2 ms·
Well, I listened to the samples, and I've done a whole lot of SSB on HF over the past 40 years. The codec is a huge achievement, but most SSB signals sound much
by dbcurtis 10y ago
Well, I listened to the samples, and I've done a whole lot of SSB on HF over the past 40 years. The codec is a huge achievement, but most SSB signals sound much more natural. I'm not ready to say the codec is equally intelligible, but it certainly is good.
I think a better metric is spectral power for equal intelligibility. Over an HF channel, given 2700 Hz bandwidth (nominal for SSB, although you can go narrower), and a given level of transmitter power, say 100W PEP on the SSB side, then take 100W PEP and whatever error-correcting modem you can come up with that fits in 2700 HZ on the digital side, what does it sound like? What is the intelligibility comparison?
There are a lot of factors in play here, BER, power level, channel fading, etc. It's not clear to me that a system that is good when it works but suffers total drop outs if it loses bits is better than an analog system that suffers noise floor variations but at least gives you something.
- nullc 10y agoThis signal with suitable FEC in a 2700Hz bandwidth should be copyable at a power level where you wouldn't be to tell that there was someone talking with SSB. There have been some examples showing that for older versions of the codec running at twice this rate. RE: fading, there isn't really any great way to fix that short of higher delays (longer FEC) or increasing bandwidth to be wider than the fade-- no other way around the signal not just being there.