For many Radio Amateurs the dissatisfaction with receiving a (fake) "5NN" report is because they very much look forward to receiving an honest and accurate report, since they like to know how well their station is performing after putting much effort into various often ongoing improvements.
However, even though many may wish to provide accurate reports, or think they are doing so, probably the vast majority of radio amateurs today, unlike in the days of old, do not know how to give a correct signal report. It is not my intention to upset you, but to educate you, please read on!
There are two very important parts of a radio amateur signal report, the R (Readability) and the S (Signal Strength). BOTH of these are rarely given correctly, and, as we shall see, even if given correctly both of these are usually meaningless without further information.
But first, let us keep things very simple: why are the R and S given mostly incorrectly? And what is the easy way to get it right?
Let us look first at "R" as this is the easiest to get correct without any ambiguity whatsoever. And yet, rarely is it given honestly, because the simple truths of the meanings of "R" have been forgotten, or, never learned in the first place.
First, the official definitions table. Please do not be put off by the QRK and QSA comparison. You'll see why these have been included, or at least QSA, as some will find that the QSA values will make it faster and easier to determine the S value, more on that a little later.
| R |
Readability |
QRK |
| 1 |
Unreadable |
Bad |
| 2 |
Barely readable, occasional words distinguishable |
Poor |
| 3 |
Readable with considerable difficulty |
Fair |
| 4 |
Readable with practically no difficulty |
Good |
| 5 |
Perfectly readable |
Excellent |
| S |
Signal Strength |
QSA |
| 1 |
Faint signal, barely perceptible |
QSA1 Barely Perceptible |
| 2 |
Very weak signal |
|
| 3 |
Weak signal |
QSA2 Weak |
| 4 |
Fair signal |
|
| 5 |
Fairly good signal |
QSA3 Fairly Strong |
| 6 |
Good signal |
|
| 7 |
Moderately strong signal |
QSA4 Strong |
| 8 |
Strong signal |
|
| 9 |
Very strong signals |
QSA5 Very Strong |
It would be very helpful to keep a printed table of R and S values (see above or RSN) in front of your operating position or on the wall. So, first, back to R, why is it easy to get right?
R has only 5 possible values, and NONE of these 5 values are ambiguous.
If you can NOT read the information from the other station at all, not at all, then it is R1. There is no such thing as R0. R1 means NOT readable AT ALL.
If you can ONLY read little bits here and there, then this means you are reading occasional words, but only intermittently. You might even read clearly one moment, then you can't read at all, then you can read with difficulty, but the point is you are reading only INTERMITTENTLY. That's R2.
If you CAN read the information but only with difficulty, or repeats, then you are ABLE to read but WITH DIFFICULTY. Not at times here and there (R2) but WITH DIFFICULTY. This is R3.
Maybe the station is not sending clearly. Maybe she is sending too fast. Maybe he is fading in and out. Maybe their signals are too weak. Maybe you have noise or interference. Whatever the reason, it is normal, and not shameful not to be reading the other station. No matter the reason, if you are only reading WITH DIFFICULTY you MUST give an R3. There is no other option.
Now if you are able to read with practically NO DIFFICULTY — and it is up to you to decide what is difficult or not, not me or the other station, then you give an R4. Not an R5, we'll get to that.
The bottom line here is: are you reading? NO: R1. AT TIMES: R2. WITH DIFFICULTY: R3. WITHOUT DIFFICULTY: R4. And YOU decide if you are reading with or without difficulty, no matter the reason.
So, when do you give an R5?
ONLY when you have absolute perfect solid copy, also known as "arm chair copy" — meaning that there is not only no difficulty getting the information (R4) but you can hear every dit on CW, every syllable on voice, perfect solid copy without any question, then you give R5.
Really, the above 5 possibilities for "R" are not difficult at all. They are obvious and clear, but only if you are aware of the 5 above meanings and choose to use them correctly.
Why do most hams not give honest or accurate R reports when it is so clear and easy?
Possible reasons include:
- lack of knowledge of the definitions
- poor understanding of the definitions;
- being over generous; and,
- being lazy or unconcerned with accuracy.
No matter your reason for NOT giving CORRECT "R" reports, please stop it: to all those operators who DO care about such things, you immediately lower your reputation at least somewhat in our eyes because it quickly becomes OBVIOUS that you are giving a false R report. Why?
Well, if I have to repeat my callsign over and over, or my name, or you get any other information incorrectly or missed anything, and you gave me an R5 or R4 then it's only too obvious isn't it?
DO NOT BE THAT LOW QUALITY HAM. Let's aspire to make the hobby both fun and rewarding, as well as educational and helpful on BOTH sides of the QSO.
So now, with the easy R out the way, what about the "S" for "Signal Strength"? Why is this also given incorrectly most of the time?
The same 5 reasons as above are all possible, but, there is an additional one:
Many Radio Amateurs read the "S" value off their "S-Meter". Now, let us be VERY CLEAR about this: the "S" in the "RS(T)" code is very often NOT what you see on your "S-Meter" !!!
If you doubt this, please visit http://www.vu2nsb.com and search for the article about S-Meter readings and why they are incorrect. Let me correct that to be accurate: they are usually ONLY correct on your radio at S9. Below S9 and above S9, they are INACCURATE.
They are often WILDLY inaccurate even on expensive modern radios such as any Yaesu, Icom or others, there are very, very few exceptions, such as I believe (but not verified myself) Flex.
Having said that, the S-meter once you know your radio, and your setting of PRE-AMP on or not etc, you may find a correlation between the S table and the meter. Most likely it is over sensitive on low bands, and not sensitive enough on high bands, or does not even move until S4 or S5. This is typical, as alluded to earlier, S meters are only calibrated (and necessary components left out to save a few dollars!) at S9!
A more reliable method depending on your settings, may be to use the volume knob as an indicator: how much did you need to turn up the volume?
Historically, the "S" table was not used nor intended to be used with the direct reading from the modern "S-meter" (which did not exist when the table was invented) reading on your radio. Instead, it is supposed to be given by EAR.
Later radio manufacturers added the S meter to attempt to match the table but almost all radios fail miserably below around S5 or so, and above around S9+20 or so, depending on the model.
Let me give some examples, and then you can get out of the lazy, unhelpful, inaccurate and/or unsatisfying habit of giving an "S" report based off of your highly inaccurate "S-meter".
There is no "S9 PLUS". If a signal is extremely strong, it is extremely strong. While there is no harm in giving S9+18dB report when making comparisons, but for the purpose of the normal and expected signal report, you only ever give an S9 when the signal is VERY STRONG.
If it is VERY STRONG you give an 9 If it is EXTREMELY STRONG you also give a 9. If is is STRONG you give an 8. If it is moderately strong, 7. If the signal is GOOD, a 6.
Now, 5 and 4 are a bit more dificult to get right and subjective, so let's return to that a little later.
Now let's instead look at WEAK signals. If the signal is BARELY PERCEPTIBLE then it is 1. If it is VERY WEAK it is 2. If it is WEAK then it is 3. Remember, Good is 6, moderately strong is 7.
So what about 4 and 5? By definition: S4 means "Fair signal" and S5 means "fairly good signal" — not very helpful right? So there's a trick that you may use to more easily decide what signal strength to give.
This trick involves using a much easier scale of 1 to 5 first, as follows, and this is the "QSA" scale, but is only used to first determine the ball park of the signal strength on a scale from 1-5 as this is much easier:
QSA 1 = Barely Perceptible (=S1)
QSA 2 = Weak (=S3)
QSA 3 = Fairly Good (Fairly Strong) (=S5)
QSA 4 = Good (Strong) (=S7)
QSA 5 = Very Good (Very Strong) (=S9)
Based on this table, you can then see that between "barely perceptible" (S1) and "weak" (S3) would be "very weak" (S2). So if the signal is not QSA1 nor QSA2 but between, then it is S2.
If the signal is more than weak, but less than fairly good, then it'll be S4. Look at the above table to see why. Likewise if it is somewhere between fairly strong and strong, it's S6. Between Strong and very strong, S9.
Giving an accurate signal report can be difficult because it is subjective and because signals are almost never stable and will vary at least one S point in any case. However, with above trick can make it easier.
A question arises: what do we do about QSB? Should we report the minimum signal strength, or the maximum, or the 'average' signal strength? I try to report the average but, if the R is good enough, I will usually include the min or max or both if the variation is significant. E.g. RST 579, or, RST 56/89.
Given the level of QSB that is almost always present, you may even decide to do away, much of the time, with the EVEN S reports and instead use only 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 when they fit, and where they don't or you are unhappy with the accuracy of one of those 5 options, give the even number that lies in-between those values.
This method will result in any case in a generally far more accurate signal report than simply reading it of your S-meter or taking a wild guess or being over generous. Try it!
BELOW is a second part, only if you want more ideas.
The Missing Context for the R and S Report: Local Noise Level
While it is obvious that you cannot have a report such as RST 519 (a barely perceptible signal can NEVER be armchair copy!) but let's say we're given an honest and accurate report of RST 379.
What do we know from this? The other station is copying us, but with difficulty. So R3 is not all that bad, they'll get our information if we repeat the important bits a few times. They also have a good (I prefer "strong" instead of the official definition "good") signal strength on our signals.
So, why are they having difficulty copying us? Our signal is strong! Now we need to know the reason. They could add QRS (please slow down, I'm a slow speed operator). Or QRM - I am having mad made interference. Or QRN I am having static, atmospherics. Or QSD, your sending is not clear to me, it is defective. But more often than not it is their local noise level!
If the noise level is also S7 or even S8 and your signal is S7 then of course they cannot give you RST 579 or even RST 479 if they are therefore having difficulty to copy you.
So, the most important missing information is the local noise level, which is why a new "RSN" or "RSTN" system is being used by some Radio Amateurs.
Knowing the current actual local noise level at the other station, in comparison to the signal strength of your signals in their receiver, is essential for context. RSN 377 or RSN 572 then makes a lot of sense, right?
And what about giving context to the other station, about YOUR signal arriving at their receiver? This can only be done if you share your PWR output and ANT type, and ideally also the height AGL of the ANT e.g. UP 11M and if horizontal its orientation "TO EU".
Giving accurate reports helps us be more efficient and effective in our QSO. We know whether we need to slow down or repeat, or can put in more information.
Let's all make a little effort to NOT be that lazy, careless or uninformed "ham" and put everything into its context so that the signal reports can be the meaningul and most valuable part of the QSO as they should be. After that, the short or long QSO will have a lot more meaning!
As one friend Steve G4ALG told me: "When experienced CW operator Norman, GM4KGK (770 km) sent me 219 when I was running 40 mW on 5 MHz, I knew he was sending me an accurate report of which I could be proud!"
This sums it up very well why we like to receive accurate signal reports especially when running QRP or from a compromised location!
