Freesat vs Freeview quality/bitrate

[Tony Houghton]

My PVR has Freeview and Freesat tuners so it would be useful to know
which is better quality when choosing one or the other to make a
recording. AIUI Freesat often has lower bitrates than Freeview for a
given programme, but if and when Freesat's bitrate is about the same
it's the better choice for me because it's less prone to interference.

So can anyone point me to a summary of how they compare? I'm guessing
channels 1-5/101-105 and the four HD channels available on both are
about the same, but anything else is likely to be inferior on Freesat.
Is that roughly correct?

--
TH * http://www.realh.co.uk

[Scott]

On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 12:56:03 +0000 (UTC), Tony Houghton <h...@realh.co.uk>
wrote:

>My PVR has Freeview and Freesat tuners so it would be useful to know
>which is better quality when choosing one or the other to make a
>recording. AIUI Freesat often has lower bitrates than Freeview for a
>given programme, but if and when Freesat's bitrate is about the same
>it's the better choice for me because it's less prone to interference.

I though interference was a thing of the past now that the
transmission power has been boosted? Do you have the correct aerial
for your transmitter on the roof with a good quality aerial lead?

[R. Mark Clayton]

"Tony Houghton" <h...@realh.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnk72u...@realh.co.uk...

You would need to look at bit rates for particular channels.

Unless there are trees etc. directly in the way, Freesat is much less prone
to interference.

I only have Freesat HD, but for SD subjectively the Freesat picture looks
better.

[John Legon]

I don't think so. Based on the few times when I've recorded material
simultaneously on Freesat and Freeview, I have found no significant
difference in the bitrates - at least for the main channels - and when
there has been a difference, Freesat has had the higher rate.

This afternoon on BBC1, Freesat and Freeview both had an average bit
rate of around 3.9 Mb/s. For the Tour de France on ITV4 this summer,
however, the rate on Freeview was appalling at around 1.7 Mb/s, but on
Freesat it was acceptable with about twice that rate.

BBC HD used to be very good on Freesat but has been degraded to bring it
into line with Freeview.

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <slrnk72u...@realh.co.uk>, Tony Houghton <h...@realh.co.uk>
wrote:

I don't know, and would be interested to know more of the details myself.
So I'll read other replies with interest. However "What Satellite and
Digital TV" magazine do list symbol rates. The lists I've seen don't give
specific internal rates for audio and video, though. But I've only seen a
couple of copies thus far.

I don't have any direct experience with sat tv, but I'd have expected it to
have rates at least as high as DTTV.

Since you have the PVR, can you access the disc and examine the recordings?
They may answer the questions. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[Chris K]

On 07/10/2012 15:32, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <slrnk72u...@realh.co.uk>, Tony Houghton <h...@realh.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> My PVR has Freeview and Freesat tuners so it would be useful to know
>> which is better quality when choosing one or the other to make a
>> recording. AIUI Freesat often has lower bitrates than Freeview for a
>> given programme, but if and when Freesat's bitrate is about the same
>> it's the better choice for me because it's less prone to interference.
>
>> So can anyone point me to a summary of how they compare? I'm guessing
>> channels 1-5/101-105 and the four HD channels available on both are
>> about the same, but anything else is likely to be inferior on Freesat.
>> Is that roughly correct?
>
> I don't know, and would be interested to know more of the details myself.
> So I'll read other replies with interest. However "What Satellite and
> Digital TV" magazine do list symbol rates. The lists I've seen don't give
> specific internal rates for audio and video, though. But I've only seen a
> couple of copies thus far.
>
> I don't have any direct experience with sat tv, but I'd have expected it to
> have rates at least as high as DTTV.
>
> Since you have the PVR, can you access the disc and examine the recordings?
> They may answer the questions. :-)
>
> Slainte,
>
> Jim
>

Based on having both Sat and Terrestrial feeding a PC with software that
displays bit rate in real time, for the main channels there is little
difference. Sometimes there are small improvements in the sat signal
but not significant, sometimes it is the other way round.

For the lesser channels Freesat is often much better. For example, Film
4 can often be 1.5-2x the bit rate on sat, for example at the moment it
is 544x576 and 1.3Mbit on freeview & 704x576 and 1.9Mbit on Freesat. E4
is about the same bit rate but at the lower resolution on Freeview.

ITV seem to have larger differences, eg ITV4 is about 5MBit on Freesat
at the moment & 1.8MBit on Freeview.

So I guess the answer is, based on limited random observation, Freesat
is mostly better (but sometimes not, eg on BBC1 at the moment it is the
other way round), & on minor channels can be noticeably so.

HTH

Chris K

[Mortimer]

"R. Mark Clayton" <nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:hrSdnYMcev7yB-zN...@bt.com...

Interesting that you say this, because on my TV subjectively Freeview
recordings (recorded as MPG using Windows Media Centre and played back on a
BluRay player that can play MPG from a USB hard disk) look better than
Freesat recordings (recorded on a Skybox). This is for SD recordings. Do
Media Centre and Skybox recordings make a faithful copy of the incoming
bitstream or is any further compression occurring?

Subjectively Freesat/Skybox recordings seem to have more compression
artefacts compared with the same programme recorded on Freeview/Media
Centre. Freesat HD recordings generally seem to bad - the Olympics Opening
and Closing ceremonies had horrendous banding of darker tones where there
should have been continuously-variable tones and there was lots of
blockiness and ghosting on moving objects. Don't have an HD Freeview decoder
to compare like with like.

[Richard Tobin]

In article <slrnk72u...@realh.co.uk>,
Tony Houghton <h...@realh.co.uk> wrote:

>So can anyone point me to a summary of how they compare? I'm guessing
>channels 1-5/101-105 and the four HD channels available on both are
>about the same, but anything else is likely to be inferior on Freesat.

As I understand it, satellite bandwidth is a much less scarce
resource. So one might Freesat to be better.

But in my experience, the picture quality for Freesat and Freeview are
much the same on the BBC channels, presumably as a consequence of
their "platform neutrality" policy. An exception was during the
Olympics, when the Freeview quality of BBC3 and BBC4 was often very
poor; the BBC were packing in a lot of extra channels on Freeview but
had rented extra space on satellite.

On the other hand the ITV channels do often look much better on
Freesat.

-- Richard

[Tony Houghton]

In <q80378parka4h4vq6...@4ax.com>,

Scott <newsg...@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 12:56:03 +0000 (UTC), Tony Houghton <h...@realh.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>My PVR has Freeview and Freesat tuners so it would be useful to know
>>which is better quality when choosing one or the other to make a
>>recording. AIUI Freesat often has lower bitrates than Freeview for a
>>given programme, but if and when Freesat's bitrate is about the same
>>it's the better choice for me because it's less prone to interference.
>
> I though interference was a thing of the past now that the
> transmission power has been boosted? Do you have the correct aerial
> for your transmitter on the roof with a good quality aerial lead?

I've got a decent double-screened lead but the aerial is only a loft
aerial and very old. The powered splitter and other general clutter
behind the TV probably doesn't help. Passing scooters have always tended
to interfere, and for a while vans and buses etc seemed to interfere
with the HD channels, but that seems OK now.

[Tony Houghton]

In <2eCdncKeH85LNezN...@brightview.co.uk>,

Chris K <neb...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> ITV seem to have larger differences, eg ITV4 is about 5MBit on Freesat
> at the moment & 1.8MBit on Freeview.

Damn, I got that the wrong way round then. I recorded a film on ITV4
this evening from Freeview instead of Freesat :-(.

[John Legon]

Don't worry, just think how much space you will have saved on the hard
disk of your PVR. :-)

[Brian Gaff]

That is odd, as the cat food adverts often say, where a preference was
expressed, 8 out of ten owners say the Freesat pictures are consistantly
better.

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Scott" <newsg...@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:q80378parka4h4vq6...@4ax.com...

[Brian Gaff]

The question to be answered then is why?

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active

"Chris K" <neb...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:2eCdncKeH85LNezN...@brightview.co.uk...

[the dog from that film you saw]

On 08/10/2012 09:07, Brian Gaff wrote:
> The question to be answered then is why?
>
> Brian
>

there's less space on terrestrial than satellite.

--
Gareth.
That fly.... Is your magic wand.

[Roderick Stewart]

In article <k4u1bd$suc$1...@dont-email.me>, Brian Gaff wrote:
> That is odd, as the cat food adverts often say, where a preference was
> expressed, 8 out of ten owners say the Freesat pictures are consistantly
> better.

We must be careful here to eliminate any bias resulting from the Russ
Andrews Effect, as satellite reception requires a bit more trouble and
expense than simply using an aerial system that is already installed and a
receiver that is probably already included in the TV set.

Rod.
--

[Mark Carver]

On 08/10/2012 11:17, Roderick Stewart wrote:

> We must be careful here to eliminate any bias resulting from the Russ
> Andrews Effect, as satellite reception requires a bit more trouble and
> expense than simply using an aerial system that is already installed and a
> receiver that is probably already included in the TV set.

It's a shame Sony gave up with their range of models that included built
in Freesat (in addition to Freeview) tuners.

Panny still have a range of Freesat tellies though I think ?

(Can't check easily, I'm on a 14ish kb/s internet connection !)

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

www.paras.org.uk

[PeterC]

Yes, if the TTV aerial is already there, but it was easy to put up a dish
but for a 10' mast up on the chimney...!

It does seem that SD can be pretty good on STV but I feel that HD is a bit
better on TTV.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

[Scott]

On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 15:09:40 +0000 (UTC), Tony Houghton <h...@realh.co.uk>

wrote:

>In <q80378parka4h4vq6...@4ax.com>,
>Scott <newsg...@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 12:56:03 +0000 (UTC), Tony Houghton <h...@realh.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>My PVR has Freeview and Freesat tuners so it would be useful to know
>>>which is better quality when choosing one or the other to make a
>>>recording. AIUI Freesat often has lower bitrates than Freeview for a
>>>given programme, but if and when Freesat's bitrate is about the same
>>>it's the better choice for me because it's less prone to interference.
>>
>> I though interference was a thing of the past now that the
>> transmission power has been boosted? Do you have the correct aerial
>> for your transmitter on the roof with a good quality aerial lead?
>
>I've got a decent double-screened lead but the aerial is only a loft
>aerial and very old. The powered splitter and other general clutter
>behind the TV probably doesn't help. Passing scooters have always tended
>to interfere, and for a while vans and buses etc seemed to interfere
>with the HD channels, but that seems OK now.

I thought loft aerials were definitely not recommended. I also
thought aerial amplifiers were not recommended for digital. I
replaced a wideband aerial with the correct aerial group, which made a
difference, albeit small. When you say, is is okay now did the
problem end with digital switchover?

[charles]

In article <skb678tah3tojnvnq...@4ax.com>,

Scott <newsg...@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> I thought loft aerials were definitely not recommended. I also
> thought aerial amplifiers were not recommended for digital.

I'm still using the amplifier I used for analogue - no problems.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

[Bill Wright]

Scott wrote:

> I thought loft aerials were definitely not recommended.

Only in locations where they cannot provide a reliable good signal.

>I also
> thought aerial amplifiers were not recommended for digital.

No, that's a simplification of a misunderstanding of a half-truth.

Bill

[Scott]

On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 21:50:27 +0100, Bill Wright <bi...@invalid.com>
wrote:

>Scott wrote:
>
>> I thought loft aerials were definitely not recommended.
>Only in locations where they cannot provide a reliable good signal.

Which would seem to be the position Mr Houghton is facing if passing
scooters affect the TV reception.

>
>>I also
>> thought aerial amplifiers were not recommended for digital.
>No, that's a simplification of a misunderstanding of a half-truth.

Accepted.

[Bill Wright]

Scott wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 21:50:27 +0100, Bill Wright <bi...@invalid.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Scott wrote:
>>
>>> I thought loft aerials were definitely not recommended.
>> Only in locations where they cannot provide a reliable good signal.
>
> Which would seem to be the position Mr Houghton is facing if passing
> scooters affect the TV reception.

Not necessarily. It depends on the quality of his present installation.

I doubt if there's much difference between a loft and outdoor aerial for
immunity to impulse interference from the street, assuming that the loft
aerial is properly installed.

Bill

[Mortimer]

>Scott" <newsg...@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message

>news:skb678tah3tojnvnq...@4ax.com...

I had an amplified loft aerial fitted in my new house in 2000. External
aerials were prohibited by restrictive covenant on my estate.

It is in a slight shadow of a hill, according to Wolfbane, but it has given
flawless reception both on analogue and digital, despite going via a two-way
splitter to feed two TVs (well, one TV and one PC with a DVB adaptor). I'm
not sure whether it's a wideband aerial or a grouped aerial, but given that
it was installed in the early days of digital TV, I imagine it was designed
for whatever UHF channels the Oxford transmitter used at the time and was
due to use after DSO.

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <k4vstu$249$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Bill Wright

I've used a loft UHF antenna some years, and continue to do so. The
combination seem fine even for receiving Durris (78km away).

Ignition interference was fairly common at first. However a combination of
three changes seem to have dramatically reduced this.

1) They wound up the TX powers.

2) I replaced the old co-ax with newer co-ax. The old had sparse braid
despite being low loss. The new has thick braid and foil. So I suspect does
a better job of rejecting pickup.

3) Installed a distribution amp near the antenna, so lifting the signal
level on the rest of the downlead.

However it may be worth commening that although (2) and (3) may be useful,
they also tend to rely on the system being correctly 'unbalanced'. (e.g.
the reason a good antenna should have a 'balun' arrangement.) Having good
shielding in the cable may not fix a problem if something else in the
system is efficiently injecting input into the inner from currents on the
outside of the 'shielding'.

So it may be that (3) didn't help so much because the signal level was
increased, but because it helped the co-ax and receiver to reject
interference reaching the cable.

Does anyone measure this sort of thing and publish the results? Or has it
gone the way of Gordon King, etc?...

[Bill Wright]

Jim Lesurf wrote:

> 2) I replaced the old co-ax with newer co-ax. The old had sparse braid
> despite being low loss. The new has thick braid and foil. So I suspect does
> a better job of rejecting pickup.

A common cause of break up is the use of a cheap flylead of the type
that has moulded-on plugs. These pick up impulse interference from
nearby thermostats, light switches, and in one recent case from the man
next door's vacuum cleaner. They also pick up interference radiated by
the TV set itself.

Bill

[charles]

In article <k514kq$mlc$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Bill Wright <bi...@invalid.com>
wrote:

they can also have a horrendous loss on the higher channels. I measured one
that was -24dB on ch 66 - a more reasonable -6dB on ch 40

[Scott]

On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 01:59:40 +0100, Bill Wright <bi...@invalid.com>

I thought the stronger the signal the less prone it is to
interference, but maybe that's simplistic.

[Paul Ratcliffe]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 09:11:59 +0100, Mortimer <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

> External aerials were prohibited by restrictive covenant on my estate.

This shit is just outrageous. What business have developers (or whoever) got
telling you what you can and cannot do to your own house. They've had their money,
so they can fuck right off over trying to retain control.
But more fool you for buying the property and again for not disregarding stupid
things like this.
How many of your neighbours have done so?

[Bill Wright]

Scott wrote:

> I thought the stronger the signal the less prone it is to
> interference, but maybe that's simplistic.

What matters mostly is the ratio between the interference and the
signal. However if the signal is 'weak' (to speak loosely) the receiver
will probably be struggling a bit to decode the signal, so splashes of
noise will probably have a greater effect than if the signal were strong
(and the interference also stronger, in proportion).

Consider a loft aerial. Assuming that the fact that it's lower down than
a roof aerial doesn't mean that it is more screened from the transmitter
by external objects, the signal it receives will be the same as a roof
aerial minus the attenuation of the tiles (or brick) and minus the
de-tuning effects of any nearby objects, or the effects of any nearby
objects encroaching in the capture area.
Assuming that the screening effects of the tile are the same for the
signal path as they are for the interference path, the ratio of the two
will likely remain the same. In fact, loft aerials can be more screened
from the road than from the transmitter, if the building is high up
above the road and close to it, because the path will then be through
the brick walls below the roof, whereas the signal path might be through
nothing but thin slate.

This might be of interest:
http://www.wrightsaerials.tv/articles/whatsat-201007.pdf

Bill

[Bill Wright]

The builders normally put these things into the agreement so the estate
continues to look nice while they're selling the last few houses. Once
that's done no-one cares. In any case, such covenants are not in
practice enforceable according to my daughter who is a solicitor
specialising in property.
Such a covenant did a me a massive good turn 40 years ago. We were
living in a brand new house and had two new vans parked on the drive. A
jealous neighbour who was a legal exec (untrained apprentice solicitor)
sent us an official looking letter mentioning a covenant about trade
vehicles. We had been on the cusp of moving out because we'd had a
brilliant trading year and had made such a stupid amount of dosh we
could afford a far better place. The letter just made our minds up for
us. It was really lucky it did because we got in just before the market
went ballistic. We sold for �11,750 having made �3k profit in 2 years,
used �10k of savings and got a �10k mortgage. We bought a house at
�32,000 and one year later I had it valued at �44,000. It took four
years to pay off the mortgage. My only regret is that I wasn't even more
daring because I considered a house at �42,000 that is now worth almost
a million. Mind you they've spend a fortune on it. I reckon they've
spent �50,000 on it.

Our first house cost us �2,600. We had �1,300 savings and the rest
mortgage. My dad said the mortgage would be a millstone round our necks
until the day we died. That house sold for �5,750 after three years.

Bill

[Mortimer]

"Bill Wright" <bi...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:k52m7l$lrp$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
>> On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 09:11:59 +0100, Mortimer <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> External aerials were prohibited by restrictive covenant on my estate.
>>
>> This shit is just outrageous. What business have developers (or whoever)
>> got
>> telling you what you can and cannot do to your own house. They've had
>> their money,
>> so they can fuck right off over trying to retain control.
>> But more fool you for buying the property and again for not disregarding
>> stupid
>> things like this.
>> How many of your neighbours have done so?
> The builders normally put these things into the agreement so the estate
> continues to look nice while they're selling the last few houses. Once
> that's done no-one cares. In any case, such covenants are not in practice
> enforceable according to my daughter who is a solicitor specialising in
> property.

I don't think anyone has got an external aerial because we all abided by the
ruling when we bought the houses new and the covenant was still "active"
while the builders were trying to sell the other houses. Since then, people
have put up satellite dishes. I dare say if anyone needed a new aerial (eg
original buyer didn't have a TV, today's new owner wants one) they'd put up
an external one.

As it is, my loft aerial works perfectly so it was no hardship to me. If the
houses had been oriented differently and the line of sight had been through
the side wall of the loft and through next door's house, rather than through
the sloping roof, things might have been very different and I'd have kicked
up a stink. At least I lived close to the transmitter so signal strength was
strong.

All it means is that I need to remember to leave the mast-head amplifier
powered-up. I once set a whole load of programmes to record and went away on
holiday, and turned off the mains socket that the TV was plugged into.
Consequently there was no signal to the VCR (which I'd left turned on).
Since then I moved the aerial power into another socket which is marked
"leave turned on" :-)

[Tony Houghton]

In <k52kn9$ir8$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,

Bill Wright <bi...@invalid.com> wrote:

> Consider a loft aerial. Assuming that the fact that it's lower down than
> a roof aerial doesn't mean that it is more screened from the transmitter
> by external objects, the signal it receives will be the same as a roof
> aerial minus the attenuation of the tiles (or brick) and minus the
> de-tuning effects of any nearby objects, or the effects of any nearby
> objects encroaching in the capture area.

In my case the aerial is aimed through the gable end wall, but I think
at that point it's something like thin board with pebble dash rendering.

[Andy Champ]

On 09/10/2012 09:11, Mortimer wrote:
> I had an amplified loft aerial fitted in my new house in 2000. External
> aerials were prohibited by restrictive covenant on my estate.

They are prohibited here too.

After someone put a JCB through the communal aerial, and a little
searching showed that no-one thought they owned it everybody has put up
external aerials.

Andy

[David Kennedy]

Surely the JCB driver/owner would have been liable?

--
David Kennedy

http://www.anindianinexile.com

[Mortimer]

"Andy Champ" <no....@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:zMWdnWVuT8KsV-jN...@eclipse.net.uk...

Bracknell, where I used to live many years ago, had a town-wide policy of no
(roof-mounted) TV aerials. I'm not sure how enforceable it was, but
virtually no-one disobeyed it. Instead, all houses were supplied with a
communal aerial feed free of charge, which later provided additional
non-terrestrial channels and a set-top box at a knock-down price. I remember
they provided ITV from both Thames and Meridian regions; if you tuned your
TV to one and your VCR (played through an external amplifier) through the
other, you got a wonderful echo because of the very slight distribution time
lag between the two :-)

[Andy Champ]

On 11/10/2012 09:37, Martin wrote:
> Bracknell night life at its best.:-)

<waves> What do you mean, night life? When one of my kids complained he
felt old in the local pub I realised I'd got it right all these years by
going somewhere else.

And the best thing about Bracknell? Great communications. Between the
M3 and M4 it's really easy to leave :)

Unfortunately we can't find anywhere significantly better within our
price range and my work commute. We'll probably move on redundancy /
retirement / a really good offer.

Andy

[Mark Carver]

On 11/10/2012 20:01, Andy Champ wrote:
> On 11/10/2012 09:37, Martin wrote:
>> Bracknell night life at its best.:-)
>
> <waves> What do you mean, night life? When one of my kids complained he
> felt old in the local pub I realised I'd got it right all these years by
> going somewhere else.
>
> And the best thing about Bracknell? Great communications. Between the M3
> and M4 it's really easy to leave :)

You know what, despite growing up, and still living in that nearby
London over-spill town also beginning with B, I don't think I've ever
visited Bracknell ! The nearest I've been was a corporate teambuilding
event at the Coppid Beech Hotel.

[Andy Champ]

On 13/10/2012 20:35, Mark Carver wrote:
> You know what, despite growing up, and still living in that nearby
> London over-spill town also beginning with B, I don't think I've ever
> visited Bracknell ! The nearest I've been was a corporate teambuilding
> event at the Coppid Beech Hotel.

I have mixed feelings about this post. While I can understand avoiding
here - why THERE?

Andy

[Mark Carver]

Don't get me wrong Andy, I've not deliberately avoided Bracknell, I've
just never been there, which is odd, seeing as I can actually see the
place from the top of our road !

Basingstoke is alright, it's a 45 year old town really, so it's not, and
never will be a Winchester or Guildford, and the hideous shopping centre
and multi storey car park were torn down and replaced 10 yaers ago.

It's ideally placed, less than an hour from London, the coast, or the
New Forest. Easy to access the Midlands, and the West Country. Also
being a railway junction, you can get to an awful lot of places with no
more than one change of train (usually at Reading).

There are some fantastic pubs in the countryside just a few miles out of
town, no urban sprawl has been permitted south of the M3 (yet !) which
means we're walking distance to a couple.

I work in the town, and that's only a 32 minute walk for me, which
unless it's pissing down with rain is my default method of transport.

[Bill Wright]

Mark Carver wrote:

> I work in the town
He works for the council as Basingstoke Publicity Officer...

Bill