Question Is Sky Q a Necessity with oled

johnr2110

Prominent Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2006
Messages
3,074
Reaction score
112
Points
829
Location
Eastbourne
As a soon to be oled purschaser do we need to purchase a Sky Q2TB box to realise the full potential of our purchase or will Sky HD plus Netflix suffice Plus UHD Blu-ray?
 
I would say whilst sky q can not do hdr then for me it’s not a necessity. Once you watch things in hdr (Netflix/Amazon prime/bbc iplayer) I think you’ll agree 4K needs hdr to really give the picture a massive boost over hd.

Hdr is coming to sky q so I would wait for that before upgrading
 
Thank you for the responses so far. I note that no one mentioned the Sky UHD service for films and sport?
 
Sky uhd films are ok but when you have seen something in hdr or Dolby vision they start to look like hd
 
Thank you for the responses so far. I note that no one mentioned the Sky UHD service for films and sport?

The sport in UHD on Sky Q is stunning even without the benefit of HDR so if you like watching Premiership football. Cricket, & F1 (like I do ) then getting Sky Q is a no brainer imo.
 
Don’t go shelling out for Sky Q expecting generally better picture quality. UHD looks good. Really good on sport. But for HD content, which is what the majority of things will be then it’s very variable, ranging from ‘good’ to ‘appalling’ in my experience.

The problem is they just compress everything to hell and use the lowest bit rate possible. It’s such a shame/disgrace and it’s their flagship programmes that suffer as a result.

Sorry, you just gave me an excuse to vent. o_O I’ve got it, I wouldn’t be without it, but it just winds me up that they charge so much and something seemingly so fundamental to a premium subscription TV service as picture quality is clearly not seen as important.
 
I should also say that although I’ve been a ‘full fat’ Sky customer for 20 years, when that’s added to the fact I’m the son of a Spendthrift Yorkshireman, I resent paying a ‘set up’ fee for equipment I’ll never own.
 
I should also say that although I’ve been a ‘full fat’ Sky customer for 20 years, when that’s added to the fact I’m the son of a Spendthrift Yorkshireman, I resent paying a ‘set up’ fee for equipment I’ll never own.

My Dad had been a customer for 19 years and he was some sort of 'Black VIP' level meaning he got Sky Q installed for free.
 
Don’t go shelling out for Sky Q expecting generally better picture quality. UHD looks good. Really good on sport. But for HD content, which is what the majority of things will be then it’s very variable, ranging from ‘good’ to ‘appalling’ in my experience.

The problem is they just compress everything to hell and use the lowest bit rate possible. It’s such a shame/disgrace and it’s their flagship programmes that suffer as a result.

Sorry, you just gave me an excuse to vent. o_O I’ve got it, I wouldn’t be without it, but it just winds me up that they charge so much and something seemingly so fundamental to a premium subscription TV service as picture quality is clearly not seen as important.
Not that I want this to turn into a Sky hating thread but yes I agree.

Sports look pretty decent. Well F1 does as thats the only sports I have from Sky on the old "F1 for free if you have HD" package. Films are very mixed ranging from OK to not good.

HDR should be the difference maker when it's introduced, so the OP could wait. However Sky Q for me is a wonderful thing and I would vote for getting it anyway.
 
For HD is it still 1080i? or is Sky Q 1080p?

Even if you get Sky Q - only SELECT items will be UHD. I.E. Live Premier league football, cricket and f1. And some movies to download.

What annoys me is you have to take out a further multiscreen sub of £12 to enable UHD on the 2TB box. So you can have the 2TB box subscribe to everything, but still not get UHD.
 
...What annoys me is you have to take out a further multiscreen sub of £12 to enable UHD on the 2TB box. So you can have the 2TB box subscribe to everything, but still not get UHD.

Good point re the £12 multiscreen payment. I’d forgotten about that. I’ve only got one TV so have no use for multiscreen. Also, if you don’t take multi screen they want £200 to install Sky Q. And you still won’t own it.
 
My Dad had been a customer for 19 years and he was some sort of 'Black VIP' level meaning he got Sky Q installed for free.
I'm a Black VIP as well. Best I've been offered is £20.00 plus £12.00 per month for multi screen. I won't use multiscreen and (at the moment) there's not enough UHD to make £12 'just' for UHD worth it for me.
 
Last edited:
I've found that Sky's so called UHD content is rather soft, much prefer watching in HD, and I'm waiting on Virigin to see what they're going to roll out. To be honest I'm thinking about ditching Sky anyway.
 
I'm a Black VIP as well. Best I've been offered is £20.00 plus £12.00 per month for multi screen. I won't use multiscreen and (at the moment) there's not enough UHD to make £12 'just' for UHD worth it for me.
That’s the same deal we’ve been offered, have decided to go for it as for us the ability to multi record will be advantageous.
 
For HD is it still 1080i? or is Sky Q 1080p?

Even if you get Sky Q - only SELECT items will be UHD. I.E. Live Premier league football, cricket and f1. And some movies to download.

What annoys me is you have to take out a further multiscreen sub of £12 to enable UHD on the 2TB box. So you can have the 2TB box subscribe to everything, but still not get UHD.

It’s still 1080i.
 
Ive gone with Apple TV 4k box. Seems to be cheapest for 4k DV/HDR movies. Binned my Sky 6 months ago, not missing it.
 
I have two B7’s 55s in the upstais games room and one in the bedroom both have the Sky mini box attached.
I was looking at the image quality closely the last few days (I was sat underneath one on the laptop with some program on for background noise) and I really don’t think the Sky mini box delivers a great picture. There appears to be some quality loss in the Wifi signal being sent from the main box. It’s ok at a distance.
Compare it to bbc beta uhd football and it looks terrible. The image quality on the Iplayer app is stunning. I don’t know why sky can’t just do that.i suppose the question is if you want the convenience of it in another room I hope in a few more years sky won’t matter I’m questioning it now more than ever in terms of value.
Netflix, amazon and Apple TV4k are also much better in image quality. To be fair the main sky box is further away than the Bt WiFihub.

As for UHD on sky what a disappointment and con. Hidden away in box sets you have to remember to check if they are available then download them. 95% is not UHD And none of it is HLG/HDR which it makes more of a difference.
 
Last edited:
£40 a month for 18months on SKy Q for the whole package, Movies ,sports box sets, paid £65 for the box SKY Q 2TB, multi room was £12 a month extra....
looking forward to sports in UHD.
 
I would say Netflix shoukd be the Main thing 4k HDR and Dolby vision. 4k blu ray is on another level though.
 
F1 in UHD looks really good!

UHD films are ok, but no HDR or DV. You’re never going to beat a UHD Blu-ray though.
 
Don’t go shelling out for Sky Q expecting generally better picture quality. UHD looks good. Really good on sport. But for HD content, which is what the majority of things will be then it’s very variable, ranging from ‘good’ to ‘appalling’ in my experience.

The problem is they just compress everything to hell and use the lowest bit rate possible. It’s such a shame/disgrace and it’s their flagship programmes that suffer as a result.

Sorry, you just gave me an excuse to vent. o_O I’ve got it, I wouldn’t be without it, but it just winds me up that they charge so much and something seemingly so fundamental to a premium subscription TV service as picture quality is clearly not seen as important.

Yep, winds me up too. Game of Thrones in particular has been a horror of compression artefacts, especially dark scenes.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is Home Theater DEAD in 2024?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom