Is the "Casper" chip dead?

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

http://www.micronas.com/products/overview/index.php

http://www.linxelectronics.com/

Does anyone know if the famed Linx Electronics "Casper" HDTV receiver
chip is dead? It was supposed to be a big improvement because it
synchronized ghost HDTV signals into one stronger signal. Linx claimed
a 85% success rate for it. Not as high as the 94% claimed by the LG
chip, but perhaps with an improved "front end" it could match the LG.
Neither the Linx nor Micronas Web sites mention it anymore. The Linx
site use to feature it. Linx was sold to Micronas last year.

RCA-Thompson was supposed to use the Casper chip in their products in
the Fall of 2005, but according to Bob Miller they will use their own
in-house chip for their over-the-air receivers.

What gives?

IB

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
news:114l6m8tfq1tq28@corp.supernews.com...
> inkyblacks@yahoo.com wrote:
> > http://www.micronas.com/products/overview/index.php
> >
> > http://www.linxelectronics.com/
> >
> > Does anyone know if the famed Linx Electronics "Casper" HDTV receiver
> > chip is dead? It was supposed to be a big improvement because it
> > synchronized ghost HDTV signals into one stronger signal. Linx claimed
> > a 85% success rate for it. Not as high as the 94% claimed by the LG
> > chip, but perhaps with an improved "front end" it could match the LG.
> > Neither the Linx nor Micronas Web sites mention it anymore. The Linx
> > site use to feature it. Linx was sold to Micronas last year.
> >
> > RCA-Thompson was supposed to use the Casper chip in their products in
> > the Fall of 2005, but according to Bob Miller they will use their own
> > in-house chip for their over-the-air receivers.
> >
> > What gives?
>
> It could well be that real world experience has shown that the negative
> effects of multipath on the success rate of OTA reception is much less
> important than originally anticipated. It doesn't pay to solve problems
> about which few people care.

Seems to me that most of the reception problems that are hardest to solve do
involve multipath.

Also, while your last statement is true, saying that it does not pay to
solve problems that people don't care about is not consistent with the
consumer electronics industry. Technologies sell all the time that are not
only things that people don't care about but are bogus. The hype makes
people care and sales people make buyers think it is important.

More likely, there is not a perceived market for OTA receivers on the part
of the manufacturers. This is most commonly what causes technologies to
make it to market slowly or not at all. Look at how long it took the
industry to figure out that there was a market for custom installation
products like multi-zone amplifiers and front projection systems. Some
manufacturers are just figuring it out 25 years later.

The market for higher quality OTA receivers is likely a small part of the
market and not likely to grow very much. Look at the trend in NTSC receiver
technology. No one really complains that tuners for OTA work so poorly
compared to those in previous decades. It is nearly impossible to find a
really good one. It would be a niche market. Likely the market for better
HD tuners would be larger, but no one is in the business of selling that
kind of product. Dealers would prefer to sell sat systems to customers that
don't have cable.

If dealers and manufacturers decided to sell the product, it would move.
Look at Monster Cable and the entire market it created. The antenna
manufacturers are a no-show in terms of marketing the use of HD OTA. They
have missed a great opportunity so far.

Leonard

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

> By "2H05," I don't know if he means 2005, and the "H" was just a typo,
> or the second quarter of 2005.

How about "second half of 05"?

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I do not understand all the Google posting rules, so I will try to post
this for the third and final time. Please excuse if I double or triple
post Ireplied to my original post twice and it has not gone through.

I just heard from Micronas that they cannot use the "Casper" name
because it is owned by the Disney Company. The new chip will be sold
as the Micronas DRX 394xH in different configurations and will be
available this year.

IB