|
||||||||
sky+ to freesat+ |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 849
|
sky+ to freesat+
Hi, some of m family are thinking of moving to freesat+ from sky+, but I have a question:
The sky+ has RF2 output to be able to view the same channel in another room (and also the rf2 has power to control a magic eye for the remote). On the humax, there are not RF outputs, so is the only way to output the signal to multiple tvs in the house to use a video sender? What's the easiest and least messey way to achieve the same functionality as the RF2 on the sky+ box? Cheers. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Redditch Worcs
Posts: 17,288
|
Quote:
Hi, some of m family are thinking of moving to freesat+ from sky+, but I have a question:
The sky+ has RF2 output to be able to view the same channel in another room (and also the rf2 has power to control a magic eye for the remote). On the humax, there are not RF outputs, so is the only way to output the signal to multiple tvs in the house to use a video sender? What's the easiest and least messey way to achieve the same functionality as the RF2 on the sky+ box? Cheers. http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/UHF-Modulator-...1%7C240%3A1318 http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/POWERMID-INFRA...1%7C240%3A1318 Or use one of the new 5.8Ghz video senders http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/NIKKAI-5-8GHz-...1%7C240%3A1318 |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,779
|
Really the Freesat PVR is very poorly specified, as is the entire Freesat range, Sky eleven years ago did it so much better.
As suggested, you need to buy extra bits and bodge them on, it's a very poor situation, and limits Freesat greatly. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Nottinghamshire
Posts: 1,233
|
Quote:
Really the Freesat PVR is very poorly specified, as is the entire Freesat range, Sky eleven years ago did it so much better.
As suggested, you need to buy extra bits and bodge them on, it's a very poor situation, and limits Freesat greatly. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,847
|
Quote:
Because the humax is a digital unit it has no need for analogue rf outputs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,779
|
Quote:
Wrong. Sky built a box 11 years ago whilst TV's were mainly built with analogue tuners. Because the humax is a digital unit it has no need for analogue rf outputs.
Not having it makes the Freesat boxes far too limited. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,494
|
I have to agree with Tern. The vast majority would rather buy a 2nd box than use an RF sender with its limitations.
By the time you spent money on a good RF sender you've nearly bought a 2nd receiver. The good ones cost around £60 and you can buy a factory returned Foxsat HD box grade A (checked and refurbished) with full 1 year Humax warranty for around £90, ideal for a 2nd box. £60 in itself buys an SD box brand new. |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hawkwell, Essex
Posts: 2,186
|
Quote:
I have to agree with Tern. The vast majority would rather buy a 2nd box than use an RF sender with its limitations..........
Rgds. Les. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,324
|
Quote:
Have I missed something? I can't see a post from Tern in this thread. Did something get deleted for some reason?
Rgds. Les. I presume it's a reaction to the advertising D-Spy get from Sky but they seem very touchy about anyone complaining about the sky-crowd posting irrelevant and inaccurate information about Freesat. I just pointed out that RF-out is a very 'last century' technology and any assertion that Freesat is 'limited' by not having it is nonsense. And that it would be ridiculous for Humax to include that option for the very few people who want it when the vast majority don't. Expect to see this post removed and 'banned' appear under my name, but I can't say I really care. If this site is going to massage debates to remove content that is critical of Sky and its supporters I'm not that bothered to keep posting here. |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,779
|
Quote:
I just pointed out that RF-out is a very 'last century' technology and any assertion that Freesat is 'limited' by not having it is nonsense. And that it would be ridiculous for Humax to include that option for the very few people who want it when the vast majority don't.
We lose a LOT of Freesat sales because of no RF output and 'magic eye', it's a very popular feature, as is the satellite remote working the TV - another large failing of Freesat. These are really pretty minor points, but it's costing Freesat a lot of users - they are features that customers want, and that customers expect - not providing such basic features is stepping back towards the century before the last one, not pushing forward in the 21st century. |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 69
|
Is one solution to the problem to use the HDMI output and split it?
I would like to feed 2 TVs with the one HD Humax signal. The distance isn't great <5m, but the TV I want to feed in my conservatory is the other side of an outside wall. Are there splitters out there that will feed two TV's from one source simultaneously? Also how could I get a signal through the wall. I'm assuming you can't thread HDMI cable/connector quite so easily as co-ax. |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,324
|
Quote:
Unfortunately the 'last century' isn't very long ago, and RF feeds to bedrooms with 'magic eyes' are EXTREMELY commonplace and popular. In fact it's so popular that the entire aerial amplifier industry have redesigned their product ranges to accomodate it.
Quote:
We lose a LOT of Freesat sales because of no RF output and 'magic eye', it's a very popular feature, as is the satellite remote working the TV - another large failing of Freesat.
It was not that many days ago you were complaining that you could not get Humax PVR's. I would think that would be a rather more salient feature in you lack of Freesat PVR sales. ![]() The boxes are so cheap it's unclear why anyone would want to use a bodge such as an RF sender. Quote:
These are really pretty minor points,
Yes, very minor.Quote:
but it's costing Freesat a lot of users - they are features that customers want, and that customers expect -
Well, that is your opinion.Quite honestly I believe it's far from correct. If your customers are being advised to mess about transmitting RF when you can buy a complete box so cheaply I'm not surprised that you are losing them. If I went into a shop and got such ridiculous advice I'd be out of there in double quick time. Quote:
not providing such basic features is stepping back towards the century before the last one, not pushing forward in the 21st century.
R-i-g-h-t. So, in an age of HD TV and boxes that cost less than 1/3 of an average weekly wage not providing an archaic technology bodge is going back to a time many years before radio and TV transmissions to the public even started? |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Redditch Worcs
Posts: 17,288
|
Quote:
The boxes are so cheap it's unclear why anyone would want to use a bodge such as an RF sender.
: |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,324
|
Quote:
May be because they want to watch recordings on the foxsat remotely. That's certainly why I have an external modulator on my hdr
Did you find needing to add an external modulator an imposition? Would you prefer it to be in the box (this making it more expensive for everyone) or do you think an add on is the best way of doing things? I find the suggestion that Freesat are losing viewers because of this quite ludicrous, TBH. |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Amsterdam.
Posts: 255
|
I agree with Nigel the freesat+ box has too many restrictions, I want to watch a program I have recorded on my TV in the bedroom without having to buy extra gizmo's, also the High Def is not an issue with only one and a half channels available, so yes a RF would be a great help.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,324
|
Quote:
I agree with Nigel the freesat+ box has too many restrictions, I want to watch a program I have recorded on my TV in the bedroom without having to buy extra gizmo's, also the High Def is not an issue with only one and a half channels available, so yes a RF would be a great help.
It's all very well picking something you'd like and then announcing that the box is too restricted but, unless you have evidence that that really is something a great many people want it's a purely selfish outlook. I'd like three tuners. Others might like a method of driving two screens independently, and the number of features people would like involving the LAN connexion are legion. Humax provided a PVR to drive a TV via Scart or HDMI and the way these things are selling would seem to indicate that they got the feature set pretty well right. |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Amsterdam.
Posts: 255
|
Quote:
Yes, but to how many people?
It's all very well picking something you'd like and then announcing that the box is too restricted but, unless you have evidence that that really is something a great many people want it's a purely selfish outlook. I'd like three tuners. Others might like a method of driving two screens independently, and the number of features people would like involving the LAN connexion are legion. Humax provided a PVR to drive a TV via Scart or HDMI and the way these things are selling would seem to indicate that they got the feature set pretty well right. |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,324
|
Quote:
Pardon me for having an opinion that differs from yours, I will stop watching satellite TV in the bedroom so as not to be Selfish!
It does what it was designed to do and what the majority of people seem to want. I'm sure most people could find something extra they'd like but it is absurd to expect everyone to pay for extras that are not part of the core functionality and would increase the price and go unused by most people. |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Amsterdam.
Posts: 255
|
The lack of RF on DVD HDD recorders has been a complaint on different forums for ages, there are a lot of things that could be improved upon but a simple way of watching recordings in another room is a must, I thought freesat would release us from the constraints of Sky but sadly it has spurned this opportunity!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,324
|
Quote:
The lack of RF on DVD HDD recorders has been a complaint on different forums for ages, there are a lot of things that could be improved upon but a simple way of watching recordings in another room is a must, I thought freesat would release us from the constraints of Sky but sadly it has spurned this opportunity!
I wouldn't have thought it would be that popular because of the quality drop when using RF - particularly compared to RGB. |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hawkwell, Essex
Posts: 2,186
|
Quote:
Is it just 'enthusiasts' or is it something the 'general public' want? (Genuine question - I've no idea.)
I wouldn't have thought it would be that popular because of the quality drop when using RF - particularly compared to RGB. My wife is just happy to have a picture to watch on her 17" when doing the ironing or making the dinner. Quality, here, when she is watching her recordings of This Morning & Loose Women, isn't such an issue. So, I got her some Video Senders - happy wife (= happy me ![]() ![]() )It is an interesting question as to how many people of the "general public" value this facility. I can only speak for myself, and it didn't put me off buying the box. Rgds. Les. |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,779
|
Quote:
Is it just 'enthusiasts' or is it something the 'general public' want? (Genuine question - I've no idea.)
Quote:
I wouldn't have thought it would be that popular because of the quality drop when using RF - particularly compared to RGB. Large numbers of people now even have aerial distribution systems powered from Sky boxes, saving the cost of the mains power supply for the aerial system. Most of the general public don't care about the quality drop from RGB to RF. |
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,805
|
All my freeview PVR's have RF and as Savvy said, I need it to watch Loose women etc in the kitchen while ironing, making dinner etc
. I'm happy to have a good picture......quality on a small screen TV isn't required. Selfishness doesn't come into it, it's a must for women as we don't have the luxury of not being stuck in the kitchen for hours, like you guys The lack of RF meant I had to buy a modulator which was another 20 quid....not a lot of money granted, but a box at 300 quid, should have an RF built in. |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Nottinghamshire
Posts: 1,233
|
Does anyone know if the new Panasonic PVR has an RF modulator for £1000. If not it's capabilities are seriously limited at that price.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,324
|
Quote:
The lack of RF meant I had to buy a modulator which was another 20 quid....not a lot of money granted, but a box at 300 quid, should have an RF built in.
I can't see that adding £20 worth of components would be a good idea unless it was pretty certain that a good majority of people wanted it. It is perfectly easy to just add it as an extra. In the same way that there would be no point in adding a third tuner - something I think would be a good feature - unless a majority wanted it. My real objection was to the idea that the lack of this particular feature means Freesat is 'limited' (when adding it as an external option works perfectly well). |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 10:52.



(= happy me 