On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 15:56:07 -0700, Telspam Electronics
wrote in
.com:

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


Well, let's see what you said originally:

In the VoiceMax,
the processed waveform is still made up of sine waves...


Just like a video signal.


but the
levels are different from the oroginal signal. The low levels are
higher... and the very high levels are lower.


Same as turning down the contrast. Brights are dimmer, darks are
lighter. Then you push the average modulation up to 100% which is no
different than turning up the brightness. It's a perfect analogy,
Brian..... "LOL"

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 15:56:07 -0700, Telspam Electronics
wrote in
.com:

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


Well, let's see what you said originally:

In the VoiceMax,
the processed waveform is still made up of sine waves...


Just like a video signal.


but the
levels are different from the oroginal signal. The low levels are
higher... and the very high levels are lower.


Same as turning down the contrast. Brights are dimmer, darks are
lighter. Then you push the average modulation up to 100% which is no
different than turning up the brightness. It's a perfect analogy,
Brian..... "LOL"




So basically, what you end up with is unintelligible hash?

On Jul 7, 7:51 pm, "Yo Mamma" wrote:
So basically, what you end up with is unintelligible hash?

Just like Frank's posts... lol
www.telstar-electronics.com

"Yo Mamma" wrote...

So basically, what you end up with is unintelligible hash?

Just like my mumma used to make.
Sorry, that was inedible hash.


:~)
Peter.
http://www.citizensband.radiouk.com/