Originally Posted by
antenna1:
“Of course they can better quality components and so on have you seen how poor the video quality is of the havard HD freesat boxes to a humax foxsat-hd the humax is better but the technisat freesat box is even better,
So you are telling me you think every satellite receiver outputs the same audio and video quality i do not think so
the same would go with bluray or dvd a £15 dvd player would not be as good as a £400 player same goes for blu-ray a £80 player would not be as good as i £600 player,
I do not care about hard to believe the sagem is better but to me it is i just switched between bbc1 london on humax and sagem as you can see how much more detail there is via the sagem both the humax foxsat-HD and HDR and known for the poor SD quality video just search this forum even humax has said and knows about the poor sd video for there receivers,”
You believe what you want mate. The MPEG decoding is a mathematical operation - the results are correct (within rounding tolerances) or not. The output is digital - the numbers get fed to your TV.
There's lots of stuff that can and does go wrong - so bad boxes can easily look worse.
There are also subtle "improvements" you can make through clever filtering (though that won't give you what was broadcast - just a "nicer" version of it with some of the faults hidden).
But doing it "right" doesn't require higher cost hardware. The cheapest bug-free chips can do it perfectly. The mistakes are mostly in software - cheaper brands sometimes don't test and fix the problems - more expensive brands sometimes do. Note the important word though: sometimes.
Your idea that "component quality matters" is an
analogue view of a digital world, and kind of irrelevant. It's software "quality" that matters now - and you don't necessarily get what you pay for.
Cheers,
David.
”
)
