More capacity?

[AngelEyes]

Hi, I am vaguely interested in Sky+ but it seems so damn expansive (I am not interested in premium channels) for such a small HD capacity. Are there any plans for a new Sky + Box, possibly with more capacity?

Many thanks.

 

[JAMBO]

If you do a search, there are several threads on this forum explaining in detail, how to increase the capacity with a bit of DIY, after a visit to Maplins. You should be able to increse capacity from 20 hours to 60 or 80 hours, easily enough. Though it obviously gubs your warranty.

 

[AngelEyes]

many thanks, I apologise for not searching in detail before.

 

[cerebros]

Unfortunately still rather expensive (i.e. Sky+, then addtional HD, plus whatever the additional monthly sub is if you're not using a premium channel package...)

 

[STOWITBELOW]

I'm doing it again -, + is great for convenience & ease of use. Yes Sky +s expensive, but its bloody good (better value than Sky). The £200 for + was one of my best buys I feel. My hard drive upgrade's been worthwhile but would void my warranty. However I can always swap back if needed.

 

[AngelEyes]

Thank you for the feedback so far, much apprecated.

I know the sound is better but is the picture improved on +?

I get a signal strength on Sky of 50% (apparently that is normal and it doesn't get higher than that according to some lady at Sky) but quite often fast movement is pixelated (like a highly compressed jpeg) or other nasty solarisation effects on certain channels.

Will things be better on + or is it likely to be the same?

Any ideas on how to improve the picture quality would be appreciated.

Thanks.

 

[leng]

My Sky+ was better, but that was because my old decoder was ANCIENT. As for 50%, it might or might not be ok but I get better than that on both channels.

As someone else said, though, Sky+ is more about convenience than anything else. I (almost) never miss something I want to record nowadays. Personally I find 20 hours of recorded material sufficient but you can upgrade.

Oh, and the sound is significantly better if you have a 5.1 amp you can use.

 

[Starburst]

Originally posted by AngelEyes


I get a signal strength on Sky of 50% (apparently that is normal and it doesn't get higher than that according to some lady at Sky) but quite often fast movement is pixelated (like a highly compressed jpeg) or other nasty solarisation effects on certain channels.

Will things be better on + or is it likely to be the same?

Any ideas on how to improve the picture quality would be appreciated.

Thanks.

A well installed system can easily give 100% readings on all inputs although in the realworld you should expect at least 75% across the board. Anything significantly less would mean during bad weather when the signal is weakened by rain or snow the dish may then be too poorly setup to pull enough signal.

Poor picture quality has more to do with over compression of the digital broadcast, too many broadcasters who use Dsat (and the other digital platforms) save money by using as low a bitrate as possible. Digital STB's have no real power to do anything about this although high end deinterlacers and scalers can vastly improve a "reasonable" digital picture.

If you have SKY+ installed you should expect that the installer when fitting the new LNB realigns the dish and uses new cable, that should give you better strength and quality readings which should provide a more reliable system but above a certain signal quality there is no practical benefit.