Sky T.V.

[Jcloughie]

With my hearing Dolby is just a memory. I’d settle for less slurring of speech in tv and film productions, particularly drama. Plus a few more brighter scenes too, far too much filmed in gloomy sets.

At our age it does not much of a difference between normal HD and UHD. LOL!

I do agree with the slurring and gloomy sets, otherwise, I am a little surprised at those answers, the difference between SD and HD TV is immense, then 4k or Ultra HD another large step. My eyesight is nothing special, but I can see the difference instantly. SD on a 55inch TV is hardly watchable. Attenborough stuff is amazing in 4k.

8k is far too expensive with very little broadcast at the moment. But that is what Curry’s use to show off the massive TV’s

Dolby provides a similar jump forward in sound. We have a comparatively cheap Atmos system. So good when watching action movies.

We used to have a 12inch black and white, but have moved forward a tad.

John

 

[Buckman]

NOWTV plus broadband with Plusnet cost us about £40 a month and we can cancel NOWTV anytime. We no longer have a "phone" line.

 

[RogerL]

NOWTV plus broadband with Plusnet cost us about £40 a month and we can cancel NOWTV anytime. We no longer have a "phone" line.

For some reason, Plusnet don't offer a VOIP phone line to new customers or existing customers renewing their contract - when our Plusnet contract expired we moved to Vodafone who include a VOIP landline, retaining our original number, at no extra cost and still slightly cheaper than Plusnet.

It seems that some internet providers tell their customers that everyone will lose their landline but it clearly isn't true.

 

[Buckman]

For some reason, Plusnet don't offer a VOIP phone line to new customers or existing customers renewing their contract - when our Plusnet contract expired we moved to Vodafone who include a VOIP landline, retaining our original number, at no extra cost and still slightly cheaper than Plusnet.

It seems that some internet providers tell their customers that everyone will lose their landline but it clearly isn't true.

VOIP costs about £6 per month and runs on a monthly basis and includes 100 minutes. We opted to stay with Plusnet as Vodafone reviews not very good, but better than BT.

 

[otherclive]

There are companies that supply VoIP for a monthly fee. Then you can separate VoIP “landline” and broadband. So when broadband comes up for renewal there’s not the added complication of trying to find a service provider that supplies broadband and VoIP. Our contract with Virgin expires in September and the other day I searched the comparison sites and found since I last renewed 12 months ago there's a reduced choice for broadband and VoIP. And for some the VoIP element was expensive.

Our kids and grandkids are all mobile and no longer have “ landline” numbers. Perhaps it’s time for us two to move on.

 

[Buckman]

We have VOIP temporary until we know everyone is contacting us via our mobile. Seems to be working as SIL is only one to phone OH on our old number.

 

[borderbilly]

What is VOIP.

 

[otherclive]

Voice over internet protocol.

 

[RogerL]

There are companies that supply VoIP for a monthly fee. Then you can separate VoIP “landline” and broadband. So when broadband comes up for renewal there’s not the added complication of trying to find a service provider that supplies broadband and VoIP. Our contract with Virgin expires in September and the other day I searched the comparison sites and found since I last renewed 12 months ago there's a reduced choice for broadband and VoIP. And for some the VoIP element was expensive.

Our kids and grandkids are all mobile and no longer have “ landline” numbers. Perhaps it’s time for us two to move on.

We've only retained our original landline using VOIP for incoming calls because our address/telephone books go back 50 years since we moved in and can't be bothered to change all our contacts to our mobile numbers - and some of our contacts are so set in their ways they'll only call the landline as calls to mobiles are more expensive on their deal. We don't get any free calls on our VOIP landline so we use our mobiles to call out.

We don't have a fibre connection and unlikely to ever get one as we're on a shared private drive - so we now just have a single copper connection to the street cabinet supplying brodband and VOIP.

 

[Sam Vimes]

I do agree with the slurring and gloomy sets, otherwise, I am a little surprised at those answers, the difference between SD and HD TV is immense, then 4k or Ultra HD another large step. My eyesight is nothing special, but I can see the difference instantly. SD on a 55inch TV is hardly watchable. Attenborough stuff is amazing in 4k.

8k is far too expensive with very little broadcast at the moment. But that is what Curry’s use to show off the massive TV’s

Dolby provides a similar jump forward in sound. We have a comparatively cheap Atmos system. So good when watching action movies.

We used to have a 12inch black and white, but have moved forward a tad.

John

The visual difference between SD and HD/FHD on paper could be noticeable but depends on the source material and equally important the distance you sit from your TV. If you sit too far back then you'll not be able to notice the difference in resolution between SD, HD or 4K - let alone 8K if you can find any content.

The recommended distance to be able to appreciate the resolution of a 4K picture on a 55" screen is 1.68m.

One of the problems I've noticed is that for a lot of digital video content its too heavily compressed and this makes for a poor quality experience in my opinion. Call me cycnical but I think streaming companies push HD or 4k streaming at an extra cost because their SD is deliberately kept at a lower quality due to the compression.

I don't watch streamed or digital broadcasts but purchase DVDs at SD. My TV is Full HD and will upscale SD to HD very well. The again I have a 43" TV and sit at a dstance of about 4m from it.

I also produce videos at home but always make them at HD720 - less than Full HD - and you can't tell the difference.

I've also noticed that different makes of TV do a better job of rendering the video regardless of resolution.

Pays your money etc....

 

[Jcloughie]

The visual difference between SD and HD/FHD on paper could be noticeable but depends on the source material and equally important the distance you sit from your TV. If you sit too far back then you'll not be able to notice the difference in resolution between SD, HD or 4K - let alone 8K if you can find any content.

The recommended distance to be able to appreciate the resolution of a 4K picture on a 55" screen is 1.68m.

One of the problems I've noticed is that for a lot of digital video content its too heavily compressed and this makes for a poor quality experience in my opinion. Call me cycnical but I think streaming companies push HD or 4k streaming at an extra cost because their SD is deliberately kept at a lower quality due to the compression.

I don't watch streamed or digital broadcasts but purchase DVDs at SD. My TV is Full HD and will upscale SD to HD very well. The again I have a 43" TV and sit at a dstance of about 4m from it.

I also produce videos at home but always make them at HD720 - less than Full HD - and you can't tell the difference.

I've also noticed that different makes of TV do a better job of rendering the video regardless of resolution.

Pays your money etc....

I agree that there are many contributing factors affecting the quality of the outcome. But, in my opinion, the more pixels, the better. And this is very obvious to me.

We watch the news on ITV. But we are on the border of two areas. We are normally seeing Midlands in HD, but for more local news from the South West we have to switch transmitters. The SD quality is so poor and even blurred. We do the same in the dining room, but that is on a 20inch screen and the difference is hardly visible, just some sharpness lost.

Netflix, Prime and iPlayer have some 4k content, the detail revealed is outstanding.

We have a 55inch TV in the lounge. Anything bigger would be overkill. My neighbour has squeezed a 65inch in his lounge and loves it. It stands in front of the wall so far too close to the watchers. He has little understanding of definition. Though his equipment is capable. He comments on my set up being so much better. In reality, he is not capable of getting the best out of what he has.

Also, what’s a DVD?

John

 

[borderbilly]

Voice over internet protocol.

Still way over my head, what is wrong with just simple plug and play.

 

[Beachball]

Probably a lot more than £142 in September 2025😉

Well if it more I will consider my options who to go with 🙏

 

[RogerL]

Still way over my head, what is wrong with just simple plug and play.

It can be plug and play - our phone used to plug into the BT socket in the hall, since switching to VOIP the phone just plugs into the router in the living room.

 

[Sam Vimes]

I agree that there are many contributing factors affecting the quality of the outcome. But, in my opinion, the more pixels, the better. And this is very obvious to me.

We watch the news on ITV. But we are on the border of two areas. We are normally seeing Midlands in HD, but for more local news from the South West we have to switch transmitters. The SD quality is so poor and even blurred. We do the same in the dining room, but that is on a 20inch screen and the difference is hardly visible, just some sharpness lost.

Netflix, Prime and iPlayer have some 4k content, the detail revealed is outstanding.

We have a 55inch TV in the lounge. Anything bigger would be overkill. My neighbour has squeezed a 65inch in his lounge and loves it. It stands in front of the wall so far too close to the watchers. He has little understanding of definition. Though his equipment is capable. He comments on my set up being so much better. In reality, he is not capable of getting the best out of what he has.

Also, what’s a DVD?

John

More pixels are only good if you can see them. For the same size TV if you went from 4K to 8K you'd have to sit nearer to see the difference.....if your eyesight is 20/20.

As for your noticing the difference on ITV news it may not be the different resolutions that's causing the difference but the transmitters.

A DVD- those shiny things that make good bird scarers or coffee table coasters.

 

[Buckman]

More pixels are only good if you can see them. For the same size TV if you went from 4K to 8K you'd have to sit nearer to see the difference.....if your eyesight is 20/20.

As for your noticing the difference on ITV news it may not be the different resolutions that's causing the difference but the transmitters.

A DVD- those shiny things that make good bird scarers or coffee table coasters.

Not noticed any difference between HD, 4K or UHD? All look about the same to me and don't really care as long as I can see and hear the program.

 

[Jcloughie]

Not noticed any difference between HD, 4K or UHD? All look about the same to me and don't really care as long as I can see and hear the program.

4K and UHD are virtually the same thing. With 4 times the resolution of full HD.

If viewing on a smaller screen TV the difference is less obvious.

But see this from Google.


Which is better, 4K UHD or HD?


Ultra HD 4K (3840 x 2160 pixels) provides incredibly sharp and detailed images, offering four times the resolution of Full HD. The benefits of Ultra HD 4K include improved clarity, enhanced details, and the ability to enjoy content on larger screens or from closer viewing distances.

More pixels are only good if you can see them. For the same size TV if you went from 4K to 8K you'd have to sit nearer to see the difference.....if your eyesight is 20/20.

As for your noticing the difference on ITV news it may not be the different resolutions that's causing the difference but the transmitters.

A DVD- those shiny things that make good bird scarers or coffee table coasters.

As shown above, increased pixels result in improved clarity and enhanced details. To me, it is very very clear.

The two transmitters we can use for ITV are SD for the South West and HD for
Video quality

Google says…..

• HD has a higher pixel resolution, resulting in sharper and more detailed images.
  
  
• SD videos may appear grainy, blurry, or pixelated.

Which is what we experience. Forums in our area are continually complaining about it. Strangely, ITV cannot broadcast on our South West transmitter due to licensing restrictions imposed by the BBC.

Close is subjective. This might explain. Our viewing distance for our 55inch is spot on at 2.35 metres.


John

 

[otherclive]

I hadn’t appreciated that it was such a complex topic. Our tv has UHD and 4K and we bought it because it had a good review from Which but siting it was dependent on the dimensions of the lounge as no way are we going to install it on an outer wall facing the narrowest section of the lounge, so it sits facing the lengthways dimension of the lounge and we are around 2.5m away. We are both content with the definition quality that we get despite it only being a 43 inch screen. Audio is my bugbear whilst my wife can still literally hear a pin drop. Even our Beam soundbar doesn’t give me much of an audio improvement. Best are my Bose noise cancelling headphones via Bluetooth.

 

[RogerL]

I hadn’t appreciated that it was such a complex topic. Our tv has UHD and 4K and we bought it because it had a good review from Which but siting it was dependent on the dimensions of the lounge as no way are we going to install it on an outer wall facing the narrowest section of the lounge, so it sits facing the lengthways dimension of the lounge and we are around 2.5m away. We are both content with the definition quality that we get despite it only being a 43 inch screen. Audio is my bugbear whilst my wife can still literally hear a pin drop. Even our Beam soundbar doesn’t give me much of an audio improvement. Best are my Bose noise cancelling headphones via Bluetooth.

Our LG smart tv has a range of audio settings - we've found that "Clear Voice" does indeed make it easier to understand the dialogue.

 

[otherclive]

Our LG smart tv has a range of audio settings - we've found that "Clear Voice" does indeed make it easier to understand the dialogue.

Yes so does ours have the same audio settings and clear voice does improve the output a bit. Tried movie too for films and drama but that wasn’t very effective. I suspect my hearing aids require resetting.

 

[Sam Vimes]

4K and UHD are virtually the same thing. With 4 times the resolution of full HD.

If viewing on a smaller screen TV the difference is less obvious.

But see this from Google.


Which is better, 4K UHD or HD?


Ultra HD 4K (3840 x 2160 pixels) provides incredibly sharp and detailed images, offering four times the resolution of Full HD. The benefits of Ultra HD 4K include improved clarity, enhanced details, and the ability to enjoy content on larger screens or from closer viewing distances.



As shown above, increased pixels result in improved clarity and enhanced details. To me, it is very very clear.

The two transmitters we can use for ITV are SD for the South West and HD for
Video quality

Google says…..

• HD has a higher pixel resolution, resulting in sharper and more detailed images.
  
  
• SD videos may appear grainy, blurry, or pixelated.

Which is what we experience. Forums in our area are continually complaining about it. Strangely, ITV cannot broadcast on our South West transmitter due to licensing restrictions imposed by the BBC.

Close is subjective. This might explain. Our viewing distance for our 55inch is spot on at 2.35 metres.


John

The extract you'be posted from the internet is basically saying what I said but leaves out some important information. However, they do qualify like I did that you may need larger screens or closer viewing distances.

Yes, technically a 4k TV could be capable of improved clarity and detail because it has more pixels. So what are the other factors that prevent this from actually be true in reality.

Firstly the raw data from the video source is not what's transmitted or streamed. It would require too much bandwith, so its compressed. Just like still images take the raw data and produce JPEG files, video is compressed with techniques that result in files like MPEG. Both of these compression processes are lossy - that is some detail is thrown away. Its done in a clever way such that the loss of information is minimised but its not 100% the same as the original. Amounts of compression can be varied. This is similar to the audio process that results in MP3 files, which again are lossy, compared to something like FLAC.

So depending how the provider compressess the video may affect the ability to benefit from a screen with more pixels.

Secondly, TVs (and computer displays) of the LCD/LED type have a fixed number of pixels. A Full HD TV would be 1920 x 1080, whereas a 4K TV would be 3840 x 2160. An SD video source has a pixel count of 720 x 576 ( figures may vary depending on whether or not you consider NTSC or PAL)

Getting a 4K TV to display an SD video means the TV has to make up the pixel count by upscaling from 720 x 576 to 3840 x 2160. This is no mean task and many TVs struggle to produce an acceptable image - again depending on size and viewing distance. Going from SD to HD is not such a hard task

Thirdly the aspect ratio (width to height) of different video sources varies. So the TVs have to make adjustments to accomodate this.

When I was looking for a new TV a couple of years back most of them were 4K types, which I had reservations about, particularly as I have a large DVD collection. So , I took some off my DVDs to a friends house who had a 55" 4K LG TV and played them back. The results were appalling , which confirmed my view that I really should just go with a Full HD.

 

[Buckman]

Not sure how SD, HD or UHD is going to be cheaper for Borderbilly?

 

[Dustydog]

Just noticed I pay £51 a month for sky TV. No added extras just bog standard telly. Must be cheaper than that out there, but where?

Have you spoken to them?
I currently pay £68 for everything except TNT. Took 50 minutes on the phone going through three different people

 

[otherclive]

Just noticed I pay £51 a month for sky TV. No added extras just bog standard telly. Must be cheaper than that out there, but where?

If it’s standard TV, whatever that means why not just use Freeserve or Freesat?

 

[borderbilly]

If it’s standard TV, whatever that means why not just use Freeserve or Freesat?

Think I will have to 👍