AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,569 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I have stated this before. I firmly believe it to be true. I want others to do the tests that I have for HD sources on both for pure recording and burning and then do good S-VHS and VHS input tapes and burn to disc for both the 2005 Pioneer and 2005 Panny models. Be sure to play it back on a top 10 DVD player on the Home Theatre shootout site. We have had a lot of people that say well , you should have used different settings for VHS input to the pioneer etc. Well until you step up to the line and test-- it is hogwash. And I say that if a unit cannot handle the fire out of the box it is hogwash and what faith is any average buyer(not supergurus on this board) going to have in that unit? I think that is a smokescreen for those too laid back to take the effort to do any VHS comparative testing. I have reviewed the 2005 Panny ES-10 VHS and S-VHS input and I see no way the 2005 Pioneers can equal it on same tape ,same conditions. The 2005 Pannys beat my 2003-2004 Pannys which were almost universally talked up and praised for this ability. I love my 420 and 531 Pioneer as they are the best for direct record at XP+, XP and SP, but Panny wins in tape input at XP speed receiving the tape. This is important for the older VHS and S-VHS tapes many have.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
427 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGuy
I have stated this before. I firmly believe it to be true. I want others to do the tests that I have for HD sources on both for pure recording and burning and then do good S-VHS and VHS input tapes and burn to disc for both the 2005 Pioneer and 2005 Panny models. Be sure to play it back on a top 10 DVD player on the Home Theatre shootout site. We have had a lot of people that say well , you should have used different settings for VHS input to the pioneer etc. Well until you step up to the line and test-- it is hogwash. And I say that if a unit cannot handle the fire out of the box it is hogwash and what faith is any average buyer(not supergurus on this board) going to have in that unit? I think that is a smokescreen for those too laid back to take the effort to do any VHS comparative testing. I have reviewed the 2005 Panny ES-10 VHS and S-VHS input and I see no way the 2005 Pioneers can equal it on same tape ,same conditions. The 2005 Pannys beat my 2003-2004 Pannys which were almost universally talked up and praised for this ability. I love my 420 and 531 Pioneer as they are the best for direct record at XP+, XP and SP, but Panny wins in tape input at XP speed receiving the tape. This is important for the older VHS and S-VHS tapes many have.
Well, I still would like to perform your test, but have been unable to get my hands on an ES10. Also, by definition, there are no "average buyers" reading these messages. The folks here are informed buyers, or are trying to make an informed buying decision. Folks here will take the time to setup the recorders the way they were intended to be used by the engineers, and will calibrate the inputs where that feature is available. Also, I have trouble with some of the superlatives used in your results. There's no way that the ES10 can be "far superior" to the 533HS, because then the burned copy would have to be better than the original, and no one is saying that. BTW, I noticed that you mentioned "older" tapes with presumably poorer quality are better on the ES10. My tests were with high quality S-VHS tapes, which is what I am specifically interested in copying. But I do have some VHS tapes, and I will test them to see how they compare to the originals, and post my results here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,945 Posts
I'd rather accept the notion that when copying VHS tapes the Panny has the edge over the Pioneer. When recording programming from cable, the Pioneer seems to have the edge.


I don't have to go out and buy 2 recorders and a top 10 DVD player to live with this.


One thing that is somewhat funny is that this thread seems to focus on doing an "out of the box" setting comparison, regardless of the adjustment potential of the recorders.


If you go to the tv forums, people would not watch a set with the "out of the box" settings. Most aren't even satisfied with the user adjustments and need to either get an ISF calibration, or tweak the service menus to get an "acceptable" picture.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,239 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGuy
I have stated this before. I firmly believe it to be true. I want others to do the tests that I have for HD sources on both for pure recording and burning and then do good S-VHS and VHS input tapes and burn to disc for both the 2005 Pioneer and 2005 Panny models. Be sure to play it back on a top 10 DVD player on the Home Theatre shootout site. We have had a lot of people that say well , you should have used different settings for VHS input to the pioneer etc. Well until you step up to the line and test-- it is hogwash. And I say that if a unit cannot handle the fire out of the box it is hogwash and what faith is any average buyer(not supergurus on this board) going to have in that unit? I think that is a smokescreen for those too laid back to take the effort to do any VHS comparative testing. I have reviewed the 2005 Panny ES-10 VHS and S-VHS input and I see no way the 2005 Pioneers can equal it on same tape ,same conditions. The 2005 Pannys beat my 2003-2004 Pannys which were almost universally talked up and praised for this ability. I love my 420 and 531 Pioneer as they are the best for direct record at XP+, XP and SP, but Panny wins in tape input at XP speed receiving the tape. This is important for the older VHS and S-VHS tapes many have.
So what your saying is that we really need 2, possibly 3 recorders. At least one to do tape input recording, one to do direct off TV recording. And since RonDawg and others have said that the Sonys have better PQ than the Pioneers, due to their 12/108 DACs, we may need a third recorder for truly optimal performance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,112 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by squonk
And since RonDawg and others have said that the Sonys have better PQ than the Pioneers, due to their 12/108 DACs, we may need a third recorder for truly optimal performance.
Actually that is a bit out of context to what I've said. I've mentioned the 12 bit/108MHz DAC's of the Sony models, but that's for PLAYBACK, not recording.


What I have said is that the recordings made by the Sony do seem to be sharper than those made by the Pioneer x20 series, based upon my personal experience from owning examples of each. However, the Pioneer's PQ is perfectly adequate for analog cable, or archiving stuff off my Series I TiVo. I do prefer the Sony for archiving downconverted HiDef, not just for the extra sharpness, but also so I can preserve the widescreen aspect due to its Component Video Inputs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,569 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by probepro
Well, I still would like to perform your test, but have been unable to get my hands on an ES10. Also, by definition, there are no "average buyers" reading these messages. The folks here are informed buyers, or are trying to make an informed buying decision. Folks here will take the time to setup the recorders the way they were intended to be used by the engineers, and will calibrate the inputs where that feature is available. Also, I have trouble with some of the superlatives used in your results. There's no way that the ES10 can be "far superior" to the 533HS, because then the burned copy would have to be better than the original, and no one is saying that. BTW, I noticed that you mentioned "older" tapes with presumably poorer quality are better on the ES10. My tests were with high quality S-VHS tapes, which is what I am specifically interested in copying. But I do have some VHS tapes, and I will test them to see how they compare to the originals, and post my results here.
You misunderstood -"older" means only chronologically- NOT quality as to output.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,569 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
I will put up the Pio 531 against the Sonys for direct XP+, XP or SP- Now can these Sonys divide programs on the HDD and do a flex record on the HDD as the Pios do? If they cannot please do NOT even TRY to say they are in the ball game. I realize we are talking about video quality, BUT do not talk about a Sony unless it is a HDD when compared to a Pio 531 etc. And if it DOES NOT have divide and flex(auto record) get the heck out of here. Even the very first good HDD DVDR, the Panny E-80 in 2003 had that, for Chr sakes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
427 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by probepro
Well, I still would like to perform your test, but have been unable to get my hands on an ES10. Also, by definition, there are no "average buyers" reading these messages. The folks here are informed buyers, or are trying to make an informed buying decision. Folks here will take the time to setup the recorders the way they were intended to be used by the engineers, and will calibrate the inputs where that feature is available. Also, I have trouble with some of the superlatives used in your results. There's no way that the ES10 can be "far superior" to the 533HS, because then the burned copy would have to be better than the original, and no one is saying that. BTW, I noticed that you mentioned "older" tapes with presumably poorer quality are better on the ES10. My tests were with high quality S-VHS tapes, which is what I am specifically interested in copying. But I do have some VHS tapes, and I will test them to see how they compare to the originals, and post my results here.
OK, on my 533HS, I burned a DVD of a second generation VHS copy of a cheesy skin flick. The VHS copy was made on a JVC-S9900U, which is about as good as it gets for a consumer grade VCR. Bottom line, the DVD copy looks almost as good as the original. With the proc amp, I added some Y/C and chroma NR, backed off on the detail a bit, and tweaked the gamma, color intensity, hue, black level, and white level to produce a very watchable DVD. And I've saved these custom settings so I can use them again for low quality VHS tapes. I've also saved different custom settings for high quality S-VHS tapes, which essentially turns off the NR and bumps up the detail.


The proc amp made a big difference with the poorer quality VHS tape. Without proper adjustment, the copy looked like what I would expect from a next generation copy, which would not be good. With the proper adjustment, I can still tell the original from the the copy, but they're close.


For PQ, the only time I'm reminded I am watching a DVD copy is with some of the lower quality sources from DirecTV. The poorer quality sources start out having macro-blocking, which becomes worse on the DVD copy. Normally it's not a problem, but I watched a test copy of Law and Order last night (which has a lot of dark scenes), and the macro-blocking was distracting. But overall, I'm pretty satisfied with the PQ in the 533, but I still want to compare it to the ES10, although I have doubts about HG's results, since he opted to ignore the proc amp completely, which made a big difference for me.
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top