| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
July 28th 05, 02:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
K4YZ wrote:
QUOTE FROM YAHOO! NEWS In rural areas where cellular towers are far apart, analog phones often work when digital models can't get a signal. With the Federal Communications Commission pushing the move to all-digital phone service across the country, Smith and others in rural areas are urging the agency to wait until more towers are built to improve service. I would be remiss if I didn't note that I do agree with you that digital is not better. While it performs well under many circumstances, it has it's own set of shortcomings. Certainly digital voice is of no particular advantage in Amateur Radio, from what I have seen so far. - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
#2
July 29th 05, 04:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
From: Michael Coslo on Thurs 28 Jul 2005 09:52
K4YZ wrote: QUOTE FROM YAHOO! NEWS In rural areas where cellular towers are far apart, analog phones often work when digital models can't get a signal. With the Federal Communications Commission pushing the move to all-digital phone service across the country, Smith and others in rural areas are urging the agency to wait until more towers are built to improve service. I would be remiss if I didn't note that I do agree with you that digital is not better. You've had experience with a lot of digital voice, have you? I can show you were MOST folks in here have had experience with digital voice. Bet you won't know where, though... While it performs well under many circumstances, it has it's own set of shortcomings. Such as? The U.S. military doesn't think so. [but, what do they know, right?] The WLAN users and installers don't think so. [but, what do they know, right?] The commercial and government radio users don't think so. [but, what do they know, right?] How about the telephone people...do they think so? [but, what do they know, right?] Certainly digital voice is of no particular advantage in Amateur Radio, from what I have seen so far. What have you "seen so far?" Do your ears see? Or is all your "experience" with digital voice that of others' writings in here? 'Fess up, Mikey. You HAVE used digital voice and aren't aware you are using it when you do. shrug There's not even a STANDARD for digital voice on amateur radio bands yet. There's no way it can be directly compatible with old-time analog voice...it will need both encoders and decoders as peripherals with purely-analog radios...or it will need a radio that has such things built-in. Building-in digital voice (and data or whatever) will incur a development charge which has to be recouped by amortizing that over a specific time in the manufactured equipment sales prices. That you can't envision such a thing is of no surprise to me. Few radio amateurs are either flexible enough or experienced enough with new modes and methods, therefore are extreme conservatives when it comes to new developments...if QST hasn't run an article on it, then "it doesn't exist" and "can't be done!" :-) doo dah |
|
#3
July 29th 05, 04:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Len:
Don't tell them that digital voice is really a "stream" of numbers which describe your voice/words/tone/etc really, and the other phone (computer really) decodes the instructions and recreates a "clone" of the original analog signal which you will hear. Also, skip the part about these numbers being encased in packets with a CRC (cyclic redundancy code, read about it on the net, simple to the point of being boring--think "error checking" here) and if there is a "error worth noting" the packet is discarded and a copy of it resent (if it can't be done within a reasonable length of time--microseconds, a defective packet is "played" hoping you can "decode" the error with your ear), so that digital audio can be about as close to perfect as can be obtained (indeed, it can be perfect, if that is what you want--or not at all!) Also, the phones have loads of memory (the good ones) so that packets can be stored and ordered and time spent holding one packet while a previous is being "error corrected." Well, in a nutshell description, that is... but just don't mention all that, too confusing for "Neanderthal hams", and the few others here probably already know... John wrote in message oups.com... From: Michael Coslo on Thurs 28 Jul 2005 09:52 K4YZ wrote: QUOTE FROM YAHOO! NEWS In rural areas where cellular towers are far apart, analog phones often work when digital models can't get a signal. With the Federal Communications Commission pushing the move to all-digital phone service across the country, Smith and others in rural areas are urging the agency to wait until more towers are built to improve service. I would be remiss if I didn't note that I do agree with you that digital is not better. You've had experience with a lot of digital voice, have you? I can show you were MOST folks in here have had experience with digital voice. Bet you won't know where, though... While it performs well under many circumstances, it has it's own set of shortcomings. Such as? The U.S. military doesn't think so. [but, what do they know, right?] The WLAN users and installers don't think so. [but, what do they know, right?] The commercial and government radio users don't think so. [but, what do they know, right?] How about the telephone people...do they think so? [but, what do they know, right?] Certainly digital voice is of no particular advantage in Amateur Radio, from what I have seen so far. What have you "seen so far?" Do your ears see? Or is all your "experience" with digital voice that of others' writings in here? 'Fess up, Mikey. You HAVE used digital voice and aren't aware you are using it when you do. shrug There's not even a STANDARD for digital voice on amateur radio bands yet. There's no way it can be directly compatible with old-time analog voice...it will need both encoders and decoders as peripherals with purely-analog radios...or it will need a radio that has such things built-in. Building-in digital voice (and data or whatever) will incur a development charge which has to be recouped by amortizing that over a specific time in the manufactured equipment sales prices. That you can't envision such a thing is of no surprise to me. Few radio amateurs are either flexible enough or experienced enough with new modes and methods, therefore are extreme conservatives when it comes to new developments...if QST hasn't run an article on it, then "it doesn't exist" and "can't be done!" :-) doo dah |
|
#4
July 29th 05, 06:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
From: John Smith on Jul 28, 8:48 pm
Don't tell them that digital voice is really a "stream" of numbers which describe your voice/words/tone/etc really, and the other phone (computer really) decodes the instructions and recreates a "clone" of the original analog signal which you will hear. TOO LATE!!! I did that a few years ago. Morsemen would have NONE of that..."morse code gets through when nothing else will"...blah, blah, blah, blah, blech. Tsk, these mighty "experimenters" and "state of the art" advancers don't realize that CDs of music and DVDs of motion pictures are (horrors) DIGITALLY RECORDED!!! They don't realize that POTS (Plain Old Telephone System) is digitized between exchanges...and sometimes inside the same exchange. Even morsemen's heavy breathing is digitized. Also, skip the part about these numbers being encased in packets with a CRC (cyclic redundancy code, read about it on the net, simple to the point of being boring--think "error checking" here) and if there is a "error worth noting" the packet is discarded and a copy of it resent (if it can't be done within a reasonable length of time--microseconds, a defective packet is "played" hoping you can "decode" the error with your ear), so that digital audio can be about as close to perfect as can be obtained (indeed, it can be perfect, if that is what you want--or not at all!) Also, the phones have loads of memory (the good ones) so that packets can be stored and ordered and time spent holding one packet while a previous is being "error corrected." Irrelevant to here. Morsemen, mighty and macho as they wannabe, have told us that "CELL PHONES ARE *USELESS* IN ANY EMERGENCY!" That's that. No goodnik. The telephone system GOES DOWN in any emergency situation, can't be used at all! Well, in a nutshell description, that is... but just don't mention all that, too confusing for "Neanderthal hams", and the few others here probably already know... Sorry, John, implying that SOME in here are IGNORANT brings on accusations of "hating ham radio!!!" Can't have that! All have to LOVE ham radio as the ARRL taught everbody sometime...(hic) Too bad there's no "surplus" SINCGARS radios...the largest field radio production for U.S. land forces ever...a quarter million produced since the first went operational in 1989.* Digital voice with (now) built-in communications security or COMSEC with on-line encryption/decryption. NATO allies have the same system, compatible with U.S. SINCGARS radios. * Some CASES of older SINCGARS have turned up on EBay, but none with intact electronic guts. Those must have been from the "SIP" (SINCGARS Improvement Program) by ITT Fort Wayne, IN. Heck, not a one in here is familiar with Peterson and Weldon's "Error-Correcting Codes" (MIT Press, nice red hardcover). THE reference for digital coding with/without error correction. I'd rather reference Brian Burke's statement: "Morse code gets through when everything else will." dit dot |
|
#6
July 29th 05, 11:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
K4YZ wrote:
.. Lennie belittles Amateurs for "saving the radio world", yet at every opportunity we're lambasted with yet another round of how a MILITARY systems is the "know all-end all" of radio communication.... Lennieboy, while in the military, once walked by an Army radio van and he thinks that made him an expert on communication. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
