Freesat vs Freeview quality/bitrate
 

Tony Houghton wrote:
In ,
Chris K wrote:

ITV seem to have larger differences, eg ITV4 is about 5MBit on Freesat
at the moment & 1.8MBit on Freeview.

Damn, I got that the wrong way round then. I recorded a film on ITV4
this evening from Freeview instead of Freesat :-(.

Don't worry, just think how much space you will have saved on the hard
disk of your PVR. :-)

Freesat vs Freeview quality/bitrate
 

That is odd, as the cat food adverts often say, where a preference was
expressed, 8 out of ten owners say the Freesat pictures are consistantly
better.

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Scott" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 12:56:03 +0000 (UTC), Tony Houghton
wrote:

My PVR has Freeview and Freesat tuners so it would be useful to know
which is better quality when choosing one or the other to make a
recording. AIUI Freesat often has lower bitrates than Freeview for a
given programme, but if and when Freesat's bitrate is about the same
it's the better choice for me because it's less prone to interference.

I though interference was a thing of the past now that the
transmission power has been boosted? Do you have the correct aerial
for your transmitter on the roof with a good quality aerial lead?

So can anyone point me to a summary of how they compare? I'm guessing
channels 1-5/101-105 and the four HD channels available on both are
about the same, but anything else is likely to be inferior on Freesat.
Is that roughly correct?

Freesat vs Freeview quality/bitrate
 

The question to be answered then is why?

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Chris K" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 07/10/2012 15:32, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Tony Houghton
wrote:
My PVR has Freeview and Freesat tuners so it would be useful to know
which is better quality when choosing one or the other to make a
recording. AIUI Freesat often has lower bitrates than Freeview for a
given programme, but if and when Freesat's bitrate is about the same
it's the better choice for me because it's less prone to interference.

So can anyone point me to a summary of how they compare? I'm guessing
channels 1-5/101-105 and the four HD channels available on both are
about the same, but anything else is likely to be inferior on Freesat.
Is that roughly correct?

I don't know, and would be interested to know more of the details myself.
So I'll read other replies with interest. However "What Satellite and
Digital TV" magazine do list symbol rates. The lists I've seen don't give
specific internal rates for audio and video, though. But I've only seen a
couple of copies thus far.

I don't have any direct experience with sat tv, but I'd have expected it
to
have rates at least as high as DTTV.

Since you have the PVR, can you access the disc and examine the
recordings?
They may answer the questions. :-)

Slainte,

Jim


Based on having both Sat and Terrestrial feeding a PC with software that
displays bit rate in real time, for the main channels there is little
difference. Sometimes there are small improvements in the sat signal but
not significant, sometimes it is the other way round.

For the lesser channels Freesat is often much better. For example, Film 4
can often be 1.5-2x the bit rate on sat, for example at the moment it is
544x576 and 1.3Mbit on freeview & 704x576 and 1.9Mbit on Freesat. E4 is
about the same bit rate but at the lower resolution on Freeview.

ITV seem to have larger differences, eg ITV4 is about 5MBit on Freesat at
the moment & 1.8MBit on Freeview.

So I guess the answer is, based on limited random observation, Freesat is
mostly better (but sometimes not, eg on BBC1 at the moment it is the other
way round), & on minor channels can be noticeably so.

HTH

Chris K

Freesat vs Freeview quality/bitrate
 

In article , Brian Gaff wrote:
That is odd, as the cat food adverts often say, where a preference was
expressed, 8 out of ten owners say the Freesat pictures are consistantly
better.

We must be careful here to eliminate any bias resulting from the Russ
Andrews Effect, as satellite reception requires a bit more trouble and
expense than simply using an aerial system that is already installed and a
receiver that is probably already included in the TV set.

Rod.
--

Freesat vs Freeview quality/bitrate
 

On 08/10/2012 11:17, Roderick Stewart wrote:

We must be careful here to eliminate any bias resulting from the Russ
Andrews Effect, as satellite reception requires a bit more trouble and
expense than simply using an aerial system that is already installed and a
receiver that is probably already included in the TV set.

It's a shame Sony gave up with their range of models that included built
in Freesat (in addition to Freeview) tuners.

Panny still have a range of Freesat tellies though I think ?

(Can't check easily, I'm on a 14ish kb/s internet connection !)

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

www.paras.org.uk

Freesat vs Freeview quality/bitrate
 

On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 11:17:22 +0100, Roderick Stewart wrote:

In article , Brian Gaff wrote:
That is odd, as the cat food adverts often say, where a preference was
expressed, 8 out of ten owners say the Freesat pictures are consistantly
better.

We must be careful here to eliminate any bias resulting from the Russ
Andrews Effect, as satellite reception requires a bit more trouble and
expense than simply using an aerial system that is already installed and a
receiver that is probably already included in the TV set.

Rod.

Yes, if the TTV aerial is already there, but it was easy to put up a dish
but for a 10' mast up on the chimney...!

It does seem that SD can be pretty good on STV but I feel that HD is a bit
better on TTV.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

Freesat vs Freeview quality/bitrate
 

On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 15:09:40 +0000 (UTC), Tony Houghton
wrote:

In ,
Scott wrote:

On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 12:56:03 +0000 (UTC), Tony Houghton
wrote:

My PVR has Freeview and Freesat tuners so it would be useful to know
which is better quality when choosing one or the other to make a
recording. AIUI Freesat often has lower bitrates than Freeview for a
given programme, but if and when Freesat's bitrate is about the same
it's the better choice for me because it's less prone to interference.

I though interference was a thing of the past now that the
transmission power has been boosted? Do you have the correct aerial
for your transmitter on the roof with a good quality aerial lead?

I've got a decent double-screened lead but the aerial is only a loft
aerial and very old. The powered splitter and other general clutter
behind the TV probably doesn't help. Passing scooters have always tended
to interfere, and for a while vans and buses etc seemed to interfere
with the HD channels, but that seems OK now.

I thought loft aerials were definitely not recommended. I also
thought aerial amplifiers were not recommended for digital. I
replaced a wideband aerial with the correct aerial group, which made a
difference, albeit small. When you say, is is okay now did the
problem end with digital switchover?

Freesat vs Freeview quality/bitrate
 

In article ,
Scott wrote:

I thought loft aerials were definitely not recommended. I also
thought aerial amplifiers were not recommended for digital.

I'm still using the amplifier I used for analogue - no problems.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

Freesat vs Freeview quality/bitrate
 

Scott wrote:

I thought loft aerials were definitely not recommended.
Only in locations where they cannot provide a reliable good signal.

I also
thought aerial amplifiers were not recommended for digital.
No, that's a simplification of a misunderstanding of a half-truth.

Bill

Freesat vs Freeview quality/bitrate
 

On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 21:50:27 +0100, Bill Wright
wrote:

Scott wrote:

I thought loft aerials were definitely not recommended.
Only in locations where they cannot provide a reliable good signal.

Which would seem to be the position Mr Houghton is facing if passing
scooters affect the TV reception.

I also
thought aerial amplifiers were not recommended for digital.
No, that's a simplification of a misunderstanding of a half-truth.

Accepted.