best way to pipe sky+ to my bedroom
 

What is the best way of piping sky+ to my bedroom tv (30" LCD), which is
maybe 20 metres from my sky+ box.

At present i use RF Coax because of the long distance. Is there a way for
getting better PQ without costing a fortune (ie linking scart leads doesn't
seem the most practicle way). Is there a distance limit on some methods?

Any advice appreciated.

Ash

Chris Asten wrote:

At present i use RF Coax because of the long distance. Is there a way for
getting better PQ without costing a fortune (ie linking scart leads doesn't
seem the most practicle way). Is there a distance limit on some methods?

You could use a video sender for about £35 and up. Quality is fair but
no better than a good RF connection. You do get stereo though. Or you
could install network cables and get a specific gadget to use that. I
was also looking at a video unit that uses the mains power cabling the
other day.

None of these are very cheap. I would stick with the coax which should
provide a perfectly good picture.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/yvnsy
How to get UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
Fed up with logos / red buttons? : http://logofreetv.org/
BBC gone? : http://www.astra2d.co.uk/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 04:52:15 GMT, Jomtien wrote:

Chris Asten wrote:

At present i use RF Coax because of the long distance. Is there a way for
getting better PQ without costing a fortune (ie linking scart leads doesn't
seem the most practicle way). Is there a distance limit on some methods?

You could use a video sender for about £35 and up. Quality is fair but
no better than a good RF connection. You do get stereo though. Or you
could install network cables and get a specific gadget to use that. I
was also looking at a video unit that uses the mains power cabling the
other day.

None of these are very cheap. I would stick with the coax which should
provide a perfectly good picture.

It rather depends on your own criteria as to what constitutes a 'perfectly good
picture'. Personally I think that it would be a shame to feed a 30" LCD with RF
from the digibox. This looks interesting http://www.kat5.tv/products.html Costs
under 90 quid & uses CAT-5 Ethernet cable to pipe an S-video signal around. If
it were me & I had spent a fortune on a large LCD set I would want the best
possible quality programme source.

--
Nigel Barker
Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur

"Chris Asten" wrote in message
...
What is the best way of piping sky+ to my bedroom tv (30" LCD), which is
maybe 20 metres from my sky+ box.

At present i use RF Coax because of the long distance. Is there a way for
getting better PQ without costing a fortune (ie linking scart leads doesn't
seem the most practicle way). Is there a distance limit on some methods?

Any advice appreciated.

I guess you have thought of this, but I will offer it anyway.

Why not have a 2nd Sky box and a mirror sub?
(I figure if you can afford a 30" LCD for the bedroom you can afford a 2nd
box...:-)

Loz

cos I watch my Sky+ recordings in the bedroom as well as the front room,
plus 2 subs s an ongoing cost,i 'd rather just pay for the cables and have
done. Not pay an extra £whater pound every month forever
"loz" wrote in message
...

"Chris Asten" wrote in message
...
What is the best way of piping sky+ to my bedroom tv (30" LCD), which is
maybe 20 metres from my sky+ box.

At present i use RF Coax because of the long distance. Is there a way
for
getting better PQ without costing a fortune (ie linking scart leads
doesn't
seem the most practicle way). Is there a distance limit on some methods?

Any advice appreciated.

I guess you have thought of this, but I will offer it anyway.

Why not have a 2nd Sky box and a mirror sub?
(I figure if you can afford a 30" LCD for the bedroom you can afford a 2nd
box...:-)

Loz

Personally, you can't beat a video sender. Perfect picture quality and
sound, the magic eye gives you the ability to control your box from your
bedroom, it's wirefree as it works on the 2.4ghz radio frequency, rather
than via coax and they only cost £80 from Argos and other retailers.

The only other expense I've had to incur is the cost of a 2nd sky plus
remote so that I've one upstairs and downstairs. That was about £15.



"Chris Asten" wrote in message
...
cos I watch my Sky+ recordings in the bedroom as well as the front room,
plus 2 subs s an ongoing cost,i 'd rather just pay for the cables and have
done. Not pay an extra £whater pound every month forever
"loz" wrote in message
...

"Chris Asten" wrote in message
...
What is the best way of piping sky+ to my bedroom tv (30" LCD), which
is
maybe 20 metres from my sky+ box.

At present i use RF Coax because of the long distance. Is there a way
for
getting better PQ without costing a fortune (ie linking scart leads
doesn't
seem the most practicle way). Is there a distance limit on some
methods?

Any advice appreciated.

I guess you have thought of this, but I will offer it anyway.

Why not have a 2nd Sky box and a mirror sub?
(I figure if you can afford a 30" LCD for the bedroom you can afford a
2nd
box...:-)

Loz

Nigel Barker wrote:

None of these are very cheap. I would stick with the coax which should
provide a perfectly good picture.

It rather depends on your own criteria as to what constitutes a 'perfectly good
picture'. Personally I think that it would be a shame to feed a 30" LCD with RF
from the digibox. This looks interesting http://www.kat5.tv/products.html Costs
under 90 quid & uses CAT-5 Ethernet cable to pipe an S-video signal around.

I did mention devices using network cable but the crux of the question
appeared to be cost and I supposed that £100 + cable would be too
much. Perhaps I was mistaken.

I use coax to run signals upstairs and it suits me fine.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/yvnsy
How to get UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
Fed up with logos / red buttons? : http://logofreetv.org/
BBC gone? : http://www.astra2d.co.uk/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

It has been mentioned that a video sender, is no beter PQ than RF.
Is this the case, or does it depend on the quality of video sender.

Where does it fit into the usual hierarchy of
RF
Composite
S-Video
RGB
Component.
etc


"S.E" wrote in message
...
Personally, you can't beat a video sender. Perfect picture quality and
sound, the magic eye gives you the ability to control your box from your
bedroom, it's wirefree as it works on the 2.4ghz radio frequency, rather
than via coax and they only cost £80 from Argos and other retailers.

The only other expense I've had to incur is the cost of a 2nd sky plus
remote so that I've one upstairs and downstairs. That was about £15.



"Chris Asten" wrote in message
...
cos I watch my Sky+ recordings in the bedroom as well as the front room,
plus 2 subs s an ongoing cost,i 'd rather just pay for the cables and
have
done. Not pay an extra £whater pound every month forever
"loz" wrote in message
...

"Chris Asten" wrote in message
...
What is the best way of piping sky+ to my bedroom tv (30" LCD),
which
is
maybe 20 metres from my sky+ box.

At present i use RF Coax because of the long distance. Is there a
way
for
getting better PQ without costing a fortune (ie linking scart leads
doesn't
seem the most practicle way). Is there a distance limit on some
methods?

Any advice appreciated.

I guess you have thought of this, but I will offer it anyway.

Why not have a 2nd Sky box and a mirror sub?
(I figure if you can afford a 30" LCD for the bedroom you can afford a
2nd
box...:-)

Loz

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 12:28:50 +0100, "Chris Asten"
wrote:

It has been mentioned that a video sender, is no beter PQ than RF.
Is this the case, or does it depend on the quality of video sender.

Very much depends on the video sender quality. Normally you do get stereo sound
too.

Where does it fit into the usual hierarchy of

The first video sender I bought had pretty poor picture quality. I took it back
for a refund. The video sender that I now have has fairly decent PQ but is
composite only. I don't believe that there are any that do RGB or s-video which
is why the CAT-5 Ethernet cable stuff looks interesting.

--
Nigel Barker
Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur

Chris Asten wrote:

It has been mentioned that a video sender, is no beter PQ than RF.
Is this the case, or does it depend on the quality of video sender.

Where does it fit into the usual hierarchy of
RF
Composite

Somewhere between those two but the problem is that although in some
ways a video sender may be better than RF it can also introduce other
picture problems that RF doesn't have, if set up properly.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/yvnsy
How to get UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
Fed up with logos / red buttons? : http://logofreetv.org/
BBC gone? : http://www.astra2d.co.uk/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 04:52:15 GMT, Jomtien wrote:

Chris Asten wrote:

At present i use RF Coax because of the long distance. Is there a way for
getting better PQ without costing a fortune (ie linking scart leads doesn't
seem the most practicle way). Is there a distance limit on some methods?

You could use a video sender for about £35 and up. Quality is fair but
no better than a good RF connection. You do get stereo though. Or you
could install network cables and get a specific gadget to use that. I
was also looking at a video unit that uses the mains power cabling the
other day.

None of these are very cheap. I would stick with the coax which should
provide a perfectly good picture.

Can anyone explain why stereo is unachievable through coax? I'm
guessing that if a Sky box is hitched directly to a tv through coax,
that it's mono - my upstairs connection is mono, but I can't recall
how it was done (ie, if there are two coax connecters on the box).
If terrestrial TV can carry a picture, and stereo sound, why doesn't
Sky work the same way?

Just curious more than anything else, although stereo upstairs would
be nice!

Thanks

Ollie
Remove NOSPAM if replying by e-mail.

"Ollie" wrote in message
news.com...
Can anyone explain why stereo is unachievable through coax? I'm
guessing that if a Sky box is hitched directly to a tv through coax,
that it's mono - my upstairs connection is mono, but I can't recall
how it was done (ie, if there are two coax connecters on the box).
If terrestrial TV can carry a picture, and stereo sound, why doesn't
Sky work the same way?

Just curious more than anything else, although stereo upstairs would
be nice!

Because Sky isn't terrestrial TV. So it doesn't use the same systems. i.e. it
doesn't use NICAM to multiplex the stereo sound along with the picture.
For the Sky box to output a NICAM signal over co-ax, so you could decode it with
your normal NICAM TV, the Skybox would need a NICAM encoder, which would make it
expensive (because the consumer market is only in decoders, not encoders -
that's done at the broadcast end).

Loz