€374 for Sky+ !!!!

hawthorn

I bet that grabbed your attention...! having seen so many different prices, and confusion about 15 per month, and 15 for multi-room (some of this confusion coming from sky, when i rang) I rang again this evening and decided to wait for an answer (20 mins).

The girls cheerfully went through all the options. Im on the full package at the moment (which increased to 30 without me being told...but anyway..!) €30. So she said Id have to upgrade my package. Why, says I. Well, otherwisr its 15 per month, Thats ok I said.

So she said it would be €60 per month, for Sky+ and multiroom. I said what if i didnt want multiroom, wouldnt it be 54-55appx if I took 2 premium channels(which Im not going to, but a forged ahead...)?

Wait for it....she said yes, but unless I was taking multi-room, the cost of the box was......(drum roll!)
....da-da!!.......€374 !!!

Of course I laughed at this point, but she did not so I quickly stopped. I said how come that was never advertised? So she said the €149 offer (which you will recall, was €69) was only if you took multiroom!

Folks, are they serious? Are we fools? Not in a million years would I pay €374. So I asked her for the numbers to ring to downgrade packages, and to cancel altogether. She was unfazed, and gave then to me.

I think I'll be going for the DVD HD recorder. At that money I dont think Id feel too bad paying 500--550 for a Sony or Pioneer with Guideplus.

What are your thoughts on this? Isnt there another issue here, that they are advertising Sky+ as 69 or now 149? When actually it should read Sky+ AND Multiroon, meaning 15per month for Sky+ (unless you have premium channels) AND 15 for multiroom.

SO ITS:

149 + 15 + 15 if on basic package (say 30) or

149 + 15 + premium channels (min. 55) or

349 + 15 (Sky+) and basic package (30) or

349 + 15 (Sky+) and premium package (55--64)

I think that is hilarious! Well not really.... :-(

KC

watty

And if you don't have a premium package, or indeed only take FTA channels, if you want a working Sky+ it is 164 per year. Assume 4 year life, Cost of Sky+ is
180 x 4 + 364 = 1084 Euro

We need a campain for Sky to abolish recording charge AND/OR provide CAM for non-Sky Satellite PVR.

Sky argue that they provide the EPG. But this is already paid for 10x over by the bradcasters. The EPG costs Sky virtually nothing yet then program suppliers pay Milions p.a. And provide the information electronically. It can't cost Sky more than 200K to run the ENTIRE epg system for the whole platform (including transponder cost).

149 + 15 +15 is wrong sum...
It is 149 + 4 years x((15 +15 x 12 months) = 1589

So "cheapest" option is very expensive.

pH

An new 80GB Sky+ (PVR3) seems to cost about €200-€250 based on ebay prices. Now you need a Quad LNB, cable and the time to get up on the roof install/run cable and setup box.

So 374 for all of that doesn't seem that outrageous, though I agree the ongoing "charge" to allow you use a box you paid for is bordering on criminal, it can't be anything to do with the EPG as you're paying for EPG anyway as part of the normal Sky sub.

While the UK may very well have a decent alternative to Sly when BBC and ITV get together, anyone wanting the 4 irish channels is going to be stuck with Sky for a long while yet.

watty

TV Aerial? I was watching TG4 last night. The film wasn't OAR, cropped to 4:3. The sound was out of sync on Satellite and the analog aerial picture was indistigusable!

Analog input HDD/DVD-R combo under 200 Euro.

webbie

I don't disagree that the €15 per month charge for using Sky+ is ridiculous but just want to point out a couple of other ways at looking at the numbers before everyone gets put off.

If you go for multiroom you are only under contract for this for 1 year so you can cancel after that and just use that box at a FTA box or FTV box (if you get a FTV card from UK). So for €180 euro (€15 per month x 12 months) you get the install (including new LNB if necessary) and a full package in a second room for a year and after that it turns into a FTA system. Dosn't seem like too bad a deal to me.

As regards Sky+ if you already have 2 or more premium channels then there is no additional monthly charge so you are getting a good PVR that is fully integrated with the EPG, allows you record 2 things at the one time or watch one while your recording another (I'm not aware of any HDD recorder that can do this) all for either €374 or €149 (if you do go for multiroom at the same time). In fact you would be mad to pay the €374 since €149 + €180 for a year of multiroom only comes to €329.

So if you already have 2 premium channels then for €329 you get a Sky+ box fully installed plus old box fully installed in another room which will have same package as your Sky + box for a year and can then be used as a FTA box.

So for those who already have 2 premium channels (which incidently I do) I think Sky + with multiroom is a good deal. Not sure if I would pay the €15 per month if I didn't have the 2 premium channels though.

Can you tell I'm a big Sky+ fan, couldn't go back to watching TV without it but luckily I'm a big sports fan as well.

Daavid

Just to add to all of this money coming outta your pocket just to have Sky+. Don't forget that you must have a landline before they'll even sell you the bloody thing. How stupid is that. Pain in the ass really as I got rid of our landline because me and the wife got ourselves decent mobiles and don't see a need for a landline to make calls anymore. I'm not about to pay telephone line rental so I can watch the flippin telly. To top it all off I'm a premium subscriber so all it would cost me is the initial lump sum which I wouldn't mind paying. Its bloody infuriating cos I'd love to have it.

pH

Don't forget that you must have a landline before they'll even sell you the bloody thing.

we've been through this before, if you are prepared to pay for the install and box then you don't need a phoneline.

Also, even if you get a subscribed install, as long as you don't have multiroom Sky seem quite lenient on enforcing the 'line must be attached' clause. I have not heard of Sky contacting anyone NOT ON MULTIROOM.

Some installers will even pre-register the card on their phone (as this is not standard Sky practice and most won't openly advertise they do it - but you can ask)

ixtlan

I hear what you are saying, but I do get somewhat bemused at discussions about how Sky is ripping us off.

In a way perhaps they are, but this is the market world we live in. The only way to make a vendor reduce the price of a product is to stop buying it because it's too expensive, or switch to a different vendor.

In this case they obviously want to force people to put multiroom in and hope people keep it after the 12 months. Any company would do the same if they could get away with it.

Unfortunately, in some areas Sky is completely dominant. There's nothing to compare with the ease of Sky+. A few months ago I grilled a Chorus guy about their plans... PVRs... people don't want them... nobody's getting Sky+... HDTV... people don't want it. Very short sighted. :mad:

I'm no fan of evil empire Sky, but what's amusing is that despite the constant criticism most of the complainants will still be subscribers in a few months.

I don't have a solution. It could be that you guys have the right attitude, but I don't think it's worth getting frustrated over. When SkyHD is released they will have an even tighter rein on me.

The only valid way out is for Chorus/NTL to release a HD PVR to compete. How long do you think we will have to wait for that?! Anyone want to try a petition?

Ix

watty

You can use a very good Satellite PVR for ITV / BBC. But not the Sky+ if you have no sub.

For Sky+ you pay twice if you have a sub, and it doesn't work if you haven't.

I may get a living room PVR (I use my PC with 200G disk and Satellite Card AND analog TV cards as PVR with Digiguide), but it won't be a Sky+ The "Reel Box" sounds good and if DTT ever comes, ideal with ability to fit dual DTT tuner as well as dual DVB-s tuners. Does two motorised dishes. Watch on one SATELLITE while recording from another. Sky will never offer that!

tooley

watty wrote:

You can use a very good Satellite PVR for ITV / BBC. But not the Sky+ if you have no sub.

For Sky+ you pay twice if you have a sub, and it doesn't work if you haven't.

I may get a living room PVR (I use my PC with 200G disk and Satellite Card AND analog TV cards as PVR with Digiguide), but it won't be a Sky+ The "Reel Box" sounds good and if DTT ever comes, ideal with ability to fit dual DTT tuner as well as dual DVB-s tuners. Does two motorised dishes. Watch on one SATELLITE while recording from another. Sky will never offer that!

Not sure if this has already been mentioned by have any of ye heard of MythTV? Check out http://www.mythtv.org/modules.php?name=MythFeatures

watty

Yes. It promises nearly as much as MS Media Centre. Neither come close to a real PVR.

Myth TV is a pig to setup compared with ProgDVB.

I see Intel is now flogging the dead horse of a PC as a Media Hub. It always will be a usefull media toolkit for the expert and experienced, but the consumer electronics set it on shelf and plug it in gadgets will always win for most people.

To set up A good Media system on XP or Linux you need to be expert. It also helps to have broadband and lots of enthusism for fiddling with SW and HW.

I used to give training courses on Linux. I've used UNIX since 1985 and Linux since 1997. NT since 1994. (XP is NT5.1, MS version of OS/2 in 1989 is effectively NT 2.0, NT3.1 in 1993 was first MS release called NT).

I've installed & designed Communications and Studio gear from 1976.

I don't mind too much messing with Myth TV on Linux or ProgDVB on Win XP, but I'd never recommend it to the 90% of people that are more normal examples of humans and really just expect PC to work for their Email/Wordprocess or games. Lets not forget that the MAJORITY of people never use PCs at all!

hawthorn

That was lively! OK all points taken. My cheapest option is Box 149, 2 Mix, multiroom, and Sky+ 51.50 per month. But I think theres a 75 installation charge for existing customers!

My other gripe is that Sky dont advertise Sky+ as a standalone product ie "Get Sky+ for just €374". So I feel the ads are misleading.

Anyway heres an alternative: Cancel Sky, keep box and free channels, buy a Pioneer DVD HD recorder (in Kilroys Tullamore for €499, but he said he'd do it a bit cheaper) and pay a guy to set it up and fix my old aeriel (about 60-80) and thats not a bad setup.But no epg or guideplus.....back to square one!

Goodnight!

KC

watty

I've seen analog HDD/DVD recorders under 200 Euro.
Of course for free channels you can get a satellite PVR for about 300 Euro with twin tuners.

pH

If you're thinking of spending €499, then you're into HTPC territory. A friend just setup 2 skyboxes(Freesat cards) fronted by MCE2005, and it looked great. I was sceptical about the quality of recordings, and while the pure digital Sky+ is a little better, a haupage card (he used the dual tuner one) recording of composite was certainly not bad.

The UI and EPG is much better than Sky.

v10

Ok well up to yesterday I was pay €64.50 (? I think) for the full Sky Package (inc Movies & Sports) and I have Sky+ which is free (because of package), so I wanted to get another Sky+ box for another room at a cost of €15 per month, so after reading another post here I got on to sky and asked them to cancel my sub. They offered me a 20% discount for a year which I accepted. Now my package will be €52 pm, so after I get my second Box I'll be paying €67pm for the sub which will cover 2 Sky+ Boxes with Full package on each.

No Idea how much the 2nd Box is going to cost me though ??

hawthorn

pH

I dont understand

"If you're thinking of spending €499, then you're into HTPC territory. A friend just setup 2 skyboxes(Freesat cards) fronted by MCE2005, and it looked great. I was sceptical about the quality of recordings, and while the pure digital Sky+ is a little better, a haupage card (he used the dual tuner one) recording of composite was certainly not bad.

The UI and EPG is much better than Sky."

Do you mind explaining?!

K

watty

He's talking a about a PC based analog in PVR. You could have Satellite cards in it for direct recording of FTA satellite.
It is nice when it is all running but you need an expert to set it up.
right. MS Media Center "out of box" needs a lot of expert tweeks too. MythTV needs even more expertise.

I have 933MHz PC with 20G OS/Program disk and 200G Disk for recording. Two tuner cards, one analog and one satellite. The Satellite recordings are fine and don't stress the PC. The Analog recording needs on-screen preview off and nothing much else running. A 2GHz PC would be better for Analog. For Digital Satellite direct it doesn't matter unless you want to decode MPEG4 or MPEG2 HD video on screen. I have also IR remote that controls everything. Eye can be in another room via CAT5 cable.

The EPG I use is "Digiguide". It *IS* much better than Sky Guide.

But I don't think the PC based "media hub/centre" is the future. Shiny plug-in boxes (on shelf under your TV) at 100 Euro to 200 Euro is the future.

pH

watty wrote:

You could have Satellite cards in it for direct recording of FTA satellite.

I asked about this on another thread but got no answers, does anyone have a PCI DVB-S card working with MCE2005. Which ones (if any)are compatible?

the Analog recording needs on-screen preview off and nothing much else running.

If the TV cards has an onboard MPEG2 encoder (all the PC does is save the MPEG2 stream) then an analog card puts exactly the same processing strain on the PC as a sat card

But I don't think the PC based "media hub/centre" is the future. Shiny plug-in boxes (on shelf under your TV) at 100 Euro to 200 Euro is the future.

2006 - The year of the HTPC

ixtlan

I agree with Watty. Home made solutions are fun, but only for fellow geeks.

I've played a little with MythTv and a little more with http://freevo.sourceforge.net/ just before I got my Sky+. I was trying to work out whether a homebuilt solution was worth it. And while it was fun setting these up, there's just no beating the Sky+. After I upgraded the hard drive on the Sky+ I abandoned the idea of a media PC.

Now I think I'll come back to it for my forthcoming HDTV, but I'm not sure if I'd do much recording on it. Unlike the US where they get over the air HDTV that can be captured as a stream, we in Europe are unlikely to get any worthwhile HDTV without unbreakable encryption. So even the MS media PC is going to be capturing analog SDTV signals, though admittedly such a capture off a downsampled HD signal may be very good.

Am I wrong on that? Could the BBC's FTA HD broadcasts be captured via a satellite card? I guess we won't know for a while until it's in operation.

Ix.

watty

Yes the BBC will be FTA. As are some German channels.

But untill you buy a card with the lateset MPEG4 DVB-s version in HW DSP decode, a 3GHz PC will struggle. It is possible with today's test transmissions with a very good 1.8GHz PC, but the old tests over last 2 years have been MPEG2. Much more CPU needed to SW decode the MPEG4 version that ALL Sky, BBC and European HD, whether 720p50 or 1080i25 modes.

I don't know of any analog video / tv capture solution for PC that can handle more than PAL. Downsampled HD "at home" is likely to be poorer than the broadcasters "downsampling". Initially the HD channels are HD duplicates of existing channels.


Sky will turn off the component HD video later and use HDMI only (which is not recordable by any current analog in video cards).

It would defeat the whole point of HDMI if you could record it. Though no doubt someone will release a gadget eventuallly.

This is why Sky HD will only be in a PVR version.

bunker

anyway in same boat thinking of getting sky+.We have the full package €64.50 a month :mad:,we will probally get multiroom as well so going by what has been said , thats €149 would i have to pay €15 extra per month for having the 2nd box,as i know i wont have to €15 for the actual sky+ because of having the 2 premium channels.said i'd ask here first before ringing sky as knowing them they wont know what im on about.

dave1982

best thing to is cancell your current accont with sky and get some one else to get it who lives with you it cheaper no installation fees which you do have to pay if you are existing customer if your new its 69euro dont av to get 2nd box look out for sky stalls in shops they will tell you best and cheapest way

JohnC.

It's not €69 any longer Dave. That was an offer last month. It's back to €149 now.

ixtlan

Hi Watty,

watty wrote:

I don't know of any analog video / tv capture solution for PC that can handle more than PAL. Downsampled HD "at home" is likely to be poorer than the broadcasters "downsampling". Initially the HD channels are HD duplicates of existing channels.

I was thinking that if the SCART output on the SkyHD box downsamples the HD signal it may be better than DVD quality. It's not the down-sampler that's the problem, it's the low bitrate on the SD channels. So if you were recording to DVD say, in theory the SCART out from the HD channel should be massive bandwidth equivalent. Unless Sky hobble it by downsampling to half-PAL or something.

FuzzyWuzzyWazza

ixtlan wrote:

After I upgraded the hard drive on the Sky+

ixtlan, how did you upgrade the HDD of the sky+ box? is it a simple HDD swap out, and will the new drive show up as full capacity?

I am asking 'cos a friend of mine wants to get the new Sky+ box, purly for the larger HDD.

cheers.

ixtlan

There's a lot of information here... but bear in mind that this is for the V2 box. You might be getting the PVR3? Which has a 160Gb drive with 80 reserved by Sky. Apparently when people put 250 drives in these you get 170Gb or so.

http://forum.digitalspy.co.uk/board/showthread.php?t=156344
http://www.morlocks.co.uk/disc-change-v2.htm

Basically, get a standard IDE drive, up to 250Gb. I've got a 7200 rpm 160Gb Maxtor, but people suggest that a 5400 rpm would be better (less heat). If I was doing it now this one looks good...http://www.komplett.ie/k/ki.asp?sku=308644&cks=PRL

Check whether you need a "security" T10 Torx bit to unscrew the Sky+ case. That's a Torx bit with a hole in the centre.
Unscrew the IDE drive. Very very carefully ease off the IDE cable from both ends. Don't just try to pull the cable off, it may separate from the connector.
Then install the new drive, check the best position for the "thermal pads".
Put everything back.
Perform A "Full System Reset" (Press Services,4,01 Select,8 Housekeeping)
And Wait For Box To Restart (normally < 3mins for a 120Gb drive and < 45mins for a 250Gb drive)
Wait two minutes and press the Sky Key.

watty

ixtlan wrote:

I was thinking that if the SCART output on the SkyHD box downsamples the HD signal it may be better than DVD quality. It's not the down-sampler that's the problem, it's the low bitrate on the SD channels. So if you were recording to DVD say, in theory the SCART out from the HD channel should be massive bandwidth equivalent. Unless Sky hobble it by downsampling to half-PAL or something.

No it won't. Only a few quality channels will be on HD. Those channels are already OK bitrates.

The ONLY viable reason now to have the HD box is to feed an HD TV.

If all the channels were HD or many HD channels with no normal DVB-s version existed, then the downsampled port would be important.

It is mainly useful to drive a video sender in another room or case where someone orders HD and didn't get an HD set yet. It may even be some kind of "legal" backward compliant requirement. Sky are careful. That is why Sky Boxes have a "Other Channels" and also the module slot at back. If they were greedy without carefull the Sky Digibox would have neither of these.

In some cases channels with HD will be transmitting UPSAMPLED regular source as for a long while only a proportion of programs will be HD source. Upsampling and then downsampling slightly degrades the picture.

There will always be excellent old programs not in HD. For some years to come this will be the bulk of television.

For many programs also there is no advantage in HD.

Also the main reason for HD is to support very large screens. At least 48" and maybe larger. There just is no viewing improvement on a 28" or 32" screen at NORMAL viewing distance (not PC using distance).

Because The USA typically has much larger screens (36" common when 21" the norm in Europe) and nearly 30% lower vertical resolution the 480 line pictures look poor. 720 lines is a very noticable improvement. On a 32" TV going from 576 lines to 720 is not very noticable.

I'd want a projector with 28" to 60". A 2.5:1 zoom lens or 3:1. I'd look for 1152 lines minimum (4:3 PAL 576 lines exactly doubled), using only 1080 native lines or 720 native lines, so zoom lens would adjust picture size and no resampling on HD and simple doubling on SD. A 4:3 ratio 2048 x 1536 square pixel projector would be nice as this will do all HD and SD modes at 1:1 (4:3 or WS) or integer rescaling and also most PC resolutions

TRUE Home cinema instead of feeble 720 line only socalled HD Ready.
These are QXGA 2048 x 1536 true square pixel 4:3 images.

They will show 1080i, 720p, most PC modes and regular 576 line PAL all without loss of detain or artifacts.

NO 720 line so called "HD Ready" Plasma can show HD 1080 or PAL or NTSC withouot artifacts and loss of detail. Almost all the "HD ready" TV s in high street shops are only 720 line.


http://pro.jvc.com/prof/Attributes/press_res.jsp?model_id=MDL101275&feature_id=08

http://www.projectorcentral.com/news_story_237.htm

Note than many projectors are only 720 line and quite a few cheaper ones are not even 720 line. It is Presentation and Conference room models rather than "home theater" models that do true HD.

This is a usefull list of 4:3 and 16:9 resolutions:
http://projectorusa.com/resolution/

UWXGA is next resolution below QXGA

JVC DLA-HD2KU $12,595.00
Portable D-ILA (LCOS) Home Theater Projector
Brightness: 1000 lumens
Resolution: UWXGA - 1920 x 1080 (16:9 Aspect Ratio)
Weight: 13.700 lbs.

ixtlan

watty wrote:

No it won't. Only a few quality channels will be on HD. Those channels are already OK bitrates.

I do understand this, but those channels-to-be do NOT have good bitrates. Sky One in particular has dreadful compression atefacts especially noticable when scenes fade in and out.

watty wrote:

The ONLY viable reason now to have the HD box is to feed an HD TV.

I mostly agree, and the main reason to have a HDTV is to watch SkyHD. However for those who get annoyed over low-bitrate Sky One, there is another benefit, which is that recordings onto DVD may be much higher quality. Yes, I understand only for the HD channels, but mostly I'm watching the US imported shows on Sky1 anyhow.

I was just pondering whether the downsampled HD channels via a SCART would at least allow a superb SD recording, since real HD recording (outside the SkyHD box) may not be possible.

watty wrote:

Also the main reason for HD is to support very large screens. At least 48" and maybe larger. There just is no viewing improvement on a 28" or 32" screen at NORMAL viewing distance (not PC using distance).

Because The USA typically has much larger screens (36" common when 21" the norm in Europe) and nearly 30% lower vertical resolution the 480 line pictures look poor. 720 lines is a very noticable improvement. On a 32" TV going from 576 lines to 720 is not very noticable.

Watty, I have disagreed with you before on this! and will again. You can find many discussions about this on the web. Some research has apparently indicated that 1080p may not be that noticeably different to 720p. I'm doubtful about that, but I have seen several screens showing PC based HDTV and some HD-DVD demos, and even on a 32" TV there is a very very noticable improvement over PAL(even from 9ft).

The things that are pointed out are that PAL is 576 interlaced lines versus 720 progressive lines, and that the width is 1280 versus 768... I can't remember the exact numbers but it's at least double the information.

I mean on my 32" CRT, I can see the difference between a Skymovies channel and a DVD, so I know I will be able to see the difference between a DVD and HD!

It's a valid criticism to say that HD isn't worth the money, or that it isn't needed but I can't accept that it won't be a noticeable improvement! For 28" maybe... but for 32" (2 inches bigger than a 32" CRT) definitely, and for 37" compulsory!

Ix

watty

Almost all demos of 1080i are using 720 line screens. So it will NOT look better!

The downsampled SCART will be they only way to record from the HDTV box. But not a good reason to get one.

Yes I can see the difference between DVD and Sky/ITV on my 28" screen. But what you say about HD on 32" screen compared with a GOOD DVD at 9ft does NOT follow. Nobody has eyes that sharp. Or least not the majority of Humans.

Anyway if you have the money to spend on the bleeding edge it is Much much less harmful than binge drinking or chain smoking. Enjoy the gear, but don't try and convince a Broadcast Engineer that the Consumer Electronics Marketing guys can change the laws of physics.

The following is probabily an urban myth, I don't believe it without some solid figures but I was told at weekend that EVEN in the USA, if you exclude sport (almost all 720p60), the majority of HD transmissions are 1080i30. Even though the majority of gear is resampling to 720 or lower resolution displays for viewing. I'm sceptical!


Yes for 37" HD is worthwhile in an average to smaller room. Most 48" at normal viewing look very blurry with regular DVD, never mind satellite.

I think Sky Movies is significantly lower bitrate than Sky1 or BBC. ITV2 & ITV3 seem to be usually 544 x 576, but since they are often showing older 4:3 material, the effective optical resolution is similar to 720 x 576 WS.

The information or bandwidth is the SQUARE of ratio of resolution. Not so relevent.

progressive vs interlace makes no difference to static resolution. The temporal resolution is increased vertically only by x2.
For 30 fps or 60Hz, then Progressive is better than Interlace in that it removes the 3:23 pull down artifacts from Film transfer WHICH DO NOT EXIST on PAL 25fps i or 50.

NTSC to PAL 1.2 times resolution
PAL to 720p OR 720i HD is 1.25 times resolution
NTSC to 720p OR 720i HD is 1.5 times
PAL to 1080i or 1080p is 1.875 times resolution

Thus for SAME optical resolution, if you can "just" not see the detail (moving slightly closer you do)
A 26" NTSC = 31.2" PAL
A 28" PAL = 35" 720 HD (i.e. on 32" it will be slightly better if you were too close on PAL).
A 28" PAL = 52.5" 1080 HD
A 32" PAL = 60" 1080HD or 40" 720HD

Conclusion. Unless you are testing viewing on at least a 60" set or standing too close to a 48" set that has 1080 native lines and displays 1:1 pixel on HD and resamples PAL, AND have a SAME SIZE TV with NATIVE 720 lines you won't realise how big a step PAL to 1080 is and that 720p to PAL is what PAL is to NTSC.

Ye canna change the laws of Physics Capt'n!

bk

ixtlan wrote:

I've played a little with MythTv and a little more with http://freevo.sourceforge.net/ just before I got my Sky+. I was trying to work out whether a homebuilt solution was worth it. And while it was fun setting these up, there's just no beating the Sky+. After I upgraded the hard drive on the Sky+ I abandoned the idea of a media PC.

I wouldn't quite say that, while I agree they are difficult to set up, a properly setup personal PVR can be far better then Sky+.

Personally I have a TiVo and it is far better then Sky+, also my housemates, 5 tuner MytvTV monster box just rules.

Interestingly it looks like the introduction CableCard in the US could give a massive boost to the Buy Your Own PVR market with TiVO* and Intel positioning themselves to dominate the market.

Here in Ireland I expect the BBC/ITV freesat consortium to really shake things up when they come out with their own EPG. Then we can buy whatever FTA PVR we like, come on, hurry up

alastair

ixtlan wrote:

Basically, get a standard IDE drive, up to 250Gb. I've got a 7200 rpm 160Gb Maxtor, but people suggest that a 5400 rpm would be better (less heat). If I was doing it now this one looks good...http://www.komplett.ie/k/ki.asp?sku=308644&cks=PRL

I ordered one of these yesterday, to hopefully cure my ongoing screwed-up recordings problem. Box/HD is noisy and frequently fails on supposedly successfully recorded programmes. It's at it's worst when the disk capacity is fairly full.

ixtlan

watty wrote:

The downsampled SCART will be they only way to record from the HDTV box. But not a good reason to get one.

Yes I can see the difference between DVD and Sky/ITV on my 28" screen. But what you say about HD on 32" screen compared with a GOOD DVD at 9ft does NOT follow. Nobody has eyes that sharp. Or least not the majority of Humans.
!

Hi Watty,

Thanks for the very informative post. I don't have the expertise to argue authoritively on this! You have sown some seeds of doubt, but even so... I guess we could agree that HD channels, will meet or exceed picture quality from a DVD? So one way of looking at it would be... would you pay a HD premium to get a DVD level of quality? Personally I might... depends on the cost of everything... Of course you could get annoyed that a DVD quality level could be broadcast today with a high enough bitrate, but we know that's not going to happen.

Of course following from that logic... I would gain benefit from a HD box connected to a regular TV, but only benefit from a HD tv if I had say a 37 incher. One question I've been asking myself was what size TV to get. Originally I thought 37-40 with 1080 resolution. However it looks like they will be still at a premium for many months to come, so I started thinking 32-37 with 768 resolution.

As you say there are worse things to waste money on.:) I probably won't jump right in until there's a good bit of feedback, but this time next year, I will have or will be just about to have HDTV.

Ix.

watty

Next year it will be a much easier decision with maybe 2048 x 1580 sets at half the price of todays poor quality tonal range LCD/Plasma at only 720 lines or LESS.

Organic LED uses real red, green and blue light like CRT phosphors. LCD use optical filters so over 2/3rd of the backlight is lost and colour accuracy is not as good. In bright sunlight it might even fade.

Honestly I don't know how they moved from neon gas orange to colour on Plasma, no doubt some variation of gases and maybe dyes and phosphors like coloured neon signs. I do know they get dimmer to half brightness every xThousand hours.

Organic LED may last 100,000s hours to million hrs, I don't know. But much, much brighter for same power, higher contrast and more accurate colour with better pastel shades. Also better murky dark grey colours too.

I have no idea when they are due to hit shops though.

For projectors the Texas DLP (micro mirror) is the 100% choice for cinema which is going totally digital with GPS in the decyrption of the ultra HD receivers and a dedicated fleet of Boeing Satllites. If the receiver is moved it deosn't decode. It will mean all cinemas can get release at same time without millions in film print costs. Reduced DVD piracy and quicker world wide simultanous DVD releases.

dubmick

I'm just after ordering Sky+ for €129 (it was €149 and the bloke on the phone gave me a discount). It is a first time install and I didn't get multiroom.

JohnC.

I'm getting Multiroom installed tomorrow, with 2 Sky+ boxes. The guy on the phone said he was able to drop the €15 Sky+ monthly subscription. Great, if it is true. I'm waiting for a bill to find out for sure

dubmick

How much did you get charged for the two Sky+ boxes ? (if you don't mind me asking;))

JohnC.

€149 each.

JBoyle4eva

As an exsisting customer, I got Sky+ and multiroom for €199(plus 50 for extra phone line to be installed, but I wasn't bothered by this) and I pay €15 for extra box per month, which i think is not fair. However, when my sky+ box broke down in Sep last year, they were very wuick about replacing it for free.

I've had very little problems with Sky.

hawthorn

I must try them again and see if theres any leeway or offer! Will let you know.

K