VCR vs VCR

[rgr]

I'm starting this thread because I want to post VCR screenshots and compare them.
Maybe someone will find them useful, maybe someone will join in.

All my screenshots are quick ones – from the HDMI output of a Panasonic DVD recorder, after deinterlacing.

At first glance: Philips (or JVC) vs. Sony.

https://imgsli.com/NDUyMzgz

In addition, the sound from the JVC is more muffled than from the Sony (linear mono).

[aramkolt]

I do like the idea of VCR comparison threads, but the downside is that everyone will be working with different source material, so it makes them harder to directly compare. Purists will say what you really need is short video clips rather than screenshots, but I think screenshots can still be useful at determining "big picture" differences.

I always thought it'd be best to put out a sort of sample DVD that anyone could burn and use to make source tapes. Given that the source for that is digital, we know what certain scenes or patterns are "supposed" to look like. A VCR could then record the DVD player output onto tape via S-Video and then you'd proceed to capture its own recorded playback. VCRs should be able to play back their own recordings quite well as there really should never be tracking issues, so it won't tell you as much about timebase errors and other issues you might come across on old tapes. You will get some slight variation in how DVD players output things, but it should be a relatively minor differences I'd think.

[Sharc]

^^^ this.
And it is just another demo of a JVC blurring/softening the picture, even loosing details. For example see the structure of the wooden panels of the wall.

[rgr]

This image is what finally motivated me to start this thread, even though I've already posted photos of how the taller JVC models are... not cool. The difference is quite drastic. Interestingly, the lower the JVC model, the more detailed the image. From my models, J672>S6850>S7600/7700.

[aramkolt]

I also agree that the JVC in this example is significantly more blurry - I'd guess with it being that blurry that the picture mode is set to "soft" or something. I don't think I've seen any of my JVC machines be that blurry, so I don't know if that is a good representation or not.

I always thought a thorough VCR comparison would include at least two of each model being tested so that you could somewhat account for machine-to-machine variances.

I asked the guy that has the very expensive refurbed JVC VCRs with TBCs on eBay (he usually lists them for $1200-$1500 each) about that and he did actually make a video showing 5 different 9600U's playing the same tape. The difference is actually pretty surprising how much the picture can vary from machine to machine of the same model. It does also show that he doesn't set the output levels (luma/chroma) to be the same during his refurbs, otherwise they'd match there. On the 9600U, that'd need to be done with a JIG remote (finally found one of those), but I feel there's more risk of messing things up since the process isn't super straightforward when it comes to that and it's plenty easy to adjust levels via proc amp or post capture if necessary. The takeaway for me was for those prices that those expensive machines aren't being truly calibrated, other than probably looking at the RF envelope for tracking purposes. He charges about as much for the "refurb service" ($750) as I charge for a complete refurbed JVC machine with TBC. However, if people want to pay it, it's all good, more power to him.

This is the 5-machine 9600U comparison with the same source tape, definitely worth a watch if you have not seen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0v-ctW4kXPY

You'd swear some of those machines were completely different models and the 9600 is one of the best reputed machines out there. I'd say based on the above video that some are much better than others, so you really don't know what you're getting when you buy one.

[Adub]

One thing that's not addressed in that video (I think?) is the difference in capacitors. For instance, where all machines using the exact same, brand new capacitors in the video processing path? As well as the power supply? Or where they using some mix of different age capacitors?

I'd be really curious if replacing the caps brought up picture quality levels - or if it has zero effect at all and it's all head drum related.

[aramkolt]

Agree that capacitors could have some effect, but these are "already refurbed" machines that he's selling for $1200-$1500, so I'd have to assume that any suspect caps would have been changed, or he may change the same ones for all. The 9600 usually has decent brands of caps in it, though some do have quite a few ELNAs which I'm not a fan of in general. I don't know that I've seen sharpness really change much with capacitor replacement, usually it's more of an improvement in image noise. The next test to do would be to swap the drum from the softest to sharpest machine and see if the sharpness follows the drum (video heads) or if it is something about the rest of machine causing the bigger picture differences.

[dellsam34]

Condition matters at this point of time, it is almost impossible to do apples to apples comparison if you don't have two machines fresh out of the box. Important information is missing with the comparison, the type of connections used for the VCRs.

[aramkolt]

Agree that connectors used should have been disclosed in the 5 VCR comparison, but I'm pretty confident that the same connector type (either S-Video or Composite) was used for all 5 for that specific comparison. I do know from his other videos that he likes to use Blackmagic capture devices and I'm also pretty sure he does use S-Video for all of his comparisons.

I haven't specifically noticed this degree of variation on AG1980's in sharpness as I've worked on mostly those, but at some point I'll need to do a direct comparison on several machines. On those, it is fairly easy to tell a "higher hours" machine based on the wear to the mode switch, or at least showing that it has had more tapes loaded and unloaded. On the JVCs, it's easiest to tell the rough amount of load/unloading from the P2/P3 guide tracks that pull the tape out looking for wear there. Theoretically, the "more worn" ones should be less sharp if that's the variable (presumably head wear) causing the larger sharpness differences. The best actual test pattern to use for that is probably multiburst where there's a lot of fine detail looking for frequency response horizontally, but I'm sure you could get the same or more information out of the SW2 pattern at a glance without needing longer clips like the "5 VCR" comparison above with real-world footage.

[lollo]

Condition matters at this point of time, it is almost impossible to do apples to apples comparison if you don't have two machines fresh out of the box. Important information is missing with the comparison, the type of connections used for the VCRs.

Yes.

In general, there is not "best" VCR, it depends on the tape. What I experimented, is that for recorded tapes, the best player is the one that recorded them, if still available and in good conditions.

Otherwise there are too many variables to generalize. For instance, while is somehow true that JVC provides a softer (but cleaner) image than a (noiser but more detailed) Panasonic image, sometime is not true, as in the following example: https://imgsli.com/NDUyNzg5 (i did not equalize for colors/borders/etc.)

[rgr]

I also agree that the JVC in this example is significantly more blurry - I'd guess with it being that blurry that the picture mode is set to "soft" or something.

All JVC screenshots are in Edit mode (or Distinct if they're Philips). Same with Sony.

It wasn't visible in the previous post, but the Sony tends to blown whites. But I'd need an analog capture to investigate further. Despite that, there's still more details on the Sony.

(Edit: This time the JVC was also connected via composite)

[rgr]

Condition matters at this point of time, it is almost impossible to do apples to apples comparison if you don't have two machines fresh out of the box. Important information is missing with the comparison, the type of connections used for the VCRs.

JVC - SVideo / short 0,5m top-shelf Tech+Link cable
Sony - composite with a random and cheap RCA<->SCART that cost me 2.5 euros in Auchan

[rgr]

JVC J672 vs JVC S7700(Philips VR1100)

[timtape]

Condition matters at this point of time, it is almost impossible to do apples to apples comparison if you don't have two machines fresh out of the box...

Yes new JVC VHS decks havent been made since about 2008, Panasonic since about 2011, I think. By now a New Old Stock deck will have deteriorated even well stored since new.

Understandably buyers used to buying all sorts of consumer items brand new want to be told a "best" make and model to buy.
Unfortunately, condition rules. And that condition only deteriorates.

Part of that condition is whether the deck will play precious tapes without damaging them. Unfortunately that's specific to each individual deck, at a given time. A top of the line make and model which destroys or damages tapes is worse than useless. We're probably better off with a mid range model, of which many more examples are available, which works perfectly and doesnt permanently damage tapes played on it.

Avoid making the (notionally) perfect the enemy of the (actual) good.

[dellsam34]

You missed my point, I'm not saying you need new VCRs now to make comparison, what I am saying is that comparison should have been made back in the 90s. Luckily everyone else seem to get it.

Having said that, the OP comparison doesn't resolve anything, the JVC is too soft and the Sony is too noisy, Neither looks good for exactly the reasons I mentioned in my previous post.

[The 14th Doctor]

Yeah there are a lot of variables here at play. But still everybody has different VCRs in different conditions so it feels like you can't exactly make any definitive answers.

Like in the context of SP Mode tapes, the VCRs I used here offer no big difference in quality, only a small difference in hue and frame positioning.

First is my JVC SR-VS30U. Second is my Panasonic AG-1980. Cypress CDM-640 was used as an external TBC and a Pinnacle 510 was used as the capture card. Only proc amp adjustment for the TBC was reducing the saturation by -3 (by default it is oversaturated) and for the capture card it was increasing the brightness by +10 and contrast by -18 to capture within the card's legal limits.

Now LP/EP mode is when the 1980 is better than my JVCs, the quality is better (because the JVCs produce a much softer image with those tape speeds) there is less head switching noise and in the context of mono audio for all modes, the 1980 is better than the JVCs.

HiFi audio is when the differences I'd say are small enough to where they can be easily matched in post.

But this all relates to my specific equipment anyway, I've heard the 1980 are generally better at handling LP/EP and mono audio tapes than the JVCs. But imo when you get to SP Mode + HiFi audio is when there is really no clear winner, gets all subjective.

[timtape]

You missed my point, I'm not saying you need new VCRs now to make comparison...

I'm not saying you are.

...what I am saying is that comparison should have been made back in the 90s.

The comparisons were probably made back then when there was more knowledge and expertise about VCR's than there probably is now.

Having said that, the OP comparison doesn't resolve anything, the JVC is too soft and the Sony is too noisy, Neither looks good for exactly the reasons I mentioned in my previous post.

Reducing noise can easily soften picture detail just as attempting increased picture detail can increase picture noise. That may be why some VCR's included a front panel 'picture' adjustment going from 'soft' to 'sharp'. We may be in tradeoff territory here.

[timtape]

...Now LP/EP mode is when the 1980 is better than my JVCs ...and in the context of mono audio for all modes, the 1980 is better than the JVCs...

I've read reports and heard and analyzed some audio file uploads of noisy JVC linear audio tracks but also on other brand VCRs, especially at LP and EP speeds. I think part of the problem is when those recommending VCR's major on the picture quality and forget the audio. At a rough guess, 90% or more forum recommendations and discussions centre around the picture. The sound aspect tends to be ignored or treated as a poor relation. So very small differences in picture fidelity can be agonized over while big differences in audio fidelity can be passed over.

[Sharc]

JVC J672 vs JVC S7700(Philips VR1100)

What's the purpose of this "comparison"? What shall we conclude of it?
- These are no native captures. They have been postprocessed (deinterlaced).
- the right picture is offset (delayed) by 2 frames compared to the left picture.

[rgr]

Having said that, the OP comparison doesn't resolve anything, the JVC is too soft and the Sony is too noisy, Neither looks good for exactly the reasons I mentioned in my previous post.

Noisy doesn't mean bad. In fact, it's better. It means that '90s electronics didn't interfere with the video. You can denoise it yourself, and it's certainly no worse. This is especially noticeable in the "J672 vs. S7700" video (roof).

[rgr]

JVC J672 vs JVC S7700(Philips VR1100)

What's the purpose of this "comparison"? What shall we conclude of it?
- These are no native captures. They have been postprocessed (deinterlaced).
- the right picture is offset (delayed) by 2 frames compared to the left picture.

You can draw your own conclusions
The clip from J672 is:
a) sharper
b) noisier (not a cons)
c) more detailed (underside of the roof)

[rgr]

Some comparison screenshots from JVC, LG and SONY.

As I always say, it's better to compare what's underneath the noise than the noise itself -- screenshots after (almost) identical processing

a) screenshots after deinterlacing+denoising (sigma=3, except for the Sony, where I used sigma=4 due to higher noise) + lsfplus.


[Attachment 91536 - Click to enlarge]

[Attachment 91537 - Click to enlarge]

[Attachment 91538 - Click to enlarge]


[Attachment 91539 - Click to enlarge]

[Attachment 91540 - Click to enlarge]

[Attachment 91541 - Click to enlarge]

b1) JVC showed its strength on a heavily noisy video, where it denoised it quite well.


[Attachment 91542 - Click to enlarge]

[Attachment 91543 - Click to enlarge]

b2) but after denoising (Neat video: JVC strength=40%, Sony strength=80%) it turned out like this:


[Attachment 91545 - Click to enlarge]

[Attachment 91546 - Click to enlarge]

(at least I got here with the right frames )

[rgr]

...Now LP/EP mode is when the 1980 is better than my JVCs ...and in the context of mono audio for all modes, the 1980 is better than the JVCs...

I've read reports and heard and analyzed some audio file uploads of noisy JVC linear audio tracks but also on other brand VCRs, especially at LP and EP speeds. I think part of the problem is when those recommending VCR's major on the picture quality and forget the audio. At a rough guess, 90% or more forum recommendations and discussions centre around the picture. The sound aspect tends to be ignored or treated as a poor relation. So very small differences in picture fidelity can be agonized over while big differences in audio fidelity can be passed over.

That's right, switching between the HiFi and mono tracks on the Panasonic allows you to notice how small (relatively) the difference is. On the JVC, the difference is significantly greater (and not because the HiFi is better here).

[aramkolt]

No need to switch on the Panasonic. With the right setup, you can capture both HiFi Stereo and Monolinear at the same time, since mono linear is always output through a separate jack along with HiFi or whatever channel you want to monitor. As far as actual testing, I suppose what you'd want to do is a frequency sweep or something like that and then analyze for weak areas of frequency response. The question then becomes what deck you'd use to actually make the test tapes on as the recording side could potentially cause some general quality loss also.

[timtape]

...Now LP/EP mode is when the 1980 is better than my JVCs ...and in the context of mono audio for all modes, the 1980 is better than the JVCs...

I've read reports and heard and analyzed some audio file uploads of noisy JVC linear audio tracks but also on other brand VCRs, especially at LP and EP speeds. I think part of the problem is when those recommending VCR's major on the picture quality and forget the audio. At a rough guess, 90% or more forum recommendations and discussions centre around the picture. The sound aspect tends to be ignored or treated as a poor relation. So very small differences in picture fidelity can be agonized over while big differences in audio fidelity can be passed over.

That's right, switching between the HiFi and mono tracks on the Panasonic allows you to notice how small (relatively) the difference is. On the JVC, the difference is significantly greater (and not because the HiFi is better here).

Much of the problem with certain JVC models (and possibly other brands as well) seems to be audio noise added by the deck itself to the linear track. Even a cheaper deck can have better audio S/N ratio in this respect.

[rgr]

Much of the problem with certain JVC models (and possibly other brands as well) seems to be audio noise added by the deck itself to the linear track. Even a cheaper deck can have better audio S/N ratio in this respect.

No, in the case of the JVC, it's more of an over-noise reduction. It generates very little noise, but it also aggressively cuts off the highs.

[timtape]

...As far as actual testing, I suppose what you'd want to do is a frequency sweep or something like that and then analyze for weak areas of frequency response. The question then becomes what deck you'd use to actually make the test tapes on as the recording side could potentially cause some general quality loss also.

My own "test tape" is one with no audio recorded, just a video signal to prevent some VCR's from muting the audio in the absence of a video signal. A silent tape reveals any added interference in all its glory. To discover that the noise is coming from the VCR and not the tape recording can be a shock.

[rgr]

A silent tape reveals any added interference in all its glory. To discover that the noise is coming from the VCR and not the tape recording can be a shock.

Or it's from an automation that tries to amplify the sound in the hope that something is actually recorded there. It's amazing how differently the JVC can reproduce the audio if you remove the tape and reinsert it.

[Brad]

Some comparison screenshots from JVC, LG and SONY.

As I always say, it's better to compare what's underneath the noise than the noise itself -- screenshots after (almost) identical processing

For me these are all too smoothed.

[timtape]

A silent tape reveals any added interference in all its glory. To discover that the noise is coming from the VCR and not the tape recording can be a shock.

Or it's from an automation that tries to amplify the sound in the hope that something is actually recorded there..

Not that I'm aware of. VHS/VHSC camcorders could have auto limiters/AGC to control big gain changes at the record stage but not at playback. If anything it was audio expansion, not compression at playback.