Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Proposal for IMD reporting: "RSI" reports

Expand Messages
  • Ian Wade G3NRW
    We have all seen some very good PSK signals on the bands, and also some very bad ones, together with lots of in-betweens. Trouble is, most people seem to give
    Message 1 of 7 , Sep 11, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      We have all seen some very good PSK signals on the bands, and also some
      very bad ones, together with lots of in-betweens. Trouble is, most
      people seem to give RSQ 599 reports to all of them -- pretty meaningless
      really.

      Even if someone decides to be brutally honest and gives a 593 report,
      the recipient still doesn't know what that really means. And how do you
      decide whether to give 593 or 591 or 597 -- it's pretty hit and miss.

      Nowadays most PSK programs provide an indication of IMD on received
      signals, so why don't we use this figure in our reports to other
      stations? Let's call it a "Readability, Strength and IMD" report: "RSI".

      RSI reports would like something like: "RSI 5923" for an IMD of -23dB,
      "RSI 5930" for -30dB, and so on.

      RSI reports are immediately distinguishable from RSQ reports because
      they have 4 digits, not 3. (If anyone has a *really* bad IMD of -8dB,
      then the report would be "RSI 5908").

      Obviously the IMD depends not only on the quality of the transmitted
      signal, but also on the quality of the receiver hardware and software
      settings, so I may give a misleading report of "RSI 5915" where it
      should be, say "RSI 5925". That isn't an issue, because if the
      transmitting station receives many very good reports and the occasional
      bad one, then it's clear that the bad one can be ignored.

      I don't see any reason why this proposal would not work, and it would
      provide transmitting stations with much more meaningful reports.
      Comments anyone?

      --
      73
      Ian, G3NRW
    • w1hkj
      There are some programs that do not computer the IMD correctly Ian. I monitor my signal locally and if I am measuring -28 dB for IMD and some bloke 900 Km
      Message 2 of 7 , Sep 11, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        There are some programs that do not computer the IMD correctly Ian. I
        monitor my signal locally and if I am measuring -28 dB for IMD and some
        bloke 900 Km away tells me I am -14 I know something is wrong. I'm not
        throwing stones, but I see most of these reports coming from operators
        using DM780.

        When the other operator is transmitting a very broad signal I take the
        time to try and help him or her correct the situation. I also send them
        a small waterfall screen shot if they request it.

        Dave
      • Graham
        Ian, That is an interesting idea. I have never been a fan of RST. 35 years ago it seemed dated and even more so today. My preference and one I use in my own
        Message 3 of 7 , Sep 11, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          Ian,

          That is an interesting idea.

          I have never been a fan of RST. 35 years ago it seemed dated and even
          more so today.

          My preference and one I use in my own logging is the SINPO code and
          while it too has been around for some time I find it better overall.

          SINPO for those who don't know is (each on a scale of 5)

          Strength - Interference - Noise - Propagation and Overall

          or, in other terms or at least near enough: QSA, QRM, QRN, QSB, QRK

          A report of 55555 would be Very Strong, No interference, No Noise, No
          Fading, Excellent signal.

          However, SINPO's focus is on the signal and prevailing conditions, the
          signals technical merits are only implied in it's "overall" rating.

          Adding something like IMD to a report would enhance it's value. The
          Reverse Beacon network reports SNR at the receiving site and WSPR and
          JT-65HF also reports similar information, PSK does seem to be the odd
          one out.

          You can't make changes unless you try but I think that it will be hard
          to get the majority to change - old habits die hard.

          Perhaps you (we) should just start including the information in your
          (our) exchanges. Write something up for the ARRL QST or RSGB RADCOM and
          anyone else might listen, it may just make a change.

          cheers, Graham ve3gtc




          On Sun, 2011-09-11 at 20:57 +0100, Ian Wade G3NRW wrote:
          > We have all seen some very good PSK signals on the bands, and also some
          > very bad ones, together with lots of in-betweens. Trouble is, most
          > people seem to give RSQ 599 reports to all of them -- pretty meaningless
          > really.
          >
          > Even if someone decides to be brutally honest and gives a 593 report,
          > the recipient still doesn't know what that really means. And how do you
          > decide whether to give 593 or 591 or 597 -- it's pretty hit and miss.
          >
          > Nowadays most PSK programs provide an indication of IMD on received
          > signals, so why don't we use this figure in our reports to other
          > stations? Let's call it a "Readability, Strength and IMD" report: "RSI".
          >
          > RSI reports would like something like: "RSI 5923" for an IMD of -23dB,
          > "RSI 5930" for -30dB, and so on.
          >
          > RSI reports are immediately distinguishable from RSQ reports because
          > they have 4 digits, not 3. (If anyone has a *really* bad IMD of -8dB,
          > then the report would be "RSI 5908").
          >
          > Obviously the IMD depends not only on the quality of the transmitted
          > signal, but also on the quality of the receiver hardware and software
          > settings, so I may give a misleading report of "RSI 5915" where it
          > should be, say "RSI 5925". That isn't an issue, because if the
          > transmitting station receives many very good reports and the occasional
          > bad one, then it's clear that the bad one can be ignored.
          >
          > I don't see any reason why this proposal would not work, and it would
          > provide transmitting stations with much more meaningful reports.
          > Comments anyone?
          >
        • Howard Teller
          How about just Q5, Q4, Q3, Q2, Q1... Most S-meters never agree anyway and what is important is the % copy. On VHF/UHF, what the S-meter reads depends on how
          Message 4 of 7 , Sep 11, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            How about just Q5, Q4, Q3, Q2, Q1...

            Most S-meters never agree anyway and what is important is the % copy.

            On VHF/UHF, what the S-meter reads depends on how many preamps are inline. Each preamp adds 10-14 dB in strength, but only the first one determines the S/N. Strength is not very meaningful except maybe as an ego booster.

            73, Skip KH6TY

            On 9/11/2011 7:38 PM, Graham wrote:
             

            Ian,

            That is an interesting idea.

            I have never been a fan of RST. 35 years ago it seemed dated and even
            more so today.

            My preference and one I use in my own logging is the SINPO code and
            while it too has been around for some time I find it better overall.

            SINPO for those who don't know is (each on a scale of 5)

            Strength - Interference - Noise - Propagation and Overall

            or, in other terms or at least near enough: QSA, QRM, QRN, QSB, QRK

            A report of 55555 would be Very Strong, No interference, No Noise, No
            Fading, Excellent signal.

            However, SINPO's focus is on the signal and prevailing conditions, the
            signals technical merits are only implied in it's "overall" rating.

            Adding something like IMD to a report would enhance it's value. The
            Reverse Beacon network reports SNR at the receiving site and WSPR and
            JT-65HF also reports similar information, PSK does seem to be the odd
            one out.

            You can't make changes unless you try but I think that it will be hard
            to get the majority to change - old habits die hard.

            Perhaps you (we) should just start including the information in your
            (our) exchanges. Write something up for the ARRL QST or RSGB RADCOM and
            anyone else might listen, it may just make a change.

            cheers, Graham ve3gtc
            _

          • Ed
            On 09/11/2011 03:57 PM, Ian Wade G3NRW wrote: I keep an eye on my signal, all 25 watts. I haven t sent an rst in years, other than a contest. Its outdated and
            Message 5 of 7 , Sep 11, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              On 09/11/2011 03:57 PM, Ian Wade G3NRW wrote:

              I keep an eye on my signal, all 25 watts. I haven't sent an rst in
              years, other than a contest. Its outdated and of no value. My 1st
              transmitter was a 6L6, then RST meant something.

              I have sent an email to people with a broad signal. Hate to say it, but
              almost all are MS users and DM780. And I seldom if ever get a reply.
              Whatever happened to the OO's ?

              Don't even get me started on RTTY signals and contests.

              Ed W3NR
            • Mitchel Baum
              Guys, Why not just use the and tags to send an actual measurement! Each of us has already passed a test and indicated we know what a clean
              Message 6 of 7 , Sep 12, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                Guys,

                Why not just use the <info1> and <info2> tags to send an actual measurement!
                Each of us has already passed a test and indicated we know what a "clean" signal should be.
                Looking at a measurement of the far end signal should be a rough gauge of transmitted signal quality, especially if the S/N is above 10 dB.

                Mitch Baum / AF2M


                From: Ed <autek@...>
                To: linuxham@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2011 9:56 PM
                Subject: Re: [linuxham] Proposal for IMD reporting: "RSI" reports

                 
                On 09/11/2011 03:57 PM, Ian Wade G3NRW wrote:

                I keep an eye on my signal, all 25 watts. I haven't sent an rst in
                years, other than a contest. Its outdated and of no value. My 1st
                transmitter was a 6L6, then RST meant something.

                I have sent an email to people with a broad signal. Hate to say it, but
                almost all are MS users and DM780. And I seldom if ever get a reply.
                Whatever happened to the OO's ?

                Don't even get me started on RTTY signals and contests.

                Ed W3NR



              • Graham Saville
                This Email was sent on 12/09/11 at 16:17 In Reply to: Re: [linuxham] Proposal for IMD reporting: RSI reports Hi All, I agree with this IMD and S/N is of more
                Message 7 of 7 , Sep 12, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  This Email was sent on 12/09/11 at 16:17
                  In Reply to: Re: [linuxham] Proposal for IMD reporting: "RSI" reports

                  Hi All,
                  I agree with this IMD and S/N is of more use than 599 and I tend to send this in my report. Does everyone know what constitutes a good signal from S/N? most have a good idea about IMD but not sure all are clear on S/N, I have a rough idea but would not claim to be an expert.  Perhaps a quick and dirty lesson from someone would encourage the use of it.


                  Best 73
                  From Graham G1RNZ
                  Good DX.


                  On 12/09/11 16:12, Mitchel Baum wrote:
                  Guys,

                  Why not just use the <info1> and <info2> tags to send an actual measurement!
                  Each of us has already passed a test and indicated we know what a "clean" signal should be.
                  Looking at a measurement of the far end signal should be a rough gauge of transmitted signal quality, especially if the S/N is above 10 dB.

                  Mitch Baum / AF2M


                  From: Ed <autek@...>
                  To: linuxham@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2011 9:56 PM
                  Subject: Re: [linuxham] Proposal for IMD reporting: "RSI" reports

                   
                  On 09/11/2011 03:57 PM, Ian Wade G3NRW wrote:

                  I keep an eye on my signal, all 25 watts. I haven't sent an rst in
                  years, other than a contest. Its outdated and of no value. My 1st
                  transmitter was a 6L6, then RST meant something.

                  I have sent an email to people with a broad signal. Hate to say it, but
                  almost all are MS users and DM780. And I seldom if ever get a reply.
                  Whatever happened to the OO's ?

                  Don't even get me started on RTTY signals and contests.

                  Ed W3NR



                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.