expensive Pace Twin v. cheap Ferguson FDT500

Just thought I'd post an observation - along the lines of "you get get
you pay for" I suppose.
I've been using the Pace Twin for months now. Having always had awful
reception on analogue, and having never had cable/satellite, plugging in
the Twin was a revelation. I personally can't distinguish the picture
quality from DVD. I'm now of course used to it, along with the terrific
PVR function.
I assumed "Good, that's Freeview, then".
So today, as a christmas gift, I bought a (much) cheaper box for a
cable-less sibling, to get her "onboard".
I bought the Ferguson FDT500 from Dixons - it's gone up to £70, but at
least they're now in stock (inner London).
At home I've swapped the Twin for the Ferguson to set it up and check it
out, and yes, it works. But the picture really is noticably bad quality
in comparison. It's like I'm watching it on a different TV. Text is
slightly fuzzy, and there's a very slight flicker. It's not truly awful
- it does work - but after the sheer quality of the Pace I personally
couldn't use the cheaper box.
It's still headed for my sister - I think it's just about ok...
To be fair, the Twin costs nearly FIVE times as much as the Ferguson !!
(It is a much higher spec machine, of course.) But you really do get
what you pay for. I've just swapped my Twin back in, and again it exudes
quality - the picture is rock solid and rich and there is simply no
comparison.

I know the Pace can freeze up - very, very rarely for me. No doubt other
boxes can as well. But it really hasn't been a problem.
Must plug the hard disk recording on the Twin - i'm still knocked out by
it :-)

I just wanted to post this observation, as I didn't think the difference
in picture quality would be quite so great.
There obviously is a great difference in the performance of the chips
used in various boxes ...

Intersting observation Martin. My view is that you do generally get what you
pay for, although higher prices are no absolute guarantee of higher quality.
Careful research pays off I suppose.

As an aside, people used to complain about "softness" with the Pace Twin
picture (centre screen IIRC) - I assume that's been resolved now?

Intersting observation Martin. My view is that you do generally get what you
pay for, although higher prices are no absolute guarantee of higher quality.
Careful research pays off I suppose.

As an aside, people used to complain about "softness" with the Pace Twin
picture (centre screen IIRC) - I assume that's been resolved now?

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:00:52 +0000 (UTC), Martin
wrote:

Just thought I'd post an observation - along the lines of "you get get
you pay for" I suppose.

At home I've swapped the Twin for the Ferguson to set it up and check it
out, and yes, it works. But the picture really is noticably bad quality
in comparison. It's like I'm watching it on a different TV. Text is
slightly fuzzy, and there's a very slight flicker. It's not truly awful
- it does work - but after the sheer quality of the Pace I personally
couldn't use the cheaper box.

It's not just that the Pace is using RGB, while the Fergie is set to
composite, is it?

--
QrizB

I sound like I know what I'm talking about, but don't
be fooled.

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:00:52 +0000 (UTC), Martin
wrote:

Just thought I'd post an observation - along the lines of "you get get
you pay for" I suppose.

At home I've swapped the Twin for the Ferguson to set it up and check it
out, and yes, it works. But the picture really is noticably bad quality
in comparison. It's like I'm watching it on a different TV. Text is
slightly fuzzy, and there's a very slight flicker. It's not truly awful
- it does work - but after the sheer quality of the Pace I personally
couldn't use the cheaper box.

It's not just that the Pace is using RGB, while the Fergie is set to
composite, is it?

--
QrizB

I sound like I know what I'm talking about, but don't
be fooled.

In article ,
"Alick" wrote:

As an aside, people used to complain about "softness" with the Pace Twin
picture (centre screen IIRC) - I assume that's been resolved now?

There was a particular version of the software which tended to
make people stop complaining about the problem. My sight is
not very good and I never noticed it in the first place.

In article ,
"Alick" wrote:

As an aside, people used to complain about "softness" with the Pace Twin
picture (centre screen IIRC) - I assume that's been resolved now?

There was a particular version of the software which tended to
make people stop complaining about the problem. My sight is
not very good and I never noticed it in the first place.

I read about that a number of times on this group, but I could never see
what the problem was. Maybe there are much higher quality boxes out
there that make my Twin look cheap :-)

I read about that a number of times on this group, but I could never see
what the problem was. Maybe there are much higher quality boxes out
there that make my Twin look cheap :-)

Whoops - that was a typo. They're now £60 (well, £59.99), not 70 quid !
I caved in at that price because at least now they're available.
I didn't mention I want to get a second box for my brother too, but I
only bought one of the cheap(er) Ferguson's to check out the quality.
The second box won't be one ...