| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
VoiceMax
|
Telstar Electronics VoiceMax IS GARBAGE!
IDIOT!
"Telstar Electronics" wrote in message oups.com... |
VoiceMax/ Garbage from [email protected]
|
VoiceMax
|
GARBAGE from [email protected]
|
VoiceMax
|
VoiceMax
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. 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. What these types of audio processors gain in volume, they lose in voice intelligibility. 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. www.telstar-electronics.com |
VoiceMax
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. PURE B--- S--- The peak power is the peak power is the peak power! Distorting the audio with a speech processor ... distorts the audio. Distorted audio is distorted audio is distorted audio. Modulation is supposed to fluctuate greatly. It is supposed to replicate your voice which fluctuates greatly. If it does not replicate your voice it is by definition DISTORTION!! Most processors cause 'nasal' and high pitched sounding audio because our voices are not 'nasal or high pitched. It is called DISTORTION. |
VoiceMax
On Sep 13, 3:19 pm, Deek wrote:
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. PURE B--- S--- The peak power is the peak power is the peak power! Distorting the audio with a speech processor ... distorts the audio. Distorted audio is distorted audio is distorted audio. Modulation is supposed to fluctuate greatly. It is supposed to replicate your voice which fluctuates greatly. If it does not replicate your voice it is by definition DISTORTION!! Most processors cause 'nasal' and high pitched sounding audio because our voices are not 'nasal or high pitched. It is called DISTORTION. You might want to read this... it's a good explanation of what VoiceMax is all about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VOGAD |
VoiceMax
Telstar Electronics wrote:
On Sep 13, 3:19 pm, Deek wrote: 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. PURE B--- S--- The peak power is the peak power is the peak power! Distorting the audio with a speech processor ... distorts the audio. Distorted audio is distorted audio is distorted audio. Modulation is supposed to fluctuate greatly. It is supposed to replicate your voice which fluctuates greatly. If it does not replicate your voice it is by definition DISTORTION!! Most processors cause 'nasal' and high pitched sounding audio because our voices are not 'nasal or high pitched. It is called DISTORTION. You might want to read this... it's a good explanation of what VoiceMax is all about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VOGAD I understand DISTORTION quite well! I hold an EE degree, managed an EE design department for 10 years, and served as Chief Engineer on a major Military System LGM 118A RS/RV. Speech compression IS IS IS distortion. PERIOD! |
VoiceMax
On Sep 14, 6:42 am, Deek wrote:
I understand DISTORTION quite well! I hold an EE degree, managed an EE design department for 10 years, and served as Chief Engineer on a major Military System LGM 118A RS/RV. Speech compression IS IS IS distortion. PERIOD! I can see why your services were no longer required as Chief Engineer... thanks for your comments. www.telstar-electronics.com |
VoiceMax
Telstar Electronics wrote:
On Sep 14, 6:42 am, Deek wrote: I understand DISTORTION quite well! I hold an EE degree, managed an EE design department for 10 years, and served as Chief Engineer on a major Military System LGM 118A RS/RV. Speech compression IS IS IS distortion. PERIOD! I can see why your services were no longer required as Chief Engineer... thanks for your comments. www.telstar-electronics.com I can see why you're more interested in $$ than in accuracy. If I put a CONSTANT amplitude swept frequency signal, swept from 300 to 3000 Hz, audio bandwidth, to the input to a transmitting device and I get a VARIABLE amplitude signal, swept from 300 to 3000 Hz, as the audio output, the device has DISTORTED the audio. That's just what speech compressors accomplish. Every single speech processor is a controlled distortion device. You can market and do salesmanship all you want. You are still selling a device that distorts the audio. Distortion is distortion!! |
VoiceMax
"Deek" wrote in message . .. Telstar Electronics wrote: On Sep 13, 3:19 pm, Deek wrote: 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. PURE B--- S--- The peak power is the peak power is the peak power! Distorting the audio with a speech processor ... distorts the audio. Distorted audio is distorted audio is distorted audio. Modulation is supposed to fluctuate greatly. It is supposed to replicate your voice which fluctuates greatly. If it does not replicate your voice it is by definition DISTORTION!! Most processors cause 'nasal' and high pitched sounding audio because our voices are not 'nasal or high pitched. It is called DISTORTION. You might want to read this... it's a good explanation of what VoiceMax is all about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VOGAD I understand DISTORTION quite well! I hold an EE degree, managed an EE design department for 10 years, and served as Chief Engineer on a major Military System LGM 118A RS/RV. Speech compression IS IS IS distortion. PERIOD! You are correct, of course. But there are instances where distortion increases intelligibility. as I'm sure an EE knows in spades. Ed, NM2K |
VoiceMax
"Deek" wrote in message . .. Telstar Electronics wrote: On Sep 14, 6:42 am, Deek wrote: I understand DISTORTION quite well! I hold an EE degree, managed an EE design department for 10 years, and served as Chief Engineer on a major Military System LGM 118A RS/RV. Speech compression IS IS IS distortion. PERIOD! I can see why your services were no longer required as Chief Engineer... thanks for your comments. www.telstar-electronics.com I can see why you're more interested in $$ than in accuracy. If I put a CONSTANT amplitude swept frequency signal, swept from 300 to 3000 Hz, audio bandwidth, to the input to a transmitting device and I get a VARIABLE amplitude signal, swept from 300 to 3000 Hz, as the audio output, the device has DISTORTED the audio. That's just what speech compressors accomplish. Every single speech processor is a controlled distortion device. You can market and do salesmanship all you want. You are still selling a device that distorts the audio. Distortion is distortion!! It not only Distorts the audio signal but causes either over deviation on FM or Splatter on both AM and SSB, and that's the garbage you hear on adjacent channels. If you look real close on some built-in CB power meters, instead of the signal increasing, it actually decreases! Distortion = Flat topping of the signal... |
Telstar Electronics VoiceMax is GARBAGE!
IDIOT!
"Telstar Electronics" wrote in message I can see why my services were no longer required |
Telstar Electronics VoiceMax is GARBAGE!
IDIOT!
"Telstar Electronics" wrote in message s.com... |
VoiceMax
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 16:16:32 -0400, Deek wrote:
Telstar Electronics wrote: On Sep 14, 6:42 am, Deek wrote: I understand DISTORTION quite well! I hold an EE degree, managed an EE design department for 10 years, and served as Chief Engineer on a major Military System LGM 118A RS/RV. Speech compression IS IS IS distortion. PERIOD! I can see why your services were no longer required as Chief Engineer... thanks for your comments. www.telstar-electronics.com I can see why you're more interested in $$ than in accuracy. If I put a CONSTANT amplitude swept frequency signal, swept from 300 to 3000 Hz, audio bandwidth, to the input to a transmitting device and I get a VARIABLE amplitude signal, swept from 300 to 3000 Hz, as the audio output, the device has DISTORTED the audio. That's just what speech compressors accomplish. Every single speech processor is a controlled distortion device. You can market and do salesmanship all you want. You are still selling a device that distorts the audio. Distortion is distortion!! Far be it for me to in any way shape or form, defend the spamming hype, marketing what is nothing more than a common IC made for the purpose, but I'm going to disagree with you to some extent. By your definition, any bandpass filtering, such as you set up in your example, would cause "distortion." The transfer function with respect to frequency is nonlinear, i.e. it's distorted. Unless you're one of the guys gargling on 14.18 MHZ, I hope you would not argue that frequency response shaping is not something that we want to do in (voice) communications systems. So assuming we agree on that, then like the guy negotiating with the gal he's trying to bed, we now are just negotiating the price, or acceptable amount of distortion. Since the purpose of a communication system (unless you're just peddling hardware) is to communicate, then one has to look at the trade-off between distortion and intelligibility. If purposefully "distorting" the signal by frequency shaping, compression, clipping or any combination thereof improves the intelligibility at the other end of the circuit then "distortion" is a good thing, semantics aside. Wes N7WS |
VoiceMax
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 16:41:54 -0400, "John Doe"
wrote: [snip] It not only Distorts the audio signal but causes either over deviation on FM or Splatter on both AM and SSB, and that's the garbage you hear on adjacent channels. Not necessarily so! |
VoiceMax
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. |
VoiceMax
Ed Cregger wrote:
SNIPPED You are correct, of course. But there are instances where distortion increases intelligibility. as I'm sure an EE knows in spades. Ed, NM2K Ed, of course you are correct. The problem with CB compressors and the folks who use them is that they don't know or pay attention to the reasonable limits. My oldest son owns and runs an interstate long haul trucking business. I have heard more garbage on 27.185 MHz from over compressed, over powered, over distorted, off frequency, boosted radios while riding shotgun with him than I care to recall. Most audio 'power' is in the lower portion of the voice spectrum. Increasing the mid range by 2 to 4 dB, adding 2 to 4 dB of audio spectral distortion, does increase received intelligibility AND it does sound un-natural. Also, increasing the average audio power output from 30% duty cycle to 50 or 60% audio power output increases the thermal load on the PA final and heat sink by 100% in SSB and by approximately 40-50% in AM. I don't believe CB rigs have thermal designs for the heavier duty cycle. When I chase DX on the ham bands I do not use compression. My transmitted audio passband is 300 to 2400 Hz [IC 756 P3]. I have four HF radios [IC756P3, IC746, IC706MKIIg, and KW TS570D] all with built in compression capability. If I can't work them on SSB I do it the easiest way possible ... CW [Don't need compression on CW] :-) I have heard so many over-compressed signals on 75 and 20 meters that I'll turn on two meters and join a local rag chew or round table where we old farts solve all the world's problems. |
VoiceMax
"Deek" wrote in message ... Ed Cregger wrote: SNIPPED You are correct, of course. But there are instances where distortion increases intelligibility. as I'm sure an EE knows in spades. Ed, NM2K Ed, of course you are correct. The problem with CB compressors and the folks who use them is that they don't know or pay attention to the reasonable limits. My oldest son owns and runs an interstate long haul trucking business. I have heard more garbage on 27.185 MHz from over compressed, over powered, over distorted, off frequency, boosted radios while riding shotgun with him than I care to recall. Most audio 'power' is in the lower portion of the voice spectrum. Increasing the mid range by 2 to 4 dB, adding 2 to 4 dB of audio spectral distortion, does increase received intelligibility AND it does sound un-natural. Also, increasing the average audio power output from 30% duty cycle to 50 or 60% audio power output increases the thermal load on the PA final and heat sink by 100% in SSB and by approximately 40-50% in AM. I don't believe CB rigs have thermal designs for the heavier duty cycle. When I chase DX on the ham bands I do not use compression. My transmitted audio passband is 300 to 2400 Hz [IC 756 P3]. I have four HF radios [IC756P3, IC746, IC706MKIIg, and KW TS570D] all with built in compression capability. If I can't work them on SSB I do it the easiest way possible ... CW [Don't need compression on CW] :-) I have heard so many over-compressed signals on 75 and 20 meters that I'll turn on two meters and join a local rag chew or round table where we old farts solve all the world's problems. ------------------- One of the things that I liked about some Yaesu radios (haven't used them all to know) was that obtaining robust/strong audio with my bassy, soft voice was as simple as turning up the mic gain a bit so that it was just entering distortion. This trick even works on my FT-690R and used to work quite well on my FT-726R as well. Getting my voice to project through any radio has been a constant struggle. Later on, with the advent of the IC-706, I was able to get good intelligibility by shifting the "window" a bit through the crystal filters. This is simply a matter of a software adjustment. Like you, I do not use speech processors. They seem to be "tuned" for voices that are a tad higher in frequency than my voice, so are completely counter productive when engaged. I have a Robyn 520D CB set from 1977 that is paired with an EF Johnson ceramic element mic. No, it does not match at all, but it can make any male voice sound like the God Thor when they talk. I keep it around just to remember how far we have come. G Ed, NM2K |
VoiceMax
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 |
VoiceMax
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 about the clipping type processor... on the first page of the article states a distortion of 10% THD. That's awful... LOL The VoiceMax processor has 15:1 compression with 60dB of dynamic range and less than 1% THD @ 1KHz. The VoiceMax is a quantum leap up in performance to ANY clipping type processor. www.telstar-electronics.com |
Telstar Electronics VoiceMax IS GARBAGE!
IDIOT!
"Telstar Electronics" wrote in message ups.com... |
VoiceMax
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 06:00:41 -0700, Telstar Electronics
wrote: 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 about the clipping type processor... on the first page of the article states a distortion of 10% THD. That's awful... LOL Laugh all you want but clearly you don't understand what you think you understand. We are talking "communication" systems here not hi-fi. If the intelligibility improves faster than the distortion due to instantaneous peak clipping then that is a net positive. As an aside, I actually did myself a disservice by defining the onset of clipping at the point where a 3 dB input change gave a 2 dB output change. This is actually quite a bit of clipping, which means that my "15 dB" clipping is considerably higher. At the usual operating level, distortion is much lower. Furthermore, following publication Schureuer offered some justified criticism over my use of the Plessey IC. This device was a source of some of the distortion, which is actually multiplied by the subsequent clipping process. I later built a discrete compressor using a linearized FET as the gain control element and also incorporated noise gating. Operationally, the distortion was negligible and the performance was phenomenal. But back to you. Your (actually Analog Device's) circuit is an AGC system and cannot limit instantaneous peaks. So following compression of a big peak, the amplitude of subsequent signals is reduced. This is helpful in preventing overdrive of subsequent stages and provides a marginal improvement in "talk power" but it is nowhere as effective as true peak clipping. Sorry, those are the facts. BTW, the Kenwood TS-870 (which I use) is widely acclaimed for its audio quality and is arguably the most sought after rig by the "hi-fi" SSB garglers. It uses split-band speech clipping. |
Telstar Electronics VoiceMax IS GARBAGE!
"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. |
What happened to the SkyWave 2879ABTC?
On Sep 18, 5:30 pm, "AUUDDIIOOO" wrote:
Just wondered on what happened to the Power amp He had. The SkyWave 2879ABTC was discontinued because of a poor profit margin. We hated to do it... but with the temperature compensating biasing... and all the premium components and chassis... it was just too costly to manufacture. Unlike other companies, we will discontinue a product before we will cost reduce it to a point that sacrafices quality and reliability. Sometimes I just go back and look at the photos... just for old times sake... http://www.telstar-electronics.com/d...9ABTCPhoto.htm www.telstar-electronics.com |
Telstar Electronics VoiceMax IS GARBAGE!
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 |
Telstar Electronics VoiceMax
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 |
Telstar Electronics VoiceMax IS GARBAGE!
IDIOT!
"Telstar Electronics" wrote in message oups.com... |
What happened to the Telstar Electronics SkyWave 2879ABTC CB Amplifier? IT WAS GARBAGE TOO!
IDIOT
"Telstar Electronics" wrote in message ups.com... |
Telstar Electronics VoiceMax IS GARBAGE!
I conclude that the VOICEMAX issue has died, has had the funeral and now should
be buried. Those who advocate high distortion levels and poor quality signals can spend their $$$ and buy it. Those who prefer low distortion and clean sounding signals won't. Let the trip to the cemetery begin. /s/ Deek AUUDDIIOOO wrote: "john lyon" wrote in message ... "Radioisfun" wrote in message ... IDIOT! "Telstar Electronics" wrote in message groups.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. Just like so called Engineers, your a dumb ass John. Your are an Engineer? What a Trash truck radio Engineer? There is a noise gate built in. Read his Good web site. Just wondered on what happened to the Power amp He had. |
VoiceMax Transceiver Speech Processor
On Sep 19, 12:42 pm, Deek wrote:
I conclude that the VOICEMAX issue has died, has had the funeral and now should be buried. Those who advocate high distortion levels and poor quality signals can spend their $$$ and buy it. Those who prefer low distortion and clean sounding signals won't. Let the trip to the cemetery begin. Thanks for your conclusion. Maybe you should contact the engineers at Analog Devices and explain to them that their SSM2166 chip is just plain no good. I'm sure they'd be happy to hear from you... lol www.telstar-electonics.com |
VoiceMax
AUUDDIIOOO wrote:
John Doe and Deek are full of ****,Deek is saying that if you compress audio its distorted, He is full of it. Deek if you run a 300 or 1000, or 3000 Hz signal into a good compressor, since the circuit its only a controlled gain amp, the sinewave will come out not distorted. Simple test. Use a dual channel oscilloscope. Display the input signal on one channel. Display the output signal on the other. Normalize the gain at one frequency, and don't touch the gain for the duration of the test. Adjust both traces to overlap each other. Insert a swept frequency audio signal into the device. If the two traces are not identical, the circuit introduces DISTORTION. A brief course in Fourier transforms will convince you that a distorted sine wave signal is still a series of sine waves, the fundamental, the 2nd, 3rd, 4th harmonic, etc. The existence of those harmonics is by definition DISTORTION. Your choice of expletives indicates either: you are losing the discussion and have decided to shout louder; or, you are still in need of further intellectual development. I recommend you spend 4 or 5 years earning an EE degree from an accredited university. You may desire distortion for some purpose, but it is still distortion. /s/ Deek |
VoiceMax Transceiver Speech Processor
Telstar Electronics wrote:
On Sep 19, 12:42 pm, Deek wrote: I conclude that the VOICEMAX issue has died, has had the funeral and now should be buried. Those who advocate high distortion levels and poor quality signals can spend their $$$ and buy it. Those who prefer low distortion and clean sounding signals won't. Let the trip to the cemetery begin. Thanks for your conclusion. Maybe you should contact the engineers at Analog Devices and explain to them that their SSM2166 chip is just plain no good. I'm sure they'd be happy to hear from you... lol www.telstar-electonics.com I'm sure they will acknowledge that it introduces controlled distortion. |
VoiceMax Transceiver Speech Processor
On Sep 19, 12:58 pm, Deek wrote:
I'm sure they will acknowledge that it introduces controlled distortion. I'm surprised at you... being a chief engineer and all... you should realize that in this audio application we're talking strictly about harmonic distortion. After all, that's what you can hear. In the Analog Devices datasheet (page2)... this is given for the SSM2166 as "Total Harmonic Distortion including internal chip noise" of typical 0.25%... and a maximum of 0.5%. These figures rival the finest audio equipment! www.telstar-electronics.com |
VoiceMax Transceiver Speech Processor
Deek wrote:
Telstar Electronics wrote: On Sep 19, 12:42 pm, Deek wrote: I conclude that the VOICEMAX issue has died, has had the funeral and now should be buried. Those who advocate high distortion levels and poor quality signals can spend their $$$ and buy it. Those who prefer low distortion and clean sounding signals won't. Let the trip to the cemetery begin. Thanks for your conclusion. Maybe you should contact the engineers at Analog Devices and explain to them that their SSM2166 chip is just plain no good. I'm sure they'd be happy to hear from you... lol www.telstar-electonics.com I'm sure they will acknowledge that it introduces controlled distortion. ===================================== Which for radio voice comms does not matter all that much. Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH |
Telstar Electronics VoiceMax
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. |
VoiceMax
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 13:57:45 -0400, Deek wrote:
AUUDDIIOOO wrote: John Doe and Deek are full of ****,Deek is saying that if you compress audio its distorted, He is full of it. Deek if you run a 300 or 1000, or 3000 Hz signal into a good compressor, since the circuit its only a controlled gain amp, the sinewave will come out not distorted. Simple test. Use a dual channel oscilloscope. Display the input signal on one channel. Display the output signal on the other. Normalize the gain at one frequency, and don't touch the gain for the duration of the test. Adjust both traces to overlap each other. Insert a swept frequency audio signal into the device. If the two traces are not identical, the circuit introduces DISTORTION. So a bandpass filter for example is a distortion generator? Better tip off all of those BC stations and recording studios that are using equalizers. A brief course in Fourier transforms will convince you that a distorted sine wave signal is still a series of sine waves, the fundamental, the 2nd, 3rd, 4th harmonic, etc. The existence of those harmonics is by definition DISTORTION. I see. So a perfect sine wave run through a perfect clipper will generate a 2nd harmonic? |
Telstar Electronics VoiceMax
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:36 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com