I notice that The Register is showing a review of the Humax Foxsat HDR this morning.
View it here:
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2009/03...x_freesat_hdr/
View it here:
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2009/03...x_freesat_hdr/
Foxsat HDR Review
It's probably worth having a look at the "comments" associated with this review, they're mostly positive. I suspect that many of the "Anonymous Coward" posts are by DS Forum Members 
.
Graham.
.Graham.
A well written review, fairly comprehensive - I tend to agree with the conclusion that it is expensive for 1 part-time channel.
I wait for the freeview equivalent to appear - to seee what channels it offers and at what price.
Personally, I don't see freesat as a viable alternatve to my 2nd skyHD box let alone my main HD box - too expensive, not enough HD
(yes I know I have sky, but prior to its release I honestly thought the humax would be a great addition/replacement to my current set-up - how wrong can one be!)
I wait for the freeview equivalent to appear - to seee what channels it offers and at what price.
Personally, I don't see freesat as a viable alternatve to my 2nd skyHD box let alone my main HD box - too expensive, not enough HD
(yes I know I have sky, but prior to its release I honestly thought the humax would be a great addition/replacement to my current set-up - how wrong can one be!)
Originally Posted by srhill:
“A well written review, fairly comprehensive - I tend to agree with the conclusion that it is expensive for 1 part-time channel.
I wait for the freeview equivalent to appear - to seee what channels it offers and at what price.
Personally, I don't see freesat as a viable alternatve to my 2nd skyHD box let alone my main HD box - too expensive, not enough HD”
“A well written review, fairly comprehensive - I tend to agree with the conclusion that it is expensive for 1 part-time channel.
I wait for the freeview equivalent to appear - to seee what channels it offers and at what price.
Personally, I don't see freesat as a viable alternatve to my 2nd skyHD box let alone my main HD box - too expensive, not enough HD”
It's a fair point on the lack of HD content, although it's actually 2 part time channels (BBC and ITV). However, on expense, isn't the cheapest Sky HD package over 300 quid a year (basic ents pack plus HD)? Plus 50 quid for the box? Granted, Sky users are getting more HD content for that, but after three years that's going to add up. I guess you could let the HD pack lapse after 12 months and just keep the FTA HD channels but you'd still have to pay subs to be able to record.
Originally Posted by gkite:
“It's a fair point on the lack of HD content, although it's actually 2 part time channels (BBC and ITV). However, on expense, isn't the cheapest Sky HD package over 300 quid a year (basic ents pack plus HD)? Plus 50 quid for the box? Granted, Sky users are getting more HD content for that, but after three years that's going to add up. I guess you could let the HD pack lapse after 12 months and just keep the FTA HD channels but you'd still have to pay subs to be able to record.”
“It's a fair point on the lack of HD content, although it's actually 2 part time channels (BBC and ITV). However, on expense, isn't the cheapest Sky HD package over 300 quid a year (basic ents pack plus HD)? Plus 50 quid for the box? Granted, Sky users are getting more HD content for that, but after three years that's going to add up. I guess you could let the HD pack lapse after 12 months and just keep the FTA HD channels but you'd still have to pay subs to be able to record.”
But you missed my point that I wouldn't replace my 2nd HD box with a freesat+box.
I'm a sport fan so as sky is the only platform with comprehensive sport coverage it is a must.
As I have 1 sky box, a 2nd only costs me £9.75 for the multiroom (I haven't got HD pack on 2nd box - it should be free on 2nd box - so get bbcHD, ch4HD on that one).
Also, looking thrugh this forum the humax seems to suffer many of the problems that the sky+HD does (missing recordings, lock-ups, padding problems etc) - a coincidence, or is it that the components of both boxes are not up to the additional strain of processing HD material?
I already have the box, so why would I throw it away and pay £300 for a freesat+ box with hardly anything on it I would watch? - my only gain would be the odd football on itvHD
Originally Posted by srhill:
“But you missed my point that I wouldn't replace my 2nd HD box with a freesat+box.
I'm a sport fan so as sky is the only platform with comprehensive sport coverage it is a must.
As I have 1 sky box, a 2nd only costs me £9.75 for the multiroom (I haven't got HD pack on 2nd box - it should be free on 2nd box - so get bbcHD, ch4HD on that one).”
“But you missed my point that I wouldn't replace my 2nd HD box with a freesat+box.
I'm a sport fan so as sky is the only platform with comprehensive sport coverage it is a must.
As I have 1 sky box, a 2nd only costs me £9.75 for the multiroom (I haven't got HD pack on 2nd box - it should be free on 2nd box - so get bbcHD, ch4HD on that one).”
sounds fair enough - pricing obviously depends on whether you already have sky boxes or not. Something else to consider : for those that do have old sky boxes and viewing cards lurking around, is that the Foxsat can be persuaded to access CH4 HD by purchasing a CAM module and using it in conjunction with a Sky card. It has to run in non-freesat mode (so functionality is limited), but you can get CH4 HD. There is a separate thread on this functionality. Since CH4 HD is FTV, the viewing card doesn't have to be subscription, but does need to go in your old Sky box every couple of months to keep it 'alive'.
