Survey Comments
Bring on Digital Voice
Naysayers to new technology give me a chuckle. I once knew a vocational school teacher who insisted on teaching tube theory to his students (even though the textbooks were all about solid state). His reasoning was that eventually Russia would nuke the U.S. and the solid state rigs would get fried. It was really cheap justification for his refusing to accept progress. Eventually, he stopped teaching and the next generation of students got a real education. Of course, digital voice is good. It is just one part of the technology evolution. Bring it on!
Posted by
KA2DDX on 2004-05-31
Digital Voice is Already Happening.
The digital voice revolution in amateur radio has just started. But it won't take long to catch on.
Prediction: In 10 years, 50% or more of all ham radio QSOs will be digital voice. The simple reason is: it will take less bandwidth and get through under adverse conditions better.
Bonnie KQ6XA
Posted by
KQ6XA on 2004-02-07
It will be a MUST
With the new no code know nothing novice class or NCKN-NOVICE (like NCT=no code tech)
We wil have to have ultra narrow digital modulation to accomodate all the new hams.
The HF bands will be jammed with SSB.
Narrow band digital audio will have to be used
Posted by
WA2JJH on 2004-01-24
Digital Voice
Of course! Hams have always been at the forefront of new technology. This will also make BPL a moot point!
73 Tom KB5DPE
Posted by
KB5DPE on 2004-01-01
Digital Voice
N4ZOU
Your comments relate to TRUNKING systems, NOT digital systems. Yes, trunking requires some compromises to make more efficient use of a smaller number of RF frequencies. Digital, however, is another animal, and does not, necessarily, require such compromises. Digital systems, without trunking (a rarity in commercial service) would not involve delays that a human operator could perceive.
73 Tom KB5DPE
Posted by
KB5DPE on 2004-01-01
Whatever...
Sure, move everything to digital. Who cares. Oh, wait a sec...isn't CW digital?
Posted by
WA3YAY on 2003-12-02
It WILL happen!
It is only a matter of time before we use digital transmission over HF to reproduce voice at either end. With the increase in human population, technology and most of all man made interference, it will happen. Just like CD from Tape, Dig HF will evolve to eliminate eventual congestion and reduce noise. Its just a matter of time.
Posted by
ZL1WDC on 2003-12-01
Might be a good thing?
Might be interesting to be able to a send a couple of protocol based checksums and, if the 'quality of service' is high, switch to a highly bandwidth efficient digital mode to continue the QSO...
Posted by
KB0PQE on 2003-11-29
simple is best
simple cw gets threw when all the other modes fail, you people who are playing with your digital modes will be sadly left out in the cold if there is ever a total emegency and it will be the cw that works....simplicity at its best!
Posted by
AA5GO on 2003-11-27
Something for Everyone
Just because a new mode comes out, doesn't mean I have to buy it. I don't 6 Meters, 220, 900Mhz, EME, satellite or packet (at least not yet). It's just another avenue to use to communicate.
Digital voice will come and will have its place in the spectrum, just like all of the current analog and digital modes.
Posted by
KI4CKR on 2003-11-26
N9DG Writes:
...Use data rates like the commercial users for those arm chair copy QSO's and a much lower, even a non voice data rate for those really weak signals and/or for contesting where a large amount of data transfer is not necessary. And with all these DSP IF radios coming out today why do we even need an external converter box anyhow? It should just be a matter of loading new software/firmware into the radio itself and have at it.
==================
In the late 70's, I worked on a Navy project whose goal was to provide recognizable, digitized, voice transmissions at a 300 BPS data rate. The Mathematician assigned to the project simplified the necessary math to the extent that this could be accomplished by using 8 microprocessors working in tandem with a ninth serving as the ringmaster (this is in the days before DSP's). Unfortunately, a more visible and better funded project was chosen to complete the development effort (they never did deliver any product or even prototypes).
Now that we have the power of DSP's, why not implement this directly within the radios?? Kenwood, Yaesu, Icom, how about it???? The math is not even in the same league as the orbital mechanics calculations necessary to orbit the Space Shuttle.
Dennis - KG4RUL
Posted by
KG4RUL on 2003-11-25
Linux Makes Me Tired
Run Suse and ME on my laptop. XP elsewhere. Don't have much time to ramp up on Linux skills. Used Suse for 3 or 4 months and got frustrated having to face some ridiculous wall of instructions on some semi-functional website every time I wanted to download a piece of shareware. Lots of crashes, too, which is the very thing I was told for years that Linux does much less than Windows. Now have basically given up until Linux flavors get totally plug and play.
Posted by
KB1JPB on 2003-11-24
Digital on HF
Is it really digital?
How does one transmit 1's and 0's?
Posted by
N8IWK on 2003-11-24
ones and zeros
Use a modem.
Posted by
WT0A on 2003-11-24
Oh Great
OH GREAT ANOTHER MODE. JUST WHEN I THOUGHT I WAS FIGURING OUT AM, SSB, FM, CW, SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS, AND ECHOLINK,AND I KNOW THERE IS MORE THERE BUT MY MODE SCRAMBLED BRAIN CAN'T COPE. HOW ABOUT WE ALL WAIT FOR ME TO CATCH UP FIRST, THEN WE'LL TALK.
Posted by
KD5NIH on 2003-11-22
Everything will be digital eventually
change is gradual, but eventually everything will be digital. probably not in our lifetimes, however. Maybe in my grandsons life, or his grandsons. But it will eventually happen. Still issues to work out.
Posted by
KX1G on 2003-11-22
Digital on HF
We all know digital is coming, it's just a matter of when. On HF, I can't see this happening anytime soon for many reasons to numerous to list. FM and the VHF/UHF bands has already seen this happen as in cell phones/astro radios. Time will tell if this hobbiy of ours out-lasts the time it takes for digital to arrive on HF.
73 Rob
ve4rrb
Posted by
VE4RRB on 2003-11-22
Digital on HF
We all know digital is coming, it's just a matter of when. On HF, I can't see this happening anytime soon for many reasons to numerous to list. FM and the VHF/UHF bands has already seen this happen as in cell phones/astro radios. Time will tell if this hobbiy of ours out-lasts the time it takes for digital to arrive on HF.
73 Rob
ve4rrb
Posted by
VE4RRB on 2003-11-22
It's the future dude... deal with it!
If I'm not mistaken, isn't the entire FREAKING internet digitally based? Oh, yes... isn't Echolink also digital voice?
My Echolink always gets through... great voice quality too! No QSB, QRM, or QRN.
Digital voice won't replace SSB, no more than SSB replaced AM or AM replaced CW. But, it will become a major part of the hobby (like DSP) for those of us who are tired of QRM and QRN making a QSO a nightmare on crowded bands full of idiot wide-band SSB geeks comparing their audio endlessly...
One man's opinion of course. If you don't agree, EAT ME.
Dana KA1PK
Posted by
KA1PK on 2003-11-20
To use digital voice you have to channelize the phone bands like the CB band does.I dont see it working if you are tuned 100hz off freq.We maintain digital circuits at my job and unless hard wired link is absolutely perfect (no bit errors). My will customers complain about all kinds of call quality problems.And this is on a ckt that runs on fiber without any analog on a link at all.
Posted by
WB2LCW on 2003-11-17
Not for everyone
I've seen both sides of this fiasco. Digital audio can sound great, and it can be crappy as well. Dangerous? Yes, it can be that too, as in when your Nextel goes "Blaaap...squawk!" at full volume in your ear while in a marginal area. Just remember that digital audio equals at least 4 kHz sampling to sound like a bad original version Nextel, and just TRY and recover that kind of data from a weak signal. You can, but it'll take a week to decode someone saying "Can you QSL me now? Good!"
Posted by
N3EG on 2003-11-15
Condition Adaptive Mode
Why only think of a single bandwidth/data rate when considering a digital voice mode? We as hams have a very different set of requirements than most commercial/consumer users do. As such we should develop a mode that suites our needs instead of simply adapting one of the existing commercial 2 way radio modes. Use data rates like the commercial users for those arm chair copy QSO's and a much lower, even a non voice data rate for those really weak signals and/or for contesting where a large amount of data transfer is not necessary. And with all these DSP IF radios coming out today why do we even need an external converter box anyhow? It should just be a matter of loading new software/firmware into the radio itself and have at it.
Posted by
N9DG on 2003-11-15
Digital HF
Having worked in the cellular industry, Ive seen the advent of CDMA and TDMA technology. I have heard multiple complaints from users that need their analog signals for those "shady" areas. Digital technology just will not get into areas that the analog systems can. Having said that, I am anxious to see what HAMs will do with digital voice over HF. I dont think it will replace SSB,FM,CW, or AM, however, I would be interested in experimenting with it. After all we ARE HAMs! - KJ7XJ Tacoma,WA
Posted by
KJ7XJ on 2003-11-13
SSB is the King
As long as we don't have to use CW. SSB is the King!
Posted by
TECH2003 on 2003-11-13
ENCOURAGE THE OLD FARTS
Digital Voice on HF? Look, it may be reality some day, I mean many, many days, but if it works, Great!! Yes, CW replaced spark, but NOTHING replaced CW, not even the digital stuff. How many hams work RTTY vs manual CW? SSB did NOT replace AM. Many still use AM, not as many as SSB, but a good number. What about FM? It was supposed to replace AM & SSB? On UHF/VHF it is widespread, but NOT on HF..When there is an opening on 2 meters, what do we go to for DX?-SSB & CW!!! Can you see my point? The only thing that is history is spark-gap, because it was the only thing available and it was the forerunner of CW AND digital. God Bless tech.advances, but sometimes these advances are a negative, as I have read here with the previous responses.
SO-encourage the old farts. They seem to carry on and advance the modes that some regard as "outdated and antique". I cant stand to hit a key on a keyboard to initiate a Morse character, but thats me..Use each mode for a specific reason. I challenge anyone to prove to me what mode can get thru QRM,QSB,QRN and a low sunspot cycle as well as CW can? I made a contact on 20 meters to Comoros via FM at 45 watts! I freaked out..This is a service as well as a hobby, use all we have, encourage new, but please DO NOT forget what brought us here-AM & CW, which will be around for a long, long time. Digital Voice? no way-Now, but maybe in the future. I am not against it, but I will never use it..WHY? it is not a challenge, no brain cells needed, no computer. Its ham Radio folks, where SKILL is King, not a chip.
But again-thats Me..Happy thanksgiving..Ken-KU2US..
Posted by
KU2US on 2003-11-10
Perhaps a better broadcast medium
Digital communications has it’s pluses and minuses. Listen to some of the sample wav files on the AOR site. True, there is no QRN but the quality of the audio has a lot to be desired. For the most part, I can only describe this type of audio as ‘no-frills’ and I feel that it would be difficult to listen to for extended periods. Because of the inherent delay, I assume using VOX in a ‘quick break in’ type of roundtable QSO would be a problem whereas in analog, you almost feel it’s full-duplex. Digital audio could probably find it’s place as a wonderful broadcast medium on HF. If a strong FEC was used (i.e. Turbo Coding), the ARRL would be able to broadcast bulletins with great sounding audio and no QRN. I’m not sure if FCC rules allow for simultaneous transmissions on different bands, but if yes, the diversity reception would also increase reliability of the link. In this case, all we would need would be an inexpensive decoder – perhaps which could even sit on a PC’s sound card. The price of course is time. The broadcasted audio stream would be perhaps several seconds delayed but who cares. Another application could be a station translating DX cluster text to digital voice on HF so even those without a PC would be able to hear the DX spots reliably.
Posted by
4X1DA on 2003-11-10
No good for Dxing
With the power levels Amateurs are limited to and the amount of QSOs that take place with marginal copy... digital has a long way to go before it could possibly replace SSB.
Posted by
VE2DC on 2003-11-10
GET OUT OF MY WALLET
This is only a new way to seperate the ham from his money. Remember what ham is an acronym for, "Haven't Any Money!"
73
Bob
Posted by
KG4OOA on 2003-11-09
Glad to see digital sys.
Our club just got 2 UHF repeaters from a local Power Plant since they went to a digital trunking system. We are happy and the employees are not. They do not like the inherent delays in communications. They are saying it is going to be the cause of accidents because they cannot tell crane operators to stop movement in real time.
Posted by
WB9UDJ on 2003-11-08
digital my foot
What is the big deal, some one figured out how to use MP3 codecs on a hf radio.. still not rocket surgery.. $550 is to much for something that can probably be adapted from a $20 portable MP3 music player.. and will it work with a fan dipole???
Posted by
N6AJR on 2003-11-06
Not Me!
After having to switch from analog cell service to digital, with the resulting decline in all areas of performance, I will probably dies of old age before switching to digital voice for HF.
Posted by
N3ZKP on 2003-11-06
If we as Hams will continue to evolve and continue on the development of comunications,(Like we're supposed to)then we must acceptall new modes. We may adjust our sub-bands in need of accomodating for one another, especially when our growing pains as a service dictate such neccessity.
We do have younger generations of hams becoming more comfortable with computers and thier way might well become digital.
It might get worse. They might find the internet to be more of a preferrence. Then where are we at? Running till they remove us from the air or till we are silent keys?
Treat your new modes well or suffer the consiquences.One might think QRM but consider the future if you value your mode.
Posted by
KA3DPW on 2003-11-05
Digital
Albums still beat digital with top of the line components.
Bob
Posted by
RobertKoernerExAE7G on 2003-11-05
Digital voice NO!!!!
I don't see how digital voice over hf will work very well. My digital phone works great as long as your not on the fringe. From what i've seen, digital either works great or not at all. In SSB one can be off frequency a little and still make out the QSO, but with digital anything but a good connection would render it useless. Every one seems to think that since this is 2003 anything thats not digital is ancient and flawed. Everything audio starts out analog and ends up analog. The more electronics in between just serves to change the original information, it never enhances it but only degrades it to some extent. We'll have to see if technology can make it work better than my home phone.
Posted by
W4SRN on 2003-11-05
takeing the fun out of H.F.
I think that the concept is great and it would work wonders in certain areas, but look at the down side.
Your takeing the fun out of H.F. when you have to wait for some tone to alert everyone of a digital user. Come on this is not going to work for contesting. Then you take away all the fun from useing your bells and whistles on the rig you just spent a couple of thousand on. I like H.F. just the way it is natural, and makes it challengeing putting a station together that gets you the best D.X. audio quality. Now if we impliment a rule that it be used under certain conditions yeah! it work great dureing usual operateing conditions and small group QSO's.
Posted by
N2RRA on 2003-11-05
Evolveing with the times can hurt too
One other thing towards a comment about evolveing with the times and technology.
The evolution of technology is a scary one.
Man kind has become to dependent on technology.
They've come out with a morse code reader that you place near your transciever. Now everyone becomes so dependent, and lazy by it they forget how to read morse. What happens when that pieace of techno. garbage fails? Your in the dark and you have to start all over. I'm not saying i'm not in favor of technology and what good it can bring us. Just lets not forget what chaos it can bring, and how much fun it could take out of something that made this hobbie all well worth the challenge.
Posted by
N2RRA on 2003-11-05
I think not
Consider the "RF Spectrum Economics": On the low bands, the standard bandwidth of the SSB signal is 2.8 kHz-- not that much; whereas at 2m and higher, the standard signal bandwidth of the (modulated) FM signal is ~15 kHz. There are two ramifications of this: (A) When it is realized that digital voice will realize VASTLY greater spectral efficiencies relative to FM for the high bands than it will relative to SSB for the low bands, then the issue of digital voice supplanting SSB on the low bands appears not so much a matter of answering the question of spectral efficiency as it is a matter of begging that question. (B) The 2-way UHF radio services are rapidly going digital. This trend is industry wide. So the digital evolution is far more likely to occur from "the top (frequencies) down" than it is from "the bottom (frequencies) up". Conclusion: Digital voice may or may not take over SSB on the low bands. But rest assured that digital voice will certainly take over FM on the high bands. Indeed-- except for Ham Radio it is all but a "done deal".
Posted by
RADIOWIENER on 2003-11-04
bla bla bla
Remember when laser discs were going to replace vhs?? Digital gets pushed because its coined to be advancement but when modes like this become so complicated that small variables knock out the signal carrier most people will treat as the mode that it is. Just another digital mode. Nothing gets through like CW. 73! Vaughn-AB7UW
Posted by
AB7UW-MONTANA on 2003-11-03
Next generation of Voice
Technology keeps moving forward. Yes it will happen, just like AM took over CW, and SSB took over AM.
Tom NE7X...
Posted by
NE7X on 2003-11-03
Digital voice, yuck!
We got new Motorola Astro radios at work. Now we can't use them in an emergency due to the time delay to tell another operator to stop moving. To solve the problem a Public address amplifer and horn speaker was installed so you could shout to the other operator to stop what he's doing or warn him about what your about to do. You can also tell people in the area to watch out while you move, drag, or lift something around them. Just using the new radio is a pain. Press the PTT button, wait untill the radio quits beeping....... then start talking....... Wait forever while the person on the other radio starts responding...... Wait for the repeter time delay between the radios....... Give up and use your $8 FRS radio you bought at Wal-mart like most all the other operators did.
Posted by
N4ZOU on 2003-11-02
THOUGHTS ON DIGITIZING RF
One thing i noticed about the newer "digitalized" phones is that the words came thru quite well, but i could not recognize who was speaking. Is this good??? It seems that most digitalized communication removes something, and reformulates the original voice into a clone voice. Intonation gets lost as well; very desirable for some situations, but not for other situations. You are not sure who is speaking. Is this of interest in ham radio? Do you want to hear a real voice or a set of cloned words? Yes i know mine would sound better if converted to cloned words, but...
There must be a difference between schemes used for digital broadcasting and digital point to point communications. Perhaps a good point to point system would be able to repeat missing information quickly. But there would need to be an open system; nonproprietary.
Experimentation on certain frequencies by hams should be encouraged so we can evaluate, performance of various schemes for weak signal, jammed up frequencies, and even super-audio. But keep ALIVE the SSB, FSK, AMTOR, ATV, PSK, FM, AM, and CW.
Don
Posted by
VA3DRL on 2003-11-01
Hmmm....
What's this got to do with BPL?
But serously, $550 for an encoder? Gimme a break, it can't cost that much to build. I could buy another computer to use as an encoder with the soundcard for cheaper than that! Where's the software!!?? We did it with packet so I'm sure it can be done with digi voice.
Posted by
AB0TJ on 2003-11-01
Digital Voice on HF ???
Hello, Can you hear me now !!!!
Digital is fine, but it's either there
or it isn't No fades no nothing.
Check your digital Cell phones out. Then
think of it on HF. I don't think it will
fly for the #1 way to communicate.
Charlie K8BBE
Posted by
K8BBE on 2003-11-01
Maybe, maybe not
The cellphone analogy is a good one. Just listen to any talk show to see what digital will sound like on HF. If the signal is marginal, you get nothing.
When push comes to shove, nothing gets through the noise like SSB or CW. Digital on HF will be practically useless for emergency comms, unless you're getting a very strong, consistent signal.
Posted by
AD5KL on 2003-11-01
What Is So Great About Digital???
I am having a hard time grasping just what is so great about the digital voice modes, especially with regard to ham radio. First of all, despite a multitude of claims from just about all the wireless carriers to the contrary, digital is NOT clearer!!!! Not to my ears, anyway. Maybe because my OF ears (at 46) aren't tuned to it, but if the signal drops below a high level, you have chopping of words which I pereive as distortion of a high and annoying order. With analog, you may have some white noise or static at a lower signal level, but I can understand the message and that is what it's all about isn't it? I've had experience with just about all of the big wireless carriers and their various digital modes and none compare to analog in terms of clarity or fidelity of passed tones, etc. For wireless phones it is more an issue of frequency conservation and bandwidth than anything and also you now have privacy on the air that was not possible with analog. I finally settled on Verizon Wireless as they have the best overall signal clarity and reliability but even their relative excellence in signal quality doesn't compare to analog in terms of fidelity. At work, I use Motorola Astro digital equipment and again, it varies widely from moment to moment as to how much strain it produces on your ears. While it is many times more reliable than the aging 460 Mhz system that it replaced, the chopping (when the receiver doesn't get enough "1"'s and "0"'s or whatever to rebuild the digital signal into accurate voice is highly annoying. Also, since our radios have talk groups / channels for agencies using analog and digital, you soon notice a perceived absence of audio gain control in the digital mode. People I work with and myself are constantly having to run the volume up and down on our digital channels as people talking low are VERY low and people trying to swallow the mic and talking loud will blow you out of the car or blow the lapel mic off of your shoulder. On analog, the volume level is pretty much constant as it is with any normal VHF / UHf Public Safety radio system. Also, the alert tone that dispatch uses to get our attention preceeding an important broadcast, sounds like someone with a weak code practive oscillator that has a very loose battery connection. The digital system just isn't made to pass tones that high in frequency and it sounds comical. Based on what I've seen of digital voice thus far, I really don't see where it will be or do any good on ham radio. Let's keep it simple, that's why our stuff works when the major communications networks fail. 73, Ray KV4BL
Posted by
KV4BL on 2003-10-31
More information needed
My understanding of digital voice is that it will occupy about as much bandspace as SSB. This squares with my general understanding of the physical world in which you get what you pay for. More information is needed on the potential advantages and disadvantages of this new mode. Perhaps that can best be gained by on the air experience.
Posted by
NI0C on 2003-10-31
The Original Digital
CW....The Original Digital
Posted by
AC3P on 2003-10-31
Will become more popular after a while
Digital voice will become less expensive, and more popular after a while. SSB will become a nostalgia mode.
But CW will ALWAYS be king.
Posted by
WA2DTW on 2003-10-30
Hail Digital
Say, didnt Ten Tec brag about the first transantlantic digital voice communication? Was that historical? If so, then what is this thing with propietary gear? Eventually everybody will do it because its easy. If not, then it'll undergo res-dev til it is. I remember wondering why ham gear wasnt solid state in the early 60s when xsistor AM/FM recvrs first appeared. I was 13 at the time with my novice ticket. I did not make electronics my life's work, but we(electronics and myself)evolved nonetheless.I have been astounded more than once by the leaps made in solid state electronics. Keep up the good work. It would surprise me if there were no movement toward digital voice.
Posted by
K8DIT on 2003-10-30
Nawwww!!!!
After working with APCO 25 and Motorola Astro digital systems I'm convinced that it won't become a regular on the HF bands. Digital "voice" modes on the higher bands requires a very strong signal to work properly and when signal fade begins, the digital signal just "drops out" as the decoder has nothing usable to work with. With the present state of the art of digital systems and the many variables that we face on the HF bands (Noise, QSB, QRM etc), analog voice is still the reigning mode and most likely will be for quite sometime.
However!!! On the ham bands above 6 meters where FM modulation is the norm, I suspect we will be seeing LOTS of digital voice modes in the near future. It will probably be the next "cool" feature that comes out on our do everything handhelds after a standard protocol is developed.
Posted by
N7BUI on 2003-10-30
Maybe not replace, but "digital" is becoming the norm in everything.
Digital spread spectrum is where I think it all is headed.
Posted by
W6EZ on 2003-10-30
SSB is king for now
I do not see it REPLACING SSB, just as SSB has not REPLACED AM. Then again, it may suffer the same fate as ACSB.
Posted by
OBSERVER11 on 2003-10-29
Acceptance
Maybe it is the cutting edge.
The initial resistance will revolve around high cost, limited installed base, and the need to replace your power supply if you are using a switching unit. Anyone remember when the cutting edge for voice communications on HF was considered to be Narrow Band FM? Again the problems were cost, special adapters, and lack of installed base.
What needs to happen is for Ten Tec, Yaesu, Kenwood, and Icom include this as a standard feature on their high end rigs to begin with. Of course, a look back at NBFM will show that the major receiver manufacturers also included NBFM as a standard feature until it was obvious that the mode did not gain wide acceptance among the ham community.
There are always a certain percentage of hams who will purchase the latest high end offerings for these companies and will certainly try out the DV over HF feature. As with almost anything else concerning technology, the acceptance will come from the top down rather than from the bottom up.
Posted by
K3UD on 2003-10-29
Naw, this CW stuff will never replace spark!
Naw, this AM stuff will never replace CW!
Naw, this SSB stuff will never replace AM!
Naw, this FM stuff will never replace AM!
Naw, this RTTY stuff will never replace CW!
Naw, this AMTOR stuff will never replace RTTY!
Naw, this Packet stuff will never replace RTTY!
Naw, this PSK31 stuff will never replace AMTOR!
Naw, this repeater stuff will never replace simplex!
Naw, this satellite stuff will never replace HF!
Naw, this CW stuff will never replace BPL...
and so it goes....
Posted by
AD7DB on 2003-10-29
Digital Voice
A lot is going to depend on how the technology is rolled out to the ham community.
If AOR intends to keep it proprietary, it will never fly in the Amateur community. A very few well-heeled hams will buy their expensive boxes, but the majority will continue to do whatever is cheapest. The only other way AOR could make a buck from this would be to license it to all the major ham equipment suppliers. I hope they don't make a 'sweetheart' deal with one manufacturer and stiff the rest of them - that would likely prevent the adoption of the technology for the forseeable future.
I sincerely hope that AOR is willing to share this technology with others so that it can become part of amateur radio. I've been listening to a lot of hams using AM lately, and the prospect of FM-quality voice with performance near that of SSB is very exciting.
Posted by
K0RGR on 2003-10-29
Digital Voice
I tend to agree with AD7DB and the key word is "EVENTUALLY". It won't happen overnight but give it some time.
Posted by
N9SC on 2003-10-29
Fan dipole!
Oops, I forgot the question.
Seriously, anything that makes communications more efficient, improves S/N, etc, is likely to find widespread acceptance and implementation; but since this technology requires extra equipment on both ends of the circuit to work, and it's still rather expensive, I wouldn't expect thousands to jump on the wagon any time soon.
DSP that promised "zero background noise" contacts hasn't really materialized, at least not for amateur use; it may be many years before "digital voice" is really here, at least in a manner that makes any sense to embrace.
Long live technology! Now, back to working CW...
WB2WIK/6
Posted by
WB2WIK on 2003-10-29
New Mode Acceptance
Too soon to tell. Is it efficient? Offer some special benefit (i.e. work through BPL QRM)? Will it be afordable? And, most important, will it be accepted? I have an open mind to this technology, but my wallet is still in my pocket.
Posted by
K3YD on 2003-10-29
Way Too Expensive
Too much ($550) to pay for propietary technology. If someone can implement this for use with a soundcard, then, I will jump on the bandwagon.
Posted by
KG4RUL on 2003-10-29
Digital voice
It seems to me that digital voice requires a fairly strong signal to work properly. Having said that... I think that using digital voice on the HF bands will be alot like trying to use a nextel in a underground parking garage. Meanwhile... all the other modes will still be working regardless of band conditions. I don't see digital voice taking over anything. Especialy HF bands. Just another mode to use for those who are interested.
John KC8DEJ
Posted by
KC8DEJ on 2003-10-29