New to the group and a question about D-Star


Dakota Summerhawk <sg14ranger@...>
 

Hello to the group.

Been looking at getting involved with D-Star but am not a big fan of Icom. I hear Kenwood has a rig that is due out soon but haven’t heard anything about an HT, just the mobile. Anyone got any news on when and what is going on with Kenwood for the mobile and HT?

 

Thanks

 

Peter Dakota Summerhawk


Randy Thomson
 

Kenwood's new VHF/UHF mobiles are the TM-V71A and the TM-D710A APRS unit to replace the D700. They will be coming out with a new HT at some point, but nothing is in works for a near term release. We were hoping to see D710As for sale at the Huntsville convention, this weekend, but I understand that is not the case. Last word I saw was for a 21 August formal release.
 
Kenwood does not, and will not, based on their current policy, support D-Star. They will much more likely support P25, but there is nothing in works as far as I know.
 
Randy - K5MW

From: digitalradio@... [mailto:digitalradio@...] On Behalf Of Dakota Summerhawk
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 3:37 PM
To: digitalradio@...
Subject: [digitalradio] New to the group and a question about D-Star

Hello to the group.

Been looking at getting involved with D-Star but am not a big fan of Icom. I hear Kenwood has a rig that is due out soon but haven’t heard anything about an HT, just the mobile. Anyone got any news on when and what is going on with Kenwood for the mobile and HT?

Thanks

Peter Dakota Summerhawk


Peter Dakota Summerhawk <sg14ranger@...>
 

Ok thanks Randy,

I was curious as because there have been several Kenwood sites that have the D-Star mobile rig but nothing Handheld right now.

The Kenwood sites that have D-Star:

http://www.rigpix.com/kenwood/tmw706.htm

http://www.rigpix.com/kenwood/tmw706s.htm

 

It will be interesting to see what Kenwood comes up with for a handheld.

 

Peter Dakota Summerhawk

 

-----Original Message-----
From: digitalradio@... [mailto:digitalradio@...] On Behalf Of Randy Thomson
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 7:41 PM
To: digitalradio@...
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] New to the group and a question about D-Star

 

Kenwood's new VHF/UHF mobiles are the TM-V71A and the TM-D710A APRS unit to replace the D700. They will be coming out with a new HT at some point, but nothing is in works for a near term release. We were hoping to see D710As for sale at the Huntsville convention, this weekend, but I understand that is not the case. Last word I saw was for a 21 August formal release.

 

Kenwood does not, and will not, based on their current policy, support D-Star. They will much more likely support P25, but there is nothing in works as far as I know.

 

Randy - K5MW

 


RICK WESTERFIELD
 

There is a very good article about D-star in the September QST.  And from the looks of it, Icom is poised to corner this market in fairly short order.  It is selling HT’s, mobile rigs and repeater equipment where no other manufacturer has stepped up to the plate yet.  The article in QST is fair and balanced and does mention P-25 (the competing protocol standard) but nobody is selling amateur equipment that supports it.  You have to convert commercial gear if you want to play with P-25.

 

   So look up the article when it becomes available on the ARRL web site.  I know that I learned a lot and now wish I had the cash to put up a D-star repeater on 70 cm or higher here in NW Louisiana.

 

Rick – KH2DF

 


From: digitalradio@... [mailto:digitalradio@...] On Behalf Of Dakota Summerhawk
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 3:37 PM
To: digitalradio@...
Subject: [digitalradio] New to the group and a question about D-Star

 

Hello to the group.

Been looking at getting involved with D-Star but am not a big fan of Icom. I hear Kenwood has a rig that is due out soon but haven’t heard anything about an HT, just the mobile. Anyone got any news on when and what is going on with Kenwood for the mobile and HT?

 

Thanks

 

Peter Dakota Summerhawk


Rick <mrfarm@...>
 

Rick,

What do you consider that has changed that will cause ICOM to "corner the market" on D-Star? They have spent rather large amounts of money developing and then promoting this approach to digital for many years now. Maybe even more than any other company selling into the amateur radio market with amateur only products. This is not new technology having been begun by JARL with some kind of arrangement with the Japanese government in the late 1990's.Even after all these years, the adoption rate seems modest, but it is growing in some areas, but no other manufacturer is competing in the DStar market, which should tell you something. One claim was that Kenwood had shown and was going to sell a Kenwood labelled ICOM D-Star unit, but I am not sure if this is going to happen.

Meanwhile, with minimal (no?) advertising the amateur publications, some radio amateurs are moving toward P-25 and now MOTOTRBO. One of the problems with digital radio is that they are not able to interoperate with each other and therefore form separate islands of compatibility. This is not as much a problem when a local unit of government moves in this direction since they are more self contained (however, outside help is a problem with communication resources). But amateur radio crosses political boundaries so it is a different kind of communications "service," where interoperability is much more important. Imagine if there were different brands or systems of FM or SSB equipment sold on the amateur market that did not work with one another.

The article in QST was very well balanced and it did point out some of the pitfalls as well as the advantages. What concerns me the most about the digital interest from radio amateurs in VHF and higher frequencies is that it is mostly being done because it is *digital,* and not so much because of the advantages over existing modes. You can see this with the comments some have made about "legacy" modes. For any new mode to succeed, it must offer benefits above what you now have in order for it to have wide adoption.

Ironically, one of the D-Star benefits is the non radio part whereby you can connect systems together via the internet. Although I admit that some of this is done now with IRLP and Echolink at very low cost, D-Star has more connection technology that might be useful for traveling hams who want to connect back to their home area or hams from their home area being able to find the travelling ham, assuming that you have D-Star systems ubiquitously located at some time in the future.

It seems to me that D-Star's strongest point's are that it:

- has a spectrum conserving narrow bandwidth of 6.25 kHz. This is an advantage over other digital systems, and certainly over FM (but not SSB which is much narrower). At this time, amateur radio is not under much pressure to go to narrower modes. In fact, it is the recipient of older FM systems that became available from government sources that were forced by the FCC to move toward narrower modes.

- is more open (although apparently not quite as open as we first had thought), than the commercial systems which are likely totally proprietary. The opendstar.org group may eventually give us a better understanding of how it works. One other group tried, but failed to make an open hardware solution.

- will be lower cost than commercial systems since it does not require the higher standards of commercial equipment design mandates.

The downsides are not insignificant though:

- very poor quality audio compared to FM unless you are in a fringe area. This is something that would have to drastically improve for me to have any interest in the mode at this time.

- the cost is higher, especially for HT's where the price is essentially double, or even more than double the cost of an FM HT.

- the data throughput is unacceptable for a new technology and is about as slow or even slower than the very oldest 1200 baud packet on the data side.

It may be possible to eventually come up with an improved D-Star that would use the entire bandwidth of the 2 meter/440 designs for voice, when you operated voice, and data, when you operated data. It seems to me that this would help to address some of the design shortcomings.

73,

Rick, KV9U


r_lwesterfield wrote:


There is a very good article about D-star in the September QST. And from the looks of it, Icom is poised to corner this market in fairly short order. It is selling HT�s, mobile rigs and repeater equipment where no other manufacturer has stepped up to the plate yet. The article in QST is fair and balanced and does mention P-25 (the competing protocol standard) but nobody is selling amateur equipment that supports it. You have to convert commercial gear if you want to play with P-25.

So look up the article when it becomes available on the ARRL web site. I know that I learned a lot and now wish I had the cash to put up a D-star repeater on 70 cm or higher here in NW Louisiana.

Rick � KH2DF


 

Peter,

Kenwood is selling D-Star overseas (Japan).  It is a re-branded Icom ID-800 from everything we can gather.  At Dayton the story was that Kenwood North America's President is the one keeping it from being imported.  As fast as D-Star is growing now, I would not be surprised to see someone besides Icom start selling radios, but it may be next year.  There are some homebrew projects out there (putting the Icom D-Star board onto the 9600-baud packet port of other radios including the Kenwood TM-833 [ http://www.k5tit.org/forums/index.php?topic=108.0  - toward bottom of thread], and at least one  building up from chips [ http://www.moetronix.com/dstar/  ].)

Everyone has their favorite radio vendor(s) just like Ford/Chevy in American cars.  Some of the Icom D-Star radios are better than others, in a handheld the IC-91AD has the best designed user interface I've seen in the 10+ handhelds I've owned (including Kenwood, Icom, Yaesu, Alinco, ...).  You might compare these three maps:

The two (2005 and May 2007) under this thread http://www.icomamerica.com/support/forums/tm.asp?m=6864

And this one: http://www.arrl-al.org/DSTAR_USMap807.jpg
 
And look at http://www.dstarusers.org/repeaters.php

Listen to a comparison of weak D-Star and FM here .

John, K7VE
http://k7ve.ampr.org 
http://groups.google.com/group/utah-d-star-users


--- In digitalradio@..., "Dakota Summerhawk" wrote:
>
> Hello to the group.
> Been looking at getting involved with D-Star but am not a big fan of
> Icom. I hear Kenwood has a rig that is due out soon but haven't heard
> anything about an HT, just the mobile. Anyone got any news on when and
> what is going on with Kenwood for the mobile and HT?
>
> Thanks
>
> Peter Dakota Summerhawk
>

 


Randy Thomson
 

By the way, I just confirmed that, as far as Kenwood's current policy is concerned, the TMW-706 will not be distributed in the US. Can't say for elsewhere, but I suspect it is strictly for Japanese consumption.
 
Randy - K5MW


From: digitalradio@... [mailto:digitalradio@...] On Behalf Of Peter Dakota Summerhawk
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 9:47 PM
To: digitalradio@...
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] New to the group and a question about D-Star

Ok thanks Randy,

I was curious as because there have been several Kenwood sites that have the D-Star mobile rig but nothing Handheld right now.

The Kenwood sites that have D-Star:

http://www.rigpix.com/kenwood/tmw706.htm

http://www.rigpix.com/kenwood/tmw706s.htm

It will be interesting to see what Kenwood comes up with for a handheld.

Peter Dakota Summerhawk

-----Original Message-----
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Randy Thomson
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 7:41 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] New to the group and a question about D-Star

Kenwood's new VHF/UHF mobiles are the TM-V71A and the TM-D710A APRS unit to replace the D700. They will be coming out with a new HT at some point, but nothing is in works for a near term release. We were hoping to see D710As for sale at the Huntsville convention, this weekend, but I understand that is not the case. Last word I saw was for a 21 August formal release.

Kenwood does not, and will not, based on their current policy, support D-Star. They will much more likely support P25, but there is nothing in works as far as I know.

Randy - K5MW


 


--- In digitalradio@..., Rick wrote:
>
> Rick,
>
> What do you consider that has changed that will cause ICOM to "corner
> the market" on D-Star?

I don't think they have cornered the market at all.  They are just way out front because they have made the investment in creating products.  Because of the opendstar.org work as well the work that Moe Wheatley, Satoshi Yasuda, Kermit Carlson, and others are doing, the cost of entry for a manufacturer is becoming very low as the engineering is being done in the Open Source world (both hardware and software).

>Even after all these years, the
> adoption rate seems modest, but it is growing in some areas, but no
> other manufacturer is competing in the DStar market, which should tell
> you something.

It has gained traction in 2007  (first products were  well into this decade, protocol work started in with a grant in 1999, specification wasn't published until about 2001 - it took some alpha and beta time to get the linking stuff going, etc.  2-meter and 70-cm repeaters only became available last year.), with rapid growth in the user base and number of repeaters.  See: http://www.arrl-al.org/DSTAR_USMap807.jpg



>One claim was that Kenwood had shown and was going to
> sell a Kenwood labelled ICOM D-Star unit, but I am not sure if this is
> going to happen.
>

They sell it overseas and in Japan.  Kenwood North America has ego problems.

> Meanwhile, with minimal (no?) advertising the amateur publications, some
> radio amateurs are moving toward P-25 and now MOTOTRBO. One of the
> problems with digital radio is that they are not able to interoperate
> with each other and therefore form separate islands of compatibility.
> This is not as much a problem when a local unit of government moves in
> this direction since they are more self contained (however, outside help
> is a problem with communication resources). But amateur radio crosses
> political boundaries so it is a different kind of communications
> "service," where interoperability is much more important. Imagine if
> there were different brands or systems of FM or SSB equipment sold on
> the amateur market that did not work with one another.
>

P-25 and MOTOTRBO have no open strategy for the type of linking that can happen in D-Star today, and what is available is proprietary.  Also, systems for these radios do not use callsign identification (or routing) and require proprietary, expensive, software to program and a central authority on any system to issue ID numbers. (On D-Star you assign your own unit ID, your callsign plus an option unit identifier.)

See my parallel discussion of this at: http://k7ve.ampr.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=26 

> The article in QST was very well balanced and it did point out some of
> the pitfalls as well as the advantages. What concerns me the most about
> the digital interest from radio amateurs in VHF and higher frequencies
> is that it is mostly being done because it is *digital,* and not so much
> because of the advantages over existing modes. You can see this with the
> comments some have made about "legacy" modes. For any new mode to
> succeed, it must offer benefits above what you now have in order for it
> to have wide adoption.
>

It was a very good article though technically incorrect in a few places, like the data stream for Digital Voice, including voice, forward error correction, and 1200 bps data is 4800 bps, not 9600 bps.
 
> Ironically, one of the D-Star benefits is the non radio part whereby you
> can connect systems together via the internet. Although I admit that
> some of this is done now with IRLP and Echolink at very low cost, D-Star
> has more connection technology that might be useful for traveling hams
> who want to connect back to their home area or hams from their home area
> being able to find the travelling ham, assuming that you have D-Star
> systems ubiquitously located at some time in the future.
>

Reference again my above article at http://k7ve.ampr.org 

> It seems to me that D-Star's strongest point's are that it:
>
> - has a spectrum conserving narrow bandwidth of 6.25 kHz. This is an
> advantage over other digital systems, and certainly over FM (but not SSB
> which is much narrower). At this time, amateur radio is not under much
> pressure to go to narrower modes. In fact, it is the recipient of older
> FM systems that became available from government sources that were
> forced by the FCC to move toward narrower modes.
>
> - is more open (although apparently not quite as open as we first had
> thought), than the commercial systems which are likely totally
> proprietary. The opendstar.org group may eventually give us a better
> understanding of how it works. One other group tried, but failed to make
> an open hardware solution.
>

See my thoughts on this topic at:  http://k7ve.ampr.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13&Itemid=26 

> - will be lower cost than commercial systems since it does not require
> the higher standards of commercial equipment design mandates.
>
> The downsides are not insignificant though:
>
> - very poor quality audio compared to FM unless you are in a fringe
> area. This is something that would have to drastically improve for me to
> have any interest in the mode at this time.
>

No question, the fidelity is lower than FM, but it carries clear voice grade audio in significantly less bandwidth, clearer in weak signal conditions, until you loose the digital signal.  Listen to this .

> - the cost is higher, especially for HT's where the price is essentially
> double, or even more than double the cost of an FM HT.
>

D-StarFM w/1200 bps AX.25
Single Band Handheld $119 (Icom V82)
UT-118 $199.95
Total $318.95
Single Band Handheld $119 (Icom V82)
TNC $189.95
Interconnecting Cables $9-39
Total $318.95 - 348.95


Single Band Mobile $139 (Icom IC-2200H)
UT-118 $199.95
Total $338.95
Single Band Single Band Mobile $139 (Icom IC-2200H)
TNC $189.95
Interconnecting Cables $9-39
Total $338.95 - 368.95
Essentially the same price!

However you can't do simultaneous AX.25 text/GPS with voice on FM, you can on D-Star and in about 1/2 to 1/3rd the bandwidth.

> - the data throughput is unacceptable for a new technology and is about
> as slow or even slower than the very oldest 1200 baud packet on the data
> side.
>

D-Star also has a data mode, up on 1200 mHz. called Digital Data, that runs at 128000 bps.  This is the specification rate, but there is no reason it couldn't be scaled up and down in future radios, allowing for regulation bandwidth.  The 1200  bps that is carried with the Digital Voice is for GPS reporting and short texting more than anything else.  Certainly, the 4800 bps in 6.25 kHz. is something worth considering. See my comments at:  http://k7ve.ampr.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15&Itemid=26 

> It may be possible to eventually come up with an improved D-Star that
> would use the entire bandwidth of the 2 meter/440 designs for voice,
> when you operated voice, and data, when you operated data. It seems to
> me that this would help to address some of the design shortcomings.
>

Part of the beauty of the current design is that it does both simultaneously.  I have had conversations with another station while I was riding on a city bus (IC-91AD handheld plus Garmin 3+ GPS) and he was in the next county, over mountains using a repeater, with a mobile with integrated GPS (IC-2820 H) and our displays were showing Lon/Lat updates each time the respective microphone was keyed while talking.

On D-Star you don't need to switch from Voice to Data on a Digital Voice channel, they happen at the same time.  The higher speed Digital Data with full Ethernet style packets, usually TCP/IP, is a different matter.

> 73,
>
> Rick, KV9U
>

73 DE K7VE, John
http://k7ve.ampr.org 



RICK WESTERFIELD
 

Hello Rick,

It is a lot like the military. The military deploys and fights with what
it has on the day it goes to war. It has what is has equipped with and
trained with on that day and it cannot wait for shields, phasers and photon
torpedoes. In satellite communications terminology, the military picked
MILSTAR and Advanced EHF rather than wait on Transformation Satellite which
we MIGHT get someday but we could get MILSTAR and AEHF and ALE (on HF)
today.

For amateur radio, it is much the same. We draw a line in the sand and
say we are going to invest in a certain technology today and we will not
wait any longer for something better to arrive. You will forever be waiting
if you follow any other methodology. My point is that Icom has a pretty
good solution and you can go to the D-Star Store today. Nobody else has a
good store let alone a product that has reached critical mass in the market.
All I am saying is that at least this is something out there today. If I
had the dollars I would buy an ID-1 tomorrow but Santy Claus is coming and
that radio will certainly fit down my chimney. Ditto for an ID-2RPV and
maybe an ID-RP2D. I certainly cannot afford it all but I can start in that
direction just like the military heads in a direction after due
consideration.

That is all that I am saying and it looks like a lot of other people have
reached the same conclusion.

The Other Rick - KH2DF

-----Original Message-----
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Rick
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2007 12:30 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] New to the group and a question about D-Star

Rick,

What do you consider that has changed that will cause ICOM to "corner
the market" on D-Star? They have spent rather large amounts of money
developing and then promoting this approach to digital for many years
now. Maybe even more than any other company selling into the amateur
radio market with amateur only products. This is not new technology
having been begun by JARL with some kind of arrangement with the
Japanese government in the late 1990's.Even after all these years, the
adoption rate seems modest, but it is growing in some areas, but no
other manufacturer is competing in the DStar market, which should tell
you something. One claim was that Kenwood had shown and was going to
sell a Kenwood labelled ICOM D-Star unit, but I am not sure if this is
going to happen.

Meanwhile, with minimal (no?) advertising the amateur publications, some
radio amateurs are moving toward P-25 and now MOTOTRBO. One of the
problems with digital radio is that they are not able to interoperate
with each other and therefore form separate islands of compatibility.
This is not as much a problem when a local unit of government moves in
this direction since they are more self contained (however, outside help
is a problem with communication resources). But amateur radio crosses
political boundaries so it is a different kind of communications
"service," where interoperability is much more important. Imagine if
there were different brands or systems of FM or SSB equipment sold on
the amateur market that did not work with one another.

The article in QST was very well balanced and it did point out some of
the pitfalls as well as the advantages. What concerns me the most about
the digital interest from radio amateurs in VHF and higher frequencies
is that it is mostly being done because it is *digital,* and not so much
because of the advantages over existing modes. You can see this with the
comments some have made about "legacy" modes. For any new mode to
succeed, it must offer benefits above what you now have in order for it
to have wide adoption.

Ironically, one of the D-Star benefits is the non radio part whereby you
can connect systems together via the internet. Although I admit that
some of this is done now with IRLP and Echolink at very low cost, D-Star
has more connection technology that might be useful for traveling hams
who want to connect back to their home area or hams from their home area
being able to find the travelling ham, assuming that you have D-Star
systems ubiquitously located at some time in the future.

It seems to me that D-Star's strongest point's are that it:

- has a spectrum conserving narrow bandwidth of 6.25 kHz. This is an
advantage over other digital systems, and certainly over FM (but not SSB
which is much narrower). At this time, amateur radio is not under much
pressure to go to narrower modes. In fact, it is the recipient of older
FM systems that became available from government sources that were
forced by the FCC to move toward narrower modes.

- is more open (although apparently not quite as open as we first had
thought), than the commercial systems which are likely totally
proprietary. The opendstar.org group may eventually give us a better
understanding of how it works. One other group tried, but failed to make
an open hardware solution.

- will be lower cost than commercial systems since it does not require
the higher standards of commercial equipment design mandates.

The downsides are not insignificant though:

- very poor quality audio compared to FM unless you are in a fringe
area. This is something that would have to drastically improve for me to
have any interest in the mode at this time.

- the cost is higher, especially for HT's where the price is essentially
double, or even more than double the cost of an FM HT.

- the data throughput is unacceptable for a new technology and is about
as slow or even slower than the very oldest 1200 baud packet on the data
side.

It may be possible to eventually come up with an improved D-Star that
would use the entire bandwidth of the 2 meter/440 designs for voice,
when you operated voice, and data, when you operated data. It seems to
me that this would help to address some of the design shortcomings.

73,

Rick, KV9U


r_lwesterfield wrote:

There is a very good article about D-star in the September QST. And
from the looks of it, Icom is poised to corner this market in fairly
short order. It is selling HT's, mobile rigs and repeater equipment
where no other manufacturer has stepped up to the plate yet. The
article in QST is fair and balanced and does mention P-25 (the
competing protocol standard) but nobody is selling amateur equipment
that supports it. You have to convert commercial gear if you want to
play with P-25.

So look up the article when it becomes available on the ARRL web site.
I know that I learned a lot and now wish I had the cash to put up a
D-star repeater on 70 cm or higher here in NW Louisiana.

Rick - KH2DF

Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php

Yahoo! Groups Links


Brian A <alsopb@...>
 

6.25 kHz is spectrum conserving? Huh. Even plain old SSB is <2.5KHz.

de Brian/K3KO

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick <mrfarm@...> wrote:

- has a spectrum conserving narrow bandwidth of 6.25 kHz. This is an
advantage over other digital systems, and certainly over FM (but not
SSB
which is much narrower). At this time, amateur radio is not under much


 

Two items:

1. If you read this group on mail rather than the site, you may have
missed some items in my posting on this topic.

2. The URL I pasted for the audio sample of D-Star vs. FM in weak
signal conditions does not work. To listen go to the Yahoo Group
"illinoisdigitalham" and navigate to "Files" -> "D-STAR Digital Audio"
or take a shortcut to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/illinoisdigitalham/files/D-STAR%20Digital%20Audio/

Then select the file "Weak Signal D-STAR versus FM.mp3"

John - K7VE
http://k7ve.ampr.org


Peter Dakota Summerhawk <sg14ranger@...>
 

D-Star is open for any radio manufacture to sell as its open code source
not just Icom. Kenwood has listed a mobile radio on Rig Pix and has two
models, so they may be into D-Star even though they may be moving into
APCO-25 as well so Motorola may not have the market on that either.
Kenwood has several models listed on the commercial site so far that are
APCO-25 compliant. So Icom doesn't have the market on D-Star.
Peter Dakota Summerhawk

-----Original Message-----
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Rick
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2007 11:30 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] New to the group and a question about D-Star

Rick,

What do you consider that has changed that will cause ICOM to "corner
the market" on D-Star? They have spent rather large amounts of money
developing and then promoting this approach to digital for many years
now. Maybe even more than any other company selling into the amateur
radio market with amateur only products. This is not new technology
having been begun by JARL with some kind of arrangement with the
Japanese government in the late 1990's.Even after all these years, the
adoption rate seems modest, but it is growing in some areas, but no
other manufacturer is competing in the DStar market, which should tell
you something. One claim was that Kenwood had shown and was going to
sell a Kenwood labelled ICOM D-Star unit, but I am not sure if this is
going to happen.


 

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Brian A" <alsopb@...> wrote:

6.25 kHz is spectrum conserving? Huh. Even plain old SSB is <2.5KHz.

de Brian/K3KO
Brian,

D-Star conserves spectrum relative to FM. PSK31 is narrower than SSB.
You can almost always find a narrower mode. There is also
functionality to consider, such as the data that travels along with
the voice, the clarity of the reproduced voice, the networking, GPS
tracking, etc.

SSB on 2m and 70cm is fun and I enjoy it very much, but it has a
different purpose than D-Star.

-- John, K7VE


Brian A <alsopb@...>
 

John,

I was just pointing out that you really can't use "spectrum
conservation" as an legit advantage. FM shouldn't be the basis for
comparison. Spectrum conservation means to me using the narrowest
possible signal mode that gets the job done. It isn't clear that D* is
that.

Also "clarity" is a joke. The rigs come with tin can speakers. The
hearing of the average ham isn't that great either -- given their
ages. (The guy trying to sell an HDTV needed to understand with my
ears and eyes, HDTV no benefit!) The recent QST article on D* pointed
out that everybody sounds about the same over D* because of loss of
voice nuances due to the digital processing. It also isn't too
"clear" when squelched out because of low quality. I'd much refer
trying to dig a marginal signal out of the noise than having it
totally blocked. Such is important when sigs are marginal (emergency
work?). This is why analog cell phones are still used in some places
of the US. A more correct term might be "noise free" when captured.

Other modes support GPS tracking.

So you are left with networking and data + voice capability.


73 de Brian/K3KO

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "k7ve" <john@...> wrote:

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Brian A" <alsopb@> wrote:

6.25 kHz is spectrum conserving? Huh. Even plain old SSB is <2.5KHz.

de Brian/K3KO
Brian,

D-Star conserves spectrum relative to FM. PSK31 is narrower than SSB.
You can almost always find a narrower mode. There is also
functionality to consider, such as the data that travels along with
the voice, the clarity of the reproduced voice, the networking, GPS
tracking, etc.

SSB on 2m and 70cm is fun and I enjoy it very much, but it has a
different purpose than D-Star.

-- John, K7VE


 

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Dakota Summerhawk"
<sg14ranger@...> wrote:

D-Star is open for any radio manufacture to sell as its open code source
not just Icom. Kenwood has listed a mobile radio on Rig Pix and has two
models, so they may be into D-Star even though they may be moving into
APCO-25 as well so Motorola may not have the market on that either.
Kenwood has several models listed on the commercial site so far that are
APCO-25 compliant. So Icom doesn't have the market on D-Star.
Peter Dakota Summerhawk
Just a slight correction. D-Star is an open specification, not open
source, implementers such as Icom can do proprietary code, which they
have. There are several Open Source
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source) activities going on around
the D-Star specification including the work for an open gateway, a
radio implementation, and a device (USB) to attach to computer to make
the codec available to other programs.

APCO-25 radios are made by many manufacturers, but they aren't
designed for amateur radio and tend to be quite pricey. Motorola is
also doing its Mototrbo product. I am not aware of any open source or
even proprietary gateway products being done for APCO-25. (Its
designed for a different market.)

-- K7VE


 

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Brian A" <alsopb@...> wrote:

John,

I was just pointing out that you really can't use "spectrum
conservation" as an legit advantage. FM shouldn't be the basis for
comparison. Spectrum conservation means to me using the narrowest
possible signal mode that gets the job done. It isn't clear that D* is
that.
You are welcome to your definition, but in most cases D-Star is meant
to replace FM (12-17+ kHz. wide), not SSB -- I think most readers
understand my reference. D-Star, at 6.25 kHz., bandwidth for voice is
more spectrally efficient than FM. It is a legitimate comparison and
is rightly called more spectrally conservative.


Also "clarity" is a joke. The rigs come with tin can speakers. The
hearing of the average ham isn't that great either -- given their
ages. (The guy trying to sell an HDTV needed to understand with my
ears and eyes, HDTV no benefit!)
"Tin can" speakers can be replaced, that has nothing to do with the
protocol or vocoder implementation. It will still have limited
fidelity, but we get along just fine with limited fidelity on
telephones and cellphones (especially digital cellphones) which are
analogous the digital voice we are talking about hear. Last time I
checked we weren't supposed to be sending music, with its dynamic
range, over amateur radio.

The fact that HDTV is of no benefit to you, doesn't mean it doesn't
have benefits for others.

The recent QST article on D* pointed
out that everybody sounds about the same over D* because of loss of
voice nuances due to the digital processing.
That was one reviewer's opinion. I have heard many different speakers
on D-Star and can discern individuals quite easily. No one that I know
of is claiming it has the same fidelity as Narrow FM, much less wide
or broadcast FM. Your mileage may vary.

It also isn't too
"clear" when squelched out because of low quality. I'd much refer
trying to dig a marginal signal out of the noise than having it
totally blocked. Such is important when sigs are marginal (emergency
work?). This is why analog cell phones are still used in some places
of the US. A more correct term might be "noise free" when captured.
Almost all analog cell service is gone, or will be shortly. (In part
because E911 services want GPS encoded, also it is more efficient).

Have you listened to the comparison between weak D-Star and weak FM I
referenced. FM can still be used by those who desire to -- along with
other modes.

Other modes support GPS tracking.

So you are left with networking and data + voice capability.


73 de Brian/K3KO
D-Star combines the GPS tracking in the same data stream with Voice
(and Data for that matter) ... it all travels simultaneously on the
same signal. Most other GPS tracking in amateur radio (ala APRS)
requires a second signal, with accompanying radio, encoder, etc.

Have fun...

DE K7VE
http://k7ve.ampr.org