Sony image quality vs JVC

[marc5532]

I bought a JVC MH-30, but I've found it has a lot of bug (freeze, Loading problem). I've return the unit, and I'm waiting for a new one, but i'm afraid to have the same problems on the new unit. So I'm planning to buy a Sony 710 in exchange of the JVC. The JVC has a very good image and I want to know if the Sony is as good as the JVC? Thank.

[lordsmurf]

As good as? No.
It's below JVC, above Panasonic, pretty much right in the middle.

[pinetop]

I've seen a JVC created DVD. It was good. But IMO, Sony has hands down the best picture quality.
I trade boxing matches on dvd. I've seen and own a dvd from alot of the recorders on the market. I also used to have a Liteon 5005 aka junk.
My Sony is the run away champ. I have received several comments from folks I've traded with. And have been asked am I using a software to get that picture quality. No, its just the Sony recorder.
My model is a RDR-GX7, which is about 2 yrs old. You'll read how half have drive problems, a lie. Making a statement with no data to back it up, is a lie. I haven't had any problems, there were two cheapo Teon disks it didn't like. But hey they were 25 for $2.99. My JVC player is 5 plus years old, and has been great. I'm not sure about the JVC recorders in terms of quality. I believe a little thing like the tray opening right has been a problem on the earlier models.

[JAB285]

Sorry to hear about your problems with the MH-30. All I can tell you is that mine has performed flawlessly since I got it over three months ago. I've had mine recording for 13 hours straight with no problems at all. No loading problem, no freeze, no nothing. The image quality is fantastic. It's a great machine. I'd wait to see if the new unit is bad before I gave up on the JVC.

[lordsmurf]

My model is a RDR-GX7, which is about 2 yrs old. You'll read how half have drive problems, a lie. Making a statement with no data to back it up, is a lie. I haven't had any problems

This is a confirmed and very common problem. You're lucky to not have it.

I'm not sure about the JVC recorders in terms of quality. I believe a little thing like the tray opening right has been a problem on the earlier models.

This is not a problem of the JVC. In fact, the current JVC models have no flaws whatsoever, the "loading" issue seems to have been confined to mostly summer 2004 productions, and only on the previous line.

The Sony has NOTHING in the way of noise removal and can create very grainy work if the signal is not clean. It's a lot like the Pioneer in this regard, but the recording chipset (Zoran) is not as good as the others. The newer lines use Cirrus, similar to the Cyberhome, and is definitely not that great.

[pinetop]

[quote="lordsmurf"]

My model is a RDR-GX7, which is about 2 yrs old. You'll read how half have drive problems, a lie. Making a statement with no data to back it up, is a lie. I haven't had any problems

"This is a confirmed and very common problem. You're lucky to not have it."

How is it confirmed ?

The flawed dvd recorder sticky is the only source I've ever heard that stated half have drive problems. And there was no proof offered to back it up. All I know is I have 100s of dvd from this unit and they all look darn good. I've got dvds from Pannys, Pioneers, and JVCs and the picture quality is not as good. And I know from first hand use and multiply units Liteon is junk.

[piano632]

I've got dvds from Pannys, Pioneers, and JVCs and the picture quality is not as good.

How can you accurately gage the quality of various recorders you haven't personally used? You don't know the source quality of these recordings you are getting from other people. Maybe their source quality isn't as good as yours, which would give the impression that their recorders are at fault.

[pinetop]

I've got dvds from Pannys, Pioneers, and JVCs and the picture quality is not as good.

How can you accurately gage the quality of various recorders you haven't personally used? You don't know the source quality of these recordings you are getting from other people. Maybe their source quality isn't as good as yours, which would give the impression that their recorders are at fault.

You are right, to an extent.
Boxing is an action sport. On some recorders the copy almost looks like its pixelating. Sorry, if thats spelled wrong. I've also confirmed the speed settings. Most collectors record in the sp 2hrs mode. Honestly, IMO the copy of a boxing match I'm most happy with comes from my Sony. My cable is analog, and I've traded for fights from dish, digital cable, and free tv. I think the fact I have 100s dvds from other units, gives me an idea.

[piano632]

My cable is analog, and I've traded for fights from dish, digital cable, and free tv.

Well, that explains it. The pixelation you see is coming from the digital broadcasts, probably not due to the recorder. I have a JVC recorder which shows no pixelation when recording an analog signal, however when recording action scenes from digital channels pixelation is noticable. I'm sure if you recorded digital material on your Sony, you'd get pixelation too. IMO digital broadcast (not counting HDTV) is inferior to a clear analog signal, despite claims to the contrary.

[broadway]

piano632,

I currently have analog cable and was thinking about switching
to dish TV.
Are you saying that recording anything from digital cable
or satellite TV is actually worse????

[piano632]

Are you saying that recording anything from digital cable
or satellite TV is actually worse????

If your analog reception is good, I wouldn't switch. Every digital broadcast I've seen has pixelation/artifacts noticeable during fast/sudden picture movement. Either that or the picture is softened enough to hide most of the pixelation (then you lose some resolution). Don't believe all that hype from the satellite providers. If you've seen some of the streaming videos on the net, even the better ones fuzz in and out occassionally and show blocks. Well, that's what digital cable/satellite does too. Some channels look better than others, but I'd choose a clean analog broadcast over digital any day. Of course, if your analog reception is lousy then digital would be an improvement. Hopefully digital broadcasts will improve in the future, but at the moment I'm not impressed with either the video or the audio quality.

[lordsmurf]

Analog has analog noise, digital has digital noise. Decide which one you hate less.

[gshelley61]

Yeah, sometimes digital cable and satellite channels (even some of the HD channels) have terrible motion artifacts due to the highly compressed MPEG streams they use. Action movies and sports can look really bad.

However, this issue should improve in the future as better real time compression technology evolves. Still, I prefer the digital channels to analog cable most of the time. No ghosts or grain...

[KTH]

I would have to concur with Lordsmurfs assessment of recordings on DVD recorders. I would say JVC has the best recording followed by Sony and Panasonic (In that order) for the brands that LS mentions in this post. This is for recordings made in the two hour mode and yes I do currently own all 3 of the listed brands of DVD recorders. LS was wrong when he mentioned that the Sony has no noise reduction. It does and it's user adjustable, but the levels of adjustment could be better. Also in terms of digital vs analog TV I would prefer a good analog signal over a digital one. The main reason being a lot of the built in noise reduction circuits in DVD recorders are designed for analog signals and don't work very well for digital. Also I found out recently that some cable companies are lowering the bitrates for digital TV channels so that they can increase cable modem speeds. In fact the cable company that I subscribe to is one of them. I talked to their customer service reps and found out others were complaining about the poor quality as well. After about 3 days the picture got a little better, but not as good as before they started siphoning off bandwidth. How do I know the cable company was doing this? My friend knows a tech for the cable company and the tech told my friend what the cable company was doing.

[lordsmurf]

LS was wrong when he mentioned that the Sony has no noise reduction. It does and it's user adjustable, but the levels of adjustment could be better.

Well, having settings and having settings that do something are two separate issues. It does "have" NR, but it doesn't HAVE NR. If that makes sense.

[trhouse]

KTH,

You may have a point. I have noticed that blocks are occurring more frequently of late with cable TV and I did learn last week the cable company is trying to up its internet connect rates to 6 Mbs.

[pinetop]

I wonder if this is also effecting analog. Fighters in boxing match on HBO will have a halo of blocks around them. Now the quality looks good, but theres those darn blocks. Fighters on Showtime and ESPN don't have the blocks. What gives ?

[dphirschler]

It all depends on how much bandwidth the cable provider decides to give the channel. They don't give a shit about quality, only cramming as many channels as they can into as small a package as they can. I often see 13-15 channels crammed into a single 6mh bandwidth.

Digital satellite is probably not much different.


Darryl