Toshiba D-KR2 -vs- Panasonic DMR-ES20 for VHS recording

[sanlyn]

It ain't really fair to compare a $360 Toshiba D-KR2 with a $180 Panasonic DMR-ES20. The Toshiba has seen scant press and several complaints, while the Panny gets raves and complaints in spades. My ES20 was at BestBuy for $169. My D-KR2 is from Refurbed Electronics at $136 with shipping. Despite my misgivings with both, I’m keeping them -- for different reasons and purposes. I use both to archive VHS tapes. Neither unit will ever become day-to-day, full-time VCR replacements. No home DVD recorder priced under $5,000 can replace the convenience of a good $500 (and up) 1990’s VCR, which at any recording speed gave decent results -- not perfect, but decent. Yes, DVD has higher resolution, etc., etc., and everyone knows the usual arguments against analog. My preference still goes to VHS because my VCRs don’t add extra fingers, eyelashes, or insects to images. VHS misses some details, but the brain naturally fills in most of them. DVD adds new and foreign objects that are more difficult for the brain to accept.

The D-KR2 and the DMR-ES20 have noise reduction on input and output. I, for one, see little use for playback DNR without input DNR. It seems senseless to archive noise forever and then re-filter it at every viewing. OEM's are apparently watering-down their DNR in affordable units, or excluding it. The ES20 has moderate input DNR you can turn off. The D-KR2 has moderate and “Expanded” DNR (the latter being blurrier than the lower level, but without utter destruction of all image detail). The Toshiba also has a single level of 3d y/c input noise reduction, but it doesn’t kick in on S-Video.

When you record at XP or SP on the ES20, or even at LP (sometimes), you see the kind of snappy, well-colored, brilliant image that draws your eye. An impulse buyer's delight. But watch the ES20 for a week, and you see more and more visual defects. At 4-hr LP, artifacts are always evident and often atrocious. At EP, the ES20 is useless.

MPEG was never great at handling motion. It can't handle tuner noise or VHS "EP sizzle" either, which is one reason why the ES20 image never really looks quite right at any speed. Some say the ES20 has a noisy tuner. It does, but that's not all. The entire input section has a readily observable noise level that looks like grainy "simmering". Then there are the intermittent dark gray bars that creep up and down the frame when the ES20’s cooling fan does its thing. MPEG worsens tape noise, FM hash, RF bands, and plain static, rendering them as swarms of bristling digital maggots, even at the ES20's XP speed. The ES20's mild DNR works well at smoothing some of this with well-recorded VHS tapes, but any attempt to archive a really noisy VHS tape doesn't stand a chance on the ES20 -- the original tape will actually look better than the ES20's resulting slaughter of it.

Overall, the D-KR2 has a smoother image on output and at all recording speeds. Its basic-level input DNR is a tad more effective than the ES20’s, while its “Expanded” DNR does some heavy image softening (without affecting contrast, thankfully) but still looks pretty good. There are fewer artifacts and flying insects than with the ES20, at any speed. Even at the D-KR2’s 6-hour speed, the image is (almost) useable but I wouldn’t use it to archive VHS.

Bad cable: Cable can broadcast many soft-edged images. “West Wing” often does this, as do many AMC broadcasts. Neither of these recorders renders these signals well. The ES20 is the worst offender, the D-KR2 less so. An incoming soft-edged signal has mosquito noise and other disturbances all around it. My VCRs don’t add these artifacts, even at EP/SLP.

One note on artifacts/noise: about 25% of the ES20’s grain and artifacts disappear when DVDs are played back on my Toshiba SD-4800 or D-KR2. The D-KR2’s image isn’t as snappy as the ES20’s, but it’s still a full, rich image without the ES20’s grain. The Panny has no playback zoom; the D-KR2 does, but overall I prefer playback on my Toshiba SD-4800, which I consider better at playback than either of the recorders.

Black level: the ES20 has excellent black level and contrast for VHS dubbing, but sometimes looks overly “black” (this could be the tape’s fault, of course). This feature can’t be disabled. The D-KR2 has a brightness level adjustment, but it doesn’t do much for black levels and just makes for a dim image. The D-KR2’s “black level” adjustment is at output only, which seems absurd. When dubbing, I use both machines “straight”, with no adjustments except for input DNR. For other picture attributes I prefer my EliteVideo BVP4 or SignVideo PA-1 proc amps, which are far more flexible. A problem with the ES20 -- you have to brighten the IRE on your proc amp, lest the amp and the ES20 together will doubly darken everything.

Bitrates: The D-KR2 has superior bitrate adjustments. The Toshiba’s suggested recording times for bitrates are approximate. Both machines let you record at a setting that adjusts rates for available disc space. That’s fine, but the format used can’t be read by my PC (PowerDVD had trouble with it), and my SD-4800 can play the disc but can’t see chapters (?!). The D-KR2 lets me set the highest bitrate. and in most instances the Dolby or PCM audio rate, for a tape that runs 1hr+8min. With the ES20, those extra 8 minutes force me to record at 2-hr SP if I want a disc that’s readable anywhere. I have a few old tapes recorded at EP that don’t seem to have very much more tape noise than a retail tape. These gave excellent results on both machines. But tapes that were recorded on cheaper VCRs or with really poor cable signals require much testing, care, and usually my PC.

MacroVision: Neither machine accepts copy-protected tapes. I always use my AVT 8710 TBC anyway (also has some nice, rudimentary proc amp controls built-in). I know that at least 2 of the tapes I’ve captured were copy protected, but they were no problem thru the TBC.

For all the DVDs I intend to keep, I import videos into my PC’s TMPGenc software for editing and authoring. I can do this with any disc format except the fill-to-capacity recordings from either recorder. The ES20 takes any DVD-RAM, -R, -RW, or +R I’ve tried (except some Maxells). The D-KR2 reads only Panasonic DVD-RAM (Fuji didn’t work) and anybody’s DVD-R up to 8x, as long as the –R is compatible with 2x and 4x standards. The claim that the D-KR2 can use DVD-RW, including the recommended JVCs, is pure fantasy. I found, as others reported, that you must keep the D-KR2’s DVD drawer meticulously clean.

Conclusion: I think both units are capable, depending on what you feed them. For pristine input sources and anything less than 2 hours without lots of swift movement, I use the ES20. But not many sources are so trouble-free. Almost every VHS source requires doctoring and/or a dose of capable DNR, so I go with Toshiba for most of my dubbing. For playback-only and a cleaner input section, the D-KR2 wins hands-down. For VHS in truly horrible shape, I turn to my PC’s capture card and software.

If I had to choose between the two: The Toshiba wins.

DVD player-only: Toshiba SD-4800, and a neighbor’s Samsung DVD-VR325 (ugh!).

VCR’s: Panasonic PV-9668 & PV-8661, SONY SLV-585HF (All refurbished).

Cables: I threw away all my Monster stuff and will never use their products again. I now use AR, Belden, and Mogami. The Beldens are good for really noisy tapes; they don’t seem to transmit as much very fine detail, so they look less grainy.

Captures: Sorry, didn’t have time. Maybe later.

[tsilit]

Nice comparison. I owned an ES20, which I have since replaced with a Pioneer 531. I'm still not sold on the recording quality of the 531 nor the other DVDRs out there. On my 53" Sony, I have noticed blocking/moquito noise that seems to be undetected by other reviewers on this forum, which may be masked if they are using 20" screens to make comparisons.

What size TV screen were you using for your tests?

[lordsmurf]

@sanlyn, that's pretty much the same conclusions I have come to regarding those two models. You'll find the LiteOn is probably similar to the performance of the Toshiba. But without the IRE level issues. JVC and Pioneer should be able to outperform the Toshiba with no problems.

@tsilit, I use a lot of tv's in the 20-40" range for viewing test discs. Even on the 20" screen you can generally see the imperfections of a Panasonic. Pioneer seems to have altered how it does bitrate/resolutions on the newest 500 series machines, so be careful when selecting recording modes. Be sure the bitrate allocation is sufficient. Basically, anything more than 2 hours needs to be 352x480 with a nice VBR resolution.

[trhouse]

The new Pioneers do not allow selection of resolution except via recording time. It will use 720x480 out to 3 hours 30 minutes and from 220 to 300 minutes it drops to 352x480.

[edit] Unless LP mode is selected which does select a resolution of 352x480. The above comment was for the manual MN modes. Bitrate for LP mode is 2.53 Mbps.

[edit] I have both the Panasonic ES10 and the Pioneer 531H and also plan to keep both. The ES10 behaves as if has less filtering at its inputs which allows more noise and extraneous signals in to be processed by the encoder making the encoder work harder. The 531H seems to filter more but has a softer image in resolution tests compared to the ES10.

I recently loaned my 531H to a friend using an ES10 for recording off a surveillance system. It was obvious as soon as the 531H was hooked up that this was not going to work. The image on the monitor was noticeably soft compared to the ES10. Looking over the datasheets for his system made it clear why. He paid extra for B/W cameras with 520 lines resolution and he paid extra for a monitor with comparable resolution. His cameras were fixed position with very clear signals. Most of the time there was no motion because the cameras monitored the entrances to his abode. These conditions favored the ES10 since the objective was to get a sharp image to identify any intruders.

He also had brochures which indicated standard B/W security cameras have only 380-400 lines, color cameras even less at 330 lines, and the standared monitor about 300 lines. For a standard system the 531H would have probably worked fine.

The size of his monitor screen was either 15 or 17" which is not big but what was important was the number of horizontal lines it could resolve.

[sanlyn]

tsilit: "What size TV screen were you using for your tests?"

A 27" Toshiba (most of the time) and a 32". I can also blow up with my DVD players to roughly a 42" equivalent, with the borders cropped.

Some good comments here, and I'm eyeing a good price on a LiteOn at Cosco. But, shucks, 2006 will see a whole new crop and maybe better processors, so I'll bide my time for a few weeks.

Trouble with really noisy VHS tapes being dubbed, becaue of cheap tape and poor cable signals. Recorded in 1991-92-93. The noise is pretty bad, so I don't expect a great archive image. But I managed to clean them up a bit at high-bitrates into the Toshiba with DNR on. Then I played that DVD into the Panny to get a recording with correct black levels. Believe it or not, most of the noisy artifacts were cleaned up playing thru the D-KR2 -- didn't even show up on the Panny, but the Panny was still giving motion artifacts with this cleaner image. Conclusion: I partially cleaned this really bad VHS with the Toshiba, then played it into my TBC and captured on my PC for a final "print".
Not great, but better than trying to archive bad VHS on the Panny. (I did not try going direct from VHS to the PC, as my Ati card's noise filters aren't all that great).

If anyone knows just EXCTLY what causes MPEG2 processors to convert tape noise into godawful digital noise, has anyone posted the techy skinny on this? I haven't found anything that really gets into this.

[trhouse]

I will try a not too technical explanation. If you are a scientist at the Arecibo observatory with your microwave amplifiers cooled to liquid helium temperatures to improve signal to noise ratio, please do not be too insulted.

If you take a TV connected to an antenna and tune to a unsed channel, the screen ( if it does not turn blue ) will be a black background with little white dots randomly turning on/off all over the screen and you will hear a hiss out of the speakers. This is white noise which means it is noise that has a uniform frequency distribution ( there is same amount at 20KHz as at 200 MHz ). If this signal is applied to an encoder the encoder will think you are sending it a signal in which every dot on the screen is in motion and will work overtime trying to make a copy of this.

Most desired video signals by comparison do not cause every dot on the screen to change so the encoder does not need to work as hard. One way to limit noise to the encoder is to filter, but filtering will chop out part of the signal too. The most common filters remove high frequencies ( or like a detailer, tries to add back the high frequencies ) which causes a loss in resolution and this appears as a softening of the image.

If you own a Pioneer 531H, with the proper signal, you can see this effect as you adjust the "detail" control in audio/video adjustment.

[sanlyn]

OK, trhouse, that's a good start and makes sense to me (had to tear myself away from my microwave amp). Thanks for a clear explanation. Now you've got me hooked on filter theory!

I don't own a 531H, but my 'legacy' Sony VCR had a similar control, as does my AVT-8710 TBC. I'm sure there's more to it, of course, such as why motion macroblocks seem so much worse with noisy input (and why doesn't VHS make macroblocks? Uh, no, let's not get into that, sounds like a whole new thread from here. Must be because analog works with waveforms, not with digits.)

I'm sorely tempted to settle for another budget recorder, but 2006 seems to promise a few improvements, even with $$$ limits. So...shucks, guess I'll wait and see what happens. But I have a feeling that, like VHS, it'll be 15 to 20 years before digital video for the home gets serious.