I am not sure when this whole business of strength being an S-meter
reading, but it does not seem appropriate - especially on 160. Besides,
there is no "10" or "20" on the RST scale as some folks try to imply with
on-air reports..
Between QRN and QSB, and the use of directional receiving antennas, an
S-meter reading at the far end is not of much value. Besides, depending on
the rig and its calibration, S-meter readings even on the same radio can be
different. Most of the time, it simply ends up being a placeholder or
preamble in a contest excahnge.
I DO like the idea of replacing RST with your grid-square - far more useful
info - especially on 160. Also forces one to pay attention :-)
Tom - VE3CX
> For me the RS(T) report, while meaningless in itself, acts a convenient
> placeholder in giving and receiving the contest exchange. Even in the SP it
> is convenient to have it as a prelude to the actual exchange. Similarly it
> is convenient in SS to have an NR sent before launching into the exchange.
> It kind of primes you to start listening.
>
> <snip>
>
> 160 is probably the only band where you frequently give and receive
> semi-factual signal reports, although the actual reading on the S meter is
> seldom what is sent. But, a comparative S number is useful. If I hear a
> signal that is buried in background noise 50 percent of the time I give an S
> 3 report. If it is just at the edge of the noise but is mostly copyable an
> S 5 is forthcoming. Above the noise and clear is an S 9. If my meter
> actually reads over S 9 I usually give an S 9 plus report.
>
> At the other end of the spectrum how many stations do you work on ten
> meters that actually move the S meter at all?
>
_______________________________________________
160 meters is a serious band, it should be treated with respect. - TF4M
|