Message-ID: <002d01bfcc9b$09b7c960$571a86d4@kevin>
From: "Kevin Ravenhill" <kevin.ravenhill@ukonline.co.uk>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <E12xnko-0000M8-00@mserv1c.u-net.net>
Subject: LF: Definitions
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 14:59:24 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

> At the risk of winding everyone up, what is "machine assisted"?
> What is the difference between DSP for audio reception and DSP
> for screen reception? Or is the analogue filter a machine, or the
> receiver itself?

Hmm. I had a feeling it was a bad idea to send that last posting....

OK, so it's a matter of the language you choose. I don't want to get into
precise and pedantic definitions of what does or does not constitute a
"machine" - this was never my intention and frankly I can't see why it
should be such an issue.

All I was originally trying to convey was the difference, as I saw it,
between using the ear/brain combination to directly interpret an audio
signal (if you like, the definition of a "classic" amateur radio voice or CW
contact) as opposed to any method which involves converting the audio signal
into something which isn't audio any more, but which then allows human
interpretation which would otherwise have been very difficult or impossible.
I used "machine" for want of anything better - feel free to substitute
whatever language you're happy with.

To sum up, apologies if my postings are anything other than in perfectly
clear English and of precise technical correctness - I will try to ensure
that they are of the highest standard in future. Can we get back to the
original subject now, please?

Regards

Kevin, G1HDQ.