quality tape with very clean color, the 1970 will extract far more realistic detail when in TBC mode than the 1980 or JVC, both of which cannot separate noise reduction from TBC. So in many cases, a great tape will play better on the "inferior" AG1970 while the "superior" AG1980, JVC, and DVHS machines are actually more useful with poorer tapes which benefit from their always-on DNR/TBC combo.
I totally understand how your poor experience with an AG1980 would lead you to warn others against it: I used to rail against JVC because my experience of them has been 100% awful- totally wretched over the last 25 years. I was appalled at being forced back into using them because they were necessary to get good transfers with my DVD recorders of a couple years ago. Nonetheless, LordSmurf, you and many others find them a godsend and swear they work perfectly for you. Since we all have differing experiences its difficult to make blanket critiques because someone will always dispute it. So now I qualify all my statements here as "my personal experience". And in my experience, the Panasonic AG1980 has been invaluable to salvage some of my more difficult tapes. It has a more aggressive TBC than that found on any other VCR, so it corrects bending and distortion that my JVC or DVHS units can't fully repair. Is the 1980 my favorite deck? Not at all- that would be the Mitsubishi DVHS, which couples the JVC TBC/DNR with a MUCH better mechanical design. When I have tapes the Mitsu or JVC can't handle, I turn to the 1980. When they don't look good on the 1980 I turn to the 1970 or an old Quasar. When they don't look good on that, I go to the pub for a drink: I've got *thousands* of tapes made over the course of 25 years, by the time I transfer them all we're going to be using holographic thumb drives for media.
Back in the pre-DVD days, I didn't like Panasonic, JVC or Mitsubishi. The finest VCRs I've ever used were the OEM machines Hitachi made for Minolta and RCA in the late 1980s/early 1990s. These provided SVHS quality on regular tapes before SVHS was even widely marketed: second-generation recordings I made on those machines still outshine first generation OTA I've seen from any other deck. They were awesome. Unfortunately they became impractical to repair as time went by, and I moved to the 1980 (which I at first hated enough to return) and then Mitsubishi 770 and 780 (nothing special but mechanically reliable). When I began doing DVD transfers, I reluctantly dug out and repaired my JVC9911. It broke down every three months, finally while it was in the shop for the fourth time I tried a Mitsubishi DVHS and was floored: the same TBC/DNR system as JVC but never breaks down. Hooray! Unfortunately there are many tapes it can't completely salvage, so I added the Panasonic 1970 and 1980. The first few examples I acquired were real dogs, totally worn out. I had to do the "eBay shuffle" several times before I got "good" units. Buying expensive second-hand VCRs is not a game for the faint of heart or light of wallet: it is a total pain and a rude awakening if you're not prepared for all contingincies.
I don't "prefer" noisier transfers, but I am willing to accept them sometimes as "good enough" depending on the source material. At some point the DVD transfer process reaches diminishing returns: five years ago a Panasonic AG1980 or JVC 9911 was *required* to make a usable DVD, so it was worth spending your life savings gambling on these used VCRs. Today, a Phillips or Pioneer DVD recorder will make a passable transfer from any properly-working garden-variety VCR: the TBC-equipped VCR is no longer a "must", its an option. THAT is why I do not recommend newbies rush right out and piss money away on all this stuff until they're desperately sure they need it. Before embarking on the treacherous seas of eBay, ask yourself how important your tapes really are: if its mostly episodes of Seinfeld and HBO movies and Perry Mason re-runs from TV-Land, you don't really have to go whole hog. Try the VCR you already own and see if the results are acceptable: they often are if using the newer DVD recorders. You can only "improve" that kind of tape very slightly by blowing your budget (and your mind) trying to locate a good-condition TBC vcr, so think twice to be sure its worth it. For wedding videos or video of your child being born, consider having a professional do the transfers for you: they can usually do a better job while adding really nice effects. If you feel you can do it better, perhaps it is worth spending the money for more high-end gear. For casual recordists, though, I don't think the slight improvements justify the cost and aggravation. We're talking VHS, people, it was never that good to begin with. No matter what VCR you play it on, the DVD transfer will be disappointing on a 42" flat-screen television. *Bitterly* disappointing. Spend your time and money wisely, with that fact in mind.
|
|
theaveng
Member
Joined: 09 Oct 2007
Location: United States
|
|
"We're talking VHS, people, it was never that good to begin with."
Actually it's Super VHS. S-VHS has a digital-equivalent resolution of 630x486..... just a few pixels short of DVD's 704x480 resolution. (Plus SVHS doesn't suffer from macroblocking, mosqutos, or other annoying artifacts.)
| deuce8pro wrote: |
| To set the 1980 in the middle adds grain that doesnt need to be there (I know you prefer a grainier image but thats unacceptable for my needs). Therefore, I dont even think it should be considered as an option for dvd transferring. Always consider the JVC units with the tbc/dnr the first option in transferring anything to dvd along with a Pan ES10 pass through when it comes to your SVHS camcorder tapes or any tapes. |
What's a Pan ES10?
Ironically, in these topics linked below, it's the *JVC* that produces soft images and the Panasonic that looks sharper. How do you explain that?
http://forum.videohelp.com/topic291582.html
http://forum.videohelp.com/topic289311.html
|
|
deuce8pro
Member
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
Location: United States
|
|
| theaveng wrote: |
"We're talking VHS, people, it was never that good to begin with."
Actually it's Super VHS. S-VHS has a digital-equivalent resolution of 630x486..... just a few pixels short of DVD's 704x480 resolution. (Plus SVHS doesn't suffer from macroblocking, mosqutos, or other annoying artifacts.)
| deuce8pro wrote: |
| To set the 1980 in the middle adds grain that doesnt need to be there (I know you prefer a grainier image but thats unacceptable for my needs). Therefore, I dont even think it should be considered as an option for dvd transferring. Always consider the JVC units with the tbc/dnr the first option in transferring anything to dvd along with a Pan ES10 pass through when it comes to your SVHS camcorder tapes or any tapes. |
What's a Pan ES10?
Ironically, in these topics linked below, it's the *JVC* that produces soft images and the Panasonic that looks sharper. How do you explain that?
http://forum.videohelp.com/topic291582.html
http://forum.videohelp.com/topic289311.html |
I cant explain those tests. Dont understand them. Dont know why they use those weird screen patterns.
I dont think that proves anything. I dont use the 9900 either. I use the 9800.
I can tell you ive transferred at least 300 or so tapes using the 9800 and the 9500 decks. I cant believe
the results im getting and believe me, these are way more difficult
tapes then SVHS masters. More generational. Your tapes would a breeze transferred
on these decks. It is true that they do sometimes play vhs unstable
or dont track the hi fi correctly and I dont know why that is.
When that happens I tend to set the audio to NORM or try it on the 9500 which is older
and might track it better, except I sometimes encounter the flagging problem on the 9500.
But quality wise, these decks are incredible and I think you would benefit best with using these.
|
|
lordsmurf
Video Restorer
Joined: 10 Jun 2003
Location: Want my advice? PM me.
|
|
Like orsetto, my AG-1980 experience is with a low-use, like-new machine -- not the crappy near-death units often found on eBay.
_________________
digitalFAQ.com -- Help with VHS to DVD, DVD recorders, other video/photo issues.
NoMoreCoasters.com -- How to avoid bad burns, how to find the best blank DVDs.
|
|
davideck
Preservationist
Joined: 03 Feb 2003
Location: USA
|
|
lordsmurf
Video Restorer
Joined: 10 Jun 2003
Location: Want my advice? PM me.
|
|
Easy. The Panasonic on the "middle notch" is already doing some sharpening. What you're seeing is false.
The Elite BVP-4 proc amp is similar here, as it is processing even in the so-called "0" settings. The values are not "as is" without some negative tweaking.
_________________
digitalFAQ.com -- Help with VHS to DVD, DVD recorders, other video/photo issues.
NoMoreCoasters.com -- How to avoid bad burns, how to find the best blank DVDs.
|
|
deuce8pro
Member
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
Location: United States
|
|
| lordsmurf wrote: |
Easy. The Panasonic on the "middle notch" is already doing some sharpening. What you're seeing is false.
The Elite BVP-4 proc amp is similar here, as it is processing even in the so-called "0" settings. The values are not "as is" without some negative tweaking. |
Thats what the 1980 does. I dont understand why people prefer the artificial sharpness.
I think we should be interested more in removing noise in our transfers then adding it!
|
|
theaveng
Member
Joined: 09 Oct 2007
Location: United States
|
|
Well in the JVC v. Panasonic thread, the Panasonic image shows the square tiles on the background wall.
The JVC does not... it all just blurs together. That's a loss of information and I don't want to lose information when transferring VHS to DV. (VHS is already bad enough at only 350x480 (digital equivalent); I don't want to degrade it even further to 300x480 via artificial blurring.)
I remember when I first "upgraded" from a Panasonic SVHS to JVC SVHS.
I immediately noticed my videos looked blurred.
I'd rather have some slight analog noise than loss of detail.
|
|
deuce8pro
Member
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
Location: United States
|
|
| theaveng wrote: |
Well in the JVC v. Panasonic thread, the Panasonic image shows the square tiles on the background wall.
The JVC does not... it all just blurs together. That's a loss of information and I don't want to lose information when transferring VHS to DV. (VHS is already bad enough at only 350x480 (digital equivalent); I don't want to degrade it even further to 300x480 via artificial blurring.)
I remember when I first "upgraded" from a Panasonic SVHS to JVC SVHS.
I immediately noticed my videos looked blurred.
I'd rather have some slight analog noise than loss of detail. |
Cant say ive transferred anything with noticeable blurring on the JVC. Sometimes ill turn the tbc/dnr off on certain tapes. But then again on your equipment list, I dont think I would have picked the decks you picked, certainly. When I researched here what decks are the best to use, I dont think the 7900 was one of them. I believe there was some evidence in a thread that the JVC's did blur but the later models with the tbc/dnr, not the earlier ones like the 7600 or 9600. And furthermore, about the "noise" issue. I dont see why people believe that they are getting more detail. It was mentioned in another thread that the Panasonic only added more noise, not more detail. Its just a sharpness level that makes people think they are getting more detail. Their eye fools them. Just like their eye fools them into believing the JVC softens the image when its really not, you just dont see all the grain and muck in the image so your eye fools you into thinking its softened.
So id suggest picking up an earlier model JVC SVHS with tbc/dnr like the 9600 or 9800 or similar 7000 models. They are worth the price if what you are transferring is worth it. If its movies you recorded on tape, theres no need to even waste your time transferring them, just as Orsetto said. If its absolute necessary they go on dvd in the best quality. Invest in a 9800 and 9600. a Panasonic ES10 dvd recorder, pro grade s-video wires such as the one by AR Pro II series. You said you plan on transferring them to "DV", so also if you got a minidv cam with "analog to digital pass through" your set. With the equipment I mentioned, you will get better results then the tape.
|
|
deuce8pro
Member
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
Location: United States
|
|
| orsetto wrote: |
A well-used AG1980 is no great shakes and will likely provide the disappointing performance you describe: I have seen this with my own eyes and do not dispute you if we're talking about decks that aren't working at their best. |
Oh no I had experience with a functional 1980 deck. It did eventually wear out on me and develop an intermittent. But I did get good use out of it and I know why you guys prefer that deck most likely because of its rock solid
stabilization, but I happen to prefer the JVC SVHS with the tbc/dnr. Even though, they can be headaches at times.
But when they are working well, nothing is better.
|
|
|
|
|
