# Freesat Box with Tivo?



## Millimole (May 29, 2003)

I've finally got around to cancelling my Sky subscription, and although my ancient Amstrad Sky box is still working, I'm considering upgrading to a newer Freesat box (which might, at the same time save a few pence on the 'lectickery bill) - but I still want to feed my Tivo habit.
What is the current advice regarding an unmodified Tivo box and the available Freesat boxes - or should I just head for Freesat+ ? (which I'm loath to do because I know, trust and like my Tivo).


----------



## DX30 (May 22, 2005)

I've used a TiVo with the Humax Freesat box in the past and it works OK.

In your position however I'd stick with your existing Sky box as you will keep your FTV channels (Fiver + Five USA). OK you won't have BBC HD but if that channel is important to you Freesat+ would be better so you can record HD.


----------



## Leif_Davidsen (Jun 5, 2002)

Some months ago we moved over from old and failing Sky boxes to Freesat boxes with Tivo - We have simple Bush Freesat boxes - see here for the Tivo codes and which box.

http://www.tivocentral.co.uk/freesat/

I would have liked to have better choice of options - but the Bush SD box has worked perfectly in all situations so far


----------



## ghstone (Apr 12, 2003)

I agree with the earleir posts, keep the Sky Box for the FTA channels, and get a Freesat HD box to pick up the other stuff and of course HD.

We have 2 TIVOs recording from Sky FTA, and another from FreeSAT HD.

Interestingly if you have mode 0 on your TIVO and you record a BBC HD program from the Freesat HD box , the picture is significantly better than the same program from BBC SD, even though the Freesat box is outputting to SCART.


----------



## Sneals2000 (Aug 25, 2002)

ghstone said:


> Interestingly if you have mode 0 on your TIVO and you record a BBC HD program from the Freesat HD box , the picture is significantly better than the same program from BBC SD, even though the Freesat box is outputting to SCART.


The same is also true of SD content upconverted and broadcast on ITV1 HD and C4 HD. It's a result of the HD broadcast having HD-sized artefacts, and in general delivering higher picture quality. (H264 is a much better compression scheme than MPEG2)

Basically the HD outlets have much higher bitrates, a much more efficient compression scheme, and any artefacts that are introduced are introduced at HD resolution. When the HD channel is downconverted to SD in the receiver, many HD compression artefacts are lost due to the downsampling.

It also emphasises how poor the SD channels' picture quality, as received at home, has become.


----------



## katman (Jun 4, 2002)

Sneals2000 said:


> It also emphasises how poor the SD channels' picture quality, as received at home, has become.


It also emphasises how digital TV was mis-sold to us. We were promised "perfect" picture quality as CD did for Vinyl.

Due to the broadcasters squeezing a gallon into a Pint Pot what we have ended up with is the equivalant of a 56k MP3.

How can they expect to deliver a good picture at 2Mbs when uncompressed SD Digital video is around 200Mbs ????

IMO many of the digital channels have far worse picture quality than a good quality analogue broadcast. Back in the old Analogue ASTRA days you only has to compare the quality of some of the German TV stations with picture quality of Videocrypt encoded SKY channels to see just how good analogue TV could be. D2-MAC also gave superb pictures as well.

We were promised "more choice" and I thought that meant "more choice of programs" not "choice of which channel to watch the same program on"


----------



## Sneals2000 (Aug 25, 2002)

katman said:


> It also emphasises how digital TV was mis-sold to us. We were promised "perfect" picture quality as CD did for Vinyl.


Hmm - Digital quality is a meaningless concept isn't it?



> Due to the broadcasters squeezing a gallon into a Pint Pot what we have ended up with is the equivalant of a 56k MP3.
> 
> How can they expect to deliver a good picture at 2Mbs when uncompressed SD Digital video is around 200Mbs ????


Well 4:2:2 8 bit active video is around 165Mbs uncompressed (excluding blanking and audio), and this drops to 124Mbs if you use 4:2:0 8 bit.

50Mbs compressed I-frame only 4:2:2 MPEG2 (as used in MPEG2 IMX VTRs and servers) is deemed broadcast quality after multiple generations (in fact it slightly outperforms DigiBeta after a couple I think)

When you switch to Long GOP MPEG2 I think broadcasters usually aim for around 24Mbs 4:2:2 for contribution circuits for high quality (sport & entertainment) droppping to around 8Mbs for News (though News broadcasters are switching to H264 for SNG these days), and around 10Mbs for distribution.

Even with the newest encoders, once you get below 5Mbs it starts looking a bit dodgy - though as ever the route taken to the final encoder plays a huge part. (Intermediate compression is a killer)



> IMO many of the digital channels have far worse picture quality than a good quality analogue broadcast. Back in the old Analogue ASTRA days you only has to compare the quality of some of the German TV stations with picture quality of Videocrypt encoded SKY channels to see just how good analogue TV could be. D2-MAC also gave superb pictures as well.


Yep - but they took a HUGE amount of bandwith. We're getting three or four 1080i HD channels, at pretty good quality in H264, in the same RF bandwith that a single PAL or D2MAC SD signal used to occupy AIUI...

D2MAC was great in picture quality terms - but heinously expensive in RF terms.



> We were promised "more choice" and I thought that meant "more choice of programs" not "choice of which channel to watch the same program on"


Yep - eventually non-linear scheduling of your own favourite content via VOD will replace a lot of the re-run channels - leaving only the "big hitters" with widely consumed linear schedules for "first run" content I suspect.

And if you want to talk compression - look at HD. 1920x1080/50i 4:2:0 is around 620Mbs uncompressed, yet we're now getting that at 10-15Mbs H264 - and it looks pretty damn good.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

Millimole said:


> What is the current advice regarding an unmodified Tivo box and the available Freesat boxes - or should I just head for Freesat+ ? (which I'm loath to do because I know, trust and like my Tivo).


Your FTV Sky box (I presume you have the new white viewing card and not an old blue one) gives you Sky Three, Fiver and Five USA, which you can't watch or record at all on a non Sky Freesat box because those channels are free to watch but encrypted (Free To View - FTV). Also I believe quite a few minor FTA channels on satellite (Horse & Country, Rural Tv etc) are still not in the Freesat FTV and possibly you can't get them at all unless you have the Humax Fresat box where you can switch out of Freesat mode and in to Euro sat box mode.

A basic Freesat box is not better than a Sky box. It is just cheaper for people who wanted to avoid having any contractual dealings with Sky.
So stick with your Sky box in conjunction with your Tivo.

A Freesat HD PVR will let you record and watch HD television but at the penalty of giving up Tivo and having to put up with the Humax HD box's only 7 day EPG and generally poor user interface.


----------



## kris42 (Feb 1, 2003)

DX30 said:


> I've used a TiVo with the Humax Freesat box in the past and it works OK.
> 
> In your position however I'd stick with your existing Sky box as you will keep your FTV channels (Fiver + Five USA). OK you won't have BBC HD but if that channel is important to you Freesat+ would be better so you can record HD.


Not sure this is true. I no longer recevie these two channels and many others following Sky placing a signal on threse stating unless a new card is bought (£20) the FTA channels will noe be received. I ost these channels some onths ago as a result of not buying a new card as I dumped Sky a while back.

Using the Sky box without card in it reselts in the same.


----------



## DX30 (May 22, 2005)

kris42 said:


> Not sure this is true.


The OP had only just cancelled their Sky sub, so would have had a working card.


----------



## Millimole (May 29, 2003)

Thanks for all the advice - I've decided to keep the working plain Sky box, with recently updated card, in conjunction with my faithful Tivo.
I've also recently purchased an Aston-Simba HD Fransat box for my Francophile perversion  which allows limited (ie clunky) recording of the FTA HD channels (BBC-HD, ITV-HD etc) as well as anything else that my dish farm points at - so it's a bit of the best of both worlds.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

Millimole said:


> Thanks for all the advice - I've decided to keep the working plain Sky box, with recently updated card, in conjunction with my faithful Tivo.
> 
> I've also recently purchased an Aston-Simba HD Fransat box for my Francophile perversion  which allows limited (ie clunky) recording of the FTA HD channels (BBC-HD, ITV-HD etc) as well as anything else that my dish farm points at - so it's a bit of the best of both worlds.


It sounds to me like you made the right decision for your own needs although I presume you must have multiple LNBs and cables to feed all the required sat box points?


----------



## martink0646 (Feb 8, 2005)

Pete77 said:


> It sounds to me like you made the right decision for your own needs although I presume you must have multiple LNBs and cables to feed all the required sat box points?


I think he'll be alright if you read his post. He has a "dish farm" which strongly suggest multiple dishes.

Martin


----------



## Millimole (May 29, 2003)

Yes - a standard Sky Minidish, plus a Visiosat Big Bisat - which has 3 LNBs (for 5w + 19 & 13E) feeding a Disecq switch.
(Not much of a farm, but The Boss still makes occasional disparaging comments)


----------

