Will analogue slowly die?

**tom_uk** · 30-06-12, 01:44 AM

We hear digital is the way forward and that's how it's going to be in the future. Does anyone think that analogue will eventually die? Or will both be continued to be used together?

**lynt123** · 30-06-12, 04:38 AM

Nice topic

Both will be arround for a long time. it is possible that digital will replace analog but that will be maybe 100 years in the future when all the analog radios stop working due to hardware failures.

For all we know there might be a new method of modulation that will replace both.

**Studio1** · 01-07-12, 09:48 AM

I think analog will always be around in some form.

Analog is the basis of all signals. Sound is an analog medium. We hear things using analog receptors.

If the day arrives when they can attach a USB port to the side of our head and connect it directly to our brain, then analog may disappear - but until then, I think it will continue to exist in some form.

For simple communication between two points, you don't actually NEED digital. In fact, there is no reason to have digital and in some cases digital is actually worse than analog - as the emergency services here have discovered.

Signals often don't propagate as well, and it can be a situation of having coms one moment and then nothing.
With analog, you get an indication of when the signal is getting weak, and even in difficult terrain a weak analog signal is often understandable where a digital signal simply does not get through.

There have been instances here of the emergency services switching back to their analog systems because the digital one just wouldn't perform, or they had major issues with it in terms of coverage etc.

The recent DAB trials here have proved disappointing. Poor coverage, no coverage (around buildings) and less than quality sound in comparison to analog FM.

**mtv** · 01-07-12, 11:52 AM

I agree.

Analogue comms will be around for a long time.

Whilst digital is great 'when it works' and can utilise a lot more data features, analogue systems are still retained as a redundancy by emergency services because digital cannot be relied upon 100%, just as no other form of comms can be.

Amateur (HAM) radio will continue to use analogue, as well as experiment with digital, being the nature of the hobby.

**Lucas_arts_182** · 02-07-12, 02:18 PM

FESA (W.A. Fire Services) have only recently introduced a brand new analog VHF HI band network, it also includes VHF Midband and UHF, Both analog conventional. but there has been rumour of the introduction of UHF P25 trunking (wich will basicly be the Career Fire & rescue guys using the police network)
There has been many complaints about the network being inadequate, but this falls down to user error alot of the time, people dont like change.

I was told the analog was chosen due to the ambient noise and range issues associated with bush/structure fire fighting.

but all this goes to show people are still choosing analog over the newer digital.

**tom_uk** · 03-07-12, 05:30 AM

That got me thinking about background noise. Say a police officer was being shot at, i know on the analogue the gunfire could be heard. I don't think that can be heard with digital?

**mtv** · 03-07-12, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by tom_uk

That got me thinking about background noise. Say a police officer was being shot at, i know on the analogue the gunfire could be heard. I don't think that can be heard with digital?

I think it would still be heard..... but I'm not going to test it.

Very sharp/fast noises would probably largely escape noise cancellation to some degree... perhaps suppressed but still audible.

**gordon_s1942** · 03-07-12, 12:13 PM

If I was being shot at, the last thing I would be pressing is the PTT button.

I am sure many members would appreciate the efforts of anyone who carries out an experiment to see if gunshots are audible during a gun battle with the Police on both modes and reports on their findings.

**leniboy** · 03-07-12, 12:42 PM

It's certainly an issue in the Snowy Mountains where weather and terrain will affect a digital signal. I guess you can get around part or most of the problem with repeaters when it comes to UHF/VHF comms but the cost would be significant. One has to wonder if going digital in this case is worth the effort.

**lynt123** · 04-07-12, 04:39 AM

One big advantage of ananlog is the ability to pick out what is being said even with a large amount of static or interfearance. Digital just cant do that even with error correction.

I remember reading that morse code was copyable even when other forms of cumunication were illegable.

**tom_uk** · 04-07-12, 06:46 AM

Originally Posted by lynt123

One big advantage of ananlog is the ability to pick out what is being said even with a large amount of static or interfearance. Digital just cant do that even with error correction.

I remember reading that morse code was copyable even when other forms of cumunication were illegable.

I was reading an article many years ago that if there was ever a world war 3, and everything went pear shaped with nuclear missiles morse code would be used.

**lynt123** · 05-07-12, 05:02 AM

Originally Posted by tom_uk

I was reading an article many years ago that if there was ever a world war 3, and everything went pear shaped with nuclear missiles morse code would be used.

probably true but this brings up the question will there be anyone to recieve it .

**mitaux8030** · 05-07-12, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by lynt123

I remember reading that morse code was copyable even when other forms of cumunication were illegable.

'Tis true. Picking out simple tones doing dits & dahs in the noise is far easier than trying to pick out the spoken word which is in comparison quite complex. Its only because our human brain is 'tuned' to the language we natively speak that we can work out what is being said in the presence of noise, static etc. And like anything, the more you do it, the better you get at it.

But there's things better than morse code now. Hams have been playing with digital modes (eg JT65 in WSJT suite) that can work at levels BELOW the noise floor, which absolutely stumps me. The mathematics says it works, seeing it in action proves it works, but still my brain just can't quite fully comprehend it actually functioning.

So digital can actually work better than analogue voice & the human brain's ability to understand it in the face of noise... but the throughput is only mere handful of characters every minute. Smart minds are no doubt at work developing coding methods for high bit rate signals (eg vocoded voice) that'll improve a receivers ability to deal with the errors introduced with weak signals / noise etc.

**lynt123** · 06-07-12, 05:18 AM

Thats the real issue, throughput. it only takes 1 second to send sos or say help. A system no matter how sophisiticated needs to have comaprable operation parameters. Also the simplicity of just keying a transmitter cant be beat. Modulating a signal is just about as easy.

**donk** · 06-07-12, 09:47 PM

Think there are some valid points here, however I see digital as moving forward, again depends on the end users. Yes p25, tetra, dmr have all had their problems, but analogue isn't without is problems either, especially from a management point of view.

I also say this because I would include mobile phones...world wide, look how many subscribers there are, how many networks etc, and its all digital. We all bitch now and then, but think how many subscribers there are and ask if that capacity and reliability would be there in analogue.

**donk** · 06-07-12, 09:57 PM

Umm and not forgetting our key less entry, wifi, Bluetooth, cordless phones, scada, rtk networks etc etc etc

**tom_uk** · 07-07-12, 01:42 AM

i take it most military radio is digital? or is analogue still used? Airband is still the way it was years ago with AM. Will that ever change?

**lynt123** · 07-07-12, 05:15 AM

Military systems are very sophisticated, most are digiltal with weird options and features. But every military organization maintains old analog systems.

**borisbadfinger** · 07-07-12, 08:57 AM

Originally Posted by tom_uk

i take it most military radio is digital? or is analogue still used? Airband is still the way it was years ago with AM. Will that ever change?

The main reason AirBand still uses AM analogue is to be able to hear emergency calls even at low receive levels without the capture effect of FM. Eg when on an existing communication they are likely to still hear a mayday call also, even if the mayday call is a weaker signal.
As far as I know the military are still using HF,VHF and UHF analogue at the moment for voice Comms.
We have installed a couple of DMR networks recently that have replaced analogue networks with good results. Fringe areas that analogue was unable to get into are now receiving digital. One thing the customer must be aware of is that, as some of these fringe areas now receive good signals they are just as likely to receive none at all in areas that they could previously receive analogue.

**borisbadfinger** · 07-07-12, 09:07 AM

Another issue that some customers cant get used to with digital, especially with transport companies that are always mobile, is the fact that one second you have a good strong clear signal and the next second nothing at all, compared to analogue where at least the signal would still be there at less strength.
This issue has caused us some ongoing problems, Eg. a bus is parked at a spot and the base has been trying to contact them or vice versa and nothing is received. So of course a fault is reported and when investigated nothing is found. As soon as the bus moves a couple of metres a full digital signal is received again.