| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Codec2 - putting your money where your mouth is
For what reasons would someone be "anti D-Star"?
On 7/1/2010 2:15 PM, Brian Reay wrote: "Brian wrote in message k... I was following up on the current situation with David Rowe's work on the Codec2 digital voice codec the other day, and noticed that it's not progressing much due to essentially lack of development time when David needs to put food on the table. So I decided to make a donation. I was absolutely astonished to receive a thank you from David that said "your are the first person to donate to Codec2", I really didn't expect that at all. Surely I thought, other people have been this way before? It seems not. I'm not that surprised, I've had similar responses to shareware type donations. Never the less, you've chipped in, perhaps others who are pro-digital but anti DSTAR will follow your example. |
Codec2 - putting your money where your mouth is
"Mike G" wrote in message
... For what reasons would someone be "anti D-Star"? snip untrimmed top post Maybe because it's a commercial standard and commercial standards have nothing to do with Amateur radio? Steve Terry -- "I would like to plead for my right to investigate natural phenomena without having guns pointed at me. I also ask for the right to be wrong without being hanged for it." - Wilhelm Reich, November 1947 |
Codec2 - putting your money where your mouth is
"Mike G" wrote in message ... For what reasons would someone be "anti D-Star"? They seem to have a few reasons but I will leave it to the anti-DStar crowd to give them. As for myself, it just isnt the sort of avenue I follow in the hobby but I'm more than happy for others to. -- 73 Brian G8OSN/W8OSN www.g8osn.net |
Codec2 - putting your money where your mouth is
On 24/09/2010 03:20, Mike G wrote:
For what reasons would someone be "anti D-Star"? It's a closed codec - you can't look at it, play with it, improve it or adjust it. In fact, being patented, it's ILLEGAL to do any of that. Which means it's not amateur radio. Hell, even the name is a registered trademark of Icom. |
Codec2 - putting your money where your mouth is
Yeti wrote:
On 24/09/2010 03:20, Mike G wrote: For what reasons would someone be "anti D-Star"? It's a closed codec - you can't look at it, play with it, improve it or adjust it. In fact, being patented, it's ILLEGAL to do any of that. Which means it's not amateur radio. Ok but if you have bought a commercial transceiver for amateur radio, can you look at or improve upon any part of it? E.g. the firmware that is running on the microprocessor(s) that control it? |
Codec2 - putting your money where your mouth is
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 22:20:32 -0400
Mike G wrote: For what reasons would someone be "anti D-Star"? D-STAR uses a proprietary codec, that means for anyone that doesn't believe that amateur radio should use technology that forbids reverse engineering and hence interoperability with homebrew designs it's not acceptable. -- Brian Morrison |
Codec2 - putting your money where your mouth is
On 24 Sep 2010 09:07:52 GMT
Rob wrote: Yeti wrote: On 24/09/2010 03:20, Mike G wrote: For what reasons would someone be "anti D-Star"? It's a closed codec - you can't look at it, play with it, improve it or adjust it. In fact, being patented, it's ILLEGAL to do any of that. Which means it's not amateur radio. Ok but if you have bought a commercial transceiver for amateur radio, can you look at or improve upon any part of it? E.g. the firmware that is running on the microprocessor(s) that control it? No, but by studying the interfaces and functions you could design your own processor and firmware that would replace the original. With D-STAR unless you buy the pre-programmed DSP chips or the DV dongle you can't legally reimplement the AMBE codec at all, and that makes it very different from other kit that implements unpatented modes. -- Brian Morrison |
Codec2 - putting your money where your mouth is
Brian Morrison wrote:
With D-STAR unless you buy the pre-programmed DSP chips or the DV dongle you can't legally reimplement the AMBE codec at all, and that makes it very different from other kit that implements unpatented modes. The problem is that amateurs cannot live with the fact that someone implemented a codec that is better than what they can develop themselves. There would be no problem when amateurs could actually develop a better codec than AMBE. But they have not shown they can. Everyone can put up a site with a statement that they want to develop something and need donations. But this development needs more than donations. Sometimes is it better to just admit that someone did a better job than you could have done yourself, and just pay him for the work. |
Codec2 - putting your money where your mouth is
On 24 Sep 2010 09:42:02 GMT
Rob wrote: Brian Morrison wrote: With D-STAR unless you buy the pre-programmed DSP chips or the DV dongle you can't legally reimplement the AMBE codec at all, and that makes it very different from other kit that implements unpatented modes. The problem is that amateurs cannot live with the fact that someone implemented a codec that is better than what they can develop themselves. Really? I thought that what those of us that can't live with it thought is that we don't like technology that locks out homebrew. That's what the use of DVSI's AMBE codec does. I don't know exactly why JARL chose AMBE other than because it was the only codec available at the time. If so, they should have thought about that a lot harder and perhaps decided to sponsor the development of a free codec instead. That would have been really good, but I suppose I can see that it would have introduced a delay. D-STAR has other faults, one being that it appears not to be extensible so that there is no way to include other codecs and allow the correct one to be used according to the other user's set up. There would be no problem when amateurs could actually develop a better codec than AMBE. But they have not shown they can. Well we'll see won't we? It's taken a while to find people with the necessary expertise but Codec2 is now moving forward with people working on it that have that expertise. Everyone can put up a site with a statement that they want to develop something and need donations. But this development needs more than donations. Yes, it needs talent and for that you need exposure to collect them together. That's happening now. Sometimes is it better to just admit that someone did a better job than you could have done yourself, and just pay him for the work. I have no problem with that, remember that the "free" part of free software is referring to freedom, not money. But if someone refuses to provide something that I can look inside and understand then I won't use it. It's called a choice. -- Brian Morrison |
Codec2 - putting your money where your mouth is
Rob wrote: The problem is that amateurs cannot live with the fact that someone implemented a codec that is better than what they can develop themselves. There would be no problem when amateurs could actually develop a better codec than AMBE. But they have not shown they can. Everyone can put up a site with a statement that they want to develop something and need donations. But this development needs more than donations. Sometimes is it better to just admit that someone did a better job than you could have done yourself, and just pay him for the work. I think you need to study the implications of the words 'amateur', 'professional' and 'commercial', and then have a read of the Amateur licence. Spike |
Codec2 - putting your money where your mouth is
On 24/09/2010 10:07, Rob wrote:
wrote: On 24/09/2010 03:20, Mike G wrote: For what reasons would someone be "anti D-Star"? It's a closed codec - you can't look at it, play with it, improve it or adjust it. In fact, being patented, it's ILLEGAL to do any of that. Which means it's not amateur radio. Ok but if you have bought a commercial transceiver for amateur radio, can you look at or improve upon any part of it? E.g. the firmware that is running on the microprocessor(s) that control it? Probably, yes. Done similar in the past (modified firmware/programming software to let commercial radios go out of band). But if I want to operate on a given mode (AM/FM/SSB etc), I can build my own, should I so choose, from whichever components I so choose. If I was to lose my mind and choose to operate D-Star, I MUST buy an AMBE chip. |
Codec2 - putting your money where your mouth is
Yeti wrote in -
september.org: On 24/09/2010 03:20, Mike G wrote: For what reasons would someone be "anti D-Star"? It's a closed codec - you can't look at it, play with it, improve it or adjust it. In fact, being patented, it's ILLEGAL to do any of that. That's not strictly true. The whole point of a patent (from the Latin 'patere' - to reveal) is that an inventor discloses the workings of his invention to the public in return for legal protection and the exclusive right to prevent others from exploiting his invention commercially. It does not prevent others from studying the invention and designing improvements and even patenting those improvements if they meet the required criteria. Of course, it will not be possible to exploit those improvements without the permission of the holder of the original patent (and vice versa). Whether an individual may build a patented device for personal 'research' purposes will depend on the patent law in the country where the patent was granted. Which means it's not amateur radio. I agree. Hell, even the name is a registered trademark of Icom. |
Codec2 - putting your money where your mouth is
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 13:54:46 +0000 (UTC)
Custos Custodum wrote: In fact, being patented, it's ILLEGAL to do any of that. That's not strictly true. The whole point of a patent (from the Latin 'patere' - to reveal) is that an inventor discloses the workings of his invention to the public in return for legal protection and the exclusive right to prevent others from exploiting his invention commercially. It does not prevent others from studying the invention and designing improvements and even patenting those improvements if they meet the required criteria. Of course, it will not be possible to exploit those improvements without the permission of the holder of the original patent (and vice versa). Whether an individual may build a patented device for personal 'research' purposes will depend on the patent law in the country where the patent was granted. The problem is that with something like AMBE, which is an algorithm, the patents actually only apply to a few absolutely crucial operations in the encoding/decoding but the text of the patent is as vague as possible so that the patent can then be as widely applied as possible and thus cover many alternative ways of doing the same thing. It's nothing more than legalised extortion in reality, the existence of the patent reveals very little to anybody because it's been written to avoid doing exactly that. So the idea of the protection given balancing the revelation of commercially beneficial information has disappeared into the mists of time and patents are now used as a way to tie your competitors up in legal knots even in the case of obvious and trivial claims. Now suppose that someone reverse engineered AMBE and made it available to radio amateurs by putting the information into the public domain. DVSI would have to take action to prevent this, because by not doing so they would be undermining their own patent since failing to defend against an infringing implementation could easily lead to the patent becoming worthless. -- Brian Morrison |
Codec2 - putting your money where your mouth is
Brian Morrison wrote:
On 24 Sep 2010 09:42:02 GMT Rob wrote: Brian Morrison wrote: With D-STAR unless you buy the pre-programmed DSP chips or the DV dongle you can't legally reimplement the AMBE codec at all, and that makes it very different from other kit that implements unpatented modes. The problem is that amateurs cannot live with the fact that someone implemented a codec that is better than what they can develop themselves. Really? I thought that what those of us that can't live with it thought is that we don't like technology that locks out homebrew. That's what the use of DVSI's AMBE codec does. Not really. You can buy the chip that implements AMBE and use it as part of a homebrew design. That is really not much different from buying a power transistor to get 100 Watts of output from your homebrew transceiver instead of developing your own, or making your own transmitter tube. Everyone chooses their own level of components to work from. Some build the microcontroller for their transceivers from a Z-80, an EPROM, a CMOS RAM and some LSTTL logic. Others use an integrated microcontroller with everything on a chip. Still others buy a small board with a functioning computer system on it and use it as part of their transceiver. I don't know exactly why JARL chose AMBE other than because it was the only codec available at the time. If so, they should have thought about that a lot harder and perhaps decided to sponsor the development of a free codec instead. That would have been really good, but I suppose I can see that it would have introduced a delay. D-STAR has other faults, one being that it appears not to be extensible so that there is no way to include other codecs and allow the correct one to be used according to the other user's set up. When the chose AMBE there really was no alternative. And even today, you will not be able to find an open codec that offers speech quality at the bitrate and bit error resilience that the AMBE codec does. It is very easy to write "then lets develop that" and apparently much harder to actually do so. W.r.t. extensibility, it would sure be nice if codecs could be negotiated and an alternative could be added, but it would not bring much to D-STAR as there still would be different worlds of users that cannot talk to eachother (those with the commercial Icom transceivers that have AMBE and nothing else, and those with the homebrew transceivers with open codec and no AMBE). There would be no problem when amateurs could actually develop a better codec than AMBE. But they have not shown they can. Well we'll see won't we? It's taken a while to find people with the necessary expertise but Codec2 is now moving forward with people working on it that have that expertise. Given enough time, it could be that something is developed that is open and does not violate patents. But I think it will take a lot of time and there is little chance that at the end of this development there is still a userbase left that wants to buy and use products based on it. Sometimes is it better to just admit that someone did a better job than you could have done yourself, and just pay him for the work. I have no problem with that, remember that the "free" part of free software is referring to freedom, not money. But if someone refuses to provide something that I can look inside and understand then I won't use it. It's called a choice. That is your choice. But that does not mean that others are wrong. |
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 |
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. |
Codec2 - putting your money where your mouth is
On 24 Sep 2010 16:02:49 GMT
Rob wrote: Brian Morrison wrote: On 24 Sep 2010 09:42:02 GMT Rob wrote: Brian Morrison wrote: With D-STAR unless you buy the pre-programmed DSP chips or the DV dongle you can't legally reimplement the AMBE codec at all, and that makes it very different from other kit that implements unpatented modes. The problem is that amateurs cannot live with the fact that someone implemented a codec that is better than what they can develop themselves. Really? I thought that what those of us that can't live with it thought is that we don't like technology that locks out homebrew. That's what the use of DVSI's AMBE codec does. Not really. You can buy the chip that implements AMBE and use it as part of a homebrew design. I know, but that's *exactly* what a lot of people don't want to do. That is really not much different from buying a power transistor to get 100 Watts of output from your homebrew transceiver instead of developing your own, or making your own transmitter tube. I think there is. Generating RF power from a transistor is not a patented process, although the actual device may have some patents that apply to it. If I had the money and skills I could build my own, but that particular battle makes no sense. Not using a component that includes an implementation of an algorithm that I'm not allowed to see and understand is a different level from that, there is no secret sauce in a power transistor but there is in the program that a DSP chip runs. Everyone chooses their own level of components to work from. Some build the microcontroller for their transceivers from a Z-80, an EPROM, a CMOS RAM and some LSTTL logic. Others use an integrated microcontroller with everything on a chip. Still others buy a small board with a functioning computer system on it and use it as part of their transceiver. Indeed. I don't know exactly why JARL chose AMBE other than because it was the only codec available at the time. If so, they should have thought about that a lot harder and perhaps decided to sponsor the development of a free codec instead. That would have been really good, but I suppose I can see that it would have introduced a delay. D-STAR has other faults, one being that it appears not to be extensible so that there is no way to include other codecs and allow the correct one to be used according to the other user's set up. When the chose AMBE there really was no alternative. And even today, you will not be able to find an open codec that offers speech quality at the bitrate and bit error resilience that the AMBE codec does. Yet. The aim of Codec2 is to provide exactly that. It is very easy to write "then lets develop that" and apparently much harder to actually do so. Of course, but there are people who can do it. I happen to care enough to encourage them and put some money into the venture to pay for their time. W.r.t. extensibility, it would sure be nice if codecs could be negotiated and an alternative could be added, but it would not bring much to D-STAR as there still would be different worlds of users that cannot talk to eachother (those with the commercial Icom transceivers that have AMBE and nothing else, and those with the homebrew transceivers with open codec and no AMBE). I'm not interested in bringing something to D-STAR, I'm interested in bringing something to amateur radio that provides the opportunity to break away from a proprietary solution that doesn't offer a way of doing the self-training bit of the licence. There would be no problem when amateurs could actually develop a better codec than AMBE. But they have not shown they can. Well we'll see won't we? It's taken a while to find people with the necessary expertise but Codec2 is now moving forward with people working on it that have that expertise. Given enough time, it could be that something is developed that is open and does not violate patents. But I think it will take a lot of time and there is little chance that at the end of this development there is still a userbase left that wants to buy and use products based on it. Except that without actually achieving this it won't be possible to tell, I'd prefer to do it and then see what happens. Part of the attraction of Codec2 is that it doesn't only apply to amateur radio, it's something that can be used in other free software/hardware projects such as low cost telephony for developing countries with poor infrastructure. Sometimes is it better to just admit that someone did a better job than you could have done yourself, and just pay him for the work. I have no problem with that, remember that the "free" part of free software is referring to freedom, not money. But if someone refuses to provide something that I can look inside and understand then I won't use it. It's called a choice. That is your choice. But that does not mean that others are wrong. Indeed. But until everyone has the choice between something they control and something that they cannot control now, and probably never will be able to, it is not possible to decide which solution is the more sensible. I'm not trying to kill D-STAR (although I would prefer that it had never happened in its current form), but one of its problems is that it doesn't encourage the best implementation because it comes in one form only. If there are alternate ways to build compatible equipment then the path to achieving the maximum performance is opened. I don't want to see any of the other non-open digital radio standards come into amateur radio either, I'm not actually against anything other than the sacrifice of our ability to create our own designs without having to use something that isn't free (as in freedom). -- Brian Morrison |
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. |
Codec2 - putting your money where your mouth is
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 17:22:03 +0100
"Brian Reay" wrote: Oh dear Rob, you must be new here! While what you say is, of course, correct it isn't accepted by bigots. I think you'll find that the only bigots involved here are the sort that believe that amateur radio should encourage the use of closed technology. I believe that we should encourage the use of open technology and allow radio amateurs to own their future. A sure way to kill amateur radio is to make it dependent on corporations who do not share our interests at a fundamental level. -- Brian Morrison |
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 |
Codec2 - putting your money where your mouth is
Brian Morrison wrote:
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 17:22:03 +0100 "Brian Reay" wrote: Oh dear Rob, you must be new here! While what you say is, of course, correct it isn't accepted by bigots. I think you'll find that the only bigots involved here are the sort that believe that amateur radio should encourage the use of closed technology. I think we should not encourage the use of closed technology, and I think many agree with that. But I also think we should not discourage developments (in the case of D-STAR the development of a digital radio system) because in critical places in the system open technology does not exist, and development of such open technology is impractical. In such cases we should allow, not encourage, the use of closed technology. I see the chip with the AMBE codec as a component. A component for which we don't fully understand how it works, but we know how to use it as part of a design. Many amateurs have built electronics devices using components they did not fully understand how they were designed. Or did not care. It is possible to build an amateur radio transceiver using application notes for integrated circuits and other devices without really knowing what is inside the integrated circuits. The AMBE codec is just such a circuit, just like an IF amp/demodulator that you put in your receiver design by just copying the application note's circuit. |
Codec2 - putting your money where your mouth is
"Brian Morrison" wrote in message ... On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 17:22:03 +0100 "Brian Reay" wrote: Oh dear Rob, you must be new here! While what you say is, of course, correct it isn't accepted by bigots. I think you'll find that the only bigots involved here are the sort that believe that amateur radio should encourage the use of closed technology. I don't recall anyone seeking to only to encourage the use of closed technology. May be some who are happy to use closed technology and those who are happy to see that happen. -- 73 Brian G8OSN/W8OSN www.g8osn.net |
Codec2 - putting your money where your mouth is
"Yeti" wrote in message
... 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. If the CODEC was open, or if the open CODEC ever comes to fruition, would you have the knowledge / skills to undertake any meaningful experimentation or even the remotest prospect of developing those skills? -- 73 Brian G8OSN/W8OSN www.g8osn.net |
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 |
Codec2 - putting your money where your mouth is
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 18:02:28 +0100
"Brian Reay" wrote: "Yeti" wrote in message ... 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. If the CODEC was open, or if the open CODEC ever comes to fruition, would you have the knowledge / skills to undertake any meaningful experimentation or even the remotest prospect of developing those skills? That doesn't matter, the point is someone will have and will do so. We can't all do everything in amateur radio, but we should not prevent those that want to do something in particular from being able to do it. -- Brian Morrison |
Codec2 - putting your money where your mouth is
"Brian Morrison" wrote in message
... We can't all do everything in amateur radio, but we should not prevent those that want to do something in particular from being able to do it. Exactly, so let those happy with DSTAR and the AMBE CODEC use it and enjoy it. You can do the same with your pet interests. Win-Win. -- 73 Brian G8OSN/W8OSN www.g8osn.net |
Codec2 - putting your money where your mouth is
On 24 Sep 2010 16:51:07 GMT
Rob wrote: Brian Morrison wrote: On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 17:22:03 +0100 "Brian Reay" wrote: Oh dear Rob, you must be new here! While what you say is, of course, correct it isn't accepted by bigots. I think you'll find that the only bigots involved here are the sort that believe that amateur radio should encourage the use of closed technology. I think we should not encourage the use of closed technology, and I think many agree with that. It seems entirely reasonable to me. But I also think we should not discourage developments (in the case of D-STAR the development of a digital radio system) because in critical places in the system open technology does not exist, and development of such open technology is impractical. In such cases we should allow, not encourage, the use of closed technology. From a practical perspective I suppose that is the case, but it pains me knowing that eventually the price of doing it will have to be paid. Teach a man to fish etc..... I see the chip with the AMBE codec as a component. A component for which we don't fully understand how it works, but we know how to use it as part of a design. Yes. Many amateurs have built electronics devices using components they did not fully understand how they were designed. Or did not care. It is possible to build an amateur radio transceiver using application notes for integrated circuits and other devices without really knowing what is inside the integrated circuits. It is, but in the case of every other device it is possible to find out what's in there at least to a level where a full understanding is possible. And doing so would not be illegal. The AMBE codec is just such a circuit, just like an IF amp/demodulator that you put in your receiver design by just copying the application note's circuit. Well, once the legal system gets, or threatens to get, involved then I'd contend that it isn't the same as a generic component. But I think we're close enough in the discussion now that we can let it rest :) -- Brian Morrison |
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 |
Codec2 - putting your money where your mouth is
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 18:10:03 +0100
"Brian Reay" wrote: "Brian Morrison" wrote in message ... We can't all do everything in amateur radio, but we should not prevent those that want to do something in particular from being able to do it. Exactly, so let those happy with DSTAR and the AMBE CODEC use it and enjoy it. You can do the same with your pet interests. Win-Win. I have no problem with allowing evolution to decide the future, it's a good idea to make sure that some diversity evolves to allow that to happen. -- Brian Morrison |
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! |
Codec2 - putting your money where your mouth is
|
Codec2 - putting your money where your mouth is
"Rob" wrote in message ... Brian Morrison wrote: On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 17:22:03 +0100 "Brian Reay" wrote: Oh dear Rob, you must be new here! While what you say is, of course, correct it isn't accepted by bigots. I think you'll find that the only bigots involved here are the sort that believe that amateur radio should encourage the use of closed technology. I think we should not encourage the use of closed technology, and I think many agree with that. But I also think we should not discourage developments (in the case of D-STAR the development of a digital radio system) because in critical places in the system open technology does not exist, and development of such open technology is impractical. Except digital voice doesn't work on noisy channels, which makes it pretty useless for _REAL radio amateurs unless someone is going to stick repeaters up every half mile. - that's gonna mean a lot of money to ICOM in my book even if there was enough fools to fund it. |
Codec2 - putting your money where your mouth is
On 24/09/2010 18:02, Brian Reay wrote:
wrote in message ... 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. If the CODEC was open, or if the open CODEC ever comes to fruition, would you have the knowledge / skills to undertake any meaningful experimentation or even the remotest prospect of developing those skills? Change the record Brian, you come out with the same paragraph every time this subject comes up - and you know the answer you're going to get. I don't have the skills, or even the time, to take part - but it doesn't stop me from encouraging the project as a matter of principal. A closed codec has no place in Amateur Radio. You won't find more than a handful of amateurs who would disagree with that (except, of course, the ones who have already bought a D-Star rig). |
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. |
Codec2 - putting your money where your mouth is
On 24/09/2010 18:10, Brian Reay wrote:
"Brian wrote in message ... We can't all do everything in amateur radio, but we should not prevent those that want to do something in particular from being able to do it. Exactly, so let those happy with DSTAR and the AMBE CODEC use it and enjoy it. You can do the same with your pet interests. Win-Win. I just hope the RSGB is as keen to licence Codec2 based repeaters as it has been to licence D-Star based ones. Or will the Codec2 team have to give the RSGB huge prizes for their Radcom competitions to get the same treatment? |
Codec2 - putting your money where your mouth is
On 24/09/2010 19:24, Walt Davidson wrote:
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:21:15 +0100, Brian wrote: On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 22:20:32 -0400 Mike wrote: For what reasons would someone be "anti D-Star"? D-STAR uses a proprietary codec, that means for anyone that doesn't believe that amateur radio should use technology that forbids reverse engineering and hence interoperability with homebrew designs it's not acceptable. It is rather curious, is it not, that it's often the same people who are aggressively in favour of D-Star "because it is leading edge technology", and yet are vociferous in their opposition to DAB broadcasting "because it is no better than the existing analogue systems". Funny world. 73 de G3NYY Interesting analogy (pardon the pun) Walt. DAB doesn't work for mobile use. Neither does D-Star. |
Codec2 - putting your money where your mouth is
On 24/09/2010 21:00, Yeti wrote:
On 24/09/2010 19:24, Walt Davidson wrote: On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:21:15 +0100, Brian wrote: On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 22:20:32 -0400 Mike wrote: For what reasons would someone be "anti D-Star"? D-STAR uses a proprietary codec, that means for anyone that doesn't believe that amateur radio should use technology that forbids reverse engineering and hence interoperability with homebrew designs it's not acceptable. It is rather curious, is it not, that it's often the same people who are aggressively in favour of D-Star "because it is leading edge technology", and yet are vociferous in their opposition to DAB broadcasting "because it is no better than the existing analogue systems". Funny world. 73 de G3NYY Interesting analogy (pardon the pun) Walt. DAB doesn't work for mobile use. Neither does D-Star. You'll be getting an email from you know who! |
Codec2 - putting your money where your mouth is
On 24/09/2010 21:01, Len GM0ONX wrote:
On 24/09/2010 21:00, Yeti wrote: On 24/09/2010 19:24, Walt Davidson wrote: On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:21:15 +0100, Brian wrote: On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 22:20:32 -0400 Mike wrote: For what reasons would someone be "anti D-Star"? D-STAR uses a proprietary codec, that means for anyone that doesn't believe that amateur radio should use technology that forbids reverse engineering and hence interoperability with homebrew designs it's not acceptable. It is rather curious, is it not, that it's often the same people who are aggressively in favour of D-Star "because it is leading edge technology", and yet are vociferous in their opposition to DAB broadcasting "because it is no better than the existing analogue systems". Funny world. 73 de G3NYY Interesting analogy (pardon the pun) Walt. DAB doesn't work for mobile use. Neither does D-Star. You'll be getting an email from you know who! They always make me laugh. But I think he's given up now. |
Codec2 - putting your money where your mouth is
"Yeti" wrote in message ... On 24/09/2010 21:01, Len GM0ONX wrote: On 24/09/2010 21:00, Yeti wrote: On 24/09/2010 19:24, Walt Davidson wrote: On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:21:15 +0100, Brian wrote: On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 22:20:32 -0400 Mike wrote: For what reasons would someone be "anti D-Star"? D-STAR uses a proprietary codec, that means for anyone that doesn't believe that amateur radio should use technology that forbids reverse engineering and hence interoperability with homebrew designs it's not acceptable. It is rather curious, is it not, that it's often the same people who are aggressively in favour of D-Star "because it is leading edge technology", and yet are vociferous in their opposition to DAB broadcasting "because it is no better than the existing analogue systems". Funny world. 73 de G3NYY Interesting analogy (pardon the pun) Walt. DAB doesn't work for mobile use. Neither does D-Star. You'll be getting an email from you know who! They always make me laugh. But I think he's given up now. 0ops ?.... |
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! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:34 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com