Hi Bob,

I'm always interested in new technology.  What system were you using for
your digital experiments.  Was it the AOR hardware box or the codec2
software system?

Dave Marthouse N2AAM
[log in to unmask]

 

-----Original Message-----
From: For blind ham radio operators [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Bob, K8LR
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2013 11:17 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: DSTAR

Ron,

I'm not anti digital, however, dStar is not my choice for digital
communications.  dStar has been pushed on us by a heavy wait company, iCom,
and we as a ham community have allowed ourselves to be spoon fed a product
that was already outdated when it was first embraced by iCom.

I've tried digital ssb and  it still does not have the voice quality that is
good enough for me.  Maybe down the road, digital ssb will improve, but its
not there yet.  For digital ssb to work, you have to have a good signal, at
least s9, and then the transmitted voice sounds very poor at best.  Plus the
sideband transmitter is transmitting a continuous signal whether your
talking or not like A M which means that the most efficient means of
transmitting the human voice,  analog SSB, is no longer efficient.  And, the
voice quality of digital SSB is poor at this time.

Other digital modes  like psk31 and JT65 actually work better than cw or
RTTY through noise, and these modes use a small band width, and need less
power to work.

Digital modes are hear to stay, but some work well while others do not.  I
always try to keep an open mind though.

Bob, K8LR, [log in to unmask]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dr. Ronald E. Milliman" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2013 9:31 AM
Subject: Re: DSTAR


Colleagues, in my previous post, I referred specifically to DSTAR simply
because that is the current technology that is receiving the most attention.
What I really meant, but admittedly, it didn't come out the way I meant, is
that I think that technology is the wave of the future for communications;
that is, analog to digital conversion and then, digital back to analog.
Right now, it is all being done, as far as I can tell from my research, on
VHF and UHF frequencies, but I think we will see the day when it will be
used on all frequencies. When it was first developed by the Japanese, it was
used entirely on 1.2 GHz. As far as I can tell. However, here in the United
States, largely because of the much different terrain, it has been adapted
to our VHF and UHF bands.

I am most fascinated with your, almost entirely negative, reactions toward
this technology. It seems that it offers some advantages such as being very
narrow band, 6.25 KHz., and contrary to what has been stated here on our
list, it is supposed to be much better audio to the extent that it doesn't
fade or flutter in and out like our other modes; being digital, the signal
is either in our out, not in-between.

So, while the ultimate version may or may not be DSTAR, I think it will be
some version of this type of technology. BTW: DSTAR is actually open
technology, and some hams have built and experimented with their own
versions and equipment; though, the only commercially available gear, at
present, to my knowledge, is the ICom gear. There is a fellow building and
selling a type of Dangle that is an interface connected to a computer from
the USB port, but I don't really know anything more about it.

So, let's open up our minds and embrace it as an advancement and try to get
in on the ground floor of its development toward the objective of
encouraging the developers to incorporate accessibility into the equipment
so it will be fully accessible to us. Most forms of communications in their
infancy left a great deal to be desired until they were refined and further
developed and perfected. Single sideband is one of the best examples. It
caused a major war to break out between the "A M 'ers" and the sidebanders,
and the initial quality of sideband was poor. To be honest about it, to this
day, I still much prefer the good ol' A M signals in terms of audio quality,
but technology marches on, and the point that won out was efficiency, not
audio quality.

Ron, K8HSY