Future Radios...
Anthony (KB3DVS)
on
July 24, 2003
View comments about this article!
As I was operating on Field Day, I took a moment to mentally step back and look at my setup -- a computer running a PSK program had two audio cables connected to an interface box, which connected to my radio. I thought, wouldn't it be neat if the radio had USB so I could not only directly connect to the radio, but also pass digital audio back and forth?
One cable not only handling the audio, but controlling the radio, or tracking what I did… SO, if I changed bands, the logging software would change appropriately. The guy next to me spent near an hour correcting parts of his log where the band was not correct -- the operators had forgotten to change the info as they changed bands.
Then, as night fell, the table lamps came out, and the breeze stopped. Luckily I brought a small fan. So I had all this AC stuff in addition to the DC stuff. Not really a problem for Field Day where we take our time setting up and if there's a problem, we can stop and take care of it. But in a real emergency situation, you focus on the portable 12-volt gear.
Today I was in a computer store to get a new hard drive and a little USB fan for my laptop. Sometimes it runs a little hot and, since the shack doesn't have AC, the laptop's fan kicks on. I don't think the internal fan does much. So I got this little USB-powered fan on a gooseneck. It is very quiet and it puts out a surprisingly nice breeze! So when the fan is on, it powers it's own little fan that blows underneath it. Already the entire computer feels like it's running cooler.
Then I got to thinking again... if a radio manufacturer put a USB port on the rig, why not put several? While I was in the computer store, I saw USB fans, several different USB gooseneck lights, USB keypads, USB mice, USB phone chargers, and more. You might be amazed what can run off USB... Imagine how convenient it would be to have the 12-volt powering your rig, and then a couple gooseneck LED lamps, and a nice fan plug into the top of the rig. Maybe the radio is small and does not offer a numeric keypad for direct frequency entry. You can plug in an external one if you find it handy like I do.
Moreover, today's high-end radios are becoming more like computers with full color LCD screens and more. Perhaps a mouse wouldn't be such a bad idea. We could almost eliminate the computer entirely!
But how would we get logging data in and out of the radio? -- Maybe USB floppy, USB Zip, etc. Firmware upgrades could ship on media like this and a couple clicks later, you've got 60 meters enabled on your rig.
Maybe you've spent considerable time tweaking the equalizer and voice processing settings and people really want to know how you got it set up... you could save your settings to a file and e-mail it -- or use one of those USB "pen drives" to copy the setting from one radio to the next.
Just like the entire computer industry is really standardizing on USB for more than just communication- but connectivity, convenience and, with this fan, luxury... I think it's high time the radio manufacturers start incorporating USB into the radios. It's more than just a data connection; it's a whole new level of accessorizing.
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
Future Radios...
|
|
|
by KC9ALV on July 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If you mean to power the transmitter from the USB port, you would have to be a QRP operation... I don't think USB will give you more than maybe an amp. (I don't have the spec in front of me, though...)
The rest sounds pretty viable though; An interface box to encode audio from older radios and/or provide TX audio would be nice too. Stretching things REALLY far, maybe someone could make the radio USB interfaces a standard thing, so software could drive any radio compliant with the standard...
|
| |
|
RE: Future Radios...
|
|
|
by LA1SJA on July 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
May I suggest using 100 Mb Ethernet instead. We would have universal networking connectivity for new radios.
This applies both for 0,5m point-to-point local connection on an operating table, and to worldwide connectivity over an IP network.
Although USB is a point-to-multi-point bus, and although it offers more speed than trditional serial interfaces, it still suffers from the same problems as the good old RS-232 from EIA.
If I understand this correcly, USB, Bluetooth and similar interfaces that where hyped up to the sky a few years ago, have in reality all boiled down to just being ways to connect computer peripherals at faily short range.
The major contesting softwares seems to be recognizing this by including Ethernet drivers in their newer versions.
By just adding an IP software stack and some other minor software to the new radios, we might also do away with the computer that we must have ajacent to a remotely operated transceiver today.
|
| |
|
Future Radios...
|
|
|
by AI4R on July 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I've found the same problem lately too. Whether it's a computer controlled radio like the TenTec Pegasus or a Kachina, or a digital interface like the RigBlaster or Rascal , you're still stuck using a RS232 connection, as none of these have a USB or LAN jack. I bought a small desktop PC as well as a laptop and neither computer even has a RS232 jack. You can buy a RS232 to USB interface if you want. However, it's time now for amateur manufacturers to make the change. Steve Ai4R
|
| |
|
RE: Future Radios...
|
|
|
by AC5E on July 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
My radios already tell my logging program what band and mode I'm on, through an RS-232 cable and their serial ports. One of my amplifiers, two rotors and eventually at least one antenna tuner are also computer controlled through serial cables. If I need more serial ports I can purchase USB to serial adapters to take care of any future expansion. As you can if your computer lacks a serial port.
But that begs the issue. The simple fact is the "ancient" RS-232 port is dying. USB, Firewire, and Ethernet are all viable alternatives - and there is a pretty good dogfight over which system will win.
Of the three, it appears USB may get the palm. Packetizing and depacketizing the information in Ethernet is more expensive than USB or Firewire and from comments from industry raises a host of problems of its own.
I note that GE and 3Com have abandoned their joint effort to control machine tools via Ethernet - simply because the production people who have deal with the stuff day to day complained bitterly about the less than shining results, and the accountants complained bitterly about the added costs. So unless there is some dramatic breakthrough I really do not expect Ethernet to become a major computer to radio link.
USB is slower than Firewire. And cheaper. It will take very little reprogramming to convert existing equipment from RS-232 to USB. A different chip, a different jack and you are flying. I am told Firewire will be a bit more difficult and somewhat more expensive to implement.
So the question becomes "IF I were designing a radio today, which sort of communications port would I design into it?" It's an educated guess but I suspect it will be USB.
73 Pete Allen AC5E
|
| |
|
Future Radios...
|
|
|
by N5EG on July 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
USB supplies +5 VDC between 100 mA and 500 mA depending on the source (a laptop only has to supply 100 mA for example). A desktop might supply up to 500 mA, but that's everything on that one port, such as a USB hub, and all it's attached devices. USB devices don't have to draw power from the cable - they can be independently powered, and many are (for example USB disk drives). With a 16-foot USB cable (max allowed) the +5 volts can drop to +4.4 VDC.
USB supports a couple of transfer modes: isochronous, which is fast enough to allow very good quality digitized audio to flow in both directions in real time. There are USB speakers available that use this mode. It also has a bulk transfer mode that is ~0.5 mb/s best case that is used for control, status, and other slower digital transfers. For axample, a USB mouse uses the bulk transfer mode. If you use an external USB hub (port expander) the bandwidth is shared among all the devices.
There are a couple of low cost embedded microprocessors available that include native USB support and development tools. I've used these in several homebrew ham projects with very fast development effort.
There's tons of free infromation available, for example the Cypress Semiconductor website, http://www.cypress.com - look for EZ-USB microprocessor.
USB support on windows is:
--------------------------
Win95 - not supported
Win95 OSR2 - theoretically supported but reported
to be very buggy.
Win98 Gold (original) - USB 1.0
Win98 SE (second edition) - USB 1.1
WinME, XP, 2000, etc. - USB 1.1
WinXP - USB 2.0
|
| |
|
This Is HAM Radio!
|
|
|
by WB9GKZ on July 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Whoa, wait a minute....this is Ham Radio, remember?
Many of us still have vacuum tubes in our transmitters. We tap out dots and dashes to talk to each other. We use electromagnets with flexible metal contacts to key our amplifiers. Vibrating rocks control our frequency.
What on earth would we do if the manufacturers started putting something as new-fangled as a USB port on a radio?
As for me, I'm going back to my latest project: de-burring the edges of a soup can cut into the shape of a code key....may even wind a couple of coils around a toiletpaper tube for good measure.
Pat WB9GKZ
|
| |
|
RE: Future Radios...
|
|
|
by KB5HWS on July 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is a good idea - IMHO, all ham equipment should have USB interfaces and be able to pass information in a standardized way back to a computer. Adding USB to a rig is *cheap* *cheap* *cheap*, we're talking probably <$2 in hardware, and just a little bit of time slapping the protocol on top of the RS232. There are a lot of devices out there (like digital cameras) that can run serial or USB over the same connector (they include a USB to serial cable that is *not* a USB-Serial converter, just the cable), and that sounds like the way to go for ham gear.
Also, there's a bit of misinformation floating around some of the replies here.
USB2.0 is *faster* than Firewire, but requires more CPU power to sustain peak throughput.
|
| |
|
RE: Future Radios...
|
|
|
by KA5N on July 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yeah, but can you still run LSB on a USB controlled rig?
Allen KA5N
|
| |
|
RE: Future Radios...
|
|
|
by KT8K on July 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I vote for USB NOW/ASAP, and ethernet or optical for high end rigs now and everything later. There is no reason anything that supports RS-232 can't also support USB, which is MUCH better - faster and more flexible/functional.
Get with it, YaeComWoodLincTec!
- Tim, KT8K
|
| |
|
RE: Future Radios...
|
|
|
by KG4ZUD on July 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am only a "lowly tech," but I am already thinking about the day when I upgrade to general...
I would love to have a radio that uses ethernet as a link between the radio (black box), and the control head (similar to the Kenwood TS-B2000).
Using ethernet means that I could put the radio out of sight near whatever wall was closest to the tower. If I used wireless ethernet, then I could use my rig from anywhere in the house! If I wanted to be near the family, I could be in the living room! If I wanted quiet, I could go to the bedroom. I could even work other countries from atop a toilet! Just imagine the flexibility that this could give you! The only downside (besides price) is that there might be a little lag sending audio back and forth (maybe 10-100 milliseconds).
What do you think?
|
| |
|
Future Radios...
|
|
|
by K2WH on July 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yeah, and if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon, right?
K2WH
|
| |
|
Future Radios...
|
|
|
by KG4RUL on July 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
USB Guru, would a device like this work?? I would like to use this to control my TS2000X and be able to free up the one serial port on my laptop for other uses.
http://www.startech.com/ststore/itemdetail.cfm?ProductID=ICUSB232&topbar=topbaruf.htm
Dennis - KG4RUL
|
| |
|
Future Radios...
|
|
|
by K2WH on July 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is a bad idea. Not only a bad idea but a 20 year old bad idea. This is not the first time some bright individual thought of this. A radio should be a radio and a computer should be a computer. Interfacing between them is ok but all in one box - I think not. They must maintain their individuality so one does not depend on the other.
Ham radio is not about communicating for the hell of it, it is about communication training and techniques for emergency backup in case all other methods and systems of communications go down. I really do not want to bog down my radio with extraneous components and connectors that may cease to function in an emergency making the whole radio fail. How often does your PC lock up. Did you ever have to re-boot your rig? I'd hate to have my rig fail when it can't find a sector on a hard drive or floppy disk. Or have the operating system tell me to restart the rig by shutting it OFF!@
Carrying this to the extreme, why even bother with the USB port. Just build the entire radio on a plug in card with a coax connector coming out the back of the computer case. Screw in your antenna and there you have your "Compuradio" running windows 2000 with a virtual image of the radio on the screen. No knobs to tweak, no controls to turn, just click and ur on the air. No, this is not the way ham radio should go. Leave the two technologies seperate for now.
K2WH
|
| |
|
RE: Future Radios...
|
|
|
by KB2FCV on July 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Speaking of ethernet on radios, I think the IC-7800 will have it, I do recall seeing an ethernet port on the back. Unfortunately, it's not out yet, and it was waaaaay out of my price range!
USB would be a nifty thing to have, though.. it would simplify things between the PC and radio. Although I don't think it would work on my homebrew tube regen rcvr's and single tube transmitters!! :)
73's
James, KB2FCV
|
| |
|
RE: Future Radios...
|
|
|
by W9WHE on July 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
NAHHHHHH!
We don't need no stinkin USB. If we had USB we would be able to:
1) have quick, simple, high speed, universal connection to computers for things like digital modes, spectrum anaylissis & recording;
2) Upgrade the firmware in radios VIA internet for bug fixes(!), and upgrades of new functionality, modes and features;
3) Automatic logging, rotor, antenna & amplifier control;
3) Join the 21st century.
Now I ask you.... why would a 19th century hobby that is loosing operators to 21st century computers, cellphones & the internet want to connect to computers, cellphones and the internet?
NAHHHH! Let's just contine to be dinosaurs....and we will wind up just like them. Extinct!
|
| |
|
Future Radios...
|
|
|
by WAZZUP on July 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
USB?? TOO SLOW!!
1gb Ethernet - yes.
But, it will not matter if BPL becomes common place... you will be able to control your radio via TCP/IP but you won't hear anything except noise.
I can see it now, my ID is 192.168.254.127.1.1/W10XYZ
|
| |
|
RE: Future Radios...
|
|
|
by W9WHE on July 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K2WH writes:
"Ham radio is not about communicating for the hell of it, it is about communication training and techniques for emergency backup in case all other methods and systems of communications go down".
I disagree. Come out of the bunker for a moment and look at the real world. Ham radio is about communicating "for the hell of it"! This is, after all, a hobby - not training for "doomsday", although most of us would gladly lend a hand should the need ever arise.
HOWEVER, with the development of multiple and redundant cell networks, more sophisticated (and redundant) public safety systems, internet VIA satelite, FRS, CB, GMRS, Staphones, & the Marine Radio Service, the odds of the classic "Ham radio as the SOLE communications medium is approaching ZERO. Except for nuclear holocost (where passing traffic won't matter anyway) the chances that Ham radio will be the "only" way to communicate are miniscule.
WE NEED to modernize AND to upgrade our own capabillities, or WE will become extinct!
|
| |
|
RE: Future Radios...
|
|
|
by K3AN on July 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
So now our radios and station accessories are going to become obsolete as fast as our computers become obsolete. Wonderful!
|
| |
|
Future Radios...
|
|
|
by WA0ZZG on July 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The concept of connectivity has gone way past our
ham radios. You will most likely find some form on
many electronic devices, from your microwave oven to
the house thermostat. My vote is for the eithernet
configuration, communications via IP addressing. Once
on an IP, it opens up the world of Local area network,
wide area network, wireless network, just to name a
few. 10MB/s is very inexpensive to implement while
350MB/s is available. Put a firewall/switch on your
cable modem port and work DX during your lunch
hour.
Dave
WA0ZZG
|
| |
|
RE: Future Radios...
|
|
|
by K3YD on July 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K2WH said <<Did you ever have to re-boot your rig? I'd hate to have my rig fail when it can't find a sector on a hard drive or floppy disk. Or have the operating system tell me to restart the rig by shutting it OFF!>>
Unfortunately, this sounds suspiciously like my ICOM IC-756PRO. <grin> The marriage of computers and radios is closer and closer.
|
| |
|
Future Radios...
|
|
|
by K0RGR on July 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, my laptop came with USB and Ethernet. I have added 802.11 wireless, which is how most of my PCs communicate with the world. I've bought several USB to RS232 adapters. They aren't that easy to find, I'm afraid, nor that cheap.
In a small home network, any Ethernet should be plenty fast. The reason it doesn't work well in a manufacturing environment is packet collisions that make the timing of critical data packets unreliable. This also plays havoc with voice-over-IP and other multimedia applications. That has been a known problem for decades now. If you have a small network with few collisions, it should not affect you.
So, I would like to see RS-232 ports replaced by USB, and, yes, it would be great to be able to remotely control my rig via wireless 802.11 Ethernet. I had a similar setup, but could not find a decent way to do two-way audio at the time, so I ended up hardwiring it - ugly, and it restricted me to one remote room. I'm working on improving my programming skills with this project in mind.
Yes, we should always have a backup rig someplace that will let us beat two pieces of wire together to send a message, I have a couple of them.
|
| |
|
RE: Future Radios...
|
|
|
by KB3DVS on July 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Wow. I didn't expect this much response, and so much of it agreeing with me. It is indeed time for the manufacturers to start building radios for the future. Look how long old rigs get used! Anything made today should have USB on it.
The hams who brougt up ethernet make good points! However, I was not really talking about setting up a radio on a network, or on the WWW with an IP (which we are quickly running out of).
I was more suggesting integrating USB (both data and just plain power ports) into future radios. Many people have agreed that it's about time. With just USB, radios could be linked together. Radios could be connected to computers on a network. And there are USB-ethernet/bluetooth/WiFi devices so the radio could get itself on a network with just a USB port.
But in terms of convenience, we could add a numeric keypad to a tiny radio like the Icom 706, or the Yeasu 718 with a USB numeric keypad. Plug and play convenience with accessories.
And field use would be easier if the radio's USB could be used to power a little USB light... a small fan, a little USB video camera, etc. I even found a USB coffee mug warmer yesterday. You got a radio.... you got all you need.
Light
- http://www.kensington.com/html/1176.html
Keypad
- http://www.kensington.com/html/1242.html
Fan
- http://www.kensington.com/html/1265.html
Floppy (for costest logs)
- http://www.cyberguys.com/templates/searchdetail.asp?T1=245+0415
Camera (for slow or fast scan)
- http://www.cyberguys.com/templates/searchdetail.asp?T1=204+0574
USB memory (to copy radio settings)
- http://www.cyberguys.com/templates/searchdetail.asp?T1=245+0670
Cell Phone Charger
- http://www.cyberguys.com/templates/searchdetail.asp?T1=131+0640
Massager (for long CW QSOs)
- http://www.cyberguys.com/templates/searchdetail.asp?T1=141+0235
Air Purifier (for the smokers)
- http://www.cyberguys.com/templates/searchdetail.asp?T1=142+0910
Mug Warmer (for coffee)
- http://www.cyberguys.com/templates/searchdetail.asp?T1=142+0905
I don't mean to push any retailer, but I just didn't believe the sheer number of USB accessories out there. Seeing is believeing.
KB5HWS wrote:
> there's a bit of misinformation floating around some of the
> replies here. USB2.0 is *faster* than Firewire
Correction... USB 2.0 "high speed" has the potential for "peak" data rates to be faster than the potential peak data rates of Firewire 1.0 (1394a). However, most of the time we get significantly lower than the theoretical max. Moreover, the USB consortium now allows USB 1.1 devices to be called 2.0, so unless it specifically touts "high speed" it's merely a rebadged USB 1.1 port at the slower speed. And the vast majority of USB 2.0 is the slow 2.0 (i.e. rebadged 1.1)
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,381713,00.asp
http://www.mackido.com/Hardware/USB2.html
http://www.macobserver.com/article/2003/06/23.5.shtml
KG4ZUD wrote:
> I would love to have a radio that uses ethernet as a link
> between the radio (black box), and the control head.
The link between elements of the radio itself can be anything. It would be nice if it was standardized on something like ethernet cable (though it would NOT use TCP/IP- so it would not be networkable), or telephone cable (cheap!) so that end users could make or buy cables as long or as short as they needed, as opposed to paying hundreds of dollars for 11 feet of "special" cables. Same goes for mic cables.
KC9ALV wrote:
> maybe someone could make the radio USB interfaces a
> standard thing, so software could drive any radio
> compliant with the standard...
That's a very good point. It's one thing to add USB, but it would be so much more!!! if the radio maufacturers (or the ARRL?) developed a standard. This way one piece of software could talk to any radio plugged into the USB port.
K2WH wrote:
> A radio should be a radio and a computer should be a
> computer. ... They must maintain their individuality
> so one does not depend on the other.
Unless you're using all homebrew, or older rigs, there IS a computer in your rig. Many radios on the market have firmware updates... that is an update to the computer in the rig.
Again, I wasn't advocating networking a rig. That's a whole other bag of worms I care to leave alone.
I mean dragging Ham radio into the 21st century. Leave the propritary connectors behind. Leave serial behind. Integrate USB connectivity, and the ability to integrate USB accessories into amateur radio rigs.
|
| |
|
Future Radios...
|
|
|
by KE4ZHN on July 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Does anyone remember the Kachina rig? It was essentionally a module you install in a pc to give you a totally computer controlled radio. This was a cool idea and they worked very well from the few of them I heard on the air. Unfortunatly they died off, I think Kachina went under due to poor sales, but a rig like this probably incorporated usb interface via the host pc it was installed in. Shame such a cool radio didnt take off but from what I hear they were pretty pricey. I think this futuristic rig had potential that was underestimated. It would be interesting to hear from anyone who had or has one of these rigs on here.
73 Rich
|
| |
|
RE: Future Radios...
|
|
|
by KG4ZUD on July 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
First, I have only had my ticket for a few months, so I represent the voice of inexperience.
To W9WHE:
I disagree. These days, bandwidth = $$$. The FCC could make some money by selling off OUR bandwidth. The money that they get from hams ($12 for exam fee) probably does not even cover the cost of licensing/record-keeping/enforcement/etc. This means the hams probably COST the FCC money.
So, we get for free something that is worth money. Why? Although we are not REQUIRED to help in an emergency, it seems to me to be a "gentleman's agreement" that we do so when required. This is our way of paying back the government for the spectrum that they give us.
I have also seen the power of a hurricane. In the event of a serious storm, there will not be any other communications. First of all, the telephone lines will likely be damaged (blown down), and all power will be out. Cell phones *MAY* work, but I would be willing to bet that many of the cell sites would suffer damage too. This means that the BEST means of standard communications would be spotty at best. FRS radio has a realistic range of about 1/2 mile -- not even useful for calling for the police!
If you throw a ham in a neighborhood, then they can call for the police/ambulance if necessary -- even if it means going on HF and relaying a message to a neighboring state. Even if their tower is blown down, they can probably rig up a ghetto dipole in an hour or so from lamp cord and phone wire. A ham may also have a battery and even a solar cell so they can run long after the neighbor's cell phone and FRS radio batteries have died.
|
| |
|
RE: Future Radios...
|
|
|
by KE4MOB on July 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I would hope that we don't see a trend toward "radio enabled computers". We are ham RADIO operators. At what point did we lose our focus on radio and start focusing on computers that just happen to emit RF on the ham bands?
I'm a RTTY and Pactor operator, so I'm no stranger to the computer aspect of the hobby. Quite frankly, I view my computer as a shack accessory and completely separate from my radio activities, even though there are wires running from my computer to my TNC to my radio. And I'm happy with that...when something goes wrong, at least I have a diagnostic "trail of breadcrumbs" to follow when I troubleshoot. If this were not the case I'd be left with a "my rig is broken and I don't know why" scenario.
Another aspect that no one has thought of is viruses. It could be entirely possible for a fully integrated rig to be on a frequency and someone transmit a virus to effectively disable the rig. What then?
Steve, KE4MOB
|
| |
|
RE: Future Radios...
|
|
|
by WAZZUP on July 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
the cure for IP address is on its way! instead of only 4 octets, we will be using 6 octets...
Still, there is no reason why we cannot use a non-routable address to control our own stuff now!
While sitting in a class (win2k infrastructure) I sat next to refridgeration techs... they are starting to assign tcp/ip addresses to refridgerators! (well, BIG commercial versions)...
So why not assign your ham radio? using your Pocket PC and 802.11g, access your hf radio from ANYWHERE.
|
| |
|
Future Radios...
|
|
|
by KX2S on July 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
USB ports on transceivers is the way to go. How many of you need a serial port for a logging program. Another serial port for rotor control. A 3rd serial port for psk. Lets not forget a fourth port for automatic antenna switching. You may also have a PDA or other devices that require serial ports. Serial ports will soon be very hard to find in newer computers. With USB your connections can be almost unlimited. Another plus USB is much faster. We must also get these software programmers to promote the use of USB ports in their software. Look at all new computer equipment everyone is USB.
|
| |
|
RE: Future Radios...
|
|
|
by KB3KAQ on July 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>Carrying this to the extreme, why even bother with >the USB port. Just build the entire radio on a plug >in card with a coax connector coming out the back of >the computer case. Screw in your antenna and there >you have your "Compuradio" running windows 2000 with >a virtual image of the radio on the screen. No knobs >to tweak, no controls to turn, just click and ur on >the air. No, this is not the way ham radio should go. >Leave the two technologies seperate for now.
i have heard this argument before... in electronic music. the next generation of synthesizers are using DSP software in computers to generate sound. no longer is it analog circuits.
the outcry from the "old heads" was very much the same. no knobs, loss of character, etc. i personally would love to have a radio that had a computer interface yet still retained the knobs and buttons for stand alone use. when you need to use the rig in an emergency, you still have the front panel to work with.
this approach seems logical. instead of having a computer and a radio in teh same room with minimal interface, just intergrate the operation (if you so desire) to the computer. it would be great to have a built in logging program as well. i thought this already existed, and it does, but it is very minimal.
many of the current radios are microprocessor controlled and therefore are Compuradios. give us better tools to communicate.
the next BIG thing will be the integration of amateur radio and the internet. not internet access over amateur radio, but rather, using amateur radio as a part of the internet infrastructure.
with that said, i enjoy using older technology. it makes one realize what they have and what challenges have been overcome. we all should use some older radios to see where we can take the current ones.
-steve hanlon
KB3KAQ
|
| |
|
Future Radios...
|
|
|
by AA6E on July 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KB3DVS brings up good questions.
My shack consists of a tried-and-true totally non-digital Kenwood TS-520S plus a new Icom IC-R8500, a great receiver.
For $1300+, you might expect a fully synthesized receiver to have something better than a DB-25 serial port running at 19.2 kbit/s. (Why not a DB-9 for goodness sake? :-)
Every modern rig has a microprocessor of some sort, and a communications interface is a natural feature to add. If you're doing a new design, USB 2.0 may be the sweet spot, although personally I'd prefer 100baseT Ethernet because it easily works with local & wide-area networks, and it can be more OS/driver independent.
So I thought I'd try to program for that DB-25 port. I have Bob Parnass's (AJ9S) nice control software based on TK/TCL, but I'm more familiar with Python. So I started from scratch using the Icom manual, an O'Reilly book, and my RedHat system.
It worked, but it was nasty. The "CPU" in the R8500 (like most rigs, I think) is very limited. The command formats are rather tricky, sort-of BCD, sort-of binary, and only sort-of documented. The I/O throughput is low; it can't even keep a 19.2 kb/s port running at full speed. It takes about 30 seconds to download 1000 frequency channels.
In a radio that costs more than twice a decent PC, I'd expect more. Full scanning / spectrum analysis under PC control, the ability to run code _in_ the radio (Java anyone?) would be a handy way to implement advanced scanning strategies, to run special DSP filters, no to mention outputing digital audio, video, or other datastreams. It would be nice if the rig could run an X windows server, too, so we could have nice screensavers and do our email there. ;-)
I have to admit that this is not your father's ham radio we're talking about. I enjoy 20m CW quite a lot, but the reality is that I spend a lot of my waking hours in front of a computer screen and I want to integrate that with the ham world.
73, Martin, AA6E
|
| |
|
Ethernet is a fine idea BUT - how about IR?
|
|
|
by KF6IIU on July 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
An ethernet interface is s fine idea BUT the physical interface chips used to make them are very standardized and almost all are big RFI emitters. You would probably need to make a special PHY chip for the ethernet interface in a radio. If you have commercial experience RFI-proofing ethernet chipsets let us know! It could work.
Soon, few computers will be made with RS-232 ports. However, you have to maintain reverse-compatibility with the vast majority of RS-232 equipped computers that will exist far into the future.
Why not stick an IR port on the front of the radio? Then you could make a variety of dongles that plug into the serial, USB, whatever port on a computer, and you could charge us $100 for it just like the proprietary cables you use today. :-p
|
| |
|
Future Radios...
|
|
|
by N8AUC on July 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Sounds like this is a good idea. I mean the ability to conrol your rig via USB. I think the best approach would be to have this be an optional method though. That way when you're out in the field, and on a limited power budget, you wouldn't have to use the USB control. But when the available power allows, have that option.
What would be cool is for there to be a standardized protocol for doing so. That way homebrewers could do it too. Buy a rig, homebrew the controller. Or buy a controller and homebrew the rig. Or buy both, or homebrew both. That would allow maximum flexibility.
73 de N8AUC
Eric
|
| |
|
Future Radios...
|
|
|
by KG4OOA on July 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Why not forget all that and build the computer, transmitter and receiver all in one box? This would save space on the table and mean taking less crap with you on Field Day or in the event of an emergency. One quick and easy box the only thing you might forget is your lunch. Oh yeah, don't forget your antenna.
|
| |
|
RE: Future Radios...
|
|
|
by W9WHE on July 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KG4ZUD writes:
"These days, bandwidth = $$$. The FCC could make some money by selling off OUR bandwidth. The money that they get from hams ($12 for exam fee) probably does not even cover the cost of licensing/record-keeping/enforcement/etc. This means the hams probably COST the FCC money".
First...WELCOME TO HAM RADIO!
Second. Who do you think will pay Millions $$ for HF spectrum? HF broadcasters are WITHDRAWING from markets served and SHIRINKING the number of daily broadcasts to remaining markets. Deutcha Vella and HCJB are prime examples! HF, especially going into a solar minimum, is not reliable enough for commercial users to pay big bucks for.
Third. when you say:
"The money that they get from hams ($12 for exam fee) probably does not even cover the cost of licensing/record-keeping/enforcement/etc. This means the hams probably COST the FCC money"
VERY TRUE! I could not agree more! At about $1.10 per year, we are more trouble then we are worth! The FCC should up our license fees.....we would get better service!!!!
|
| |
|
RE: Future Radios...
|
|
|
by K9OU on July 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Amateur radio operators, aside from all of our other qualities, are well-established leaders in the pursuit of advancement of technologies (take microwave communications, for example), because we come up with ideas and follow through with them on the bench. If experimentation takes our hobby into new territory, well, isn't that part of the deal? I love traditional amateur radio as much as any old timer, but let's not get too bogged down. We'll survive because we'll lead the charge into new designs and new techniques. When I read all the ideas and variations on ideas in the previous replies, I just have to smile.
|
| |
|
RE: Ethernet is a fine idea BUT - how about IR?
|
|
|
by KB3KAQ on July 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
to RFi the ethernet chip. simply shield it in the box a la the tuner in a VCR. ispent 4 years working to tempest computers and a little copper foil goes a long way.
Computer integration is the next wave. the "old hands" will have to except it. technology moves on and radio is no exception. radio once was the new technology and many seem stuck in 1932 era technology and declare it to be the only valid option for amateur use. do you still crap in a bucket out back? that is 1932 technology as well...
i like the idea of having software control of scans. sort of a SETI project at home. is there intelligent life on 2 meters? my computer would be able to tell me ;)
-steve hanlon
KB3KAQ
|
| |
|
RE: Future Radios...
|
|
|
by K4JRB on July 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The problem with providing a USB port is technology is moving so fast that USB may follow Com ports and LPT ports that are virtually outdated in the new PCs. The idea of the ethernet network is probably better.
The other side of this question is will Software defined radios finally take hold. Kachina is gone and Ten Tec had to put a front cover on the Jupiter and Orion. Many have the belief that this will make future ham gear obsolete too quickly.
Its up to us and the manufacturers.
Dave K4JRB
|
| |
|
Future Radios...
|
|
|
by KA8SEP on July 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi,
I would like to a a point about keeping radios and computers seprate.
In the Amateur Code or Oath I can never remember what its called we promise to keep our equipment at the highest tecnological level. in an emergancy i would love to take my laptop and a small box and an antena out to where im needed. Not drag my Drake TR-4 out and wait for it to warm up.
I'm 36 was there this much fuss when transitor finals started replacing tubes?
73's Ted KA8SEP
|
| |
|
Future Radios...
|
|
|
by HFHAM2 on July 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here we go again...
Yet another example of computer geeks taking over the hobby with more stupid ideas just for the sake of it.
They want to turn your rig into just another computer peripheral like a printer or a CD-ROM.
|
| |
|
RE: Future Radios...
|
|
|
by KB1GMX on July 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
re:kb3kbq
Transceiver on a card. Sure you can get a radio on a card even TV for $$$$! Also there is a minor problem that the average PC is really poor when it come to shielding (can you say RFI city!). What price does shielding come with? OH, and what happens if that neat little addon USB geejaw happens to have lousy shielding? Seriously, it's a major design issue for current radios and takes a lot of work toget it right.
However, the idea of intelligent radios is not new and the fact that some exist with serial (or other interfaces) is largely not relevent. The problem is cost, size, power and the real killer STANDARDS. We are already up to USBV2.xx? What if your old (not 1years old) radio only talks USB1.1, oops? Rs232 is old (30+ years) and still has nuances of change and lack of adherence to standards. It's capable of 115kb on the average PC for the last 10+ years and that plenty fast for most things.
Then there is power. An FT817 like radio already draws too much power on RX for extended ops on a small battery. Technology has come a ways on batteries but
long run time comes with big batteries is still the rule. For something that can pull amps from the wall plug then it's less a problem. The bottom line is fancy interfaces and processing still wants power and the faster the processing and interface the more power you need. In QRO world and power budget sure, knock you socks off.
Price, another place to go. CPU cycles are getting cheaper, their size is cheaper. The end products only reflect that bit of information about price when the quantities when the production volumes gets really big. Whats the price of a TenTec Pegasys BTW? If you want USB, you really have to have deep pockets as that USB is likely going to also have some cpu and interface to do those neat things inside the box like built in DSP, logging, rotator control and that cpu wants power, program and $$$$.
I will lightly touch on when it breaks, 97% of the owners will not have the first clue how to fix it, or the spares, or SMT tools. If they send to to repair they will wait, pay and pray it was fixed right. How many have had problems with the software defined radios already, or worse? There is potential and pitfalls.
Becareful what you ask for, you may get exactly that!
Allison
|
| |
|
RE: Future Radios...
|
|
|
by KC8JZO on July 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I would just love it if I could easily control my radio (frequencies, etc) via a PDA. Just a thought for you out there. Also, imagine a fire-wire port (carries audio/video info). You could easily hook up your mini-DV camcorder, and TX TV! Would be interesting to see on an HT. Also, imagine hooking up your digital still camera to the rig. I know it would cost a "bit" more, but hey . . . a guy can dream, eh!
. . . or I could just buy a cell phone today that does the same. Doesn't seem as much fun though.
|
| |
|
RE: Future Radios--Too far, too fast?
|
|
|
by K1CJS on July 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Although we as hams should be embracing the future, when speaking of combining ham rigs and computers, maybe we're going too far. After all as some have said, this hobby is ham radio, not ham computer. It maybe fine to consider including higher speed data connectors on radios after the Kachina fiasco, but stop and think about it, many hams have never found a problem acquiring a new rig with really useful features. The Kachina rig had a higher price tag, but IT DIDN'T CATCH ON BECAUSE OF THE NEED FOR A COMPUTER. I believe Kenwood and Icom have a dual use rig (both stand alone OR computer controlled) and the stand alone version outsells the computer controlled one by a wide margin as well.
We have to bring ham radio into the present and keep it current, but just maybe we're going too far too fast. A USB or Ethernet connector may be a good idea, but first the radio's processor should be able to handle the throughput. Some radio microproccessors have a hard time keeping up to the RS-232 data throughput rate currently used.
Instead of just jumping in with both feet by saying yes lets introduce this and lets set that up right now, first lets get an idea of what is needed/wanted and how it can be best incorporated into the newer rigs without heading down another Kachina dead end.
And at the same time, lets figure out ways to make this hobby of ours more attractive and palatable to more of the people on the outside. If we start by cleaning our own house image wise and making ourselves as a whole more able to cooperate and mix with other people, we just might find better acceptance by everyone--including the public safety people and officials we might have to be working with in an emergency situation.
|
| |
|
RE: Future Radios...
|
|
|
by KB0GU on July 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You gotta love the dreamers and the what if person...
This is great stuff! Now let's convince the commercial manufacturers to standardize some in/out connections so that USB, or whatever interface in/out, works across rigs and our computers too!
|
| |
|
Future Radios...
|
|
|
by K0HZI on July 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Thought that Icom or Kenwood next high end HF rig will have built in PSK31, RTTY? and LCD display for reading PSK and RTTY, and also a computer keyboard jack and maybe more, around $3K USD. Radios, computer interfaces to radios, radios with bulit in computers maybe become a fact of life, might as well live with the progress.
|
| |
|
Future Radios... Must Use Ethernet
|
|
|
by N9DG on July 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
While USB and Firewire would certainly be capable of the bandwidths required for both streaming digitized signal data and control, they do have one big limitation, - distance. With Ethernet (running TCP/IP) there would be essentially no limit to the distance that your control/audio I/O panel could be from the radio itself (assuming the link has sufficient bandwidth and adheres to the Quality of Service protocols). The USB and Firewire technologies on the other hand are limited to just 10's of feet. Single runs of 100base-T Ethernet are good for 100's of feet; fiber can be into the 1000's of feet.
Ethernet also is media independent; in other words you can use Cat 5, fiber optic, or wireless (QRM potential for operating on 902 MHz and 2.3 GHz bands though). Fiber optic being extremely useful for avoiding RFI issues. Fiber optic can also be very useful for managing lightning risks with tower (or tower base) remote mounted gear. You can get a reasonably priced and adequate RJ45 crimping tool locally. Then with some bulk Cat5 cable and a package of RJ45 connectors you can make your own TIA-568 spec network cables most any length you want (within the spec). And do this for much less money than buying Firewire or USB cables (or even pre-made Cat 5 cables). I don't think there are lot of "do it yourself" tools out there for making Firewire or USB cables.
Ethernet is a totally open and well-established standard that has shown remarkable evolution while maintaining backward compatibility. This is important for our radios because they don't fade away in few short years like most consumer electronics do.
The other key issue for future our radios is to not just “add” Ethernet to them but to instead rethink them from the chassis up. Simply adding a high-speed communications port to today’s radios and thier woefully inadequate microprocessors doesn’t really give us any truly new capability. It would be far better to take a building block approach using a series of “black box” devices with true Software Defined Radio (SDR) capabilities. The underlying logic for making these black box radio components talk Ethernet is for total versatility, for a standalone box radio (the functional equivalent to today’s offerings) a simple cross-over cable is all you need. For others who want something better they can connect to a host PC or a remote ‘purpose built’ knobs and buttons panel. For an even more sophisticated station configurations it's just a matter of assembling a standard TCP/IP network using the inexpensive off the shelf and easy to acquire components that best match what you are trying to do.
As for the Kachina KC505 it was a little bit ahead of its time and hampered by its serial interface and single control software choice. I think the folks at Kachina totally missed the point of a PC controlled radio and the role that having a variety of control software available for it plays in its success or failure. The Pegasus on the other-hand has sold considerably better and has been much more successful, mostly because of some really good 3rd party control software for it. Good and abundant software is the biggest single key to success for this kind of technology, without it it’s pointless.
|
| |
|
Future Radios...
|
|
|
by KF6VSG on July 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Many good points mentioned in this thread.
Something I have been working on is using a microprocessor to monitor my PSK31 output and view the RF envelope on my computer. When I got the circuit and firmware working, originally I used it to set the audio levels of the sound card to give me perfect modulation. Then I realized the firmware and software could do just the same thing by measuring the harmonics in the output and set the audio level automatically for distortion-free output. So this is an example of using the computer as part of the feedback loop of the transceiver to analyze and control the emitted signal. If interested, there's full documentation at www.ssiserver.com/info/pskmeter including circuits, software, etc.
|
| |
|
RE: Future Radios...
|
|
|
by KI4ABS on July 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I think it's a great idea. If amateur radio wants to continue to attract members new and old alike, it needs to become even more modern. Isn't that what technology is all about? I'm 17 years old, and I enjoy using the more modern operation activities (IRLP, EchoLink, etc...). Adding stuff to new rigs like USB would be awesome. For those of you who are amateur radio purists or whatever, Don't Buy A Rig With USB! You guys are probably the same ones who complain IRLP and Echolink isn't "real" ham radio. No, I'm certainly not bashing those who chose to use the old activities exclusively in ANY way. I enjoy them myself. I'm just wondering why they complain about it when they don't use it. I thought ham radio was partly about experimenting and building and developing. USB would be cool because it adds another branch of expandability to new ham rigs. You could sync your rig and computer, recording your conversations digitally and store them and share them with your friends VERY simply over the internet. Digital operation would become so much simpler (who needs a TNC?). ALL new computers have them, and for the older computers cards are SO cheap and easy to install. The possiblities are so great! Anyway, I'm not a crabby person, I'm just stating my opinion. I'm off the soapbox and am supporting the additon of more modern stuff to new rigs.
|
| |
|
RE: Future Radios...
|
|
|
by KA0YKO on July 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
HFHAM2 Opined:
>
> Here we go again...
>
> Yet another example of computer geeks
> taking over the hobby with more stupid
> ideas just for the sake of it.
>
> They want to turn your rig into just
> another computer peripheral like a
> printer or a CD-ROM.
Dear Troll, why not go back to your franklin stove heated shack with the spark gap transmitter and the iron-powder receiver with the mechanical tapper to decohere the powder?
Jeez, why do the stick in the muds always have to criticize the technical progress of our hobby and the people that make the progress possible?
The computer/radio marraige is already well underway so if you can't contribute something useful to the discussion, then shut the h$ll up!
---
A USB port and the corresponding radio/computer protocol would do wonders for simplifying programming of memories, scan ranges, and backup. I'm all for it and would gladly replace my TH-F6A with one that provides that extra path to the built-in processor.
|
| |
|
Future Radios...
|
|
|
by ZL1TLT on July 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
IMHO Go for it!! Isn't Amateur Radio about experimentation, inovation and, above all, FUN!! I have a Yausu FT101, Icom 751 and Icom 706MKIIG, representing "appliance" rigs from 1960s to the 21st century. I would certanly like to be able to connect to my 2 computers in my shack without having to buy a $200 or $300 interface.( by the way, one of the PCs is also a dinosaur, P75 running DOS). And for the Moaning Minnies, if you don't want it, don't buy it.
|
| |
|
RE: Future Radios...
|
|
|
by AE6IP on July 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>> A mateur radio operators, aside from all of our
>> other qualities, are well-established leaders in
>> the pursuit of advancement of technologies (take
>> microwave communications, for example), because we
>> come up with ideas and follow through with them on
>> the bench
This may well have been true at one time, but the cost of being on the leading-edge of RF technology is far to great for a single amateur, or even an amateur club, to be anywhere near the leading edge any more.
And probably has been to expensive for more than a decade.
|
| |
|
RE: Future Radios...
|
|
|
by AE6IP on July 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
http://www.icomamerica.com/amateur/dstar/index.html
* Open protocol TCP/IP structure
* Digital voice and data capability
* Data 128K (130kHz Bandwidth)
* Multi site capability with high speed microwave backbone 10 Mbps
* ATM multiplex*
* Internet interface capability
* Repeaters can handle both digital and analog voice
http://www.sdrforum.org/
Software Defined Radio Forum.
http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuradio/gnuradio.html
An Open Source SDR
|
| |
|
RE: Future Radios...
|
|
|
by K1CJS on July 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>> Amateur radio operators, aside from all of our
>> other qualities, are well-established leaders in
>> the pursuit of advancement of technologies (take
>> microwave communications, for example), because we
>> come up with ideas and follow through with them on
>> the bench
>This may well have been true at one time, but the
>cost of being on the leading-edge of RF technology is
>far to great for a single amateur, or even an amateur
>club, to be anywhere near the leading edge any more.
>
>And probably has been to expensive for more than a
>decade.
That doesn't mean we have to give up on experimenting and trying new ways of connection and control of the radios we now have!
|
| |
|
Future Radios...
|
|
|
by CT2ILQ on July 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The interface radios badly need today is not USB.
The interface radios need today is optical SPDIF audio in and audio out.
So one can place a sound card with optical in and out on the PC, and connect it to the radio with electrical
isolation, with two cheap plastic optical fiber cables, without the PC interfering on the radio, and with a accuracy impossible with audio transformers!!!
And with vox on the radio, one can control TX easily.
Today the trouble is not controlling the radio.
We can control the radio perfectly, by hand or using computers and RS-232.
The trouble is passing to the computers the audio that the radio really receives, without distortion, so that
we can realy put computers to work as "super-hyper" DSPs, for the digital modes.
73
CT2ILQ
P.S.: English is not my native tongue, so my apologies
for any errors.
|
| |
|
RE: Future Radios...
|
|
|
by KI4ABS on July 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I see the advantages of S/PDIF. I myself am heavy into the pro audio field as well as amateur radio and other technological hobbies (especially computers). S/PDIF is JUST audio. It does one job and does it well. But USB would be more than fine for radio communications, so why limit yourself? Really, all USB carries is digital signals, so whatever audio you recieve from the radio is what you're going to get on the other end. Why not send audio along with data and control signals? We could bypass the TNC and allow the computer processor to do all the work, therefore saving money and another piece of equipment to hook up. I'm just getting started on all of the doors USB could open up, some we've never even thought of.
|
| |
|
RE: Future Radios...
|
|
|
by AA6E on July 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
CT2ILQ has a point about fiber optics.
Ethernet, and especially 100 Mb Ethernet, introduces lots of RFI possibilities, both from and to our equipment, as others mention. How to avoid this? Use 100baseFX, the fiber version of Ethernet. It's lightning proof, to boot.
Unfortunately, fiber Ethernet components are more expensive than copper. At current prices, they are only very attractive for long runs. Prices could come down a lot if demand were higher.
[One thing you can do with Ether over copper is to use only _shielded_ CAT5 twisted pair. The usual stuff is unshielded. Shielded wire costs only a little more.]
I am not aware of any fiber optic media for USB or Firewire. There's room for experimenting. While you're at it, I'd like a fiber substitute for RG-213. ;-)
-73, Martin, AA6E
|
| |
|
Future Radios...
|
|
|
by K8AG on July 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Rather an Ethernet port than USB. Or better, 802.11b or other wireless that allows the rig to show up as a node on a network.
Manufacturers pay note: a rig "server" like a print server would be a great idea.
73
John Pawlicki, K8AG
|
| |
|
RE: Future Radios...
|
|
|
by SM0AOM on July 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'd like to second the opinions that Ethernet interfaces or its fibre-optic variants would be very nice additions to future rigs.
If this could be implemented with open hardware and software specifications for both the control and traffic interfaces in the rigs, a lot of the 'hassle' involved in building networked remote controlled amateur radio stations could disappear.
Another item on the 'wish list' would be amateur radio equipment of modular design, where the buyer selects the frequency bands, operating modes, power levels and control facilities of choice. This could include a choice of equipment completely without conventional front panels.
I would very much welcome the manufacturers to implement a common control specification, which could be something along the lines of the ARINC 429 avionics bus, but using standard computer networking products (with due regard to RFI) and also having the possibility to interleave rig control and traffic (e.g. VoIP) messages in the same network interface.
In the military/commercial world this is already a reality, but premium prices.
73/
Karl-Arne
SM0AOM
|
| |
|
RE: Future Radios...
|
|
|
by CT2ILQ on July 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Completing my previous post:
Spdif is not just audio.
Some CD players can send to minidisc the titles of the CD track if the CD has that info recorded.
So there is a way of sending more than audio on SPDIF.
Spdif optical is cheap plastic fiber, you just
cut the fiber and plug it in the connector.
There is already a specification for firewire over fiber check:
http://www.1394ta.org/Technology/About/faq.htm
73
CT2ILQ Paulo Ferreira
|
| |
|
Future Radios...
|
|
|
by AA6YQ on July 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
USB's primary advantages with respect to RS232 are
1. higher performance
2. smaller connector size
3. market momentum
If the transceiver manufacturers wanted a common rig control protocol, they could have easily achieved this over RS232. Shifting to USB will not force the manufacturers to adopt a common rig control protocol. Should Yaesu adopt USB, I suspect that the control protocols employed by each of their transceivers will be largely incompatible, just as they are today over RS232.
The incorporation of digital technology into radios is inexorable because it produces better performance at lower cost. Some will hang on to radios built with older technologies out of nostalgia, but nostalgia has never held back technical evolution in any engineering domain. Not once. Ever.
The 386 in the back of my closet still runs DOS and LOGic 1.0 at the same level of functionality and performance as it did the day I bought it. Each new generation of CPU, network, and mass storage techologies lets software applications provide more functionality and become more accessible. There's nostalgia here too, but it stops nothing.
As transceiver implementation becomes predominantly digital, the pace of improvement will rise to that of most digital technologies -- roughly a doubling every 18 months. As always, some will long for the good old days. But as always, progress will prevail.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
|
| |
|
RE: Future Radios...
|
|
|
by KC5CQW on July 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Why not ask someone like Rigblaster to make an interface? That way older and newer rigs can interface to a PC in a "universal" way. (IBM say's, "There is no universal adapter.") Maybe so, but such a thing would be a good Option if the end user wants it. I think it could be done. My old IC-730 has a primitive PC interface that could be modified.
Damon KC5CQW
|
| |
|
RE: Future Radios...
|
|
|
by KC5CQW on July 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Why not ask someone like Rigblaster to make an interface? That way older and newer rigs can interface to a PC in a "universal" way. (IBM say's, "There is no universal adapter.") Maybe so, but such a thing would be a good Option if the end user wants it. I think it could be done. My old IC-730 has a primitive PC interface that could be modified.
Damon KC5CQW
|
| |
|
RE: Future Radios...
|
|
|
by AE6IP on July 26, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>> Amateur radio operators, aside from all of our
>>> other qualities, are well-established leaders in
>>> the pursuit of advancement of technologies (take
>>> microwave communications, for example), because we
>>> come up with ideas and follow through with them on
>>> the bench
>> This may well have been true at one time, but the
>> cost of being on the leading-edge of RF technology >> is far to great for a single amateur, or even an
>> amateur club, to be anywhere near the leading edge
>> any more.
>>
>> And probably has been too expensive for more than a
>> decade.
> That doesn't mean we have to give up on
> experimenting and trying new ways of connection
> and control of the radios we now have!
Of course not. It is the *personal* satisfaction that comes from such experiments that enriches the hobby for us. --- We just should be realistic in our estimation of how close we are to 'the state of the art.'
Marty
|
| |
|
RE: Future Radios...
|
|
|
by N0RKX on July 26, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If your going to do the connectivity thing the standard to use is ethernet not USB. I haven't seen mentioned the one major drawback to USB. The 5m or less segment length requirement. 100 Mbit ethernet is already has twice the bandwidth than even the newest USB 2.0 standard.
|
| |
|
Future Radios...
|
|
|
by N4ARI on July 26, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
USB ports? YES!
Get rid of the old RS232 format. We love our features and USB gives us an easy and cheap way to improve our communications. Firewire is fine too but a USB port was needed on all radios two years ago. The manufactures really missed out on this one.
|
| |
|
Future Radios...
|
|
|
by NR1SS on July 26, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
100Mb Ethernet? Get real. Not gonna happen.
Rig control over USB perhaps when EIA-232 has its the other foot in the grave. Today would not be soon enough.
Mfgs make a huge margin on 232/TTL converters, CT-17, IF-232, etc. This too is on its way out. Kenwood & JRC are not doing the converter thing in new radios.
Give it some time and a USB port will arrive on your new rig.
|
| |
|
RE: Future Radios...
|
|
|
by WZ7W on July 26, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Check out my latest tranciever. I don't have any idea how to use it yet, I just got it yesterday.
http://www.datahunter.com/serialan.html
|
| |
|
RE: Future Radios...
|
|
|
by KZ9G on July 26, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The USB interface is coming...but will probably be used for the interface of well distributed and recognizable products.
In fact, the new multi-kilobuck IC-7800 offers a USB interface, but seems to be just for keyboard control of the internal modem for digital communications. Interestingly, it also sports a compact flash card for storage of rig parameters and other information. An RS-232C port is still used for serial control of the rig. If the 232 port is fast enough, I don't see any reason why this cannot continue to be used for a while (IMHO). Like others have said, fancy digital interfaces or disconnect headers are coming. 73.
|
| |
|
RE: Future Radios...
|
|
|
by KE4RWS on July 26, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Earlier in this thread someone wrote, "What on earth would we do if the manufacturers started putting something as new-fangled as a USB port on a radio?"
My reply would have to be, "Uhhhhh, how about just not use the USB port if you don't want to?"
There are lots of ports on any given radio people don't use in their particular application. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be on the radio.
Some folks just have to get real . . . .
|
| |
|
RE: Future Radios...
|
|
|
by VE3TMT on July 27, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have to agree with KE4MOB. This hobby is all about radio, which to me it seems like something the manufacturers have forgotten. But like every other new technological invention, if you don't come up with a comparative product you lose your market share. I have a laptop interfaced to my FT920 that allows me to log, operate the digital modes, control the radio and even turn a beam if I had one. And it does it all by RS232.
Can't you just see the new HF rig in a Dell box. Boy those black and white spots sure will be cute.
|
| |
|
Future Radios...
|
|
|
by VE3TMT on July 27, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Anthony KB3DVS, I think you are missing the point entirely on Field Day. USB this, USB that. Leave it at home where it belongs, on the computer.
|
| |
|
Future Radios...
|
|
|
by W3RAZ on July 27, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Where USB is SORELY needed is in teh TNC. The serial port is slowly going away. Same goes for other ports. When I bought my new computer, I had to buy a new Joystick. The gameport was gone. I know you can get a convertor, but thos are stupid and with Joysticks, hardly anythign works. Besides, with USB, they coudl start by adding a USB to serial convertor but integrate it on the main KPC-3 (or make it like the KPC 5 or something) board. This way, they would not have to write a driver right away especially if they use a off the shelf and included driver (included with Windows). I would frankly like to see USB be introduced to TNC's and more advanced features come to them. Also, Bluetooth would also be a neat idea as well. BT to hook the radio and all of the gear to the computer. Controll everything from there. Yes, we may have hams that still use Tubes, but hams should look beyond that if they can and they do.
|
| |
|
RE: Future Radios...
|
|
|
by KB3DVS on July 27, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AA6E mentioned
> Full scanning / spectrum analysis under PC control,
> the ability to run code _in_ the radio (Java anyone?)
> would be a handy way to implement advanced scanning
> strategies, to run special DSP filters, no to mention
> outputing digital audio, video, or other datastreams.
Or display the digital modes onto the LCD screens already in today's radios. PSK, CW, RTTY, ARPS and more... just plug-in a USB keyboard and you're good!
KF6IIU asked:
> Why not stick an IR port on the front of the radio?
Because the idea is to interface with the radio, which IS the computer, not put another computer in front of you.
N8AUC noted:
> when you're out in the field, and on a limited power budget,
> you wouldn't have to use the USB control. But when the
> available power allows, have that option.
Aside from QRP, most radios are serious power hogs compared to any USB device, which is 5v, 150 - 500 mA. For instance, Yaesu's new 897, with only 2w of output using the batteries, it uses as much as 4 amps of power (says Yaesu). Compare that to a USB light (useful to illuminate the paper log while in the field) is touted as decreasing a laptop's battery by one extra minute per hour over the computer alone. That's basically nothing.
AE6IP referred to:
> http://www.icomamerica.com/amateur/dstar/index.html
> Open protocol TCP/IP structure
That would again be going to the black box radio, where you need a computer to interface with it. My premise was the other direction... connecting a keyboard, et al, to the radio.
N0RKX
> the one major drawback to USB. The 5m or less segment
> length requirement. 100 Mbit ethernet is already has twice
> the bandwidth than even the newest USB 2.0 standard.
Eethernet has already been said to be more costly, and more noisy, which means shielding which is more cost. Again, my premise was accessorizing the radio, certainly not connecting something further than 15 feet (your "major drawback" noted above) away.
KG4OOA proposed:
> Why not ... build the computer, transmitter and receiver all
> in one box? This would save space on the table and mean
> taking less crap with you on Field Day or ... emergency.
Precicely!
Imagine plugging in a USB camera and being able to do fast or slow scan with no other accessories! Not even a power adaptor.
CT2ILQ also proposed:
> ... radios need ... optical SPDIF audio in and audio out. So
> one can place a sound card with optical in and out on the
> PC and connect it to the radio with electrical isolation,
> with two cheap plastic optical fiber cables, ...
> We can control the radio ... using computers and RS-232.
Why on earth would you work so hard on electrical isolation if you are then going use a hardwired serial connection?
With USB, you could do audio in both directions, even video, radio control, firmware updates, download radio info, upload tweaked DSP setings from a friend... USB is cheap, and very, very powerful and it's just one little wire.
AA6E further proposed:
> Use 100baseFX, the fiber version of Ethernet.
How many people have fiber in their cheap arse home PC's?
None.
VE3TMT
> I think you are missing the point entirely on Field Day.
If it is fun, then I prefer the convenience of USB in my radio.
If it is emergency preparedness, then I prefer bringing a radio and knowing I have everything.
If it is contesting, then I prefer USB connectivity to my computer.
If it is new modes and experimentation, then I prefer USB...
What is the point of Field Day for you?
|
| |
|
RE: Future Radios...
|
|
|
by KF4JDP on July 28, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W9WHE Writes
HOWEVER, with the development of multiple and redundant cell networks, more sophisticated (and redundant) public safety systems, internet VIA satelite, FRS, CB, GMRS, Staphones, & the Marine Radio Service, the odds of the classic "Ham radio as the SOLE communications medium is approaching ZERO. Except for nuclear holocost (where passing traffic won't matter anyway) the chances that Ham radio will be the "only" way to communicate are miniscule.
Did you say FRS? Did you say FRS? Did you say FRS?
The Radio Shack Blunder? A million little low power radios sandwiched in the middle of the full powered GMRS band. Thats a funny joke indeed!
|
| |
|
RE: Future Radios...
|
|
|
by VE3TMT on July 28, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yep...Gateway, you got me. And seeing as how everyone else supports USB, I change my mind. I'm easy to get along with.
73 all,
|
| |
|
RE: Future Radios...
|
|
|
by LC8UBT on July 29, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
And we must not forget the posibility of a hacker attack over internet... things gould get ugly that way.
Image that they take control over your rig, and start to jam the local police !
|
| |
|
Future Radios...
|
|
|
by K4ALJ on July 30, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Take a look at the Icom D-Star and ID-1. Then ask again about if a USB (meaning a Universal Serial Bus) port is needed.
Al
|
| |
|
RE: Future Radios...
|
|
|
by LC8UBT on July 30, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To: "Håken Hveem" <lc8ubt@frisurf.no>
Subject: Re: International Feedback from Kenwood.net (IN-17378)
Dear Customer,
We would like to express our thanks for your loyal patronage.
Your information will be sent to our communication production department
to keep in mind for future product planning.
Thank you once again for your support of our products.
Respectfully yours,
T.Soranaka
-----------------------
Customer Support Center
Kenwood Corporation
(Japan)
css@kenwood.co.jp
------------------------------------
Name: Håken Hveem
Email address: lc8ubt@frisurf.no
Please read this article.
http://www.eham.net/articles/5879
|
| |
|
RE: Future Radios...
|
|
|
by N8CPA on July 30, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
One of the reasons Kachina went under is that they wouldn't adapt to the expectations of the higher class licensees. Remember their mantra? "Why use a knob when you can use Windows?" Every time I saw that ad, I wanted to answer, "Because it's a radio, you mouse clicking LID!"
And then, when they gave in to a demand for a peripheral tuning knob for the box, they announced, "This really isn't consistent with our design philosophy"--I'm paraphrasing. The pompous geeks deserved to go under. I doubt that another company ever so complelely mis-estimated their customer base.
To most hams, a radio is a 3 dimensional device, not a kind of video game application. Knobs and slugs are more precise for radio adjustments than GUIs. Mice solve all problems only in cartoons.
But some kind of inbuilt connection for a speedy connection between a rig and a computer is good idea. Ethernet or USB would work fine. Now someone, more adept at computer technology than myself, get busy and design or retrofit a rig to demonstrate the concept.
|
| |
|
Future Radios...
|
|
|
by KG6RIF on August 1, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't have a problem with using USB to CONTROL the rig, but passing digitized audio...um NO.
I don't want any compression algorithms messing with my audio before it gets to the PC. Why add the complexity?
Furthermore, USB 1.0 has high latency. It's only 1.1megabits per second folks, that's not that fast. An example for you:
MY old man bought a Sound Blaster Extigy external USB Sound card/system. All audio comes from the computer's processor, through the USB ports (the bandwidth of which, btw, is shared unless it's on its own circuit) into the Extigy and out to the speakers.
Pretend you're listening to a song or watching a movie in Windows, you turn the volume down. It takes a full half second to 1 second for the audio to turn down on the speakers.
It's just a hassle. USB for Audio sucks period. No musicians use it, no sound fx guys use it etc...
Now MAYBE USB 2.0 will be better (480 megabits per second, much faster than even Cat5 ethernet), but I sitll have a fundamental problem with adding a layer of digitizing to audio coming in off my rig.
|
| |
|
Future Radios...
|
|
|
by KB3DVS on August 1, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K4ALJ says
> Take a look at the Icom D-Star and ID-1. Then ask again
Icom Says:
> Features of the D-STAR System
> • Open protocol TCP/IP structure
> • Digital voice and data capability
> • Data 128K (130kHz Bandwidth)
> • Multi site capability with high speed microwave backbone 10 Mbps
> • ATM multiplex*
> • Internet interface capability
> • Repeaters can handle both digital and analog voice
All this is propritary.
There are already data systems out there, HT's that do digital voice. Kenwood camera units that transmit stills or even video over much lower cost handheld transceivers.
Field day, emergency, on the road, camping, ARES, RACES-
these are times when the infrastructure has failed or is not accessable.
Plus, most of the system is headless, which means you need a computer to do the digital imaging, and network to the radio... well then, the radio doesn't need TCP/IP if you have a computer right there!
How about a complete radio with USB to _augment_ it's capabilities.
Add a keyboard, add a camera, add whatever to the radio with no other power or computer needed.
KG6RIF countered:
> ...passing digitized audio...um NO.
> I don't want any compression algorithms messing with my audio...
> Furthermore, USB 1.0 has high latency.
> Pretend you're listening to a song or watching a movie in Windows
> ... USB for Audio sucks period. No musicians use it, no sound fx guys use it...
BZZZZZZT Wrong.
There are _numerous_ high end, high bitrate, no compression, low latency USB audio devices in the professional audio world. The problems you've experienced are not USB. It's the other junk in the vicinity of the audio gear.
Here's a link:
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=USB+audio+professional&btnG=Google+Search
Anthony
|
| |
|
Future Radios...
|
|
|
by KB5SXH on August 1, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
While you make some good points, I think the concept should not be to try to eliminate the computer. I think if we had the radio interfaced to the computer via USB 2.0, we'd have something. The radio software should then have the ability to directly control all aspects of the radio, including "Profile" information, et cetera.
ICom's new radio, that is (I've Heard) going to go for about $12,000 or so, will have a Compact Flash card to store profile information, but I don't think that it does any logging.
Granted, being required to have a computer to operate is not that great of a thing as far as emergency communications... Let's look at it like this, though.
What is required to pass traffic? A radio that will talk from point a to point b, and possibly even point c, d, e, et cetera. An operator who can operate the radio. Something to record traffic for retransmission...
My personal emergency communications plan mainly involves my car. I have an IC 706MKIIG hooked up to a BMD5 screwdriver, an IC-2800 Dual Band on a larsen, and a pad of paper and a pen. I am completely confident that I can pass all of the trafic I ever need to pass from my car. When I was in the Marine Corps, one of my multide of duties included being in charge of radio communications for my company. There were times when I was passing traffic on up to five different tactical nets on up to five different radios that were carried into the field in someone's pack. I never had more than a pad of paper and a map to keep track of things, and I was always able to keep track of things.
I guess my point to this part is: Put all the bells and whistles and computer controll stuff on the radios that you want, but I will not buy a radio that cannot be operated as a stand alone device. Additionally, I really don't want my radio doing things that a computer should do. I certainly don't want a radio that requires a mouse :) I think that it would be great though, to have a radio with a USB interface capable of the following:
-Controlling frequency, mode, and all transceiver adjustments
-Encode/Decode digital audio
-Controling Transmit and Receive
-Passing all information such as SWR, Power Output, ALC reading, S-Meter, et cetera.
-REALTIME! There should be no communications lag in anything...
-As much of the radio functions as possible should be "Industry Standard". Either that, or the actual hardware drivers should be contained in the radio (Kind of like flash card readers and such). It should be easy to develop software to manipulate the radio.
This would allow you to have one cable connecting your computer and radio, plus power, and a mic and antenna. Everything else could be done by the radio and computer: PSK31, RTTY, Packet, AMTOR, et cetera... Even voice recording, and stuff like that...
Just a thought,
73's
John KB5SXH
|
| |
|
RE: Future Radios...
|
|
|
by KG6RIF on August 1, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K3VDBS Said:
"BZZZZZZT Wrong.
There are _numerous_ high end, high bitrate, no compression, low latency USB audio devices in the professional audio world. The problems you've experienced are not USB. It's the other junk in the vicinity of the audio gear.
Here's a link: "
That link featured a device for $350. And I'd like you to explain why "other junk" in the vicinity of hte audio gear explains latency in the standard USB bus on the motherboard?
You'll also find that USB 1.0 hard drives have latency issues.
Besides, if something professional quality is going to add $350 to the cost of the radio, I'm not sure I want it to begin with. Serial ports may be old, but they are still extremely functional and require no software or drivers.
|
| |
|
Future Radios...
|
|
|
by KB3DVS on August 1, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KG6RIF replied:
> That link featured a device for $350.
It featured dozens of devices and links.
Aside from the Griffin device for $50, $350 was one of the cheap ones. :)
Your assertion was that USB audio was compressed, and low quality.
I believe you said "USB for audio sucks." That is wrong.
> 2 pristine mic preamps (given Pro Audio Review's highest rating), an
> additional 8 inputs to its mixing section, 2 headphones sends, an FX send and
> return, dedicated monitor outs and record outs, auxiliary input record
> bussing, and more. The result is a truly professional and portable music...
> Performance
> Dynamic Range (Direct Line In to Line Out): 105dB
> THD+N (Direct Line In to Line Out): <0.002%
> System Requirements (Mac) - Native USB compatibility
> - 96kHz Operation OS 9.1 or higher 128 MB RAM
> System Requirements (PC) - Windows 98SE, 2000, or ME
> - 96kHz Operation Pentium II 500Mhz 128 MB of PC100 RAM
These specifications are far above the 16-bit, 48k audio found on CD's,
let alone the audio transmitted on 20 meters.
> explain why "other junk" in the vicinity of the audio gear explains
> latency in the standard USB bus on the motherboard?
Because when using numerous USB audio devices with my computers, and as attested by the hardware specs- latency is in the milliseconds.
> Zero-latency direct monitoring,
> greatly simplifying the process of recording and overdubbing.
or
> Modes: Full Duplex - Simultaneous Record/Play
KG6RIF continues:
> if ... professional quality is going to add $350 to the cost of the radio
That's just the point... there is no need for the USB audio device at all!
With USB, digital mode data can be handed to the computer directly. No need to convert it to audio, then use your sound card to convert it back to digital. That just introduces more errors, latency, overmodulation, etc.
> Serial ports may be old, but they are still extremely functional
> and require no software or drivers.
And many new computers don't come with a serial port.
So with _no software_ you communicate with your radio over serial?
Or do you use a program specially designed for that purpose... ;;-)
Well, you'd use the same program ... it would be able to select USB instead of serial. that's all.
Anthony
|
| |
|
Future Radios...
|
|
|
by DG9BDI on August 2, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hy!
This would be a great idea USB port on a Radio.
and only one Software to get out data to get audio in and out for digital modes and program the TRX.
Hope somebody from manufacturing radios (Icom,Yaesu,Kenwood,Alinco) will read this.
73 ´s de Stefan DG9BDI
|
| |
|
RE: Future Radios...
|
|
|
by KG6MUN on August 3, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
USB 2.0 is NOT faster than firewire. Firewire 800 (800 Mb/s) is available now, and is spec'd out all the way to 3.2Gb/s. There also exists a wireless spec for firewire.
It destroys USB in every way, shape and form. It just cost a bit more because Apple charges a fee of $1.00 (If I recall correctly) per port shipped, as they own the patent on it (Firewire/IEEE 1394)
|
| |
|
RE: Future Radios...
|
|
|
by W3DCG on August 3, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
USB port standard on radios.
Yeah! Just like the RS-232 should be standard and with computer/I.T. technology moving at such high velocity, manufacturers should skip the 232 part and cut straight to the USBs!
|
| |
|
Future Radios...
|
|
|
by KB3DVS on August 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I see a new Ethernet thread and I applaud people who want to take their radio and put it on the net, although there are already solutions for this and radios on the net... But I digress.
Further news about audio I/O via USB, imagine those guys doing HiFi SSB saw this:
> M-Audio Transit is an external USB audio interface that can handle
> 24-bit/96kHz audio and offers 1/8" stereo analog/optical digital
> input, 1/8" stereo line/headphone output, and TOSlink optical
> digital output that allows AC3 and DTS pass-through.
> The USB bus-powered device measures 2.2" x 3.6" x 0.9" and
> weighs 1.6 ounces. The M-Audio Transit is $99.95 for
> Mac OS X 10.1 and up, Mac OS 9.1 and up, and Windows.
|
| |
|
Future Radios...
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on August 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This kinda reminds me of the movie, "The Terminator"
You are melding technologies together. In this case computers and ham radio into one entity.
Computers are not transmitting Amateur Radio equipment, so why the need to make them into one?
KC8VWM
|
| |
|
Future Radios...
|
|
|
by OK1DX on September 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi...
I thought about that some time ago. We HAMs like our toys for 2 reasons: they are high-tech toys (we are happy that the box offers a lot of features, despite the fact we don't need them - most manufactures base their profit on that), and because we want to use them to make a QSOs / talk to others, we like to turn the knobs to get the best from the box etc.
I think some compromise is necessary (and in my opinion the trend is now more to add superfeatures than real quality improvement), or wider offer - from models for technicians to models for operators.
But back to USB. I don't think the magic word is USB or Ethernet or so. That just the way the computer communicates with the radio. In my opinion in HAM radio the PC will be never fully integrated with the radio for lot of reasons (price, possibility to upgrade, computers become obsolete faster than radios...). So if we want the computer to talk to radio, we need the way how to do that. I agree that the RS232 port is now obsolete (it was several years ago already...). Mostly because of performance reason and future compatibility (as you see the floppies are disappearing these days, the same will happen with RS232 soon).
If you closely look to today's radios: there are lot of features "digital". Not only freq synthetiser, but also demodulator / AF. For example when we operate PSK31 - the analog IF signal is sampled by ADC, then processed by DSP, converted back to analog signal, then there is the AF cable between radio and soundcard, and then again ADC and processing in PC. In my opinion the chain could be significantly shorter: the sampled signal could be delivered as digital signal directly to PC and processed there. The PC is powerfull enough, the only thing we need is a data channel that is wide enough. USB is, RS232 not.
Or imagine following scenario: when the radio is switched on, the DSP processor loads default firmware from ROM and the radio works by standard way. But later you can connect PC and upload the software to DSP processor and change fully its fuctionality - it could perform some digital signal demodulation etc. In such situation the features (different modes, filters,..) of the radio are determined by external software, and can be easily updated for any future mode, just by updating PC software...
Of course, we should use already defined standarts, and now the USB is the most suitable. It is able to guarantee the stable data flow (it is generaly not true for Ethernet), it is fast enough (for now). I would like to suggest for beginning just to integrate a sound card directly to radio and to realise the data link between the soundcard and PC by USB. Btw, Creative Labs offer some external sound cards that are exactly what we need, just to put them into the radio... You don't see any improvement? It is - you don't need a special decoupling interface to avoid noise / feedback etc, you can still use your sound card in PC for loudspeakers etc. I haven't tried it yet, but want to do... Has anybody some experiance already?
Btw, what do you think about the future? When the ADC will be connected directly to antenna (or perhaps only thru LP filter), will have sufficient dynamic range / speed and DSP processor will be powerfull enough? Then the radio become full-digital! Or when the digital voice modes will start on HF...
73 Pavel OK1DX/KF9VM
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
New HF Transceivers - Now & Future:
A computer in your radio
Have We Hurt Our Arms Patting Our Back?
Why I'm an Amateur Radio Operator
Radio 'Slack' Strikes Out Again!
Other Radios Articles
What's Special About a Tuning Knob?
Cool Radio
Designing the Ultimate HF Front End
Boatanchor AM on a Budget
Keep Your Cool!
|
