Anyone have any exeriences as to which is better quality or are they both the same quality wise? Just trying to work out whether to recommend my family in law replace sky with two freeview decoders like the 700HDMI which would be easy or run a new UHF aerial and cable and get freeview HD through their TV's which have a freeview tuner built in, but which is hard, but gives a great picture.
Try Vultr using this link and get us both some credit:
Why would you go to Freeview Satellite decoders if you are able to receive Freeview on the TV's built in tuner? Freeview Terrestial is HD Freeview Satellite is not!
B1GGLZ: Why would you go to Freeview Satellite decoders if you are able to receive Freeview on the TV's built in tuner? Freeview Terrestial is HD Freeview Satellite is not!
Some of the channels on Freeview Terrestrial are HD (One, 2 and 3). The other are still in SD, albeit with a better codec producing a higher quality picture than Freeview Satellite.
Generally known online as OpenMedia, now working for Red Hat APAC a Technology Evangelist and Product Manager. Still playing with MythTV and digital media on the side.
Sky sat and freeview sat are fairly similar quality for the basic SD channels. Obviously Sky HD will be better.
If they have tuners in the TV already, and they are in a freeview terrestrial coverage area then this would be the way to go.
If they have mysky etc or the mysky hdi thing then you'd need to discuss that they wont be able to record anymore if they use the inbuilt TV tuners. You could then use a satellite recorder box instead etc.
There's no right or wrong to this, but I'd go for terrestrial now personally. The picture quality really is just that much better. And changing volume/channels etc is all built into the TV, so just the one remote if that's an issue too.
Sorry, probably could have been more clear. They need to ditch sky and I am trying to help them make the best choice. They are on the maintenance plan which is a ridiculous $30 a month for only free to air channels. Satellite would be easiest as the house UHF etc has been butchered by the sky install and so if the quality was better than sky, I would recommend to them to get a couple of satellite tuners and ditch sky altogether. I dont think it would make a difference as they would still have rain fade etc and quality is still bad as it comes from same satellite as sky. With a search on the forums, I think they would be looking at about $300 or so to get the aerial sorted and just get freeview UHF. As this is roughly the price of two sat boxes I will recommend they just get the aerial fixed and get freeview through UHF. They can worry about recording later.
Try Vultr using this link and get us both some credit:
Yeah you'd be talking very similar price for 2 reliable sat tuner boxes as getting an aerial installed. The quality for basic free to air channels is essentially the same from satellite between SKY and freeview. As above, the story is different if they have the HD version of sky but it appears they don't.
If they don't have anything fancy recording wise via their current sky offerings then yes, terrestrial all the way. Especially if it's built into the TV as to be fair it's really easy given the one remote etc. Some people have found the internal tuner gives the best results picture wise too.
Twitter and LinkedIn »
Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:
Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly
to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.
Trusted
