|
Speech Processor - Search for Product Name
|
Speech Processor - Search for Product Name
Hello TS E:
You need a really Bitchen type of name for a good speech processor. But the problem is, that if the speech processor doesn't work well then the Bitchen name works against you. I have a "KING KONG" Gamma Match here with a very large burn hole in it. "KING KONG" yeah right! They put more time into the name than the product! Jay in the Mojave Telstar Electronics wrote: Please give me your ideas for a name for this developing product... www.telstar-electronics.com |
Speech Processor - Search for Product Name
Jay in the Mojave wrote:
Hello TS E: You need a really Bitchen type of name for a good speech processor. But the problem is, that if the speech processor doesn't work well then the Bitchen name works against you. I have a "KING KONG" Gamma Match here with a very large burn hole in it. "KING KONG" yeah right! They put more time into the name than the product! Jay... maybe they meant King Kong size burn hole... LOL www.telstar-electronics.com |
Speech Processor - Search for Product Name
"Jay in the Mojave" wrote in message ... Hello TS E: You need a really Bitchen type of name for a good speech processor. But the problem is, that if the speech processor doesn't work well then the Bitchen name works against you. I have a "KING KONG" Gamma Match here with a very large burn hole in it. "KING KONG" yeah right! They put more time into the name than the product! Jay in the Mojave Telstar Electronics wrote: Please give me your ideas for a name for this developing product... www.telstar-electronics.com Hi Jay, didnt know you could buy gamma matches. A guy gave me a Moonraker 4 beam a few years ago that had some damage . The gamma mctches had been damaged so I replaced them with a piece of Al tubing and a piece of RGa that had the shield stripped off. |
Speech Processor - Search for Product Name
On 12 Jan 2007 05:40:39 -0800, "Telstar Electronics"
wrote: Please give me your ideas for a name for this developing product... www.telstar-electronics.com You asked for it: Speech Plagiacessor |
Speech Processor - Search for Product Name
wrote:
On 12 Jan 2007 05:40:39 -0800, "Telstar Electronics" wrote: Please give me your ideas for a name for this developing product... www.telstar-electronics.com You asked for it: Speech Plagiacessor Thanks for your suggestion... www.telstar-electronics.com |
Speech Processor - Search for Product Name
On 12 Jan 2007 05:40:39 -0800, "Telstar Electronics"
wrote: +++Please give me your ideas for a name for this developing product... +++ +++www.telstar-electronics.com ********** Brian's little wonder? or loud mouth on a budget. How about splatter master. james |
Speech Processor - Search for Product Name
Jay in the Mojave wrote:
Hello TS E: You need a really Bitchen type of name for a good speech processor. But the problem is, that if the speech processor doesn't work well then the Bitchen name works against you. I have a "KING KONG" Gamma Match here with a very large burn hole in it. "KING KONG" yeah right! They put more time into the name than the product! Hello Jay Was that KING KONG a MONKEY MADE??? Have a great weekend. |
Speech Processor - Search for Product Name
"Jimmie D" wrote:
"Jay in the Mojave" wrote in message ... Hello TS E: You need a really Bitchen type of name for a good speech processor. But the problem is, that if the speech processor doesn't work well then the Bitchen name works against you. I have a "KING KONG" Gamma Match here with a very large burn hole in it. "KING KONG" yeah right! They put more time into the name than the product! Jay in the Mojave Telstar Electronics wrote: Please give me your ideas for a name for this developing product... www.telstar-electronics.com Hi Jay, didnt know you could buy gamma matches. A guy gave me a Moonraker 4 beam a few years ago that had some damage . The gamma mctches had been damaged so I replaced them with a piece of Al tubing and a piece of RGa that had the shield stripped off. Good job, Jim. Gizmotchy sells 5K gammas. Can't swear to their reliability but they've been around since the 60's. http://www.gizmotchy.com/Repairparts.html |
Speech Processor - Search for Product Name
|
Speech Processor - Search for Product Name
|
Speech Processor - Search for Product Name
Steveo wrote:
How about splatter master. Now that's not half bad... LOL Don't miss seeing the new CB Radio Speech Processor Prototype at http://www.telstar-electronics.com/d...s/WhatsNew.htm |
Speech Processor - Search for Product Name
Hello Jimmie D:
Yeah there are after market and some antenna manufactures sell larger diameter Gamma Matches to handle higher voltage in order to handle high power output. The costly thing in the Gamma Matches is the use of a good insulator like Teflon is real expensive. I just put up a Moonraker 4 with some new and improved parts and pieces, but still had the stock Gamma Matches. The Hubs, Mast to Boom mounting plate, and and few other things had been updated, but I was disappointed with the antennas performance. And I ran one of these antennas for a long time. Jay in the Mojave Jimmie D wrote: Hi Jay, didnt know you could buy gamma matches. A guy gave me a Moonraker 4 beam a few years ago that had some damage . The gamma mctches had been damaged so I replaced them with a piece of Al tubing and a piece of RGa that had the shield stripped off. |
Speech Processor - Search for Product Name
"Jay in the Mojave" wrote in message ... Hello Jimmie D: Yeah there are after market and some antenna manufactures sell larger diameter Gamma Matches to handle higher voltage in order to handle high power output. The costly thing in the Gamma Matches is the use of a good insulator like Teflon is real expensive. I just put up a Moonraker 4 with some new and improved parts and pieces, but still had the stock Gamma Matches. The Hubs, Mast to Boom mounting plate, and and few other things had been updated, but I was disappointed with the antennas performance. And I ran one of these antennas for a long time. Jay in the Mojave Jimmie D wrote: Hi Jay, didnt know you could buy gamma matches. A guy gave me a Moonraker 4 beam a few years ago that had some damage . The gamma mctches had been damaged so I replaced them with a piece of Al tubing and a piece of RGa that had the shield stripped off. The moonraker is a pretty decent antenna but like a lot of CB antennas the manufctures were trying to sell elements. They stuff as many elements as they can on a boom that is still UPS shipable. I remember back in the 70s how a few people would claim that ther e3 element beam was better than the 4 they used to have and now I believe they may have been right. I extended the boom on mine and respaced the elements vertical for 11M and horizontal for 10. Any way I guess the point I was trying to make to start with before I rambled is that my Al tubing and coax gamma match easily handles a full KW on 10. Why cant the manufacturers make something that is so easy to make? At the risk of appearing to answer my own question I think it was because if they did consumers would realize you can go down to the hardware store and buy the parts and roll your own about as easy as you can build thiers out of the box. |
Speech Processor - Search for Product Name
"Telstar Electronics" wrote in message oups.com... Please give me your ideas for a name for this developing product... Any technical specifications? What gain does it have at 3KHz compared to other frequencies and what range does it cover. Also what is the attack and decay and gain on 3KHz? I am interested to know if it would be any better than the processors I have used before. Many such as Turner and Protel are way over the top and when matched to a badly tuned CB they sound bad! They are completely unsuitable for FM use but will work to some extent on AM, but are far better on SSB. CBers need to get away from thinking the louder the microphone the more power. You will hear many using a compressor on FM that is causing so much splatter. People still turn the deviation on radios up in error. |
Speech Processor - Search for Product Name
bronco wrote:
Any technical specifications? What gain does it have at 3KHz compared to other frequencies and what range does it cover. Also what is the attack and decay and gain on 3KHz? I am interested to know if it would be any better than the processors I have used before. Many such as Turner and Protel are way over the top and when matched to a badly tuned CB they sound bad! They are completely unsuitable for FM use but will work to some extent on AM, but are far better on SSB. CBers need to get away from thinking the louder the microphone the more power. You will hear many using a compressor on FM that is causing so much splatter. People still turn the deviation on radios up in error. Technical specs are forthcoming since this project is in it's early stages. I can tell you that the attack time on the limiter is around 2mS, with a planned decay around 100mS. This decay time was chosen for mobile operation to allow a rather quick drop in gain below the noise gating... to block unwanted ambient noise. The output level will certainly be adjustable and can closely resemble the outputs of commonly used dynamic or electret CB mics. You are certainly correct that if people disable the limiter/deviation levels... it could be a problem... if they don't adjust the speech processor output to limit at the optimum level. I suggest you go to http://www.telstar-electronics.com/d...s/WhatsNew.htm for the latest available information and specs. Thanks for your interest. www.telstar-electronics.com |
Speech Processor - Search for Product Name
"bronco" wrote in message ... "Telstar Electronics" wrote in message oups.com... Please give me your ideas for a name for this developing product... Any technical specifications? What gain does it have at 3KHz compared to other frequencies and what range does it cover. Also what is the attack and decay and gain on 3KHz? I am interested to know if it would be any better than the processors I have used before. Many such as Turner and Protel are way over the top and when matched to a badly tuned CB they sound bad! They are completely unsuitable for FM use but will work to some extent on AM, but are far better on SSB. CBers need to get away from thinking the louder the microphone the more power. You will hear many using a compressor on FM that is causing so much splatter. People still turn the deviation on radios up in error. One of the bad things about compressors and clippers is that usually the person using it does not have proper test equipment to set it up. Most try to set it for max "swing". Most people to not understand that power generae outside of the passband of a receiver is a total waste. Well maybe not totally, at least your buds 10 channels away will know you are on the air. |
Speech Processor - Search for Product Name
On 12 Jan 2007 16:29:24 -0800, "Telstar Electronics"
wrote: +++Steveo wrote: +++ How about splatter master. +++ +++Now that's not half bad... LOL +++ +++Don't miss seeing the new CB Radio Speech Processor Prototype at +++http://www.telstar-electronics.com/d...s/WhatsNew.htm ********** Why thank you. james |
Speech Processor - Search for Product Name
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 11:14:46 -0500, "Jimmie D"
wrote: +++ +++"bronco" wrote in message ... +++ +++ "Telstar Electronics" wrote in message +++ oups.com... +++ Please give me your ideas for a name for this developing product... +++ +++ +++ +++ Any technical specifications? What gain does it have at 3KHz compared to +++ other frequencies and what range does it cover. Also what is the attack +++ and decay and gain on 3KHz? +++ I am interested to know if it would be any better than the processors I +++ have used before. Many such as Turner and Protel are way over the top and +++ when matched to a badly tuned CB they sound bad! They are completely +++ unsuitable for FM use but will work to some extent on AM, but are far +++ better on SSB. CBers need to get away from thinking the louder the +++ microphone the more power. You will hear many using a compressor on FM +++ that is causing so much splatter. People still turn the deviation on +++ radios up in error. +++ +++ +++One of the bad things about compressors and clippers is that usually the +++person using it does not have proper test equipment to set it up. Most try +++to set it for max "swing". Most people to not understand that power generae +++outside of the passband of a receiver is a total waste. Well maybe not +++totally, at least your buds 10 channels away will know you are on the air. +++ ********* What is more an issue and a problem is that most CB grade audio compressors and clippers are not properly band limited. throwiong the full audio spectrum from Dc to 20KHz. and beyond is an often mistake made. A simple look at the standard equation for Double Sideband Large Carrier AM signal it becomes self evident that the wider the frequency spectrum of the modulating signal the wider the bandwidth of the sidebands are. If you really want to trash your neighbor's CBs for +/- 20 or so channels, just open the bandwidth of the micrphone amp and audio string in front of the audio power amp that delivers the power to the modulated stage. Say an audio spectrum from Dc to 40 KHz should do the trick. Then to really splatter just increase the modulation index to around 2. That should give you a signal that should easily occupy about 400KHz of bandwidth. All this can be done with a carrier of about 10 to 20 watts and you can be heard on all 40 channels for a good five to ten miles radius. A good band limited mic amp with some compression and/or clipping will help in improving signal to noise ratios of about one to two dB at the recieving end. Audio clipping and compression do very little to improve signal to noise ratios. They do help imensely in increasing bandwidth when not properly use. CBers think that loud is better and even more louder is even more bettter. The problem is when you have to heavily a modualted AM signal that is fed into an amp the is driven into class C region, the resulting signal is a nightmare at worst. The resulting signal occupies so much bandwidth and then the desired signal to be received is so crappy sounding, most people haven't the guts to tell someone that their signal sounds like crap. It seems that the crappier the signal sounds the better the signal report. The farther the s meter swings to the right the better the signal. Doesn't matter if it is not intelligable. just my thoughts. james |
Speech Processor - Search for Product Name
"james" wrote in message ... On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 11:14:46 -0500, "Jimmie D" wrote: +++ +++"bronco" wrote in message ... +++ +++ "Telstar Electronics" wrote in message +++ oups.com... +++ Please give me your ideas for a name for this developing product... +++ +++ +++ +++ Any technical specifications? What gain does it have at 3KHz compared to +++ other frequencies and what range does it cover. Also what is the attack +++ and decay and gain on 3KHz? +++ I am interested to know if it would be any better than the processors I +++ have used before. Many such as Turner and Protel are way over the top and +++ when matched to a badly tuned CB they sound bad! They are completely +++ unsuitable for FM use but will work to some extent on AM, but are far +++ better on SSB. CBers need to get away from thinking the louder the +++ microphone the more power. You will hear many using a compressor on FM +++ that is causing so much splatter. People still turn the deviation on +++ radios up in error. +++ +++ +++One of the bad things about compressors and clippers is that usually the +++person using it does not have proper test equipment to set it up. Most try +++to set it for max "swing". Most people to not understand that power generae +++outside of the passband of a receiver is a total waste. Well maybe not +++totally, at least your buds 10 channels away will know you are on the air. +++ ********* What is more an issue and a problem is that most CB grade audio compressors and clippers are not properly band limited. throwiong the full audio spectrum from Dc to 20KHz. and beyond is an often mistake made. A simple look at the standard equation for Double Sideband Large Carrier AM signal it becomes self evident that the wider the frequency spectrum of the modulating signal the wider the bandwidth of the sidebands are. If you really want to trash your neighbor's CBs for +/- 20 or so channels, just open the bandwidth of the micrphone amp and audio string in front of the audio power amp that delivers the power to the modulated stage. Say an audio spectrum from Dc to 40 KHz should do the trick. Then to really splatter just increase the modulation index to around 2. That should give you a signal that should easily occupy about 400KHz of bandwidth. All this can be done with a carrier of about 10 to 20 watts and you can be heard on all 40 channels for a good five to ten miles radius. A good band limited mic amp with some compression and/or clipping will help in improving signal to noise ratios of about one to two dB at the recieving end. Audio clipping and compression do very little to improve signal to noise ratios. They do help imensely in increasing bandwidth when not properly use. CBers think that loud is better and even more louder is even more bettter. The problem is when you have to heavily a modualted AM signal that is fed into an amp the is driven into class C region, the resulting signal is a nightmare at worst. The resulting signal occupies so much bandwidth and then the desired signal to be received is so crappy sounding, most people haven't the guts to tell someone that their signal sounds like crap. It seems that the crappier the signal sounds the better the signal report. The farther the s meter swings to the right the better the signal. Doesn't matter if it is not intelligable. just my thoughts. james I have tried to give constuctive critcism to someone to help him set up his powermike telling him how bad that it sounded and that he needed to turn it down even offering to let him know when it was set right(I can readily connect my scope to the IF ampand detector of my RX) only to be blasted by his friends that said he sounded FINE. Dont even try to tell someone that a Class C amp actually removes modulation. |
Speech Processor - Search for Product Name
Hello Jimmie D:
Well the Moonraker 4 and 6 element beams where a great design for the hardware to get real cheap for production. The Hubs that attached the Elements to the Boom are made from Cast Aluminum. Real cheap to manufacture, but in time they break and crack making the Moonraker Beams useless. I had new Hubs made from 6061 T6 Billet Aluminum made from a CNC Mill. Now the Hubs are bullet proof. But expensive! But the problem for manufacturing something using large quantities of materials is always been a design art. Jay in the Mojave Jimmie D wrote: The moonraker is a pretty decent antenna but like a lot of CB antennas the manufctures were trying to sell elements. They stuff as many elements as they can on a boom that is still UPS shipable. I remember back in the 70s how a few people would claim that ther e3 element beam was better than the 4 they used to have and now I believe they may have been right. I extended the boom on mine and respaced the elements vertical for 11M and horizontal for 10. Any way I guess the point I was trying to make to start with before I rambled is that my Al tubing and coax gamma match easily handles a full KW on 10. Why cant the manufacturers make something that is so easy to make? At the risk of appearing to answer my own question I think it was because if they did consumers would realize you can go down to the hardware store and buy the parts and roll your own about as easy as you can build thiers out of the box. |
Speech Processor - Search for Product Name
I dont remember the hubs like that. The ones I had were fastened on with
Muffler clamps on the boom and them cable clamps held the elements to the muffler clamps. "Jay in the Mojave" wrote in message ... Hello Jimmie D: Well the Moonraker 4 and 6 element beams where a great design for the hardware to get real cheap for production. The Hubs that attached the Elements to the Boom are made from Cast Aluminum. Real cheap to manufacture, but in time they break and crack making the Moonraker Beams useless. I had new Hubs made from 6061 T6 Billet Aluminum made from a CNC Mill. Now the Hubs are bullet proof. But expensive! But the problem for manufacturing something using large quantities of materials is always been a design art. Jay in the Mojave Jimmie D wrote: The moonraker is a pretty decent antenna but like a lot of CB antennas the manufctures were trying to sell elements. They stuff as many elements as they can on a boom that is still UPS shipable. I remember back in the 70s how a few people would claim that ther e3 element beam was better than the 4 they used to have and now I believe they may have been right. I extended the boom on mine and respaced the elements vertical for 11M and horizontal for 10. Any way I guess the point I was trying to make to start with before I rambled is that my Al tubing and coax gamma match easily handles a full KW on 10. Why cant the manufacturers make something that is so easy to make? At the risk of appearing to answer my own question I think it was because if they did consumers would realize you can go down to the hardware store and buy the parts and roll your own about as easy as you can build thiers out of the box. |
Speech Processor - Search for Product Name
Hello Jimmie D:
Ok the Moonraker series beams used a clam shell type Hub that had two of the same Hub haves, that bolted together to hold the 4 elements. A 1/4 bolt then squeezed the hub opening to close against the Boom. The manufacturing of these Hubs had to be real cheap as it was Cast Aluminum that if over torque or got to old, would crack then break. Great to keep the manufacturing costs down, but not good for reliability. I'll bet a lot of good antennas have been thrown out over the poorly designed Hubs. Look at http://www.cbtricks.com for the Moonraker assembly instructions. The custom Billet Moonraker Hubs I had made, stirred up a lot of interest until the they heard the cost of the material and machining costs. If you want to play U got to pay! I think the Wilson Line, now MaCo line uses Muffler Clamps to mount the four elements. Which is a good call, as it can be reused without being damaged. And doesn't require bullet proof 6061 T6 Aluminum Bar Stock and expensive CNC machining. Jay in the Mojave Jimmie D wrote: I dont remember the hubs like that. The ones I had were fastened on with Muffler clamps on the boom and them cable clamps held the elements to the muffler clamps. "Jay in the Mojave" wrote in message ... Hello Jimmie D: Well the Moonraker 4 and 6 element beams where a great design for the hardware to get real cheap for production. The Hubs that attached the Elements to the Boom are made from Cast Aluminum. Real cheap to manufacture, but in time they break and crack making the Moonraker Beams useless. I had new Hubs made from 6061 T6 Billet Aluminum made from a CNC Mill. Now the Hubs are bullet proof. But expensive! But the problem for manufacturing something using large quantities of materials is always been a design art. Jay in the Mojave Jimmie D wrote: The moonraker is a pretty decent antenna but like a lot of CB antennas the manufctures were trying to sell elements. They stuff as many elements as they can on a boom that is still UPS shipable. I remember back in the 70s how a few people would claim that ther e3 element beam was better than the 4 they used to have and now I believe they may have been right. I extended the boom on mine and respaced the elements vertical for 11M and horizontal for 10. Any way I guess the point I was trying to make to start with before I rambled is that my Al tubing and coax gamma match easily handles a full KW on 10. Why cant the manufacturers make something that is so easy to make? At the risk of appearing to answer my own question I think it was because if they did consumers would realize you can go down to the hardware store and buy the parts and roll your own about as easy as you can build thiers out of the box. |
Speech Processor - Search for Product Name
When I rebuilt mine I replaced the existing mufflerclamps with SS hardware,
a good idea on any antenna or lawn equipment IMO. You have to be careful though and not put SS next to galvanized or you make for a worse corrosion problem. The U bolts were easy to find but the brackets had to be fabricated. I think these are probably easy to find these days with the popularity of SS exhaust systems. "Jay in the Mojave" wrote in message ... Hello Jimmie D: Ok the Moonraker series beams used a clam shell type Hub that had two of the same Hub haves, that bolted together to hold the 4 elements. A 1/4 bolt then squeezed the hub opening to close against the Boom. The manufacturing of these Hubs had to be real cheap as it was Cast Aluminum that if over torque or got to old, would crack then break. Great to keep the manufacturing costs down, but not good for reliability. I'll bet a lot of good antennas have been thrown out over the poorly designed Hubs. Look at http://www.cbtricks.com for the Moonraker assembly instructions. The custom Billet Moonraker Hubs I had made, stirred up a lot of interest until the they heard the cost of the material and machining costs. If you want to play U got to pay! I think the Wilson Line, now MaCo line uses Muffler Clamps to mount the four elements. Which is a good call, as it can be reused without being damaged. And doesn't require bullet proof 6061 T6 Aluminum Bar Stock and expensive CNC machining. Jay in the Mojave Jimmie D wrote: I dont remember the hubs like that. The ones I had were fastened on with Muffler clamps on the boom and them cable clamps held the elements to the muffler clamps. "Jay in the Mojave" wrote in message ... Hello Jimmie D: Well the Moonraker 4 and 6 element beams where a great design for the hardware to get real cheap for production. The Hubs that attached the Elements to the Boom are made from Cast Aluminum. Real cheap to manufacture, but in time they break and crack making the Moonraker Beams useless. I had new Hubs made from 6061 T6 Billet Aluminum made from a CNC Mill. Now the Hubs are bullet proof. But expensive! But the problem for manufacturing something using large quantities of materials is always been a design art. Jay in the Mojave Jimmie D wrote: The moonraker is a pretty decent antenna but like a lot of CB antennas the manufctures were trying to sell elements. They stuff as many elements as they can on a boom that is still UPS shipable. I remember back in the 70s how a few people would claim that ther e3 element beam was better than the 4 they used to have and now I believe they may have been right. I extended the boom on mine and respaced the elements vertical for 11M and horizontal for 10. Any way I guess the point I was trying to make to start with before I rambled is that my Al tubing and coax gamma match easily handles a full KW on 10. Why cant the manufacturers make something that is so easy to make? At the risk of appearing to answer my own question I think it was because if they did consumers would realize you can go down to the hardware store and buy the parts and roll your own about as easy as you can build thiers out of the box. |
Speech Processor - Search for Product Name
From: (Telstar*Electronics)
Please give me your ideas for a name for this developing product... www.telstar-electronics.com - The Oralator. Now let's talk about you purchasing the rights to my brilliant concept. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:55 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com