A lot of different points in this thread:

Ultra thin TV's:
"Thin" is relative on flat sets. None of them are particularlly thick and you're rarely aware of the thickness even if it's mounted on the wall. Nice marketing but little practical benefit.

The recommendation I've had from someone in the know (who's job relates to picture quality) is that Panasonic plasma's are still the set to beat.

Built in box or external tuner
You're going to get at least a freeview tuner. Waiting a month or two for Panasonic's freeview hd sets is an option but my preference is always for an external box - tuner/pvr/iptv tech moves quicker than screen tech. Screen maybe has 10 year life whereas delivery of TV will change quite a lot in the next 10 years. Freeview vs Freesat? unlikely to be much difference in Picture quality since BBC HD has had the bit rate reduced.

Think multi tuner PVR with IPTV and web features. Single remote control that operates your tv power and volume and the box.


Tivo:
I loved my Tivo for many years and replaced it with a Foxsat HDR. Sure it's not such a pleasure to use but it has a lot of big benefits. Namely:

Picture Quality/Features
HD *is* worth it. A lot of the best BBC programmes are already HD. Upscaled SD from the Foxsat looks way way better than Tivo (even if you've hacked it for Mode 0 quality). You can drop in a TB disc easily and not worry about storage space.

Humax Series links are reliable and you don't miss the start/end of any programmes (an eternal bugbear with Tivo). Record 2 channels at once, watch a third or a recording - again way better than Tivo.

Sure the EPG isn't great but I tend to use it once a week to set one or two programmes/series so it's not a major pain.

Power consumption:
Sky Box = someone's said 17W standby = £24.75 p.a.
Tivo = from memory was at least 30w maybe more from memory and runs constantly. Your running costs for that combo are probably £60 p.a.
Humax is negligible when not in use.


Internet on TV
Canvas is coming. I'd not buy a TV with integrated web features now - get a set top box when they get good. Best for full web on TV at the moment is probably a PS3 or Wii due to the controllers. You'd not want to use either for any length of time though.

Good idea to go freesat route as you can get Free HD for only one cost of £67! and no monthly sub.

Can't get any better than that

I'm forever hearing about how wonderful the Tivo was/is.

What was it about it that made it so wonderful?

If Humax would fix a couple of the really stupid things in their UI the Foxsat would be as near perfect as makes no odds from my POV.


That is really a matter of opinion. (And a functuion of TV size and distance of viewer from the set.)

To me it seems that BBC/ITV HD looks good because they choose the most carfully produced programmes. I often see SD programmes that make me check the channel because their quality is so good.

On the other hand, some people really do seem to see a difference.


If only the Channels would get the signaling right.

C4 and its siblings are particularly bad for this.

No, it's not a joke. Buying a timer just to cut power to a Humax HDR sounds silly based on the figures quoted. It'd take nearly a decade to repay based on that.

But plugging a Humax HDR into an existing four-gang that already connects to a timer is perfectly sensible although you don't gain much from it I agree. Tbh saving money isn't the overriding factor (I wouldn't subscribe to Sky HD if it was ). I just have a 'thing' about waste in general. I always have way back before the current global warming fad. It's served me well in my career as a software developer and I probably also like the feeling of control. I can say that my house is shutdown when it isn't being used

But as for buying a FreeSat PVR it depends on various factors. It would be replacing a not quite reliable over two year-old 9200. Getting iPlayer would be major but that could be pre-empted if the PS3 could finally play the 'HD' streams. I've downloaded a few episodes of Defying Gravity and converted them separately. It's a bit of a pain but the resulting quality on my 37" TV was nearly as good as genuine HD. I was astonished. It was not only 'better than broadcast SD' but tbh unless it was something like a nature programme I probably wouldn't have noticed that it wasn't broadcast HD. It's way better than when using my laptop connected to the TV so I guess that's the PS3 hardware doing a damn good job.

Gotta take my hat off to the BBC for that. DG might not be particularly demanding of course but still - very impressive and having access to that without the rigmarole of transcoding would be very sweet.

Using a timer to switch of a hdr makes no sense at all. The timer itself will have a comparable power consumption so from an energy saving point of view it could even be counterproductive

It might be counterproductive for a Foxsat but if you have a Sky PVR/room heater it would make a certain amount of sense.

The only worry would be that you'd have the box turned off when a scheduled recording was due to start or in progress.

Same here.

When I was at school, many years before global warming was even thought of it, really annoyed me that in winter many doors were wedged open during breaks/lunch and there was a resultant outpouring of expensively heated air.

Of course, I later realised it probably helped to stop us all suffocating.

Not by a country mile. The timers I have are digital and they consume fractions of a watt. I forget how much it was when we checked them but 0.2w springs to mind. They use watch batteries to back up the programming and the spare one in our computer room is still showing time after several years - I actually use it as a clock.

In any case the HDR would be plugged into a four gang that is also powering the TV, surround amp, PS3 and a DVD player. No way would it come close to consuming the standby power that lot. IIRC their standby is nearly 12w in total. I think the biggest culprit is the DVD player and I keep meaning to bin that. Don't need it now we have a PS3 and we know that when playing a disc it shuts everything else off.

Not often. The Sky box is on between 3:50pm and 2:10am during the week and all night saturday - it has a timer all to itself. The 9200 is with the TV and hifi so it doesn't get the saturday extension. If we had kids it might be more of a risk but there's very little that two 40-somethings want to watch outside of those hours

The only time we've had a problem is for a couple of Formula one races but we record the repeats instead.

The foxsat-hdr uses about 0.75W in sby about 3-4 of your digital timers. So that means if you used one to switch off a hdr you will be saving a mind numbingly small 0.55W. Not exactly planet saving is it ?

20H a day for a full year that's about 4 units per year say roughly 80p. The timer probably cost you about a tenner, glad I did not goto the school that tought you economics.

The timer would have to last at least 8 yrs to even recover it's purchase cost, not to mention the energy it took to build it and deliver it and the money that £10.00 could have earned if invested.

Compare this to something much more environmemtally friendly. If you boil just 100grams of water you don't need twice a day for a year that's around 54 units at say 20p/unit that's waste of £10.80.

Which is what I acknowledged several posts ago.

If you read the rest of my post that you just mentioned you'll see that the timer will actually be switching off four devices with a combined standby draw of around 12w.

I'm glad I didn't go to the school that tried to teach you how to read

0.012kwh*16*365=70 units a year or around £10 a year for that particular timer. As it happens the timers were a pack of four (which is why there's a spare one) from B&Q several years ago and cost either £14.99 or £19.99 (it's too long ago to be sure). There's nothing wrong my understanding of economics, thank you.

There are three timers and we know that when power is flowing the standby consumption of 'the house' is 120w. I'll leave you to work out the economics of reducing that

And if you weren't so bad at reading you'd also know that 'saving the environment' is not a major factor in what I do. Nor is cost except insofar as paying for waste is worse that just waste.

My posting referred solely to a time switch being used to turn off only a hdr nothing else. [quote] Using a timer to switch of a hdr makes no sense at all [quote] as was all the figures. I have never said anywhere it does not make sense to use timer to turn off multiple appliance especially sky boxes. It would be pretty ludicrous to do this purely for a hdr.

Now who can't read :sleep:

bump my previous post

I purchased some "power saving" devices and found they consumed a lovely 1W constantly. The digital timers probably do consume very little power, I don't know how much the 'motorised' ones use though, I've asked someone though.

There are not many devices that are actually a pleasure to use but Tivo is one of them. It is to the Humax what the original iPod was to an early Creative MP3 player.

A truly elegant user interface that needs no instruction to use, an extremely well designed remote designed to have the minimum buttons you need (like the ipod) located so that you never need to look at it once it's in your hand. Fast, responsive to remote instructions.

Maybe humax should offer a remote control update.

I am being serious here. The remote is so bad that if they actually came up with a brand new design and sell it separately (at a reasonable price) I think a lot of people would be interested (assuming that the new remote wasn't designed by the bloke that designed the last one.)

They use microscopic amounts of power.

They have motors that have just a little more 'grunt' than a clock motor (so they have enough torque to operate the switch) and a a clock will operate for over a year on an AA battery.

I measured the power one I own uses (had to use a multimeter the normal power meter would not register) and it consumes ~1mw per hour.

As a matter of interest what were the motor voltage and current readings ?

The problem is not really the remote, it's the UI design. To navigate the interface to record and play recordings at various times you need to use:

Up/Down/left/right/select
Info
Opt+
Menu
Guide
Back
Exit
oh - and the four colour buttons
That's 15 buttons. A lot of this may not be Humax's fault - i'm not sure how much is mandated by Freesat.


Just look at the Tivo remote:
http://www.eksys.com/epixs/albums/us...te_Buttons.JPG

Pretty much the only Tivo buttons you ever need to use are up/down/left/right/select and Tivo. 6 buttons. There's no back (you press the Tivo button to go up a level in the menu - just like the ipod). From anywhere in the menu structure a double press of Tivo takes you to the top menu.

Looking at later versions of the remote it's got more complicated (i can see guide, exit and info on some later pics) but it's the same as the iPod - with a smart interface you don't need a lot of buttons.

Mine are completely electronic. To manually activate you press a rubber button and after a few seconds it ticks on. It does have a large LCD display but they don't take much power. Presumably it uses the same kind of electronic relay that room thermostats use.

But FWIW I would like to praise Humax for their efforts in reducing standby power. I've noticed this on several of their models. It's just a shame that with DTT they don't store a copy of the EPG on disk.

Wow some serious replies here... the specialists are out in force tonight.

Thanks again for all the feedback, so to address some specifics (and sorry they all appear to be broadly directed at a single contributor):

- b33k34: Couldn't have put it better myself. TiVo was a great product, albeit with a rotten (/gullible) UK business model. But I'm delighted that it continues to support the service for the handful of its UK customers who enjoy it. Just a shame none of the advanced features customers in the US (and latterly Australia) have made it over here. It'll be interesting to see how Virgin do with it - if there's one thing Virgin lacks its an elegant user experience.

- To various comments about energy saving, to be honest I'd never given it a moment's thought - though I do when it comes to light switches etc. I suppose I just trust the various devices I have plugged in to hum along and accept that they will use energy and £££. But interesting to note how much more energy-efficient the Foxsat box is compared to the TiVo. I remember that many manufacturers were making a big thing of their alleged green credentials at last year's Consumer Electronics Show in the States.

- You're right about the various strands to this conversation and thanks for your remarks. When it comes to ultra-thin there's a practical consideration for me - I only have two places in my living room where I could place a larger display screen (the existing smaller one has always sat in what used to be a fireplace).

I don't want the screen to be the centre of attention in the room, it's there for when I want it. Anything above 30" we can rule out when it comes to the current location. So that leaves above the fireplace (means re-hanging a picture I'm quite proud of as the focal point of the room) or on a unit to the side of the room where space is at more of a premium.

So to your point of whether there's much difference between an ultra-thin or standard LED screen, I disagree. For me, the space saving is both considerable and therefore attractive. The thinner screens are also so much more appealing and I'm prepared to accept form factor over performance for this reason.

Finally re Canvas, that assumes the BBC Trust will approve the initiative. I very much hope that will happen but believe much of the fractiousness so far has (pay TV stakeholders aside) been as a direct consequence of the rubbish fragmented approaches among CE manucturers - as evidenced by my confusion when it comes to doing something simple like buying a new telly and PVR. It'd be comforting to think that the CE industry would recognise this approach is counter-productive (horrid EPGs, products which don't talk to eachother) but clearly they're not interested in anything more sensible. Here's hoping the BBC and its partners are able to find a way through this, but the regulatory environment is extremely challenging.

You can't measure AC power like that, Graham.

A motor is a reactive load so the voltage and current are not in phase and without knowing the phase angle those measurements would be meaningless

Here's a useful article, if you are interested.

I do know that (I have a degree in Electrical Engineering) and a lifetimes experience in the Electricity Supply Industry,

Measuring the motor current and voltage will however tell you the maximum power the device can use assuming it operates at unity power factor. So the measurement is not meaningless it tells you the VA load. And only an AC motor is a reactive load other than at start up.

Which would be a pretty daft assumptuion.


Which, as you should well know is not the power consumption.


Are you seriously suggesting that a timer of the sort we were discussing would use anything other than a synchronous AC motor?

And if you know so much about it, how come you don't know what UK mains voltage is?

If you wanted to know the figures assuming a PF of 1 you could have just worked them out.

27 minutes to reply??

Is that a "lagging" response?