275(ish) completed, probably another 150 left to go

40-60% SP
30% LP
10% EP
Maybe like 10x 80s, 175x 90s, rest 2000s

Only had a few tapes with significant issues, usually isolated to small portions of the tape. Unless it's EP and it just garbage all around. No mold, almost none have physical wrinkles.

The vast majority of these tapes were done on a crappy VCR/DVD combo unit. I'd love to redo many of them since the DMR ES15 was introduced into my workflow (60 tapes done with it in). I've probably done about 15 on the HR-S9911u, 12x VHS and 3x VHSc.

Sorry for any formatting errors, doing this on mobile.

I forgot to mention that I'm doing VHS, Hi8, and some beta. 95% is VHS.

That's a lot of tapes. :eek:

LP/EP can sometimes throw off TBCs, so good to know.

80s tends to have a worse profile, then 00s, with 90s generally being easier to work with. This is a very general rule, tons of exceptions.

Redoing tapes is a common theme. I've redone many of my own tapes are tech progressed from 90s (when I started), to early 00s, to late 00s, to 10s. Not as much has changed in 10s-20s, aside from my own knowledge, and ability to finally locate certain items (some helped, some didn't). So don't feel bad. Just redo those tapes you feel are important enough to look better. And keep the tapes, you may later change your mind about what "important" means to you (be it family videos, or even TV recordings).

With that many tapes, and the JVC, I do think you need/want a non-budget TBC. I only suggest methods that I'd use myself. I can easily see myself using budget means at times, while budget would scare me in others (too much effort, issues, time needed). As the quantity of tapes increases, the volume of non-cooperative tapes increases. Those same tapes tend to behave better on better gear. Depending on factor, it could even be 50% of the tapes (or more, or less), not necessarily a small %.

I would definitely rethink that $1k number.

I'm certain that my standards are lower than yours. Some tapes are getting the full treatment of painfully slow processing, others are getting recorded via OBS. While the GV-USB has been pretty solid for the price, I'm looking into a few other stop gaps. I'm willing to experiment with other USB capture cards, AV to HDMI upscalers, and my friend is going to let me borrow his Retrotink5x.
I already know what you are going to say about Retrotink, so I will proactively say "I know". But I you cant beat free right? It will give me an opportunity to see first hand difference from my current setup to something else.

Currently awaiting the following:
Videonics MX-1 (eBay) Ive also read your comments about the MX-1
Magewell 32060 HDMI USB capture card (new, eBay)
Retrotink 5x Pro (borrowing)

I'm excited to mix and match what I can do with these. Maybe they all suck, but I'm sick of seeing pictures and videos of people's end results that took them 30 hours to process a 3 minute video. I want to see what it looks like right up on my own screen.

I doubt that. I just want clean video, as it existed on the tape. Not noises added by VCRs, nor added by capture cards, nor added by software. And then TBCs are what corrects everything.

Same here, some, definitely not all.

That lousy method is not needed. You can do better, even with the same capture card. OBS is the problem. Use VirtualDub, even VirtualDub2 or AmaRecTV. (GV-USB2 is a problem card, but often works best with AmaRec.)

No. Those were made to connect DVD players (and video game consoles) to HDMI TVs. It completely butchers analog video.

"I know" is what matters. You're getting reduced quality, but realize it. I can't argue that. I sometimes eat TV dinners, and those are pretty lousy, but I realize it.

You seem armed to know what to look for. I wish you well. When (not if) you run into issues, you'll probably get better understanding and appreciation for it all.

Nah, I just want to do the same tests with different TBCs and see what the results are when used on the same source material. I'll let the results speak for themselves.

Such a (mostly definitive?) test would have saved me going down a multi-year rabbit hole. Is it reinventing the wheel? Probably yes. But I'm more interested in seeing to what degree they are the same or different in terms of performance versus cost/size/other factors. There are a few tests out there that'll look at 2-3 devices at once, but I think it'd be more definitive to run the same source material through something like 10-15 devices and show what the differences really are using patterns and unstable sources that are likely to show weaknesses quickly.

Not having the AVT is my current excuse for not doing the testing just yet, unless someone has one I can first attempt to fix (that isn't working) or borrow a working one.

Lordsmurf
Aramkolt
It seems like pre-conceived notions when you talk about your experience may vary on TBCs that I’m thinking you don’t have experience with.

Good luck with the testing.

The problem here is that a single source cannot be used. There are so many types of flaws, that you'll need many types of tapes that showcase those errors. And then re-run tests on each TBC. It's exhaustive. You'll find that most TBCs function like other TBCs part of the time. But that overlap is a moving target.

So, for example, and ignoring the noise patterning, the BVTBC may fail at an error that both DataVideo/Cypress excel at. But next time, all may pass, or all may fail, or a different combo may emerge. There is no perfect TBC. No "one ring to rule them all". But general rules can be formed, such as Kramer TBCs generally being weaker than DataVideo (though with notes, exceptions, caveats). All rules have exceptions, but the exception never overrules the rule.

This is why I own multiple TBCs, as do most pros and serious hobbyists. (See also: why "I'm not a pro" is always such as stupid retort to a suggestion, as I'm almost always suggesting one item to that person :rolleyes:)

But this sort of nuanced discussion inevitably caused simpletons to exclaim "all TBCs are bad", which is why I often choose not to have it. Yes, I'm saying it, most people, the general population, are too stupid to be able to digest the nuance that you're attempting. It will backfire on you. All you'll "prove" to them is that TBCs don't work, make the image worse, etc. You see that, from time to time, at sites where these dullards flock to. Reading is hard. Math is hard.

At best, you'll "prove" that a certain model is "best". But that, inevitably, will lead to "this doesn't work" posts.

What I've always found vastly more useful is to simply talk to the person, one on one, to ascertain the types of sources they'll likely face. That will determine what they need far more than any Youtube "review"/test type video. No TBC will work all of the time, but several specific models will work most of the time (when in proper functioning condition, and that is the current dilemma we face).

I'll think about it. :hmm:

Yes.

When somebody says "your experience may vary" or "YMMV" (your mileage may vary, a very Americanized idiom), it generally means they have very little experience with the item. See also "it worked for me!" or even "good enough for me!". I've always found this use of phrasing wishy-washy, wussy, and very dismissive. It's a cop-out to leave a conversation, without further discussion to point out flaws, or even any evidence that it did actually work to acceptable norms.

When you've study writing (especially with any understanding of psychology, such as stylometry), you see it as the weasel speech that it is.

I say this not to belittle others, as they may not even realize what they're doing. What I want is to cause some pause in using it too flippantly. In this forum especially, we're mostly talking about (relatively) non-inexpensive items, often important videos. Mistake made could be costly, or even catastrophic.

It's not a mere decision on to what to eat at a ball game (ie, "hot dogs were good, nachos cheese was a bit spicy, but YMMV on how it agrees with you" = proper use of that phrasing).

True, that's been part of the issue as well - agreeing on the appropriate test criteria to call it as thorough as reasonably possible for the testing.

What the test will show is how a specific device did compared to other specific devices. The testing can't possibly reflect all versions (hardware/software) of a device, it's a sample of one or two of the same device that I happen to have available for testing, but in most cases, they are fully recapped to give them the best chance at being more functional than the average device as electrolytic capactors are by far the most common component in vintage electronics to fail even if unused.

At a minimum, if a TBC can't do well with stable sources/pattern generators (like it adds visible artifacts/noise/color distortions as determined by vectorscope/waveform monitor) there's really no point in doing further tests on that specific unit on unstable sources. I presume won't exclude very many of the 15 to 20 devices I plan to test though. The way to add statistical power is by testing multiple of the same device to see if the performance of them is consistent across multiple units. In many cases, I do have access to multiple of the same device to test. Though as far as recommended devices, I only have access to the one TBC-1000 which has been distribution amp bypass and low noise power supply modded. In some cases, I have as many as 5 of the same device I can test and that should give a really good idea of how consistent those devices are.

If a TBC can pass pure static (ie, unrecorded tape, that should say a lot about that it'll pass anything as unrecorded tape has no sync signal at all present) - not particularly relevant to most captures, but says something about the degree of instability a TBC will tolerate.

The fact that it has been so hard to find misbehaving tapes to even test makes me think that specific problems aren't super common or applicable to the average user. Probably better to do repeatable tests at least at first - like using obvious mistracking coming off of the VCR set that way by a tracking knob that causes the grainy output to also continuously scroll horizontally or vertically. I think those and pattern generator testing plus some short video clips would be a worthwhile initial starting point and then try to find unstable tapes later.

That needs to be at the forefront.

Even that is a variable, and it's not necessarily a "proof of best".

Nah, you can still gain knowledge on bad units.

I don't see this as an overly useful test, as it exists now, if you're just testing random items. Perhaps some good observations, but only if you have a basis to compare against. And then only if you know how to observe, what to look for, and understand what you're observing. To an extent, tests have expectation, when the tester (the person) has experience and knowledge. Not pre-conceived notions, but rather an understanding, sometimes even the ability to recognize that the test results are unusual (and thus the test may be tainted). This last aspect is why so many Youtube tests are ridiculous, the test is flawed.

This is a test. :)

But no, you can't make that conclusion. It's not true. For example, some TBCs only function (properly, or at all) when a live signal is detected.

Issues are more common than you suggest/think, on a quantity basis (not % basis). But difficulty tracking down such tapes is not a contrary statement, because the % can be low. You also won't find many people willing to hand over their home-recorded tapes, especially camcorder genre issues. These errors are largely NOT found on retail tapes, not even the crap $1 bin tapes (EP mode, not using the official VHS logo, etc).

I have never found those tests overly useful.

I heavily rely on a test library from my collecting/trading/recording days. Maybe 2,000 VHS/S-VHS tapes, all the way from 1977 to 2008. Not many in 70s/00s, most are 80s/90s, with my serious recordings starting in 1992. (Now, you're probably thinking, why I can't I share at least a few? Time is not on my side in recent years. Before the pandemic, I'd set aside maybe 50 tapes. I'm still using those. A few have been used too much, oops, so some sections are off-limits now.)

Preconceived notions aren't really what I'd call it. I'd say that most non-recommended/commercial TBCs seem to work fine with VHS in the very limited/short testing I've done, but I do need to do longer tests and more unstable source tests and get more statistics about it to make sure they aren't dropping frames or adding artifacts over longer captures or known bad sources.