[zandar]

Assuming that you have purchased a really good television with a Freeview HD tuner in-built and that you live in an area with a strong TV signal, what (if any) is the best way of receiving the main channels in both Standard Definition as well as High Definition. Is via the aerial, Freesat HD or Virgin cable? We are ignoring channel choice and are obviously aware that the Virgin system will be the dearest with on-going expenses. We will also ignore the fact that via the aerial & in-built TV tuner, Freeview will be the most convenient as only 1 remote control will be used. (We shall ignore the ability to record where the 3 channels at once Virgin box would obviously win).

[call100]

Freeview, FreeSat or Virgin are the choices then. Ignoring I would say that Virgin is the best delivery method....If you get virgin you could have Freeview as well if you wanted......
You could run it all with one remote if required...

I take it that you have reasons for excluding Sky? They have more HD channels but Virgin have Tivo.....
Cable IMO is still the best delivery system...

[Nigel Goodwin]

'Best' is a relative term

Most efficient, and best value value for money is satellite, a tiny fraction of the cost of others, yet provides by FAR the best coverage and greater potential for the number of channels.

Cable is by far the least efficient, and costs the most for the least coverage.

Terrestrial falls in the middle.

Where cable wins, massively, is in broadband and VOD content - nothing else can compete, as their infrastructure isn't suitable.

[gomezz]

But where cable loses massively is its low reach. Most of the country cannot get it. Of course only a consideration if you are thinking of moving to a new part of the country.

[zandar]

In terms of picture quality, has anyone seen a difference between Cable, Freeview or Freesat?