I used to have a Humax 9300which gave a really good freeview picture. However when it went faulty I decided to replace it with a Foxsat HDR, which was installed on 30/12/08 along with a new sat dish.
The HD picture seems OK, but the SD picture is quite disappointing, i.e. not very sharp. I understood from reading reviews of the product that with upscaling it should be a really good picture, but is worse than the Freeview picture via my TV receiver.
I contacted the retailer (Comet) and was told that there isn’t a problem, and I will get the benefit when more HD programmes become available.
Are my expectations too high, could the unit be faulty, or is there anything I can do to improve picture quality.
It is set up for 2 cable feed and I have tried turning up the lnb power to high in the hidden menu.
Any comments appreciated.

The ITV SD channels are transmitted with a lower resolution on freesat than on Freeview. All the different regions need to be fitted onto the same satellite. Freeview transmitters service only a single region. BBC SD should be the same on freesat as on Freeview.

Some people have reported that Humax freesat receivers give a softer SD picture than other receivers. This may simply be that Humax applies less sharpening when upscaling, or more smoothing to reduce compression artifacts. You should try using "Original" as the resolution that the Foxsat HDR sends to the TV. This will allow the TV to do the upscaling rather than the Foxsat. It may do a better job. You can also try adjusting sharpening on your TV to see if you can get a picture you prefer.

The lower resolution on ITV you will just have to put up with if you can't get Freeview. If "Original" doesn't work for you and you can't adjust your TV to get a BBC picture you are satisfied with, you could return the HDR and wait until another freesat+ receiver comes out. A Metronics one is due out in April according to rumour.

It is a bit soft even when you don't let the Humax do the upscaling - the Humax isn't a particular good upscaler.

I let my Pioneer 428XD Kuro Plasma do the upscaling and there's a visible improvement over the Humax box. That said, its still soft suggesting the signal from the Humax isn't that great.

I'd have to disagree with that since I, (and others here have said the same), get a superb SD picture. So much so that people often comment about what an improvement HD is when they are watching an SD programme. It is extremely important to get everything set up optimally, though.

I guess it's subjective and also depends on what channels you're watching. eg. Five is often really good whilst channels such as Zone looks like they're shot on a £50 camcorder. Sometimes so blurry faces appear out of focus.

One of my favourite channels is Zone Reality so I guess I notice it more than most.

Try using RGB scart for SD it often gives a better picture than HDMI (depending on the quality of the scaler in your TV versus the scaler in the foxsat). But yes for SD freeview SD is generally a better SD pictue

What "hidden" menu would that be?

I did a search and found this.

To access the Advanced menu (hidden):
- Go to Menu> SETUP
- Press RED, GREEN, YELLOW, BLUE, GREEN, YELLOW, BLUE
- 2 options appear:
Antenna Setting
Manual Tune

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/s...=791802&page=2

Thanks for that (although I'm not sure how that last link is relevant?)

Next question, does anyone know what they mean by the two options "Two cable (same)" and "Two cable (different)"? Are they referring to the LNB/Dish combo?

i.e. Two cable (same) = same dish/multi-output LNB
whilst Two cable (different) = each cable running to a separate dish/LNB?

Correct. Option 1 is for normal twin tuner freesat operation.

Option 2 allows the second tuner to be fed from a different dish (or monoblock lnb) for multi satellite working.

LOL I would never have thought the crap quality of SD Freeview would actually be beaten by anything else than Youtube. After demoing a freesat box I went back to freeview. the 9200T Freeview PVR gives a fantastic picture compared to the Freesat SD pic.

I'd suggest you do two things:

1) Carefully check your set-up. All parameters and cabling options.

If this does not improve your SD picture to a point where it is, on average, equal to Freeview, then:

2) Return your faulty box for a replacement

I went from a Foxsat to a Fortect Passion+ and I'm pretty sure the SD picture is better. This on a 42" Panny plasma. I'll have to have both going at once and switch from one to the other before I can say anything more definite.

Trying to get HD to play on a PC has been taking up my time though!

Thanks for all the comments/advice. I'm pretty sure everything set up correctly, but will try SD viewing via scart to see if any improvemement.
Otherwise it seems some people get sharper SD picture than others, reading the posts, could this be regional variations?

I had the same problem.

Last week I bought a Foxsat HDR from Currys and connected it to my Sony KDL32V using the HDMI lead.
BBC HD was sensational but when I changed to an SD channel I noticed the picture was poor.

I did a number of tests, comparing the same programme (The Diary of Anne Frank) on the HDMI output from the Foxsat; the SCART output of the Foxsat; the SCART output of an SD Sky Plus box and DTT received from the Sony’s built in tuner.
I made sure the picture settings on the different inputs to the Sony were set the same.

The BBC HD pictures via the HDMI from the Foxsat were sensational.
The SD feed of BBC HD, via the SCART from the Foxsat was very good.
The pictures from SD BBC 1, via the Foxsat were soft and smudgy on both the HDMI and SCART feeds.
The same picture from the SD Sky box was as "good" as it usually is.
The DTT Freeview was slightly better than Sky.

The next day I took the box back to Currys and got my money back.

I'll give it 6 months and see if they're any better.

That was a good result seeing as the SCART output is crippled to be only composite on HD (unless you are in freesat mode). Excellent.

This isn't going to change, it seems, though hopefully they will sort out the HDMI output. I also get the same problems as you with SD. Again, for people who will jump in and say their picture is fantastic with the Foxsat, for comparison I'm judging from a 42" Panny plasma.

I have a 42 inch Panasonic Plasma with a Foxsat HDR and the SD picture is perfect for me too when compared side to side with a Sky+. I must admit I haven't tried a Fortec. It's a bit worse when compared with the DVB-T broadcasts I get but these are much higher bit-rate than the SD sat broadcasts from the UK.

Just to clarify.
As you would expect, the SCART feed of an HD channel isn't as good as the HDMI feed, but it is much better than SD fed via the HDMI or SCART connectors.

It seems that this is something Humax need to investigate. I would imaging that a good proportion of people who by the HDR are using it to replace a Sky or Freeview box (I suspect that only 'enthusiasts' run two STB's at once). If even a small proportion of those were finding the problems that a couple of posters here are having the return rate would be phenomenal. Remember that there is not that much HD at the moment so people are mainly going to be watching their favourite programmes on SD.

It's pretty clear that the vast majority of people buying Foxsats are finding the SD quality excellent, several people here attesting to that fact. Unfortunately, some people are getting lemons.

Of course I should have said "in non-freesat mode" (!).

I think the issue about SD picture sharpness is far more complicated than people realise here.

I have a fairly keen eye for this type of thing, partly as a result of continually looking to optimise my Media PC.

I have several ways of viewing and recording SD channels that broadcast on Freeview and Freesat:-
[LIST][*]TV's built-in Freeview tuner.[*]Goodmans Dual Freeview PVR connected via Scart RGB[*]Media PC with three digital and one analogue tuner outputting 1920x1080 over RGB (HDMI looks too harsh)[*]Foxsat HDR connected via HDMI[/LIST]
BBC1 over Freeview looks best on the Goodmans but it's unfair to compare this as its transmission bandwidth is higher than Freesat (at the moment anyway).

The best overall picture for most channels is still the Goodmans - presumably because my TV is doing a good job of processing the RGB scart signal.

However, for low bandwidth programmes that tend to suffer from compression artefacts, I have to say that the Foxsat HDR looks best overall. Both the Media PC and Goodmans box tend to emphasise these effects (eg. ghosting around players in the distance when watching football, or patches on people's foreheads during closeups apparently staying fixed when they move their face). This can be quite disconcerting and is far more irritating than the subtle difference in sharpness.

I suspect that the Foxsat HDR and my TV's built-in tuner are doing something to reduce these artefacts.

I've been thinking about making a video to illustrate these issues. Obviously this would have to be done on a section of the screen so that I can see the differences close up.

Anyone interested in this?

Blocky 'pixellated' picture - is another of those artifacts I do not notice on the HDR.

From day one, I have noticed that the HDR's SD PQ out performs my 9200T due to the non-presence of all those digital artifacts... I think some people mistake those digital artifacts for 'sharpness' of picture

Just to update.
I have today connected my HDR via scart-scart RGB and scart-SVideo connection on my panny 42" plasma, as well as the HDMI connection.
I can't tell any difference between the 2, but both give a better SD picture than HDMI connection, i.e. sharper and brighter.
Thanks again for all the contributions to this thread.

Smoothing out the digital artifacts (both from compression and upscaling) will inevitably smooth out some real detail at the same time. On the other hand, doing nothing (or worse, oversharpening) can be very objectionable. There is no single correct answer. Whatever is chosen is a compromise. Some people prefer the processing to be towards the smooth but soft end of the scale, others prefer sharp but pixellated. This may well explain why some think the HDR's PQ is poor whilst others think it is superb. They would probably hold the same opinions if watching the same picture on the same TV at the same time.

I'm glad Humax (or the chip manufacturer) have pitched the compromise towards smooth but soft. Personally I prefer this so the HDR would suit me (if I could get one). I wonder if they had any difficulty resisting the temptation of going for the wow factor that an oversharp picture can give in a showroom. This is what a number of TV manufacurer's seem to do with their default settings. Fortunately, with a TV, you can adjust to more sensible settings. What looks good in a showroom can get very tiring on the eyes at home. Unfortunately, many people leave their TVs on the default settings and judge the result as being what a TV picture should look like.

awo1949, congratulations on a well thought out and considered opinion and hypothesis on the matter. I agree with it 110% I think you have hit the nail squarely on the head and I also congratulate Humax for "not being tempted" as you put it, by "the wow factor". I am really pleased with the excellent product they have sold me. It has its little foibles in the software but that is correctable in time. For me, they can just leave the HD & SD picture quality (via the HDMI o/p) exactly as they are; both superb.