What, No iPhone Thread from DigiNerds?

[ky5u]

I guess I must confess suprise that none of the "Digital is the Wave of the Furure" (DWOF) types have posted something about the new iPhone and why no slick devices are available for AR. With technology now on 2M and 70CM, you could have a cellphone-like portable that sends text messages* and has a camera for sending pictures. With the bally-hoo over the DSTAR, you could have an iPhone like device for AR today. Yes the data transfer rates would be slow, but where are the neat devices? Could it be that vendors know there is a pitifully small market for them?

We hear talk about how we're not "state of the art" anymore yet on bands where we could be with no rule changes there is only sparce activity. Personally I believe that the DWOF crowd is the mouthpiece of Winlink users, and no better evidence exists than the lack of enthusiasm from Amateurs on the UHF bands and above.

Your thoughts?

*Yes I know some portables do this today...

[kr2c]

nevermind.

[N2RJ]

Charlie, you're getting boring, honestly.

Honestly, lots of digital innovation is going on in AR, right under your nose, and there's nothing you can do to stop it.

No, it's not iPhone, nor is it WinLink. Probably not even D-STAR.

It is DSP, SDR, WSJT, WinDRM, 802.11 and stuff like that.

Every other service is going digital, and digital is where it's at. And they're not looking back either. The only complainers seem to be people complaining about costs and the costs of not succombing to obsolescence.

Don't worry, in AR there'll still be room for analog, just as there is room for other antiques.

And FWIW, I don't find the iPhone to be particularly exciting. It doesn't have new technology - touch screen? Been there, done that. My current phone has a touch screen. Internet access? iPhone doesn't even have 3G. It has lousy EDGE, and you'll hear Steve Jobs make a million excuses for it. Music player? Been there, done that. Oh, it looks cool! Been there, done that too.

Digital is where it's at, and there's nothing you can do about it.

By the way, there's an iPhone thread in Rag Chew.

[WA9SVD]

Does it have a built-in keyer? It seems to have everything else. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[KB1JCY]

Nobody cares about innovation in the Amateur Radio Service anymore. Any effort to innovate is met with disdain by the resident hamhumps of this hobby/service.

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ July 02 2007,07:13)]Honestly, lots of digital innovation is going on in AR, right under your nose, and there's nothing you can do to stop it.
I don't want to stop it at all. Put it in perspective perhaps. And the digital use by RTTY, PSK, and other narrowband users is on the rise. Cool!

[WA9SVD]

Quote[/b] (KB1JCY @ July 02 2007,07:20)]Nobody cares about innovation in the Amateur Radio Service anymore. Any effort to innovate is met with disdain by the resident hamhumps of this hobby/service.
Really?]
Seems the digital modes such as WSJT, PSK in it's various flavors, have all been adopted fairly quickly by hams, because THEY HAD AN ADVANTAGE over previous technology.
One of the basic definitions of Amateur Radio is to communicate. We do that quite well, thank you, with CW, SSB, and the current "mainstream" digital modes. WHAT advantage does the new technology provide AT THIS TIME? Does D-STAR really have an advantage for the average operator? Is digital voice an advantage? Certainly, it's an innovation, but without a clear advantage, it's seen as a solution in search of a problem.

[KD6NIG]

Course there is no thread. When you spend a few thousand on Dstar repeaters and the like, you don't have the $600 or so you need to buy a phone like this.

And besides, if I honestly needed the internet that badly that portable, I'd lug around a laptop. My eyes are bad enough from computer use, I can imagine what a small screen would do to them.

I'm sure the eye doctor industry just loves when another new phone with a nice small screen and all kinds of goodies comes out http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[KA4DPO]

Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ July 02 2007,09:53)]Quote[/b] (KB1JCY @ July 02 2007,07:20)]Nobody cares about innovation in the Amateur Radio Service anymore. Any effort to innovate is met with disdain by the resident hamhumps of this hobby/service.
Really?]
# #Seems the digital modes such as WSJT, PSK in it's various flavors, have all been adopted fairly quickly by hams, because THEY HAD AN ADVANTAGE over previous technology.
# #One of the basic definitions of Amateur Radio is to communicate. #We do that quite well, thank you, with CW, SSB, and the current "mainstream" digital modes. #WHAT advantage does the new technology provide AT THIS TIME? #Does D-STAR really have an advantage for the average operator? #Is digital voice an advantage? Certainly, it's an innovation, but without a clear advantage, it's seen as a solution in search of a problem.
I have to add to that. If no one cared about innovation in amateur radio Icom wouldn't have spent all the R&D dollars on IF DSP and no one would would build a SDR like the ones on the market today.

I see a lot of new technologies merging with AR and want to see more.

[W5HTW]

"What bands do you work?"

"Well, now and then 20 meters, but mostly Echolink and iPhone. QSL?"

[KS4VT]

Well I passed on the $500 iPhone, not like I even thought about it, and picked up a new MotoRazr V3xx that has 3G on Thursday. Man this thing screams on the internet as compared to my retired Palm phone.

As to AR digital...I'll be on the reliable P25 VHF repeaters that we have deployed when the cell carriers go away after a hurricane type storm.

[WA9SVD]

Quote[/b] (KS4VT @ July 02 2007,09:11)]Well I passed on the $500 iPhone, not like I even thought about it, and picked up a new MotoRazr V3xx that has 3G on Thursday. Man this thing screams on the internet as compared to my retired Palm phone.

As to AR digital...I'll be on the reliable P25 VHF repeaters that we have deployed when the cell carriers go away after a hurricane type storm.
OK, but two questions:

1. Is your P25 repeater intrinsically more reliable than traditional FM operations?

2. Does P25 offer any real advantage to the average ham in everyday, typical use?

We all know that Amateur Radio can, and does work even after the cell system is damaged. (Katrina, Northridge Earthquake, Loma Prieta...) But is/are digital systems inherently more reliable than our current systems?

[WA3KYY]

Question 3:

Which amateur radios have P25 in them?

I will also echo what another poster said. What does digital voice offer over analog modes that would cause amateurs to embrace the technology? That's mostly what P25, DStar, WinDRM and the AOR modems are, digital voice. What does it do better than the analog modes it is replacing to justify the shift?

[K0RGR]

There was an article elsewhere on QRZ the other day about a new Yaesu mobile that would do analog, P25, or DSTAR - sadly NOT available in the USA.

The biggest advantage of DSTAR as it exists is the relatively narrow bandwidth required. They are selling the concept that DSTAR repeaters can operate in the spaces between the existing analog repeaters. Of course, my problem with that is that if you really have two analog repeaters using today's standard, there isn't any space in between. But if we all used the 'narrow' deviation that's included standard on most rigs in the last 5 years +, there might be room.

And, of course, by using sharper receive filters, DSTAR can be very competitive with analog FM - even better in most cases. Under weak conditions, you can either have a full quieting digital signal or a very marginal noisy one.

Where digital voice may someday shine will be where there is some kind of networking of signals - even if that 'network' is no more extensive than 'simply' connecting your VHF digital voice system to your HF digital voice system, so you can work around the country with your HT. Digital signals can be repeated infinitely, without degradation.
This will require rules changes to allow the automatic retransmission of HF signals on VHF and vice-versa.

Digital voice on HF also has the potential to reduce or eliminate RF interference to consumer devices, as the signals are constant-carrier mode - eliminating the amplitude modulation that is so readily rectified by almost any solid-state device. It might allow 'cliff-dwelling' hams to do more without generating hostile neighbors.

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ July 02 2007,11:25)]2. Does P25 offer any real advantage to the average ham in everyday, typical use?
I would like to ask the same question about AM and ESSB.

What advantages do AM and ESSB offer?

What justifies their excessive use of HF bandwidth?

[N3ATS]

Analog is already interoperable.
Analog is already interoperable.
Analog is already interoperable.
Analog is already interoperable.
Analog is already interoperable.
Analog is already interoperable.

Funny how we have ALL these different digital voice platforms and then we decide, "gee we better go P25 so we can all talk together."

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Analog is for voice. Digital is for data.

[WA9SVD]

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ July 02 2007,11:15)]Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ July 02 2007,11:25)]2. Does P25 offer any real advantage to the average ham in everyday, typical use?
I would like to ask the same question about AM and ESSB.

What advantages do AM and ESSB offer?

What justifies their excessive use of HF bandwidth?
Excessive bandwidth as compared to what???

You are not answering the question, you are merely confusing (or attempting to circumvent) the issue by asking another question.

Then perhaps we should ask if your digital modes use less bandwidth than CW? How would you justify using more?

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ July 02 2007,13:23)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ July 02 2007,11:15)]Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ July 02 2007,11:25)]2. Does P25 offer any real advantage to the average ham in everyday, typical use?
I would like to ask the same question about AM and ESSB.

What advantages do AM and ESSB offer?

What justifies their excessive use of HF bandwidth?
Excessive bandwidth as compared to what???

You are not answering the question, you are merely confusing (or attempting to circumvent) the issue by asking another question.

Then perhaps we should ask if your digital modes use less bandwidth than CW? How would you justify using more?
Excessive bandwidth compared to regular SSB.

Why on earth do hams need "broadcast quality audio" for communications?

Why are hams complaining about digital modes using excessive bandwidth, when they themselves want to use modes that waste bandwidth such as AM and ESSB and provide no other advantages other than better audio quality?

Sounds to me like one excess is good, the other isn't.

It sounds to me like many of the "analog or die" hams are a bunch of hypocrites.

[n5rfx]

On HF I have not seen an advantage using digital voice because of the bandwidth efficiency of SSB analog signals. Where the advantage may be present for Amateurs is when using FM modulation when the modulation index is greater than 1. Using the typical 5 KHz deviation and 3 KHz audio, the bandwidth required is 16 kHz according to Carson's rule. Using a system similar to the AOR ARD9800/9000 with an F1E/J2E emission would allow that same signal to occupy less bandwidth. Lets compare apples to apples using the ARD 9800. The audio bandwidth is 300 Hz - 2500 Hz and occupies 3.6 kHz. An FM analog system would occupy 14.4 kHz according to Carson's rule. The advantage is that we could achieve a similar S/N ratio in 1/4th of the bandwidth.

There are some disadvantages.

1. You cannot use cheap transceivers like those we use for FM today. We would have to use SSB quality transceivers to realize the bandwidth savings.

2. The G4GUO protocol would have to be more robust to allow mobile operation and to handle QRM.

The next question is do we need to conserve bandwidth where we are allowed to operate FM with a modulation index greater than 1? I really don't find a lot of use in our 6 meter and shorter wavelengths that would require narrower bandwidths.

There is no practical reason to completely switch from analog to digital voice in the Amateur Radio Service. There is however a reason to experiment with digital voice. The reason is because we can. It can help us learn the characteristics of such modes. This is why digital and analog signals must continue to coexist. The rules today allow that co-existence in all Amateur radio bands. The only restriction is in the HF bands where the type of information to be transmitted is limited. This is a traffic leveler that keeps the Phone/Image subbands from being overrun with data signals and keeps the RTTY/Data subbands from being overrun with phone and wideband image signals.

On HF it has been quite instructive for me to watch the waterfall displays of modes like MT63, DRM and RDFT. You can really see the time variable nature of multipath. That is just one example, but I am sure there are others.

The real dilemma is not how do we allow analog and digital emissions to coexist, that is allowed today, the dilemma is how do we let voice data and image emissions exist without upsetting the balance in traffic that we have today. That is what we need to figure out.

73,
Mark N5RFX

[WA3KYY]

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ July 02 2007,14:15)]Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ July 02 2007,11:25)]2. #Does P25 offer any real advantage to the average ham in everyday, typical use?
I would like to ask the same question about AM and ESSB.

What advantages do AM and ESSB offer? #

What justifies their excessive use of HF bandwidth?
For other than the thrill of doing it, nothing. #But that is not the point.

Unlike analog voice which is highly interoperable, digital voice requires a standard and there are multiple to chose from. #It also requires very precise frequency accuracy or some sort of visual tuning indicator if you are not using a fixed channel system such as found in VHF/UHF repeater systems. But even there, I believe the frequency tolerance is much tighter for DStar and P25 than for FM.#I can actually see some benefits to either P25 or DStar on repeaters especially if you can do both data and voice over the same link simultaneously.

Digital voice on HF is a whole other issue. #None of the current methods do particularly well in QRM or QRN conditions. #At least with WinDRM, you can tune in a signal mid transmission and begin decoding and listening. #With the AOR modems, unless they have changed, you can only sync at the beginning of a transmission. This severly limits its utility for calling CQ, DXing or contesting, all very popular activities. What does happen with digital voice in a pileup? #Will this be the case of the person with the biggest amp wins with no skill involved?

Before digital voice on HF is other than a novelty enjoyed by a small group of afficiandos such as the SSTV group, it will need to be as easy to use as analog voice is for what most folks use HF voice for.

73,
Mike WA3KYY

[n5rfx]

Quote[/b] (WA3KYY @ July 01 2007,12:45)]Digital voice on HF is a whole other issue. None of the current methods do particularly well in QRM or QRN conditions. At least with WinDRM, you can tune in a signal mid transmission and begin decoding and listening. With the AOR modems, unless they have changed, you can only sync at the beginning of a transmission. This severly limits its utility for calling CQ, DXing or contesting, all very popular activities. Before digital voice is other than a novelty enjoyed by a small group of afficiandos such as the SSTV group, it will need to be as easy to use for what most folks us HF voice for as analog voice is.

73,
Mike WA3KYY
I agree with you. The AOR modems have advanced to where you can tune in mid stream and decode, you have to use the sync switch. My AOR9000 has this and I use it quite often because of QRM. There are just some activities in the ham bands that will always remain analog. This is similar to contesting in the RTTY/Data subbands. RTTY has been allowed on the HAM bands for more than 50 years and it is still the mode of preference for digital contesters. Other modes have tried to break that barrier, but RTTY is still the best mode for digital contesting. I think that for typical phone activities it will be hard to replace SSB with a digital protocol.

73,
Mark N5RFX

[WA9SVD]

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ July 02 2007,11:26)]Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ July 02 2007,13:23)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ July 02 2007,11:15)]Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ July 02 2007,11:25)]2. Does P25 offer any real advantage to the average ham in everyday, typical use?
I would like to ask the same question about AM and ESSB.

What advantages do AM and ESSB offer?

What justifies their excessive use of HF bandwidth?
Excessive bandwidth as compared to what???

You are not answering the question, you are merely confusing (or attempting to circumvent) the issue by asking another question.

Then perhaps we should ask if your digital modes use less bandwidth than CW? How would you justify using more?
Excessive bandwidth compared to regular SSB.

Why on earth do hams need "broadcast quality audio" for communications?

Why are hams complaining about digital modes using excessive bandwidth, when they themselves want to use modes that waste bandwidth such as AM and ESSB and provide no other advantages other than better audio quality?

Sounds to me like one excess is good, the other isn't.

It sounds to me like many of the "analog or die" hams are a bunch of hypocrites.
No offense, RJ, but again, you are confusing the issue and refusing to answer the basic question posed.

Only a small minority of op[erators are using excessive bandwidth modes such as ESSB, and there's plenty of hams that disapprove of THAT if it takes extra bandwidth. Likewise, a small minority use AM.
Nobody is saying that digital techniques aren't appropriate, or aren't legitimate modes for experimentation. Yet, you refuse to describe HOW current digital voice techniques provide an advantage over our current (analogue) techniques? IS that so difficult to answer?

Please, point out the distinct advantages. Advantages that will convince the average Amateur Radio Operator to either change from current analog modes or that the next radio he/she buys should be a digital radio, and that the investment actual has an advantage.


BTW, TRY to explain without calling names or using derogatory terms. Your credibility becomes suspect when you must resort to such tactics.

[KE7IPY]

I was happy to see that Yaesu was offering Bluetooth on one of their rigs, but it's only for a headset. I'd like to see more modern interfaces on the newer rigs, in particular: let's have more devices with USB ports on them instead of RS-232! There's no reason that the Yaesu above couldn't be administered via the Bluetooth, unless there's a regulation to the contrary.

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (WA3KYY @ July 02 2007,13:45)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ July 02 2007,14:15)]Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ July 02 2007,11:25)]2. #Does P25 offer any real advantage to the average ham in everyday, typical use?
I would like to ask the same question about AM and ESSB.

What advantages do AM and ESSB offer? #

What justifies their excessive use of HF bandwidth?
For other than the thrill of doing it, nothing. #But that is not the point.

Unlike analog voice which is highly interoperable, digital voice requires a standard and there are multiple to chose from. #It also requires very precise frequency accuracy or some sort of visual tuning indicator if you are not using a fixed channel system such as found in VHF/UHF repeater systems. But even there, I believe the frequency tolerance is much tighter for DStar and P25 than for FM.#I can actually see some benefits to either P25 or DStar on repeaters especially if you can do both data and voice over the same link simultaneously.

Digital voice on HF is a whole other issue. #None of the current methods do particularly well in QRM or QRN conditions. #At least with WinDRM, you can tune in a signal mid transmission and begin decoding and listening. #With the AOR modems, unless they have changed, you can only sync at the beginning of a transmission. This severly limits its utility for calling CQ, DXing or contesting, all very popular activities. What does happen with digital voice in a pileup? #Will this be the case of the person with the biggest amp wins with no skill involved?

Before digital voice on HF is other than a novelty enjoyed by a small group of afficiandos such as the SSTV group, it will need to be as easy to use as analog voice is for what most folks use HF voice for.

73,
Mike WA3KYY
Well for the most part I agree.

But some folks are doing as if all digital is evil!

I think that we should be allowed to experiment with digital as much as possible, and who knows, maybe it will overcome its limitations and even do better than its analog counterpart.

But many hams immediately throw up roadblocks, and I think the biggest fear is simply one of change.

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ July 02 2007,14:13)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ July 02 2007,11:26)]Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ July 02 2007,13:23)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ July 02 2007,11:15)]Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ July 02 2007,11:25)]2. #Does P25 offer any real advantage to the average ham in everyday, typical use?
I would like to ask the same question about AM and ESSB.

What advantages do AM and ESSB offer? #

What justifies their excessive use of HF bandwidth?
Excessive bandwidth as compared to what???

# #You are not answering the question, you are merely confusing (or attempting to circumvent) the issue by asking another question.

Then perhaps we should ask if your digital modes use less bandwidth than CW? #How would you justify using more?
Excessive bandwidth compared to regular SSB.

Why on earth do hams need "broadcast quality audio" for communications?

Why are hams complaining about digital modes using excessive bandwidth, when they themselves want to use modes that waste bandwidth such as AM and ESSB and provide no other advantages other than better audio quality?

Sounds to me like one excess is good, the other isn't.

It sounds to me like many of the "analog or die" hams are a bunch of hypocrites.
No offense, RJ, but again, you are confusing the issue and refusing to answer the basic question posed.

# #Only a small minority of op[erators are using excessive bandwidth modes such as ESSB, and there's plenty of hams that disapprove of THAT if it takes extra bandwidth. #Likewise, a small minority use AM.
# #Nobody is saying that digital techniques aren't appropriate, or aren't legitimate modes for experimentation. #Yet, you refuse to describe HOW current digital voice techniques provide an advantage over our current (analogue) techniques? #IS that so difficult to answer?

# #Please, point out the distinct advantages. #Advantages that will convince the average Amateur Radio Operator to either change from current analog modes or that the next radio he/she buys should be a digital radio, and that the investment actual has an advantage.


# #BTW, TRY to explain without calling names or using derogatory terms. #Your credibility becomes suspect when you must resort to such tactics.
I've already answered what digital voice does - it provides an additional mode for hams to experiment with and perfect. It doesn't really provide any extra benefit over an analog mode as a communications medium. It does offer in many cases an improvement in audio quality - the same as AM and ESSB do.

[n2nh]

$800 for a combination MP3 player, cellphone and iPaq? The bugs haven't been worked out. QRM causes a buzz to be heard and the internet is v e r y slow. I'll wait for the $35 taiwanese knock-off in the near future. It'll work better too.

Until then, I've managed to live without it this long.

[n5rfx]

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ July 01 2007,13:30)]...some folks are doing as if all digital is evil!

I think that we should be allowed to experiment with digital as much as possible, and who knows, maybe it will overcome its limitations and even do better than its analog counterpart.

But many hams immediately throw up roadblocks, and I think the biggest fear is simply one of change.
It offends most folks to hear that digital is the wave of the future, when that future does not include legacy modes. I am not entirely convinced that the majority of digital enthusiasts want the elimination of legacy modes. In fact, I would say that digital enthusiasts are very much legacy mode users. I think the "captain" said to best to Luke and the group: "What we have here is failure to communicate"

73,
Mark N5RFX

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (n5rfx @ July 02 2007,15:55)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ July 01 2007,13:30)]...some folks are doing as if all digital is evil!

I think that we should be allowed to experiment with digital as much as possible, and who knows, maybe it will overcome its limitations and even do better than its analog counterpart.

But many hams immediately throw up roadblocks, and I think the biggest fear is simply one of change.
It offends most folks to hear that digital is the wave of the future, when that future does not include legacy modes. I am not entirely convinced that the majority of digital enthusiasts want the elimination of legacy modes. In fact, I would say that digital enthusiasts are very much legacy mode users. I think the "captain" said to best to Luke and the group: "What we have here is failure to communicate"

73,
Mark N5RFX
I do think that legacy modes will be around for some time in amateur radio.

But I do see it as more of a "transition" rather than digital being something "extra."

[KI4ODO]

I guess now it's the iPhone that is killing ham radio LOL along with rule changes, global warming, digital technology, and those damn roger beeps #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif # I'm kidding of course

for the record, I'm not into the latest digi-gizmos, my cell phone makes people laugh it's so simple http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (n5rfx @ July 02 2007,13:55)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ July 01 2007,13:30)]...some folks are doing as if all digital is evil!

I think that we should be allowed to experiment with digital as much as possible, and who knows, maybe it will overcome its limitations and even do better than its analog counterpart.

But many hams immediately throw up roadblocks, and I think the biggest fear is simply one of change.
It offends most folks to hear that digital is the wave of the future, when that future does not include legacy modes. #I am not entirely convinced that the majority of digital enthusiasts want the elimination of legacy modes. #In fact, I would say that digital enthusiasts are very much legacy mode users. #I think the "captain" said to best to Luke and the group: "What we have here is failure to communicate"

73,
Mark N5RFX
Mark,

I have yet to see anything that convinces me that digital is the wave of the future.

Too many folks confuse DSP and SDR with "digital" when it really isn't. As you know from your use of the softrocks these only represent new ways to generate old modes.

Does the new SDR5000 even offer a built-in digital voice transmission method? I don't remember seeing one in PowerSDR 1.8.

The truly digital transmission modes such as the AOR modes, windrm, etc. do NOT yet appear to be the "wave of the future". There are too many con's and not nearly enough "pro's".

I think that is what offends me the most - people trumpeting about not-ready-for-prime-time technology as the wave of the future. It reminds me of those in the 60's that kept about trumpeting ground effect vehicles as being the wave of the future. Just like digital voice today, the ground effect vehicles had LOTS of cons and very few pro's. History will have to be the judge of whether digital voice over radio turns out to be hit that ground effect vehicles have become 40 years later.

tim ab0wr

[n5rfx]

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ July 01 2007,14:56)]But I do see it as more of a "transition" rather than digital being something "extra."
I agree with the transition theory even though the path is not obvious now. Because the path is not obvious some fall into the trap that Charles H. Duell fell into when he said:"everything that can be invented has been invented."

73,
Mark N5RFX

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ July 02 2007,16:30)]Mark,

I have yet to see anything that convinces me that digital is the wave of the future.
Then that simply means that you are ignorant of digital modes and digital technology on the horizon.

You specifically don't need to be convinced.

You also don't seem to get what amateur radio was and what it still is to many - experimenting with communications technology.

Quote[/b] ]
Too many folks confuse DSP and SDR with "digital" when it really isn't.

Ignorance from you doesn't surprise me.

Quote[/b] ]As you know from your use of the softrocks these only represent new ways to generate old modes.

But the heart of it is entirely digital.

But go on.

Quote[/b] ]Does the new SDR5000 even offer a built-in digital voice transmission method? I don't remember seeing one in PowerSDR 1.8.

If it's not there, why don't you write one?

Because it's not there now doesn't mean that it can be done.

The SDR5000 is only as good as its software. Thankfully that can be rewritten quite easily, unlike a "real" radio.

Digital voice can be done and will be done in software defined radio. Other SDR projects have decoded some digital protocols. It's only a matter or time and programming before it hits PowerSDR (which is, incidentally, open source).

Quote[/b] ]The truly digital transmission modes such as the AOR modes, windrm, etc. do NOT yet appear to be the "wave of the future".

They are what we refer to as "bleeding edge" meaning "in development."

Quote[/b] ] There are too many con's and not nearly enough "pro's".

Those will be worked out. Maybe not in your lifetime (which is fine) but they'll be worked out.

Quote[/b] ]I think that is what offends me the most - people trumpeting about not-ready-for-prime-time technology as the wave of the future.

I think what offends me most is people who expect perfection with the first release of a new technology, or people who don't wish to take a risk to explore something new.

In doing so, many hams have lost sight of the real ham radio, which is experimenting with technology.

Quote[/b] ]It reminds me of those in the 60's that kept about trumpeting ground effect vehicles as being the wave of the future.

Or those guys who kept trumpeting SSB as the wave of the future. How dare they say it's better than Almighty Modulation!

Quote[/b] ]Just like digital voice today, the ground effect vehicles had LOTS of cons and very few pro's.

Same was said of SSB and it worked itself out.

Quote[/b] ]History will have to be the judge of whether digital voice over radio turns out to be hit that ground effect vehicles have become 40 years later.

And if history repeats itself, digital voice in some form or the other will become today's SSB, but by that time Ham radio's curmudgeons would have died off, or the hobby itself would have died.

I'm beginning to think that a lot of people are rooting for the latter to happen. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

[n5rfx]

Quote[/b] ]AB0WR:I have yet to see anything that convinces me that digital is the wave of the future.
I agree that digital is not a total replacement for analog methods. Our radio signals are still analog, in fact we live in an analog world.

Quote[/b] ]AB0WR:I think that is what offends me the most - people trumpeting about not-ready-for-prime-time technology as the wave of the future.
Yes zealots have a way of doing that. Zealots have all of the answers.

73,
Mark N5RFX

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (n5rfx @ July 02 2007,16:58)]Yes zealots have a way of doing that. #Zealots have all of the answers.
Alas, there are zealots on both sides of this street.

[n5rfx]

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ July 01 2007,15:54)]I think what offends me most is people who expect perfection with the first release of a new technology, or people who don't wish to take a risk to explore something new.
Certainly we cannot expect perfection, but we have be careful not to carry the message that the legacy system is not useful or worthy of continued consideration. That is where the communication and argument in this debate starts to crumble.

73,
Mark N5RFX

[n5rfx]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 01 2007,16:06)]Quote[/b] (n5rfx @ July 02 2007,16:58)]Yes zealots have a way of doing that. Zealots have all of the answers.
Alas, there are zealots on both sides of this street.
Albert,
I am not sure if that is real or just a perception. It all has to do with argument tactics. The method of argument where neither side acknowledges that the other has made a point, or even worse, a litmus test is performed and if you belong to a certain group, or use a certain mode, your arguments cannot be valid. This makes normally reasonable people look like zealots, when the truth of the matter is they are afraid to move toward the the center of a position for fear of looking weak. I think that most people get their debating training from politicians and talk radio instead of thinkers.

73,
Mark N5RFX

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (n5rfx @ July 02 2007,17:06)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ July 01 2007,15:54)]I think what offends me most is people who expect perfection with the first release of a new technology, or people who don't wish to take a risk to explore something new.
Certainly we cannot expect perfection, but what we have be careful not to carry the message that the legacy system is not useful or worthy of continued consideration. #That is where the communication and argument in this debate starts to crumble.

73,
Mark N5RFX
Hyperbole is a cannibal. In discussions of this sort, ones that involve deeply held emotions, the outrageous comments from either side feed on the statements of the other.

Tradition works best as a font of values. More often than not, the same traditions can act as a dead hand on the tiller.

[n5rfx]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 01 2007,16:15)]Hyperbole is a cannibal. In discussions of this sort
The sad fact is that it works to sway the uneducated masses.

73,
Mark N5RFX

[WA0LYK]

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ July 02 2007,07:13)]Charlie, you're getting boring, honestly.

Honestly, lots of digital innovation is going on in AR, right under your nose, and there's nothing you can do to stop it.

No, it's not iPhone, nor is it WinLink. Probably not even D-STAR.

It is DSP, SDR, WSJT, WinDRM, 802.11 and stuff like that.

Every other service is going digital, and digital is where it's at. And they're not looking back either. The only complainers seem to be people complaining about costs and the costs of not succombing to obsolescence.

Don't worry, in AR there'll still be room for analog, just as there is room for other antiques.

"snip"

Digital is where it's at, and there's nothing you can do about it.

By the way, there's an iPhone thread in Rag Chew.
You seem to mock everyone who believes that analog, especially at HF, will remain a viable communications medium for a long, long time. This makes many, many folk's ears perk up, especially with the recent posts that analog modes should be banned in favor of digital modes.

This may be true yet you have given no evidence of this happening any time soon. I am one that also doesn't see a "digital, the wave of the future" happening any time soon, especially for voice transmission. Data, well data has been around for a long, long time and there is no reason to suspect that data will disappear any time soon.

You want to convince us that digital is "the wave of the future" and that it is occuring right now? Well, tell us right now, today, what will be the standard for digital data on HF and on VHF/above. Tell us right now, today, what the standard for voice will be. Believe me, you can't start a wave of digital adoption, nor convince anyone that there is a wave or even the beginning of a wave, unless there is an agreed upon standard for interoperability.

As to experimenting, please tell us how the old analog fogies are preventing you or anyone else from experimenting with digital anything. The ARRL tried to use this in their bandwidth petition, but the comments showed otherwise. In fact, it was shown that bandwidth limits would impose experimentation limits worse than mode limits. So what is the benefit?

Jim
WA0LYK

[KB1OJU]

Quote[/b] (KB1JCY @ July 02 2007,07:20)]Nobody cares about innovation in the Amateur Radio Service anymore. Any effort to innovate is met with disdain by the resident hamhumps of this hobby/service.
very true

[WA0LYK]

Quote[/b] (KB1OJU @ July 02 2007,17:48)]Quote[/b] (KB1JCY @ July 02 2007,07:20)]Nobody cares about innovation in the Amateur Radio Service anymore. Any effort to innovate is met with disdain by the resident hamhumps of this hobby/service.
very true
It's really easy to criticize folks but difficult to provide information to prove the critiscm is valid! Isn't it?

Jim
WA0LYK

[WA9SVD]

Quote[/b] (n5rfx @ July 02 2007,11:43)]On HF I have not seen an advantage using digital voice because of the bandwidth efficiency of SSB analog signals. Where the advantage may be present for Amateurs is when using FM modulation when the modulation index is greater than 1. Using the typical 5 KHz deviation and 3 KHz audio, the bandwidth required is 16 kHz according to Carson's rule. Using a system similar to the AOR ARD9800/9000 with an F1E/J2E emission would allow that same signal to occupy less bandwidth. Lets compare apples to apples using the ARD 9800. The audio bandwidth is 300 Hz - 2500 Hz and occupies 3.6 kHz. An FM analog system would occupy 14.4 kHz according to Carson's rule. The advantage is that we could achieve a similar S/N ratio in 1/4th of the bandwidth.

There are some disadvantages.

1. You cannot use cheap transceivers like those we use for FM today. We would have to use SSB quality transceivers to realize the bandwidth savings.

2. The G4GUO protocol would have to be more robust to allow mobile operation and to handle QRM.

The next question is do we need to conserve bandwidth where we are allowed to operate FM with a modulation index greater than 1? I really don't find a lot of use in our 6 meter and shorter wavelengths that would require narrower bandwidths.

There is no practical reason to completely switch from analog to digital voice in the Amateur Radio Service. There is however a reason to experiment with digital voice. The reason is because we can. It can help us learn the characteristics of such modes. This is why digital and analog signals must continue to coexist. The rules today allow that co-existence in all Amateur radio bands. The only restriction is in the HF bands where the type of information to be transmitted is limited. This is a traffic leveler that keeps the Phone/Image subbands from being overrun with data signals and keeps the RTTY/Data subbands from being overrun with phone and wideband image signals.

On HF it has been quite instructive for me to watch the waterfall displays of modes like MT63, DRM and RDFT. You can really see the time variable nature of multipath. That is just one example, but I am sure there are others.

The real dilemma is not how do we allow analog and digital emissions to coexist, that is allowed today, the dilemma is how do we let voice data and image emissions exists without upsetting the balance in traffic that we have today. That is what we need to figure out.

73,
Mark N5RFX
OK Mark,
I think I understand your explanation. But it seems you ARE saying that digital voice is still not as narrow as HF SSB. (I hope that's correct; please correct me IF I am wrong.)
So, the real advantage of digital (digital voice) is basically on our present VHF/UHF bands. OK if I understand things correctly. A possible advantage, but not currently a replacement, and not a replacement for our current HF communications.

IF I understand things correctly, then there's a basic misunderstanding, as some afficianados of digital want to portray it as an instant replacement of HF comms, and THAT is what many of us question, and quite frankly, DO resent, if not resist.

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (WA0LYK @ July 02 2007,17:25)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ July 02 2007,07:13)]Charlie, you're getting boring, honestly.

Honestly, lots of digital innovation is going on in AR, right under your nose, and there's nothing you can do to stop it.

No, it's not iPhone, nor is it WinLink. #Probably not even D-STAR.

It is DSP, SDR, WSJT, WinDRM, 802.11 and stuff like that.

Every other service is going digital, and digital is where it's at. #And they're not looking back either. #The only complainers seem to be people complaining about costs and the costs of not succombing to obsolescence.

Don't worry, in AR there'll still be room for analog, just as there is room for other antiques. #

"snip"

Digital is where it's at, and there's nothing you can do about it.

By the way, there's an iPhone thread in Rag Chew.
You seem to mock everyone who believes that analog, especially at HF, will remain a viable communications medium for a long, long time. #This makes many, many folk's ears perk up, especially with the recent posts that analog modes should be banned in favor of digital modes.

This may be true yet you have given no evidence of this happening any time soon. #I am one that also doesn't see a "digital, the wave of the future" happening any time soon, especially for voice transmission. #Data, well data has been around for a long, long time and there is no reason to suspect that data will disappear any time soon.

You want to convince us that digital is "the wave of the future" and that it is occuring right now? #Well, tell us right now, today, what will be the standard for digital data on HF and on VHF/above. #Tell us right now, today, what the standard for voice will be. #Believe me, you can't start a wave of digital adoption, nor convince anyone that there is a wave or even the beginning of a wave, unless there is an agreed upon standard for interoperability.

As to experimenting, please tell us how the old analog fogies are preventing you or anyone else from experimenting with digital anything. #The ARRL tried to use this in their bandwidth petition, but the comments showed otherwise. #In fact, it was shown that bandwidth limits would impose experimentation limits worse than mode limits. #So what is the benefit?

Jim
WA0LYK
Jim, you seem to forget that this hobby is Amateur Radio. #In short, the standards are loose because we should be free to experiment with whatever we desire, as long as it isn't unfair to others or reasonably does not interfere with others using the allocated spectrum. #

And by the way, the evidence that analog is going away and digital is taking over is evident in what I see in other services.

Other services are rapidly going to digital, reaping the benefits and not going back. #Cell phones, two way radio (public safety) broadcast TV and broadcast radio (the penetration of satellite radio, not the "HD Radio" crap that is being shoved down our throats by clear channel et al) are all moving to digital, and the customers are for the most part liking it.

Hams are even getting their feet wet in digital modes and liking it as well. #PSK31 all by itself is attracting many, many new hams to HF. #Younger hams are gravitating towards digital, because digital is innovative and exciting and allows them to experiment with technology, and gets signals through when you can't copy SSB or even CW in some cases.

And even the oldest mode, CW, is 100% digital.

There are still people using vinyl records to listen to music, nothing is wrong with that. But the majority of the world is now using digital music, from CD or MP3.

VCRs have become obsolete as the DVD and DVR has now taken over. I have a top of the line S-VHS VCR collecting dust because its only use is to transfer VHS to DVD.

Digital is here, convergence is here, and it's not going to stop, no matter how much people scowl at it and say, "that's not real ham radio!"

[WA9SVD]

RJ:

You need to calm down, and relate to CURRENT facts, not your "vision."

Yes, there may well be a digital future, but it isn't here, YET. But you seem to be trying to force it down peoples' throats, and claiming anyone not embracing digital technology completely, no questions asked, as somehow deficient, and a detriment to Amateur Radio.

YEs, you are entitled to your opinion, and even your vision of the future.
But time and again. you have avoided defining the actual advantage that your new technology can provide to the average Amateur. You state that your new tech is the "wave of the future," but the future is littered with half-baked innovations that never achieved acceptance, much less widespread use. You still refuse to describe the actual BENEFIT to be gained. At least N5RFX gave us the courtesy of trying (quite nicely, I will add) to explain the advantages (and disadvantages) in a fairly unbiased way. But you seem to drone on and on about how "old" modes are obsolete, yet provide no substantiation to your claims.

Perhaps you can eloquently provide all of us with the actual benefits we ALL can receive from a conversion to digital methods, aside from claiming we made a change to new technology, sorely to claim we moved to new technology? (Hopefullty without resorting to mere accusations that other modes are "outdated" or antiquated; please provide evidence or actual proof, not mere claims or personal beliefs.)

[ab0wr]

ab0wrQuote[/b] ]It reminds me of those in the 60's that kept about trumpeting ground effect vehicles as being the wave of the future.


Quote[/b] ]Or those guys who kept trumpeting SSB as the wave of the future. How dare they say it's better than Almighty Modulation!

SSB *had* more pro's than con's. It offered higher power efficiencies, higher spectrum efficiency, better weak signal operation, and higher operational efficiency (lack of a carrier and use of VOX). It was totally compatible with the older technology. The major con was a lack of suitable components with which to homebrew good transmitters (receivers weren't a problem).

When you look at the digital voice technology today, at least what is available for use on HF, almost everything SSB had as a pro, digital voice has as a con. It has lower power efficiencies (back to sending a carrier signal during the entire transmission), lower spectrum efificiency (can't propagation stack always-on digital modes like you can 30% "on" modes like SSB), worse weak signal operation (_+15db SNR vs +6db SNR for SSB), and it has lower operational efficiency (latency and turnaround times tend toward "old" operational methods of one person transmitting for ten minutes and then someone else taking over). It is certainly not compatible with the older modes.

No one is saying that these con's won't be overcome *someday*. There is nothing on the horizon that I have seen that is a predictor that the "someday" will be in the next decade let alone the next generation of radios.

You only fool yourself into thinking everyone sees you as smart when you begin mixing up digital computing with digital transmission in order to say that the one presages the other. Nothing could be further from the truth.

DSP generation of a voice SSB signal is no more digital transmission of a signal than is using two cups and a string. Exactly the same math is used in a balanced modulator that is used in a DSP. They both result in the same thing happening at the coax connector on the back of the rig.

Step back and take a deep breath. Almost all of the advances you mention are taking place at 400mhz and up, not on 3.5Mhz to 30Mhz. That's where the *bandwidth* exists that will provide for the digital data necessary to make your vision a reality. But it has nothing to do with reality on 3.5Mhz to 30Mhz.

You can look at us as old fuddy-duddys all you want. I personally don't care. I've seen everything touted as "the wave of the future" from gyrocopters to ground effect vehicles to video watches (shades of Dick Tracy) to cold fusion to underwater suburban-like habitats to the Wankel engine.

Know what? The technology *still* doesn't exist to implement any of these in an effective manner -- even as long as 40 years after they began to be touted by the zealots.

Pardon me if I take a somewhat critical eye of the next zealot preaching the "wave of the future". I'll wait till it happens to actually consider it as such.

tim ab0wr

[n5rfx]

Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ July 01 2007,19:57)]OK Mark,
I think I understand your explanation. But it seems you ARE saying that digital voice is still not as narrow as HF SSB. (I hope that's correct; please correct me IF I am wrong.)
So, the real advantage of digital (digital voice) is basically on our present VHF/UHF bands. OK if I understand things correctly. A possible advantage, but not currently a replacement, and not a replacement for our current HF communications.

IF I understand things correctly, then there's a basic misunderstanding, as some afficianados of digital want to portray it as an instant replacement of HF comms, and THAT is what many of us question, and quite frankly, DO resent, if not resist.
You are correct and I understand the resentment and resistance.

73,
Mark N5RFX

[WA0LYK]

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ July 02 2007,19:05)]Jim, you seem to forget that this hobby is Amateur Radio. In short, the standards are loose because we should be free to experiment with whatever we desire, as long as it isn't unfair to others or reasonably does not interfere with others using the allocated spectrum.
You speak in platitudes and I am fast beginning to think you are a troll that adds nothing of value to the thread. You are taking exactly what I said and using it as your own argument! Many of the folks here put in our comments to the FCC about the recent ARRL bandwidth proposal that the new regulations were too restrictive. The current regulations ARE loose, yet the ARRL would have limited experimentation to 3 kHz!

Where has anyone on this thread or others said that experimenting with digital should be banned or even limited? Many of us argued that the ARRL's bandwidth plan would stifle digital experimentation, not increase it. How is that being against digital?

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ July 02 2007,19:05)]And by the way, the evidence that analog is going away and digital is taking over is evident in what I see in other services.

Other services are rapidly going to digital, reaping the benefits and not going back. Cell phones, two way radio (public safety) broadcast TV and broadcast radio (the penetration of satellite radio, not the "HD Radio" crap that is being shoved down our throats by clear channel et al) are all moving to digital, and the customers are for the most part liking it.
Again, more platitudes. Do you think cell phones would exist without standards? Do you think public safety would be moving to digital without the P25 standard? Do you think commercial radio and TV would be moving to digital without a standard? Please answer the questions about what standards ham radio should be implementing. Don't just spout about experimentation. The term experimentation simply means that there isn't a common standard that all hams are ready and willing to accept. Consequently, the market is not ready to create a wave of digital purchases while abandoning analog forms of communication. That is no ones fault and is simply a statement of fact.

Your whole attitude appears to be that ham radio should be moving to digital and only some old farts, like me, is all that is holding the wave back. Again, what standards do you believe should be chosen, right here, right now, to start this wave? Be a man and stand up and be counted! Should we use the AOR box, WinDRM, or P25? Tell us what and why! You've got a chance to convince a lot of us reading this thread that the current implementations are ready for prime time and we need to get started. Don't wimp out by talking about experimentation needs to be done. That just means there is no way to get the wave going.

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ July 02 2007,19:05)]Hams are even getting their feet wet in digital modes and liking it as well. PSK31 all by itself is attracting many, many new hams to HF. Younger hams are gravitating towards digital, because digital is innovative and exciting and allows them to experiment with technology, and gets signals through when you can't copy SSB or even CW in some cases.

And even the oldest mode, CW, is 100% digital.
You keep talking about digital data and comparing it to SSB. How about elucidating a bit about what standard will replace SSB for voice communications? That would be more useful than implying that ham's acceptance of psk31 is a harbinger of a wave that is breaking to replace analog voice.

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ July 02 2007,19:05)]There are still people using vinyl records to listen to music, nothing is wrong with that. But the majority of the world is now using digital music, from CD or MP3.

VCRs have become obsolete as the DVD and DVR has now taken over. I have a top of the line S-VHS VCR collecting dust because its only use is to transfer VHS to DVD.

Digital is here, convergence is here, and it's not going to stop, no matter how much people scowl at it and say, "that's not real ham radio!"
I don't recall anyone in this thread saying digital communications is "not real ham radio". I do see where people are questioning whether the little digital experimentation taking place is a "wave" that requires massive changes to our regulations and even prompting some to postulate about banning analog modes.

Look at all the "standards" you just mentioned, CD, MP3, VHS, DVD, DVR! Without them, advances would never have reached the marketplace.

You might want to reconsider your own internal weathervane if you believe that because not everyone is willing and ready to throw analog communications away right now that they are luddites and are somehow persecuting those, like yourself, who want to see an immediate move to digital only solutions.

If you really want to make sense to the folks here, discuss how the "setting" of a standard by the big manufacturers will affect "experimentation". I'll bet if KenIcYa picked DRM today for HF and above voice and started putting out rigs with this being the only voice mode you would see "experimentation" come to a screeching halt. So be careful what you wish for.

Jim
WA0LYK

[WA9SVD]

Quote[/b] (n5rfx @ July 02 2007,21:00)]Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ July 01 2007,19:57)]OK Mark,
I think I understand your explanation. But it seems you ARE saying that digital voice is still not as narrow as HF SSB. (I hope that's correct; please correct me IF I am wrong.)
So, the real advantage of digital (digital voice) is basically on our present VHF/UHF bands. OK if I understand things correctly. A possible advantage, but not currently a replacement, and not a replacement for our current HF communications.

IF I understand things correctly, then there's a basic misunderstanding, as some afficianados of digital want to portray it as an instant replacement of HF comms, and THAT is what many of us question, and quite frankly, DO resent, if not resist.
You are correct and I understand the resentment and resistance.

73,
Mark N5RFX
Mark,
That's not quite it. It's not so much a matter of resistance or resentment, but not yet seeing an advantage, and yes, partly a cost/performance advantage.
Resistance comes into play when a new technology comes into play without a clear advantage AT THIS TIME. If there is no clear advantage, hams WILL be reluctant to change technology just for the sake of change. (Again, I used the examples of compandered SSB and coherent CW. Both were advances in Technology, and innovations, but had no clear advantage over modes already implemented. PSK, WSJT, on the other hand, HAVE been widely accepted, yet not as a replacement for current modes, but in addition .)

Resentment comes from the bashing and slams that anyone who doesn't embrace new technology, without question, to the exclusion of "older" technology is somehow an impedment to the progress of Amateur Radio.
(The comments weremade earlier by another user that SSB and CW were "antique" modes merely to be grudgingly tolerated by the digital cognescenti.)

I welcomed your sensible reply, yet another here has seen fit, rather than to explain, rather than just expound the simple truth in his mind that digital is the be all, end all, and everyone who disagrees be darned. No justification, no explanation WHY, just that digital anything is better than anything ever before. But yes, some of us are skeptical; we merely ask for proof, or at least examples, which are NOT forthcoming by others. Trying to FORCE a viewpoint onto others often has a negative effect.

I thank YOU for a rational discussion.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ July 02 2007,21:05)]And even the oldest mode, CW, is 100% digital.
That's not true. CW is purely analog since it involves three distinct states -- on short, on long and off. That ain't binary.

[N8CPA]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 03 2007,07:59)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ July 02 2007,21:05)]And even the oldest mode, CW, is 100% digital.
That's not true. CW is purely analog since it involves three distinct states -- on short, on long and off. That ain't binary.
You could add more states when you consider the variable spaces between elements within a letter, between letters within a word, etc. And if you consider American Morse, even the long states are variable.

[WA3KYY]

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ July 02 2007,22:05)]And by the way, the evidence that analog is going away and digital is taking over is evident in what I see in other services.

Other services are rapidly going to digital, reaping the benefits and not going back. #Cell phones, two way radio (public safety) broadcast TV and broadcast radio (the penetration of satellite radio, not the "HD Radio" crap that is being shoved down our throats by clear channel et al) are all moving to digital, and the customers are for the most part liking it.
Do you know why this is occuring in those services and how it actually is an improvement over analog? #One word: #standards. #All digital public service radios use P25. #Digital radio and TV broadcasters in the US use a single standard so every manufacturer of radios and TVs can build a unit capable of receiving the transmissions. #Digital video recordings and music recording all use a standard. #That is why digital is taking off in those situations. Just imagine if every record label had used their own, proprietary digital recording method. Do you think digital music would be dominat under that scenario?

Now look at amateur radio. #We have dozens of standards to chose from. #This fits in well with the experimental nature of our service but also serves to hold back wholesale adoption of digital modes. #Until either someone comes up with a bit of software that can recognize the mode being sent and automaticaly switch in the correct decoder or we decide upon a set of standards, we are going to exist in a Tower of Babel of digital modes on the bands. #There is nothing wrong with that in an experimental service but it most certainly has had a significant slowing effect on adioption of digital modes, especially for voice transmissions.

There are other significant differences in methods of operation in the commercial/public service/cell phone worlds compared to amateur radio that serve for the present to limit wholesale adoption of digital methods in the amateur service. This is where we can show our innovative capabilities. #We can figure out how we can use digital modes for our most popular activities such as DXing, ragchewing, contesting and random QSOs with others. #When the time comes that we can spin the VFO of our digital voice equipped radio and answer a CQ or bust a DX pileup the way we can with SSB and have a crystal clear QSO, digital will be the dominant operating mode. #If that is not possible, then analog modes will retain their role as the primary modes of communications in amateur radio.

73,
Mike WA3KYY

[WA0LYK]

Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ July 02 2007,21:21)]Quote[/b] (n5rfx @ July 02 2007,21:00)]Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ July 01 2007,19:57)]OK Mark,
I think I understand your explanation. But it seems you ARE saying that digital voice is still not as narrow as HF SSB. (I hope that's correct; please correct me IF I am wrong.)
So, the real advantage of digital (digital voice) is basically on our present VHF/UHF bands. OK if I understand things correctly. A possible advantage, but not currently a replacement, and not a replacement for our current HF communications.

IF I understand things correctly, then there's a basic misunderstanding, as some afficianados of digital want to portray it as an instant replacement of HF comms, and THAT is what many of us question, and quite frankly, DO resent, if not resist.
You are correct and I understand the resentment and resistance.

73,
Mark N5RFX
Mark,
That's not quite it. It's not so much a matter of resistance or resentment, but not yet seeing an advantage, and yes, partly a cost/performance advantage.
Resistance comes into play when a new technology comes into play without a clear advantage AT THIS TIME. If there is no clear advantage, hams WILL be reluctant to change technology just for the sake of change. (Again, I used the examples of compandered SSB and coherent CW. Both were advances in Technology, and innovations, but had no clear advantage over modes already implemented. PSK, WSJT, on the other hand, HAVE been widely accepted, yet not as a replacement for current modes, but in addition .)

Resentment comes from the bashing and slams that anyone who doesn't embrace new technology, without question, to the exclusion of "older" technology is somehow an impedment to the progress of Amateur Radio.
(The comments weremade earlier by another user that SSB and CW were "antique" modes merely to be grudgingly tolerated by the digital cognescenti.)

I welcomed your sensible reply, yet another here has seen fit, rather than to explain, rather than just expound the simple truth in his mind that digital is the be all, end all, and everyone who disagrees be darned. No justification, no explanation WHY, just that digital anything is better than anything ever before. But yes, some of us are skeptical; we merely ask for proof, or at least examples, which are NOT forthcoming by others. Trying to FORCE a viewpoint onto others often has a negative effect.

I thank YOU for a rational discussion.
You've pretty much hit the nail on the head with your comments.

It is funny to me that folks who intimate that those who like SSB are luddites and should be ashamed are flabbergasted when you point out that most digital signals today use exactly that mode.

What they are actually proposing is that amateurs should select a standard for digital use so that everyone can begin to move that way. They fail to understand that when you start buying trancievers with two modes, i.e. 'data' and 'voice' versus AM, RTTY, CW, and SSB that experimentation will go out the window.

You won't be able to send psk31, pactor, or any other 'digital' protocol through the rig in 'voice' mode because it will be designed to digitize speech into the chosen standard digital voice protocol. At the same time, you will connect a keyboard and perhaps a 'usb stick' to the rig for use with 'data' and will use the chosen standard digital data protocol. Consequently, no more experimenting with different protocols. In order to experiment, you will need to use antiquated ANALOG equipment!

So as you can see, analog modes are probably best for experimenters whether the digital cognescenti want to admit it or not!

Jim
WA0LYK

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 03 2007,06:59)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ July 02 2007,21:05)]And even the oldest mode, CW, is 100% digital.
That's not true. CW is purely analog since it involves three distinct states -- on short, on long and off. That ain't binary.
Wow, the ignorance in Amateur Radio never ceases to amaze me.

I said nothing about binary. I only said that morse was digital.

First of all, digital only means that a signal is composed of discrete states. It has nothing to do with binary.

Morse has five states - dot, dash, short pause, long pause and no signal.

These are five discrete states, not a continuously varying signal.

Therefore, morse code is definitely digital.

Morse is not infinitely variable, therefore it does NOT fit in the definition of being analog.

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ July 02 2007,21:36)]RJ:

You need to calm down, and relate to CURRENT facts, not your "vision."
I'm relating to facts, however, some OF's seem to be living in a fantasyland back in time.

Quote[/b] ]
Yes, there may well be a digital future, but it isn't here, YET. But you seem to be trying to force it down peoples' throats, and claiming anyone not embracing digital technology completely, no questions asked, as somehow deficient, and a detriment to Amateur Radio.

The rest of the world is moving to digital, why aren't we?

I'm not forcing anything down YOUR throat, just telling YOU that when I and others choose to go digital, don't complain!

I'm also telling YOU and others to not be hypocrites by pushing wideband analog modes such as AM and ESSB while shunning wideband digital such as WinDRM.

All I am telling you is to leave us digital experimenters alone. If you want to participate, fine. If you don't want to participate, then butt out.


Quote[/b] ] YEs, you are entitled to your opinion, and even your vision of the future.
But time and again. you have avoided defining the actual advantage that your new technology can provide to the average Amateur.

I've explained it over and over again.

Flexibility. Accurate reproduction of intelligence carried over the signal even when the signal is weak and in the noise. Multiplexing, and much much more.

Incidentally, some of these same benefits are pushed by the pro CW crowd when they are pushing the benefits of CW. Little do they realize that it's because CW is a digital mode, comprised of distinct states, which is why it will withstand bad conditions.

Quote[/b] ] You state that your new tech is the "wave of the future," but the future is littered with half-baked innovations that never achieved acceptance, much less widespread use.

Excuse me? "Half baked" is what ham radio is about. We are supposed to be about experimenting with communications. The word "stable" doesn't enter into our vocabulary otherwise we'd simply be users of technology like other radio services.

Quote[/b] ] You still refuse to describe the actual BENEFIT to be gained.

I've done it over and over. Your laziness to look isn't my problem.

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (WA3KYY @ July 03 2007,07:38)]Do you know why this is occuring in those services and how it actually is an improvement over analog? One word: standards. All digital public service radios use P25. Digital radio and TV broadcasters in the US use a single standard so every manufacturer of radios and TVs can build a unit capable of receiving the transmissions. Digital video recordings and music recording all use a standard. That is why digital is taking off in those situations. Just imagine if every record label had used their own, proprietary digital recording method. Do you think digital music would be dominat under that scenario?

Now look at amateur radio. We have dozens of standards to chose from. This fits in well with the experimental nature of our service but also serves to hold back wholesale adoption of digital modes. Until either someone comes up with a bit of software that can recognize the mode being sent and automaticaly switch in the correct decoder or we decide upon a set of standards, we are going to exist in a Tower of Babel of digital modes on the bands. There is nothing wrong with that in an experimental service but it most certainly has had a significant slowing effect on adioption of digital modes, especially for voice transmissions.

There are other significant differences in methods of operation in the commercial/public service/cell phone worlds compared to amateur radio that serve for the present to limit wholesale adoption of digital methods in the amateur service. This is where we can show our innovative capabilities. We can figure out how we can use digital modes for our most popular activities such as DXing, ragchewing, contesting and random QSOs with others.

73,
Mike WA3KYY
Digital TV, while built upon some standards, has quite a lot of variation. Progressive scan, interlaced, number of lines (480, 720, 1080), different bitrates and even different modulation techniques (VSB for off air vs QAM for cable).

Cell phones use different standards and methods for multiplexing and different codecs.

Digital satellite TV uses different standards as well.

The lack of a standard should not be an excuse for us not to be allowed to experiment with any new digital modes.

Quote[/b] ]When the time comes that we can spin the VFO of our digital voice equipped radio and answer a CQ or bust a DX pileup the way we can with SSB and have a crystal clear QSO, digital will be the dominant operating mode. If that is not possible, then analog modes will retain their role as the primary modes of communications in amateur radio.

You must have some special radio... Analog SSB has never been "crystal clear" to me.

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ July 03 2007,06:00)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 03 2007,06:59)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ July 02 2007,21:05)]And even the oldest mode, CW, is 100% digital.
That's not true. CW is purely analog since it involves three distinct states -- on short, on long and off. That ain't binary.
Wow, the ignorance in Amateur Radio never ceases to amaze me.

I said nothing about binary. I only said that morse was digital.

First of all, digital only means that a signal is composed of discrete states. It has nothing to do with binary.

Morse has five states - dot, dash, short pause, long pause and no signal.

These are five discrete states, not a continuously varying signal.

Therefore, morse code is definitely digital.

Morse is not infinitely variable, therefore it does NOT fit in the definition of being analog.
Using this logic even voice speech is digital.

It is made up of a dictionary of discrete combinations of sounds, there are NOT an infinitely variable number of combinations within a language.

Each sound is made up of discrete frequencies whose determinants are the resonant length of your vocal cords.

Each sound is made up of discrete placements of your tongue in the air flow.

Voice just happens to have more discrete states than Morse Code. So does 8-state PAM. Why wouldn't voice be considered digital as well based on your logic?

tim ab0wr

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ July 03 2007,08:17)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ July 03 2007,06:00)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 03 2007,06:59)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ July 02 2007,21:05)]And even the oldest mode, CW, is 100% digital.
That's not true. CW is purely analog since it involves three distinct states -- on short, on long and off. That ain't binary.
Wow, the ignorance in Amateur Radio never ceases to amaze me.

I said nothing about binary. I only said that morse was digital.

First of all, digital only means that a signal is composed of discrete states. It has nothing to do with binary.

Morse has five states - dot, dash, short pause, long pause and no signal.

These are five discrete states, not a continuously varying signal.

Therefore, morse code is definitely digital.

Morse is not infinitely variable, therefore it does NOT fit in the definition of being analog.
Using this logic even voice speech is digital.

It is made up of a dictionary of discrete combinations of sounds, there are NOT an infinitely variable number of combinations within a language.

Each sound is made up of discrete frequencies whose determinants are the resonant length of your vocal cords.

Each sound is made up of discrete placements of your tongue in the air flow.

Voice just happens to have more discrete states than Morse Code. So does 8-state PAM. Why wouldn't voice be considered digital as well based on your logic?

tim ab0wr
Wrong, Tim.

Speech and sound is made up of an infinitely varying analog signal.

Words are NOT made up of discrete frequencies. If that were so we'd all sound the same.

The human voice is also not capable of producing pure frequencies. Human speech and all other naturally generated sound is rich in harmonics and distortion.

Written words themselves, yes, they can be 100% digital. In fact you are watching digital words right now.

But not speech and sound.

Did you take calculus in school, Tim? Just curious. If you completely understood the theory of calculus, especially with regards to integration we wouldn't be having this discussion. This is not a slam on you, I just want to know how best I can relate this to you.

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] ]Flexibility. Accurate reproduction of intelligence carried over the signal even when the signal is weak and in the noise. Multiplexing, and much much more.

ROFL!!!

Again you confuse the SNR capability of digital data with digital voice. Digital data operates with lower SNR ratios because it depends upon redundancy and high overhead to correct errors. High latencies and repeated frames are no problem for machine data.

Digital voice on the other hand can NOT withstand high latencies and repeated frames or your "crystal clear" gets thrown out the window. Accurate reproduction of voice when the signal is weak and in the noise just plain disappears. Analog SSB works better.

Multiplexing requires the bandwidth necessary for MORE than one conversation. It is difficult to find sufficient bandwidth for ONE user on the HF bands let alone multiplexed conversations.

Psk31 and digital voice users comprise less than one percent of the hams on the air at any one time (see the usage study presented with the bandwidth regulation proposal submitted to the FCC just prior to the ARRL proposal). Why should that be considered a wave of *anything*?

I keep coming to the conclusion that you don't understand the spectrum chart that most of us learned in high school physics.

Your examples mostly exist on the center-right of the chart while you are talking about the spectrum on the center-left of the chart. Is it any wonder that most of us see a disconnect between your examples and your "vision"?

No one wants to bother your experimentation, especially if it happens on the center-right of the spectrum chart. Everyone will certainly leave you alone.

As for the rest you are like a little noseeum. I think it was Foghorn Leghorn who said "Go away son, you bother me". This fits the "digital" revolution to a T today. When the only justifications offered by the digital zealots is that cell phones at 800Mhz exist and therefore we all should move to Windrm on HF then those zealots are nothing more than a "bother". The big boys will just keep on using SSB on 75m for a long, long time.

tim ab0wr

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (KB1OJU @ July 02 2007,17:48)]Quote[/b] (KB1JCY @ July 02 2007,07:20)]Nobody cares about innovation in the Amateur Radio Service anymore. Any effort to innovate is met with disdain by the resident hamhumps of this hobby/service.
very true
Bull$#it!

1. Hams appreciate innovation but are not a passive audience. They will tell you what they really think of your "innovation" and you can jut your jaw out and take it like a man, or you can run home and cry to mommie as you two seem to be doing.

2. There will always be smarter and dumber Amateurs than you (or me too). If you try to pass of someone else's ideas as "new" and "cutting edge" that were done 25 years ago already, some smart Amateur is going to know it.

3. What impresses some older Amateurs like HF email and digital voice are a real JOKE to most young people who grew up with 3-D graphics, 100mb wifi, and a zillion gHz computers.

4. Digital applications "on the horizon" is a cop-out catch phrase. It's like sitting home doing nothing and trusting in God to take care of you and your family. The almighty Digital will deliver us from AM and SSB evil! You have spectrum now above 70CM, so where are the "horizon" products? Tell us, get us excited!

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ July 03 2007,06:26)]Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ July 03 2007,08:17)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ July 03 2007,06:00)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 03 2007,06:59)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ July 02 2007,21:05)]And even the oldest mode, CW, is 100% digital.
That's not true. CW is purely analog since it involves three distinct states -- on short, on long and off. That ain't binary.
Wow, the ignorance in Amateur Radio never ceases to amaze me.

I said nothing about binary. I only said that morse was digital.

First of all, digital only means that a signal is composed of discrete states. It has nothing to do with binary.

Morse has five states - dot, dash, short pause, long pause and no signal.

These are five discrete states, not a continuously varying signal.

Therefore, morse code is definitely digital.

Morse is not infinitely variable, therefore it does NOT fit in the definition of being analog.
Using this logic even voice speech is digital.

It is made up of a dictionary of discrete combinations of sounds, there are NOT an infinitely variable number of combinations within a language.

Each sound is made up of discrete frequencies whose determinants are the resonant length of your vocal cords.

Each sound is made up of discrete placements of your tongue in the air flow.

Voice just happens to have more discrete states than Morse Code. So does 8-state PAM. Why wouldn't voice be considered digital as well based on your logic?

tim ab0wr
Wrong, Tim.

Speech and sound is made up of an infinitely varying analog signal.

Words are NOT made up of discrete frequencies. If that were so we'd all sound the same.

The human voice is also not capable of producing pure frequencies. Human speech and all other naturally generated sound is rich in harmonics and distortion.

Written words themselves, yes, they can be 100% digital. In fact you are watching digital words right now.

But not speech and sound.

Did you take calculus in school, Tim? Just curious. If you completely understood the theory of calculus, especially with regards to integration we wouldn't be having this discussion. This is not a slam on you, I just want to know how best I can relate this to you.
Oh, give me a break. Calculus? Yes, I took quite a lot of calculus and diffeq and etc in college.

You obviously don't understand how speech is formed in the human larnyx.

I didn't say that *words* are made up of discrete frequencies. I said that *sounds* are made up of discrete frequencies. Each word is a combination of those sounds Just like a Morse Code word is made up of a combination of dits and dahs.

Every persons larnyx is different with different length and thickness in their vocal cords. That is why everyone sounds differently. Yet those vocal cords will produce *discrete* frequencies based on the resonance of those vocal cords. Those sounds with discrete frequencies (different for every person) make up an large but definitely not infinite dictionary of words.

A violin doesn't produce a "pure" tone either. It produces sounds rich in harmonics and also has some distortion based on the specifics of the instrument. Even music, however, is made up of discrete states called NOTES. Those notes have different discrete frequencies and those notes are made up of discrete states called sixteenth notes, eighth notes, quarter notes, half notes, and full notes. They can be combined in all kinds of ways but they are still discrete.

Does that make music a DIGITAL transmission mode as well?

Remember, even Morse Code can be made up of a large number of variations in element length. From 5wpm to 5.000000.....1wpm to 25wpm to 25.......1 wpm. Does that still make it "digital" or does it become analog since in the limit the differences of element length are infinite? Those element lengths can even vary during a specific sending interval - it is called "swing" in the parlance of the times, e.g. the Lake Erie swing and the Banana Boat swing.

Be careful what you try to denigrate someone with, you might just get hoist on your own petard.

tim ab0wr

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ July 03 2007,08:35)]ROFL!!!

Again you confuse the SNR capability of digital data with digital voice. Digital data operates with lower SNR ratios because it depends upon redundancy and high overhead to correct errors. High latencies and repeated frames are no problem for machine data.
Wrong. Error correction works well with digital voice. See, unlike you, I am not limiting myself to the few protocols we have in amateur radio.

Quote[/b] ]
Digital voice on the other hand can NOT withstand high latencies and repeated frames or your "crystal clear" gets thrown out the window. Accurate reproduction of voice when the signal is weak and in the noise just plain disappears. Analog SSB works better.

Wrong. Analog SSB is worse! DV is no worse than SSB. When an SSB signal is in the noise, it is for the most part unintelligible. Given sufficient bitrate, a DV signal will be readable with perfect quality even when an equivalent strength analog signal is "down in the mud"

Quote[/b] ]Multiplexing requires the bandwidth necessary for MORE than one conversation. It is difficult to find sufficient bandwidth for ONE user on the HF bands let alone multiplexed conversations.

Are you serious? Or are you just playing ignorant?

I must be imagining Time Division, Code Division and compression.

Cell phone carriers have already harnessed time and code division multiplexing and are carrying much more than they did with analog. It is one of many reasons why analog lost in the cell phone world.

CQPSK in P25 uses only 6.25kHz of bandwidth versus 12.5kHz and more for a full FM channel.

Quote[/b] ]Psk31 and digital voice users comprise less than one percent of the hams on the air at any one time (see the usage study presented with the bandwidth regulation proposal submitted to the FCC just prior to the ARRL proposal). Why should that be considered a wave of *anything*?

Because their numbers are growing.

Quote[/b] ]I keep coming to the conclusion that you don't understand the spectrum chart that most of us learned in high school physics.

I keep coming to the conclusion that you are a poser, and that YOU don't know even basic high school or first year college math, which is why you say ridiculous things like CW is an analog mode.

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ July 03 2007,08:56)]Oh, give me a break. Calculus? Yes, I took quite a lot of calculus and diffeq and etc in college.
Then you obviously forgot most of it, or failed your classes. Either one seems plausible at this point.

Quote[/b] ]
You obviously don't understand how speech is formed in the human larnyx.

Oh, absolutely I do.

Quote[/b] ]I didn't say that *words* are made up of discrete frequencies. I said that *sounds* are made up of discrete frequencies.

Bravo Sierra.

Nothing in the natural world, especially the human voice, can create a discrete frequency.

Our voices are rich in harmonics, and so are many other natural sounds.

Quote[/b] ]Each word is a combination of those sounds Just like a Morse Code word is made up of a combination of dits and dahs.

Why are there accents?

Why do male and female voices sound different?

The sound of the human voice is certainly not discrete. It is continuously varying.

Quote[/b] ]Every persons larnyx is different with different length and thickness in their vocal cords. That is why everyone sounds differently. Yet those vocal cords will produce *discrete* frequencies based on the resonance of those vocal cords. Those sounds with discrete frequencies (different for every person) make up an large but definitely not infinite dictionary of words.

Wrong. They create similar sounding words, and the human brain is able to process them, because the human brain seemingly works in an analog fashion, and is able to interpret approximately.

Quote[/b] ]A violin doesn't produce a "pure" tone either. It produces sounds rich in harmonics and also has some distortion based on the specifics of the instrument. Even music, however, is made up of discrete states called NOTES. Those notes have different discrete frequencies and those notes are made up of discrete states called sixteenth notes, eighth notes, quarter notes, half notes, and full notes. They can be combined in all kinds of ways but they are still discrete.

Again, you are confusing things here.

Notes on a sheet of paper are digital.

The sound of music, when played with an instrument is analog.

Quote[/b] ]Does that make music a DIGITAL transmission mode as well?

Written music, yes. The sounds generated by musical instruments? No.

Quote[/b] ]Remember, even Morse Code can be made up of a large number of variations in element length. From 5wpm to 5.000000.....1wpm to 25wpm to 25.......1 wpm. Does that still make it "digital" or does it become analog since in the limit the differences of element length are infinite? Those element lengths can even vary during a specific sending interval - it is called "swing" in the parlance of the times, e.g. the Lake Erie swing and the Banana Boat swing.

So can many other digital signals. High and low aren't always at the exact same value in a binary system. Due to variations in the supply voltage, high can be 5v, high can be 4.9v etc.

It doesn't make it any less digital.

Morse is digital, and no matter how much you try to reason that it isn't, it is.

Quote[/b] ]Be careful what you try to denigrate someone with, you might just get hoist on your own petard.

LOL. Please. From you? You don't even understand the first thing about the difference between analog and digital. You're just another know it all amateur who knows nothing and can't seem to accept the truth.

Morse is digital. Deal with it.

[N2RJ]

Tim, since you seem to be unconvinced to move away from ignorance by me, maybe an article by our very own W5ALT will set you straight:

CW is digital (http://www.comportco.com/~w5alt/cw/cwindex.php?pg=6)


And I'm done.

There's no use trying to convince the ignorant.

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ July 03 2007,06:35)]Digital data operates with lower SNR ratios because it depends upon redundancy and high overhead to correct errors. High latencies and repeated frames are no problem for machine data.

Digital voice on the other hand can NOT withstand high latencies and repeated frames or your "crystal clear" gets thrown out the window. Accurate reproduction of voice when the signal is weak and in the noise just plain disappears. Analog SSB works better.

Multiplexing requires the bandwidth necessary for MORE than one conversation. It is difficult to find sufficient bandwidth for ONE user on the HF bands let alone multiplexed conversations.
Very accurate points, Tim. The overhead of successful "crystal clear" digital adds significantly to the bandwidth required where this is intended to overcome S/N issues. No doubt that lab or good S/N conditions yield good sound as determined by the voice quality bandwidth. Add interference without the corrective overhead and the BER goes up quickly. As an example, TDMA tests on cellular determined that digital coverage range was 10-15% less than Analog without things like forward error correction, power control, etc.

The following statement is heard repeated often:

Digital is the Wave of the Future offering crystal clear audio, file transfers, network connection, improved range.

The average amateur hears in the statement above:

Digital will increase the range of my equipment, give me CD quality sound, and let me interconnect to the internet on HF.

The truth is:

Digital is the Wave of the Future if more than the handful of Amateurs using it now get interested. In the lab or in good S/N conditions, digital on HF will sound clear but tinty and somewhat artificial given the available bandwidth. CD Quality sound needs a MB of bandwidth, not 3kHz. Yes you can connect to the internet but it will be with sub-dialup speeds (you'll be pi$$ed and bored in 2 minutes). Add noise, interference, or any other cause of higher BER and your friend on HF on digital voice will sound like Darth Vader at 78RPM, Pam Anderson's picture will take 3 hours to download, and your range will suffer.

It's time to "fess up" about digital. If most Amateurs are being asked to give away spectrum to digital enthusiasts, then they should know the truth.

[n5rfx]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ July 01 2007,07:47)]I guess I must confess suprise that none of the "Digital is the Wave of the Furure" (DWOF) types have posted something about the new iPhone and why no slick devices are available for AR. With technology now on 2M and 70CM, you could have a cellphone-like portable that sends text messages* and has a camera for sending pictures. With the bally-hoo over the DSTAR, you could have an iPhone like device for AR today. Yes the data transfer rates would be slow, but where are the neat devices? Could it be that vendors know there is a pitifully small market for them?

We hear talk about how we're not "state of the art" anymore yet on bands where we could be with no rule changes there is only sparce activity. Personally I believe that the DWOF crowd is the mouthpiece of Winlink users, and no better evidence exists than the lack of enthusiasm from Amateurs on the UHF bands and above.

Your thoughts?

*Yes I know some portables do this today...
The reason HF gets picked on by the Digital is the Wave of the Furure" (DWOF) groups is the same reason HF is so popular in general. It is where the action is. It is the meeting place where you will find many other amateurs. When your group is sparse and spread out, HF brings you together.

I am fortunate to live in a large metropolitan area, so experimenters 33cm and above are somewhat plentiful. There is a real move to use 33cm. It is wide open and available for use. I have converted several Motorola radios to operate in this band, and am free to experiment to my heart's desire. The areas above 33 cm are ripe with experimenters. The North Texas Microwave Society (http://www.ntms.org/) at Ham-Com (http://www.hamcom.org/cgi-bin/ccp51/cp-app.cgi) this year showed us how to re-use DIrectTV/DishNetwork throw away dishes for 10 GHz. If you live in an area that does not have a high density of Hams, then maybe that activity is limited. Thus the reason for meeting on HF.

With this said, we have to realize the limitations of HF. The main limitation is bandwidth. The lack of bandwidth on HF and its great popularity limit what can be done there. There won't be any protocols there today with speeds that are available in shorter wavelength bands because of bandwidth. That does not mean that there won't be some breakthrough someday, but the path is not obvious.

As I said in an earlier post, the real breakthrough on HF will be how to drop the regulatory requirement to segregate emissions based on the content of the emission without upsetting the traffic balance that this type of segregation gives us. This is more of a social issue than it is a technical issue. That is why I pointed out how that the digital/analog argument is so polarizing and leads to distrust in the amateur community. There are just certain groups that will have stay in jail (to borrow a metaphor from the past). Unfortunately the majority on the ARRL Digital Ad Hoc committee bears much responsibility for the distrust.

73,
Mark N5RFX
[URL=http://www.ntms.org/]North Texas

[ky5u]

One more word on AM, ESSB, and Digital...

The FCC has clearly said they do not support ESSB. AM deserves an "exemption" simply because it is a legal legacy mode and it's bandwidth is higher. I fully support AM window frequencies on all bands and on 75/80M, in all license privlege segments as a way to contain use.

There is a big difference between accomodating a legal legacy mode and trying to justify more spectrum for ESSB and digital use in the voice bands.

[WA3KYY]

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ July 03 2007,09:14)]Quote[/b] ]When the time comes that we can spin the VFO of our digital voice equipped radio and answer a CQ or bust a DX pileup the way we can with SSB and have a crystal clear QSO, digital will be the dominant operating mode. #If that is not possible, then analog modes will retain their role as the primary modes of communications in amateur radio.

You must have some special radio... Analog SSB has never been "crystal clear" to me.
I did not claim that SSB provided crystal clear QSOs. That is the promise of digital voice among other benefits. But right now, it is quite a bit more difficult to establish and maintain a digital voice QSO compared to SSB. With proper S/N maintained on the path and little or no adjacent channel QRM, it actually seems to provide better audio than digital cell phones. But from what I have observed to date, under typical HF conditions digital voice fails more than it succeeds.

BTW, is there a set of WinDRM calling frequencies? I'd like to do more playing with the mode than I have so far.

73,
Mike WA3KYY

[WA9SVD]

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ July 03 2007,06:57)]CQPSK in P25 uses only 6.25kHz of bandwidth versus 12.5kHz and more for a full FM channel.
OK, and SSB is only 3 KHz. So your digital signal is twice as wide as SSB, yet THAT is an improvement?.

No need to blow smoke about "eSSB" and AM. That is NOT used by the vast majority of SSB users. I'm sure there are digital modes that are much wider than your P25.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (n5rfx @ July 03 2007,09:23)][W]e have to realize the limitations of HF. #The main limitation is bandwidth. #The lack of bandwidth on HF and its great popularity limit what can be done there. #There won't be any protocols there today with speeds that are available in #shorter wavelength bands because of bandwidth. #That does not mean that there won't be some breakthrough someday, but the path is not obvious.

As I said in an earlier post, the real breakthrough on HF will be how to drop the regulatory requirement to segregate emissions based on the content of the emission without upsetting the traffic balance that this type of segregation gives us. #This is more of a social issue than it is a technical issue. #That is why I pointed out how that the digital/analog argument is so polarizing and leads to distrust in the amateur community. #There are just certain groups that will have stay in jail (to borrow a metaphor from the past). #Unfortunately the majority on the ARRL Digital Ad Hoc committee bears much responsibility for the distrust.

73,
Mark N5RFX
[URL=http://www.ntms.org/]North Texas
All too true.

What this kind of thread reinforces for me is to remember that a compromise is a solution that pisses both parties off.

Not sure that any compromise is possible from the technical side of the issue. From the regulatory side, I doubt that anything can (or will) be done without some consensus being built beforehand. The FCC in the final analysis is more of a political bureaucracy than it is a technically competent regulatorl. BPL shows that all too clearly.

Rodney King's immortal line rings in my punkin haid (as that other immortal, Li'l Abner used to put it): "Can't we all get along?"

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ July 03 2007,09:35)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ July 03 2007,06:57)]CQPSK in P25 uses only 6.25kHz of bandwidth versus 12.5kHz and more for a full FM channel.
OK, and SSB is only 3 KHz. #So your digital signal is twice as wide as SSB, yet THAT is an improvement?.

# #No need to blow smoke about "eSSB" and AM. #That is NOT used by the vast majority of SSB users. #I'm sure there are digital modes that are much wider than your P25.
Digital voice on HF uses about the same as a regular SSB signal.

[WA9SVD]

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ July 03 2007,07:42)]Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ July 03 2007,09:35)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ July 03 2007,06:57)]CQPSK in P25 uses only 6.25kHz of bandwidth versus 12.5kHz and more for a full FM channel.
OK, and SSB is only 3 KHz. So your digital signal is twice as wide as SSB, yet THAT is an improvement?.

No need to blow smoke about "eSSB" and AM. That is NOT used by the vast majority of SSB users. I'm sure there are digital modes that are much wider than your P25.
Digital voice on HF uses about the same as a regular SSB signal.
OK, I'll take that on trust, although that's not exactly what you said above.

Now, I see a problem brought up already: modes such as PSK, WSJT, etc. won't work with your digital radios; we still need analogue systems for that. And other than being new technology, is there really an advantage of digital voice over SSB? And I'm talking about an advantage great enough to convince the average Amateur to go digital when they buy their next radio?

[n5rfx]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ July 02 2007,08:19)]The following statement is heard repeated often:

Digital is the Wave of the Future offering crystal clear audio, file transfers, network connection, improved range.

The average amateur hears in the statement above:

Digital will increase the range of my equipment, give me CD quality sound, and let me interconnect to the internet on HF.

The truth is:

Digital is the Wave of the Future if more than the handful of Amateurs using it now get interested. In the lab or in good S/N conditions, digital on HF will sound clear but tinty and somewhat artificial given the available bandwidth. CD Quality sound needs a MB of bandwidth, not 3kHz. Yes you can connect to the internet but it will be with sub-dialup speeds (you'll be pi$$ed and bored in 2 minutes). Add noise, interference, or any other cause of higher BER and your friend on HF on digital voice will sound like Darth Vader at 78RPM, Pam Anderson's picture will take 3 hours to download, and your range will suffer.
This certainly is false advertising...today... and is an example of being over zealous. I do think that narrow band digital technology will improve in the next decade. Charles Brain (http://www.chbrain.dircon.co.uk/index.html) G4GUO whose protocol is used by the AOR 9800/9000 says it bestQuote[/b] ] Although I don't
believe this will ever become a mainstream Amateur mode it is interesting to investigate what is possible and what problems there are.
That is the perspective that HF digital experimenters must have.

73,
Mark N5RFX

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ July 03 2007,09:50)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ July 03 2007,07:42)]Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ July 03 2007,09:35)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ July 03 2007,06:57)]CQPSK in P25 uses only 6.25kHz of bandwidth versus 12.5kHz and more for a full FM channel.
OK, and SSB is only 3 KHz. #So your digital signal is twice as wide as SSB, yet THAT is an improvement?.

# #No need to blow smoke about "eSSB" and AM. #That is NOT used by the vast majority of SSB users. #I'm sure there are digital modes that are much wider than your P25.
Digital voice on HF uses about the same as a regular SSB signal.
OK, I'll take that on trust, although that's not exactly what you said above.

# #Now, I see a problem brought up already: #modes such as PSK, WSJT, etc. won't work with your digital radios; we still need analogue systems for that. #And other than being new technology, is there really an advantage of digital voice over SSB? #And I'm talking about an advantage great enough to convince the average Amateur to go digital when they buy their next radio?
See, I'm not thinking about "the next radio."

I'm thinking about hams warming up the soldering irons and building something, like in the good old days, ya know?

Eventually there'll be ready made appliances, but for now, we experiment using soldered together stuff and software we write ourselves.

With regards to PSK, WSJT et al - the signals themselves going through the ether are analog, because the way we do digital now is by encoding the digital data using an analog signal (such as a sine wave) as the carrier. The difference is in the modulation. #We modulate by turning it on and off or varying its level or adding sidebands of different frequencies to create the discrete states of digital.

When they are demodulated, then they return to their pure digital form.

Right now I'd be happy for more people to experiment and at least try some of the new digital stuff instead of just dismissing it.

I'm not trying for digital to immediately and forcefully take over the ham bands, but if people don't at least try the new stuff, they won't know what they're missing.

[n5rfx]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ July 02 2007,08:25)]The FCC has clearly said they do not support ESSB.
Really? What about the denial of the petition to limit bandwidths in FCC-DA-04-3661A1 (http://www.nu9n.com/images/FCC-DA-04-3661A1-final.pdf). While not an ESSB endorsement, it was not a condemnation either. The only subband where bandwidth limits have been endorsed by the FCC is the limits in the RTTY/Data subbands. The Phone/Image subbands are bandwidth limit free.

73,
Mark N5RFX

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (n5rfx @ July 03 2007,08:16)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ July 02 2007,08:25)]The FCC has clearly said they do not support ESSB.
Really? What about the denial of the petition to limit bandwidths in FCC-DA-04-3661A1 (http://www.nu9n.com/images/FCC-DA-04-3661A1-final.pdf). While not an ESSB endorsement, it was not a condemnation either. The only subband where bandwidth limits have been endorsed by the FCC is the limits in the RTTY/Data subbands. The Phone/Image subbands are bandwidth limit free.

73,
Mark N5RFX
Geez Mark, Riley came out and said that if they want to sound like broadcst stations they should apply for a broadcast license at this year's Dayton Hamfest.

Personally as long as the band is not busy, I say let them have fun.

[n5rfx]

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ July 02 2007,08:58)]Right now I'd be happy for more people to experiment and at least try some of the new digital stuff instead of just dismissing it.

I'm not trying for digital to immediately and forcefully take over the ham bands, but if people don't at least try the new stuff, they won't know what they're missing.
Ryan,

I don't know how long you have been following the digital/analog discussions on QRZ, but there is a group here that have been discussing this for a few years now. I too had the opinion that some in this group were against digital experimentation. I was wrong about that and through our years of discussion I see what issues these guys are concerned about. There are those who have proclaimed that the amateur bands must go digital. The perception is this means at the expense of analog modes. Generally what this group here is looking for is a moderation of the claims made by digital zealots and fairness in how much spectrum digital experimenters should be occupying.

When the digital ad-hoc committee (http://www.arrl.org/announce/reports-0307/hf-digital.html) came out with their report on March 24, 2003, it was clear that their charter was too broad and that the recommendations made to the BOD were out of line with current spectrum usage and more importantly future spectrum usage. There were two members who were in the minority on this committee. Peter Martinez, G3PLX who resigned 2/28/03 and Howard Teller "Skip", KH6TY who posts here on QRZ. Skip had alerted some of us early on that the committee was orchestrating a spectrum grab for WinLink 2000. The rest is history. When the defenders of WinLink 2000 joined the debate, it did nothing but polarize the groups further.

73,
Mark N5RFX

[WA9SVD]

Quote[/b] (n5rfx @ July 03 2007,08:16)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ July 02 2007,08:25)]The FCC has clearly said they do not support ESSB.
Really? What about the denial of the petition to limit bandwidths in FCC-DA-04-3661A1 (http://www.nu9n.com/images/FCC-DA-04-3661A1-final.pdf). While not an ESSB endorsement, it was not a condemnation either. The only subband where bandwidth limits have been endorsed by the FCC is the limits in the RTTY/Data subbands. The Phone/Image subbands are bandwidth limit free.

73,
Mark N5RFX
Mark,

Bandwidth is also limited on 60 Meters, along with power limits and USB being mandated as the only authorized mode.
Mr. Hollingsworth has stated more than once that in most cases he does not consider eSSB (at least that which takes more bandwidth than a standard SSB signal) "good Amateur practice," but as the current rules are written, a signal can legally be as wide as an AM signal, so that allows around 6 kHz. If wide eSSB is restricted to a few frequencies, I guess he feels it can be tolerated, at least at this time. Actually taking any regulatory action against the wide eSSB'ers on the grounds of "Poor Amateur Practice" would be difficult to justify, however desirable it might be in some cases.
The denial of a bandwidth limit was hardly about eSSB alone, there were other reasons, good and bad, why it was not adopted.



RJ:

I'm all for experimentation; that's fine... It's the, shall we say, attitude by many of the digital proponents that current modes (including SSB) are so outdated that they should be eliminated.

Our current radios DO have an AM setting, even though it is seldom used by most Amateurs these days. Yet, it IS still used by some, even though, by all rights, it should be considered "antiquated" and obsolete. Yet you don't see most SSB proponents demanding it be eliminated from either the radios or the bands. Peaceful coexistence DOES take place, and I would hope that is the sort of arrangement can be worked out with new digital modes. Perhaps there SHOULD be some segregation of new digital modes and analog modes. And if the digital modes, such as digital voice DO have an advantage over analogue modes, then it will be adopted by more and more Amateurs, and perhaps many analog modes will slip into the background. MAYBE. But it's not yet time to proclaim analog should be sent to the grave, nor is digital "ready for prime time." Lots of experimenting still needs to be done.
But also realize not everyone is as interested in digital methods as you seem to be. Even amoungst avid experimenters, there are other fields for experimenting besides digital techninues, all equally valid.

Now, I may be wrong, but I also see digital experimenting as still using "black box" proprietary hardware and/or software, so the real experimentation is limited.

But the true spirit of Amateur Radio has always been to try to get along, tolerate other modes as much as possible, and everyone free to pursue their modes and interests.

[n5rfx]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ July 02 2007,09:33)]Geez Mark, Riley came out and said that if they want to sound like broadcst stations they should apply for a broadcast license at this year's Dayton Hamfest.

Personally as long as the band is not busy, I say let them have fun.
Your addendum to your statement is much nicer. What Riley said:Quote[/b] ]To the widebanders: If you want to be a Broadcaster, apply for a broadcast license. Using extraordinarily wide bandwidth on crowded frequencies at peak operating time is rude, selfish and inconsiderate.

We are on the same page, just a bit of difference in how we express it. That is what makes the world go 'round.

73,
Mark N5RFX

[n5rfx]

Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ July 02 2007,09:54)]The denial of a bandwidth limit was hardly about eSSB alone, there were other reasons, good and bad, why it was not adopted.Really? Well maybe if they had not included AM it would have been adopted? FCC-DA-04-3661A1 (http://www.nu9n.com/images/FCC-DA-04-3661A1-final.pdf)
Quote[/b] ]In this Order, we deny a petition for rulemaking filed by Michael D. Lonneke and Melvin J. Ladisky (Petitioners) seeking to amend Part 97 of the Commission’s rules to provide that amateur ra