OT - playing with old SVHS VCRs

Post by Jeff Layman
Thinking that it might be useful to clear some of the loft, I remembered
that I had a couple of old VCRs up there. The first was a Ferguson FV39S
(rebadged JVC HR-S5000EK) bought in 1991; the second was a JVC
HR-S8600EK bought around 1998. As far as I remember, the FV39S would no
longer record, but played back ok, and its remote had started playing
up. The JVC was ok when I replaced it in early 2004 with a Panasonic DVD
recorder (itself replaced later with a Humax 9600T), although its remote
was also playing up. When I found the VCRs in the loft there was no
remote for either. Perhaps I'd thrown both away, but I can't remember. I
was going to take them to the tip, but when I saw how much they could
make on eBay, thought I'd check them out first. They were left for
several hours before connecting up as no doubt there'd be quite a lot of
condensation inside, as the loft was rather cold.
Luckily I knew where I had some old SVHS tapes which I'd recorded (in
1992!), and a Scart cable which was usable with the old Panasonic TV we
had. Unfortunately, one of the Scart cable plugs was in a poor state -
the cable had become loose and the wires inside could be seen! However,
it seemed to work ok.
I connected up the Ferguson first, and with a bit of fiddling got a
rather noisy picture with one of the tapes; sound was fine. The second
tape was ok. After satisfying myself that the mechanism was ok, I tried
the JVC. I didn't realise that I'd left a tape in it, and that got a bit
messed up when the power came on. I got the cassette out and sorted out
the twisted tape. I then tried one of the other tapes I'd tried with the
Ferguson, and both worked well.
I doubt that either VCR had been used for at least 15 years, so it's
remarkable that the mechanics worked without problem. And it says a lot
for longevity of analogue tape recording that both tapes I tried were
fine (the one I had a problem with in the Ferguson seemed to be ok with
the JVC). It was interesting to read the news on the Teletext recorded
with both tapes, as SVHS could record it without problem.
Now I just have to decide what to do with the VCRs...

normally of that age, the rubber belts have elongated or perished and
the capstan rollers have become gooey and sticky.

Thats probably all it needs, some new belts and capstan rollers and a
head clean.

They sell well on eBay, I've just sold a Betamax recorder as Spares or
repair. person bought it off me for £50. he remarked how good a
condition it was, hardly used, replaced the belts and capstans and sold
it on for profit as fully working to someone in Qatar!

Brian Gaff

2023-10-06 12:38:25 UTC

I have a Sony C9, it was last used about 6 years ago and had both loading
and switch off problems and interference on the picture. Suspect that some
cleaning up of the loading mechanism a bit of a service of the clutch and
some new capacitors would see it working again. It was stereo, but analogue
so was pretty naff as it had a kind of noise reduction system that made
things sound terribly muffled unless recorded on that machine.
Brian
--
--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
***@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

Post by Jeff Layman
Thinking that it might be useful to clear some of the loft, I remembered
that I had a couple of old VCRs up there. The first was a Ferguson FV39S
(rebadged JVC HR-S5000EK) bought in 1991; the second was a JVC HR-S8600EK
bought around 1998. As far as I remember, the FV39S would no longer
record, but played back ok, and its remote had started playing up. The
JVC was ok when I replaced it in early 2004 with a Panasonic DVD recorder
(itself replaced later with a Humax 9600T), although its remote was also
playing up. When I found the VCRs in the loft there was no remote for
either. Perhaps I'd thrown both away, but I can't remember. I was going
to take them to the tip, but when I saw how much they could make on eBay,
thought I'd check them out first. They were left for several hours before
connecting up as no doubt there'd be quite a lot of condensation inside,
as the loft was rather cold.
Luckily I knew where I had some old SVHS tapes which I'd recorded (in
1992!), and a Scart cable which was usable with the old Panasonic TV we
had. Unfortunately, one of the Scart cable plugs was in a poor state -
the cable had become loose and the wires inside could be seen! However,
it seemed to work ok.
I connected up the Ferguson first, and with a bit of fiddling got a
rather noisy picture with one of the tapes; sound was fine. The second
tape was ok. After satisfying myself that the mechanism was ok, I tried
the JVC. I didn't realise that I'd left a tape in it, and that got a bit
messed up when the power came on. I got the cassette out and sorted out
the twisted tape. I then tried one of the other tapes I'd tried with the
Ferguson, and both worked well.
I doubt that either VCR had been used for at least 15 years, so it's
remarkable that the mechanics worked without problem. And it says a lot
for longevity of analogue tape recording that both tapes I tried were
fine (the one I had a problem with in the Ferguson seemed to be ok with
the JVC). It was interesting to read the news on the Teletext recorded
with both tapes, as SVHS could record it without problem.
Now I just have to decide what to do with the VCRs...

normally of that age, the rubber belts have elongated or perished and the
capstan rollers have become gooey and sticky.
Thats probably all it needs, some new belts and capstan rollers and a head
clean.
They sell well on eBay, I've just sold a Betamax recorder as Spares or
repair. person bought it off me for £50. he remarked how good a condition
it was, hardly used, replaced the belts and capstans and sold it on for
profit as fully working to someone in Qatar!

Max Demian

2023-10-06 15:58:05 UTC

Post by SH

Post by Jeff Layman
Thinking that it might be useful to clear some of the loft, I
remembered that I had a couple of old VCRs up there. The first was a
Ferguson FV39S (rebadged JVC HR-S5000EK) bought in 1991; the second
was a JVC HR-S8600EK bought around 1998. As far as I remember, the
FV39S would no longer record, but played back ok, and its remote had
started playing up. The JVC was ok when I replaced it in early 2004
with a Panasonic DVD recorder (itself replaced later with a Humax
9600T), although its remote was also playing up. When I found the VCRs
in the loft there was no remote for either. Perhaps I'd thrown both
away, but I can't remember. I was going to take them to the tip, but
when I saw how much they could make on eBay, thought I'd check them
out first. They were left for several hours before connecting up as no
doubt there'd be quite a lot of condensation inside, as the loft was
rather cold.
Luckily I knew where I had some old SVHS tapes which I'd recorded (in
1992!), and a Scart cable which was usable with the old Panasonic TV
we had. Unfortunately, one of the Scart cable plugs was in a poor
state - the cable had become loose and the wires inside could be seen!
However, it seemed to work ok.
I connected up the Ferguson first, and with a bit of fiddling got a
rather noisy picture with one of the tapes; sound was fine. The second
tape was ok. After satisfying myself that the mechanism was ok, I
tried the JVC. I didn't realise that I'd left a tape in it, and that
got a bit messed up when the power came on. I got the cassette out and
sorted out the twisted tape. I then tried one of the other tapes I'd
tried with the Ferguson, and both worked well.
I doubt that either VCR had been used for at least 15 years, so it's
remarkable that the mechanics worked without problem. And it says a
lot for longevity of analogue tape recording that both tapes I tried
were fine (the one I had a problem with in the Ferguson seemed to be
ok with the JVC). It was interesting to read the news on the Teletext
recorded with both tapes, as SVHS could record it without problem.
Now I just have to decide what to do with the VCRs...

normally of that age, the rubber belts have elongated or perished and
the capstan rollers have become gooey and sticky.
Thats probably all it needs, some new belts and capstan rollers and a
head clean.
They sell well on eBay, I've just sold a Betamax recorder as Spares or
repair. person bought it off me for £50. he remarked how good a
condition it was, hardly used, replaced the belts and capstans and sold
it on for profit as fully working to someone in Qatar!

Help! My main (no video) and backup (fails to load) VCRs have both failed!!!

(The one that fails to load doesn't re-tension the tape before
unloading, so maybe it's the drive to the spools.)

Anyone know where assorted drive belts are available at a reasonable price?

I've also got a Sony Walkman whose belt has turned into black goo; a
rubber band from a bunch of spring onions just won't cut it.

And my Marantz tape player stopped working: the mechanism is really
compact and hard to disassemble.

TF my Sony turntable is direct drive. And new CD/DVD drives are still
available (for now).

Otherwise I would have to go with the "streaming" trend, and rely on a
good (and reliable) Internet connection and avoid capricious suppliers
removing the content.

--
Max Demian

Java Jive

2023-10-06 19:01:24 UTC

Post by Max Demian
Help! My main (no video) and backup (fails to load) VCRs have both failed!!!
(The one that fails to load doesn't re-tension the tape before
unloading, so maybe it's the drive to the spools.)
Anyone know where assorted drive belts are available at a reasonable price?
I've also got a Sony Walkman whose belt has turned into black goo; a
rubber band from a bunch of spring onions just won't cut it.
And my Marantz tape player stopped working: the mechanism is really
compact and hard to disassemble.
TF my Sony turntable is direct drive. And new CD/DVD drives are still
available (for now).

As you must understand, all the above is finger-in-the-dyke (no
pornographic pun intended) stuff. You need a more permanent solution,
for which, see below ...

Post by Max Demian
Otherwise I would have to go with the "streaming" trend, and rely on a
good (and reliable) Internet connection and avoid capricious suppliers
removing the content.

Yes, streaming will always be vulnerable to that.

You need to digitise/back-up it all onto more than one hard disk, maybe
onto a NAS + backup disk. I did all this before I last moved house a
decade or so ago. Yes, it was a lot of work, but I've never regretted
the work that I did do, my only regret being that actually I didn't do
more, especially the classical LPs - being dispirited about how scratchy
they were I felt that it would be better to buy new recordings of my
favourites, but I never got around to doing the research for deciding
which new interpretations of them I liked best, and some of the vinyls
that I did keep were so well restored by washing them, that I came to
regret letting some of the others go. Most particularly, I miss a
Russian (oh dear) boxed set of 3 LPs of the entirety of Prokoviev's
Romeo & Juliet.

In the years before the move, I had approximately:

150 45 rpms
450 LPs (mine)
150 LPs (inherited from my mother)
15 78 rpms (gaelic singing; sadly, too far gone to save)
60 MDs
200 CDs
50 VHS/DVD-Rs from VHS/DVD-Rs from early digital TV
30 Commercial DVDs

I listened to the entirety of the vinyls, as a result of which I
replaced quite a number with CDs, and threw a great many others out -
one's tastes change with age, and some marginal ones were too badly
scratched anyway. I was left with about 125 LPs and a handful of 45
rpms that I actually digitised, together with all of the other formats,
except the 78s which had been kept in a case against a damp wall in my
mother's house, and when I opened the case I found they had been eaten
away by fungus and mould.

So, yes, it was a hell of a lot of work, but, ever since, I've been able
to play anything at the click of a mouse or remote control button, and
the media don't degenerate with each playing. I have at least three
versions of everything on three different NASs, and the only thing I
fear now is a house fire. I could use the cloud to insure against that,
but wouldn't wish to pay the cost.

--
Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

2023-10-09 12:16:49 UTC

Post by Java Jive
So, yes, it was a hell of a lot of work, but, ever since, I've been able
to play anything at the click of a mouse or remote control button, and the
media don't degenerate with each playing. I have at least three versions
of everything on three different NASs, and the only thing I fear now is a
house fire. I could use the cloud to insure against that, but wouldn't
wish to pay the cost.

The real problem with cloud is the time it takes to upload the recordings. I
have about 4 TB of TV recordings etc which would take rather a long time to
upload at about 9 Mb (bit, not byte) per second - because it is upload
rather than download speed which is critical for copying *to* the cloud.
Likewise for the several hundred GB of digital photos.

Robin

2023-10-09 12:56:38 UTC

Post by Java Jive
So, yes, it was a hell of a lot of work, but, ever since, I've been
able to play anything at the click of a mouse or remote control
button, and the media don't degenerate with each playing. I have at
least three versions of everything on three different NASs, and the
only thing I fear now is a house fire. I could use the cloud to
insure against that, but wouldn't wish to pay the cost.

Have you looked at the cost of AWS Deep Glacier? It is no good for stuff
you might want back in a hurry. But for stuff you want tucked away just
in case (eg when the meteorite vaporises the house, shed and top metre
of the garden too) it's bogglingly cheap.

Post by NY
The real problem with cloud is the time it takes to upload the
recordings. I have about 4 TB of TV recordings etc which would take
rather a long time to upload at about 9 Mb (bit, not byte) per second -
because it is upload rather than download speed which is critical for
copying *to* the cloud. Likewise for the several hundred GB of digital
photos.

Why is it a problem if it takes 6 or 7 weeks (or more) to backup your
accumulated 4 TB? ISTM the crucial question is whether your upload
speed can cope with the new and amended files what needs to be uploaded
to add, or replace amended, material day by day.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

Paul Ratcliffe

2023-10-09 17:29:03 UTC

Post by NY
The real problem with cloud is the time it takes to upload the recordings. I
have about 4 TB of TV recordings etc which would take rather a long time to
upload at about 9 Mb (bit, not byte) per second - because it is upload
rather than download speed which is critical for copying *to* the cloud.

The problem isn't the cloud, it's the idiot telecomms companies who
still insist on providing asymmetric speeds to everybody. They're
firmly stuck in the past for whatever reason.

2023-10-10 09:28:55 UTC

Post by NY
The real problem with cloud is the time it takes to upload the recordings. I
have about 4 TB of TV recordings etc which would take rather a long time to
upload at about 9 Mb (bit, not byte) per second - because it is upload
rather than download speed which is critical for copying *to* the cloud.

The problem isn't the cloud, it's the idiot telecomms companies who
still insist on providing asymmetric speeds to everybody. They're
firmly stuck in the past for whatever reason.

I agree. Asymmetric connections are fine for web browsing and downloading,
and for sending fairly small emails. But the world has moved on. Now that a
lot of backups are done to cloud servers, the upload speed becomes
important.

Where we used to live, our VDSL download speed wasn't dramatically more than
the ADSL speed that we'd had before (I think it was about 11 Mbps rather
than 8 Mbps) but the big advantage was in the upload speed which was around
8 Mbps rather than a piddly 0.5 Mbps.

Am I right that FTTP connections are usually symmetric and give roughly the
same speed up and down? Maybe one day our village will get FTTP, depending
on how long copper lasts as a legacy after it is withdrawn from new sales. I
realise that the analogue->VOIP voice migration is independent of the
copper->fibre migration, although for some/many people, the two will happen
at the same time; obviously analogue->VOIP must happen before or at the same
time as copper->fibre, since there's no way of getting analogue voice over
fibre without digitisation ;-)

Robin

2023-10-10 11:16:38 UTC

Post by NY
The real problem with cloud is the time it takes to upload the recordings. I
have about 4 TB of TV recordings etc which would take rather a long time to
upload at about 9 Mb (bit, not byte) per second - because it is upload
rather than download speed which is critical for copying *to* the cloud.

The problem isn't the cloud, it's the idiot telecomms companies who
still insist on providing asymmetric speeds to everybody. They're
firmly stuck in the past for whatever reason.

We find VM's bog standard 130/20 fine for cloud storage. Just how much
do you create/amend in a day that requires more? Or are you looking to
rely wholly on cloud backups with nothing local?

Post by NY
Where we used to live, our VDSL download speed wasn't dramatically more
than the ADSL speed that we'd had before (I think it was about 11 Mbps
rather than 8 Mbps) but the big advantage was in the upload speed which
was around 8 Mbps rather than a piddly 0.5 Mbps.
Am I right that FTTP connections are usually symmetric and give roughly
the same speed up and down?

No, they vary. Download ~5 times faster than upload not uncommon. Just
reflects the fact that most users download more than they upload most of
the time.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

charles

2023-10-10 11:45:04 UTC

Post by NY
The real problem with cloud is the time it takes to upload the
recordings. I have about 4 TB of TV recordings etc which would take
rather a long time to upload at about 9 Mb (bit, not byte) per second
- because it is upload rather than download speed which is critical
for copying *to* the cloud.

The problem isn't the cloud, it's the idiot telecomms companies who
still insist on providing asymmetric speeds to everybody. They're
firmly stuck in the past for whatever reason.

Not here it's 289 and 48.

Post by NY
Maybe one day our village will get FTTP,
depending on how long copper lasts as a legacy after it is withdrawn
from new sales. I realise that the analogue->VOIP voice migration is
independent of the copper->fibre migration, although for some/many
people, the two will happen at the same time; obviously analogue-
VOIP must happen before or at the same time as copper->fibre, since
there's no way of getting analogue voice over fibre without digitisation
;-)

Daughter, who has just moved house and wanted a phone had a VOIP one
provided.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té²
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

2023-10-10 12:02:50 UTC

Post by charles

Post by NY
The real problem with cloud is the time it takes to upload the
recordings. I have about 4 TB of TV recordings etc which would take
rather a long time to upload at about 9 Mb (bit, not byte) per second
- because it is upload rather than download speed which is critical
for copying *to* the cloud.

The problem isn't the cloud, it's the idiot telecomms companies who
still insist on providing asymmetric speeds to everybody. They're
firmly stuck in the past for whatever reason.

Not here it's 289 and 48.

it is here with 500 and 500... there is also a 900 and 900 product
available.

Post by charles

Daughter, who has just moved house and wanted a phone had a VOIP one
provided.

Roderick Stewart

2023-10-10 13:18:45 UTC

Post by NY
Am I right that FTTP connections are usually symmetric and give roughly the
same speed up and down?

My Zen connection is nominally 100/20, though big downloads such as
Linux distros show about 113 in Windows Task Manager and a speed test
using speedof.me shows about 118/21.

I could have 900 down with the same equipment just by changing account
details, though I'm not sure what upstream speed would go with that.

Rod.

Tweed

2023-10-10 16:36:05 UTC

Post by NY
Am I right that FTTP connections are usually symmetric and give roughly the
same speed up and down?

My Zen connection is nominally 100/20, though big downloads such as
Linux distros show about 113 in Windows Task Manager and a speed test
using speedof.me shows about 118/21.
I could have 900 down with the same equipment just by changing account
details, though I'm not sure what upstream speed would go with that.
Rod.

FTTP provided via OpenReach infrastructure is asymmetric, ie slower upload.
Most (all?) alternative FTTP providers deliver the same speed up and down.

Robin

2023-10-10 17:06:31 UTC

Post by Tweed

Post by NY
Am I right that FTTP connections are usually symmetric and give roughly the
same speed up and down?

My Zen connection is nominally 100/20, though big downloads such as
Linux distros show about 113 in Windows Task Manager and a speed test
using speedof.me shows about 118/21.
I could have 900 down with the same equipment just by changing account
details, though I'm not sure what upstream speed would go with that.
Rod.

FTTP provided via OpenReach infrastructure is asymmetric, ie slower upload.
Most (all?) alternative FTTP providers deliver the same speed up and down.

2 that don't off the top of my head are Zen and Virgin

and yes, I do mean Virgin's fibre product. For 1 Gig

Download Speeds
Advertised Speed: 1130 Mbps
Expected Speed Range: 1076 - 1139 Mbps
Minimum Guaranteed Download Speed: 565 Mbps

Upload Speeds
Advertised Speed: 104 Mbps
Expected Speed Range: 69 - 104 Mbp

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

Tweed

2023-10-10 18:08:41 UTC

Post by Robin

Post by Tweed

Post by NY
Am I right that FTTP connections are usually symmetric and give roughly the
same speed up and down?

My Zen connection is nominally 100/20, though big downloads such as
Linux distros show about 113 in Windows Task Manager and a speed test
using speedof.me shows about 118/21.
I could have 900 down with the same equipment just by changing account
details, though I'm not sure what upstream speed would go with that.
Rod.

FTTP provided via OpenReach infrastructure is asymmetric, ie slower upload.
Most (all?) alternative FTTP providers deliver the same speed up and down.

2 that don't off the top of my head are Zen and Virgin
and yes, I do mean Virgin's fibre product. For 1 Gig
Download Speeds
Advertised Speed: 1130 Mbps
Expected Speed Range: 1076 - 1139 Mbps
Minimum Guaranteed Download Speed: 565 Mbps
Upload Speeds
Advertised Speed: 104 Mbps
Expected Speed Range: 69 - 104 Mbp

Zen don’t own any fibre do they? They just resell OpenReach and CityFibre.
(Asymmetric and symmetric respectively) And are you sure Virgin are talking
about proper FTTP and not just RFoG (ie their crummy old cable DOCSIS
protocol sent over fibre)

Robin

2023-10-10 18:56:10 UTC

Post by NY
Am I right that FTTP connections are usually symmetric and give roughly the
same speed up and down?

My Zen connection is nominally 100/20, though big downloads such as
Linux distros show about 113 in Windows Task Manager and a speed test
using speedof.me shows about 118/21.
I could have 900 down with the same equipment just by changing account
details, though I'm not sure what upstream speed would go with that.
Rod.

FTTP provided via OpenReach infrastructure is asymmetric, ie slower upload.
Most (all?) alternative FTTP providers deliver the same speed up and down.

2 that don't off the top of my head are Zen and Virgin
and yes, I do mean Virgin's fibre product. For 1 Gig
Download Speeds
Advertised Speed: 1130 Mbps
Expected Speed Range: 1076 - 1139 Mbps
Minimum Guaranteed Download Speed: 565 Mbps
Upload Speeds
Advertised Speed: 104 Mbps
Expected Speed Range: 69 - 104 Mbp

Zen don’t own any fibre do they? They just resell OpenReach and CityFibre.
(Asymmetric and symmetric respectively)

You said "providers", not "networks".

Post by Tweed
And are you sure Virgin are talking
about proper FTTP and not just RFoG (ie their crummy old cable DOCSIS
protocol sent over fibre)

FFS VM offer the same Gig 1 service across their network whether its HFC
or FTTP. Seemed to me a sensible marketing decision for the time being.

IIRC if you want symmetric you need to get FTTP and then upgrade to 2 gig.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

Robin

2023-10-10 20:18:46 UTC

Post by NY
Am I right that FTTP connections are usually symmetric and give roughly the
same speed up and down?

My Zen connection is nominally 100/20, though big downloads such as
Linux distros show about 113 in Windows Task Manager and a speed test
using speedof.me shows about 118/21.
I could have 900 down with the same equipment just by changing account
details, though I'm not sure what upstream speed would go with that.
Rod.

FTTP provided via OpenReach infrastructure is asymmetric, ie slower upload.
Most (all?) alternative FTTP providers deliver the same speed up and down.

2 that don't off the top of my head are Zen and Virgin
and yes, I do mean Virgin's fibre product. For 1 Gig
Download Speeds
Advertised Speed: 1130 Mbps
Expected Speed Range: 1076 - 1139 Mbps
Minimum Guaranteed Download Speed: 565 Mbps
Upload Speeds
Advertised Speed: 104 Mbps
Expected Speed Range: 69 - 104 Mbp

Zen don’t own any fibre do they? They just resell OpenReach and CityFibre.
(Asymmetric and symmetric respectively)

You said "providers", not "networks".

Post by Tweed
And are you sure Virgin are talking
about proper FTTP and not just RFoG (ie their crummy old cable DOCSIS
protocol sent over fibre)

FFS VM offer the same Gig 1 service across their network whether its HFC
or FTTP. Seemed to me a sensible marketing decision for the time being.

and FTAOD that's FTTP with RFoG *and* XGS-PON

Post by Robin
IIRC if you want symmetric you need to get FTTP and then upgrade to 2 gig.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

Tweed

2023-10-10 20:29:55 UTC

Post by NY
Am I right that FTTP connections are usually symmetric and give roughly the
same speed up and down?

My Zen connection is nominally 100/20, though big downloads such as
Linux distros show about 113 in Windows Task Manager and a speed test
using speedof.me shows about 118/21.
I could have 900 down with the same equipment just by changing account
details, though I'm not sure what upstream speed would go with that.
Rod.

FTTP provided via OpenReach infrastructure is asymmetric, ie slower upload.
Most (all?) alternative FTTP providers deliver the same speed up and down.

2 that don't off the top of my head are Zen and Virgin
and yes, I do mean Virgin's fibre product. For 1 Gig
Download Speeds
Advertised Speed: 1130 Mbps
Expected Speed Range: 1076 - 1139 Mbps
Minimum Guaranteed Download Speed: 565 Mbps
Upload Speeds
Advertised Speed: 104 Mbps
Expected Speed Range: 69 - 104 Mbp

Zen don’t own any fibre do they? They just resell OpenReach and CityFibre.
(Asymmetric and symmetric respectively)

You said "providers", not "networks".

Post by Tweed
And are you sure Virgin are talking
about proper FTTP and not just RFoG (ie their crummy old cable DOCSIS
protocol sent over fibre)

FFS VM offer the same Gig 1 service across their network whether its HFC
or FTTP. Seemed to me a sensible marketing decision for the time being.

and FTAOD that's FTTP with RFoG *and* XGS-PON

If VM are running asymmetrically on XGS-PON they are going to really
struggle against the likes of CityFibre, especially as they seem intent on
charging 50 to 100% more. I’m just waiting for CF to go live so I can tell
VM exactly what I think of their recent price hikes. Unless of course CF
and VM merge, which has been rumoured from time to time.

Tweed

2023-10-10 20:30:41 UTC

Post by NY
Am I right that FTTP connections are usually symmetric and give roughly the
same speed up and down?

My Zen connection is nominally 100/20, though big downloads such as
Linux distros show about 113 in Windows Task Manager and a speed test
using speedof.me shows about 118/21.
I could have 900 down with the same equipment just by changing account
details, though I'm not sure what upstream speed would go with that.
Rod.

FTTP provided via OpenReach infrastructure is asymmetric, ie slower upload.
Most (all?) alternative FTTP providers deliver the same speed up and down.

2 that don't off the top of my head are Zen and Virgin
and yes, I do mean Virgin's fibre product. For 1 Gig
Download Speeds
Advertised Speed: 1130 Mbps
Expected Speed Range: 1076 - 1139 Mbps
Minimum Guaranteed Download Speed: 565 Mbps
Upload Speeds
Advertised Speed: 104 Mbps
Expected Speed Range: 69 - 104 Mbp

Zen don’t own any fibre do they? They just resell OpenReach and CityFibre.
(Asymmetric and symmetric respectively)

You said "providers", not "networks".

Post by Tweed
And are you sure Virgin are talking
about proper FTTP and not just RFoG (ie their crummy old cable DOCSIS
protocol sent over fibre)

FFS VM offer the same Gig 1 service across their network whether its HFC
or FTTP. Seemed to me a sensible marketing decision for the time being.

and FTAOD that's FTTP with RFoG *and* XGS-PON

Robin

2023-10-10 21:45:04 UTC

Post by NY
Am I right that FTTP connections are usually symmetric and give roughly the
same speed up and down?

My Zen connection is nominally 100/20, though big downloads such as
Linux distros show about 113 in Windows Task Manager and a speed test
using speedof.me shows about 118/21.
I could have 900 down with the same equipment just by changing account
details, though I'm not sure what upstream speed would go with that.
Rod.

FTTP provided via OpenReach infrastructure is asymmetric, ie slower upload.
Most (all?) alternative FTTP providers deliver the same speed up and down.

2 that don't off the top of my head are Zen and Virgin
and yes, I do mean Virgin's fibre product. For 1 Gig
Download Speeds
Advertised Speed: 1130 Mbps
Expected Speed Range: 1076 - 1139 Mbps
Minimum Guaranteed Download Speed: 565 Mbps
Upload Speeds
Advertised Speed: 104 Mbps
Expected Speed Range: 69 - 104 Mbp

Zen don’t own any fibre do they? They just resell OpenReach and CityFibre.
(Asymmetric and symmetric respectively)

You said "providers", not "networks".

Post by Tweed
And are you sure Virgin are talking
about proper FTTP and not just RFoG (ie their crummy old cable DOCSIS
protocol sent over fibre)

FFS VM offer the same Gig 1 service across their network whether its HFC
or FTTP. Seemed to me a sensible marketing decision for the time being.

and FTAOD that's FTTP with RFoG *and* XGS-PON

VM have made no secret of what they are doing with XGS-PON.

I looked hard at switching from VM now Hyperoptic are live here but I'd
have ended up paying more for a symmetrical 150 service than I pay to VM
for 130 down/30 up *plus* unlimited anytime calls. (I have of course
haggled down from the list price.) The faster upload just weren't worth
it to me. YMMV.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

Bob Latham

2023-10-11 11:14:25 UTC

Post by Robin

Post by Tweed
If VM are running asymmetrically on XGS-PON they are going to
really struggle against the likes of CityFibre, especially as
they seem intent on charging 50 to 100% more. I'm just waiting
for CF to go live so I can tell VM exactly what I think of their
recent price hikes. Unless of course CF and VM merge, which has
been rumoured from time to time.

VM have made no secret of what they are doing with XGS-PON.
I looked hard at switching from VM now Hyperoptic are live here but
I'd have ended up paying more for a symmetrical 150 service than I
pay to VM for 130 down/30 up *plus* unlimited anytime calls. (I
have of course haggled down from the list price.) The faster
upload just weren't worth it to me. YMMV.

A word of caution if I may something you may like to check.

Where I live, we're getting BRSK Fibre. They have an offer at the
moment £18/month for 24 months them £25/month. This for 100 up and
100 down. That's plenty for me.

Tempting to me on VM. Until you work out they use CGNAT which means
you don't get a real IP4 address. So no chance of running any sort of
server. Their website claims they can supply a static IP for an extra
£5 /month which would give you the ability to run a server but people
who have phoned up are told there are none available.

Trying to get information out of them is near impossible, they'll
ring you back but they don't of course.

Then there's the thorny issue of poles. There are no poles where I
live it's all U/G but as I understand it BRSK will put poles up for
their delivery. That's not doing anything for their popularity round
here.

Bob.

Robin

2023-10-11 12:52:25 UTC

Post by Bob Latham
A word of caution if I may something you may like to check.
Where I live, we're getting BRSK Fibre. They have an offer at the
moment £18/month for 24 months them £25/month. This for 100 up and
100 down. That's plenty for me.
Tempting to me on VM. Until you work out they use CGNAT which means
you don't get a real IP4 address. So no chance of running any sort of
server. Their website claims they can supply a static IP for an extra
£5 /month which would give you the ability to run a server but people
who have phoned up are told there are none available.

Good point. Hyperoptic also use CGNAT for ipv4. It seemed I cd use
ipv6 but others have reported it's not an easy curve. I'll own up it
was another factor in my decision to hold on to nurse.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

Mark Undrill

2023-10-11 13:52:20 UTC

Post by Bob Latham

Post by Robin

VM have made no secret of what they are doing with XGS-PON.
I looked hard at switching from VM now Hyperoptic are live here but
I'd have ended up paying more for a symmetrical 150 service than I
pay to VM for 130 down/30 up *plus* unlimited anytime calls. (I
have of course haggled down from the list price.) The faster
upload just weren't worth it to me. YMMV.

A word of caution if I may something you may like to check.
Where I live, we're getting BRSK Fibre. They have an offer at the
moment £18/month for 24 months them £25/month. This for 100 up and
100 down. That's plenty for me.
Tempting to me on VM. Until you work out they use CGNAT which means
you don't get a real IP4 address. So no chance of running any sort of
server. Their website claims they can supply a static IP for an extra
£5 /month which would give you the ability to run a server but people
who have phoned up are told there are none available.
Trying to get information out of them is near impossible, they'll
ring you back but they don't of course.
Then there's the thorny issue of poles. There are no poles where I
live it's all U/G but as I understand it BRSK will put poles up for
their delivery. That's not doing anything for their popularity round
here.
Bob.

Sounds like Truespeed :( Not dure if they use CGNAT though.

Mark

2023-10-09 11:38:58 UTC

Check also the various proximity sensors that check for mechanical objects
(eg load/unload mechanism) are int he correct place - the sensors may have
dirt on them.

I have two Panasonic SVHS recorders. The older one suddenly started
misbehaving - it wouldn't respond to any of the controls (remote or on the
front panel) and just shuttled the tape at fast-play speed. Powering it off
and on allowed it to respond to the controls long enough to be able to eject
the tape.

I took it to a local TV/VCR repair shop and they said that something inside
(they couldn't work out what) had failed. Maybe the logic board for the tape
transport and load/eject.

They gave me two choices: pay £25 for their inspection fee or else give it
to them to use for spares. Luckily I chose to pay the fee and to keep the
VCR - because when I got it home it worked perfectly and continued to do so
for another 5 years or so until I retired the VCRs and began recording
digitally on PC. However in between taking the VCR in to the shop and
getting the "it's failed" verdict, I'd been out and bought a new VCR ;-)
This was not the end of the world because it gave me the option of recording
two overlapping programmes to separate tapes/VCRs.

I presume that something the shop did in examining and fault-tracing cured
the fault: maybe the dislodged some dirt or re-aligned a sensor or joggled a
bad joint on a cable or circuit board.

My experience with SVHS recorders and others with hi-fi sound track heads is
that those heads (on the spinning drum) are very sensitive to head clogging.
I had a tape that jammed inside the VCR, creasing the tape and clogging all
the heads. After I'd removed the tape, I carefully stroked the heads with a
Q tip that was soaked in IPA (isopropyl alcohol, not the beer!) and was able
to restore video playback and recording fairly quickly, but it took a lot of
attempts to restore hi-fi sound. I'm not sure why hi-fi sound heads would be
more fussy than video heads.

Brian Gaff

2023-10-06 12:33:17 UTC

Get some reprogrammable remotes and flog them. You had better luck than I
did with a Philips N1700, the belts were disintegrated and the pressure
roller had gone sticky.
Brian
--
--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
***@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

Post by Jeff Layman
Thinking that it might be useful to clear some of the loft, I remembered
that I had a couple of old VCRs up there. The first was a Ferguson FV39S
(rebadged JVC HR-S5000EK) bought in 1991; the second was a JVC HR-S8600EK
bought around 1998. As far as I remember, the FV39S would no longer
record, but played back ok, and its remote had started playing up. The JVC
was ok when I replaced it in early 2004 with a Panasonic DVD recorder
(itself replaced later with a Humax 9600T), although its remote was also
playing up. When I found the VCRs in the loft there was no remote for
either. Perhaps I'd thrown both away, but I can't remember. I was going to
take them to the tip, but when I saw how much they could make on eBay,
thought I'd check them out first. They were left for several hours before
connecting up as no doubt there'd be quite a lot of condensation inside,
as the loft was rather cold.
Luckily I knew where I had some old SVHS tapes which I'd recorded (in
1992!), and a Scart cable which was usable with the old Panasonic TV we
had. Unfortunately, one of the Scart cable plugs was in a poor state - the
cable had become loose and the wires inside could be seen! However, it
seemed to work ok.
I connected up the Ferguson first, and with a bit of fiddling got a rather
noisy picture with one of the tapes; sound was fine. The second tape was
ok. After satisfying myself that the mechanism was ok, I tried the JVC. I
didn't realise that I'd left a tape in it, and that got a bit messed up
when the power came on. I got the cassette out and sorted out the twisted
tape. I then tried one of the other tapes I'd tried with the Ferguson, and
both worked well.
I doubt that either VCR had been used for at least 15 years, so it's
remarkable that the mechanics worked without problem. And it says a lot
for longevity of analogue tape recording that both tapes I tried were fine
(the one I had a problem with in the Ferguson seemed to be ok with the
JVC). It was interesting to read the news on the Teletext recorded with
both tapes, as SVHS could record it without problem.
Now I just have to decide what to do with the VCRs...
--
Jeff

2023-10-09 11:53:14 UTC

Post by Brian Gaff
Get some reprogrammable remotes and flog them. You had better luck than I
did with a Philips N1700, the belts were disintegrated and the pressure
roller had gone sticky.

Is the Philips N1700 the VCR that used square cassettes with one spool
stacked above the other like a Super 8 film cassette?

If so, I remember my school had a couple of those in the mid/late 1970s, and
a small library of educational programmes that teachers had requested be
recorded for use in their lessons. In the Sixth Form I was assigned a
prefect duty in the AV Room (a cushy job compared with keeping discipline in
the lunch queue or breaking up fights in the playground!) and the Philips
VCRs had just been retired and replaced with a couple of "new" VHS VCRs -
top-loading, with mechanical piano-key controls and *wired* remote controls.

The picture quality of the VHS was considerably better than the Philips: we
did a few comparison test recordings, and the noise, colour fidelity and
timing stability of the VHS was much better. Still utterly crap compared
with broadcast quality, but less crap than the Philips format, which of
course was much older.

I really fell on my feet with that prefect posting: I imagine my physics
teacher had seen that I and a few mates were clued up about technology (and
also utterly inept at breaking up fights!) and so recommended us for the
job. It was great fun being able to play with someone else's expensive toys
;-)

One of our first jobs was to dub the old Philips tapes onto VHS - the
quality suffered, but it allowed VHS machines to be used for playback
instead of teachers having to use the Philips machines which were on their
last legs. Then we started building up a library of Shakespeare plays, The
World About Us, Panorama, Tomorrow's World etc. The index of recordings was
kept on a card index; a few years later and they'd have been able to use the
school's RM 380Z computer to store it as a database, but that would have had
to wait until they got some form of floppy disk, because by the time I left
in 82, they still could only record programs and data to audio cassette -
and we all know how user-friendly that was :-(

Brian Gaff

2023-10-11 08:40:07 UTC

Actually, the very earliest VHS had worse performance to the N1700, What you
might be thinking of was the N1500/1, both had times a bit like cooker
clocks and the tapes only ran an hour. The N1700, had a wider bandwidth and
the tapes were twice as long as the linear speed was slower. The video heads
were angled so that they did not read the adjacent tracks. The writing speed
for Video was nearly twice as much as the early VHS machines. And yes the
tapes were still the double decker design. Whichever way you store the tape
it still has to wrap around a drum at an angle so the problems of tape
slippage and stretching was about the same of course
Funnily enough, Scotch tape were the best choice for the Philips machines
due to a special back coating that was low friction, and did not stick to
itself like most other makes of hi bias tapes like basf did. When this
sticking happened the edges of the tapes began to fold as it stretched
affecting both the analogue audio and the tracking pulse track which were
located near the edge of the tape.
I happen to think that if Philips had stuck with the system they would in
the end have won because they were doing sound in video in demonstration
versions way before Sony or JVC, but they were slow getting it to market and
adopting the new Grundig system using the same tapes that ran twice as long
again. Vhs won the day over betamax due to the take up of rented tapes and
the mass adoption of the format for porn tapes of course. Sex sells.

Brian
--
--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
***@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

Post by Brian Gaff
Get some reprogrammable remotes and flog them. You had better luck than
I did with a Philips N1700, the belts were disintegrated and the pressure
roller had gone sticky.

Is the Philips N1700 the VCR that used square cassettes with one spool
stacked above the other like a Super 8 film cassette?
If so, I remember my school had a couple of those in the mid/late 1970s,
and a small library of educational programmes that teachers had requested
be recorded for use in their lessons. In the Sixth Form I was assigned a
prefect duty in the AV Room (a cushy job compared with keeping discipline
in the lunch queue or breaking up fights in the playground!) and the
Philips VCRs had just been retired and replaced with a couple of "new" VHS
VCRs - top-loading, with mechanical piano-key controls and *wired* remote
controls.
we did a few comparison test recordings, and the noise, colour fidelity
and timing stability of the VHS was much better. Still utterly crap
compared with broadcast quality, but less crap than the Philips format,
which of course was much older.
I really fell on my feet with that prefect posting: I imagine my physics
teacher had seen that I and a few mates were clued up about technology
(and also utterly inept at breaking up fights!) and so recommended us for
the job. It was great fun being able to play with someone else's expensive
toys ;-)
One of our first jobs was to dub the old Philips tapes onto VHS - the
quality suffered, but it allowed VHS machines to be used for playback
instead of teachers having to use the Philips machines which were on their
last legs. Then we started building up a library of Shakespeare plays, The
World About Us, Panorama, Tomorrow's World etc. The index of recordings
was kept on a card index; a few years later and they'd have been able to
use the school's RM 380Z computer to store it as a database, but that
would have had to wait until they got some form of floppy disk, because by
the time I left in 82, they still could only record programs and data to
audio cassette - and we all know how user-friendly that was :-(

2023-10-11 11:58:11 UTC

Post by Brian Gaff
Actually, the very earliest VHS had worse performance to the N1700, What you
might be thinking of was the N1500/1, both had times a bit like cooker
clocks and the tapes only ran an hour. The N1700, had a wider bandwidth and
the tapes were twice as long as the linear speed was slower. The video heads
were angled so that they did not read the adjacent tracks. The writing speed
for Video was nearly twice as much as the early VHS machines. And yes the
tapes were still the double decker design. Whichever way you store the tape
it still has to wrap around a drum at an angle so the problems of tape
slippage and stretching was about the same of course
Funnily enough, Scotch tape were the best choice for the Philips machines
due to a special back coating that was low friction, and did not stick to
itself like most other makes of hi bias tapes like basf did. When this
sticking happened the edges of the tapes began to fold as it stretched
affecting both the analogue audio and the tracking pulse track which were
located near the edge of the tape.
I happen to think that if Philips had stuck with the system they would in
the end have won because they were doing sound in video in demonstration
versions way before Sony or JVC, but they were slow getting it to market and
adopting the new Grundig system using the same tapes that ran twice as long
again. Vhs won the day over betamax due to the take up of rented tapes and
the mass adoption of the format for porn tapes of course. Sex sells.

You're right with it being the N1500 rather than the N1700. Photos that
I can find online show an analogue clock.

However (and it is over 40 years ago!) I have a distinct memory of the
one at school have a large box at the rear of the VCR which protruded a
few inches above the main VCR box, with a clock that had 1/2" knurled
plastic "silver" knobs on the side of the box, for setting the clock and
maybe the timed recordings. That almost suggests that the timer unit was
a separate plug-in box added to a VCR that innately could only record
from a baseband (eg camera) source. I've never found a photo or
reference about that double-height box on the back, so I'm wondering
whether it was a figment of my imagination.

The whole story of 1970s consumer VCRs is a real tale of woe. Betamax is
often reported to have been technically better (*), but it wasn't
marketed as well and didn't get the market penetration into pre-recorded
rental tapes than VHS did. Ah, I've just made an unintentional funny,
given your reference to porn and "sex sells", and my use of "penetration".

It was interesting to see how VHS managed to improve and evolve: firstly
with S-VHS machines which often had timebase-correction to try to smooth
out timing jitter (wiggly vertical lines) in the playback of a
recording, and secondly with the LP (SP/2) and EP (SP/3) recording
modes. And of course the ability to record the NICAM soundtrack as a
hi-fi track embedded in the video tracks.

I still marvel at the ability of VHS to preserve a decent picture (even
in colour, for SP and EP recordings) when the tape is played fast while
searching for the start of a recording. I presume the head drum must
tilt very slightly to retain good tracking when the tape is moving more
quickly in relation to the rotation of the head, so the effective
tracking angle changes.

The advent of program counters which listed tape positions in real units
HH:MM:SS rather than some arbitrary mechanical dial number, was a real
boon. That involves the control track being read as the tape is played
at normal or fast-shuttle or even FF/REW speed, and a frame counter
being incremented or decremented to derive the HH:MM:SS time.

I remember in the AV Room at school (which used early VHS machines with
mechanical counters) that we had to index the tapes manually and write
the counter position on the spine label, for the start of each of
several recordings on the tape, so a teacher could quickly take the
right tape off the shelf and go to the correct place for the programme
he/she wanted. I have very pleasant (**) memories of teaching one young
female teacher (only a couple of years older than me when I was in the
Upper Sixth) how to use the VCR, and her "ooooo Matron" comment when I
described how you had to insert the tape very gently into the
top-loading cage and then press down on the cage with the fingers of
both hands, applying equal pressure on both sides to avoid the cage
jamming. And yes, I quite deliberately hammed-up my description to make
it sound erotic. I wonder what became of Miss B. Scary to think that
she'll be in her mid sixties now.

(*) I can't comment, having never seen a Betamax VCR or playback of a
recording on it.

(**) That's "pleasant" as in Billy Connolly's comment "that was... very
pleasant" when he was compereing a TV awards ceremony and Liz Hurley,
minus a bra, "bounced" down the stairs as she came on to present an
award.

Brian Gaff

2023-10-12 08:43:58 UTC