"RSQ"

[W3MIV]

Polls, schmolls. This thread seeks some views about an idea which time has come.

Article in Feb CQ (see page 72) by N2IRZ highlighting an attempt to bring some sanity and accuracy to digital signal quality reports. Original idea is from a group of digiphiles (VK3BGH, K6MBY and W8NUE) who have been working up a replacement for the overworked and abused "RST" reports we have all come to know and love.

How many of you PSKers and other digiphiles have become frustrated over the ubiquity of RST reports that make no sense? Readability is almost always good, if not excellent, on PSK -- even when the signal is fairly weak. Signals, usually unbeknownst to the signaller, often range from very good to wildly overdriven. IMD reports are very limited in their application, and not just because most hams do not know how to determine them accurately or what they mean when they try. And TONE? Why is it that every PSK program I have seen still includes this odd-man-out category?

Readability (scale 1 thru 5 from unreadable to solid copy); Strength (scale 1 thru 9 from barely perceptible trace to very strong signal) and Quality (scale 1 thru 9 from splattering all over the band to a nice, clean trace without sidebars).

So, digiphiles, what say ye? Will we adopt this as a standard for digital modes for which the ancien régime of RST has no fit? Or will we follow the path of righteous indignation about another change and dig in the heels?

I think it a good ideer. Read the article; it is a good one.

[AG3Y]

Keep RST on CW where it belongs ! Actually, when the words come spilling across the screen as quickly as I can type them in, I just tell the other station what their signal looks like or sounds like! "You have a several hundred Hz wide signal with an IMD of -10 " for instance. Or " sounds like you are picking up hum on your audio " Tells a lot more than RSQ 555 ever would !

Just my humble opinion! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[W5MEJ]

I wouldn't call it blasphemy, just unnecessary. #There have been several small campaigns to start using some modified report system for digital ops. #I stumbled onto a website a couple of years ago that recommended a "PSB" system - Print, Signal, Bandwidth.

Thing is, all these systems seem to only be changing the acronym. #How hard is it for a digital op to figure out that Tone translates to Quality for a digital signal. #Signal reports in any mode are just a subjective opinion on the receiving end, based on conditions and equipment. #Most of us use multi-purpose logging programs that expect an RST entry, so i will usually send my estimate sometime during a digital contact - most operators expect one.

As AG3Y mentioned it is also easy to give a short description that tells much more than any 3 digit report can...

"100% copy and your signal looks very clean", or "Digipan is decoding you in five different streams, OM...you might be overdriving it a bit."

Chuck

[K0RGR]

Or "your signal is taking up more space than a 20 Mule Team ..."

I'm becoming a big believer in using the passband tuning to narrow my receiver down so I'm only seeing one signal when working PSK - makes a huge difference. Sometimes even my faithful IC746 gets fooled by strong signals outside the passband. If you want to be able to copy the ones you can't see in the watefall, turn off the AGC and do this.

[W7DJM]

Actually, I'm a little interested in something like this.

There is WAY WAY WAY too much overprocessed, overdriven "mike gain" on the bands today.

If you are only S-9 and I can hear every breath you take, the cavities in your teeth oscillating, your epiglottis flapping around against your tonsils, or your wife killing the baby, you are running too much gain.

This is brought immensely clear nowadays, because the quality of modern transceivers is so good from the aspect of stability, and the fact that the finals usually don't go "flat" that there is simply no excuse for most of it.

[W3MIV]

I put the topic up mostly to inspire a little thought about signal quality in general. It is easier to see on PSK than on phone, where the most egregious quality issues raise their ugly little noggins.

It is hard to objectively know how good your signal is. ALC meters, etc, make it hard to guage, particularly now with the ubiquitous bar-graph meters on many, if not most, rigs. I suspect that many folks will carry on a QSO with an interlocutor whose signal is outside the bounds of good operator practice without wanting to call it unless it is really quite extreme.

On the phone bands, the game seems to be flip the old amp on automatically -- after all, I paid a lot of bucks for it and want to show everybody I got a big one. Then snap in the speech processor and crank up the mic gain so folks a few hundred kcs away can take part in my QSO, rather than in their own!

The biggest trouble I see in the RSQ scheme is getting some sensibility among operators to use it accurately -- seems there are lots of folks for whom the tried and true RST is an enigma.

Basically, I like the idea. Don't think it will catch on, though.

[N8CPA]

"On the phone bands, the game seems to be flip the old amp on automatically -- after all, I paid a lot of bucks for it and want to show everybody I got a big one. Then snap in the speech processor and crank up the mic gain so folks a few hundred kcs away can take part in my QSO, rather than in their own!"

That's why I refer to outboard amps as "Lidears," not that all hams who use linears or other amp classes are lids, but that every deliberate miscreant I've heard has been using one. They go together like cars and drunk drivers.

[AG3Y]

Amplifiers get blamed for many difficulties they shouldn't be. If an amplifier is hooked up correctly and used properly, a person should not even know it is present, unless he notices a slightly higher signal level then might be expected from the average conditions of the band.

If an over-driven rig is over-driving an amplifier because no regard is being given to ALC levels, RF exciter output levels, Amplifier tuning ( for those that require it ) etc. etc. then the fault is with the lid who is operating the station, not just the amp itself!

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

[kj5t]

Since I have been on PSK.. people usually have given me an RST...

[ky5u]

Actually PSKers need to use RSQ.

R=Readability
S=Strength
Q=QRM: How many CW QSOs did you QRM when you came on the air.

[AG3Y]

AWWWW, Charlie, that's NOT NICE ! ! ! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

[W3MIV]

I did not mean to imply that owning or using an amplifier foreordained its abuse. Same applies to the speech processor now included in most rigs. A great many folks, probably most, who own these appliances use them responsibly.

That said, there also seems to be no lack of other critters out there who would benefit from being able to hear their own signal as it is heard by others. Up and down the band.

[AG3Y]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Feb. 10 2005,11:31)]I did not mean to imply that owning or using an amplifier foreordained its abuse. Same applies to the speech processor now included in most rigs. A great many folks, probably most, who own these appliances use them responsibly.

That said, there also seems to be no lack of other critters out there who would benefit from being able to hear their own signal as it is heard by others. Up and down the band.
Record them with your soundcard, and send them an MP3 attachment with an EMail. It might open up a few eyes ( and ears! )

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif