VoiceMax CB Radio Speech Processor
 

On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 05:22:25 -0700, Telstar Electronics
wrote:

|Why Do You Need a Speech Processor for Your CB Radio?
|Two-way radio communication relies on the modulation contained within
|the signal. Maintaining a high modulation level is crucial in
|providing the highest possible efficiency from any transmitter
|operating on AM, FM, or SSB modes. Two-way radios also rely on
|microphones that inherently change audio levels delivered to the
|transmitter. This causes transmitter modulation to fluctuate greatly
|depending on voice level and pitch. The average modulation of a
|typical voice signal is only about 40%. This low percentage applied to
|the transmitter, results in less than optimal transmission range.
|-------------

rubbish.

james

VoiceMax CB Radio Speech Processor
 

On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 05:25:43 +0100, " Peter"
wrote:

|Do you really have the spare time to explain everything
|to him? If so, do you really want to be faced with legal
|action when his brain implodes?
|----------

Not really.

james

VoiceMax CB Radio Speech Processor
 

On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 05:25:36 +0100, " Peter"
wrote:

|Amplitude Modulation... The output level "swings" above
|and below the carrier level.
|
|Get it yet?
|
|If the output level does not swing, then you have a constant
|amplitude... no amplitude modulation.
|No amplitude modulation = no audio. Unless, of course,
|you are using FM.
|----------------

Wrong

Unless you are using a peak reading wattmeter the power remians
constant with modulation in a DSB-AM Large Carrier signal. IF you were
to do a Fourier Transform of the AM signal under modulatioin you will
see a carrier frequency, the upper sideband frequencies, and the lower
sideband frequencies. The power in the upper and lower sidebands vary
with the power of the modulating signal. With an averaging wattmeter
you should see little or no movement of the power.

james

VoiceMax CB Radio Speech Processor
 

On Sep 2, 11:02 pm, james wrote:
On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 05:22:25 -0700, Telstar Electronics

wrote:

|VoiceMax is Different...
|VoiceMax uses a sophisticated AGC (Automatic Gain Control) circuit
|that installs inside your transceiver to hold the audio level
|constant, with less than 1% harmonic distortion. No "clipping" type
|processor can come close to this low distortion level. Whether you're
|whispering or shouting, VoiceMax holds your transceiver at 100%
|modulation allowing you to punch through heavy channel traffic without
|sacrificing voice clarity. VoiceMax incorporates a feature not offered
|on other processors. The adjustable noise gate allows the user to
|block unwanted ambient background sounds. This feature is especially
|helpful in mobile environments where wind and road noise can be an
|issue. VoiceMax works with your non-amplified dynamic microphone to
|give you tremendous audio punch without all the background noise
|associated with power microphones.
|-------------

With all that, the dang thing is nothng more than a fancy speech
compressor. I don't care how much fluff you want to put around it. It
is still a speech compressor.

james

Bottom line... it works as advertised. The ebay feedback supports
that...
http://feedback.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAP...edbackAsSeller
Whether you believe it or not is of little consequence...
www.telstar-electronics.com

SplatterMax CB Radio Speech Processor
 

"Telstar Electronics" wrote...
I suggest you review
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequen...dulation_index
for details.

And I suggest that you learn the theory, rather than relying
on Wikipedia to try outwitting techs.
Some important things to note...
1. Wikipedia is only as accurate and complete as the
information put in by the public.
2. Wikipedia is no substitute for proper training.
3. One line or paragraph does not explain everything.
4. The real clue may be in the text - "approximately".

Your linked reference suggests that when the modulation
index is below 1, the bandwidth is approximately twice the
modulating frequency.
Bandwidth = 2Fm

If you are relying on such a simple, crude and innacurate
approximation, it only serves to show that you have neither
true technical knowledge or experience of FM CB.

If only you had read a little further, you would have
spotted another approximation that appears to dispute
the above method:
Bandwidth = 2 (Fd + Fm)

Note that the first approximation method does not include
deviation, and does not appear to define bandwidth.
As the sidebands are infinite, using the term bandwidth
without defining a level is like using dB without a reference
or level.
The second method includes both deviation and modulating
freqency, and does define bandwidth within the text.

But those are only approximations, a better idea of bandwidth
may be obtained from real figures...

With the CB audio bandwidth, the second sideband spreads to
over half way to the next channel, while the third sideband
spreads out to just below the adjacent channel carrier frequency.
A receiver cannot block these without blocking the wanted signal.
So while we can ignore the first sideband, anything above that
should be kept to insignificant levels.

At a modulation index of 1:
Second sideband = 11.5%
Third sideband = 2%
At a modulation index of 0.8:
Second sideband = 7.6%
Third sideband = 1%

These are NOT insignificant levels. Here in the UK, because
of legal restrictions of the day, many people once run on
just 10% (400mW) total power - and got decent distances
on it.


Bottom line...

Bottom line is that you are only interested in sales, and
you will say whatever it takes to get those sales.

Some of us, who have had FM CB from the beginning
in 1981, have already seen the sales tactics used. The
deception, selective facts, bending of reality and
outright lies used to make a sale.


Regards,
Peter.

VoiceMax CB Radio Speech Processor
 

"james" wrote...
" Peter" wrote:

|Amplitude Modulation... The output level "swings" above
|and below the carrier level.
|
|Get it yet?
|
|If the output level does not swing, then you have a constant
|amplitude... no amplitude modulation.
|No amplitude modulation = no audio. Unless, of course,
|you are using FM.
|----------------

Wrong

Once again you appear to have misread my statement,
making it appear that we disagree.

Before going on, read the quote (above) and note that:
I said output... NOT carrier.
I did NOT say that average power changes.

Unless you are using a peak reading wattmeter the power
remians constant

The power is not affected by the type of meter, all that
changes is the type reading that you take.

with modulation in a DSB-AM Large Carrier signal. IF you were
to do a Fourier Transform of the AM signal under modulatioin
you will see a carrier frequency, the upper sideband frequencies,
and the lower sideband frequencies.

There is no dispute that extra power is now in the sidebands,
but the output is varying over time, as an oscilloscope would
show.
The total power is varying with the modulating signal but,
as it should be swinging about the carrier level, the
average should be constant.

Surely we agree: the peak output (not carrier or average)
is varying over time, while the average power is constant.
At least is should be, if all is well and nobody has been
fekkin about inside the radio.

With an averaging wattmeter you should see little
or no movement of the power.

Of course not, the meter is intentionally ignoring them.
By averaging the reading, you are removing the short term
variations... but that does not mean they are not there.

Just like a business looking at average sales - the seasonal
fluctuations are ignored, but they still exist.


Hey, how about a new CB voodoo term...
Seasonally Adjusted Power.
No? How about:
Seasonally Adjusted Bird Watts.

Come on, James... laughter may just save you from being
sent suicidal by this group.


Regards,
Peter.

VoiceMax CB Radio Speech Processor
 

Bottom line... it works as advertised. The ebay feedback supports
that...
http://feedback.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAP...d=260154735664
Whether you believe it or not is of little consequence...
www.telstar-electronics.com

VoiceMax CB Radio Speech Processor
 

Peter

I quote your message:

"Amplitude Modulation... The output level "swings" above
and below the carrier level."

This is incorrect. The output does not swing above and below the
carrier. The output of an AM signal is the carrier and the two
sidebands.

Also power meters are not, per se, frequency specific. There are
tricks that allow psuedo peak reading to see the "swing" that comes
with modulation. Usually this is done by using larger value capacitors
in rectified output of the RF detectors. The problem is all RF is
rectified to a time varying DC level that corresponds somewhat to the
varying amplitudes of the RF signals being sampled.

james


On Tue, 4 Sep 2007 05:53:47 +0100, " Peter"
wrote:

|
|"james" wrote...
| " Peter" wrote:
|
| |Amplitude Modulation... The output level "swings" above
| |and below the carrier level.
| |
| |Get it yet?
| |
| |If the output level does not swing, then you have a constant
| |amplitude... no amplitude modulation.
| |No amplitude modulation = no audio. Unless, of course,
| |you are using FM.
| |----------------
|
| Wrong
|
|Once again you appear to have misread my statement,
|making it appear that we disagree.
|
|Before going on, read the quote (above) and note that:
| I said output... NOT carrier.
| I did NOT say that average power changes.
|
| Unless you are using a peak reading wattmeter the power
| remians constant
|
|The power is not affected by the type of meter, all that
|changes is the type reading that you take.
|
| with modulation in a DSB-AM Large Carrier signal. IF you were
| to do a Fourier Transform of the AM signal under modulatioin
| you will see a carrier frequency, the upper sideband frequencies,
| and the lower sideband frequencies.
|
|There is no dispute that extra power is now in the sidebands,
|but the output is varying over time, as an oscilloscope would
|show.
|The total power is varying with the modulating signal but,
|as it should be swinging about the carrier level, the
|average should be constant.
|
|Surely we agree: the peak output (not carrier or average)
|is varying over time, while the average power is constant.
|At least is should be, if all is well and nobody has been
|fekkin about inside the radio.
|
| With an averaging wattmeter you should see little
| or no movement of the power.
|
|Of course not, the meter is intentionally ignoring them.
|By averaging the reading, you are removing the short term
|variations... but that does not mean they are not there.
|
|Just like a business looking at average sales - the seasonal
|fluctuations are ignored, but they still exist.
|
|
|Hey, how about a new CB voodoo term...
| Seasonally Adjusted Power.
|No? How about:
| Seasonally Adjusted Bird Watts.
|
|Come on, James... laughter may just save you from being
|sent suicidal by this group.
|
|
|Regards,
|Peter.
|
|

VoiceMax CB Radio Speech Processor
 

On Sep 2, 11:08 pm, james wrote:
rubbish.

Use your own material... lol
www.telstar-electronics.com

VoiceMax CB Radio Speech Processor
 

On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 16:09:43 -0700, Telstar Electronics
wrote:

|On Sep 2, 11:08 pm, james wrote:
| rubbish.
|
|Use your own material... lol
|www.telstar-electronics.com
|
|--------------

then how about Canine excrement?

james

VoiceMax CB Radio Speech Processor
 

On Aug 28, 11:24 pm, " Peter" wrote:
UK CB is FM only.
There is no "talk power" with FM, it is a constant carrier
level (unless some tw@t has f'ked the radio up).
Increasing audio level does NOT increase the distance
of your signal.

While you are correct that increasing your audio level alone won't do
anything for FM... increasing the density (compression) of the audio
will have a beneficial effect on transmission range. This is what
VoiceMax can accomplish on the FM mode.
www.telstar-electronics.com

VoiceMax CB Radio Speech Processor
 

On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 04:55:23 -0700, Telstar Electronics
wrote:

|On Aug 28, 11:24 pm, " Peter" wrote:
| UK CB is FM only.
| There is no "talk power" with FM, it is a constant carrier
| level (unless some tw@t has f'ked the radio up).
| Increasing audio level does NOT increase the distance
| of your signal.
|
|While you are correct that increasing your audio level alone won't do
|anything for FM... increasing the density (compression) of the audio
|will have a beneficial effect on transmission range. This is what
|VoiceMax can accomplish on the FM mode.
|www.telstar-electronics.com
|
|-----------------------

Brian, have you been tipping the bottle a bit too much
lately???????????

Sorry Brian. Increasing the power density in the audio spectrum of a
NBFM signal will do jack for transmission range. Simply to put it, to
incease range, you need to increase carrier power. To put it simply,
at the reception end the NBFM signal needs to be 20 dB carrier to
noise ratio or about 12dB SINAD to obtain near full quieting.

All audio power does is increase deviation. Using a compressor on FM
just increase average deviation.

james

VoiceMax CB Radio Speech Processor
 

On Sep 6, 7:31 am, james wrote:
All audio power does is increase deviation. Using a compressor on FM
just increase average deviation.

Exactly, and I claim that having that increased average deviation is
an advantage on FM.
www.telstar-electronics.com

VoiceMax CB Radio Speech Processor
 

On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 08:40:04 -0700, Telstar Electronics
wrote:

|On Sep 6, 7:31 am, james wrote:
| All audio power does is increase deviation. Using a compressor on FM
| just increase average deviation.
|
|Exactly, and I claim that having that increased average deviation is
|an advantage on FM.
|www.telstar-electronics.com
|
|-------------------

Incerased deviation does not necessarily translate into farther
transmission range. Which is what you are hyping. Transmision range
depends far more on other variables than just the transmitter. That is
the problem with most CBers. They think more transmitter power or
audio will increase range.

Keep beleiveing in your snake oil and patent medicene.

james

VoiceMax CB Radio Speech Processor
 

Compressing the audio will not increase range
in an FM Xmiter, but it will make you sound louder.
FM Rock radio stations do it all the time.

wrote:
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 08:40:04 -0700, Telstar Electronics
wrote:


On Sep 6, 7:31 am, james wrote:

All audio power does is increase deviation. Using a compressor on FM
just increase average deviation.

Exactly, and I claim that having that increased average deviation is
an advantage on FM.
www.telstar-electronics.com


can you reference a citation to suport that contention (not sure
either way myself

"one useless man is disgrace 2 become a law firm 3 or more become a congress"
adams

woger you are a Congress all in your own head

http://kb9rqz.bravejournal.com/

and get ou the newly recovered KB9RQZ.blogspot.com as well

G

VoiceMax CB Radio Speech Processor
 

On Sep 7, 7:17 am, FrankW wrote:
Compressing the audio will not increase range
in an FM Xmiter, but it will make you sound louder.
FM Rock radio stations do it all the time.

Now let's analyze your statement. Why would FM radio stations go
through the trouble of compressing (not clipping!) the audio?... if it
didn't make the signal better? The short answer... they wouldn't
bother. The fact is that voice intelligibility and range are directly
related. So expanding on that... just being louder... at the expense
of clarity will not help. That is the problem with clipping type
processors.
www.telstar-electronics

VoiceMax CB Radio Speech Processor
 

"Telstar Electronics" spammed:

spam snipped


They say that the truth hurts, but what really hurts
you is when the facts are made public.

Face it, your bluffs didn't work. You are exposed
as a fake, who simply chants words he heard
somewhere without really knowing what they mean.



Regards,
Peter.

SplatterMax CB Radio Speech Processor
 

"Telstar Electronics" wrote...

Bottom line... it works as advertised. The ebay feedback
supports that...

Sure, and the feedback from witnesses prove that
David Blaine can levitate himself several feet off
the ground.
Just watch the video, listen to the witness reports.


Regards,
Peter.

VoiceMax CB Radio Speech Processor
 

"FrankW" wrote...
Compressing the audio will not increase range
in an FM Xmiter, but it will make you sound louder.
FM Rock radio stations do it all the time.

They are not trying to fit their transmission within a
10KHz channel spacing, they have far more bandwidth
to play with.

Also, it's not the only trick used. Something much more
basic is used to extend the range of an FM broadcast.


Regards,
Peter.

VoiceMax CB Radio Speech Processor
 

"Telspam Electronics" wrote...
On Sep 7, 7:17 am, FrankW wrote:
Compressing the audio will not increase range
in an FM Xmiter, but it will make you sound louder.
FM Rock radio stations do it all the time.

Now let's analyze your statement. Why would FM
radio stations go through the trouble of compressing
(not clipping!) the audio?... if it didn't make the
signal better?

Analyze it a little more...
Rock stations.

Now, what makes rock music better... intelligibility
or just pure decibels?

Let's face it, you can't understand a word they are
shouting about anyway, and certainly not over the
sound of garbage cans being physically abused.

The quality of Rock and Heavy Metal music is
measured by the number of brain cells remaining
after 1 hour of listening and headbanging while
playing the air guitar.

The short answer... they wouldn't bother.


The music industry relies heavily on this belief... tell the
public it's number 1, and they will all go out and make
it so.
Fashion takes it one step further - they can tell the
customer that everyone WILL be buying it, and they
will do.

But you know this, which is why you keep spamming the
group with "hey, everyone has one" type messages... you
see us a a bunch of lemmings.

Many businesses lose out to poor advertizing with the
same line... if it didn't work, they wouldn't bother.
The truth is that some salesman spun a convincing, if rather
misleading, yarn. One or two fell for it, and the others
simply follow them. The more fall into the trap, the
more follow them in.

Business 101... Never follow purely on the basis that the
leader must know the way.
Use such beliefs to sucker customers in, but never
fall for them yourself.


Regards,
Peter.

SplatterMax CB Radio Speech Processor
 

"james" wrote...
Peter

I quote your message:

"Amplitude Modulation... The output level "swings" above
and below the carrier level."

This is incorrect. The output does not swing above and
below the carrier. The output of an AM signal is the
carrier and the two sidebands.

So? How are the sidebands excluded from "output level" in
my statement which you quote, but change (twice missing out
the word 'level') within your reply text?

Is this your problem, you only see the words you want to?
Then, considering output as being output frequency, rather
than output level, you see an incorrect statement.

Now, going back to my original statement, that output
level (amplitude) "swings" (varies) above and below the
carrier level (the amplitude of the unmodulated carrier)...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...modulation.png
http://robotics.eecs.berkeley.edu/~s...1_figure27.gif
http://robotics.eecs.berkeley.edu/~s...1_figure37.gif
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~jcgl/Sc...part9/fig1.gif
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ignals.svg.png

Also power meters are not, per se, frequency specific.

I made no mention of readings on a specific meter, just
the actual output. Whatever you read on a meter does
NOT change what the transmitter is actually putting out.

Just like the last time, you appear to be either getting
ahead of yourself or totally changing the topic.
I am still unsure whether you are doing this on purpose,
just for the sake of arguing, or have been snorting something.

The problem is all RF is rectified to a time varying
DC level

What you do with a signal, once you receive it, makes
no difference to what is actually being transmitted.

that corresponds somewhat to the varying amplitudes
of the RF signals being sampled.

What varying amplitudes, you said it doesn't... and
you can prove it by measuring the average.

I really am having a hard time taking you seriously. Not
only do you start ranting about things that have nothing
to do with the issue (also commented on by someone else
on the group), but you then go back on your whole
argument.

I really do have to consider the possibility that you are
simply trying to wind people up and, like the Griffter,
you will say anything that you believe will achieve your
goal.


Regards,
Peter.

VoiceMax CB Radio Speech Processor
 

wrote...
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 08:40:04 -0700, Telstar Electronics
wrote:

On Sep 6, 7:31 am, james wrote:
All audio power does is increase deviation. Using a
compressor on FM just increase average deviation.

Exactly, and I claim that having that increased average
deviation is an advantage on FM.

can you reference a citation to suport that contention (not
sure either way myself

No, Griffter can only give stock, salesman type replies.
You want facts, here you go...

The UK CB system, which we have used for 25 years, has:
10KHz spacing
3KHz typical audio bandwidth
2.5KHz deviation on old sets.
2KHz deviation on recent sets.
The list of UK and EU CB frequencies are he
http://www.citizensband.radiouk.com/...freq/index.php
http://www.citizensband.radiouk.com/...req/eufreq.php

Using Griffter's own reference to prove his lies, Carson's
Rule makes the bandwidth:
11KHz for old spec. sets.
10KHz for new spec. sets.
You can also check this using the Bessel functions...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_modulation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carson_bandwidth_rule


As is obvious, that takes your sidebands clear into the
next channel. The only reason that this is acceptable is
because this is the peak bandwidth, occuring at peaks in
deviation.

The odd short burst of interference caused by a peak can
go unnoticed but, if the whole signal is sat at maximum
deviation, a constant 100% deviation will make it take
that bandwidth constantly.

By increasing the average deviation, he is increasing the
average power contained in the sidebands which fall
within adjacent channels - wiping those channels out.


To receive the signal clearly, it must remain within your
receiver bandwidth - that falling outside will be lost.
Just like with the splatter, you can stand a small amount
of loss on the peaks without too much trouble. Increasing
the average deviation can increase the amount of signal
going beyond this passband, increasing the audio distortion.

His 1% distortion claim goes out the window. Whatever
distortion that increased audio causes within the transmitter
and receiver are additional, add them all together.

In order to stop the continuous problems of adjacent channel
splatter that we suffered, the UK government had to make
changes to the CB specifications...
Deviation reduced.
Receive bandwidth legal requirement.
Unfortunately, this narrow RX bandwidth requirement also
made it easier to get your audio distorted by the receiver.


The Griffter is one of two things:
A fake: Knowing no real facts, simply chanting whatever he
thinks will make the sale.
A lying, cheating scammer: Knowing the true facts, but
purposely lying to make sales.

Personally, I believe he is just a fake, a salesman who will say
anything to sell his outdated product. He picks up the odd
word or phrase, like modulation index or RoHS, and just
chants it in the hope of impressing the living shyte out of
most CB users.
He doesn't really understand the words, theory or how it all
works - he just shouts words to sound like he does. Come back
at him with real facts, and he goes into his standard spam
message as a reply.


Regards,
Peter.

VoiceMax CB Radio Speech Processor
 

On Sep 8, 11:30 pm, " Peter" wrote:
wrote...
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 08:40:04 -0700, Telstar Electronics
wrote:

On Sep 6, 7:31 am, james wrote:
All audio power does is increase deviation. Using a
compressor on FM just increase average deviation.

Exactly, and I claim that having that increased average
deviation is an advantage on FM.

can you reference a citation to suport that contention (not
sure either way myself

No, Griffter can only give stock, salesman type replies.
You want facts, here you go...

The UK CB system, which we have used for 25 years, has:
10KHz spacing
3KHz typical audio bandwidth
2.5KHz deviation on old sets.
2KHz deviation on recent sets.
The list of UK and EU CB frequencies are he
http://www.citizensband.radiouk.com/...freq/index.php
http://www.citizensband.radiouk.com/...req/eufreq.php

Using Griffter's own reference to prove his lies, Carson's
Rule makes the bandwidth:
11KHz for old spec. sets.
10KHz for new spec. sets.
You can also check this using the Bessel functions...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequen...bandwidth_rule

As is obvious, that takes your sidebands clear into the
next channel. The only reason that this is acceptable is
because this is the peak bandwidth, occuring at peaks in
deviation.

The odd short burst of interference caused by a peak can
go unnoticed but, if the whole signal is sat at maximum
deviation, a constant 100% deviation will make it take
that bandwidth constantly.

By increasing the average deviation, he is increasing the
average power contained in the sidebands which fall
within adjacent channels - wiping those channels out.

To receive the signal clearly, it must remain within your
receiver bandwidth - that falling outside will be lost.
Just like with the splatter, you can stand a small amount
of loss on the peaks without too much trouble. Increasing
the average deviation can increase the amount of signal
going beyond this passband, increasing the audio distortion.

His 1% distortion claim goes out the window. Whatever
distortion that increased audio causes within the transmitter
and receiver are additional, add them all together.

In order to stop the continuous problems of adjacent channel
splatter that we suffered, the UK government had to make
changes to the CB specifications...
Deviation reduced.
Receive bandwidth legal requirement.
Unfortunately, this narrow RX bandwidth requirement also
made it easier to get your audio distorted by the receiver.

The Griffter is one of two things:
A fake: Knowing no real facts, simply chanting whatever he
thinks will make the sale.
A lying, cheating scammer: Knowing the true facts, but
purposely lying to make sales.

Personally, I believe he is just a fake, a salesman who will say
anything to sell his outdated product. He picks up the odd
word or phrase, like modulation index or RoHS, and just
chants it in the hope of impressing the living shyte out of
most CB users.
He doesn't really understand the words, theory or how it all
works - he just shouts words to sound like he does. Come back
at him with real facts, and he goes into his standard spam
message as a reply.

Regards,
Peter.

You are nothing more that a "spoiler". You don't have a shred of
evidence for the points you harp on most.
I, on the other hand have a tangible product with many positive
feedback entries on ebay.
Let me guess... you're right... and the whole world's wrong... lol
cheers,
www.telstar-electronics.com

SplatterMax CB Radio Speech Processor
 

Peter

All of these depict an AM signal in the time dommain. This is not the
actual representation of the modulated signal. What you are seeing is
a complex addition of the three components of the AM signal versus
time. Anyone with an engineering degree from an accredited university
would know that. What your are seeing is not the frequency compents of
the AM signal itself. To see that properly requires a spectrum
analyzer. That will display the Fourier Transform of the many links
you have posted. In the frequency domain you will see that the carrier
remains canstant while the sideband amplitudes will varying as speech
varies. In the frequency domain you will see power versus frequency.
This is what your receiver sees, power versus frequency.

Oscilloscope representations are usefull in determining modulation
levels and not actually what is happening with the AM signal. To truel
see that requires a spectrum ananlyzer.

james

On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 05:30:47 +0100, " Peter"
wrote:

|"james" wrote...
| Peter
|
| I quote your message:
|
| "Amplitude Modulation... The output level "swings" above
| and below the carrier level."
|
| This is incorrect. The output does not swing above and
| below the carrier. The output of an AM signal is the
| carrier and the two sidebands.
|
|So? How are the sidebands excluded from "output level" in
|my statement which you quote, but change (twice missing out
|the word 'level') within your reply text?
|
|Is this your problem, you only see the words you want to?
|Then, considering output as being output frequency, rather
|than output level, you see an incorrect statement.
|
|Now, going back to my original statement, that output
|level (amplitude) "swings" (varies) above and below the
|carrier level (the amplitude of the unmodulated carrier)...
|
|http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...modulation.png
|http://robotics.eecs.berkeley.edu/~s...1_figure27.gif
|http://robotics.eecs.berkeley.edu/~s...1_figure37.gif
|http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~jcgl/Sc...part9/fig1.gif
|http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ignals.svg.png
|
| Also power meters are not, per se, frequency specific.
|
|I made no mention of readings on a specific meter, just
|the actual output. Whatever you read on a meter does
|NOT change what the transmitter is actually putting out.
|
|Just like the last time, you appear to be either getting
|ahead of yourself or totally changing the topic.
|I am still unsure whether you are doing this on purpose,
|just for the sake of arguing, or have been snorting something.
|
| The problem is all RF is rectified to a time varying
| DC level
|
|What you do with a signal, once you receive it, makes
|no difference to what is actually being transmitted.
|
| that corresponds somewhat to the varying amplitudes
| of the RF signals being sampled.
|
|What varying amplitudes, you said it doesn't... and
|you can prove it by measuring the average.
|
|I really am having a hard time taking you seriously. Not
|only do you start ranting about things that have nothing
|to do with the issue (also commented on by someone else
|on the group), but you then go back on your whole
|argument.
|
|I really do have to consider the possibility that you are
|simply trying to wind people up and, like the Griffter,
|you will say anything that you believe will achieve your
|goal.
|
|
|Regards,
|Peter.
|

VoiceMax CB Radio Speech Processor
 

"Telstar Electronics" wrote...

You are nothing more that a "spoiler".

Ah, Diddums... having his scam spoiled.

You don't have a shred of evidence for the points you
harp on most.

I realise that all the spamming must make you tired, but
do try to keep your eyes open...

The list of UK and EU CB frequencies are he
http://www.citizensband.radiouk.com/...freq/index.php
http://www.citizensband.radiouk.com/...req/eufreq.php
What, my word not good enough? Try the official Ofcom
list he
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/radiocomms/i...binfosheet.pdf
The MPT1382 UK CB legal specifications are he

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache...ublication/mpt
/mpt_docs/1382newh.doc+MPT+1382&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk

FM, bandwidth and Bessel functions are he
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_modulation
An easy, rough guide bandwidth calculation is he
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carson_bandwidth_rule

The evidence is there, simply use the above to calculate
the bandwidth of UK FM CB.
It's not rocket surgery, Brian. If you really are the
tech. you claim to be, the problems with speech processing
on NBFM CB radio should be damn obvious.

I'll give you a clue, using Carson's rule...
FM Bandwidth = 2(Fd+Fm):
= 2(2.5KHz + 3KHz)
= 2(5.5KHz)
= 11KHz bandwidth requirement.

Now look at the frequency charts (or the MPT1382 spec)...
11KHz takes your signal right through each adjacent
channel bandwidth.

As the 2KHz deviation is the maximum allowed (the old
spec radios, MPT1320, are 2.5KHz), this is only the
bandwidth at your audio peaks.
But, according to you, your product is designed to hold
the modulation at this peak level - so that bandwidth
will be required continuously.

Now consider the receive bandwidth of a UK FM CB (legal
requirement, stated in the MPT1382 link above)... 60dB adjacent
channel rejection.
Those sidebands, while directly in the bandwidth of anyone
on the adjacent channel, should be greatly attenuated by a
legal specification UK CB.
That explains both the distortion and splatter that can be
heard on a regular basis on UK FM CB.


So, how about the legal position of your product within
the UK?
First of all, you have still not confirmed whether it
complies with our RoHS requirements. If not, then
it is illegal to place it on the market here.

Now, use on CB:
The legal requirements, MPT1382 (link above), state that:
5.2.5 Adjacent channel power
The adjacent channel power shall not exceed
a value of 20 microwatts.

The adjacent channel power is defined in section 8.5.2.
This states 5.75KHz from the carrier, making the it
(for legal purposes) the average power contained in
the top end of the 2nd sideband plus all the power
in the sidebands above that.

By increasing the average audio, you increase the
average power in the sidebands. This is basic stuff.
This guy states it in his sales pitch...
http://www.spectrumcomms.co.uk/cbkits.htm#SP1000
Notice, also, that he states SSB and AM use - he does
NOT promote it for FM CM use. If he considered it
suitable for UK FM CB, he would say so - he has been
selling to UK CBers and CB dealers for years.

Your product can take a UK FM CB beyond the legal
specification, making it illegal to use and possibly
subject to seizure by Ofcom. There may also now
be on-the-spot fines.

There are reasons for this average adjacent power
specification, and I already gave them... occasional
short bursts onto the adjacent channel may go
unnoticed, but a high average or constant 3rd and
4th sideband content can cause serious problems.


I, on the other hand have a tangible product with
many positive feedback entries on ebay.

Sure, Acorah can speak to the dead, Blaine can fly,
and Angel can take a woman and pull her in half... all
proved by the feedback of witnesses.
Oh yes, and strap a magnet to your car fuel-line, and
your fuel consumption will be greatly reduced.
How about magnetic cups, proved to cure diseases my
"charging" the water particles.

Clearly, feedback is not reliable enough to be considered
"proof". How about some scientific facts? How about
proving that the last 26 years of UK FM CB never really
happened.

and the whole world's wrong...

That, like all your other posts, is a load of misleading
bull droppings. You do NOT have "the whole world"
agreeing with you. The "whole world" has not tried
your SplatterMax on FM CB.

Someone only has to look at the messages in this group
to see that many disagree. It wasn't me who called your
product "garbage" or made suggestions about basket
weaving. I only state that your product is not suitable
for FM CB... many other people are rather more critical
of you and your product.

Everyone who has used FM CB in the UK for some years
will know that distortion and adjacent channel splatter
are a real problem.
Those using the products may not realize, they cannot
hear the crap they are putting out.


Regards,
Peter.

SplatterMax CB Radio Speech Processor
 

"james" wrote...
Peter

All of these depict an AM signal in the time dommain.

Exactly, amplitude variations over time... modulation (AM).

This is like pulling teeth.

Oscilloscope representations are usefull in determining
modulation levels

Exactly... modulation (AM) levels.

Several teeth, without anaesthetic.

and not actually what is happening with the AM signal. To
truel see that requires a spectrum ananlyzer.

Wrong.

The instrument of choice depends upon exactly what it
is you want to know about the signal. The spectrum analyzer
does not tell you everything you may wish to know. Otherwise,
all other instuments would now be obsolete.

As you stated above, the oscilloscope IS useful for
determining modulation... which is what this was all about.
That was, until you decided to whine on about what the
sidebands are doing.

The spectrum analyzer will show you the sidebands, but if
you want to see the modulation (AM) then the oscilloscope
is the tool for the job.

Different tools for different purposes.

Come on James, this has to be a game you are playing. I really
don't have time for such games - do you?


Regards,
Peter.

SplatterMax CB Radio Speech Processor
 

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 18:47:06 +0100, " Peter"
wrote:

|"james" wrote...
| Peter
|
| All of these depict an AM signal in the time dommain.
|
|Exactly, amplitude variations over time... modulation (AM).
|
|This is like pulling teeth.
|
| Oscilloscope representations are usefull in determining
| modulation levels
|
|Exactly... modulation (AM) levels.
|
|Several teeth, without anaesthetic.
|
| and not actually what is happening with the AM signal. To
| truel see that requires a spectrum ananlyzer.
|
|Wrong.
|
|The instrument of choice depends upon exactly what it
|is you want to know about the signal. The spectrum analyzer
|does not tell you everything you may wish to know. Otherwise,
|all other instuments would now be obsolete.
|
|As you stated above, the oscilloscope IS useful for
|determining modulation... which is what this was all about.
|That was, until you decided to whine on about what the
|sidebands are doing.
|
|The spectrum analyzer will show you the sidebands, but if
|you want to see the modulation (AM) then the oscilloscope
|is the tool for the job.
|
|Different tools for different purposes.
|
|Come on James, this has to be a game you are playing. I really
|don't have time for such games - do you?
|
|
|Regards,
|Peter.
|
|-----------

AM is a complex signal made up of many sinusoidal waveforms that can
only be seen in their individual components with a spectrum analyzer.
IF you know how to use one it will yield far more information about
your AM signal than an osscilloscope could ever yield. IF you know how
to use a spectrum analyzer, you can determine percentage of
modulation, ie modulation index, as well as the power of all three
components. Not hardly capable with an oscilloscope. The oscillocope
is best for those less technically inclined to depict what is
happening with an AM signal.

You have no time for games? Then why bother with this group?

james

TelsSpam SplatterMax
 

"james" wrote...

The oscillocope is best for those less technically inclined
to depict what is happening with an AM signal.

Codswallop

I have worked for manufacturers, service agents and service
departments... and they all have had oscilloscopes available
and in use. They have also a range of other test equipment,
including analyzers and some rather basic equipment, in use.
One was still using some old tube type test equipment... it may
have been older than me. The task it was used for could also
be done with much more modern and expensive test equipment
but, equally, it did not need such equipment.

Other test equipment, such as analyzers, can be seen in use by
factory production staff who have absolutely no electronic
qualifications. These staff cannot tell one end of a diode
from another, but they are cheap labor.
Lack of knowledge does not stop them from using such
equipment for it's purpose.

I have never known a company or their staff select a piece
of test equipment based on whether they can use it. In reality,
the choice of test equipment comes down to other factors
such as cost and requirements for the job.

Not only are there the purchase costs, but then the regular
calibration costs. More expensive equipment generally costs
more to have calibrated or serviced.
A company will generally have a range of equipment available,
each for it's own purpose. If an engineer ties up an expensive
piece of test equipment to carry out a simple measurement, he
is likely to get his ass kicked when someone complains it is
not there and they really need it.

You also have to remember that time is money. If you can
get the reading quickly on a basic peice of test equipment,
why waste time?

Was you aware that the CB legal specification, MPT1382, actually
states that an oscilloscope should be used for certain tests? Any
UK CB must pass these tests before it can be placed on the market.

Then why bother with this group?

The answer is out there to be seen. Even the Griffter caught on
to it, and did his homework.

I can see how it could be difficult for some people to
understand - those who only use the group to play games with
CB users, rather like a cat plays with a mouse before leaving
it for dead.

Are you one of those people, who only come here to mess with
the minds of those genuinely interested in CB?


Regards,
Peter.

spech processor
 

On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 05:56:39 +0100, " Peter"
wrote:

"james" wrote...

The oscillocope is best for those less technically inclined
to depict what is happening with an AM signal.

Codswallop


such langauge

"one useless man is disgrace 2 become a law firm 3 or more become a congress"
adams

woger you are a Congress all in your own head

http://kb9rqz.bravejournal.com/

and get ou the newly recovered KB9RQZ.blogspot.com as well

G

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

spech processor
 

wrote...
" Peter" wrote:

Codswallop

such langauge

It is in the Collins dictionary.

Damn PC Brigade will not be happy until they ban the whole of
the English language. Did you know that a UK local government
department banned the use of certain four letter words... like "Lady".

Seriously, it was one of a list of common English words they said
may offend people.
What a load of shoe repair people.


Regards,
Peter.

spech processor
 

On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 05:22:59 +0100, " Peter"
wrote:

wrote...
" Peter" wrote:

Codswallop

such langauge

It is in the Collins dictionary.

so what? the poster complains about the use of lang by others the
hypocrite

"one useless man is disgrace 2 become a law firm 3 or more become a congress"
adams

woger you are a Congress all in your own head

http://kb9rqz.bravejournal.com/

and get ou the newly recovered KB9RQZ.blogspot.com as well

G

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

spech processor
 

wrote...
" Peter" wrote:

It is in the Collins dictionary.

so what? the poster complains about the use of lang by others
the hypocrite

According to the Collins Cobuild English dictionary*...
Codswallop: Nonsense (informal).

The Collins Cobuild dictionary* describes certain four-letter
words as either "rude" or "very rude".
Codswallop, like many other words that are in everyday
use, is described as "informal".

As you seem unable to tell the difference between informal and
rude, this is how Collins decide which label to give a word:
Rude: Considered taboo by some people, so should be avoided.
Very rude: Considered taboo by most people, should be avoided.
Informal: Used mainly in informal situations, conversations
and personal letters.

This group is an informal situation, and posts are informal, so
informal words are totally acceptable.


Regards,
Peter.

* Collins Cobuild: Printed and PD CD-ROM package.