Sky Q

_Kaiser_

Personally I don't see anything here to get excited about... yes it's a high spec box but the price and monthly subs it'll likely require will be ridiculous - look at the existing (non-offer) prices for the basic channels and movies, sports, HD and maybe a multiroom sub. It's already at crazy levels!! You only have to look at the thread on BA to see how people are trying to cut the costs of TV.

- More tuners.. honestly, with all the +1 channels, repeats, catch-up TV and so on, does anyone really record that many programmes at once?
- Ultra HD.. meh! Considering they charge up to €15 for "standard HD" and it's really only worthwhile if you have sports/movies, how much will this cost, and how much content?
- Wireless viewing.. OK this is an improvement, but given how restrictive Sky Go is now with regards to what it'll play on, will it be worth the hassle?
- The lack of compatibility with existing hardware without probably more expense will also be an issue for existing multiroom users.

In short I think the likely cost to benefits ratio won't make it a big winner outside of early adopters IMO. I think BK's vision of a Sky-Fire stick is the way to go myself. Personally I watch very little live TV anymore beyond news and sports and coughing up €400 (probably closer to €500 if you want the full experience) for what is still just TV doesn't seem attractive at a time when people are cancelling in favour of options like Netflix and streaming. I'm not even going to mention "other" sources but these are more popular now too and DO impact - why else would Sky try so hard to shut them down - and with heavy competition from BT on the football front (which requires a separate sub as well!) I just can't see it adding up for people.

Avada

icdg wrote: »

Talk in the Sunday Times at the weekend - though little more than speculation - that Now TV could make its way to Ireland next year. The only stock id put in the article is where it is coming from - News UK and Sky having a common shareholder in Murdoch.

I'd well believe it. I was told by someone in the know that they were hoping to launch it here. Apparently rights are already agreed.

murpho999

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Personally I don't see anything here to get excited about... yes it's a high spec box but the price and monthly subs it'll likely require will be ridiculous - look at the existing (non-offer) prices for the basic channels and movies, sports, HD and maybe a multiroom sub. It's already at crazy levels!! You only have to look at the thread on BA to see how people are trying to cut the costs of TV.

- More tuners.. honestly, with all the +1 channels, repeats, catch-up TV and so on, does anyone really record that many programmes at once?
- Ultra HD.. meh! Considering they charge up to €15 for "standard HD" and it's really only worthwhile if you have sports/movies, how much will this cost, and how much content?
- Wireless viewing.. OK this is an improvement, but given how restrictive Sky Go is now with regards to what it'll play on, will it be worth the hassle?
- The lack of compatibility with existing hardware without probably more expense will also be an issue for existing multiroom users.

In short I think the likely cost to benefits ratio won't make it a big winner outside of early adopters IMO. I think BK's vision of a Sky-Fire stick is the way to go myself. Personally I watch very little live TV anymore beyond news and sports and coughing up €400 (probably closer to €500 if you want the full experience) for what is still just TV doesn't seem attractive at a time when people are cancelling in favour of options like Netflix and streaming. I'm not even going to mention "other" sources but these are more popular now too and DO impact - why else would Sky try so hard to shut them down - and with heavy competition from BT on the football front (which requires a separate sub as well!) I just can't see it adding up for people.

Whilst I am against paying €15 per month for HD, I do think TV is better for it. Watching any show in HD is better than SD not only for sports and movies. I would never go back to not having it.

I really wonder what they will charge for UHD when on line. Will be ridiculous.

I don't understand why they don't charge for it , and use it as a selling point to attract new loyal subscribers.

MarkAnthony

murpho999 wrote: »

I don't understand why they don't charge for it , and use it as a selling point to attract new loyal subscribers.

Because their churn rate will be acceptable to the business as it is. I suspect it's probably so low that they have it at a level where no matter what they did you'd have people 'playing the game' with introductory offers.

lertsnim

murpho999 wrote: »

Whilst I am against paying €15 per month for HD, I do think TV is better for it.

HD was going to happen with or without the HD fee. I think it's farcical that they charge extra for what is normal now. But as long as people continue to pay for it I suppose they will and who can blame them. I'll continue with the free HD

ECO_Mental

lertsnim wrote: »

HD was going to happen with or without the HD fee. I think it's farcical that they charge extra for what is normal now. But as long as people continue to pay for it I suppose they will and who can blame them. I'll continue with the free HD

You are right, you pay for content whether you watch it on your phone or 4k it shouldn't matter. I never thought of it that way. Everything is filmed in HD now so the difference in production is nothing.

It should be like Netflix if you can get HD then great but not, lets dumb down the res. That saying do they charge for 4k

MarkAnthony

ECO_Mental wrote: »

It should be like Netflix if you can get HD then great but not, lets dumb down the res. That saying do they charge for 4k

And for HD in certain territories.

To be fair to Netflix it would be an actual overhead. It is to Sky as well, but licencing aside which I don't know the model used there would be an additional overhead for HD broadcast. €15 per sub though, is it bollocks. Again that said you get the boxsets included, so when they have it at €7.50 it seems reasonable value. Yeah, Yeah I know they were free etc. etc.

danm14

icdg wrote: »

The manual tuning question is more about continued access to BBC and ITV regions, which is important to many people. That said (and the more technically minded may correct me on this one) I think the manual tuning is required in order for Sky to stick a DVB-S logo on it.

I don't think it's to do with DVB-S, I believe the manual tuning was originally added to obey some EU regulation or another that subscription boxes have to be usable for other free services as well as what they're designed for, but Sky half got round that by only allowing certain symbol rates and FECs.
I could be wrong but I think I read that somewhere

bk

Excellent post _Kaiser_, it describes my own feelings very well.

On the one hand, when I first read about this new Sky Q box I was very excited. Being a tech geek and having been playing with media servers for many years (I use to hack US TiVo's to work in Ireland 15 years ago!!) I was initially very excited by this, because there is some nice tech in it.

But then when I stood back and thought about the ridiculous costs of Sky's services and what they are likely to charge for this, as you say the cost to benefit ratio just doesn't work out for me, nor do I expect it does for most people either.

Specially when I think about how little I watch live TV any more and how bad much of it has gotten, with the same old shows repeated constantly. I find 90% of my video watching is done on my fire TV now, with Netflix etc. Hell I even find youtube generally more entertaining then most live TV now!

I realise that Fire TV and over the top services aren't quite there yet in terms of ease of use for normal people. But I was hoping Sky would deliver that ease of use (at a price) to the general public. But I honestly don't think this is it and I think Sky might be going down the wrong technology route with this new service.

BTW Virgin just had a major update to the Horizon boxes a few days ago, that seem to have massively improved the user experience. It is much faster and better now, some are saying as good as Sky HD now.
Just a reminder that Sky Q doesn't do anything that the Horizon box can't already do and which Virgin give away for free! Now it is looking like Horizon might have just as good a UI, the only thing that was holding it back.

The Ayatolla

bk wrote: »

Just a reminder that Sky Q doesn't do anything that the Horizon box can't already do and which Virgin give away for free! Now it is looking like Horizon might have just as good a UI, the only thing that was holding it back.

I'd be very interested in seeing this in use.

My previous experience with Horizon boxes hasn't been anyway decent at all.

bk

Oh, interesting, Virgin have just added Replay TV to their Horizon box:

https://www.siliconrepublic.com/play/2015/12/01/virgin-media-replay-startover-tv

Basically the ability to go back 7 days in the EPG and watch anything shown over the last 7 days on 26 channels. Basically a cloud DVR.

Kind of what I'm saying, makes +1 channels and dozens of tuners irrelevant when you have this ability.

Yes, I know it is only 26 channels and not all channels, but I do think it is the way to go. Imagine you could buy a little TV stick from Sky or Virgin and you could go back 7 days on any of the channels or watch any on demand content or even live TV, all without a big, expensive, multi tuner, 1TB box! And then you could do the same on your tablet, smart TV, etc.

That is the future of TV IMO.

JDxtra

Agree with BK - it's the future. I see they probably have rights issues to work out as not all shows on RTE are available. Some of the others seem to be fully supported.

As for the implementation on Horizon, it's a bit 'clunky' - but other than that it works really well. Virgin are recording the live stream themselves and chopping it up into shows (so, it includes all the adverts exactly as broadcast). Way better quality than the current players. Playback is also near instant.

The Ayatolla

bk wrote: »

Oh, interesting, Virgin have just added Replay TV to their Horizon box:

https://www.siliconrepublic.com/play/2015/12/01/virgin-media-replay-startover-tv

Basically the ability to go back 7 days in the EPG and watch anything shown over the last 7 days on 26 channels. Basically a cloud DVR.

Kind of what I'm saying, makes +1 channels and dozens of tuners irrelevant when you have this ability.

Yes, I know it is only 26 channels and not all channels, but I do think it is the way to go. Imagine you could buy a little TV stick from Sky or Virgin and you could go back 7 days on any of the channels or watch any on demand content or even live TV, all without a big, expensive, multi tuner, 1TB box! And then you could do the same on your tablet, smart TV, etc.

That is the future of TV IMO.

Spot on there. Great feature. Hopefully it expands. I'll keep an eye on Virgin. I have a pensioner in the house who is so used to Sky that nothing else will do at this stage. Nice to see Horizon making improvements.

_Kaiser_

bk wrote: »

Excellent post _Kaiser_, it describes my own feelings very well.

On the one hand, when I first read about this new Sky Q box I was very excited. Being a tech geek and having been playing with media servers for many years (I use to hack US TiVo's to work in Ireland 15 years ago!!) I was initially very excited by this, because there is some nice tech in it.

But then when I stood back and thought about the ridiculous costs of Sky's services and what they are likely to charge for this, as you say the cost to benefit ratio just doesn't work out for me, nor do I expect it does for most people either.

Specially when I think about how little I watch live TV any more and how bad much of it has gotten, with the same old shows repeated constantly. I find 90% of my video watching is done on my fire TV now, with Netflix etc. Hell I even find youtube generally more entertaining then most live TV now!

I realise that Fire TV and over the top services aren't quite there yet in terms of ease of use for normal people. But I was hoping Sky would deliver that ease of use (at a price) to the general public. But I honestly don't think this is it and I think Sky might be going down the wrong technology route with this new service.

BTW Virgin just had a major update to the Horizon boxes a few days ago, that seem to have massively improved the user experience. It is much faster and better now, some are saying as good as Sky HD now.
Just a reminder that Sky Q doesn't do anything that the Horizon box can't already do and which Virgin give away for free! Now it is looking like Horizon might have just as good a UI, the only thing that was holding it back.

I was seriously looking at a FTA PVR/FreeSat setup a few months back but I can't get saorview where I am without an external aerial (which isn't an option in a rented apartment) so I negotiated a deal with Sky for the basics.

But on top of that I get all the boxsets, movies, and HD content I want for significantly less cost than I'd pay to Sky, pretty much instantly thanks to fibre broadband

THAT is the future.. on-demand, instant-access to a huge library of content either on a PPV basis or a monthly sub (the start of which you can see with the Virgin Replay update), and THAT is the way Sky should be going, not persisting with an outdated business model as they seem to be, with token (extra cost) concessions like Sky Go and On Demand/Boxsets... just somewhat shinier with this new (premium cost) box they're launching.

ThisRegard

It's looking like Virgins TV service is now worth switching to from Sky?

The Ayatolla

I see their multiroom is now 11 per month for a Digital + box.

Does that mean you can also record 4 things at once? Does that box also carry HD channels if they're in your pack?

former total

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

But on top of that I get all the boxsets, movies, and HD content I want for significantly less cost than I'd pay to Sky, pretty much instantly thanks to fibre broadband
.

If your comparison is pirated content, then Sky is going to seem expensive whatever their price or business model.

_Kaiser_

former total wrote: »

If your comparison is pirated content, then Sky is going to seem expensive whatever their price or business model.

Actually I was referring more to services like Netflix

icdg

ThisRegard wrote: »

It's looking like Virgins TV service is now worth switching to from Sky?

Not even close from a content point of view, unfortunately. Though if you have had Sky, keeping a free to air satellite receiver going will make up quite a bit of the difference.

ThisRegard

Are you actually losing that much content? Sky Atlantic looks like the only decent channel that would be missed. I can't see what boxsets are on My Prime so I can't compare them.

former total

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Actually I was referring more to services like Netflix

I can never understand how people can complain about the Sky HD/boxsets package being bad value for money, then follow it up by saying they subscribe to Netflix. I think Netflix is abysmal, the content on it is absolutely rubbish, particularly for movies.

ThisRegard

Horses for courses, I think Netflix is great.

icdg

ThisRegard wrote: »

Are you actually losing that much content? Sky Atlantic looks like the only decent channel that would be missed. I can't see what boxsets are on My Prime so I can't compare them.

- Access to ITV, ITVBe, Channel 5 and its spin offs (though ITV2,3, and a version of ITV4 with no sport are available).
-Access to BBC regions other than NI.
- Access to red button services.
-The CBS branded channels
-Some of the UKTV channels - notably Watch.
- Sky Atlantic and Sky Sports F1.

That's just a selection. The only major channels available on Virgin but not Sky are RTE1+1 and RTE News Now (but those should appear in the coming months) and MGM, which I'm not sure anyone misses.. We used to be able to point to UTV but that advantage is gone now. As I say keeping an FTA reciever can bridge some of that gap but what it can't bridge is the gap between Sky and Virgin's on demand services, which simply aren't in the same league thanks to the HBO deal.

bk

former total wrote: »

I can never understand how people can complain about the Sky HD/boxsets package being bad value for money, then follow it up by saying they subscribe to Netflix. I think Netflix is abysmal, the content on it is absolutely rubbish, particularly for movies.

Well here is the thing, Netflix cost only €9 (€8 for me and other grandfathered in customers).

While to get boxsets from Sky, you have to pay a minimum of €44, almost 5 times more!

Sure, that includes lots of live TV channels, but you can get those for free anyway on Saorview/Freesat and for a lot of people who experience Netflix type services, they never want to go back to crappy, ad filed live TV, so that is largely irrelevant.

According to Sky themselves, they have 33 boxsets, versus 28 on Netflix. Not a big difference, certainly not 5 times more!

But Netflix are making their own shows and IMO they are absolutely knocking the ball out of the park with them. I admit they might not appeal to everyone, Netflix are certainly targeting a certain demographic, young, professional, smart, a little geeky. If you fall into that then it is great.

House of cards, Narcos and Orange is the new black are some of the best shows I've seen on TV in the last 5 years and Jessica Jones and Daredevil are excellent if you are into super hero shows.

Lots of great back catalog shows from other companies too, Breaking Bad, Mad Men, The West Wing, The Office, Lost, Archer, Sherlock, Gotham, Arrow, The Walking Dead, The Flash, Long Way Down, Blue Planet, White Collar, Supernatural, Sons Of Anarchy, Firefly, Buffy The Vampire Slayer, X Files, How I meet your mother!

Also lots of great documentaries up there.

Non of the shows I list above get less then 4 stars out of 5 on IMDB. Though if you look at the list it is obvious that they tend heavily towards US Sci Fi and Fantasy, though that might just reveal my preference. Obviously if US TV isn't your thing, then you might find it poor.

I'm not saying Netflix is perfect, far from it, it is missing lots of content. However it has gotten the user experience perfect.

Watch what you want, when you want, where you want, on any device with no ads and for a very low fee. It truly is a fantastic experience.

Now I do wish it had more content, I happily pay €10 per month for my Spotify Pro subscription and I'm delighted that I've access to almost all the music in te world! It is brilliant. And I'd happily pay Netflix €40 a month if it had all the TV and movies in the world on their service.

Netflix is definitely not there yet for everyone, but a Netflix type service is definitely the future of TV IMO.

The problem I have with Sky is that you have to pay €29 to just get on their service and watch ad supported channels that are mostly available for free elsewhere. And then you have to pay an additional €15 on top of that to get the on demand content!

I do think the HBO content is worth €10 per month ON ITS OWN that people pay for now tv in the uk. But I don't think it is anyway close to be worth €44+

To be honest here is what I think the future of TV looks like:

- All video will be delivered by broadband to either TV stick devices or directly to smart tvs and of course tablets/smartphone/laptops

- Heavily Ad supported TV (think RTE, ITV, c4, etc.), both live, on demand and catch up will be delivered for free, often bundled with broadband from Virgin, Eir, etc.

- Ad-free versions of the above channels on demand (think Fair City, etc. 30 minutes after it goes out live, without ads) for a subscription *

- Premium, ad free, on demand content from services like Netflix and HBO/Sky with a subscription.

* This is currently missing from the Irish/UK market. A service like Hulu where you pay about €12 per month to get access to all of the normal national channels (RTE, TV3, BBC, ITV, C4, etc.) content ad free. I think this is somewhere Sky could innovate, offering such a service, along with ad ons for their premium HGO/Sky service, sports, etc.

So coming back on topic, all of the above is why I think Sky Q is going down the wrong technology path. A big, expensive, ugly box, with a dozen tuners and 1TB HDD on which most of the content is otherwise free and heavily ad supported, seems completely archaic IMO.

bk

Just one other point. I have to say I feel HBO is really slipping!

I know they are having great success with Game of Thrones, but based on its success I think they have gotten lazy! I can't think of anything else interesting they have done in the last two years!

True Detective is the only other show that comes to mind. But second session went way downhill.

Netflix on the other hand have been firing on all cylinders. House of Cards, Narcos, Jessica Jones, Daredevil, etc. I really think they have largely taken over the mantle from HBO for new content and HBO is largely relying on their admittedly impressive back catalogue + GOT.

That should worry Sky as they depend so heavily on HBO content.

ThisRegard

icdg wrote: »

- Access to ITV, ITVBe, Channel 5 and its spin offs (though ITV2,3, and a version of ITV4 with no sport are available).
-Access to BBC regions other than NI.
- Access to red button services.
-The CBS branded channels
-Some of the UKTV channels - notably Watch.
- Sky Atlantic and Sky Sports F1.

Apart from Sky Atlantic which I mentioned earlier, out of that list the only thing I use is occasionally some of the BBC regions so it would be no great loss to me.

former total

bk wrote: »

Just one other point. I have to say I feel HBO is really slipping!

Quick question: how do you access HBO content if you don't have Sky?

I've been a subscriber to Netflix, I've been a UPC subscriber for many years and I'm now on Sky. The one advantage Sky has over its rivals is content content content. Netflix has convenience, sure, UPC hardware is great, Sky just blows them both out of the water in terms of content.

I'm not sure where you read that Sky has 33 boxsets on it, that is not right surely?

Also: I like to watch live sport so the freesat/netflix combo is of zero value.

bk

icdg wrote: »

- Access to ITV, ITVBe, Channel 5 and its spin offs (though ITV2,3, and a version of ITV4 with no sport are available).
-Access to BBC regions other than NI.
- Access to red button services.
-The CBS branded channels
-Some of the UKTV channels - notably Watch.
- Sky Atlantic and Sky Sports F1.

Though you should also point out what you gain:

- 4 channel recording
- 7 day replay on 26 channels
- Vastly superior GO service, 80 channels on your tablet/smartphone/laptop anywhere
- RTE Player and TV3 Player
- Ability to record the ITV channels
- Much better organised EPG from an Irish point of view
- "Free" 17 channel analogue multiroom
- No HD charge

murpho999

former total wrote: »

I can never understand how people can complain about the Sky HD/boxsets package being bad value for money, then follow it up by saying they subscribe to Netflix. I think Netflix is abysmal, the content on it is absolutely rubbish, particularly for movies.

Can't agree with this at all.

There are some great Netflix produced shows there, and they are making lots more.

Plenty of documentaries.

They are struggling to complete with Sky on the movie front as they buy up all the big box office films but I think Netflix have a good selection of other films that are lesser hits, classics, art house and foreign language.

They suit my taste more at times, then the big blockbuster which are not always good.

bk

former total wrote: »

Quick question: how do you access HBO content if you don't have Sky?

Well in Ireland, outside of piracy, you can't.

In the UK Sky have the Now TV service, basically it gives you the Sky channels, including Sky Atlantic and boxsets, thus the HBO content for €10 per month.

Rumour has it that service is coming to Ireland soon.

former total wrote: »

I'm not sure where you read that Sky has 33 boxsets on it, that is not right surely?

Actually, I misread that. Seems to be a comparison of shows everyones talking about, whatever that means:

http://www.sky.com/ireland/tv/box-sets/skyboxsets

For the "latest" shows, they say they have 133 boxsets:

http://www.sky.com/ireland/moreboxsets/

They claim 81 for Netflix, so yes more, but again certainly not 5 times more.

To be honest, if Sky launch Now TV here in Ireland for €10. Then a combination of Now TV, Netflix, Youtube + Freesat/saorview would give a fantastic experience and at a very low price to most people.

former total wrote: »

Also: I like to watch live sport so the freesat/netflix combo is of zero value.

Then basically you are stuffed, probably best to stick with Sky. They unfortunately still have sports tied up, though even that is starting to slip.

former total

bk wrote: »

Well in Ireland, outside of piracy, you can't.

See, this is it.

NO-ONE who claims to get all their TV needs via FTA and legal streaming is telling the truth. I'm sorry but that's the reality.

bk

former total wrote: »

See, this is it.

NO-ONE who claims to get all their TV needs via FTA and legal streaming is telling the truth. I'm sorry but that's the reality.

Really!!! Are you honestly saying there isn't enough TV for most people on the 80 or so channels on Saorview/Freesat!!!!

Given that I grew up with just two channels, the amount of free TV now available is simply mind boggling!

And then add youtube into the mix, millions of hours of free stuff! And RTE Player, etc.

Then add €8 for Netflix and my head explodes with the ridiculous amount of content available to me. All perfectly legal. There simply isn't enough hours in the day to watch even a fraction of it all!

icdg

bk wrote: »

Though you should also point out what you gain:

- 4 channel recording
- 7 day replay on 26 channels
- Vastly superior GO service, 80 channels on your tablet/smartphone/laptop anywhere
- RTE Player and TV3 Player
- Ability to record the ITV channels
- Much better organised EPG from an Irish point of view
- "Free" 17 channel analogue multiroom
- No HD charge

That vastly superior Go service doesn't have the only channels I watch on the Go service - the Sky Sports channels.
I fear though that this thread is turning into a Sky v Virgin thread, and we might return to the hardware rather than the content

lertsnim

icdg wrote: »

- Access to ITV, ITVBe, Channel 5 and its spin offs (though ITV2,3, and a version of ITV4 with no sport are available).
-Access to BBC regions other than NI.
- Access to red button services.
-The CBS branded channels

All free so you wouldn't be losing them.

Andy454

icdg wrote: »

That's interesting, from the point of view that it makes downgrading from Sky to FTA a lot harder. To switch to a Freesat or generic FTA receiver will require the LNB to be swapped back to a normal one. That's all fine and dandy for some people (including I suspect many here) but others may not be so comfortable with doing it, particularly those whose dishes have been placed in a particularly high location (chimney etc). That said, arguably the type of people who will be installing SkyQ won't be about to drop Sky completely either.

The lack of support for Freesat on the same system then brings another question to mind. Will manual tuning still be supported? The specs suggest that it will, but I think this is something many Irish homes will be wanting to know before ordering.

I would wait till we see what Sky is proposing before commenting on pricing.

Disclaimer - I haven't seen or encountered one of these lnb's yet, I am going on what I've read here about them, but from what I can see it would appear to be as simple as adding an LNB multi-switch for legacy receivers - am I right?

just feed Vertical high and low inputs of the switch with a split feed of the vertical line and the horizontal high and low inputs of the switch with a split of the horizontal line - would you even have to split the feeds between high and low if you can disable the 22kHz tone at the receiver??

i think this would depend on the senario - if you have the two cables running in your attic, it seems it would make it alot easier to divide up the signal between mul

MarkAnthony

Possibly off topic but an interesting piece in the Indo (I was in Burger king - dont hate )

Market share at 49% for Sky, 26% Soarview, 23% for Virgin and 1% for Eir - Virgin and Eir surprised me I have to admit. It's also encouraging to see people not going for pay TV if they don't want it.

The Cush

The new LNBs require a power source of 300mA @12V DC, can a standard multiswitch supply that?

Storm 10

Spotted this Sky card on adverts, does it allow you to record programmes without a subscription.

MOD: link deleted. Yes I know it's to Adverts.ie. Doesn't change the fact the person selling it doesn't own it

Andy454

The Cush wrote: »

The new LNBs require a power source of 300mA @12V DC, can a standard multiswitch supply that?

Televes multiswitch indicates ability to supply lnb's up to 1200mA - plenty of fat!

winston_1

Andy454 wrote: »

Disclaimer - I haven't seen or encountered one of these lnb's yet, I am going on what I've read here about them, but from what I can see it would appear to be as simple as adding an LNB multi-switch for legacy receivers - am I right?

just feed Vertical high and low inputs of the switch with a split feed of the vertical line and the horizontal high and low inputs of the switch with a split of the horizontal line - would you even have to split the feeds between high and low if you can disable the 22kHz tone at the receiver??

i think this would depend on the senario - if you have the two cables running in your attic, it seems it would make it alot easier to divide up the signal between mul

Don't think so. The new LNBs have just 2 outputs H and V and output the whole low band and high band as one band from 290MHz to 2340MHz. This implies a local oscillator frequency of 10.41GHz and somewhat non standard tuners in sky Q receivers.

I can envisage interference problems to the UHF band with poor cabling near aerial cables. Such problems previously happened when Astra 1D started with original 10GHz LNBs having an output starting at 700MHz.

Andy454

winston_1 wrote: »

Don't think so. The new LNBs have just 2 outputs H and V and output the whole low band and high band as one band from 290MHz to 2340MHz. This implies a local oscillator frequency of 10.41GHz and somewhat non standard tuners in sky Q receivers.

I can envisage interference problems to the UHF band with poor cabling near aerial cables. Such problems previously happened when Astra 1D started with original 10GHz LNBs having an output starting at 700MHz.

I will have to do some research/ trial and error testing - the local oscillator frequency can be adjusted in most receivers including sky's earliest sky digibox iterations - but I'm not sure if 10.41 GHz (700MHz) is in its range.

If it is, it should just be a matter of using a splitter and joining the Low & High Vertical lnb input feeds of the multiswitch together and then joining the Low & High Horizontal lnb input feed together - then the multi-switch should allocate the relevant part of the band to the receiver once selected!

Thanks for pointing out the 10.41 GHz L.O. frequency - I would have missed that one!! I remember spending a night in the back garden trying to figure out why my old analogue lnb wouldn't work with the digibox before I remembered it had a different L.o. freq. Cheers!!!

The quattro lnb multiswitches will supply 12 volts anyway so they should be compatible....

Given multi-switches in the apartment blocks are already in existence it will be a pain for any apartment owner who only has two feeds for existing equipment

We'll have to come up with a novel soln. for this - I am sure the lo frequency of the skyQ box can be changed? But that won't exactly help as you can't join the Quattro high and low feeds together!

The only solution if the existing headend hardware cannot be utilised would be to run two systems in tandem - what a disaster!

Why did they change the local oscillator frequency??

Andy454

Over on digitalspy there is suggestion that communal systems will be dual compatible - therefore I am guessing that a quad lnb should be compatible - but you will not simply be able to join the two feeds (as I previously suggested) as the independent feeds from the Quattro lnb would have the same local oscillator frequency - someone has suggested a third party lnb that will be compatible with both but it doesn't look like there is an easy fix!

winston_1

Andy454 wrote: »

Over on digitalspy there is suggestion that communal systems will be dual compatible - therefore I am guessing that a quad lnb should be compatible - but you will not simply be able to join the two feeds (as I previously suggested) as the independent feeds from the Quattro lnb would have the same local oscillator frequency - someone has suggested a third party lnb that will be compatible with both but it doesn't look like there is an easy fix!

If a quad LNB was compatible why would sky be changing them?

winston_1

Andy454 wrote: »

I will have to do some research/ trial and error testing - the local oscillator frequency can be adjusted in most receivers including sky's earliest sky digibox iterations - but I'm not sure if 10.41 GHz (700MHz) is in its range.

If it is, it should just be a matter of using a splitter and joining the Low & High Vertical lnb input feeds of the multiswitch together and then joining the Low & High Horizontal lnb input feed together - then the multi-switch should allocate the relevant part of the band to the receiver once selected!

Thanks for pointing out the 10.41 GHz L.O. frequency - I would have missed that one!! I remember spending a night in the back garden trying to figure out why my old analogue lnb wouldn't work with the digibox before I remembered it had a different L.o. freq. Cheers!!!

The quattro lnb multiswitches will supply 12 volts anyway so they should be compatible....

Given multi-switches in the apartment blocks are already in existence it will be a pain for any apartment owner who only has two feeds for existing equipment

We'll have to come up with a novel soln. for this - I am sure the lo frequency of the skyQ box can be changed? But that won't exactly help as you can't join the Quattro high and low feeds together!

The only solution if the existing headend hardware cannot be utilised would be to run two systems in tandem - what a disaster!

Why did they change the local oscillator frequency??

Sorry, none of that makes sense. The 10.41 GHz LO is in the LNB not the receiver.

Andy454

winston_1 wrote: »

Sorry, none of that makes sense. The 10.41 GHz LO is in the LNB not the receiver.

Yes, the Local oscillator frequency is of course generated and set by the LNB.

Most digital receivers (including sky's) allow you to select the appropriate Local oscillator frequency of the LNB you have - (9.75 and 10.6 for standard Ku band lnb's)

In theory, you should be able to use the wideband lnb with the sky receiver by setting lnb L.O. to 10.4 in the installer setup menu (services, 0, 0,1, select). However you would have to physically swap the cables around when changing between horizontal and vertical transponders...

It should be possible for sky to program existing sky+ boxes to use one tuner for vertical channels and one tuner for horizontal channels once the LNB Local oscillator frequency of 10.4 is selected, the fact that the LNB is wideband means you do away with the 22 kHz tone switching...

winston_1

Indeed, I understand now. But the tuner in satellite receivers only cover 950 to 2150 MHz. To cover the whole of lo and hi bands in one sweep using 10.41 LO needs coverage of 290 to 2340 MHz.

Andy454

Thanks for the info on the additional bandwidth!

I would speculate that the additional bandwidth (290 - 950 MHz) and (2150 - 2340 MHz) will probably be dedicated to 4k services which will be outside the scope of regular sky/freesat equipment in any event. You only need your existing equipment to function as normal as if it was connected to a regular KU band Lnb

I take back what I said earlier - it is simple enough to make existing equipment work with the new sky Q box - you just need to use a multi-switch with enough outputs for your existing equipment.

You will tap off Horizontal and Vertical feeds directly to the sky Q box, you will then feed both Horizontal High and Low inputs of the multiswitch with the Horizontal output of the wideband Lnb and likewise, feed both Vertical high and low inputs of the multiswitch with the Vertical output of the wideband LNB.

You will change the LNB configuration settings in the installer setup of each of the regular boxes to 10.4 GHz for both high and lo oscillator frequencies.

This will allow you to have both existing and new sky Q box working off the one dish!

The LNB multiswitch will perform the horizontal and vertical switching, you could also just turn off the 22 kHz tone on each box and just connect the vertical and horizontal low inputs of the multi switch to the vertical and horizontal outputs of LNB - simple!

I expect I'll be getting job offers now......

winston_1

Andy454 wrote: »

Thanks for the info on the additional bandwidth!

I would speculate that the additional bandwidth (290 - 950 MHz) and (2150 - 2340 MHz) will probably be dedicated to 4k services which will be outside the scope of regular sky/freesat equipment in any event. You only need your existing equipment to function as normal as if it was connected to a regular KU band Lnb

I take back what I said earlier - it is simple enough to make existing equipment work with the new sky Q box - you just need to use a multi-switch with enough outputs for your existing equipment.

You will tap off Horizontal and Vertical feeds directly to the sky Q box, you will then feed both Horizontal High and Low inputs of the multiswitch with the Horizontal output of the wideband Lnb and likewise, feed both Vertical high and low inputs of the multiswitch with the Vertical output of the wideband LNB.

You will change the LNB configuration settings in the installer setup of each of the regular boxes to 10.4 GHz for both high and lo oscillator frequencies.

This will allow you to have both existing and new sky Q box working off the one dish!

The LNB multiswitch will perform the horizontal and vertical switching, you could also just turn off the 22 kHz tone on each box and just connect the vertical and horizontal low inputs of the multi switch to the vertical and horizontal outputs of LNB - simple!

I expect I'll be getting job offers now......

There is no additional bandwidth. 290 to 2340MHz is the downconverted frequency of the existing lo and hi band from the sky Q LNB. If, no not if, your receiver can only tune 950 to 2150 and no amount of fiddling with a multiswitch will change that. Changing the receiver settings to 10.41 will only allow you to receive that part of the band which is downconverted to 950 to 2150MHz.

The Cush

Andy454 wrote: »

I would speculate that the additional bandwidth (290 - 950 MHz) and (2150 - 2340 MHz) will probably be dedicated to 4k services which will be outside the scope of regular sky/freesat equipment in any event. You only need your existing equipment to function as normal as if it was connected to a regular KU band Lnb.

As Winston says above no additional bandwidth, for example the existing Channel 4 transponder starting at 10.7 GHz

existing LNB LO 9.75 GHz (10.7 - 9.75 IF 950 MHz
new LNB LO 10.41 GHz (10.7 - 10.41 IF 290 MHz

Andy454

winston_1 wrote: »

There is no additional bandwidth. 290 to 2340MHz is the downconverted frequency of the existing lo and hi band from the sky Q LNB. If, no not if, your receiver can only tune 950 to 2150 and no amount of fiddling with a multiswitch will change that. Changing the receiver settings to 10.41 will only allow you to receive that part of the band which is downconverted to 950 to 2150MHz.

Yes, yes! Of course! Doh! Thanks a million for explaining that! The reciever needs to be capable of tuning the full length of the band with the loss of the high/low switching!
I see now how the terrestrial signals will now cause cross interference in equipment that has terrestrial inputs!