Answered Do I really need Freesat anymore?

elsmandino

Prominent Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2009
Messages
545
Reaction score
33
Points
288
Hello,

I am looking to upgrade my HTPC, which contains a single DVB-S2 card and a dual DVB-T cards.

To meet demand in my house for simultaneous recordings, I have decided that I need four tuners and they all have to be HD.

I was just going to buy either a dual DVB-S2 and a dual DVB-T2 card (or a single card that has both), but it occurred to me that perhaps there is little point in having Freesat anymore.

I find the quality difference to be negligible.

Furthermore, the way Freeview Muxes work increases the chance that a single tuner can be used for multiple recordings.

I have yet to find any really good channels on Freesat that are not available on Freeview.

My biggest irritation is the way that the Freesat channels keep changing frequency - with a PC-based setup, I have to manually keep updating the channels with each change. Freeview channels, by comparison, seldom seem to change.

I was just wondering what other though, before I go and buy a new tuner:

Can you think of any compelling reasons why I should keep Freesat - e.g. any potential new channels that might be coming?

Thanks
 
I think that you have answered your own question. Don't forget the two extra cables from LNB to tuners for sat that will not be needed for Freeview.
 
The only argument for Freesat over Freeview is the better picture quality on some of the SD channels (ITV3, 5Star and 5USA all spring to mind amongst others as being 720x576i on satellite but blurryvision 544x576i on terrestrial).

But if the quality difference doesn't bother you then yeah, the Freeview only plan sounds fine. My set-up is similar. HTPC with DVB-T2 tuners for UK channels (then the DVB-S2 tuner card I have is only used for European satellite and not Freesat). It is very useful to be able to record any of the 5 major channels simultaneously in HD with just one tuner.
 
Don't forget the two extra cables from LNB to tuners for sat that will not be needed for Freeview.

I had forgotten about the issue of less cables, which is another definite plus point.

The only argument for Freesat over Freeview is the better picture quality on some of the SD channels (ITV3, 5Star and 5USA all spring to mind amongst others as being 720x576i on satellite but blurryvision 544x576i on terrestrial).

But if the quality difference doesn't bother you then yeah, the Freeview only plan sounds fine. My set-up is similar. HTPC with DVB-T2 tuners for UK channels (then the DVB-S2 tuner card I have is only used for European satellite and not Freesat). It is very useful to be able to record any of the 5 major channels simultaneously in HD with just one tuner.

It was really interesting that you mentioned this - I did some testing of those channels and I did not notice that much of a difference (though it is certainly perceptible).

It almost seems to be the case that since there are more HD channels slowly popping up, the SD channels seem to be equally poor in comparison.

I might not be the best judge, however, my brother (who is much more of an expert on audio/video) has reached the point that he finds most SD channels disturbingly poor quality compared to the HD counterparts on Sky.
 
The SD/HD thing is now quite irritating for me, because on Freeview the drive to cram more SD channels has resulted in a lot of 'blurrovision', and it's got to the point that I only watch an SD channel if I really am 'forced' to, as it were. What I find annoying is that one of the SD channels that I do follow is More4, which on Sky is in HD, and, having seen it on satellite, the difference between the SD offering on Freeview/Freesat and the HD version on Sky is pronounced. I'm just not prepared to sign-up to Sky just to get More4HD and DaveHD (when it shows Suits). For me, having channels only available in SD is actually stopping me looking at any of the programming that might actually be of interest. It's about time (I think) that broadcasters woke-up to the fact the only offering SD channels in 'blurrovision', especially on Freeview, is a big turn-off for some people. My wife is of the same opinion, so we find that we're spending a lot more time watching streamed stuff on Amazon and Netflix, where decent picture and audio quality is a given.


Clem
 
The SD/HD thing is now quite irritating for me, because on Freeview the drive to cram more SD channels has resulted in a lot of 'blurrovision', and it's got to the point that I only watch an SD channel if I really am 'forced' to, as it were. What I find annoying is that one of the SD channels that I do follow is More4, which on Sky is in HD, and, having seen it on satellite, the difference between the SD offering on Freeview/Freesat and the HD version on Sky is pronounced. I'm just not prepared to sign-up to Sky just to get More4HD and DaveHD (when it shows Suits). For me, having channels only available in SD is actually stopping me looking at any of the programming that might actually be of interest. It's about time (I think) that broadcasters woke-up to the fact the only offering SD channels in 'blurrovision', especially on Freeview, is a big turn-off for some people. My wife is of the same opinion, so we find that we're spending a lot more time watching streamed stuff on Amazon and Netflix, where decent picture and audio quality is a given.


Clem

Without major changes Freeview does not have the bandwidth to offer many more HD channels. Indeed the full HD content is only available to the few main power transmitters that have the COM 7 mux (which is temporary anyway). Channel 5 pulled out twice after having accepted a slot on the PSB3 HD mux and only recently joined Freeview at the same time as their contract with Sky expired and allowed it to go free to air on satellite and join the Freesat epg.
 
It's about time (I think) that broadcasters woke-up to the fact the only offering SD channels in 'blurrovision', especially on Freeview, is a big turn-off for some people.
I suspect that 'some people' is actually a fairly small minority, and will mainly be those with huge (>48") sets, as my wife can't tell the difference between (say) BBC1 SD and BBC1 HD at her normal viewing distance of about 9 feet from our 48 incher. (I can, and so can she if she moves a bit closer)
 
I suspect that 'some people' is actually a fairly small minority, and will mainly be those with huge (>48") sets, as my wife can't tell the difference between (say) BBC1 SD and BBC1 HD at her normal viewing distance of about 9 feet from our 48 incher. (I can, and so can she if she moves a bit closer)

That's true for the 720(704) x 576 channels using decent bitrates. I suspect most would spot the 544 x 576 content at low bitrates from any distance. :)
 
I suspect that you may be right, but in the Dye household it's a source of annoyance. What I find personally irritating is the deal that Channel4 struck with Sky, restricting the HD versions of More4, E4 and Film4 (I believe) to the Sky platform. I'd be a happy bunny if I could get More4HD on Freesat, for example. ISTR that that carriage deal for More4 et al is up sometime in 2018, but I may be mistaken, and in any event, I guess C4 could just renew their deal whenever. Grrrrr.


Clem
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom