RS Signal Reports

Erik Weaver nØew
April 2005

    Sometimes there is confusion as how to provide easy and meaningful signal reports to other stations. This problem has been addressed and a reporting system developed. This is a very simple system, yet provides sufficient information to the other station for them to form a clear picture of how well you are hearing their radio signal.

    (Please note: I specifically said how "you are hearing" them - we'll return to this point shortly.)

    For phone (voice) operators there are two numbers given in each signal report. For CW operators a third number is given, and sometimes a brief post script to further refine the given report. As I don't generally operate CW I'll not address that point.

    The ARRL has a page outlining these points along with a list of other useful information, such as UTC conversion and phonetics. RS(T) information is about half way down the page. I find periodically reviewing the descriptions of the various report figures useful in that it allows me to more closely report heard signals within the established parameters to which we are expect to adhere.

    It is important to remember this is a QUALITIVE (subjective) measure, not a QUANTATIVE measure (of some number on a meter). RS(T) reports have nothing to do with any meter you may find on your transceiver! The only important quality provided in a RS report is how you find you are hearing the other station. That is all. This is one of those rare opportunities in life when only your opinion is truly important!

    The first number ("R") ranks "Readability." (Scaled from 1 through 5.)

    I think of this in terms of how many words am I hearing.

• Getting every word said? That is a "5."
• Just missing an occasional word but easily able to understand what is being communicated to you? That's a "4" - you can't give a "5" because they are not "perfectly readable."
• Difficult to discern what is being conveyed to you? That's a "3." Very tough to get the message, but with considerable effort you figure out what they are saying.
• A "2" is barely discernable. You get a word here and there but a casual conversation is not possible. In an emergency you could work information back and forth, but you'd much rather have another station relay the information between your two stations.
• You can not provide a "1" because that designates an unreadable station. I suppose, you might count those stations you can tell are in there, but you have no ability to copy anything being said. In this light you could tell a net control station you only hear them as a "1" readability but you couldn't convey that to the other station and have any idea if they understood you or received your report because you can't read (understand) them.

    The second number ("S") ranks "Strength." (Scaled from 1 through 9.)

    "Strength" has nothing to do with how many words you are hearing. Strength has to do with how well their radio signal is coming through your speakers to your ears.

    You can hear every single word the other station is saying and yet they may be very weak. The opposite may also be true. They may not be all that easy to actually understand, but have a pretty strong signal into your station, so you can hear the bits and pieces of what they are saying quite clearly without any effort, but parts are missing or garbled to the point you are not always certain what they just said.

    Can you sit back in your easy chair and easily hear their words? (Whether you understand them or not.) That must be something like an "8" or "9" strength. Perhaps even a "7."

    Leaning forward and cupping your ear? Sounds like a "1," "2," or "3" strength to me! Remember these are subjective values. What I consider a "3" you might consider a "1." This will happen and is perfectly acceptable!

    The third figure - used only for CW - ranks "Tone." As mentioned above, I will not discuss tone, nor address any of the debate concerning how a meaningful signal report system may be developed for digital modes. Those interested in these topics should refer to the ARRL and other sources.

    You may find there is seemingly a rather large gap between these report values. I can't offer more advice than I have above, but any honest attempt to constrain your reports to the assigned values is better than taking a subjective quality report and providing a meaningless (to others) meter reading on your transceiver.

    Your meters, most notably your "S" meter are all relative to your equipment and not anyone else's equipment, not even of the same make and manufacturer. No "S-meter" values are equivalent between the various manufacturers, and this is not even always possible for various models made by a single manufacturer. This has to do with how the received signal is modified and digested internally to each model. Added to this is the wide range of user-defined vales such as gain and pre-amps which also affect the strength of received signals.

    Your S-meter, and other meters on your equipment, is useful in helping you determine over time how various aspects of your station and antenna system are performing. If you know you normally hear your buddies on 80-meters with a noise floor of "6" and tonight the noise is coming in at "S-9" you know conditions are not especially good. Conversely, if tonight's noise floor in only a "2" you have great operating conditions! But none of this has anything to do with providing the other station a RS report meaningful to them. (Admittedly in the example just cited, if your buddies all know what values you normally read on your meters maybe in this isolated case your S-meter reading may provide them useful information, however, this can not be possible if you only talk with a station once, or with any significant time interval between contacts.)

    For completeness I've copied the ARRL RST table below (but remember, following the link to the ARRL page will provide you with additional information on other topics too):

RST System

Readability

Signal Strength

Tone

Words in voice procedure

    Just for fun, here are a few standard words and their uses in the military / amatuer radio world:

• Over -- I have finished talking and I am listening for your reply. Short for "Over to you."
• Out or Clear -- I have finished talking to you and do not expect a reply.
• Roger -- Information received.
• Copy -- I understand what you just said (after receiving information).
• Wilco -- Will Comply (after receiving new directions).

• "Over and out" is an incorrect combination, since the two statements contradict each other.
• "Roger" was the U.S. military designation for the letter R (as in received) from 1927 to 1957.

Radio Procedures

    This is a short and clearly written overview of radio procedures to be used in tactical situations:

• http://www.qsl.net/sars/radio.htm