Sky HD service gets reviewed
Filed under: Industry, Reviews, DVRs, Set-top boxes, Satellite
Relevant Posts
- Sky extends half-off HD box promo, launches £10 million ad campaign (11 days ago - 1 Comment)
- Sky launching Real Lives HD channel October 20 (55 days ago - 0 Comments)
- History Channel UK bringing HD Bio and Crime channels (3 days ago - 0 Comments)
- Panasonic's FreeSat-tuning VIERA TH-46PZ81B gets reviewed (18 days ago - 0 Comments)
- Humax FOXSAT-HD Freesat receiver gets reviewed (27 days ago - 0 Comments)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
stiltskin @ Mar 18th 2008 5:03AM
Lets just say if my SD shows from Comcast looked that good I could give up on HD all together and be fine with SD stretch-o-vision.
DrXym @ Mar 18th 2008 5:05AM
Sky HD is not going to take off while they charge a fortune for the box AND a fortune on the monthly sub. It should be one or the other, not both. Until that happens, they'll just get early adopters.
Freesat is coming soon and UK viewers will be able to get the BBC, ITV in HD and other channels for nothing. If Sky doesn't drop their prices, then a significant number of SD & HD customers will simply jump ship.
LordZargon @ Mar 18th 2008 6:15AM
Agreed, that, and in cabled areas Virgin is massively cheaper and much better value for money.
Sky has a long way to go yet.
Olly @ Mar 18th 2008 7:17AM
Sorry, but that's not a review, that's an advert. There's SkyHD advertising all over the page for gawd's sake. I've had SkyHD for over a year now, and I agree it is good, but it's far from perfect. I find myself seriously doubting the reviewer's neutrality!
Taomyn @ Mar 18th 2008 8:42AM
Yes, this is just Sky paid-for propaganda.
No mention of the crappy low res EPG from the standard boxes. This is reportedly being changed in the next upgrade, but that's been said for nearly 2 years!!
No mention of the poor build quality of the Thompson boxes, with a well known defect in the design of the power supply (same mistake made ages ago by Grundig) and low cost parts making them fail after a few months use. For those just out of warranty your only course of action is to purchase a new box or get a replacement psu from a 3rd party.
No mention, rather skirted over, that there is no 5.1 audio transmitted over the HDMI so you _have_ to use optical to get it.
If you want the "real" story, visit Digital Spy's forum for the latest: http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=152
A1 @ Mar 18th 2008 9:16AM
Sky one HD - Not bad, lost etc looks great, other stuff meh
BBC HD- The best HD channel in the UK at present
Channel 4 HD - Shocking. This is not HD. Very poor.
Sky Movies - Only seen a few and look ok.
Sky sports - Haven't watched personally but reports are always good.
Discovery HD - Good most of the time, sometimes just ok.
History HD - Same as Discovery, maybe not as much consistency.
Arts tv HD - Good to great picture, but not always worth watching.
Luxe TV HD - Good picture but hell if i know what this channel is all about!
Sky Box Office - Haven't seen it but suspect the same as Sky movies.
There you go :)
Truth Teller @ Mar 18th 2008 1:44PM
I like my Sky HD.
Especially as I only paid 149 for it and no other fees (like the ridiculous 60 installation/cable change fee or a completely unnecessary multi-room service & fee).
It also has to be remembered that here in the UK our 625 line (576 lines are visible) PAL SD TV system has significantly more lines & subsequent better resolution than the US system with it's mere 525 lines (only 480 visible).
It also helps explain why PAL SD DVD upscaling here looks so good and is another reason why many in the mass-market say they see too little difference between SD & high def for it to be worth the premium high def asks for.
I do agree that the Sky 10/mth HD charge is a total gouge & it should disappear
(as the similar one on Sky+ did once the PVR service got established......or they ought to at least wave it for those of us on the highest service package).
I've been with Sky for (including via cable for 5yrs) almost the whole 20 years they have been going in total and I have had most of the kit from the old analogue service & the set-top boxes we bought ourselves (Pace Apollo, great little unit) to the digibox (a 100% reliable Pace) to the Sky+ box (another great 100% reliable Pace unit) to the latest Sky HD box (a Thomson unit which isn't as smooth as the Pace boxes but has yet to let us down in any way.....shame the HDD isn't a little bigger, a usable partition of 250gb would have been great instead of the 160gb we get now).
I find them to be very reliable, pricey in terms of the package costs but I'd rather have it than not.
The really big pity for us is that we have little or no serious competition to them here (and if the airwaves sell-off continues as it looks like it's going to there's not going to be either as there's precious little sign of 'free-to-air' HD terrestrial broadcasting coming.
For me the big point for the Sky HD service is, ironically, the excellent 'free' BBC HD channel and Channel 4's simulcast.....and now they have more HD stuff showing up on the 'Anytime' service as well as the 2 dedicated HD movie channels it's definitely gotten a lot better in the last 6 months.
Truth Teller @ Mar 18th 2008 1:57PM
I like the Channel 4 simulcast.
It may not be 'true' HD but it is upscaling coming from the source and done to a very high standard (anyone that thinks there's no real difference is either watching on an old poor HD TV or has their settings all wrong or is simply visually challenged.
.....and you reminded me, Sky Sports HD 1 & 2 are excellent; the footy has never looked so good.
Sky Movies HD rely on the source so much that they can be genuinely outstanding or very ordinary.
I gather their bot-rates can be quite variable from time to time too which can effect the quality too.