Freesat, the downside?

Jake'sGran

robredz wrote: »

HD box is £129

Don't know but it is not likely to be HD is it?

Having read all these responses 2-3 times now I'm wishing I was more of a "techie" but it is never like to happen! Never mind.

Leopard

juliescott,

juliescot wrote: »

There are a number of channels that I watch on Sky that are not available on Freesat so it would be no use for me.

Unless you wish to record other channels, some in HD and all of them for free, while you're watching Sky (for most of which you have to pay).

When(if) Freeview starts to provide HD then all those people who wish to view it are going to be less than amused to find that their shiny new TVs with built in Freeview will not be able to decode the HD signal

Unless the same channels are then also broadcast in HD on FreeSat and the FreeSat HD equipment that they have already bought enables them to watch these at no further expense.



timbim,

In fairness, most people wouldn't regard an LG LCD as being, well..., reference grade.



isofa,

isofa wrote: »

Our top end Sony CRT which we purchased quite a few years ago – with Freeview built-in (one of the early versions) and the picture quality is way better on SD than several friends who have nice Sony LCDs... BBC1's Life in SD on a top end CRT looks incredible. And as a photographer and someone who analyses images for a living, I do notice small nuances.

I know where you're coming from because we have both a 36" Sony CRT (fed with Freeview) and a 52" Sony LCD.

But, as a photographer and someone who analyses images for a living, you'd notice one hell of a difference between BBC's "Life" (and a whole lot else) viewed in SD Freeview on a top-of-the-range Sony 36" CRT and the same programme(s) viewed in HD FreeSat on a 52" Sony LCD. The picture produced by the latter is phenomenally good.

I am, however, stoically resisting heavy domestic pressure to dispose of the huge 36" Sony CRT because it's far better for watching the surprisingly large library I have of recordings on Sony Super-Beta and on S-VHS videotapes – which look terrible on a 52" LCD.

It's significant to point out also that I paid £2,600 nine years ago for the 36" Sony CRT and only £1,115 for the 52" Sony (52W4000) LCD that I purchased last December. Both were new. Given those respective financial outlays, I'd feel a lot less aggrieved at junking the 52" Sony LCD and buying a newer, more advanced (LED? 3D?) one in a couple of years' time than I would (let's face it, shall, eventually) about consigning the much-loved 36" Sony CRT to history.

(And, in practice, the £1,115 52" Sony LCD will end up on a bedroom wall when it's replaced – whereas the poor 36" Sony CRT can't be got up the stairs!)



What people forget is that all the time they're "waiting for something better" they're missing out on something they could be enjoying very much right now.



JakesGran,

The bottom line here is that a Humax FoxSat-HDR (two HD tuners and a 320GB hard drive) costs just a one-off £245 at Richer Sounds and, if properly installed, wired and set up (including a decent HDMI cable) gives an absolutely wonderful picture in HD – with more (again, free) channels to come – on a high quality large-screen television.

(And that if isofa has never seen a Blu-ray disc displaying a film in 1080p on a 52" Sony LCD, he doesn't know what he is missing. )

A lot of people, to be brutally frank, are in denial over the remarkably high picture quality of both FreeSat HD and Sony 52" LCDs when properly set up.

macman

Jake'sGran wrote: »

Don't know but it is not likely to be HD is it?

Having read all these responses 2-3 times now I'm wishing I was more of a "techie" but it is never like to happen! Never mind.

Yes it is, it's the Humax Foxsat HD box:
http://direct.tesco.com/q/R.206-4269.aspx

macman

macman wrote: »

Yes it is, it's the Humax Foxsat HD box:
http://direct.tesco.com/q/R.206-4269.aspx

Correction: but a tenner less at Richer Sounds:
http://www.richersounds.com/product/freeview-freesat-pvr/humax/foxsat-hd/huma-foxsathd-box

Jake'sGran

isofa wrote: »

^



If you just want to record, one of the best solutions is the twin tuner Humax 9300T (a hard disc PVR), available online, and in plenty of stores, it's an excellent device. You can record 2 different freeview channels at once with this device.

I believe this is the one that came out as best buy in the Times survey I mentioned. It was the most expensive at around £230 plus set up fee of about £70. It was the hard disc and two channel recording I was impressed with but the comments here have put me off.......Just realised!...there are never two things worth recording at the same time on Freeview.

I looked at the forum. It will be a new tool in my search for info but I was surprised I could read questions and answers without being a member. Looks like they have already experienced fraudulent posters.

macman

Jake'sGran wrote: »

I believe this is the one that came out as best buy in the Times survey I mentioned. It was the most expensive at around £230 plus set up fee of about £70. It was the hard disc and two channel recording I was impressed with but the comments here have put me off.......Just realised!...there are never two things worth recording at the same time on Freeview.

I looked at the forum. It will be a new tool in my search for info but I was surprised I could read questions and answers without being a member. Looks like they have already experienced fraudulent posters.

The Humax 9300T is a Freeview PVR, not a Freesat PVR. If you want a Freesat PVR, then there is only one choice, the Humax Foxsat HDR, which Leopard has already detailed. I think you neeed to decide which platform you are interested in and then go from there-can you receive Freeview in your area anyway? If not, then your only current option is Freesat.

Leopard

It's perhaps worth digressing, for a moment, to point out that the key thing to remember when looking at Sky subscription alternatives to the free services is to look at the annual cost.

Sky absolutely hates it when you do that; everything is determinedly expressed by Sky in "only "(sic) and "per month".

When you actually do the sums on an annual basis, the sums take on a new perspective: they can be horrific and lead many people into debt.

Consider, if you will, the most basic Sky HD subscription: "from only (that word again) £17.50 per month". But that's £210 a year. And then there's that little-mentioned supplement of "only" £10 a month for HD. Which silently bumps it up to £330 a year. Every year. And more, if the subscription goes up (and when does it ever not?).

If you look at that in the cold light of day, you're paying a minimum of £1,000 just to watch your own television for three years. :eek:

And, if you want to watch anything more elaborate from Sky – sport, for example – it will cost you a lot more than that.

Compare this with a one-off £245 and then free HD television (with a recording facility, too) forever...

juliescot

Shame that some the channels I wish to watch are on the Sky platform only so I pay for them.


Freesat may be fine but if it doesn't show what I want to see then it is of no use at all.

pdoff

hi, i am very confused. i've not been on the boards for ages as no longer have internet at home. basically my 30 year old tele is dead and i need a new one. our reception is rubbish and the freeview box i have has never really worked properly. i've been left about 600 pounds so am after advice on a television. was thinking about freesat as my reception is poor and we are not going digital till 2012 but after reading hundreds of posts on different boards i'm very confused lol so am hoping someone could direct me in the best way to spend my money as i normally don't have this much available and hate parting with it!

thanks in advance for any assistance.

red_devil

Sky channels are complete waste of money anyway so you're not missing anything worth watching by getting Freesat[/QUOTE]

thats untrue if you like sport or films then sky is the best.