Re: [Repeater-Builder] Making room - testing DSTAR
I take care of a pretty large EDACS system. There is a simulator built into my COM120B just for EDACS and LTR - even decodes pocsag paging. This is never used in setting up the base station/repeaters. The procedure uses simple deviation and receiver tests. Same with subscriber units - most (but certainly not all) problems can be caught in conventional mode. On the repeater receiver a sniff point on the discriminator output allows basic receiver testing. This does not simulate DSTAR but gets to a go/no go point. Kind of like the first DPL - I had to buy an aftermarket board and wire it to my CE50 service monitor - would encode and if the light went out on receive - would decode as well. I doubt any manufacturer will make a test set for a low volume product because there are not enough folks wanting to pay for a DSTAR tester. Next problem - if the thing is broke - I am not gonna go probing around surface mount chips with my simpson and weller - better to box and ship. Anyhow that another 2 cents - might make payroll if this keeps up... 73, Steve NU5D Mike Morris WA6ILQ wrote: And one more point - and it's a major one You can get P25 test equipment. Show me one piece of test equipment - an IFR, an HP, a General Dynamics (the folks that made some of Motorolas R-series of service monitors) or any other test equipment manufacturer that makes a dstar tester. Not even the manufacturer has one. So haw do you verify that a dstar system is actually working right?
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Making room - testing DSTAR
Gentle people, I've been sitting quietly on the sidelines, watching this thread progress. And I think that maybe it's time for me to jump in with my own opinions on digital vs. analog. (Whether it be P-25 or D-Star) Although I'm usually very open to newer technology, this digital (or better said, digitized) voice thing has me very concerned. As a public safety worker, I shudder to think that maybe some day I might need assistance and call for back-up, only to have my meaning misunderstood because a few syllables were dropped because of the CODEC. For example: how many people have told someone else on their cell phone that you sounded like you just went under water? (Especially with Nextel?) Or suddenly had your call discontinued - with no prior warning/indication? As ham radio operators, one of our missions is to pass critical traffic... we cannot fulfill that mission if the traffic cannot be properly received in the first place, whether it is because we cannot ourselves discern the message or it is obscured because of artificial means. My question is: why make it more difficult on ourselves to accomplish this mission by adding another layer of fallibility into the picture? Now in regard to the testing/repairing these D-Star systems... I didn't become a ham until later in life, although I've always had an interest in radio. But since I have, I continue to strive to be more than just an appliance operator... I need to be able to understand how it works, and if within my means, troubleshoot and/or repair it. Based on the earlier statement that the only way to test/repair these stations is to box and ship it back to the manufacturer, I feel we as Amateurs are taking a huge step backward, both for ourselves and for our hobby. I also feel we are doing the Amateur Radio Service itself a huge disservice, since one of the basic tenets of the Service itself is to Expan(d) the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts. [Part 97.1(d)] OK, flame-proof suit on... You may fire when ready, Gridley! 73 de Mark - N9WYS -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of Steve S. Bosshard (NU5D) Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 1:53 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Making room - testing DSTAR I take care of a pretty large EDACS system. There is a simulator built into my COM120B just for EDACS and LTR - even decodes pocsag paging. This is never used in setting up the base station/repeaters. The procedure uses simple deviation and receiver tests. Same with subscriber units - most (but certainly not all) problems can be caught in conventional mode. On the repeater receiver a sniff point on the discriminator output allows basic receiver testing. This does not simulate DSTAR but gets to a go/no go point. Kind of like the first DPL - I had to buy an aftermarket board and wire it to my CE50 service monitor - would encode and if the light went out on receive - would decode as well. I doubt any manufacturer will make a test set for a low volume product because there are not enough folks wanting to pay for a DSTAR tester. Next problem - if the thing is broke - I am not gonna go probing around surface mount chips with my simpson and weller - better to box and ship. Anyhow that another 2 cents - might make payroll if this keeps up... 73, Steve NU5D Mike Morris WA6ILQ wrote: And one more point - and it's a major one You can get P25 test equipment. Show me one piece of test equipment - an IFR, an HP, a General Dynamics (the folks that made some of Motorolas R-series of service monitors) or any other test equipment manufacturer that makes a dstar tester. Not even the manufacturer has one. So haw do you verify that a dstar system is actually working right? Yahoo! Groups Links
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Making room - testing DSTAR
JUst like CW. I still use it and love it! I still use analog. When everyone goes digital, I will still use CW and analog! Corey N3FE On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, n9wys wrote: Gentle people, I've been sitting quietly on the sidelines, watching this thread progress. And I think that maybe it's time for me to jump in with my own opinions on digital vs. analog. (Whether it be P-25 or D-Star) Although I'm usually very open to newer technology, this digital (or better said, digitized) voice thing has me very concerned. As a public safety worker, I shudder to think that maybe some day I might need assistance and call for back-up, only to have my meaning misunderstood because a few syllables were dropped because of the CODEC. For example: how many people have told someone else on their cell phone that you sounded like you just went under water? (Especially with Nextel?) Or suddenly had your call discontinued - with no prior warning/indication? As ham radio operators, one of our missions is to pass critical traffic... we cannot fulfill that mission if the traffic cannot be properly received in the first place, whether it is because we cannot ourselves discern the message or it is obscured because of artificial means. My question is: why make it more difficult on ourselves to accomplish this mission by adding another layer of fallibility into the picture? Now in regard to the testing/repairing these D-Star systems... I didn't become a ham until later in life, although I've always had an interest in radio. But since I have, I continue to strive to be more than just an appliance operator... I need to be able to understand how it works, and if within my means, troubleshoot and/or repair it. Based on the earlier statement that the only way to test/repair these stations is to box and ship it back to the manufacturer, I feel we as Amateurs are taking a huge step backward, both for ourselves and for our hobby. I also feel we are doing the Amateur Radio Service itself a huge disservice, since one of the basic tenets of the Service itself is to Expan(d) the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts. [Part 97.1(d)] OK, flame-proof suit on... You may fire when ready, Gridley! 73 de Mark - N9WYS -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of Steve S. Bosshard (NU5D) Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 1:53 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Making room - testing DSTAR I take care of a pretty large EDACS system. There is a simulator built into my COM120B just for EDACS and LTR - even decodes pocsag paging. This is never used in setting up the base station/repeaters. The procedure uses simple deviation and receiver tests. Same with subscriber units - most (but certainly not all) problems can be caught in conventional mode. On the repeater receiver a sniff point on the discriminator output allows basic receiver testing. This does not simulate DSTAR but gets to a go/no go point. Kind of like the first DPL - I had to buy an aftermarket board and wire it to my CE50 service monitor - would encode and if the light went out on receive - would decode as well. I doubt any manufacturer will make a test set for a low volume product because there are not enough folks wanting to pay for a DSTAR tester. Next problem - if the thing is broke - I am not gonna go probing around surface mount chips with my simpson and weller - better to box and ship. Anyhow that another 2 cents - might make payroll if this keeps up... 73, Steve NU5D Mike Morris WA6ILQ wrote: And one more point - and it's a major one You can get P25 test equipment. Show me one piece of test equipment - an IFR, an HP, a General Dynamics (the folks that made some of Motorolas R-series of service monitors) or any other test equipment manufacturer that makes a dstar tester. Not even the manufacturer has one. So haw do you verify that a dstar system is actually working right? Yahoo! Groups Links -- This message was scanned by ESVA and is believed to be clean. Click here to report this message as spam. http://simba.repeater.net/cgi-bin/learn-msg.cgi?id=C3D1927EE1.B78AA -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by repeater.net, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by repeater.net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Making room - testing DSTAR
No flames here, Mark, Maybe we should have stuck with straight keys - those bugs might obscure transmissions - maybe a 10 wpm speed limit. But no, folks added microphones and heising coils. Next thing the cans went to the sideline and there were loudspeakers, then Central Electronics with the multiphase exciter, and here comes sideband and warbulators2M and 6M AM gave way to fm - point being this should be progress - just as digital has surpassed almost every analog strong hold. Your telephone network has used PCM digital mux since the days of N Carrier went away - remember LD calls with cross talk in the back ground - gone. Digitized voice is in its infancy in ham radio, but I do believe with continued development it will continue to gain acceptance. I am not so big on critical traffic on ham radio - that is what public safety networks are for. We as hams provide comms for events like marathons, parades, etc, and during disasters, augment failed and downed public systems. Critical traffic is not intended to be hams mainstay. - kind of off topic for repeater builders, though. As for serviceability I have been a bench and field tech since 1972, when selenium rectifiers stunk, and tuned lines were king. We could actually repair radios then. Today, unless you have hot air soldering / desoldering stations and a microscope, I defy the average tech to get into board level repair - has nothing to do with digital, or smarts, or education and everything to do with automated manufacture and unbelievable reliability. It was unusual to see a tube radio in a butane truck go 6 months without some kind of failure. Now it's unusual for a modern radio not to outlast several butane trucks - things have changed. Our technology has changed too - the diddle stick is replaced with digital pots and firmware upgrades - flash new data and go. The really sad thing is my profession is also fast disappearing - 2 Way Radio Shops are turning into dinosaurs - we still change mics and volume controls and do minor repairs - but most major fixes go to a depot because who buys several thousand $$$ in custom repair and testing fixtures to change a 128 pin IC that cost $20 and fails in 3 out of every 500 radios in the first 2 years ??? So, no flames my friend - I too don't like all the change taking place but like a wise friend once said a bend in the road is not the end of the road, unless you fail to turn. 73, Steve NU5D n9wys wrote: Gentle people, Although I'm usually very open to newer technology, this digital (or better said, digitized) voice thing has me very concerned. As a public safety worker, I shudder to think that maybe some day I might need assistance and call for back-up, only to have my meaning misunderstood because a few As ham radio operators, one of our missions is to pass critical traffic... Now in regard to the testing/repairing these D-Star systems... I didn't become a ham until later in life, although I've always had an interest in radio. But since I have, I continue to strive to be more than just an appliance operator... I need to be able to understand how it works, and if within my means, troubleshoot and/or repair it. Based on the earlier statement that the only way to test/repair these stations is to box and ship it back to the manufacturer, I feel we as Amateurs are taking a huge step backward, both for ourselves and for our hobby. 73 de Mark - N9WYS
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Making room - testing DSTAR
And no burns received. ;-) Like I said in my first post - I usually am *very* open to newer technologies... in fact, I'm a big user/proponent of the digital modes (especially PSK31) on HF. You can usually find me on 20 or 30 PSK - when I can find the time. I just think this one (digitized voice) was either not thought-through properly prior to deployment, or was ram-rodded down some people's throats. Kinda like, Damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead!! In all reality Steve, I do certainly hope they overcome some of the issues I see daily on my public safety agency's network with what I refer to as digital artifacts - the squeek-squawk-fart lost voice thing I referred to. I see it MUCH more on the Motorola systems than I do on the EDACS systems - and I choke to say this, because I've been a *big* Motorola fan for many years. I haven't personally played around with any of the D-Star systems/radios... yet. Who knows, maybe 10 years from now we'll be calling D-Star old technology too. Yep - old habits die hard. Hehehehe 73 de Mark - N9WYS -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of Steve S. Bosshard (NU5D) No flames here, Mark, Maybe we should have stuck with straight keys - those bugs might obscure transmissions - maybe a 10 wpm speed limit. But no, folks added microphones and heising coils. Next thing the cans went to the sideline and there were loudspeakers, then Central Electronics with the multiphase exciter, and here comes sideband and warbulators2M and 6M AM gave way to fm - point being this should be progress - just as digital has surpassed almost every analog strong hold. Your telephone network has used PCM digital mux since the days of N Carrier went away - remember LD calls with cross talk in the back ground - gone. Digitized voice is in its infancy in ham radio, but I do believe with continued development it will continue to gain acceptance. I am not so big on critical traffic on ham radio - that is what public safety networks are for. We as hams provide comms for events like marathons, parades, etc, and during disasters, augment failed and downed public systems. Critical traffic is not intended to be hams mainstay. - kind of off topic for repeater builders, though. As for serviceability I have been a bench and field tech since 1972, when selenium rectifiers stunk, and tuned lines were king. We could actually repair radios then. Today, unless you have hot air soldering / desoldering stations and a microscope, I defy the average tech to get into board level repair - has nothing to do with digital, or smarts, or education and everything to do with automated manufacture and unbelievable reliability. It was unusual to see a tube radio in a butane truck go 6 months without some kind of failure. Now it's unusual for a modern radio not to outlast several butane trucks - things have changed. Our technology has changed too - the diddle stick is replaced with digital pots and firmware upgrades - flash new data and go. The really sad thing is my profession is also fast disappearing - 2 Way Radio Shops are turning into dinosaurs - we still change mics and volume controls and do minor repairs - but most major fixes go to a depot because who buys several thousand $$$ in custom repair and testing fixtures to change a 128 pin IC that cost $20 and fails in 3 out of every 500 radios in the first 2 years ??? So, no flames my friend - I too don't like all the change taking place but like a wise friend once said a bend in the road is not the end of the road, unless you fail to turn. 73, Steve NU5D n9wys wrote: Gentle people, Although I'm usually very open to newer technology, this digital (or better said, digitized) voice thing has me very concerned. As a public safety worker, I shudder to think that maybe some day I might need assistance and call for back-up, only to have my meaning misunderstood because a few As ham radio operators, one of our missions is to pass critical traffic... Now in regard to the testing/repairing these D-Star systems... I didn't become a ham until later in life, although I've always had an interest in radio. But since I have, I continue to strive to be more than just an appliance operator... I need to be able to understand how it works, and if within my means, troubleshoot and/or repair it. Based on the earlier statement that the only way to test/repair these stations is to box and ship it back to the manufacturer, I feel we as Amateurs are taking a huge step backward, both for ourselves and for our hobby. 73 de Mark - N9WYS Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Making room - testing DSTAR
I have a slightly different take on the matter. If say 2% (ridiculously high figure at this time) of the people can communicate with D-STAR or P25 or some other narrowband mode, and 98% of the people cannot, in an emergency you have to cater to the least common demoninator. In this case, that is NBFM. It has been proven time and again that the current systems hams use can withstand devistation that has trashed virtually (if not literally) every other PS system out there except for other NBFM systems. Do we REALLY want to follow those whose decisions have failed? When the ham radio network is as fragile as those other systems, we will be as useless as the radios that don't work anymore because the infrastructure is gone. Don't throw away the ace up your sleeve. NBFM is 100% interoperable. NBFM is in widespread use - almost exclusively. Everyone has the capability of NBFM. D-STAR/P25 is not compatible with NBFM for communications. Why do we need a 2:1 increase of repeaters when so many repeaters are silent most of the day? If D-STAR is the future, why is it you cannot convince ANYONE to switch their repeater from NBFM to D-STAR? This has been proven in California - nobody wants to switch - NOBODY! That is why D-STAR repeaters are setting up shop in non-repeater band segments. Nobody is buying the argument that they are the future. Joe M. n9wys wrote: Gentle people, I've been sitting quietly on the sidelines, watching this thread progress. And I think that maybe it's time for me to jump in with my own opinions on digital vs. analog. (Whether it be P-25 or D-Star) Although I'm usually very open to newer technology, this digital (or better said, digitized) voice thing has me very concerned. As a public safety worker, I shudder to think that maybe some day I might need assistance and call for back-up, only to have my meaning misunderstood because a few syllables were dropped because of the CODEC. For example: how many people have told someone else on their cell phone that you sounded like you just went under water? (Especially with Nextel?) Or suddenly had your call discontinued - with no prior warning/indication? As ham radio operators, one of our missions is to pass critical traffic... we cannot fulfill that mission if the traffic cannot be properly received in the first place, whether it is because we cannot ourselves discern the message or it is obscured because of artificial means. My question is: why make it more difficult on ourselves to accomplish this mission by adding another layer of fallibility into the picture? Now in regard to the testing/repairing these D-Star systems... I didn't become a ham until later in life, although I've always had an interest in radio. But since I have, I continue to strive to be more than just an appliance operator... I need to be able to understand how it works, and if within my means, troubleshoot and/or repair it. Based on the earlier statement that the only way to test/repair these stations is to box and ship it back to the manufacturer, I feel we as Amateurs are taking a huge step backward, both for ourselves and for our hobby. I also feel we are doing the Amateur Radio Service itself a huge disservice, since one of the basic tenets of the Service itself is to Expan(d) the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts. [Part 97.1(d)] OK, flame-proof suit on... You may fire when ready, Gridley! 73 de Mark - N9WYS -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of Steve S. Bosshard (NU5D) Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 1:53 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Making room - testing DSTAR I take care of a pretty large EDACS system. There is a simulator built into my COM120B just for EDACS and LTR - even decodes pocsag paging. This is never used in setting up the base station/repeaters. The procedure uses simple deviation and receiver tests. Same with subscriber units - most (but certainly not all) problems can be caught in conventional mode. On the repeater receiver a sniff point on the discriminator output allows basic receiver testing. This does not simulate DSTAR but gets to a go/no go point. Kind of like the first DPL - I had to buy an aftermarket board and wire it to my CE50 service monitor - would encode and if the light went out on receive - would decode as well. I doubt any manufacturer will make a test set for a low volume product because there are not enough folks wanting to pay for a DSTAR tester. Next problem - if the thing is broke - I am not gonna go probing around surface mount chips with my simpson and weller - better to box and ship. Anyhow that another 2 cents - might make payroll if this keeps up... 73, Steve NU5D Mike Morris WA6ILQ wrote: And one more point - and it's a major one You can get P25
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Making room - testing DSTAR
you have my vote 100% agreement KB2SSE Ken On Thu, 2007-09-20 at 14:56 -0500, n9wys wrote: Gentle people, I've been sitting quietly on the sidelines, watching this thread progress. And I think that maybe it's time for me to jump in with my own opinions on digital vs. analog. (Whether it be P-25 or D-Star) Although I'm usually very open to newer technology, this digital (or better said, digitized) voice thing has me very concerned. As a public safety worker, I shudder to think that maybe some day I might need assistance and call for back-up, only to have my meaning misunderstood because a few syllables were dropped because of the CODEC. For example: how many people have told someone else on their cell phone that you sounded like you just went under water? (Especially with Nextel?) Or suddenly had your call discontinued - with no prior warning/indication? As ham radio operators, one of our missions is to pass critical traffic... we cannot fulfill that mission if the traffic cannot be properly received in the first place, whether it is because we cannot ourselves discern the message or it is obscured because of artificial means. My question is: why make it more difficult on ourselves to accomplish this mission by adding another layer of fallibility into the picture? Now in regard to the testing/repairing these D-Star systems... I didn't become a ham until later in life, although I've always had an interest in radio. But since I have, I continue to strive to be more than just an appliance operator... I need to be able to understand how it works, and if within my means, troubleshoot and/or repair it. Based on the earlier statement that the only way to test/repair these stations is to box and ship it back to the manufacturer, I feel we as Amateurs are taking a huge step backward, both for ourselves and for our hobby. I also feel we are doing the Amateur Radio Service itself a huge disservice, since one of the basic tenets of the Service itself is to Expan(d) the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts. [Part 97.1(d)] OK, flame-proof suit on... You may fire when ready, Gridley! 73 de Mark - N9WYS -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of Steve S. Bosshard (NU5D) Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 1:53 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Making room - testing DSTAR I take care of a pretty large EDACS system. There is a simulator built into my COM120B just for EDACS and LTR - even decodes pocsag paging. This is never used in setting up the base station/repeaters. The procedure uses simple deviation and receiver tests. Same with subscriber units - most (but certainly not all) problems can be caught in conventional mode. On the repeater receiver a sniff point on the discriminator output allows basic receiver testing. This does not simulate DSTAR but gets to a go/no go point. Kind of like the first DPL - I had to buy an aftermarket board and wire it to my CE50 service monitor - would encode and if the light went out on receive - would decode as well. I doubt any manufacturer will make a test set for a low volume product because there are not enough folks wanting to pay for a DSTAR tester. Next problem - if the thing is broke - I am not gonna go probing around surface mount chips with my simpson and weller - better to box and ship. Anyhow that another 2 cents - might make payroll if this keeps up... 73, Steve NU5D Mike Morris WA6ILQ wrote: And one more point - and it's a major one You can get P25 test equipment. Show me one piece of test equipment - an IFR, an HP, a General Dynamics (the folks that made some of Motorolas R-series of service monitors) or any other test equipment manufacturer that makes a dstar tester. Not even the manufacturer has one. So haw do you verify that a dstar system is actually working right? Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Making room - testing DSTAR
* n9wys [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007 Sep 20 15:02 -0500]: Now in regard to the testing/repairing these D-Star systems... I didn't become a ham until later in life, although I've always had an interest in radio. But since I have, I continue to strive to be more than just an appliance operator... I need to be able to understand how it works, and if within my means, troubleshoot and/or repair it. Based on the earlier statement that the only way to test/repair these stations is to box and ship it back to the manufacturer, I feel we as Amateurs are taking a huge step backward, both for ourselves and for our hobby. Actually, not so much a step backward as outward, as we hams have so far avoided being held hostage by the manufacturers in that way. Sure, most any modern radio is likely to be factory repaired, but many independent shops also perform the work. If a future digital implementation were to use a codec under a license prevents divulging of its operational parameters, then ham radio is had. I also feel we are doing the Amateur Radio Service itself a huge disservice, since one of the basic tenets of the Service itself is to Expan(d) the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts. [Part 97.1(d)] I most assuredly agree with your conclusion. 73, de Nate -- Wireless | Amateur Radio Station N0NB | Successfully Microsoft Amateur radio exams; ham radio; Linux info @ | free since January 1998. http://www.qsl.net/n0nb/ | Debian, the choice of My Kawasaki KZ-650 SR @| a GNU generation! http://www.networksplus.net/n0nb/ | http://www.debian.org
