Date   
Re: No 2m but still an APRS igate?

Joshua Mesilane <josh@...>
 

Hi John,

Thanks for the quick reply.

To avoid this getting too big I'll snip out the bits I'd like to add further comment/clarification to.

The reality is that every modern piece of equipment has some proprietary intellectual property, and when someone manufacturers a product there is always a trade-off between cost and delivery.  It is often less expensive to buy parts than to make them, and when you buy parts you have to live within the terms of the purchase/license.  For example, to support many Digital Voice protocols you must use a proprietary Vocoder (this isn't just a D-STAR requirement, it applies to all current major Digital Voice protocols).  NWDR will offer a daughter card with a chip that does that, but can't reverse engineer and provide open source for intellectual property they do not own.

Sometimes you have to sign  restrictive agreements just to buy parts from some manufacturers.  This will be a barrier to sharing some low level details.

Competely understand. I deploy and manage servers that exist predominantly in an open-source environment, however I know that some aspects of the various systems employed do need to interconnect with other proprietary systems which often also means proprietary licensing. I guess the open source and open hardware was more targeted at the design, build etc of the device as much as you can without breaching any existing proprietary licensing arrangements.

If however this is going to be a truly 100% proprietary hardware build (where none or little of the hardware design details are released), then that does take some of the excitement out of the product for me. That's not to say that the product is not without merit (And also not that I won't buy one) but the concept of an open-hardware platform (or even semi-open) as well as software to suit one's needs I think is really exciting. If this is only an open software platform then it does take a little of the excitement out of it. To me, that's kind of like saying "Here, we have this fantastic new radio bolted to a Linux PC - you're allowed to design software to run on the PC, but you're locked in to our API to the radio, and you're not allowed to play with the physical hardware". I know that my description is greatly simplified but isn't playing with hardware what HAMs do? Isn't it what we've been doing for years? Why should the open-ness stop at the software? I will re-iterate however that does not mean that I don't like the product, and also does not mean that i wouldn't buy one.
 

I won't comment on specific product plans (there are identified product concepts which will be worked on after the initial UDR is ready), but if this product sells well, that will motivate and help fund future products.  The basic design is such that the engineering to place the UDR is pretty straight forward for a few VHF/UHF bands.

So essentially at this stage, no. The RF side of the unit will be proprietary and closed, and we're locked in to when expansions are released by/for UDR however you may be suggesting that you're not entirely locking yourself in to 70cm, and that we should watch this space.
 
 
> Is there any hope for an RS-232 port?

The design for the UDR56K4 is 1 Ethernet and 4 USB ports. 

So that's an outright no?
 

I have experienced this in other projects.  This is usually due to ingress via RF on cables.  Using good shielding, quality cables with ferrite chokes on both ends, and good grounding will often mitigate the problem.

But this isn't also entirely unique to RF on cables. Things like Ignition spikes on the DC from the power supply in a car are inevitable and can be for the most part mitigated but do still exist. One can try to mitigate the noise/RF as much as possible however it's going to be a inevitability. I really think that not adding an RS-232 port is somewhat limiting the potential marker for the product. You really do have a wide market outside of HAM radio (and potentially a much wider market than HAM operators) if you can get your RF board certified, but the addition of an RS-232 port would be a requirement.
 


Cables can be minimized or eliminated using certain form factors for the device,  another option is Bluetooth. (E.g. a bluetooth GPS or Audio device with a micro-adapter (no cable).

I think you may have misunderstood what i was suggesting. It was more in relation to USB being unstable in mobile environments and resetting. Something that happens on USB and even moreso on bluetooth (even in stable environments). What I'm perhaps suggesting is that in a mobile environment what happenes if your aprs daemon loses connectivity to the gps? Will your daemon just hang or will it close and re-open the serial port. What happens if the USB device resets and creates a new serial port on the machine? I know these are more software issues, but they all essentially come down to the absense of a serial port.

Perhaps I'm harping on about RS232, but the thing is it's a reliable proven technology, and with so many HAMs out there already having RS232 gear, I think it's a HUGE omission. Particular considering that so many Auto Tuners, TNCs, and even other radios that you might interface with this radio often have inbuilt RS232 (Or TTL, which can be boosted with a MAX232) and to then have to rely on an unknown quantity - an USB - Serial adaptor (FWIW - I had a good quality known USB Serial adaptor blow up and take the Level converter in my TNC for my IGate about three weeks ago, so it DOES happen) when the addition of a RS232 port on the device would seem to make the device more flexible, and marketable.

Interesting to hear your thoughts. As I said, I do think that this in a fantastic product, and keep in mind this is only my opinion - nothing more.

Cheers,
Josh

--
VK3XJM
0416039082
josh@...
http://www.zindello.com.au/

Re: Codec2

Perry Chamberlain <canoeman@...>
 

Excellent, you have to love the ingenuity of hams crowd sourcing. I was under the impression the two were not compatible. Great to know this can be overcome.

Ke6anm

Respectfully

Perry Chamberlain


On May 22, 2012, at 4:37 PM, "David Lake (dlake)" <dlake@...> wrote:

 

CODEC 2 is currently missing any FEC, and will not operate down at the required bit-rate to be usable in D-Star.  It’s getting there, but I think it has a way to go so don’t expect a swap-out any time soon.

 

Now, the Yaesu offer (currently) is a dPMR-based FDMA system.   But it does look like they will be going to a DMR TDMA system in the future.

 

dPMR and DMR both use AMBE2+ - not compatible directly with AMBE2 in D-Star, but DVSI have (very cheap) chips that can do both modes.  And of course you can transcode between them, either in software if someone is willing to pay DVSI $,000s for the SDK, or in hardware if $20 is more in your budget.

 

So, what we need (as I proposed at Dayton) is an Open Amateur Trunking protocol that can transport all these different codecs, and then allow people to transcode between them.

 

Yes, you will be locked into D-Star for a while, but I don’t see why that should be a barrier to talking to someone on, say, a DMR-based system. 

 

David

 

From: UniversalDigitalRadio@... [mailto:UniversalDigitalRadio@...] On Behalf Of Perry Chamberlain
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 5:16 PM
To: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
Subject: Re: [UniversalDigitalRadio] Codec2

 




Although this is something that should have been done ten years ago, and is cool amateur radio engineering, the hundreds, and hundreds  of thousands of dollars that has been spent on the AMBE CODEC EMBEDED equipment, is a massive barrier to this ever changing  the Dstar system. And why yaesu, has decided to come out with yet another digital mode, is baffling.

( just a note, I own 6 yeasu radios, so I am a yaesu fan)

But, thats what amateur radio is all about. But it would be nice if we could choose a common codec.

I'm financially entrenched in Icom  D-star now, so I'm locked in.

 

 

Respectfully

 

Perry Chamberlain

 


On May 22, 2012, at 9:17 AM, "nikropht" <nikropht@...> wrote:

 

I wanted to let this group know about the progress on Codec2. Codec2 is a fully open source DV codec being developed as a replacement for AMBE2000 see http://www.codec2.org/ for details.

-Mike
KD5QLN




Modifying the Design

"John D. Hays" <john@...>
 

Josh,

Keeping this short :)

1. The radio side has a very small part count and very high integration.  For the most part, moving to another band has to do with some discrete components and the PA module.  I'm sure some enterprising person will figure out "unsupported" mods.  This radio expects logic level digital in and out, we aren't taking things to audio level at all, the analog in it is at the antenna :)  The computer side and radio side are separable if one wanted to really dig into building something to replace the radio.

2. It may be possible to "hack" in a serial interface if a user really feels the need.  But remember there is no need for any external TNC, etc. except in special circumstances -- one can add them, but the radio does most functions internally.  One of the goals is to keep it an attractive price, so we try to minimize the extra add-ons that turn it into a duckbill platypus.

Thanks for your input, enthusiasm, and support. I welcome suggestions and they will be taken into consideration, however we do have an aggressive goal and at this point in time, I'm inclined to work toward delivery of the product we have presented.

One of our principles is to listen to the user community and to be as responsive and open as possible, with the caveat that some of our team members still have "day jobs" and other obligations :) 

I would rather be open about what we are or can do, than to promise everything and deliver little of it.



John D. Hays
K7VE
PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223 
  



On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Joshua Mesilane <josh@...> wrote:
 

Hi John,

Thanks for the quick reply.

To avoid this getting too big I'll snip out the bits I'd like to add further comment/clarification to.

...
Interesting to hear your thoughts. As I said, I do think that this in a fantastic product, and keep in mind this is only my opinion - nothing more.

Cheers,
Josh

Re: Modifying the Design

Joshua Mesilane <josh@...>
 

Hi John,

Thanks for taking what I said on board, I was worried I may have been a little aggressive and offended you/your team. People don't really like it when you pick on their products saying "what if this" or "what if that" so it's good to see that my feedback hasn't been taken the wrong way.

Once the unit is ready to release to public I'm sure we'll discuss more. I'll be one of those people that falls into the "unsupported mods" category so perhaps there is an opportunity for future development there. I do hope in the future though that the hardware can be opened up for development and experimentation by the community with the support of the parent company.

Completely understand minimum viable product, and I think you should be commended on even getting this far. So often really good products get stumped before they make it to market.

Do you have a delivery expectation for Australia as yet?

Cheers,
Josh



On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 12:43 PM, John D. Hays <john@...> wrote:
 

Josh,


Keeping this short :)

1. The radio side has a very small part count and very high integration.  For the most part, moving to another band has to do with some discrete components and the PA module.  I'm sure some enterprising person will figure out "unsupported" mods.  This radio expects logic level digital in and out, we aren't taking things to audio level at all, the analog in it is at the antenna :)  The computer side and radio side are separable if one wanted to really dig into building something to replace the radio.

2. It may be possible to "hack" in a serial interface if a user really feels the need.  But remember there is no need for any external TNC, etc. except in special circumstances -- one can add them, but the radio does most functions internally.  One of the goals is to keep it an attractive price, so we try to minimize the extra add-ons that turn it into a duckbill platypus.

Thanks for your input, enthusiasm, and support. I welcome suggestions and they will be taken into consideration, however we do have an aggressive goal and at this point in time, I'm inclined to work toward delivery of the product we have presented.

One of our principles is to listen to the user community and to be as responsive and open as possible, with the caveat that some of our team members still have "day jobs" and other obligations :) 

I would rather be open about what we are or can do, than to promise everything and deliver little of it.



John D. Hays
K7VE
PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223 
  



On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Joshua Mesilane <josh@...> wrote:
 

Hi John,

Thanks for the quick reply.

To avoid this getting too big I'll snip out the bits I'd like to add further comment/clarification to.

...
Interesting to hear your thoughts. As I said, I do think that this in a fantastic product, and keep in mind this is only my opinion - nothing more.

Cheers,
Josh




Re: Codec2

"David Lake (dlake)" <dlake@...>
 

"What concerns me more is the (political) resistance to allowing
interoperability/gateways between systems."

Now....

Article 1.56 of the ITU Radio Regulations define amateur service as "A
Radiocommunication service for the purpose of self-training,
intercommunications and technical investigations carried out by
amateurs, that is by duly authorized persons interested in radio
technique solely with a personal aim and without pecuniary interest."

That sounds pretty clear to me. Intercommunication, technical
investigations, no pecuniary interest.

BTW, you have not mentioned Motorola. So far, they are the worst
offender and they have bite. Icom are trying to be open and so far,
things have gone pretty well with them (especially Icom US). It's early
days for Yaesu.

Hardware is only half the battle - software and protocols are needed to
interconnect the hardware. Both parts are important, and that is what I
hope this group manages to achieve.

David

-----Original Message-----
From: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
[mailto:UniversalDigitalRadio@...] On Behalf Of
dnolder@...m
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 7:52 PM
To: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
Subject: [UniversalDigitalRadio] Re: Codec2

"this is something that should have been done ten years ago"

QFT

Unfortunately it wasn't, and that the biggest issue I have with the
development of D-Star. Having said that, Amateur Radio is already a
splintered hobby with many niches, so it's nothing new.

What concerns me more is the (political) resistance to allowing
interoperability/gateways between systems. The transcoding, gateways and
transports themselves are all relatively minor feats in comparison. All
it takes is "someone" saying they won't allow gating from IRLP to
Echolink, Echolink to D-Star, or P25 to whatever, and a segment becomes
isolated. We're our own worst enemy and we'll pay for it in real
dollars.

I don't want to have to take three HT with me when I leave the house, or
have a rack of three mobile rigs in the car. I also don't want my
investment in D-Star to become worthless.

The Icom/Yaesu situation is a classic. Can you imagine a CW/AM/SSB/FM
transceiver that would only work with another transceiver of the same
brand? That's effectively what we're talking about.

I really think hardware is the key. An extensible, fully open, software
defined, HT, mobile and base with enough processing power on-board to
handle whatever is required, even if it has to have an AMBE chip sitting
to the side for backwards compatibility. Give the developers the
platform and let them have at it.

Icom is the incumbent with the monopoly. Yeasu has played the FUD card
with their "Digital Vision" document and the subsequent presentation of
their solution at Dayton. We'll be the ones that pay if we play the
game.

--- In UniversalDigitalRadio@..., Perry Chamberlain
<canoeman@...> wrote:

Although this is something that should have been done ten years ago,
and is cool amateur radio engineering, the hundreds, and hundreds of
thousands of dollars that has been spent on the AMBE CODEC EMBEDED
equipment, is a massive barrier to this ever changing the Dstar system.
And why yaesu, has decided to come out with yet another digital mode, is
baffling.
( just a note, I own 6 yeasu radios, so I am a yaesu fan) But, thats
what amateur radio is all about. But it would be nice if we could
choose a common codec.
I'm financially entrenched in Icom D-star now, so I'm locked in.



Respectfully

Perry Chamberlain

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

AW: Modifying the Design

"siegfried jackstien" <siegfried.jackstien@...>
 

Now build that for vhf and uhf bands all in one box and we are in business

144, 440 1230 ... and maybe higher?!?

Dg9bfc

Sigi

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
[mailto:UniversalDigitalRadio@...] Im Auftrag von John D. Hays
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 23. Mai 2012 02:43
An: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
Betreff: [UniversalDigitalRadio] Modifying the Design



Josh,

Keeping this short :)

1. The radio side has a very small part count and very high integration.
For the most part, moving to another band has to do with some discrete
components and the PA module. I'm sure some enterprising person will
figure out "unsupported" mods. This radio expects logic level digital in
and out, we aren't taking things to audio level at all, the analog in it
is at the antenna :) The computer side and radio side are separable if
one wanted to really dig into building something to replace the radio.

2. It may be possible to "hack" in a serial interface if a user really
feels the need. But remember there is no need for any external TNC, etc.
except in special circumstances -- one can add them, but the radio does
most functions internally. One of the goals is to keep it an attractive
price, so we try to minimize the extra add-ons that turn it into a
duckbill platypus.

Thanks for your input, enthusiasm, and support. I welcome suggestions and
they will be taken into consideration, however we do have an aggressive
goal and at this point in time, I'm inclined to work toward delivery of
the product we have presented.

One of our principles is to listen to the user community and to be as
responsive and open as possible, with the caveat that some of our team
members still have "day jobs" and other obligations :)

I would rather be open about what we are or can do, than to promise
everything and deliver little of it.


________________________________

John D. Hays
K7VE
PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223
<http://k7ve.org/blog> <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays>
<http://www.facebook.com/john.d.hays>



On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Joshua Mesilane <josh@....au>
wrote:





Hi John,

Thanks for the quick reply.

To avoid this getting too big I'll snip out the bits I'd like to add
further comment/clarification to.



...

Interesting to hear your thoughts. As I said, I do think that this
in a fantastic product, and keep in mind this is only my opinion - nothing
more.

Cheers,
Josh



Re: Heard on the street

"Tony Langdon, VK3JED" <vk3jed@...>
 

At 03:55 AM 5/23/2012, you wrote:


Not just as a development environment; The stability of Linux makes it ideal for consumer grade products as well, which is why so many consumer grade products (like phones and TVs and routers and firewalls and... etc) use it.
Unless you're in the know, you'd be surprised where Linux pops up. It's a solid workhorse platform, which is extremely versatile.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: No 2m but still an APRS igate?

"Tony Langdon, VK3JED" <vk3jed@...>
 

At 04:29 AM 5/23/2012, you wrote:

Here's the good news though. Â If you have a
current igate on 2m, you can replace the
computer with a UDR56K, attach a USB-to-Serial
cable  to the TNC and radio to continue to
service the 144.39 net, while offering 9600 baud
or better APRS on the UDR56K's 70cm radio. Â
Then you would have a dual band igate with less
power requirement (by loosing the computer) and
a much smaller package. Â Attach a diplexer and
dual band antenna and you are ready to go.
Now this is a neat idea!

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: Codec2

"Tony Langdon, VK3JED" <vk3jed@...>
 

At 09:37 AM 5/23/2012, you wrote:


CODEC 2 is currently missing any FEC, and will
not operate down at the required bit-rate to be
usable in D-Star. It’s getting there, but I
think it has a way to go so don’t expect a swap-out any time soon.
In time, I'm sure Codec2 will get there.


Now, the Yaesu offer (currently) is a dPMR-based
FDMA system.  But it does look like they will
be going to a DMR TDMA system in the future.
I'm not sold on TDMA myself. That comes from
living in a land known for its wide open spaces,
and a past history of working VHF/UHF
openings. What are the timing (and effective range limitations) of DMR TDMA?


dPMR and DMR both use AMBE2+ - not compatible
directly with AMBE2 in D-Star, but DVSI have
(very cheap) chips that can do both modes. And
of course you can transcode between them, either
in software if someone is willing to pay DVSI
$,000s for the SDK, or in hardware if $20 is more in your budget.

So, what we need (as I proposed at Dayton) is an Open Amateur Trunking protocol that can
transport all these different codecs, and then
allow people to transcode between them.
Agree totally. It would be nice to be able to
say "I want to communicate with..." and let the
network figure out what network and mode that
destination is on, and how the two should be
connected (callsign route? link? via a
reflector or transcoding conference server?).


Yes, you will be locked into D-Star for a while,
but I don’t see why that should be a barrier
to talking to someone on, say, a DMR-based system.Â
From my experience with EchoIRLP, if you find a
way to make the different systems accessible to end users in a single place, in a convenient way, they'll love you for it. :)

The "internetworking protocol" (not to be
confused with IP ;) ) should be open, flexible
and extensible. Almost the subject of a group in its own right! :)

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: Codec2

"Tony Langdon, VK3JED" <vk3jed@...>
 

At 11:51 AM 5/23/2012, you wrote:
"this is something that should have been done ten years ago"

QFT

Unfortunately it wasn't, and that the biggest issue I have with the development of D-Star. Having said that, Amateur Radio is already a splintered hobby with many niches, so it's nothing new.
D-STAR was developed a long time ago, technology has moved on since, also.


What concerns me more is the (political) resistance to allowing interoperability/gateways between systems. The transcoding, gateways and transports themselves are all relatively minor feats in comparison. All it takes is "someone" saying they won't allow gating from IRLP to Echolink, Echolink to D-Star, or P25 to whatever, and a segment becomes isolated. We're our own worst enemy and we'll pay for it in real dollars.
Agree totally. To me, the ultimate aim is to have a


I don't want to have to take three HT with me when I leave the house, or have a rack of three mobile rigs in the car. I also don't want my investment in D-Star to become worthless.
I had the same issue back in 2002, when I was running IRLP and Echolink on a single antenna, which meant that two of the 3 ports on my triplexer were taken up with links! As I was the main user, there had to be a better way. I wasn't the only one who thought this, and a few people put their heads together and came up with EchoIRLP, which allowed the same analog endpoint to be used for both networks. With digital, there's no common medium until you get to the end user radio itself, so you either need a multiprotocol radio, or you need infrastructure which can route across networks (and willing network administrators!). At least with digital, it should be possible to transparently carry IDs from end to end, leaving only the need to cross from network to network, and transcoding the audio where necessary.

If the gateways can be built out of something like the UDR, then that could push the protocol conversion as close to the edge of the network as possible, which might scale better, as well as minimising issues of "We don't want XXX on our network!".

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: Modifying the Design

"Howard Small" <howard@...>
 

And still going to be under USD400????

 

Let’s just get this one on the market and then worry about bigger and better (?) models.

 

Howard

VK4BS

 

From: UniversalDigitalRadio@... [mailto:UniversalDigitalRadio@...] On Behalf Of siegfried jackstien
Sent: Wednesday, 23 May 2012 19:14
To: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
Subject: AW: [UniversalDigitalRadio] Modifying the Design

 

 

Now build that for vhf and uhf bands all in one box and we are in business

144, 440 1230 ... and maybe higher?!?

Dg9bfc

Sigi

Re: Codec2

Tim Hardy AF1G <hardyt@...>
 

I'm not opposed to linking different protocols, but there is value in some of the objections to linking specific networks. If the objections or concerns can be mitigated, then fewer people would resist.

The most often heard objection to linking FM systems to D-Star seems to be that D-Star users don't want all the white noise from a weak FM station digitized and retransmitted on D-Star, and I agree with this objection. Find a way to limit the retransmission of FM signals onto the D-Star network to only good, mostly full-quieting signals and you will probably overcome these objections.

Echolink and IRLP were a match because they both use the same mode, FM.

Linking one type of digital system to another won't have this specific problem, so I don't see why we couldn't develop this option as long as protocols in each system are satisfied. For example, D-Star sends the callsign of the transmitting station through the network. Make this happen from the non-D-Star system and the D-Star network would probably be satisfied. Otherwise, there will continue to be objections.

Tim, AF1G

---- "Tony Langdon wrote:

=============
At 11:51 AM 5/23/2012, you wrote:
"this is something that should have been done ten years ago"

QFT

Unfortunately it wasn't, and that the biggest issue I have with the
development of D-Star. Having said that, Amateur Radio is already a
splintered hobby with many niches, so it's nothing new.
D-STAR was developed a long time ago, technology has moved on since, also.


What concerns me more is the (political) resistance to allowing
interoperability/gateways between systems. The transcoding, gateways
and transports themselves are all relatively minor feats in
comparison. All it takes is "someone" saying they won't allow gating
from IRLP to Echolink, Echolink to D-Star, or P25 to whatever, and a
segment becomes isolated. We're our own worst enemy and we'll pay
for it in real dollars.
Agree totally. To me, the ultimate aim is to have a


I don't want to have to take three HT with me when I leave the
house, or have a rack of three mobile rigs in the car. I also don't
want my investment in D-Star to become worthless.
I had the same issue back in 2002, when I was running IRLP and
Echolink on a single antenna, which meant that two of the 3 ports on
my triplexer were taken up with links! As I was the main user, there
had to be a better way. I wasn't the only one who thought this, and
a few people put their heads together and came up with EchoIRLP,
which allowed the same analog endpoint to be used for both
networks. With digital, there's no common medium until you get to
the end user radio itself, so you either need a multiprotocol radio,
or you need infrastructure which can route across networks (and
willing network administrators!). At least with digital, it should
be possible to transparently carry IDs from end to end, leaving only
the need to cross from network to network, and transcoding the audio
where necessary.

If the gateways can be built out of something like the UDR, then that
could push the protocol conversion as close to the edge of the
network as possible, which might scale better, as well as minimising
issues of "We don't want XXX on our network!".

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: No 2m but still an APRS igate?

Sander Pool <sander_pool@...>
 


I was actually thinking of using a soundmodem to add a second TNC to my D710. The intent was to run Winlink 2000 on one and APRS on the other, from the same laptop. The radio does the -plexing. I could also do the gating between 2m and 70cm APRS in the same way.

Well, that's the theory anyway :)

I've been running igate W1SOP-3 on 445.925 for a while now but haven't received anything but my own test packets from a D72. I think in this area a dedicated 70cm igate is not the best investment of resources yet. Maybe in time.

73,

    Sander W1SOP

On 5/23/2012 5:25 AM, Tony Langdon, VK3JED wrote:
 

At 04:29 AM 5/23/2012, you wrote:

>Here's the good news though. Â If you have a
>current igate on 2m, you can replace the
>computer with a UDR56K, attach a USB-to-Serial
>cable  to the TNC and radio to continue to
>service the 144.39 net, while offering 9600 baud
>or better APRS on the UDR56K's 70cm radio. Â
>Then you would have a dual band igate with less
>power requirement (by loosing the computer) and
>a much smaller package. Â Attach a diplexer and
>dual band antenna and you are ready to go.

Now this is a neat idea!

Re: Codec2

"David Lake (dlake)" <dlake@...>
 

So the main benefit of TDMA is being able to double repeater capacity in one RF slot. That's one antenna, one duplexer, one site rental. Certainly in the UK where we pay commercial rates for tower access and there is no free spectrum, it's a big deal.

David

Sent from my iPhone

On 23 May 2012, at 04:20, "Tony Langdon, VK3JED" <@vk3jed> wrote:

At 09:37 AM 5/23/2012, you wrote:


CODEC 2 is currently missing any FEC, and will
not operate down at the required bit-rate to be
usable in D-Star. It’s getting there, but I
think it has a way to go so don’t expect a swap-out any time soon.
In time, I'm sure Codec2 will get there.


Now, the Yaesu offer (currently) is a dPMR-based
FDMA system.  But it does look like they will
be going to a DMR TDMA system in the future.
I'm not sold on TDMA myself. That comes from
living in a land known for its wide open spaces,
and a past history of working VHF/UHF
openings. What are the timing (and effective range limitations) of DMR TDMA?


dPMR and DMR both use AMBE2+ - not compatible
directly with AMBE2 in D-Star, but DVSI have
(very cheap) chips that can do both modes. And
of course you can transcode between them, either
in software if someone is willing to pay DVSI
$,000s for the SDK, or in hardware if $20 is more in your budget.

So, what we need (as I proposed at Dayton) is an
Open Amateur Trunking protocol that can
transport all these different codecs, and then
allow people to transcode between them.
Agree totally. It would be nice to be able to
say "I want to communicate with..." and let the
network figure out what network and mode that
destination is on, and how the two should be
connected (callsign route? link? via a
reflector or transcoding conference server?).


Yes, you will be locked into D-Star for a while,
but I don’t see why that should be a barrier
to talking to someone on, say, a DMR-based system.Â
From my experience with EchoIRLP, if you find a
way to make the different systems accessible to
end users in a single place, in a convenient way, they'll love you for it. :)

The "internetworking protocol" (not to be
confused with IP ;) ) should be open, flexible
and extensible. Almost the subject of a group in its own right! :)

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links


Re: Codec2

Tyrell Berry <kd7kuj@...>
 

When dealing with music, I consider myself an audiophile.  When I buy a CD, I rip it to my home server in the FLAC format; No, I don't carry loss less audio around on my portable devices...  But I like AAC when my player supports it, and MP3 when it doesn't.  My primary concern with storing my primary source in either lossy format is that if I convert between the two, it's going to lose MORE data/quality with each conversion...  Lossy on top of lossy is bad.

The same is true of these vocoders...  They are all lossy formats... And at such low band widths, they don't leave much left over to be lost again.  My point is this: A transcoder between any two formats that use different vocoders will significantly degrade the audio quality...  Maybe it will still be legible, but I doubt it will be a pleasant experience. 

In light of that, going from one digital mode to another may or may not be considered worse than going from FM to digital, depending on the real world performance of that double (or potentially triple in a poorly optimized network) lossy conversion.

On May 23, 2012 9:32 AM, "Tim Hardy AF1G" <hardyt@...g> wrote:
 

I'm not opposed to linking different protocols, but there is value in some of the objections to linking specific networks. If the objections or concerns can be mitigated, then fewer people would resist.

The most often heard objection to linking FM systems to D-Star seems to be that D-Star users don't want all the white noise from a weak FM station digitized and retransmitted on D-Star, and I agree with this objection. Find a way to limit the retransmission of FM signals onto the D-Star network to only good, mostly full-quieting signals and you will probably overcome these objections.

Echolink and IRLP were a match because they both use the same mode, FM.

Linking one type of digital system to another won't have this specific problem, so I don't see why we couldn't develop this option as long as protocols in each system are satisfied. For example, D-Star sends the callsign of the transmitting station through the network. Make this happen from the non-D-Star system and the D-Star network would probably be satisfied. Otherwise, there will continue to be objections.

Tim, AF1G

---- "Tony Langdon wrote:

=============
At 11:51 AM 5/23/2012, you wrote:
>"this is something that should have been done ten years ago"
>
>QFT
>
>Unfortunately it wasn't, and that the biggest issue I have with the
>development of D-Star. Having said that, Amateur Radio is already a
>splintered hobby with many niches, so it's nothing new.

D-STAR was developed a long time ago, technology has moved on since, also.

>What concerns me more is the (political) resistance to allowing
>interoperability/gateways between systems. The transcoding, gateways
>and transports themselves are all relatively minor feats in
>comparison. All it takes is "someone" saying they won't allow gating
>from IRLP to Echolink, Echolink to D-Star, or P25 to whatever, and a
>segment becomes isolated. We're our own worst enemy and we'll pay
>for it in real dollars.

Agree totally. To me, the ultimate aim is to have a

>I don't want to have to take three HT with me when I leave the
>house, or have a rack of three mobile rigs in the car. I also don't
>want my investment in D-Star to become worthless.

I had the same issue back in 2002, when I was running IRLP and
Echolink on a single antenna, which meant that two of the 3 ports on
my triplexer were taken up with links! As I was the main user, there
had to be a better way. I wasn't the only one who thought this, and
a few people put their heads together and came up with EchoIRLP,
which allowed the same analog endpoint to be used for both
networks. With digital, there's no common medium until you get to
the end user radio itself, so you either need a multiprotocol radio,
or you need infrastructure which can route across networks (and
willing network administrators!). At least with digital, it should
be possible to transparently carry IDs from end to end, leaving only
the need to cross from network to network, and transcoding the audio
where necessary.

If the gateways can be built out of something like the UDR, then that
could push the protocol conversion as close to the edge of the
network as possible, which might scale better, as well as minimising
issues of "We don't want XXX on our network!".

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: Codec2

"Curt, WE7U" <curt.we7u@...>
 

On Wed, 23 May 2012, Tyrell Berry wrote:

A transcoder between any two formats that use different
vocoders will significantly degrade the audio quality... Maybe it will
still be legible, but I doubt it will be a pleasant experience.
Witness, in order of decreasing quality, conversations from:

*) Analog phone -> analog phone
*) Analog phone -> cell-phone
*) cell-phone -> cell-phone, same technology
*) cell-phone -> cell-phone, different technology

I've had extremely poor conversations with the last mode, with a friend using a different kind of cell-phone technology than my phone.

It's _exactly_ what's being discussed here, conversions from once codec to another. The more conversions in the line, the poorer the quality. Real-world examples that most of us experience on at least a weekly basis.

--
Curt, WE7U. http://www.eskimo.com/~archer
Windows ate my homework!

Re: Codec2

"David Lake (dlake)" <dlake@...>
 

Tim

If this was professional radio, then I'd agree. But it isn't - it's hobby radio, and the goal is to experiment, not to provide a service-provider grade network.

As a friend of mine recently told a group, if you want high data rates, 100% coverage, 5 9s reliability and black-box equipment, we have 7 main mobile operators and at least two dozen MVNOs that will do that for you. And you can buy their hardware in the supermarket for next-to-nothing !

So I see nothing wrong with linking between modes at any quality in the spirit of "education through experimentation in radio" as my licence says.

If you are in a country that uses Amateur radio to support emergency response, I would have thought that linking at any quality was better than no linking at all.

I'm not sure of the situation in the US, but across much of the EU, voice transmission is rarely used these days by emergency services for routine matters - most dispatch is done by data with a hard copy printed in the vehicle for audit/accuracy purposes. I know that Italy still has individual analogue radio systems for each force/area but is swapping out later this year for a nationwide TETRA network and is one of the last countries to do so. TETRAPol in France is even older then TETRA - their national network went in some 20 years ago. The UK was late to the game, and it wasn't until about 6 years ago that the last isolated users came off their own radio systems onto the national backbone.

I don't see Amateurs building a global TETRA cellular system any time soon.....

David

Sent from my iPhone

On 23 May 2012, at 10:31, "Tim Hardy AF1G" <hardyt@...> wrote:

I'm not opposed to linking different protocols, but there is value in some of the objections to linking specific networks. If the objections or concerns can be mitigated, then fewer people would resist.

The most often heard objection to linking FM systems to D-Star seems to be that D-Star users don't want all the white noise from a weak FM station digitized and retransmitted on D-Star, and I agree with this objection. Find a way to limit the retransmission of FM signals onto the D-Star network to only good, mostly full-quieting signals and you will probably overcome these objections.

Echolink and IRLP were a match because they both use the same mode, FM.

Linking one type of digital system to another won't have this specific problem, so I don't see why we couldn't develop this option as long as protocols in each system are satisfied. For example, D-Star sends the callsign of the transmitting station through the network. Make this happen from the non-D-Star system and the D-Star network would probably be satisfied. Otherwise, there will continue to be objections.

Tim, AF1G

Re: Codec2

Tim Hardy AF1G <hardyt@...>
 

A good point! We'll have to see what shakes out as the experimenters "experiment" with linking digital systems.

73 de Tim, AF1G

---- Tyrell Berry <kd7kuj@...> wrote:

=============
When dealing with music, I consider myself an audiophile. When I buy a CD,
I rip it to my home server in the FLAC format; No, I don't carry loss less
audio around on my portable devices... But I like AAC when my player
supports it, and MP3 when it doesn't. My primary concern with storing my
primary source in either lossy format is that if I convert between the two,
it's going to lose MORE data/quality with each conversion... Lossy on top
of lossy is bad.

The same is true of these vocoders... They are all lossy formats... And at
such low band widths, they don't leave much left over to be lost again. My
point is this: A transcoder between any two formats that use different
vocoders will significantly degrade the audio quality... Maybe it will
still be legible, but I doubt it will be a pleasant experience.

In light of that, going from one digital mode to another may or may not be
considered worse than going from FM to digital, depending on the real world
performance of that double (or potentially triple in a poorly optimized
network) lossy conversion.

On May 23, 2012 9:32 AM, "Tim Hardy AF1G" <hardyt@...> wrote:

**


I'm not opposed to linking different protocols, but there is value in some
of the objections to linking specific networks. If the objections or
concerns can be mitigated, then fewer people would resist.

The most often heard objection to linking FM systems to D-Star seems to be
that D-Star users don't want all the white noise from a weak FM station
digitized and retransmitted on D-Star, and I agree with this objection.
Find a way to limit the retransmission of FM signals onto the D-Star
network to only good, mostly full-quieting signals and you will probably
overcome these objections.

Echolink and IRLP were a match because they both use the same mode, FM.

Linking one type of digital system to another won't have this specific
problem, so I don't see why we couldn't develop this option as long as
protocols in each system are satisfied. For example, D-Star sends the
callsign of the transmitting station through the network. Make this happen
from the non-D-Star system and the D-Star network would probably be
satisfied. Otherwise, there will continue to be objections.

Tim, AF1G

Open Source Hardware...

UniversalDigitalRadio-owner@...
 

... doesn't exist.

This forum has been wonderfully active on a variety of topics. It's great to see the exchange as hams weigh in with their hopes and dreams, but there is one topic that I need to address; the notion of open source hardware.

I worked in Silicon Valley for 30 years, both with and for, a variety of semiconductor companies. I have personally negotiated with both ARM and MIPs and let me tell you, there is no open source hardware.

Today's designs use high integration ICs which are designed in HDLs. They often include licensed IP from other sources under highly restrictive agreements. They are the companies most valuable assets and they are not released to anyone in any form.

In order for us to use these devices we may enter into Non Disclosure Agreements which state that we will not release any design information to third parties, that means you. In particular if there are errata we cannot share either the problem or the fix.

LEGAL DISCLAIMER: I am not saying that any vendors chips that I use now, or have ever used, actually have now or ever have had any errata (hi hi).

What we will provide is schematics and assembly diagrams of released product under copyright. In particular, we will document all connector interfaces both external and internal, to aid in experimentation.

We will not be posting manufacturing data, such as gerber files, detailed BOMs and mechanical drawings, but if you have an amateur radio project that requires more information; send us an email briefly describing what you'r trying to do and we'll do our best to help you.

73 - Bryan Hoyer

Re: Open Source Hardware...

"Rick Muething" <rmuething@...>
 

Brian,
 
The Winlink development team would be interested in purchasing two units when available through our 501C3 organization the Amateur Radio safety Foundation.  www.arsfi.org We have a number sights were these could be tested here in Florida.
 
I have felt for a long time this is the kind of product that is needed in amateur radio. It provides an important vehicle to leverage and encourage advancement in digital communications.
 
I am also working with the CODEC2 group on the open source CODEC 2 and modem.  This radio should be very possible to support continual voice and relatively high bandwidth FEC data simultaneously.
 
Thanks,

Rick Muething, KN6KB
 
 

Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 3:02 PM
Subject: [UniversalDigitalRadio] Open Source Hardware...
 
 

... doesn't exist.

This forum has been wonderfully active on a variety of topics. It's great to see the exchange as hams weigh in with their hopes and dreams, but there is one topic that I need to address; the notion of open source hardware.

I worked in Silicon Valley for 30 years, both with and for, a variety of semiconductor companies. I have personally negotiated with both ARM and MIPs and let me tell you, there is no open source hardware.

Today's designs use high integration ICs which are designed in HDLs. They often include licensed IP from other sources under highly restrictive agreements. They are the companies most valuable assets and they are not released to anyone in any form.

In order for us to use these devices we may enter into Non Disclosure Agreements which state that we will not release any design information to third parties, that means you. In particular if there are errata we cannot share either the problem or the fix.

LEGAL DISCLAIMER: I am not saying that any vendors chips that I use now, or have ever used, actually have now or ever have had any errata (hi hi).

What we will provide is schematics and assembly diagrams of released product under copyright. In particular, we will document all connector interfaces both external and internal, to aid in experimentation.

We will not be posting manufacturing data, such as gerber files, detailed BOMs and mechanical drawings, but if you have an amateur radio project that requires more information; send us an email briefly describing what you'r trying to do and we'll do our best to help you.

73 - Bryan Hoyer