[WriteLog] I hereby claim to be the world record holder for...

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

 > The big difference between the two designs is that
 > a) WriteLog accomplishes the sound-to-internet interface requiring
 > Windows PCs on both ends, while
 > b) RemoteRig requires a dedicated hardware device at both ends.> It 
is reasonable to guess that the dedicated hardware would never
> lose out, quality-wise, to the general purpose PC hardware. But at
> that point you can't guess you have to actually test and find out. 

The real difference will be in the available level of compression (to
handle bandwidth limited links) and *latency* in that compression.
The question is whether general purpose PCs can equal dedicated hardware
optimized to prioritize compression with low latency.

The other issue will be CW performance ... latency between paddle
closures and CW output as well as remote (from the rig) vs. local
(from the operator's PC/keyer) sidetone.  Significant sidetone delay
(remote source) makes sending manual CW difficult.  Excessive latency
(combined audio latency and paddle closure to RF output) makes "timing
a pile-up" an issue.

Some of the delays are within the control of the hardware/software
developer (processing/compression latency) while some are not (network
delays - aka. "ping time").

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV


On 2018-12-03 6:47 PM, Wayne, W5XD wrote:
> On 12/3/2018 1:13 PM, Tom Georgens wrote:
>> If Wayne can match the audio quality of the Remote Rig, this is the
>> best and cheapest solution.
> On this comparison between RemoteRig and WriteLog Remote Control, I'll
> say up front I do not know whether one design has a fundamental quality
> advantage over the other. I take this opportunity anyway to comment on
> the differences between the two architectures.
> 
> At the conceptual level, the two are trying to accomplish the same task
> for audio. To summarize: take RX audio at the remote station, digitize
> it, pack it into a standard internet-ready form, and get it through the
> internet interface at the remote (cable router, fiber, what-have-you),
> out onto the open internet. Reverse the process at the control site to
> make it audible to the operator. The mic audio for SSB is very similar.
> It differs only in details like flowing in the opposite direction, you
> never need more than one channel, etc.
> 
> The big difference between the two designs is that
> a)WriteLog accomplishes the sound-to-internet interface requiring
> Windows PCs on both ends, while
> b)RemoteRig requires a dedicated hardware device at both ends.
> It is reasonable to guess that the dedicated hardware would never lose
> out, quality-wise, to the general purpose PC hardware. But at that point
> you can't guess you have to actually test and find out.
> 
> But carefully consider the following details.
> 
> One advantage that the Remote Rig only appears to have, but might not,
> is that modern rigs digitize internally and WriteLog gets its input from
> such rigs over USB. For an example, WriteLog gets RX audio from a K3S
> as-digitized by the rig and there is no reason, without testing, to
> assume RemoteRig can do any better at digitizing. For such a rig any
> quality difference comes down to a question of whether a Windows PC can
> do a better job of getting the packet onto the internet (and undoing the
> process on the remote end.)
> 
> WriteLog being on the Windows PC has to compete with what that PC might
> otherwise think is a cool thing to be doing at the time (everyone's
> favorite: upgrading Windows 10 when you least expect!) But, being on the
> Windows PC, means certain mass market advantages might come into play:
> like a $150 musician's USB interface that happens to do exactly what the
> control site operator might need. It is reasonable to guess that such a
> mass market device would do at least as good a job with audio at the
> control site as the RemoteRig device does.
> 
> And, of course, there is always the problem of software quality. No
> matter how good the hardware is for either design, does WriteLog
> actually implement a transfer scheme that works in the real world as
> well as RemoteRig? Someone besides me has to answer that question.
> 
> And please note I have carefully limited my comments here to the quality
> of the audio transfer. If you're actually putting together a remoting
> solution, you have to consider cost, ease of implementation, who besides
> you might want to control your remote, etc. etc. etc.
> 
> Wayne, W5XD
> 
>