If you are looking for a non-Icom DStar Radio

Status
Not open for further replies.

beischel

Member
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
292
Location
Pierce Township, Ohio
Then take a look at what these folks have created. Taking orders now for a Q3 ship. Not just DStar.

Shows that DStar is not proprietary and not restricted to Icom. Anyone can create and sell DStar equipment.

NW Digital Radio
 

MTS2000des

5B2_BEE00 Czar
Joined
Jul 12, 2008
Messages
5,173
Location
Cobb County, GA Stadium Crime Zone
let's see...calculator time:

$395.00 for a 25 watt UHF ham band only radio
$119.95 for an "add-on" AMBE board to actually be able to TALK on said radio
Software? guess you add your own.

That's a grand total of (drumrool please) $514.95, not including shipping and taxes, etc.for a part 97 only radio on some half-butt format that sucks.

or I can spend less than $400 for a NEW LMR (read= not just ham but part 90 too) Vertex Standard E-Verge radio that uses the same cable I already have for programming (and every dealer I've spoken with is willing to give a free copy of the programming s/w) and get on the many TRBO and Hytera DMR repeaters- and still use it LEGALLY for my GMRS and part 90 analog stuff.

Vertex Standard | EVX-5300/5400

I'd love to buy two and experiment with making a cheap DMR repeater, a pair of EVX5300's would still be well under $800 NEW.

While I'm glad to see someone proposing to sell a non-Icom D-star radio, I don't see it as anything to get it excited about. Not like it's interoperable with anything else in the modern world.
 

beischel

Member
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
292
Location
Pierce Township, Ohio
Easy answer, then don't buy it. You obviously did not read what this radio is capable of and it's more than DStar.

If you don't have the money for innovation, then buy something cheaper. If your concern is merely price, then the China stuff like Wouxun, Baofeng, TYT and the rest may be more suitable for your budget.

The purpose of the post was really to show others can build DStar radios. Not really meant to start a discussion on the financial aspect of brand x versus brand y.
 

Jimru

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
1,305
Location
Henrico County, VA
Along the same lines by the OP, and to further the discussion; in the May issue of CQ, Wayne Yoshida (KH6WZ) has an article starting on page 48 that discusses inexpensive ways to get started in D-STAR.

Indeed it is not proprietary to ICOM, but instead is a protocol originated by the JARL.

I have not become involved yet, but I find D-STAR interesting.
 

beischel

Member
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
292
Location
Pierce Township, Ohio
Yes, the CQ article by Wayne is very good. Also goes into more detail on the NW Digital Group offering. So when compared against other radios, it's not an apples to apples comparison.

As stated by John Hays from NW Digital, the UDR56K-4 digital radio is a linux server that has open source software for the operating system, drivers, protocols and applications and is tightly integrated to a high performance and extensible radio platform. NW Digital will also provide market specific user interfaces to defined segments such as Emcomm, APRS and DStar.

So it is an incredibly flexible platform that can include DStar.

Looking forward to seeing them at Dayton.
 

Jimru

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
1,305
Location
Henrico County, VA
Now, pardon my ignorance (and I am sure this must have been covered elsewhere) but why aren't hams worldwide clamoring for a universal standard of digital VHF/UHF protocols?

It's kind of amazing to me after all this time that D-STAR has been pushed by Icom over these years (I'm speaking in general terms, now) and then Yaesu comes out with their OWN protocol, instead of joining Icom and spreading D-STAR around to more users.

I am sure that there is a lot that I am missing about this subject, but it seems to me that it only serves the manufacturers, not amateurs, for them (again, the manufacturers) to NOT collaborate on a standard.

I should be able to buy a digital capable VHF/UHF radio and have it be compatible with any other brand. We can do that with HF, there is a lot more flexibility it seems, with HF when it comes to digital modes (or protocols) than with VHF/UHF.

This is especially egregious when we hams underscore to various gov't agencies how "interoperable" our networks are, when it comes to emergency communications. If there isn't a standard soon, then I could see some real hiccups coming along in the Emcomm world, at least!

Whatcha all think?
 

MTS2000des

5B2_BEE00 Czar
Joined
Jul 12, 2008
Messages
5,173
Location
Cobb County, GA Stadium Crime Zone
all the more reason to go DMR, and say no thanks to the 2001 technology of yesteryear, aka D-star.

DMR is already here, it's affordable, from many vendors (Motorola, Hytera, Vertex Standard, etc), it's easily networkable and expandable, it offers the superior vocoder of AMBE-2 with FEC, the most efficient use of spectrum (2 slot TDMA), concurrent data/GPS/text messaging- all the stuff D-star can do- just more robust and not some single vendor walled garden.

the answer is already here, the first ham radio mfr to roll out a ham DMR radio will win the prize. Otherwise, spend the same money on an LMR rig and enjoy digital- remastered!
 

beischel

Member
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
292
Location
Pierce Township, Ohio
Now, pardon my ignorance (and I am sure this must have been covered elsewhere) but why aren't hams worldwide clamoring for a universal standard of digital VHF/UHF protocols?

It's kind of amazing to me after all this time that D-STAR has been pushed by Icom over these years (I'm speaking in general terms, now) and then Yaesu comes out with their OWN protocol, instead of joining Icom and spreading D-STAR around to more users.

I am sure that there is a lot that I am missing about this subject, but it seems to me that it only serves the manufacturers, not amateurs, for them (again, the manufacturers) to NOT collaborate on a standard.

I should be able to buy a digital capable VHF/UHF radio and have it be compatible with any other brand. We can do that with HF, there is a lot more flexibility it seems, with HF when it comes to digital modes (or protocols) than with VHF/UHF.

This is especially egregious when we hams underscore to various gov't agencies how "interoperable" our networks are, when it comes to emergency communications. If there isn't a standard soon, then I could see some real hiccups coming along in the Emcomm world, at least!

Whatcha all think?

There is no real standard, but DStar comes the closest. Reason, of all the digital methods out there (DStar, DMR, NXDN, P25, Alinco, Yaesu...and who knows what else), DStar is the ONLY one developed FOR the amateur radio market. DMR was developed for the commercial market, P25 for the public service market, NXDN for commercial, etc.

Now saying that DStar is "old" because it has been around for about 10 years is a stupid argument. Facts are it works and works well. Also, using that argument means that if another manufacturer develops yet another digital method, then that would make DMR, P25 and the rest obsolete. So the newest technology does not make the well established technologies "obsolete" as some bigots like to claim.

I've also heard that a few bigots say this or that method of digital sound "sucks" so a group of Cincinnati digital enthusiasts did a blind (to the ear) test of the audio quality of various digital methods (DMR, DStar, P25, NXDN, Alinco) and what we determined was there was no clear winner. Everyone had different preferences. We also determined from those test that the combination of radios being used had more effect on the perceived audio quality than the digital method. In other words, radios claimed to be water resistant or water proof had more bass and less highs on the audio. Larger speakers sounded better than smaller speakers. So depending on the radios used, the sound quality varied. I could make P25 sound great, or sound horrible depending on the selection of the radios.

Now I am not a radio retailer nor work for any radio manufacturer. I am in information technology. So I have no skin in this game like some people who post on these boards. I really don't care if it is TDMA, FDMA, CDMA...whatever. They all have strengths and weaknesses. You can argue this stuff to death and never change anyone's mind. The reality is that DStar is the only digital standard developed exclusively for the amateur market. People may not like it. They may not like Icom. They may have other preferences. Fine, that's what our service hobby is all about, choice and experimentation.

But out of all the digital methods, DStar has the largest world-wide infrastructure by far in amateur radio. I've heard those who say this and that is coming on strong, and over-taking this one or that one. Right, just haven't seen it and it will be a long time if and when it will catch up to DStar.

DStar like most all the rest of these technologies is an open standard. Like all the other digital technologies sans Codec2, they all use a proprietary Codec.

In fact DStar is so open many have created software applications (D-RATS, D-Chat, DPRS, etc.) and hardware (Hotspots, DVAP, DVDongle) around it. You don't see that same development with any of the other digital metholds. Now with NW Digital, folks are even creating DStar radios. Proof that it is an open standard.

Concerning your comments about manufacturers. The reason they will not go - at this time - with one standard is that it would create competition and competition lowers margins. And even with the competition in the commercial digital world (NXDN, DMR, P25), prices of the radios are still very high compared to traditional FM.

Also making a radio compatible with DStar means a manufacturer would have to admit that Icom had the superior technology for hams. They are just not going to do that.

Not to mention, manufacturers do not necessarily do things for the total benefit of the ham market. They are in business to make money. They are not benevolent non-profit corporations.

One final comment on the direction of manufacturers. Also look at what Yaesu did with Internet linking. The amateur world went with IRLP and Echolink. But what did Yaesu do? They went with their own WIRES thing. To this day there is little use of WIRES anywhere. It is still mostly IRLP and Echolink.

So when you choose a digital technology for ham radio, do you go with a Yaesu who has promoted and continues to promote dead technologies? Or do you go with Icom who has a technology widely used throughout the world with over 1,000 repeaters and still growing? Or do you go with a commercial vendor who has a few pockets of believers, but not many people to talk to?

Your decision. I went with the winner.
 
Last edited:

N8OHU

Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2012
Messages
620
DMR is already here, it's affordable, from many vendors (Motorola, Hytera, Vertex Standard, etc), it's easily networkable and expandable, it offers the superior vocoder of AMBE-2 with FEC, the most efficient use of spectrum (2 slot TDMA), concurrent data/GPS/text messaging- all the stuff D-star can do- just more robust and not some single vendor walled garden.

Can DMR do up to 128kbps Encapsulated Ethernet (aka D-Star Digital Data mode) or callsign routed Analog Audio? Can it allow users to unlink from a networked reflector and pick another one to link to so they can participate in a regional net, and if the user forgets to return the repeater to the original reflector unlink and reestablish the link to the original one? Can the repeaters from various DMR manufacturers be linked together? And can they do this with a single Ethernet connection to a switch, without requiring third party hardware and software to manage it all? D-Star can, because that's how it was designed to function.

Just because Icom is the only ham radio equipment manufacturer that has adopted D-Star doesn't mean that people can't get on that mode without buying an Icom D-Star radio; Northwest Digital Radio is just the first company to bring an actual D-Star compatible radio to market. There are a number of projects that I know of and have made reference to in the past that provide the non-Icom D-Star option if the buyer is willing to do a little work instead of simply taking the radio out of the box and turning it on.

dvrptr.net .:. The original DVRPTR V1 now from North America (the Original DV-RPTR board and AMBE module)
pipeMSG Handels UG (haftungsbeschränkt) (DV-RPTR V2_LT and V2 boards)
http://www.dvdongle.com (Internet Labs DV-Dongle)
http://www.dvapdongle.com (Internet Labs DVAP, which can be used with a non-Icom D-Star radio)
http://www.moencom.com (Starboard GMSK modem)

There are others, but I don't have the links handy at the moment.
 

Jimru

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
1,305
Location
Henrico County, VA
How is it that there appears to have been a different take on the approach to digital formats when it comes to the HF world?

Digital formats are not dependent as much, it seems, or at all, on a manufacturers preferences. I can buy any brand of HF rig (or home brew one) and then layer any number of digital formats on them.

That is one part of this whole thing I find interesting and a bit baffling.
 

Jimru

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
1,305
Location
Henrico County, VA
By the way, I certainly understand the slings and arrows of how competition works, and why one company will try to push one system over another, and that they are out there to make money, of course.

Having said that, it really seems like BAD business acumen for the other companies to NOT jump on the D-STAR bandwagon, because all of the folks that don't like Icom for whatever reason and would prefer their brand (I like Yaesu equipment myself) would then stick with their brand of choice if they wanted to go digital.

Somebody is asleep at the wheel, it seems.
 

k3cfc

Silent Key
Joined
Feb 27, 2011
Messages
715
Location
Beavertown Pa.
Easy answer, then don't buy it. You obviously did not read what this radio is capable of and it's more than DStar.

If you don't have the money for innovation, then buy something cheaper. If your concern is merely price, then the China stuff like Wouxun, Baofeng, TYT and the rest may be more suitable for your budget.

The purpose of the post was really to show others can build DStar radios. Not really meant to start a discussion on the financial aspect of brand x versus brand y.

There is always one. negative- negative- negative.

Thank you for the information looks promising.


K3CFC
 

MTS2000des

5B2_BEE00 Czar
Joined
Jul 12, 2008
Messages
5,173
Location
Cobb County, GA Stadium Crime Zone
There is no real standard, but DStar comes the closest. Reason, of all the digital methods out there (DStar, DMR, NXDN, P25, Alinco, Yaesu...and who knows what else), DStar is the ONLY one developed FOR the amateur radio market. DMR was developed for the commercial market, P25 for the public service market, NXDN for commercial, etc.

Now saying that DStar is "old" because it has been around for about 10 years is a stupid argument. Facts are it works and works well. Also, using that argument means that if another manufacturer develops yet another digital method, then that would make DMR, P25 and the rest obsolete. So the newest technology does not make the well established technologies "obsolete" as some bigots like to claim.

I've also heard that a few bigots say this or that method of digital sound "sucks" so a group of Cincinnati digital enthusiasts did a blind (to the ear) test of the audio quality of various digital methods (DMR, DStar, P25, NXDN, Alinco) and what we determined was there was no clear winner. Everyone had different preferences. We also determined from those test that the combination of radios being used had more effect on the perceived audio quality than the digital method. In other words, radios claimed to be water resistant or water proof had more bass and less highs on the audio. Larger speakers sounded better than smaller speakers. So depending on the radios used, the sound quality varied. I could make P25 sound great, or sound horrible depending on the selection of the radios.

.

So you base the viability of the entire format on some blind non-scientific audio tests?
Hardly worth anything other than the typical "well it sounds fine to me" argument.

Hard to actually TEST the technical parameters of D-star subscriber radios or infrastructure components when Aeroflex, Agilent, Motorola, Anritsu and no one else sell a suite of tools for performance testing. This isn't the case with P25, DMR, or NXDN. I can buy or rent a service monitor or network analyzer for any of those digital formats and actually do realtime waveform analysis, BER stats, etc.

Who makes a D-star test suite? Where can one obtain it? Exactly.

Of course you're gonna fire back with the typical "well we are just hams we can't afford that" rhetoric.

D-star may have been developed specifically for the Japanese Amateur Radio market, but it certainly hasn't been widely adopted by the other major players, hence why you have yet to see a Yaesu (they actually spell out quite frankly in this white paper they will NEVER meddle with D-Star: http://www.yaesu.com/downloadFile.c...uide_E[1].pdf&FileContentType=application/pdf ), Kenwood (other than the rebadged ID-800 sold in the EU), or Alinco radio.

Sure, you can build your own- for how much?

And tell us how much it will cost to implement the 128K data feature?

Exactly. When you add it up, D-star falls way short in performance (no FEC), cost factor, and WOW factor. At the end of the day, it's just another proprietary product pushed by a single vendor like Motorola did with their original VSELP Astro digital portfolio in the early 1990's.
 

beischel

Member
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
292
Location
Pierce Township, Ohio
So you base the viability of the entire format on some blind non-scientific audio tests?
Hardly worth anything other than the typical "well it sounds fine to me" argument.

Hard to actually TEST the technical parameters of D-star subscriber radios or infrastructure components when Aeroflex, Agilent, Motorola, Anritsu and no one else sell a suite of tools for performance testing. This isn't the case with P25, DMR, or NXDN. I can buy or rent a service monitor or network analyzer for any of those digital formats and actually do realtime waveform analysis, BER stats, etc.

Who makes a D-star test suite? Where can one obtain it? Exactly.

Of course you're gonna fire back with the typical "well we are just hams we can't afford that" rhetoric.

D-star may have been developed specifically for the Japanese Amateur Radio market, but it certainly hasn't been widely adopted by the other major players, hence why you have yet to see a Yaesu (they actually spell out quite frankly in this white paper they will NEVER meddle with D-Star: http://www.yaesu.com/downloadFile.c...uide_E[1].pdf&FileContentType=application/pdf ), Kenwood (other than the rebadged ID-800 sold in the EU), or Alinco radio.

Sure, you can build your own- for how much?

And tell us how much it will cost to implement the 128K data feature?

Exactly. When you add it up, D-star falls way short in performance (no FEC), cost factor, and WOW factor. At the end of the day, it's just another proprietary product pushed by a single vendor like Motorola did with their original VSELP Astro digital portfolio in the early 1990's.

There are two ways to look at any technology. From the theoretical and the practical standpoint. Most hams like to look at the theoretical in order to educate themselves and to enter into endless debates like this one.

But when hams operate, they are most concerned about the practical performance. DStar works and it works very well as demonstrated by the huge number of hams using it and very happy with it.

The audio tests we performed were practical tests that dealt with those people who claim DStar or any other digital format like DMR, NXDN, P25 - audio "sucks." Or those who like to carry on these continued endless religious arguments of "my digital format sounds better than yours."

I really don't care about DStar test equipment or any DStar, NXDN, DMR, P25 theoretical or technical tests. The point is moot. I like many others like the way it works and are very happy with the way it works, so in the end we don't care if one format has better test equipment than the other. Or one has equipment and the other doesn't it. I don't need it. I don't want it. If you like messing with it and conducting tests, good for you. Have fun.

There is one analogy we can use to compare. The analysis and buying of automobiles. There are numerous publications that evaluate cars and publish the results. Using your suggested argument, buyers should only buy those cars deemed superior from a tested technical standpoint. But that does not happen because from a practical standpoint, some cars are more preferred by buyers than the ones judged superior technically.

So it goes with radios. You can show all the analysis you want on DMR vs. DStar. But for a majority of hams, DStar is preferred.

Again, our practical tests showed that who likes what format is a function of personal preference and the type, model, etc. of the radios being used in the tests.

Where you show your obvious bias is that you infer DStar is proprietary. It is not as DStar is an open standard. Period. End of story. The Codec is proprietary just like almost every other digital method. At least one other company is making a DStar radio now. Many have created all sorts of creative and valued hardware and software around the DStar format.

Feel free to go your way, and we'll go our way but the bashing of one format to promote your bias does not make people even want to try yours. If anything it demonstrates that maybe yours is not all that great if you have to tear down mine to make yours more attractive.
 

AK9R

Lead Wiki Manager and almost an Awesome Moderator
Super Moderator
Joined
Jul 18, 2004
Messages
9,290
Location
Central Indiana
I really don't care about DStar test equipment or any DStar, NXDN, DMR, P25 theoretical or technical tests. The point is moot...Or one has equipment and the other doesn't it. I don't need it.
No responsible communications system operator or service tech would put a system on the air without testing it. Power output, deviation, spectral purity, receiver sensitivity and selectivity, etc., all need to be tested. This is especially true at crowded sites.

Where you show your obvious bias is that you infer DStar is proprietary. It is not as DStar is an open standard.
  • Isn't the name D-STAR a registered trademark belonging to Icom?
  • Aren't parts of the gateway software are proprietary to Icom?
 

N8OHU

Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2012
Messages
620
No responsible communications system operator or service tech would put a system on the air without testing it. Power output, deviation, spectral purity, receiver sensitivity and selectivity, etc., all need to be tested. This is especially true at crowded sites.

I can understand needing fancy gear for bench testing, and despite MTR2000des's protests to the contrary there is test gear for some features of D-Star precisely because there are other Digital Voice formats (BER is BER, no matter what modulation method is used), but does a ham installing a digital voice repeater really need anything different than what is used for an Analog repeater?


  • Isn't the name D-STAR a registered trademark belonging to Icom?
  • Aren't parts of the gateway software are proprietary to Icom?

Yes, in the same way that MotoTRBO is the Motorola Trademarked name for DMR, even though it is an openly published standard.
 

xmo

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
383
The D-Star supporters have some good points but saying that testing doesn't matter and that it is irrelevant because "D-Star works and it works well" is just a matter of having swilled the Icom koolaid.

The internet linking aspect of D-Star does certainly work well but the air interface - not so much. Anyone can prove it to themselves by simply disconnecting their radio's antenna while it's receiving a D-Star transmission - then reconnecting it to see how long it takes to re-sync.

With D-Star that's three to five seconds - with commercial formats it's just milliseconds. That means D-Star falls down badly in portable and mobile operation where signals fade and drop out. That's one reason why radio guys - RF guys with experience using systems where RF performance matters - are choosing anything but D-Star.

Actually with so many D-Star users connecting with dongles and access points - one might conclude that nobody has noticed D-Star's poor air interface performance because they aren't really on the radio - they're really just using D-Star as a last mile hook-up to a giant internet chat system. They might as well be using Bluetooth.

As far as that 128k data - is that supposed to be an example of amateur technology pushing the state of the art? It's actually a huge embarrassment!

Has anybody looked at the D-Star data efficiency vs. bandwidth required? The Utah VHF society says that the 128K data signals need to be on 500 kHz channel spacing! 500!

500 k of spectrum for 128 k data. For years Motorola has been selling its HPD format that puts 96k in a single 25kHz channel. So D-Star's high speed data needs almost 20 times as much spectrum as the commercial guys do.

Not an impressive product.
 

N8OHU

Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2012
Messages
620
Actually with so many D-Star users connecting with dongles and access points - one might conclude that nobody has noticed D-Star's poor air interface performance because they aren't really on the radio - they're really just using D-Star as a last mile hook-up to a giant internet chat system. They might as well be using Bluetooth.

You really think that it doesn't happen with Dongles and Access points too? It does, but that's mostly because the hardware doesn't have to conform to anything but Part 15 rules; I'm sure if there were more stringent requirements written into Part 97 things might be different, but that would have an impact on home-brewed equipment.


As far as that 128k data - is that supposed to be an example of amateur technology pushing the state of the art? It's actually a huge embarrassment!

Has anybody looked at the D-Star data efficiency vs. bandwidth required? The Utah VHF society says that the 128K data signals need to be on 500 kHz channel spacing! 500!

500 k of spectrum for 128 k data. For years Motorola has been selling its HPD format that puts 96k in a single 25kHz channel. So D-Star's high speed data needs almost 20 times as much spectrum as the commercial guys do.

Not an impressive product.

One, it's UP TO 128kbps at UP TO 150k bandwidth. Two, how many sites actually would be using the 1.2 GHz DD mode on a fairly constant basis like is done with the D-Star DV mode? I doubt enough of them exist to cause interference. Three, the radio that beischel pointed out to the folks here is for the 70 cm band which has a much lower maximum data bandwidth limit and it's designed accordingly, and has been in development for several years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top