Sky+ or Sky HD
05 April 2007, 11:11 AM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 10,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sky+ or Sky HD
If you were getting a brand new Sky account which would you go for - are the HD services at the moment really worth the extra £200 initial outlay?
05 April 2007, 11:15 AM
#2
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally, I'd stick with Sky+ for now, not enough HD channels to justify the cost IMHO. Plus by the time they do get it sorted the next gen of HD will probably be out anyway.
Ta!
Trending Topics
05 April 2007, 06:47 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Notts, UK
Posts: 4,935
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Upgraded to HD from Sky+ before Christmas.
Very little HD content worth watching now the BBC drama's have finished.
If you have HD then you will have to pay £10 a month extra for HD and Sky+. (Now one payment)
If you get Sky+ and don't have two or more premium channels then you will have to pay £10 a month extra for Sky+
Saying that even SD pictures on the HD box look better than the Sky+ box. The HD box upscales and has HDMI
It's a 50/50 really, it was worth it when I had it but there is not enough content at the moment.
Cheers
Lee
Very little HD content worth watching now the BBC drama's have finished.
If you have HD then you will have to pay £10 a month extra for HD and Sky+. (Now one payment)
If you get Sky+ and don't have two or more premium channels then you will have to pay £10 a month extra for Sky+
Saying that even SD pictures on the HD box look better than the Sky+ box. The HD box upscales and has HDMI
It's a 50/50 really, it was worth it when I had it but there is not enough content at the moment.
Cheers
Lee
05 April 2007, 09:54 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Croydon - returned to democracy! Yay!!
Posts: 3,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HD *should* give a better picture, even with SD channels, over HDMI. And as Lee pointed out, the cost is the same monthly - it's just the initial investment that's more.
I'd go for HD myself - the receiver seems to be better at holding a signal in inclement weather, the boxes are more reliable and the ability to pick up HD, even once in a while, is a real plus.
SB (Contractor with Sky)
I'd go for HD myself - the receiver seems to be better at holding a signal in inclement weather, the boxes are more reliable and the ability to pick up HD, even once in a while, is a real plus.
SB (Contractor with Sky)
06 April 2007, 12:58 AM
#11
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 10,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
13 April 2007, 09:55 AM
#12
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Immingham, NE Lincs
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HD *should* give a better picture, even with SD channels, over HDMI. And as Lee pointed out, the cost is the same monthly - it's just the initial investment that's more.
I'd go for HD myself - the receiver seems to be better at holding a signal in inclement weather, the boxes are more reliable and the ability to pick up HD, even once in a while, is a real plus.
SB (Contractor with Sky)
I'd go for HD myself - the receiver seems to be better at holding a signal in inclement weather, the boxes are more reliable and the ability to pick up HD, even once in a while, is a real plus.
SB (Contractor with Sky)
If I want to upgrade to HD, regardless of what premium channels I subscribe to it will be an extra £10 a month on my subscription charges. I personally don't think the few HD channels you can receive currently are worth that extra outlay.
13 April 2007, 10:03 AM
#13
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HD *should* give a better picture, even with SD channels, over HDMI. And as Lee pointed out, the cost is the same monthly - it's just the initial investment that's more.
I'd go for HD myself - the receiver seems to be better at holding a signal in inclement weather, the boxes are more reliable and the ability to pick up HD, even once in a while, is a real plus.
SB (Contractor with Sky)
I'd go for HD myself - the receiver seems to be better at holding a signal in inclement weather, the boxes are more reliable and the ability to pick up HD, even once in a while, is a real plus.
SB (Contractor with Sky)
All channels are MUCH better quality and the HD channels being better again.
I find myself watching programmes just because they are HD, it really is very good. Still you can only watch Megastructures so many times.....
So there is an honest opinion of the benefits, you just have to work out if the cost justifies it.
13 April 2007, 01:04 PM
#15
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: South Wales
Posts: 680
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ask your self the question, do you watch football or watch films alot, if you do and you subscibe to these Sky chanels then go for Sky HD (I Did - and the quality is first class). One thing I would say though is that the sky hd boxes are made by thompson and seem to have a number of "features" that seem to suggest they are not made to the standards of the pace sky + boxes.
But still would say go for Sky HD if you meet the above criteria..
J
But still would say go for Sky HD if you meet the above criteria..
J
13 April 2007, 05:26 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Notts, UK
Posts: 4,935
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless I'm mistaken, and I'll stand to be corrected otherwise, how can you say the cost is the same monthly, if you subscribe to either Sky Sports OR Sky Movies your Sky+ subscription is free. I've never paid a monthly subscription for Sky+ and I only receive Sky Sports.
If I want to upgrade to HD, regardless of what premium channels I subscribe to it will be an extra £10 a month on my subscription charges. I personally don't think the few HD channels you can receive currently are worth that extra outlay.
If I want to upgrade to HD, regardless of what premium channels I subscribe to it will be an extra £10 a month on my subscription charges. I personally don't think the few HD channels you can receive currently are worth that extra outlay.
If you upgrade to HD then you will not have to pay another £10 so the monthly cost would be the same as it is for basic mix and Sky+
If you have premium channels Sky+ is free but an upgrade to SkyHD will cost another £10 a month
Strange but true.
Cheers
Lee
13 April 2007, 11:24 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure what signal you would feed a Tivo HD with at the mo, but as a percentage hike in subscription cost the SKY HD extra £10per month is totally unjustifiable and extortionate [its the broadcasters that take the cost hit not SLY err SKY].
I've been paying the £10 since day one that the HD boxes became avail mind since there's no competition out there yet [just the way SKY likes it...]. Key reason I'm still doing it is when I switch a SKY SD signal to AV1 [component or RGB] I just think YUK compared to the same sig via HDMI.
D
I've been paying the £10 since day one that the HD boxes became avail mind since there's no competition out there yet [just the way SKY likes it...]. Key reason I'm still doing it is when I switch a SKY SD signal to AV1 [component or RGB] I just think YUK compared to the same sig via HDMI.
D
Last edited by Diesel; 13 April 2007 at 11:40 PM.
13 April 2007, 11:31 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: *R.I.P Heccers.. its been a blast!
Posts: 19,965
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1st few HD boxes I installed were during the Euro's... matches on BBC one (Grandstand ) in 'normal' terrestrial mode were ok. but showing a customer the difference on the BBC HD channel.. now that was worth it.
13 April 2007, 11:52 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 10,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ask your self the question, do you watch football or watch films alot, if you do and you subscibe to these Sky chanels then go for Sky HD (I Did - and the quality is first class). One thing I would say though is that the sky hd boxes are made by thompson and seem to have a number of "features" that seem to suggest they are not made to the standards of the pace sky + boxes.
But still would say go for Sky HD if you meet the above criteria..
J
But still would say go for Sky HD if you meet the above criteria..
J
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
The Joshua Tree
Computer & Technology Related
30
28 September 2015 02:43 PM
Brun
Non Scooby Related
16
16 September 2015 12:53 PM
The Joshua Tree
Computer & Technology Related
18
11 September 2015 09:24 PM
