OT SKY Plus

[FoxJT]

Hi,

Very OT but a technical query.
I already have SKY and have a box and the dish. However, I am looking at replacing video recorders (remember them ) with SKY + as a better way of time slipping TV recording.
The price looks OK, except they want to charge me an extra 60 squid for installation. This turns out to be running another signal cable from the satellite dish to the SKY+ box. Apparently, this second cable is only for the recording functionality in the box; the first cable being used for direct viewing.
My question is why do they need to run the extra cable when the signal is already present in the existing cable. Why can't they simply split the signal within the box? It surely can't be impedance matching as this could be done in the box. Maybe it is because the existing cable provides power to the dish head amp .

Any ideas?

Cheers,

Jeremy.

[Stratmangler]

The Sky+ setup uses two LNB's, which require separate feeds from the dish.
The actual box has a decoder for each of the two channels it can pick up simultaneously.

It is possible with the Sky+ box to play a recorded programme whilst recording two others.

Chris

[ColinA]

When I looked at this a new customer could get it free or cheep. An existing customer had to pay& pay.
I was so P....d about being penalised that I just bought a digital recorder.

[Richard]

I may not be up-to-date about it but the one-lnb-per-tuner always seemed to be the Achille's heel for Sky.

Moving into the digital only era, can anyone tell me if terrestrial digital will be similar to existing analogue in only needing 1 aerial, from which the signal can then be amped-up and split to feed other tellys with digital tuners?

[Max N]

Hi Richard
Yes, digital terrestrial is like analogue, you can split the feed from one aerial around the house.
Jeremy, you could buy a new LNB (go for a quad for future proofing) and run a second cable yourself and buy a Sky+ box on Ebay.
But when you add up the cost of the bits, £60 for a new LNB and running the cable doesn't seem bad.
One thing to watch out for, the installer won't run cable inside the house, they aren't allowed to. So if you want a tidy installation, you're better off doing it yourself.

[Richard]

Thanks Max, we're already amped and wired round the house so this will be an issue when we have to go digital.

We had Sky in one room and presently have Virgin Cable in that room. Does anyone know if it will be possible to extend the cable tv to other rooms, other than by having more separate cable boxes?

[Stratmangler]

Originally Posted by Richard

I may not be up-to-date about it but the one-lnb-per-tuner always seemed to be the Achille's heel for Sky.

I'm in complete agreement with you on this one.

However, Sky+ is still the easiest system to navigate and use as far as I am aware - SWMBO is a total technophobe, and can manage to navigate the system, albeit in a long winded, find it through the menu fashion (short cuts through the system may as well not exist), and my 6 year old son has no problems working it at all.

And the sound/image quality is far better than cable.
Can't comment on freeview as I haven't played with it yet.

Chris

[FoxJT]

Yes, it's the WAF and WUF (usability ) that will be a factor. My only complaint is the number of cable that come down from the roof! FM (fortunately internal), Freeview and SKY (both were run externally over the tiles and down the outside walls through holes in the wall) and now another one from the new LNB.

What we need is EM broadband!

It looks like SKY+ for me.

Many thanks for the comments, guys.

Cheers,

jeremy.