Why I am not going DSTAR

[Hamradiostuffing]

You will not hear me on D-Star anytime soon. I don't see any compelling reason to add D-Star to my ham setup. Don't try to convince me, it will be a waste of time from your part.



It is high tech, for sure. It offers some distinct possibilities that no other mode of communication can offer. The internet gateway capability is a real plus; its Digital Data is a nice feature. In fact I admire those who test and implement this digital mode. I can appreciate the dedication and the amount of work involved.




But here are four reasons why I am not a D-Star user.



First and foremost, I have a big problem with the choice of a proprietary codec. This AMBE codec is the mouth and ears of the whole network, and hams are more or less stuck using this custom, closed piece of hardware. I have a problem with that. Why could it not use a DSP-based open voice coding protocol? There are good open-sourced protocols currently available. It would have allowed to develop the software to run on PC soundcards, just to name one advantage, Of course it was much easier to use a known-good and tested codec, the AMBE codec. OK, but that took the fun and a lot of experimenting away.



Also, the sound quality sucks. This, of course, is a matter of personal taste. When I first heard about D-Star, I imagined hearing noise-free audio with little or no compression artifacts. I was SO disappointed. The noise is gone, but the audio sounds robotic, and it is even sometime difficult to understand what the other person is saying. I find it worse than over modern digital cellular telephony. While the intent of cramming more DV+DD channels per bandwidth vs. analog modulation is met, it compromises the sound quality beyond reasonable. They did not need to go to this level of compression.



I also don't like the fact that only Icom is endorsing D-Star. Even though it is not one, it looks like a monopoly. Why is it that no other manufacturer is jumping on the band wagon?




Looking at the user cost, the D-Star-equipped gear is way too expensive. The handie-talkie (portable radio) cost is MUCH higher just because of this $20 codec chip and the additional R&D. Mobile radios are also much higher priced than the regular FM ones. D-Star has been around long enough to amortize the incremental R&D cost. Other than the pseudo-monopoly I am talking about above, I don't see how Icom can still justify this huge price difference. The price tag of the optional D-Star modules alone says it all... But the infrastructure cost is even more scandalous. Have you looked at the D-Star repeater cost? What proportion of the ham clubs can really afford such an investment?



So that's it. You don't have to agree with me. This is the nature of a blog.

 

[N8OHU]

To be honest, there are people that I have trouble hearing on Analog FM, so it's not really an issue of the codec and used bandwidth. Most of the higher quality codecs simply would not have met the design specifications that the JARL wanted, and the lower quality ones don't sound as good as AMBE; I'm also not sure that either group had the required Forward Error Correction capabilities that are part of the D-Star Specification. I also suspect that many of the hams involved in developing the specification were familiar with AMBE from their jobs and knew what it could do and were willing to give up a small part of the experimentation to have something that worked out of the box for those that would want to buy the radios.

I really can't answer why only Icom has embraced D-Star, but there are those that say that the Asian ham radio manufacturers seem to want to develop similar but incompatible technologies rather than work together on a single unified standard; with the numerous digital voice systems available from them, I find myself in agreement.

One thing I don't agree with you on is your claim that they have paid for the R&D for the AMBE boards; as small as the UT-121 board is for some of the icom radios, it's pretty evident to me that they licensed the AMBE in the form of software and are using a very limited DSP chip to make the adapters extremely small (about the size of a postage stamp), which is about the size of the actual AMBE-2020 DSP chip they sell for $20 with a minimum quantity of 6 (last I checked into it).

As for the repeaters, this is one reason many D-Star systems outside the US are built with open source software and modified commercial transceiver hardware; the interesting part is that many of the same adapter boards being used for these repeaters can also be used to create functional D-Star radios using off the shelf ham transceivers that have a 9600 baud packet port on them, especially if the maker of the adapter board has either designed the board to include the AMBE chip or has an addon board that contains the needed circuits to provide this functionality.

 

[wucherer]

To each it's own. There are many ways that amateur radio is either a hobby or service to the community. I like keeping the license active and found another avenue which to communication. D-STAR like anything that is new scares some people, horrify by the price of the transceivers seems to be top of that list. Anything that keeps our bands alive and well is wonderful news. My next projects are to merge together analog with digital making some sort of cross-band repeater and when returning from the much looked forward vacation will be bringing back online my echolink simplex node for d-star operations for all who enjoy communicating with the world but ham radio still remains to allow my enjoyment of communications possible. 73 de N2OBS

P.S. Those who don't want to do d-star is a freedom of choice, anyway to keep the bands from becoming idle is more important than trying to force a new thing on a person. If they want to do...then they will either eventually come around or continue what they were doing all along. Enjoy ham radio no matter what.

 

[KA9QPN]

Heard it all before

Except for the 'poor audio' complaint. I hadn't heard that before, and frankly don't share that opinion. I have no trouble copying D-Star transmissions, and my hearing is starting to fade on the higher frequencies. The P25 systems in my area have similar quality audio. I've no experience with MOTOTRBO. I was an early adopter of D-Star.

The 'proprietary codec' complaint has been beat until it's a grease spot on the floor and not just a dead horse. And, the radios involved for the most part are high-end even before we start adding digital voice. ICOM gave a bunch of D-Star repeater systems away in order to get the technology out in the world. All that the repeater sponsor had to do was be in a target area, have a predetermined site and float the $3K cost for a month or two until they were reimbursed by ICOM.

Bottom line is that either you want to spend for the product or no.

73--
Tom KA9QPN

 

[WB4CS]

I would love to use DSTAR since it's a very active digital mode in my area, but I won't do it. Much like the OP, I cannot support a mode that is proprietary to one manufacturer. I'm not a fan of Icom products because of experience, I've had a few Icom radios that were terrible. Kudos to Icom for pushing digital modes on VHF/UHF, but don't keep it to yourself.

I think that radio manufacturers need to introduce digital modes that are nonproprietary and can be used between radio brands. "Don't have an Icom radio? Sorry, you can't join us on our local DSTAR repeater." Forget that!

 

[gewecke]

Note; While d star might be all the rave right now, Icom IDAS IDAS General Information - Features - Icom America actually has better more natural sounding audio, than the d star option which is not my choice either.

73,
n9zas

 

[KB7MIB]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; U; en-US) Gecko/20081217 Vision-Browser/8.1 301x200 LG VN530)

Is it Icom not wanting to share D-Star technology with Kenwood and Yaesu, or is it Kenwood and Yaesu not wanting to join with Icom to share as N8OHU stated?

 

[gewecke]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; U; en-US) Gecko/20081217 Vision-Browser/8.1 301x200 LG VN530)

Is it Icom not wanting to share D-Star technology with Kenwood and Yaesu, or is it Kenwood and Yaesu not wanting to join with Icom to share as N8OHU stated?

Maybe a little of both , but no worries to me since digi-ham isn't really an interest at the moment.

73,
n9zas

 

[N4DES]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; U; en-US) Gecko/20081217 Vision-Browser/8.1 301x200 LG VN530)

Is it Icom not wanting to share D-Star technology with Kenwood and Yaesu, or is it Kenwood and Yaesu not wanting to join with Icom to share as N8OHU stated?

iCOM has had a patent application in for the entire backbone of D*. Patent US20100124168 - REPEATER MONITOR SYSTEM AND REPEATER MONITOR METHOD - Google Patents I'm sure this has something to due to them not wanting to play.

Personally, I'm a P25 kinda guy. http://www.florida-repeaters.org/apco25listing.pdf

 

[AK9R]

Is it Icom not wanting to share D-Star technology with Kenwood and Yaesu, or is it Kenwood and Yaesu not wanting to join with Icom to share as N8OHU stated?

Here are two piece of information to consider when answering your question.

For a time, Kenwood sold a Kenwood-labeled Icom IC-800 D-Star mobile radio in the Japanese market. Kenwood never sold that radio in the U.S.

Kenwood and Icom have jointly developed the NXDN protocol that is becoming popular in the Land Mobile market.

I think there is a willingness for Kenwood and Icom to cooperate, but Kenwood either does not want to license technology that Icom holds the rights to or Kenwood does not believe D-Star is the right solution for amateur radio or Kenwood does not believe there's a market for digital voice in amateur radio.

 

[rapidcharger]

This is the nature of a blog.

This isn't a blog, this is a forum.

A forum full of d-star users and what you did was kind of trollish.

I operate on all of them, D-star, P25, DMR, and NXDN. Each has their pros and cons. But since you're not interested in hearing any of them and this was just a hit & run post, I won't waste my time.

 

[W2NJS]

In my local area our group now runs two P25 machines. One is VHF P25 only, and the other is UHF with the P25 set up as a remote receiver with analog link to the main site from where it is analog transmit. The systems were set up by people who knew what they wanted and knew what they were doing. As a result we have virtually noise free comms on both setups that beat the pants off of analog FM, even with one of the systems being a hybrid. I've heard D-Star systems and what I heard sounded okay, but that doesn't make me any kind of expert. I do know what I hear on our P25 systems and it also sounds okay, but again, the systems were built and set up by hams who are experienced communications engineers and are definitely not "Plug and Play" people. Aside from Icom's proprietary approach to its D-Star marketing, and the relatively high costs involved, it probably comes down to a matter of personal choice.

 

[kayn1n32008]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPad; CPU OS 6_1_3 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/536.26 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/6.0 Mobile/10B329 Safari/8536.25)

...All that the repeater sponsor had to do was be in a target area, have a predetermined site and float the $3K cost for a month or two until they were reimbursed by ICOM. .

73--
Tom KA9QPN

Not sure where you come up with the $3k figure, my club had one of the first D-Star systems in Alberta. It cost somewhere between $10k-15k for the complete stack, this included 145MHz, 440MHz, 1.2GHz voice and 1.2GHz Data. This price includes a duplexer/multicoupler for the 1.2GHz voice/data, although we had spare duplexes for the V/UHF repeaters. After all that, we see very little use here on V/UHF and zero use of the 1.2GHz side., voice OR data.

Myself, I will not be on D-Star, I have not liked Icom gear for a long time, and have no intention to buy D-Star radios. Someone else stated that the codec is propriatry, well guess what? So is the codec used in DMR, and P25.

The OTA protocol for all three is published, and all are being used on the ham bands. I like what I see with DMR, linking the TRBO repeaters is simple, and there are atleast half a dozen companies making tier 2 subscriber equipment now, all of which, for amateur radio are usable on networks like DMR-MARC ect.

As the VP for my club, I am slowly pushing to put up a DMR repeater and to have it linked to DMR-MARC, or some other IP linked network. Sadly we have to upgrade our Internet connection as we only upload at approx 750 KB/s. being in Canada, and not directly in the city, we are having to look at a P2P microwave link. At our main repeater site we have a complete D-Star stack, and a separate analog repeater system that has echo link and IRLP, plus our club station has 4 PCs that are online.

Once Internet is solved, I hope to put up the first DMR repeater in Alberta at our main repeater site, and then at an out of town site put up a second DMR repeater and have UHF DMR coverage from +/- 50km north of Edmonton, to around Reddeer.

My hope and vision is that other groups will put up a couple of UHF DMR repeaters to finish covering HWY 2 from south of Reddeer to hopefully somewhere south of Calgary! Oh plans plans plans...

 

[kayn1n32008]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPad; CPU OS 6_1_3 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/536.26 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/6.0 Mobile/10B329 Safari/8536.25)

Also, the sound quality sucks. This, of course, is a matter of personal taste. When I first heard about D-Star, I imagined hearing noise-free audio with little or no compression artifacts. I was SO disappointed. The noise is gone, but the audio sounds robotic, and it is even sometime difficult to understand what the other person is saying. I find it worse than over modern digital cellular telephony. While the intent of cramming more DV+DD channels per bandwidth vs. analog modulation is met, it compromises the sound quality beyond reasonable. They did not need to go to this level of compression.

The sound sucks because it is a LOW BIT RATE CODEC. To have anything sounding close to natural you need much more bandwidth. If you look at the bandwidth of a cellular channel vs a D-Star channel you will realize that no LMR/amateur radio low bit rate codec will EVER sound any where near as good as modern cellular phones. You are comparing apples to oranges. A modern cellphone is well north of 10kb/s and D-Star is 4.8kb/s

 

[DaveNF2G]

The sound sucks because it is a LOW BIT RATE CODEC. To have anything sounding close to natural you need much more bandwidth. If you look at the bandwidth of a cellular channel vs a D-Star channel you will realize that no LMR/amateur radio low bit rate codec will EVER sound any where near as good as modern cellular phones. You are comparing apples to oranges. A modern cellphone is well north of 10kb/s and D-Star is 4.8kb/s

This is similar to the reason why P25 had such a poor start in the fire service. The early P25 radios were built using a half-rate VOCODER to save money. Unfortunately, they could not handle all of the sound frequencies from a fireground and process the mess so that the voice part stood out enough to understand.

Sometimes it is beneficial for hams to pay attention to what is happening outside the ham bands. It can save a lot of trial-and-error and repeating of other people's mistakes.

 

[kayn1n32008]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (BlackBerry; U; BlackBerry 9900; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.11+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/7.1.0.523 Mobile Safari/534.11+)

The sound sucks because it is a LOW BIT RATE CODEC. To have anything sounding close to natural you need much more bandwidth. If you look at the bandwidth of a cellular channel vs a D-Star channel you will realize that no LMR/amateur radio low bit rate codec will EVER sound any where near as good as modern cellular phones. You are comparing apples to oranges. A modern cellphone is well north of 10kb/s and D-Star is 4.8kb/s

This is similar to the reason why P25 had such a poor start in the fire service. The early P25 radios were built using a half-rate VOCODER to save money. Unfortunately, they could not handle all of the sound frequencies from a fireground and process the mess so that the voice part stood out enough to understand.

Sometimes it is beneficial for hams to pay attention to what is happening outside the ham bands. It can save a lot of trial-and-error and repeating of other people's mistakes.

I agree with you 100%

 

[gtaman]

You will not hear me on D-Star anytime soon. I don't see any compelling reason to add D-Star to my ham setup. Don't try to convince me, it will be a waste of time from your part.



It is high tech, for sure. It offers some distinct possibilities that no other mode of communication can offer. The internet gateway capability is a real plus; its Digital Data is a nice feature. In fact I admire those who test and implement this digital mode. I can appreciate the dedication and the amount of work involved.




But here are four reasons why I am not a D-Star user.



First and foremost, I have a big problem with the choice of a proprietary codec. This AMBE codec is the mouth and ears of the whole network, and hams are more or less stuck using this custom, closed piece of hardware. I have a problem with that. Why could it not use a DSP-based open voice coding protocol? There are good open-sourced protocols currently available. It would have allowed to develop the software to run on PC soundcards, just to name one advantage, Of course it was much easier to use a known-good and tested codec, the AMBE codec. OK, but that took the fun and a lot of experimenting away.



Also, the sound quality sucks. This, of course, is a matter of personal taste. When I first heard about D-Star, I imagined hearing noise-free audio with little or no compression artifacts. I was SO disappointed. The noise is gone, but the audio sounds robotic, and it is even sometime difficult to understand what the other person is saying. I find it worse than over modern digital cellular telephony. While the intent of cramming more DV+DD channels per bandwidth vs. analog modulation is met, it compromises the sound quality beyond reasonable. They did not need to go to this level of compression.



I also don't like the fact that only Icom is endorsing D-Star. Even though it is not one, it looks like a monopoly. Why is it that no other manufacturer is jumping on the band wagon?




Looking at the user cost, the D-Star-equipped gear is way too expensive. The handie-talkie (portable radio) cost is MUCH higher just because of this $20 codec chip and the additional R&D. Mobile radios are also much higher priced than the regular FM ones. D-Star has been around long enough to amortize the incremental R&D cost. Other than the pseudo-monopoly I am talking about above, I don't see how Icom can still justify this huge price difference. The price tag of the optional D-Star modules alone says it all... But the infrastructure cost is even more scandalous. Have you looked at the D-Star repeater cost? What proportion of the ham clubs can really afford such an investment?



So that's it. You don't have to agree with me. This is the nature of a blog.

Try Mototrbo. The DMR Marc net is very interesting on how it's designed.

 

[N8OHU]

Try Mototrbo. The DMR Marc net is very interesting on how it's designed.

If you say so; I know of an EU DMR repeater that unhooked from the network and at least one US DMR repeater that isn't on any of the networks and never will be.

 

[Hamradiostuffing]

DSTAR Cipher

ICOM radios are the only one that can demodulate the DSTAR signal means that the users maybe getting some ciphering advantages that may violate FCC rules. I am not aware of any scanners that can decode DSTAR signals. So I am wondering what ICOM I going to do about that

 

[N8OHU]

ICOM radios are the only one that can demodulate the DSTAR signal means that the users maybe getting some ciphering advantages that may violate FCC rules. I am not aware of any scanners that can decode DSTAR signals. So I am wondering what ICOM I going to do about that

All you need is a DVDongle (http://www.dvdongle.com) and software to participate on DPlus reflectors, which often have many repeaters connected 24/7. In addition, there are boards that can be connected to a computer and any brand mobile radio that supports 9k6 bps packet; there is software that will use the DVDongle and route the data stream to the radio to be sent the exact same way the Icom radios do it. You can even hook the audio output of your scanner to the computer and use the sound card version of the Digital Voice package found at the following location as a receiver; Open DV