Hi,

I've got a 9200T which I've had for ages and really like. I'm thinking of buying an HDR-FOX T2 which would obviously be for the HD content since the 9200T works fine. I've read a few reviews where people write that it's great for SD but they have problems with the picture breaking-up on HD. Is this a common problem and is it worth upgrading? I'd appreciate your opinions.

David

The only reason the picture may break up is because you live in a location where the Freeview HD service is not yet available or because it's a temporary low power pre DSO transmission. You need to check if Freeview-HD is avalable now where you live.

http://www.dtg.org.uk/industry/coverage.html

Free view HD is great where I live. I get the signal from the main Winter Hill mast and never have any problems with HD apart from the (very rare) dropout in extremely bad weather but that is mainly due to the trees in my garden blowing about. The sound and picture quality is much better than the standard channels on free view and even their Sky SD equivalents as well.

Hi


No picture breakup at all here, however the more complicated codec used for HD means any interference will cause a bigger disruption to your viewing than on SD Freeview.

Impulse noise is a big problem, i.e. things switching on and off in your home and neighbours homes, or cars/motorbikes badly suppressed driving past.

If you are affected it really needs an aerial/down-lead update. A log period aerial suitable for most areas with satellite grade co-ax will usually resolve all issues and give you perfect reception.

It is a case of giving it a go and see how you get on, many people will have few issues. There is a bit of a myth that HD is a more robust signal, that is sort of true, but they've traded that off to achieve higher data-rates, so it ends up being a bit more susceptible than SD is.

Regards

Phil

No reception problems here, and I'm right on the margin.

My old 9200 showed a signal strength of around 48, though the HDR Fox T2 shows only 28.

HDMI as improved the picture quality on my 5-yo Samsung panel dramatically, even when viewing SD content, to the point where my cunning plan to upgrade the TV has now been abandoned.

[quote=PhilipL;48562563

It is a case of giving it a go and see how you get on, many people will have few issues. There is a bit of a myth that HD is a more robust signal, that is sort of true, but they've traded that off to achieve higher data-rates, so it ends up being a bit more susceptible than SD is.

Regards

Phil[/QUOTE]

It's not a myth though it's true there is a trade off in bitrate and robustness. Even using the highest potential bitrate it should be as reliable as DVB-T

http://www.dvb.org/technology/fact_s..._Factsheet.pdf

If your HD signal is less reliable than the SD it's most likely simply down to lower transmission power currently used by your local transmitter.

Hi


Which is exactly what I explained

I rated it as slightly less reliable on SD, as a blip that might go un-noticed on SD with just one or too stuck blocks, will knock out considerably more on an HD transmission due to the more efficient codec, i.e. you have more to lose with a blip on HD and it takes a big longer to recover.

Regards

Phil

On my Fox T2 I only get 30% signal (from Crystal Palace) but 100% quality. The Humax gives a perfect picture without any break-up at these settings

I get 70% strength and 100% quality from Crystal Palace transmitter and the HD picture is fantastic. The sound is ok but noticeably a lot quieter than on the equivalent SD channels, no idea why.