|
|
Satellite v Freeview
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 v Freeview
|
Satellite v Freeview
|
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? As a general rule, bitrates tend to be more generous on satellite. It's worth noting that although there are more (mainly dross) FTA services available on satellite, there are a handful of watchable ones that are currently FTA on DTT, but not satellite. -- Graham. %Profound_observation% |
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? A larger selection of rubbish is about it. The disadvantage is the dish. Steve -- EasyNN-plus. Neural Networks plus. http://www.easynn.com SwingNN. Forecast with Neural Networks. http://www.swingnn.com JustNN. Just Neural Networks. http://www.justnn.com |
Satellite v Freeview
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 |
Satellite v Freeview
On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 14:21:37 +0000, 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 IMO they look awful. I admit that I had one on my previous house. I decided it was a bad idea when it collected a load of leaves. They aren't everywhere. From my window now I can see four houses. All have windows and doors but no dishes. Steve -- EasyNN-plus. Neural Networks plus. http://www.easynn.com SwingNN. Forecast with Neural Networks. http://www.swingnn.com JustNN. Just Neural Networks. http://www.justnn.com |
Satellite v Freeview
There again satellite can suffer from problems in heavy rain and snow, rain is temporary for the duration of the storm and can be mitigated by using a larger dish. Snow can be similar, except when it sticks to the dish, as it did to me a couple of weeks ago, when I lost all satellite comm's for a day until the snow melted. ................... Yes, same here. But only half an inch over the bottom third of the dish. Came good after I threw some tepid water over it! Richard |
Satellite v Freeview
"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. We've got both Freeview and Sky, and my perception is that Freeview provides a better quality picture, with fewer compression artefacts. This is unusual, given that satellite bitrates are supposed to be higher than DTTV. I wonder whether some of it is losses in the (Amstrad) Sky hard disk recorder, causing recorded programmes to be different to live ones, whereas DTTV (recorded using Windows 7 Media Centre and a Hauppauge USB DTTV decoder) seems to give indistinguishable results for live and WTV recording. I'll have to do some side-by-side comparisons of live and recorded on Sky to see if there is any degradation. Satellite HD recordings seem to be bad: the recordings we made of the opening and closing ceremonies of the Olympics showed horrendous low-bitrate artefacts, plasticky colours and objectionable banding of graduated tones. I've not had many reception problems with either satellite or terrestrial (eg glitches and dropouts). The only problems I had with terrestrial were in the days before the changes brought about by switchoff of analogue, and they were confined to one multiplex, the ITV1/ITV3 mux, which suffered periods of unwatchable recordings, with perfect reception at other times. I traced that to a duff length of aerial cable between the wall socket and the DTTV decoder; since I changed that, I've not had any problems. I think the ITV mux may have been the lowest UHF channel of all the muxes at the time, so it may have been that the old cable was attenuating lower frequencies. Only that socket/decoder were affected; the other feed (via a splitter) to the TV and hard disc recorder were fine. I've not got any equipment that can receive HD on terrestrial so I can't comment on how rugged that is. I really should get a DVB2 decoder for Media Centre... Even in torrential rain and heavy snow (both falling and settled on the dish) I've not experienced any reception problems with satellite. |
Satellite v Freeview
In message , Stephen
Wolstenholme writes Who cares about a chuffin little dish 18" across? They're everywhere, haven't you noticed, like windows and doors. Bill IMO they look awful. I admit that I had one on my previous house. I decided it was a bad idea when it collected a load of leaves. They aren't everywhere. From my window now I can see four houses. All have windows and doors but no dishes. Steve Maybe they are just well hidden? -- Bill ( A different one ) |
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 |
Satellite v Freeview
Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
Who cares about a chuffin little dish 18" across? They're everywhere, haven't you noticed, like windows and doors. Bill IMO they look awful. Why? What is it about them that looks awful? I admit that I had one on my previous house. I decided it was a bad idea when it collected a load of leaves. They aren't everywhere. From my window now I can see four houses. All have windows and doors but no dishes. You must be looking south. Bill |
Satellite v Freeview
NY wrote:
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, TV aerials are bigger than dishes. Bill |
Satellite v Freeview
tim..... wrote:
My Sat stopped working last Monday because we had half an inch of snow overnight It's faulty then. Can you imagine the effect on Sky if everyone lost reception after 1/2" of snow? Bill |
Satellite v Freeview
rbel wrote:
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. There's a strong chance that you'll have a problem with 4G, even if all it does is exacerbate the other problems. At the moment it is a case of looking at Freesat and deciding what, if any, advantages it would provide over Freeview. Freesat is excellent. I have both but if I had to chose it would deffo be Freesat. Bill |
Satellite v Freeview
David Kennedy wrote:
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 You jest! No-one is going to spend money on SD these days. Bill |
Satellite v Freeview
David Kennedy wrote:
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... One of my neighbours' dishes was so stupidly positioned the postman walked into it. Bill |
Satellite v Freeview
Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
Who cares about a chuffin little dish 18" across? They're everywhere, haven't you noticed, like windows and doors. IMO they look awful. I admit that I had one on my previous house. I decided it was a bad idea when it collected a load of leaves. Where was your previous house, on the Equator ? -- Mark Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply. www.paras.org.uk |
Satellite v Freeview
In article , rbel wrote:
On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 12:16:15 +0000, rbel wrote: 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. My plan (in a situation similar to yours) is to get one or two filters in preparation. Then see what happens. Have no idea when 4G may start, and how much we will be affected. Luck of the draw. Depends on many ultra-local factors some neighbours may get very different outcomes! However I do have the 'plan B' fallback of an alternative TX that is less reliable, but generally OK. It is at low freqencies, making filtering far easier, and more likely to work. At the moment it is a case of looking at Freesat and deciding what, if any, advantages it would provide over Freeview. FWIW I was planning to buy a new TV (still have CRT). Have simply put that on hold until this is resolved. Slainte, Jim -- Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me. Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html |
Satellite v Freeview
In article ,
Richard Tobin wrote: 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. Plus other complications if you want to tune in to different stations on a number of TVs/recorders. Slainte, Jim -- Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me. Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html |
Satellite v Freeview
In message , David Woolley
writes 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. True, but as the satellites are at a much higher angle than terrestrial transmitters the trees have to be a lot closer to get in the way. Sorry, I didn't explain too well on that earlier. -- Bill ( A different one ) |
Satellite v Freeview
In article ,
Bill Wright wrote: NY wrote: 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, TV aerials are bigger than dishes. Ours are in the loft. I prefer this as it makes self-install and changes easer, and keeps things away from weather and large birds. Not very practical for a sat dish, though... Slainte, Jim -- Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me. Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html |
Satellite v Freeview
Mark Carver wrote:
Stephen Wolstenholme wrote: Who cares about a chuffin little dish 18" across? They're everywhere, haven't you noticed, like windows and doors. IMO they look awful. I admit that I had one on my previous house. I decided it was a bad idea when it collected a load of leaves. Where was your previous house, on the Equator ? Maybe the dish was mounted upside down. No, stop and think before you scorn me! I did it once. It was on a little balcony that had an overhang. Also there's one like that on the A17 near Sleaford, on your right as you head east. Used to be anyway. Haven't been that way for over a year, come to think. Went to Grantham a bit back though... can't remember why now... or was it Newark? One of those... oh well... never mind... fancy another cup vicar? Bill |
Satellite v Freeview
On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 18:21:38 +0000, Mark Carver
wrote: Stephen Wolstenholme wrote: Who cares about a chuffin little dish 18" across? They're everywhere, haven't you noticed, like windows and doors. IMO they look awful. I admit that I had one on my previous house. I decided it was a bad idea when it collected a load of leaves. Where was your previous house, on the Equator ? In the Middle East It seems to be quite common to put offset dishes on flat roofs using their offset to increase their apparent elevation rather than decrease it as in Europe. Not sure if they do this to reduce wind loading or simply to reduce visual impact. I suppose they have a drain hole, snow wont be much of an issue. -- Graham. %Profound_observation% |
Satellite v Freeview
"Woody" wrote in message
... 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. -- Oops, where did that 'non' come from in front of Sky? -- Woody harrogate three at ntlworld dot com |
Satellite v Freeview
On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 17:54:54 -0000, "Woody"
wrote: 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. Is there any reason for selecting Freeview HD over Freesat HD (or vice versa) for any particular programme - is there any real discernable difference? 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. We do have a bit of a problem with having a dish - they are not supposed to be erected in our immediate vicinity, but there again neither are external TV aerials. I imagine that all that is necessary is for the installation to be discrete and not visible from the road or adjacent woodland paths. I will have a chat with my immediate neighbours. 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. I am 99% sure that we would not be using Sky. 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. I have a pretty good internet radio setup which provides me with more stations than I can cope with. -- rbel |
Satellite v Freeview
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
... Maybe we could start a business selling dish heaters to those who get a lot of snow then? Brian Perhaps you could wrap some heating coils around the LNR and then send mains power up the co-ax to achieve this? Allan |
Satellite v Freeview
[snip]
We do have a bit of a problem with having a dish - they are not supposed to be erected in our immediate vicinity, but there again neither are external TV aerials. I imagine that all that is necessary is for the installation to be discrete and not visible from the road or adjacent woodland paths. I will have a chat with my immediate neighbours. Can you define what you mean by '...bit of a problem...'? Remember that you can run a surprisingly long cable between dish and box, so could you hide it on the back of the shed or similar? It can also be at ground level provided it has clear site of the sky to the SSE. You might do well to have a chat with your local council planning dept to see what the exact rules are. If you are in the country remember trees grow. It might work now but in say five years time.....?? -- Woody harrogate three at ntlworld dot com |
Satellite v Freeview
On 24/02/2013 18:07, Bill Wright wrote:
tim..... wrote: My Sat stopped working last Monday because we had half an inch of snow overnight It's faulty then. Can you imagine the effect on Sky if everyone lost reception after 1/2" of snow? Bill Were you expecting Network Rail to start making dishes? -- Jeff |
Satellite v Freeview
"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. Who cares about a chuffin little dish 18" across? They're everywhere, haven't you noticed, like windows and doors. It's 'cause they're new and formerly associated with the lower classes. If windows and doors were new people would be told to brick them up and climb in through a hole in the roof. -- Max Demian |
Satellite v Freeview
"David Kennedy" wrote in message
... 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. Who cares about a chuffin little dish 18" across? They're everywhere, haven't you noticed, like windows and doors. 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 What proportion of the various satellite flavours are HD? Are all the 'main' ones (BBC1-4, ITV1-4, C4, E4, More4, Film4, C5, 5*, 5USA) available in HD? -- Max Demian |
| 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