On Jul 7, 6:13 pm, Frank Gilliland wrote:
How about a testimonial from some of the people on the other end?

How about some feedback from ebay customers who bought some of the pre-
production units...
http://feedback.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAP...edbackAsSeller

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 08:14:19 -0700, Telspam Electronics
wrote in
. com:

On Jul 7, 6:13 pm, Frank Gilliland wrote:
How about a testimonial from some of the people on the other end?

How about some feedback from ebay customers who bought some of the pre-
production units...
http://feedback.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAP...edbackAsSeller


How about some feedback from a customer (not a shill) after they have
installed it and used it for a couple months in the real world? Or,
even better, how about from some of the people on the other end (i.e,
the RECEIVING end -- why do I have to spell it out for you?)?

And what happened to the rest of my post? You know, the part about how
the human brain functions in a way that the use of a noise gate in
this application makes the audio sound worse rather than better? Or
how wrong you were about speakerphones? Do you think I'm just making
this stuff up? When you go to college for an engineering degree, they
don't make you take psychology and other seemingly irrelevant courses
for nothing -- they are indeed relevant, especially when your minor is
in communications. Human perception plays a paramount role in the
design of any audio (or video) technology. You might even say it's
absolutely critical. There's even a facet of engineering called "human
engineering" which deals almost exclusively with interactions between
humans and technology....

But I forget, you are so naturally gifted that you don't need to learn
of such things. Whenever someone shoves the facts in your face you can
reply with a snide comment and your credibility is magically restored.
Good for you, Brian!

On Jul 8, 12:52 pm, Frank Gilliland
wrote:
How about some feedback from a customer (not a shill) after they have
installed it and used it for a couple months in the real world? Or,
even better, how about from some of the people on the other end (i.e,
the RECEIVING end -- why do I have to spell it out for you?)?

Frank... you know full well those people on ebay are not shills. When
a customer on ebay pays $40 for piece of equipment... you also know
damn well they are going to put it through its paces before they
report back on ebay feedback. You're really reaching on this Frank?
Everybody knows by now you would never be satisfied with any evidence
I could produce. So hang it up Frank. You must think everybody is
really stupid out here... persisting in this attack... with not one
shred of proof of what you say.
www.telstar-electronics.com

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 16:53:06 -0700, Telstar Electronics
wrote in
. com:

On Jul 8, 12:52 pm, Frank Gilliland
wrote:
How about some feedback from a customer (not a shill) after they have
installed it and used it for a couple months in the real world? Or,
even better, how about from some of the people on the other end (i.e,
the RECEIVING end -- why do I have to spell it out for you?)?

Frank... you know full well those people on ebay are not shills. When
a customer on ebay pays $40 for piece of equipment... you also know
damn well they are going to put it through its paces before they
report back on ebay feedback. You're really reaching on this Frank?


I can think of at least a dozen reasons why people would leave
positive feedback regardless of whether the item is tested or not.
Some of those reasons involve scams. Happens all the time.


Everybody knows by now you would never be satisfied with any evidence
I could produce.


Everyone who knows me, after all the time I've posted in this group,
knows that if I'm wrong I'll eat my words. I told you that just a
couple days ago, and others even stood up and vouched for me on that
very issue.


So hang it up Frank.


I don't think so, Brian. Let's put it this way: Suppose I test your
box and post the results. If they are good then you have a fantastic
testimonial from someone who has ridiculed your lack of electronics
knowledge and experience for ten years. If they are not so good, as I
suspect, then you are no worse off than if I sit here and criticize
your incompetence based on your own ignorant claims. So you really
have nothing to lose except a sale. And EVEN IF the results don't turn
out the way you claim, you may just gain an advocate who can at least
explain the proper operation of the box. Or, at the very least, offer
some constructive criticism that you could implement in the next
incarnation of this device (which I have done many times before, and
you have secretly taken and applied to your amps even though you
publically ridiculed my advice -- where's that schematic, Brian?).

There can be only one logical reason why you don't want me to test
your processor -- because it sucks.


You must think everybody is
really stupid out here... persisting in this attack... with not one
shred of proof of what you say.


Until I see credible evidence of your claims, instead of your usual
half-baked technical hocus-pocus and self-aggrandizing spam, I'm not
going to stop. If you don't like it, spam some other newsgroup. Or
don't, I couldn't care less. Actually, your ignorance has done some
positive things in this group. Not intentionally of course, but by
initiating discussions about how people can get suckered by false
technical claims and specifications. So do what you want. But just
remember that if your "business" suffers it's nobody's fault but your
own: YOU choose to spam this group; YOU choose to build and sell your
junk; YOU choose to hack other people's ideas and designs -- don't
even -=TRY=- to put any blame on me or anyone else in here.

Now go upstairs and find mommy, have a good cry on her shoulder, and
move on with your pathetic life in whatever direction YOU choose to
take it.

"Frank Gilliland" wrote...

I can think of at least a dozen reasons why people would leave
positive feedback regardless of whether the item is tested or not.
Some of those reasons involve scams. Happens all the time.

Not just scams, human nature.

There are people out there who have tested "miracle" magnetic
products and other fake items. They will swear that they
worked, as claimed or better.

Have you ever seen the effect where David Blaine levitates in
the street? What about the reports, from eye witnesses
that he levitated several feet off the ground?
It was not as they claim, but they were NOT shills or
stooges. They genuinely believe that is what they saw,
and will most likely remember it that way until the day
they die.

People can see what they want to see and remember
what they want to believe happened.

The only real way is to find out for yourself, put your hand
in your pocket. By then, if it's fake, it's too late now - you
have been had.
But, unless you have done that, or have the proof, you
really cannot state that a particular item is fake.

The other option is that, as a gesture of goodwill and to
show how honest he really is, he sends each of us a free
sample to test.
Oh yes and, either way, we get to keep it.

lol.


Regards,
Peter.
http://www.citizensband.radiouk.com/

"Frank Gilliland" wrote...

How about some feedback from a customer (not a shill) after they have
installed it and used it for a couple months in the real world? Or,
even better, how about from some of the people on the other end (i.e,
the RECEIVING end -- why do I have to spell it out for you?)?

And what happened to the rest of my post? You know, the part about how
the human brain functions in a way that the use of a noise gate in
this application makes the audio sound worse rather than better?

Humans, with brains... are you forgetting this is a CB newsgroup.
We keep our shoes on and leave our brains at the door.

A short while back, I changed telephone provider. The new provider
had different systems.
It is difficult enough talking to "customer service" staff, who
clearly didn't learn English in an English speaking country, but the
noise reduction was cutting off bits that really were important
components of speech.

Even without that, the silience between words or phrases is not
natural. It leaves you unsure whether they are just not talking,
or the line has died again.
Every now and then, the sound of them tapping (hard) on computer
keys would give it away.


Human perception plays a paramount role in the
design of any audio (or video) technology.

It should, but I believe that too much is done on a bench, behind
a desk or on paper. Even large organisations can forget that real
life may be different.

You might even say it's absolutely critical. There's even a
facet of engineering called "human engineering" which deals
almost exclusively with interactions between humans
and technology....

Tell that to Web site designers.
Have you ever been to a Web site and given up before the first
page even loaded? I know I have, many times.
No consideration for the people who it is for, the visitors,
whether it will be usable by them or even if site provides what
they really want.

I wonder if Brian has considered whether another speech processor
is really what the CB community really needs right now. Tell me, is
America screeming out for processors aimed at the CB market?


Regards,
Peter.
http://www.citizensband.radiouk.com/

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 22:05:24 +0100, " Peter"
wrote in :

"Frank Gilliland" wrote...

How about some feedback from a customer (not a shill) after they have
installed it and used it for a couple months in the real world? Or,
even better, how about from some of the people on the other end (i.e,
the RECEIVING end -- why do I have to spell it out for you?)?

And what happened to the rest of my post? You know, the part about how
the human brain functions in a way that the use of a noise gate in
this application makes the audio sound worse rather than better?

Humans, with brains... are you forgetting this is a CB newsgroup.
We keep our shoes on and leave our brains at the door.


......oops, my bad.


A short while back, I changed telephone provider. The new provider
had different systems.
It is difficult enough talking to "customer service" staff, who
clearly didn't learn English in an English speaking country, but the
noise reduction was cutting off bits that really were important
components of speech.

Even without that, the silience between words or phrases is not
natural. It leaves you unsure whether they are just not talking,
or the line has died again.
Every now and then, the sound of them tapping (hard) on computer
keys would give it away.


That's what I was talking about when I mentioned Comcast digital
voice. A friend of mine got it and it's really annoying. Sounds like
she keeps hanging up or the line goes dead. But she's stuck with it
for several more months because of the contract.... I think it's a
rip-off. Going from full-duplex to psuedo/half-duplex is an upgrade?
Not in my book.


Human perception plays a paramount role in the
design of any audio (or video) technology.

It should, but I believe that too much is done on a bench, behind
a desk or on paper. Even large organisations can forget that real
life may be different.


That's exactly the kind of rift that the field of "human engineering"
works to avoid.


You might even say it's absolutely critical. There's even a
facet of engineering called "human engineering" which deals
almost exclusively with interactions between humans
and technology....

Tell that to Web site designers.
Have you ever been to a Web site and given up before the first
page even loaded? I know I have, many times.


I have dial-up. Nuff said.


No consideration for the people who it is for, the visitors,
whether it will be usable by them or even if site provides what
they really want.


I think it's a vast, right-wing conspiracy to get you to buy the
fastest computer with the latest version of windoze. But then I'm
paranoid.... (and no, I'd -never- vote for Hillary!!!)


I wonder if Brian has considered whether another speech processor
is really what the CB community really needs right now. Tell me, is
America screeming out for processors aimed at the CB market?


It's really pretty redundant, since almost every radio built since the
1960's has had some form of AGC in the mic line. If he were to use the
noise gate to trigger a keyer relay, use the processor to increase the
peak-to-average level to 40 or 50%, then put it in a box and not lie
about the specs, he could easily sell them for SSB rigs of all types,
ham included. But alas, as you stated befo

....this is a CB newsgroup.
We keep our shoes on and leave our brains at the door.

On Jul 10, 5:47 pm, Frank Gilliland
wrote:
It's really pretty redundant, since almost every radio built since the
1960's has had some form of AGC in the mic line. If he were to use the
noise gate to trigger a keyer relay, use the processor to increase the
peak-to-average level to 40 or 50%, then put it in a box and not lie
about the specs, he could easily sell them for SSB rigs of all types,
ham included. But alas, as you stated befo

Frank... I think you're a little confused... cause you appear to be
using limiter and AGC interchangably. Most radios you speak of use a
limiting circuit... not an AGC. There is a huge difference. A typical
limiter circuit in these radios doesn't have nearly the compression of
AGC/limiter combination. That is because the limiter circuit in these
radios has no absolutely no gain... and can only attenuate the audio
signal on large peaks. That equates to very low compression. The
VoiceMax AGC has about 60dB of gain possible. This accounts for the
very high 15:1 compression ratio. Welcome to the real world.
www.telstar-electronics.com

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 05:54:19 -0700, Telstar Electronics
wrote in
. com:

On Jul 10, 5:47 pm, Frank Gilliland
wrote:
It's really pretty redundant, since almost every radio built since the
1960's has had some form of AGC in the mic line. If he were to use the
noise gate to trigger a keyer relay, use the processor to increase the
peak-to-average level to 40 or 50%, then put it in a box and not lie
about the specs, he could easily sell them for SSB rigs of all types,
ham included. But alas, as you stated befo

Frank... I think you're a little confused... cause you appear to be
using limiter and AGC interchangably. Most radios you speak of use a
limiting circuit... not an AGC. There is a huge difference. A typical
limiter circuit in these radios doesn't have nearly the compression of
AGC/limiter combination. That is because the limiter circuit in these
radios has no absolutely no gain... and can only attenuate the audio
signal on large peaks. That equates to very low compression. The
VoiceMax AGC has about 60dB of gain possible. This accounts for the
very high 15:1 compression ratio. Welcome to the real world.


In the "real world", stock radios do indeed have AGC. I've mentioned
that many times before, it's been stated in this group many times
since I've been here, and the alignment of mic AGC was even a topic of
"discussion" with Dave the Hypocrite. I would think by now you would
have read a few service manuals but obviously not. Yes, they do have
limiters. Sometimes the limiting is done by the AGC (sharp elbow), and
sometimes it is a seperate circuit. But they all have mic AGC, usually
serving double duty as receive audio AGC. I'm not going to scan my
library to prove it to you -- manuals are available on ebay for pocket
change. A lot of people in the group already have a few and know I'm
right. Get some of your own and read them. THEN you can tell me about
the "real world".

"Telstar Electronics" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jul 7, 6:13 pm, Frank Gilliland wrote:
How about a testimonial from some of the people on the other end?

How about some feedback from ebay customers who bought some of the pre-
production units...
http://feedback.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAP...edbackAsSeller

Frank, don't entertain this putz on the feedback idea. It was proven before
that he was bidding on his own products.