On Sun, 24 May 2003, Jason Miller wrote: > I'm not sure if this is the right place to be asking this, but I have > been looking around on the internet for the last few days at tuner cards > and can't seem to come to the conclusion as to what the difference is > between the Conexant and BookTree chipsets. The same company, but new chip (10bit; Bts were 8bit) > I've read online that Hauppauge is putting Conexant 23880/1's in their > new cards as opposed to the bt's they used to put in them. What is the > reason for this? Can someone offer a real, objective comparison of > these two chips? Yes. Ground(Bt) and Heaven(CX). But, also, there are some bad things with picture in CX: sin()^2 signal is a sort of garbage (Yes, in Bt it is not better)(It is measured; maybe, it is the subject of better chip control, to make the signal better). Low noise etc as a plus. > From what I have gathered these last few days, it > seems that the Connexant chipset is more capable and more viable a > solution. I've read that the image quality is much better on cards with > these chips. Yes. > So anyhow, what is the _real_ difference? Is there any reason to buy a > bt based card other than the fact that the linux support for it at the > moment is much better? FlyVideo 2000/3000 with SAA713* chipset (9bit). CX is not really supported yet. :(
