Mooneer’s FreeDV Update – June 2024

This month, FreeDV was officially released, which contained the following bug fixes:

  • Remove TX attenuation and squelch tooltips. (PR #717)
  • Disable 800XA radio button when in RX Only mode. (PR #716)

Additional development work was performed after the release of This consisted of the following:

  • Rendering a green or orange line (depending on sync) on the Waterfall and Plot views to help indicate the frequency offset of the received signal.
  • Allowing the version tag (i.e. “-devel”) to be overridden during the build process.
  • Reworked the behavior of the Voice Keyer feature to make it easier to use with multiple voice keyer files.
  • Fixed bug preventing saving of the previously used path when playing back files.

ezDV also got the following changes:

  • Added support for reporting to PSK Reporter (similar to the existing support in freedv-gui).
  • Began work on Ethernet support for ezDV.

More information can be found in the commit history below:

(Note that all commit logs above were generated with the following command line:)

git log --author="member@email" --after "Month 1, 2024" --before "Month 31, 2024" --all > commit.log

David’s FreeDV Update – June 2024

This month I’ve been working on the DSP detail work required for a practical HF waveform based on RADAE. Not as interesting as the Machine Learning (ML) work, but something we need to grind through for a real world HF speech system.


Acquisition is where we determine (a) is a received signal present and (b) if so what is it’s frequency offset and where each frame of “data” starts (coarse timing). The general approach is to search for the pilot symbols at the start of each frame over a grid of time and frequency points. The problem is complicated by the presence of noise, multipath, and high power ML data symbols.

In my earlier FreeDV work I built some ad-hoc acquisition algorithms but this time I took a more mathematical approach. The problem with RADAE is that it operates at very low SNRs which makes acquisition using traditional DSP difficult. Due to the PAPR optimisation the RMS power of the ML data symbols is higher than the classical DSP pilot symbols used for acquisition. While reduced PAPR is in general a good thing, it complicates detection of the pilots.

So I needed a deep dive into the math behind acquisition to get an extra boost in performance. Anyway, the sums showed me two ways I can improve acquisition performance, and it seems to be working well in simulation down to reasonably low SNRs. I’m pretty sure we can do better with ML-based acquisition, but that’s a significant side-project that I’ll put in the “further work” basket for now.

Automated Tests

There has been a lot of RADAE code developed over the course of 2024, so much that I’m starting to lose track of it myself. So I’ve added a set of automated tests to make sure everything keeps working and help trap any bugs I might introduce as the code develops. It’s also a neat framework to guide future refactoring and a real time/C port.

Chirp SNR estimator

The April Over the Air (OTA) test campaign showed the need for a way to measure the SNR of off-air samples. It needs to work on HF multipath channels which tend to notch out various frequencies. After a few false starts, I’ve built a “chirp” based SNR estimator. At the start of a transmission, I send a few seconds of chirp signal that sweeps over a range of frequencies. The receiver script knows where this signal is and using a little math can come up with a good estimate of the actual channel SNR.

Chirp at the beginning of the spectrogram, followed by SSB, then RADAE. The chirp allows us to measure signal power across a range of frequencies, averaging out the effects of frequency selective fading.

As further work I’d also like to develop a way to measure delay spread, to help optimise the waveform to handle long distance paths.

Interesting Bugs

The previous round of OTA tests was in April. After thinking about the results I found some bugs in the waveform we tested.

I accidentally omitted the cyclic prefix in the waveform tested in April. The cyclic prefix protects us from intersymbol interference, so it “shouldn’t have worked” on HF channels. Exploring just why it worked (and worked rather well) is on the TODO list, and might explain the poor performance on DX channels (e.g Japan to Australia). Sometimes accidents lead to “light bulb” moments.

Another possible bug is the use of fixed timing estimate used for the entire 10 second sample (we don’t adjust timing after the initial estimate). The ionosphere is changing all the time, and the Tx DAC and Rx ADC sample clocks are also slightly different which means a timing estimate that varies over time. So a fixed timing estimate is a bad idea, and I was kind of lucky it worked on most of the samples we collected.

Recent Progress and OTA Low PAPR Tests

So I figure the last few months of work is probably enough for this round of development:

  • Two new low PAPR waveforms (750 and 1500Hz RF bandwidth)
  • Acquisition system improvements
  • Addressing some bugs from the April 2024 test campaign
  • Chirp based SNR measurement to calibrate our OTA tests

While there are many possibilities for further development, I don’t want to go too far down any R&D rabbit holes without checking against real world performance. So I’m preparing for some more stored file OTA tests, to see how we are performing against our stated goals of low and high SNR performance that is competitive with SSB.

Here are some initial samples (using a sample of my voice) of the 1500Hz low PAPR waveform (model17) over a 2000km path at 14.250 MHz, at a few watts transmit power:

Low SNR (0.5dB peak) SSB over 2000km path at 14.250 MHz
Low SNR (0.5dB peak) RADAE over 2000km path at 14.250 MHz
Low SNR spectrogram – significant “barber pole” fading can be seen on the RADAE sample

The SNR is measured from the chirp. The chirp signal has 0dB PAPR, so this is the SNR at the peak power of the SSB and RADAE signals. The RMS power and hence average SNR of the SSB signal would be about 6dB lower (-5.5dB), and the RADAE about 0.8dB lower (-0.3 dB). So with the same power amplifier, RADAE delivers about 5dB more power to the receiver than SSB.

An hour or so later I turned up the power to get a high SNR sample over the same 2000km path:

High SNR (18.5dB peak) SSB sample
High SNR (18.5dB peak) RADAE sample

While much easier to understand, even at high SNR there is quite a bit of background noise with SSB (this could possibly be improved with DSP noise reduction). However there is some “vocoder” distortion on the RADAE signal as well – it’s not totally clean. You actually have to listen fairly carefully to hear differences between the low and high SNR RADAE samples. This might mean we’ve biased the training towards “low SNR”, rather than “highest quality”. These results also suggests we can run 1.5W rather than 100W, for similar speech quality, as 10log10(100/1.5) = 18dB.

While performing these test I noticed a bunch of little things to look into:

  • A pop artifact in one of my samples that goes away when the input speech level changes. Suggests the ML is entering territory is hasn’t seen in training.
  • I’m not sure if my Tx power from my SSB radio is staying constant as intended with a low PAPR waveform – need to sample the actual Tx power and plot on the spec-an. I need to confirm all three signals are at the same peak power.
  • The high SNR RADAE speech quality isn’t consistent across samples, some speakers sound a bit better. This is subjective of course so needs a further look.

Tx Spurious

At high SNRs there is some out of band spurious Tx energy (e.g. from 2000 to 3000 Hz) in the in the PAPR optimised RADAE signal. We should remove this if possible. A naive approach would be to filter this at the RADAE Tx ouput. However from experience we know that a side effect of filtering will be to increase the PAPR that we have so carefully tried to reduce, hence reducing the SNR at the receiver. So while the filtering approach would be acceptable for a high SNR link on crowded bands, it would cost you a few dB at low SNRs. A better approach would be to include spurious reduction in the ML training, for example train the network to reduce the out of band energy or insert a filter in the training loop. Another interesting topic for further work!

Next Steps

Every time I put this technology over real radio channels I learn a lot and have a bunch more questions and tasks added to my TODO list. However I do feel it’s time to focus on building a real time system that we can test with real PTT conversations. Even a rudimentary system that has some teething problems will teach us a lot. We have several ML models we can try (e.g. high and low PAPR, 750 and 1500 Hz wide waveforms), and it’s quite easy to try others as our experience improves.

So I will continue working towards a real time implementation so we can get on the air and test this technology with real time PTT conversations. Some challenges ahead are (a) a state machine sync system that can acquire and determine when an over is complete (b) refactoring the code to run on modem frame size chunks rather than several seconds of samples (c) some way for anyone to run RADAE in real time (either in Python or a C port) with streaming audio (d) other chunks of DSP like tracking frequency, amplitude, and timing offsets as they evolve (e) a way to perform controlled tests and evaluate quality automatically – subjective reports and ad-hoc testing is not very reliable.

Mooneer’s FreeDV Update – May 2024

This month, a special demo version of freedv-gui was spun up that allowed the project to demo RADAE at Dayton Hamvention. In addition, functionality was added to allow the user to resize the “Msg” column in FreeDV Reporter and preserve the new size across executions.

ezDV also got the following changes:

  • Documentation/web UI updates to reflect the recent introduction of the Flex 8000 series radios.
  • Optimizations for Icom Wi-Fi support to reduce CPU usage.
  • Fixed a bug preventing ezDV from properly adjusting filters on Flex when in LSB mode.
  • Fixed a bug where ezDV transmitted the voice keyer one more time than configured.
  • Fixed a bug where ezDV was using the wrong underlying mode for FDVL mode on Flex.

More information can be found in the commit history below:

(Note that all commit logs above were generated with the following command line:)

git log --author="member@email" --after "Month 1, 2024" --before "Month 31, 2024" --all > commit.log

FreeDV at Dayton Hamvention

FreeDV once again was at Dayton Hamvention in Xenia, OH, where we shared a booth with the M17 project. At the booth, Mooneer Salem K6AQ and Mel Whitten K0PFX demoed the Radio Autoencoder efforts (using pre-generated audio) as well as the SM1000 and ezDV devices:

Display explaining the RADAE demo
FreeDV half of booth including SM1000 and ezDV

Additionally, Mooneer gave two presentations at Dayton. One presentation was related to the ezDV device as part of the TAPR Forum and another introduced FreeDV during the annual Digital Modes forum (unfortunately, technical issues prevented this one from properly being recorded).

All in all, it was another successful show. Hope to see you next year!

David’s FreeDV Update – May 2024

The last few months have been focused on building up the DSP code required to try the Radio Auto-encoder (RADAE) over the air. In order to answer the big question of “does it really work” as quickly as possible, I had to skim over many intriguing topics. So now that we have a qualified “yes” to the big question – I’ve returned to some Machine Learning (ML) R&D to explore a some intriguing ideas:

  • Reduction of the “latent dimension” and hence RF bandwidth of the RADAE signal.
  • Encouraging the network to train 2 dimensional constellations rather than 1D.
  • Training for low Peak to Average Power Ratio (PAPR) – a potential 6dB improvement.

To date RADAE has used a “latent dimension” of 80 symbols every 40ms, which are mapped to 20 OFDM carriers at 50 symbols/s, resulting in a RF bandwidth of 1000 Hz. I spent some time exploring how to to reduce this to dimension 40, i.e. a 10 carrier, 500 Hz bandwidth signal. This would result in more efficient use of spectrum. With fewer carriers our pilot based equalization work better as there would be more power per pilot symbol. Fewer carriers also helps reduce PAPR. On the negative side, classical communications theory predicts a narrower bandwidth signal will perform worse on HF channels, and may be less power efficient (e.g. BER performance of 8PSK versus QPSK).

The original RADAE design has a one dimensional bottleneck that limits the amplitude of real valued symbols to +/-1. Given additive noise, the network would always place constellation points at +/-1 in order to minimize the effect of noise. As the dimension reduced, distortion increased as there was nowhere in 1D space to place additional constellation points without being unduly affected by noise. I reasoned that encouraging the network to train two dimensional constellations would help. For example in classical digital systems, we can use an 8PSK constellation, each point is equal distance away from the origin. If the SNR is high enough, this can send more information per symbol than QPSK.

So I arranged the elements of the latent vector in complex number pairs (e.g. 20 complex valued symbols for a 40 element latent vector), and set up a two dimensional bottleneck that constrained the magnitude of the complex symbols trained by the network. This worked, I can now obtain good performance from a dimension 40 system. Curiously, the resulting constellations are circles, rather than discrete points.

Constellation of PSK symbols when trained with a 2D bottleneck on the symbol magnitude.

Also this month I developed a method for comparing ML models objectively. The method runs the training database through a trained model at a range of SNRs, and produces curves of model “loss against Eq/No” for the model (Eq is the energy of one PSK symbol). I feel there is a reasonable match between these curves and the subjective speech quality. Having an objective method of measuring a models performance lets me know if I’m on the right track with a ML model design without tedious listening tests.

Loss v Eq/No curves for 4 models. model05 (m5) is the control – this was used for the recent the OTA test campaign, and is a dim=80 1D bottleneck. Model 17 looks comparable (PAPR optimised 2D bottleneck), however m14 & m18 are not so great.
As above, but loss v C/No. This normalizes for the different symbol rates. Now m18 is dim=40, so only has half as many symbols to send across the channel. Given the same Tx power, we therefore have twice the energy per symbol. It now looks competitive to m5 and M17.

OK, so now we have an objective measure for comparing models, a way of training lower dimensional models, and some understanding of 2D constellations: i.e. how to train them, and what to expect from the 2D constellations developed by training.

Using these tools, I attempted to build a PAPR optimised ML model. I estimate a low PAPR waveform has the potential to provide a further 6dB improvement at the receiver compared to a classical DSP OFDM waveform – so this is definitely worth exploring. This requires a “time domain” 2D bottleneck that simulates the way a power amplifier saturates. Combining this with multipath training is tricky, and I have tried several different approaches. At the time of writing I believe I have a way forward with a hybrid time-frequency domain model, and am currently evaluating the results. The design uses OFDM and classical DSP for equalisation, and ML for PAPR optimisation, and achieves a PAPR of less than 1 dB.

Here are some samples that show the PAPR optimised waveform over a simulated multipath poor (MPP) fast fading channel. They both have the same “peak power to noise” P/No ratio. Imagine them both being transmitted from the same radio with 100W peak power, over the same (really bad) HF radio channel, to the same receiver.

Peter, VK5APR, using SSB at a P/No of 39dB (Rx SNR -2.4dB)
Peter, VK5APR, using RADAE model18 also at a P/No of 39dB (Rx SNR 3.4dB)

Note the difference in the receiver SNR. The “S” in S/N is the RMS power at the receiver, which is lower for SSB as the SSB PAPR is higher (around 6dB, after compression). The goal of most radio systems is to maximise the RMS power at the receiver. So with the same transmitter, we have achieved around 6dB higher SNR at the Rx by carefully minimising the PAPR of the RADAE waveform.

Here are the spectrograms, note the model18 dim 40 RADAE signal uses only about 750 Hz of RF bandwidth (500 Hz for the ML PSK symbols plus some bandwidth for OFDM overheads). The moth-eaten effect is the multipath channel wiping out chunks of the signal.

There are many other areas we could explore (e.g. ML based equalization), but as we don’t have infinite time, I’m choosing to time box the ML R&D before we lock in a V1.0 design, and proceed to real time implementation.

Next month I will round out the ML design work, address a few other bugs, and attempt to arrive at a RADAE design suitable for our first real time implementation.

The Right to Innovate in the HF Data Space

On the HF data front, I’ve been working with Simon DJ2LS to test and merge several libcodec2 PRs to support FreeDATA. This work has improved protocol efficiency and enabled Simon to “homebrew” his own custom OFDM waveforms. His first attempt at a new waveform has roughly doubled the highest data transfer speed of FreeDATA. Simon is working on a new FreeDATA release that includes these improvements. We also have a 16QAM prototype waveform under development, which in high SNR channels, will double the speed again.

One of the PRs supports custom configuration of the OFDM modem, for example you can plug in the number of carriers, symbol rate, and number of bits per frame at “init time” without writing any C code. Empowering Hams (and indeed anyone) to build their own HF data waveforms is important. This work “preserves the right to innovate” in the HF data space, a key value of the ARDC.

Mooneer’s FreeDV Update – April 2024

This month, freedv-gui got the following bug fixes and feature enhancements:

  • Resolved a memory leak in the FreeDV Reporter window.
  • Fixed an issue causing the GUI to prevent stopping with PTT input enabled.
  • Fixed broken links in the README file.
  • Added build logic to allow building the application without LPCNet.
  • Reverted previous fix for a delayed filtering bug and adopted an alternate solution.
  • Partially reverted audio device discovery optimization due to Windows-specific bug.
  • Released versions 1.9.9 and
  • Fixed display bug where 800XA radio button is still enabled in RX Only mode.
  • Fixed display bug causing tooltip to block squelch and TX Attenuation values.

ezDV also got the following changes:

  • Added additional debugging options in “make menuconfig”.
  • Fixed a bug where ezDV maintains a connection to FreeDV Reporter even after clearing the callsign and grid square.
  • Added support for Wi-Fi roaming.
  • Updated previous websocket task workaround due to an update to esp_websocket_client to only kill the task when ezDV is powering down.
  • Added initial logic for IPv6 support.
  • Added various memory and performance optimizations

More information can be found in the commit history below:

(Note that all commit logs above were generated with the following command line:)

git log --author="member@email" --after "Month 1, 2024" --before "Month 31, 2024" --all > commit.log

David’s FreeDV Update – April 2024

Breakfast on the Nullarbor Plain

This month I took a vacation, so less work that usual on FreeDV. I traveled by road from my home in Adelaide to Western Australia (WA), reaching the South-Western tip of Australia, about 3000km away. South Western WA is a lovely part of the country, and the trip included the adventure of crossing the 1200km Nullarbor plane (translated: no trees).

But back to the business of HF digital voice. Given the encouraging results from our initial Radio Autoencoder (RADAE) over the air (OTA) tests, we have expanded our program of testing to include Hams from different countries. It takes a lot of work to develop a new speech communication system , so it’s important to validate the design as early as possible. Much smarter to do this in the current simulation form, rather than put in ten times the work on a real time implementation, release it, and find out it falls over in a common use case. This is experience talking – we’ve learned many lessons after a decade of FreeDV development.

So we are testing the prototype RADAE design using crowd sourcing. I have approached several Hams for help in testing RADAE signals over their local radio channels and in different languages. They provide me with a 10s speech sample in their language, I send them back a file of RADAE samples that they can transmit over the air. The received RADAE signal is recorded off air by them (e.g. using a KiwiSDR), we then decode and evaluate. This is all done in non real time using stored files being emailed back and forth.

In particular I would like to thank Kanda JH0PCF, Yuichi JH0VEQ, and Simon DJ2LS for your help. Some take aways:

  1. RADAE works well in Japanese and German, as well as English.
    It handles Near Vertical Incidence Skywave (NVIS) channels quite well. This is typical of local (several hundred km) HF communication in countries like Japan and the UK. The signal goes straight up and straight down.
  2. However on the samples tested so far, RADAE is falling over with long distance (e.g. Japan to Australia) communications, so some more work required there.
  3. The speech quality is competitive with SSB at high and low SNRs, however we need a better way to measure the actual SNR of off air signals to “calibrate” the results. So I need to hit the math on that one to develop a suitable algorithm.

Some comments from the test team:

I listened to the voice that was replied. RADAE has no problem with Japanese demodulation. In fact, I feel that RADAE’s demodulated audio is easier to hear than SSB. I thought the sound quality was close to the 2020 mode implemented in the current version. It’s a strange feeling to be able to experience FM mode quality audio with SSB. (Kanda, JH0PCF)

It feels, if we can hear SSB clearly, then RADAE also works, but as soon as we are coming closer to the edge of ability of hearing SSB, also RADAE struggles. But the radae output is really nice, much better voice output compared to SSB. Using your last example, I first thought, you’ve send me the default audio example (ie source sample), so yes, its really nice. (Simon, DJ2LS)

Here is a example from Kanda at low SNR

Kanda JH0PCF, 20W, received by Tokyo KiwiSDR (SSB)

Kanda JH0PCF, 20W, received by Tokyo KiwiSDR (RADAE)

The two signals are transmitted one after the other, so get (more or less) the same channel conditions. The spectrogram below shows (left to right) the sine wave tone, SSB, then RADAE. Note about half the RADAE signal is wiped out at the start, but it seems to sound OK.

Here’s a medium SNR (8dB-ish) sample from Simon, DJ2LS, over a 1100km path at about 10W peak (1-2W RMS):


Yuichi performed a couple of novel experiments that I hadn’t thought of. Here is RADAE compared to existing FreeDV modes, transmitted a few seconds apart, so over more or less the same channel at roughly the same power. SNRs are around 8dB.

FreeDV 2020B
FreeDV 700E

Unfortunately 2020B didn’t sync on this channel/SNR. I feel the 700E sample could possibly be improved (e.g. levels, microphone, filtering), but it does illustrate the problems with current FreeDV modes – the speech quality borders on the lower level required for communication and it can be a struggle to get consistent results. This is something we have recognized and are attempting to address with our ARDC funded R&D program.

As a fairer comparison, here is the sample used for RADAE testing passed through a FreeDV 700E simulation with no channel errors:

Project Plan Pivot

Given the encouraging results with RADAE, we’ve pivoted our ARDC project plan to focus on RADAE, and have paused development of Codec 2 and FreeDV modes. RADAE appears to be our strongest candidate for satisfying the top three goals we set for ourselves when applying for the ARDC grant:

  1. Improve speech quality to a level comparable to commercial codecs.
  2. Develop a “rag chew” FreeDV mode with subjective speech quality comparable to SSB at high SNRs.
  3. Improve low SNR operation such that FreeDV is superior to SSB over poor HF channels.

We are on track to meet (and indeed exceed) the first two goals, but I think the final goal has yet to be demonstrated (e.g. SSB and the current incarnation of RADAE fall over at roughly the same SNR). There are a few bugs and many practical issues to work through before we have a real world version of RADAE that anyone can use. Plus there will be a few “gotchas” we haven’t thought of yet. Plenty for me to do in the coming months!

I’ve also been working on HF data modem software with Simon from the FreeDATA project. In next months report we hope to present a new FreeDATA release incorporating this work, resulting in a significant boost in FreeDATA performance.

Mooneer’s FreeDV Update – March 2024

This month, freedv-gui got the following bug fixes and feature enhancements:

  • Fixed minor memory leak involving FreeDV Reporter window.
  • Fixed issue causing delayed updates when modifying FreeDV Reporter filters.
  • Added support for unlimited length reporting messages in FreeDV Reporter.
  • Added additional error reporting in the event of PortAudio failures.

ezDV also got the following changes:

  • FreeDV Reporter:
    • Fixed issue preventing auto-reconnection to FreeDV Reporter when connection is lost.
    • Fixed issue causing crash if FreeDV Reporter connection exists and Wi-Fi goes down.
    • Added reporting message functionality to FreeDV Reporter implementation.
    • Lowered priority of FreeDV Reporter task.
  • FlexRadio support:
    • Fixed bug when user audio mixes with radio audio during TX.
    • Optimized sample rate conversion to use fixed-point math and ESP32S3 SIMD instructions to reduce CPU usage.
    • Updated audio packet sending logic to reduce audio dropouts during TX and RX.
    • Updated audio scaling logic so that 100% in SmartSDR equals 100 watts of power
    • output.
  • Upgraded project to ESP-IDF 5.2.1.
  • Fixed typos preventing failure popup from disappearing in web UI.
  • Made changes to avoid unnecessary commits to NVS flash when settings haven’t changed.
  • Created user manual and added infrastructure to automatically build it and firmware when releasing new versions.
  • Changed default FreeDV mode to 700D on initial startup.
  • Updated HTTP serving logic to reduce likelihood of failed transfers.
  • Added logic to preload voice keyer data during transmit to reduce latency.
  • Fixed bug causing sync LED to remain lit when switching to analog mode.
  • Refactored DVTask and DVTimer to enable more easily readable stack traces in case of crashes.
  • Added 250ms hard timeout when stopping TX to prevent the radio from being stuck in transmit.

More information can be found in the commit history below:

(Note that all commit logs above were generated with the following command line:)

git log --author="member@email" --after "Month 1, 2024" --before "Month 31, 2024" --all > commit.log

FreeDV v1.9.9.1 released

This release contains the following content:

  1. Bugfixes:
    • Cache PortAudio sound info to improve startup performance. (PR #689)
    • Fix typo in cardinal directions list. (PR #688)
    • Shrink size of callsign list to prevent it from disappearing off the screen. (PR #692)
    • Clean up memory leak in FreeDV Reporter window. (PR #705)
    • Fix issue causing delayed filter updates when going from tracking band to frequency. (PR #710)
    • Fix hanging issue with footswitch configured. (PR #707)
  2. Enhancements:
    • Add additional error reporting in case of PortAudio failures. (PR #695)
    • Allow longer length user messages. (PR #694)
    • Add context menu for copying messages to the clipboard. (PR #694)
  3. Documentation:
    • Remove broken links in README. (PR #709)
  4. Build system:
    • Add ability to build without LPCNet in preparation for potential future deprecation of 2020/2020B. (PR #711)

More information and download links can be found here.

Note: v1.9.9.1 has been released due to a Windows-only bug caused by PR #689. This PR has been partially reverted in PR #712 and this post subsequently edited to point to the new release.

David’s FreeDV Update – March 2024

This month was spent building up the “classical” DSP support code around the Radio Autoencoder, so I could test it over the air using real radio signals. Can we repeat the impressive low SNR results from simulation over real radio channels? This meant coding up an OFDM modem in PyTorch, lots of testing, and a bunch of support scripts to drive the radio hardware.

The algorithms we developed last year on improving FreeDV acquisition and designing filters came in handy, especially at the low SNRs required for this work.

The first test was “over the cable” (OTC) at VHF (144.5 MHz) using a HackRF transmitter, switchable attenuator as the “channel”, and a RTLSDR as the receiver. The noise (N) is injected by the physical properties (noise figure) of the RTLSDR receiver, so the S/N is controllable by the level (S) presented by the switchable attenuator. My calculations indicated it should work around the -135dBm level, and sure enough it did – sounding just like the simulations (see Feb 2024 for examples). This was a great confidence boost as it’s hard to argue with real world noise, but easy to mess up the calibration of noise simulated by software.

For comparison a narrow band FM signal will fall over at around -120dBm, and a first generation digital VHF radio (using proprietary speech codecs) perhaps a few dB lower. Although to be fair the digital VHF systems also transmit ancillary digital data at the same time, which consumes some of their power and bandwidth.

Radio Autoencoder VHF signal on my spectrum analyser – getting hard to measure as it’s close to the noise floor of the spec-an

Next step was HF radio, a somewhat tougher channel. This required quite a bit more work on the OFDM sync algorithms, but eventually I was ready to transmit a signal using my HF radio. I sent a 5W signal over a 500km HF path to a KiwiSDR, and passed the received signal through the Radio Autoencoder system. Much to my surprise, it worked first time! Good quality audio over several different paths and channel types, up to 2000 km away. It seems quite robust to the channels I have tested so far, including NVIS, EMI corrupted receivers, and SNRs below 0dB.

Plot of test signal sent over HF radio – a sine wave tone, compressed SSB, Radio Autoencoder signal. All signals have the same RMS power.
Sine wave header and compressed SSB received over a 475km HF path
Radio Autoencoder signal received over the same 475km HF path
Spectrogram of received signals over a 30km Near Vertical Incidence (NVIS) path – chosen as the fading is pretty bad when the ground and sky wave mix. Note the “barber pole” effect on the Radio Autoencoder signal RHS.

These are encouraging results for the Radio Autoencoder. I’m now pondering next steps. I think it makes sense to test the system with some more samples and over different channels. Plus so many things we could do with the Machine Learning side, like using ML instead of classical DSP for synchronisation, and trying our PAPR reduction system over the air. Also, at some point we need a C port so this can be used in real time by anyone.

FreeDATA Update

Part of our ARDC grant activities is to support the FreeDATA project. Simon and team have recently completed a major re-write and FreeDATA is back on the air. This month I’ve been working with Simon on a faster modem waveform for “ACK” packets, that will help speed up the FreeDATA protocol. I’m also pleased to see FreeDATA working over real HF channels, including this 7 hour 1.44Mbyte file transfer over an 800km path.