Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Codec2 - putting your money where your mouth is
"Rob" wrote in message
... use it. It's called a choice. That is your choice. But that does not mean that others are wrong Oh dear Rob, you must be new here! While what you say is, of course, correct it isn't accepted by bigots. If half of those who are so "anti" DStar got on an developed an alternative CODEC (and it is just the CODEC which is proprietary), this debate would have ended long ago. As it is, by the time the alternate CODEC becomes viable, I fully expect that such systems will be so "yesterday". Amateur radio has many facets, DStar is simply one of them. Why can't people be left to enjoy their pet facets while others get on and enjoy theirs? -- 73 Brian G8OSN/W8OSN www.g8osn.net |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Codec2 - putting your money where your mouth is
On 24/09/2010 17:22, Brian Reay wrote:
Amateur radio has many facets, DStar is simply one of them. Why can't people be left to enjoy their pet facets while others get on and enjoy theirs? Because D-Star isn't amateur radio. There is no experimentation involved, and can't be. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Codec2 - putting your money where your mouth is
Yeti wrote:
On 24/09/2010 17:22, Brian Reay wrote: Amateur radio has many facets, DStar is simply one of them. Why can't people be left to enjoy their pet facets while others get on and enjoy theirs? Because D-Star isn't amateur radio. There is no experimentation involved, and can't be. Over here it is probably the mode with the most experimentation going on in ham radio today... Of couse not with the codec. But in any communication system there are things that cannot be changed or incompatability would result. That does not mean there cannot be experiments elsewhere in the system, or in the application of the system as a whole. Remember packet. The AX.25 protocol was open, but it could not really be changed because that would break compatability between the many implementations that existed after some time. It was very clear that a couple of critical mistakes were made in the design, and there were proposals on how to fix them, but they never took off as it simply wasn't practical to change AX.25 It really made no difference if it was open or closed, it was unchangable anyway. Yet, amateurs used it as a black-box building block in many applications and experimented a lot with it. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Codec2 - putting your money where your mouth is
On 24 Sep 2010 16:34:08 GMT
Rob wrote: Yeti wrote: On 24/09/2010 17:22, Brian Reay wrote: Amateur radio has many facets, DStar is simply one of them. Why can't people be left to enjoy their pet facets while others get on and enjoy theirs? Because D-Star isn't amateur radio. There is no experimentation involved, and can't be. Over here it is probably the mode with the most experimentation going on in ham radio today... Of couse not with the codec. But in any communication system there are things that cannot be changed or incompatability would result. That does not mean there cannot be experiments elsewhere in the system, or in the application of the system as a whole. Remember packet. The AX.25 protocol was open, but it could not really be changed because that would break compatability between the many implementations that existed after some time. It was very clear that a couple of critical mistakes were made in the design, and there were proposals on how to fix them, but they never took off as it simply wasn't practical to change AX.25 It really made no difference if it was open or closed, it was unchangable anyway. Yet, amateurs used it as a black-box building block in many applications and experimented a lot with it. And ultimately it failed (what's left of the packet network is a shadow of what it was) because of that lack of flexibility. Amateur radio has a difficult-to-overcome problem in that we always build systems from the bottom up and don't design in the features that allow growth and variation. D-STAR is another example of a system that shares that same fault. I hope that it's possible to create something that doesn't have these limitations, provides better function and allows more experimentation with all aspects of the technology. -- Brian Morrison |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Codec2 - putting your money where your mouth is
"Rob" wrote in message
... Remember packet. The AX.25 protocol was open, but it could not really be changed because that would break compatability between the many implementations that existed after some time. Which is something the "anti" AMBE CODEC people ignore. If the open CODEC happens, their scope to "experiment" with it will be limited- unless they only want to talk to themselves or with others they've co-ordinated experiments with. -- 73 Brian G8OSN/W8OSN www.g8osn.net |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Codec2 - putting your money where your mouth is
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 18:08:15 +0100
"Brian Reay" wrote: "Rob" wrote in message ... Remember packet. The AX.25 protocol was open, but it could not really be changed because that would break compatability between the many implementations that existed after some time. Which is something the "anti" AMBE CODEC people ignore. If the open CODEC happens, their scope to "experiment" with it will be limited- unless they only want to talk to themselves or with others they've co-ordinated experiments with. Well the plan is that eventually any closed system becomes out evolved, so the advantages of the open alternative become available to all. I am more than happy to share, DVSI are not. -- Brian Morrison |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Codec2 - putting your money where your mouth is
In article ,
Brian Reay wrote: Remember packet. The AX.25 protocol was open, but it could not really be changed because that would break compatability between the many implementations that existed after some time. Which is something the "anti" AMBE CODEC people ignore. If the open CODEC happens, their scope to "experiment" with it will be limited- unless they only want to talk to themselves or with others they've co-ordinated experiments with. Seems to me there's plenty of opportunity for flexibility with regards to codecs. The protocol could be designed to allow for negotiation of a common codec between two radios - start out with a simple "universal" codec to get the communication started, and then optionally switch to a different one. Something like this is done in the commonest voice-over-IP protocol family (SIP). There are numerous codecs available, ranging from bog-standard telephony-style (uLaw and aLaw), to simple linear PCM, to ADPCM, to various forms of sophisticated coding and compression. Some of these require paid licenses (e.g. G729), some come with a commercial- but-free license (e.g. ILBC), some are based on patents which have now expired and can be implemented freely (e.g. versions of GSM), and some are aggressively open-source and free-as-in- speech-and-beer (e.g. Speex). Protocol negotiation becomes tricker when you're dealing with a repeater system, or a more-than-two-way simplex conversation, but that's where the fun and experimentation comes in! -- Dave Platt AE6EO Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Codec2 - putting your money where your mouth is
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Codec2 - putting your money where your mouth is
In article , Brian Morrison wrote: Seems to me there's plenty of opportunity for flexibility with regards to codecs. The protocol could be designed to allow for negotiation of a common codec between two radios - start out with a simple "universal" codec to get the communication started, and then optionally switch to a different one. Yes, that's what's wanted, but the current D-STAR implementation appears to have no flexibility to do this and there are no version fields in the frame structure so it can't be made backwards compatible. The design ought to have had this built in, but seems not to have considered doing it. I agree, that was a bad design choice. I always like to put field-type and field-version tags into the data structures I use... it's a bit more work up front but saves an incredible amount of pain further along the line! Anybody for "Free*Star"? :-) -- Dave Platt AE6EO Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Codec2 - putting your money where your mouth is
On 24/09/2010 18:08, Brian Reay wrote:
wrote in message ... Remember packet. The AX.25 protocol was open, but it could not really be changed because that would break compatability between the many implementations that existed after some time. Which is something the "anti" AMBE CODEC people ignore. If the open CODEC happens, their scope to "experiment" with it will be limited- unless they only want to talk to themselves or with others they've co-ordinated experiments with. In this case, you can always re-flash the chip containing your chosen version of the codec. Something very few had the capability to do back in the days when packet was a big thing, and something you're expressely forbidden to do (indeed, prevented from doing) with an AMBE DSP chip. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Codec2 - putting your money where your mouth is | Digital | |||
Codec2 - putting your money where your mouth is | Homebrew | |||
I will put my money where my mouth is !!!! | Shortwave | |||
I will put my money where my mouth is !!!! | Shortwave | |||
I will put my money where my mouth is !!!! | Shortwave |