This started in the news thread, but for everybody’s sanity I’ve brought it elsewhere…
The RS(T) code is not only something to exchange to validate a QSO, it is an important tool to assist in managing a QSO yet misuse and misunderstanding of it seems at times to be almost universal.
Some observations, which apply to virtually every published version of the code I have seen:
R1 is described as “unreadable”. You CANNOT have a qso at R1.
S1 is “barely perceptible”. You can hardly tell the signal is there. You are struggling to hear it. There is NO WAY you can say it is perfectly readable. A report of 51(9) is oxymoronic nonsense. If there’s enough signal to be intelligible, it’s at least S2
The minimum report for a viable QSO must be 22(9) and then it will require a relatively long time with multiple repetition to be sure it has actually taken place.
The S scale goes from 1 to 9. There is no S0. There is nothing above S9. S9 + 20, 40, 60 (dB) are superfluous and meaningless.
Beyond this, we are into the realms of interpretation but it should be done with respect for difficulty in copying the other station. Critical is the R figure. I will not be upset by a report less than R5. I’m afraid I can’t speak for CW, but on 'phone give me an R5 or R4 and I am likely to waffle on, giving crucial information once only without phonetics. Give me an R3 and I will largely restrict my exchange to the vital information, which I will repeat two or three times with phonetics. R2 will get you multiple repeats of the report and if you want it the summit reference. What does upset me is being given an R5 report, responding with an over appropriate to that report then being asked to give my callsign several times phonetically…
The S report is totally subjective and doesn’t come from a meter. I find I generally give an S7 before any indication is shown on my 817’s S meter. Because the AGC action doesn’t actually allow much perceptible change in volume beyond this, I do use the meter to give me an arbitrary distinction between S8 and S9. In reality almost every QSO I’ve had (on HF anyway) has varying strength due to QSB so for the report I try to go with the best.
The only point where I take issue with you, Paul, is that if my S-meter says S1 - as it can easily do on V/UHF, that is the report I will give. The reason for this is that if you look at the descriptors for S1-9, they are not only subjective, they are so vague and woolly as to be totally meaningless. The S-meter is more than an ornament and an aid in experimentation, it is a tool that removes subjectivity from signal reports. If using metered signal strength leads to absurdities like the contradiction between metered S1 and described S1, that is a defect of the S code, not the meter. Of course, the ideal is a reading of microvolts relative to the noise floor, but few receivers are set up to do that!
In reply to G4MD:
Here, Here Paul, on the point about the use of an S-meter.
IN MY OPINION,
the S (signal strength) reading is best given by ear, not by meter as meters vary from rig to rig and on many rigs if you turn down the RF gain, the S-meter reading goes up, even though the strength of the signal coming in hasn’t changed.
It is highly likely that an experienced operator may give an S reading higher than an inexperienced one as the inexperienced operator may mix up readability with signal strength. They are separate reports. If you have a noise level of S7 and a signal is S9 - that will be a difficult signal to understand but the S-reading remains at S9 not S2.
There are only five reports that are ever needed. They do the job required of them and provide good information which is plenty precise enough for the receiving station. This approach is based on the principles outlined by Paul above. The rationalisation to 5 well defined reports was first introduced (to me) by Roy G4SSH.
Can I add that R stands for readability. It does NOT stand for Radio.
Yes, that one annoys me, too!
Ed, the only time I touch the RF gain is when the AGC is off, trying to pull a contact out of the QRM. I prefer to press the attenuator button, and if I need to give a report I just pick the right time to take the attenuator out and grab a quick reading. To me, an S meter reading makes much more sense than trying to decide by ear if a signal is S6 (“good signal”) or S7 (“moderately strong signal.”) Little shades of meaning like that can depend as much on what you had for breakfast as how good your ear is, whilst I would hope that the S meter is not subject to moods!
I hear people say one radio is better than another because they receive something S7 on one and S9 on another. As someone said, your own ears are best.
I recall using a new antenna and asking for a genuine signal report to be told ‘your S7 on my lie detector’.
The S-Meter on my FT857 has a will of it’s own, and will show S9+ with QRM/N and even with the merest snift of CW or speech will do the same, so I have to estimate S.
R must also depend on local conditions. An R5 on a 1-pointer on a nice calm summer day, could be an R4, or even R3, in a gale on a bigger hill in winter.
If the activator is sending above my speed, am I justified in giving less than R5 for what would be an R5 at a lower speed?
Explanation : My CW still isn’t adequate for an activation. I havn’t learned to ‘read’ CW - still writing it all (sorry, Roy, but if I waited until I could read it, I’d wouldn’t have started, let alone nearly got a CW HF sloth). The brain won’t work accurately at above 20 wpm, and the hand (especially chasing S2S) goes even slower. Many chases I leave alone because they’re going too fast. I might be able to copy my call and report, but can’t work out what’s going on and don’t want to be given the LID label.
Just checking gear before (I hope) G/WB-005 tomorrow. See you from the hills.
The S-Meter on my FT857 has a will of it’s own, and will show S9+
with QRM/N and even with the merest snift of CW or speech will do the
same, so I have to estimate S.
Dave, you can adjust the S meter using the “hidden menu”, if I remember correctly it is NO-007 to adjust S9 on SSB. Without the correct test gear it won’t mean anything but it will restore the ability to make comparative reports.
The RS(T) code is not only something to exchange to validate a QSO, it
is an important tool to assist in managing a QSO yet misuse and
misunderstanding of it seems at times to be almost universal.
Exactly. I also prefer getting honest reports instead of a fixed 59. To my mind at least some chasers (more) and activators (less) try to give real reports. I appreciate this very much, even when getting a 22. 22 of course means it takes numerous attempts to get callsigns and reports exchanged.
The S scale goes from 1 to 9. There is no S0. There is nothing above
S9. S9 + 20, 40, 60 (dB) are superfluous and meaningless.
No. The IARU recommends S9 being -73dBm which equals 50 µV at 50 Ohms. The scale is going down in 6 dB steps per S-unit. So 158µV = -63 dBm = -73dBm + 10 dB = S9+10dB.
Despite Wikipedia is not really a quotable source, have a look at this article worth reading: S meter - Wikipedia
The S report is totally subjective and doesn’t come from a meter.
No, see the definition above. I agree with R being subjective, but in theory S should be an exact reading of a meter nothing else. You will propably agree voltage measurements are not subjective. Neither the voltage of mains, your battery nor the HF voltage at your antenna socket.
Of course we all know, most transceivers do not manage do display correct values in the range S1 to S8. The FT-817 displays S0 up to real S4 on HF. So you can have a real R5 with S0 displayed. As this is of course nonsense the operator has to do an well educated guess of S. But this is only a shortcoming of the used transceiver not a fault of the S-report. With the increasing use of SDRs with their exact S-meter thes problem will be reduced.
I generally give an S7 before any indication is shown on my 817’s
S meter.
Well that depends on HF/VHF+UHF IPO/ATT on/off.
My FT-817 on HF with IPO off reads S1 at real S4.5 (checked with signal generator). S5 is quite correct and S6-S7 compressed in favour of a large S8 reading.
In reality almost every
QSO I’ve had (on HF anyway) has varying strength due to QSB so for the
report I try to go with the best.
Of course. As a chaser I monitor the activator’s signal strength until I finally manage the QSO. So I can give a sensible mean value. As activator I only have about two seconds to monitor signal strength of a calling chaser. In a pileup situation is even worse. So these reports are all subject to large variations. But at least I try my best to give honest reports.
I look at it from the other direction - the RS(T) code came first, so if there’s a discrepancy between it and the meter the problem is with the meter!
S meters are a whole subject to themselves, and I’m not saying they don’t have their uses but given the huge number of variables that contribute to the actual reading you get for a particular signal I would assert that their meaning is actually no less vague than the considered application of the subjective criteria…
I’d have thought the only true criterion for signal strength would actually be the field strength at the receiving location in V/m ?
Hi Michael, many thanks for your response. Where our view differs I think is that I make a distinction between “S” - a subjective assessment of signal strength, and “S Units” - a measure of signal strength defined absolutely in terms of the input to the radio.
S Units, subject to the limitations imposed by the equipment measuring them and the source of the signals being measured, have their uses in tests and experimental work but for QSO’s from mountain tops I much prefer my subjective approach!
Given the “R” provides the subjective assessment of the signal, using the meter for the “S” will at least give some vaguely consistent measure of signal strength for a given rig, antenna and settings. It’s more useful for me when comparing the reports I have given to have an S-meter reading (if the rig has one)…
IMHO, is it really that important what the number is? The idea behind exchanging these numbers is to confirm the QSO, correct? It is nice to get a signal report out of interest, but (again IMHO) it is there for confirmation of the contact. BTW, why do we have the last number anyways (for CW)? When was the last time you heard anyone with a raspy CW signal?
“Of course, that’s just my opinion, I could be wrong.” – Dennis Miller
The numbers aren’t important on an absolute level because you don’t know if the person giving you the report
a) is an idiot
b) has severe OCD
c) makes up the report at random
d) has many years telegraphy experience
e) is using a calibrated meter
f) has an S-meter
g) all of the above!
As Tom says there are a few reports needed that convery all that is needed.
And yes Dennis, I’ve heard a few chirpy and raspy signals this year but most are a 9. Do we need that number? Again in absolute terms probably not but hearing 5NN, 339, 55N is so common that the missing N/9 stands out far too much.
Why… because you can obtain the full call and summit ref from internet spotting sites such as SOTAwatch. The exchange of a report is the only item which you need to copy yourself which you wont find elsewhere.