... They shouldn't be allowed to sell them for use on the amateur bands.
Aren't secret codes illegal?
I didn't know that the transmission of one's callsign and GPS coordinates was illegal ...
And of course it isn't.
... it's not really amateur radio ...
It seems you do not like this mode of operation. But to demean it by tossing in hints of it being universally "illegal" is an irresponsible and immature tactic, IHMO.
Clint Bradford, K6LCS http://www.k6lcs.com
---------------------------------- Clint Bradford, K6LCS http://www.clintbradford.com
On Fri, 2011-04-22 at 12:29 -0700, Clint Bradford wrote:
... They shouldn't be allowed to sell them for use on the amateur bands.
Aren't secret codes illegal?
I didn't know that the transmission of one's callsign and GPS coordinates was illegal ...
And of course it isn't.
No, but transmission using secret codes is.
How, *exactly*, does DStar work? Be sure to include a full and accurate description of how each frame of audio is compressed...
Gordon MM0YEQ
At 06:06 AM 4/23/2011, Gordon JC Pearce wrote:
No, but transmission using secret codes is.
Assuming the purpose is to obscure the meaning of the message.
How, *exactly*, does DStar work? Be sure to include a full and accurate description of how each frame of audio is compressed...
No need to, there is a device readily available on the market that will decode the audio for you, complete with data sheets, so anyone with the relevant technical knowledge can build an AMBE decoder (and some have). The purpose of the audio coding is compression. While the algorithm is protected by patents, and the only economic way to license it is to buy a chip from DVSI, they are readily available, as is the documentation. And of course, if that's all too hard, you can simply go to your local ham store and buy a D-STAR radio (as can the authorities), or buy a DV dongle.
Your argument doesn't make sense, and I've clearly shown that the purpose of AMBE is not to "obscure the meaning of the message", but to facilitate communication, with means to decode it readily available off the shelf. I certainly don't need any encryption keys to decode D-STAR, just the right hardware. :)
73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL http://vkradio.com
On Sat, 2011-04-23 at 07:58 +1000, Tony Langdon wrote:
some have). The purpose of the audio coding is compression. While the algorithm is protected by patents, and the only economic way to license it is to buy a chip from DVSI, they are readily available, as is the documentation.
The chips are "readily available" at a few hundred dollars apiece, and if you attempt to implement your own AMBE codec then you're going to have DVSI's lawyers jumping on you.
Proprietary software has no place in Amateur Radio.
Gordon MM0YEQ
At 07:33 PM 4/23/2011, you wrote:
The chips are "readily available" at a few hundred dollars apiece, and if you attempt to implement your own AMBE codec then you're going to have DVSI's lawyers jumping on you.
More like $20 apiece in small (possible 1 off) quantities.
Proprietary software has no place in Amateur Radio.
It's hardware with firmware. So let's throw out all the other proprietary bits (processors with embedded code, etc) and go back to soldering valves?
The simple fact of the matter was back around 2000 when the D-STAR spec was developed, there weren't a lot of choices for how to compress speech into 2.4kbps and have FEC. AND have it available in a suitable form for implementation into mobile and handheld radios. While the proprietary codec is a minor inconvenience in some situations, it's proved to be no impediment to home brew enhancements to D-STAR. The number of ham developed D-STAR projects is significant, so that one chip hasn't proved to be an impediment to ham experimentation in practice.
73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL http://vkradio.com
On Sat, 2011-04-23 at 20:00 +1000, Tony Langdon wrote:
At 07:33 PM 4/23/2011, you wrote:
The chips are "readily available" at a few hundred dollars apiece, and if you attempt to implement your own AMBE codec then you're going to have DVSI's lawyers jumping on you.
More like $20 apiece in small (possible 1 off) quantities.
I'd love to know where you're seeing them for that much in onesy-twoesy quantities
Proprietary software has no place in Amateur Radio.
It's hardware with firmware. So let's throw out all the other proprietary bits (processors with embedded code, etc) and go back to soldering valves?
Yes, throw out the proprietary bits. Write your own, it's easy.
The simple fact of the matter was back around 2000 when the D-STAR spec was developed, there weren't a lot of choices for how to compress speech into 2.4kbps and have FEC. AND have it available in a suitable form for implementation into mobile and handheld radios. While the proprietary codec is a minor inconvenience in some situations, it's proved to be no impediment to home brew enhancements to D-STAR. The number of ham developed D-STAR projects is significant, so that one chip hasn't proved to be an impediment to ham experimentation in practice.
Yes, "back around 2000". It's over ten years old. We have better codecs and better modulation schemes now. Why are we crippling digital comms with a single-source proprietary codec that sounds like an angry duck in a tin outhouse?
The commercial world is no better - just look at DMR, which uses the same awful AMBE codec!
Gordon MM0YEQ
In the end, digital compression of spectrum space is going to happen more and more. AM style broadcast is hugely inefficient even though it is painfully simple to do. I don't really believe that D-Star is the right choice for "everything" because it is single source. But, so is Microsoft windows, MacOS-X, and many other software based systems. If you are an FPGA programmer, perhaps you can build an FPGA based CODEC for amateur radio that would do voice compression etc. But in the end, you also have to have an transmitter with the appropriate bandwidth output to reduce the spectrum used.
It's by no means a simple task. Everything in a radio system has to change to do spectrum conservation or provide high speed digital data transmission.
The simple fact is that HAM radio emission standards (simple voice modulated with some simple emission standard) are now more than a century old. As capable as they are, the abilities they present seem minimal to some. I think that there are great things about them because they do allow long distance communications which the HAM community regularly uses to support distant operations which provide aid to areas struck by natural disaster.
But, we all have to understand that it costs money to do anything "new and different". People experimenting with stuff is great, but it minimizes who can participate if you have to "build it" or "pay a lot". That's just life in general. You can't participate in everything unless you have the resources to do that.
In the US, any digital communications that is coded in some way only needs to have a publicly visible document detailing how it works for the FCC regulations to be met. Other places in the world may have different requirements and that's nothing new is it?
Gregg Wonderly W5GGW
On 4/23/2011 5:37 AM, Gordon JC Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 2011-04-23 at 20:00 +1000, Tony Langdon wrote:
At 07:33 PM 4/23/2011, you wrote:
The chips are "readily available" at a few hundred dollars apiece, and if you attempt to implement your own AMBE codec then you're going to have DVSI's lawyers jumping on you.
More like $20 apiece in small (possible 1 off) quantities.
I'd love to know where you're seeing them for that much in onesy-twoesy quantities
Proprietary software has no place in Amateur Radio.
It's hardware with firmware. So let's throw out all the other proprietary bits (processors with embedded code, etc) and go back to soldering valves?
Yes, throw out the proprietary bits. Write your own, it's easy.
The simple fact of the matter was back around 2000 when the D-STAR spec was developed, there weren't a lot of choices for how to compress speech into 2.4kbps and have FEC. AND have it available in a suitable form for implementation into mobile and handheld radios. While the proprietary codec is a minor inconvenience in some situations, it's proved to be no impediment to home brew enhancements to D-STAR. The number of ham developed D-STAR projects is significant, so that one chip hasn't proved to be an impediment to ham experimentation in practice.
Yes, "back around 2000". It's over ten years old. We have better codecs and better modulation schemes now. Why are we crippling digital comms with a single-source proprietary codec that sounds like an angry duck in a tin outhouse?
The commercial world is no better - just look at DMR, which uses the same awful AMBE codec!
Gordon MM0YEQ
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
On Sat, 2011-04-23 at 10:42 -0500, Gregg Wonderly wrote:
In the end, digital compression of spectrum space is going to happen more and more. AM style broadcast is hugely inefficient even though it is painfully
Okay, but *why*? Why are we so obsessed with squeezing bandwidth down and down, at the expense of intelligibility?
I've got my spectrum analyser hooked up to my 2m aerial at the moment. For the past half hour it has indicated the odd little spike at 144.800MHz indicating a little bit of (weak) APRS traffic, a big spike at the output of GB3CS (because it's line-of-sight), a couple of slightly smaller spikes from the other two local repeaters (PA and KE) and a bump where FE, FF and AY are supposed to be (they're quite weak here).
Other than about 300kHz of repeater outputs and 25kHz of packet, the rest of the 2m band is *empty*.
If I switch it to scan 70cm, I'll see GB3KV (co-sited with CS) and nothing else, except the odd satellite up around 435MHz and a brief burst when my heating oil tank gauge decides to tell me I need to buy more oil.
I could safely use channels 250kHz wide on 70cm, if I had a mind to do so. It wouldn't get in anyone's way, because there's no-one there to annoy. This is even more true of 23cm, and higher. We've got loads of space to play with, on all the bands except 30m and 60m which have their own kind of charm.
simple to do. I don't really believe that D-Star is the right choice for "everything" because it is single source. But, so is Microsoft windows, MacOS-X, and many other software based systems. If you are an FPGA programmer, perhaps you can build an FPGA based CODEC for amateur radio that would do voice compression etc. But in the end, you also have to have an transmitter with the appropriate bandwidth output to reduce the spectrum used.
This is where D-Star falls down - it's *still* just a 12.5kHz-wide channel. Without getting into linear PAs and the like, it's going to be quite hard to do anything else and have a useful data rate.
As for FPGAs, why not just use a cheap general-purpose DSP or even CPU? That's what people tend to end up implementing on the FPGA anyway.
Gordon MM0YEQ
At 04:42 AM 4/24/2011, Gordon JC Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 2011-04-23 at 10:42 -0500, Gregg Wonderly wrote:
In the end, digital compression of spectrum space is going to
happen more and
more. AM style broadcast is hugely inefficient even though it is
painfully
Okay, but *why*? Why are we so obsessed with squeezing bandwidth down and down, at the expense of intelligibility?
I find D-STAR more intelligible than a significant proportion of FM transmissions. And why are we obsessed with reducing bandwidth? 2 reasons:
1. It's economics, bandwidth is expensive in the commercial world, and in the ham world, some countries are suffering congestion.
2. Reducing the amount of information to be transmitted means more range (Shannon's Law). And don't we all want a bit more range in the ham world?
I've got my spectrum analyser hooked up to my 2m aerial at the moment. For the past half hour it has indicated the odd little spike at 144.800MHz indicating a little bit of (weak) APRS traffic, a big spike at the output of GB3CS (because it's line-of-sight), a couple of slightly smaller spikes from the other two local repeaters (PA and KE) and a bump where FE, FF and AY are supposed to be (they're quite weak here).
Well, everyone's in a different situation. I have had days in Melbourne where it's hard to find a free 2m simplex frequency. I'm certain in the US there's places where 2m is congested. Sure, where I am now, 2m is fairly quite, but I'm outside the big cities, and separated from Melbourne by a mountain range. With only a few dozen hams in the area, bandwidth usage isn't a high priority issue, but that's not going to stop me playing with narrowband voice modes.
This is where D-Star falls down - it's *still* just a 12.5kHz-wide channel. Without getting into linear PAs and the like, it's going to be quite hard to do anything else and have a useful data rate.
We do have linear PAs available on VHF and UHF... We could always do FDMDV on 70cm to really save bandwidth. ;)
73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL http://vkradio.com
On 4/23/2011 2:42 PM, Gordon JC Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 2011-04-23 at 10:42 -0500, Gregg Wonderly wrote:
In the end, digital compression of spectrum space is going to happen more and more. AM style broadcast is hugely inefficient even though it is painfully
Okay, but *why*? Why are we so obsessed with squeezing bandwidth down and down, at the expense of intelligibility?
You unfortunately provided data on why we should get ahead of crunching down bandwidth: Because sooner or later, we're going to get squeezed for bandwidth due to our spectrum being fairly empty and everyone and their brother wanting to push IP to their new wireless toaster service.
I'm not a fan of proprietary codecs but our lack of an alternative back in the 2000s caused D-STAR to be used with AMBE. Too bad, so sad. Don't support it, probably not going to use it. My worry is that even though we provided a alternative with Codec2, what cutting edge technology that will be here five years from now are we not developing because we were playing catch up?
So as every followup seems to have detailed, there is an increase in desired bandwidth with a direct need in required spectrum. If we can reduce spectrum, we increase distance the signal can transit. If we increase bandwidth for a particular size spectrum, we improve the amount of information we send.
The problems with current voice compression being understood have to do with remedial compression techniques based on available compute power. I suggested FPGA because of exactly this issue. Sure, people pick the easy route because they can buy those solutions and get into the marketplace faster. What needs to happen is the "Apple" thing. We need a company that actually cares enough about the quality of what it can ship, worries about power requirements and optimizes performance to create a truly awesome voice CODEC standard.
The cell phone market keeps trying to optimize the bandwidth needs to increase their spectrum's available capacity.
We are frustrated by the attributes of AM-VSB television characteristics vs ATSC coded VSB television. Because, the minimal available information transitions to no available information in a very short distance and signal level change. Thus we can't hear the TV at least. Either we get everything, or we get nothing.
This is where we are at with digital emission standards at this point. It's not the perfect solution because we are not sending enough information to recreate a perfect version of the original audio sample, for audio stuff. But, we are able to use the complete 12.5khz that D-Star is using (down from 20khz wide band FM is at now, and less than half of the old 30khz stuff that the old mobile phone radios were using). That 12.5khz has 2 channels in it. One for voice an done for data. So more information is bandwidth is available.
This is one of those experimentation moments. Not everyone is happy with where it is at, but without some more participation, those experimenting now will be the ones setting the standards, and if you are not happy with those results, it will be your fault not theirs, because you chose not to participate.
Gregg Wonderly W5GGW
On 4/25/2011 6:10 AM, Ben Jackson wrote:
On 4/23/2011 2:42 PM, Gordon JC Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 2011-04-23 at 10:42 -0500, Gregg Wonderly wrote:
In the end, digital compression of spectrum space is going to happen more and more. AM style broadcast is hugely inefficient even though it is painfully
Okay, but *why*? Why are we so obsessed with squeezing bandwidth down and down, at the expense of intelligibility?
You unfortunately provided data on why we should get ahead of crunching down bandwidth: Because sooner or later, we're going to get squeezed for bandwidth due to our spectrum being fairly empty and everyone and their brother wanting to push IP to their new wireless toaster service.
I'm not a fan of proprietary codecs but our lack of an alternative back in the 2000s caused D-STAR to be used with AMBE. Too bad, so sad. Don't support it, probably not going to use it. My worry is that even though we provided a alternative with Codec2, what cutting edge technology that will be here five years from now are we not developing because we were playing catch up?
On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 09:00 -0500, Gregg Wonderly wrote:
This is one of those experimentation moments. Not everyone is happy with where it is at, but without some more participation, those experimenting now will be the ones setting the standards, and if you are not happy with those results, it will be your fault not theirs, because you chose not to participate.
I'd like to point out that it's difficult, at best, to participate when you can't "roll your own". There are many codecs available out there today that don't require purchasing a license to use. The biggest problem right now is that D-Star isn't backward compatible or you could implement one of those freely-licensed codecs now and let people design their own implementation.
Packet radio, however, is a good example of an open project. AX25 is the basis for packet radio and since the specification was released it allowed anyone to design and develop their own software and hardware systems. Take a subset of that project, APRS, and you'll see this even more. How many software clients are out there that use the APRS specification as a means to communicate with other APRS users? Kenwood, Byonics, and Yaesu, among others, have all made hardware devices utilizing the APRS and AX25 open specifications and more will come.
Open is better and until all the pieces are freely available you won't catch one of these devices on my side.
--Eric W4OTN
At 11:33 AM 4/28/2011, you wrote:
I'd like to point out that it's difficult, at best, to participate when you can't "roll your own". There are many codecs available out there today that don't require purchasing a license to use. The biggest problem right now is that D-Star isn't backward compatible or you could implement one of those freely-licensed codecs now and let people design their own implementation.
Tell that to the likes of G4KLX, KI4LKF, the ircDDB team, PA4YBR, the designers and builders of various GMSK modems, and even AA4RC and Moe, who designed the DV Dongle hardware (not to mention those who are building their own Dongles). Sure, the codec is proprietary, but there are implementations available, from a bare chip (at around $20) to the DV Dongle for people to play with. And there's a LOT of tinkering to be done without even decoding the audio, as many of the above people can attest to first hand. As far as I'm concerned, this argument is a furphy. There are open source implementations for just about everything else - gateways, repeaters, GMSK modem (using a soundcard), routing advertisements (ircDDB), everything except DPlus (though there is an open source functional equivalent - DExtra).
73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL http://vkradio.com
One of the ways to look at the voice codec is as a "capacitor", "amplifier" or some other component of you circuit design. Sure, it's single source, but if you are careful about how you put it in, you can provide a switched circuit, daughter board or some other path to alternative codecs. It just depends on what your real desire is, and how complicated you want to make your system. I.e; if you are worried about designing a system with a single source codec, don't design it that way.
Sure we have open systems, but we also have single source systems, like windows. Many many people are content with saying, if it doesn't run on windows, I'm not interested in it because that's all they've ever used. Or, even worse, I'm not supporting anything but windows because I don't know how to do that on Linux, or Mac or B-OS or... Look at what is happening with Apple. Every quarter they are reporting explosive growth in Mac sales (2x from same period a year ago for this past quarter) and other items. That is completely single source stuff, but you can run windows or linux on a mac. People are finding value in the package they see and are switching horses so to speak.
Everywhere in life we get to make choices, measure the good vs bad with our own skills and experiences etc. In the end, our choices and experiences are controlled if not limited by any decision we make.
Don't think about this from the single vendor perspective. Think about this from the "what can I do with this technology" perspective that is that heart of HAM radio experimentation.
Clearly ICOM is now understanding that if you can't access a repeater with digital data services, then paying 2x the cost of an analog rig of the same caliber just doesn't make sense to most people. Also, as this discussion has illustrated, some of us have no interest in the whole of digital coded data and voice.
Gregg Wonderly
On 4/27/2011 9:33 PM, Tony Langdon wrote:
At 11:33 AM 4/28/2011, you wrote:
I'd like to point out that it's difficult, at best, to participate when you can't "roll your own". There are many codecs available out there today that don't require purchasing a license to use. The biggest problem right now is that D-Star isn't backward compatible or you could implement one of those freely-licensed codecs now and let people design their own implementation.
Tell that to the likes of G4KLX, KI4LKF, the ircDDB team, PA4YBR, the designers and builders of various GMSK modems, and even AA4RC and Moe, who designed the DV Dongle hardware (not to mention those who are building their own Dongles). Sure, the codec is proprietary, but there are implementations available, from a bare chip (at around $20) to the DV Dongle for people to play with. And there's a LOT of tinkering to be done without even decoding the audio, as many of the above people can attest to first hand. As far as I'm concerned, this argument is a furphy. There are open source implementations for just about everything else - gateways, repeaters, GMSK modem (using a soundcard), routing advertisements (ircDDB), everything except DPlus (though there is an open source functional equivalent - DExtra).
73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL http://vkradio.com
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Hi Greg, Sorry to say this, but your analogy to "just another component" is plain wrong. The vocoder cannot be replaced by another generic component as far as I can ascertain. I cant' even find the algorithms that would allow me to program a DSPIC or fpga at home in my meager lab to perform any of the functions in the codec. If they are available (I have searched the US patent office records and came up with nothing of substance) please point me to the information that I could use to produce my own version for "one off, private use, that a competent artisan could make" from the patent office application. Taken from your own patent office's requirements for a patent to be granted. I'm certainly not against using modern technology in ham radio, but if it is to be used, all aspects of the technology should be on public display, so any one "could": 1: Understand how the technology worked 2: Attempt to build something or code something that would enable them to communicate using the technique. 3: Advance the "art" by understanding and may be even using the latest techniques. I have no problems with the use of "digital" systems on the ham bands, I use FLDIGI for receiving all sorts of signals, and have modified the open source code (waterfall) for a totally different interest. I could do this because the information was freely available. On another, probably more contentious, issue that you raised you mentioned that of operating systems! and choices. As you so correctly pointed out most people don't care, and probably wouldn't even know what system was giving them their internet access or email or poetry writing ability or photo sharing or.....
Isn't ham radio a little different? Are we not interested in the nuances of the closed source versus open source systems that we may choose to use? I certainly know where my interest is, and it is most certainly not in closed source systems. Want to know a recent reason why closed source software is a REALLY,REALLY bad idea? Try Googling Stuxnet and then follow the leads from there. Really scary, if you live in a country that uses an internet based control system...USA,GB, France, Italy, Germany,etc Open source, or at least scrutiny would have identified the stupidity of global passwords and non changing access passwords!
Another point that you inferred (and I could be wrong here) that we should accept and use commercial systems (DSTAR?) because they are available and are being pushed (hard) by one....ONE ONLY... manufacturer , well I don't subscribe to that mindset. I fully understand that JARL instigated this system for their own reasons, but I fail to see why the rest of the world should be captive to a system that has to use closed source components to function. Which is where we started I think. Cheers and (open source wishes!)
Don ZL1THO.
On 4/29/2011 3:23 AM, don wrote:
Hi Greg, Sorry to say this, but your analogy to "just another component" is plain wrong. The vocoder cannot be replaced by another generic component as far as I can ascertain. I cant' even find the algorithms that would allow me to program a DSPIC or fpga at home in my meager lab to perform any of the functions in the codec.
I am not suggesting that you create your own version of that codec Don. I am suggesting that you can put this codec into a design to make it work with D-Star now. Later, if another codec becomes popular, if you've done the design right, you could plug in another codec that would change the form of the coded data and recognize that form for decoding and presto, you swap in the new codec and you don't have to worry about being dependent on D-Star. In a sense, this is exactly the thing that the FM-USB-LSB-Digital knob does on your existing multi-mode rig.
You just have to think about D-Star as a mode, and not as a "rig" or a "standard" and move on to experimenting with what you can master instead of only what you can "make".
Gregg Wonderly W5GGW
OK, time to upgrade is finally here. What's the best choice for 3rd party apps on these with a focus on ham stuff? I do sats and wx mainly
Tell that to the likes of G4KLX, KI4LKF, the ircDDB team, PA4YBR, the designers and builders of various GMSK modems, and even AA4RC and Moe, who designed the DV Dongle hardware...
The real thing that would explode D-star onto the world stage would be if they implemented an A-STAR gateway into the D-STAR system. That is a means to gateway to existing analog users with existing radios. Then everyone everywhere could participate in callsign-to-callsign voice contact just like D-star.
The A-Star gateway does this. It uses the built-in (APRS) digital signaling in any of the 8 current models of Kenwood and Yaesu APRS radios to provide the seamless interface. The APRS radios can be configured to send out their CALLSIGN with each release of PTT, thus giving the automatic callsign identification (Like Dstar). Further, APRS radio users can signal who they want to talk to by simply entering an APRS message to the intended callsign target.
This way, the A-STAR gateway provides the same end-user-to-end-user-by callsign VOICE calling as Dstar. On the D-star side of the gatway, all the A-STAR gateways look like just another D-star repeater. But on the Analog side of the A-STAR gateway, it looks like a normal Analog repeater. BUT, the analog repeater is listening for the PTT burst with the callsign ID's. And the A-star gateway interprets incoming callsign message requests as requests for a voice link and sets it up as if it was a D-star system.
See how. www.aprs.org/avrs.html
This is all part of the Automatic Voice Relay Network concept that ties together all linked voice systems into a universal-by-callsign VOIP system. It is where APRS has been headed since 2001. And it is why all the recent radios from Kenwood and Yaesu can include their operating frequency in their ID packet and why they can also QSY to a commanded frequency on an incoming message with the press of a single button.
We just need someone to write the A-star gateway software into the D-star network.
Bob, WB4APR
At 06:38 AM 4/29/2011, Bob Bruninga wrote:
Tell that to the likes of G4KLX, KI4LKF, the ircDDB team, PA4YBR, the designers and builders of various GMSK modems, and even AA4RC and Moe, who designed the DV Dongle hardware...
The real thing that would explode D-star onto the world stage would be if they implemented an A-STAR gateway into the D-STAR system. That is a means to gateway to existing analog users with existing radios. Then everyone everywhere could participate in callsign-to-callsign voice contact just like D-star.
Bob, you're going to get a LOT of resistance to this from the D-STAR community. The idea has merit, and APRS could provide a data channel for passing routing information. Unfortunately, there's a lot of "purists" out there in the D-STAR world. You might get more traction for the idea by going to the ircDDB community, where there's a higher proportion of experimenters. Your A-STAR gateway would likely need to be registered with ircDDB (USTRUST/K5TIT certainly wouldn't register it), so it would look like a D-STAR gateway to the network. The more I think about it, the more I think there's something in this.
The A-Star gateway does this. It uses the built-in (APRS) digital signaling in any of the 8 current models of Kenwood and Yaesu APRS radios to provide the seamless interface. The APRS radios can be configured to send out their CALLSIGN with each release of PTT, thus giving the automatic callsign identification (Like Dstar). Further, APRS radio users can signal who they want to talk to by simply entering an APRS message to the intended callsign target.
Can the message be sent on every key down? i.e. store the message and then program the radio to repeat the same message every time you hit PTT? This is what would be needed to use D-STAR's callsign routing. I noticed there's quite a few APRS capable radios out there now. I was almost tempted to buy one, but that came after knowing I have to watch the budget for the time being. It's on the wish list.
This is all part of the Automatic Voice Relay Network concept that ties together all linked voice systems into a universal-by-callsign VOIP system. It is where APRS has been headed since 2001. And it is why all the recent radios from Kenwood and Yaesu can include their operating frequency in their ID packet and why they can also QSY to a commanded frequency on an incoming message with the press of a single button.
Unfortunately, in Australia, we will have to keep D-STAR (and any A-STAR gateways would be considered as part of D-STAR for this purpose) separate to IRLP and Echolink, because bridging the two would lead to a very high risk of licence breaches, due to how our regulations work, combined with the bands that the IRLP and Echolink systems are on (A-STAR gateways would be advertised as such and CTCSS access to avoid accidental access by Foundation calls and the legal implications thereof).
We just need someone to write the A-star gateway software into the D-star network.
I suggest you ask around the ircDDB community, as that's where the software development and home brew gateway efforts are centred, because there's much more room for experimentation there than on K5TIT. The idea is interesting and certainly has merit.
73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL http://vkradio.com
O/OREOS Nanosat Project - Richard Quinn (SETI Talks) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TE5vZf7w3ec
73 Trevor M5AKA
On 04/27/2011 09:33 PM, Eric Christensen wrote:
On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 09:00 -0500, Gregg Wonderly wrote:
This is one of those experimentation moments. Not everyone is happy with where it is at, but without some more participation, those experimenting now will be the ones setting the standards, and if you are not happy with those results, it will be your fault not theirs, because you chose not to participate.
I'd like to point out that it's difficult, at best, to participate when you can't "roll your own".
See, while I don't like AMBE, that's a bunch of shenanigans. You can roll your own stuff with D-STAR:
http://www.gmskhotspot.com/ http://www.w9arp.com/hotspot/ http://www.d-star.asia/index.html.en
Packet radio, however, is a good example of an open project. AX25 is the basis for packet radio and since the specification was released it allowed anyone to design and develop their own software and hardware systems. Take a subset of that project, APRS, and you'll see this even more. How many software clients are out there that use the APRS specification as a means to communicate with other APRS users? Kenwood, Byonics, and Yaesu, among others, have all made hardware devices utilizing the APRS and AX25 open specifications and more will come.
D-STAR *is* an open protocol. D-STAR Audio, however, has a codec that is encumbered by patents, I'm not touching AMBE, but I enjoy the idea of a digital data mode developed within the past decade. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
At 01:42 AM 4/24/2011, Gregg Wonderly wrote:
In the end, digital compression of spectrum space is going to happen more and more. AM style broadcast is hugely inefficient even though it is painfully simple to do. I don't really believe that D-Star is the right choice for "everything" because it is single source. But, so is Microsoft windows,
There's no "one size fits all. D-STAR has its place, and being the new kid on the block, it's open to a lot of tinkering.
MacOS-X, and many other software based systems. If you are an FPGA programmer, perhaps you can build an FPGA based CODEC for amateur radio that would do voice compression etc. But in the end, you also have to have an transmitter with the appropriate bandwidth output to reduce the spectrum used.
Well, maybe one day someone will package something like Codec2 into a chip. That will be a good day for ham radio, BUT it'll never make D-STAR. Why? Because it's not in the spec and will break the existing installed hardware base. However, the future is likely to consist of "multimode" radios, which can handle multiple codecs and protocols, and which will be capable of having a yet unknown cocecs installed in the field. Also, eventually the DVSI patent will run out, just like the patent for SSB did many years ago.
The simple fact is that HAM radio emission standards (simple voice modulated with some simple emission standard) are now more than a century old. As
Not quite. CW certainly is, AM is around the century mark, I think SSB is a little over 80 years old from its first conception, and FM is 75 years old. :)
capable as they are, the abilities they present seem minimal to some. I think that there are great things about them because they do allow long distance communications which the HAM community regularly uses to support distant operations which provide aid to areas struck by natural disaster.
I think this is one area where ham radio will be increasingly important. Alongside the newer modes, it can also be a living "museum" where older modes can live on. The only mode that hasn't survived is spark gap Morse, because it's so spectrally inefficient it became illegal. So ham radio, while it still does advance the art also preserves the art as well, and both are important functions to me. If something happened that required falling back to older analog modes, there's a pool of experienced operators on hand, who know he quirks that the commercial world will forget.
But, we all have to understand that it costs money to do anything "new and different". People experimenting with stuff is great, but it minimizes who can participate if you have to "build it" or "pay a lot". That's just life in general. You can't participate in everything unless you have the resources to do that.
And there's experimentation. I don't have the background and resources to play at a low hardware or software level, but at a higher level, equivalent to "mashups" on the Internet I have played and still do.
In the US, any digital communications that is coded in some way only needs to have a publicly visible document detailing how it works for the FCC regulations to be met. Other places in the world may have different requirements and that's nothing new is it?
Requirements here are much the same as the US, somewhat more liberal when it comes to modulation and coding. Basically there are two things that matter. (1) Not to exceed the maximum necessary bandwidth (D-STAR fits on all bands except 2200m), and (2) The coding must not be for the purpose of "obscuring the meaning of the message". D-STAR certainly fits, because radios are readily available, and they don't need encryption keys.
73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL http://vkradio.com
Tony, How it happened in the HDTV world is the transmitting stations pay huge royalties for the IP. You do not see any CH3 adapters for HDTV. Separate royalties are required for video and sound and no provisions, for Amateur Radio experimentation using HDTV has been made.
Amateur Radio is a DIY, learn by doing hobby that also provide services to the public. We have no revenue stream to pay for equipment royalties.
D-Star Codec royalties are with in reach ($22.00 for a codec) and it is an open protocol. It has multipath and synchronization problems. Amateurs are currently experimenting with D-Star HB modem/controllers and radio equipment. As with D-Star home brewing will need to transition from individual to group efforts for new projects.
Satellites will play an increasing role in digital communications as multipath can be dealt with effectively using circular polarization and directive antennas. Most digital systems are not very multipath friendly.
Amateur Radio weak Signal work and contesting most likely will remain with the basic modulation systems. High Power density digital modulation signals do not work well when there are weak or multiple signals present.
The AM aircraft band is still with us. The digital world still has not given us a reliable system to allow for the hearing of a beat telling the A/C controller there is a weak station present as well as copy the stronger signal without asking the stronger signal for a repeat.
Art, KC6UQH -----Original Message----- From: amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org] On Behalf Of Tony Langdon Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2011 2:33 PM To: Gregg Wonderly; Gordon JC Pearce Cc: amsat-bb@amsat.org Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Icom D-Star
At 01:42 AM 4/24/2011, Gregg Wonderly wrote:
In the end, digital compression of spectrum space is going to happen more
and
more. AM style broadcast is hugely inefficient even though it is painfully simple to do. I don't really believe that D-Star is the right choice for "everything" because it is single source. But, so is Microsoft windows,
There's no "one size fits all. D-STAR has its place, and being the new kid on the block, it's open to a lot of tinkering.
MacOS-X, and many other software based systems. If you are an FPGA programmer, perhaps you can build an FPGA based CODEC for amateur radio that would do voice compression etc. But in the end, you also have to have an transmitter with the appropriate bandwidth output to reduce the spectrum used.
Well, maybe one day someone will package something like Codec2 into a chip. That will be a good day for ham radio, BUT it'll never make D-STAR. Why? Because it's not in the spec and will break the existing installed hardware base. However, the future is likely to consist of "multimode" radios, which can handle multiple codecs and protocols, and which will be capable of having a yet unknown cocecs installed in the field. Also, eventually the DVSI patent will run out, just like the patent for SSB did many years ago.
The simple fact is that HAM radio emission standards (simple voice
modulated
with some simple emission standard) are now more than a century old. As
Not quite. CW certainly is, AM is around the century mark, I think SSB is a little over 80 years old from its first conception, and FM is 75 years old. :)
capable as they are, the abilities they present seem minimal to some. I think that there are great things about them because they do allow long distance communications which the HAM community regularly uses to support distant operations which provide aid to areas struck by natural disaster.
I think this is one area where ham radio will be increasingly important. Alongside the newer modes, it can also be a living "museum" where older modes can live on. The only mode that hasn't survived is spark gap Morse, because it's so spectrally inefficient it became illegal. So ham radio, while it still does advance the art also preserves the art as well, and both are important functions to me. If something happened that required falling back to older analog modes, there's a pool of experienced operators on hand, who know he quirks that the commercial world will forget.
But, we all have to understand that it costs money to do anything "new and different". People experimenting with stuff is great, but it minimizes who can participate if you have to "build it" or "pay a lot". That's just life in general. You can't participate in everything unless you have the resources to do that.
And there's experimentation. I don't have the background and resources to play at a low hardware or software level, but at a higher level, equivalent to "mashups" on the Internet I have played and still do.
In the US, any digital communications that is coded in some way only needs
to
have a publicly visible document detailing how it works for the FCC regulations to be met. Other places in the world may have different requirements and that's nothing new is it?
Requirements here are much the same as the US, somewhat more liberal when it comes to modulation and coding. Basically there are two things that matter. (1) Not to exceed the maximum necessary bandwidth (D-STAR fits on all bands except 2200m), and (2) The coding must not be for the purpose of "obscuring the meaning of the message". D-STAR certainly fits, because radios are readily available, and they don't need encryption keys.
73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL http://vkradio.com
_______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6065 (20110423) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6065 (20110423) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6066 (20110423) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6067 (20110424) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6067 (20110424) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
Never heard of WSJT?
Amateurs who are serious about weak signal work have been using that for years, for both terrestrial communications, and moonbounce on VHF and above.
And it's also being used quite often now on HF. 10 meters is good example. When propagation doesn't allow for SSB, you'll find signals on 28.076.
Those signals won't appear on a scanner, HT or spectrum analyser; but chances are that someone is using the band(s).
73 de Sebastian, W4AS
On Apr 24, 2011, at 2:01 PM, Art McBride wrote:
Amateur Radio weak Signal work and contesting most likely will remain with the basic modulation systems. High Power density digital modulation signals do not work well when there are weak or multiple signals present.
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 02:36:37PM -0400, Sebastian wrote:
Never heard of WSJT?
Never heard of it.
- 73 Diane VA3DB
At 11:18 AM 4/24/2011, Diane Bruce wrote:
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 02:36:37PM -0400, Sebastian wrote:
Never heard of WSJT?
Never heard of it.
- 73 Diane VA3DB
--
Diane,
I'm surprised as involved in mw as you are.
Here is a link to the software: http://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/
Joe Taylor, K1JT, was a professor (now emeritus) at Princeton and a Noble Laureate for his work with Pulsars.
He first wrote FSK-441 as a digital mode for meteor scatter which has essentially replaced high speed CW as the primary mode on ms. Then he developed a weak-signal program for eme about 2002 (it is nearing ten years). The group of programs was bundled into a suite called WSJT (weak-signal JT). The prime mode for 2m eme is now JT-65; CW has been largely replaced. JT-65 uses noise reduction algorithms taken from the Reed-Solomon sw that is used for NR on DVD's. JT-65 is a very narrow band digital mode occupying only 4.7 Hz, thus it demonstrates SNR > 10 dB over CW. It is a synchronous digital mode so it requires precise timing and frequency. Most users use internet sw to maintain their computer time <1 sec error.
One offshoot is the propagation beacon sw, WSPR "whisper", which is very popular on HF for determining band conditions. Many stations only run 1w or less with the sw. http://wsprnet.org/drupal/
Maybe you have heard of these programs but not under the name of the bundled suite (WSJT).
73, Ed - KL7UW, WD2XSH/45 ====================================== BP40IQ 500 KHz - 10-GHz www.kl7uw.com EME: 50-1.1kW?, 144-1.4kw, 432-100w, 1296-testing*, 3400-? DUBUS Magazine USA Rep dubususa@hotmail.com ======================================
----- Original Message ----- From: "Edward R. Cole" kl7uw@acsalaska.net To: "Diane Bruce" db@db.net Cc: "amsat-bb" amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2011 9:49 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Icom D-Star
The prime mode for 2m eme is now JT-65; CW has been largely replaced.
73, Ed - KL7UW, WD2XSH/45
Hi Ed, KL7UW
I am anxious about that because even on EME very soon nobody will be able to use by hand a CW key and copy Morse Code by ears.
I am sorry because I like very much the CW sound in my ears.
CW is like music for me and after to eliminate the Radio Officers over the ships we radio hams we actually should be the last frontier for the CW existence.
73" de
i8CVS Domenico
At 07:43 AM 4/25/2011, i8cvs wrote:
I am anxious about that because even on EME very soon nobody will be able to use by hand a CW key and copy Morse Code by ears.
I don't think Morse is in any danger. I've seen an increase in interest since the compulsory Morse exams were dropped in this part of the world, particularly among younger people. I think it would be a shame to see Morse go, and there's a real opportunity for those who are proficient to show the newcomers the joys and elegant simplicity of CW. I don't think you'll have a shortage of students, now that Morse is both optional and something only in history outside of amateur radio.
I am sorry because I like very much the CW sound in my ears.
CW is like music for me and after to eliminate the Radio Officers over the ships we radio hams we actually should be the last frontier for the CW existence.
You can keep the torch burning. Unfortunately, I haven't had the chance to get to a level I'd be comfortable using on air, that might be a project for later in life, when there's less distractions, since I find the idea of Morse very attractive also. It's a pity the old exams emphasised slow speeds, I'd have done better had I learned at more "useful" speeds. :/
73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL http://vkradio.com
At 01:43 PM 4/24/2011, i8cvs wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Edward R. Cole" kl7uw@acsalaska.net To: "Diane Bruce" db@db.net Cc: "amsat-bb" amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2011 9:49 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Icom D-Star
The prime mode for 2m eme is now JT-65; CW has been largely replaced.
73, Ed - KL7UW, WD2XSH/45
Hi Ed, KL7UW
I am anxious about that because even on EME very soon nobody will be able to use by hand a CW key and copy Morse Code by ears.
I am sorry because I like very much the CW sound in my ears.
CW is like music for me and after to eliminate the Radio Officers over the ships we radio hams we actually should be the last frontier for the CW existence.
73" de
i8CVS Domenico
You can still do eme on CW, just it will take a bigger antenna array and 1000w to be heard. JT-65 enables a station with a couple 10 element yagis or one longer yagi and 150w the ability to do eme on 2m. That is a huge attraction.
One takes about $5,000 and the other $500-800. You see the 10-dB advantage applies to the cost as well! ;-)
CW is still prevalent on eme at 1296 and above. I still hear plenty of CW around 14.020. It is the main mode used on LF and MW. but digital modes are demonstrating they are superior in weak-signal as well as emcomm.
WSPR on 10-MHz has been copied at 120 microwatts.
73, Ed - KL7UW, WD2XSH/45 ====================================== BP40IQ 500 KHz - 10-GHz www.kl7uw.com EME: 50-1.1kW?, 144-1.4kw, 432-100w, 1296-testing*, 3400-? DUBUS Magazine USA Rep dubususa@hotmail.com ======================================
participants (16)
-
Art McBride -
Ben Jackson -
Bob Bruninga -
Clint Bradford -
Diane Bruce -
don -
Edward R. Cole -
Eric Christensen -
Floyd Rodgers -
Gordon JC Pearce -
Gregg Wonderly -
Gregg Wonderly -
i8cvs -
Sebastian -
Tony Langdon -
Trevor .