On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 17:50:31 -0700, Telspam Electronics
wrote in
. com:

On Jul 5, 2:14 pm, " Peter" wrote:
If your critics offer you their money, so they can offend
themselves with your product... take it and lol all the way
to the bank.
Regards,
Peter.

Peter,
You can bet Frank knows the device works if he's willing to shell out
his hard earned money for it... no matter what he says here.


Brian, I have -never- said the thing didn't work. I -did- say that
your claims of what it can do are impossible. I can't wait to hook it
up to the radio and watch the modulation meter dance as I talk,
contrary to your claim that I will maintain 100% modulation 100% of
the time. It will be fun to hook it up to the distortion analyzer and
graph what you claim is less than 1% THD. I might even make a .wav of
my own voice, processed by your gizmo, as it's heard by the receiver.

But the most fun will come when I post the results and watch you try
and shovel a large pile of techno-turds trying to defend against how
your box -really- works.


I just find it comical that he blatently says one thing and then does
another. I guess he figures nobody will notice... lol


On the contrary, I hope EVERYONE will notice.... "lol".


And the sad part is... they might not out here on this group!


Thanks for the tip, Brian -- I think I'll post the results to a web
page as well, along with one of my favorite quotes from you:

"Now how did I know that Frank wouldn't have any ideas...
I guess he's too busy working on his Master's degree... LOL !"


BTW, where's that schematic?

On Jul 5, 8:23 pm, Frank Gilliland wrote:
But the most fun will come when I post the results and watch you try
and shovel a large pile of techno-turds trying to defend against how
your box -really- works.

Frank, I think you have already written your review... before the
product is even available.
I believe that even the dullest of folks out here know that your
review wouldn't be worth the "bandwidth it's printed on"... lol

P.S. How's your master's degree from the College of Culinary Arts
coming? Did you ever perfect your french pronounciation of "Do you
want fries with that"?

Thanks for your continued interest in the VoiceMax Speech Processor
Module...
http://www.telstar-electronics.com/d...evelopment.htm

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 17:13:40 -0700, Telspam Electronics
wrote in
.com:

On Jul 5, 8:23 pm, Frank Gilliland wrote:
But the most fun will come when I post the results and watch you try
and shovel a large pile of techno-turds trying to defend against how
your box -really- works.

Frank, I think you have already written your review... before the
product is even available.
I believe that even the dullest of folks out here know that your
review wouldn't be worth the "bandwidth it's printed on"... lol


Why don't you ask Twistedhed about that one. I fought him for years on
a political issue only to find out that I was wrong. I still disagree
with his freebanding, but when I'm proven wrong, at least -he- knows
that I'll stand up and take my punches.

I'm giving you a chance to prove me wrong, Brian. If you product works
like you say it does, and it doesn't cost you any money, why in the
world -wouldn't- you be willing to sell me one?


P.S. How's your master's degree from the College of Culinary Arts
coming? Did you ever perfect your french pronounciation of "Do you
want fries with that"?


No, but last March I did finish a study on EM wave interference
pattern and polarization interactions in atmospheric media of varying
ionization. It was a joint project with the meteorology department in
the study of weather radar, with extended applications to satellite
communications. Got any opinions on the subject, Brian?

Oh, and where's that schematic for your non-linear linear?


Thanks for your continued interest in the VoiceMax Speech Processor
Module...
http://www.telspam-electronics.com/d...evelopment.htm


Yeah, I didn't think you wanted to go there.

On Jul 6, 7:58 pm, Frank Gilliland wrote:
Yeah, I didn't think you wanted to go there.

You're right Frank... I don't want to go anywhere with you.
www.telstar-electronics.com

On Jul 5, 1:13 pm, " Peter" wrote:
"cmdr buzz corey" wrote...



You can't change the average level without changing the waveform.

Bovine excrement.

An amplifier will increase the average level, but by increasing all
levels. As many references make clear (some listed below), an
amplifier does NOT change the waveform.

Then you aren't processing the speech waveform, just amplifying it. If
you want to process the waveform for more average power, then the
waveform has to be changed.

On Jul 7, 2:41 pm, cmdr buzz corey
wrote:
Then you aren't processing the speech waveform, just amplifying it. If
you want to process the waveform for more average power, then the
waveform has to be changed.

That's not true. The audio waveform is a sine wave. In the VoiceMax,
the processed waveform is still made up of sine waves... but the
levels are different from the oroginal signal. The low levels are
higher... and the very high levels are lower. A good speech processor
essentially flattens the output at a desired level... without
excessive harmonic distortion.
www.telstar-electronics.com

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 12:55:58 -0700, Telspam Electronics
wrote in
.com:

On Jul 7, 2:41 pm, cmdr buzz corey
wrote:
Then you aren't processing the speech waveform, just amplifying it. If
you want to process the waveform for more average power, then the
waveform has to be changed.

That's not true. The audio waveform is a sine wave.


Only if it's a single tone of constant amplitude.


In the VoiceMax,
the processed waveform is still made up of sine waves... but the
levels are different from the oroginal signal. The low levels are
higher... and the very high levels are lower. A good speech processor
essentially flattens the output at a desired level... without
excessive harmonic distortion.


That's such an oversimplification that it's flat-out wrong. What you
are saying is just like if you adjusted your computer monitor or TV by
turning the contrast all the way down, the brightness all the way up,
then telling people that it's a better picture despite the fact that
it's worse.

On Jul 7, 5:47 pm, Frank Gilliland wrote:
That's such an oversimplification that it's flat-out wrong. What you
are saying is just like if you adjusted your computer monitor or TV by
turning the contrast all the way down, the brightness all the way up,
then telling people that it's a better picture despite the fact that
it's worse.


Your TV analogy makes no sense and has nothing to do with this
discussion... but what else is new... lol
www.telstar-electronics.com

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 16:49:13 -0700, Telspam Electronics
wrote in
. com:

On Jul 4, 10:37 am, Frank Gilliland
wrote:
No, I don't. That's why I want to run it through the bench. The only
thing I'm sure that works is the noise gate, but I still don't see the
point since all it does is shut off the audio when you're not talking
to eliminate ambient noise. And it's that ambient noise that let's the
other guy know that you're still keyed up. A noise gate would make
your radio sound like a cheap speaker phone, or that crappy digital
voice from Comcast. Hey, here's an idea -- when you're done talking,
why not just unkey the mic?

Well... I still don't know why you would want to bench test something
that you have said doesn't work from day one. But that aside... let's
talk about the significance of the noise gate. Your understanding of
the way the noise gate works is correct.


I know it's correct, Brian. I've been working with them for longer
than you've been living with your parents.


When the audio falls below a
user-defined threshold... the audio mutes. If you stop to think that
the VoiceMax has very high gain in the AGC... you realize that any low-
level background sound will be greatly amplified... up to around
+60dB. Without the noise gate... the hissing and wind noise in the
background between words would be extremely distracting. The
background noise detracts intelligibility from the voice signal. This
blocking of background noise between words helps the vocal clarity of
the transmission. It's really quite effective .. and the audio quality
is excellent.


No, it isn't. What you are doing is muting the ambient noise only when
the voice is loud enough to trigger the gate. Once the gate is open,
both voice -AND- noise are passed. What it sounds like to the human
ear is distorted audio because the audio "processor" in your brain
hears the noise only with the voice and associates the two as one.

Noise gates have their place, such as stage audio applications where
ambient noise is perceived as distorting the -desired- sounds. That's
what it was designed to do. Your processor does exactly the opposite
by making the noise audible with, and -only- with, the desired sounds.


It certainly doesn't sound like a cheap speakerphone.
The speakerphone is quite different as the the person is quite a
distance from the mic in that application. This does present a big
problem... since the S/N ratio in that appliaction is very poor.


Say what?


That's why speakerphones sound hollow... due to room acoustics... and
many times are choppy on transmit/receive... because of the poor S/N
ratio... and therefore very critical threshold setting.


Not even close. Speakerphones sound choppy (like the noise gate in
your "processor") because they are voice-operated half-duplex. They
sound "hollow" because of the filtering needed to prevent the thing
from triggering it's own VOX.


So far there
are eight pre-production units in the field right now. I haven't had
one complaint or problem.


That's because nobody can hear you. Not suprising when your antenna's
ground plane is only 9 square feet.....


I have two installed in both my Cobra19 and
Cobra25 using the stock mic on one... and the Astatic 636L on the
other. They both work like a million bucks. I have the audio of a
power mic... without all the background noise. In my book... that's
the best of both worlds. My on-air experiences so far in the past few
months have substantiated my beliefs that the clarity is enhanced. I
came to that conclusion knowing how much less I've had to repeat
transmissions.


How about a testimonial from some of the people on the other end?


Oh, and where's that schematic, Brian?