Trials and Errors Issue #53: Near-term Innovation Wish List

Concur.

I think the 3-way digital voice "standards war" on the V/UHF bands are the result of two key things:

1. Each vendor tended to create their digital voice radio models by deriving them from products already in their respective commercial product lines. It is a lower cost way to get into it. And I think on some level that each of them are also hoping that they will "win" the senseless format war. And thus achieving "vendor lock-in".
2. The tendency of most users to have brand loyalty, it is that brand loyalty that keeps any clear winner from emerging. So we have what we currently got. A total disaster of incompatible digital voice modes on those bands.

Given those two things, I just don't see that situation changing anytime soon. And the sad part is that those digital voice modes are to a large degree a mismatch for amateur radio uses and needs anyhow, and/or are needlessly complicated to use equipment wise. They are just not that good approaches to begin with.

Yes I do know that D-Star is an open protocol. But unfortunately the chosen codec is not.

The digital voice system I think deserves far more attention is the M17 project. It is designed from the outset for amateur radio use, and it is not encumbered intellectual property restrictions.

 

As a former kit builder and now owner of the Icom used I always admired Dave @W7UUU "quasi-steampunk" style version ie the classic Heath SB-7300.

 

Many of Dave's excellent columns bring me back to thinking about the purposes of amateur radio - why I participate, why others participate, the role of emergency communications and providing a pool of experienced operators. What skills do we want operators to develop? What functionality do we put into hardware and software in light of those desired skills? Lots of good questions. Good job, Dave!

 

Thanks Richard (Rich?) - good thoughts . . . Somedays I swing back and forth between wanting to do things the hard way (and learn new skills) or wanting to just plug the darn thing in and have it work. Today I have been challenged by an outdoor activation using another small QRP radio with tiny, tiny lettering on the menu that I can't read as I have macular degeneration. Very frustrating. Didn't get on the air and dragged all my gear out there . . . I appreciate the comment about thinking about what functionality we want for our users. One thing that many manufacturers miss is simple . . . make the menu easy to read and easy to reach, even for someone with a mild vision issue! Come back again Rich, Dave W7DGJ

 

I am surprised no one brought up the Apache radios. Or more specifically, their software: Thetis, which is the the very best we have in one crucial way being Open Source. Thetis has many features not found on other radios. It can be readily adapted to new ideas. As much as I like it, I sold my 7000 DLEII because I missed the buttons and wanted a K4D.

IMO there is more to radio than the tech alone, there is a tactile aspect that Flex, Apache, and other SDR software's often lack.

It's nice to have options, I will say that one area I agree whole heartily is that we need to standardize radio CAT control, preferably over Ethernet.

I think the idea of AI noise reduction is great, some radios already have auto-tune for carrier modes, but a AI based one for SSB could be cool, though the RIT works fine here.

Interesting topics, to me user interface is chief among them. It's also worth noting that many of these ideas are maybe better realized separate from the radio, if we had good CAT and IF outputs the ham could do a lot and the radio would avoid obsolescence better.

I also feel like the software for these radios should be open source, maybe after some period of time to let the authors capitalize it for a while. Thinking of years from now not today.

 

Thanks Dave, good post. User interface is something that everyone will agree with, I'm sure, Dave W7DGJ