1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Freeview is rubbish quality?

Discussion in 'Freeview & YouView' started by hoyin, Nov 25, 2004.

  1. hoyin

    hoyin
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Just been reading some reviews on Freeview - which was in last years Hi Fi News.

    They say that the picture quality on an almost static picture is very good. However fast moving scence the picture can deteriorate rapidly, with very distracting mosquito noise (MPEG artefacts around edge details), and some trailing 'echo' effect of objects in motion. This is manifested most annoyingly in the closing credits of TV programmes, which often become unreadable. Some programmes have a continual swirling, grainy video noise that softens focus terrbily. They also slate the sound quality saying it varies terrbily between 'medium fidelity' 160-192kbit/s to 'poor' 128kbit/s or below.

    Mind you this review is over a year ago, has things improved? I don't want to get it then find out that it is worse than my analogue transmission which is pretty good.

    I tested it before about a year ago when I was buying my projector. I nearly didn't buy a projector as the picture quality was not good enough for me. But I realised that it was the signal from the sky digital box (I was trying to watch football!) and the quality of picture was awful compared to a normal analogue signal it was extremely pixelated. When the camera zoomed out you could not read the numbers on the back of the players shirt which you could on an analogue signal.

    So what I want to know is if the picture has improved and significantly? And will it be better than my analogue transmission.

    Thanks
     
  2. Philly112

    Philly112
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2003
    Messages:
    4,176
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Frodsham
    Ratings:
    +1,473
    Can't give you a definitive answer, as this depends on the quality of your terrestial signal (ours wasn't very good). But Freeview is in widescreen, which is what swung it for me - and I suspect you'll find that the majority of people here find their pic quality is better on Freeview than terrestrial. Or maybe not... (mine is, by the way - massively!!)
    Oh, and the sound on my kit - especially on digital radio (another good plus for Freeview) - is far better than I was used to - but then again, my analogue reception wasn't too hot.
     
  3. Knightshade

    Knightshade
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2004
    Messages:
    1,971
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Ratings:
    +43
    No Complaints so far, the pictures good, just upgraded the aerial and run some good coax cable to the freeview box. Much better than analogue. I run the sound through an external DAC so again I have no complaints. And like Philly says the digital radio is a good +
     
  4. MartinImber

    MartinImber
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2001
    Messages:
    3,851
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Worcester
    Ratings:
    +21
    I find digital terrestrial is the best current SDTV signal available for UK viewers - meaning I exclude Euro1080 and high bit rate sat broadcasts.

    My TV tuner is rather good at decoding FV
     
  5. matty2767

    matty2767
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    my analogue signal used to be poor but the freeview is excellent much better than our neighbours sky which constantly artefacts.

    i too have mine linked up to the surround sound and mostly listen to the radio during the day.
     
  6. Nick_UK

    Nick_UK
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,748
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    103
    Ratings:
    +270
    I'd advise them to get an engineer in then, because mine does not :cool:
     
  7. Starburst

    Starburst
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    17,838
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Ilkeston
    Ratings:
    +979
    Once again it's shocking what some people will put up with either through ignorance or refusing to maintain a system. There are literally only a handful of channels across the whole of Dsat via SKY that could be considered "bad", the rest can be made to look awful through a poor performing/installed system or extensive digital processing/100hz scanning from a modern TV but that can affect any digital platform.
     
  8. raydawson

    raydawson
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2004
    Messages:
    232
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    UK
    Ratings:
    +27
    I had Ntl digital, but it was never really good quality. Ntl engineers said it was as good as it gets.

    I've now got two Freeview boxes - a Fusion with a HDD recorder and a Thomson with Top up TV. The latter is connected to my Toshiba RD-XS32 instead of using the analogue tuner.

    Both give an excellent picture on my Thomson widescreen - much better than Ntl ever did.

    Ray D
     
  9. NX3

    NX3
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2002
    Messages:
    3,488
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    103
    Ratings:
    +332
    Different channels use different amounts of bandwidth and the BBC uses a more robust signal to ITV. Compare say a heavly compressed channel like ABC1 in a fast action sequence to e.g BBC1 and the Beeb wins hands down. Match of the day looks great to me on a 28 w/s tv. Football on ITV, the grass tends to blur alot more and blend into one giant green blanket.

    Sound quality varies as well. I believe Freeview radio stations have higher bitrate than the DAB version of the same stations !

    For me all channels are miles better than analogue signal which is terrible.
     
  10. brifobwad

    brifobwad
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2002
    Messages:
    68
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    11
    Location:
    Rosyth
    Ratings:
    +1
    I managed to get a Netgem box from Makro for under £50. On analogue signal I have a very snowy Channel Five picture; the picture on digital is very good. I consider the money well spent for the improvement on this channel alone. I have the box connected via digital coax to my Nad T752.
     
  11. scgf

    scgf
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
    Messages:
    444
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Market Harborough, Leicestershire, UK
    Ratings:
    +26
    I had Sky+ and the picture quality through my plasma screen was appalling. I decided to scrap Sky and buy a TiVo and a Freeview box. I immediately noticed that the Freeview picture was very much better than Sky and having tweaked the TiVo's mode and bitrate settings I am getting far better quality through the TiVo than I ever got with Sky+.

    Most people will tell you that Sky+ is better because it records the raw digital stream, but if that raw digital stream is of poor quality to start with then it offers no benefit over a correctly setup TiVo.

    In fact, today I asked myself if I had missed any of the extra channels Sky offers and my answer was no.
     

Share This Page

Loading...