Recommendation Request: LG vs Pioneer vs Panasonic

[bmoret]

I'm looking to buy a DVD Recorder with a hard drive and my options seem limited. I have found a few models. One feature that I would like is the ability to output the recorded video files from the unit to my computer via some kind of cable (USB, ethernet, ...). This way I can edit on my computer and burn from there if I so desire. But I don't want to give up quality (or at least not much quality) for the feature.

Some posts in this forum have said the LG LRM-519 allows me to transfer files to my computer this way. The unit is refurbished and is $300.

Other units are Pioneer DVR-340H & 640H (for $400 & $500 - ouch) or Panasonic DMR-EH55 (also $500).

Does anyone know if the quality of this LG will be comparable to the Pioneer and Panasonic? While I'm a little reluctant to buy the refurbished LG, if it will give the quality of the others I would do it. By the same token, I'm a little reluctant to shell out $500 for a recorder.

Thanks in advance for any suggestions or recommendations!
Brian

[jman98]

If you are interested in potentially editing on your PC, why not just buy a PC capture card such as the Hauppauge PVR-250 or PVR-350 and record to your PC and edit there? DVD recorders aren't better than recording on PCs, they are just easier.

Let me give you an example. Let's say you want to record something, maybe an old VHS tape, that lasts 70 minutes. Your DVD recorder will record this in 2 hour mode, using a bit rate probably around 4700 Kbps to record the show. Note that over 40% (50 minutes because 120 minutes minus 70 minutes recorded is 50 minutes) of the disc will be completely wasted on nothing and you will have a bit rate lower than you need for this recording. If you recorded it to a PC at a bit rate of 8200 Kbps, it would take up almost all of a single layer DVD and give you much better quality than what the DVD recorder recorded at 4700 Kbps.

Like I said, DVD recorders are for ease of use and they're really for people who don't want to edit on PCs. You could buy either Hauppauge card I mentioned for a fraction of the cost of any of those recorders you listed.

[oldfart13]

This is not completely correct. Many home DVD recorders have settings that allow bitrates to be adjusted for the material at hand. My old Panasonic E80H does this in FR mode and I'm assuming most of the quality recorders out there like the Pioneer, Sony, etc. will do likewise. You are not stuck to recording in any one mode at all....

[lordsmurf]

Panasonic makes blocky video. Bad choice.

Pioneer and LG are fine, but only use SP 2-hour mode. Anything longer is not all that hot.

The good machines that used to exist are no longer made.

I have a Philips 3575 and it does great at 2-hour SP, and is mostly acceptable at SP+ 2½-hour mode. Beyond that, it's not a real good choice, because it pushes everything to use 720x480. There is not enough bitrate to support it, so it gets blocky too.

The only home DVD recorder that ever had bitrate control was the Toshiba XS series, as far as I know. The Panasonic E80 mentioned above did not. FR mode is still limited in the combination of bitrate and resolution choices, often in increments of 5-10 minutes.

You should look into a computer capture card, and the suggested Hauppage PVR 250 is a good one.

[bmoret]

For starters, I'd like to thank you all for replying. The info you gave is helpful and also gave me some good ideas.

A couple of things, perhaps I'm missing something. I plan to always record the original broadcast to the hard drive in the highest quality mode. Using jman98 example: if I have a 70 min show, my plan would be to record to hard disk in the highest quality possible. The LG would allow me to copy those files to my computer where I could use DVD Shrink to get it to the proper size.
The other recorders would be more work, after recording, I'd have to burn 60 min to one DVD and 10 min to another. Then rip both to my computer and use DVD Shrink to finish. At least I've been thinking this is possible - is this incorrect?

In any case, I originally looked into capture cards. There are reasons why I chose not to go this route, one was that I didn't want to leave my computer on all the time in order to record 5 or 6 shows each week. A recorder would turn itself on. So you are absolutely correct - it's convenient. Also, while I have a couple of computers, only one was powerful enough to accommodate the capture cards I looked at, and I use that computer for work and don't want to put a capture card into it. I use an older Pentium 3 with W2K to do my occasional video stuff. However, I just saw the specs for the Hauppauge and was surprised to see that it only requires a P3 machine. I may look into this again, perhaps even to have in place as a backup. (I'm going through all this now because my Phillips DVDR-75 is giving disk errors whenever I record and the remote on my vcr is starting to work only sporadically - and the unit itself doesn't have all the controls on it to fully operate it in a useful manner)

Again, thank you for the info and ideas

[oldfart13]

Panny made blocky video using lowered bitrates on the old encoders. When they switched over to the other ones that you had recommended (ESS) I thought that had gone away? Doesn't matter much to me anyway because with the E80H all I ever record is in HQ (live shows) or SP (animated shows) and from satellite sources (even though we know all about the compression artifacts, eh?). Good enough for me. Oh yeah, my E80H is still working fine recording all these shows without as much as a hiccup. 5 years now. Throws a wrench into your assessment of those old recorders since you had said they wouldn't last. Never had a problem with this unit but have had to shelve all the Liteons...

[lordsmurf]

Panasonic blew it by making the LSI chipset record video at 720x480 all the way up to 4 hours. Chipsets don't matter if you still don't give the video enough bitrate to operate. Panasonic consistently finds ways to make anything beyond 2 hours look like trash. I don't know what the hell is wrong with that company. I was floored when I saw how they botched use of the LSI chipset. It's almost like they intentionally make anything beyond SP look bad.

Many of those old E80 and E85 machines have bit the dust. Chronic hard drive problems that Panasonic acknowledges, but refuses to fix adequately. They always put in another known-crappy Maxtor driver when they "fix" these machines, and it always fails again. U99 errors are rampant and malignant.

[mray]

Hi.
I got blocks on three Panasonics at SP:
E50
E55
EX85

Blocks on Liteon AGX740 at SP.

Grain on two Sonys and occasional blocks at SP:
GX300
HD860

No blocks on Pioneer 440HX at SP
No blocks on JVC DMR100 at SP

I think the Pioneer and JVC are the best machines for RECORDING QUALITY personally.
I'm not attacking the other ones, but this was my observation after using them all many times to get the best recording at SP.

[pinetop]

If you are going to use a capture card you may also want to get TMPGE with the AC3 plugin. I believe all Hauppage cards create mp2 audio, which is not the dvd standard. I have a Hauppage PVR USB2, I shelved it. The dvd recorder was so much easier. Why not drop the hard drive requirement and use a computer for editing?
I've re-used dvd+rw for about three years now, I've only had to toss two.

[Marvingj]

No one mention Toshiba which has a great picture, bar none.....

[samijubal]

I'll second the Toshiba. PQ is the best there is.

[lordsmurf]

Hey, I mentioned the Toshiba up above. 8)

Both the Toshiba XS series and JVC 10/100/30/300/1/5 series are great.
Other Toshiba, not so much. JVC 7 and 8 series, not so much.

[Bridge]

I'm thinking about getting the new Phillips recorder. I only tape at 2 hours and HQ too. I'm wondering what has the better video quality at 1 and 2 hours? Is it this new Phillps or an old Pioneer 5xx model?

[lordsmurf]

Having seen both, it would be a tough call. They both have a really good image. I'd really have to scrutinize to see which is better. I would like to say the Philips 3575, but I wouldn't want to carve it in stone.

[wabjxo]

On the Philips 3575 vs Pio 53x, I had the Pio 531, and now have a Pio 640 and several Philips 3575. I prefer the Philips recordings just a little over the Pio, but the real decider should be the digital tuner in the Philips.

I am always amazed at the huge difference in viewing and recorded quality thru the Philips digital tuner...sort of HD-Lite! I've recorded many things from a digital channel in rec. modes up to 6-hr-SLP ("Heartland") and football up to 3-hr-LP with excellent PQ.

Unfortunately, I'm on basic analog cable so I only get 6 digital HD channels, downrezzed to SD of course and, in fact, just analog versions of the original HD broadcasts, but the quality difference makes recordings so much better than old analog SD. I'd really like to see the quality if I had true digital service, but too cheap to give the cableco any more money.

To me, no contest just based on this alone.

Here's some subjects that might be of interest on the Philips 3575.

[lordsmurf]

I get the HD on QAM, and it really looks good on the 16:9 DVD recordings off the Philips. Downconverted HD is better than upscaled HD, viewed on a huge high-quality HD screen. Not night-and-day better, mind you, but visibly cleaner and sharper. Not really noticeable on 36" and under screens.

I don't know that I'd do more than 2½ at most, and that's a stretch that I'd be scarce with. SP is the really only good mode (like 90% of the recorders out there). When given bitrate, the machine outperforms Panasonic and other SP-only type machines, that's for sure.

[Bridge]

So, the Phillips has great black levels and a really sharp looking picture? I love my 533 because I think the black levels are great but most important to me is that people and images look really sharp and not all soft, washed out with too much white level.

So, if I got the Phillips I should expect that the video clarity, and sharpness is at least equal to the Pioneer 5xx series?

Also, I take it then that the Phillips has a QAM tuner in it too?

I like my old Pioneer 310/533 a lot and would like to find a new one so I can save these but I haven't come across anything with video quality and sharp well defined video like I see in these. I even have a Pioneer 640 and hate the video quality in it. My picture is way too washed out and way too soft. I turned down the black levels and it is still not right. Plus, they took out the detail setting for some reason and I'm stuck with a soft picture without a way to change it.

So, what I'm basically asking is that if I get a Phillips would I expect to see the video quality equal to the old Pioneer's like the 5xx series? Something where people's faces are well defined and well in focus -- sharp and clear. Even from analog cable using using S-Video? Which I'll be using. Cable box -- S-Video out -- into the Phillips S-Video for analog recording (i.e. QVC, VH1, etc.)

[lordsmurf]

Black is 100% correct that I can see, no noticeable variation like most units (not full IRE errors, but variations).

QAM, yes. Works fine.

A local store has a Pioneer 310 on clearance. Those don't have hard drives, do they? They wanted a lot of money for it, at least $300. I thought it was ridiculous. Some small furniture store. I liked the Pioneer 230/233 machines, nice quality, but I give Philips 3575 the edge. Not quite as noisy. Pioneer was good, but there was detectable mosquito in small amounts when scrutinized.

Philips comes from Walmart. If you hate it, take it back within 90 days. That was my plan. I ended up keeping it.

[DarrellS]

Is the only difference between the 3505 and the 3575 the hard drive? That's a lot to pay for a hard drive.

The 3505 is $169.87 at Walmart and the 3575 is $329.99 at Fry's. I'm mostly interested in a player with a digital (QAM) tuner but I'm only seeing tuners in the recorders.

[Bridge]

Yes, the 310 has no hard drive.

Does the Phillips video look sharp and clear using S-Video too (e.x. peoples faces have very well defind noticable features as oppose to my 640 where peoples faces look like they were shot with vasoline over the lens) or is the sharp focus/clear picture only using the tuner on a QAM digital station?

When you say noise what do you mean? Am I confusing sharp, clear people features with noise? Does the lack of "noise" mean that the picture is softer in focus or does that mean that little black macroblocks are not seen but people's facial features are still very sharp and well defined?

See, from what I seen at video stores HD video is the sharpness and clear quality I'm talking about and trying to get closest too. Something where if they zoom in you can see everything very sharp and clear. Not all soft focus. My personal Pioneer 533 and 310 came closest to that to me. Also, I know you are going to hate this, but my Panny E80 was right there too.

What exactly is mosquito noise? I see it in the manual but I don't know what that is or how to spot it.

[lordsmurf]

I've used s-video and component, both look fine. Noise are little fuzzy digital things, not blocks, that are usually seen on the edges of images, such as the area where the forehead turns to hair. Some people confuse sharpness with noise, yes. HD feeds all tend to have some degree of noise too, as does satellite and digital cable. The better the encoder and bitrate allocation, the less noise. I'm not talking crazy zoom, or face smushed to the screen, but normal viewing.

If you think the Panasonic E80 is good, then you've got nothing to worry about on the Philips. It's far better. Far, far better.

A 160GB hard drive is worth at least $100, then consider the integration costs in a DVD recorder. It's not expensive.

[Bridge]

Component? I thought the Phillips only has composite and S-Video. Am I wrong?

So, if you had to do it all over again and say the Pioneer 531 and Toshiba XS series were still being made. Then this Phillips came along. Are the quality differences between them all so very close and you would choose the Phillips video quality over the other too or at least not be able to tell the diffence between them? I know you wouldn't get Panny.

I might have had a chance to get a Pioneer 5xx series but depending on what you all are saying I might pass on it (even though I LOVE the video quality of my 533) and get the Phillips praying that the video quality is as sharp and clearly focused as I think my Pioneer 533 is.

Oh, how is editing on the Phillips? Is there frame accurate editing? Can you keep editing a video clip until you reach the 99 chapter limit? I loved the frame accurate editing on the Pioneer, Panny and I'm guessing Toshiba had that too.

[lordsmurf]

I went and looked just now. Yes, component is there.

If the Toshiba XS had a QAM tuner, I'd buy it, even if it was $100 more. But ti doesn't, so I won't. I don't use this machine for VHS, only off-air recordings, and mostly just HD channels at 16:9 down-converted DVD.

I use my JVCs for VHS conversions, clean up video. I'd use a Toshiba XS for VHS work, if JVC was not available.

For plain digital cable, I have an RCA that has a sucky tuner, but excellent encode quality, and clear signal on s-video or composite inputs (like the digital cable box). No cleaning of signals though, so not good for VHS either.

My LiteOns are not used as players, the ones that aren't dead. My Panasonics are near death but still functional (thankfully, especially because I need that ES10 on passthrough). I gave away, sold or trashed the other units I've had (Apex, Sanyo, Centrios, others). I had a Pioneer and Sony, but returned them before 30/90 days were up, not impressed.

[Bridge]

What was wrong with the Pioneer and Sony? Which models did you try? I know I hate my 640. I expected the video quality of the 533 and I get this! If I rate my 533 as a 10 I would give my personal 640 a 4 in video quality. I would think that the real soft smooth picture might look better upconverted where the 5xx series would look all blocky or something but on my TV the P640 is NOT what I expected when I bought it from the same company just one year later.

Lordsurf, you test out tons and tons of video equipment. Have you ever seen two models from the same lot, so to speak, look very different in PQ? For example, say a Pioneer 531 and a Pioneer 633. Both look the same, both made the same year, both have the same supposed setup. Yet, have you ever came across a situation where on paper they are suppose to look the same PQ wise but for some reason they don't? One is way superior in video quality with a sharp kickin' picture and the other is nothing like that. The other is weak, soft, dull, almost like you needed glasses to if a person has blue eyes or hazel eyes.

[trhouse]

I expected the video quality of the 533 and I get this!

Just curious but have you tried the playback "Video Adjust" from the Home Menu on the 640? I have tested multiple units of JVC DR-M10S's, Panasonic DMR-ES46V's, Pioneer DVR-531H's but never saw much difference between them even if made in different countries.

Strange that you find the 533 sharper than the 640 because the 531's do not have the resolution of the earlier x2x series in tests done by Gshelley61 and myself.

[Bridge]

Maybe I got a bum one? That's why I asked. Maybe mine is messed up.

I don't really mess with the playback adj. becuase I don't play them back really in the machines. I take them out afterward and play them back in other DVD player only machines.

I just noticed that they took things out of the 640 like VNR, Detail input, they kept the detail output though, some other adj. is gone too on the last page of the input adj. settings. Also, they took out the Video Audio Input levels. The 640 took out the +/- 3db and the +/- 6 db audio input settings too. If there was just some way I could make the 640 sharper it wouldn't be all that bad but when I compare the 640 to the 533 it's like WOW the 640 is soooo soft.

[lordsmurf]

I've seen certain chipsets acts better or worse under certain conditions. LiteOn 5001 units (LSI chipsets) that overheated, would have quality issues in the encodes, depending on the heat. Hotter unit, more noise in the encode. Too much and the machine would lock up, go green, or even damage itself. Same model, difference in encode. But it was slight. I don't recall every having observed it on anything else.

Panasonic I think had some issues (bad to worse), but with all the issues going on in those machines, I gave up trying to see for sure. Too many variables. Sometimes I'd see something wildly different on another machine.

Different models, yes. The JVC DR-M10 is very good, but the JVC DR-M100 is better. The encode is cleaner when viewed on a computer with image scrutinized. It was a next-gen LSI, so I'm not surprised at all. But I have seen two JVC units that did make video lighter, a definite IRE issue, but that's maybe two out of dozens. And I know little about the source, so too many variables to make a call.

On paper, these shouldn't have varied as much as they did, but basic electronics tends to explain some of it.

Most chipsets improved over time, but it was almost always slight. Panasonic, Cirrus, LSI, etc.. each successive chip tended to look better, with the exception of stupid bitrate allocation changes (forced 720 at low speeds).

The Pioneer just has more noise, but it's an acceptable level of noise. It's slight, and it's not blocky, so it's okay. The color and clarity was otherwise fine.

[orsetto]

Apologies to everyone for this LONG first post, I have been waiting for the correct opportunity to log my experiences with the various Pioneer recorders and this seems to be the right thread:

Bridge, there IS some degree of quality variation in all mfrs production runs and also between models. I have been thru quite a few machines in the last couple years as I try to tackle the transfer of almost 3000 VHS and Beta tapes to DVD. Mostly now I use Pioneer and JVC.

The Pioneer 510 has an incredibly sharp clear OTA picture. Great tuner. Infinitely variable bitrate in 5 min increments. Depending on the source, the encodes are astonishingly good for circa-2003 hardware. Drawbacks: they can be TOO contrasty and TOO sharp for a lot of off-cable material, recording speeds beyond 135 mins have increased noise, and they are terrible at VHS transfers (noisy image, very unstable TBC correction and they do not react at all well to having a Sima or Grex stabilizer in the loop). Also the editing and navigation interface of the hard drive 510 model is primitive at best- too modal, slows you down, lacks a specific "delete section" function (you have to make your unwanted material into a chapter, and then delete the chapter- a tedious chore with this interface). One clear advantage of the 510 (and later 520) for some people is on-the-fly chapter marking without having to be in the edit screen. While you are watching a hard-disk recorded program at normal full-screen size, you can tag the commercial breaks with a button on the remote. At that point you're essentially done with editing- just transfer to DVD-R and when a commercial pops up hit "next chapter" to skip directly to the next program section. Unless you hate the idea of wasting disc space on commercials you'll never watch, this is the fastest way to archive television series to disc. (Personally I prefer deleting commercials altogether on a more sophisticated machine).

In 2004 the 510 was replaced by the 520. Again, can be a bit too sharp and contrasty for some material and poor VHS transfer quality. Recording quality thru line-in from cable is as excellent as the previous 510, although for some reason the 520 tuners are MUCH worse- extremely noisy depending on the production run. The 520 hard disk model retains the clumsy modal editing interface of the 510 but adds a dedicated "delete scene" function which furthers convenience. They kept the "on the fly" chapter marking as well, making this the ONLY Pioneer with both the "scene delete" and "on-the-fly" options. For some people this combination is highly prized, which is why the 520 is scarce on eBay.

The 2005 models (531, 533, 633) have a MUCH improved editing and hard disk navigation interface. The tuners are good again, at least not as noisy as the 520. Video quality here begins to drift- at this point Pioneer began sacrificing a bit of fine detail in exchange for a slightly smoother picture at longer recording times. A lot of us find the 531 and later models have distinctly softer encodes even at XP and SP. You won't notice this unless you've had a 510 or 520 to compare it to, and it isn't objectionable: for most purposes its fine. Your particular 533 must be truly exceptional if it is your reference machine- I have seen the output from a dozen or so and they are pretty consistently softer than earlier models. Again, not bad at all, better than most, just not tack-sharp. Pioneer more than makes up for this by putting KILLER line input buffers in these 531-533-633 units- I don't know if they're sync filters, crude TBCs or what but I find these 2005 Pioneers will successfully transfer awful multi-generation Beta and VHS better than anything else I've tried. They somehow internally stabilize a lot of the distortion that appears as a dealbreaker on earlier Pioneers, my JVCs, even a Toshiba. For tapes my JVC can't handle, I use my Pioneer 531. (The less said about its TVGOS timer programming system, the better.)

Video quality and features on the 2006 models (540 and 640) are at parity with the 531-533-633 models (minus the terrible TVGOS system which was dropped for 2006). Editing interface is the same. Tuner PQ is similar as are the line input buffers. Video quality is more or less the same- minor variations at best. Sometimes I think the 531 is better, sometimes I think the 540 is better, but not enough to split hairs over. I do not see the major differences you have seen, Bridge, but anything is possible given manufacturing tolerances these days.

Living in the USA, I do not have easy access to the latest 450-550 series so can't comment from personal experience. They seem similar to the 640 but with additional output connection options. There is some debate whether they have improved encoder chipsets, I have not been able to confirm one way or the other.

(One important point re the 640 and later Pioneers I have not yet seen mentioned in the forums is that they no longer have "self-service" burners! Some of us here have learned how to keep our older Pios going after a burner meltdown by cribbing replacement parts from good off-the-shelf Pioneer computer burners using the Pio service disc and service remote codes mentioned in other threads. THIS IS NO LONGER POSSIBLE with 2006 and later Pioneers- because the burners inside are no longer based on Pioneer computer burners! I recently wanted to stock up on a couple spare burners for my 540 unit but could not figure out what model it was. I touched base with the amazing Hakan, who told me Pioneer is now using SONY (nee Lite-On) burners in their DVRs! Not only that, it is a wacky one-off exclusive burner not available at retail in any form, and Pioneer melds the entire motherboard of the recorder to the burner. So any attempt at "self-service" on these units is likely to be real horror show. Keep this in mind before you are tempted by desperation to pay an inflated price for a 640 or later unit- the repair $ on the burner could be astronomical if it fails. And they all fail eventually- usually when you have 25 hours trapped on the hard drive.)

Like LordSmurf, I have had several pre-2006 JVC machines pass thru my hands- all great units, but a couple definitely had lighter encodes. Not bothersome enough to be a problem except with some extremely poor VHS sources that were already too light to begin with. Overall, JVC is fantastic at cleaning VHS noise artifacts and is also the machine I choose when I need an exceptional recording from TWC digital cable (SD not HD). You can record really long (3 hours+) movies from TCM, like "Gone With The Wind", "Mad Mad World" or "Kagemusha", and they still look decent because of JVCs particular implementation of the LSI chipset. SD digital cable tends to be overcompressed anyway, what the JVC does is conceal as many of those artifacts as possible. On the other hand, depending on the source material a JVC encode can be perceived as "too soft" by some people. And JVC has yet to release a reliable hard-disk equipped DVR, so your editing options are limited. One "best of both worlds" workaround I use is to record DVD-RAM on the JVC, then put the RAM disc in my Pioneer 540 which will high-speed-copy the contents to its hard drive. I can then edit to my hearts content on the Pioneer, and burn the completed project back to DVD-R. (Post-2006 consumer JVC models use a crippled version of the LSI chip without the FR variable bitrate function, not nearly as useful, and their current overpriced "semi-pro" units have had notorious problems with DOA burners.)

In my own work with tape transfers and cable program recording I have settled on using a Pioneer 531, a Pioneer 540, and a JVC DR-MV5. We all have different priorities and are sensitive to different video image issues, your best bet is to try equipment out before you commit to it if at all possible. If forced to buy new today, I would probably go for the Phillips 3575 at WalMart. But I *really* like the editing interface on my Pioneers and can operate them with my eyes closed, also I have become adept at repairing them (many thanks to folks on this forum!), so buying used from Craig's List or eBay is an option for me when necessary.

Again, apologies to all for this l-o-n-g post: hopefully the OP or perhaps other members can glean something useful from it.

[lordsmurf]

That was one item I liked about the Philips. It had easy editing, and while no recorded is frame-accurate, this one is only off by 1 GOP at most, not several seconds like other machines often are. So I can still get near-precise cuts.

[Seeker47]

. . . log my experiences with the various Pioneer recorders and this seems to be the right thread:
Bridge, there IS some degree of quality variation in all mfrs production runs and also between models. I have been thru quite a few machines in the last couple years as I try to tackle the transfer of almost 3000 VHS and Beta tapes to DVD. Mostly now I use Pioneer and JVC.

The Pioneer 510 has an incredibly sharp clear OTA picture. Great tuner. Infinitely variable bitrate in 5 min increments. Depending on the source, the encodes are astonishingly good for circa-2003 hardware. Drawbacks: they can be TOO contrasty and TOO sharp for a lot of off-cable material, recording speeds beyond 135 mins have increased noise, and they are terrible at VHS transfers (noisy image, very unstable TBC correction and they do not react at all well to having a Sima or Grex stabilizer in the loop).

My experience has been limited to two of their models -- the 520 and the 640 -- but I find your comments to be pretty much on the mark. Don't know what's up with Bridge though, other than a possibly bad sample: I like the 640 a lot, but give the edge on certain points to the 520. (Vice-versa on a few features, however.) And yes, I find the 520 recordings to be sharper. Agreed that the Sima stabilizer really blows -- unless I happened to get a bad sample there -- but the TBC-1000 seems to be the cure I was looking for with tape xfers, so far.

In 2004 the 510 was replaced by the 520. Again, can be a bit too sharp and contrasty for some material and poor VHS transfer quality. Recording quality thru line-in from cable is as excellent as the previous 510, although for some reason the 520 tuners are MUCH worse- extremely noisy depending on the production run.

I've only done cable-in from a cable box that does its own tuning, and so have no comment on the DVR's tuner quality. I've only done Beta xfers on the 520, which had speed change / "jump cut" type problems until I put a good TBC in there, but they became pretty good afterwards. I've done a few VHS xfers on the 640. It's too limited of a test to be sure yet, but so far there has been no clear need for use of the TBC-1000 there.

. . . consistently softer than earlier models. Again, not bad at all, better than most, just not tack-sharp. Pioneer more than makes up for this by putting KILLER line input buffers in these 531-533-633 units- I don't know if they're sync filters, crude TBCs or what but I find these 2005 Pioneers will successfully transfer awful multi-generation Beta and VHS better than anything else I've tried. They somehow internally stabilize a lot of the distortion that appears as a dealbreaker on earlier Pioneers, my JVCs, even a Toshiba. For tapes my JVC can't handle, I use my Pioneer 531. (The less said about its TVGOS timer programming system, the better.).

A friend of mine has either a 631 or a 633 -- I'm not sure which. I think there may have been some way to turn off or defeat the TVGOS on those. If so, you'd find it described in some thread over on AVSforum.

Living in the USA, I do not have easy access to the latest 450-550 series so can't comment from personal experience. They seem similar to the 640 but with additional output connection options. There is some debate whether they have improved encoder chipsets, I have not been able to confirm one way or the other.

I've been quite curious about the quality of those, and the 650 (including whether or not they are still really made by Pioneer), but if they have gone over to Sony burners, as you say, and even worse to proprietary models of them, my interest in these newer Pioneers just plummets -- particularly at those prices. I really like the Pioneers I've used a lot, and think they were worth the price, but I just don't think I would go there, in this case.

(One important point re the 640 and later Pioneers I have not yet seen mentioned in the forums is that they no longer have "self-service" burners! Some of us here have learned how to keep our older Pios going after a burner meltdown by cribbing replacement parts from good off-the-shelf Pioneer computer burners using the Pio service disc and service remote codes mentioned in other threads. THIS IS NO LONGER POSSIBLE with 2006 and later Pioneers- because the burners inside are no longer based on Pioneer computer burners! I recently wanted to stock up on a couple spare burners for my 540 unit but could not figure out what model it was. I touched base with the amazing Hakan, who told me Pioneer is now using SONY (nee Lite-On) burners in their DVRs! Not only that, it is a wacky one-off exclusive burner not available at retail in any form, and Pioneer melds the entire motherboard of the recorder to the burner. So any attempt at "self-service" on these units is likely to be real horror show. Keep this in mind before you are tempted by desperation to pay an inflated price for a 640 or later unit- the repair $ on the burner could be astronomical if it fails. And they all fail eventually- usually when you have 25 hours trapped on the hard drive.)

Well, my reading of the 640H Service Manual seems to suggest that the 640 uses a variant of the 111 Pioneer burner. If this is true, there may be different connectors for which you could adapt some workaround. I hope what you said is not the final word, and that someone has successfully done this. I picked up a couple of 111 spares as a hedge against such future need, and I sure hope that was not in vain. Besides that, the discussions I've seen in threads on doing this replacement have said that what you usually need to do is not to replace the whole damn burner, but rather to transplant a new, good laser lens assembly from a working burner. If those are compatible, the rest may not matter. On the other hand, I just read a post in the long-running VH thread on upkeep of the 520, stating that that burner must get a 107 laser lens assembly, because even the 108 / A08 is different enough to not be compatible.

If forced to buy new today, I would probably go for the Phillips 3575 at WalMart. But I *really* like the editing interface on my Pioneers and can operate them with my eyes closed, also I have become adept at repairing them (many thanks to folks on this forum!), so buying used from Craig's List or eBay is an option for me when necessary.

I will check out this Phillips, just to keep up to date on what is available today, but I suspect it must be a big comedown from the Pioneers. They were the quality units that were readily learnable and operable by non-hardcore video-techies, and I too could just about get very good use out of them blindfolded.

Again, apologies to all for this l-o-n-g post: hopefully the OP or perhaps other members can glean something useful from it.

No apologies needed. That was a great and very useful post !