Sky+ HD but without HD...

Jez · 14 Jul 2008 at 12:11

I had 3 sky+ boxes fail on me before throwing the towel in and trying the HD box. Its been faultless for around 2 years now, im very happy with it.

One thing though, you do realise that you need to maintain a basic sky subscription at the least for the + features and second tuner to work yeah?

V1N · 14 Jul 2008 at 12:14

Jez said:
I had 3 sky+ boxes fail on me before throwing the towel in and trying the HD box. Its been faultless for around 2 years now, im very happy with it.

One thing though, you do realise that you need to maintain a basic sky subscription at the least for the + features and second tuner to work yeah?

Ahha, then I was misunderstanding entirely.
No, what I want is a SkyHD box, to watch free HD channels, with no sub whatsoever, just Freesat viewing, and be able to use the PVR functions.
This is what I was getting at.

If this isn't possible, then of course the SkyHD box is no good to me, and I'll have to find another DVB-S PVR, or a PCI card solution.

Vin.

Jez · 14 Jul 2008 at 12:15

Oh, no for ANY sky receiver you must retain the basic subscription and have a paired sky card with + features enabled. We are talking about the additional High def subscription of £10/month.

V1N · 14 Jul 2008 at 12:27

Jez said:
Oh, no for ANY sky receiver you must retain the basic subscription and have a paired sky card with + features enabled. We are talking about the additional High def subscription of £10/month.

OK, thanks.
At least now I know not to buy one, unless I see one really cheap, and just use it for "real time" viewing. I guess I can do that alright.

Are the HD transmissions FTA now, or do you still need an old Sky card, or a freesat card to receive them (just the HD channels, I'm not interested in the SD stuff, I'll use my PVR for that)

Vin.

Jez · 14 Jul 2008 at 12:30

BBC HD is definately FTA, i really dont know about the others to be honest mate. There arnt many channels available.

If you just want FTA stuff then i would personally use a pci card such as a cheap skystar2.

V1N · 14 Jul 2008 at 12:33

Jez said:
BBC HD is definately FTA, i really dont know about the others to be honest mate. There arnt many channels available.

If you just want FTA stuff then i would personally use a pci card such as a cheap skystar2.

Thanks for the tip again. I've not looked into it much yet, as I was hoping the SkyHD box would do the job.

I'd never heard of a Skystar2, so that's a good base now to start my research on, assuming I can use PVR style software with it, I only have XP Pro on my server, and not Media Centre, but hopefully I can do something so I can record HD to the HDD. I guess it must be possible, shows like Bonekickers are available on the net, ripped from BBC-HD, and I watched that particular one through my PS3, and it looked better than I expected.

Thanks again,
Vin.

Jez · 14 Jul 2008 at 12:38

Its just a cheap pci satellite card, receives the raw streams & you can do what you like with them. Ive had one for years left over from when i used to use satellite internet. BBC HD comes down fine via it on a core2duo 2ghz machine.

V1N · 14 Jul 2008 at 12:42

Jez said:
Its just a cheap pci satellite card, receives the raw streams & you can do what you like with them. Ive had one for years left over from when i used to use satellite internet. BBC HD comes down fine via it on a core2duo 2ghz machine.

OK, my server only has my old P4 2.4 in it, as it's basically nothing more than a glorified NAS. However, I wouldn't need the server to decode anything, just record the stream to the HDD, and I'd process it on this machine (C2D) and play it back through the PS3, or this PC connected to my TV/projector at worst (PS3 is quieter)

Anyway, you've given me some stuff to think about, so thanks.
Vin.

stoofa · 14 Jul 2008 at 13:10

Actually you don't have to have any Sky package subscription to use the Sky+ (PVR) features.
However where people don't have the absolute basic package they have th pay the £10 per month fee instead.

youstolemyid · 14 Jul 2008 at 14:42

BIL got Sky + last friday and had to phone them up before he could record anything on it, he has a SKy + subscription.

I just ordered sky + hd this morning, got box for £75 from Sky & £30 installation fee, coming friday.

zel · 14 Jul 2008 at 17:47

V1N said:
OK, my server only has my old P4 2.4 in it, as it's basically nothing more than a glorified NAS. However, I wouldn't need the server to decode anything, just record the stream to the HDD, and I'd process it on this machine (C2D) and play it back through the PS3, or this PC connected to my TV/projector at worst (PS3 is quieter)

Anyway, you've given me some stuff to think about, so thanks.
Vin.

I think you'll want a dvb-s2 card for HD material (the skystar2 is dvb-s) as I believe the stuff on Freesat requires this.

BBC HD on sky certainly was dvb-s at the beginning (sky channels have always been dvb-s2) - I not sure if this is still the case though.

[TR]SweetSpotOz · 14 Jul 2008 at 18:07

Jez · 14 Jul 2008 at 18:11

No there is no minimum requirement. The channels seem to operate with the bare minimum of signal quality.

NeilF · 15 Jul 2008 at 10:26

Jez said:
You can indeed use all the functions of a skyHD box without an HD subscription It works identically to a sky+ box, but is faster, has convinient HDMI/component outputs, looks nicer, and works with the free HD content.

HOWEVER, I've heard a lot of people say the standard image quality (ie: not HD) looks poorer from the HD box compared to the Sky+ box...

Jez · 15 Jul 2008 at 10:55

NeilFawcett said:
HOWEVER, I've heard a lot of people say the standard image quality (ie: not HD) looks poorer from the HD box compared to the Sky+ box...

You are referring to people comparing the HD box's internal scaler with that found in the latest displays. If you happen to have an excellent scaler then there is nothing stopping you running an SD feed to that alongside the high def feed.

NeilF · 15 Jul 2008 at 10:58

Jez said:
You are referring to people comparing the HD box's internal scaler with that found in the latest displays. If you happen to have an excellent scaler then there is nothing stopping you running an SD feed to that alongside the high def feed.

From what I've read, many people find that SD image quality seems better from a Sky+ box than that produced by a Sky HD box... No idea what the cause is...

Jez · 15 Jul 2008 at 11:19

NeilFawcett said:
From what I've read, many people find that SD image quality seems better from a Sky+ box than that produced by a Sky HD box... No idea what the cause is...

They are comparing the HDMI fed upscaled feed with that of the resultant image of their (better) external scalers.

NeilF · 15 Jul 2008 at 11:26

Jez said:
They are comparing the HDMI fed upscaled feed with that of the resultant image of their (better) external scalers.

OK... So basically the HD box is upscaling the SD image... And with Sky+ the TV is upscaling the SD image. Most people find the TV upscales better than the HD box can manage?

That explains the problem, but doesn't solve it

So to get a couple of channels in better image quality (HD channels), you sacrifice image quality from the majority of your viewing (SD channels)? And pay to do it? :rolleyes:

Jez · 15 Jul 2008 at 11:28

No, because the HD box ALSO has all of the outputs which the + box does. You can use them in parallel

Personally i dont agree anyway, the internal scaler is very good and i am in a fortunate position in that i am feeding to a decent projector onto a 10' motorised screen, so it shows up the flaws. But that argument is for another day.

NeilF · 15 Jul 2008 at 12:01

Jez said:
No, because the HD box ALSO has all of the outputs which the + box does. You can use them in parallel

But you'd then have to flick your TV input around between channels :rolleyes:

Yuk!

Jez said:
Personally i dont agree anyway, the internal scaler is very good.

So in your experience you don't think the SD through HD box's HDMI output is (particularly) poorer than the Sky+ output?