|
Mike:
What the heck are you referring to as DRM? DRM or "Digital Rights Management" is a form of copyright protection and should be avoided at ALL costs. DRM has nothing to do with amateurs running webcams via radio. Unless you are afraid someone is going to steal your video! John "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: John Smith on Jul 2, 1:24 am Even worse, it is the stubborn, hidebound, refusal to break out of the antiquated standards and practices of pre-WW2 times to meld with the rest of the world of modern times. That's surely no worse than your stubborn, hidebound efforts to change regulations in something in which you are not remotely involved. Try a mind meld on that, old timer The only "code" allowed by these dino-denizens of the past is MORSE code. Anything else, such as (horrors) "source code" is nothing but a bunch of NOPs with an occasional HCF. Those that have bought into it and passed the morse test will do more flaunting of their morsemanship than a convention of actors in Hollywood bragging of their credits. [they have no Variety] What is any of this to you? You aren't a part of amateur radio. You've made no effort to become a radio amateur. You're simply some geezer sitting on the sidelines and shouting, "You're doing it all wrong". You've become a regular Rodney Dangerfield--except that you aren't intentionally funny. Using "examples" of half-GigaByte files "expected to be sent over little teeny narrowbanded enclaves of spectrum is itself an example of their non-thinking, non-research, non-educated attempts to stall any sort of progress. They can't do the numbers (despite flaunting of non-amateur titles), won't bother with looking up things, everything-is-just-fine-as- when-they-first-joined-long-ago-thankyouverymuch. Case in point: DRM (Digital Radio Mondial). Digitized audio on HF, now being transmitted (over two dozen programs now listed), capable of overcoming the selective fading common to the "wow" heard so many times on analog BC, tested for over four years on HF. High-quality audio fitting within a 12 KHz bandwidth, an occupancy no greater than present-day audio on broadcast. DRM may not be the technical best, but it IS a WORKING system. It works on LF, MF, HF, VHF. By test. It sure does. Ten-Tec's has marketed a pretty nice general coverage receiver which incorporates Radio Mondial capability for several years. It requires a PC to work. That pretty well eliminates portability. Radio Mondial isn't going to be something which catches on in the third world where price, battery power and portability are prime requirements. I think it is likely to be accepted in the U.S. about as much as AM stereo and 8-track tapes. How'd we get to DRM for voice? Weren't we talking about images and video? A bit of difference there maybe? A few years ago in here a bunch of narrowband, narrowthinker olde-fahrts exclaimed and exclaimed that "it won't work!" They did? Name them. Probably because someone made some claim that was a bit beyond capabilities, and then clever people shifted the argument, just like what is going on here. So now we have some of us being Luddites regarding digital image transmission on HF because of DRM FM-like audio. Which would be scaled down to that 2.5 KHz bandwidth. How we be gonna scale those pictures and live video to fit into 2.5 KHz? The general idea of DRM, scaled for 2.5 KHz voice-only audio bandwidths is eminently possible on HF. Of course. Sure it is. The problem is, what works well for many people tuning into a broadcast just falls apart when a number of people call one station or when a group of stations desires to converse roundtable-style. Yes. The entire nature of HF operations would change drastically. Effects of selective fading on HF will be less than the wider bandwidth of broadcast audio. Further, since it already IS in digital form, it is applicable to direct-sequence spreading and the ability to put many signals on a given band without any mutual interference. The narrowband, narrowthink amateurs will have none of that. They will yank out the "12 KHz bandwidth" of DRM and shout it is way too broad for amateur use...while they totally ignore the scaling that can (and sometimes is) done for narrower band audio. The scaling isn't the problem, wizened one. For video and images it is. The narrowband, narrowthink status quo-ists will demand "already- done, tested, approved, on-the-market" products to "demonstrate" that it will work. [they have in the past in here] :-) In other words, "don't bother me until I see the ads in QST" kind of mentality which seems to have become standard on the USA amateur scene. The narrowband, narrowthink hams are content with their narrow slices of spectrum, the bands appropriately sliced up into "bandplan" segments like separator boards in a sandbox. They have achieved Titles in their federal authority and haughtily parade that to play in the "nicer" parts of the sandbox. You can worry about the nicer parts of the sandbox when you've come up with a pass to enter the park. Okay, so it looks like someone is now trying to shift the argument into something like we have to fight to get more spectrum so that we can use methods that use more bandwidth. I thought that we were going to be able to send live video and digital images on HF? Simply by hooking our computers to our rigs via the proper interfaces. Now it seems that the *idea* is that we are going to use DRM, and we're going to need to get more spectrum in which to use. IOW, it can't be done (practically) under the present circumstances. Some of the other folks who would have to give up their spectrum might have something to say about it also! 8^) Analog-ONLY is the cry of the narrowband narrowthink group. Keep it SIMPLE so that the most theory they need is just Ohm's Law of Resistance. The have resistance to anything more complex. Stay with the gamesmanship, enter the contests for "radiosport" and win nice certificates (suitable for framing). Forget the exploring of the new, trying out something different. Too HARD to think. Follow preset rules and fill in the blanks. Big Brother in the NE will protect them. Does complex and newer equal better? Is analog simpler than digital? Does having a computer that attaches to the Internet make a person a digital expert? I ask for enlightenment, I get invective. Appears to be what there is to offer. - Mike KB3EIA - |
N2EY:
"They" are the all important youngsters in high schools and colleges across this nation. "They" are the ones I am working with and ask directly, "How about getting an amateur license?" "They" are all the women who take one look at the code and go away laughing. "They" are the only ones who matter... John wrote in message oups.com... John Smith wrote: Len: I finally figured out why they truly hate you here! You have made a statement that cw is ridiculous and protested by never getting an amateur license--now there are tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands who have joined you--I see them everyday-- they refuse to get a license because of the code... ... that is why they hate you, you were a man before your time my friend! And, your protest is being voiced by a strong majority today. Who is "they", John? I don't hate anybody on rrap. I like some more than others but "hate" is too strong a word. The problem you, Len and a few others share is simple: You have confused the destination with the journey. |
KXHB:
Go ask the college and high school students in the EE fields why they do not obtain amateur licenses. I have asked, it is the code which they cite at least 90% of the time. However, you guys don't care, and will go on speaking like that is not true. Put your butt in a car, drive over to your local college and have a chat with an electronics engineer professor there and the students--then perhaps you will realize we who know are looking at you like some crazed manic reciting a ridiculous mantra about code not being a hindrance and the real reason amateur radio is dying... John "KXHB" wrote in message k.net... "John Smith" wrote You have made a statement that cw is ridiculous and protested by never getting an amateur license--now there are tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands who have joined you--I see them everyday--they refuse to get a license because of the code... ... that is why they hate you, you were a man before your time my friend! And, your protest is being voiced by a strong majority today. Literally billions and billions of people worldwide have joined Len in protest by never applying for an amateur license --- untold billions! Literally billions and billions of people worldwide do not have CB sets! Literally billions and billions of people worldwide do not have FRS sets! Literally billions and billions of people worldwide do not have GMRS sets! Literally billions and billions of people worldwide do not have MURS sets! Literally billions and billions of people worldwide do not have marine VHF sets! Literally billions and billions of people worldwide do not have cordless phones! Literally billions and billions of people worldwide do not have any sort of "wireless" communications! What an impressive protest, people before their time! dit dit de Hans, K0HB |
"John Smith" wrote However, you guys don't care, and will go on speaking like that is not true. Put your butt in a car, drive over to your local college and have a chat with an electronics engineer professor there and the students--then perhaps you will realize we who know are looking at you like some crazed manic reciting a ridiculous mantra about code not being a hindrance and the real reason amateur radio is dying... John, You're new around here, so I'll bring you up to date. I am a long time member of NCI, and I do not support continuation of the Morse test, so spare your jeremiads about "you guys don't care" for someone else. Having said that, your characterization of Len as a "man before his time" is the most laughable miscasting since someone suggested John Wayne play the part of a queer hairdessser in a movie about the old west. dit dit de Hans, K0HB |
KXHB:
I support NCI myself. Now, that part about John Wayne as a gay hairdresser in a western, I damn near died laughing from the visual image your words inspired in my mind, when I read your words. That certainly would have been a great comedy and would have stood out in the annals of movie history, too bad you were not a movie director back then! grin They just don't know how to make movies like they used too... John "KXHB" wrote in message ink.net... "John Smith" wrote However, you guys don't care, and will go on speaking like that is not true. Put your butt in a car, drive over to your local college and have a chat with an electronics engineer professor there and the students--then perhaps you will realize we who know are looking at you like some crazed manic reciting a ridiculous mantra about code not being a hindrance and the real reason amateur radio is dying... John, You're new around here, so I'll bring you up to date. I am a long time member of NCI, and I do not support continuation of the Morse test, so spare your jeremiads about "you guys don't care" for someone else. Having said that, your characterization of Len as a "man before his time" is the most laughable miscasting since someone suggested John Wayne play the part of a queer hairdessser in a movie about the old west. dit dit de Hans, K0HB |
Mike Coslo wrote:
Dave Heil wrote: wrote: How we be gonna scale those pictures and live video to fit into 2.5 KHz? Two steps: 1) Convert the pictures and video into highly-compressed digital formats for transmission. 2) Use different modes/modulations/protocols Shannon's Theorem tells us that we can get very high data rates through very narrow bandwidths *if* we have adequate signal-to-noise ratio. Note that "noise" takes many forms, not just the thermal noise we're used to. For example, PSK has an advantage over OOK when dealing with thermal noise. But when dealing with other types of noise, OOK can have an advantage. It all depends on the transmission medium. What works on a telephone line may not work on an HF path of the same apparent bandwidth. I thought that we were going to be able to send live video and digital images on HF? You can do that now - just need enough S/N. Simply by hooking our computers to our rigs via the proper interfaces. And software. Now it seems that the *idea* is that we are going to use DRM, and we're going to need to get more spectrum in which to use. There are all sorts of solutions. But there's a world of difference between people talking theory and actual application. Most of all, some folks confuse the journey and the destination. Does complex and newer equal better? Sometimes. Not always. Is analog simpler than digital? Sometimes! Does having a computer that attaches to the Internet make a person a digital expert? Some folks think so! I don't. And besides - "digital expert" doesn't mean someone knows much about radio. I ask for enlightenment, I get invective. Are you surprised? Appears to be what there is to offer. Now consider how effective such a person would be trying to sell amateur radio - with or without a code test. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
N2EY:
Most of that is incorrect. First you use "on the fly" encryption/decryption/"data compaction" and have it occurring in "real time." This has the effect of being "transparent" and the user is not even aware that it is going on. Next, forget the sn/noise ratio other than it has to acceptable for transmission of understandable communication (however, this is required no matter what the form of data--i.e., voice, ssb, cw, etc) Next, listen to digital signal occupying audio bandwidth (it is audio bandwidth that is of concern here, NOT rf bandwidth, except with the possibility of fm and how you implement the data compression and transmission, i.e., just make it fit the existing rf bandwidth and NO changes are needed--however, larger rf bandwidth will ALWAYS result in a drastic increase in transmission speed and wideband fm can easily offer itself to 1MBS and faster) a digital signal can be treated just like a analog signal if desired, the use of CRC checksums and error checking of the data is just more intense under these circumstances and there is NO standard established for this--so you MUST be able to make and use your own custom hardware and software. To avoid this, just grab off the shelf digital hardware/software. Next, for every patented form of audio video protocols there are FREE forms, usually the free ones are more acceptable, efficient and suitable to ones needs, an example: Use ogg vobis compression of audio as opposed to mp3 --in video-- Use xvid as opposed to divx 4-5 However, any of this requires a sound and current education and knowledge of the state of technology--and something which is obviously lacking here. John wrote in message oups.com... Mike Coslo wrote: Dave Heil wrote: wrote: How we be gonna scale those pictures and live video to fit into 2.5 KHz? Two steps: 1) Convert the pictures and video into highly-compressed digital formats for transmission. 2) Use different modes/modulations/protocols Shannon's Theorem tells us that we can get very high data rates through very narrow bandwidths *if* we have adequate signal-to-noise ratio. Note that "noise" takes many forms, not just the thermal noise we're used to. For example, PSK has an advantage over OOK when dealing with thermal noise. But when dealing with other types of noise, OOK can have an advantage. It all depends on the transmission medium. What works on a telephone line may not work on an HF path of the same apparent bandwidth. I thought that we were going to be able to send live video and digital images on HF? You can do that now - just need enough S/N. Simply by hooking our computers to our rigs via the proper interfaces. And software. Now it seems that the *idea* is that we are going to use DRM, and we're going to need to get more spectrum in which to use. There are all sorts of solutions. But there's a world of difference between people talking theory and actual application. Most of all, some folks confuse the journey and the destination. Does complex and newer equal better? Sometimes. Not always. Is analog simpler than digital? Sometimes! Does having a computer that attaches to the Internet make a person a digital expert? Some folks think so! I don't. And besides - "digital expert" doesn't mean someone knows much about radio. I ask for enlightenment, I get invective. Are you surprised? Appears to be what there is to offer. Now consider how effective such a person would be trying to sell amateur radio - with or without a code test. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
John Smith wrote:
Len: Keep a stiff upper lip man, only poor breeding reduces one to name calling and personal attacks--they seek to include you among their ill-bred lot. Says one who engages in name calling. |
John Smith wrote:
N2EY: Most of that is incorrect. Most of what? First you use "on the fly" encryption/decryption/"data compaction" and have it occurring in "real time." This has the effect of being "transparent" and the user is not even aware that it is going on. That's what "Convert the pictures and video into highly-compressed digital formats for transmission." means, John. Whether it's done in "real time" is just a detail. Next, forget the sn/noise ratio other than it has to acceptable for transmission of understandable communication (however, this is required no matter what the form of data--i.e., voice, ssb, cw, etc) Signal-to-noise is an integral part of Shannon's thereom. It cannot simply be "forgotten". Next, listen to digital signal occupying audio bandwidth (it is audio bandwidth that is of concern here, NOT rf bandwidth, No, that's not correct. The discussion is about transmitting pictures and video on the amateur HF/MF bands. RF bandwidth is a very important thing there. except with the possibility of fm and how you implement the data compression and transmission, i.e., just make it fit the existing rf bandwidth and NO changes are needed--however, larger rf bandwidth will ALWAYS result in a drastic increase in transmission speed and wideband fm can easily offer itself to 1MBS and faster) a digital signal can be treated just like a analog signal if desired, the use of CRC checksums and error checking of the data is just more intense under these circumstances and there is NO standard established for this--so you MUST be able to make and use your own custom hardware and software. To avoid this, just grab off the shelf digital hardware/software. And the simplest way for hams to do that at HF/MF is to use an SSB transceiver and a computer with a sound card. But that's not the only issue. Next, for every patented form of audio video protocols there are FREE forms, usually the free ones are more acceptable, efficient and suitable to ones needs, an example: Use ogg vobis compression of audio as opposed to mp3 --in video-- Use xvid as opposed to divx 4-5 And make sure the folks at the other end are similarly equipped. However, any of this requires a sound and current education and knowledge of the state of technology--and something which is obviously lacking here. Yes, John, your lack of a sound and current education about amateur HF/MF communications is quite evident. Good to see you admitting it. There's also the issue of FCC regulations. Of course those regulations can be changed, and there are several proposals in development or before the FCC to change them. But until they are changed, amateurs will be constrained by the current rules, such as the 300 baud limitation on HF. The vast majority of hams are not going to break those rules, regardless of the available technology or their education. The question raised by KB3EIA and N8UZE remains: How can video be sent in a 2.5 kHz RF bandwidth on the amateur HF bands? I've answered that question in a theoretical way. I don't think you even understand the question and all its implications, John. wrote in message oups.com... Mike Coslo wrote: Dave Heil wrote: wrote: How we be gonna scale those pictures and live video to fit into 2.5 KHz? Two steps: 1) Convert the pictures and video into highly-compressed digital formats for transmission. 2) Use different modes/modulations/protocols Shannon's Theorem tells us that we can get very high data rates through very narrow bandwidths *if* we have adequate signal-to-noise ratio. Note that "noise" takes many forms, not just the thermal noise we're used to. For example, PSK has an advantage over OOK when dealing with thermal noise. But when dealing with other types of noise, OOK can have an advantage. It all depends on the transmission medium. What works on a telephone line may not work on an HF path of the same apparent bandwidth. I thought that we were going to be able to send live video and digital images on HF? You can do that now - just need enough S/N. Simply by hooking our computers to our rigs via the proper interfaces. And software. Now it seems that the *idea* is that we are going to use DRM, and we're going to need to get more spectrum in which to use. There are all sorts of solutions. But there's a world of difference between people talking theory and actual application. Most of all, some folks confuse the journey and the destination. Does complex and newer equal better? Sometimes. Not always. Is analog simpler than digital? Sometimes! Does having a computer that attaches to the Internet make a person a digital expert? Some folks think so! I don't. And besides - "digital expert" doesn't mean someone knows much about radio. I ask for enlightenment, I get invective. Are you surprised? Appears to be what there is to offer. Now consider how effective such a person would be trying to sell amateur radio - with or without a code test. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"John Smith" wrote in message ... KXHB: Go ask the college and high school students in the EE fields why they do not obtain amateur licenses. I have asked, it is the code which they cite at least 90% of the time. However, you guys don't care, and will go on speaking like that is not true. Put your butt in a car, drive over to your local college and have a chat with an electronics engineer professor there and the students--then perhaps you will realize we who know are looking at you like some crazed manic reciting a ridiculous mantra about code not being a hindrance and the real reason amateur radio is dying... John Since all the "new action" is VHF and higher and that doesn't require a code license, code should be no detriment. Or is some one fibbing to them either directly or by omission so that they do not know about the codeless Technician license. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:27 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com