On Sep 14, 4:48 pm, Wes Stewart wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 10:36:06 -0700, Telstar Electronics

wrote:

I'm hesitant to reply to this crap but I can't help myself.

Other Processors Have a Problem...
Other speech processors use a low-cost "audio clipping" approach to
achieve compression. While this method is economical for the
manufacturer, clipping distorts the original signal and sounds fuzzy
on the air.

Bafflegab.

http://k6mhe.com/n7ws/

Note 5.

Wes... the link you provided of the clipping processor... on the first
page of the article shows a THD distortion of 10%! That's low?... LOL
The VoiceMax processor has up to 60dB compression with less than 1%
THD @ 1KHz.
www.telstar-electronics.com

IDIOT!

"Telstar Electronics" wrote in message
ups.com...

"Radioisfun" wrote in message
...
IDIOT!

"Telstar Electronics" wrote in message
ups.com...


We know, it has been ripped apart on this newsgroup a few times. It's not a
good product. If fitted without using the correct alignment procedures and
test equipment it will ruin performance and cause splattering over the bands
and generate harmonics. Not many people who have the "really loud = really
far" mentality will know how to use test equipment, they tend to be the ones
with a lack of knowledge. Maybe the type who believe polishing the aerial
will lower the VSWR!
The circuit has no RF filtering for a start, it is not screened in any way,
it has a light that you will never see once the radio is put back together
and it will have no benefit over the microphone that was designed to operate
with the radio. It will cause distortion and harmonics unless the radio is
realigned using test gear. If you use that on AM/SSB you will sound
terrible, it is a waste of time. There is no way that the circuit
differentiates between a voice and background noises, so raising the level
many times and keeping it at 100% will mean that the sound will just be a
"noise". Compare that to a normal mic, audio nearer to it such as the
operator voice will be louder than what is in the background.
The product is out of date, has no market and probably would have been
better 20+ years ago.

I certainly wouldn't recommend it, from a radio engineers point of view.

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 22:40:24 +0100, "john lyon"
wrote:


"Radioisfun" wrote in message
...
IDIOT!

"Telstar Electronics" wrote in message
ups.com...


We know, it has been ripped apart on this newsgroup a few times. It's not a
good product. If fitted without using the correct alignment procedures and
test equipment it will ruin performance and cause splattering over the bands
and generate harmonics. Not many people who have the "really loud = really
far" mentality will know how to use test equipment, they tend to be the ones
with a lack of knowledge. Maybe the type who believe polishing the aerial
will lower the VSWR!
The circuit has no RF filtering for a start, it is not screened in any way,
it has a light that you will never see once the radio is put back together
and it will have no benefit over the microphone that was designed to operate
with the radio. It will cause distortion and harmonics unless the radio is
realigned using test gear. If you use that on AM/SSB you will sound
terrible, it is a waste of time. There is no way that the circuit
differentiates between a voice and background noises, so raising the level
many times and keeping it at 100% will mean that the sound will just be a
"noise". Compare that to a normal mic, audio nearer to it such as the
operator voice will be louder than what is in the background.
The product is out of date, has no market and probably would have been
better 20+ years ago.

I certainly wouldn't recommend it, from a radio engineers point of view.

I was composing a point-by-point response to this when I had a power
failure and lost it. I'm not about to redo it, but let me summarize.

I am no fan of Telstar and his spam marketing on these groups and many
of his claims are BS.

That said, you seem to know little more about the subject than does
he.

BTW, to see the performance of this thing without the hype:

http://www.analog.com/en/prod/0,2877,SSM2167,00.html

On Sep 19, 9:05 am, Wes Stewart wrote:
I am no fan of Telstar and his spam marketing on these groups and many
of his claims are BS.
That said, you seem to know little more about the subject than does
he.
BTW, to see the performance of this thing without the hype:

Wes, I'm curious... what is this "hype" you are talking about? I would
like to address that directly.
www.telstar-electronics.com

IDIOT!

"Telstar Electronics" wrote in message
oups.com...

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 08:28:58 -0700, Telstar Electronics
wrote:

On Sep 19, 9:05 am, Wes Stewart wrote:
I am no fan of Telstar and his spam marketing on these groups and many
of his claims are BS.
That said, you seem to know little more about the subject than does
he.
BTW, to see the performance of this thing without the hype:

Wes, I'm curious... what is this "hype" you are talking about? I would
like to address that directly.


First why don't you address the spam marketing part?

Then you can simply look the word "hype" up in a dictionary. It's a
simple word with a more precise meaning than "fuzzy audio", for
example.

On Sep 19, 1:29 pm, Wes Stewart wrote:
First why don't you address the spam marketing part?
Then you can simply look the word "hype" up in a dictionary. It's a
simple word with a more precise meaning than "fuzzy audio", for
example.

OK... just as I suspected... you have no legitimate concern.
www.telstar-electronics.com