Re: VoiceMax is Coming July 22nd... Are You Ready to be Heard?
Frank Gilliland
<briang...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
<1183657576.0...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>:
>http://www.telspam-electronics.com/default_files/NewProductDevelopment.htm
Hey Brian, if I use your pre-production-stage-for-almost-a-year-now
processor to ask why you refuse to post your now defunct non-linear
linear, like I've been doing for over a year, would you be able to
hear me THEN?
Frank Gilliland
<briang...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
<1183666809.2...@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com>:
>On Jul 5, 3:19 pm, Frank Gilliland <wīrenut@NOSPAMīcehouse.net> wrote:
>> Hey Brian, if I use your pre-production-stage-for-almost-a-year-now
>> processor to ask why you refuse to post your now defunct non-linear
>> linear, like I've been doing for over a year, would you be able to
>> hear me THEN?
>
>Thanks for your interest in VoiceMax...
>http://www.telspam-electronics.com/default_files/NewProductDevelopment.htm
WOW, that was FAST!!! Is that all you do? Sit there in your parent's
basement waiting for someone to order one of your hack-jobs when you
can't even give an estimate on when they will go into full production?
Don't you have anything better to do? I mean, heck...... look at posts
from yesterday afternoon, one of the biggest national holidays, when
just about everybody can find something to do besides jerking off in
front of a computer. It seems that the only people who posted were you
and the trolls. And yet, even with all that spare time because you
couldn't drag your ass away from the computer and out of the basement
long enough to join the rest of humanity in a barbecue, you AGAIN
refused to answer the tough question, just like you have done for
several years now.....
Where's the schematic for your hacked amp, Brian?
TJY
"Telstar Electronics" <briang...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1183657576.0...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.telstar
>
Oh dear, are you selling oscilloscopes and test sets in order for buyers to
set their radios correctly?
You really don't have any technical knowledge. All you seem to do is
re-sell boards made by other companies.
You should see what people are saying about you in other groups, you have a
terrible reputation.
geek
I have no idea why others are so ignorant and anal towards your product.
Cheers,
__
Gregg
Frank Gilliland
<briang...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
<1183721474....@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>:
>> Gregg
>
>Gregg,
>There is no excuse for how many out here conduct themselves...
Absolutely right. These are discussion groups, but some people would
rather use them as their own personal media for spamming products that
would otherwise be pulled from the market for patent violations and/or
false advertising. It's truly shameful how these basement-dwellers
act, isn't it, Brian?
Steveo
reader by now, eh?
"LOL"
Frank Gilliland
<20070706195844.063$X...@newsreader.com>:
You'd think he would have suckered someone by now. If not then why
would he keep spamming the groups?
"LOL!"
Steveo
Brian is only about twenty years late with his CB noise toys, he might have
sold a gaggle of them in the 70's if he wasn't so busy with his paper route
at the time.
"LOL"
Frank Gilliland
<20070706211702.481$A...@newsreader.com>:
Sigourney Weaver shaved her head -before- she was resurrected.
>Brian is only about twenty years late with his CB noise toys, he might have
>sold a gaggle of them in the 70's if he wasn't so busy with his paper route
>at the time.
>
> "LOL"
Who knows why he does it. Maybe that's how he plans to support himself
when mommy and daddy wise up and kick him out of the house...."LOL"
Steveo
> On 07 Jul 2007 01:16:59 GMT, Steveo <mopar...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> <20070706211702.481$A...@newsreader.com>:
>
again. Fun band with fun people, if'n you have a good radio and antenna. (a
must)
Onward through the fog ---->
Vinnie S.
<briang...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>http://www.telstar-electronics.com/default_files/NewProductDevelopment.htm
Brian,
Anyway to make this easier to connect, such a in series with the mic so I do not
have to hack to cut traces? Like possibly putting in a box with and stantard 4
pin on the input and output? Also, what mic should you use with this?
Vinnie S.
Steveo
Yo Mamma
> On Jul 6, 6:58 pm, Steveo <moparho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> People like Brian Griffey. He must have sold at least -one- unit to a
>> rrcb
>> reader by now, eh?
>
> Module...
> http://www.telstar-electronics.com/default_files/NewProductDevelopment.htm
>
Tell us again how you got 560 watts pep out of (2) 2sc2879 bipolar
transistors. You did claim that once. No, wait, you claimed more than that!
"LOL"
Frank Gilliland
<briang...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
<1183821005.7...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>:
>On Jul 6, 9:59 pm, Vinnie S. <n...@coldmail.com> wrote:
>> Anyway to make this easier to connect, such a in series with the mic so I do not
>> have to hack to cut traces? Like possibly putting in a box with and stantard 4
>> pin on the input and output? Also, what mic should you use with this?
>
>An external device as you describe was considered during the design
>phase... but we decided that an external box (although easier to hook
>up initially) was unsightly with all the wires hanging all over, had
>mounting issues, and therefore was much less reliable in the long run.
>It also has problems accomodating different mic/radio plugs. The
>VoiceMax requires the cutting of a single trace within the receiver
>and works with any non-amplified dynamic mic. Since it's inside the
>rig... you set it up once... and enjoy the benefit each & every
>transmission without doing a thing. Hope that answers your comment/
>question.
So you can't adjust the threshold on the noise gate? That's pretty
lame. So you set the threshold to trigger at a certain level, like
during normal driving. So what happens when you are towing a boat up a
hill with the windows open? How do you prevent it from chattering like
a chimp with the hiccups? Does it have hysteresis to smooth out the
chatter? If so, how long do you have to hum into the mic before you
can start talking? If not, and you have to set it high enough to
prevent chatter, how loud do you have to speak so your audio isn't
chopped up?
I don't think you've thought through this whole noise gate thing,
Brian. You certainly haven't tested it much under real conditions, if
at all. If you did you wouldn't be selling it.
And BTW, since your non-linear linear has been discontinued, why won't
you post the schematic?
Vinnie S.
No. But I would give it a shot, just for the purpose of experimenting.
Vinnie S.
Frank Gilliland
<briang...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
<1183899479.2...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>:
>On Jul 7, 7:12 pm, Frank Gilliland <wīrenut@NOSPAMīcehouse.net> wrote:
>> So you can't adjust the threshold on the noise gate? That's pretty
>> lame. So you set the threshold to trigger at a certain level, like
>> during normal driving. So what happens when you are towing a boat up a
>> hill with the windows open? How do you prevent it from chattering like
>> a chimp with the hiccups? Does it have hysteresis to smooth out the
>> chatter? If so, how long do you have to hum into the mic before you
>> can start talking? If not, and you have to set it high enough to
>> prevent chatter, how loud do you have to speak so your audio isn't
>> chopped up?
>
>Frank... you are really something..
>You and electronics... is like a monkey at a typewriter... lol
....monkey at a typewriter..... an even better way to describe the
chatter of a noise gate with a fixed threshold. Very good, Brian!!!
james
<briang...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>+++On Jul 7, 7:12 pm, Frank Gilliland <wīrenut@NOSPAMīcehouse.net> wrote:
>+++> So you can't adjust the threshold on the noise gate? That's pretty
>+++> lame. So you set the threshold to trigger at a certain level, like
>+++> during normal driving. So what happens when you are towing a boat up a
>+++> hill with the windows open? How do you prevent it from chattering like
>+++> a chimp with the hiccups? Does it have hysteresis to smooth out the
>+++> chatter? If so, how long do you have to hum into the mic before you
>+++> can start talking? If not, and you have to set it high enough to
>+++> prevent chatter, how loud do you have to speak so your audio isn't
>+++> chopped up?
>+++
>+++Frank... you are really something..
>+++You and electronics... is like a monkey at a typewriter... lol
*************
Actually he poses a very interesting question that relates to the
performance of the noise gate and it's response to rapid changing
background noise levels.
I think it is very germane to the evaluation of your product.
james
Vinnie S.
<briang...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>On Jul 6, 9:59 pm, Vinnie S. <n...@coldmail.com> wrote:
>> Anyway to make this easier to connect, such a in series with the mic so I do not
>> have to hack to cut traces? Like possibly putting in a box with and stantard 4
>> pin on the input and output? Also, what mic should you use with this?
>
>An external device as you describe was considered during the design
>phase... but we decided that an external box (although easier to hook
>up initially) was unsightly with all the wires hanging all over, had
>mounting issues, and therefore was much less reliable in the long run.
>It also has problems accomodating different mic/radio plugs. The
>VoiceMax requires the cutting of a single trace within the receiver
>and works with any non-amplified dynamic mic. Since it's inside the
>rig... you set it up once... and enjoy the benefit each & every
>transmission without doing a thing. Hope that answers your comment/
>question.
I don't think people want to screw with cutting or hacking their radio. I think
you would sell more as an external box. If amplifiers were this way, they would
never sell. That is why people buy them separately, granted, the size would have
some effect. But you can still get stinger boards.
Revisit the idea.
Vinnie S.
Ma...@tayleorrobesin.org
wrote:
>On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 08:10:05 -0700, Telstar Electronics
><briang...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>On Jul 6, 9:59 pm, Vinnie S. <n...@coldmail.com> wrote:
>>> Anyway to make this easier to connect, such a in series with the mic so I do not
>>> have to hack to cut traces? Like possibly putting in a box with and stantard 4
>>> pin on the input and output? Also, what mic should you use with this?
>>
>>An external device as you describe was considered during the design
>>phase... but we decided that an external box (although easier to hook
>>up initially) was unsightly with all the wires hanging all over, had
>>mounting issues, and therefore was much less reliable in the long run.
>>It also has problems accomodating different mic/radio plugs. The
>>VoiceMax requires the cutting of a single trace within the receiver
>>and works with any non-amplified dynamic mic. Since it's inside the
>>rig... you set it up once... and enjoy the benefit each & every
>>transmission without doing a thing. Hope that answers your comment/
>>question.
>>www.telstar-electronics.com
>
>
>I don't think people want to screw with cutting or hacking their radio.
you got that right I don't want to open my radio at all my cbs or my
ham radios
>? I think
>you would sell more as an external box. If amplifiers were this way, they would
>never sell. That is why people buy them separately, granted, the size would have
>some effect. But you can still get stinger boards.
>
>Revisit the idea.
>
>Vinnie S.
"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/
G
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Vinnie S.
<briang...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>On Jul 8, 9:05 pm, Vinnie S. <n...@coldmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't think people want to screw with cutting or hacking their radio. I think
>> you would sell more as an external box. If amplifiers were this way, they would
>> never sell. That is why people buy them separately, granted, the size would have
>> some effect. But you can still get stinger boards.
>> Revisit the idea.
>
>There are certainly pros & cons with either approach. One big problem
>in the external design is the need for a battery. Our feeling was that
>things with batteries can be problematic... and require additional
>monitoring to make sure the unit is functioning on a daily basis. This
>increased "battery vigilance" was one of the main reasons the internal
>design was chosen. Another issue is definately the radio's internal
>limiter. On most radios... this is factory set at around 85% possible
>modulation. If you want to take full advantage of the VoiceMax 100%
>constant modulation capability... the radios limiter needs to be
>adjusted/disabled. The VoiceMax has built in limiting... so a
>redundant system is not needed. However, if the limiter in the set is
>not adjusted/disabled... VoiceMax will still increase and maintain the
>modulation to whatever the radio's internal limiter is set to...
>usally aroud 85% as I said before. It sounds like you have no plans to
>open your radio... so VoiceMax is not for you.
>www.telstar-electronics.com
It's not for me, but I am showing interest, and you're blowing me off. The funny
thing is, I don't have the theory expertise that you, James, or Frank have. But
I am one of the few people that uses CB, that can open the radio up and read
schemtics, and follow directions for mods. I would guess that 95% of the people
still in CB, cannot do this, and would have to take it to a CB shop and have it
installed for anywhere from $30-5-. Why would they do this? As far as the
battery problem, there are a couple options. One is to put 12VDC terminals on
it, or simply use a 12V battery. Hell, the 9V battery in my mike lasts for
years.
Second question is, before I hack into my radio, how much better is this than my
Turner +3B with Speech Compression?
Vinnie S.
Frank Gilliland
<briang...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
<1183981751.4...@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com>:
>On Jul 8, 9:05 pm, Vinnie S. <n...@coldmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't think people want to screw with cutting or hacking their radio. I think
>> you would sell more as an external box. If amplifiers were this way, they would
>> never sell. That is why people buy them separately, granted, the size would have
>> some effect. But you can still get stinger boards.
>> Revisit the idea.
>
>There are certainly pros & cons with either approach. One big problem
>in the external design is the need for a battery. Our
MPD.
> feeling was that
>things with batteries can be problematic... and require additional
>monitoring to make sure the unit is functioning on a daily basis. This
>increased "battery vigilance" was one of the main reasons the internal
>design was chosen.
Power mics have batteries but people still buy them. Or why not tap 12
volts from the power leads to the radio? If the box is so great I'm
sure people would be willing to do -that- much.
> Another issue is definately the radio's internal
>limiter. On most radios... this is factory set at around 85% possible
>modulation.
Wrong. They are set at the factory for 95 to 98% modulation, as per
just about every service manual I've ever seen. And that's a lot of
manuals. An additional 2 to 5% is, for all practical purposes,
insignificant, translating to a peak power increase of less than 1%.
> If you want to take full advantage of the VoiceMax 100%
>constant modulation capability... the radios limiter needs to be
>adjusted/disabled. The VoiceMax has built in limiting... so a
>redundant system is not needed.
Wrong. The limiter in the radio is set for the specific radio, and is
usually integrated into the audio AGC that's already built into the
radio (which makes your processor somewhat redundant except for the
noise gate). Disabling the internal limiter and using an external
limiter will almost certainly result in clipping, especially when the
person setting it has no calibration equipment.... that is, assuming
your processor's limiter can be adjusted. Can it?
> However, if the limiter in the set is
>not adjusted/disabled... VoiceMax will still increase and maintain the
>modulation to whatever the radio's internal limiter is set to...
>usally aroud 85% as I said before. It sounds like you have no plans to
>open your radio... so VoiceMax is not for you.
It sounds like you have no plans to open and read a few service
manuals and find out how these radios already work.
james
<briang...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>+++On Jul 9, 8:09 am, Vinnie S. <n...@coldmail.com> wrote:
>+++> It's not for me, but I am showing interest, and you're blowing me off. The funny
>+++> thing is, I don't have the theory expertise that you, James, or Frank have. But
>+++> I am one of the few people that uses CB, that can open the radio up and read
>+++> schemtics, and follow directions for mods. I would guess that 95% of the people
>+++> still in CB, cannot do this, and would have to take it to a CB shop and have it
>+++> installed for anywhere from $30-5-. Why would they do this? As far as the
>+++> battery problem, there are a couple options. One is to put 12VDC terminals on
>+++> it, or simply use a 12V battery. Hell, the 9V battery in my mike lasts for
>+++> years.
>+++> Second question is, before I hack into my radio, how much better is this than my
>+++> Turner +3B with Speech Compression?
>+++
>+++I'm not trying to encourage or discourage you... just trying to give
>+++you the facts. I agree that there are many people that don't have the
>+++expertise to install such a device. These folks would have to seek the
>+++help of a technically competent person... such as a CB shop as you
>+++mention. I would suggest that you supply any potential installer with
>+++the installation manual at http://www.telstar-electronics.com/VoiceMax%20B.pdf
>+++... to see if they feel they are capable of the job. As for your
>+++question about the Turner... sorry... I have no knowledge regarding
>+++this unit.
**********
The only reason I see for doing a internal board and not an external
unit is that a board has to be bought for every radio a person owns if
they want to have the same capabilities on all their radios. Thus more
potential sales. The rest of your explanation is pure hogwash.
james
james
<briang...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>+++On Jul 8, 9:05 pm, Vinnie S. <n...@coldmail.com> wrote:
>+++> I don't think people want to screw with cutting or hacking their radio. I think
>+++> you would sell more as an external box. If amplifiers were this way, they would
>+++> never sell. That is why people buy them separately, granted, the size would have
>+++> some effect. But you can still get stinger boards.
>+++> Revisit the idea.
>+++
>+++There are certainly pros & cons with either approach. One big problem
>+++in the external design is the need for a battery. Our feeling was that
>+++things with batteries can be problematic... and require additional
>+++monitoring to make sure the unit is functioning on a daily basis. This
>+++increased "battery vigilance" was one of the main reasons the internal
>+++design was chosen. Another issue is definately the radio's internal
>+++limiter. On most radios... this is factory set at around 85% possible
>+++modulation. If you want to take full advantage of the VoiceMax 100%
>+++constant modulation capability... the radios limiter needs to be
>+++adjusted/disabled. The VoiceMax has built in limiting... so a
>+++redundant system is not needed. However, if the limiter in the set is
>+++not adjusted/disabled... VoiceMax will still increase and maintain the
>+++modulation to whatever the radio's internal limiter is set to...
>+++usally aroud 85% as I said before. It sounds like you have no plans to
>+++open your radio... so VoiceMax is not for you.
>+++www.telstar-electronics.com
***************
Hogwash and plenty of it.
the SSM2166 draws about 10mA of current. Four NiMH AA batteries have
1800mAhr capabilities. At full charge that delivers 5.6VDC to the
chip. Well within the operating range. Should get about 150 hrs of
operation. Add a charging circuit and you have no more issues.
Yep the internal audio power amp has some form of limiting
(compression) that keeps the modulation percentage in the 85 to 100%
range. Often that feedback path is the first thing that most CBers cut
out when they buy their radios. So what is the need for another
internal compression unit when CBers don't want aduio compression?
Secondly why add another compressor when you already have sufficient
compression built into the radio? If I wanted more, I would increase
the negative feedback to the controlled gain stage of the audio
modualtor section. Often this is just a resistor value change.
Beisdes increasing modulation percentage from 85% to 100% gains little
in range or intelligability. Often not worth the effort. Adds about 7%
audio power into the each of the two sidebands. Even if the limiter
section of the modulator section is not disabled adding your
compressor is not going to increase the percentage of modulation. So
why waste the money to buy and install it unless you disable the
radio's internal limiter?
After doing all that to gain up to 15% increased modulation
percentage? Cheaper to clip and/or alter the feedback in the
modualtion stage.
james
Frank Gilliland
<briang...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
<1184002973.8...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>:
>On Jul 9, 12:03 pm, james <geo...@washington.edu> wrote:
>> the SSM2166 draws about 10mA of current. Four NiMH AA batteries have
>> 1800mAhr capabilities. At full charge that delivers 5.6VDC to the
>> chip. Well within the operating range. Should get about 150 hrs of
>> operation. Add a charging circuit and you have no more issues.
>
>James, you are very similar to Frank... in that you have distinct
>ideas. The problem you both have is one of conveyance. I have made
>every effort to answer your questions in a civil manner... but you
>continue to rant uncontrollably.
9 square feet? 85% stock modulation? "Linearity is not required for
SSB..."? What do you expect, Brian.... a standing ovation?
> I'm not sure by what authority you
>speak... since you have no design of your own. Therefore, the
>conversation with Frank and James is ended as far as I'm concerned.
I have shown you more than enough of my work for you to see my
credentials. If you need more then just ask, I'll email you a copy of
my graduation certificate from USMC Ground Radio Repair Course (MCCES,
29 Palms, CA), my college diploma, and even a copy of my Master's
thesis when it's finished.
You, for obvious reasons, have yet to post the schematic for your amp.
> If
>some others have questions, I'd be more than happy to attempt to
>answer you. If you don't wish to use this forum... I fully understand.
>Please email me anytime.
It would be better for them to post their questions in the group so
those of us who know what we are talking about can set them straight
after you attempt to dazzle them with your RF hocus-pocus..... like
trying to sell people an aftermarket compressor when there's already
one built into the radio.... what a scam.
Who was that comedian who did the "instant water" routine? Instant
water... just add water!
Frank Gilliland
<wīrenut@NOSPAMīcehouse.net> wrote in
<mnu493ljpim02fkn7...@4ax.com>:
>On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 10:42:53 -0700, Telspam Electronics
><briang...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
><1184002973.8...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>:
>
>>On Jul 9, 12:03 pm, james <geo...@washington.edu> wrote:
>>> the SSM2166 draws about 10mA of current. Four NiMH AA batteries have
>>> 1800mAhr capabilities. At full charge that delivers 5.6VDC to the
>>> chip. Well within the operating range. Should get about 150 hrs of
>>> operation. Add a charging circuit and you have no more issues.
>>
>>James, you are very similar to Frank... in that you have distinct
>>ideas. The problem you both have is one of conveyance. I have made
>>every effort to answer your questions in a civil manner... but you
>>continue to rant uncontrollably.
>
>
>9 square feet? 85% stock modulation? "Linearity is not required for
>SSB..."? What do you expect, Brian.... a standing ovation?
And I almost forgot your latest fuckup: You, maker and seller of CB
amps, running two modified radios, declare that you're "100% legal"?
ROTFL!!!!
You're a liar from top to bottom, Brian. NOBODY believes anything you
say. That's why nobody is defending you in the newsgroup -- or hadn't
you noticed? Gawd you are dumb.
james
<briang...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>+++On Jul 9, 12:03 pm, james <geo...@washington.edu> wrote:
>+++> the SSM2166 draws about 10mA of current. Four NiMH AA batteries have
>+++> 1800mAhr capabilities. At full charge that delivers 5.6VDC to the
>+++> chip. Well within the operating range. Should get about 150 hrs of
>+++> operation. Add a charging circuit and you have no more issues.
>+++
>+++James, you are very similar to Frank... in that you have distinct
>+++ideas. The problem you both have is one of conveyance. I have made
>+++every effort to answer your questions in a civil manner... but you
>+++continue to rant uncontrollably. I'm not sure by what authority you
>+++speak... since you have no design of your own. Therefore, the
>+++conversation with Frank and James is ended as far as I'm concerned. If
>+++some others have questions, I'd be more than happy to attempt to
>+++answer you. If you don't wish to use this forum... I fully understand.
>+++Please email me anytime.
>+++www.telstar-electronics.com
****************
I am not ranting and raving. I am pointing out facts. I have 23 yrs
experience in designing battery powered electronic devices. You stated
that a external unit is not practicle and I say it is. If that is
ranting and raving to you then so be it.
james
james
<briang...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>+++On Jul 10, 8:50 am, james <geo...@washington.edu> wrote:
>+++> I am not ranting and raving. I am pointing out facts. I have 23 yrs
>+++> experience in designing battery powered electronic devices. You stated
>+++> that a external unit is not practicle and I say it is. If that is
>+++> ranting and raving to you then so be it.
>+++
>+++Thanks for not responding like Frank...
>+++I never said that being battery powered was impractical. I merely said
>+++that there are certain problems with battery-powered type equipment
>+++and we chose not to take that design route.
>+++www.telstar-electronics.com
**************
Outside changing batteries on a regular basis or a some charging
circuit that would be the only issues. Now if those are what you
considered as being impractical then that is your opinion, not mine.
james
Frank Gilliland
<briang...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
<1184066499....@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
>> Beisdes increasing modulation percentage from 85% to 100% gains little
>> in range or intelligability. Often not worth the effort. Adds about 7%
>> audio power into the each of the two sidebands. Even if the limiter
>> section of the modulator section is not disabled adding your
>> compressor is not going to increase the percentage of modulation. So
>> why waste the money to buy and install it unless you disable the
>> radio's internal limiter?
>
>The original radio has the capability of getting to 85% modulation.
Unless it's an old tube-type radio, your original radio was broke.
Just about every solid-state radio built since the 1960's has the
modulation set for 95-98%. I mentioned this before, but like every
other fact I have stated that is easily verifiable, you ignored it.
>This 85% is by no means the average modulation... which is really
>around 40% with voice signals.
It varies as much as people have different voices and speaking styles,
but it is generally accepted to be in the 20 to 25% range (peak to
average ratio from 5:1 to 4:1).
> The VoiceMax brings the average
>modulation to 100%! That means that every voice... high or low... soft
>or loud... will modulate the radio at a constant 100%.
Impossible, and you prove it yourself with your implementation of a
noise gate. You can push 40 to 50% with heavy filtering, and that's
about the best you can do, but it still causes moderate distortion.
Even if your "constant 100%" modulation applies only to unmuted voice,
it would be completely unintelligible. You can pick up almost any book
on radio communications and it will say the same thing.
> I'm in full
>agreement with your last statement... if your leave the radio's
>limiter untouched... you will only be able to maintain a constant 85%
>modulation. Granted, that is a great improvement from the original
>radio modulation... but to get full advantage from VoiceMax (the
>VoiceMax installation instructions are quite clear on this point)...
>you need to adjust or disable the radio's limiter so you're able to
>reach the 100% modualtion point. Once there... the VoiceMax has an on-
>board adjustable limiter that will hold you precisely at the 100%
>level. You can't do any better than that!
Assuming you set your processor's limiter to 100% mush, you still need
to set the output level to the radio so it doesn't overmodulate. Even
just 101% modulation means clipping; pump that with 100% average noise
and you have the potential for some serious bleedover. And there's no
way for the average user to determine the precise point at which his
radio is at 100% modulation. Radios are set at the factory for 95% to
98% modulation to allow for slight variations in tolerance that happen
during normal operation; for you to claim that your processor limits
modulation to 100% all of the time is not only absurd, it's impossible
because of the tolerance limitations of the radio.
These are the hard questions, Brian. And this is not a rant. I'll even
grant you clemency from your now broken promise not to reply to my
posts. You have no excuse not to reply.
Frank Gilliland
<briang...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
<1184090922....@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
>........
I met your standards, now you meet mine: Try your response again
without selectively snipping issues that you choose to ignore.
Peter
> > 1800mAhr capabilities. At full charge that delivers 5.6VDC to the
> > chip. Well within the operating range. Should get about 150 hrs of
> > operation. Add a charging circuit and you have no more issues.
James,
As you and Frank seem to have problems understanding Brian,
please let me translate for you...
"Telstar Electronics" <briang...@sbcglobal.net> wrote...
> James, you are very similar to Frank... in that you have
> distinct ideas.
You, just like Frank, know too much,
> The problem you both have is one of conveyance.
and I am not listening to you.
(with fingers in ears)
La la la la
> I have made every effort to answer your questions in
> a civil manner...
I have tried all the stuff that works on the usual CBers,
> but you continue to rant uncontrollably.
and I sill ain't listening,
> I'm not sure by what authority you speak...
and I don't know why I should,
> since you have no design of your own.
unless you help me out by designing something so
I can make it, sell it and pocket all the money.
> Therefore, the conversation with Frank and James is
> ended as far as I'm concerned.
So I will keep my fingers in my ears,
> If some others have questions, I'd be more than happy to
> attempt to answer you. If you don't wish to use this
> forum... I fully understand.
> Please email me anytime.
until you secretly capitulate and send me a design.
Remember who will retain the rights to your design.
*****
Any help to you, James?
:~)
Peter.
http://www.citizensband.radiouk.com/
Peter
>
> An external device as you describe was considered during the design
> phase... but we decided that an external box (although easier to hook
> up initially) was unsightly with all the wires hanging all over, had
> mounting issues, and therefore was much less reliable in the long run.
Didn't seem to stop the sales of other devices, such as
echo boxes and so many other devices.
Regards,
Peter.
http://www.citizensband.radiouk.com/
Peter
>
> I'm not trying to encourage or discourage you... just trying to
But, by making it internal only, you ARE encouraging the hacking of
radios.
I don't know about America, but there are very few real radio techs in
this country willing to take on CB work. It simply doesn't pay what a
real tech is worth. If they try to charge what they are worth, the
CBer will simply find a cheap "rig doctor" who has no real training.
Alternatively, they will try to fit it themselves... they will ask in
some group, and most likely get help from one of those "rig doctors".
Either way, "rig doctor" or DIY, they are likely to end up with
a hatchet job. When the system sounds like crap, will they really
blame their work - or your product?
> I agree that there are many people that don't have the
> expertise to install such a device. These folks would have to seek the
> help of a technically competent person... such as a CB shop as you
> mention.
Some time back, a regular customer brought in their radio and a
speech processor, which they wanted fitting. The speech
processor was a well known type, and had been obtained from
a well known UK supplier.
I believe that that the shop purchased the processor in kit
form, putting it together, to allow for their profit margin... because
I simply refuse to believe that the manufacturer makes such a
hatchet job of their soldering and wiring.
Proving that, even if your product only goes to retailers or
is only fitted by retailers, it may still end up as a hatchet
job... and your product could get the blame.
> As for your question about the Turner... sorry... I have no
> knowledge regarding this unit.
You have no knowledge of the products you are competing with?
And no intention of providing what the customer desires?
I can understand you ignoring the rantings of a bitter, twisted
old man who may have a grudge... but someone interested in your
product?
This seems to suggest that YOU decided that YOU want to
make and sell a product based on YOUR desires... not on what
the consumer wants or needs.
It reminds me of a certain singer who said that he didn't care
that his latest stuff was not what the public wanted... he
liked it.
Last I heard, I believe he was cleaning streets somewhere in
America.
Regards,
Peter.
http://www.citizensband.radiouk.com/
Peter
>
> And BTW, since your non-linear linear has been discontinued, why
> won't you post the schematic?
In case some small company, in a small European country, are
willing to pay for his discarded designs.
It worked for Fiat.
Regards,
Peter.
http://www.citizensband.radiouk.com/
Peter
>
> It's not for me, but I am showing interest, and you're blowing me off.
This group has shown much hostility towards Brian, and I was about to
Email one of the regulars to ask what the history is. Because, so far,
I had not seen the reason for it apart from the usual p1ss1ng
contests and opposing groups within rrcb.
However, Brian himself appears to have given what could be a real
good reason to avoid his products... his apparent disregard for
the customer's needs or desires.
That, for me, raises concerns about whether he would provide
good customer care or simply blow the customer off once he
has their money.
> The funny thing is, I don't have the theory expertise that you,
> James, or Frank have.
Most CBers do not have technical expertise, it is not a
requirement. In fact, CB is for those without such expertise.
That is why, as a consumer, you need to be aware. Many companies
have used this lack of knowledge against their customers, selling
them total crap.
> But I am one of the few people that uses CB, that can open the
> radio up and read schemtics, and follow directions for mods.
I don't know about "few". Over the years, I have seen a
large amount of fekked up equipment, due to people who are
willing to go inside their radio... and those willing to do
other people's radios the same way.
One person I knew would do this with every radio he had, he
was famous for it. Every time he got a radio, he would go
inside and feck it up. He would then sell it cheap t a tech,
and buy another.
The tech would put everything right and make a killing
on the sale.
> As far as the battery problem, there are a couple options. One
> is to put 12VDC terminals on it, or simply use a 12V battery.
> Hell, the 9V battery in my mike lasts for years.
Over the years, I have seen many battery operated CB
accessories and many with wires for 12v supply.
Power microphones, base microphones, echo boxes, speech
processors, VOX, preamps, power amps, etc.
None of the manufacturers had a problem with external
units, or the selling of them.
> Second question is, before I hack into my radio, how much better
> is this than my Turner +3B with Speech Compression?
Do they still make this, to the same old specifications, or is
it an old one still in use?
This is from an old catalog, really old...
Model +3B
Frequency range: 300-3500Hz
Impedance: 1K Ohm
Output level: -42dB adjustable
Battery type: 7v Turner / Mallory.
That is all it gives, and it is not clear whether that
"-42dB" is dBm and whether that is maximum, minimum
or some middle figure.
There is another processor in this catalog, anyone remember
the MC902 processor? Remember the days of "Solid-State"
equipment?
Loads of switches, knobs, and even a meter on this one.
Does Brian give out full spec on his processor?
Regards,
Peter.
http://www.citizensband.radiouk.com/
Peter
> >
> People like Brian Griffey. He must have sold at least -one-
> unit to a rrcb reader by now, eh?
You know, you was that customer... lol.
Here comes No 2...
"geek" <ge...@localhost.localdomain> wrote...
> Looks like an interesting and RELEVANT product.
More lol.
Regards,
Peter.
http://www.citizensband.radiouk.com/
Peter
> On 07 Jul 2007 03:16:15 GMT, Steveo <mopar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >You have one, Enzo?
>
> No. But I would give it a shot, just for the purpose of experimenting.
Here comes RRCB customer No 3.
This is becoming a sales boom.
Regards,
Peter.
http://www.citizensband.radiouk.com/
Peter
>
> There are certainly pros & cons with either approach. One big problem
Brian,
Apart from the question raised over the typical radio settings,
was the idea of the processor not to reduce the dynamic
range of the audio, rather than simply increase the
maximum modulation?
You appear to be suggesting that this processor works by
the person turning their radio up.
> The VoiceMax has built in limiting... so a
> redundant system is not needed.
Unless, at some time, someone decides to remove the
processor? Maybe they don't like it, maybe they want a
standard radio, who knows - but I have heard of many
non-standard boards being removed for various reasons.
This may not be the person who fitted it, so they will be
totally unaware of the removal of important cricuits
within the radio.
Then they have a radio with no limiting.
> It sounds like you have no plans to
> open your radio... so VoiceMax is not for you.
This is where I start to get some serious concerns...
1. Do you really want to supply the customer, or simply
make up your own ideas and con people into buying them?
2. If I had issues with a product I got from you, why should
I expect anything more than Vinnie got... a big "blow off"?
The suggestion that you would not sell your product to
Frank also suggests a couple of things...
1. You have something to hide, something that Frank could find.
2. You have a limited customer base, and intend to keep it that
way - no selling through dealers, so you can control who is
allowed to buy one.
You should know very well that I have no issues with you
personally, but these are the impressions I am getting. I
also doubt if you impressed Vinnie, a potential customer. How
many more will question your commitment to the customer?
Frank can stand there throwing punches all day, he is not
the one stood in quicksand.
Regards,
Peter.
http://www.citizensband.radiouk.com/
Peter
> Looks like an interesting and RELEVANT product.
>
> your product.
This guy is using the headers to direct the replies away
from the CB group. Those who don't spot it may not see
their own replies and the follow-ups from there.
Regards,
Peter.
http://www.citizensband.radiouk.com/
Vinnie S.
I apologize for starting a pissing contest, as that was not my intention. I was
interested in testing it for you, but would have rather had an external box type
unit. I did not mean for this thread to go out of control.
Vinnie S.
Frank Gilliland
<briang...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
<1184090922....@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
>On Jul 10, 12:28 pm, Frank Gilliland <wīrenut@NOSPAMīcehouse.net>
>wrote:
>> >This 85% is by no means the average modulation... which is really
>> >around 40% with voice signals.
>>
>> It varies as much as people have different voices and speaking styles,
>> but it is generally accepted to be in the 20 to 25% range (peak to
>> average ratio from 5:1 to 4:1).
>
>Since you have stopped your personal attack (for now), I will
>certainly respond to your comments.
>You are correct... I said "around 40%". You say 20-25%.
>Either way... the number is far from the optimum 100% value the
>VoiceMax can deliver.
See below.
>> > The VoiceMax brings the average
>> >modulation to 100%! That means that every voice... high or low... soft
>> >or loud... will modulate the radio at a constant 100%.
>>
>> Impossible, and you prove it yourself with your implementation of a
>> noise gate. You can push 40 to 50% with heavy filtering, and that's
>> about the best you can do, but it still causes moderate distortion.
>
>Very possible... and the distortion is less than 1% THD.
Not possible. Older power amps were lucky to get as low as 1%
distortion -without- compression. Compression, by any other name, -IS-
distortion, whether it's by clipping or by AGC. You can filter out
some of the harmonics but the distortion remains -- and is evident by
a change in the output as you readily admit. As far as harmonics are
concerned, if you have a brick-wall filter at 3kHz you still pass
harmonics generated from fundamentals below 1.5kHz, which includes
most of the intelligible speech.
(Anyone who wants a primer in the audio spectrum should find a .wav
file of a standard 1kHz tone and try to duplicate it with their own
voice. Unless you are Mariah Carey, good luck!)
So even if you -think- you have filtered out 99% of the harmonics
generated by compression, think again. Only a distortion analyzer will
tell you how much THD remains.
>> Even if your "constant 100%" modulation applies only to unmuted voice,
>> it would be completely unintelligible. You can pick up almost any book
>> on radio communications and it will say the same thing.
>
>You are correct that the 100% average applies to the unmuted signal...
>Why would we be talking about anything else?
>The audio signal is perfectly clear and has less than 1% THD.
Can't happen. If your peak-to-average 1:1 (which is required for 100%
modulation) then all ...=-ALL-=... the audio peaks are at the maximum.
With a 3kHz spectral limit, this would require an AGC response of less
than 20 uS, assuming you want the output to at least vaguely resemble
the input (that's 1/6000 with a very generous 10% response delay). The
chip you selected simply doesn't work that fast. You would need an AGC
amp with a slew rate at -least- 100 times faster than what you have.
Now assuming you have such a chip, and you did get 1:1 peak-to-average
voice power while muting everything else, your output would sound much
like dried shit. It's not hard to duplicate; just run a 10Vp-p audio
signal through a couple 1N34A's and filter at 3kHz. It will achieve
100% average modulation all the time, but it sounds like crap and is
completely unintelligible. And it ain't "less than 1% THD" -- the DA
says it's closer to 80% -after- the 3kHz filter.
If your processor has "perfectly clear" audio while at maximum
compression then I can guarantee you that it -isn't- running anywhere
close to 100% average modulation. 40% at best. And that's no better
than the AGC already built into the radio. On the other hand, if you
built what I already told you was a 'constant volume amplifier' (that
you confused with a 'voltage controlled amplifier') then your average
modulation is going to be closer to 25%.
Either way, your performance claims are contradictory and unrealistic
(i.e, impossible). At best they show ignorance of the principles used;
at worst, they show deception in marketing.
Frank Gilliland
<briang...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
<1184097641.8...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>:
>> Assuming you set your processor's limiter to 100%, you still need
>> to set the output level to the radio so it doesn't overmodulate. Even
>> just 101% modulation means clipping; pump that with 100% average noise
>> and you have the potential for some serious bleedover. And there's no
>> way for the average user to determine the precise point at which his
>> radio is at 100% modulation. Radios are set at the factory for 95% to
>> 98% modulation to allow for slight variations in tolerance that happen
>> during normal operation; for you to claim that your processor limits
>> modulation to 100% all of the time is not only absurd, it's impossible
>> because of the tolerance limitations of the radio.
>
>I think this is the last of your comments I didn't have time to
>respond to before. You are certainly correct that you need to set the
>radio so it doesn't overmodulate. In the VoiceMax installation
>instructions it says that for a precise modulation level, you should
>use a scope. While it's true there's no perfect way to do this without
>a scope... you should be able to get reasonably close by having an
>assistant monitor your transmission during the adjustment. This is
>also covered in the VoiceMax installation instructions.
Such a procedure is pointless unless the assistant is monitoring on
the second and third harmonics.
> Even levels up
>to 110% modulation will not cause excessive bleedover.
But they will cause harmonics, especially on the television.
> The people you
>hear on the air bleeding 20+ channels are usally running a combination
>of excessive power with perhaps upward of 130% modulation. That is a
>deadly splattering condition all right.
Adjacent channel bleedover is caused by audio harmonic distortion
bypassing the 3kHz filter. RF Amplifiers only amplify the bleedover.
Modulation level is not a factor because overmodulation only creates
RF harmonics (e.g, being heard on 54MHz, 81MHz, etc.), which is also
caused by non-linear linears.
>However, I don't agree with your statement that factory radios are set
>to 95-98% possible modulation. There is no way there is enough margin
>here to assure they will not exceed the 100%. That's why they they
>normally set to around 85%. Both my Cobra radios were in that
>vicinity. I have never put a factory radio on the scope and seen more
>than 90%!
I have a shelf filled with CB manuals, both Sams and factory manuals.
Except for some of the old tube-type radios, the modulation adjustment
for all of them is around 95 to 98% -- I didn't pull those numbers out
of a hat. If you've never seen more than 90% then either your scope is
too slow or you need to learn how to use it properly. And that's why
scopes are not recommended for modulation alignment, which is usually
done with an RF voltmeter or demod probe, and an audio source with a
fixed amplitude and frequency (a sig-gen, not someone yelling AAAUUDIO
into the mic). You should really read some of these manuals -- some of
them also describe how to adjust the mic audio AGC circuits....
Ma...@tayleorrobesin.org
<briang...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>On Jul 9, 12:03 pm, james <geo...@washington.edu> wrote:
>> the SSM2166 draws about 10mA of current. Four NiMH AA batteries have
>> 1800mAhr capabilities. At full charge that delivers 5.6VDC to the
>> chip. Well within the operating range. Should get about 150 hrs of
>> operation. Add a charging circuit and you have no more issues.
>
>James, you are very similar to Frank... in that you have distinct
>ideas. The problem you both have is one of conveyance. I have made
>every effort to answer your questions in a civil manner... but you
>continue to rant uncontrollably. I'm not sure by what authority you
>speak.
a keyboard computer and iisp of sometype
>.. since you have no design of your own. Therefore, the
>conversation with Frank and James is ended as far as I'm concerned. If
>some others have questions, I'd be more than happy to attempt to
>answer you. If you don't wish to use this forum... I fully understand.
>Please email me anytime.
"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/
G
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Ma...@tayleorrobesin.org
ah well another fact chanlneged rant
but truly Frank you totlay fail to undersatdn you are doing his
bidding and helping advertise his product
and likely entertaining him as well
It has been fun to watch
Frank Gilliland
<briang...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
<1184157811.2...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>:
>On Jul 10, 7:16 pm, Frank Gilliland <wīrenut@NOSPAMīcehouse.net>
>wrote:
>> Such a procedure is pointless unless the assistant is monitoring on
>> the second and third harmonics.
>
>Frank lives in a black & white world. The real world is gray Frank...
>and isn't perfect. I agree that in a perfect world... one would use a
>scope to get to the target 100% modulation. In the real gray world...
>not everyone has a scope.. and therefore would have to resort to the
>next best method... the listening assistant. After all you always talk
>about the "empirical" method being so good... are you getting away
>from that thinking now?.. lol
I addressed the issues without ranting. I laid out logical arguments
in a clear and concise manner. I used verifiable facts to support my
conclusions. I posted well within the protocol that -YOU- established.
But it's clear that when you are proven wrong all you do is break from
your own protocol and go into a "sour grapes" mode of damage control.
Well, no more clemency for you, Brian. In fact, why don't you go back
to ignoring me again.... it's more fun that way.
You can get an RF probe for just about any DMM. It won't show
waveforms, but it costs a -lot- less than a scope, and in this
application is more accurate. As for a signal generator at the input,
any old audio oscillator will do, even the output of the sound card on
your computer. Just run it through a pot to get the desired voltage.
And the manual will cost you all of $10 on ebay. So you can keep your
scope and your gray world -- I prefer a little more contrast in my
reality, especially when it's easier, more accurate, and a lot less
expensive.
And BTW, I live in Washington, not California. I've stated where I
live about a jillion times since you've been in this group. Learn to
read.
Frank Gilliland
<briang...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
<1184108373.1...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:
>> Apart from the question raised over the typical radio settings,
>> was the idea of the processor not to reduce the dynamic
>> range of the audio, rather than simply increase the
>> maximum modulation?
>
>No, VoiceMax greatly compresses the audio.
And with less than 1% distortion, no less!!! Except for the fact is
that compression -is- distortion. There are two types of distortion,
Brian: desireable and undesireable. Compression is one type of
desireable distortion, which is why manufacturers of REAL compressors
don't lie about their distortion specs. They stick it right out there
for the customer to see because that's what the circuit is designed to
do -- distort the signal. But in a -good- way.
The fact that you have never made that distinction throughout this
entire discussion (which has lasted about a year) proves, once again,
that you have no idea of what you are talking about.
>> You appear to be suggesting that this processor works by
>> the person turning their radio up.
>
>What I'm saying is that to get the maximum benefit from VoiceMax...
>one must have a radio that is capable of 100% modulation... before the
>module is installed. If you have such a radio... then there is nothing
>to be done but the installation. The redundant limiters (radio &
>VoiceMax) will be transparent to the user.
Including the original AGC circuit?
>> > The VoiceMax has built in limiting... so a
>> > redundant system is not needed.
>>
>> Unless, at some time, someone decides to remove the
>> processor? Maybe they don't like it, maybe they want a
>> standard radio, who knows - but I have heard of many
>> non-standard boards being removed for various reasons.
>> This may not be the person who fitted it, so they will be
>> totally unaware of the removal of important cricuits
>> within the radio.
>> Then they have a radio with no limiting.
>
>True. If the radio's limiter is adjusted or disabled... one would have
>to restore it to its original setting if the VoiceMax module is
>removed. This is normally a very simple procedure as you are most
>likely aware of.
Not at all. Your procedure requires cutting a trace, which is the most
common reason you can't find a decent used radio anymore. It's not
always a simple task to bridge a cut trace. It requires soldering, and
not everyone who can scratch a trace is capable of soldering. Are you
willing to pay the cost to repair the radio when the customer doesn't
like your processor? If not then that's a pretty shitty deal.
>> > It sounds like you have no plans to
>> > open your radio... so VoiceMax is not for you.
>>
>> This is where I start to get some serious concerns...
>> 1. Do you really want to supply the customer, or simply
>> make up your own ideas and con people into buying them?
>
>Don't understand this...
Yes you do, Brian. It's what you have done with all your products from
day one. Should I make a list of all the lies you have made trying to
sell your hacked wares? If I start now I might get done around.... oh,
say, around Christmas.....
>> 2. If I had issues with a product I got from you, why should
>> I expect anything more than Vinnie got... a big "blow off"?
>
>I didn't blow-off anyone.
Brian, you blow off anyone that provides proof that you are lying or
technically incompetent. That's been your SOP in this group since you
started spamming it over ten years ago.
> I merely told Vinnie that if he didn't have
>the expertise necessary to install the unit... and didn't want anyone
>else opening his radio... that VoiceMax wasn't for him. What's wrong
>with that?
>
>> The suggestion that you would not sell your product to
>> Frank also suggests a couple of things...
>> 1. You have something to hide, something that Frank could find.
>> 2. You have a limited customer base, and intend to keep it that
>> way - no selling through dealers, so you can control who is
>> allowed to buy one.
>
>Frank has been a constant irritant here for years... yes years.
True, but only to those who spew technical voodoo and hocus-pocus. And
I'm proud of it.
I do, however, apologize for being so anti-illegal in the past -- the
FCC is impotent and the government so corrupt that nothing is going to
change until they are -forced- to change. It's too bad it has to work
that way. But I still have hope that maybe the next election will turn
things around.... Lou Dobbs in '08!!!
> He is
>a frustrated electronic technician in California
I am a broadcast engineer in Washington that earns a salary of $42K/y,
in addition to being a small business owner for almost 15 years, and
I'm finishing my Master's program this fall. Frustrated? "LOL!!!"
> that doesn't like
>anyone challenging any statement he makes.
On the contrary, anyone should feel free to challenge anything I say.
But you better be prepared to back it up with facts and logic -- none
of that "the world is gray" or "it's part of a bigger picture" crap.
> As you see he very abusive/
>abrasive.
Very true.
> I certainly don't need... or want customers like that.
Yes you do, Brian. Because unlike you, I usually don't make statements
that I can't support with facts. And abusive or not, I'm usually
right. It's not so hard to do when you can suspend your typing long
enough to hit a couple books or search for a couple authoritative
references. So when a customer like me advocates a product then you
can bet your bottom dollar that it's good. For example:
Frank's CB Consumer Report for July '07:
The Mattco model SWR2 meter is small, portable and accurate. It's
also tough as nails; I've dropped mine countless times and it still
works great. Operation is very basic with just a FWD/REF switch and
CAL knob. Quality of materials and construction is excellent. The
metal box is painted in black crinkle enamel, and has two X-slots in
the back for mounting it permanently or even semi-permanently. The
only problem I've ever had was a loose meter face, and a little
epoxy cured it without breaking a sweat. This is one of the best SWR
meters I've ever owned, Bird included, and is the most used in my
shop.
Now do you really think your business would be -worse- if I posted
something like that about your processor? Of course not.
>You're right... I will be distributing this device at first. After the
>product catches on... I hope to work with some distribution channels.
What happened to "we"? Are you actually starting to take your pills
and keep your appointments?
>> You should know very well that I have no issues with you
>> personally, but these are the impressions I am getting. I
>> also doubt if you impressed Vinnie, a potential customer. How
>> many more will question your commitment to the customer?
>
>I'm not here to impress anyone.
Well, you certainly accomplished -that- goal....
> I also don't want to sell this device
>to anyone that has reservations about the performance.
So you will only sell it to those who are convinced that it works
before they use it? before any independent testing? before the product
has been vetted by other consumers?
* >>|=| - SCAM ALERT - |=|<< *
> Most of these
>guys... Frank, Steveo, and some others are not potential customers...
>they are spoilers. That is... and has been their mission all along.
The word is "skeptic", and yes I am. Your claims are preposterous,
just like those 6-inch magic antennas that get 15dB gain.
>They are good in a way because they always play the "devils advocate"
>and give me an opportunity to explain my device to others out there
>that are interested... and smart enough to comprehend. Those people
>are... and continue to be my customers.
Wrong. You prey on people who don't understand the meaning of the
false specifications you are spewing, and give them an explanation
that satisfies them just long enough to get the sale. You work on
people's lack of technical knowledge with a "too good to be true"
pitch before they learn why these things really -are- too good to be
true. You're a con artist, Brian. And you're BAD AT IT!!! "LOL!!!"
Peter
> Brian,
>
> I apologize for starting a pissing contest, as that was not my
> intention. I was interested in testing it for you, but would
> for this thread to go out of control.
Don't apologise, you simply stated what you would like. To most
businesses, that should be important feedback - market research.
Besides, there's nothing the regulars here enjoy more than a p1ss1ng
contest. Why do you think they are so keen on the beer... one has to
keep the bladder full, it gives you a competitive edge in the
p1ss1ng contests :~)
For me, an important issue is whether a company listen to the
customers. If they are unwilling to listen, before they have your
money, what chances will you have once they have your money?
Brian started this thread by advertising his product here. He must
expect some questions and comments. I have nothing against Brian,
but his replies do not fill me with confidence in the company or
product.
Regards,
Peter.
http://www.citizensband.radiouk.com/
Peter
> > Apart from the question raised over the typical radio settings,
> > was the idea of the processor not to reduce the dynamic
> > range of the audio, rather than simply increase the
> > maximum modulation?
>
Was that:
No it was not to reduce the dynamic range
or
Yes, it was to reduce the dynamic range
or, maybe,
"please stop using trick questions"
> What I'm saying is that to get the maximum benefit from VoiceMax...
> one must have a radio that is capable of 100% modulation...
So the manufacturers all set the modulation wrong, radios
should really be at 100%?
The problem I see is that most of the fitting will be done by
"rig doctors" and DIY CBers. You think you can trust these
people to correctly set the modulation at 100%?
If you asked 100 typical "rig doctors" and DIY CBers to adjust
their modulation to exactly 100%, how many do you really think
would be spot on?
Personally, I would prefer they settle for the 85% or 95%
(whatever the real figure on their radio), rather than risk
them f*cking it up.
But, maybe I am biased... due to all the hours spent putting
right all the damage done by such people.
> True. If the radio's limiter is adjusted or disabled... one would have
> to restore it to its original setting if the VoiceMax module is
> removed. This is normally a very simple procedure as you are most
> likely aware of.
Oh yes, especially if I had fitted it.
But, when I get a job in - remove this board - I don't have a clue
what the person who fitted it has done apart from connecting
the wires.
I may know what he should have done, but we are talking of
"rig doctors" here, what we on this side of the pond also
like to call "cowboys".
Yeeeharrrr
Pass me the poker from the fire, I want to solder this board in.
(yes, it has been known)
> > > It sounds like you have no plans to
> > > open your radio... so VoiceMax is not for you.
> >
> > This is where I start to get some serious concerns...
> > 1. Do you really want to supply the customer, or simply
> > make up your own ideas and con people into buying them?
>
> Don't understand this...
How did you decide upon your choice of product and, in fact,
your whole marketing mix? Did research tell you that millions
of people are begging for a "quality" processor at a "quality"
price - enough to keep Telstar going with those $60 payments?
Did research tell you that they would prefer the hassle of
fitting it in the radio to "plug & play", even though plug-in
and battery operated accessories have sold for years?
Is the Voicemax what the customer has made clear that they
want, or what you have decided they will have?
> I didn't blow-off anyone. I merely told Vinnie that if he didn't have
> the expertise necessary to install the unit... and didn't want anyone
> else opening his radio... that VoiceMax wasn't for him. What's wrong
> with that?
Maybe it came across as rather curt, abrupt, and unwilling to
listen to what the customer wants.
Are you really that snowed under, with no product currently available,
that you cannot consider offering the option of the device as a plug
in accessory?
I don't know, you appear to be a small business. People trust large
well known companies with a long reputation (and TV advertising). They
are attracted to the small business by the way they can be so
flexible and accomodating. No need to ask the manager to ask a director
to bring it up at the next meeting - then pass it back the same way, so
you can come up with a plan and ask the manager to ask... etc.
There are companies that I have dealt with who will take on unusual
jobs just to keep a customer happy. They will even take on jobs as
loss-leaders, just to obtain or keep customers.
> Frank has been a constant irritant here for years... yes years.
Frank and I have butted heads a few times, so I do know what he
can be like. However, if he wanted to by a product or service from
me, I would not hesitate to take his money and give him the same
service as any other customer.
> He is a frustrated electronic technician in California that doesn't
like
> anyone challenging any statement he makes.
Does anyone like being challenged in that way?
How do you feel about the challenges on this group... my comments,
for example? I am only being honest, saying how it appears
to me.
Maybe I have some things wrong about you, but you have the chance
to put them right or sort out any image issues... normal customers
may simply keep quiet and go elsewhere for their items.
> You're right... I will be distributing this device at first. After the
> product catches on... I hope to work with some distribution channels.
Will they be instructed not to sell any of your products, all one
of them, to Frank?
> I'm not here to impress anyone. I also don't want to sell this device
> to anyone that has reservations about the performance. Most of these
> guys... Frank, Steveo, and some others are not potential customers...
Once you take out the trolls, Frank, Steveo and "some others", that
does not leave many on this group. If you then take out those who
need impressing before they part with hard-earned cash, then we
are starting to run a little short on people here.
Out of those few remaining *possible* postential customers, you
just turned one away.
Maybe this group is not for you, the time could surely be better
spent. Seriously, will any sales you make from this group really
pay for the time you have spent discussing the topic?
> they are spoilers. That is... and has been their mission all along.
> They are good in a way because they always play the "devils advocate"
> and give me an opportunity to explain my device to others out there
You also have to be willing to listen. Several on this group
are simply saying it as they see it. If they are wrong, then
maybe you need to look at image and perception.
Just as people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones,
people stood in quicksand should not throw punches.
Maybe time to cut loose and run, unless this group is your only
source of potential customers.
Now, there's a point... how do you effectively advertise a CB
product to the remaining enthusiasts, is there a CB magazine
in America with a decent circulation?
None now on this side of the pond, the last one got taken over
by some Hammy types, who systematically bastardized it for
their own gratification. Or at least that is how it seems :~)
Now, if you really want to chat, should we take it to email?
Regards,
Peter.
http://www.citizensband.radiouk.com/
Frank Gilliland
wrote in <f74ask$11uv$3...@energise.enta.net>:
<snip>
>For me, an important issue is whether a company listen to the
>customers. If they are unwilling to listen, before they have your
>money, what chances will you have once they have your money?
Excellent point. I bought a Sierra Zip Ztove (zip stove) a while back.
Unpacked it, read the instructions, tried to put it together, but the
top and bottom pieces didn't fit together. So I contacted the company
(ZZ Manufacturing) who told me that the two parts were manufactured in
different years. Then they blew me off.
I guess the method is to keep it cheap. Years ago almost any TV
mail-order gizmo was sold at the "special price of $19.95", always
under $20. Several years later a marketing executive disclosed that
they did research to figure out the highest price they can charge for
a junk product before the buyer returns it for a refund (on a sales
versus refunds curve, I would assume). At that time the magic number
was about $20. No doubt it's higher now, and I'm sure the price of
Brian's processor falls below the current threshold.
Frank Gilliland
<briang...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
<1184240723....@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>:
<snip>
>Wow... you guys (you & Frank) must have a lot of time on your hands
>to write a novel like this.
Yep. With temps in the triple digits there's not much to do. Change
the bulbs in the tower just before the sun comes up, inventory cables,
hang an axe or two.... pretty boring.
> Sorry, I have a business to run. I guess
>we'll just have to let people make up their own minds out there. I
>have received many inquiries... and several orders in the past few
>days. Don't know if they were the result of the posts here... or were
>drawn to the web site via search engine. If they saw it here... maybe
>they'll report back here after they have installed.
Some people might actually believe that if you weren't a such a
pathological liar.
Peter
>
> Wow... you guys (you & Frank)
Us guys? You make it sound like we are some kind of
double act.
That'll be the day... lol.
> must have a lot of time on your hands
I don't have that much time, you will see that I often
disappear for days. But you seem to have the time to
reply to both of us, and others.
> to write a novel like this.
Just trying to help, giving you feedback and telling it
like it is. Considering how few of the threads I get involved
in, you should feel honoured that I bothered with your thread.
> Don't know if they were the result of the posts here... or
> were drawn to the web site via search engine.
Or maybe they got the wrong Telstar Electronics...
Telstar Electronics
Dousman, WI 53118
http://www.predicta.com/index.shtml
lol,
Peter.
http://www.citizensband.radiouk.com/
Peter
>
> Excellent point. I bought a Sierra Zip Ztove (zip stove) a while back.
> Unpacked it, read the instructions, tried to put it together, but the
> top and bottom pieces didn't fit together. So I contacted the company
> (ZZ Manufacturing) who told me that the two parts were manufactured in
> different years. Then they blew me off.
>
> I guess the method is to keep it cheap. Years ago almost any TV
> mail-order gizmo was sold at the "special price of $19.95", always
> under $20.
We get the same sort of thing here, everything ends in .99
The thing is that, with VAT (our sales tax), that should be added
on for the customer to pay. Are we supposed to believe that, by
some miracle, every time they add VAT to their price it ends in .99?
And all for under $200
Yeah, $199.99.
Do people still fall for that old trick?
> Several years later a marketing executive disclosed that
> they did research to figure out the highest price they can charge
> for a junk product before the buyer returns it for a refund
What, he did a Ratner?
This sounds rather like scammers working out who they can target
who will not report the matter to the police. Maybe even putting
them in a position where they feel that they would be in trouble.
> At that time the magic number was about $20. No doubt it's
> higher now, and I'm sure the price of
> Brian's processor falls below the current threshold.
It may depend upon the purchase method and location.
If you buy from local store, which you pass every day, it's not that
much effort to go in and tell them. But if it's mail order, would it
be higher before they go to the bother?
Also, if they blow the customer off, being local allows the customer
the opportunity to park their ass on the shop doorstep and cost
them more in lost sales.
Regards,
Peter.
http://www.citizensband.radiouk.com/
Me Know
> http://www.telstar-electronics.com/default_files/NewProductDevelopment.htm
>
Quit spamming the newsgroups!
NoMoreSpam
> On Jul 25, 6:43 am, Me Know <m...@here.now> wrote:
>> Telstar Electronics wrote:
>>> http://www.telstar-electronics.com/default_files/NewProductDevelopmen...
>> Quit spamming the newsgroups!
>
> Temper temper... you know your blood pressure. You should take better
> care of yourself.
> See the NEW VoiceMax Speech Processor at www.telstar-electronics.com
>
What a bunch of CBer crap!
Arv-K7HKL
Quoted from the Telstar Web Site:
"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."
So, it is for AM modulation systems. The previous poster was
right...it is CB equipment! Telstar says it is, so who's to argue
with that.
_._
Denny
commercial announcements we don't care about and which do not meet the
charter for this usenet group...
I personally don't care if your customers are CB, or broadcast radio,
or whatever - but since all you are doing is trying to drum up a sale
here, which is not what this group is for, why don't you move along
to where your customers are... The chances that you will make even a
single sale to a member of this usenet group are less than zero...
cheers ... denny
John Siegel
Can you name a ham transceiver made in the last twenty years that
doesn't already have a speech compressor built in?
Ma...@tayleorrobesin.org
RCI 2950 I don't think it has one if so I don't know the control is
Peter
>
> Dennis, thanks for your input...
The guy complains about you "spamming", so you goad
him with...
> See the NEW VoiceMax Speech Processor
> at www.telstar-electronics.com
While I see the funny side of this, I do have to wonder
whether you manage to show just a little more respect
for customers.
Regards,
Peter.
http://www.citizensband.radiouk.com/
Peter
>
> VoiceMax works on AM, FM, or SSB modes.
Do you really believe that FM CB is suited to such devices?
Any idea of "talk power" cannot be applied to FM. The
power is constant, regardless of audio, and detected audio
level is not decided by signal level.
More importantly, FM sidebands are not as simple and
neat as AM sidebands. To fit FM in 10KHz slots takes
delicate balance, any messing with the transmitted
audio can soon tip it over.
Here in the UK, when CB was first legal, we were
allowed 2.5KHz deviation. Fine until the CBers
of the day, unaware that FM is different, fell for
the "talk power" promises of American advertising.
The resulting splatter cut down the number of channels,
you had to avoid channels next to one in use. People
were constantly being asked to move from channel
20, because nobody could use 19.
A speech processor makes matters worse, as it ensures
that your increased adjacent channel power is not just
confined to the peaks of your audio - you now have a
guaranteed constant 100% splatter power.
And it's not as simple as good filtering. If you increase
your transmit audio, more of your power will be contained
in side frequencies lying outside the bandwidth of
a decent receiver.
So, to allow for "loud" audio on FM, you must make your
receiver open to adjacent channel interference. On top of
this, the "loud" transmissions on adjacent channels will be
putting out stronger signals within your passband.
The result of these devices on FM CB is not "talk power",
it is distortion and interference. We in the UK have seen
and suffered it, and the government changed CB
specifications in an attempt to stop the mess.
They reduced the allowed deviation and set a minimum
adjacent channel rejection figure for the receiver.
Regards,
Peter.
http://www.citizensband.radiouk.com/