On Aug 25, 8:41 am, "vince" wrote:
No one has actually reviewed it or said they have fitted it - they only
describe how well the package was wrapped or if it arrived. Show me one
person that has fitted the unit and aligned it correctly using test
equipment, then show the displays on a spectrum analyser and I would like to
see the FM deviation display.

Thanks for your comment Vince. Do you really think that people would
pay $40 for something on ebay that didn't work right... and then leave
positive feedback? I hardly think that's likely. The feedback you have
seen is most likely the result of customers with a non-technical
background. As for your concern about technical people reviewing this
item... there are several CB shops across the US (and I'm in the
process of arranging one in the UK) that are reviewing the performance
at this time.
www.telstar-electronics.com

"Telstar Electronics" wrote...

there are several CB shops across the US (and I'm in the
process of arranging one in the UK)

There goes the neighborhood.

Listen carefully, Griff. I understand that, being a Yank,
you will not know about our systems, laws and issues
regarding such devices on FM CB.
So, please allow me to inform you of some very important
facts...


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.

There are only 10KHz between channels.
FM withing 10KHz spacing is a f'king tight fit.

So tight that the legal deviation level was reduced
in an attempt to stop the splatter problems.

So tight, that the latest radios must have very narrow
receive bandwidth to pass the test - yes, they must be
tested by government approved labs before being
legal here.

This narrow bandwidth will distort the signal of anyone
attempting to increase their transmitted audio.
This distrotion will not show on an oscilloscope or other
test device, as it is generated within the legal FM CB
receiver.


We have had several years where such devices were used
on FM CB, and the results were distortion and splattering
of other channels.
One person I knew actually got complaints of "bleedover"
from 20 to 30 miles away... she became famous for it
across a large part of the next county.

While specific equipment may not be illegal here, radios
pass their test with the original microphone. Adding a speech
processor may invalidate that approval - making the owner
open to prosecution for any interference caused.


Read my lips...
With FM CB, speech processors are worse than pointless... they
cause distortion and interference without any real gain.


Regards,
Peter.

On Aug 28, 11:24 pm, " Peter" wrote:
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.

Absolute rubbish...
If you don't have enough freq deviation... you will not get out well
on FM... and your range will be decreased. I suggest you review
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequen...dulation_index for
details. Bottom line... if you can hold the optimum deviation level on
FM... you will get out better without splattering. This is what
VoiceMax can accomplish.
www.telstar-electronics.com

"Telspam Electronics" wrote...
Absolute rubbish...
If you don't have enough freq deviation... you will not get
out well on FM... and your range will be decreased.

Please, Brian, don't try telling a granny how to suck eggs.

We have had FM CB here for many years. So, I talk
not just from the theory, but from knowledge and
experience of FM CB in use and the legal situation
in this country.


Let's make this very simple for you...

Our CBs have a maximum LEGAL deviation.
This maximum is set to stop adjacent channel
interference - which DID occur on a grand
scale when the limit was higher.

UK CB radios are adjusted, and government
tested, to meet that standard.
This includes both deviation and, as the law
requires, the receiver bandwidth.

As these radios are tested before approval,
adding any internal board that alters the power,
frequencies, deviation or any other tested
specification may invalidate the approval and
make the complete radio illegal for use on
the CB band.


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

This coming from someone who, by his own admission,
cannot see how modifying the waveform suggests that
there will be distortion.
lol... lmfao.

I know about FM, modulation index, Bessel function and
sidebands.
I may not flaunt my training, qualifications and experience,
but some of us understand that this is a CB group and leave
such things at the door.

May I suggest that *you* learn a little theory? Maybe a
little on FM sidebands, so that you can see how precarious
the balance is between your notional "talk power" and the
available bandwidth of UK CB channels.

While you are at it, if you intend to target the UK
market, I would suggest that you read up on the
rules and standards.


Bottom line... if you can hold the optimum deviation
level on FM... you will get out better without splattering.

No, the bottom line is that, not only has the cheap method
worked much better on FM CB than a speech processor, it
has long been used in broadcast radio and even sound
recording.


This is extremely effective in a mobile environment.

Did you know that, here in the UK, the worst offenders
for splatter are often the truck drivers? But this could
be about to change, as CADS becomes widespread.

CADS allows the broadcast of any material - including
chanting, singing and music - on the Citizens Band. That,
with it's wide range, high frequencies, etc. is expected
to have quite an impact on splatter.

Giving either of these groups of people one of your
toys can only make matters worse. But what do you
care beyond making a fast Buck? You will not be
the one clearing up any of the mess.


Regards,
Peter.

** NOTE:
The above is not intended as an insult to any
customers or groups. CB enthusiasts only use what
some "rig doctor" or shop sells them.
The blame is clearly with those giving them bad
advice or a "supertune" just to get their money.

"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.

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

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

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

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

"Telstar Electronics" wrote...

Do you really think that people would pay $40 for something
on ebay that didn't work right... and then leave positive
feedback?

Every day people are buying products or services that
do not work, then giving positive reports.

Magnetic supports, bands, etc claiming health
benefits. Then there are the cups and devices to
clamp around water pipes, claiming to make water
better for you. Another that, if clamped to your fuel
pipe claims to give your car more miles to the gallon.
Some claims include curing illness and diseases.

How about the "mediums" and ghost hunters who claim
to talk to your dead relatives? Their methods have
been publicly exposed, and they have been proved on
TV to be faking.

Many more products have been suggested as hoaxes,
fakes and scams, in spite of the fact that people claim
that they worked for them.

The craziest one of all has to be the water scam...
Some years back, in an episode of the hit Brit comedy, Only
Fools And Horses, they bottled tap water and sold it as
mineral water.
The British people found this extremely funny... until a large
American drinks company pulled that same scam on the British
public.
They bottled English tap water, gave it labels claiming health
benefits, and sold it at a pound a small bottle... probably the
highest priced "mineral water" in the country.


In spite of public exposure of deception, people continue to
believe in and even recommend such products with reports of
how they worked for them.
Some people are so desperate to believe, they only see what
they want to see - even if it is not really there.



I hardly think that's likely.

Can you say placebo?


Regards,
Peter.