> Well, over here, the biggest challenges are technical, such as "Will
> the signal survive ionospheric paths?". Only one way to find that one out. ;)
>
Digital voice on HF will NEVER catch on because it is a strong signal mode, and
HF is the home of weak signals, well except for 80 meters. By
> >Digital voice on HF will NEVER catch on because it is a strong
> >signal mode, and HF is the home of weak signals, well except for 80
>
> Never is a long time, and vocoder technology marches on. Already,
> the biggest limitation is not technology, but patents and what we
> hams can get hold
> Well, one of the things we lack here is blanket coverage of
> repeaters. It only takes a few hours drive from here in the big
> smoke to find places devoid of repeater coverage. Traditionally, HF
> fills this gap, but then you're isolated from the international
> networks and have to rely o
At 06:52 AM 8/31/2009, you wrote:
> > Well, over here, the biggest challenges are technical, such as "Will
> > the signal survive ionospheric paths?". Only one way to find
> that one out. ;)
> >
>
>Digital voice on HF will NEVER catch on because it is a strong
>signal mode, and HF is the home of
On Aug 30, 2009, at 9:19 PM, john_ke5c wrote:
> > >Digital voice on HF will NEVER catch on because it is a strong
> > >signal mode, and HF is the home of weak signals, well except for 80
> >
> > Never is a long time, and vocoder technology marches on. Already,
> > the biggest limitation is not te
At 03:08 PM 8/31/2009, you wrote:
>I definitely agree with John on this one. Digital, by and large, is a
>big yawn, if all we're doing with it is the same things we've done
>before.
>
>Where it gets interesting in digital is in techniques like WSJT, which
>aren't nearly fast enough for speech (wi
From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of john_ke5c
Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 4:53 PM
To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Explain this to me (Was News on IC-9100) US
Audience
Digital voice on HF will NEVER catch on because it
At 01:49 AM 9/1/2009, you wrote:
>I have some experience with mobile HF - http://www.ke5c.net/mobile/
Me too, in the particular environment I'm talking about - rural and
Outback Australia.
>If you want reliable HF communications from say 50 to 500 miles, you
>will need a frequency agile gate
At 08:27 AM 9/1/2009, you wrote:
>And they used to say that CW was the most efficient communications
>mode. That is, until PSK31 came around and blew it away.
And other modes since have raised that bar considerably. :)
>Add a little spread spectrum, ALE, propagation predictors, and a
>compute
This was the crux of the beginning of this thread.
One, is D-STAR legal below 29 mHz. in the US (it appears to be based
on its characteristics and the regulations)
Two, lets encourage manufacturers to not artificially disable it in D-
STAR capable HF rigs based on pre-conceived ideas.
Three, i
At 10:02 AM 9/1/2009, you wrote:
>This was the crux of the beginning of this thread.
>
>One, is D-STAR legal below 29 mHz. in the US (it appears to be based
>on its characteristics and the regulations)
Well, remember the important secondary question... "Where?". I don't
have to deal with "app
On Aug 31, 2009, at 5:51 PM, Tony Langdon wrote:
> My point. Don't write off digital HFvoice. It's still early
> days. I doubt D-STAR is going to have great performance on HF, but
> hey, if one can experiment, why not? Worst that can happen is it
> won't work. ;)
Culturally, that's why we'll nev
At 02:20 PM 9/1/2009, you wrote:
>Culturally, that's why we'll never see it in a radio built by the
>Japanese. There's very little of the cultural concept you would know
>as "have a go" in their world.
Pretty much the opposite of this part of the world, where our
ancestors had to be innovative
13 matches
Mail list logo
