|
|
Satellite v Freeview
Well, I'm of course not able to say, but from what I heare, as long as the
dish is aligned well and is big enough for where the person lives, there are no issues with it at all. I sytill have freeview, and its always losing program guide info, stations appear in daft places etc, so I'd actually suggest Freeview is a bit of a mess at the moment. Brian -- From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active "Clive" wrote in message ... In message , lid writes From a consumer's perspective does satellite viewing have any advantages over Freeview other than a wider selection of stations? Is it less prone to interference/reception problems? I've got both, Freeview on the TV and a separate Freesat/HDD/Blu-Ray cutter and the picture from the satellite is always good. -- Clive |
Satellite v Freeview
"rbel" wrote in message ... From a consumer's perspective does satellite viewing have any advantages over Freeview other than a wider selection of stations? ITYM a smaller selection of stations (if you ignore all of the dross) Is it less prone to interference/reception problems? No chance. My Sat stopped working last Monday because we had half an inch of snow overnight tim |
Satellite v Freeview
Bill wrote:
Satellite is less likely to suffer from local interference, thermostats, trees, other radio transmitters, radio hams, CBers etc. and by the look Although, if the trees are on the line of sight, they will affect it more than for DTT. |
Satellite v Freeview
rbel wrote in message ... From a consumer's perspective does satellite viewing have any advantages over Freeview other than a wider selection of stations? Better bit rate, more HD, you can watch local programs from other areas. Is it less prone to interference/reception problems? Usually unless you have trees in the way. -- rbel |
Satellite v Freeview
On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 12:16:15 +0000, rbel wrote:
From a consumer's perspective does satellite viewing have any advantages over Freeview other than a wider selection of stations? Is it less prone to interference/reception problems? Many thanks for the responses. Having again looked through the Radio Times at the additional programmes available via satellite (eg Sky) there still appears to be very little that appeals to either of us. It is really a case of ensuring that we can continue to receive the BBC stations and a couple of others that SWMBO watches regularly in the future, post 4G roll-out and, if possible mitigate the Freeview reception problems we experience during to stormy weather due to the trees between us and the Beacon Hill transmitter. Beacon Hill and the trees are to the west of the property but we do have relatively clear line of site to the east which I understand is the direction of the relevant satellite. I have been contemplating updating our TV and the recent reports of the potential 4G problems, together with our close proximity to a major transmitter serving most of the main phone organisations, are leading me to look at the various alternatives. I appreciate that filters will be available but I gather that there is no guarantee that they will function in situations such as we have where channel 60 is to carry the BBC output and close proximity to a 4G transmitter. At the moment it is a case of looking at Freesat and deciding what, if any, advantages it would provide over Freeview. -- rbel |
Satellite v Freeview
On 24/02/2013 14:21, Bill Wright wrote:
Stephen Wolstenholme wrote: On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 12:16:15 +0000, rbel wrote: From a consumer's perspective does satellite viewing have any advantages over Freeview other than a wider selection of stations? Is it less prone to interference/reception problems? A larger selection of rubbish is about it. The disadvantage is the dish. Steve Who cares about a chuffin little dish 18" across? They're everywhere, haven't you noticed, like windows and doors. Bill These days surely unless it's a new build, most houses have an aerial and all new tvs sold have freeview so get a dish and you've got both. The only real decision id SD or HD -- David Kennedy http://www.anindianinexile.com |
Satellite v Freeview
In article , rbel wrote:
From a consumer's perspective does satellite viewing have any advantages over Freeview other than a wider selection of stations? Is it less prone to interference/reception problems? It has the disadvantage that you need a separate cable to each tuner. -- Richard |
Satellite v Freeview
On 24/02/2013 14:48, NY wrote:
"Bill Wright" wrote in message ... Stephen Wolstenholme wrote: On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 12:16:15 +0000, rbel wrote: From a consumer's perspective does satellite viewing have any advantages over Freeview other than a wider selection of stations? Is it less prone to interference/reception problems? A larger selection of rubbish is about it. The disadvantage is the dish. Steve Who cares about a chuffin little dish 18" across? They're everywhere, haven't you noticed, like windows and doors. The problem is not dish as such, it's the fact that it's usually mounted on a wall relatively low down (eg first floor window level) whereas a TV aerial, as well as being a bit smaller, is usually mounted higher up and towards the ridge of the roof (eg on a chimney) where it is less visible. That is surely due to most people going for the "free" installation from Sky. Their installer want to put it as close to the set and as low as possible to save them time. One installer told a neighbour that they were not allowed by Sky to do roof installs and ended up nailing the bracket to the fence... -- David Kennedy http://www.anindianinexile.com |
Satellite v Freeview
rbel wrote in message
... From a consumer's perspective does satellite viewing have any advantages over Freeview other than a wider selection of stations? Is it less prone to interference/reception problems? -- rbel Satellite has advantages - it is less likely to breakdown for one, and you can watch any region not just the one where you live. Other replies have made the usual mistake - satellite does NOT mean Sky. Freesat is pretty well a copy of Freeview. I have Humax boxes for Freeview HD and Freesat HD and it is a close call between them most of the time. The extra (mainly c**p) channels available on Sky are a bonus if you are really bored out of your nrain but most aren't worth the trouble. There are comments about satellite dishes and their locations with which in the main I would agree. I would have to agree that most dish installs are done by poorly paid poorly motivated Sky staff who erect the dish in the easiest place with the shortest cable run. For most houses in the UK (other than older ones with very steep/tall roofs) the dish can 'see' over the roof if it is 1m above the rear gutter - there is no need for it to be on the front of the house. Likewise it does not need to be high up provided it has clear sight roughly SSE. Others have made comment about picture quality. Do remember that Sky boxes run heavily *******ised software and are notoriously deaf. My Humax Freesat box shows 90%+ signal and quality, but any Sky box (and I have acces to three) on the same connection shows only about 80% signal and 70% quality. OK these are subjective and unrelated levels, but from what I have seen the picture quality is consistently better and has less artifacts than off any non-Sky box. There is one real benefit of Sky: there are loads of radio stations (many more than Freesat and including Classic FM) generally at better audio quality than on Freeview. Incidently don't be confused between Freesat (to which I refer) and Freesat from Sky which is a different thing altogether. There's an old joke: what do you find on the back of most satellite dishes? A council house. I rest my case, m'lud. -- Woody harrogate three at ntlworld dot com |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:02 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com