[Elecraft] RE: S meter calibration.

Wed Feb 13 10:08:01 2002

Paul:
  There is nothing particularly confusing about your exchange.  There seems 
to be a good deal being said these days on S-meter readings and their 
relation to signal reports.  And some have been concerned about calibrating 
their S-meters to make this task "more meaningful."  However, I believe it 
is quite safe to say (a) there is no way beyond a very complicated logic 
circuit tailored specifically to each individual rig to produce an S-meter 
whose readings are consistent and meaningful on all bands, or even on all 
frequencies of a given band, and (b) signal reports were designed to be and 
remain inherently subjective.

  The upshot of all this is that those who use their S-meters to give 
signal reports are, almost all the time, providing limited, misleading 
information.

  The guy you were working was ignoring his S-meter and providing you with 
an indication of the conditions he was facing in reading your signal.  His 
589 indicated that he was having no trouble reading your signal, that its 
strength was more than solidly above the noise level (no doubt a judgement 
he made by comparing your signals to others he was hearing on the band), 
and that your tone was what we have all learned to expect from the K2's 
note.  The signal report that you gave him, by contrast, was formed by 
making no judgement of his signal under the existing conditions, but by 
merely mechanically following a meter reading that is largely arbitrary.

  Several, of late, have suggested, either implicitly or explicitly, that 
people stop chasing the will-o'-the-wisp of a "calibrated S-meter" and 
start using one's judgement and experience to form meaningful and proper 
signal reports.  I agree completely with these sentiments.

best wishes,

dave belsley, w1euy

--On Wednesday, February 13, 2002 2:39 PM +0000 Paul Barlow 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> How about this for a confusing exchange?
>
> I worked a guy today who gave me 589.
>
> I told him he was 549 on the K2 meter, which I commented might seem a bit
> mean.
>
> He asked why I didn't adjust it so it was a bit more generous.
>
> Further into the QSO he commented that his meter was hardly moving
> although I was a good signal.
>
> ???????
>
> 72/73
>
> Paul M0CDP GQRP 10289 Fists 5579 K2# 2356
>
> p.s. Mojo moment, worked the S9LA expedition on saturday and the 5U1A
> expedition on Monday.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list: [email protected]
> You must be a list member to post to the list.
> Postings must be plain text (no HTML or attachments).
> See: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Elecraft Web Page: http://www.elecraft.com

----------------------------
David A. Belsley
Professor of Economics