cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Ryme_Intrinseca
Aspiring Contributor
912 Views
Message 31 of 44

Re: Poor quality HD image

Go to solution

For the last time this week, the box is not faulty. The box is a design which cannot give superior performance due to its insuperior quality.

 

As I said previously, I will compare the same model (which my father owns) next week and when I see the same artefacts and the other shortcomings I'm mentioning I will come back and report them, which I will surely be doing.

 

This process will be like reporting paint drying and is somewhat inevitable.

 

BTW before I worked in broadcast communications I was a senior engineer in the UK's largest commercial electronics company and before that I owned my own successful business for nearly 20 years dealing in the same line of products. Both those roles brought me into contact with thousands upon thousands of customers in the real world and none of my work with them was via Email or texts but up front, confronting the engineering problem in the workshop. This allowed me to see goodness knows how many design or fault issues and with many various technologies and manufacturers.

 

Now, with all that experience and industry knowledge, both inside it and outside it, plus what I've tried to explain to you repeatedly in this thread last evening, I really do know the difference between a fault when I see one but in my case, with my experiences with this particular model of YouView+ box, I do know lacklustre performance when I see it too.

 

 

0 Ratings
Reply
jam2000
Expert
910 Views
Message 32 of 44

Re: Poor quality HD image

Go to solution

Well I still think its a faulty box, as for a start you stated about the HDMI lead and you have been proved incorrect on that one. Also you stated it was more than just the picture issue, which is also why its a faulty box.

0 Ratings
Reply
Ryme_Intrinseca
Aspiring Contributor
897 Views
Message 33 of 44

Re: Poor quality HD image

Go to solution

I suppose you have to keep reiterating "faulty box" because you are under the jurisdiction of BT and therein admitting to poor performance products isn't something you're allowed to admit to. However, I am a long term BT customer, an experienced one too, and I am allowed to complain about it.

 

With respect to HDMI, mine is expensive because it will not fall to pieces nor suffer broken pins when its moved from device to device - it's built like a tank. Whilst it supports data rates which include those used by UHD its somewhat more future proofed.

 

Mentioning UHD, I suspect I'll need to wait for UHD to become widespread on terrestrial networks before finding terrestrial Freeview product I can watch without complaint. I won't hold my breath meanwhile.

 

I'm surprised we stick with BT anyway, as their service over the past few years couple of years has been nothing short of abysmal. It took six engineers to eventually connect two simple wires in a junction box to get a decent broadband speed when we had took FTC connection installed by BT and each engineer blaming the other for the 'fault' saying it was the way it should operate. I pointed them to the fault but they wouldnt accept it claiming usual network speed. Bizarrely, this contradicts your approach, this time you're blaming 'a fault' for my under performing product.

 

BT have made a small fortune out of our loyalty over the decades we've been with them. When we've had real cause to complain; either direct BT engineers or their representatives, either pass the buck, are downright rude and do just about anything but resolve our concerns unless we near beg for it to be resolved.

 

I think this forum is monitored from Ireland and thus dealt with outside mainland? Either way, it took the person who uses the pseudonym, 'NeilO' stepped in to this thread last evening and incidentally was the only person who eventually looked into our problems and dealth with them with our broadband connection fault 18 months ago. However, it took weeks to deal with that. Whether 'NeilO' is the same person in reality, I dont know? It takes someone from hundreds of miles away to deal with problems we experience in reality here and can only be fixed by coming to the house. Granted though, YouView+ is beyond hope.

 

As far as the YouView+ is concerned this issue can never be resolved because you can't undo what is not put into the product in the first place, i.e. decent software and reliable, high performance chip sets.

 

 

 

 

0 Ratings
Reply
891 Views
Message 34 of 44

Re: Poor quality HD image

Go to solution
Just for the record I've owned several Skoda Fabia VRS and Octavia VRS in the past and both have been very good well built products.
0 Ratings
Reply
Ryme_Intrinseca
Aspiring Contributor
887 Views
Message 35 of 44

Re: Poor quality HD image

Go to solution

I'm sure they are. All Skoda's are well built these days, VW based I think? My wife owns a VW too. She loves it.

 

However, try selling a Skoda to someone who has or still owns a Ferrari. Which would they prefer, d'yah think?

 

 

0 Ratings
Reply
scointer
Recognised Expert
872 Views
Message 36 of 44

Re: Poor quality HD image

Go to solution

The Skoda if the Ferrari had been hit with a tree and wouldn't start 🙂

 

Lets just all decide to agree to disagree, everyone is entitled to their own opinion and has the choice to pick whatever service they are happy with (whether actually the best or not).

 

As you say HD is old hat anyway..UHD is the future...lets see how long we have to wait for UHD to appear on freesat...

Ryme_Intrinseca
Aspiring Contributor
860 Views
Message 37 of 44

Re: Poor quality HD image

Go to solution

Right ho.

 

UHD is real HD anyway.

 

 

0 Ratings
Reply
Hunter2660
Recognised Expert
800 Views
Message 38 of 44

Re: Poor quality HD image

Go to solution

Interesting thread. Although I would agree there is a case for stating image blur is an issue on BT's Sports channels, it is subtle, and in my book it doesn't really detract from the overall enjoyment. Personally I see little difference between OTA DTT BBC picture quality on the Youview box and my Panasonic TV. Pixellation and digital artifacts are not an issue, and as for the box crashing, that does point to a rogue box.

 

I do think however that you are being really picky, almost as picky as someone who may point out the golden rule of spelling regarding the word receiver, i before e except after c. But I wouldn't do that of course. Smiley Wink

0 Ratings
Reply
Distinguished Guru
772 Views
Message 39 of 44

Re: Poor quality HD image

Go to solution

@Hunter2660 wrote:

Personally I see little difference between OTA DTT BBC picture quality on the Youview box and my Panasonic TV. Pixellation and digital artifacts are not an issue, ...


 

Exactly what I was thinking. At some points this thread seemed to be moaning about the quality of the BT Youview G4 box hardware and at others about the DTT DVB-T2 HD broadcast signals in general.

 

I don't have a BT Youview box, for my sins I'm still using an old BT Vision+ box (Austin Allegro? Smiley LOL ). I can however receive the DVB-T2 HD channels on my Panasonic Freeview-HD TV directly and the pictures look great to me. For example BBC One HD (channel 101) is far superior to DVB-T BBC One (SD, channel 1) when the original source material is in HD.

 

Now interestingly I can also receive BBC One HD over multicast IPTV on the BT Viison+ box and Infinity broadband. That is equally as good as the DVB-T2 broadcast and to be honest I can't see any noticeable difference between the two at all.

 

A comparison of the satellite DVB-S2 broadcast of BBC One HD and the terrestrial DVB-T2 broadcast is not available to me as I don't have a satellite dish or box.

 

I would be interested to know if the OP had a chance to compare DVB-T2 HD via the G4 box against DVB-T2 HD on a Freeview-HD capable TV directly. Were they both equally bad compared to DVB-S2 HD or was it just the G4 box?

0 Ratings
Reply
Deanrw
Newbie
668 Views
Message 40 of 44

Re: Poor quality HD image

Go to solution
Did we ever find out if his dads box measured up?
0 Ratings
Reply