Way OT -> DVD recorders

[Richard]

I know this is way outside the DIY remit and should be posted to HiFi dot something but I after sensible replies rather than baffling technospeak. Thus, your indulgence is craved.

My aged father is proposing to celebrate (sic) surviving the recent fitting of his pacemaker by the purchase of a DVD recorder. Neither he nor I have any understanding of the pros, cons and meaning of all the plus and minus stuff when it comes to choosing these beasts.

Can anyone shed any light on how to choose a DVD recorder? Does it matter if it will record in only one of the + - formats??? Should he simply buy Richer Sounds' latest best buy????

Thank you

Richard

[CQMMAN]

I have a Panasonic DVD-R that I bought about 18 months ago. It works very well. It is well worth shelling out for one with a harddisk if at all possible. Most stuff you can record to that, and then transfer it when you know you want to keep it.

The only problem I have had is with cheap disks. As long as you buy good disks (TDK etc) you will be fine.

In reality, I don't think it really makes much difference whether you get DVD-R or DVD+R.

This is a good place to start:

-- Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life" -Cecil Rhodes

"For a century and a half now, America and Japan have formed one of the great and enduring alliances of modern times." George W Bush -Tokyo, Japan, Feb. 18, 2002

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. Psalms 137:9.

Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces. Malachi 2:3.

"He who rises up to kill us, we will pre-empt it and kill him first,"

- Ariel Sharon 8th May 2002

[Alec]

There's a bunch of DVD background here :

help you choose, but you probably need to forget formats go for ease of use. Go to one of the sheds and get a demo then buy cheap off the internet. Rgds

[Mike]

Format doesn't really matter but buy one with a hard disc and then it really doesn't matter. If you can get one that handles analogue and digital transmissions so that you don't need to buy it it's own STB when the analogue turn-off happens.

[mike ring]

"Mike" wrote in news:d1bk3p$ao8$ [e-mail]:

Absolutely - the convenience of a hard disc is amazing; just press a button to record, no finding a disc, etc.

I've got a 250Mb; I do a lot of timeshifting, but that's turned out to be an overkill, figure 1 hour to 5 Mb at standard (excellent) quality, 4 times that at better than VHS quality.

You can start watching something before you've finished recording it, or watch something while you're recording something else.

They will all also record to DVD disc, so you can archive, or use re - recordable (RW) discs for further storage if your hard drive is filling up.

A CD(R) is recordable on; A CD(RW) can also be erased and used again and again like a VHS

As for +R(W) and -R(W): -RW is later and better, but +RW will do fine for home recording, and will play on just about every sort of DVD.

If you can get one that handles analogue and

I personally wouldn't get a digital ready one yet, IMO digital TV isn't ready for prime time yet, and for most of us the box will need replacing anyhow before the switchoff. In the meantime a 40 quid STB will do the job

HTH

mike

[Grumps]

What make/model/price? Less than £300?

[manatbandq]

Patent it and you could make a fortune with that kind of compression giving that kind of quality.

MBQ

(I think you mean Gb)

[mike ring]

"Grumps" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

Oh dear me no, not 250 Gbytes.

But good 80gig ones are sub 300 now, and I wouldn't be frightened as I was before personal experience of using long play - it's far better than VHS or TV itswelf now the authorities are crushing bandwidth.

mike

[mike ring]

[e-mail] wrote in news:1111061939.299444.152570 @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

, figure 1 hour to 5 Mb at standard (excellent) quality, 4

Whoops

mike

[Mike]

I think it depends where you are. We cannot even get digital here yet but in some places analogue already has a turn-off date.

[mike ring]

"Mike" wrote in news:d1cs1o$i81$ [e-mail]:

Yes, starting in 2008, but for most 2010

system is in such a state, software downloads, EPGs not fixed yet, etc, that I wouldn't invest much in it at the moment,

mike

[:::Jerry::::]

simply buy

ease of

internet.

And what are the morons like you going to do once you force all the retail outlets out of business?

BTW, you return email address better exist (and one that you 'own'), otherwise you are liable to a valid abuse report, either use a valid return address or use a invalid one, not something that could exist....

[Dave Plowman (News)]

They'll be using higher power for digital as and when analogue gets turned off. So if you already get a reasonable analogue signal it should be tickity boo in digital.

[:::Jerry::::]

How will that effect those on the South Coast, were TX power is limited due to the problem of co-channel interference with French stations, surely any increase in TX power will only make that problem worse, or will this co-channel interference problem stop with a full digital service ?

Perhaps this sub thread needs (cross) posting to the uk.tech.broadcast :~)

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Co-channel interference depends on the channels used. And digital *should* be more robust to modest levels of interference that are obvious on analogue.

[:::Jerry::::]

should be

problem

So explain why most of the effected transmitters are going to be the last to be switched off, surely if the problems are going to be reduced by the digital service then they would be amongst the first inline for the switch over ?

[Capitol]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote: And digital *should*

In somebody's dreams. Analogue signals are much more robust than digital. The detection signal strength of an analogue radio sound signal for understandable reception is IME almost >x10 that of a digital signal! Try measuring the speed of a 2.4GHz network to see how prone to interference digital becomes throughout a day!

Regards Capitol

[Mike]

Because although those in Kent will get an improved service, those watching in analogue in France most definitely won't - whereas now they get faint background interference a digital signal will splat the whole signal.

[Mike]

That rather depends on the system used but for analogue versus digital television you are correct as the modulation scheme is really only suitable for stuffing bits down a piece of wire with little crosstalk (and even then there are cheaper better options).

But if you remember the old analogue mobile phone system you'll see the digital system is far more robust. In fact the CDMA modulation schemes used in 3G are about as near as one can get to the physical limits of a channel.

[:::Jerry::::]

signal.

Which is what I was implying.....