I have a Thompson DHD-4000. It's lovely - simple and easy to use, twin tuner, reliable...
It has, or rather *had* a 14-day EPG, which is no more, as the senders of it have stopped sending it. This reduces the usability of the machine somewhat, as I have to look programmes up and record them "manually".
I will consider getting a new machine, as "future poroof" as possible. A new machine should also be very simple to use, and have two tuners. Features such as "picture in picture" are not essential. A cheap price would be attractive.
Any ideas?
|
Make sure it uses the Freeview EPG system. Although I am sure they all will now but you never know what might be used on some PVRs.
www.digitalspy.co.uk/digitaltv/news/a235494/inview4tv-ends-freeview-box-epg-updates.html
|
Must handle MPEG4 as well as more usual MPEG2.
With an IP input if you can.
I use Humax, various models.
|
if you really want something fairly near the bleeding edge, with whistles and bells at a subsidised price....
direct.tesco.com/q/R.208-9147.aspx
It's a £300 pound box for £200, because of "fetch-tv".
If you can ignore that, it's a clever twin tuner HD Freeview+ box with dolby 5.1 sound on the HD (as of about the third software update last month).
If you have the stamina, there are a huge number of posts about it on the AVforum:
www.avforums.com/forums/freeview/1253846-digital-stream-dhr-8203-5u.html
|
|
Looks pretty good, especially given the price. The HUMAX DVB-T2 / MPEG4 box I would choose is a good £100+ more than that.
|
I had problems with a Humax 9300 and returned it, bought a Sony RDR205 (as I recall PU has a similar one), the Sony is only one tuner which is not a problem with a digital TV and its functionality is great, it also has a built in DVD recorder / player. I should say that we dont record much so it has not been extensively tested.
|
|
Make sure it supports HD freeview or freesat broadcasts. I was given a PVR for christmas but I knew it was already out of date as there is no HD support. I will soon have the situation where I have two boxes, one for the HD and one for recordings.
|
|
Depends if there's anything worth recording in HD on the two DVB-T2 channels IMHO. Would be a waste of money for me anyway.
|
|
But won't there be new free HD channels int he future?
|
|
There may be a grand total of four at some point i.e. 1 mux; maybe.
|
Depends what you want to pay really. We have three of these Vestel T826 machines in the Spamcan household, they are technophobe friendly and need a reboot about once every 6 months with heavy use. All are 'grade a' machines but appear new.
www.ebuyer.com/product/190768
|
FT, Humax, without a a doubt. I've had one for a couple of years. It replaced a Panasonic that was driving me nuts. There is a Freeview HD model out this month. It will be expensive for a few months because it is new so either wait, if you want to receive & record HD channels (all three with one more to come) or, with any luck, this will cause the price if the current models to drop a bit.
I'd recommend Play.com for a good price & service.
JH
|
>> here may be a grand total of four at some point i.e. 1 mux; maybe.
There is 1 mux now exclusively for HD, but it's not fully used yet.
The last time I looked it was carrying:
BBC HD - all HD content, often simultaneous with either BBC1 or BBC2.
ITV HD - some HD content, the rest upscaled ITV with some regionality now.
CH4/S4C - some HD content, the rest upscaled.
I understand CH5 have pulled out for financial resons and the BBC is angling to use that "fourth HD channel" capacity.
There may be capacity on that HD mux for a fifth channel at some point in the future if the coder efficiency improves a little, but that's your lot on the one mux Freeview HD has.
So you either need the rules changing (which is what rules seem to be for) to release or allocate new bandwidth for another mux, or more likely the future is TV over IP.
The Tesco box mentioned above does that, and streams locally sored (NAS) media.
|
IMO, there will almost certainly be a 7th MUX, but its not likely to be [exclusively] HD.
MPEG4, DVB-T2 and other bits are fairly new and performance will almost certainly improve permitting more stations. HD/SD and MPEG2/4 can co-exist on a single MUX. DVB-T/T2 cannot.
>>the future is TV over IP.
Absolutely. But its also a question of timescale.
|
>> MPEG4, DVB-T2 and other bits are fairly new and performance will almost certainly improve permitting more stations.
I'd expect the modulation scheme for T2 to be fixed now - or you'd end up with (yet more) broken boxes and irate ex-viewers if you change the scheme. We're only 7 months into the service starting!
The T2 modulation scheme defines the bit rate - AFAIK it is ~40 mb/s useable data (ignoring error correction). compared to ~18mb/s pre DSO and ~24mb/s post DSO for SD services.
So it's a question of what the coding and mux people can squeeze into the capacity that T2 transmission offers.
The coding efficiency is still being improved - as the coders being used are still fairly immature - but the gains are not that great.
I think you may get to 5 HD "stations" where there are currently 4, if you can stop the semi-technical zealots wailing about bandwidth reduction:
www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/12/bbc_hd_picture_quality.html
and the first part of three:
www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2010/06/picture_quality_on_bbc_hd_a_vi.html
>> HD/SD and MPEG2/4 can co-exist on a single MUX. DVB-T/T2 cannot.
I bow to your superior knowledge.
|
>>
>> >>the future is TV over IP.
>>
>> Absolutely. But its also a question of timescale.
>>
IMHO IP is still a really, really inefficient way to broadcast/multicast TV to a large number of people ( OK the watch on demand scenario is a bit different), but maybe one day millions will be using it. For now if you want a reasonable selection of HD content then it's Virgin via cable or Sky via satellite.
I suppose if they implement SFN for UK DVB then they could squeeze more muxes in, or more likely flog off the cleared spectrum for MBB in a 'digital dividend' style :-/
|
IP Multicast is very efficient at sending data to multiple recipients. Broadbast is no good because it would only be for a particular subnet. But the trouble is the infrastructure that provides our IP access is not taking advantage of multi-cast.
So for now, broadcasts via cable or satellite are more efficient. For cable, it's broadcast to homes from particular headends though.
|
>>IMHO IP is still a really, really inefficient way to broadcast/multicast TV to a large number of people
You are correct, and terrestial broadcast will always have its place because of that.
However, if you look at trends you will see that total viewing is not really increasing either in hours or numbers, but is increasingly spread over a growing number of channels, programs and sources. Consequentally we are no longer in the world of broadcasting 4 channels to millions of people and face exploding expectations of huge variety and choice.
In adidtion, the restriction on Broadcasting is the number of channels. Since slection is made at the point of reception, then everything must be broadcast to everybody. Although since broadcast does nto represent a cosnumable resource in any meaningful way, there is no limit to the number of people that can be servde.
With IP where the slection is made at the point of transmission, there is no meaningful imit to the numebr of channels that can be offered, although since the transmission method is a consumable resource there is a limit to the number of people who can be served - essentially the "last mile" is copper and digging is expensive.
As that restriction is removed, then IP TV will explode. We will then see an increase in the hybrid boxes as used by BT Vision with the ability to receive DVB-T broadcast, IPTV transmission and VOD downloads. At which point it will become immaterial and invisible which you are using to view content.
And that is true convergence. Its nothing to do with the end unit as people seem to keep insisting and believing, it is all about tranport. It is not related to using one unit to perform voice calls, video calls, computing, browsing, viewing etc. etc. sinc ethey require inherently different user interfaces so always represent a compromise and usually an unsatisfactory one.
Convergence matters in the transport layer where your television only shows video or your phone only does phone calls, but it can accept any signal from any source and any technology.
And why doesn't this site have a spell checker !!
|
>> Freeview HD
Do I care about HD tv at all, if I haven't a big TV?
|
>>Do I care about HD tv at all, if I haven't a big TV?<<
This is all you want then, surely? ~ direct.tesco.com/q/R.208-8797.aspx
Last edited by: Dog on Fri 9 Jul 10 at 10:27
|
HD is a personal decision. Personally I wouldn't pay extra for it if I had a tv the size of a planet and neither do I care whether I have it at all or not.
It is difficult to explain but imagine England were playing in the World Cup Final, its down to penalties and all you've got is a portable, analogue B&W. Would you watch it ? Most people would say yes.
Then imagine you have the most unimaginably stunning television capable of the most glorious pictures but all that is showing is a bunch of Big Brother contestants asleep. Most people would, I hope, say no.
The point being that content is the most significant driver to what you watch, not the quality you can see it in.
Further, when one is watching a program your brain tends to start to regard it as an experience and stop focussing on the detail - such as resolution. So the fact that it is HD will be lost on you.
There is also a school of thought that it is similar to the CD/Vinyl argument in that whilst the HD picture may be more literally accurate, it is less comfortable and therefore tends to remind you that you are watching television rather than enjoying an experience.
For most people the difference between televisions is not noticable or significant unless they are able to watch the two different qualities side by side.
All of the above means that the majority are not prepared to pay extra for HD, despite the fact that it uses almost 3 times the resources.
However, it may become an entry criteria in that whilst I will not pay extra for HD, I will not buy it at all UNLESS its HD pushing broadcasters into the position of having to broadcast HD, use up their resources and with additional costs, reduced number of slots and increasing competition profit is not going in a good decision.
Despite my job, and despite the fact that most of the televisions in the house are capable of HD, I have no HD service because I think its simply not worth *my* while. Come the point when content I wish to watch is only available on HD then I will have to alter my approach.
But, as they say, your point of view may be entirely different. And it is a totally subjective situation where what you want matters, not what is objectively the best.
3D, on the other hand, is in my opinion rubbish and annoying even if technically impressive.
For a start its not 3D; you're looking at it on what is effectively a 2D television so it can't be 3D it just cons your brain into thinking it is. Unfortunately that annoys your brain and tends to accelerate the tiredness which always comes with watching a video source.
Further, there is no single standard, not even a single approach, so its all a bit of a mess and won't develop as strongly as it could untilt hat's resolved.
And lastly 3D is something which only matters if you're moving around. Most people do not move around when watching television.
However, some people will pay for it, some people regard it as essential, and some love it. I doubt it will add signfiicantly to either your enjoyment or the MCOs profits.
|
??
>>Do I care about HD tv at all, if I haven't a big TV?
I thought you wanted -
>>I will consider getting a new machine, as "future poroof" as possible.
Either way, you might want HD depite the HD vision, as your viewing experience could be significantly enhanced by Dolby digital 5.1 sound, which accompanies some HD programming.
Provided you shell out for a suitable decoder/amp and speakers, of course.
Regarding HD vision, from my viewer's perspective, I have it but rarely watch it as it's not that much of an improvement on a 28" screen, and it eats up the 320gig hard disk on the Humax too quickly.
However, I'm contemplating a blu-ray player with D-D sound and a spare optical in to see what Mrs AJH makes of rumbly noises and "behind you!" effects, out of the panto season...
|
>>
>> The point being that content is the most significant driver to what you watch, not
>> the quality you can see it in. >>
Of course, HD carp is no more interesting, it is still carp. However everything esle being equal HD offers clear advantages.
>>
>> For most people the difference between televisions is not noticable or significant unless they are able to watch the two different qualities side by side.
>>
Which you can with Freeview HD, try watching 30mins of footy in SD and then switching to HD, it is like someone has taken a net curtain out of the way and shown the camera man where the focus knob is both at the same time.
|
FT, well the Humax HD box is just out and is expensive (£329). The Tesco box is about £200 but has been the subject of frantic software updates over recent weeks to fix such basic problems as no sound on replay on HD recordings. I understand that such problems are now fixed though. If you do decide to buy one I believe there is an excellent returns policy so you can try it out at zero risk, see if you get on with it.
I stick with my original recommendation, Humax. If you decide SD is good enough you can get one for £125 with a 160GB disk or just under £150 for one with a 320GB disk (Play.com, includes p&p). Humax have their own site where you may get one cheaper. Sorry, I'm away from home and not got a note of site).
JH
|
The only reason the Tesco Technika box might interest me is BBC iPlayer and Sky Player and the ability to stream media. But an Apple TV (current soon to be replaced one) with Boxee installed should do that too. Hmmm.
Humax has got quite a good reputation now though so I'd probably go for one of those if I needed a Freeview PVR.
And I am with others in not being convinced that HD broadcasts are currently worth it. They are 1080i and the quality probably is not there. For movies maybe because like BluRay they will have taken time to get them right and shot for HD anyway.
|
|
It still amuses me the amount of people I know who buy HDTVs for better picture quality, but then watch everything in stretchyvision! To me displaying things the right shape is more fundamental than the number of pixels.
|
|
I am amazed how many people who watch an HD capable TV with SD content and think they are watching HD all the time. Or someone who watched the HD channels on Virgin Media on a 28" CRT TV via SCART and couldn't tell the difference.... well they'd watched HD in SD hadn't they.
|
Another vote for content over picture quality. Indeed, we went to the BBC archive site yesterday and watched an episode of Chronicle via the net onto the tv.
Quality was terrible - grainy old film, then digitized, from early 1970s.
But - and it's a big but - it was about the SS Great Britain being returned from the Falklands, and we both agreed it was the best thing we've seen on TV this year so far.
|
well given that I recently bought a good quality HD set for £459, then I think HD has met the price point where content is not an enabler.
The world cup in HD AND doctor who in HD is worth the price of admission.
At £459 there is no reason NOT to have full HD, its not costing me any more to watch than using a black and white 7 inch portable, so why not?
I have to admit it does have a "sharp" edge to it, and the vynl/cd argument is a good analagy.
|
>> At £459 there is no reason NOT to have full HD, its not costing me
>> any more to watch than using a black and white 7 inch portable, so why
>> not?
That's way more than I spend without months of sleepless nights on anything. Never mind tv.
|
...that's way more than I spend without months of sleepless nights on anything...
He'll be spending close to that at the Grand Prix tomorrow.
Worth it, because I'm sure Bernie needs the dough.
|
>> ...that's way more than I spend without months of sleepless nights on anything...
>>
>> He'll be spending close to that at the Grand Prix tomorrow.
Including food, petrol, drinks and other stuff, close on three hundred quid.
Worth It?
To listen to near on 20 thousand horsepower roar away from the lights, to see Massa spin it into the pit lane and smell his tyre smoke, and to listen to the jeers and watch the hand gestures at the mention of the name Alonso.
Priceless.
The icing on the cake? The red arrows were stunning.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 11 Jul 10 at 21:19
|
...Including food, petrol, drinks and other stuff, close on three hundred quid...
Not too bad.
I think the Grand Prix has increased a lot in real terms since I went a couple of times in the 1980s.
As others have said, the overall experience is memorable, but I've no desire to go again.
Nor are there rose tinted spectacles at work here - I don't suppose the standard of racing was much better when I went than it is today.
|
>>have to admit it does have a "sharp" edge to it, and the vynl/cd argument is a good analagy<<
Haha! That's the 'problem' with my £850 100Hz Panasonic jobbie,
I've even considered toning it down a fraction via the contrast control,
Great on the old B/W WW2 footage of The Fuhrer on Yesterday though :D
|
>>>>have to admit it does have a "sharp" edge to it, and the vynl/cd argument is a good analagy<<<<
>> Haha! That's the 'problem' with my £850 100Hz Panasonic jobbie,
>> I've even considered toning it down a fraction via the contrast control,
I'd argue that contrast is the wrong setting for what you describe, although the display produces a better result to my eye if it is not driven as hard as any of the the manufacturer's presets.
As provided the face tones burn out slightly giving an shiny over-exposed look which isn't always in the original material.
It's one of the lcd screen issues that irritate me, compared to a crt.
If it is really the "sharpness" that bothers you, my Panasonic has a "picture menu" option for adjusting sharpness down, as well as up. I'm sure yours will too.
|
>>my Panasonic has a "picture menu" option for adjusting sharpness down, as well as up. I'm sure yours will too.<<
Affirmative John, my picture menu is set up as follows ~
viewing mode - auto.
colour balance - normal.
colour management - off.
p.nr - off.
reset to default - set.
I might add that I'm the sort of pain that used to listen more to the clicks and scratches on vinyl than the actual music :-)
|
Dog, in that case you must have really enjoyed the bits where, the bits where, the bits where, the bits where, the bits where... :-)
JH
|
I believe this recording may be pre digital, Tooslow.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7Gi6j4w3DY&feature=related
Last edited by: Dog on Sun 11 Jul 10 at 17:33
|
The reason for spending more on a Full HD TV is the superior quality of the display due to more advanced processing and configuration technology, although quite a few people won't/don't see any immediate obvious benefit.
Someone I know was wondering what all the fuss was about HD when watching World Cup football on a 50in Panasonic until, that is, the set was switched to the standard definition transmission.....
|
PVR recommendation. - rtj70
