Ham Radio Digital Modes: Which Will Survive The Test of Time?

[N1XDS]

To me it seems like DMR and P25 are the best long term options, I wish P25 was more popular but I understand the cost issue and the fact that P25 is not marketed for anything Ham related. I get the sense a lot of ham guys don't care about anything that isn't sold by HRO or DX Engineering.

DMR has great networking capabilities and there are many more options for DMR radios (from garbage to high quality), so I understand the relative popularity.

I hope that sooner than later, someone comes out with an open source SDR ham radio like OP-25 (maybe using a physical design similar to the newer Harris Falcon III stuff), that people could modify and improve upon themselves, and that could support 4 or 5 different protocols. That would be amazing!

DMR and P25 are popular in some cities or countries around the world while the less used areas are learning DMR, P25, Fusion and DSTAR like my area it took a good while for a digital repeater to be installed and running. They had DSTAR yes but it mostly was connected to the local emergency communication center and nothing else. I've been around most DMR and P25 and enjoy it. I use my personal Motorola Ion Smart Radio for DMR to mostly listen on to the local DMR repeater to see what is going around the area.

Wouldn't mind a P25 repeater to be put up for testing to see how everyone likes it I think it will go far and be popular but everyone now is on DMR and analog here where I live. Not sure what everyone would think if someone put another cost effective digital mode in this area.

I know digital radios are expensive especially if someone wanted to purchase a Motorola brand radio and the software for it.

 

[Firekite]

The other reason is that Wires-X requires the use of the internet

Out of curiosity, what in the world does that have to do with anything? Any internet-based network requires the use of the internet.

 

[AK9R]

Interesting that nobody has mentioned M17.

M17 Project

M17 - Sounds like a rifle, but it's Codec2!

m17project.org

 

[popnokick]

Popular misconception is that a DMR repeater (or any DMR operating mode) REQUIRES an Internet connection to work. DMR does NOT require that a repeater be connected to the Internet and part of a DMR voice network. A DMR repeater will work fine... with either time slot... using talkgroup 9 / Local9. Even if a repeater IS connected to a DMR voice network and the network (Internet) goes down, TG 9 / Local 9 STILL WORKS in the RF coverage area / footprint for that repeater (and therefore retains its usefulness for comms within the coverage area).
In addition, DMR has a mode known as "DirectMode" which most of us would simply refer to as "DMR simplex". DirectMode uses TG 99 and is used for communication directly between radios, no repeater involved at all.

 

[ko6jw_2]

Out of curiosity, what in the world does that have to do with anything? Any internet-based network requires the use of the internet.

I thought I explained that.

Any system that is internet based is subject to failure in a disaster. Not suitable for EMCOMM.

 

[Firekite]

I thought I explained that.

Any system that is internet based is subject to failure in a disaster. Not suitable for EMCOMM.

What you didn’t explain is why you even brought it up or why you think it’s relevant. I mean, it’s neat that you can leverage internet connectivity to extend communications beyond RF range, even if you don’t bother planning ahead for redundancy and/or less fragility of the connection type, but if the focus is on the vaunted emcomm scenario, wouldn’t it be localized regardless? None of the digital modes require internet connectivity to work simplex or via repeaters. Repeaters do not require internet connectivity to be RF linked to each other. If you were concerned about a disaster with a larger footprint, and you did decide you wanted internet connectivity, great, there are multiple approaches to hardening against a localized failure depending on the area. If not, it’s just gravy when things are good.

 

[Firekite]

Interesting that nobody has mentioned M17.

M17 Project

M17 - Sounds like a rifle, but it's Codec2!

m17project.org

It was brought up in the video. The idea of a modern open-source codec is great, but achieving critical mass without a major shift in manufacturer support seems highly unlikely.

DMR was never intended for ham type usage, and the only reason it even has made inroads is that cheap Chinese radios could implement it for cheap, and people love cheap gear. P25 was also never designed for such use, but it has the opposite problem that it’s not cheap at all, and as such reaching critical mass is a tall order. Dstar and C4FM are certainly the easiest, with C4FM winning that contest easily, but even if C4FM requires no special hardware or licensing it seems like manufacturers treat the market like a zero-sum game and don’t want to “give an inch” with the exception of Kenwood’s D74 supporting Dstar. The idea of ICOM jumping on board the C4FM train seems terribly unlikely, for example.

It would be great if manufacturers got together and decided that just like RF they could come up with a single standardized digital mode that you could use no matter what manufacturer’s product you chose, even the CCRs. I don’t see that happening any time soon, as the investment in equipment would mean such a move would take a while, even if everyone became enthusiastic about it in general. And I’ve seen enough tribalism among hams that getting everyone on the same page for a single standard seems like a daunting prospect.

About the only thing I could see is if maybe the ARRL threw its weight behind it and managed to break from tradition to make an actually good, easy, quick process to get registered for internet-based linkage. It doesn’t seem like the kind of thing the ARRL is capable of and interested in doing.

I honestly don’t know if M17 is any good. But I like the idea and can dream of a better world where manufacturers stop trying to carve out and capture their own user base and instead realize that if they could serve all hams they’d all be better off. But their current mentality seems pretty entrenched, and they seem to have swallowed the hook of the sink cost fallacy pretty hard when it comes to their marketing and branding. There has been a vibrant market for many decades on FM that required no proprietary anything, but they seem to have forgotten that. Oh well.

 

[popnokick]

Any system that is internet based is subject to failure in a disaster. Not suitable for EMCOMM.

Probably more accurate to state "Any system that is internet dependent is subject to failure in a disaster." Digital radio systems are not inherently internet-dependent.... unless you build them to be such.

DMR was never intended for ham type usage

Does this mean that DMR (or other digital voice gear designed for commercial / public safety should not be used for ham radio... because it's not "easy" to do? When I got my first Amateur Radio license (1968) VHF / UHF FM was never intended for ham-type usage either. Motorola, GE, and other makers of public safety and land mobile radio equipment didn't make ham rigs. We modified and retuned commercial two-way radios to operate on the ham bands... mostly 2M FM. It took awhile before Drake, Clegg, Icom, and others began making purpose-built 2M FM gear for hams.
So what has driven the use of digital voice modes in ham radio? For many hams it's simply because they can... "build it and they will come". For commercial / public safety... and yes, some ham use... digital modes greatly reduce these types of events -
Trouble In Amateur Radio Paradise

 

[vagrant]

There are amateurs that have a difficult time programming a standard FM radio with frequencies, offset and tones.

There are amateurs that are simply unable to grasp what they need to do for a codeplug. They do not have the competency to understand it and subsequently configure it. DMR, P25 and the like were intended for industry/professional use where the configuration/programming is not performed by each end user. As we know, there are individuals who are specially trained to handle that in a professional setting because for the end user the radio is simply another tool they use allowing them to focus on their specialty.

I have not read anyone convey that it cannot, nor should not be used for amateur radio. The initially intended end user base were not amateurs, other than D-Star and Yaesu Fusion.

 

[mmckenna]

DMR, P25 and the like were intended for industry/professional use where the configuration/programming is not performed by each end user. As we know, there are individuals who are specially trained to handle that in a professional setting because for the end user the radio is simply another tool they use allowing them to focus on their specialty.

There was a time when amateurs lead the way. Radio technology was being developed by hams and hobbyists.
Now, it seems like industry has quickly advanced (relatively) and outpaced most amateur radio operators.

I fully agree with what you are saying. One of the issues that I see in ham radio is it's more about buying a radio and talking, not much more, little technical innovation going on. Simply grabbing a pre-made codeplug from a website and dumping it into the radio isn't the same.

Programming digital radios can be a real challenge, and for those that can barely master analog, I can see the roadblock.

 

[AK9R]

One of the issues that I see in ham radio is it's more about buying a radio and talking, not much more, little technical innovation going on.

Both now, and then, technical innovation by amateur radio operators is mostly done by a relatively small number of individuals. Joe Taylor K1JT, a Princeton physics professor and Nobel Prize laureate, has developed various weak signal data communications modes. Bob Bruninga WB4APR look packet TNCs that were becoming increasingly obsolete and developed an automatic position reporting system using packet radio. There's a small handful of amateur radio operators who are developing the AREDN data network system using mostly surplused Wi-Fi equipment. And, there's a small group that's working on the M17 digital voice protocol.

But, if you look at the "big deal" advancements like SSB, which was developed by Collins Radio and implemented by the U.S. Air Force, or FM, which was originally developed by Edwin Armstrong and then molded into a two-way voice communications protocol by GE, Motorola, and RCA, it's always the large corporations that do the dirty work only to be picked up later by amateur radio operators.

Bottom line, this idea of amateur radio operators contributing "to the advancement of the radio art" is archaic. Amateur radio operators only hang onto the idea because it's codified in §97.1(b) of our rules (at least, in the U.S.A.).

If amateur radio has a role in auxiliary communications in support of public safety, then it's the job of the amateur radio operators to find out what their served agencies need and then figure out how to best meet those needs. If that solution employs commercially-developed off-the-shelf equipment or protocols, so be it. The served agencies won't care how we do it, they'll just want it done. And, without internal politics and squabbling.

 

[WX4JCW]

Both now, and then, technical innovation by amateur radio operators is mostly done by a relatively small number of individuals. Joe Taylor K1JT, a Princeton physics professor and Nobel Prize laureate, has developed various weak signal data communications modes. Bob Bruninga WB4APR look packet TNCs that were becoming increasingly obsolete and developed an automatic position reporting system using packet radio. There's a small handful of amateur radio operators who are developing the AREDN data network system using mostly surplused Wi-Fi equipment. And, there's a small group that's working on the M17 digital voice protocol.

But, if you look at the "big deal" advancements like SSB, which was developed by Collins Radio and implemented by the U.S. Air Force, or FM, which was originally developed by Edwin Armstrong and then molded into a two-way voice communications protocol by GE, Motorola, and RCA, it's always the large corporations that do the dirty work only to be picked up later by amateur radio operators.

Bottom line, this idea of amateur radio operators contributing "to the advancement of the radio art" is archaic. Amateur radio operators only hang onto the idea because it's codified in §97.1(b) of our rules (at least, in the U.S.A.).

If amateur radio has a role in auxiliary communications in support of public safety, then it's the job of the amateur radio operators to find out what their served agencies need and then figure out how to best meet those needs. If that solution employs commercially-developed off-the-shelf equipment or protocols, so be it. The served agencies won't care how we do it, they'll just want it done. And, without internal politics and squabbling.

We are talking amateur radio, there are ALWAYS politics and squabbling

 

[Firekite]

Does this mean that DMR (or other digital voice gear designed for commercial / public safety should not be used for ham radio... because it's not "easy" to do?

They say there’s no such thing as a stupid question, but I think a laughably loaded one like that gets close.

No one said whatever modes can’t or even shouldn’t be use by amateurs. They’re just not the tools that lend themselves best to the job. The one and only reason DMR is anything more than a rare novelty in the ham world and the the term “codeplug” can be found in moths of YouTubers is that some CCR makers found it as another corner they could cut while still checking a box.

Both DMR and P25 have their advantages in the right circumstances, but again they were designed with certain requirements and use-cases in mind, and there’s not much overlap with amateur radio beyond that they’re all RF. Or at least not what amateur radio has been. Maybe I just lack vision

 

[fasteddy64]

So what is the big deal about digital voice anyway? To my ears it is unpleasant to listen to. It is an all or nothing mode. If your signal is good, great. If it isnt, no comms. For an infrequent user of FM repeaters or even simplex, why would I want a digital radio?

 

[vagrant]

@fasteddy64 - You are obviously not missing anything. Those of us that use it are enjoying it for what it is and the additional features those modes offer over analog. Many of us are fine with digital modes versus analog or nothing.

 

[mmckenna]

So what is the big deal about digital voice anyway? To my ears it is unpleasant to listen to. It is an all or nothing mode. If your signal is good, great. If it isnt, no comms. For an infrequent user of FM repeaters or even simplex, why would I want a digital radio?

Properly set up digital sounds pretty good. Key word is "properly". Unfortunately many hams and many professionals don't take the time to actually set up digital radios correctly.

It is 'all or nothing' out to the fringes. There's usually a point where the bit error rate gets high and it goes garbled, but it's usually not understandable. A good digital system will often give you a bit more coverage, and the point where the BER gets too high is usually a bit beyond where the analog falls apart to the point it's not understandable anyway.

As for why you'd want it, depends on what your use is. It does have some really nice benefits, but for most amateurs (me included) analog works well enough for my uses.

I do use digital at work, and it is -better- in our applications.

 

[fasteddy64]

Properly set up digital sounds pretty good. Key word is "properly". Unfortunately many hams and many professionals don't take the time to actually set up digital radios correctly.

It is 'all or nothing' out to the fringes. There's usually a point where the bit error rate gets high and it goes garbled, but it's usually not understandable. A good digital system will often give you a bit more coverage, and the point where the BER gets too high is usually a bit beyond where the analog falls apart to the point it's not understandable anyway.

As for why you'd want it, depends on what your use is. It does have some really nice benefits, but for most amateurs (me included) analog works well enough for my uses.

I do use digital at work, and it is -better- in our applications.

But what are those benefits? (I am not being sarcastic, I really want to know)

I used digital at work for years and it was fine, most of the time. On the fireground using SCBA, masks and in a high noise environment we still preferred analog.

 

[N4KVE]

So what is the big deal about digital voice anyway? To my ears it is unpleasant to listen to. It is an all or nothing mode. If your signal is good, great. If it isnt, no comms. For an infrequent user of FM repeaters or even simplex, why would I want a digital radio?

When your analog signal is so weak that the bacon frying noise is 10 times louder than the voice, the digital audio is still 100%. And for the brief moment the digital signal starts to go R2D2, the analog signal is long gone. Yes, it may sound a little robotic, but it’s an easy trade off.

 

[KC3ECJ]

So what is the big deal about digital voice anyway? To my ears it is unpleasant to listen to. It is an all or nothing mode. If your signal is good, great. If it isnt, no comms. For an infrequent user of FM repeaters or even simplex, why would I want a digital radio?

Well as far as using a radio at work, I prefer analog radios. DMR sounds like a robot with mashed potatoes in his mouth.

That aside, for hobby use, there seems to be some DMR radios that are amazing for analog FM, the digital side being a bonus.

 

[JASII]

I have to imagine that many years ago, even before Al Gore invented the internet, some hams were having a similar AM vs SSB discussion. "What's the big deal about single side band anyway?"