Topics

Codec2

"nikropht" <nikropht@...>
 

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

Perry Chamberlain <canoeman@...>
 

Is it interoperable with the AMBE CHIP embedded radios?


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

"craigkv5e" <stauros@...>
 

No it is not, Craig

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

Is it interoperable with the AMBE CHIP embedded radios?


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

Perry Chamberlain <canoeman@...>
 

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

Matthew Pitts <daywalker_blade_2004@...>
 

Not directly, no. It is possible to communicate between them with software acting as a bridge between the two, though I haven't actually written the application that will do so. I am also thinking of allowing for normal voice; the D-Star Protocol does include a bridge that allows analogue voice and callsign routing, but this hasn't been implemented by Icom, nor has Jonathan done so, to my knowledge.

Matthew Pitts
N8OHU


From: craigkv5e
To: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 3:30 PM
Subject: [UniversalDigitalRadio] Re: Codec2

 
No it is not, Craig

--- In UniversalDigitalRadio@..., Perry Chamberlain wrote:
>
> Is it interoperable with the AMBE CHIP embedded radios?
>
>
> Respectfully
>
> Perry Chamberlain
>
>
> On May 22, 2012, at 9:17 AM, "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
> >
> >
>



"David Lake (dlake)" <dlake@...>
 

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




"David Lake (dlake)" <dlake@...>
 

OK now you're talking politics.



I do have a bridge running between D-Star and Echolink, but there are some admin areas that need to be fixed especially around identification.



The audio quality is actually surprisingly good (unless the incoming Echolink is from a repeater that has not filtered it's CTCSS tone out sufficiently in which case it is HORRIBLE).



It's not a production system purely for me to play with.



David



From: UniversalDigitalRadio@... [mailto:UniversalDigitalRadio@...] On Behalf Of Matthew Pitts
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 5:31 PM
To: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
Subject: Re: [UniversalDigitalRadio] Re: Codec2








Not directly, no. It is possible to communicate between them with software acting as a bridge between the two, though I haven't actually written the application that will do so. I am also thinking of allowing for normal voice; the D-Star Protocol does include a bridge that allows analogue voice and callsign routing, but this hasn't been implemented by Icom, nor has Jonathan done so, to my knowledge.



Matthew Pitts

N8OHU

Matthew Pitts <daywalker_blade_2004@...>
 

David,

Not intentionally, by any means; I was discussing a way to link Codec2 and D-Star with Tony VK3JED and Kristoff ON1ARF last fall or winter. I recently thought of finding a way to do this with open-source Echolink clients and D-Star, but haven't had time to experiment with it (working 56 hours a week tends to do things like that). Maybe you and I can work together instead of duplicating each other's efforts.

Matthew Pitts
N8OHU

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

On Tue, May 22, 2012 7:40 PM EDT David Lake (dlake) wrote:

OK now you're talking politics.



I do have a bridge running between D-Star and Echolink, but there are some admin areas that need to be fixed especially around identification.



The audio quality is actually surprisingly good (unless the incoming Echolink is from a repeater that has not filtered it's CTCSS tone out sufficiently in which case it is HORRIBLE).



It's not a production� system purely for me to play with.



David



From: UniversalDigitalRadio@... [mailto:UniversalDigitalRadio@...] On Behalf Of Matthew Pitts
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 5:31 PM
To: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
Subject: Re: [UniversalDigitalRadio] Re: Codec2








Not directly, no. It is possible to communicate between them with software acting as a bridge between the two, though I haven't actually written the application that will do so. I am also thinking of allowing for normal voice; the D-Star Protocol does include a bridge that allows analogue voice and callsign routing, but this hasn't been implemented by Icom, nor has Jonathan done so, to my knowledge.



Matthew Pitts

N8OHU

"John" <john@...>
 

If Codec-2 is ported to the UDR56K a user would have the option of using AMBE based DV (with the add-on card) and/or Codec-2.   Codec-2 has been making a lot of progress but isn't quite ready.  A framing and error-correction protocol is likely required and the current code uses floating point calculations which makes real time coding on difficult on this class of processor.  A move to fixed point and/or the use of a dedicated processor (like what is done with AMBE) should make it feasible.

The UDR56K AMBE card will likely carry the newer chip which supports more coding formats than what is needed for D-STAR, while remaining compatible with D-STAR.  Other AMBE based DV may be possible.


--- 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
>
>
> 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
> >
> >
>

"dnolder@..." <vk7yxx@...>
 

"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

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




"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

"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

"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

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

"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


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

"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!

"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

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