Yaesu's "overlooked" Dayton introduction - the FT-1D

Discussion in 'Amateur Radio News' started by N8MSA, May 25, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Left-2
ad: abrind-2
ad: Subscribe
ad: Left-3
  1. K0SAV

    K0SAV XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    Good to see another digital txvr on the market. As usual, hams are again the last to to embrace this new technology. If what I read in the QRZ forums and hear on the air is representative, hams are the most backwards looking, contrary and technophobic bunch I've ever encountered. ;) But; if the hobby survives, digital voice modes will become the new standard eventually. Maybe it isn't much, but at least Yaesu put something out there. I'm glad Icom no longer has a complete monopoly on digital voice txvr's.
    Last edited: May 28, 2012
  2. N6KZB

    N6KZB Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    This is a good thing, thanks Yaesu.
  3. NI4Y

    NI4Y XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    I saw this HT and simply asked what the heck are yall thinking not doing Dstar or P25? The Yeasu guy said I have no idea the guys in Japan made the call to go C4FM. The basic reaction from people at Dayton was "Great another mode that wont work with anyone else"

    My $0.02 someone needs to come out with a Dstar, C4FM, P225, mototurbo radio.. .... alinco, kenwood, wouxn anyone?
  4. WA3VJB

    WA3VJB Ham Member QRZ Page

    Unintentional nugget in your post.

    Most smart phones handle multiple protocols. (mine does four modes / data bands, two wi-fi bands, and bluetooth)

    Multiple types of "AM Stereo" were decoded by one chip.

    Mac vs. PC -- the internet doesn't care which platform.

    Your post prompts me to guess that if "digital" ever gains enough popularity, there will be software or hardware to decode and encode a variety.
  5. W3RCS

    W3RCS Ham Member QRZ Page

    I almost agree.

    But I think its a cost/reward issue at the true heart of this. The cost is immense with little reward, which is one mode of operation no one wants to operate in. I think its around $400-500 minimum to get a fairly feature-less (compared to something similarly priced like the VX-8D/GR) D-Star HT. If you don't have a D-star repeater around, its about another $100 + computer to be able to use D-Star like intended. Thats getting into HF rig territory (and quite ridiculous IMHO). I'd rather have the HF rig too, its not going to be nearly worthless if there is a industry wide standard that isn't D-Star compatible (or if D-Star gets a v2.0). I might be wrong as I never really got to studying D-Star too much.

    Ham radio, as a hobby AND industry, is used to moving pretty slow with advances which doesn't mix well with the fast-paced digital world. There really isn't a standards body like in all the other widespread digital wireless arenas. There isn't even a hint that any of the big players are even thinking about talking to each other. I refuse to buy into any digital voice mode till that happens. Personally I think its a mistake that anyone bought into it before that happens.

    While I'm glad to see more digital capable rigs coming around, I can't help but feel its pointless without an industry standard.

    The biggest problem with all this is Hams are at the mercy of manufacturers (yes, you are). There is no group speaking for the Hams to the manufacturers. Hams are left to buy what is available no matter how bad it is, or how much it costs, if they want to 'move forward' into digital. They are using the "Apple" model to extract the most money possible from Hams and force them into staying loyal. (I'd be willing to bet D-star penetration is probably similar to what the Mac vs PC penetration was in the early 2000's).

    If some group like the ARRL set a base standard, a target, for the manufacturers to hit, things might get moving (as hated by some as they may be, they are the only group that could pull this off). A large body that puts forth some standard that the manufacturers follow might get things moving in the right direction. Just simple standards stuff like interoperability, licensing, openness, bandwidth, digital rate, etc.

    Anything moving toward a open and lower cost platform would get my attention, but as is, I have no interest even concerning myself with reading about any new manufacturer dependent digital HT/mobile rig.
  6. WB9QVR

    WB9QVR Ham Member QRZ Page

    I think one thing that most seem to overlook is that we already have an open, amateur-developed manufacturer-agnostic digital platform. D-Star was not created (nor is it owned) by Icom. It was developed by the JARL and is a standard that is available to anyone who wants to build radios for it. Icom was simply the first manufacturer to build equipment for D-Star. Home-brew repeaters can be built using readily-available 9600 bps-capable radios and some additional hardware (such as that from http://www.dutch-star.eu). The cost of building these repeaters and hot spots is very minimal as compared to buying commercial digital equipment. It is even possible to add some D-Star functionality to some existing analog radios using outboard hardware. Further, a company displayed an open-source D-Star/packet 25 watt UHF node at Dayton (http://nwdigitalradio.com/) so there is yet another player in the D-Star realm.

    I will be the first to admit that I don't know much about D-Star (or P25 or Mototrbo, for that matter). I can't say that it is a good or bad digital standard. However, if there are issues with D-Star then perhaps the JARL or other group could make improvements (D-Star 2.0 as someone else called it) while making it backward compatible with the current standard.

    My point in all of the above is simply this - we already have a standard. If it isn't right then let's improve upon it. The manufacturers should then follow that standard and offer interoperable equipment. There's just no reason to reinvent the wheel.
  7. W3RCS

    W3RCS Ham Member QRZ Page

    I can't find pricing on dutch-star.eu. Maybe its my browser (latest safari) but the website is pretty butchered so I just might not be able to see it. But it looks like it requires a radio and maybe a computer too. Thats a lateral step at best, but still feels like a step backward overall if it requires a computer and radio. Integration is where it is at these days (and in the future).

    nwdigitalradio.com stuff isn't available till fall and I'm not quite sure what it actually is... Is it a repeater, or just a simplex device and you need 2 + for a repeater? its not that bad of a price for it either way. Its a step in the right direction though if it is what I think it is. I might just get one.

    I guess I'm hoping for something more like the FLEX SDR radios, except that it can do everything including D-Star... not just a D-Star radio and I need to have another radio for analog outside 70CM and another for APRS and another for..... I could live with one radio, one computer, and maybe another magic box if it could do everything, but anything more than that and its starts to get pretty useless for portability and emergency use.
  8. W9DP

    W9DP XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    Digital Voice coverage has proven to exceed analog FM in our case. We replaced a dying analog FM repeater with a D-STAR repeater, same antenna system and duplexer the D-STAR has noticeably better range, in the range of 10 to 20% better coverage. Using FM for weak signal is pretty futile, if you want to work weak signals you need to use something other than 5 KHz deviation FM.
    As for those that think Digital Voice is a fad, you may take note of those that said SSB would never replace AM on HF and same about FM replacing AM on 2 meters. It will take a while, but some form of digital voice will be where most voice activity will be in the future. Yaesu has their work cut out for them if they really think they can compete with D-STAR's large head start.
    With the push to go narrowband, I find it hard to believe Yaesu is introducing a modulation scheme that still occupies the same bandwidth as conventional analog FM. Yes, they can do higher data, but with repeater frequencies being in very short supply in many states, I have to believe a narrower bandwidth modulation scheme would be the way to go in the future.
  9. W3RCS

    W3RCS Ham Member QRZ Page

    10-20% isn't much for the price. Who knows, maybe the dying FM repeater being replaced straight up could have got you 20-30%? The comparison can't be drawn in your example as-is. I love the demonstrations of the voice signal being clear all the way out till it just drops, I could definitely enjoy a more static free commute while listening to the radio.

    So does everyone in your area who used the dying FM repeater now have digital rigs? or did the majority just shift to another FM repeater or go FM simplex? I'm asking in all seriousness here. I'd like to figure out which side is the tipping point, the chicken or the egg.
  10. WA3VJB

    WA3VJB Ham Member QRZ Page

    You probably ought to qualify the statement I put in italics.

    It has not replaced AM on HF. It has supplemented it, and a majority of "phone" operators use it. To check the history of how that transition took place, you would see a prolonged struggle for acceptance of SSB because of its shortcomings that have included bad intelligibility, increased vulnerability to interference at comparable power levels, and a degradation of how hardy the equipment needs to be to produce it.

    Add to that list the incompatibility of SSB with other modes and activities --and it brings us to today, because that's the same linchpin confronting "digital" communications wherever they emerge among bands that are shared among a wide range of users.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page