|
||||||||
sky+ to freesat+ |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#26 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Nottinghamshire
Posts: 1,233
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#27 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,779
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,324
|
Quote:
Not 'enthusiasts', they (we!) wouldn't want to drop from RGB to the lowest quality possible - RF - but the 'general public' do want it, and it's the 'general public' Freesat is aimed at.
Just because you don't want it, doesn't mean it's not in great demand - RF outputs, particularly on a satellite box complete with 'magic eye' is an incredibly popular and desirable feature. 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. Your contention that it is 'limiting' Freesat or losing them sales is what is so absurd. Of course, if you actually had any Freesat PVR's to sell it might improve your credibility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,805
|
Quote:
This is where we differ.
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). |
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,324
|
Quote:
I think going by the replies it seems it is something people want.
Anyway, as I said, it's the idea that leaving out something that is easily added by those who want it does not make Freesat 'limited'. Freesat/Humax are the people who have the facilities to do market research and obviously decided that the demand did not warrant the cost increase that eeryone would have to bear if the RF Mod were added to the box. Quote:
Why then are house builders building them with sky feeds to 3 rooms now if it's not what people want?
Do you mean a DSat feed to three rooms?Seems a bit pointless to me as people will only start complaining that they need dual feeds to each room to operate PVR's.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,779
|
Quote:
If the 'general public' want it, they can add it as an external modification so that the money people pay for the box is spent on features that everyone wants.
Quote:
Your contention that it is 'limiting' Freesat or losing them sales is what is so absurd. It's limiting sales considerably, and with the main target audience. Quote:
Of course, if you actually had any Freesat PVR's to sell it might improve your credibility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,779
|
Quote:
Freesat/Humax are the people who have the facilities to do market research and obviously decided that the demand did not warrant the cost increase that eeryone would have to bear if the RF Mod were added to the box.
I would suspect it's not part of the Freesat box specification, so it wasn't added - ruins a good product though. |
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,513
|
Quote:
I find the suggestion that Freesat are losing viewers because of this quite ludicrous, TBH.
I am a potential freesat HD customer and I might go for it when my sky+ contract ends. I couldn't care less if freesat HD PVR offers RF or not, as my and probably many others main aim is to watch and record HD & SD channels for free of charge. I just can't see how RF modulator can be a deal breaker when we talk about watching and recording HD channels. Who would want to watch their HD programmes through RF connection? |
|
|
|
|
|
#34 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Northern Scottish Highlands
Posts: 11,307
|
Quote:
What's absurd about it - loads of customers come in, want to buy Freesat (i.e. don't want to pay Sky) - but then find out they can't watch it and change channels all round the house like a Sky box.
It's limiting sales considerably, and with the main target audience.( I'm with Nigel on this one. When freesat was anounced, it promised a lot. But to me, it failed to deliver. What I had hoped for is a wide choice of different receivers with different features and different price tags. Some with RF modulators and tv link capabilities and some without. I also hoped for substantially different user interfaces between boxes giving the user choice. The reality so far is poor specced boxes, lacking these nice features sky box users take for granted. It has just served to show just how good the humble sky box really is. If sky would only pull their finger out and allow sky+ recording features for free to non subscribers then freesat would be dead as far as I am concerned. |
|
|
|
|
|
#35 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,779
|
Quote:
If sky would only pull their finger out and allow sky+ recording features for free to non subscribers then freesat would be dead as far as I am concerned.
In the event, Freesat was late, and late, and late - eventually launched with a faint whisper, and the promised PVR's were nowhere in sight. When the PVR's did actually appear they were expensive (because they were HD only), and only available in very small numbers, through a small number of favoured outlets (coincidently, the ones who already had a poor record selling Freesat). Then the PVR (like the standard boxes) were missing popular features that the public are used to, and expect - particularly in such a top-end product. As it stands so far, I can't see as Sky have any incentive to drop the Sky+ subscription - which I think is a real shame. As such the 'best' option is probably for better featured, lower priced, Freesat PVR's - hopefully with some of the other manufacturers releasing them, we might see that?. |
|
|
|
|
|
#36 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 69
|
Quote:
I'm with Nigel on this one.
The reality so far is poor specced boxes, lacking these nice features sky box users take for granted. It has just served to show just how good the humble sky box really is. The Humax may lack the RF mod output, but it has a whole set of features that my Sky+ box is lacking. |
|
|
|
|
|
#37 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Nottinghamshire
Posts: 1,233
|
Quote:
BluRay via RF - got to be good
|
|
|
|
|
|
#38 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: In Gods Own County
Posts: 20,678
|
Quote:
BluRay via RF - got to be good
|
|
|
|
|
#39 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 4,391
|
Quote:
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.
There must be other reasons to drop it from a £300 PVR where it might be of benefit (and the competition already includes it). Oversight? Patent issue? Official Freesat specs? I have no idea. It's unlikely to be cost though. Cheers, David. |
|
|
|
|
|
#40 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,513
|
Quote:
Then the PVR (like the standard boxes) were missing popular features that the public are used to, and expect - particularly in such a top-end product.
I have a freeview PVR that wipes the floor with Sky+ when comparing the PVR functions & the recording capacity. I don't have Sky HD PVR to compare with Freesat PVR but one can easily see from the specs that Foxsot HD PVR offers better PVR functions than Sky HD. Quote:
As it stands so far, I can't see as Sky have any incentive to drop the Sky+ subscription - which I think is a real shame.
What the market needs is more & cheaper Freesat PVRs and these things take time but I have no doubt that sky will have to drop sky+ subscription. |
|
|
|
|
|
#41 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Southampton
Posts: 41
|
Well, at the risk of adding nothing to this debate, it is my hope that once the networking has been enabled, it may be possible to stream round the house that way, which I'm sure will not suit everyone, but some for sure.
Where cost is no issue, most things are possible, but I can understand Humax a) Dropping additions which would have increased costs & b) sticking to the Freesat spec. Project canvas will inevitably change things significantly for future PVR releases, and even the implementation of iplayer if/when it happens may be a short lived benefit. Ultimately, we pay the price for jumping on at the start of these sort of initiatives. In 5 years, the spec will have settled down and we'll all know where we stand, though most of the members of this forum will be discussing the new "latest thing" in AV, and probably bemoaning the lack of some feature or another. It's who we are. We want it all & we want it NOW!! ![]() Keep smiling. Who knows, one day we might just get it lol ![]() Kind regards Nick |
|
|
|
|
|
#42 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,324
|
Quote:
The cost of adding an RF modulator to a STB is less than £1. It's still sufficient cost to drop them from low end Freeview boxes, and any box where it's felt to be of no benefit.
It's quite common for people to proclaim that adding certain features to an item would have a negligable effect on cost but less than £1 seems a little optimistic. Obviously the cost of adding the components would be a great deal less than the cost of buying them as stand-alone parts, so I'd agree with you in part. |
|
|
|
|
|
#43 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Northern Scottish Highlands
Posts: 11,307
|
Quote:
The Foxsat-hdr does not have a RF Modulator
The Foxsat-hdr will never have a RF Modulator If you want a RF modulator you can add an external one. If you want to add a remote control from the 2nd TV position you can do that as well Some think it should have one others disagree Quote:
Are you saying Sky's PVRs are better than Freesat and/or freeview PVrs?
The dilemma the consumer faces is good hardware (sky box) but crippled by sky's limited software and in particular the charge for recording if you don't subscribe, or arguably better and open software (freesat PVR) with free recording, but poorer hardware. |
|
|
|
|
|
#44 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,324
|
Quote:
I believe the hardware of a sky HD PVR is miles ahead of the hardware of a freesat HD PVR.
What other factors inform your opinion that the Sky hardware is superior to the Humax? |
|
|
|
|
|
#45 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Northern Scottish Highlands
Posts: 11,307
|
Quote:
I would disagree with that assesment on the grounds of power consumption alone.
What other factors inform your opinion that the Sky hardware is superior to the Humax? |
|
|
|
|
|
#46 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,324
|
Quote:
The connectivity and functionality (rf modulator and built in tv link etc)
For those who don't need this feature it's a complete non-issue. For those who do it's quite simple to add. |
|
|
|
|
|
#47 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Nottinghamshire
Posts: 1,233
|
Quote:
My complaint with adding a seperate modulator and seperate remote control link is all the unecessary clutter that generates. I prefer a one box solution where possible.
I believe the hardware of a sky HD PVR is miles ahead of the hardware of a freesat HD PVR. The dilemma the consumer faces is good hardware (sky box) but crippled by sky's limited software and in particular the charge for recording if you don't subscribe, or arguably better and open software (freesat PVR) with free recording, but poorer hardware. As for poor quality hardware, I agree but the other way. The Sky HD box I have is useless, it has crashed more times times in a week than the Humax has since I bought it. Not to mention the capacitor/power supply problem associated with the Thomson boxes, the recall of the Pace boxes etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
#48 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: In Gods Own County
Posts: 20,678
|
Quote:
The humax is a one box solution, designed to record and playback both SD and HD content to a TV it is connected to. ............
So I guess you cannot please all the people all the time And 1 box is not better than the other if you want different things from them |
|
|
|
|
#49 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 849
|
The question was posed by myself as i see (in my own individual and personal opinion) that the Humax PVR box is seriously limited if it doesn't have an RF out akin to sky's RF2.
I am very tech savy, but I dont want to have to clutter the house with more add-ons to perform a simple task of being able to watch recordings on other TVs. For me (in my own individual and personal opinion) I see the lack of this feature a deal breaker for going from Sky to Freesat and I know it also is for my family. Personally I want to have hdmi from my skyhd box to a tv upstairs, but the hassel of a hdmi splitter or ballums is far too messey so i stick to RF and have decided not to replace my CRT and non-hd LCD with 2 new HD lcd. It's taken me an age to get all the cables from the plasma, amp, ps3, speakers, sub, ipod doc etc all nice and tidy so the last thing i want is to have other gadgets. A very poor decision by Humax not to provide this. |
|
|
|
|
|
#50 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,324
|
Quote:
The question was posed by myself as i see (in my own individual and personal opinion) that the Humax PVR box is seriously limited if it doesn't have an RF out akin to sky's RF2.
For those of us who just wanted a Freesat HD PVR to drive one TV it's fine. It's also seriously limited by not having three tuners, not having a bigger disk and not being able to run on AA batteries. If these are killer features for you. But let's be realistic for a moment. It's far less limited than a box on which you cannot record or playback without paying £10 a month to some grasping Austrailian for the privilege of using your own property.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 16:18.






