Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed in Tx
If I recall correctly there are no belts or idler tires in the PV-1730 (other than belt on the FL mechanism). Reels are direct drive. If I could find a pic with the lid off I could verify. Biggest issue with those was the head cylinder bearing wearing out causing the upper cylinder to wobble when it spins.
When they came out I would have bought one except no MTS stereo tuner.
|
My Panasonic PV-4022 VCR has only one belt as well. However, if that belt breaks (or if anything else goes wrong with the VCR), I will simply store the machine and forget it, as most of the programs I have on VHS are also on DVD these days (I have an LG BP-220 DVD player which works very well). I have perhaps 60 DVDs now; the discs are generally older TV shows from the 1970s, so I have little or no use for my VCR anymore.
BTW, because television is now 100 percent digital, meaning today's ATSC TV signals cannot be recorded on NTSC standard VCRs, and because VHS video tape is a relic of the past in this day and age, VCRs are all but useless except to play back previously recorded cassettes. I honestly do not believe VCRs can be used for recording, even if connected to a cable box, again because of the incompatible video standards (an NTSC VCR cannot record or play back ATSC video). If there is a way to record ATSC video using an NTSC VCR, I would be amazed.
NTSC VCRs were phased out by ATSC video when the latter came into widespread use; because of that, NTSC VCRs, as I said, cannot record modern ATSC video under any circumstances. If there are any converters or other schemes available to allow an older VCR to record today's ATSC digital video, I am not aware of them yet. In fact I don't think such adapters will ever be made since, as I said, NTSC video is obsolete. The same thing happened with television when the standards were changed from analog to digital a decade ago, although in the beginning cable operators could connect a user's TV to cable through a converter box.
I don't think cable companies even offer that option any longer, and in fact cable boxes themselves are, or may be, obsolete (if they are not already). I have what Spectrum refers to as "streaming" video service, which does not use a cable box; I use a Roku device (Roku 2), which I own outright, to receive their programming. In fact, I believe these devices may be replacing traditional cable boxes, meaning cable subscribers may not need to pay for a cable box any longer. My cable bill is just under $30 a month (for TV service), with two additional charges for Internet and home telephone service; in fact, Spectrum now informs me (as of a few months ago) I no longer have traditional cable service, since I have their "streaming" video service. I will not return to any kind of standard cable, as I do not want an additional charge on my bill for a cable box. My bill is high enough as it is, with the three services I mentioned, and, being a senior citizen on a fixed income, I do not want to spend any more money than I absolutely have to for TV services.