On Jun 7, 2010, at 9:50 AM, a cutler22 wrote:
I miss-read this tidbit -
Protocol forks are everpossible, and once the door for codec
experimentation. *However*, the one advantage Codec2 would have any
other competing protocol is time - it's the first on the scene and
it's not like writing an competitive-to-AMBE codec is child's play -
its damn hard!
Plus, competition in the DSTAR protocol field would invigorate
increased innovation among protocols, a "marketplace" would develop
and the best protocol would prevail.
With dual (or tri or quad etc) codec repeaters, any and all Codec2
offshoots would be implementable, however ICOM DSTAR radio users
wouldn't hear a lick of difference - it's all translated to and from
AMBE anyways...
-73, KE7HQY
Ummm -- you don't think profit driven code/vocoder development isn't
pushing for innovation? They are out there, in the current
marketplace, but so far AMBE is the best implementation for low bit
rate, over radio voice ... and don't forget D-STAR protocol is also
about the embedded data bits, not just getting voice from point A to
point B.
The "open codec" argument is a religious one, not a pragmatic one.
If a truly competitive/better vocoder were to emerge, the commercial
applications would outstrip any amateur use, and I doubt the "codec2"
group would let millions of dollars in licensing fees just go out the
door.
John D. Hays
Amateur Radio Station K7VE
PO Box 1223
Edmonds, WA 98020-1223 VOIP/SIP: [email protected]
Phone: 206-801-0820
801-790-0950
Email: [email protected]
