And zeal drives my point over the cliff - You're quite correct - a dedicated DSP chip is much more battery-friendly. So in terms of manufacturing costs, it would be similar to AMBE's usage of TI chips, and DVSI's market share gives it a bulk-cost advantage today... Hobbiest wise it would be free, because the imperviousness of extraordinarily powerful consumer CPUs in Smartphones, Netbooks etc. etc. In 5 years we'll have Dick Tracey watches that sync bluetooth to HTs...
-73, KE7HQY ________________________________ From: "Storer, Darren" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Mon, June 7, 2010 8:28:14 AM Subject: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Codec2 development - open source vocoder Hi Anthony, HQY> They'd implement the vocoder algorithm into their existing firmware on the onboard processor... . That sounds like another 30 MIPS or so, of soft DSP budget. The CPUs in D-Star HTs "eat" the batteries quickly enough already; does free Codec2 come with free batteries too? 73 de Darren G7LWT On 7 June 2010 15:40, a cutler22 <acutle...@yahoo. com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >Not to mention, any manufacturer who wanted to implement Codec2 *wouldn't >need* a pre-manufactured vocoder chip. They'd implement the vocoder algorithm >into their existing firmware on the onboard processor... . > > >-73 de Anthony, KE7HQY > > > ________________________________ From: a cutler22 <acutle...@yahoo. com> > >To: dstar_digital@ yahoogroups. com >Sent: Mon, June 7, 2010 > 7:33:42 AM >Subject: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Codec2 development - open source vocoder > > > > > > >> > >Reduce the $$$ barrier? The D-Star chip costs about $25. No one is going to be >able to manufacture an open source vocoder chip for less than that. > > > >It would be the ultimate in $$$ reduction - free! This would > *not* happen in HTs, being they're hardware driven. However, for base > stations and mobile/laptop setups, or even an HT/Smartphone combo it *would* > be possible to drop cost to free. >-73, KE7HQY > >
