"Open DStar"
Brian Reay
"Open DStar" project which some have suggested make free CODECs available.
As I recall, the last discussion on here was several months back and one
assumes the project has moved on.
Does anyone know the current state of play?
--
73
Brian G8OSN/W8OSN
www.g8osn.net
Life is too short for cheap wine.
Reith
"Brian Reay" <s...@website.com> wrote in message
news:otSUm.13700$jv5....@newsfe14.ams2...
Understand there is a software/controller solution called D+ (or something
like that). It is in use on GB3IN in Derbyshire and requires no special
Icom gear to run it.
Now if that could be expanded to be used by people accessing the system, it
would be sorted!
More info here: http://www.gb3in.co.uk/gb3in_news/index.htm
Brian Reay
"Reith" <nos...@nospamhere.net> wrote in message
news:7oigj9F...@mid.individual.net...
Thank you for the link.
On reading it the details there, I suspect it doesn't use a CODEC at all- it
simply passes the digital signals through, almost like a router would.
The project I was interested in replaced the current CODEC on DSTAR with an
open one.
Yeti
> During a QSO today, someone mentioned DStar and this reminded me of the
> "Open DStar" project which some have suggested make free CODECs available.
>
> As I recall, the last discussion on here was several months back and one
> assumes the project has moved on.
>
> Does anyone know the current state of play?
>
I think Icom contacted their advertising buddies at the RSGB for the
name and address of all those discussing the project, and had them
assassinated.
DieSea
There are others
One being run in Kendal by G3VVT
another in the west country
I gather both use Motorola kit
DieSea
Steve Terry
news:4b240ef3$0$2539$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
> "Reith" <nos...@nospamhere.net> wrote in message
> news:7oigj9F...@mid.individual.net...
>> "Brian Reay" <s...@website.com> wrote in message
>> news:otSUm.13700$jv5....@newsfe14.ams2...
> There are others
> One being run in Kendal by G3VVT
> another in the west country
> I gather both use Motorola kit
>
> DieSea
>
Steve Terry
--
Get a free Three 3pay Sim with �2 bonus after �10 top up
http://freeagent.three.co.uk/stand/view/id/5276
Brian Reay
news:9ig8i5tfcv9ok652n...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 19:49:51 -0000, "Brian Reay" <s...@website.com>
> wrote:
>
>>During a QSO today, someone mentioned DStar and this reminded me of the
>>"Open DStar" project which some have suggested make free CODECs available.
>>
>>As I recall, the last discussion on here was several months back and one
>>assumes the project has moved on.
>>
>>Does anyone know the current state of play?
>
> the DStar CODEC was proprietary. Have you now changed your mind?
I never denied the CODEC was proprietary. Thus I have no reason to have
changed my mind. I did point out that you can buy a CODEC for a modest sum
and homebrew a DSTAR radio, if you so wish.
> Proprietary or not, I am at a loss to understand why anyone would have
> any interest in this system. What advantages does it offer over
> existing technology?
I feel much the same, at least from the perspective of the advantages which
contribute to my enjoyment of amateur radio. However, I've no problem with
those who want to use such a system doing so, if that is the way they wish
to pursue amateur radio. I feel much the same re-several modes (ATV, SSTV,
some of the digital modes, etc.)
Spike
Brian Reay wrote:
>However, I've no problem with
>those who want to use such a system doing so, if that is the way they wish
>to pursue amateur radio. I feel much the same re-several modes (ATV, SSTV,
>some of the digital modes, etc.)
You could say much the same about CW, as it didn't need encouraging
via a faux compulsory no-fail 'test'. But nevertheless, there were
those who thought it needed saving (or some such claptrap phrase),
made ironic throught their own failure to go the CW route when it was
compulsory for access to HF.
--
from
Aero Spike
Not a member of the RSGB for 50 years 1959 - 2009
Brian Reay
news:6cb9i51vi937vtg7e...@4ax.com...
>
> Brian Reay wrote:
>
>>However, I've no problem with
>>those who want to use such a system doing so, if that is the way they wish
>>to pursue amateur radio. I feel much the same re-several modes (ATV, SSTV,
>>some of the digital modes, etc.)
>
> You could say much the same about CW,
But I wouldn't because I'm not a saddo who moans at everything anyone tries
to do for the benefit of his fellow amateurs.
Brian Reay
news:20091213102...@peterson.fenrir.org.uk...
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 01:26:53 +0000
> Walt Davidson <g3...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Proprietary or not, I am at a loss to understand why anyone would have
>> any interest in this system. What advantages does it offer over
>> existing technology?
>
> the RF comms world has gone that way amateur radio really can't expect
> to invent new analogue modulation schemes but of course we can expect
> to continue to use those that are in common use.
>
> I've never said we should abandon anything or switch exclusively to
> D-STAR-like modes, but what I am keen on is not to allow these patented
> approaches to dictate what is done. That isn't amateur radio.
But unless those who advocate "open" digital modes do more than sit around
moaning about the "closed ones", the latter will own the future.
Too many people moan but do nothing active to contribute to the changes they
advocate- although they will often join the "movers and shakers" on the
winner's lap of honour.
Looking at the websites you posted, it seems the open CODEC is making slow
progress- driven mainly by one VK. If those who promote open CODECs were
that committed, why he is essentially a "one man band". I've no wish to
knock his efforts, he seems as committed as he is knowledgeable, but at the
current rate of progress the project will miss the boat.
While I've no real interest in DSTAR like modes, I think it will be a shame
if the VK's efforts are wasted because the armchair moaners do no more than
moan.
Brian
> "Open DStar" project which some have suggested make free CODECs available.
>
> As I recall, the last discussion on here was several months back and one
> assumes the project has moved on.
>
> Does anyone know the current state of play?
>
DANGER!
Do not feed the trolls
Van Durchfahrt.
Yes, he really should get some new clubs - his current ones are
becoming twisted from overuse. The arc is still as predictable as ever
though.
Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI
news:6cb9i51vi937vtg7e...@4ax.com...
>
>
>>However, I've no problem with
>>those who want to use such a system doing so, if that is the way they wish
>>to pursue amateur radio. I feel much the same re-several modes (ATV, SSTV,
>>some of the digital modes, etc.)
>
> You could say much the same about CW,
CW was digital.
--
;-)
.
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
.
http://turner-smith.co.uk
Steve Terry
news:9ig8i5tfcv9ok652n...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 19:49:51 -0000, "Brian Reay" <s...@website.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"Open DStar" project which some have suggested make free CODECs available.
>>As I recall, the last discussion on here was several months back and one
>>assumes the project has moved on.
>>Does anyone know the current state of play?
>
> the DStar CODEC was proprietary. Have you now changed your mind?
>
> any interest in this system. What advantages does it offer over
> existing technology?
> Walt Davidson
>
>
Little, except for having networking and VOIP capabilities just like
Motorola's CDMA MOTOTRBO which are about the same price new,
only the Motorola unlike Icom boxes will become increasingly surplus.
Brian Reay
"Brian" <Brian...@mental.invalid> wrote in message
news:hg2h3d$16b$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
New sock puppets for Xmas?
luc...@eternal-flames.gov
<g3...@turner-smith.co.uk> wrote:
>"Spike" <Aero.Spike@S&T.invalid> wrote in message
>news:6cb9i51vi937vtg7e...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Brian Reay wrote:
>>
>>>However, I've no problem with
>>>those who want to use such a system doing so, if that is the way they wish
>>>to pursue amateur radio. I feel much the same re-several modes (ATV, SSTV,
>>>some of the digital modes, etc.)
>>
>> You could say much the same about CW,
>
>CW was digital.
Still is.
@uk.radio.amateur Dr Strabismus
"Brian Reay" <s...@website.com> wrote in message
> news:otSUm.13700$jv5....@newsfe14.ams2...
>> During a QSO today, someone mentioned DStar and this reminded me of the
>> "Open DStar" project which some have suggested make free CODECs
>> available.
>>
>> As I recall, the last discussion on here was several months back and one
>> assumes the project has moved on.
>>
>> Does anyone know the current state of play?
They're all out and the last one's a duck!
Jimbo ...
> While I've no real interest in DSTAR like modes, I think it will be a
> shame if the VK's efforts are wasted because the armchair moaners do no
> more than moan.
>
> 73
> Brian G8OSN/M3OSN
> www.m3osn.net
> Life is too short to learn morse.
>
>
we must all do what we are best at ...
Yeti
> "DieSea" <DieSea.No...@nnttwlwoorrlldd.ccoomm> wrote in message
> news:4b240ef3$0$2539$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>> "Reith" <nos...@nospamhere.net> wrote in message
>> news:7oigj9F...@mid.individual.net...
>>> "Brian Reay" <s...@website.com> wrote in message
>>> news:otSUm.13700$jv5....@newsfe14.ams2...
> <snip>
>> There are others
>> One being run in Kendal by G3VVT
>> another in the west country
>> I gather both use Motorola kit
>>
>> DieSea
>>
> The future's bright, the future's Motorola MOTOTRBO surplus digital
Still proprietory codec, and therefore still not amateur radio.
Yeti
> "Spike" <Aero.Spike@S&T.invalid> wrote in message
> news:6cb9i51vi937vtg7e...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Brian Reay wrote:
>>
>>> However, I've no problem with
>>> those who want to use such a system doing so, if that is the way they
>>> wish
>>> to pursue amateur radio. I feel much the same re-several modes (ATV,
>>> SSTV,
>>> some of the digital modes, etc.)
>>
>> You could say much the same about CW,
>
> CW was digital.
What do you mean "WAS"...
Jimbo ...
David Woolley
> But unless those who advocate "open" digital modes do more than sit around
> moaning about the "closed ones", the latter will own the future.
A new open codec is a difficult project. Not only do you need someone
with fairly specialist skills to create it, but you also need to avoid
most techniques because they are already patented, unless you want a
codec that can only be used in Europe and only for pure software
implementations.
@uk.radio.amateur Van Ausfahrt
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI
Jimbo ...
...
Brian Reay
"David Woolley" <da...@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote in message
news:hg3fbj$3po$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
I fully appreciate the scale of the project and the problems associated with
it being "rolled out" on a scale to compete with DSTAR.
I can see a PC based CODEC "happening" and being quite popular but that
leaves the "stand alone" radio problem- which will require an implementation
on a DSP chip etc. That will need support circuitry and, of course, the
"radio bit". That leaves the "home brewer" with a near identical problem to
building a DSTAR radio, he needs to get and "host" the CODEC. He can do
that already with the AMBE part for under $20. Unless he was a "moral"
issue with buying and using the AMBE part, why would he adopt a new system
which is lagging the mainstream one?
I've no active interest in DSTAR myself, I'd not say I'd never use it but it
doesn't appeal one bit at the moment. I simply believe those who wish to use
DSTAR should not have to put up with the tirades of those open CODEC
"supporters" who are actually no more active supporters of the open CODEC
project than next door's dead cat.
Steve Terry
news:hg2rrl$qrt$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
and at least it breaks the Icom/RSGB monopoly
Jimbo ...
> project than next door's dead cat.
>
> 73
> Brian G8OSN/M3OSN
> www.m38osn.net
> Life is too short sit a silly morse test.
>
bet you poisoned it ......
David Woolley
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 22:52:25 -0000
> "Brian Reay" <s...@website.com> wrote:
>
>> Unless he was a "moral" issue with buying and using the AMBE part
>
> ought to be the sole determinant for amateur radio use.
>
> What other proprietary system so radio amateurs use? I can't think of
> one.
I was under the impression that one of the earlier multiple sub-carrier
HF digital modes was proprietary.
Generally though I don't like the idea of proprietary modes, especially
ones designed for the amateur market rather than those using converted
PMR equipment. It is basically applying commercial lock-in strategies
to a hobby that should be about self training, not just about operating,
but also about how the equipment works, at all levels, and should also
be a source of innovations that feed into the commercial world, rather
than just accepting commercial innovations.
However, most amateurs are black box, Windows using people, who may use
free software, but that software is closed source. Moreover amateur
radio is a business, and even the supply of components for home building
is a business.
I have a K2 and I have to accept that whilst I built it myself, and have
access to the circuit schematics, I have no access to the firmware and
control bus protocols. I think that even some RadCom designs have come
with closed firmware (this doesn't reflect RSGB editorial policy, one
way or the other, it just reflects what people prepared to submit
articles are prepared to do).
>
Spike
Brian Reay wrote:
>I can see a PC based CODEC "happening" and being quite popular but that
>leaves the "stand alone" radio problem- which will require an implementation
>on a DSP chip etc. That will need support circuitry and, of course, the
>"radio bit". That leaves the "home brewer" with a near identical problem to
>building a DSTAR radio, he needs to get and "host" the CODEC. He can do
>that already with the AMBE part for under $20. Unless he was a "moral"
>issue with buying and using the AMBE part, why would he adopt a new system
>which is lagging the mainstream one?
One of the factors in such support might be that the open-codec system
implies that user will have to make some effort to attain a working
system, by building their own kit.
This is in stark contrast to the closed-codec system of Icom, where
one hands over wads of dosh for an off-the-shelf solution.
One of the effects of this would be to act as a Foundation Licence
filter, as FLs can't build their own kit, and in the majority of cases
wouldn't have the knowledge or the skills to do so either.
The two systems could exist side-by-side, with the one group unable to
talk to the other and each could go their separate ways, much as now.
>I've no active interest in DSTAR myself, I'd not say I'd never use it but it
>doesn't appeal one bit at the moment. I simply believe those who wish to use
>DSTAR should not have to put up with the tirades of those open CODEC
>"supporters" who are actually no more active supporters of the open CODEC
>project than next door's dead cat.
I support the 'war on terror' (guffaw) by staying away from London. In
doing this I ease the burden of the various State apparati that
monitor, surveil, database, stop, and search the people in that city.
Support doesn't have to be active.
On the other hand, there is what is claimed to be support for
something that involves active intervention where none is needed, such
as promoting or saving the use of CW on the Amateur bands. Now that
isn't support either, as CW doesn't need it, but that hasn't stopped
the self-appointed from doing so.
--
from
Aero Spike
Not a member of the RSGB for 50 years 1959 - 2009
Len GM0ONX
What Icom/RSGB monopoly?
Yeti
> Unless he was a "moral"
> issue with buying and using the AMBE part,
That's EXACTLY the problem with the AMBE codec, and that's exactly why
D-Star is not amateur radio.
4CX250K
That's b class brian - no morals......
4CX250K
Yeti
By that token, I'd probably be better off trying to get my ex-Dolphin
TETRA gear onto 70cms.
Or how about building a transverter from 380MHz to 144MHz :P
Lordgnome
"Jimbo ..." <jim.g...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:hg3lqm$uaj$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> who gives a toss ?...not me...Dummy Stir has nothing to do with real radio
> ...
software in fact I spent the last 12 years of my career messing around with
just that.
Perhaps because of the above I have never felt the slightest desire to link
up any form of digital system to my radio kit. I get a good deal more
pleasure from fiddling about with old valve kit. If someone brings a rig to
me which is spatterd with surface mount devices, processors, etc. I ask them
to take it away.
Now playing with computers is a good hobby in it's own right and if anyone
wants to complicate the issue by reinventing various digital wheels, thats
fine. Frankly I would sooner watch paint dry.
Les.
mm0fmf
>
> Just what is it about the D-Star [TM] codec (not an acronym, it's an
> abbreviated portmanteau of encode/decode similar to "modem," so no
> capitalisation required) that's so special anyway? Is it that ASICs are
> readily available with the codec implemented in hardware and only that, or
> is there some form of innovation involved such as hitherto unavailable
> compression rates? What, pray tell, is wrong with plain old GSM AMR? If
> there's a codec in more widespread use with more readily available hardware
> I'm yet to hear of it.
Performance at low bit rates is what is so special. It provides
acceptable speech quality for a nominal 4800bps of which 2400bps is
speech data. FEC takes this to 3600bps leaving just under 1200bps for
slow user data when the headers etc. are included. i.e. that standard
scheme offered by D-Star radios is a voice channel and 1k2 data channel
at the same time. The compression method AMBE is patented by DVSI Inc.
DVSI will provide a software codec to system builders to check out
handset performance etc. at a price.
The chips are readily available being based on a mask programmed version
of a TI series DSP. Mine cost me about $27(US) inc postage. That
includes the patent licence fee. I would imagine Icom pays a fraction of
that for volume use.
ISTR the standard GSM data rate is 9600bps without FEC etc. but don't
quote me on that. Likewise, I'm sure there are other patent licences to
pay for too.
I'm not sure why some people bang on so much about D-Star when there are
other patent encumbered coding schemes used widely on the amateur bands
every day. Sure, it would be nice to use an open codec. But there isn't
one that works so well at such a low bit rate.
Andy
MM0FMF
Yeti
Yeah, works great for mobiles.... not.
Someone show me a case where a D-Star signal will get through where an
analogue one won't.
Then I might be the tiniest bit impressed.
Jimbo ...
> fine. Frankly I would sooner watch paint dry.
>
> Les.
>
Brian Reay
news:hg5qpv$fbl$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> mm0fmf wrote:
>
>> The chips are readily available being based on a mask programmed version
>> of a TI series DSP. Mine cost me about $27(US) inc postage. That
>> includes the patent licence fee. I would imagine Icom pays a fraction of
>> that for volume use.
>
> no minimum volume sounds "reasonable and non-discriminatory" to me.
My point exactly- at that price DVSI are hardly holding anyone to ransom.
>Not that
> I support the patent system as it stands, of course, particularly not the
> US
> version of it, but at least DVSI would seem to be trying to operate
> fairly.
Yep. And their product is there and not just "vapour ware".
Of course the other problem with an "open" CODEC is that if it is changed
willy-nilly without any sensible configuration control it will become
non-interoperable PDQ.
I wonder how many of the "armchair supporters" of the open CODEC have any
experience of software/firmware projects at this level of complexity. I
fancy none.
Plus the software is the "easy" bit for the end users (it will be
developed, tested, etc. by the likes of the VK) and the real issue for the
users will be the hardware. There is no reason to expect the hardware to
implement and interface the open CODEC will be any less complicated than
that required for the AMBE parts.
Several people have mentioned the Motorola system. That has become popular
in the US but they had surplus kit "on the market" around the same time that
DSTAR was launched. Here there is little (if any) surplus kit about and
DSTAR has its foot in the door. I don't believe the Motorola ex-PMR kit has
all the "bells and whistles" that the DSTAR radios do. As a result, they
have less "user appeal".
Brian Reay
"Yeti" <ye...@ayrshore.com> wrote in message
news:hg5fm1$5tm$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
So you develop a free CODEC and give it away. Nothing stopping you.
Yeti
> "Yeti" <ye...@ayrshore.com> wrote in message
> news:hg5fm1$5tm$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Brian Reay wrote:
>>> Unless he was a "moral"
>>> issue with buying and using the AMBE part,
>> That's EXACTLY the problem with the AMBE codec, and that's exactly why
>> D-Star is not amateur radio.
>
> So you develop a free CODEC and give it away. Nothing stopping you.
>
Unfortunately, I lack the expertise required to do so.
If I did, I would - but importantly, it would have to be proper Open source.
Even if DVSI gave away the AMBE chips, I still wouldn't consider them to
be 'Amateur' radio - they're just commerical hooks to make certain
manufacturers more profit.
Brian Reay
> Brian Reay wrote:
>> "Yeti" <ye...@ayrshore.com> wrote in message
>> news:hg5fm1$5tm$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Brian Reay wrote:
>>>> Unless he was a "moral"
>>>> issue with buying and using the AMBE part,
>>> That's EXACTLY the problem with the AMBE codec, and that's exactly why
>>> D-Star is not amateur radio.
>>
>> So you develop a free CODEC and give it away. Nothing stopping you.
>>
>
> Unfortunately, I lack the expertise required to do so.
Which is the point, you EXPECT those with the expertise to give away the
fruits of their labour. Not the emphasis on EXPECT. Many people do give away
the fruits of their labour to the benefit of the hobby but that is THEIR
choice and we should all be grateful to them.
> If I did, I would - but importantly, it would have to be proper Open
> source.
Easy to say. Why not fund the development and give away the product?
Spike
Brian Reay wrote:
>"Yeti" <ye...@ayrshore.com> wrote in message
>news:hg5u95$o7c$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Brian Reay wrote:
>>> "Yeti" <ye...@ayrshore.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hg5fm1$5tm$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> Brian Reay wrote:
>>>>> Unless he was a "moral"
>>>>> issue with buying and using the AMBE part,
>>>> That's EXACTLY the problem with the AMBE codec, and that's exactly why
>>>> D-Star is not amateur radio.
>>>
>>> So you develop a free CODEC and give it away. Nothing stopping you.
>>>
>>
>> Unfortunately, I lack the expertise required to do so.
>
>Which is the point, you EXPECT those with the expertise to give away the
>fruits of their labour.
amo, amas, amat.
>Not the emphasis on EXPECT.
Yeti EXPECTS nothing, one suspects, EXCEPT that should such a codec
turn up, he'll use it.
>Many people do give away
>the fruits of their labour to the benefit of the hobby but that is THEIR
>choice and we should all be grateful to them.
That would appear to have been Yeti's position all along.
>> If I did, I would - but importantly, it would have to be proper Open
>> source.
>
>Easy to say. Why not fund the development and give away the product?
Easy to say.
I think you need to look up the etymology of the word 'amateur'.
Oh! I've done it already. How amateurish of me.
Ben
> amo, amas, amat.
amamus, amatis, amant.
sorry, reflex reaction.
Ben
> The future's bright, the future's Motorola MOTOTRBO surplus digital
MOTOTRBO uses 12.5kHz channel spacing, utilising 2-slot TDMA for
repeaters, whereas NXDN (Icoms IDAS and Kenwood Nexedge) uses 6.25kHz
spacing. I would have thought the narrower channels would be more
appropriate for amateur use.
mm0fmf
>
> Yeah, works great for mobiles.... not.
>
> Someone show me a case where a D-Star signal will get through where an
> analogue one won't.
>
> Then I might be the tiniest bit impressed.
To be frank, I, and guess most people on here, are unlikely to give a
flying fuck whether you're impressed or not. I've merely stated why the
particular coding scheme was selected.
However, unlike you, I'm not young enough to know everything. So perhaps
you can pass on the benefit of your vast understanding and explain how
the fuck the voice coding scheme (which is what we're talking about) has
any bearing on the system performance in a mobile environment.
Brian Reay
news:9pvci51bla5tddlq1...@4ax.com...
> Easy to say.
>
> I think you need to look up the etymology of the word 'amateur'.
>
Yeti
> "Yeti" <ye...@ayrshore.com> wrote in message
>> If I did, I would - but importantly, it would have to be proper Open
>> source.
>
> Easy to say. Why not fund the development and give away the product?
>
Cos I'm skint.
Yeti
> explain how
> the fuck the voice coding scheme (which is what we're talking about) has
> any bearing on the system performance in a mobile environment.
>
>
Ask anyone who's tried to use D-Star while mobile. Mobile flutter seems
to cause serious problems with most digital radios - not just D-Star.
Brian Reay
> Brian Reay wrote:
>
>> Plus the software is the "easy" bit
>
> be a little more difficult, especially if, as with some (mentioning no
> names) open-source projects, the specification changes every ten minutes.
> You're never likely to get past risk wafers, let alone production silicon
> with that development model. As such, your codec isn't going to make it
> into
> commercial kit even if you can get a manufacturer interested.
>
I'm pretty sure there are "field programmable" parts about which could be
used but then you need the programming kit (and development environment if
you plan to change the code). That little lot will make $27 look a bargain.
Then, of course, the experimenter will need to understand DSP and we all
Know how challenging some find that ;-)
> All I can say after Andy's post is at least the silicon is available to
> constructors at reasonable rates. Given the state of patents at the
> moment,
> this is more than D-Star supporters could reasonably have expected. I'm
> pleasantly surprised at the attitude of DVSI and Ti.
Which is the point I've been making for sometime. I should warn you that the
wrath of the armchair open CODECers will descend on you now ;-)
Brian Reay
news:rKvVm.22689$eZ2....@newsfe10.ams2...
>
> However, unlike you, I'm not young enough to know everything. So perhaps
> you can pass on the benefit of your vast understanding and explain how the
> fuck the voice coding scheme (which is what we're talking about) has any
> bearing on the system performance in a mobile environment.
To be fare, if the CODEC is more resilient to "drop outs" then the coding
scheme will be "better" is this respect. However, the "openness" of the
CODEC has nothing to do with it.
The word on the street is that DSTAR isn't good under marginal conditions,
as you find when you've a relatively "sparse" repeater network (as we tend
to have in the UK).
I'm curious, can you tell us more about your project. It would be good to
hear from someone with first hand experience of building a homebrew DSTAR
radio.
Brian Reay
news:vh2di59fagh9h39ot...@4ax.com...
>
> That still doesn't throw any light on the question: Why do we need it,
> or anything like it, in the first place?
>
While I err to that view (in terms of my not really seeing the mode as one
I'm likely to use/enjoy), I accept that others will enjoy it and I've no
objection to them doing so. I've never seen the attraction of ATV, SSTV,
RTTY, etc. but others enjoy them and I wish them well.
Jimbo ...
>>
>
> I accept that others will enjoy it and I've no objection to them doing so.
your twun good buddies are fed up with it..........
Brian Reay
"Brian Morrison" <b...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote in message
news:20091214192...@peterson.fenrir.org.uk...
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:38:20 -0000
> "Brian Reay" <s...@website.com> wrote:
>
>> I wonder how many of the "armchair supporters" of the open CODEC have any
>> experience of software/firmware projects at this level of complexity. I
>> fancy none.
>
> Wrong I'm afraid, I work
You see yourself as an "armchair supporters" of the open CODEC then?
>for a company that does this sort of thing day
> in day out. I know how hard it is to make it work, and how much the
> limited resources applied to the development extend the time it takes
> to do it.
Have you actually been directly involved in such a project- rather than just
working in a company that does them?
> The guts that do this sort of DSP design work are paid a mint, and
> rightly so. The fact that someone who knows how and has a track record
> of successful projects is doing it in the free software world is
> amazing, but he clearly has a day job.
Quite true, no one (least of all me) is knocking the work of the VK.
Brian Reay
> Brian Morrison wrote:
>
>> I've never said otherwise, my problem with it is that an amateur cannot
>> see how it works, modify it and see what effect that has and so on. The
>> cost has never been the issue, what is for me is that the way it works
>> is not available for study.
>
> It would seem Bruce Perens agrees with you, Brian.
>
> http://codec2.org/
That page has been around for sometime. The "next steps" will be like
fossils in the sand if that page isn't updated soon.
mm0fmf
> That still doesn't throw any light on the question: Why do we need it,
> or anything like it, in the first place?
>
>
We don't Walt. There's no need for D-Star or PSK31 etc. There's no need
for any of us to have moved from an 807 based TPTG transmitter and an
HRO for RX to anything solid state. You can have just as much fun with a
vintage setup like that as the latest all singing and dancing setup.
There's no need for any of it.
D-Star and the like exists because in a capitalist system you're
buggered if you don't keep coming out with new stuff for people to spend
their hard-earned on. I only bought a D-Star handheld because I found
myself in Los Angeles with a big bag of bonus cash and was bored.
You know the kind of thing I do to earn a crust so you can understand
why I'd have a play with it. Do I intend to sit waffling through a
D-Star repeater internet linked to some dumbtard the other side of the
world? Not likely. I'd rather try and do it with RF directly. I've used
such internet linked nonsense to setup scheds with people and I've used
them when working abroad to talk to chums back home rather than racking
up huge phone bills. But it's hugely more fun to poke some RF into the
ether and see what happens.
Do we need D-Star? No. But it exists and it's out there so I'll have a
play with it whilst the Amsat wallahs get on with building some P3 type
birds with microwave transponders. After that, who knows, topband mobile
perhaps. But whatever seems like fun at the time.
mm0fmf
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:23:48 +0000
> mm0fmf <us...@example.net> wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure why some people bang on so much about D-Star when there are
>> other patent encumbered coding schemes used widely on the amateur bands
>> every day.
>
> Which are?
>
Pactor II/III
David
wrote:
>That still doesn't throw any light on the question: Why do we need it,
>or anything like it, in the first place?
That is part of the experimentation and self training.
Dave
David
> It doesn't mean that amateurs get everything ( or even anything) for free.
Neither does Open Source OM.
Brian Reay
news:bs6di5d4aepoteutf...@4ax.com...
The armchair open CODECers won't like that ;-)
Yeti
Is Amtor III not a closed and patented code?
Plus the codec for Digital Radio Mondiale - widely 'pirated' on the
amateur bands.
Spike
Brian Reay wrote:
>"Spike" <Aero.Spike@S&T.invalid> wrote in message
>news:9pvci51bla5tddlq1...@4ax.com...
> > Easy to say.
>>
>> I think you need to look up the etymology of the word 'amateur'.
>>
> It doesn't mean that amateurs get everything ( or even anything) for free.
Whoosh!
--
from
Aero Spike
Not a member of the RSGB for 50 years 1959 - 2009
Desmond Kinvig
"Yeti" <ye...@ayrshore.com> wrote in message
news:hg61hm$mon$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Brian Reay wrote:
>> "Yeti" <ye...@ayrshore.com> wrote in message
>
>>> If I did, I would - but importantly, it would have to be proper Open
>>> source.
>>
>> Easy to say. Why not fund the development and give away the product?
>>
>
> Cos I'm skint.
and not stupid ....
Brian Reay
"Spike" <Aero.Spike@S&T.invalid> wrote in message
news:aeadi554accme4h9b...@4ax.com...
>
> Brian Reay wrote:
>
>>"Spike" <Aero.Spike@S&T.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:9pvci51bla5tddlq1...@4ax.com...
>> > Easy to say.
>>>
>>> I think you need to look up the etymology of the word 'amateur'.
>>>
>> It doesn't mean that amateurs get everything ( or even anything) for
>> free.
>
> Whoosh!
Yes, I know these things go over your head.
Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:57:47 +0000
> Walt Davidson <g3...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> That still doesn't throw any light on the question: Why do we need it,
>> or anything like it, in the first place?
>
> SSB vs AM when radio amateurs were experimenting with it back in the
> 1950s? It's entirely accepted now of course, but back then it was new
> and different and no doubt some wondered why it was needed.
>
Even today there are some who seem to think we shouldn't use a mike at
all and should still pound a key.
--
;-)
..
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
..
http://turner-smith.co.uk
David
wrote:
>On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:07:26 +0000, David <nn...@benison.invalid>
>wrote:
>Where is the experimentation in buying a patented, proprietary system
>off-the shelf with a CODEC that cannot (legally) be altered or
>reverse-engineered?
>
>73 de G3NYY
I was referring to an open source codec. Perhaps a snip to far!
Dave
mm0fmf
> The difference is that SSB was demonstrably more efficient and
> effective as a shortwave communications mode than any modulation
> system previously used on the amateur bands.
>
> DStar is not. It simply introduces complexity for the sake of it.
> And as Andy has conceded, it is seen as a cash cow for the purveyors
> of off-the-shelf amateur radio equipment and their sponsors.
>
I think the fact that you can fit a voice and data stream into a 6.25kHz
channel shows that it's much more efficient than the analogue
equivalents with the bandwidth requirements. On top of that you can make
your own adapter for around �75 that will allow you to use almost all
the existing FM radios currently and recently on sale. That works with
any radio with a 9k6 data connection. So it's not terribly expensive
either. You don't need to pay an Icom tax.
Whether there's a need for more spectrum efficient modes on amateur
bands is a separate point. But efficient digital schemes are coming and
anyone who suggests using surplus commercial digital radios will find
DVSI's AMBE+ vocoder in NXDN equipment and DVSI's IMBE vocoder in P25
equipment. Both of which are as heavily encumbered with patents as AMBE!