But, isn't this the beauty of a free open source implementation of a technically advanced system?
For anyone interested (and with the skills), just increase the bandwidth, add a few carriers to the modem, and modify to your hearts extent, this goes in the nice Amateur tradition of "hacking" somebody elses solution, and publishing your findings and results. I wonder if starting with the "filter" would be a practical approach. After all, this is the bit in a already existing transceiver that decides what you can receive, and what noise will pass the RX chain, unless you want to design an entirely NEW system. 73 de SM6FBD On 03/19/2013 06:33 AM, Robert Staton wrote: > I have made similar arguments; that codec2 should at least have a "wide > bandwidth" mode, where the audio bandwidth could maybe be doubled while > doubling the bit rate. But it seems such arguments fall on deaf ears, so to > speak (pun intended). > > My thought is that if this is ever used for emergency communications, and I'm > the person in need of help, I don't want the first responders having to > struggle to understand what each other are saying. I want the best possible > quality that can reasonably be had, so I'm not laying there dying with nobody > coming to help. > > I suspect the motivation for extremely narrow bandwidth is the never-ending > goals of extending transmitter range and allowing more channels. But maybe > somewhere in the middle is a happy medium, where range is "just ok," and > sound quality is "very good." This is what normal people would want for > practical use. > > On Mar 18, 2013, at 9:40 PM, Albert Cahalan <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Mel Whitten <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> It is not very practical but neither is wide BW DV on HF unless >>> you use (if you could use..) some type of spread specturm. >> With a good codec, the radio spectrum usage shouldn't change. >> I note that: >> >> 1. codec2 artificially limits speech to under 4 kHz >> 2. the modem is only 1.1 kHz wide >> 3. normal SSB is 2 or 3 times as wide as the modem >> >> I hope you can see that it looks reasonable to get far better >> audio in the width of a normal SSB signal. Ignoring details, >> you change the limit then widen to modem to accommodate it. >> Without that, you're being incompatible with everybody for what? >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. >> Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics >> Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_mar >> _______________________________________________ >> Freetel-codec2 mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freetel-codec2 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. > Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics > Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: > http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_mar > _______________________________________________ > Freetel-codec2 mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freetel-codec2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_mar _______________________________________________ Freetel-codec2 mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freetel-codec2
