I've decided to stop the Sky subscription as it wasn't really offering value for money. I'm going to use Now TV in future to access the sports channels so need a PVR. I've narrowed down the choice to either the Humax Freesat HDR-1000S or the Humax Youview DTR-T2000.

Any comments / suggestions? I'm particularly interested in how the quality of picture compares with Sky / Freeview; channel choice; user experience, and reliability.

The freesat unit should have identical quality on the channels it can get. Freesat is merely an epg service. The channels you get are the same you get on Sky just a different epg. Any difference will be down to the quality of electronics in the box. The Humax youview unit has very limited pvr capabilities compared to the Freetime boxes and the previous HDR FOX T2. It does however have the full catch up channel line up.

I've had both Freesat and Youview,being an ex Sky customer. I find the picture quality on Freesat to be better than both Sky and Youview. Go for the Humax HDR-1000S,you will not be disappointed.

But as has been pointed out, they are identical in every respect, and of course Freesat is not giving you any channels at all

Must be down to the superior video circuitry in the newer box. I don't know how it would compare to a Sky box about the same age. I can however state the HDR1000S has good pictures, certainly a little better than the Foxsat-HDR it replaced. The HDR FOX T2 also has a very good picture especially from the HD channels. TBH you would have to see them side by side on identical TV's viewing the same content to really say one was superior to the other. In normal viewing you aren't conscious of a HDR FOX T2 having a different picture quality to a HDR1000S given the same programme (Youview uses the normal DVB-T2 Freeview transmissions you get on any other Freeview-HD capable kit). If I switch from a HDR FOX T2 to a HDR 1000S say watching the same programme in a blind test I doubt anyone could really say one was superior to the other. I have never seen a Youview box, if it's noticeably worse than a HDR1000S on a HD channel then again it must be down to other variables.

SD channels from a free to air source like Satellite or Terrestrial can vary significantly. Freeview has much more bandwidth restriction than satellite so it's entirely possible that a leeser channel will use a lower bitrate (and possibly lower resolution) and if the satellite version uses less compression and a higher bitrate it will look better on satellite.

I gave notice to Sky for TV (I'm sticking with them for phone and broadband) and decided to go for a graded HBR-1010S 1TB box direct from Freesat. It was a bit of a toss up between YouView and Freesat, but I figured it was a close call now and the satellite platform has massively more capability to deliver more HD channels in the future, as it does already. YouView is always going to hit constraints of limited spectrum so it has finite potential.

I would agree that PQ seems better from the Humax than the Sky box, especially on SD channels, which are actually quite decent on my 40" 1080p TV.

However, compared to Sky software the Humax interface is pretty clunky and the inability to record catch up shows is a disappointment. I really don't understand why recording of catch up is not supported or why we can't have more HD channels included (e.g. Film4, Channel 5 etc..). Also box startup is slow and the Freesat app falls well short of Sky's version. Still, for the monthly savings I can live with the shortcomings. On the plus side the Freesat box has plenth of features not offered by the Sky box, so there are some swings and roundabouts.

Anyway, I've still got a week to go with Sky, but I've already decommissioned the Sky box as I don't have four satellite feeds to satisfy two boxes at once and I might as well crack on building my recorded library on the Humax to suit my needs and not simply the contract termination date.

I will be using NowTV to reinstate some of my missing channels temporarily (I have a three month voucher courtesy of Chromecast and doubt I'll pay once that runs out after xmas), but that will be run from my Xbox, so all in all there is increased fragmentation by going down this path, but once again that's the sacrifice for saving money.

I gave Sky the elbow about 5 years ago and went to a Humax Foxsat HDR. At that time I thought the picture quality was at least equal if not slightly better than the Sky box of that era. A few months ago I upgraded to the HDR 1000s and the picture quality is definitely better than the Foxsat, I can't compare it to the current Sky box as I've not seen one.

I know it's unlikely but if your local terrestrial TV Mast becomes faulty at least with the HDR 1000s you will still have a TV service. It connects exactly the same a the Sky box so is a doddle to replace too.

I got both freesat (HDR-100s 1TB) and Freeview (HDR-2000T) as graded models. The cost saving from Sky made this easily affordable, I could even have gone straight back to Sky after cancelling with their half price for 12 month offer and still come out quids in with the two boxes.

Lack of recording of catchup is mainly down to licensing restrictions.
As for HD channels, well Film4HD,Channel 5HD, ITV2/3/4HD are all tied into pay tv with Sky over satellite for the sole purpose of bringing those broadcasters extra revenue.
Same applies to Dave etc that are currently on Freeview.
Not sure about the others, but as far as I'm aware the ITV HD channels had a 5 year contract with Sky starting around October 2010 so that's due to end this time next year so I suppose we will just have to wait and see what happens if they renew that contract or not.

@Gonzo - Thanks for that. Sure, I can understand licencing and all that, but for us punters it is annoying to know that the possibility is there. It's not like I'm asking for new channels, just higher quality versions of what we already get which are being broadcast anyway. The absence of Dave is another good example - it's on Freeview and is broadcast by satellite already, so why not include it? Don't tell me - licencing.

Then there is NowTV. It's a pay service, and I can get it via my Android device, Chromecast, Xbox or PC, so why can't Freetime boxes include it and save me (and more importantly the missus) from having to swap source inputs to see what's on? It is a very fragmented system and it would be nice to have everything pulled together into one place - the Freetime box. AIUI YouView has support for NowTV, but only movies, not entertainment. If it's down to licencing these really are quite petty restrictions. The workrounds are there, so why not just make it easy in the first place?

Not sure of the contract details?, but the extra ITV HD channels were created solely to go on Sky (and presumably VM?) in order to create subscription revenue for ITV. There was never any intention of them been free channels, that was never their purpose.

As such it's unlikely they are going to go FTA, unless the revenue from Sky/VM falls, and if ITV can make money from them been FTA? (which seems unlikely).

Have a read through this link, it'll answer that one
http://recombu.com/digital/news/why-...ly_M10927.html


You can see what's on via the Freesat App which also enables remote recording with a freetime box when the Apps paired to the box. And you can also use it as a remote control too while on the same network.

@Gonzo @Nigel. Thanks. An education is always helpful.

Doesn't reduce the frustration though.

You are really good at stating things as fact when you are in fact guessing, We don't know if any of the extra ITV HD channels would have happened (at any time) without Sky, what we know is that they took the advantage of Sky money available which is a different thing.

The problem we have with pay TV in this country is that because of the Sky monopoly they basically had the choice of Sky money or nothing.

No 'guessing' involved, it was what ITV announced when they decided to set up the extra subscription HD channels - well before it actually happened (so no one 'should' have been surprised when they weren't FTA).

Here's one relevant news article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10848396

None of that means much, unless you have boardroom spies you cannot know and even then that article and the decisions were taken in 2010 in a world where they could take the Sky money. To understand what they would have now without the Sky option you would have to consider a situation where (probably through legislation) the the Sky option was not a possibility.

Let us look at what we do know. The extra ITV HD channels are mostly showing repeats from ITV1 that are already filmed in HD or are upscaled or bought in programmes that are already HD or upscaled. The small amount of original production is filmed using studios "borrowed" or shared with ITV1. In short the extra costs of broadcasting in HD now are very small and limited mostly to the transmission costs which are a small percentage of the total budget.

So now (not 2010) we are looking from ITV's point of view as to whether it is worth having HD channels or not in a world where there is no Sky option. The extra costs are minimal and they are likely to get extra viewers and extra revenue as a result from advertising, there is also much HD broadcasting so their existing SD is looking more and more archaic. It is a decision to be taken as to whether the gains balance or over weigh the extra cost.

Going to HD without Sky money does not seem so unlikely. Of course given the Sky money they have taken that and you can understand why but you seem to know that if the Sky money was not available then they would still now have no HD output other than ITV1. I think they probably would have some HD output but unlike you I live in a world where not all is certain and I don't pretend to know what they would have done or do now without the Sky option, all I can do is come to an opinion of the most likely result based upon the evidence.

To use your response to everything you don't like - you're just guessing

(and guessing wildly!).

As I've said all along (and given you one of the many pieces of evidence - as presumably you weren't on these forums when is discussed back when it happened? - the extra HD channels were created solely as subscription channels to generate revenue.

While it's 'possible' that they could go FTA when their existing contracts are up for renewal I would (and already have!) suggest that it's unlikely they will go FTA unless Sky/VM want to reduce the subscription money they receive. I would also suggest that you're wildly optimistic that going FTA will produce a suitable large increase in both viewing numbers and advertising revenue.

There's got to be some point in the not too distant future when Standard Definition is HD and the new extra revenue gaining channels will be those broadcast in 4k or even 8k.

Oh I just admit when I don't know something. You take a position and then because you are afraid of losing face you stick to it through thick and thin whatever the evidence making statements as if they were facts.


What you've done is produce something fro 4 years ago where the Sky money was (as it still is) available. Your implication is that the ITV2-4 HD channels would not exist without Sky money which we don't know to be the case at all.

No, I make statements I know to be true, most of which are based on old posts on this forum


No implication, ITV announced that the only reason for launching the extra HD channels was to receive subscription money - as the only (substantial) subscription money available was (and still is) money available from Sky then we 'know' that to be the case.

Obviously assuming they never came up with the idea they 'may' have since that time decided to subsidise some extra HD channels, but that's purely in the realms of imagination, which not the slightest thread of evidence to suggest it might have happened.

As I've said all along, as long as Sky/VM maintain the revenue levels I can't see ITV wanting to change anything - but if Sky/VM want to drop the revenue levels substantially things 'might' change - either going FTA, or even closing down.